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.