Charter Review Committee Recommendations - City Council Discussion

[Shane Saum]

Dear Council,

As discussed at Thursdays meeting, here is the thread to suggest your edits to the Charter Review Committees recommendations or to the language of certain items. I have also tried to capture Council's consensus from Thursday on each item that corresponds to the attached table items. Please let me know if I got any of those wrong.

Here are my notes on how the discussion went.


1. Consensus with CRC to put on ballot
2. Consensus with CRC to put on ballot
3. 3 yr terms Consensus with CRC to put on ballot
4. Structure of 3 yr terms Consensus with CRC to put on ballot. City Attorney to research ability to make contingent ballot measures.
5. Mayor/council duties - Want CRC to discuss more and give more background on this recommendation
6. Term limits Consensus to leave off ballot
7. Consensus with CRC not to include in Charter rules of procedure language
8. Charter violation section - Consensus to go to ballot, work on language on discussion board
9. Voters to fill vacancies - city attorney needs to review if recommendation is allowed
10. Consensus with CRC
11. Consensus with CRC
12. Mayor/mayor pro tem signature Consensus with CRC
13. No changes on 3.17. Consensus with CRC
14. Consensus with CRC
15. Majority voting - Consensus with CRC to put on ballot. City Attorney looking into contingent ballot language.
16. Petitions % - city attorney to look into
17. Referendum % - city attorney to look into
18. Recall % - city attorney to look into
19. Council access to city employees- Consensus not to put on the ballot (5-2) asks CRC to look at again as they review item #5
20. Building and Standards update Consensus with CRC
21. Consensus with CRC
22. Consensus with CRC
23. Consensus with CRC
24. Consensus not to put on the ballot 5-2
25. Legal Review of gifts language
26. No action by CRC


Scrivener's errors - Consensus to put on ballot and ask Legal to review them.

Section 3.21 and 3.23 investigative body powers - Mayor asks CRC to review this section. City Attorney added 3.23.

 

[Adam Benefield]

Thanks for sharing Counselor Saum but I'm going to need to review #19. The original vote was 6 -1 (Roberts dissenting) and then later was clarified and the vote went to 5 - 2 (Roberts and Saum dissenting). I don't recall a discussion or agreement to asking CRC to look at this again as they review item #5. Will you clarify?

 

[Charles West]

Counselor Saum, thank you for placing this on the Discussion Board.

 

[Adam Benefield]

Counselors Saum and Prince,

Thanks again for putting together your notes from the Charter Review Committee discussion.

Regarding item #19 (Council access to city employees), I wanted to follow up. I copied the full transcript of our charter review discussion into ChatGPT to help confirm my recollection of the vote and conversation. Based on that analysis:

• The vote was recorded as 5–2 not to place item #19 on the ballot, with Council members Roberts and Saum dissenting.
• There was no mention during the meeting of referring this item back to the Charter Review Committee, and it was not discussed in connection with item #5.

To be clear, I didn’t re-watch the video, this just aligns with how I remember the meeting unfolding. That said, if I’m mistaken (or if the AI missed something), it certainly wouldn’t be the first time. If you recall a specific point in the meeting where Council agreed to send item #19 back to the CRC, I’d appreciate it if you could point me to the timestamp or context.

Adam C. Benefield

 

[Kevin Sullivan]

I have to agree with Adam. My memory was that council discussed 19, voted not to put it on the ballot, and did not ask CRC to review. I was the one that requested that item 5 be reviewed for some explanation as to why the CRC was recommending as I reviewed 6 different charters and could not find a one that followed the CRC recommendation found in item 5. I know my request to review section 5 did NOT include a request to review item 19 as well. I would also comment that not only did the other 6 charters not have a section giving individual council members the right to talk to any city employee, they tended to restrict council access to employees and discourage such interaction. Especially attempts to direct employees.

 

[Shane Saum]

Thank y'all for your notes. As was pointed out by a member of the CRC's notes "There was a comment while discussing 3.21 to keep the rejection of #19 in mind while we deliberate 3.21/3.23 as we now know the language in 19 will not be put to the ballot." Please watch the Mayor's addition to the list and his discussion with Brad. Prior to your messages I already flagged 19 as one for them to not review. However, they can discuss whatever they want. It is a moot point. However I am going to bring it back up for discussion in my own at the next Council meeting so you can go ahead and be prepared to discuss it again.

 

[Adam Benefield]

Yes, the CRC is free to discuss any items they choose. However, as the Council’s liaison, it’s important that we’re precise in how direction is represented. Your notes suggest that Council gave direction to revisit Item #19, but no such consensus was reached during the meeting.

In fact, the Council explicitly voted not to place Item #19 on the ballot, and there was no motion or agreement to send it back to the CRC for further review. It’s important that we avoid giving the impression that Council initiated something that it did not.

With that in mind, I respectfully request that the notes be revised to accurately reflect that Council did not direct the CRC to revisit this item, and that any such request would be made in a personal capacity.

 

[Shane Saum]

Councilor as I stated above I have already let the CRC know of this and they have all been notified and there is an email chain, which I have sent you. We cannot edit our responses on the Discussion Board for records retention purposes. That is why I said in the original message let me know if I got any wrong. You and the Mayor have let us know and it is documented here in the discussion. The process has worked well. Great job all.

 

[Adam Benefield]

I'd like to respectfully request that the Charter Review Committee consider a revision to limit the Mayor’s voting rights to tie-breaking situations only. This model is common and helps reinforce the Mayor’s role as a neutral presiding officer.

 

[Paul Prince]

Council,
At last night's CRC some specific questions were discussed by the CRC that had been posed either above in this online discussion or in the City Council discussion last Thursday. Following are the notes from CRC Secretary Owen (and agreed by CRC members as accurately capturing their discussion)
-Paul
--------------

Counselor Benefield’s Discussion Board Request:
I'd like to respectfully request that the Charter Review Committee consider a revision to limit the Mayor’s voting rights to tie-breaking situations only. This model is common and helps reinforce the Mayor’s role as a neutral presiding officer.

The committee considered and discussed Councilor Benefield’s request as an additional subject under Sec. 3.06 that the Mayor requested more background on. The request was posted on the morning of the scheduled CRC meeting, so committee members did not have much opportunity to research and form thoughtful opinions. The committee discussion included:

1. Preliminary research found that in Texas, Mayors in General Law city charters do not vote except in case of a tie breaker. Mayoral voting in Home Rule City Charters is split.
2. The committee, in reworking 3.06 completely, was trying to codify that the Mayor is an equal member of the council body with no additional authority beyond a few administrative, ceremonial, and emergency duties. In other words, a first among equals. While limiting the Mayor’s voting to tie-breaking would reinforce the “neutral presiding officer” role, such action would undermine the overall larger principle that the Mayor is an equal member of council afforded no significant additional authority.
3. Most importantly, limiting the Mayor’s voting authority would shield the mayor from taking public positions via voting. When a sitting Mayor runs for reelection, the voters would not really know the Mayor’s true position on items of importance. Mayoral reelections could devolve into popularity contests and hypothetical talk as a campaign rather than a discussion of factual voting records.

As this topic is on the CRC agenda as a “Discussion” item, the CRC is unable to take action in the form of a formal recommendation and hopes the discussion recap is helpful to council.


Paraphrasing Councilor Robert’s question from the June 26th City Council Meeting:

Councilor Roberts asked us to look at the disciplinary process of department heads, specifically the firing of department heads. The Charter requires CC to hire and terminate department heads. Is that timely and practical given open meeting posting requirements and the council calendar if an urgent issue necessitating removal should arise with a department head? Should CM be allowed to terminate a department head without CC action?



The committee considered and discussed Councilor Robert’s question, invited input from the City Manager, and reviewed Section 4.01 (b) of the charter, which reads as follows:

Appoint, supervise and/or give direction to all departments, offices, and agencies of the City and hire, suspend or remove any employee of the City except for department heads which require Council approval for employment or removal;


The committee felt this sentence is poorly worded and could be read in three ways depending upon the meaning of “department heads” and grammar:

1. The CM cannot take any action on the “department heads” which require City Council approval per the Charter. Those positions are further defined in Section 4 as the City Secretary, Municipal Judge(s), the City Attorney, and Police Chief. Human Resources, as a department, is established by the Charter but Section 4.06 does not specifically state the HR Director is approved by City Council. Other positions such as department directors established by ordinance rather than the Charter are completely subject to the discretion of the CM alone.
2. The CM cannot take any action on the “department heads” as defined by city practice and conventional use of the term by council, city attorney, and city staff. This would include department directors and potentially all CM direct reports.
3. The CM may suspend “department heads” however defined in iv) or v) but may not employ or remove them.

Given this ambiguity, the discussion produced consensus that Council should consider revising Section 4.01(b) to clearly express the “intent” of Council on this policy matter. There was no consensus on how restrictive the policy should be, with some members feeling the CM’s hands should not be tied at all on personnel matters and others expressing key positions should absolutely require council approval to hire or terminate. Regarding the timeliness concern in the original question, council may want to clearly articulate and preserve the “suspension pending investigation” option should council want to withhold making the final termination decision on “department heads” beyond the 4 positions established by Charter.



As this topic is on the CRC agenda as a “Discussion” item, the CRC is unable to take action in the form of a formal recommendation and hopes the discussion recap is helpful to council.

 

[Paul Prince]

Note:
3. The CM may suspend “department heads” however defined in iv) or v) but may not employ or remove them

Should read
3. The CM may suspend “department heads” however defined in 1) or 2) but may not employ or remove them