Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Council Staff Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee narrows language on council access to staff, to draft clarified 3.06 language
Summary
After a lengthy debate, the Charter Review Committee voted to keep two separate provisions about council access to staff and tasked its secretary to redraft language removing "unrestricted" access and narrowing where "advise" might be read as direction; members also agreed to poll residents on two‑ vs three‑year council terms.
The Lago Vista Charter Review Committee spent substantial time on Article 3, focusing on council terms, candidate qualifications and the degree to which council members may contact city staff.
On terms of office, members discussed whether to keep two‑year terms or move to three years. The committee agreed Mark Douglas will draft a public poll that sets out pros and cons of 2‑year and 3‑year terms; the poll will be circulated to committee members for edits before publication.
A prolonged debate centered on section 3.06 and whether to grant council members an "unrestricted right" to meet with any city employee. Supporters said unrestricted access prevents information bottlenecks and lets councilors gather material needed for informed decisions. Critics said that language could allow councilors to circumvent management and interfere with staff duties.
The committee voted 3–1 to keep provisions 3.06(a) and 3.06(b) separate and asked Robert Owen to draft clarified language. Owen said he would remove the phrase "unrestricted right to" and recommend limiting direct access to the city manager, the city attorney, the city secretary and the manager's direct reports "without prior clearance," while preserving whistleblower protections allowing any employee to contact councilors without fear of retaliation.
Members also debated wording such as "consult with" and "advise," with several voting to delete "advise" where it could be read as giving council members operational direction over staff. The committee did not finalize the precise text; Owen will present redrafted language at the next meeting.
The meeting also covered related procedural items — including whether the mayor or mayor pro tem must sign passed ordinances and how vacancies are filled — and assigned drafting tasks to volunteers for review prior to the committee’s next session.
