Model City Charter Revision Committee

Convened by the National Civic League, Dec. 7, 2001, Atlanta, GA
Summary of Meeting #2

I. Attendance

Committee members present: Eric Anderson, Linda Barton, Terrell Blodgett, Peter Buchsbaum, Jacqueline J. Byers, William Cassella, James Dailey, Mony Flores-Bauer, Scott Fosler, George Frederickson, Chris Gates, Guy Goodson, Charles Gossett, William Hansell, James Keene, Robert Kipp, Ronald Loveridge, David Miller, Sylvester Murray, John Nalbandian, Betty Jane Narver, Bob O'Neill, Neil Reichenberg, Tanis Salant, David Schultz, David Sink, James Svara, Henry Underhill, John Vocino

NCL Staff: Matt Krumme, Derek Okubo, Bill Schechter

Organizations represented: Academic representatives (University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Hamline University, University of Kansas, North Carolina State University, University of Pittsburgh), American Bar Association, American Society for Public Administration (including Arizona State University), Association of State Municipal Leagues, International City/County Management Association, International Municipal Lawyers Association, International Personnel Management Association, League of Women Voters, National Association of Counties, National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (Georgia Southern University, University of Pittsburgh), National Civic League, National League of Cities

II. Topics and Decisions

1. Svara's proposal: organize the charter along the lines of basic, expanded, and new approaches
   1. Decision: Defer the proposed organization of issues
   2. Suggestion: It will be useful to discuss issues as basic, expanded, and new, and then revisit the idea of organizing the charter presentation later on in the process. There was consensus that the "basic" approach represents the Model Charter that will contain key recommendations that apply to all communities regardless of size or circumstances.
2. Preamble
   1. Decision: The Model should have a preamble calling for unification of powers
   2. Decision: The preamble should address political leadership, representation, professional management, policy development, and the manager's role
3. Election of mayor: should the model continue to express no preference between election of mayor by and from council, and direct election at-large?
   1. Decision: The Model should prefer strong political leadership, but present both election methods without expressing a preference; there should be new commentary that discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each option for promoting political leadership.
4. Mayor powers: a consideration of what powers should be granted to the position of mayor.
   1. Decisions: The committee considered whether the mayor should have the following powers, and decided:
      1. yes: attend and preside over council meetings
      2. yes: represent the government in intergovernmental relationships
      3. yes: appoint with the advice and consent of the council the members of citizen advisory boards and commissions
      4. yes: present an annual state of the city message
      5. yes: voting member of council
      6. yes: appoint council chairs and committee members
      7. no: setting the council agenda
      8. no: veto power
      9. no: nominate city manager candidate for council approval (but in expanded approach it may be considered)
      10. no: sole authority to initiate removal of manager with approval of council
      11. no: greater weight in vote to retain city manager
      12. no: review and comment on budget of city manager (but in expanded approach it may be considered) or authority to revise the manager's budget before it is submitted to council (no)
      13. no: level of mayor's salary compared to council members
      14. no: staff support for mayor and authority to select staff
   2. Observations:
      1. Term of office for mayor and council should be the same; it was asked whether we should advocate this
      2. Full time or part time status of mayor/council affects compensation
5. Council and Mayor Compensation
   1. Decision: The Model should continue to place no limit on council and mayor compensation
   2. Suggestions:
      1. Tone down the commentary
      2. Substantially revise commentary to reflect modern realities
   3. Decision: Strike the Commentary sentence that says "it is assumed that council members will earn their major income from private employment."
   4. Issue: Staggered terms and raises, resulting in councilors with different salaries
   5. Observation: Full time or part time status of mayor/council affects compensation
6. The Five Election Alternatives: Should the model express a preference for hybrid (mixed district and at-large) elections over the other four election methods (at-large, at-large with district residency requirement, district, and proportional representation)?
   1. Decisions:
      1. Proportional representation, alternative V, should be reduced to footnote
      2. The four remaining alternatives should remain, with no preference
   2. Suggestions:
      1. Reduce nomination and election at-large with district resident requirement, alternative II, to a footnote
      2. Prefer nomination and election at-large with district resident requirement, alternative II
         1. But clarify the nomination process
   3. Observations:
      1. Some cities have been required to use proportional representation to remedy Voting Rights Act violations
      2. Proportional representation detracts from the credibility of the Model if it is listed as an equal option with the other more widely used approaches. It is beneficial, however, to retain reference to it in a footnote as part of the Model Charter. Not only is this a traditional recommendation of the NCL, PR is also a flexible device for handling certain representational issues.
7. Nonpartisan Elections
   1. Decision: The Model should continue to express a preference for nonpartisan elections
   2. Suggestion: The pros of partisan elections should be included in the commentary
   3. Observation: The current Model says that elections should be held in off-years, but often this leads to low voter turnout and unrepresentative winners
8. Staggered Terms
   1. Decision: The Model should change to express a preference for staggered terms
   2. Issues:
      1. Staggered terms and raises, resulting in councilors with different salaries
      2. Should councilors be prohibited from running for mayor and retaining their seat if unsuccessful?
         1. Concern: Practice is too divisive vs. councilors should not be penalized for running for mayor
         2. Decision: The charter text should remain silent
         3. Suggestion: But it could have commentary on it
   3. Observations:
      1. Staggered terms work with hybrid elections (Des Moines, IA, and Beaumont, TX).
      2. Experience in Riverside indicates that officials who are not up for election still pay attention to the election outcome.
9. Manager Qualifications
   1. Decision: NCL will draft new language for §3.01 that is more detailed than the current "basis of executive and administrative qualifications," but not as detailed as ICMA's recommended managerial qualifications.
   2. Observation: ICMA's language is useful for the profession, but too specific and narrow for a city charter
10. Other Suggestions
    1. The Committee should address:
       1. term limits
       2. campaign finance
       3. councilor retaining seat while running for mayor

III. Liaison Organizations

After discussing and reaching consensus on numerous issues, the committee discussed the charter-related activities of liaison organizations.

• American Society for Public Administration: Panel at annual conference - Contact Sy Murray
• American Bar Associations/S&L: Column
• International City/County Management Association: Listserv
• International Municipal Lawyers Association: Column
• League of Women Voters: Article in quarterly magazine, clearinghouse, links, session in Miami at the June National Convention
• Council on Minorities in Public Affairs and Administration: Panel

IV. Next Meeting

The next meeting will occur on Thursday, March 21, from 7:00 to 8:30 p.m., and Friday, March 22, from 8:00 a.m. to 4 p.m. in Phoenix, AZ, immediately preceding the annual conference of the American Society for Public Administration.