Petitioner offers to hold off on turning in Linn County representation document

CEDAR RAPIDS - As the debate continues over a special election to alter the Linn County Board of Supervisors's representation plan, the organizer of the petition drive said Monday he'd be willing to wait on submitting the document if supervisors change the plan themselves.

'If they want to change it, we'll hold off on the petition,” Coggon's Kevin Kula said. 'Let's try it. If it doesn't work, we can always spend the $250,000 later. If it works out, we don't have to spend the money.”

Supervisors argue doing such would take away the public's say on the matter.

Meanwhile, County Auditor Joel Miller last week suggested the board consider circumventing a potential special election on the board's representation plan as a means to save money.

He advised changing the representation plan to one of the other two options available - at-large voting with district representatives or at-large voting for at-large supervisors. The current plan includes district voting with district representatives and has been in place for about 10 years.

Miller said selecting one of the two representation plans with at-large voting likely would satisfy petitioners seeking a public vote on the matter and save the county $250,000 on a special election - should the petition force a public vote.

According to a cost figure provided by the Auditor's Office, the last countywide special election - 2013's casino gaming vote - cost the county more than $244,000.

Per Iowa Code, a board can change the county representation plan if it has been in effect for at least six years.

But while the board has the ability to change the representation plan, Supervisor Ben Rogers said the 10,000 petitioners hardly represent the more than 150,000 registered voters in the county.

'I'm a little surprised that the chief elections commissioner would say (to) cut the middle man out, which is the voters, and just select a plan that's at-large because a few people who are petitioners might like that. That to me is a little troubling,” Rogers said.

'We wouldn't be saving the money because we're not calling for the election, the petitioners are.”

Several members of the board questioned Miller's motives, considering the auditor in November established an exploratory committee for a potential 2018 supervisor bid.

Supervisors noted that if Miller ran in the next supervisor election, he potentially would stand to benefit from at-large voting - something Miller has been subject to in every auditor race.

'It's just interesting to me that a group of individuals could bend your ear so much that you are in here doing the business of a few individuals who are advocating for plans that may or may not be advantageous for you,” Supervisor Stacey Walker said to Miller during last week's meeting.

Supervisor John Harris said that for as long as he's on the board, he will support the current representation plan, which he said offers the best chance at rural representation.

However, Miller criticized the board for not considering what he called a $250,000 cost savings.

'If (residents) were satisfied with (the current plan) there would be no petition,” Miller said. 'They want at-large voting in either plan one or plan two, or they just want to give people a choice.”

At the very least, the board should meet with petitioners, Miller said.

Kula, who advocated to have the board reduced from five supervisors to three, said the petition this week has more than 10,000 of the approximately 11,800 necessary signatures to force a public vote.

If nothing happens by June 1, the county will need to create a temporary commission to establish new district boundaries by Dec. 15. If a special election on the county representation plan takes place, the redistricting deadline would shift to Feb. 15, 2018.

In a 2007 election, shortly after the public voted to increase from a three-member to a five-member Board of Supervisors, more than 56 percent of voters chose the county's current representation plan.

At-large voting with district representatives received about 41 percent of votes.

l Comments: (319) 339-3175; mitchell.schmidt@thegazette.com