Fate Charter Commission mandates five‑year reviews, narrows "modern usage" edits and orders ethics requirement; attorney to redraft vacancy rules

The Fate Charter Commission voted on several charter changes and procedural directions at a meeting where commissioners also debated composition of review panels, how to fill vacancies and whether to require a council code of conduct.

The commission voted unanimously to change Section 2.04 of the city charter so the city council "shall appoint" a charter review commission every five years rather than leaving appointment to council discretion; it later approved removing Section 2.061(c) — language allowing the council to "revise language to reflect modern usage and style" — by an 8‑1 vote. Commissioners also voted 6‑3 to add a requirement to the charter that the city council adopt, by ordinance, a code of ethics and conduct and to review that ordinance at least every two years. The commission unanimously directed the city attorney to revise the charter’s vacancy and resign‑to‑run provisions so they follow state law and to return proposed language at a future meeting.

Why it matters: the changes will make charter review mandatory, limit a council shortcut that previously let the council authorize minor editorial changes without a public amendment process, and put a formal obligation on future councils to adopt and periodically review ethics/conduct rules. Commissioners said those measures are intended to increase citizen participation and transparency; opponents warned about potential free‑speech and enforcement issues.

The meeting began with two public commenters who urged keeping recall, referendum and vacancy rules centered on voters. Rod Brumlow, of 102 Jeremy Drive, told the commission, "There's a resignation vacancy on the city council that's up to the citizens to vote it in. It's not up to council members, a board, it's up to the citizens." Stephanie Adams, of 566 McKinney Trail, said she "support[s] the council appointing someone" to fill short vacancies when that saves the city the cost of a special election, adding, "just to save the council money because that cost is pretty extreme." The commission discussed both approaches at length before referring…