Cedar Rapids panel backs expanded ethics language, exploration of ranked choice voting

CEDAR RAPIDS — The citizen panel reviewing Cedar Rapids’ governing document voted Thursday to recommend changes that would broaden ethics language for top officials and also keep the door open for ranked choice voting in the future.

The Charter Review Commission wrapped up the second review process since voters in 2005 adopted the city’s “home rule” charter.

When the charter took effect in 2006, it ushered in a council-manager form of government with nine part-time council members who guide policies that a full-time city manager and staff execute in the daily operation of the city. It replaced a five-person council where commissioners set policy and directed city operations.

The Charter Review Commission’s recommendations will come before the council at its 4 p.m. Aug. 23 meeting in City Hall, 101 First. St. SE.

Gary Streit, the Cedar Rapids lawyer chairing the review commission, said he will meet with council members in small groups before the meeting to discuss the recommendations and answer questions.

Here are the substantive changes being recommended:

Ranked choice voting

A hot-button issue the commission took up was how to address citizen interest in exploring ranked choice voting in place of the current runoff system, where a runoff election is held after the general election if candidates fail to receive at least 50 percent plus one of the vote.

The panel on June 22 opted to recommend trigger language that would direct the council to appoint a future panel to study whether to adopt ranked choice voting should Iowa lawmakers ever move to allow it.

Under the recommended language, the city would commit to convening a “Limited Charter Review Commission” within six months if the Iowa Legislature authorizes ranked choice voting for use in municipal elections. The group could recommend amendments to the charter for the City Council’s consideration.

That group’s sole purpose would be to explore using instant runoff voting in single-winner elections, such as the mayor and district council races, and single-transferrable voting for multiseat elections such as the at-large council seats.

Better Ballot Iowa, a nonprofit, and some citizens pressed the commission and city officials in Iowa’s second-largest city to take bold action and lobby Iowa lawmakers to authorize ranked choice voting. There was some debate about recommending the council implement ranked choice voting immediately.

“The countervailing view, which ultimately prevailed, was that moving forward with the adoption and implementation of ranked choice voting at this time could generate significant litigation, initiated either by the state of Iowa in some capacity or by a losing candidate, thereby creating a significant degree of uncertainty in the outcome of the initial elections under the new form of voting,” Streit wrote in the report’s cover letter.

Though the commission decided it did not have the time or resources to dedicate to study moving to ranked choice voting, it felt the idea warranted a full discussion, Streit said.

Ethics language

For the section of the charter outlining what constitutes a conflict of interest for top city officials, including council members, the panel recommended broadening language defining a conflict as the use of public office for “private gain” to “personal benefit, financial or otherwise.”

Current ethics policy states private financial interest or gain is “any direct or indirect economic benefit or other consideration” to a city official, their immediate family or business entity or organization “that is not otherwise a benefit or other consideration to the general public and does not similarly benefit the general public.”

In addition to those amendments, the cover letter advises the council “to ask the Ethics Board to complete a careful examination of the current Rules of the Board of Ethics and to also encourage a more robust annual training for those officials who are subject to the city’s Ethics Ordinance.”

That recommendation comes after the Board of Ethics, also chaired by Streit, in May advised Mayor Tiffany O’Donnell, whose husband is a Cedar Rapids Country Club member, and council member Tyler Olson, who is a Country Club member, to recuse themselves from voting on the Country Club’s expansion project because of that definition. They were among four council members who recused themselves.

Ethics board members said the potential benefits they would derive from the club expansion constituted an “other consideration” of perks that would not be available to the public.

Charter Review Commission members said they considered no specific situation in making this recommendation.

Some council members have expressed concerns such a standard could “conflict” elected officials out of a vote — or encourage some to sit out a hard vote — because of their employment and affiliations.

Charter review process

Finally, the panel recommended the council convene a Charter Review Commission every six years after this year, avoiding local election cycles in odd-numbered years. The review process currently happens only once a decade.

The group’s thinking at the June 8 meeting was that this would allow for future commissions to consider changes in local government more as they arise, instead of having to consider several weighty issues at a time.

Commission member Amy Stevenson, the former city clerk, argued at a previous meeting having such frequent reviews, depending on what changes resulted, could be disruptive and confusing for council members, city staff and citizens.

The panel also recommended future charter commission membership be limited to those who are not elected or appointed to a city board, commission or other governmental or political office. Some members, such as Streit, hold appointments on other city panels.

Comments: (319) 398-8494; marissa.payne@thegazette.com