Civic assembly urges higher pay, accountability and eight‑year charter reviews; committee refers proposals to full council

Lexington’s General Government and Planning Committee on April 28 received recommendations from the city’s first civic assembly that would change how the city sets council compensation, requires public accountability standards for elected members and schedules regular charter reviews.

The committee moved to accept the assembly’s recommendations for consideration and refer proposed amendment language to the full council’s June 2 work session. Vice Mayor Wu made the motion to refer; the committee approved it by voice vote.

The assembly presented three main proposals. Haley Small, an assembly member from District 5, said the group voted by an 84.6% supermajority to set a new cap for council compensation at $59,987 — “that is the average annual income in Lexington” — and to index that benchmark to the consumer price index going forward. Small said the assembly intended the cap to go into effect after the next eligible council term; staff later noted charter technicalities may make the practical implementation year 2031 depending on which seats and terms are affected.

A second proposal, presented by Zofia, a youth assembly representative from Lafayette High School, would amend the charter to require council to establish publicly viewable attendance and accountability standards. Zofia said the measure (approved by an 88.8% supermajority) is intended to give voters clearer information about representatives’ performance when they cast ballots.

Catherine Zammeron, presenting the third recommendation, asked the council to require a standing process for a charter review every eight years conducted by a randomly selected, demographically representative panel and completed within 12 months. “That way the charter stays relevant to all the people living in Lexington,” she said.

Bob Smith, a dissenting assembly member, summarized the minority view, opposing parts of the recommendations on grounds that a steep pay increase risks creating long‑term officeholders and that some topics (such as council term lengths) fell outside what his group was allowed to review.

CivicLEX deputy director Kit Anderson and other staff emphasized the recommendations are draft and that the Department of Law will review ballot and amendment language. Anderson also told the committee that the civic assembly process was funded by grants totaling about $220,000 and did not use local government funds.

The committee did not enact charter amendments at the meeting; it voted to refer the draft recommendations and to ask staff and CivicLEX to provide draft ordinance/ballot language for the June 2 work session. Staff advised that the county clerk’s August deadline for ballot language will determine whether proposals can appear on this November’s ballot.

What happens next: the council’s June 2 work session is expected to include draft language prepared by staff and CivicLEX; the committee referral means the matter will next be considered by the full council for any decision to place amendments on the ballot.