Model City Charter Revision Committee

Convened by the National Civic League, March 22, 2002, Phoenix, AZ
Summary of Meeting #3

I. Attendance

Committee members present: Terrell Blodgett, Peter Buchsbaum, Jacqueline J. Byers, William Cassella, Mony Flores-Bauer, Chris Gates, Charles Gossett, John Hall, William Hansell, James Keene, Robert Kipp, Ronald Loveridge, David Miller, Sylvester Murray, 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, 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, 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

II. Topics and Decisions

1. Svara's proposal: Include citizen participation in the model.
   1. Decision: The new language will go in the preamble or in commentary, but not in the charter.
   2. Suggestion: The Model should encourage sustained citizen participation. Neighborhood councils may be one way to accomplish this. In addition, NCL should assemble case material describing innovative approaches to citizen participation that would be available separately from the Model Charter.
2. Preamble
   1. Suggestion: The Model's preamble should include encouragement for citizen participation and for regional cooperation among neighboring jurisdictions.
3. Powers of the City: Should the model reflect the imperative for regional cooperation that has increased in the last fifteen years?
   1. Decision: The preamble and commentary, but not the charter itself, should address horizontal intergovernmental cooperation.
4. City Council: The Committee reviewed sections of Article II of the model, making improvements. The Committee also discussed one option memo addressing sections of this article.
   1. Decisions and changes to the text:
      1. Move Article 2.02 to Article 6, to allow committee to see if this effects a substantive change rather than just a technical change
      2. Change 2.02 (b) eligibility (regardless of which article it appears in), from "only registered voters" to "any registered voter." Use this sentence only once instead of repeating it in each alternative.
      3. Add previously approved but now clarified mayor power to 2.03: "once approved by council, assign agenda items to committees."
      4. In commentary, highlight the change to preferring staggered terms.
      5. Staggered terms with hybrid system needs to be rewritten in both forms.
         1. The at-large elections are staggered, but the district elections are not.
      6. Rewrite 2.06(b)(1) so that it reads "failure to meet the residency requirements."
      7. Rewrite 2.06(b)(3) to modernize "crime involving moral turpitude."
      8. From 2.07, strike "Decisions made by the council under this section shall be subject to judicial review."
      9. From 2.10, with regard to improving the provisions on independent audits, ask Fountain at GASB for assistance.
   2. Memo on Proportional Representation:
      1. Decision: PR stays in the model.
      2. Suggestion: Commentary should explain that proportional representation is currently not a mainstream practice, but it should point to growing interest or desirability.
5. City Manager: The Committee reviewed sections of Article III of the model, making improvements.
   1. Decisions and changes to the text:
      1. 3.01: Strike the sentence related to political neutrality.
      2. 3.04: Substitute "executive" for "administrative"; substitute "management" for "administration."
      3. Add sentence to commentary saying that city managers should not be involved in political campaigns. They should not advocate, they should not give contributions. Question raised, does this apply to nonpartisan elections as well?
      4. Commentary to 3.04: Bill Hansell and Bob Kipp have language.
6. Departments, Offices, and Agencies: The Committee reviewed sections of Article IV of the model, making improvements. The Committee also discussed Option Memos on the City Attorney and City Planning.
   1. Decisions on Option Memos and changes to the text:
      1. Option Memo on City Attorney: In section 4.03, keep three alternatives, but add language to commentary providing for hiring of ad-hoc counsel when conflicts of interest arise.
         1. Phil Schenck will provide relevant material
      2. b. Option Memo on City Planning: To section 4.04, add Jim Svara's language, as edited by committee.
7. Finance
   1. Suggestion: Ask for input from GASB, GFOA.
8. Elections and General Provisions: The Committee considered option memos on Initiative and Referendum, Campaign Finance, and Term Limits
   1. Decisions:
      1. Option Memo on Initiative and Referendum: In section 6.03, remove from brackets and bring appendix II into the commentary.
         1. Distinguish between referendum and popular referendum, as the Model currently describes the latter
      2. Option Memo on Initiative and Referendum - Signature Requirement: Research on the high and low end for signature requirements in U.S. cities, with goal being of choosing an average that keeps the requirement from being too burdensome or too relaxed.
      3. Option Memo on Initiative and Referendum - Taxation: Leave the current language unchanged.
      4. Option Memo on Campaign Finance: Article VII should have authorizing language for campaign finance, similar to the ethics authorizing language, but briefer. Language ordains that council "shall" enact disclosure and other regulations pertaining to campaign finance, without being too specific
         1. Commentary may go more in depth on the recommended regulations
      5. Option Memo on Term Limits: The Model will not provide for term limits. The Commentary will explain that it recommends against term limits.
9. Other Suggestions
   1. The Committee should address:
      1. Recall

III. Next Meeting

The next meeting will occur on Tuesday, June 11, from 1 p.m. to 8 p.m., and Wednesday, June 12, from 8:00 a.m. to 5 p.m. in Kansas City, MO, immediately preceding the All-America City Awards conference.