Lago Vista charter review panel backs 3‑year terms and majority voting; debates mayor duties, agenda time limits and scrivener corrections

The Lago Vista Charter Review Committee voted March 5 to recommend that city elected offices move to three‑year terms and that election language be revised so elections require a majority rather than a plurality when state law makes majority voting applicable. Committee members also debated mayoral duties and signature authority, whether items requested by two or more council members can be delayed, and how to bundle scrivener (grammatical and formatting) corrections on the ballot.

The committee’s recommendation on term length and voting method will be forwarded to the city council as proposed charter amendments for council consideration and possible placement on the ballot. Committee members agreed that, if term lengths are extended to three years, state law may require majority voting for certain offices and the committee should replace references to "plurality" with "majority" throughout the charter where appropriate. Committee members asked staff and counsel to draft specific transition language and to identify every charter location that must change; one member said the draft showed "plurality" appeared about 14 times and other participants noted there are many other minor scrivener issues.

Why it matters: changing term length and election rules alters how often seats come up for election, how ballots are structured and whether more elections fall on high‑turnout years. The committee’s recommendation would be a citywide change requiring council action and, likely, voter approval.

Key formal actions and outcomes - Minutes: The committee approved minutes from its Feb. 19 meeting by voice vote (unanimous), affirming the meeting record. - Eminent domain language: The committee voted unanimously to leave the charter’s eminent‑domain provision unchanged after reviewing state guidance (motion carried by voice vote). - Terms and plurality/majority recommendation: A motion that the committee recommend three‑year terms for all elected offices (mayor and council) and to instruct staff/counsel to prepare language converting applicable references from plurality to majority passed after a second; one committee member voiced opposition on the record and the motion nevertheless carried. The committee did not finalize ballot text but directed staff to prepare draft language and a transition roadmap.

What the committee asked staff and counsel to do - Draft specific amendment language to implement three‑year terms for all elected offices (mayor and council) and a transition plan for staggering seats so voters and staff understand timing. The body asked that counsel map the statutory steps (a "road map") to avoid unintended consequences. - Search and replace references to "plurality" where state law will require "majority" if the term extension passes, and flag non‑election uses of the word "plurality." Committee members said they found multiple instances to be corrected. - Consult the city attorney on whether a large group of non‑substantive scrivener corrections (capitalization, spelled‑out numbers vs. numerals, consistent use of defined terms) can be presented in a single ballot proposition and how detailed the adopting resolution must be, versus itemizing every change. - Draft a single definition to be added to the charter so that terms such as "member," "council member," and similar labels are defined as synonymous and used consistently throughout the document, reducing the need for page‑by‑page edits.

Agenda timing and council‑requested items Committee members debated a mayoral suggestion to allow up to 60 days to place items requested by two or more council members back on the agenda. On balance the committee favored a shorter requirement: items requested by at least two council members should be scheduled on an agenda within 30 calendar days (regular or special meeting) or be explicitly placed on the next available agenda. Staff said agendas are routinely posted at least 72 hours in advance and that amended agendas are common; the committee concluded 30 days gives staff flexibility without indefinite delay.

Mayoral duties, signature authority and legislation The committee reviewed the charter paragraphs assigning ceremonial and administrative duties to the mayor and discussed a recurring operational issue: whether the mayor must sign enacted ordinances and resolutions and what happens if the mayor refuses to sign while present. Members asked counsel to propose precise replacement language (including whether to change "shall" to "will" or to leave the requirement as a mandatory duty) and to clarify the existing section governing authentication of enacted ordinances (cross‑reference to section 3.16). The committee discussed proposals allowing the mayor pro tem to sign if the mayor refuses to sign; staff and several members said clarifying the authentication and consequences would avoid future procedural disputes.

Removal, censure and process questions Committee members discussed section 3.08 (removal from office) at length, including whether to enumerate intermediate penalties between censure and removal. The group noted the charter already authorizes the council to adopt an ethics policy and code of conduct (section 11.05) that can provide enforcement mechanisms. Because a past incident raised questions about procedure, members asked the city attorney whether the charter should keep a high‑level standard and place hearing procedures (the details of process, evidentiary steps and potential penalties) in implementing ordinances or the rules of procedure, rather than in charter language.

Scrivener corrections and packaging for the ballot Committee members raised many non‑substantive edits (capitalization, consistent terminology, parentheses with numerals, spelled‑out numbers) and discussed whether to bundle those as a single "scrivener corrections" ballot proposition. Counsel and staff will advise whether the changes must be itemized in the adopting resolution even if presented as a single ballot question. One member offered to prepare consolidated language for the committee to review.

Next steps and meeting schedule The committee instructed staff and counsel to prepare draft amendment language (term length, plurality→majority edits, definition clean‑ups, and a proposed 30‑day agenda rule) and to report back at the next committee meeting. The committee adjourned and set its next meeting for March 19.

Ending: The committee advanced a set of recommendations that would alter election timing and voting rules, and it directed staff and the city attorney to draft concrete charter language and legal options for how to bundle non‑substantive edits on the ballot. Those drafts will return to the committee for further review before any item moves to the city council for possible placement on a public ballot.