Pubdate: Fri, 07 Jul 2006
Source: Iowa City Press-Citizen (IA)
Copyright: 2006 Iowa City Press-Citizen
Contact:  http://www.press-citizen.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1330
Author: Hieu Pham
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)

CITY CHALLENGES CHARTER CHANGES

Legality Of Amendments At Issue

A recent district court ruling allowing Iowa City petitioners to put 
city government changes up for a public vote now is being opposed by the city.

Filed June 21, the ruling aids a 2001 petition effort to make 
amendments to the city's Home Rule Charter.

The amendments include subjecting the city manager and police chief 
to retention votes every four years; increasing powers of the Police 
Citizen's Review Board; and mandating changes in police practices and 
procedures, including allowing police to issue citations, rather than 
arrests, for non-violent, misdemeanor offenses such as "personal use 
amounts of marijuana."

"The city has filed a (declaratory) motion ... to deal with the 
legality of the amendment, such as, whether the city has home rule 
authority to subject an authority to retention election," Iowa City 
attorney Eleanor Dilkes said.

Based on the ruling, the Iowa City Council will decide whether or not 
to appeal the decision to the Iowa Supreme Court, she said. The city 
will then have 30 days to file an appeal.

"It's disappointing that the court ruled without considering those 
(legal) issues," Dilkes said.

Petition organizers Caroline Dieterle and Carol DeProsse, who in 2001 
submitted a petition with 1,600 signatures from Iowa City residents 
in favor of the ballot, said the three amendments were written to 
give citizens a more direct influence in government.

"The police chief and city manager are insulated from the will of 
voters; citizens have no way to express approval or disapproval," 
Dieterle said, referring to the retention amendment. "We can't have 
those two offices insulated from the public ... that is a major 
failing in the type of government we have."

The second amendment would make the Police Citizen's Review Board 
permanent and require members to hold at least one community forum 
each year, allow them to investigate claims of police misconduct and 
issue reports to City Council and also provide the authority to 
subpoena witnesses.

Currently the board, created in 1997 after the fatal shooting of Eric 
Shaw by an Iowa City police officer, does not have enough power to 
act as the "preventative" force against police misconduct, Dieterle said.

The third amendment would direct the police to be a "peace keeping 
force," decreasing the use of undercover agents, anonymous tips, 
garbage searches or knock-and-talks in the investigation of 
non-violent misdemeanor offenses.

DeProsse, whose former position as an academic adviser with the 
University of Iowa put her in contact with many students, said the 
police department should use tax dollars to focus on solving serious 
crimes rather than target young people for small misdemeanors such as 
marijuana use.

"The basic idea is to have a check on power, to say should the city 
manager and police chief be retained ... and if both aren't doing a 
good job, would someone sit them down and talk to them," she said.

However, Dilkes said the techniques petitioners are using to enact 
changes are wrong. For example, changing police practices and a 
board's authority is a legislative action, not a charter issue.

"The major issue is where one draws a line between what is an 
amendment of the charter and what is legislation of operations 
dealing with government," she said.She said if the proposed 
amendments are placed on the Nov. 6 ballot and passed, the issue of 
its legality will have been overlooked.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman