KYLE — The Kyle City Charter Review Commission discussed various aspects of articles six and seven of the city charter, including initiative, conflict, power of recall, non-binding ballot propositions, department organization and more at its March 10 meeting.
Beginning the discussion, city attorney Aimee Alcorn-Reed presented the commission with requested changes from the Feb. 24 meeting. All changes were approved unanimously, except for Section 4.03 The City Council.
Previously, the commission discussed that the finance director should be removed by five affirmative votes from council or majority of the vote because, as it was written in the charter, it required the entirety of council approval.
Continuing this discussion at the March 10 meeting, commissioner Lila Knight wanted to add the ability for council to appoint the finance director, as well. Commissioner Michael Walsh shared a similar sentiment, stating that appointment and dismissal would be appropriate, but that other staff should be the one recommending people for the finance director position.
“The city manager is a highly paid, full-time position for the city. The council members are not full-time members and this is such an important responsibility that I wouldn’t want it to be on someone's not necessarily front burner if we have to find a finance director,” said commissioner David Glickler.
“I’m not going to change my position. I’m not in favor of the city council appointing and being in charge. I’m not,” said commissioner Stuart Kirkwood.
Walsh motioned to approve language that allows council to dismiss the finance director, with five votes from council, following a second from Kirkwood. The motion passed 4-2, with Knight and commissioner Diane Hervol dissenting.
Article 6 Initiative, Referendum and Recall consists of: general, initiative, referendum, conflict, signatures, commencement of proceedings, examination and sufficiency, referendum-suspension of ordinance, action on petition, procedure and results of election, power of recall, recall election, limitation on recall, failure of city to call an election and non-binding ballot propositions.
Alcorn-Reed noted that section 6.02 Initiative and 6.03 Referendum have a list of subjects that cannot be applied in either category, while 6.03 includes limitations that the initiative 6.02 does not. The commission opted to leave the items as is.
Section 6.04 Conflict states that “no initiative or referendum action shall conflict with this charter, the constitution or any state statute” and while federal law applies regardless, said Alcorn-Reed, she noted that it does not explicitly state so. Because of this, the commission voted to add language referencing federal law.
The next section states that initiative and referendum positions must be signed by 25% of number of votes cast at the last general election of the city.
“In the very rare circumstance that we have this happen … if two at-large positions run and one of them gets, say, 10,000 votes and one of them gets 15,000 votes total because 5,000 people chose to not vote in the other one, which one would we use. So, I wanted to set it to the one that gets the largest total votes,” said Alcorn-Reed.
After discussion, members decided to keep the language the same, with no specificity, though commissioner Knight noted that she was uncomfortable with keeping it the same.
Regarding sections 6.06, 6.07 and 6.09, which deal with the processes associated with an initiative or referendum petition, Alcorn-Reed noted that the order is “odd.” The current process requires the form of petition to be filed, 90 days to circulate the petition, the city secretary to validate the signatures within 14 days and then, once certified council will request legal opinion from the city attorney within 30 days to find out if the ordinance is legal. At her previous city, it was the opposite, she explained, as the petition was filed and then, the attorney would give an opinion.
“Then, they wouldn’t spend the time getting 4,000 signatures and find out, ‘Oh, sorry. That’s not legal; we can’t pass it anyway,” said Alcorn-Reed.
After hearing this, the commission agreed to change the order to the “more efficient” way that the attorney mentioned, so that residents would find out if the petition is legal prior to seeking signatures.
Knight also suggested changing the number of days from 14 to 15 and specifying business days, to give more time for the city secretary to validate the signatures, as well as adding “and/or designees” for help.
“I just want to make sure whatever change we’re making to the city secretary’s time, we’re also making to the petitioner's time, so it’s not accused of being too favorable to the city,” explained Alcorn-Reed.
Section 6.11 Power of Recall, currently states that signatures of 15% of registered voters are required to remove an elected official, including for single-member district representatives.
Knight noted that this should specify that it requires 15% of registered voters from the specific districts, if that elected official was to be recalled. Other commissioners agreed, with Alcorn-Reed bringing back language at the next meeting.
“[N]o officer shall be subjected to more than three (3) recall elections during the term of office,” reads Section 6.13 Limitation of Recall.
“Three in one term is too many,” said Glickler. “I think if you survive two recalls, you should be left alone for the rest of your term.”
No official vote was made, but language options for two recalls will be drafted and brought back at a later date, said the attorney.
Glickler and Knight also noted that 6.14 should be titled “Failure of City Council to Call a Recall Election,” rather than “Failure of City Council to Call an Election.”
Alcorn-Reed stated that the non-binding proposition section is relatively new to the ballot and currently requires cumbersome requirements, such as six votes from council.
“Why would we require such a high burden to just get a non-binding proposition on the ballot? The purpose of a non-binding proposition is just to feel out the citizens and get their opinion on it. Why should two council members be able to get together and say, ‘No, I don’t want to hear what citizens have to say.” I’m fine with a majority [vote] on that,” said Glickler.
“I’d be okay with five, but I think it should be a larger number, so we don’t have a city council member [put it out like a survey],” Knight said, which was agreed on.
Article 7 Administrative Services consists of: city manager, acting manager, administrative departments, department directors, departmental organization, police department, fire department, city secretary, public works department, city attorney and municipal court.
For section 7.02 Acting Manager, the city manager may currently designate an acting city manager if they are absent. The commission decided to add that if the city manager is absent and fails to designate someone, that city council will.
“I pointed out [ 7.03] Administrative Departments for the same reason I pointed out several things in article four: it gives council power that I don’t necessarily see in other cities in Texas,” said Alcorn-Reed.
The section details that council shall approve personnel policies and guidelines and have the power to establish administrative offices or departments.
“I do feel like this is one section that this should squarely fall under the city manager,” said commissioner Hannah Foarde.
Glickler proposed that the attorney propose new language at the next meeting based on what she has seen in the charters of other cities, along with section 7.05 Departmental Organization.
To listen to the discussion, visit bit.ly/423Aksq. The Kyle City Charter Review Commission aims to discuss the remaining sections of article seven, along with article eight, March 24.
