Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Changes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
McAlester council reviews charter committee's suggestions, including $1 million public-trust borrowing cap and assistant city-manager role
Summary
Council members reviewed charter-committee discussions about city-manager responsibilities, potential assistant city-manager succession planning and a unique $1,000,000 cap in the city's public trust that requires voter approval for larger borrowings, with staff recommending trustee and legal review.
At a special council meeting, McAlester elected officials discussed preliminary charter changes highlighted by the charter committee: clarifying the city manager's responsibilities and credentials, considering whether to formalize an assistant city manager position as part of a succession plan, and re-examining a public-trust rule that requires voter approval for borrowing above $1,000,000.
The charter-committee discussion was described as introductory, with staff and council members noting it would likely require careful, limited ballot questions rather than a crowded charter referendum. "We probably need to tackle 2, maybe 3 items, not overwhelm the community," the Mayor said, urging restraint to avoid voter rejection.
Council members debated whether making an assistant city manager a more formalized succession path would politicize staff. A staff member cautioned that placing an assistant in the chain between the council and staff could introduce conflict: "City staff should not be political," the staff member said, recommending the council avoid structural changes tied to personalities.
Council also discussed McAlester's public-trust arrangement and a $1,000,000 self-imposed debt threshold that has required voter approval for larger debt in this city but not in most others. One council member said, "In McAlester only, at $1,000,000 dollars and a penny, that has to be burned off by the people of McAlester...Every other city, its council alone." Staff advised the council to consult the trust documents and financial advisers before deciding whether to amend the trust or the charter.
The council agreed to gather legal and financial advice and to prepare more specific language for potential changes. Members also noted the cost of a charter-only election (cited in the meeting as approximately $15,000) and discussed the advantage of bundling a small set of changes rather than submitting a long, confusing slate of amendments to voters.
No formal charter amendments were adopted during the meeting; council directed staff to assemble trust language, cost estimates and recommended next steps for review.
