Charter Revision Commission Meetings

Minutes Charter Revision Commission Meeting Monday, August 26, 2019 at 3:30 PM Carnegie Town Hall, 235 West 10th St., Sioux Falls, SD 57104 1. Call To Order Commission Members Present: Anne Hajek, Pauline Poletes, Justin Smith, Robert Thimjon, Carl Zylstra Commission Members Absent: None Commission Chair Justin Smith called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes A. Meeting of July 18, 2019 A motion was made by Commission Member Zylstra and seconded by Commission Member Poletes to approve the minutes. Voice vote to approve. 5 Yes: Hajek, Poletes, Smith, Thimjon, Zylstra; 0 No: (None). Motion Passed. 3. Old Business A. Public Input – Time Limits and the Placement of Items on the Agenda under New Business A motion was made by Commission Member Hajek and seconded by Commission Member Poletes to specify the process for adding new business items by requiring the requestor to: 1) identify the specific charter section to which the proposal is directed; 2) to provide evidentary documentation to support the proposal; and 3) to provide such request and documentation to the City Attorney's Office or Commission Chair at least seven days prior to the scheduled meeting. Hajek noted that the motion is intended to best prepare Members and the public of upcoming agenda items. This procedure will provide for a deliberate process by which new business items from non-members are placed on the agenda. Smith explained that this process is important because there is no time limit to new business items; advance notice of new business items will provide for a more efficient use of time available. Commission Member Carl Zylstra concurred that the process will provide for greater transparency to all involved. Voice vote to specifiy the process for adding new business items. 5 Yes: Hajek, Poletes, Smith, Thimjon, Zylstra; 0 No: (None). Motion Passed.  A motion was made by Commission Member Hajek and seconded by Commission Member Thimjon to establish rules for Public Input by allowing speakers to provide public input for up to five minutes during the Public Input portion of the agenda. It was noted that the various citizen boards and commissions typically establish a five or three minute time limit. The City Council, however, provides for three minutes per person for a period not to exceed 30 minutes. A motion was made by Commission Member Hajek and seconded by Commission Member Thimjon to amend the motion to establish rules for Public Input by setting a time limit of three minutes per speaker and limiting the total time for the public input portion of the agenda to 30 minutes. Voice vote to amend. 5 Yes: Hajek, Poletes, Smith, Thimjon, Zylstra; 0 No: (None). Motion Passed. B. Charter Article VIII – Charter Amendment, Section 8.01(d) – Proposal of amendment Amendments to this charter may be framed and proposed: (d) By the voters of the city, when any 15 qualified voters initiate proceedings to amend the charter by filing with the city clerk an affidavit stating they will constitute the petitioners’ committee and be responsible for circulating the petition and filing it in proper form, stating their names and addresses and specifying the address to which all notices to the committee are to be sent, and setting out in full the proposed charter amendment. Promptly after the affidavit of the petitioners’ committee is filed the clerk shall issue the appropriate petition blanks to the petitioners’ committee. The petitions shall contain or have attached thereto throughout their circulation the full text of the proposed charter amendment and must be signed by registered voters of the city in the number of at least 5 percent of the total number of registered voters at the last regular city election. At the previous Commission meeting of July 18, 2019, Zylstra asked the City Attorney to investigate two questions: 1) is there a conflict between the Constitution of the State of South Dakota and the Sioux Falls City Charter regarding number of valid signatures required to place a charter amendment on the ballot, and 2) if there had ever been an effort to amend the Charter in Sioux Falls under the provisions of Charter Section 8.01(d). City Attorney Stacy Kooistra noted there is no record of any effort to amend the charter pursuant to Charter Section 8.01(d). He then noted that South Dakota Codified Law 6-12-5 does not allow home rule charter municipalities to set standards and requirements which are lower or less stringent than those imposed by state law. Accordingly, and because the Charter signature requirement is lower than that of the Constitution, the City is required to follow the stricter standard prescribed by the State Constitution. C. Power of Charter Revision Commission to Propose Alternate Form of Government and How Extensive of an Amendment Would be Necessary  At the previous meeting of July 18, 2019, the City Attorney was asked to research how extensive an amendment to the Charter may be proposed by the Charter Revision Commission. City Attorney Stacy Kooistra explained the differences between municipalities organized under Title 9 of State Law (aldermanic, commission, and city- manager forms of government) and those formed under Article 9, Section 2 of the Constitution and Title 6 of State Law. Ultimately, the Commission has the latitude to make substantive changes to the City's structure of government because the Constitution allows home rule charters great flexibility in choosing the form of executive, legislative, and administrative structure. D. List of Formal Recommendations for Revision to the Sioux Falls Charter to be Maintained (The items on this list will be addressed at a future meeting and will be placed on the relevant Agenda at that time) Smith noted the list of formal recommendations and reminded the public that there were some similarlities between Mr. Kirby's proposals and Mr. Matthius' proposals. As Smith noted during the meeting of July 18, 2019, he encouraged Mr. Matthius to indicate whether three of his proposals would be satisfied under Mr. Kirby's proposals. 4. New Business A. Charter Article VI - Elections Commission Member Robert Thimjon noted that Section 6.01 does not include any reference to the method of election for council members or the mayor, but at least two citizen proposals recommend a plurality in Article II, City Council. Hajek asked whether the omission of the term "state" before "law" in several section of Article VI posed a challenge that required clarification. Zylstra also noted that the model charter most typically uses "Laws of the State" opposed to the more general "laws." Kooistra explained that as a general principle, simply referring to "law" is not problematic, particularly because federal laws may also impact the conduct of elections or other provisions such as districting. Nominating signature requirements for the mayor were discussed. Presently, the Charter requires 200 valid signatures for placement on the ballot. Hajek noted that this may have been a suitable number when the Charter was first passed, particularly because the City was not as populous. She asked if the number of signatures should be reevaluated to reflect a percentage of residents or something similar. Smith noted that the current threshold to obtain placement on the ballot does not appear to be too low because in the recent past some potential candidates were unable to collect 200. No formal recommendation was made. Hajek asked why Section 6.02(b)(1) addresses political parties when the City provides for elections without party affiliation. Thimjon explained this is a result of federal law regarding voting rights and other related court decisions because it involves redistricting. The bipartisan composition of the Districting  Commission provides for a more equitable distribution of residents within the districts. The question was raised about the steps to be taken if a petition filed in Circuit Court pursuant to Section 6.02(c)(5) leads to a rejection of the plan proposed by the Districting Commission. The Charter appears to identify only the process if the court finds a plan sufficent. City Attorney Kooistra was asked to research the question; it will be an agenda item at the next meeting. No formal recommendations were made for Article VI. B. Charter Article V – Financial Procedures Paragraph 5.12(b) City Council Action on Capital Program, was discussed in detail. Zylstra noted the paragraph does not provide for actions that may occur should the council fail to adopt the capital program by September 30. This contrasts with Section 5.06(c) in that if the council fails to adopt the budget by September 30, the budget proposed by the mayor shall go into effect. Hajek suggested there is a distinction between the budget and the capital program and Zylstra agreed the distinction may lie in the fact that the budget is an appropriation. The City Attorney and Finance Director were asked to research the topic and provide the Commission with a summary of the differences between the budget and the capital program. The Commission would then be able to consider whether or not prescribed actions for failure to adopt the capital program be proposed as an amendment to the Charter. No formal recommendations were made for Article V. C. Charter Article IV – Departments, Offices, and Agencies Zylstra noted that a previously-submitted citizen proposal included making the City Attorney an elected official. Discussion continued about the mayor's ability to terminate the City Attorney, specifically at the conclusion of a mayor's term and if a "term" in this context is four years or eight if the mayor is reelected. Hajek and Smith believed the Charter is clear in allowing the mayor to terminate, or not reappoint, a City Attorney at the conclusion of one term. City Attorney Kooistra was asked to research the item. Smith asked the Commission if there were any motions to consider whether the City Attorney should be elected. There were no motions. No formal recommendations were made for Article IV. 5. Public Input There was none. 6. Open Discussion Zylstra reviewed the course of events since the last meeting of July 18, 2019, to reiterate facts surrounding the Commission's inquiry into the number of  signatures required to initiate a charter amendment. Specifically, he noted that some reports falsely state the Commission wrongly interjected itself into the initiated charter amendment process. This assertion is unfounded because the question was raised by him well before he or anyone else on the Commission had any awareness of the recently initiated petition. Additionally, he raised the question primarily to ensure correct information is available to the public and correct procedures are followed. 7. Adjournment A motion was made by Commission Member Thimjon and seconded by Commission Member Hajek to adjourn at 4:35 p.m. Voice vote to adjourn. 5 Yes: Hajek, Poletes, Smith, Thimjon, Zylstra; 0 No: (None). Motion Passed. Thomas M. Greco, City Clerk Future Charter Revision Commission Meetings: September 11, 2019 – Charter Articles III-I October 16, 2019 November 6, 2019 December 11, 2019 All meetings at 3:30 p.m. at Carnegie Town Hall