CivicLex to run citizens' assembly on Lexington charter review; council asked to commit to formally respond

CivicLex presented a plan to Lexington City Council on July 3, 2025, to convene a citizens’ assembly in early 2026 to consider targeted changes to the Urban County Charter. The nonprofit told council the assembly would be a lottery-selected, demographically representative panel of about 30 residents who would meet over several sessions to learn about issues, take testimony, deliberate and make recommendations to the council.

Richard Young of CivicLex said the project is intended to increase public trust and participation in local government and that the organization has secured outside philanthropic funding to cover participant compensation, facilitation and accessibility supports. “This is going to be a 30‑person assembly,” Young said, and the group will meet across 7 to 8 sessions in February and March 2026. CivicLex said each panelist would be paid between $750 and $1,200, provided childcare and transportation stipends, and that the project budget is approximately $150,000–$200,000.

CivicLex outlined a multi-step recruitment and selection plan that begins with public outreach this summer and a mailed invitation to thousands of county addresses in the fall. Respondents will provide demographic information and the project team will form multiple candidate panels that are representative across age, race, council district and other factors; the final panel will be chosen at random from those pools. The assembly will be publicly viewable via livestream and audience observers for transparency, and CivicLex asked council for a public, formal commitment to respond to any recommendations the assembly produces.

CivicLex emphasized the scope is intentionally limited: the public engagement process this fall will narrow the assembly to two or three charter topics rather than a comprehensive rewrite. Young said the restriction is designed to give panelists adequate time to learn, deliberate and reach considered recommendations; the assembly could also conclude that no changes are needed.

Council members generally praised the proposal as an innovative public‑engagement experiment and pressed CivicLex on logistics and safeguards. Councilmember Sheehan urged council to keep distance during the assembly to protect the group’s independence, saying the process should be “hands off” for council members so the panel’s recommendations can stand on their own. Several council members raised questions about educational materials and facilitation; CivicLex said the assembly’s learning program will include written materials, video presentations, expert speakers and small-group facilitation to ensure panelists can understand the charter’s technical content.

CivicLex said it will return to council with a final timeline and asked for council’s commitment to publicly respond, in writing, to any recommendations the assembly submits. The nonprofit also said it aims to present the assembly’s recommendations to council in April or May of 2026, and that the city’s formal response could range from placing recommendations on the ballot to formal deliberation in committee.

Ending: Council members expressed broad interest and several offered to help spread information; CivicLex said it will begin public engagement in August and select panelists for the assembly in early 2026.