Council OKs 13 proposed charter amendments for November ballot

Voters will decide on 13 potential amendments to the city charter in November, with two of the most significant potential changes affecting the number of signatures needed to recall a City Council member, and requiring elections for citizen-led ballot initiatives and charter amendments to take place in large even-numbered election years.

At Thursday’s meeting, Council considered 15 total possible charter amendments, with a high-profile measure that would have increased the number of signatures required to put a referendum on the ballot failing due to lack of a motion.

The amendments, which were named in a way to not have another Proposition A or B in front of voters again, would seek to do the following.

Prop C: Proposes changes to ensure that the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (ICRC) operates independently from the City Council, has the authority to update district boundaries when needed, sets a clear start date for new district maps, increases the pool of potential appointees, provides clarity on filling vacancies and permits city staff to communicate with the ICRC outside of meetings as long as it follows transparency rules.

Prop D: Seeks to delete language requiring City Council to meet at least once each week.

Prop E: Would allow City Council to change its meeting rules by official vote following proper posting as an agenda item.

Prop F: Would change the charter to clearly define “election” and to update limits on campaign contributions and spending every Jan. 1, instead of when the budget is adopted, to match federal and state practices.

Prop G: Would ensure that elections for citizen initiatives and charter amendments are held on the next available November election date in even-numbered years, as long as there’s enough time to meet legal requirements.

Prop H: Would increase the number of signatures needed to recall a City Council member from 10 percent to 15 percent of voters in their district and requires the petition circulator to sign an affidavit instead of the person who signed the petition.

Prop I: Would allow City Council to appoint and remove the city attorney.

Prop J: Would change the deadline for municipal court judges to resign if they want to run for another office, making it the same as the deadline set by the Texas Constitution for other officials.

Prop K: Would align city financial practices with standard accounting rules, modernize budget procedures and contract practices, and raise the limit on how much the city manager can approve in contracts without needing City Council approval.

Prop L: Would remove appointees and employees of the office of the city auditor from the classified civil service.

Prop M: Would eliminate the need for submitting an affidavit to report claims of death, injury or property damage and instead follow the state law’s deadline for such notices.

Prop N: Would allow for fixing spelling, punctuation and grammar mistakes, and allow removal or changing of outdated or unenforceable language due to state laws or court decisions.

Prop O: Would allow officeholders to ask for and accept political donations while still in office to cover unpaid campaign costs or repay personal money spent on their campaign.

During public comment, the failed ballot referendum change drew the most attention, with opponents saying it would cause those initiatives to be converted into citizen-led charter amendments, for which the signature requirements are covered by the state Constitution and thus are more difficult to alter.

“It’s gonna push people to do citizen-initiated measures through the charter process. It’s gonna push even more inappropriate legislation that citizens bring into the charter process if that (the 3.5 percent signature requirement) is maintained and put on the ballot,” activist Chris Harris said.

Council Member Vanessa Fuentes, who led on revised language to give Council purview over the hiring of the city attorney, said she hopes the measure passes after failing in a close vote in a prior election.

“This is an opportunity for us to have a more robust conversation with our community,” she said, noting the Texas Municipal League found 73 percent of home rule cities authorize their city council to directly appoint the city attorney. “This really is ensuring that we’re aligning our structure alongside other big cities in Texas, as well as ensuring that we have that more accountability in place for our community.”

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.