Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Killeen council narrows charter changes: rejects candidate fee and judicial‑removal language, tweaks initiative and recall rules
Summary
At a June 22 meeting, the Killeen City Council declined several charter-review committee proposals — including a $100 candidate filing fee and a judicial‑removal option — but approved modified rules for initiative thresholds and limited changes to recall timing and grounds. The council also decided investigations procedures should be set by governing standards, not the charter.
Killeen’s City Council on June 22 declined several of the charter‑review committee’s broader proposals while approving narrower, procedural changes that staff will convert into ballot or governing‑standards language.
The most immediate decisions came after hours of public comment and debate about how to balance voter access with administrative safeguards. The council voted 5–2 to decline a proposed charter amendment that would have required an ordinance detailing how council‑initiated investigations are conducted, instead directing staff to put those procedures in the council’s governing standards. “There needs to be a complete process in which if a city employee comes under investigation…that the issue is fully investigated,” resident Charles Carroll said during public comment. Councilmembers who favored the governing‑standards route emphasized the need for flexibility; those supporting a charter change argued it would lock in protections.
On candidate qualifications, the council rejected a recommendation to add a $100 filing fee (or a 50‑signature alternative) for city races. Council debate hinged on whether any fee or signature requirement would deter qualified candidates. Council Member Bass said, “I oppose having a filing fee…It costs time and money to run,” while other members favored letting voters decide. After an unsuccessful amendment to lower district petition thresholds, the council voted to reject the filing‑fee proposal 5–2, leaving current practice unchanged.
The council took a different tack on initiative and referendum mechanics. Staff had proposed using the number of votes cast for mayor in the last mayoral race as the base for petition thresholds; Council Member Kimble successfully moved to use all voters who cast ballots in the last municipal election instead. That modification passed 6–1, and the council also approved extending certification timelines (city secretary certification and amend windows) from 10 days to 30 days.
Change‑order transparency drew concern from members who want more timely project oversight, but council declined the committee’s proposal to enshrine quarterly charter briefings on every monetary change order. Staff warned a charter requirement—posted as an agenda item and routed through multiple departments—would be burdensome to produce within the proposed timeline; council members suggested adding such reporting to existing engineering or quarterly financial reports instead.
Recall procedures proved the meeting’s most contested topic. The charter‑committee proposed sweeping changes that would alter signature bases for at‑large officials and other mechanics. After extensive discussion the council adopted two narrower changes: it extended the time the city secretary has to supply petition blanks from one business day to five, and it approved limiting recall petitions to allege incompetency, official misconduct, or malfeasance. The council debated, but ultimately did not adopt, a broader lowering of signature thresholds for at‑large seats.
Finally, the council voted 6–1 to reject a recommendation to add a judicial‑removal procedure to the home‑rule charter (the proposed language would have mirrored a remedy available under state law to general‑law cities). Supporters of rejection argued that judicial removal duplicates existing remedies and could invite litigation; opponents said it would provide another accountability avenue.
What happens next: staff will draft governing‑standards language and ballot language as directed. Several items the council rejected still could return through new motions or citizen initiatives; the council emphasized that many choices would ultimately be decided by voters if proposals are placed on the ballot.
Votes at a glance: the council voted to (a) not advance investigative‑procedure language to the charter (motion passed 5–2); (b) reject the candidate filing‑fee recommendation (motion passed 5–2); (c) modify initiative/referendum thresholds to use all voters in the last municipal election (motion passed 6–1); (d) reject charter language requiring quarterly change‑order briefings; (e) extend petition‑blank issuance time from 1 to 5 business days and require recall petitions to allege incompetence, official misconduct, or malfeasance (motions passed as recorded); (f) reject adding judicial‑removal language to the charter (motion passed 6–1).
Councilmembers said they will use the governing‑standards process and future workshops to draft procedures for investigations, petition handling and project updates, and staff said it will return with concrete ballot language or governing‑standards drafts based on the direction taken at the meeting.
