Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Changes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DeKalb County committee vets charter 'cleanup' that would require district commissioner vote on zoning
Summary
Operations Committee reviewed redlined charter changes that would make planning and zoning ordinances effective only with an affirmative vote from the district or super-district commissioner where the property lies, debated new language clarifying CEO responsibilities (which may require referendum), and discussed COO delegation and veto timing.
The DeKalb County Operations Committee spent the bulk of a special-called meeting reviewing redlined charter revisions proposed by the Charter Review Commission, including language that would require an affirmative vote from the district or super-district commissioner for planning and zoning ordinances to take effect.
John Manson, staff presenting the law department memo and redline draft, told commissioners they should start at the sections identified by the memo. "No planning or zoning ordinance shall become effective without an affirmative vote from either the district or super district commissioner in whose district the subject property is located," Matthew of the law department read into the record as the proposed revision. He said the change "can likely be considered a cleanup item," if the committee accepts that wording.
The proposed update aims to reflect the board's current practice, staff said, replacing unclear phrasing that asked for approval "prior to consideration and adoption." Law staff cautioned that some recommended additions — notably a new subsection expanding the chief executive's asserted duties — could be interpreted as changing powers and therefore could trigger state action or a referendum unless redrafted.
Several commissioners welcomed the clarification on ward courtesy as aligning the charter with practice. Commissioner Bolton said the policy appears "reasonable" but urged caution where large sections are being consolidated or deleted so as not to create unintended consequences.
The meeting also examined section 14, which would restate and expand powers saying the chief executive "represents the county in all intergovernmental matters." Commissioners worried the wording could be read to exclude commissioners from legislative conversations; several asked for a cross-reference or explicit language preserving the board's ability to adopt and advance a legislative agenda. Commissioner Messiah urged that the county identify "what that process specifically is" for setting legislative priorities and who would initiate contacts with state and federal delegations.
Staff described changes to section 16 that clarify the chief executive may delegate operational authority to a chief operating officer and remove a prior limit on the number of administrators the CEO may appoint, while noting the draft merely recites delegation authority the CEO currently exercises. On veto timing (section 17), law staff said similar language on ordinances becoming effective if not vetoed in the prescribed period already exists elsewhere in the organizational act (section 15b) and the redline is largely relocating that language for clarity.
John Manson said staff would draft alternative wording addressing commissioners' concerns and recirculate the redline for further review. The committee did not take any final votes on charter adoption during the session and agreed to resume the charter review at a later special-call meeting.
The committee moved on to consider updates to standing procedural rules after the charter discussion.
