Charter Review Commission says "We don't want that many people voting in city elections"

For the very first time since its creation, the Charter Review Commission took a vote this evening and voted against taking action that, in all likelihood, would have increased voter participation in municipal elections and reduced the cost of city elections. Specifically, the commission voted four to two one with abstention against a motion to move the city’s elections from May to November.

It is only fair to note at this point that the city of Austin recorded a 78 percent increase in voter turnout for its most recent city council election and city officials attributed that increase to the fact the election was held in November, on the same date as the national elections, and not on its usual May date. To be equally fair, a 78 percent spike in Kyle’s voter turnout would probably mean 5.34 percent of the registered voters came to the polls instead of what historically has been around 3 percent (at least that was the number I was given by one city council member). That means about 335 more voters of 14,332 currently registered, but, hey, that’s progress.

Charter commissioner Jo Fenety led the faction against moving the election date, arguing such a change would result in partisan factions controlling the outcome of the non-partisan council elections.

In other action, the commission:

• Wrangled with the notion of who should be allowed to appoint the members of boards and commissions. The current charter, in Section 4.01, says the only mayor can "recommend appointees for the boards and commissions" and there was some discussion about whether language should be inserted in one or more places in the document that would allow individual council members to also recommend appointees.
• Debated whether the mayor should be allowed to designate someone to sign documents in his/her stead. Section 4.01 of the charter also says "The mayor shall have signatory authority for all legal contracts and commitments of the city." According to one city staff member, the director of finance used to have the authority to sign legal papers if the mayor wasn’t available until a previous city attorney said that practice was illegal under the current charter.
• Tossed around the idea of whether the winner of city elections should be the candidate who receives the most votes, regardless of the percentage that candidate receives, or require a winner to receive 50 percent plus one of the total votes cast. The commission, without much discussion on the issue, appeared to favor keeping the majority requirement that is part of the current charter.
• Generally agreed that Section 4.03 (a) of the charter should end after the word "manager." It currently states the city council can "Appoint, supervise and remove the city manager, and confirm dismissal of the Director of Finance by majority vote of the entire council." The commission was swayed by the idea that since the city manager is solely responsible for hiring the finance director and since the finance director works directly for the city manager, that the council should have no voice in that person’s dismissal. The fact that the language about the finance director was not in the previous charter added weight to the notion it should be removed from the next one.