Charter Revision Commission Meetings

MINUTES Charter Revision Commission Meeting Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 4:00 PM Carnegie Town Hall, 235 West 10th St., Sioux Falls, SD 57104 1. Call To Order Commission Members Present: Catherine Dekkenga, Anne Hajek, Lawrence Long, Carl Zylstra, Eric Erickson (via telephone). Commission Members Absent: None Commission Chair Anne Hajek called the meeting to order at 4 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes A. October 11, 2023 A motion was made by Commission Member Long and seconded by Commission Member Dekkenga to approve the minutes of October 11, 2023. Voice vote to approve. 5 Yes: Dekkenga, Hajek, Long, Zylstra, Erickson; 0 No: (None). Motion Passed. 3. Old Business Hajek provided a brief recap that the commission has been through the entire charter and has made open to the public to bring forward any issues they'd like to bring forward, and that now the commission is at the position to determine whether to place items on the ballot for the public. She further explained how the commission is taking the items in order, one at a time, to avoid having too much at one time. A. Formal Recommendation #1 by Joe Kirby: Removal of Mayor from City Council Hajek noted that Charter Sections 2.02, 2.03, 2.11, 3.03, and 9.07 are before the commission, and she asked if the commission would like to take all recommendations as one block or individually. Zylstra suggested that the commission take all recommendations as one block, and then a commissioner can amend by striking a section if needed. There were no objections from the commission, and Hajek noted that the commission will proceed in the manner of taking the recommendations in one block. Hajek noted that she received an email from former Mayor Rick Knobe who asked her to convey that he supports Mr. Kirby's recommendation of taking the mayor off the City Council. Joe Kirby explained that he's hoping for a chance for the voters to change the charter to create better separation of the executive and legislative branches of government; it would remove the Mayor from the City Council and add one (1) more City Council position to bring the number of Council Members up to nine (9); and if this change is brought forward to the voters, that it be effective in 2026 without affecting the current administration. Long asked Mr. Kirby if it was his position that the Mayor would have the power of veto of actions taken by the City Council in light of the fact that he would no longer be on the Council. There was discussion on the following: the section of the charter on the mayor's veto power not changing; he would not be a voting member of the Council and would not run the meetings. Zylstra asked what problem this would solve and if the change is put in effect why would they have powers they do not currently have. Mr. Kirby stated that would be a more traditional model like we have in state and federal governments; separation of executive and legislative branches and provide checks and balances. Mr. Kirby related that the issue that this recommendation would ultimately solve; what would change in the City Council power if the charter were changed. Hajek passed the gavel to Dekkenga. Hajek inquired as to whether there was concern with a weak Mayor in position that it could cause problems if there isn’t a person to go to that this could go the opposite of the intended direction. Mr. Kirby provided that weak mayor is probably not the correct term, the Mayor would still be the chief executive and will still have power but would be modified and give the Council the ability to speak with one voice. Hajek received the gavel back from Dekkenga who asked if there were smaller changes that could slowly steer in that direction instead of a major overhaul. Mr. Kirby felt it would still be a strong Mayor, Council government but would provide separation and checks and balances. Zylstra commended the work that was done on drafting the current charter and stated that they may have done a better job than they think and asked Mr. Kirby for his opinion of U.S. Constitution and how the city already has a model that follows the Federal Government where a representative of the executive branch chairs the legislative branch but does not vote unless they're divided and need a tie-breaking vote. Zylstra feels we already have a model that follows the Federal government and our system is not very different. Hajek passed the gavel to Dekkenga. Hajek spoke on how municipal government differs from state and federal government, how the city has grown, and concerns on type of mayoral candidates the city would receive if the mayor were placed in a pseudo role. Hajek received the gavel back from Dekkenga. Mr. Kirby gave his views on some examples where it would have been nice to see the Council be able to stand up to the mayor, and the concept of fine-tuning things that are already in place instead of major changes. There was some discussion on how the outcome of the two examples would have been different under Kirby's proposed recommendation. Mr. Kirby then gave some clarification  that the Council, as the legislature, would have the power to say "no" if a project is rushed. Long asked how the examples would have come out differently under the form of government that he is proposing. Mr. Kirby stated that the Council did not have adequate time to study proposals. Two independent branches would make the City stronger going forward. Zylstra asked if Mr. Kirby’s proposal expands the role of the City Council from his statements about their role in 1994. Mr. Kirby explained that the legislature would have the power to say no to projects and proposals. Hajek mentioned that the changes were the composition under Section 2.02 would take the mayor off the Council and it would increase the size of the Council to three (3) at-large and six (6) districts, and the leadership would occur at the first meeting where the Council elects the leader, the mayor would only serve to veto any legislation, and would take effect at the time of the next election. There was some discussion on parliamentary procedure on the recommendation and the process of how the commission handles proposals. Dave Pfeifle, the City Attorney, gave legal feedback on Kirby's recommendation and meeting procedures regarding the mayor's role in meetings under the parliamentary authority adopted by the City. Long commented on thinking about what Kirby's proposal would look vis-à-vis with the city manager proposal, and his preference that the commission deal with both proposals at the same time. A motion was made by Commission Member Long and seconded by Vice Chair Dekkenga to defer Mr. Kirby's recommendation to the commission regarding the mayor and his role on the City Council until the time that the commission entertains the city manager form of government, which is a proposal by Mr. Cunningham, which will be coming forward on November 29th at that meeting. Roll call vote to defer. 5 Yes: Dekkenga, Hajek, Long, Zylstra, Erickson; 0 No: (None). Motion Passed. B. Formal Recommendation #2 by Mike Zitterich: City Council Composition and Adjustment of Council Districts Mike Zitterich explained that his proposal attempts to create some seperation between the Mayor's Office and the City Council and spoke about the differences between his proposal and Mr. Kirby's proposal. He clarified that his proposal seeks to create conversation starting next year up until the year 2030 and his belief that the Districting Commission should have more power to reset the districts. He added that he took his proposals from the previous year and put them into a resolution asking the City Council to install a districting commission. He shared that he envisions the Charter Commission and the Districting Commission working together for the next five (5) years on how they can make the government more representative. Zitterich made additional comments on how under his proposal, the mayor would remain on Council and leave the Council as an odd-numbered body and  allow the Districting Commission to reset the districts every 10 years or 5 years as the population changes; he asked that the Charter Commission recommend to Council or the voters to start the discussion. Zylstra asked Zitterich if he was withdrawing his proposal in favor of asking the Charter Commission to communicate with the Council, or if he would like the Charter Commission to decide whether to place his proposals on Sections 2.02 and 6.02 onto the ballot. Zitterich commented that he was not proposing to put anything on the ballot, and that he's asking the Council to create the discussion; he believes that between 2025 - 2030 would be a perfect time to set the Districting Commission in place. Pfeifle commented on the Districting Commission usually convenes after new census data; and that it appeared that Zitterich was asking for a type of a resolution instead of the Charter Commission proposing some type of a ballot item. He added that an informal request to the Council would be sufficient, and that the Council is in charge of appointing and enabling the Districting Commission and can take that action on their own. Hajek asked Zitterich for clarification on Section 6.02 (Redistricting) and if he wants to propose a change to that and that the Charter Commission take that change to the voters. Zitterich responded that he did, but in due time; he added that he's a proponent of process and anytime that anyone wants to change the Charter, he doesn't necessarily want to put the change on the ballot right away; he made an additional comment on the process taking 5 or 7 years in the 1980s/1990s, and that the process took many years. Hajek clarified with Zitterich that he did not want his proposal on the ballot but wants it in the forefront and let the Councl be aware of it. Zitterich confirmed. Zylstra commented that this proposal fixes a glitch in the current charter by taking the set number out and replacing that with a process for review. Dekkenga commented that as the city grows this proposal in conjunction with the compensation proposal coming up for next time will make the seat more accessible to those who may not otherwise be able to and ensure that we are getting the right representation. Hajek gave the gavel to Dekkenga. There was additional discussion on Zitterich's proposal and some issues that it may address as the City grows. Hajek gave the gavel to Dekkenga. Hajek gave some comments on Zitterich's propsoal. Hajek received the gavel back from Dekkenga. Zitterich completed his comments. Hajek asked the Charter Commission if anyone wanted to make any motions or take any action on Zitterich's proposal. There was none. C. List of Formal Recommendations for Revisions 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).  Hajek gave a brief recap that Mr. Kirby's recommendation was deferred to the November 29, 2023 Charter Revision Commission Meeting, and Mr. Zitterich's proposal was taken as a suggestion to keep in the forefront. She spoke on the upcoming recommendations for the next meeting: Mr. Zylstra's recommendation of making the City Council responsible for setting the compensation of elected officials (2.04 and 9.05) and will be for public discussion and for the Charter's decision on November 29, 2023; Mr. Cunningham's proposal for the City Manager form of government (Articles 2, 3, 4, and 5), and his removal of term limits (Sections 2.02 and 3.02) are also on the November 29th meeting. 4. New Business-none 5. Public Input-none 6. Open Discussion-none 7. Adjournment A motion was made by Commission Member Long and seconded by Commission Member Zylstra to adjourn the meeting at 4:44 p.m.. Voice vote to adjourn. 5 Yes: Dekkenga, Hajek, Long, Zylstra, Erickson; 0 No: (None). Motion Passed. Jermery J. Washington, City Clerk Future Charter Revision Commission Meetings: November 29, 2023; TBD: December, 2023; January, 2024 All meetings in Carnegie Town Hall