Council places six charter amendment questions on Nov. 4 special election; mayor vetoes signature-count change

Parker Town Council on Aug. 4 voted to place six proposed charter amendments on a Nov. 4 special election ballot covering nomination petition thresholds, vacancies, conflict-of-interest language, the Board of Adjustment, intergovernmental agreement approval, and multiple-office prohibitions. After council approval, Mayor Joshua Rivera exercised his charter veto on the first item (nomination petition signatures). What the six questions would do: Staff described the proposed changes as mostly procedural and cleanup items; the six items as presented were: (1) increase the nomination petition signature requirement from 25 to 75 for mayor and council candidates (Ordinance 1.653); (2) change vacancy timelines and procedures to extend appointment timelines (Ordinance 1.654); (3) explicitly add the mayor to the charter’s conflict-of-interest section to ensure the mayor is covered by the same standard as council (Ordinance 1.655); (4) remove the charter requirement for a separate Board of Adjustment and transfer those duties to the active Planning Commission (Ordinance 1.656); (5) repeal the charter section that requires all intergovernmental agreements be approved by ordinance (which mandates two readings and a one‑month gap) and allow more modern contract approval methods (Ordinance 1.657); and (6) add a provision (new Section 3.11) prohibiting town elected officials from holding another elected or partisan office simultaneously (Ordinance 1.658). Council debate and vote outcomes: Council debated transparency, access to office, and practicalities for appointment timelines. Ordinance 1.653 (raise petition signatures to 75) passed the council 4–2 (Hendricks, Barrington, Wilkes and Franzen voting yes; Dyack and Hefta voting no) but Mayor Joshua Rivera announced after the council vote that he would exercise his veto authority under the charter and municipal code, stating his belief that elected officials should not make it harder for residents to run for office; he then recessed the meeting to put the veto on the record. The other five ballot items passed council approval: 1.654 (vacancies) passed unanimously; 1.655 (conflict of interest) unanimous; 1.656 (Board of Adjustment transfer) unanimous; 1.657 (intergovernmental contracts) unanimous; 1.658 (multiple offices) passed 5–1 (Wilkes voted no). Why it matters: Together the questions would change how candidates qualify for ballot access, how council fills vacancies, clarify ethics language for the mayor, consolidate a seldom-used Board function into the Planning Commission, modernize contract approval procedures, and prohibit council members or the mayor from holding certain additional elected or partisan positions. Supporters argued the changes align governance with current practice and reduce administrative friction; opponents said increasing signature requirements and restricting multiple-office holding could limit democratic access or should be developed with broader citizen input. Council direction and next steps: The approved questions (except the vetoed signatures change, which remains subject to the mayoral veto) will be prepared for the Nov. 4 special election ballot with staff to post explanatory materials and black-line text on a public web page; the clerk said including full black-line charter text on the ballot would increase election costs from about $60,700 to more than $100,000, so the town will post a web resource and provide printed copies at the clerk’s office. What remains: The mayor’s veto of Ordinance 1.653 was announced at the meeting and will be processed according to the charter; the remaining five questions will appear on the Nov. 4 ballot pending final ballot certification and election procedures.