The Charter Commission voted to approve some significant changes to Kyle’s constitution last night, although they failed to come to an agreement on the makeup of city council districts. One of those changes, involving council pay, might worry enough citizens that the entire proposed charter is shot down by voters. I am not going to go into great detail over the discussion on these items because it was mostly pro-forma. Not only that, these changes are merely recommendations. They then must go through the city’s legal counsel and then the city council which, conceivably, could change everything the commission has recommended.
The commission was deadlocked on Section 3.01 which says three council members and the mayor will be elected at large and the other three council members will be elected from single member districts. Many on the council favored reducing the number of at-large districts, but the question that was never resolved was by how many. A motion to make all the council districts single member with only the mayor elected at large failed on a 3-3 vote. However, because one commissioner, who could break the deadlock, could not attend last night’s meeting, the idea was eventually tabled until the next meeting.
The commission voted to change Section 3.05 which basically says any council member convicted of a felony or other "dastardly" deeds enumerated by the section could be remove from office. The commissioners felt those "dastardly" deeds were not specific enough so it substituted them for conviction of certain misdemeanors. They kept the idea that it would take six votes to remove a council member for such an offense, which translates into a unanimous vote when you consider the subject of the debate undoubtably would not be allowed to vote on the removal resolution.
It’s the change to Section 3.09 the commission recommended that may cause a negative reaction in voters, if the recommendation makes it that far. That section governs how much money the mayor and council members are paid to serve and my experience is that council pay is one of the most volatile issues in the minds of voters. Basically Section 3.09 says council members receive $100 per month plus necessary expenses. The commission recommended striking the amount and allowing the council to establish its own salary via ordinance without placing any limit on what that salary might be. I’m simply not sure how voters are going to feel about allowing the council to set its own salary and then to be able to give themselves a raise anytime they decide to revisit the ordinance.
Section 4.06 (c) of the charter says "Except for an emergency ordinance, an ordinance making an emergency appropriation, an ordinance authorizing bonds or any other indebtedness, or an ordinance approved by seven (7) affirmative votes, no ordinance shall be finally adopted until it has been read and approved by a majority vote of the city council at two meetings, one of which is a regular meeting." The commissioners voted to eliminate the third and fourth reasons for not needing a second reading so, as proposed, that section would now say "Except for an emergency ordinance or an ordinance making an emergency appropriation, no ordinance shall be finally adopted until it has been read and approved by a majority vote of the city council at two meetings, one of which is a regular meeting."
Section 5.11 dealing with runoff elections now says "Such runoff election shall be held in accordance with State election laws on the third Saturday following the election." The commission recommended (and I don’t understand why – the discussion on this item was held at a meeting I could not attend) eliminating the words "on the third Saturday following the election."
One of the changes I had a lot of trouble with is the commission’s recommendation concerning Section 7.10 which currently begins: "There shall be a city attorney who shall be appointed and may be removed by the council." The commission voted to add the words "and who reports to the city manager" at the end of that sentence. Making the city attorney a position that is reportable to the city manager sets a dangerous precedent, one I do not believe exists in any other city charter. However, I am not too concerned about it because I believe the city attorney will see the illegality in this idea and strike it before it even reaches the city council, which I hope would strike it even if the city attorney felt it was a conflict to do so himself.
The commission also recommended adding a section, 13.10, which requires that any council meeting, whether regular, special or workshop and any meeting by any council appointed board, commission or committee be open to the public and include a public comment period. This is in direct conflict with rules adopted last week by the council in which it said it would not include public comment sessions during a council workshop. This last-minute addition – it was not discussed before last evening – apparently was a direct response by commission members to the adoption of those rules. The commission members seemed appalled by the idea that the council could gather in any type of session without allowing input from the public.
No comments:
Post a Comment