Monday, May 13, 2013
Saturday's Charter Amendments Results:
In Saturday's Election, the voters of Brady decided whether or not to approve amendments to the City Charter. The Brady Charter Review Commission had spent the past year reviewing the charter, and made a number of recommendations to the Brady City Council. The final list of proposed changes that appeared on the May 11 ballot was a combination of recommendations from the Charter and proposals placed there directly by the City Council which has the final authority on what went on the ballot.
Below are the results of the election along with the Charter Review Commission's synopsis of what the change will do; and the Commission's comments on who requested the change and what its effect would be.
Unofficial Election Results:
City Council Place 5
Latricia Doyal ~ 400
Gabe Moreno ~ 328
Anthony Groves ~ 37
Recall of Mayor Lohn
For ~ 571
Against ~ 226
Meeting Time Initiative
For ~ 597
Against ~ 187
Change to Type B EDC
For ~ 253
Against ~ 506
Brady Independent School District Single Member District 6
Guillermo H. Lopez - 17
Phil Thompson – 51
Proposition 1 - For - 316 - Against 467
Qualifications for Mayor and City Council Members
Proposed by City Council
What it would do:
1 -- Require Council members to be certified in Open Meetings Act training within 90 days.
2 -- Require new Council members to attend two training seminars within 9 months of election.
3 -- Raise residency requirement before election from 1 year to 2 years.
Commission Comments:
1 -- Training and certification in the Texas Open Meetings Act is already required by Texas
Statute.
2 Does not address types, sources, approval, expense for training, etc. (NOTE: This may be addressed by personnel policy or ordinance for development of new council members.)
3 This change is not included in the proposition statement, but is included in the quotation for the new
Section 3.02 of the Charter.
Proposition 2 - For- 287 - Against 499
Requested by Mayor
Proposed by Charter Review Commission
Amended by City Council
What it would do:
1 By Charter Review Commission -- Cross reference other existing parts of the Charter about Mayor.
2 By City Council -- Reinstates the reference to Mayor as Chief Executive Officer.
3 By City Council -- Adds that the Mayor shall sign all contracts for the City.
Commission Comments:
1 Was requested so that all duties would be included in Section 3.05.
2 The Charter Review Commission recommended deletion of Chief Executive Officer as a term used by corporate entities for top level employees who are additionally responsible for many personnel tasks such as hiring and firing, which is specifically prohibited by the Charter. The City Manager is currently responsible for personnel matters in Section 4.01.
3 The Charter Review Commission recommended deletion that the Mayor, shall have signatory authority for all legal contracts and commitments of the City. This was upon the advice of the Interim City Manager. Ceremonial signatures could be added when required or desired. There are many contracts which are routinely signed by City Managers as the Administrator of the City Budget which would have been approved by the City Council. All major contracts are reviewed by the City Council.
Proposition 3 - For 253 - Against 521
Requested by Mayor Lohn
Proposed by Charter Review Commission
What it would do:
1 Require regular meetings of the City Council to be at least ten (10) days apart instead of at least two weeks apart. (Does not include special or called meetings.)
Charter Review Commission Comments:
1 Requested to resolve issue of changes in then-established regular Monday meetings when occurring on Holidays and needing readjustment to Tuesday which would be in conflict with current requirements to be at least two weeks apart in Section 3.09. (NOTE: The current ordinance detailing regularly-scheduled City Council meetings currently requires them to be held on Tuesdays. If the voters petition to require regularly-scheduled meetings to be held on Tuesdays at 6:00 p.m. passes, this would become irrelevant.)
Proposition 4 - For 375 - Against 455
Powers and Duties of the City Council
Proposed by Charter Review Commission
What it would do:
1 Add references to other parts of the Charter referring to Council.
2 Reorganize duties for clarity
Charter Review Commission Comments:
1 Was coordinated with request for all references to appear in identified Sections.
2 Grouped duties by category.
Proposition 5 - For 206 - Against 567
Proposed by City Council
What it would do:
1 Allow ordinances to be read and passed at the same meeting, eliminating second reading for passage as is now required; eliminate full reading of ordinance by majority vote;.
2 Delete references to ordinances or any contract that: (1) affects the rates for services or utilities to be paid by consumers; and / or (2) that will in any manner require the expenditure of City funds either currently or in the future, and five additional paragraphs of procedures.
Charter Review Commission Comments:
1 Allows Mayor and Council Members to pass ordinances with no notification prior to meeting and little or no awareness of voters. Removes almost a full page of policies and procedures detailed in the Charter including wording and enacting procedures.
2 Enables changes to contracts, utility service rates and other expenditures of City funds.
3 -- Additional: Is in conflict with Sec. 10.01 Borrowing for Capital Expenditures which requires copies of proposed ordinances are available from the City Secretary , at least three (3) days before the date of the meeting at which the ordinance is to be first considered. See also Proposition 9 Sec. 4.07 City Secretary and Sec. 10.01 Borrowing for Capital Expenditures.
Proposition 6 For- 340 - Against 438
City Manager
Proposed by Charter Review Commission
Amended by City Council
What it would do:
1 Change basis for hiring to executive and administrative training, experience and education.
2 Add supervision of City employees.
3 Add references to Sec. 6.11 and Sec. 6.12 which call for City Manager to provide summary of current projects (which would include City Finances as Budget Director) to voters annually.
4 Add that City Council may waive residency requirement from city to county.
5 Change designation of Acting City Manager from City Council to City Manager
Charter Review Commission Comments:
1 By Charter Review Commission deletes ability which is subjective; adds education.
2 By Charter Review Commission adds supervision of City employees.
3 By Charter Review Commission includes references included in other Sections of Charter.
4 By City Council adds that Council can waive city residency requirement.
5 By City Council changes who designates an Acting City Manager.
Proposition 7 - For 686 - Against 84
Fire Department and Emergency Medical Services
Proposed by Charter Review Commission
What it would do:
1 Combines Fire Department and Emergency Medical Services into one Fire Department.
2 Provides City Council authority to contract for Volunteer Fire Services.
3 Deletes reference to County Judge.
Charter Review Commission Comments:
1 Reflects current practices enacted several years ago.
2 Provides for contract services with county-wide Volunteer Fire Services.
3 Removes County Judge from supervision of City contracts.
Proposition 8 - For 644 - Against 132
Municipal Court
Proposed by Charter Review Commission
What it would do:
1 Delete responsibility of appointing Clerk of the Court.
2 Redefine uses of court costs and fines to conform to State requirements.
3 Require removal from office by City Council rather than City Manager.
4 Delete administrative responsibility.
Charter Review Commission Comments:
1 Changes responsibility to City Manager who is responsible for Personnel Management.
2 Changes use and benefit of City to collected and deposited by the Finance Department
and disbursed by state and local laws.
3 Changes responsibility for removal from office.
4 Changes responsibility to City Manager who is responsible for Personnel Management.
Proposition 9 For - 541 - Against 166
City Secretary
Proposed by Charter Review Commission
Amended by City Council
What it would do:
1 Change residency requirement from City to County.
2 Add requirement to Keep the City Seal, required by Texas Statute.
3 Delete references to responsibilities for City elections which are required by Texas Statute.
Charter Review Commission Comments:
1 By City Council -- Changes residency requirement from within City to within County.
2 By Charter Review Commission -- Adds responsibility set by State Statute.
3 By Unknown Deletes, To Supervise, manage and coordinate all aspects and procedures of any
election held within the City of Brady and at the Order of the City Council.
4 -- Additional Should include references to additional responsibilities listed elsewhere:
Sec. 7.01 City Elections: Voter Eligibility List.
Sec. 7.03 Official Ballots: Order of Listing.
Sec. 7.04 Canvassing: Election Judges deliver election returns to City Secretary.
ARTICLE VIII. RECALL OF OFFICERS
ARTICLE IV. INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
Sec. 10.01 Borrowing for Capital Expenditures: City Secretary to provide copies of
Ordinances three (3) days before first considered. See also Proposition 5 Sec. 3.16 Ordinances.
Proposition 10 - For 341 - Against 468
Planning and Zoning Commission
Proposed by City Council
What it would do:
1 Require terms to begin and end in October instead of June.
2 Require terms limited to three (3), 3-year terms with layout of three (3) years before reappointment.
Charter Review Commission Comments:
1 No comment.
2 No comment.
Proposition 11 - For 272 - Against 498
Planning and Zoning Commission Duties
Proposed by City Council
What it would do:
1 Add a list duties for Planning and Zoning Commission which conflict with Sec. 5.03, which are currently detailed in Sec. 5.04.
Charter Review Commission Comments:
1 Contradicts Sec. 5.04, which requires Commission to prepare a Comprehensive City Plan. Transfers all control to City Council and ignores the role of the City Manager, who coordinates communication between the City council and the Planning and Zoning Commission as detailed in Sec. 5.04.
2 Only asks for Council to receive update once every 5 to 10 years.
Proposition 12 - For 278 - Against 491
Requested by Interim City Manager
Proposed by Charter Review Commission
What it would do:
1 Add or other financial institution for which such investment is authorized by state law.
Charter Review Commission Comments:
1 Provides additional state approved alternatives for Depositories to those already
listed. (NOTE: Would still require approval by City Council.)
Proposition 13 - For 709 - Against 61
Requested by Finance Officer
Proposed by Charter Review Commission
What it would do:
1 -- Change responsibilities for monies to be received by the Finance Director rather than the City Secretary.
Charter Review Commission Comments:
1 -- Reflects current practices.
Proposition 14 - For 653 - Against 114
Audit Board
Requested by Finance Officer
Proposed by Charter Review Commission
What it would do:
1 Remove City Secretary from Audit Board.
Charter Review Commission Comments:
2 Reflects current practices.
Proposition 15 - For 285 - Against 483
Independent Audit
Requested by Finance Officer
Proposed by Charter Review Commission
What it would do:
1 Delete penalty for non-completion of audit within time specified.
Charter Review Commission Comments:
1 Failure to complete may not be the fault of the Audit Firm. Audits generally work on and off throughout the whole year as needed. (NOTE: 180 days would be same as May 1 of the following year, which is what is now called for in the Charter.)
Proposition 16 - For 248 - Against 510
Independent Audit
Requested by Finance Officer
Proposed by Charter Review Commission
What it would do:
1 Delete selection of Annual Auditor to four (4) years limit.
Charter Review Commission Comments:
2 Removes limit of four (4) years, but retains annual selection of Annual Auditor by City Council. Requested by Finance Director with comment that many auditors will not accept limitation to four (4) years citing familiarity with operations requires several years.
Proposition 17 - For - 180 - Against 23
Scope of Recall
Proposed by City Council
What it would do:
1 Provides legal definitions for use in recall decisions.
Charter Review Commission Comments:
1 Introduces legal definitions.
Proposition 18 - For 486 - Against 18
Scope of Recall
Proposed by Voters Petition
What it would do:
1 Allows recall by voters without reference to legal definitions.
Charter Review Commission Comments:
1 Voters decide if reasons on Recall Petition justify recall.
Proposition 19 - For 60 - Against 504
Petition for Recall
Proposed by City Council
What it would do:
1 Change number of qualified voters to complete a verified petition from 20% of voters in last election or 250 whichever is greater, to 20% of total qualified voters on the Voter Eligibility List.
Charter Review Commission Comments:
1 Poorly worded sentence May be read to imply that the 20% of eligible voters is required by Texas Statute, which it does not. Raises number of signatures required significantly approximately, from the current 20% of 650 (who voted) = 130, to 20% of 3100 (who are registered) = 620. Adds the requirement for date of birth to be shown with signature, already required by Texas statute. (NOTE: Also now required by Texas Stature are: printed name and Texas Drivers License Number or Social Security Number.)
Proposition 20 - For 669 - Against 87
Recall Procedures
Proposed by Charter Review Commission
What it would do:
1 Change from one (1) person to five (5) qualified voters required to form Petitioners Committee; make uniform with Sec. 9.02.
2 Allow City Secretary five (5) days instead of two (2) days to issue Recall Petition
Blanks.
Charter Review Commission Comments:
1 Makes uniform with Sec. 9.02 Petition.
2 Allows more time for City Secretary.
Proposition 21 - For 287 - Against 475
Form of Recall Petition
Proposed by Charter Review Commission
What it would do:
1 Require reasons for recall to be same on each petition blank.
Charter Review Commission Comments:
1 Review Commission was provided sample petition blanks for Recall Petition, General Petition, and Referendum which included lines for 15 signatures on each, including the Reasons as well as Notary Form. With that, this proposal seemed reasonable, but some petitions are significantly more wordy allowing for only a few signers per page which would require an extreme number of pages. Perhaps a summary might suffice for each page?
Proposition 22 - For 669 - Against 89
Various Papers Constituting Recall Petition
Proposed by Unknown
What it would do:
1 Make no change to the Charter which is not covered in Proposition 21
Charter Review Commission Comment:
1 Does not refer to current contents Sec. 8.05 Various Papers constituting Recall Petition, which refers to City Secretary response to receipt of petition blanks. Appears to be a garbled version of Proposition 22. Was originally numbered as a second 21 in ordinance.
Proposition 23 - For 711 - Against 97
Form of Ballots
Proposed by Charter Review Commission
What it would do:
1 Change wording of For to Yes, remove official from office, and Against, to No, do not remove from office.
Charter Review Commission Comments:
1 Clarifies result of For or Against vote.
Proposition 24 - For 387 - Against 272
Recall Election to be Called
Proposed by Voters Petition
What it would do:
1 Change Special Election for Recall from, to be earliest lawful date at general election, to to be within 45 days at a Special Election.
Charter Review Commission Comments:
1 Allows faster replacement for a recalled Mayor or Council Member
Proposition 25 - For 191 - Against 26
Determination of Sufficiency
Proposed by City Council
What it would do:
1 Allows City Secretary to seek counsel from City Attorney in determination of sufficiency of a recall petition.
2 Asks City Secretary to certify whether the reasons stated for recall meet the legal definitions for recall: incompetence, noncompliance with the Charter, misconduct or malfeasance.
Charter Review Commission Comments:
1 Adds City Attorney to Recall process.
2 Requires City Secretary to have knowledge of legal terms and procedures. Asks City Secretary and City Attorney to predict outcome of legal judgments.
Proposition 26 - For 481 - Against 17
Determination of Sufficiency
Proposed by Voters Petition
What it would do:
1 Determine that the sufficiency of a petition is limited to the completion of the number of required signatures within the required number of days.
Charter Review Commission Comments:
1 Retains current requirements for sufficiency and prevents new considerations.
Proposition 27 - For 567 - Against 209
Utility Customer Opt-Out
Proposed by Voters Petition
What it would do:
1 Allow utility customers to opt-out of products or services they deem harmful.
2 Provides for notice of right to opt-out.
3 Makes City liable for injury, property damage, or death.