CHARTER REVIEW BOARD
CITY HALL,
REGULAR MEETING
7:00 P.M.
1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Hackworth called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mrs. Chapman, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Gray, Mr. Holstine, Mr. Kramer, and Mr. Donathan were present. Mr. McKinney was absent due to a conflict in schedules. Others present were: Phil Hartmann and Lynda Yartin.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF June 3, 2010, Regular Meeting. Mr. Kramer moved to approve; Mr. Donathan seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Gray and Mr. Holstine abstaining, and Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Donathan, Mr. Kramer, and Mrs. Chapman voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.
3. COMMUNITY COMMENTS. None.
4. SCHEDULED MATTERS:
A. Review and discussion of draft Charter with proposed revisions. Mr. Hackworth stated the review of the Charter was complete and there were just a few items he would like to go back and verify. Mr. Hackworth stated at the last meeting Mr. Gray was not present, however, it was the feeling of most of the Board members not to include a line item veto. Mr. Gray stated he had read the minutes and he was fine with this. Mr. Hackworth stated at the last meeting the Board had requested Mr. Hartmann to expand Section 8 with regard to initiatives, referendums, and recalls. Mr. Hackworth stated since that time he had reviewed the Charters of other municipalities and most of them did not go into detail on these issues. Mr. Hackworth stated he was not sure that we wanted to include all of this information in the Charter. Mr. Hartmann stated he concurred; he did not like that as he felt it was too much detail. Mr. Hartmann stated he would prefer to put in language that the law director has prepared a checklist for guidance that can be obtained from the City Clerk. He stated this would allow the checklist to be updated as needed. Mr. Gray stated they still have the right to have the law director help with it, and Mr. Hartmann stated at the last meeting that was taken out. Mr. Hackworth stated the current Charter stated the law director can help with this, but the law director’s position is that it puts him in an odd position. Mr. Hartmann stated it was an odd thing to guide someone through the process when he might have to be arguing against it. Mr. Hartmann stated how they have handled this in the past is to basically answer general questions, give them the checklist and guide them through. Mr. Gray stated he felt that language was added to the Charter for a good reason; because petitions were getting thrown out for little things. Mr. Gray stated he liked the idea that someone who did not have the financial ability to hire an attorney could get guidance from the law director. Mr. Gray further stated he felt there must be a considerable flaw for a petition to be rejected. He stated he felt it must something like the person witnessing the signatures didn’t file it, or the signatures were all bad, or they didn’t file it on time. He stated things like having a petition rejected because something was not underlined in red was a minor flaw. Mr. Hartmann stated Mr. Gray is correct, it is currently so strict that it can be thrown out if they are not attached all together, one of the petitions is not signed then all of them get thrown out, etc. He stated if we put in language such as “substantial compliance” you can have procedural defects that should not throw something out when a bunch of people want to get something done. Mr. Hackworth stated he felt we could keep Section 8.07 as it currently is in the Charter but add the “substantial compliance” language for initiatives and referendums. Mr. Gray stated he thought that either the ability to obtain help from the law director should be kept in or the substantial compliance language should be added. Mr. Gray stated if the law director signs off that the form and everything is correct, than there must be something substantially wrong to have it rejected. Mr. Hartmann stated he was more comfortable with leaving the language about obtaining guidance from the law director than in adding the “substantial compliance” language. The Board members agreed they would like to keep the language that is currently in the Charter regarding the ability to obtain guidance from the law director.
Mr. Hackworth
stated he did have a question on the recall section because he felt if the
Clerk is a
Mr. Hackworth
stated with regard to the section dealing with the merit system he saw the law
director had provided some alternative language to replace listing out the
exempt positions. Mr. Hartmann stated he
had taken this language from another Charter and he felt it offered more
flexibility for
Mr. Hackworth further stated the law director had provided alternative language for section 7.11 on Competitive Bidding. After discussion, the Board determined they preferred the language as currently reflected in the draft rather than using the alternative language.
Mr. Gray stated
after reading the language regarding the Consent Agenda he noted that it stated
any council member, the mayor or resident of the City could request an item be
removed from the Consent agenda. He
stated he thought it might state that anyone could request it be removed
because someone might not live in the City but would have a concern about an
issue. Mr. Kramer stated he agreed, an
individual might not live in the City but ran a business in the City or
something. Mr. Hartmann stated he would
change that language to reflect that any “interested party” could request it be
removed from the Consent Agenda. Mr.
Gray further stated he would like some clarification on voting. He stated that the current proposed Charter
states a majority of council must concur for any measure to be passed, so that
meant that it would require four votes, council majority, not a majority of
those present. Mr. Hartmann stated that
was correct. Mr. Hartmann stated,
however, he had written it this way because if there were a situation where
perhaps two members of council were gone and new members had not been appointed
so you only had a council of five; three members would be a majority. He stated he was worried if the hard number
four was put in the Charter, it could create a problem. Mr. Gray stated he agreed with that, because
a majority of
Mr. Gray stated he would prefer
that the Charter specify that the Charter Review Commission members be
appointed by Resolution, and he also thought it might be an idea to have six of
the seven members appointed by
Mr. Gray inquired if there were restrictions for having a Charter on the ballot; must it be at a general election, could it be on a special election, or could it be on a primary. Mr. Hartmann stated he thought it could be on any election, but he would look to make sure. He stated he did not know if it applied in this case, or if it were only for the initial Charter, that the Board must be appointed and the process completed with the Charter on the ballot within 12 months. He stated he would have to look at that, but he had put the language in this Charter to prevent the Board being in session forever. Mr. Donathan stated this language means the Board must be finished and their findings reported within 12 months, not that it must be voted on within 12 months. Mr. Hartmann stated that was correct.
Mr. Hackworth stated
Mr. Hackworth stated further he
would like to see if
5. CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hackworth stated he had nothing further to bring forward.
6. OTHER BUSINESS: No other business was brought forward.
7. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Kramer moved to adjourn; Mr. Donathan seconded the motion. Mr. Donathan, Mrs. Chapman, Mr. Holstine, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Gray, and Mr. Hackworth voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 6-0. The Charter Review Board adjourned at 8:45 P.M., July 1, 2010.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
_______________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk