2005 CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE

The 2005 Charter Review Committee met on January 19, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. with Mr. Christiansen presiding in the absence of Chairman Leary. Members present were Mrs. Greenwood, Mr. Jones, Mrs. Malone, Dr. Miller, Mr. Scheller, and Mrs. Merritt. Members of Council present were Mr. Ruane, Mr. Salters, and Mrs. Russell. Mrs. McDowell was also present.

AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS

Mr. Jones moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mrs. Malone and unanimously carried.

Public Hearing - Review of City Charter

Mr. Christiansen provided a brief history of the Review of the City of Dover Charter and outlined the purpose and duties of the 2005 Charter Review Committee.

Mr. Christiansen declared the public hearing open.

Mr. William Daisey, 215 Pine Street, stated that the Council/Mayor form of government is currently being used by 3,400 cities in the United States. It was his feeling that this form of government, which provides for a full-time City Manager to oversee the day-to-day operations, has served the City of Dover well for many years and should be retained.

With regard to redistricting, Mr. Daisey expressed concern that it would be impossible for a minority to be elected in an at-large system, while district voting guarantees minority representation.

Mr. Daisey stated that he was unaware of any filing fees in the State of Delaware and it was his feeling that it would discourage participation in the election process.

Dr. Margaret McKay, 54 Rodney Road, stated that she was the researcher and expert witness for the NAACP in the 1985 lawsuit brought against the City of Dover. She noted that she was not currently representing the NAACP, nor was she speaking on their behalf.

Dr. McKay cautioned members that moving from an administrative Mayor to a strong Mayor could risk undermining the spirit and intent of the 1988 Consent Order since the Mayor is elected at-large and at-large elections are not historically friendly to racial minorities. She noted that taking power from the Council, which is more representative of the citizens of the City, and giving it to a strong Mayor would reduce the racial minority’s vote in policy making and minimize their political clout and input. Dr. McKay advised members that making the Mayor a voting member of City Council would weaken the representation of Council because the Council negotiates and the Mayor implements the policies of the Council. Their functions are not compatible.

With regards to the number of voting districts, Dr. McKay suggested that additional districts, particularly at-large districts, would also weaken the relative electoral clout of the City’s racial minorities.

Dr. McKay recommended adopting an Instant Runoff election system for both Council and Mayoral races in order to ensure a majority winner.

Ms. Ellen Wasfi, 286 Pine Valley Road, explained the Instant Runoff Voting process whereby, on a single ballot, voters rank the candidates in order of preference. If no candidate wins more than 50% of the first choice votes, the lowest placing finishers are eliminated and the second or, if necessary, third choices on the ballots are counted until someone garners a majority. Instant Runoff Voting literature was provided to members. She noted that adapting voting equipment to tabulate ranked choice has been the biggest problem encountered in implementing Instant Run-Off Voting. Ms. Wasfi also noted that voter education is the key to successful Instant Run-Off Voting.

Mrs. Fran Hettinger, 63 Sackarackin Avenue, advised members that she was a City of Dover retiree who worked under both Council appointed department heads and City Manager department heads. It was her feeling that the department heads under the City Manager were sometimes neglected and she suggested that all departments, with the exception of the City Clerk and Finance Director, should be moved under the direction of the City Manager. Mrs. Hettinger stated that she prefers the Mayor/Council form of government with the Mayor as a figurehead.

Mr. William McGlumphy, 437 Alder Road, stated that it would be necessary to leave personalities out of the Charter Review in order to move away from the hybrid Mayor/Council form of government. It was his feeling that the City was not large enough nor adequately prepared to move to a strong Mayor form of government since it puts too much power into the hands of one individual without checks and balances. Mr. McGlumphy discussed the differences between the Mayor/Council and strong Mayor forms of government and referenced “Council-Manager or “Strong Mayor” The Choice is Clear - Learn the Facts About Council-Manager Government”, which was prepared by the California City Management Foundation. He suggested that members review the minutes of the November 27, 2001 Council Retreat, the December 18, 2001 Council Retreat, the March 22, 2004 Council Meeting, and the PAS Study.

Mr. David Anderson, 217 Cecil Street, felt that the current form of government was working and the Mayor and Council should remain separate. He also felt the candidate filing process and district representation were serving their purpose and did not require changes.

Mr. Anderson suggested that a write-in referendum provision be included in the Charter to allow a set percentage of voters to bring issues forward by petition for consideration on the next ballot. He also suggested that any member of Council should be permitted to introduce an ordinance, Charter change, or budgetary amendment without a second. Mr. Anderson also noted that since Council members are elected by the people, members should be permitted to bring any issues to the floor for consideration. It was also his feeling that city planning is such a vital function which effects citizens directly, it should be under the direction of an elected position, such as the Mayor or Council.

Mr. Anderson also made the following suggestions: the Dover Human Relations Commission should have subpoena power, the budget year should end before the election to allow members who have been working on the budget for nine (9) months the opportunity to adopt the budget, remove the provision that a member of Council resign prior to running for Mayor, and the protection of property rights to ensure against eminent domain issues.

Mr. Richard Ornauer, 17 Mifflin Road, stated that he felt it was important for the City Manager to have a full staff to guide the City and administer the policies of City Council. With the exception of the fiscal aspect of the operation of the City, which should be done in conjunction with the City Manager, he felt that all other services should be combined under the one person responsible directly to the City Council who appoints him or her.

Mr. Cecil Wilson, 130 Brandywine Drive, noting that Mr. Christiansen was considering running for Mayor, asked if there was a conflict with his serving on the 2005 Charter Review Committee. Mr. Christiansen stated if he decided to run for Mayor, he would step down from the committee.

Mr. Christiansen declared the public hearing closed.

Mr. Jones moved for adjournment, seconded by Mrs. Greenwood and unanimously carried.

Meeting Adjourned at 8:20 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Robin R. Christiansen

                                                                                    Acting Chairman

RRC/tm

S:ClerksOfficeAgendas&MinutesMisc-Minutes2005 CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE20061-19-2006 Minutes.wpd