Model City Charter Revision Project - Eighth Edition

Minutes of Model Cities Charter Panel at NASPAA Conference, October 26, 2001

October 28, 2001

Submitted by John Nalbandian, University of Kansas

A half dozen conference attendees joined Bill Schechter (NCL), and academic members of the committee: Charles Gossett, David Miller, John Nalbandian, and David Schultz.

Discussion centered on issues the Model City Charter Revision committee should address.

• Role of mayor in council-manager cities
• Form itself and whether there should be variations for size
• Intergovernmental issues like where a school district is involved
• Role of citizen advisory groups
• Relations with large enterprise funds
• Weakened legislatures
• Regional/metro areas
• Diversity issues
• Campaign finance and other ethical issues
• Changing revenue bases-implications for charter
• Impact of previous models on existing politics
• Can we anticipate future problems and address them rather than making the next model(s) a response to past and current issues?
• Unitary versus separation of powers
• Accessibility of the charter-on line? Including information from cities nationwide relevant to various aspects of the model charter. Maybe a best practices section?
• Use of the charter, including use by state governments that legislate forms of local government
• Does charter serve very small and very large cities?
• How should be address technology that has made decentralization of decisions to citizens more feasible?

Of these, the following seemed to be consensus issues:

• How is and should the model be used? Who should use it and for what purposes?
• How can the model be made more accessible and examples from cities nationwide about various provisions be provided? Can charters be made accessible through an NCL Model City web site?
• The city as a freestanding entity is not appropriate in metro areas. Intergovernmental issues both horizontal and vertical may have to be addressed for contemporary relevance
• The emphasis on community and creative ways of engaging citizens should be addressed as a question of government structure/process
• A key question is whether a jurisdiction chooses a unitary form or a separation of powers. Pros and cons should be discussed and models (with variations) could be developed for each path.

Comments:

• Can we have a "model" when we recognize that charter reform is the product of diverse political interests?
• Are there issues that every charter reform committee can be expected to confront and for which NCL should gather information?
• Can NCL collect charters that might be made accessible on line?
• Should the NCL charter revision committee divide into committees to accomplish its work?

Action:

When there is something substantive from the committee, it should be distributed to NASPAA schools for comment. Among NASPAA schools are many faculty who have participated in charter reform efforts. Nalbandian will be responsible for this.