Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Charter Publication topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee backs CA126 to modernize publication of Annapolis charter and keep printed copy

Annapolis Aldermen Committee · June 4, 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

The committee recommended forwarding CA126, which modernizes how the city publishes and codifies its charter and code, and accepted an amendment to retain at least one printed copy in the Office of Law. Legislative staff warned the committee the 90‑day deadline to act is June 8.

The committee recommended a favorable report on CA126, legislation to update requirements for compiling and publishing the charter and code of the City of Annapolis, while accepting an amendment to keep at least one printed copy on file.

Chair opened discussion by noting the bill removes outdated language and shifts emphasis toward web accessibility. Cynthia Reutder, legislative analyst for the Office of Law, told the committee that the 90‑day deadline to act expires on June 8: “you hit the 90‑day deadline on June 8th.”

Members questioned whether removing a statutory requirement for a printed copy would change local practice. Reutder and other staff said the city’s subscription with Municode currently supplies paper supplements (one copy is already kept in the Office of Law and others are sent to the courthouse and state archives), and that maintaining a single printed copy would not create additional cost. One committee member argued an amendment from Alderman Savage to require at least one printed copy would improve transparency by ensuring a dated, physical edition was available to the public.

After discussion the committee voted to recommend amendment one and then voted to recommend CA126 as amended, by voice vote. The committee record shows a favorable recommendation; individual vote counts were not recorded in the transcript.

The measure was forwarded with the committee’s favorable recommendation; staff indicated they would proceed so the council can consider the ordinance before the June 8 deadline.