The White House Charter Review Commission on June 19 recommended that the city council adopt non‑substantive, organizational edits to the city charter and consider placing substantive amendments on a future ballot, the commission said during its meeting.

The recommendation, moved and seconded during the meeting, asked the council to adopt changes that remove duplication and clarify references to state law and to send only the substantive charter changes to voters for approval. The motion was made and seconded but the transcript does not record a formal roll‑call vote.

The commission's work is intended to make the charter easier to read and to separate routine administrative details that can be put in the city's code of ordinances from provisions that require voter approval, a presenter identified as Gary told the commission. "We just don't need to say it three times. We need to say it once," Gary said, explaining the goal of reorganizing related paragraphs and shortening repeated language.

Why it matters: commissioners said a shorter, clearer charter will make it simpler for voters to compare the existing language with proposed changes and will reduce confusion if the council adopts non‑substantive edits before any election. The commission discussed the timing that affects whether proposed changes could appear on the November ballot and the need for staff to prepare explanatory materials for the public.

Commission members spent most of the meeting reviewing a draft set of edits that the panel identified during its review process. The group discussed two categories of work: non‑substantive edits that reorganize and remove duplication and substantive changes that would alter rights or powers and therefore require voter approval. A staff member said the city will prepare factual explanatory materials once the council orders an election but cannot legally advocate for or against the changes.

The panel discussed several specific topics that appear in the draft changes. Commissioners asked whether itemized provisions such as provisions about the planning and development process (referred to in the draft as "article 9") should be included as part of the ballot questions; Gary said state law and the city's Home Rule status affect which items need voter approval and which the council can address by ordinance. The commission also discussed whether the municipal judge position should be required to be an attorney; the panel did not put that requirement to a vote at the meeting and Gary noted the council retains discretion when making appointments.

Commissioners and staff reviewed procedural next steps: prepare a clear, side‑by‑side explanation showing the old charter text and proposed language, convert the draft into ordinance form for council consideration, and provide voters factual materials from the time the council orders an election until election day. Commissioners said they prefer the council first adopt any non‑substantive ordinance changes to create a single, clean charter, and then have voters decide only the substantive items listed by the commission.

Timing for a ballot was discussed but not decided. Staff cautioned that deadlines for placing measures on a November ballot are approaching; the commission discussed the possibility of delaying to a later election if the materials cannot be prepared in time. A staff member said the commission's recommendations will be presented to the city council at its next meeting for review; commissioners were asked to attend that meeting to answer council questions.

The meeting closed with staff and commissioners acknowledging the volume of work remaining, including preparing explanatory documents and converting the draft changes into ordinance format for council review. The transcript does not record any final, formal adoption of the charter changes by the council; it records only the commission's motion to recommend the two‑part approach (non‑substantive edits for council adoption and substantive items for voter consideration).