HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-10-08 Charter Review CommissionCHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
Tuesday, October 8, 2024
5:30 PM
Emma J. Harvat Hall, City Hall
410 East Washington Street
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
2. Adopt Draft Minutes as Presented or Amended
Draft minutes for 08/28/2024
Draft minutes for 09/10/2024 Community Input Forum
Draft minutes for 09/28/2024 Community Input Forum
3. Motion to Accept correspondence (if any)
4. Staff response to Commission questions previously posed regarding Article VIII
5. Review of City Charter: Use of "they" in Section 7.03(C) — plural vs. singular
6. Review current proposed amendments to the City Charter
7. Discuss Community Input Forums
8. Review of City Charter: Section 2.02 Division into Council Districts
9. Review of City Charter: Section 2.06 Mayor
10. Tentative Meeting Schedule — 2n0 Tuesday and 4'" Thursday @ 5:30 p.m., upcoming
tentative meeting dates as follows:
• Thursday, October 24
• Tuesday, November 12
11. Community Comment
Charter Review Commissioners cannot engage in discussion or debate in accordance with
open meeting laws.
Individuals will be provided 3 minutes to speak. The Community Comment period will last
no more than 15 minutes. The Chair reserves the right to reduce the 3-minute period based
on the number of individuals desiring to speak.
Additional comments can be sent to the Charter Review Commission via ICCharter(d)-iowa-
city.org.
12. Adjournment
If you will need disability -related accommodations to participate in this programlevent, please
contact Kellie Grace at 319-356-5041, kgrace@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly
encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
DRAFT
Minutes
Charter Review Commission
August 28, 2024 — 5:30 p.m.
Emma J. Harvat Hall, City Hall
Members Present: John Balmer, Susan Craig, John Deeth, Gerene Denning, Mackenzie
DeRoo, Matt Hayek, Molly Kucera, Bijou Maliabo, Jennifer Patel
Staff Present: City Attorney Goers, City Clerk Grace
(Videos of the meetings are available at citychannel4.com typically within 48 hours)
Recommendations to Council: (to become effective only after separate Council action):
None
1. Call to order and roll call
2. Motion to adopt draft minutes as presented or amended
Commissioner DeRoo noted a spelling error on her first name.
Moved by Patel, seconded by Kucera to approve the June 27, 2024, draft minutes as
amended. Motion carried 9-0.
3. Motion to Accept Correspondence
Moved by Craig, seconded by DeRoo to accept correspondence from Willis Bywater
and Bill Brandt. Motion carried 9-0.
4. Staff response to Commission questions previously posed
City Attorney Goers reviewed the memo included in the August 28th meeting packet which
responded to a number of items the Commission asked Goers to research at the August
13th meeting.
(1) The first item was whether recall elections are permissible in Iowa. Goers informed the
Commission that there are 39 states that have specific provisions allowing for the recall,
the State of Iowa is not one of them. Goers noted that Iowa did not address it either way
therefore it falls back on Home Rule leaving him to a preliminary decision that it is
probably legal to do so. Goers had a call into the Iowa Secretary of State, Campaign
and Finance Board and had not heard back. Goers noted if the Commission wanted
pursue recall that he would want to look into it further. Commissioners expressed their
views and concurred there was not an interest to pursue the issue. Commissioner
Hayek asked Goers to explain Home Rule to make sure everyone understood what that
meant. Goers explained that Home Rule gives the municipalities the power to do what
they see fit to do at a local level unless the State either expressly preempts it, that is the
municipality may not or shall not, or impliedly preempts, that they have so regulated a
particular area of concern that it is implied that there is no room left for municipalities to
do any further regulation. Goers also noted that you cannot have in conflict preemption
where you reconcile the State rules on a given matter and the municipality rules on a
Charter Review Commission
August 28, 2024
Page 2
given matter and there is implied preemption so the municipalities can't do anymore.
Goers stated that Home Rule meant unless the State says we can't, then we can.
(2) The Commission asked City Attorney Goers whether City employees already had
protection against citizen initiative petitions seeking their removal from employment, or
whether such protections would be better enshrined in the Charter to lend clarity. Goers
noted there is one area already located in 7.01(6)(1)(a) in particular and (g) to a lesser
extent that offers some protection for City employees. (a) talks about the things that are
not proper for initiative petitions, any measure of an executive measure or administrative
nature. Goers noted hiring and firing is an executive or administrative matter with the
possible exception of the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk who are appointed
by the City Council which needs to be done via a resolution in a legislative way. Goers
added would additional clarity be helpful, yes, and suggested adding the following to
7.01(13)(1)(a): Any measure of an executive or administrative nature, including, but not
limited to, personnel decisions. Goers also noted the reasoning behind using "personnel
decisions" verses "the hiring or firing of any City employee". Individual Commissioners
expressed their views. Commissioners agreed to the proposed language from City
Attorney Goers in Section 7.01(B)(1)(a).
Chair Balmer recommended reviewing the suggested edits to the Charter submitted by
Commissioner Denning which were included in the August 28th meeting packet.
Commissioner Hayek stated he agreed with the changes except for the "less than" verses
"fewer than" in #5 and #7, noting there is a grammatical rule concerning that. Commissioner
DeRoo stated the rule is if it can be counted it is "fewer than", if it is uncountable, it is "less
than". Commissioner Denning stated that scientifically if you are talking about a range then it
is "less than". Individual Commissioners expressed their views. The Commission agreed to
use "fewer".
City Attorney Goers asked for clarification regarding #4 which indicated Section 2.03,
whereas Goers could not find the language in 2.03 but thought it should have been Section
2.04. The Commission agreed that it was a typo and agreed to the change.
Goers pointed out suggestion #3 stating he believes that section is referring to the Council
and not a council and suggested leaving it as a capital C, the Commission agreed to leave it
as is. Goers noted he was in agreement with all the other suggested changes without taking
an opinion on the substantive issue regarding Section 5.01(B)(1) which suggested changing
the number of community forums for the Community Police Review Board (CPRB) to at least
2 per year instead of 1. Chair Balmer shared his personal opinion and would like to leave it
as is because they have the opportunity to hold more. Commissioner Denning shared her
thoughts on why it should be at least 2, because if there's additional work or if it's a burden
to hold another forum most people tend to not do anything additional and asked how many
forums per year are held. City Clerk Grace stated that the CPRB holds at least 1 but has
held 2 per year in the past noting that the forums are not well attended. Denning noted that
even if the forums are not well attended there would be the opportunity at least twice a year
to have a say. Commissioner Craig asked if there was opportunity for public input at the
meetings. Grace noted there was public comment at every CPRB meeting. Craig added
that the public could attend any meeting and give public comment. Individual Commission
members gave their views. The Commission agreed to leave the number of forums to at
least 1 per year since they have the opportunity to have more.
Charter Review Commission
August 28, 2024
Page 3
5. Review of City Charter: Article VIII —Charter Amendments and Review
Chair Balmer asked for comments regarding Article III. Commissioner Denning asked if the
language regarding "at a special City election" should be changed to the language reflected
in Section 7.05(B) "at the first legally permissible election date' due to the changes in State
law limiting special elections. Commissioner Craig stated that was her concern too as
Section 8.01 refers to "a special City election" several times. City Attorney Goers agreed that
the language should be clarified, noting that the language may not mirror the language in
Section 7.05(B) and that the time needed between the filing of the petition and the decision
of City Council would need to be figured out. Goers stated he could draft language for the
Commission to review at the next meeting.
Commissioner Hayek asked if the references to "article" in the Charter should be capitalized,
noting Section 8.02 referenced article V in lowercase. Commissioners agreed "Article"
should be capitalized when referencing an article in the Charter. Commissioner DeRoo
asked if "section" should be handled the same way. City Attorney Goers stated that in legal
briefings when citing the State Code, Chapters are capitalized, and sections are not.
Commissioners agreed to follow how legal briefings are handled. Goers said staff would
make those changes to capitalize "Article" and leave "section" lowercase when referencing
the State Code.
Commissioner Deeth asked if the language referenced in Section 8.01, "special City
election" prohibits City Council from submitting the amending ordinance on a November odd
year ballot. Deeth noted under current law the City is prohibited from putting anything on a
general election ballot, which leaves the September and March special election dates. City
Attorney Goers asked if the Commission wanted him to mirror the language from Section
7.05(B) "at the first legally permissible election date". Individual Commission members
expressed their views.
6. Continue General Overview of the City Charter
Chair Balmer stated that the Commission should discuss the overall review process for the
Charter, goals, the Charge of the Commission, and referenced Commissioner Hayek's
correspondence which was included in the August 2811 meeting packet. Balmer emphasized
that the Commission is charged with reviewing the Charter on how it may be improved but
not changing the overall Charter. Balmer noted he thought the Charter overall is and was a
good document and has worked well in his opinion. Commissioner Patel stated she wanted
to discuss how the district representatives are elected as she sees issues with the process
and the lack of representation of all communities. Commissioner Denning stated as they
are reviewing the Charter that it is also in their charge to be able to make substantive
changes, if necessary, even when past commissions have not. Commissioner Deeth noted
he thought the suggested changes thus far have ben within the framework of the current
Charter. Commissioner Maliabo reminded commissioners that public input was still needed,
and they should wait to hear community views. Individual Commission members expressed
their views. Commissioners spoke about media coverage of meetings.
7. Discuss Upcoming Community Input Forums
Chair Balmer asked for clarification regarding the meeting on September 10". City Clerk
Grace asked if a regular meeting was needed prior to the public input forum.
Commissioners agreed they did not need a regular meeting and wanted to wait to meet
Charter Review Commission
August 28, 2024
Page 4
again until after the forums. Commissioners discussed the length of the forum, length of time
for each person to speak, adjustments to the forum flyer to add both dates, and forum setup.
City Attorney Goers and City Clerk Grace provided additional information.
8. Tentative Meeting Schedule
Commissioners agreed to no regular meetings in September, only the public forums on
September 10 and September 28, and tentatively scheduled the October meetings for
Tuesday, October 8 and Thursday, October 24. The first November meeting is tentative for
Tuesday, November 12. Commissioner DeRoo noted she is unavailable on November 12.
Commissioners discussed the process for sending the recommendations to City Council.
9. Community Comment
The following individual appeared: Deb Schlegel.
10. Adiournment:
Moved by Maliabo, seconded by Hayek to adjourn the meeting at 6:33 p.m. Motion
carried 9-0.
Charter Review Commission
August 28, 2024
Page 5
Charter Review Commission • 2024
ATTENDANCE RECORD
TERM
A
A
A
N
N
0)
0
0�o
ODD
NAME
EXP.
A
A
a
A
A
A
A
A
O
fN
A
John Balmer
4/1/25
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Susan Craig
4/1/25
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
John Deeth
4/1/25
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Gerene Denning
4/1/25
X
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
Mackenzie DeRoo
4/1/25
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
Matt Hayek
4/1125
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Molly Kucera
4/1125
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Bijou Maliabo
4/1/25
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
Jennifer Patel
4/1/25
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
Key.
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a member
DRAFT
Minutes
Charter Review Commission Community Input Forum
September 10, 2024 — 6:30 p.m.
Iowa City Public Library, 123 S. Linn St.
Members Present: John Balmer, Susan Craig, Gerene Denning, Mackenzie DeRoo, Matt
Hayek, Molly Kucera, Bijou Maliabo
Staff Present: City Attorney Goers, City Clerk Grace
(Videos of the meetings are available at citychannel4.com typically within 48 hours)
1. Call to order and roll call
2. Introduction of Commission & Brief Overview
Chair Balmer introduced Commission members and welcomed those in attendance. Balmer
noted the 50'^ Anniversary of the City Charter and gave historical information regarding the
City Charter's adoption and past and present Charter Review Commissions.
3. Community Comment
The following individuals appeared: Rick Dobyns, Ray Muston, and Karen Kubby.
Topics discussed were comprised of the following: Division into Council Districts, election of
Mayor, Council -Manager form of government.
There were 11 community members in attendance.
4. Adjournment:
Moved by Kucera, seconded by Maliabo to adjourn the meeting at 6:46 p.m. Motion
carried 7-0, Deeth and Patel absent.
Charter Review Commission Community Input Forum
September 10, 2024
Page 2
Charter Review Commission - 2024
ATTENDANCE RECORD
NAME
TERM
EXP.
A
O
LV
A
A
O
m
N
A
A
N
N
A
t(n
?
N
A
W
w
N
A
O1
�41
N
A
Ow
l
-4
N
A
�
o0
w
N
A
100
o
N
A
John Balmer
4/1/25
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Susan Craig
4/1/25
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
John Deeth
4/1/25
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
Gerene Denning
4/1/25
X
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
Mackenzie DeRoo
4/1/25
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
Matt Hayek
4/1/25
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Molly Kucera
4/1125
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Bijou Maliabo
4/1/25
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
Jennifer Patel
4/1/25
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
Key.,
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a member
DRAFT
Minutes
Charter Review Commission Community Input Forum
September 28, 2024 —10:30 a.m.
Emma J. Harvat Hall, City Hall, 410 E Washington St.
Members Present: John Balmer, Susan Craig, John Deeth, Gerene Denning, Mackenzie
DeRoo, Matt Hayek, Molly Kucera, Bijou Maliabo (10:33 a.m.), Jennifer Patel
Staff Present: First Assistant City Attorney Dulek, City Clerk Grace
(Videos of the meetings are available at citychannel4.com typically within 48 hours)
1. Call to order and roll call
2. Introduction of Commission & Brief Overview
Chair Balmer introduced Commission members and welcomed those in attendance. Balmer
noted the 501' Anniversary of the City Charter and gave historical information regarding the
City Charter's adoption and past and present Charter Review Commissions.
3. Community Comment
The following individuals appeared: Tom Cilek, Josh Moe, Jan Weaver, Sarah Curry, Anne
Marie Kraus, Nancy Carlson, Bob Schlegel, Shawn Harmsen, and Megan Alter.
Topics discussed were comprised of the following: District elections, election of Mayor,
review process of the Charter, increasing the number of neighborhoods/districts, accessible
campaigning, defining environment in the Preamble, campaign contributions, voter
education.
There were 11 community members in attendance.
Chair Balmer provided information on the first seven -person council election in Iowa City,
upcoming opportunities to provide comments to the Commission such as written
correspondence and public comment at upcoming meetings on October 8 and October 24,
and the tentative timeline for recommendations to City Council.
4. Adiournment:
Moved by Kucera, seconded by Hayek to adjourn the meeting at 11:04 a.m. Motion
carried 9-0.
Charter Review Commission Community Input Forum
September 10, 2024
Page 2
Charter Review Commission - 2024
ATTENDANCE RECORD
NAME
TERM
EXP.
A
N
A
A
m
N
A
.
Cnn
N
A
Ln
A
N
A
Ln
w
rJ
A
Off
N
A
Off
-4
N
A
oho
w
N
A
f�0
o
N
A
c(p
W
;Zi
A.
John Balmer
4/1/25
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Susan Craig
4/1/25
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
John Deeth
4/1/25
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
Gerene Denning
4/1/25
X
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
Mackenzie DeRoo
4/1/25
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Matt Hayek
411/25
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Molly Kucera
4/1125
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Bijou Maliabo
4/1/25
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
Jennifer Patel
4/1/25
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
Key.
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a member
Kellie Grace
From: Christine Schlotfelt<christine.schlotfelt@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 1, 2024 10:07 PM
To: *IC Charter Review Commission
Subject: Public input on voting for City Council
A
•• This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
To the Iowa City Charter Review Committee,
I am not able to attend the public input session on Sept 10, so I am writing to provide input to your committee regarding
how we elect City Council Members.
The current method of electing council members in an at -large system does not give minority districts a chance to elect
people who actually represent them.
I would be in favor of switching to district -based voting for council members so that people in a district could actually be
represented by someone from their district.
Thanks in advance for your consideration of my input.
Chris Schlotfelt
Kellie Grace
From: Kellie Grace
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 1:09 PM
To: *IC Charter Review Commission
Subject: FW: Letter was blocked
Correspondence from Syndy Conger.
Thank you
A UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE
fKe{{)e Cyrace, OW
City Clerk
office: 319-356-5041
410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240
WWW I CGO V ORG
O 0 O
Iowa City Transit is now FARE
FAREFREE Learn more at
I O W A CITY ICGOV.ORG/FAREFREE
From: Syndy Conger <syndymc67@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 11:48 AM
To: Kellie Grace <KGrace@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Fwd: Letter was blocked
RISK
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Syndy Conger <svndymc67@pmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 11:45 AM
Subject: Letter was blocked
To: Kellie Grace <kgrace@iowa-citv.org>
Hello, Kellie,
I sent the following message to the Charter Commission assuming this message invited me to do
so, but it was blocked automatically.
1
W-I
Syndy Conger <syndymc67@Rmail.com>
to citycharter
Thanks to the local citizens who volunteered to serve on this review commission.
The City Council, with the assistance of their well trained staff, has worked to improve
the historic downtown, develop its ever growing and expanding neighborhoods, upgrade
its aging infrastructure and attend to the wishes of its diverse population. Its attention
to "greening" the city through all of this has been especially inspirational.
The members of the review commission might ask themselves if the city has outgrown
its charter in any ways. For example, does each major part of the population within the
city have council representation that attends to their needs? I have lived on the city's
west side since returning here after retirement 20 years ago. The downtown and near
downtown areas have been renovated often during that time while other areas of the
city continue to have dangerous streets and sidewalks (consider Benton where there is
sidewalk on one side only and the bicycle lane disappears at the top of the hill) and
abandoned buildings (consider Roosevelt School). The county's administration building
sits on an island surrounded by intersecting streets and no nearby safe pedestrian
crosswalks with stoplights. The areas mentioned are neither pedestrian safe nor bicycle
safe --two things I know the city would like to achieve.
I realize these observations are not something the Charter Commission can address
directly, but I would ask them to keep these under consideration while they ask
themselves if the city council needs to be expanded. It may be that aM changes made
in the Charter might complicate district boundaries, tax revenues, election precincts, but
I see representatives from former city councils and the county on the commission so
they will be able to explain the impact of any change. The Charter has in the past given
Iowa City some autonomy although the present leadership in the state has eroded that,
and it has given us enviable stability. But if the structure can't be changed at all, can it
serve the public well?
Many thanks for asking for public comments, Syndy Conger
If you are not able to send this on to the members of the commission, do let me know when you
have time what I should do.
F
Kellie Grace
From:
Robert Schlegel <robert@washialaw.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, September 4, 2024 9:28 AM
To:
*IC Charter Review Commission
Subject:
Letter
Attachments:
We sent you safe versions of your files; Charter Commission letter2.pdf
RISK
" This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files.
Please find attached hereto a letter from Deborah Schlegel with regard to the Commissions review of the Iowa City
Charter. Thank you.
Robert G. Schlegel
WASHINGTON LAW OFFICE, LLP
211 W. Washington St.
PO Box 867
Washington, IA 52353
Phone: (319) 653-5431
Facsimile: (319) 653-7434
E-mail: robert@washialaw.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and its attachments are covered by the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act,18 U.S.C. §§2510-2521, and may contain attorney -client or attorney work -product priviledged and
confidential information, which privileges are reserved. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee
or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, please know that any retention, dissemination,
distribution, copying or unauthorized distribution of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this message in error, please reply to sender, contact the sender by telephone and delete the
communication from your computer, network and any archive system.
To comply with U.S. Treasury Department regulations, we also inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this email, including attachments, is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by any person
for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, or (2)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party, any transaction or matter addressed herein. Thank
you.
September 4, 2024
TO: Charter Review Commission
Dear Commissioners:
Thank you for your time spent in reviewing the Iowa City Charter.
There are two issues involved; 1) selection of the mayor, and 2) voting districts/procedures.
First, the mayor is selected by the remaining six members of the city council. That fact supports
that the person selected has the respect and confidence of the other members. Under this system,
the mayor is a voting member of the council, but has no additional power other than administrative.
While this does not guarantee consensus, it fosters cooperation between the mayor and the council.
Changing to a direct election system may not gamer the same result, and thus I support not
amending the charter in that respect.
Secondly, with regard to districts and voting, the comments and facts presented to the
commission previously, in my opinion support leaving the charter as is. Everyone deserves the
ability to be involved in the electoral process. However, the implication that this does not occur
here seems incorrect. Iowa City supports diversity and inclusivity, and thus I support not amending
the charter.
The Iowa City Charter has been in place for 50 years and overall, appears to have worked
well for its citizenry. Amending that Charter now with respect to mayoral selection and voting,
notwithstanding all of the staffing and resource issues, would not seem to be in its best interest.
Sincerely,
Deborah Schlegel
Kellie Grace
From: Cheryl Miller <cherylmillerl04@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2024 10:51 AM
To: *IC Charter Review Commission
Subject: District versus al -large representation in Iowa City
A
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. ** To: Charter Review Commission
Re District versus at -large representation in Iowa City elections
Date: Sept 5, 2024
From: Cheryl Miller, 1120 Sheridan Avenue, Iowa City
I am writing to urge Charter Reveiw Commissioners to recommend an expansion of district -based voting in Iowa City.
The current at -large system potientially allows voters in high turn -out areas to override voter preferences in low-
income/low-voting areas in our city. This must be corrected. The principle of "representation by peers' is central to
American democracy, is enshrined in Constitution, and should be applied at the municipal level. In many cities, a
combination of at -large and district representation is used and this might be a prudent first step in making our elections
more democratic. Please do not alliow a system that effectively disenfranchises low -voter districts to continue.
Cheryl Miller
(m): (651) 653-8133
Kellie Grace
From: Rod Sullivan <rodsullivan29@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 2:59 PM
To: *IC Charter Review Commission
Subject: Charter Review Suggestions
RISK
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
Dear Charter Review Commission:
Below are the changes I would like to see happen to the Iowa City Charter. Below are the things
I feel are most imperative, listed in order of importance:
1. Maintain the referendum process: Iowa City has a limited referendum process. By "limited," I
mean there is an extensive list of things for which no referenda are allowed. This includes
anything having to do with taxes, salaries, or anything in any way financial. Obviously, this is
extremely limiting. But I find it important that the voters have some say outside of elections. I
love that Iowa City has at least some minimal ways in which the public can be heard. I think it is
extremely important to maintain this process.
2. District votes for District Councilors: Iowa City has one of the worst and most convoluted
systems imaginable in terms of who gets to vote in District Council elections. Under the current
system, only District voters vote in a primary; all voters get to vote in the general election. This
is extremely confusing, and frankly, unnecessary. District voters should be the only voters in
District elections. I know some voters feel they should be able to vote on every seat, but that is
why At -Large seats exist. Hell, that is why Districts exist! This change would clean things up and
strengthen Districts.
3. Directly elect the Mayor: Even though the Mayoral position is not dramatically different from that
of the other councilors, it still means something. The public cares who represents them to the
outside world, and they want to have a vote in the matter. Because of this, I firmly believe Iowa
City should create an At -Large Mayoral seat.
4. More Districts, less At -Large seats: The 2004 and 2014 Charter Commissions spent a lot of time
on this topic. There are good arguments for only having Districts - there is a greater chance that
1
individual neighborhood concerns, demographics, etc. get represented. On the other hand, it is
entirely possible that the two best people for the job live on the same block. Because of this, IC
has always favored a hybrid system.
I agree that a hybrid system is a good solution. But I would lean into Districts just a bit more. In
my perfect system, you keep 7 Councilors, with 4 District seats and 3 At -Large seats. (Those
numbers are currently reversed.) One of those At -Large seats is the directly elected Mayor.
This would give more power to Districts, but also keep an At -Large option. And here is the cool
part - every voter in IC could still vote for a majority of the Council. They could vote on their
own District Councilor, two At -Large seats, and the Mayor. 4 out 7. Yet Districts have a bit more
power.
Sincerely,
Rod Sullivan
514 N. Linn Street
Iowa City, IA 52245
2
Kellie Grace
From:
Nroamer < nroamer@aol.com >
Sent:
Wednesday, September 25, 2024 1:29 PM
To:
*IC Charter Review Commission
Subject:
Concerns regarding charter
A
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
Mr Chairman and members of the
committee. Health concerns prevent me
from the public meeting these are my
concerns.
1. Mayor I am opposed to the
election of the Mayor by the public
and support the current selection
method. I note in the draft presented
to the committee the breakdown of the
duties for the City Manager. I
believe it is an excellent summary
and sets out the role of the Manager
who is to manage the administration
of Iowa City. The Manager is a
professional and has had education
and training for the role. An elected
Mayor would not add anything to that
and could because he or she was
1
elected believe they could overrule
the Manager. Further an elected Mayor
form would lead to partisan politics
not a good thing.
2. Initiative and Referendum As I
pointed out earlier, I believe the
exceptions to initiative and
referendum should include removal of
officers and employees of the
city. Iowa City has had an attempt
to remove an officer of Iowa City in
a court case decided in favor of the
city by a state law. State laws can
be changed. We need to protect
employees and officers who may not be
popular with certain groups because
of differences in beliefs.
3. Council Members Election I
support the draft proposal regarding
the election of council members. It
would seem to support balance on the
Council.
Respectfully
Jay H. Honohan
1080 Silvercrest Way apt. 206
2
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Kellie Grace
From:
Marian Karr <hawkeyeg3@gmail.com>
Sent:
Thursday, September 26, 2024 11:11 AM
To:
*IC Charter Review Commission
Subject:
Charter comments
Attachments:
We sent you safe versions of your files; charter.docx
A
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files.
Thank you for this opportunity to share some comments on the City Charter. My name is Marian
Karr and I had the privilege of serving Iowa City as City Clerk for nearly 30 years. In the capacity I
staffed two Charter review Commissions and answered countless questions during City elections.
I would like to share some insights and observations regarding our Charter.
First, the Charter was well thought through by its authors and extensive research done in its writing.
Our Charter created three districts, each nominating candidates for city wide election. Those
districts are reviewed in accordance with State law and re -districting provided to ensure equal
representation, diversity, and population balance. If necessary, new lines will be drawn and
districts modified and submitted to Council and the State for approval. People often ask why the
district votes only in the primary and the whole City in the general election for Councilmembers.
Personally, I felt over the years this was the key message in our Charter. We are one community,
and we elect our Council Members as a community. If a primary is necessary, districts narrow
down candidates to two for a vote by our community at the general election. This was a clear
message our Charter provided for a community elected Council.
Secondly, our Charter entrusted the election of Mayor to their duly elected Council Members. I
believe their intent was clear. In its first official act as an elected Council, our Council is required to
hold an organizational meeting shortly after January 1to elect our mayor. As our elected officials
who betterthan they know the qualities and skillset needed to bring them together and tackle
issues before them. In my experience the organizational meeting was the first official action and
was an important first step in consensus building for our Council. Our mayor leads, facilitates, and
represents the city and its elected Council but with no more power or authority than any of its other
Council Members. Our mayor does not have veto power or the ability to break Council tie votes. A
City-wide election of Mayor would not change the power or authority of the mayor unless other
major changes are contemplated. Iowa City's election of a mayor may be different than other
cities, but I believe it has worked and provided for a continuing message of a community elected
Council. The election of our mayor by its fellow Members is no different than the election of Board
of Supervisors Chair or Iowa City School Board Chair from its members.
I am out of town and apologize for submitting my remarks in writing and not in person. I strongly
believe in our Charter and trust our elected Council Members in selecting their leader and our
mayor.I saw first-hand how the Charter worked and encourage you maintain these provisions.
Sincerely,
Marian K. Karr
September 26, 2024
Dear Commissioners --
I am writing to provide my perspective on some of the issues you are considering
as you review Iowa City's Charter. The three items I would like to address are:
the selection of the Mayor; the question of Districts; and the relationship between
the City Council members and the staff.
I write from the perspective of a 51-year resident of Iowa City and a former 25-
year employee of the City, serving as a department head for 15 years.
I favor continuing with the selection of the Mayor by fellow Council members.
The function of the Mayor is to preside over the Council meetings, set the
agenda in concert with fellow Councilors and the City Manager, and represent
the City to the general public and other governmental entities. The Mayor is one
of seven in any vote, holding no greater power or perception of power than any
other councilor. Although all Councilors are elected by all the people, direct
election of the Mayor, in my view, would imbue the Mayor with a position
perceived as being above or stronger than the other councilors. I see no virtue in
this, and the potential for problems with power plays that are unnecessary. The
system we currently have has worked very well for the life of this Charter, and I
have heard no compelling reason to change it. I believe in fact that the current
system has enabled us to have a variety of outstanding mayors representing the
diversity that is Iowa City and that might not be as easily achievable with direct
election of the Mayor, sadly.
The second issue of the Districts is admittedly confusing. It is a curious construct
for a relatively small city. However, there is merit in enabling people to succeed
in a run for the Council they might not be able to with a city-wide starting point.
To allay the confusion, the option of having only the Distirct residents vote in the
general election for these candidates sounds attractive. However, that could
create a stronger argument for a direct election of the Mayor since all councilors
would not then be elected by the entire city. The next step would then be, as has
been suggested, a majority of District councilors and a minority of at -large
councilors. In the divisive and "tribal' society we find ourselves in presently, I do
not favor starting down this path. We need to come together as communities, not
create more ways to identify by smaller and smaller groups. So again, I favor
remaining with our current system, as confusing as it may be to some. I have
faith that voters will be able to figure this out.
My last point relates to a change that I saw in your draft which enables
Councilors to directly express displeasure to a supervisor about a personnel
matter regarding someone working for that supervisor. Previously all such
conversations were to be with the City Manager as the executive employee of the
City Council and the manager of all other staff. To have Councilors interjecting
themselves into personnel matters, other than that of the City Manager, is a
rocky path to start going down. It flies in the face of the principles behind a
Council -Manger form of government. I also find in Section 2.12 that the
amended language creates a contradiction between paragraph B and C. I would
hope you would reconsider this.
Thank you for your attention and for all the time and energy you are putting into
the Charter review task.
Respectfully,
Karin Franklin
Kellie Grace
From:
Anne Marie Kraus <annemariekraus@gmail.com>
Sent:
Friday, September 27, 2024 10:20 PM
To:
*IC Charter Review Commission
Subject:
Charter Review input: Environment
A
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
Dear Iowa City Charter Review Commission:
In the Preamble of the charter, the new proposed language (written in red) states:
"We affirm the values of ... fair and effective stewardship of our unique environment."
This is a good start, to commit to stewardship of the environment, but the word "environment" has a wide (and
sometimes vague) range of meanings, including social environment, urban environment, etc. So I am asking you to
further define and commit specifically to our challenged environment consisting of air, water, and soil quality.
The City's Climate Action Commission is to be commended to the progress they have made in the area of emissions. But
their scope is focused on greenhouse gasses, not on the very real threats of pollution of our air, water and soil in our
community
When I stood at the microphone last January with the Planning and Zoning Commission, voicing concerns about
industrial air pollution on the southeast side, Commissioner Craig said, "Air quality has nothing to do with it." During the
next three months, the City Council also dismissed the pollution concerns that many citizens communicated.
I am asking you to word the Charter (and other official documents) in such a way that no one in city government can
summarily deny or ignore the existence of pollution and its health hazards.
Later in the Preamble, (written in black), it lists:"The provision of service relating to the health, safety, and welfare of its
residents." Providing this service means acting upon concerns brought to the city, not pretending they don't exist, and
not claiming that they have no bearing on city decisions.
Anne Marie Kraus
Iowa City
Kellie Grace
From:
Polly <pollyshorton@gmail.com>
Sent:
Sunday, September 29, 2024 8:49 PM
To:
*IC Charter Review Commission
Subject:
At -large voting
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links
or attachments. ** I feel the Charter Review Commission should recommend full district -based voting for each
of our council seats.
Also, I think we should consider using Rank Choiced Voting for local and County elections .
Polly Horton
Sent from my Whone
Kellie Grace
From: Jan Weaver <jan.weaver57@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2024 10:18 AM
To: *IC Charter Review Commission
Subject: Argument for a mixed at -large and district election system
A
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
Dear Commission Members,
I appreciated the opportunity to make my case for having district -based elections at the open meeting on
September 28.
I want to address two things that came up in the comments. First, that at -large voting works well because it
ensures the interests of the city as a whole are what guide the council. Second, no goal that could be achieved
by changing the charter has been identified.
There is no way to know if this at -large system ensures the interests of Iowa City better than one that uses
districts (we only have one replicate). However, a brief survey of abstracts of empirical studies on at -large vs
district voting looked at expenditures as a way to evaluate their relative impacts. Sometimes expenditures
went up with district voting, in other cases there was no difference. But that raises the question of whether
expenditures alone are the right way to evaluate what is good for a city. Maybe it should be bond ratings, or
citizen engagement, or racial disparity in traffic stops.
The historical reason for an at -large approach was the corruption of early 20th century elections in large cities
with distinct immigrant enclaves. The at -large solution was based on the idea that established and widely
known members of the community were more qualified to make good decisions than a working-class
immigrant beholden to their ward boss.
But in 1975, even as Iowa City's new at -large voting system was being implemented, five of the 14 at -large
candidates were accused by two other candidates of having "ties" to the Chamber of Commerce and the city's
urban renewal developer (https1[dailyiowan.lib.uiowa.edu/DI/1975/dil975-10-30.pdf.) In this day and age,
it seems naive to assume that the way we elect representatives is somehow, by itself, sufficient to ensure that
special interests have no influence. (No shade on current council by the way.) It also seems kind of elitist to
assume that representatives elected by their districts won't be able to balance constituent concerns with the
needs of a city as a whole.
As for a goal that including district voting would address, the main one is encouraging equity and plurality.
Right now a district representative must run throughout the city. This means they need three times as many
resources - money, time, and social capital - as if they just ran in their own district. This obviously limits the
number of candidates to those who have more disposable income (or supporters with disposable income),
more flexibility in their work and family life, and more presence not just in their neighborhood but across the
whole city.
In Iowa City, I don't think this limits candidates in terms of race, gender, or sexual orientation, but there is
certainly a class barrier. And, since the city as a whole is voting, the importance of the lived experience of
people from different parts of the community is indirectly diminished.
Iowa City has changed a lot since 1975. The population is half again as large, the proportion of minorities has
gone from less than 2% to over 20%, and there has been a major demographic shift from boomers to Gen
Y. Even the 1997 Comprehensive Plan identified 10 distinct districts within Iowa City, suggesting that there are
meaningful differences among neighborhoods' needs that were not considered an issue in 1975 when the
charter adopted at -large voting.
I am very happy that I moved to Iowa City. I think that current city government is forward thinking and
responsive. But I do feel at a greater remove from my representative than I did in my former city. And I am
annoyed by the fiction that my representative can focus on my local concerns while they have to run in the
whole city. (The primary is just an additional hoop I have to jump through for the chance the person I want will
be selected.)
I see the merits of an at -large system, but I think there is room for district representatives who can sharpen
their focus on particular parts of the city. Maybe the solution is a mixed system, with both forms of
representation. I urge the commission to seriously consider this option.
Sincerely,
Jan Weaver
330 Beldon Avenue
Kellie Grace
From:
Larry Baker <icwriter@gmail.com>
Sent:
Thursday, October 3, 2024 3:00 PM
To:
Kellie Grace
Subject:
letter to Charter Review Commission
Attachments:
We sent you safe versions of your files; Charter.docx
A
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files.
Hi Kellie,
Would you please forward this letter to the CRC.
Thanks.
Larry Baker
1
To the Charter Review Commission:
I would like to offer some final thoughts about the issues you are considering.
I still believe very strongly in the positions I expressed in my earlier correspondence with
you. Since then, I have read all the other correspondence to you. I also watched the video of your
first public meetings. I was intrigued by arguments made in favor of changing the method of
electing the Mayor and the district representatives. Both changes seem to be advocated by the same
people. They want to directly elect the Mayor... they want to restrict voting for the district races.
"Let the people choose...."
In my earlier letter, I started with a simple suggestion. If something is not working... fix it.
If it can be improved... improve it.
Contrary to the opinion of some, the current system is working fine. It does not need to be
changed. Close analysis will confirm that.
I am sympathetic to idea of changing in how the Mayor is chosen, but ONLY if you are
willing to change the role of the Mayor itself. Keep in mind, however, that changing the role of
the Mayor, granting him/her more power and responsibility, is a significant step toward
reconsideration of the Council/City Manager form of government.
I do not remember any specific recommendations from anybody about what the Mayor's
role should actually be. The concern seems more tied to a generic philosophy of ...... "Let the
people choose." In their view, the current system must be un-democratic. But what is being
chosen? Some voters in Iowa City are upset that the current system produces Mayors who are un-
representative of the public sentiment? In the real world, no elected official represents the full
gamut of public sentiment. At best, he/she represents a majority at any given time. Has the current
system sometimes produced real clunkers for Mayor? Absolutely. But it has also produced some
excellent men and women who fulfilled the role. Direct election of the Mayor will not change that
political truism.
Directly electing a Mayor without changing the office itself is pointless. It becomes a
beauty contest for all sorts of political factions. More bluntly, it becomes an ego contest, the result
of which does not make the process more democratic. I certainly understand ego as a driving force
in politics. For any office. But most politicians still run for office to serve the public interest, to
get things done, to make a community better. They don't run to simply have a title. Proponents of
changing the current system are simply offering the office as a title.
Is a directly elected Mayor supposed to have an agenda that represents "the people"? Can
someone who has never held a Council seat simply step in and impose his/her will on the Council?
"The people elected me to lead this Council ... only I represent their interests." Changing how the
Mayor is elected does not enhance the power of the office, nor does it improve how the Council
functions. It very possibly makes the Council less effective.
Locally, we have two governing bodies, each analogous to the other: the City Council and
the Board of Supervisors. In fact, however, Supervisors have more power over county government
than council -members have over city government.
Consider this hypothetical situation: Imagine the Chair of the Board recommends that the
Mayor be elected by "the people" Shouldn't "the people" choose their own Board Chair? No, the
Board chooses its own Chair. Mayor and Chair: "Let the people choose"? Surely, the Board Chair
would agree?
The debate over how the Mayor is elected could be a serious issue, and could deserve
serious consideration. But changing how he/she is elected, without changing the role and power of
the office, is merely window dressing, change for the sake of change, neither fixing a problem nor
making the Council work better. Changing how the Mayor is chosen is merely a rhetorical exercise,
unless there are practical changes to that office.
"Let the people choose...."
If the debate over the election of a Mayor might deserve serious consideration, with pros
and cons, the debate over restricting district voting to only district residents is ... disingenuously
illogical.
At the public hearing, one person spoke about how the current system has been a problem
for forty years. Every two years, voters have to be educated about how everyone can vote on the
district seat in the general election, while selecting the actual nominees was restricted to district
voters in a primary election.
reign.
Chaos ensues. Voters are dis-enfranchised. Democracy falls. Minorities suffer. Plutocrats
Okay, okay, I might be exaggerating. But, yes, I am skeptical about the existence of a real
"problem."
The recurrent confusion is not a problem. It is a temporary, and small, road bump. Every
election cycle is also an educational cycle. Voters are reminded about registration rules and
deadlines, polling places, mail -in procedures, etc. Media reports candidate positions. Forums are
held. Doorbells are rung. Reminding voters about the district voting rules has always been part of
that process.
However, for the sake of an argument, even if we define this issue as a "problem," which
it is not, the solution offered, restricting district voting to district residents only, is not a solution.
It merely creates a bigger problem.
Part of the problem in this discussion is that advocates for banning outsiders from voting
on a district candidate fail to acknowledge that district representatives are not elected to represent
their district's interests only, even though some issues might be unique to that district. They are
elected to represent the interests of the entire city. It is an essential... vital... distinction, and must
not be forgotten or ignored.
The current system is designed to guarantee a diverse geographic representation. That is
all. But, as I recall, one complaint alleged about the current system is that it prevents the Council
from truly reflecting the diversity of Iowa City. Textbook logic lifted from the study of other cities.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is quoted. Paraphrasing one argument: the problems of the future can only
be solved if the political body is more diverse. The current system (i.e. , the system that has
produced the current Council) is thus an impediment to achieving that diversity and thus those
solutions. The current Council might disagree about its lack of diversity and inability to solve
problems because of its membership.
The arguments are abstractions, not grounded in the reality of Iowa City governmental
history. I repeat: The current Charter seeks to achieve geographic diversity only. You might make
a case that two more districts are needed, with fewer at -large seats, to more precisely guarantee
that geographic diversity in an expanding city. You might ... but is there a problem with the current
three districts not being enough?
Are the proponents of changing the current system talking about a different kind of
diversity? Look at the diversity represented on the current Council and the Council for the past ten
or more years. Not diverse enough?
Is diversity limited only to categories of gender, race, wealth? An argument can be made
that as the Council has become more diverse in those categories, within the current structure, it has
also become less ideologically diverse. Does that itself inhibit problem -solving?
What other categories of diversity are they trying to legislate? For example, should the
Council have a mandated (non -voting, or voting) student -representative? An interesting option,
but how would that relate to changing the district voting rules? Can't any Council already create a
non -voting student representative? Does the current system prevent a student from being elected
in a district or at -large? I served my first term on the Council from 1983-87. I was elected and
served while I was a student at UI.
"Let the people choose..."
Those who use the slogan as justification for a position have to be consistent. There is no
justification for dis-enfranchising voters from picking all their representatives.
Scenario: Assume that voting for the district seat(s) is restricted to district residents only.
Each district has one of seven votes on the Council, approximately fifteen percent of the voting
power. Three districts equal forty-five percent of that power. District voters also get to vote on all
at -large seats. All at -large voters are in one of the three districts. (Bear with me here, for this
extended math equation.) I live in a district, so I can vote for my district rep and four at -large
candidates (yes, I know that the races are staggered at two-year intervals, not all seats are up at the
same time, but my point is the same). I can thus vote for approximately seventy -percent of the
people who will eventually represent me as a City resident, but I have no voice in almost a third
of the Council.
Back to the Board of Supervisors analogy: in addition to advocating for the direct election
of the Mayor (but not the Board Chair), consider the irony of a Board member advocating adding
more districts while restricting voting at -large and reducing the number of at -large seats. If the
formula works for the City, why not the County?
If more City districts were added, as thus advocated, those percentages I outlined above
would get even worse. I would have no "say" in electing over half the Council. No say in choosing
who represents the city. The "people" will have spoken in a balkanized election.
How about this as an option? Amend the Charter. Restrict voting for district seats to district
voters only, as proposed. But, once elected, since they represent only their districts, those district
reps could not vote on any issue that does not affect their district. Sidewalks over there, sewer lines
here, subsidized housing there, art installation here, downtown parking rates. But if it ain't in your
district, it's none of your business or responsibility. How does that slippery slope feel?
"Let the people choose..."
Too much of this debate seems like a seminar in a political science classroom. It ignores
the reality of a real city, real voters, with a real history.
Direct election of the Mayor is an idea whose time has not yet come. Restricting voting for
district seats is simply... a bad idea.
Thanks for your consideration.
Larry Baker
r
r��l®L, CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 3, 2024
Charter Review Commission
From: Eric R. Goers, City Attorney
RE: 8/28/24 Meeting Questions
As part of your discussions at your August 28th meeting, you asked that I research two items.
The assignments, and responses, are listed below. I have also addressed an issue related to
the use of the pronoun "they" in Section 7.03(C).
Elections following petitions.
Assignment: Draft language for Section 8.01 to mirror 7.05(B) and comply with changes to
State voter laws.
Response: The timelines imposed in Section 7.05(B) are lengthy and would need to be
included three times under Section 8.01 of the Charter. In addition, should any component of
the timelines in Section 7.05(B) change in the future, the Council, Charter Review Commission,
or staff would need to remember to make the same changes to the timelines in Section 8.01.
Experience tells me there is no guarantee such a duplication would be caught.
In lieu of repetitively listing those timelines, I have referenced directly back to Section 7.05(B) in
Section 8.01 to keep the Charter less wordy, and to ensure that any futures changes to 7.05(B)
will be automatically mirrored in Section 8.01. Here is a draft proposal:
Section 8.01. Charter Amendments.
This sCharter may be amended only by one of the following methods:
A. The eCouncil, by resolution, may submit a proposed amendment to the voters at the
first leoally permissible election date consistent with Section 7.050 of this Charter a
spesial _ and th
by a majority of those voting.
becomes effective when approved
B. The sCouncil, by ordinance, may amend the sCharter. However, within thirty (30)
days of publication of the ordinance, if a petition valid under the provisions of section
362.4 of the eCode of Iowa is filed with the eCouncil, the eCouncil must submit the
amending ordinance to the voters at the first legally permissible election date consistent
with Section 7.05(B) of this Charter a SPeGiai sQty, and the amendment does
not become effective until approved by a majority of those voting.
C. If a petition valid under the provisions of section 362.4 of the eCode of Iowa is filed
with the sCouncil proposing an amendment to the sCharter, the eCouncil must submit
the proposed amendment to the voters at the first legally permissible election date
consistent with Section 7.05(B) of this Chartera speGial aQity, and the
amendment becomes effective if approved by a majority of those voting.
Page 1 of 2
Other edits to Article VIII.
Assignment: Capitalize the "A" in "Article", the "C"s in "Council" and "Charter", and the "S" in
"Section" when referring to sections of the Charter, but not of Iowa Code.
Response: We have done so. Those changes appear in the working draft available on the
City website.
Use of the pronoun "thed' in Section 7 03(C)
It was pointed out to me by a member of the public that the use of the word, "they" in 7.03(C)
may lead to the incorrect assumption that each affidavit could be signed by more than one
elector. I also added an Oxford comma to the list of requirements for the affidavit.
Section 7.03. Petitions; Revocation Oof Signatures.
C. Affidavit Oef Circulator. Each paper of a petition containing signatures must have
attached to it when filed an affidavit executed by an eligible elector certifying: the number
of signatures on the paper, that the elector personally circulated it, that all
signatures were affixed in his or herthe+Fthe elector's presence, that he-er �v the
elector believes them to be genuine signatures of the persons whose names they
purport to be, and that each signer had an opportunity before signing to read the full text
of the measure proposed or sought to be reconsidered. Any person filing a false affidavit
will be liable to criminal penalties as provided by state law.
Page 2 of 2
Kellie Grace
From: Susan Craig <skjeldcraig@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 2.44 PM
To: *IC Charter Review Commission
Subject: District Primary Elections
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links
or attachments. ** I was curious to see if candidates receiving the highest votes in a District Primary Election
(with just votes from their district) fared in the general election (votes from entire city). I looked at election
results going back to 1995• During this time there were district primaries only five times (2 each in districts A
and B, once in Q. In all five district primaries the highest vote getter won the general election.
Susan Craig
Sent from my Wad
Memo to: The Iowa City Charter Review Commission
From: Commissioner Denning
Re: Amending Article II section 2.01, election of district council members by district voters
Date: September 26, 2024
A SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST ELECTING DISTRICT COUNCILMEMBERS BY DISTRICT
I. Fundamental Principles of Representative Democracy
Facts: In a representative democracy, the people have the right to elect their representative. In the
case of a city council district, this entails district voters having the right to elect their district
councilmember. Our current system denies district voters this fundamental right and could
unintentionally dilute the voting power of minority populations within a district.
Analogy: An example of diluting the voting power of minority populations within a district is a
gerrymander. District lines are intentionally moved to include more voters that are not part of the
minority population. A gerrymander is considered to be undemocratic. Clearly, our system is not a
gerrymander and any negative results of our system are without a doubt completely unintentional.
Nevertheless, dilution of the voting power of minority populations within a district may be occurring
because the lines delineating the eligible voting population are expanded to include both neighboring
districts.
Related problems: An additional problem with electing all councilmembers at large is described in a
letter submitted by Riley, Executive Director and co-founder of RSFIC. [I highly recommend you read the
letter in full again.] In this letter are data showing wide disparities in turnout of eligible voters, as high as
14-fold. The map also illustrates that low turnout areas are more widespread in some districts than in
others. These disparities in the context of at -large voting set up a negative feedback loop. Specifically,
there is less public engagement in these low turnout areas ... because of this, these areas rarely if ever
see city council candidates who are all running at large and must all prioritize higher turnout areas ... this
lack of candidate engagement in these low turnout areas in turn further decreases public engagement. A
particularly compelling quote from the letter is the following, "Over 50% of our population lives in a
deep red zone, but less than 20% of the votes came from those zones, so basically it makes strategic
sense for our candidates to deprioritize over 50% of us".
Remedy: Election of district councilmembers by district voters would acknowledge and ensure the
rights of district voters to elect their representative, would prevent unintentional, undemocratic dilution
of minority voting power, and may increase public engagement in low turnout areas.
II. The Mixed Model for Electing City Councilmembers
Mixed model: The model city charter goes into significant detail describing the benefits of the mixed
model in electing city councils and its optimal characteristics. Briefly, the mixed model is designed to
have a combination of at -large and district seats. Each of these two types of seats have benefits and
limitations. The benefits of at -large and districts seats are specific to the seat type, thus, a combination
of the two seat types results in more benefits than either one alone. The limitations of the two seat
types, on the other hand, are mirror opposites of the other. Specifically, a potential limitation of at -large
seats is the failure of an at -large councilmember to appropriately consider district -specific needs. A
potential limitation of district seats is the failure of a district councilmember to appropriately consider
city-wide needs. Because of the opposite nature of these limitations, over time they will tend to balance
each other out. The net results over time of an optimal mixed model are maximum benefits and
minimum limitations.
Checks and balances: At a public forum, comments were made in support of the current system
about the importance of checks and balances. This is an excellent point! However, it is in fact an
authentic mixed model that provides these checks and balances, not the current system which lacks
them.
Role of districts: The model city charter also goes into detail about the role of districts wherein
districts can provide better representation as a result of putting the councilmember "closer' to the
people. This includes not only geographically closer but also closer in terms of a responsibility to act as a
strong advocate for all communities, including minority communities, within the district, a responsibility
encouraged by district voters being able to hold their district councilmembers accountable.
Flows in the current system: We currently elect all of our councilmembers at large. Some of the
potential negative impacts of this are discussed in Section I above, for example, potential dilution of
minority voting power. Another negative impact is that we enjoy none of the benefits that come from
electing district councilmembers by district, and we have none of the counterbalancing limitations. Our
current system is skewed over time toward fewer benefits and more limitations. These are the
predominant reasons that experts recommend against electing all councilmembers at large unless you
are a small, homogenous city.
A related problem mentioned in the public forum may be the exclusion of individuals who cannot
afford in time and/or money to run an at -large campaign but would find a district campaign doable.
There are doubtless qualified individuals for whom this is true. We discussed the problem of too many
races being unopposed. Perhaps the suggested amendment would help in this respect.
An improvement: Electing district councilmembers by district would accomplish several goals. First,
our mixed model would then have all of the characteristics of an optimal mixed model — number of
council seats, close ratio of at -large to district seats, election of district councilmembers by and from the
district. Next, the resulting mixed model would overtime have more benefits and fewer limitations as a
result of the change. These benefits may include greater public engagement and a larger candidate pool
for district seats. Finally, our district councilmembers would be closer to their constituents and thereby
more likely to act as strong advocates for meeting district -specific needs.
One final point: Supporters of the current system note that it achieves some geographical diversity.
This is very true and is a good thing. However, our current system fails to recognize the equal or even
greater importance of district councilmembers being elected by district voters.
III. A Thought Experiment
Another example of a non -partisan election system that involves districts is election of school
board members. Currently, voters within the school district select their school board members. Imagine
the following scenario. Someone suggests to you a change to the school board election system that
would allow participation of approximately twice as many voters outside the school district as compared
to inside. Think about it for a moment and if your response to that suggestion is along the lines of "that
doesn't make any sense' and/or "why would we want to do that", understand that this suggestion is
equivalent to the way we currently elect district city councilmembers. As written and spoken public
comments have noted, the current system is inherently confusing to voters and creates the need every
cycle to expend time and resources trying to explain it.
IV. The Why
The Questions: Why was our district system designed from the beginning to have all
councilmembers, including councilmembers designated as district councilmembers, elected at large?
Consider that by doing so we have a district system fundamentally different from the one everyone else
uses, a system experts recommend against because it can have negative impacts in a number of ways,
and a system equivalent to analogies that seem confusing and problematic. Why in addition to creating
this system has there been a consistent and strong reluctance to change?
Respectfully, from the arguments and comments made by supporters of the current system, all
undoubtably made in good faith, I would postulate that the major reason for the whys is a focus on two
primary concerns should an amendment be adopted — (1) risk of parochialism or its lesser version, the
failure of district councilmembers to appropriately recognize city-wide needs and (2) the existence of a
harmful partisan agenda by some supporters of election by district. These two primary concerns seem to
overshadow any consideration of arguments, no matter how objective or valid, for election by district.
V. Evidence for and Response to Concern #1
Before joining the Commission, I heard the basic outline of arguments for each side from people I
know very well and respect. This was the first time that I heard the comment about district
councilmembers failing to consider the common good. This concern seems to be a common thread and
central point made by all those who comment in favor of our current system. Broadly, there appear to
be three subthemes; (1) there is no reason or need to amend the charter to elect councilmembers by
district because there's no problem to fix, (2) there are serious concerns should we do so and (3) it is not
really part of our charge nor are we advised to recommend this type of amendment.
No reason or need: These comments are along the lines of "we've been doing this for a long
time" and "previous commissions haven't recommended changing it" and "city councils haven't chosen
to change it", besides "there's no problem to be solved" and "it's working fine the way it is" or the
variation "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The unstated implication of these comments is that if there was
an actual reason, surely previous commissions and city councils would have recognized it and made the
change by now.
There are two flaws in this argument. One is factual. There are in fact a number of potential
reasons/problems associated with electing all councilmembers at large (see earlier sections). The other
flaw is the assumption that previous commissions and city councils heard all of the current arguments
for and against the amendment and then considered them objectively without status quo and/or
personal bias.
The fact that this remains a controversial issue suggests that not everyone in the community
agrees that there is no reason and no need to address it. A corollary comment is "when I explain it to
people, then they agree with the current system". However, if an explanation gives only one or the
other side of any debate, then it is inevitable that people unfamiliar with the issue would agree with the
person explaining it. This is not a test of the objective rightness of a position.
Risks of doing so: Beyond "there's no reason/need" is the further assertion that amending the
charter in this way is risky, the primary risk being district councilmembers failing to appropriately
consider city-wide needs. Explicit warnings tell us that were we to amend the charter it would create
"upheaval of far-reaching change".
Lack of supporting evidence: It seems reasonable to argue that if evidence existed that electing
district councilmembers by district was problematic in a charter city such as ours, then the sources that
have conducted the most extensive research and had the most in-depth discussions (i.e., the model city
charter) would have mentioned it. They did not. Reminder: they did explicitly recommend against
electing all councilmembers at large. Moreover, in comments included in previous meeting packets, I
pointed out that parochialism itself is only a problem when there are a large number of district seats not
in our case, where there are three.
As asked in public comments, can supporters of our current system provide even a single
example of harmful consequences having a measurable impact in a charter city of equivalent size should
we make the change? Also, above I describe the importance of the amendment for balancing out the
limitations of at -large election of councilmembers. In this respect, support for the current system would
suggest that the potential mirror opposite problem for at -large councilmembers (failure to appropriately
consider district -specific needs) is either not being recognized or if recognized, not being given equal
weight.
Logical flaw in assumptions: An underlying assumption that may exist among some supporters of
the current system may be: we have had generally good, capable, diverse city councils because we elect
all our city councilmembers at large and if we stop electing all our councilmembers at large then we
might see a negative impact on the makeup of our city council over time. The logical flaw in this cause -
and -effect argument can be seen by re -framing it using true statements. Example: We have had
generally good, capable, diverse city councils because we elect our district councilmembers in a way
nobody else does, in a way that lacks an essential element of a district system, and in a way the experts
recommend against. More logical is the statement: We have had generally good, capable, diverse city
councils despite the fact that we elect all our city councilmembers at large and thus, were we to elect
our district councilmembers by district (which is identified as best practices), then it is highly likely we
will both continue to have good city councils over time and may also have city councils more responsive
to district needs.
Not within ourscope of responsibility: There appears to be a new but related argument against
amending the charter to elect councilmembers by district. Paraphrased it goes: The Council has the
ability to make a change in the process by passing an ordinance... The council has not chosen to pass an
4
ordinance to elect district councilmembers by district... therefore, it is not within the City Charter Review
Commission's purview to recommend such a change, particularly if that recommendation might result in
further costs to the city.
Specific comments: These concerns are specifically stated as: "We should absolutely recommend
updates that make the Charter appropriate for our times, like gender references", but beyond that, "our
only job is to examine the basic structure of the Charter and ask whether it is working. If we conclude
that the basic structure is not working, then we should consider amendments".
The comments also included the following, "There has been talk on the Commission about
adopting the much -longer "model charter" from the League of Cities" ... "I do not think we should treat
the review process like a blank piece of paper, nor should we make a la carte selections from a menu of
local government options" .... and "the model charter itself recognizes that there are various ways to
structure local government, that each has advantages and disadvantages, and how a community governs
itself is unique to that community."
Finally, an interesting paragraph that reads, "We should also be mindful that recommending
major changes to the Charter would have real consequences beyond our Commission. It would force the
Council and City staff to divert attention away from important issues like public safety and affordable
housing and spend time debating the policy considerations behind different types of governance.
Moreover, depending on the Council's response, a recommendation of significant change could lead to a
ballot referendum. If that happens, now we face campaigns, fundraising, and countless hours required
of the Council and City staff to educate the public."
Responses to these comments: Taking all these comments in the friendly spirit in which they
were intended, several points. I would respectfully argue that our charge most certainly includes
recommending changes that are substantive and positive even if the system is working pretty well and
even if the Council has not already done so. Moreover, as far as I know, there is no area, including
governing, that there has to be a broken system before one can consider changing things, particularly if
that change is objectively an improvement. In fact, in every area — business, public service and governing
— finding improvements to existing processes is both highly recommended and highly justified.
Related to the model city charter, I believe it is fair to say that there was never talk of replacing
the current city charter wholesale. Up to this point, the model city charter has only been used to enrich
the language of the Preamble and discuss a few things that might have been added to our charter. It is,
however, an invaluable resource for understanding complex and controversial issues such as the process
for electing councilmembers. And yes, the model city charter does recognize that there are various ways
to structure local government. In the case of selecting the mayor, for example, the model city charter
indicates two equally good ways and that the choice can be based on majority preference. Conversely,
the model city charter clearly recommends electing district councilmembers by district rather than
electing all councilmembers at large. Is there a reason we should doubt this recommendation?
With respect to the comments related to the potential additional costs if the majority of
commissioners were to recommend the amendment and the city council majority were to question
and/or reject that recommendation, then increased costs are certainly a possibility. However, I disagree
that our responsibility is to ignore objective evidence and reasoned arguments in order to take the path
of least resistance. We are charged with doing our very best to put forward recommendations which we
deemed beneficial to the governing of our city on matters large or small, straightforward or
controversial. I know that every member of this commission respects and honors that duty.
Summary: Whether implicit or explicit, comments in support of the current system imply or state
that not only are there no good reasons to elect district councilmembers by district (otherwise we would
have done it before now) but in addition, there are serious risks associated with doing so. From an
objective, factual, logical standpoint, however, there are a number of good reasons to recommend this
amendment. In addition, not only is there no evidence to support the assertion that bad things would
happen if we made the change, there is in fact strong counter -evidence against this assertion. Finally, it
is very much within the scope of responsibility of this commission to recommend any changes that the
majority conclude are objective, evidence -based improvements.
VI. Evidence for and Response to Concern #2
Second primary concern: I read the second concern -a harmful partisan agenda exists among
supporters of the amendment - for the first time in submitted public comments. However, once
recognizing that this was a concern potentially shared by other supporters of the current system, it
seems only right to respectfully address it.
Implicit comments: A hint of this concern was in one of our earliest instructions that appeared to
be warning us not to be unduly influenced by persons regarding controversial topics. An instruction to
be as thoughtful and as objective as possible was implied by this and even stated in many subsequent
comments and that is an excellent point. However, who are these people we should be careful not to be
unduly influenced by and do they only exist on one side of the debate?
While I am not sure who all of the people alluded to might be, I will postulate one. This is of
course a speculation on my part, but I am basing this speculation on a number of things including the
phrase "lobbying by councilor Dunn" used in recent comments. This phrase provides a negative context
to the situation where Mr. Dunn provided public comments prefaced by the fact that he was there only
as a private citizen. His entire comments were simply pointing out that every argument in a debate
should have a factual basis, hardly a controversial statement and not in fact a statement that favors one
side of the debate or the other.
There is a valid argument that councilmembers should generally refrain from becoming involved
in commission deliberations, however, in the case of our commission, there is no reason to exclude the
perspective of current councilmembers when they are presented as individual perspectives and/or
objective arguments. In fact, those perspectives and objective arguments are among the most relevant
ones. Reasoned debate should only critique arguments, never question or denigrate the motive or
character of those who make them, regardless of which side they are on.
Explicit statements: An example of statements that explicitly express these concerns include: "You
should also be sensitive to any hidden agendas. The non -partisan nature of Iowa City elections is already
under attack by local political activists. Do any suggested changes to the current structure mask a (sic)
initial effort in a long-term goal of making races partisan? More problematic, is the City Manager/Council
form of government the real target?"
Flaws in reasoning: In terms of this broader concern, I would suggest that it results in large part
from a misunderstanding of what constitutes a non -partisan election. In earlier comments, I noted that a
non -partisan election is characterized by three things and that amending the charter to have district
voters elect district councilmembers (as everyone else does) would not change any of these three
things. In short, a non -partisan election system is one in which (1) candidates are selected by all eligible
voters regardless of the voter's party affiliation, (2) candidates are prohibited from identifying their
party affiliation in a public way and (3) political parties are prohibited from contributing resources to any
candidate.
Voters use many criteria to make their choice. Very often these criteria include political party
preference which is often linked to philosophical beliefs and policy preferences. However, individual
voter selection in part by political party does not a partisan election make and clearly many cities elect
district councilmembers by district in elections that are agreed upon to be non -partisan. Even if the
amendment does impact the relative political party makeup of the city council over time, that too does
not a partisan system make. It is simply the will of the people in a fair and well -designed representative
democracy. Finally, it is hard to understand how electing district councilmembers the way every other
Council -Manager Charter City does it would represent a threat to the Council -Manager form of
government.
Summary: While one must acknowledge and validate that this concern is very real for those who
hold it, postulating that there is some radical partisan agenda that threatens our system seems a bit of a
stretch. Does that mean that the process used by other charter cities to elect their district
councilmembers represents a radical partisan agenda? Does that mean that the process by which we
elect school board members also represents a radical partisan agenda? I think no is the obvious answer
to both.
FINAL COMMENTS
Although this is not the only opportunity to recommend improving the way we elect district
councilmembers, it does involve thoughtful analysis and reasoning that we can do on behalf of the
people. And although I can't prove the results of something not yet tried, my prediction would be that
should the city council pass the amendment allowing only voters within a district to elect their district
councilmember (considered best practices), we will continue to have good city councils, we may enjoy
more of the benefits of an authentic mixed model, and the confusion, frustration and controversy will go
away, thus saving time and energy for other things. After all, has anyone heard of a charter city where
electing district councilmembers by district is controversial?
Thank you for your attention.
Memo to: The Iowa City Charter Review Commission
From: Commissioner Denning
Re: Number of districts
Date: September 26, 2024
Public comments have been put forward as to whether there should be an increase in the
number of districts. Because Iowa City has grown considerably since the three districts were
created, this is a question well worth considering. However, this discussion is not timely until
two things are accomplished.
1. The number of districts is irrelevant if we continue to elect district councilmembers at
large. On the other hand, if we were to fix that, then the question becomes highly
relevant.
2. The other thing future Commissions and Councils would need is a rigorous, independent
study of the issue. This study must consider practicalities in addition to the potential for
better representation of all populations within the city. Then the study could put
forward recommendations as to options that best balance number of districts, total
number of councilmembers, and the ratio of at -large to district seats.
Thank you for your attention.
Memo to: The Iowa City Charter Review Commission
From: Commissioner Denning
Re: Amending Article II section 2.01, addition of non -voting student councilmember
Date: September 26, 2024
This issue may have gotten overshadowed thus far by discussions about electing district
councilmembers by district voters. Thus, speaking more directly to the issue, I would like to
recommend amending Article II section 2.01 by adding the following text at the end:
The Council will also include a non -voting ex-officio student councilmember appointed by the
government of the University of Iowa (UI) student body to serve as a representative of UI
students.
Rationale: Our University of Iowa students represent a significant and unique population within
our city. The Council currently includes a student who acts as a liaison to the Council and
reports on student issues most recently at the beginning of Council sessions. In this format,
student involvement seems very limited and the student perspective remains largely peripheral
to Council business. Creating a non -voting ex-officio student councilmember would allow the
student perspective to be heard during any and all Council deliberations and thereby would
provide a valuable perspective and service to both the Council and the student body. Yes, it is
one more person added to the debates which can be quite long. Nevertheless, the student
perspective I would argue is important enough to warrant that. The suggested wording mirrors
that used in Ames for Iowa State students.
Submitted by Chair Balmer
9127124. 6:26 AM
Home Rule - IOWA League
Home Rule
G Updated on November 5, 2021 9 Posted on December 14, 2016
One of the pillars upon which local governments in Iowa stand is the law of Home Rule. In a basic sense, this taw
allows cities to govern and regulate themselves. However, there are significant restrictions that cities must adhere
to, including not passing any local laws that are inconsistent with state law. Additionally, numerous court cases
over the years have provided interpretations of the Home Rule law.
Until 1968, cities in Iowa struggled under what was known as "The Dillon Rule', named for Iowa Supreme Court
Justice John Dillon who ruled in a case in 1868 that city governments could only possess and exercise powers
which were expressly granted by the legislature. Under the Dillon Rule, cities could only exercise those powers
granted to them in the Code of Iowa. If the Code didn't provide that a city could do a particular thing, the city
couldn't do it.
The Home Rule movement was a grass roots effort by cities to overturn the Dillon Rule and to claim for city
residents their right to govern their own affairs through their elected city councils. The Home Rule Amendment to
the Iowa Constitution, passed by Iowa's electorate in 1968, provides that:
"Municipal corporations are granted home rule power and authority, not inconsistent with the laws of the general
assembly, to determine their local affairs and government, except that they shall not have power to levy any tax
unless expressly authorized by the general assembly. The rule or proposition of law that a municipal corporation
possesses and can exercise only those powers granted in express words is not a part of the law of this state."
him. YNou W—i........ I
912V24, 13:26 AM
HMO Rule - IOWA League
Restrictions
Iowa's form of Home Rule has two significant limitations. First of all, cities can tax their citizens only as "expressly
authorized" by the Legislature. The Code allows cities to tax real property, but limits how much of the value of
property is subject to taxation and the levy rate that may be applied to property values. The Code also allows cities
to tax sales and use transactions, but again with limitations on the tax rate that may be applied to those
transactions.
The second major limitation on the exercise of Home Rule power by cities is that they cannot exercise that power
in a manner inconsistent with laws passed by the Legislature. In effect, the State of Iowa can, through its
Legislature, pre-empt city exercise of local governance.
Court Cases
[owes courts have on numerous occasions been called upon to address the exercise of Home Rule power by
cities. While a number of the Iowa Supreme Court's early Home Rule decisions upheld cities' exercise of Home
Rule authority, later decisions were premised on an implied preemption doctrine that threatened a reincarnation of
the Dillon Rule. Those decisions were premised on the assumption that if a local ordinance prohibited an act
permitted under state law, the ordinance was pre-empted. The result in these cases is difficult to reconcile with the
Home Rule Implementing legislation that allows cities to impose standards and requirements which are higher or
more stringent than those imposed by state law.
Recent cases have been more encouraging. In upholding the city of Davenport's adoption of an automated traffic
enforcement ordinance (City of Davenport v. Seymour, 2008), the Supreme Court concluded that just because
state law says that speeders and red light violators are to receive a criminal citation and pay a criminal fine, it does
not mean that cities are prohibited from passing an ordinance providing that the owner of the violating vehicle
could be charged with a civil infraction and be required to pay a civil penalty. A similar case (City of Sioux City v.
Jacobsma, 2015) affirmed the Seymour decision as the Court again cited Section 321.235 as providing cities the
ability to adopt additional traffic regulations not in conflict with the state code and found that the state code was
not irreconcilable with the city's ATE ordinance.
The citizens of Iowa have enshrined in their Constitution the expectation that cities will exercise their Home Rule
powers to determine their local affairs and government. City officials therefore have a duty to use their Home Rule
912724, 8:26 AM Home Rule - IOWA League
powers for the benefit of their citizenry. Not only must they resist challenges to their Home Rule powers, but they
must also resist the temptation to seek explicit authority from the Legislature to act, when the Home Rule
Amendment provides them all the authority they need.
CI s:ifieds
Erl:ibit IAarketiny
Fadnrai and statn Funding
Cite, s In Iowa
Legislative
Finance
Server oirecrory
Human idesautcas
Advocacv Team
parks, Recreation:. Lilamxic'
About its
state Advocacy
planning, Zoning, Building
Federal Advocacy
Public safety
LPdI n About Ole LFtgUe
Ind. x of lov, i Lays
Public'Nnrks & Utllitlas
Be; rds f, Commtiaas
pubi:t-tions
Ciry'.c«pe D:!ayazine
Get
R search
"ds Inde's
Workshops & EvantS
ways To Get Invah;ed
Shields Eadawmant Fund
Workshop Cal znd-r
SIMPLICITY: You, City, SimpCfled
Cunt act Us
bwa :;layers Association
Ann,!-; Conference & Exhlb�t
Iowa Municipal Attorneys
Rudgct Workshops
NaW^.
Assariatian
Lucal Leader U.� Y
!i :he Nsws
Municipal Lepdaship Academy
�alend:�'
Resources
Nul$ance Abatement Confar':nte
small City'dlark.hap-
Ovarnew
fv?uriceielOCe
i.dmicstraiion
Wchiner and Wark:hop
'dvzr tisiny Opportunitia;
Community and Econanuc
Rccorc'ino7
Delvelop'nent
_
ticmmunity Aliianca Programs
have:IrtowaleeWe omlmenop Nhnmen,lnl
Contact Us
Cali'"a V :ma4'Js
Remit Peymams to Street Address
PO eun P29i SOU S:4 .'th Srra, 3.ele
"Is :ao'nec A 5O30I Ocs M!nuen. IA 6"3Ca lot
PSane M1 i! J,"l 7:
`^.x 10761 367-9713'
Keep up with the latest news a.^.d morel
"Newsletter Sign Up
Memo to: The Iowa City Charter Review Commission
From: Commissioner Denning
Re: Thoughts following September 28th public forum
Date: September 28, 2024
Preamble:
It was interesting that one of the speakers in the forum thought that it was important in the
Preamble to better define "environment". We did have some language along those lines that
we took out for brevity purposes. While less can be good, it may not in this case have served its
purpose. Another sentence or two would not be excessive. Perhaps we could revisit the
previous language, albeit not necessarily make it as long and flowery as the example.
Election by district:
Big Picture: The reality is that our current system is a significant departure from the norm and
the amendment would simply establish the norm. If a change could be considered radical (not
sure this one really is all that radical), then it is our current system that is radically different not
the other way around.
When those of us among the privileged (including me) say things are going pretty well, there's
no problem to fix, we mean well but we must ask ourselves if that is everyone's lived
experience. We heard from some people at the public forum that they did not feel that the
current system was working as well for them as it could and they would like to be able to have a
closer relationship with their councilmember and be able to hold them accountable. That is in
fact why districts are created. Who are we to say their concerns should be dismissed because
we consider the current system good enough?
Along those same lines, when concerns are expressed that we will have more district
councilmembers who don't consider city-wide needs does that recognize that one person's
parochialism may be another person's strong advocacy. In addition, as I mentioned earlier,
those arguing for the current system do not seem to be aware of the mirror opposite problem
of at -large councilmembers being too dismissive of district -specific needs. In fact, one of the
people commenting in the public forum had a very specific example of a local need (improved
air quality) that continues to be ignored.
There were also relatively new comments in support of the current system. Paraphrased they
are:
Comment 1: Review is not re -invention. That is correct. However, review is also not a process
that fears change, especially if that change can be objectively argued to be positive. Moreover,
review is not simply acceptance of the status quo without a grounding in fact and logic.
Comment 2: A good problem -solving approach is to (a) define the problem and from that
identify the goals of a solution, (b) postulate a solution, and (c) define the measurements you
would use to determine whether the postulated solution achieved the goals. Beyond those
important steps mentioned in this person's comments, there is also, (d) implement the solution
and (e) do the actual measurements to see if the solution worked.
The Catch-22 in this case seems to be that supporters of the current system are requiring
supporters of the change to prove (e) without doing (d). Nevertheless, here is an attempt to use
that process.
Hypothesis: There are problems with the current system that would be fixed by the
amendment.
Problems with current system:
1. Denies district voters their fundamental rights in a representative form of government to
select their representative.
2. May dilute the minority voting power in a district. I would argue that the most prevalent
and relevant disparities are likely related to socioeconomic status.
3. May be contributing to lower engagement by some communities.
4. Causes confusion that may contribute as well to turning off some voters and requires time
and resources to address, time and resources that may be of more use for other things.
Goals and measures of a solution:
Goal 1: Ensure that the fundamental voting rights of district voters are recognized and
guaranteed.
Measurement: The measure of achieving that goal is by definition implementing the
solution.
Goal 2: Avoid potential dilution of minority voting power.
Measurement: This is supported by extensive research but it is impossible to measure the
impact in our specific case because if you implement this solution, you are not
simultaneously testing election by district with election at large, so you can't see if there
are differences between at -large and by -district voting.
Goal 3: Improve engagement by lower turnout communities.
Measurement: In this case, you could measure turnout over time after implementing the
solution to see if it improves from before implementation.
Goal 4: Reduce confusion that may also contribute to reduced engagement by voters as well as
costing resources.
Measurement: The potential contribution of the confusion to reduced public engagement
is nearly impossible to measure, however, the resource savings are guaranteed since the
confusion itself would be gone.
One final point to re -iterate:
If you explain a system by only giving half of the debate and people agree, this is not proof of
the inherent rightness of the system.
The following is a working draft of proposed amendments as ofAuaust 2a 2024 to the Iowa
City Charter by the Charter Review Commission. The Commission has not finalized the
proposal and all potential amendments are subject to change.
IOWA CITY CHARTER 1
Preamble
Definitions
Article I. Powers @of Tthe City
§ 1.01. Powers 8of Tthe City.
§ 1.02. Construction.
§ 1.03. Savings Clause.
Article II. City Council
§ 2.01. Composition.
§ 2.02. Division linto Council Districts.
§ 2.03. Eligibility.
§ 2.04. Terms.
§ 2.05. Compensation.
§ 2.06. Mayor.
§ 2.07. General Powers Aand Duties.
§ 2.08. Appointments.
§ 2.09. Rules; Records.
§ 2.10. Vacancies.
§ 2.11. Council Action.
§ 2.12. Prohibitions.
Article III. Nomination, Primary Election Aand Regular Election
§ 3.01. Nomination.
§ 3.02. Primary Election.
§ 3.03. Regular City Election.
Article IV. City Manager
§ 4.01. Appointment; Qualifications.
§ 4.02. Accountability; Removal.
Page 1
The following is a working draft of oroposed amendments as of August 28.2024 to the Iowa
City Charter by the Charter Review Commission. The Commission has not finalized the
proposal and all potential amendments are subject to change.
§ 4.03. Absence; Disability 9of City Manager.
§ 4.04. Duties Aof City Manager.
§ 4.05. Ineligibility; Prohibited Acts.
Article V. Boards, Commissions Aand Committees
§ 5.01. Establishment.
§ 5.02. Appointment; Removal.
§ 5.03. Rules.
Article VI. Campaign Contributions Aand Expenditures
§ 6.01. Limitations 9Qn The Amount 9Qf Campaign Contributions.
§ 6.02. Disclosure 9Qf Contributions Aand Expenditures.
§ 6.03. Definition.
§ 6.04. Violations.
Article VII. Initiative Aand Referendum
§ 7.01. General Provisions.
§ 7.02. Commencement Aof Proceedings, Affidavit.
§ 7.03. Petitions; Revocation 9Qf Signatures.
§ 7.04. Procedure Hefter Filing.
§ 7.05. Action Bon Petitions.
§ 7.06. Results 9of Election.
§ 7.07. Prohibition 9Qn Establishment 9of Stricter Conditions 9or Requirements
Article VIII. Charter Amendments A_4nd Review
§ 8.01. Charter Amendments.
§ 8.02. Charter Review Commission.
Notes
1. The home rule eCharter of the eCity, adopted by the voters of the eCity on
November 15,1973, and by ordinance 76-2792 on January 2,1976, pursuant to I.C.A.
section 372.9, is set out herein as adopted and amended.
Page 2
The following is a working draft of proposed amendments as of August 28.2024 to the Iowa
City Charter by the Chatter Review Commission. The Commission has not finalized the
proposal and all potential amendments are subiect to change.
PREAMBLE
We, the people of Iowa City, Iowa, pursuant to the constitution and statutes of the sState of
Iowa and the principle of self-determination, proclaim that the government of Iowa City
belongs to all its residents and all share the responsibility for it We hereby adopt this
eCharter and confer upon it the full home rule powers of a charter city in order to provide
for an honest and accountable council-manager government. By this action, we secure the
benefits of home rule and affirm the values of representative democracy, professional
management, strongiea} leadership public engagement, diversity and inclusiveness.
regional cooperation, and fair and effective stewardship of our unique environment.
Furthermore, adoption of this Charter recognizes the following principles:
1. Resident participation on an equitable and inclusive basis as of the process of 44
democratic self-government.
a. Each individual shall have an opportunity to participate in the life of the City,
including economic, cultural and intellectual.
b. Discrimination prohibited by Title 2 of the City Code shall not be tolerated.
2. The provision of service relating to the health, safety, and welfare of its residents in a
fair, equitable and efficient manner.
3. The conduct of eCity business inconformity with the principals and practices of due
process, equal protection under the laws, and protection of these individual liberties
PFOteeted granted by the c-Constitution of the United States, the sState of Iowa, and by
local ordinances.
4. Civility and responsiveness by eCity employees in their interactions with the public.
(Ord. 15-4621, 5-19-2015)
DEFINITIONS
As used in this eCharter:
1. "City" means the eCity of Iowa City, Iowa.
2. "City eCouncil" or "eCouncil" means the governing body of the eCity.
3. "Council member" means a member of the eCouncil, including the MMayor.
4. "Shall" imposes a duty.
S. "Must" states a requirement
Page 3
The following is a working draft of proposed amendments as ofAugust 28.2024 to the Iowa
City Charter by the Charter Review Commission. The Commission has not finalized the
proposal and all potential amendments are subject to change.
6. "May" confers a power.
7. "Eligible elector" means a person eligible to register to vote in Iowa City.
8. "Qualified elector" means a resident of Iowa City who is registered to vote in Iowa
City.
9. "Board" includes aboard, commission, committee or other similar entity however
designated.
10. "Person" means an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company, association,
political party, committee or any other legal entity.
11. "Ordinance" means a city law of a general and permanent nature.
12. "Measure", except as provided in aerticle VII, means an ordinance, amendment,
resolution or motion. (Ord. 76-2792,1-2-1976; amd. Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985; Ord. 05-
4152, 3-1-2005)
ARTICLE 1. POWERS OF THE CITY
Section 1.01. Powers 9ofTthe City.
The eCityhas shall have all powers possible under the constitution and laws of this state.
(Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976)
Section 1.02. Construction.
The grant of power to the eCity under this ECharter is intended to be broad; the mention of
a specific power in this ECharter is not intended to be a limitation on the general powers
conferred in this article. (Ord. 76-2792,1-2-1976)
Section 1.03. Savings Clause.
If any provision of this eCharter, or the application of this ECharter to any person or
circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications
of this eCharter. (Ord. 76-2792,1-2-1976)
ARTICLE II. CITY COUNCIL
Page 4
The following is a working draft of proposed amendments as ofAuaust 28.2024 to the Iowa
City Charter by the Charter Review Commission. The Commission has not finalized the
proposal and all potential amendments are subject to change.
Section 2.01. Composition.
The eCity sCouncil consists of seven members. As provided in aArticle III, four, to be known
as eCouncil members at --large, are to be nominated by eligible electors of the eCity at --large,
and three, to be known as district eCouncil members, are to be nominated by eligible
electors of their respective districts. All sCouncil members shall be elected by the qualified
electors of the eCity at_ large. (Ord. 85-3273,12-17-1985)
Section 2.02. Division Into Council Districts.
The sCouncil, by ordinance, shall divide the sCity into three eCouncil districts of
substantially equal population. These districts are to be designated as eCouncil dQistrict A,
eCouncil dDistrict B, and sCouncil QQistrict C. (Ord. 76-2792,1-2-1976)
Section 2.03. Elieibilitv.
To be eligible to be elected to and to retain a sCouncil position, a person must be an eligible
elector of Iowa City, and if seeking or elected to represent a eCouncil district, must be an
eligible elector of that sCouncil district. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005)
Section 2.04. Terms.
At the first election under this sCharter, all seven sCouncil members are to be elected; the
eCouncil member from sCouncil dQistrict A, sCouncil dQistrict C, and the two eCouncil
members at --large who receive the greatest number of votes cast for sCouncil member at_
large are to serve for terms of four years, and other sCouncil members are to serve for
terms of two years. Commencing at the next regular eCity election, and at all subsequent
regular eCity elections, all sCouncil members elected to fill the positions of those whose
terms expire shall be elected for terms of four years. (Ord. 76-2792,1-2-1976)
Section 2.05. Compensation.
The eCouncil, by ordinance, shall prescribe the compensation of the a3Mayor and the other
eCouncil members. The sCouncil shall not adopt such an ordinance during the months of
November and December immediately following a regular eCity election. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-
1-2005)
Section 2.06. Mayor.
A. Immediately following the beginning of the terms of sCouncil members elected at the
regular eCity election, the eCouncil shall meet and elect from among its members the
famayor and fnMayor RPro tTem for a term of two years. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985)
Page 5
The following is a working d� ofnroposed amendments as of August 28.2024 to the Iowa
City Charter by the Charter Review Commission. The Commission has not finalized the
proposal and all potential amendments are subject to change.
B. The mMayor is a voting member of the eCouncil, the official representative of the
eCity, presiding officer of the sCouncil and its policy spokesperson. The f►Mayor may add
items to the eCity eCouncil agenda. The mMayor shall present to the eCity no later than
February 28 an annual state of the eCity message. (Ord.15-4621, 5-19-2015)
C. The mMayor pQro tlem shall act as mMayor during the absence of the inMayor. (Ord.
85-3227,3-12-1985)
Section 2.07. General Powers Aand Duties.
All powers of the eCity are vested in the eCouncil, except as otherwise provided by state
law or this eCharter. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985)
Section 2.08. Appointments.
A. The eCouncil shall appoint the eCity mManager.
B. The eCouncil shall appoint the eCityeClerk. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985)
C. The eCouncil shall appoint the eCity aAttorney. (Ord. 95-3671, 3-28-1995)
D. The City Manager shall appoint the Chief of the Police Department and the Chief of the
Fire Department, subject to approval of the City Council.
DE. The eCouncil shall appoint all members of the eCity's boards, except as otherwise
provided by state law. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985)
BF. The eCouncil shall fix the amount of compensation, if any, of persons it appoints and
shall provide for the method of compensation of other eCity employees. All appointments
and promotions of eCity employees by city council and eity manager must be made
according to job -related criteria and be consistent with nondiscriminatory and equal
employment opportunity standards established pursuant to law. (Ord. 95-3671, 3-28-
1995)
Section 2.09. Rules: Records.
The eCouncil may determine its own rules and shall maintain records of its proceedings
consistent with state law. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976)
Section 2.10. Vacancies.
The eCouncil shall fill a vacancy occurring in an elective eCity office as provided by state
law. (Ord. 76-2792,1-2-1976)
Page 6
The following is a workina draft of proposed amendments as of August 28, 2024 to the Iowa
City Charter by the Charter Review Commission. The Commission has not finalized the
proposal and all potential amendments are subject to change.
Section 2.11. Council Action.
Passage of an ordinance, amendment or resolution requires a majority vote of all the
members of the eCouncil except as otherwise provided by state law. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-
2005)
Section 2.12. Prohibitions.
A. A eCouncil member may not hold any other eCity office or be a eCity employee or
elected county official while serving on the eCouncil nor hold any remunerated eCity office
or employment for at least one year after leaving the eCouncil. (Ord. 76-2792,1-2-1976)
B. With the excepUen of the appointment of the chief of the police .1..part.. ent ... d Chie
appointed by the Git5'MaRageF. HeweyeF, the e9uncil may express its Views to the city
FnaRager pertaiRing te the appointmPRt Ar rpm-eval ef such employee. (Ord. 05 4152, 3 1—
With the exception of powers provided in Section 2.08. a Council member may not
dictate. in any manner, the appointment or removal of any City employee. However. the
Council may express its views to the appointing authority pertaining to the appointment or
removal of such employee.
C. A ..il....... her m of int.,..F....e with the supervisionr diFeetien of any peFsen
appointed bye ..dPr th@ G RtFOI of the City .........geF (OFEI 76 2792, 121976) A COLIncil
member may not interfere with the supervision or direction of any City employee other
than the City Manager, City Attorney. or City Clerk.
lerk•
ARTICLE 111. NOMINATION, PRIMARY ELECTION AND REGULAR ELECTION
Section 3.01. Nomination.
A. An eligible elector of a eCouncil district may become a candidate for a eCouncil district
seat by filing with the Johnson County eCommissioner of eElections a valid petition
requesting that 4ie4w4+er--their name be placed on the ballot for that office. Unless
otherwise provided by state law, the petition must be filed not more than eighty-five (85)
days nor less -fewer than sixty-eight (68) days before the date of the election. Unless
otherwise provided by state law, the petition must be signed by eligible electors from the
candidate's district equal in number to at least two (2) percent of those who voted to fill
the same office at the last regular eCity election, but not less fewer than ten (10) persons.
Page 7
The following is a working draft of proposed amendments as of August 28 2024 to the Iowa
City Charter by the Charter Review Commission. The Commission has not finalized the
proposal and all potential amendments ore subject to change.
B. An eligible elector of the eCity may become a candidate for an at -large eCouncil seat by
filing with the Johnson County eCommissioner of eClections a petition requesting that the
candidate's name be placed on the ballot for that office. Unless otherwise provided by state
law, the petition must be filed not more than eighty-five (85) days nor less ewe than
sixty-eight (68) days before the date of the election. Unless otherwise provided by state
law, the petition must be signed by eligible electors equal in number to at least two (2)
percent of those who voted to fill the same office at the last regular eCity election, but not
le -s f wer than ten (10) persons. (Ord. 15-4621, 5-19-2015)
Section 3.02. Primary Election.
A. If there are more than two candidates for a eCouncil district seat, a primary election
must be held for that seat with only the qualified electors of that eCouncil district eligible to
vote. The names of the two candidates who receive the highest number of votes in the
primary election are to be placed on the ballot for the regular eCity election as candidates
for that <ouncil seat. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005)
B. If there are more than twice as many candidates as there are at large positions to be
filled, there shall be a primary election held unless the eCouncil, by ordinance, chooses to
have a run-off- election. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985)
•year 1 :-x_ - �
A. In the regular eCity election, each eCouncil district seat up for election shall be listed
separately on the ballot and only the names of candidates nominated from that eCouncil
district shall be listed on the ballot as candidates for that seat. However, all qualified
electors of the eCity shall be entitled to vote for each candidate. The three eCouncil district
seats shall be designated on the ballot as eCouncil dDistrict A, eCouncil dDistrict B and
eCouncil Qistrict C and each shall be elected at --large.
B. The at_ large eCouncil seats shall be designated on the ballot as such. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-
12-1985)
ARTICLE IV. CITY MANAGER
Section 4.01. Appointment: Qualifications.
Page 8
The following is a working draft of proposed amendments as ofAugust 28, 2024 to the Iowa
City Charter by the Charter Review Commission. The Commission has not finalized the
proposal and all potential amendments are subject to change.
In appointing a eCity mManager, the eCouncil shall consider only the qualifications and
fitness of the person without regard to political or other affiliation. During hV,4F4wr-h-e r
tenure the eCity mManager shall reside within the ccity. (Ord. 76-2792,1-2-1976)
Section 4.02. Accountability: Removal.
A. The eCity faManager is under the direction and supervision of the eCouncil and holds
office at its pleasure. A eCity tfWanager removed by the eCouncil is entitled to receive
termination pay as provided by contract. (Ord.15-4621, 5-19-2015)
B. Upon the resignation or removal of the eCityfeManager, the eCouncil shall appoint an
individual qualified to perform the duties of eCity mManager to serve at the pleasure of
eCouncil or until a eCity mManager is appointed. (Ord. 76-2792,1-2-1976)
Section 4.03. Absence: Disability Aof City Manager.
The eCity mManager may designate a qualified eCity employee as acting eCity mManager to
perform his nr ertheir duties during a temporary absence or disability. If the eCity
mManager does not make such a designation, the eCouncil shall appoint a qualified eCity
employee to perform the duties of the eCity mManager until he or she they returns. (Ord.
76-2792, 1-2-1976)
Section 4.04. Duties 9of City Manager,
A. The eCity mManager shall be chief administrative officer of the eCity and shall:
(1) insmfeEnsure that the laws of the eCity are executed and enforced.
(2) Supervise and direct the administration of eCity government and the official
conduct of employees of the eCity appointed by the eCity mManager including their
employment, training, reclassification, suspension or discharge as the occasion requires,
subject to state law.
(3) Appoint the eChief of the pQolice dDepartment and the eChief of the Wire
d Department with the approval of the eCity eCouncil.
(4) Supervise the eChief of the pP-olicedDlepartment and eChief of the #Eire
dpepartment, including their suspension or discharge as the occasion requires. Such
supervision shall not be subject to approval of the eCity eCouncil.
(5) Appoint or employ persons to occupy positions for which no other method of
appointment is provided by state law or this eCharter.
Page 9
The following is a working draft of proposed amendments as ofAugust 28.2024 to the Iowa
City Charter by the Charter Review Commission. The Commission has not finalized the
proposal and all potential amendments are subject to change.
(6) Supervise the administration of the eCity personnel system, including the
determination of the compensation of all eCity employees appointed by the eCity
+Manager subject to state law -this Code or this eCharter.
(7) Supervise the performance of all contracts for work to be done for the eCity,
supervise all purchases of materials and supplies, and assure that such materials and
supplies are received and are of specified quality and character.
(8) Supervise and manage all public improvements, works and undertakings of the
eCity, and all eCity-owned property including buildings, plants, systems, and enterprises,
and have charge of their construction, improvement, repair and maintenance except where
otherwise provided by state law.
(9) Supervise the making and preservation of all surveys, maps, plans, drawings,
specifications and estimates for the eCity.
(10) Provide for the issuance and revocation of licenses and permits authorized by
state law or sCity ordinance and cause a record thereof to be maintained.
(11) Prepare and submit to the eCouncil the annual budgets in the form prescribed
by state law.
(12) Provide the eCouncil an itemized written monthly financial report.
(13) Attend eCouncil meetings and keep the eCouncil fully advised of the financial
and other conditions of the eCity and its needs.
(14) See that the business affairs of the eCity are transacted in an efficient manner
and that accurate records of all eCity business are maintained and made available to the
public, except as otherwise provided by state law.
(15) Provide necessary and reasonable clerical, research and professional
assistance to boards within limitations of the budget.
(16) Perform such other and further duties as the eCouncil may direct. (Ord. 05-
4152, 3-1-2005)
B. The eCityManager, in performing the foregoing duties, may:
(1) Present recommendations and programs to the eCouncil and participate in any
discussion by the eCouncil of any matters pertaining to the duties of the eCity fRManager.
(2) Cause the examination and investigation of the affairs of any department or the
conduct of any employee under supervision of the eCity faManager.
(3) Execute contracts on behalf of the ecity when authorized by the eCouncil. (Ord.
85-3227,3-12-1985)
Page 10
The following is a working draft of proposed amendments as of August 28.2024 to the Iowa
City Charter by the Charter Review Commission. The Commission has not finalized the
proposal and all potential amendments are subject to change.
Section 4,05. Ineligibililya Prohibited Acts.
Except for the exercise of the right to vote, the c-City fRManager shall not take part in any
election of ECouncil members. This prohibition shall in no way limit the eCity mManager's
duty to make available public records as provided by state law or this eCharter. (Ord. 76-
2792, 1-2-1976)
ARTICLE V. BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES
Section 5.01. Establishment.
A. With the exception of the eCommunitypPolice r-,Review bRoard, the ECouncil may
establish boards in addition to those required by state law and shall specify the title, duties,
length of term, qualifications of members and other appropriate matters. The Council shall
consider the available demographics of board and commission members and applicants in
making their appointments in an effort to make appointments reflective of the community_
The eCouncil may reduce or increase a board's duties, transfer duties from one board to
another or dissolve any board, except as otherwise provided by state law or this eCharter.
B. There shall be a permanent eCommunity pPolice #Review bBoard, which shall have
vested in it the following minimum powers:
1. To hold at least one community forum each year for the purpose of hearing views on
the policies, practices, and procedures of the Iowa City pPolice Q-epartment; and
2. To make recommendations regarding such policies, practices, and procedures to the
eCity eCouncil; and
3. To investigate claims of misconduct by sworn police officers and to issue
independent reports of its findings to the eCity eCouncil; and
4. The authority to subpoena witnesses. (Ord.15-4621, 5-19-2015)
Section 5.02. Appointment: Removal.
The ECouncil shall, subject to the requirements of state law, seek to provide broad
representation on all boards. The eCouncil shall establish procedures to give at least thirty
days' notice of vacancies before they are filled and shall encourage applications by
residents. Council procedures for the removal of members shall be consistent with state
law. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005; amd. Ord.15-4621, 5-19-2015)
Page 11
The following is a working draft ofproposed amendments as ofAugust28 2024 to the Iowa
Citv Charter by the Charter Review Commission The Commission has not finalized the
proposal and all potential amendments are subject to change
Section
A. The eCouncil shall establish rules and procedures for the operation of all boards,
which must include but are not limited to, the adoption of by-laws and rules pertaining to
open meetings and open records. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005)
B. The eCouncil shall specify, for each board, methods for informal and formal
communication with eCouncil, time schedules for the completion of reports requested by
eCouncil and such rules as it deems appropriate.
C. A board may establish additional rules and procedures that are consistent with state
law, eCouncil rules, and this eCharter. (Ord. 76-2792,1-2-1976)
ARTICLE VI. CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES
Section 6.01. Limitations Son Tthe Amount 8of Campaign Contributions
The eCouncil, by ordinance, shall prescribe limitations on the amount of campaign
contributions made to a candidate for election to eCouncil by a person as defined in this
eCharter. (Ord. 95-3671, 3-28-1995)
The eCouncil, by ordinance, may prescribe procedures requiring the disclosure of the
amount, source and kind of contributions received and expenditures made by (1) each
candidate for election to eCouncil and (2) any and all other persons, for the purpose of
aiding or securing the candidate's nomination or election. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005)
Section 6.03. Definition.
Within this article "contribution" shall be defined as that term is defined in chapter 68A
("campaign finance") of the c-Code of Iowa. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005; amd. Ord.15-4621, 5-
19-2015)
ection 6.04. Violati
The eCouncil, by ordinance, shall prescribe: (1) penalties for the violation of the
contribution limitations and disclosure requirements it establishes pursuant to this
s5ection; and (2) when appropriate, conditions for the revocation of a candidate's right to
serve on eCouncil if elected, consistent with state law. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005)
Page 12
The following is a working draft oforoposed amendments as ofAuaust 28.2024 to the Iowa
City Charter by the Charter Review Commission. The Commission has notflnalized th
proposal and all potential amendments are subject to change.
ARTICLE VII. INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
Section 7.01. General Provisions.
A. Authority.
(1) Initiative. The eligible electors have the right to propose measures to the
eCouncil and, if the eCouncil fails to adopt a measure so proposed without any change in
substance, to have the measure submitted to the voters at an election.
(2) Referendum. The eligible electors have the right to require reconsideration by
the eCouncil of an existing measure and, if the eCouncil fails to repeal such measure, to have
it submitted to the voters at an election.
(3) Definition. Within this article, "measure" means all ordinances, amendments,
resolutions or motions of a legislative nature, however designated, which (a) are of a
permanent rather than temporary character and (b) include a proposition enacting,
amending or repealing a new or existing law, policy or plan, as opposed to one providing
for the execution or administration of a law, policy or plan already enacted by eCouncil.
B. Limitations.
(1) Subject Matter. The right of initiative and referendum shall not extend to any of
the following:
(a) Any measure of an executive or administrative nature. including. but not
limited to, personnel decisions.
(b) The eCitybudget.
(c) The appropriation of money.
(d) The levy of taxes or special assessments.
(e) The issuance of general obligation and revenue bonds.
(f) The letting of contracts.
(g) Salaries of eCity employees.
(h) Any measure required to be enacted by state or federal law.
(i) Amendments to this eCharter.
0) Amendments affecting the eCity zoning ordinance or the land use maps of the
comprehensive plan, including the district plan maps.
(k) Public improvements subsequent to eCity eCouncil action to authorize
acquisition of property for that public improvement, or notice to bidders for that public
Page 13
The following is a working draft of proposed amendments as ofAugust 28. 2024 to the Iowa
City Charter by the Charter Review Commission, The Commission has not finalized the
proposal and all potential amendments are subject to change.
improvement, whichever occurs earlier. "Public improvement" shall mean any building or
construction work.
(2) Resubmission. No initiative or referendum petition shall be filed within two
years after the same measure or a measure substantially the same has been submitted to
the voters at an election.
(3) Council Repeal, Amendment Aand Reenactment No measure proposed by
initiative petition and adopted by the vote of the eCouncil without submission to the voters,
or adopted by the voters pursuant to this article, may for two years thereafter be repealed
or amended except by a vote of the people, unless provision is otherwise made in the
original initiative measure. No measure referred by referendum petition and repealed by
the vote of the eCouncil without submission to the voters, or repealed by the voters
pursuant to this article, may be reenacted for two years thereafter except by vote of the
people, unless provision is otherwise made in the original referendum petition.
C. Construction.
(1) Scope Of Power. It is intended that this article confer broad initiative and
referendum powers upon the eligible electors of the eCity.
(2) Initiative. It is intended that (a) no initiative petition will be invalid because it
repeals an existing measure in whole or in part by virtue of proposing a new measure and
(b) an initiative petition may amend an existing measure.
(3) Referendum. It is intended that a referendum petition may repeal a measure in
whole or in part.
D. Effect O9f Filing Petition. The filing of an initiative or referendum petition does not
suspend or invalidate any measure under consideration. Such measure shall remain in full
force and effect until its amendment or repeal by eCouncil pursuant to -,Section 7.05A or
until a majority of the qualified electors voting on a measure vote to repeal or amend the
measure and the vote is certified.
E. City Obligations. An initiative or referendum vote which repeals an existing measure
in whole or in part does not affect any obligations entered into by the eCity, its agencies or
any person in reliance on the measure during the time it was in effect (Ord. 15-4621, 5-19-
2015)
Section 7.02. Commencement Pof Proceedings: Affidavit.
A. Commencement. One or more qualified electors, hereinafter referred to as the
"petitioners," may commence initiative or referendum proceedings by filing with the eCity
Page 14
The following is a working draft of proposed amendments as of August 28. 2024 to the Iowa
City Charter by the Charter Review Commission, The Commission has not finalized the
proposal and all potential amendments are subiect to change.
eClerk an affidavit stating they will supervise the circulation of the petition and will be
responsible for filing it in proper form, stating their names and addresses and specifying
the address to which all relevant notices are to be sent, and setting out in full the proposed
initiative measure or citing the measure sought to be reconsidered.
B. Affidavit The cCityeClerk shall accept the affidavit for filing if on its face it appears to
have signatures of one or more qualified electors. The eCity cClerk shall issue the
appropriate petition forms to the petitioners the same day the affidavit is accepted for
filing. The eCity eClerk shall cause to be prepared and have available to the public, forms
and affidavits suitable for the commencement of proceedings and the preparation of
initiative and referendum petitions. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005)
tion 7.03. Petitions: Revocation Aof Signatures.
A. Number 8of Signatures. Initiative and referendum petitions must be signed by eligible
electors equal in number to at least ten percent (10%) of the number of persons who voted
in the last regular eCity election, but such signatures of eligible electors shall be no fewer
than ten. (Res. 16-258, 8-29-2016) [November 2016 Special Election]
B. Form Aand Content All papers of a petition prepared for filing must be substantially
uniform in size and style and must be assembled as one instrument Each person signing
shall provide, and the petition form shall provide space for, the signature, printed name,
address of the person signing and the date the signature is executed. Petitions prepared for
circulation must contain or have attached thereto throughout their circulation the full text
of the measure proposed or sought to be reconsidered. The petition filed with the eCity
eClerk need have attached to it only one copy of the measure being proposed or referred.
C. Affidavit 9of Circulator. Each paper of a petition containing signatures must have
attached to it when filed an affidavit executed by an eligible elector certifying: the number
of signatures on the paper, that ;e-ef-she- gy personally circulated it, that all signatures
were affixed in his or her their presence, that he-er they believes them to be genuine
signatures of the persons whose names they purport to be and that each signer had an
opportunity before signing to read the full text of the measure proposed or sought to be
reconsidered. Any person filing a false affidavit will be liable to criminal penalties as
provided by state law.
D. Time lifor Filing Initiative Petitions. Signatures on an initiative petition must be
secured and the petition filed within six months after the date the affidavit required under
sSection 7.02A was filed.
E. Time Ffor Filing Referendum Petitions. Referendum petitions may be filed within sixty
days after final adoption by the c-Council of the measure sought to be reconsidered, or
Page 15
The following is a working draft of proposed amendments as of August 28, 2024 to the Iowa
City Charter by the Charter Review Commission. The Commission has not finalized the
proposal and all potential amendments are subject to change.
subsequently at any time more than two years after such final adoption. The signatures on
a referendum petition must be secured during the sixty days after such final adoption;
however, if the petition is filed more than two years after final adoption, the signatures
must be secured within six months after the date the affidavit required under sSection
7.02A was filed.
F. Revocation AQf Signature. Prior to the time a petition is filed with the eCity eClerk, a
signatory may revoke their signature for any reason by filing with the eCity
eClerk a statement of t it intent to revoke his�thgjr signature. After a
petition is filed a signatory may not revoke h4 or4er-h it signature. The eCity eClerk shall
cause to be prepared and have available to the public, forms suitable for the revocation of
petition signatures. (Ord.15-4621, 5-19-2015)
Section 7.04. Procedure Aafter Fili
A. Validity 9of Aa Petition. A petition is valid if it contains the minimum required
signatures by eligible electors in the required form and with the required content and
accompanied by the affidavit of circulator as set forth in sSection 7.03. The petition shall be
examined by the eCity eClerk before it is accepted for filing. If the petition appears valid on
its face it shall be accepted for filing. If it lacks the required number of signatures it shall be
considered invalid and returned to the petitioners. Petitions which have been accepted for
filing are valid unless written objections are filed with the eCity eClerk within five working
days after the petition is received.
B. Hearing 9Qn Objections; Objections Committee. Written objections timely filed with
the eCity eClerk shall be considered by an objections committee made up of the mMayor
and eCity eClerk and one member of the eCouncil chosen by the eCouncil by ballot, and a
majority decision shall be final. The hearing on the objections shall be held within ten days
of receipt of the objections.
C. Court Review. To the extent allowed bylaw, court review of the eQbjections
eCommittee's actions shall be by writ of certiorari. (Ord.15-4621, 5-19-2015)
Section 7,05. Action Bon Petitions.
A. Action -Bby Council. When an initiative or referendum petition has been determined
valid, the eCouncil shall promptly consider the proposed initiative measure or reconsider
the referred measure. If the eCouncil fails to adopt a proposed initiative measure and fails
to adopt a measure which is similar in substance within sixty days, or if the eCouncil fails to
repeal the referred measure within thirty days after the date the petition was finally
determined valid, it shall submit the proposed or referred measure to the qualified electors
of the eCity as hereinafter prescribed. If at any time more than thirty days before a
scheduled initiative or referendum election the eCouncil adopts the proposed initiative
Page 16
The following is a working draft oforogosed amendments as o,fAuaust 28. 2024 to the Iowa
City Charter by the Charter Review Commission. The Commission has not finalized the
proposal and all potential amendments are subject to change.
measure or adopts a measure which is similar in substance or if the eCouncil repeals a
referred measure, the initiative or referendum proceedings shall terminate and the
proposed or referred measure shall not be submitted to the voters.
B. Submission Tjo Voters.
(1) Initiative. The vote of the eCity on a proposed measure shall be held at the FegulaF
city election 9F at the general elect '^^ L,hich next GECUF^ first legally permissible election
date more than forty days after the expiration of the sixty day period provided for
consideration in -,Section 7.05A, provided that the initiative petition was filed no less -fewer
than 80 days prior to the deadline imposed by state law for the submission of ballot
questions to the -,Commissioner of eClections.
(2) Referendum. The vote of the eCity on a referred measure shall be held at the
election date more than forty days after the expiration of the thirty day period provided for
reconsideration in &Section 7.05A, provided that the referendum petition was filed no less
fewer than 50 days prior to the deadline imposed by state law for the submission of ballot
questions to the eCommissioner of eFlections. The eCouncil may provide for a special
referendum election on a referred measure any time more than 120 days after the filing of
the referendum petition with the eCity cQerk.
C. Ballot. Copies of the proposed or referred measure shall be made available to the
qualified electors at the polls and shall be advertised at the c-City's expense in the manner
required for "questions" in section 376.5 of the Iowa Code. The subject matter and purpose
of the referred or proposed measure shall be indicated on the ballot. (Ord. 15-4621, 5-19-
2015)
A. Initiative. If a majority of the qualified electors voting on a proposed initiative
measure vote in its favor, it shall be considered adopted upon certification of the election
results. The adopted measure shall be treated in all respects in the same manner as
measures of the same kind adopted by the eCouncil, except as provided in -,Section
7.01B(3). If conflicting measures are approved by majority vote at the same election, the
one receiving the greatest number of affirmative votes shall prevail to the extent of such
conflict.
B. Referendum. If a majority of the qualified electors voting on a referred measure vote
in favor of repealing the measure, it shall be considered repealed upon certification of the
election results. (Ord. 15-4621, 5-19-2015)
Section 7.07. Prohibition Bon Establishment Oof Stricter Conditions Aor Requirements.
Page 17
The following is a working draft of proposed amendments as ofAugust 28, 2024 to the Iowa
City Charter by the Charter Review Commission. The Commission has not finalized the
progosal and all potential amendments are subject to change.
The eCouncil shall not set, except by eCharter amendment, conditions or requirements
affecting initiative and referendum. (Ord.15-4621, 5-19-2015)
ARTICLE Vlll. CHARTER AMENDMENTS AND REVIEW
Section 8.01. Charter Amendments.
This eCharter may be amended only by one of the following methods:
A. The sCouncil, by resolution, may submit a proposed amendment to the voters at a
special eCity election, and the proposed amendment becomes effective when approved by a
majority of those voting.
B. The sCouncil, by ordinance, may amend the eCharter. However, within thirty (30) days
of publication of the ordinance, if a petition valid under the provisions of section 362.4 of
the eCode of Iowa is filed with the sCouncil, the eCouncil must submit the amending
ordinance to the voters at a special eCity election, and the amendment does not become
effective until approved by a majority of those voting.
C. If a petition valid under the provisions of section 362.4 of the eCode of Iowa is filed
with the sCouncil proposing an amendment to the eCharter, the eCouncil must submit the
proposed amendment to the voters at a special eCity election, and the amendment becomes
effective if approved by a majority of those voting. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005)
Section 8.02. Charter Review Commission.
The eCouncil, using the procedures prescribed in article V, shall establish a eCharter
(Review sCommission at least once every ten years following the effective date of this
eCharter. The sCommission, consisting of at least nine members, shall review the existing
eCharter and may, within twelve months recommend any eCharter amendments that it
deems fit to the sCouncil. The sCouncil shall either exercise its power of amendment
pursuant to sSection 8.01B of the eCharter on a matter recommended by the sCommission
or submit such amendments to the voters in the form prescribed by the sCommission, and
an amendment becomes effective when approved by a majority of those voting. (Ord. 05-
4152, 3-1-2005)
Page 18
The following is a working draft of proposed amendments as of August 28, 2024 to the Iowa
City Charter by the Charter- Review Commission. The Commission has not finalized the
proposal and all potential amendments are subject to change.
CHARTER COMPARATIVE TABLE
The h1 ome rRule c-Charter is set out in this volume as adopted by the voters on November
15,1973, and by ordinance 76-2792, on January 2,1976. The following table shows the
disposition of amendments to the sCharter:
Ordinance Date Disposition
Number
77-2826 3-15- 6.01
1977
77-2858 9-6- 7.05B
1977
77-2864 9-6- 3.01
1977
85-3227
3-12-
Definitions 7,8, 2.01, 2.03, 2.05 - 2.08, 3.01- 3.03, 4.04, 5.02,
1985
6.04, 7.01- 7.05, 8.01, 8.02
85-3228
3-12-
6.02
1985
85-3273
12-17-
2.01
1985
90-3462
6-26-
7.03A, 7.04A
1990
95-3671
3-28-
2.06B, 2.08C,E, 3.01A, 6.01, 7.04D
1995
05-4152
3-1-
Definitions 11,12, 2.03, 2.05, 2.11, 2.1213, 3.01A, 3.02A, 4.04A,
2005
5.02, 5.03A, 6.02, 6.03, 6.04, 7.01, 7.02, 7.03B,C,E, 7.04A,B,C,
7.05, 7.06, 8.01, 8.02
Res.07-262
8-31-
5.01
2007
15-4621
5-19-
Preamble, 2.06B, 3.01, 4.02A, 5.01, 5.02, 6.03, 7.01, 7.03, 7.04,
2015
7.05, 7.06, 7.07
Petition
11-
7.03A
2016
Page 19
The following is a working draft of proposed amendments as of August 28, 2024 to the Iowa
City Charter by the Charter Review Commission. The Commission has not finalized the
proposal and all potential amendments are subject to change.
Page 20
LATE HANDOUTS - THE
FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS
WERE DISTRIBUTED AT
THE MEETING
Kellie Grace
From: Karen Kubby <karen@beadologyiowa.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 6, 2024 5:57 PM Late Handouts Distributed
To: *IC Charter Review Commission
Subject: Mayoral selection process
t4
(Date)
A
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
Charter Review Commission,
Thank you for hosting a few in person gatherings for people to talk about the charter and its review.
One point I didn't make about the Mayoral selection process is that the current process is totally opaque. Rarely have
people interested in this appointment made any public statements as to why they are the best selection. Whether you
stick with the current process or make one of the large seats a specific Mayoral seat, I hope you will talk about ways to
make this process more transparent.
Right now what happens is that after the general election in November, those who will be serving in January start talking
behind the scenes. There is no public process or public statements. At the first meeting of the year, a motion is made to
nominate a person for Mayor. Then a vote is taken. Very few comments and rarely a contest for Mayor or Mayor Pro-
Tem.
If you can insert a requirement for a more transparent process, even with our current process, it will be an
improvement.
Looking forward to the final product you forward to council.
Karen Kubby
1425 Ridge St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
Late Handouts Distributed
Potential wordine of 2.12 (Bl:
(Date)
Present draft:
With the exception of powers provided in Section 2.08, a Council member may not
dictate, in any manner, the appointment or removal of any City employee. However, the
Council may express its views to the appointing authority pertaining to the appointment or
removal of such employee.
Proposed laneuaee:
With the exception of powers provided in Section 2.08, a Council member may not dictate, in
any manner, the appointment or removal of any City employee. However, the Council may
express its views pertaining to the appointment or removal of such employee to the Council
appointee under whom the employee works.