If you’re a normal person, you’ve never read the City Charter (there’s a part of me that envies you). If you have read the Charter, I can guess two things about you: 1) You’re a policy lover; and 2) You probably already know how you want to vote on the propositions. For the rest of you out there who keep asking asking, I am creating this super simple guide of my own thoughts on the Charter amendment propositions on your ballot (Props C-O).
A Charter is the document that serves as the base of your government. We pass ordinances at Council all the time, but any change that is made to the Charter requires voter approval. One of the rules in the Charter is that at least every 5 years, the Charter needs to be reviewed by a panel of citizens to see if it needs to be updated.
What qualifies me to talk about the Charter? I’m so glad you asked. Before I ever ran for Council, I was the Chair of the city’s last Charter Review Commission in 2017. I’ve also had to work within the confines of the Charter for the last 4 years and for 2 of those years I served on a working group for the Model City Charter with the National Civic League. A Model City Charter is just a guide for cities of some of the possibilities and trends nationwide – some of the stuff can fit locally and some of it can’t. It’s not a gold standard so much as a set of ideas.
So let’s get into these propositions and what they mean and my personal thoughts on them.
Prop C – Term Limits
Shall Section 3.03 be added to the City Charter to establish the following term limits: (a) three three-year terms for mayor; (b) three three-year terms for council positions other than mayor; and (c) a combination of three three-year terms for council and three three-year terms for mayor, regardless of the order served; unless the person has been out of office for at least one full term?
What it means: Council serves 3-year terms. This would limit all Council members to 3 terms each as a council member or 3 years as mayor, and if you term out, you have to wait another 3 years before you can run again.
My opinion: It’s a solution in search of a problem. There are only a handful of people in Leander’s history who this provision would have ever applied to, and most of those barely went over. Besides, Leander voters throughout history have not had a problem running incumbents out of office when they feel they are no longer the best option for the city anymore. There are no “career politicians” in Leander, your council is volunteer.
What I worry about with this one is the unintended consequences. We’ve all seen local candidates in the last year that we are scared of empowering with an elected office. What happens if an incumbent can’t decide to try to stay in office for just one more term and there isn’t anyone good for the city ready to run? This also means that a Council member who does reach that 3-term limit will have to decide to either sit out for 3 years or run for mayor. It’s weird and I don’t support it. I trust Leander residents now and in the future to make the ultimate decision on whether or not the time is right for someone. I’m voting no.
Prop D – Resign to Run
Shall Section 3.04 of the City Charter be amended to change the current provision that requires automatic resignation from Council any time that a council member announces candidacy for another office, to require automatic resignation only if there is more than one year and 30 days left on the council member’s term at the time of the announcement?
What it means: This item is a clean up in the wording. Currently the Charter says that if you’re running for higher office, you automatically resign your current seat. There are a bunch of provisions in state law about what “automatic” means. There are times when you really do leave office nearly immediately and there are times when you stay in office until your term is up. Leander follows these laws. Other parts of the Charter reference staying in office until your replacement is seated.
My opinion: There’s a story to how this one got on the ballot. When I ran for mayor last year, I was still in Seat 4 on Council. My seat was expiring at the same time as the mayor’s. Under state law and the wording throughout our Charter, I didn’t need to resign my seat because there were only a handful of weeks left in my service in Place 4 and there would be no overlap in the terms. A supporter of my opponent filed an ethics complaint against me because I didn’t resign immediately. Ethics and the Charter have nothing to do with each other, so unfortunately the complaint wasn’t even able to be fully heard and criticized, it was just summarily dismissed.
So this amendment is to make the language crystal clear to deter people in the future from gumming up the system with fraudulent complaints. It also protects the elected officials from getting libelous claims of wrongdoing. I’m voting yes.
Prop E – Term of Office
Shall Section 5.12 of the City Charter be amended to provide that the City Council members elected by majority vote take office on the Tuesday following the canvass of the election and do not wait for a run-off election to be concluded to take office, and that a Council member elected by majority vote in a run-off election takes office on the first Tuesday following the canvass of the run-off election?
What it means: Under current wording of the Charter, if there is a runoff election taking place for any of the Council seats, NOBODY gets sworn in.
My opinion: The current version is crazy and I can’t believe it exists. Think of what would happen when you have one race tied up in a runoff while other people on the dais know they’ve just been voted out and have 6 weeks of no consequences. Anything can happen. Seriously, anything. I’m voting yes.
Prop F – City Manager
Shall Section 7.01 of the City Charter be amended to provide a procedure for suspension and removal of the City Manager, which includes notice of the reason for suspension and removal and an opportunity for a hearing, that occurs after the City Council asks the City Manager to resign and the City Manager declines to resign?
What it means: If the Council asks the city manager to resign, and the city manager declines, then the city manager can ask for a public hearing.
My opinion: I know this one came from the Model City Charter, but it doesn’t really fit for us. I think it was written originally for other states that have different laws than Texas. Whenever a Council is taking any action on a city manager, the city manager has the option automatically to have that conversation in public (so, basically a hearing). On top of that, I don’t know of any cities asking their city manager to resign, they just get fired. It’s commonplace and why they all have decent payouts built into their contracts if a council fires them. I feel like this is another solution searching for a problem. I’m voting no.
Prop G – Department Director Appointments
Shall Sections 7.04 and 10.07 of the City Charter be amended to remove the requirement that the City Manager’s appointment of department directors be approved by the City Council?
What it means: Currently, the City Council gets to approve the appointment of any department director. The city manager chooses who they want to hire and they bring them in front of Council, introduce them, talk about why they’re being chosen, and then council votes on whether or not to approve the appointment.
My opinion: This is another solution for which there was no problem. The council is who the public blames when something goes wrong. We’re essentially the board of directors for the city. Why wouldn’t we have final approval for the publicly-facing heads of every department? I’m voting no.
Prop H – Police Department Employee Evaluations
Shall Section 7.06 of the City Charter be amended to provide that, instead of police department employee evaluations being reviewed, modified, and revised by the City Manager and submitted to the City Council for review, evaluations shall instead be subject to review only by the City Manager?
What it means: It removes the ability for an employee evaluation of a police officer to be changed by the city manager.
My opinion: On it’s face, I think it’s probably a good thing, but I also think the officers in the police department are looking for some other changes in their review police. For now I think it’s a harmless start. I’m voting yes.
Prop I – Fire Department Employee Evaluations
Shall Section 7.07 of the City Charter be amended to remove language that fire department evaluations are subject to modification by the City Manager?
What it means: The same thing as Prop H, but for the Fire Department.
My opinion: Second verse, same as the first. I’m voting yes.
Prop J – Mayor Pro Tem Appointment
Shall Section 4.02 of the City Charter be amended to clarify that the appointment of the Mayor Pro Tem occurs at the first regular meeting following the canvass of the general election and any runoff election associated with that general election?
What it means: Council has an office called Mayor Pro Tem. Think of it as Vice Mayor. The Mayor Pro Tem fills in if I’m absent. The term for Mayor Pro Tem is 1 year and they’re usually appointed in May, after the election. This provision would mean that a Mayor Pro Tem will not be chosen until the new council is fully seated, even if there’s a race in a runoff.
My opinion: This is another one with a story. Remember earlier how I told you about Prop E and how nobody is supposed to be sworn in if there are any races that are in a runoff? That’s such a quirky provision that last year nobody even realized it and I was sworn in while 2 races were in runoffs. I knew who I wanted as Pro Tem, but I was also pretty sure there was so much election animosity on the dais, that any choice I made would be voted down. Plus, how do you pick who is going to be your second in command when you don’t know who your team is?
This provision will allow business to go on for 6 weeks while runoffs happen and then the Pro Tem will be appointed when the whole Council is set. To me, it just makes sense. I’m voting yes.
Prop K – Planning Commission Appointments
Shall Sections 4.03 and 10.04 of the City Charter be amended to provide that each council member appoints a member to the planning commission without requiring a majority vote of council or a recommendation from the board selection committee, except that if the council position that appoints a planning commission position is vacant, the appointment shall be made by majority vote of council?
What it means: Each Council person would have their own representative on the Planning & Zoning Commission. That means each Council member gets to choose the person they want and Council would vote to ratify it.
My opinion: This is desperately needed. This is what the Charter said years ago and then it was amended so that the appointments would go through a separate committee that would make recommendations to Council. Then at some point, Council made an ordinance to say that they were the committee and it became a free-for-all on the dais. It was a game of who could shout out a name the fastest at nominations. It also meant that the majority group in power had ALL the authority for who ended up on P&Z.
In theory, every Planning & Zoning commissioner should be equal. All P&Z does is say “this does or does not fit with this land use”. There should be no politics involved, no ideology about how a city needs to be built. You’re just following legal guidelines. In the real world though, Council Members who either don’t understand the role of P&Z or want to push an agenda will appoint people who aren’t a good fit. This provision allows the balance of P&Z to look a lot closer to the balance on Council and it’s a safeguard against stacking the commission with a specific ideology. I’m voting yes.
Prop L – Selection of an Auditor
Shall Section 8.13 of the City Charter be amended to change the maximum period of time the City may contract with the independent auditor from three consecutive years to five consecutive years?
What it means: The city receives an outside audit every year. To keep out corruption, the auditing firm has to be changed at certain intervals.
My opinion: A lot of cities change their auditor at 5 years. We’re a bit of an outlier at 3. It becomes problematic because the first year of the contract, the auditing firm is getting familiarized with our people and processes. It’s the most time-intensive year. The second year is where they’re getting comfortable, and third year is when it’s old hat. But currently, that third year is when we have to start over fresh with another auditing firm, and spend all that staff time again setting everything up. There’s no harm in going to 5 years like other cities. I’m voting yes.
Prop M – Mayoral Duties
Shall Section 4.01 of the City Charter be amended to remove the following duties from the office of Mayor: (a) recommendation of appointees for boards and commissions; (b) submission of a recommended budget to council; and (c) taking command of the police in time of a declared emergency?
What it means: It removes the language of the Charter that says that the mayor makes recommendations of appointees for boards and commissions, submits the budget, and takes control of police in an emergency.
My opinion: It removes the language, but it doesn’t actually change anything. The mayor has the same authority as the rest of council when it comes to boards and committees, with the exception of the mayor’s ad hoc committee. We’re big time now and so the mayor doesn’t submit the budget to council, we have great staff that does that. The one that’s making the most waves is part about taking command of police in a declared emergency. There are people, including those who served on this commission, who are actively telling voters that it’s a dangerous provision and needs to be removed.
The fact is you can remove the language, but under state law, the mayor is also the city’s Emergency Director. In fact, every mayor in our area has to file a form with the state at the beginning of the term that allows the fire chief to handle the day to day activities. This is why it’s important to elect people who take the role seriously and ensure they are getting continuing hours every year being trained in what to do in a disaster.
This provision specifically states “in a time of declared emergency”. Do y’all know who decides if Leander declares an emergency? That would be the Emergency Director, i.e. the mayor. And if the mayor declares an emergency and orders an evacuation, they’re giving direction to the police.
If this proposition passes, it changes literally nothing from what we do currently. All I’ve seen it used for is to rile people up about something they aren’t actually changing. It’s a waste of time and is misinforming residents. I’m voting no.
Prop N – Public Records
Shall Section 13.06 of the City Charter be amended to remove the requirement that all applications for public records be stamped with a city seal and a copy of the application be provided to the applicant?
What it means: Cleans up the old provision in the Charter to allow for more electronic sending of records.
My opinion: It’s 2022. I’m voting yes.
Prop O – Charter Commission Term
This amendment provides for the Charter Review Commission to meet in the timeframe as directed by the Council at the time of appointment.
What it means: The Charter currently says that the Charter Review Commission will serve for 6 months. This will make it more open ended.
My opinion: We do appointments in April and October every year and Charter revisions are due by early January. You have to have appointments for this commission only out of cycle to hit that 6 month mark. It’s not a bad idea at all to remove the time provision so the commission may have more flexibility on time if needed. I’m voting yes.
Final Thoughts
I’m glad you decided to come and read through all this. Thank you for taking the time to be an informed voter. Charter provisions can be some pretty dry stuff and I appreciate anyone who cares enough to learn about 13 of them. Please be informed, combat misinformation, and most importantly, go vote!
