Linn County Board of Supervisors Chair Brent Oleson submitted this written statement in lieu of a speaking slot at this evening’s Iowa Legislature Public Hearing on Collective Bargaining Changes. -promoted by desmoinesdem

I graduated Burlington High School in 1989. I said then and I say now, that Mr. David Wendt was the best teacher I ever had. He had a huge impact on my life. He just retired last year from Keokuk High School with more than 35 years of service, with a pension he earned and the satisfaction of having educated and positively impacted the lives of tens of thousands young Iowans. The most important concept he taught me was to truly critically think….to critically think, an invaluable skill.

Mr. Wendt was my speech and debate coach. I blame him for driving the two hours here to speak for 3 minutes. Mr. Wendt always said, if you don’t stand up and say something well-informed, intelligent and persuasive, then the status quo, good or bad…or very bad, will win the day.

I’m not here as some political stooge for the unions and I’m not here as some stooge for the now in-vogue anti-union groups. As an elected official in Iowa’s second largest county and city, I have been on the management side of negotiating contracts for the taxpayers. I wasn’t able to secure an endorsement from AFSCME this last election, presumably because I took my high school teacher seriously when he encouraged us to truly develop our abilities to critically think. As a negotiator for management of Linn County, I operate in the realm of negotiating in good faith for a win-win outcome for the taxpayers and those providing the services that the taxpayers demand and prioritize. In my 8 years we have never once went to arbitration. Not once. We have never once given away the store either. Quite the contrary.

The Iowa State Association of Counties has asked the Iowa Supreme Court to keep tens of thousands of citizens permanently disenfranchised so county auditors will have “a definition of infamous crime that can be easily discerned and quickly applied” as they administer elections.

In addition, the association representing county officials suggests auditors will be unable to provide “the orderly conduct of elections” if the high court does not abandon efforts to distinguish certain felonies from the “infamous crimes” that disqualify Iowans from voting under our state’s constitution.

The disturbing attempt by county governments to place administrative convenience above a fundamental constitutional right came in a “friend of the court” (amicus curiae) brief filed in connection with a case the Iowa Supreme Court will consider this week. Yet Polk County Auditor Jamie Fitzgerald, the chief elections officer in Iowa’s largest county, maintains that a new standard allowing some felons to vote would not be “an administrative burden any more than the myriad other provisions that county auditors and poll-workers must contend with.”

Advocacy groups representing local government bodies are concerned that the Iowa Supreme Court’s new decision on open meetings will make it difficult for elected officials to obtain information from staff and conduct business. On Friday, a divided court ruled that Warren County supervisors were not in compliance with Iowa law when they used a staffer as a go-between while working out a county downsizing plan behind closed doors. Writing for the majority of four, Justice David Wiggins argued that allowing such a scheme “would result in absurd consequences undermining the clear purpose of the open meetings law.” He further explained that “open meetings requirements apply to all in-person gatherings at which there is deliberation upon any matter within the scope of the policy-making duties of a governmental body by a majority of its members, including in-person gatherings attended by members of a governmental body through agents or proxies.”

Three justices dissented, seeing it as a job for state lawmakers “to redefine the requirements of the open meetings law” and warning that the court’s new standard “will have a chilling effect on well-intentioned public officials” who rely on information from staff when considering policy options.

The full text of the majority decision and dissents in Hutchison v Shull can be found here. Bleeding Heartland posted background on the case and highlights from the opinions here.

Justice Thomas Waterman’s dissent lamented the absence of “friend of the court” briefs from the Iowa State Association of Counties, the Iowa League of Cities, and the Iowa Association of School Boards. I asked representatives of each organization to explain how their training for elected officials addresses Warren County-like methods to avoid discussing public policy in open meetings. I also sought comment on the Hutchison v Shull majority ruling and on the concerns Waterman raised.

The Iowa Supreme Court has unanimously upheld a District Court ruling that held a man responsible for a speeding ticket issued under Sioux City’s Automated Traffic Enforcement Ordinance. You can read Justice Brent Appel’s whole decision here (pdf). Michael Jacobsma employed several legal arguments in his suit challenging the speeding ticket:

The defendant sought dismissal of the citation on constitutional grounds, claiming enforcement of the ordinance violated the Due Process Clauses of the Iowa and Federal Constitutions, the inalienable rights clause of the Iowa Constitution, and the Iowa municipal home rule amendment that prohibits cities from enacting ordinances that conflict with state law.

Pages 2 through 7 cover background on Sioux City’s ordinance, Jacobsma’s ticket, and his legal challenge. Pages 7 through 23 explore the extensive federal and state case law on due process challenges against similar ordinances. Key points: the ordinance allows vehicle owners to present evidence indicating that they were not driving at the time of the alleged traffic violation, but Jacobsma never did so. Furthermore, since this case involves only civil penalties (a fine) rather than criminal penalties, there is less of a burden on the government to prove Jacobsma was operating the vehicle when it was traveling at 67 miles per hour in a 55 mph zone.

Pages 24 through 32 address Jacobsma’s claim that the presumption in the Sioux City traffic camera ordinance violates his “inalienable rights” under the U.S. and Iowa Constitutions. After going through lots of court rulings on inalienable rights clauses, Appel notes that many “cases hold that liberty or property rights enumerated in the inalienable rights clauses of state constitutions are subject to reasonable regulations in the public interest.” The Iowa Supreme Court justices agreed, “there is no doubt that the regulation to control speeding on state highways gives rise to a public interest generally.”

Pages 33 through 35 address Jacobsma’s claim that the Sioux City ordinance is invalid because it conflicts with state law. Here the controlling case law is Davenport v Seymour, a 2008 Iowa Supreme Court decision also authored by Appel. That ruling upheld the city of Davenport’s use of traffic cameras. Today’s ruling concludes that Sioux City’s rules on tickets issued by traffic cameras are “consistent with substantive state law related to speeding” and not “irreconcilable” with the various Iowa Code provisions cited by Jacobsma.

Speaking to Radio Iowa’s Dar Danielson, Jacobsma said he is disappointed with today’s ruling but respects the Iowa Supreme Court’s opinion.

The high court may eventually consider a different case related to Sioux City’s traffic cameras. Last year, city officials filed a lawsuit claiming the Iowa Department of Transportation exceeded its authority when it issued rules restricting local governments’ use of automated traffic enforcement systems. That case is scheduled to be heard in Woodbury County District Court this May.

In the busy days before Thanksgiving, I missed this unintentional comedy from Governor Terry Branstad’s weekly press conference (hat tip to Todd Dorman):

“There’s also a constitutional question about whether the president of the United States has the authority to act unilaterally on issues like this [immigration policy],” Branstad said. “So I expect there’s going to be a lot of unanswered questions that I need to get information about and what the impact would have on our state.”

Asked if he would take executive action on state immigration policy, Branstad responded, “We don’t operate that way in Iowa.”

“That’s the difference between Washington, D.C., and Iowa,” Branstad said. “In Iowa, I’m very careful to recognize the separation of powers and to work with the Legislature.”

Where to begin?

Transportation policy doesn’t often generate passionate public debate, but everyone seems to have a strong opinion about traffic cameras. Last week the non-profit news service Iowa Watch published an excellent piece on how traffic cameras are used in Iowa and the conflicting evidence about whether they improve public safety. Kelsey Block’s article inspired me to compile arguments for and against this law enforcement tool.

As Bleeding Heartland has discussed before, I’ve long felt that Governor Terry Branstad’s disregard for local government authority is one of the most under-reported Iowa political stories of the last few years. The Iowa Department of Transportation’s new rules restricting cities’ use of traffic cameras is one of many examples. Bills seeking to ban local governments from using traffic cameras for law enforcement stalled during the 2012 and 2013 legislative sessions. The Iowa DOT’s new rules went into effect last month; they do not prohibit all use of traffic cameras but require annual reviews to show the cameras are improving safety and not just serving as a revenue source for local government.

Sioux City is one of many Iowa municipalities that have installed traffic cameras on some major roads and intersections. The Iowa DOT gave Sioux City officials “until May 1 to justify the use of two speed cameras and seven of its 11 red-light cameras.” Now the city government has filed a lawsuit claiming the state department exceeded its authority.

Assistant City attorney, Justin Vondrak, filed the judicial review action in Woodbury County District Court and says the DOT regulations make it almost impossible for the city to use speed cameras along Interstate 29 within the city limits. “What we’re asking for is a review of the rules and to eventually have the rules determined to be unconstitutional based on the city’s home rule authority, as well as other Iowa code sections which grant the city joint jurisdiction with the DOT for traffic enforcement upon the primary roadways within the city’s jurisdiction,” according to Vondrak.

More details on the lawsuit are after the jump.

Whatever the District Court rules, I expect the losing side to appeal and would not be surprised to see the Iowa Supreme Court eventually decide this matter. The case raises interesting questions about local and state government powers. On a related note, I still think some municipality should have challenged Governor Branstad’s executive order on project labor agreements in court.

The Iowa Transportation Commission unanimously approved new rules yesterday regarding local use of cameras to enforce traffic laws on speeding and running red lights. You can read the rules proposed by the Iowa Department of Transportation here (pdf). A brief summary is after the jump.

Assuming the Iowa legislature’s Administrative Rules Review Committee allows the regulations to take effect, city or county governments will have to do more to gain approval from the Iowa DOT for installing or maintaining traffic cameras on roads. Iowa DOT Director Paul Trombino assured commissioners that the department will not ban traffic cameras, but officials will need to see evidence that cameras are being used for safety reasons and not primarily as a way to collect revenue. Dar Danielson and Mike Wiser both covered the transportation commission hearing.

The Iowa DOT pursued new rulemaking on this issue after bills that would have banned local governments from using traffic cameras for law enforcement stalled during the 2012 and 2013 legislative sessions.

Reasonable minds can differ on whether cameras are justified to enforce speeding laws. Regardless of your personal feelings, it’s striking as another example of Governor Terry Branstad’s administration and Republican lawmakers moving away from “local control” and embracing more state constraints on city and county government actions. Some local law enforcement agencies are not happy about the new rules on cameras.

Iowa’s constitution allows the governor to line-item veto provisions in appropriations bills, and Governor Terry Branstad has used that power to overrule legislative decisions on many spending proposals, large and small. Among this year’s line-item vetoes, perhaps the most controversial was Branstad’s surprising decision to ax $13 million for mental health services. That line item was intended to cushion the blow for counties as Iowa reorganizes its mental health care delivery system. (In the past, available care depended greatly on a patient’s county of residence.) Despite broad bipartisan support for this appropriation and a large state budget surplus, Branstad decided that counties didn’t need extra help with mental health services.

This week four Democratic state senators and one Republican asked Branstad to help fix the mess he created, which has already led to some service cuts.

Cutting property taxes has long been a policy goal for Governor Terry Branstad, so why is he rejecting a path to save Iowa counties tens of millions of dollars a year on mental health services? As Tony Leys reported yesterday for the Des Moines Register, the Iowa Department of Human Services has estimated that expanding Medicaid as foreseen under the 2010 federal health care reform law would save counties between $27 million and $60 million each year.

Dave Funk officially announced his candidacy for Polk County supervisor this week and rolled out a new campaign website, PolkNeedsFunk.com. Not quite the same ring as “Congress Needs Funk,” but still a good slogan. He’s a strong recruit, having carried several precincts in the third supervisor’s district in last month’s GOP primary to represent Iowa’s third Congressional district. (Click here for maps of the district and the Congressional primary results in Polk County.)

Funk promised supporters that this is a “winnable” race, which could give Republicans control of Polk County government for the first time in 62 years. As an energetic campaigner with a built-in supply of volunteers from the local tea party movement, Funk will test two-term incumbent Tom Hockensmith. He starts the campaign with much higher name recognition than Wes Enos, whom Hockensmith defeated in 2006 by a margin of 60 percent to 40 percent.

However, Funk faces an uphill battle. Even after recent Republican gains in voter registration statewide, Democrats still have a large registration advantage in Polk County’s third supervisor’s district. Polk County Auditor Jamie Fitzgerald provided the latest figures for active registered voters in the area Hockensmith represents: 22,301 Democrats, 15,753 Republicans, 15,569 no-party voters, and 52 others. Polk County Democrats have a strong GOTV operation, and organized labor will work hard for Hockensmith for reasons I described here.

Funk’s tea party rhetoric may not resonate in this campaign as well as it did with Republican primary voters last month. The issues page of Polk Needs Funk talks about limiting spending so that county government can “live within its means,” but people want their supervisors to deliver public services like the ones Hockensmith will talk about during the campaign.

Anyway, Polk County’s fiscal position is strong. Many residents questioned the money spent to expand the Iowa Events Center earlier this decade, but that facility just turned its largest-ever profit despite the tough economy. You can download recent county budgets and reports from bond rating agencies here. The last time Polk County issued general obligation bonds in 2007, all three major ratings agencies gave the county strong credit ratings. Fitch said its AA+ rating “reflects the county’s broad and diverse economic base, sound financial operations, and low direct debt burden.” Moody’s said Polk’s “high quality Aa1 rating reflects the county’s healthy and economically viable tax base realizing strong growth trends; stable financial operations supported by satisfactory reserve levels; and a manageable debt burden with future debt planned.” Standard & Poor’s raised Polk’s rating from AA+ to AAA, citing factors such as “low debt burden” and “stable financial position supported by a policy to pass balanced budgets.”

Funk will struggle to convince voters that “Polk County is among the most hostile business environments in Iowa.” Talk about “getting government out of the way and fostering a fair, business-friendly environment” appeals to Funk’s base but has little basis in reality. The business magazine Forbes just named the Des Moines metro area one of the top ten “recovery capitals” in the U.S., based on Moody’s Economy.com analysis of economic prospects for the period 2010-14. The Brookings Institute ranked the Des Moines area near the top in its June 2010 report on recession and economic recovery in the country’s 100 largest metro areas. In April, Des Moines topped the Forbes list of “best places for business and careers.” Many factors contribute to the Des Moines area’s relative economic health, and most of them have little to do with county governance. But if Polk County supervisors really were creating the “hostile” business environment of Funk’s imagination, Des Moines shouldn’t be doing so well compared to other U.S. cities.

Share any thoughts about county government or the Funk/Hockensmith race in this thread.

The members of the Rebuild And Grow Board of Directors submitted a public petition to the Cedar Rapids City Council this week requesting an intensive one-year plan for dealing with flood recovery and reconstruction in the city.

Rebuild And Grow is an affiliate of Beacon of Hope/New Orleans, and its leaders consulted with disaster recovery groups in New Orleans in forming the recommendations.

The full text of Rebuild And Grow’s petition to the Cedar Rapids City Council is after the jump. The council is expected to respond in writing within a week.

If you would like to send comments or support for this citizen petition to the mayor and council members, click here.

Rebuild and Grow has also written “a ten page report on what we learned during our intensive training and internship with Neighborhood Self-Help Disaster Recovery Groups in New Orleans.” To request a copy of that report, send an e-mail to floodsurvivor AT aol.com.

                                                   

I haven’t posted about the recent suicide of Des Moines businessman Ed Boesen. I feel sorry for his family, who are dealing with a sudden bereavement as well as the fallout from his business dealings. His estate is being sued by several lenders.

Last year I didn’t write about the controversy over developing Rice field in Des Moines either. The green space where Rice Elementary used to stand is used as a playing field by local residents, many of whom wanted to keep it that way. I understand their position, but I also know that the Beaverdale neighborhood already has quite a few city parks. Since I support compact economic development and “infill” (new building in established neighborhoods), I thought a proposal for a mixed-use residential and commercial development on Rice field was reasonable.

That said, I was troubled by the way the Des Moines School Board agreed to sell the land to Boesen’s group, which didn’t submit the highest bid. School Board member Connie Boesen is Ed Boesen’s sister-in-law.

Why am I rehashing this now? It turns out that Des Moines City Councilman Chris Coleman did not disclose a prior business relationship with Boesen at the time the council approved a tax-increment financing district for parts of Beaverdale.

According to the Des Moines Register,

Coleman said he had no financial stake in Rice Development Partners, Boesen’s company that planned an $11.6 million project in Beaverdale and stood to benefit from a council decision to approve the area as part of an urban renewal district, making it eligible for tax breaks.

Coleman, who is head of the Better Business Bureau, also said he didn’t know until Thursday that his name was consistently misspelled on documents filed with the Iowa secretary of state.

A handwritten document signed by Boesen in February 2000 lists two officers: himself and “Chris Cobeman, 3600 48th Place, DM, IA 50310.” Other typed documents also spell Coleman’s name as “Cobeman.” Over the years, Cobo Investments filed new records with the state updating addresses, but the misspelling of Coleman’s name was never changed.

[…]

Coleman said Thursday that he was involved in no other deals with Boesen.

Coleman goes on to say he never tried to hide the fact that he had owned property with Boesen at one time. However, all but one of his fellow City Council members told the Register they had no idea of that relationship.

The intentional misspelling of Coleman’s name on several official documents is a huge red flag to me. It suggests that whoever filed the papers was trying to make it more difficult to identify the participation of Coleman, who was elected to the City Council in 1998, in this partnership.

The Register reports:

Public officials are not required by law to make such a disclosure unless there’s a direct financial gain, said Alan Kemp, executive director of the Iowa League of Cities. But most elected officials try to identify anything that resembles a conflict of interests, he said.

Bergman, the city attorney, said he did not recall Coleman mentioning his business relationship with Boesen when the Rice Field issues were before the council, but Bergman said he previously knew of the duplex ownership.

“I would have told him if he asked me at the time that I would not have considered it a conflict of interests to vote on at the time,” Bergman said Thursday. “There’s no law, rule, regulation of any kind that I can think of that would require that to be disclosed.”

Even if the law did not require disclosure in this case, Coleman showed poor judgment in my opinion by not revealing a prior business partnership with a finalist for the Beaverdale development project.

Elected officials should go out of their way to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. That Coleman is the head of the Better Business Bureau makes it worse.

I agree with Drake University Professor Rachel Caulfield, who told the Register that the misspelling of Coleman’s name on documents is “certainly worthy of a deeper investigation.”