The governing body took up a council‑sponsored proposal on Aug. 13 that would amend the municipal charter to limit the circumstances in which the mayor’s vote is counted. The item generated prolonged committee and council discussion about whether the change should be a standalone ballot question or referred to a new Charter Review Commission for comprehensive study and packaging of wider governance changes.

Proponents argued the measure would create short‑term guardrails on mayoral voting while the city considers broader changes to separate executive and legislative functions. Opponents said removing the mayor’s vote in routine matters without addressing the full package of reforms recommended by the prior Charter Review Commission risked unintended consequences and reduced transparency. Some councilors favored convening a new Charter Review Commission, saying that body could draft an internally consistent set of constitutional changes and public outreach before any ballot question.

Councilor Jamie Cassatt offered amendments designed to ensure that any change would not create statutory conflicts and to require that, if the Charter Review Commission recommends broader changes, the governing body “shall” consider and vote on those recommendations. After debate and several failed procedural moves, the council approved the narrower proposal as amended at the Aug. 13 meeting.

What the approved language does: the council approved a measure that limits counting the mayor’s vote to specified circumstances, with an amendment providing an exception when the mayor’s vote is legally required to reach a statutorily required number of votes or to satisfy other specific legal thresholds. Several councilors said they remain committed to convening a new Charter Review Commission to study separation of powers more fully.

Why this matters: Charter amendments alter the city’s constitution and the balance of authority between the mayor and council members. The debate reflected divergent views about process (piecemeal ballot measures vs. comprehensive charter review) and transparency (whether the mayor should be required to state positions on council items).