Charter Review Commission likes 4-year Cedar Rapids council terms

CEDAR RAPIDS - The city's Charter Review Commission wants the nine-member City Council to modify the city charter so that four council seats are up for a vote in one election cycle and five members are elected two years later.

Now it's three - as it is this November - and six.

In addition, the commission wants two of the four at-large seats to be elected in one cycle and two in the next cycle. Such a change would assure that voters in each of the five council districts have at least two races on which to vote in every election.

This fall, for instance, the District 2 and District 4 seats are up for a vote along with one at-large seat. So voters in Districts 1, 3 and 5 only vote in one race, the at-large race.

Commission member Robin Tucker suggested that the commission specifically state that in 2013, when two at-large seats are on the ballot in addition to the at-large mayor's race, that the winner of the two non-mayoral, at-large races with the fewest votes gets a one-time, two-year term. As a result, the seat would be up for a vote again in 2015 with the three other seats already positioned to be on the ballot that year. The commission, though, decided it would leave the specifics to the City Council.

Tucker, a member of the city's Home Rule Charter Commission in 2004-2005, also had commission members talk about two other charter changes, neither of which got any traction.

Firstly, he proposed that the five council district seats have two-year terms, not the current four-year ones that all nine council seats now have. Tucker said some candidates don't want to sit on the council for four-year terms and he suggested that two-year terms might attract more candidates.

Commission Co-Chairman Paul Pate, a former Cedar Rapids mayor, said he was “fairly satisfied” with the quality of candidates who have stepped forward to run for council seats with four-year terms.

“We seem to have some sharp people,” he said.

Commission members Scott Overland and Carl Whiting said people elected or appointed to councils or boards have a learning curve of a year or so and need more than two years before they have to confront another election.

Tucker also suggested that everyone in the city vote for all the district candidates, but Overland thought that would turn district candidates into at-large candidates. Tucker said the candidates still would need to live in a district to run for the district seat.

Commission member Patricia Miller noted that some citizens have suggested as a cost-saving measure that the city look at instant runoff voting or alternative voting. This is an arrangement where voters pick their favorite candidate and then rank other candidates, with ranking deciding the winner if no candidate receives a majority of the votes. The commission decided to discuss it further, though commission member Jim Craig called it a bad idea and Whiting said his quick research showed there were as many negatives to the concept as pluses.

Overland noted the existing charter already has done away with a primary in city elections in favor of a runoff a month after the general election in instances where it might be needed. That's already cheaper than holding a primary every election cycle, he said.