Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Charter Review Commission recommends ballot measures on council pay, petitions and language; council weighs full review
Summary
The Charter Review Commission advised three voter measures — raise council pay to $25 per meeting, reduce petition-signature thresholds to 50, and replace the term 'emergency' with 'expedited' in one charter section — while commissioners and some citizens urged a broader, full charter review before advancing measures to voters.
The Charter Review Commission presented its final report to the Joplin City Council on Monday, recommending three proposed changes be placed on the ballot for voter consideration.
Chuck Brown, chairman of the commission, said the group — nine appointed members who met four times and held a public hearing — arrived at three recommendations to forward to the council: raise council meeting pay from $5 to $25, reduce the number of nominating-petition signatures required to qualify a candidate for the ballot from 150 to 50 (with 25 from a zone where applicable) and replace the phrase “emergency ordinance” with “expedited ordinance” in section 2.12 of the charter to better reflect current practice.
“We felt that it would be appropriate to increase the amount from $5 a meeting to $25 per meeting, which would be approximately $600 per year,” Brown said, summarizing the commission’s compromise. On candidate petitions, he added: “we liked the whole idea of the nominating petition process, but we thought that the number may be excessive in this day.”
Council members debated scope and timing. Some members, including Councilor Dieter, expressed support for sending the three items to the ballot and said a broader, full charter review could follow; others and several members of the public urged a complete review before placing measures before voters. Dr. Diane Reed Adams, who testified during public comment, urged a full review to modernize archaic, gendered language she said appears throughout the charter. Tom Robertson, who also addressed the council, recommended more time so voters have adequate context before deciding.
Brown recommended council consider a broader review in the future, telling council that the charter — adopted in 1951 — contains language and references that merit periodic review. The commission’s report called for public input early in any future process and observed that the commission’s limited charge constrained which topics they could consider.
Council did not immediately set ballot dates Monday; members agreed to continue discussion at a work session next week about whether to move any of the items forward for voter consideration and whether to broaden the review. The council noted that placing charter amendments on the ballot requires voter approval and that more public outreach could better inform any ballot measure.
The commission's written recommendation and the council discussion create a path for the three limited changes to be placed before voters if council directs staff to pursue ballot language and scheduling.
