Full Charter: Final Drafts

[Robert Owen]

In this thread, the 3rd draft in post 19 is the latest draft. https://councilforum.lagovistatexas.gov/threads/full-charter-final-drafts.142/post-609

As noted in the document, it is complete for Articles 1-11 that have already been approved with the exception of the addition of no-crossover with quasi-judicial commissions I suggested we add in Article 8. We had already discussed and just did not formalize when we approved Article XIII.

Other than that issue, We are just looking for mistakes, typo, grammar in 1-11.

The separate Article XI (now Article XII) is the working, unapproved draft of what is now Article XII. If we can come to agreement on this, and the rest of the agenda today, we are done.

 

[Lynda Aird]

I am sympathetic to Lynda's concerns with the no-crossover provision. There is established law about dual-office holding, however deciphering that law gives the prospect of deciphering this discussion board a run for its money! I am not opposed to adding the no-crossover provision into the charter,

The Ordinance provides for no dual appointments, it is up to the discretion of the Council, and when, in the event they deem a dual appointment is in the best interest of the City, in that situation they should have the flexibility to make a decision in the best interest of the City. Cross-over has not been an issue even one time in the past 9 years.

 

[Robert Owen]

********************************* 1st FINAL DRAFT ******************************

I believe the attached final draft incorporates all the Scribner errors, formatting, and changes adopted per today's meeting. Please do review if you have an opportunity.

 

[Lynda Aird]

1st "Format Draft" for review, discussion and feedback on formatting. Some of the items of note:

• I liked the look of Celina’s use of the section symbol “§” rather than the word “section” littered throughout the document in section headers. Easy to change back if I’m in the minority.
• Standardized the font and text sizes
• Standarized the numbering hierarchy to Section, then numerals, then small letters.
• Fixed a bunch of typos and grammar issues that were not readily apparent in the redline clutter but did not change content.
• Rearranged or broke up/numbered some paragraphs for readbility, but did not change content.
• Searched and corrected he/she
• Searched and added “committees” where missing from Board, Committees, and Commissions.
• Searched and capitalized “resolutions” and “ordinances” throughout
• Added a table of contents

For a final draft, I think we delete all the reserved sections in Article III.

Ordinances Article still needs to be inserted as IV, and the remainder renumbered. I’ve left it out for now so the numbering is the same as the draft we are working from.

Please do call out anything related to typos, grammar, structure etc., so I can just drop in our final changes from Wednesday’s meeting, have a final clean copy for final review and approval on 2/18.

I cannot identify any changes to be made! Not even a comma!

 

[Gene Harris]

Being a word nerd I found this on Chat gpt and thought it was interesting. Robert, I am good with disannex, so smile. I really did have a good time serving with all the members of CRC.

Disannex and deannex are synonymous terms referring to the legal process of removing land from the boundaries of a municipality, effectively reversing an earlier annexation. The terms are used interchangeably across U.S. states, though "disannex" is more common in Texas and some other regions, while "deannex" appears frequently in legal and academic contexts.

• Disannex emphasizes the act of relinquishing previously annexed land, often used in state laws like Texas’s disannexation reform efforts and Austin’s 2024 disannexation elections.
• Deannex is the more formal, widely used term in legal literature and state statutes (e.g., Arizona, Tennessee, and Washington), often appearing in legislative language such as "deannexation of land from one municipality and annexation to another."

Both processes involve complex procedures, including public hearings, property owner consent (often requiring a majority or supermajority), and approval from county or judicial authorities. In some states, such as Arizona, deannexation requires a 51% protest threshold from landowners to block the process, while in Washington, a 60% voter approval is needed in a citywide election.

In essence, disannex and deannex mean the same thing—the removal of land from a city’s jurisdiction—but the choice of term often reflects regional or legislative preference.