Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Killeen council rejects charter change to lock in non‑agenda public comments, approves recall‑initiation limit
Summary
Council voted to reject placing a requirement for non‑agenda public comment into the city charter, instead keeping it in governing standards; the council separately approved a change restricting who may initiate a district recall petition to registered voters of that district.
The Killeen City Council on a July special meeting rejected a proposed charter amendment that would have enshrined a right for citizens to speak on non‑agenda items at every regular council meeting, and approved a separate change limiting who may initiate recall petitions for district council members.
The council voted 6‑1 to reject placing the non‑agenda comment requirement in the charter after debate over whether operational meeting mechanics belong in the city's foundational document. Council member Bass moved to reject the charter amendment and place the procedures in the council's governing standards instead; Council member Kendricks seconded. Mayor reported the motion passed 6 to 1, with Council member Kimball recorded as the lone opposing vote.
Supporters of placing the provision in the charter, including Council member Brown in an earlier motion, argued the public previously had that right and that it was removed in January 2024, so voters should decide whether it returns. Opponents said operational details belong in adjustable governing standards, not the hard‑to‑change charter. “If we put it in the charter… you will be powerless to fix it without launching a costly public election,” a resident speaker warned during the public‑comment period, reflecting concerns echoed in council debate.
Separately, the council approved a motion by Council member Kendricks to require that only a registered voter who resides in a council district may initiate a recall petition against that district's representative and that only signatures from registered voters in the same district count toward the petition threshold. The motion was seconded and passed 6 to 1, with Council member Brown recorded as opposing.
City staff said rejecting the charter change does not remove the council's intent to allow non‑agenda comments: the governing standards and expectations will be revised to provide the mechanism and the council will later consider placement and timing (for example, whether non‑agenda comments occur at the beginning or end of regular meetings). Legal staff clarified the proposed charter language would apply to regular council meetings (and work sessions that are part of the regular meeting) but not to separately called special meetings.
No final ballot language or red‑line charter text was adopted at the meeting; staff said they would return with proposed edits and ballot language in the next two weeks to meet the deadline for an election ordinance. The council also discussed other possible charter topics, including recall grounds and personnel provisions; one motion to add a three‑year ineligibility bar for retired or resigned executives to return to certain posts failed for lack of a second.
The council moved on to other business after the votes.
