|
|
Charter Review Commission Meeting
April 1, 2005
The meeting started at 8:07 a.m. and was attended by Edie Ballweg, Tom Brown, Ricardo Herrera, Dan Porrevecchio, Terry Ward, Mary Jo Longstreth, Alice Ellison, Carolyn Vellar, Aggie Stackhaus, Mike White, Phil Snowden and Mark Thornhill. Staff members present were Bill Geary, Law Department; Greg Williams, Mayor’s Office; LaTrisha Underwood, City Manager’s Office and Millie Crossland, City Clerk.
Terry Ward referred to the lateness of the minutes for the prior week and assured the commission that future minutes would be received in a timely manner. He referred to the calendar agenda before the commission. Between May 6th and May 26th there will be meetings to get input from various communities. He wanted to know if everyone felt that there would be enough materials for discussion in the decision making process. The discussions will begin on April 26th. The initiative process had significant discussion but the commission would come back to the item. Mr. Ward would ask Greg to put together a schedule for the community meetings. He would also try to get a council person for each district to attend the community meetings. The meetings will be scheduled for weekday evenings or 10:00 a.m. on Saturday mornings between May 6th and 26th .
The topic of discussion was to be the three branches of government. Charter Departments (what is and isn’t there) would also be discussed.
According to Mr. Ward during the previous commission hearings, the commission divided into subcommittees and met with department heads and discussed the operation of the various Charter departments. (A spreadsheet showing the established city departments and offices was distributed to the commission. The recommendations of the 2001 commission and current status and how the department was established were shown.)
Bill Geary talked about the departments that are specified in the Charter and those that are currently in place. The proposed eliminations and consolidations were discussed. An ordinance passed by council allowed the City Manager to restructure departments. There was a brief discussion regarding the Neighborhood and Community Services Department Director not wanting to be a Charter Department. According to Mr. Geary the budget reflected changes recommended by the City Manager.
Tom Brown asked why the commission should bother to recommend changes if they can already by done by the City Manager?
Mr. Geary stated that changes were for ordinance established departments only. There are still departments under the charter. The questions of: Can the city eliminate charter departments? Can the City Manager use discretion? Can the City Council use discretion? The questions have to be answered.
Mr. Brown asked who would be making recommendations on which way the commission should go.
Mr. Ward stated that the City Manager would be getting back within the month with recommendations for changes.
LaTrisha Underwood explained that department heads have submitted possible changes to the City Manager for review. He should be getting back with the commission within the next two weeks.
Aggie Stackhaus stated that she would not have charter departments. She would make document for more flexible. In its current form, the document is very difficult to work with.
Phil Snowden suggested waiting for recommendations from the City Manager before deciding what to do about changes.
Mike White talked about the process the Jackson County Legislature used when making changes to their charter. The legislator had to make sure that the changes were not going against or were in conflict with the State Constitution or State Statutes.
Mr. Ward asked for opinions of whether the commission went far enough with its prior recommendations. He also suggested that the commission make sure that the City Manager and Mayor have a more defined oversight with recommendations.
Mr. Thornhill asked if contractors and vendors would expect to see a more established structure of departments than what possible proposed changes could eliminate.
Mr. Ward stated that the charter could be an encumbrance to contractors. The Charter is an inefficient document for managing city operations.
A brief discussion of CIMO (Capital Improvements Management Office) followed. CIMO is responsible for overseeing capital improvements whose funding has already been allocated.
Mr. Ward agreed that the commission should wait for the City Manager’s recommendations. He also suggested asking department heads to make a presentation before the commission. He would be working with Bill Geary and Greg Williams and coming back with a different framework, maybe something more streamlined. The commission needs to think and talk in the concrete and not the abstract. The City Manager ought to be able to manage. The framework would be a skeleton from which to work, not recommendations. Once the City Manager has made a presentation on his recommendations and they have been drafted then the commission should be able to move forward with considering those.
Three Branches of Government
Mr. Geary stated that the 2001 commission recommended Section 103. Branches of Government be added to the proposed Charter. He believed that section represented a misleading statement. The Judicial branch of the City deals with ordinances of the City. If the section was deleted from the recommendations there would be no effect on the recommendations.
The commission agreed to eliminate Section 103 from the recommendations.
Mr. Geary continued with answers to six separate issues he was asked to address during the last meeting. (Handout on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
- The first had to do with the changes when the form of government in Kansas City, Ks. consolidated with Wyandotte County. According to Mr. Geary the form of government was dissimilar to what Kansas City had before or after the consolidation.
- What would be the impact of periodic redistricting in electing a Mayor and members of Council? There will be a need to come back and discuss this further. This would not be an issue in 2007 but would be one in 2011. He urged the commission to study this area very closely.
- Can term limits be changed by made effective after the next election? According to Mr. Geary term limits can be changed after the 2007 election.
- What are other jurisdictions doing with regards to the initiative process? Twenty-four states allow for initiatives.
- What language can be offered to clarify the proposed rule for geographic balance? Of the 24 states, 9 have specific requirements.
- Should initiative petition review be voluntary?
Mark Thornhill asked for clarification on initiative petitions (concerning sponsors of petitions). He asked about a situation where the legal review was voluntary but a citizen wanted to question the legality of an initiative petition. This posed an interesting dilemma. If the law department decided the petition was not legal, then what was the force of their decision?
Regarding the committee of petitions, who comes to the city attorney for counsel?
Terry Ward suggested changing wording from mandatory to optional.
Bill Geary stated that the Law Department would answer questions about the petition but would not write or give a legal opinion.
Mark Thornhill and Tom Brown agreed that the mandatory review should be the recommendation.
Phil Snowden felt that it should be reviewed by the Law Department.
Edie Ballweg suggested looking at the item again.
Terry Ward asked Bill Geary to draft something on voluntary review (Mark’s issue). Also look into alternatives.
Councilman Troy Nash appeared before the commission. He thanked the commission for inviting him to speak before the group. He also thanked them for their commitment to the task at hand. He stated that he would like to see the Charter as a document that was more relevant to the current times. The City Manager has no discretion with the current Charter. The city now has a City Manager who is pro-active and is in the process of streamlining operations. He would like to see something that would allow the City Manager more flexibility. Currently there is duplication of services and a great deal of money being wasted.
As with the discussion on initiatives, Councilman Nash felt that the citizens should have the right to bring forth a petition as easy as possible. The process allows citizens to participate in the democratic process.
Councilman Nash doesn’t like term limits. He believes that the democratic process will prevail when picking leaders for the city.
Mike White asked if Councilman Nash was in favor of eliminating term limits.
Councilman Nash answered yes.
Phil Snowden agreed that he was against term limits but citizens voted on it the last time. He asked what would be a realistic number or what was doable for him.
Councilman Nash explained that he was in favor of eliminating limits all together. There was no number. He asked the commission to look at their recommendations independent of what they might feel that the council wants and make recommendations based on their feelings and beliefs. The council would abide by the will of the people.
Mr. Ward talked about the recommendations of the commission being changed by the council after they were submitted the last time. The reality of the matter is the commission wants to know that the work they perform won’t be dramatically changed by the council. The document that went before the voters was drastically changed from what was recommended. Nor was it embraced by the council. If the commission were to come out with a recommendation of three terms could Councilman Nash embrace that issue?
Councilman Nash’s response was to say who is to say the number of terms is right when talking about term limits. It should be left to the will of the voters.
Aggie Stackhaus stated that the commission needed to make the Charter more efficient. The current council would decide what recommendations to accept. She asked Councilman Nash if he thought that the question of term limits would pass during an election.
Councilman Nash thought that voters would be receptive to voting on term limits. Voters can decide when its time to vote a better qualified candidate into office.
Dan Porrevecchio also stated that people should decide who they want to represent them. He asked if the break in service, as suggested, would help.
Councilman Nash answered no. The experience that an elected official gains during the second term overrides the first term. The first term allows you to get acquainted with what is expected of you. But the second term lets you draw on the experiences of the first term. You lose power and input to do a better job with a break in service.
Mr. Porrevecchio asked if Councilman Nash thought that voters would approve no term limits today.
Councilman Nash answered yes. If you look at the things that are happening in this city today you see progress. People can see what is happening and he thinks that people are receptive to the progress in the city.
Edie Ballweg asked for Councilman Nash’s thoughts on how to group ballot items. Would it be helpful to cluster items differently?
Councilman Nash suggested separating controversial items out. Create circumstances that voters can identify with. Put controversial items closer to the top of the ballot.
Mr. Ward suggested that no more than six issues be placed on the ballot. He asked if Councilman Nash could accept that.
Councilman Nash replied that he didn’t want the commission to approach the document on what they think the Council will do. Don’t try to create the perfect document. The council clearly understands their role in this. The Council would like to know what the commission thinks. The Council wants the commission to use their best judgment.
Mr. Ward thanked Councilman Nash for attending. He informed the councilman that the commission would be having community meetings and was invited to attend. The next meeting would be April 15th and the agenda included Housing Court.
The meeting adjourned at 9:57 a.m.
|
|
