Decatur Charter Review Committee proposes 3-year council terms, anti-nepotism rule and other updates; public hearing, potential ballot set

The Charter Review Commission on Tuesday presented a set of proposed changes to the City of Decatur charter that would move council terms from two years to three, stagger elections, add an anti‑nepotism provision, and update several administrative provisions. The commission and City Council discussed language, implementation timing and a narrow provision on forfeiture of office that may need rewording before final action.

The recommendations are intended to ‘‘future‑proof’’ the charter by removing references to specific state law citations and by adding clauses that make state law controlling where conflicts arise, Chris Forbes, chair of the Charter Review Commission, told the joint meeting. The commission also proposed stylistic corrections—grammar and punctuation—and harmonization of conflicting sections.

Why it matters: The package would change election rhythm, candidate qualifications and several municipal operations rules. Several provisions, if adopted by the council and approved by voters, would alter how Decatur elects council members and how certain municipal offices are staffed and governed.

Key proposals and points raised

- Council terms and staggering: The commission recommends changing councilmember terms from two years to three and staggering elections so that not all seats are up at once. The goal, commissioners said, is to increase continuity and produce a citywide election each year for at least one major race (mayor or an at‑large seat). The commission said its plan avoids cutting any sitting member’s term to a single year; during a transition some terms may be two or three years until staggered cycles align.

- Term limits: The draft accounts for combinations of 2‑ and 3‑year terms when counting term‑limit eligibility so the overall maximum service remains a defined total (the draft describes combinations that sum to an 18‑year maximum in the term‑limits language).

- Candidate qualifications and mayoral duties: The draft clarifies that a candidate must be 20 years old on election day and that no candidate may be in arrears on taxes or other liabilities owed to the city. It also narrows outdated mayoral powers to conform with state law.

- Municipal court and records: The commission proposed changing the municipal court recording retention window from 21 days (in the existing charter text) to 120 days to accommodate the appellate timetable and clarified that court clerks must keep recorded copies of trials when a trial occurs.

- City attorney duties: The draft clarifies the city attorney’s role to include representation in foreseeable or pending litigation and explicit rights to access and review evidence and interview witnesses in those matters.

- Anti‑nepotism and employment rules: The draft adds an anti‑nepotism provision barring employment or contracting by persons related within the second degree by affinity (marriage) or third degree by consanguinity (blood) to the mayor, any councilmember or the city manager. The provision exempts persons who had continuous city employment for two years before an elected official took office or the manager was appointed. Commissioners discussed family decisions that could arise when an employee and a relative run for office.

- Recall and forfeiture: The draft retains a supermajority standard for forfeiture of office (a three‑quarters affirmative vote of the entire membership). Commissioners discussed whether the language should require three‑quarters of the entire membership present or three‑quarters of the entire membership regardless of attendance; several commissioners said the intent was to avoid allowing the subject of the action to stall removal by absence and asked staff to refine the wording so one member cannot block a three‑quarters result by not attending.

- Other technical and administrative changes: allowed electronic publication where publication is required, clarified that the municipal judge’s term will follow the minimum statutory term set by state law, required surety bonds for employees who handle money, and incorporated a 2010 ordinance that created the Decatur Municipal Court of Record into the charter language.

Process, next steps and timeline discussed

The Charter Review Commission has a follow‑up meeting scheduled (the commission asked for a short follow‑up to consider council feedback). The commission told council there will be a public hearing on the revisions on the 28th (as stated in the meeting) and that, if council moves forward, the council could call an election on Aug. 11 and place ballot items on the November election. The commission noted the council will decide which of the commission’s substantive recommendations become ballot items; general technical corrections could be grouped on a single ballot item.

What council members raised

Council members and commissioners repeatedly emphasized ‘‘future proofing’’ the charter—avoiding specific cross‑references that could become obsolete if state statutes are renumbered—and asked staff to add a formal schedule for periodic charter review (the commission suggested a regular 5‑ or 10‑year review cycle). Multiple members thanked Chris Forbes for leading the technical and complex work.

No final council action on the charter revisions was taken at the joint workshop. The commission and council asked staff to return with clarified language on the forfeiture provision and other edits before any formal council vote or placement on the ballot.

Ending note

Commissioners said they intend to reconcile the remaining language and present a revised draft at the next scheduled meetings so the council can determine whether to place one or more items before voters.