Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutCharter Review Committee Minutes 04-18-2012 Charter Review Commission Minutes April 18, 2012 Community Board Room Members Present: Chairman Bill Agan Secretary/Vice Chair Jeff Ritter Member Loyce Greer Member LaRue Wall City Attorney Betsy Elam Members Absent: Member Doug Knowlton Audience Present: Janece Hill Jeremy Hill Travis Malone Chairman Agan called the meeting to order at 7:10PM Chairman Agan pointed out that Member Knowlton would be absent tonight. 0111,) 1. Read and Approve minutes from last meeting (April 11, 2012) Member Wall motioned to approve the minutes from the April 11, 2012 meeting. Member Greer seconded. The motion was approved by unanimous vote. 2. Review City Charter. City Attorney Elam presented an updated Charter Chart to the members of the Commission. Section 2.01 —Municipal Powers Attorney Elam pointed out the changes in the Charter Chart in Section 2.01 that reflected the consensus of the Commission from the previous meeting. Secretary Ritter questioned if the Attorney-proposed General Powers similar to that of River Oaks could replace the verbiage currently in the Charter. Attorney Elam replied that she would make those changes and present them to the Commission for review. Section 3.01 —Number, Selection and Term Attorney Elam presented her proposed language as the Commission discussed at the previous meeting. • Attorney Elam suggested language for the definition of a term and a proposed election schedule to get the City Council into a 3 year term cycle. Section 3.02—Qualifications Attorney Elam offered suggested language for the qualifications for office and recommended that the qualifications for filing for office and qualifications for a Council Member simply reference each other for clarity. Section 3.03—Quorum Attorney Elam added"not including the Mayor"when counting towards a quorum of the City Council Section 3.07— Vacancies, Forfeiture, Absenteeism and Filling of Vacancies. Attorney Elam pointed out that the term"Vacant" and"Forfeit" are very different with very different legal definitions. She stated that"Vacancy"meant the Member could remain in the position until replaced and"Forfeiture"meant that the Member would be immediately removed from the position. Member Greer stated that there were provisions in the Charter which, if violated,would result in the removal of a Council Member. Secretary Ritter stated that he did not realize the legal distinction of the two terms and the very different legal ramifications of each and that he would work on revising the verbiage used in the section. It was the consensus of the Commission to review the Section to determine what should result in Forfeiture and what should result in Vacancy. Section 3.13—Conflict Of Interest Attorney Elam stated that Chapter 171 of the Local Government Code states what is a Conflict of Interest and that section was not needed. Member Greer stated that she believed that the Charter should be a guide and therefore the provisions should be clearly stated. Chairman Agan stated that we would have to discuss as a Commission whether to include provisions for Conflict of Interest or depend upon State Law. The consensus of the Commission was to review the Section and determine if the provisions of Conflict of Interest should be included in the Charter. Section 3.15—Procedure to Enact Legislation and Publication of Ordinance Attorney Elam suggested that having a 2nd reading of each ordinance would cause delays and inefficiency in the process of enacting ordinances. roN Secretary Ritter indicated that he believed it was important that the Council have the opportunity to see each ordinance in its final form before final passage as often times before the Council never saw the final ordinance language. Attorney Elam pointed out that the Council has enacted a policy so that if there are any changes to the wording that is provided in the Council packet,the ordinance will be presented to the Council via E-Mail or other means. Secretary Ritter maintained that if any changes are made to the proposed ordinance after a vote,the ordinance should be brought back for final passage. The consensus of the Commission was to review the section to determine if the Section is what is intended. Section 3.17—Rules of Procedure -Minutes Attorney Elam stated that State Law covers procedures,minutes, and other related duties so the section was unnecessary. Secretary Ritter stated that the main concern of the Commission was that the words"tape recording"in the current Charter be modernized to include digital versions of both audio and video recordings. Section 3.20—Public Comment Attorney Elam questioned the meaning and usage of the Section as related to when the public is allowed to speak. Member Wall stated that the public should be able to speak at the Council Meetings and let their voice be heard. Secretary Ritter stated that the Section served a dual purpose. The first provision was for the public to discuss ANY subject,whether on the agenda or not on the agenda and that would have its own agenda item entitled"Citizen Input" or similar name. The second provision was for the public to discuss any particular agenda item before the vote was taken on that particular item. Attorney Elam indicated that"Roberts Rules of Order"did not apply to a City Council meeting and that provision should be eliminated. 3. Assignment for Next Meeting The next meeting is scheduled for WEDNESDAY April 25, 2012 with the City Attorney to continue receiving legal advice from City Attorney Betsy Elam. n 4.Public Comments Travis Malone—Stated that the current agenda item for public comment is entitled "Public Input/Comment". He also stated that it should be mandatory for each City Council member know the City Charter and follow it. 5.Adjournment Member Ritter motioned to adjourn. Member Wall seconded. Chairman Agan adjourned the meeting at 9:10 PM. Jeff Ritter-Secrets C• Bill Agan-Chairmann