Uneasy feelings about charter review process

I know it’s early in the process. Tonight’s first meeting of the 2015 Charter Review Commission was really nothing more than a "hi, how are you, glad to get to know you" affair. But it still left me with an uneasy feeling of exactly how inclusive this process is going to be.

For example, Assistant City Manager James Earp, who essentially ran the meeting (he said will serve only as the staff liaison once the commission elects its own chair and vice-chair next month), said the commission was not required to solicit public comments during its meetings. Are you kidding me??? I was involved with three charter reviews for the City of Dallas and if there is one process that cries out, that begs for, the input from the public, it’s a charter review. Earp told the commissioners that the city charter was to the government of Kyle as the Constitution is to the government of the United States. And, in a sense, he was correct. But regardless of what certain Tea Party members might try to argue, the Constitution doesn’t belong to the legislative branch of the U.S. government, it belongs to the people of the United States. Likewise, the Kyle City Charter is not the property of the Kyle city government, it belongs to all the citizens of Kyle and, by gum, those citizens should have a large voice about what goes into that charter.

Now, I know the counter argument is that whatever changes the commission recommends and the City Council approves must be approved by city voters. But the citizens deserve more input than a strict "yes" or "no." This charter dictates who is eligible to run for the city council, when they will run, how long they should serve. Don’t you think those people who go to the polls to vote on these individuals should be allowed to voice their opinion on the process? It’s simple democracy.

One commissioner asked Earp whether the staff would forward in writing all the changes to the charter the staff recommends. Earp replied, of course, "well sure" or words to that effect. But the commission desperately needs to get more opinions than those of their fellow commissioners or from city employees. Another example: At one point during tonight’s "orientation" session, Earp opined that the charter requirement that calls for a charter commission to be formed every five years is a good idea. Frankly, I think it’s a stupid idea. I think the charter should say "at the discretion of the City Council," a charter review commission should be appointed every five years. A subtle difference, but an important one because it only requires the formation of a charter review if a majority of the council believes such a review is necessary at that time. And you know what? I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if a segment of the public agrees with my sentiment, but the commission will never know that if they don’t hold public meetings each of which invites the public to offer their opinions on how the charter should be changed.

The commission has also decided to conduct their meetings on the same day and at the same time as City Council meetings. This further guarantees that no one outside the doors of the commission meeting will ever know what’s going on inside those doors without reading the minutes of the meetings. Earp also suggested this because it would be "convenient" for the city staff. This is the first time I have ever — ever — heard that charter review commissions should be held at a time that’s handy for those already working at City Hall. They should be held in places and one varying days and times that are convenient to the public. That means I don’t think the majority of meetings should even be held at City Hall. Look, to prepare for the drafting of its Transportation Plan 2040, the city held a public meeting at Wallace Intermediate School during which it solicited opinions from the public at large. A City Charter is a far more important document than a transportation plan and it deserves to have public meetings staged at different times and different days in every corner of the city. Take the process to the people, don’t find ways to prevent them from knowing what’s going on.

Earp even suggested that having the meetings run simultaneously with City Council sessions will benefit the media because they are already at City Hall to cover the council meetings anyway. Give me a break. Moses Leos of the Hayes County Free Press is an extremely talented writer/reporter but I doubt if he has any plans to be constantly running upstairs and downstairs at City Hall every other Tuesday night in a desperate attempt to report on the goings on at two different meetings. I imagine he’ll be joining me at the City Council meetings and might take a peak inside the charter review sessions when and if the council goes into executive session. I also doubt the Free Press has the resources to devote one reporter to the City Council and a second to charter review.

What all this means to me is that the commission is taking steps to eliminate the public from the preparation process and that is against everything democracy is supposed to stand for. Like I said, it’s early. But right now I can tell you I definitely don’t like the direction this charter review process is heading.