If you can only attend one City Council meeting next week, it should be the City Council meeting directly following the City Council meeting which will take place on a day that’s different from the day on which the City Council meeting usually takes place. If you want to take a few seconds to read that preceding sentence once again, go right ahead. It may make more sense the second time around.
Here’s the deal. The City Council will be meeting on Wednesday next week, not on its usual Tuesday timeslot. The reason for this is because the election is Tuesday. The meeting appears on the surface to be a rather routine affair — a quick perusal of the agenda reveals nothing that leaps out as something that could ruffle any feathers. Not only that, the agenda does not include an executive session which guarantees this meeting will be, at the very least, two hours shorter than a normal City Council confab.
But, immediately after this City Council meeting adjourns, the boys and girls on the council will all get back together in a session to go over the recommendations made by the Charter Review Commission. And this is the important meeting of the night. I wish I could give you a definite time when this meeting will commence so you can plan your schedule. But, regardless, this is as important a meeting as the council will have all year because it has to do with the constitution that provides the guiding principles under which this city government operates. And right before they get into this discussion, there will be a citizen comment period during which any concerned citizen can step to the podium and tell their representatives what they think about the changes proposed to the City Charter. And, if you want to know what those changes are, you can get a good idea right here. Just scroll down past the meeting agenda pages as well as a couple of meaningless pages that follow the agenda until you see the words "Part 1–Charter." You’ll see some typographical corrections in red ink, but the changes you need to be aware of will all be in blue ink. So continue to scroll through the document until you see blue ink and then read, review and form your opinions on those recommendations. Then show up to City Hall Wednesday night and let the powers-that-be know how you feel about them.
I’ll tell you in advance what I think about them:
I have absolutely no problem in further delineating reasons a council member can removed from office. Basically what this change means that a council member could be removed from office if he or she is involved in a misdemeanor sex crime such as incest, unlawful sexual contact, internet sexual exploitation, etc.
The next one, however, I have a problem with because it appears, at least on the surface, to be a change that allows council members to give themselves a raise in salary any time they feel like it. I would have liked it more if the change had added some prohibitions that would have denied those salary increases to any person who was a member of the council that voted for the increase — that all raises would apply to future council members. And one could argue that fix could be made in the respective ordinances, but then they can just as easily be left out of the ordinances. I am convinced the charter should set the salary of the members of the council. Now, should that salary be greater than the current $1,200 a year? Possibly. But I know if this change goes through I will be voting against it when it comes on the ballot in May.
I do like the changes that give all council members, not just the mayor, the authority to appoint members to boards and commissions.
I also favor the deletion in Section 4.03 (a) that comes across as an article inserted to protect one former city finance director and is no longer applicable. The City Manager hires the staff and he should have the absolute authority to dismiss them as well.
Which brings us to Section 4.05, which, had it been in effect earlier, would have prohibited Mayor Todd Webster’s complete misinterpretation of the charter earlier this year when he decided he wanted to block certain council members’ access to the city manager. It will be interesting to see which side of this change he comes down on this time around.
The change to Section 4.06 c basically requires all proposed ordinances to have two readings before going into effect. The current charter has the silly rule that says if an ordinance passes 7-0 it doesn’t need a second reading.
Section 5.11 required city council runoff elections to be held on third Saturday following the General Election. This proposed new language eliminates that provision and has the effect of lengthening the time between the General Election and any runoff election. I don’t like it the change that much, but unlike the council pay item I mentioned above and a city attorney change I’ll discuss next, this is not a deal breaker for me.
The Charter Review Commission has proposed changing Section 7.10 to make the city attorney report to the city manager. This is just so wrong for so many reasons. For one, the city attorney is just that – the city’s attorney and not the city manager’s attorney and that’s not an insignificant difference. Second, the city council, not the city manager, appoints the city attorney. I’m not arguing the city attorney should follow the dictates of the council either. He or she must only adhere to the canons of law. His or her responsibility is to follow the law and advise the city how to act in a lawful manner and not be subject to the whims of a city manager who could direct the city attorney to act in a way that could be viewed as in the best interests of the city manager, but not in the best interests of the citizens, the taxpayers of Kyle. In fact, I’m not convinced this change is even legal.
I really like the changes recommended to Section 8.11, which gives voters more of a voice in deciding how and when the city will increase its debt and places certain limitations on that debt. Here’s an example of how this would work. According to the 2015-16 Kyle budget, the city expects to take in a combined $17,777,951 in property and sales tax revenue during the fiscal year. No bonds or certificates of obligation could be issued that totaled more than 10 percent of that figure, approximately $1.7 million, without voter approval. It also says the city cannot offer 20 year bonds to pay for something like a police vehicle that will not be running anywhere close to 20 years from the date it is purchased.
The last major change requires that all council meetings, whether they be regular agenda meetings, workshops, whatever, as well as all meetings of city boards and commissions not only comply with the state’s Open Meetings Act but they also offer an opportunity for public comment. This is an attempt to make city government more transparent and more responsive to the people and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
OK, that’s my opinion. But you have just as much right to express yours and the time and place to do that will be at the start of the City Council meeting directly following the City Council meeting which will take place on a day that’s different from the day on which the City Council meeting usually takes place.
No comments:
Post a Comment