Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Decatur Charter Review offers redline edits and split options on mayor selection
Summary
The Charter Review Commission presented a redline of Decatur’s charter that modernizes language, defines an ethics committee and adds a public-engagement article. The largest policy question: keep a commission‑elected mayor (with a proposed two‑year term) or move to a directly elected mayor; commissioners asked staff for legal and procedural clarifications before forwarding changes to the General Assembly.
The Charter Review Commission presented a comprehensive redline of the Decatur city charter at the Nov. 17 City Commission meeting, proposing updated definitions, language simplification and a new public engagement article while flagging several provisions that would require state action.
At a two‑hour presentation, co‑chairs John McFarland and Will summarized the commission’s work and described options on how the mayor is selected: keep the current system (the city commission elects the mayor) but extend the mayor’s term to two years, or allow a directly elected mayor. CRC co‑chairs provided two redline versions and a poll of CRC members that showed 12 members favored a two‑year commission‑elected mayor, 10 favored direct election and one remained neutral; seven members did not return the poll, the CRC said.
Mayor Patty Garrett told the commission she supports a directly elected mayor, saying, "I feel that we should have a directly elected mayor," and argued residents should have the opportunity to vote for the position directly. Supporters of direct election said it would give a mayor a clearer public mandate and could energize voter engagement; opponents warned about the risk of partisan, combative elections and urged caution in altering the balance of local governing norms.
Commissioners pressed CRC members and staff on practical and legal details: which charter changes must go to the General Assembly, whether a direct‑election amendment would require a referendum, how removal, recall or abandonment provisions would apply to an elected mayor, and what safeguards (for example, clearer removal standards) might be needed. City legal staff and CRC advisors said some article‑3 and article‑7 changes typically require General Assembly action, and that the General Assembly can decide whether to require a referendum.
CRC members said they will send two redlines to the commission — one that keeps a city‑commission‑elected mayor with a two‑year term and one that substitutes language for a publicly elected mayor — and asked whether the commission wanted additional materials or a synopsis of the CRC’s internal deliberations. CRC co‑chairs also proposed a public meeting Dec. 9 and recommended formal adoption steps Dec. 1 and Dec. 15; any General Assembly submission would follow in January, with a possible referendum in November 2026.
Commissioners requested additional specificity on removal language, residency/qualification alignment between city commission and school board sections, and clearer explanations of where CRC drew on model charter text. The commission did not take a final vote on mayor selection at the Nov. 17 meeting and asked staff to return with clarifying information.
