Topeka citizen government review committee elects chair, sets schedule; city attorney outlines charter

The Topeka Citizen Government Review Committee elected Jim Calp as chair and approved Constance (vice chair) by acclamation, then set a meeting schedule and heard an overview of the city’s charter from City Attorney Amanda Stanley.

The committee, created under the Topeka Municipal Code and charged with reviewing the city’s form of government, must convene by July 1, 2025, and submit its report to the governing body within six months, Stanley told the group during an orientation. "We are what is known as a council manager form of government," she said, summarizing the city’s current structure.

Nut graf: The committee’s work will examine how Topeka’s charter and governing practices operate in practice and may recommend changes for the governing body to consider. At its first meeting members established leadership and a meeting cadence and heard legal and procedural limits they must respect, including open-meetings requirements and at least one required public hearing.

Election and leadership: Committee member Jim Calp said he would be willing to chair the panel: "I would be interested in chairing the committee if the committee chooses," he said. The committee closed nominations by consent and approved Calp as chair by voice vote; a vice chair was chosen by acclamation. The transcript records no roll-call vote for either action; members present voted by voice.

Orientation on charter and roles: Amanda Stanley, the city attorney, delivered a detailed primer on the city’s government and the committee’s charge. She described Topeka as a charter city that operates under a council-manager form: the mayor is a member of the governing body (and has veto power on home-rule ordinances), the nine council members represent districts, and the city manager handles day-to-day administration. "The city manager is responsible for making sure that the budget that the governing body passed is used in the way that they expect it to be used," Stanley said.

Stanley reviewed statutory and charter limits the committee must consider: the Kansas Open Meetings Act governs meeting notice and openness; certain statewide rules such as the date of elections are set by state law and cannot be changed by charter alone; the city maintains statement-of-substantial-interest requirements for candidates. She also noted operational details discussed at the meeting: the city manager signs many contracts but professional services contracts over $50,000 require governing-body approval; the city employs about 1,000 people and manages an approximately $300,000,000 budget (figures given by the city attorney during the presentation).

Public input and process: Members debated how frequently to meet and how best to collect public comment. The committee requires at least one public hearing; Stanley said the ordinance expects the body to hold open meetings and at least one public hearing during its review. Members agreed to a mixed schedule (one daytime and one evening meeting each month for February and March) to improve access: February 5 (11 a.m.–1 p.m.), February 19 (6–8 p.m.), March 5 (11 a.m.–1 p.m.) and March 26 (6–8 p.m.) were approved by motion and voice vote for the next two months.

Outreach and evidence gathering: Members proposed inviting previous review-committee chairs, former and current elected officials, the city manager and outside experts to present to the committee. The group agreed the chair would invite former committee chair Jim Reardon and a local academic/practitioner (Hannes Zacharias was mentioned by name) as possible early presenters, and the chair or staff would invite current governing-body members and department heads to offer input or written comments.

Next steps and schedule: Staff will post meeting notices, circulate prior review reports to committee members and coordinate presenters and public-notice logistics. The city clerk will take minutes and the legal department will prepare a short package of suggested rules of order for the committee to consider at its next meeting.

Ending: Committee members reiterated a preference for broad public outreach and for relying on past reports and outside presenters to avoid "reinventing the wheel." The panel adjourned after setting its next meeting dates and assigning staff to coordinate materials and invitations.