Some say they were misled
By Rachel Gallegos
Published January 24th 2007 in Iowa City Press-Citizen
The home rule charter petition, submitted to City Hall on Jan. 3, had 283 signatures. The petition requested the council to form a commission to consider home rule, which would change the form of city government from the five-member council to a council with an odd number of members, no less than five, and a mayor who may be one of those members.
Eight people already have submitted forms to the city clerk to remove their name from the home rule charter petition, City Administrator Brian James said. Resident Julie Eschen said she had another 37 forms from residents asking to remove their signatures.
A home rule charter petition requires signatures from 25 percent of the voters from the last general election -- 258 in this case -- to be valid.
Five residents spoke at the meeting Tuesday night objecting to the petition, saying they did not receive all the details about the petition before signing it.
"This was not a good petition," resident Harold Studebaker said. "We were given a lie for every question we asked."
Residents said they were presented with the petition and told that it would be the only way to prevent a repeat of the November 2005 mayoral election. Councilor Matt Bahl contested the results for 10 months because neither he nor Mayor Dave Franker received 50 percent of the vote on Election Day, with Franker receiving 37 percent and Bahl 34 percent.
The council voted unanimously to accept the home rule charter petition with the condition that residents have five working days to submit objections. The objections will be considered by a three-member review board made up of the mayor, the city clerk and Councilor Tom Salm.
Salm volunteered to be the councilor on the review board "since I'm typically caught in the middle anyway," he said.
Before addressing the home rule charter commission petition, the council and city attorney discussed the city's current election code and alternatives to change it.
City Attorney Scott Peterson said the council had two alternatives: stick with the current city code of choosing elected officials by plurality or changing to a majority vote with runoff provision.
"I believe in the 23 years I've lived in North Liberty, the plurality system has worked very, very well," Councilor Gerry Kuhl said. "A plurality is sufficient for a city election."
Franker presented the council and residents with details about an "instant" run-off. This would mean that voters would choose their top two candidates for a position.
If two candidates received an equal number of first place votes, the auditor's office would then add in the number of second place votes each candidate receives. The candidate with the most first and second place votes in this situation would be named the winner.
Also known as "ranked-choice voting," it is used in the city and county of San Francisco to elect the mayor, sheriff, district attorney, city attorney, treasurer, assessor-recorder, public defender and members of the Board of Supervisors.
Although a decision was not made regarding the election code, Peterson said he would take the councilors' comments and do more research before bringing the issue back to council. Residents said it relieved some of their concerns that led them to sign the home rule charter petition.
"I signed the petition for one reason -- I want you to pick majority or plurality," Todd Parks said. "If I knew that's what I was signing, I would have not signed the petition.
"I hope the people who put forth this petition will withdraw it because it was misleading. I think what the people of North Liberty want is civility."
