|
|
Charter Review Commission Meeting
February 25, 2005 minutes
The following commission members were present: Terry Ward, Alice Ellison, Frank Ellis, Carolyn Vellar, Edie Ballweg, Ricardo Herrera, Tom Brown, Joseph Moreland, Jim Rice, Aggie Stackhaus, Kelley Martin, Dan Porrevecchio, Phil Snowden, and Mark Thornhill. Staff members present were: Greg Williams, Mayor’s Office, Mark Funkhouser, City Auditor, Millie Crossland, City Clerk, LaTrisha Underwood, City Manager’s Office and Galen Beaufort, City Attorney.
Mr. Ward stated that there were two items to be discussed during the meeting: Announcements and review of the proposed Charter changes.
Introductions of commission members were made for the benefit of members not present at the last meeting. Mr. Ward reviewed the meeting dates with the commission. The guest speakers at the next meeting, March 4, 2005 would be Mayor Kay Barnes and City Manager Wayne Cauthen. The City Council members would determine when they want to appear before the commission.
There were three items that required additional discussion: 1. Forms of government (structure of the organization, term limits to be included), 2. Initiative, Referendum, and Recall and 3. Specify Departments.
In order for any recommendations to be adopted, the commission is going to need the support of the council. One important goal is to get the City Council more involved with the commission and its goals.
The commission should have 8 to 10 meetings that need to be held to 2 hours. Otherwise the commission will not be through by the extended completion date. It is the intent of the commission to start the task at the base of output of the last commission and leave decisions where they were and review what was recommended. There will also be a need for new ideas since the proposed charter didn’t pass the last time.
Alice Ellison wanted to know what the key strategy was or the main approach to promoting the charter changes?
According to Mr. Ward, the commission was advised by Bill Geary that they must remain neutral. He also suggested that during the course of conducting public hearings to try to get council members from each council district to attend the meetings. Mr. Ward also stated that he intended to visit each standing committee of the council. Channel 2 will also be broadcasting the meetings that are being held on the 26th and 10th floors.
Kelley Martin asked if the commission members were allowed to speak before groups, if invited.
Mr. Ward stated that it was okay to respond to requests for appearing before neighborhood organizations. Members were allowed to tell groups what the commission is doing. He also suggested doing a follow-up after recommendations had been made to the council to let groups know what those recommendations were.
Galen Beaufort interjected that there was an educational component question. Members need to bring facts and situations to the Law staff for review before speaking to groups.
Frank Ellis asked about “Rules of Communicating”. During the last commission sessions, the spokesman was the chair of the commission. Officially or unofficially, who is responsible for answering questions about the work of the commission? He recommended that the chair continue in the same role as the last chair. By consensus it was agreed that all persons requesting official comment from the Commission should be directed to the chair. Mr. Ward agreed to perform that role. The Law Department will lead provide counsel to the commission to assure legal compliance.
Frank Ellis also suggested that using national guidelines would be of benefit. The tone of discussion would be set if information could be made available through Channel 2.
Galen Beaufort started the discussion going over the highlights of proposed changes to the charter.
Kelley Martin asked that there be some discussion on items for the benefit of the new members.
Mr. Beaufort began with an overview of the City Charter. He also explained that the previous commission was attempting to streamline the charter by taking out archaic rules. Because Kansas City is a constitutional city, state statute allows citizens to decide what they want done in the city. He would specify changes made by the city council to the recommendations. He also suggested to the commission that they need to make sure that people know that Kansas City is a constitutional charter city.
Mr. Ward said that one attempt of the commission was to bring charter into compliance with state statutes.
The following recommendations were made regarding whether to revisit an item or continue to the next item.
Annexation-description was taken out of charter.
Branches of government – revisit this one, clear lines of accountability needs to be established.
Mark Thornhill asked about Municipal Court and circuit court of Jackson County, Municipal Division.
Mr. Beaufort explained the difference and gave a brief history of the Municipal Court and how it came under the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Jackson County. While the presiding judge of Jackson County is the supervisor for Municipal Court judges and has the power to instruct judges in the day-to-day operations, the City pays the salary of the judges. There is also a different Judicial Nominating Committee for judges.
Mr. Ward explained that the Municipal Court judges still fell under a judicial branch and it still operated separately from city government.
Edie Ballweg suggested revisiting this item after looking at the National model.
Structure of Council – it was decided that the current system worked.
Redistricting – intent was to make sections reflect federal laws. Mr. Beaufort would work with Bill Geary on this item and refer it back to the commission.
Kelley Martin asked for a definition of “unlawful differences”. Again Mr. Beaufort would discuss this item with Bill Geary and refer it back to the commission.
Qualifications – A short discussion of this item revealed that the Civic Council had issues about this item. Greg Williams stated that he thought that the issues with the Civic Council dealt with PILOTS and Bonding. He would review the memos sent from citizens and community groups.
Forfeiture of Salary – no to this item.
Term of Office - Alice Ellison stated that the subcommittees had feedback at community hearings. Let the people decide what the want as far as number of terms in office. This item would be revisited.
Term Limits – related to Term of Office. There will be more discussion on this item.
Kelley Martin made a statement before the commission. He would not be attending the March 18th meeting and he wanted to let the commission how he stood on the issue. He supported more than 2 terms. He felt that a person should be able to service a total of 5 to 6 terms (council and mayor combined).
Mayor as CEO and Mayor to submit a budget – Mayor Barnes is scheduled to appear before the commission on March 4, 2005.
Mr. Ward stated that after the Mayor has made her presentation they could decide on how to proceed with this item. This item would be revisited.
Greg Williams talked about the budget process and responsibility of the City Manager in that process. Discuss this item with the Mayor during her presentation.
Mayor on Parole and Pardons – there was a need to clean up items that dealt with the charter.
Council meetings – the City Council sets their own schedule. This includes any evening meetings that need to be held. Meetings are televised on Channel 2.
City Auditor protects the auditor from political influence.
City Manager – this item was held until after the City Manager appears before the commission. This item will be revisited.
Municipal Court – Housing Court- The question of why it was in the charter came up. Was it necessary to be in the charter? Mark Thornhill suggested coming back to this item. Dan Porrevecchio stated that he would like to see something that allowed the city to operate effectively and efficient and revisit this item.
Pay and compensation for judges – tried to match state laws.
Retirement system – no.
Administrator of Municipal Court – revisit this issue.
Departments – revisit this issue. It was suggested that the commission talk to the City Manager about this item.
Amendment of Ordinance – this was considered a change in efficiency.
Reading of Ordinances –wanted to change from 3 readings to 2. Don’t need 3.
Filing periods for elections – tried to make dates consistent with other elections being held. The commission was also trying to save the city money on elections whose timeframes were held so close together.
An item of discussion that was not on the agenda included what to do about the Parks and Recreation department. – After long discussion and many public hearings the recommendation was to leave it alone.
Initiative, Referendum and Recall – the intent was to try to make citizens more responsible for actions taken under these categories. This item needs to be revisited.
Budget and Financial Procedures – needs to be revisited. The method of accounting and earnings tax were just clean-up items that did not need to be revisited.
Issuing Bonds – revisit this item.
Required audits – this was an attempt to bring this item into compliance.
Purchasing issues/Contracts – need to be revisited.
Human Resources –administrative issues. Joseph Moreland would look into this issue to see if it needs to be revisited.
Compensation is set by the City Council. It was recommended that the commission let City Council handle this item.
Boards and Commissions – this was a clean-up item. The commission attempted to make clarification on duties.
Payments in lieu of taxes – this item needs to be revisited. The Civic Council had questions about the PILOTs programs. The question of the Water Department revenues coming back to the City was raised. There had been a recommendation that the City Council had the ability to regulate the Water Department revenues.
Kelley Martin stated that an area not added dealt with was the separation between church and state.
Mr. Ward replied that the Federal and State laws already take care of this issue. The commission does not want to re-write more laws. Unless there is a need for a new law the commission needs to stay out of it.
Carolyn Vellar suggested reviewing the National League of Cities’ Model.
Dan Porrevecchio reminded everyone that the reason for the commission originally was to create a document that would last for the ages. The commission needs to create a framework for future generations.
The next meeting has been scheduled for March 4, 2005, City Council Chamber, 26th floor.
The meeting adjourned at 10:10 a.m.
|
|
