Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Charter review commission approves multiple redline changes to articles 6–7, amends petition and recall procedures
Summary
The Kyle City Charter Review Commission approved redline revisions to multiple charter sections on March 24, including earlier city attorney review of initiative petitions, signature-timeline changes, recall limits and council authority on nonbinding propositions.
The Kyle City Charter Review Commission voted to approve recommended redline changes to several sections of Articles 6 and 7 of the Kyle City charter at its March 24 meeting.
City Attorney Amy Elkhorn Reed presented a redline showing edits to multiple subsections and explained the most substantive changes. "This is the red line I put together for article 6 and 7," Reed said while introducing the document. The commission approved multiple discrete amendments by voice vote with no recorded opposition.
Key changes approved by the commission include: - Section 6.04: minor wording change adding the word “federal” where the charter previously referred to “state.” - Section 6.06: changed the petition workflow so the city secretary accepts an initiative or referendum petition, records the time and date, and forwards it to the city attorney for legal review before petition circulation is finalized; if the attorney determines the proposed petition is not lawful, the city secretary would return it to the petitioner (the transcript records that the commission discussed the possibility of allowing petitioners to re-circulate with the knowledge of an adverse legal opinion). - Section 6.07: expanded the city secretary’s designees’ authority to examine signatures; extended a timeline from 14 days to 15 business days; added alternative methods of communication (for example, email) as an option to certified mail for notices to petitioners. - Section 6.09: removed the later city-attorney review by moving legal review earlier in the petition process. - Section 6.11: required that registered voters signing a recall petition for an elected officer in a single-member district be eligible to vote for that officer. - Section 6.13: lowered the number of allowable recall attempts during a term from three to two. - Section labeled 06/2015 (nonbinding ballot propositions): reduced the council vote threshold to place a nonbinding advisory proposition on the ballot from six council members to five. - Section 7.01: clarified that the city manager, not council, has authority to require a bond from employees other than the city manager. - Section 7.02: clarified that if the city manager is unavailable and has not designated an acting manager, the city council has authority to designate one.
Commissioners discussed appeals (no formal charter appeals process was added; one commissioner observed the only practical recourse would be a lawsuit), drafting options for curable legal defects, and whether returning a petition to a petitioner should bar further action or simply flag the petition as having an adverse opinion. Reed confirmed the redline includes language allowing the city attorney to provide an ordinance in legal form if the proposed initiative can be adjusted to be lawful.
Votes at a glance (formal actions recorded on the March 24 transcript): - Approval of minutes (March 10): motion by Commissioner Glicker; second by Commissioner Walsh. Result: approved 5-0. - Approval of changes to section 6.04: motion to approve; moved/seconded on the record. Result: approved (voice vote). - Approval of changes to 6.06, 6.07, 6.09, 6.11, 6.13, and the nonbinding-proposition threshold (06/2015): motions made and seconded where recorded; all passed by voice vote with commissioners saying “aye.” Result: approved (unanimous as recorded). - Approval of changes to 7.01, 7.02 and other 7.xx clarifications reviewed in the redline: motions made and seconded where recorded; result approved (voice vote).
The commission discussed implementation and next steps but did not record a public timeline for forwarding the redline recommendations. Commissioners also noted related items (for example, administrative purchasing and budget language) would be reviewed in subsequent agenda items.
No public commenters spoke on these amendments during the public comment period recorded on the transcript.
The commission’s approval advances the recommended redline to whatever procedural step the commission follows next (not specified in the transcript).
