Charter changes might include city attorney appointment

This November, Austin voters will have plenty to ponder as they look at the city’s portion of the ballot. Every Austin voter will have a chance to vote on mayoral candidates, and voters in Districts 2, 4, 6, 7 and 10 will be choosing a City Council member to represent them for the next four years. In addition, voters will be able to decide on changes to the city charter.

On Thursday, as Mayor Kirk Watson explained to Council, staff will be offering potential charter amendments that they will bring back to Council for a vote on July 18. Thursday’s vote will not guarantee a place on the ballot for any particular amendment but will allow staff to work on those items and give Council time to consider what items they want on the November ballot.

As the Austin Monitor has reported, the city’s Charter Review Commission has proposed a variety of changes to the city charter. Although the commission recommended changes in nine different areas, Assistant City Attorney Caroline Webster told Council at Tuesday’s work session that some of the proposed changes could be part of city code, as opposed to charter changes. Council can adopt changes to city code without going through the amendment process.

Although some of the changes proposed by the city’s Charter Review Commission might be labeled “good housekeeping,” there were several proposed to increase city efficiency. One of those is increasing the city manager’s authority to execute and amend contracts. Currently, the manager can independently approve contracts up to $74,000. Increasing that amount to $150,000 would eliminate numerous items that appear on Council agendas for no other reason than the limit in the charter.

City staff recommended against a few of the commission’s ideas, but the only one to draw much Council attention is related to the city attorney. The charter commission recommended that voters decide whether to continue the city manager’s authority to appoint the city attorney with Council confirming the appointment.

Council Member Vanessa Fuentes told her colleagues, “I would like for us to explore having an option for voters to consider having the city attorney directly appointed by Council. I know this is not a new topic for Austinites” since they voted on it in 2012, when the idea lost narrowly, she said. According to the election results, the proposition lost by about 3,000 votes out of more than 238,000. Although the idea was not approved at that time, Fuentes argued that the city has grown and changed considerably since then.

Fuentes said the Texas Municipal League survey shows that in only 6 percent of “home rule” cities the size of Austin does the manager appoint the city attorney, with Council ratifying the appointment.

Watson suggested that Fuentes talk to city staff to arrange for her proposal to be ready for the July 18 agenda.

The commission also asked for a designated assistant city attorney to act as a liaison to Council. Staff rejected that idea, with Webster saying one person could not do that job and Council has a large staff of attorneys to answer their questions.

Separately, Webster also explained that they would need a charter amendment to eliminate the section that says City Council meets every week.

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.