Charter Review Meeting
June 21, 2005

The meeting started at 8:10 a.m. with the following members being present: Karen Pletz, Dan Porrevecchio, Edie Ballweg, Terry Ward, Jack Holland, Aggie Stackhaus, Ricardo Herrera, Kelley Martin, Phil Snowden, Jim Rice, Frank Ellis, Mike White, Carolyn Vellar and Calvin Williford. Staff members present were: Bill Geary, Greg Williams, Mark Funkhouser and LaTrisha Underhill.

Terry Ward started the meeting by stating that Henry Lyons had submitted comments to the Commission and that he would make sure that those comments were shared with the members of the commission. Mary Jo Longstreth also submitted written comments since she was not able to attend the meeting. Mr. Ward also talked about the June 3rd draft prepared by staff. There were also draft revisions to the preamble.

Bill Geary added that the draft contained issues and questions raised concerning state statutes. Fifteen lawyers looked over the draft version of the Charter. Some of the conclusions and remarks may not be consistent with the recommendations from the Mayor and City Council members.

The Table of Contents was discussed first.

The Preamble was discussed. Draft copies of the Preamble were presented by Jim Rice and Aggie Stackhaus (with help from former Star journalist Jennifer H. Heineman) to the commission members. Kelley Martin said the thought that the draft presented by Mr. Rice was outstanding. Aggie Stackhaus stated that it was too wordy. Terry Ward suggested coming back to the preamble later.

On page 10, Section 103 was stricken by prior discussion.

Bill Geary stated that this was the first of several provisions that deal with people who don’t understand city government and how it is run. The draft is trying to make government run more smoothly. Senior lawyers recommended adding in several sections.

Section 206, Term of office, was being retained as originally written. The base would include no change. It was agreed that there would be no change to term limits.

Mr. Ward asked if the commission wanted to add an alternative to the 2 term limits already on the books. Did anyone want to look at Section 206 as a later document?

Kelley Martin said that the commission should offer the council the option to change the number of years now.

Mr. Ward stated that the base line for Section 206 would remain as it is written now.

Section 207, Forfeiture of office, was also discussed. According to Bill Geary, the Charter stated that an employee could not work for another government agency at the same time. The policy seemed to be inconsistent and he felt that the commission should talk about it.

Dan Porrevecchio asked if a person could be on the City Council and in the State Legislature at the same time.

Mr. Geary answered no for elected officials but thought that city employees should be able to.

Mr. Ward suggested coming back to this item at the next meeting. Meanwhile Mr. Geary’s red line version with edits should be considered. Holding other offices for city employees should be okay but not for elected officials. So the commission will look at the revisions of Section 207 for consideration. He wants to be absolutely certain about this section. Paragraph C was ok. (Editorial-rewritten).

Section 208 was unchanged. It was editorial comments only.

Section 209, Duties and authority of the Mayor, item No. 2 was stricken from the draft (Mayor would present budget to the City Council.)

There was a discussion on CEO versus CAO. The CAO would be the City Manager of the City. Contracts were to be signed by the CEO. Mr. Ward stated that according to the Charter there is no mention of a CEO.

Mr. Geary stated that the CAO is the City Manager. The 2001 draft had the Mayor seeing an increase in power and the City Manager doing grant approvals. He wasn’t sure that there was any substance to the proposal to add the title of CEO to that of Mayor.

Mr. Porrevecchio said that the form of government not the powers of government should be discussed. The existing Charter does not call for powers of government.

Mr. Ward also stated that the role of the City Manager was more of an executive operating role.

Karen Pletz suggested just leaving the section out of the draft.

Mike White asked where the word vacancy was defined in the Charter.

Mr. Geary answered that the State Constitution states the end of a term is not considered a vacancy. A death or resignation would constitute a vacancy.


Discussion continued on Section 208, Vacancy.

A question regarding Parole and Pardon under Section 209 was raised. Was it necessary to have that section in the Charter?

Frank Ellis wanted to know if there was a change to this section in 2001.

The recommendation was to leave it alone.

Section 216 (a) recommended by City Auditor to change to a term of five years.

Jim Rice said he wasn’t sure he understood why the change. He wanted to know if it was constitutionally legal to do so because it precludes council power. The council should have the appropriate opportunity to appoint a person to that position.

There was further discussion on the wording and language in section 216 (a). There was also a recommended change in the number of votes needed to remove the City Auditor from his/her position.

Phil Snowden suggested designating a qualified person to act as temporary auditor in the event a replacement is needed for that position.

Bill Geary said he would add “temporarily” to wording of assigning a replacement.

Section 217, City Clerk. The language is parallel to that of the City Auditor. Bill Geary will add “temporarily” to language.

Section 218, City Manager. It was decided to leave the section as is.

Bill Geary stated that there were some logical inconsistencies with the section regarding the City Manager. The City Manager can be suspended with or without pay.

Item B has Council added to language. Section E reflects E in June 3rd draft.

Section 219, Internal Auditor. This adds language. The City Manager can handle the Internal Auditor the same as other officers under the City Manager’s office.

Terry Ward felt that the language helped clarify the difference between the City Auditor and Internal Auditor.

Mark Funkhouser further stated that independence was an issue of the Internal Auditor. The City Manager needs an independent auditor to handle certain circumstances. But complaints should go through the Internal Auditor’s office. The circumstances determine who would handle “hot line” calls. However the Internal Auditor is not independent of the City Manager.

Councilman Alvin Brooks spoke before the commission. He thanked the commission for their service and allowing him to speak before the commission. After listening to discussion on the Internal Auditor he had a few additional comments to make. He asked that the commission pay close attention to the role of the Internal Auditor. He referred to the dismissal of a prior city prosecutor and the role of the Internal Auditor in the investigative process. However, he had no specific recommendation on the subject of the Internal Auditor.

He had three items he wanted to talk about.

The first was with the Ethics Commission. He had concerns about the status (power) of the commission. He hoped that the commission would look at the Ethics Commission as a Charter organization. There is status and stature as it relates to those who were elected but also those who serve the public here at City Hall.

The second was Recall. It gives a petitioner a right to recall at will. The person being recalled has a right to know why they are being recalled. He asked that they take a look at the language. He also stated that an individual had the right to recall but there needed to be specifics and the need to know these are the types of things that would justify a recall.

The third item was term limits. He knew why the issue of term limits was raised. At the time when the issue came up there were no term limits in place. He is not making a recommendation on term limits. He asked that the commission use their own wisdom and decide what they would like to see on the ballot in the fall.

Frank Ellis asked Mr. Brooks to help him understand what he wants to see accomplished with the Ethics Commission. Did he want to see the commission be stronger or what?

Councilman Brooks stated that it could be raised to a level that is understood by all of those who are governed by it the importance of the commission, the public trust involved, it’s higher calling.

Frank Ellis asked if there was a model someplace that expressed his sentiments of what he was trying to express.

Councilman Brooks answered that he wasn’t sure there was one but he was just trying to say that as this body reviews that let us know the importance of ethics in what we do. We just need to see what is going on. Everything is based on honesty and integrity.

Calvin Williford asked Councilman Brooks his feel on term limits. He stated that several council persons had appeared before the commission and expressed their views on term limits, going from three terms to no term limits. The mayor had recommended that the commission look at extending term limits to three consecutive terms.

Councilman Brooks stated that he was in a unique position. He had worked as a public servant for over 20 years and then ran for office in 1999. He would say at least three terms. That gives a person who is civic minded and has made his/her mark in the community and has the respect of large numbers of people, but who has never served in a political office whether it was on the school board or anything like that, to seek office. It takes a couple of years or so, maybe a full term to find out who you are and where you’re at and how you relate to this institution called City government. He would not oppose three terms. It gives a person a chance to work with his/her colleagues and civic leaders. No matter how long a person stays in office they will never complete all the projects that come their way. So, that is not a valid argument for eliminating term limits. One has to question if a person should make a career out City Council service. Term limit changes should not be self-serving. If changed, the new term limits should become effective with the next council, not this one. He wasn’t sure if he would like to see restrictions placed on the terms, whether it would be three consecutive or three life time. How the public voted would not be a problem for him.

Mike White said that some think that term limits are a bad idea. He wanted to know if there was going to be any debate at some point on this issue.

Councilman Brooks replied that the public has a duty to elect or recall. The difference between the local, state and federal government is seniority. Seniority accounts for where you serve. But that is not necessarily true at the city level. Sometimes he wonders if a person can get so rooted in the political life it becomes more difficult to be removed by the electorate than we think. That is his concern. Is it in the best interest of the city? You can run for office in the next election and be defeated.

Terry Ward thanked Councilman Brooks for coming.

The discussion resumed with page 22. Duties of City Manager.

Terry Ward asked what “right in council” meant.

Bill Geary stated that this phrase was taken out of the 2001 draft when there was discussion on changing the form of government. This is taken from the current Charter. It just means the City Manager has the same rights as department heads to take part in discussions coming before the Council in the legislative session.

Section 220. It was decided to be left as written.

Kansas City Municipal Division of the Circuit Court

There was a clarification of terms.

Page 25. (b) Duties of Commission.

(1) Submission of candidates. Added wording to this phrase. “Unless council chooses not to fill the vacancy at all”. Some of what was done last time was kept. This just makes it clear that of the three persons on the nomination list not one of those persons has the right to be acted on.

Calvin Williford asked if that meant that a simple majority of the council could eliminate a judgeship.

Bill Geary answered yes.

Section 311. It was decided to leave the section as it is.

Section 312
Bill Geary said he had one comment on this section. If you impose a duty on someone and they don’t do it you still are in a position of having to take some type of legal action. This change would require a judge who is not ready to retire but once they turn seventy they are automatically removed from office.

Dan Porrevecchio asked if a vacancy would be filled by appointment or election.

Mr. Geary said it would be appointment the same as other divisions are.

Page 28. “not eligible to retire”. Bill Geary stated that the phrase possibly meant someone who doesn’t have enough time in a position to qualify in the retirement system to draw benefits. It was suggested that the wording be changed to “not eligible for benefits (or something to that nature).

Phil Snowden asked that there be some type of clarification that a judge would not be eligible for a pension from the City, not from somewhere else.

Page 29, Departments and Offices.

(c). Delegation issues. Mr. Geary stated that the transfer of financial functions to a non-financial department was not a good idea. Neither was the transfer of legal functions to non-legal departments. Most departments have their own lawyers. Those are two restrictions that are appropriate on the delegation of powers.

Terry Ward said he had a few questions about that section. What are designated departments?

Mr. Geary said that those would be Charter Departments. Not originally in the Charter are: Aviation, Convention and Entertainment Centers, General Services and Information Technology. It would eliminate the Internal Audit as a department and be placed under the City Manager’s Office. It would become a function of the City Manager’s Office and not be a stand alone department. Section C gives the City Manager the ability to move and delegate responsibilities around. It gives the City Manager the flexibility to manage. Section D. City Council has the authority to delegate to the City Manager the ability to reorganize departments.

Dan Porrevecchio stated that he was certain that the position of the Internal Auditor was a recommendation of the Red Flag Commission and should be a department.

Aggie Stackhaus said that was recommended as a position, not a department. She was on the subcommittee for the council at the time the recommendation was made.

Dan Porrevecchio asked if the action diminished the role of that department. If Section 410 was in the current Charter why does it need to be taken out?

Bill Geary stated that the role of the Internal Auditor would be enhanced if under the control of the City Manager’s Office. Mark Funkhouser had talked about the prior form of government. We had a strong department form of government. Calling something a department in the Charter, or not, doesn’t alter the power that can be exercised by the department.

Mark Funkhouser agreed that the Internal Auditor needed to be outside the department structure.

Mr. Porrevecchio asked why Convention and Entertainment Centers and General Services were being recommended as departments.

LaTrisha Underhill said that the City Manager was thinking of what has happened in city government since the charter was written. IT has become the backbone of functions for city government. The City has consolidated all of information technology into a unit rather than being a fragmented department. LaTrisha stated that the same rationale behind Convention and Entertainment Centers as was for Aviation. The department is a big revenue maker if the manager can direct and manage funds rather than have them under control of a contraction or outsourced entity. He was thinking that the General Services Department would be more of an internal administrative function. This would be a department for divisions that don’t seem to have a logical place to be.

Mark Funkhouser agreed that there ought to be some type of general services department but it should be established by ordinance. All you want in the Charter are Finance, Law and Human Resources. You’re trying to give the City Manager more flexibility.

Jim Rice agreed with the statements being made. It seemed to him that there was an inconsistency with the requests. A department like public works has seen approximately ¾ of its services outsourced through contracts. A department like Convention and Entertainment could be outsourced. Some of these departments are truly governmental functions that look after the common good of the city and have to be handled by the core government. This discussion may be frivolous. This discussion could be done by ordinance. There needs to be a bare minimum of departments.

Kelley Martin asked what the thinking was in delegation between departments especially with Aviation not being included. He can understand Law, Finance and perhaps Human Resources but he does see a lot of opportunity for Aviation.

LaTrisha Underwood used CIMO as an example to explain the process of delegation. However, with the activities of the Aviation Department there are times when delegation specifically for capital improvements is prudent. There are still things the have to be coordinated with the City and the Aviation Department. Most cities have their Aviation Department as being a huge revenue generator. The City Manager would still have the flexibility with these departments even if they were not Charter Departments.

Dan Porrevecchio said that the purpose of the commission was to look at the Charter and streamline the departments and not to additional ones. He suggested using that thought for consideration as the commission was going through the list of departments.

Edie Ballweg proposed that the commission stay with that thought and go down the list of departments in the red line version and recommend the departments that are in regular text and let the council go ordinance on the others. It would be: Finance, Fire, Health, Human Resources, Law, Parks & Recreation, Public Works and Water Services.

Dan Porrevecchio stated that he would like to debate whether you really needed anything other than Law, Human Resources and Finance.

The commission members were of the consensus that there should only be the three departments in the Charter.

Terry Ward expressed his concerns about eliminating certain departments. Not only getting rid of the departments but the responsibilities that go with those departments. Was there agreement that if a department isn’t spelled out in the charter, then we can get rid of all the paragraphs covering the departmental responsibilities disappear? The goal is flexibility then we have some restraints on some of these. The options are we can take those responsibilities that are currently delineated by that department and go silent. Or we can take those responsibilities and place them somewhere else. How do you eliminate the department and retain the preceding paragraphs that explain what that department was supposed to do? You have got to do something with that.

Frank Ellis stated that he thought that the commission had lost sight of their purpose with this section. He thought the commission had decided their role would be framed on four things: Efficiency, bringing government closer to the people, accountability/transparency and checks and balances. They had talked about flexibility and efficiency but there has been no discussion on bringing government closer to the people, accountability /transparency or checks and balances. There are fundamental principals that we’ve always had in the commission with regard to any discussion we’ve had. It now seems to be that the commission is tilting more towards efficiency rather than getting the other three things that the commission had framed most important. He failed to see what discussion on department that is required by Charter versus ordinances has to do with getting closer to government, getting checks and balances. Those were just his observations.

Jim Rice talked about symbolism. Public Works could be considered a core staff function. It was important to say that everyone has a right to safe streets or health. The City is dedicated to the fundamental basic functions of government. He agreed with Frank on the direction the discussion was going.

Terry Ward referred to the rewriting that went on. There is nothing in the Charter that precluded the City Manager from creating the underlined departments referred to in the draft. He talked about the department requirements. He stated that if all the commission did was retain the non-underlined departments and descriptions of responsibility for the non-underlined departments then the City Manager has full flexibility to create the underlined departments by ordinance. It goes with the flexibility to create departments like CIMO or anything else. He wasn’t sure that those departments needed to be specified in the Charter.

Mike White said that he would like to delete the underlined. He asked to have Water Services deleted as well.

Karen Pletz seconded Mike White’s suggestion Mike White to delete the departments.

Mark Funkhouser stated that dozens of ways to create the departmental responsibilities. There are lots of cities that don’t have anything described in their charter. They have departments but they are not charter departments. Some are also considered divisions.

Jim Rice said that he was satisfied with the motion Mike White made that Karen seconded. That was assuming that the commission was working towards a consensus. He remarked on a statement made by Ms. Underhill about the city owning the curbs and sidewalks. He would like Bill Geary to talk to the commission at a later date about infrastructure and assessments.

Terry Ward stated that there was a motion to specify in the Charter that the following departments would be Charter Departments: 3. Finance; 4. Fire; 6. Health; 7. Human Resources; 9. Law; 10. Parks and Recreation; and 11. Public Works was on the table and had been seconded. The vote was unanimous to add the departments as Charter Departments.

Frank Ellis announced that Mr. Funkhouser was right regarding the National League of Cities’ Model Charter. According to that charter, “The City Council may establish any department, office or agency in addition to those established by the Charter at any time.” The model charter did not have any departmental delineation in it.

Section 402. Rulemaking authority.

Phil Snowden thought that it was understood that the director already had the authority specified in the section.

Bill Geary said that the change was “any other employee”.

There was a brief discussion on how to change the wording of the sentence to make it read smoother.

Bill Geary suggested changing the words to say “with permission of other department directors”, which seemed more appropriate.

Terry Ward stated that based on the previous discussion the recommendation was to remove Sections 406 – Aviation and 407 – Convention and Entertainment Centers.

Section 408. Finance. The change was to remove purchasing from Finance and move it to General Services. The change would eliminate item no. 5.

Karen Pletz said that she would like to see “issuance and management of debt” be added as one of the duties.

Terry Ward stated that there had been testimony at the previous meeting from the Finance Department and the City Auditor regarding this issue and they endorsed the language shown, the existing language.

Karen Pletz replied that the issuance and management of debt was such a core function and duty of the Finance Department that it should delineated in the Charter.

Mike White said that Section 807 addressed the issue. This was specifically addressed at the last meeting by the City Treasurer representing the Finance Department and the City Auditor. They were in consensus that the issue was addressed in three areas of the Charter.

Frank Ellis suggested letting the Finance Department be responsible for overseeing debt.

Karen Pletz said that she would make a motion to add language.

The motion was seconded. Mr. Ward said that the motion was to add the responsibility to the Finance Department.

The motion was voted on and passed. The final language would be reviewed at the next meeting.

Section 409. Fire. It was decided to leave this section as it is.

Section 410. General Services. This section is struck from the draft.

Section 411. Health.

Under Enforced Laws it was suggested earlier that “or acts of terrorism” be added.

Bill Geary recommended striking births and deaths. The state performs that function. It can be put in the Charter but if the State decides to change the amount it charges for the certificates it could do us more harm than good. It was suggested that this be removed because it was a state function and something that we do voluntarily.

Terry Ward stated that the commission had a copy of the red line version of Section 411. He wanted to know if anyone objected to the red line version. There were no objections.

Section 412. Human Resources.

Dan Porrevecchio asked about having some type of wording regarding performance standards added to the section. It would be a good idea to put it someplace in the Charter.

Aggie Stackhaus said that she had worked on a pay equity policy committee to establish performance standards and annual reviews. So, is the request that performance reviews be codified in the charter?

Terry Ward reviewed what the changes were under this section. There were changes to classification positions, performance standards, eligibility requirements and so forth. There was no change to number 3. Number 8 regards wording on recommendations to the City Manager. This was more of an editorial change.

Section 413. Information Technology. The decision was to leave this section as it is.

Section 414. Law. There was a change to the duties of the Law Department.

Mr. Ward stated that there was a provision added that referred to review of initiative petitions. Several options were discussed and the commission chose to add responsibility to the Law Department regarding review of the petition. Makes it possible for the Law Department to review the petition but does not change the petition process.

Change in (d). The City Attorney can handle assistant city attorneys as regular employees the same way as other departments.

Bill Geary said it was a recognition issue. Assistant City Attorneys don’t set policy. That had been an issue.

Section 415. Parks and Recreation. The changes shown in the draft are approved.

Section 416, Public Works.

Bill Geary stated that this makes Public Works a default department for everything that needs done. It allows the City Manager to accept those duties. There needs to be a default to do jobs (functions) which are not assigned anywhere.

Section 417. Water Services. It was decided to leave section as it is.

Section 418. Additional departments. It was decided to leave this section as it is.

Page 41. Ordinances and Resolutions

Sections: 501 and 502. It was decided to leave these sections as they are.
Section 503.

Bill Geary stated that the language needs to be declared in the best interest of the City. Language has to be set out in the preamble (title) of the ordinance or resolution.

Jim Rice asked about the “best interest of the city” in case of declaring an emergency.

Bill Geary said that it has to be defined in the title and explained why it is an emergency.

Section 503 (2B) was deleted.

Section 504. It was decided to leave the section as it is.

Page 45 – It was decided to leave the section as it is.

Page 46 – Item No. 3 eliminates where signatures need to come from with a referendum.

Section 602 meets state statutes.

Page 47 –Top of page. Terry Ward had a question about having a primary ballot with a stand alone primary election.

Bill Geary said it was just wording. If you have an election that coincides with a school board election it is still an election. Actually, by law, a ballot may include several elections, each coming from a different jurisdiction.

It was decided to leave this section as it is.

Page 48 – Election dates. These can’t be changed. State statutes define election date. You would have to go before the state legislature with recommendations for changing.

Terry Ward stated that April was the only option because the City would be operating on the Grandfather premise.

Jack Holland suggested adding the change and “add by change of state statute”.


Initiative, Referendum and Recall. All the old provisions of the 2001 proposed charter amendment have been deleted. Pages 48-59 former recommendations (2001 recommendations) – This section is now a direct lift out of the existing charter.

The initiatives retained the 5%, but not 5% per council district.

Referendum retains existing process as it is.

Recall shows provisions as presented. There is no requirement for showing cause of a recall.

Bill Geary said currently there needs to be a statement made of why the recall is requested.

Kelley Martin asked for more comments from the Law Department.

Jim Rice said he agreed with Mr. Brooks about frivolous recall attempts.

Mike White stated that he didn’t like the fact that for an incumbent to hold office required getting 50% of the total vote, while someone elected in a recall election could hold office with a vote of less than 10% of the voters in favor.

Terry Ward asked if the commission was comfortable about leaving the word “cause” out of the recommendation.

Frank Ellis suggested adding the issue to the “special issue documents” to be reviewed for some future election.

Two points of interest: Cause and the number of votes.

Pages 63-65. It was decided to leave these section as they are.

Pages 65-68 Section 730, Signatures to petitions. Changes are for clarification purposes only.

Section 801. Fiscal year.

Bill Geary stated that all organizations are funded by fiscal year. To change to a calendar year it would take several years to implement all of the necessary changes.

Dan Porrevecchio stated that the change would allow the city to be run more efficiently.

Section 802. Method of accounting. The wording was changed to be responsive to any future changes to the method of accounting at the state level.

Section 803. Annual budget requests.

A change in Section a. should be submitted to the City Manager, not the Mayor.

Sections 804-806. It was decided to leave these sections as they are.

Section 807. Debt Policy. Change wording from Use to Issuance.

Sections 811-812. It was decided to leave these sections as they are.

Section 813. Earnings and Profits tax. Leave this alone. Let the council decide what they want to do about tax issues.

The next meeting was announced for July 8, 2005. Mr. Ward felt that it should be expanded to a 4 hour session.

Bill Geary said that recommendations had gone too far. The changes put things back. It added back what currently exists in the Charter. It restores C, D, & E of existing Charter.

Sections 814 & 818 go together. These deal with special assessment abatements. Mr. Ward said that the language was that which was proposed in 2001. In section 818 “unless otherwise provided by law” was added to section.

Section 831. Issuing bonds. Judgment bonds (need to be more explicit). It is also eliminating restrictions on how long a period General Obligation Bonds can run.

Discussion will start with Section 836 at the July 8th meeting.

Bill Geary listed the Preamble, term limits, recall and the Parks Department request (modified funding) as items to be addressed.

Frank Ellis stated that he would support putting the four items on as separate issues.

Terry Ward asked that he be sent e-mails regarding any issues that may come up before the next meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 12:00 noon.