Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Charter Amendments Ballot Process topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Charter Review Commission submits 13 proposed ballot questions; solicitor outlines how council places items on the ballot

Reading Charter Review Commission · February 20, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At its final scheduled meeting, the Reading Charter Review Commission confirmed it submitted 13 proposed charter questions to the city clerk for review and to the county solicitor; the city solicitor said city council must adopt ordinances to direct the Berks County Board of Elections to place the questions on a ballot.

The Reading Charter Review Commission confirmed on Feb. 19 that it has forwarded 13 proposed charter questions to the city clerk and county solicitor for review and possible placement on an upcoming ballot.

The chair announced the submission and said the clerk sent the proposals to the county and the board of elections for review. The chair said the commission plans outreach to educate voters before the 2026 elections and asked the charter board to assist in that effort.

Dee, a commission member, asked for clarity about timing: "I don't think I understand the process of our work making it to the ballot," she said, noting her understanding that recommendations made within six months would automatically move forward.

The city solicitor explained the legal process, saying, "Under section 12 o 3 of the charter, recommendations made by the Charter Review Commission within the first 6 months of its existence ... must be adopted by city council." The solicitor stated the submitted 13 ordinances must be adopted by city council and that the ordinance would direct the Berks County Board of Elections to place those ballot questions on an upcoming ballot.

When John, a commission member, asked whether city council can create and vote on an ordinance in a public session to put a question on the ballot, the solicitor outlined three methods to amend the charter: by citizen petition, by city council ordinance, or through the Charter Review Commission process (referencing "section 12 o 4").

On administrative matters, the commission approved its minutes after a voice vote; the chair called for "yay" votes and heard none opposed, and the minutes were adopted (the transcript records a verbal "yay" and no "nays" but does not record a roll-call tally by name). A commission member volunteered to draft the narrative of the final report and said a draft would be circulated the following morning with comments due the next Wednesday and a projected final approval at the following Thursday meeting.

The chair said the commission expects to finalize the report within about a week and noted that the charter review commission will be disbanded after the next meeting when its six‑month term concludes. The chair confirmed the final report will be delivered to city council and the mayor and that members may attach supporting material to the report.

The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn and the chair closing the session.