Amarillo City Council met on Thursday Morning to discuss the charter review process. During the meeting, members of the council discussed specific changes they would like to see studied as a part of the review process ahead of a potential November amendment election.

One of the most talked about proposals was expanding the size of the council. While there seemed to be widespread support for the idea in theory, there were worries regarding the proposal. In particular, there were worries regarding the potential for legal action as a result of expanding the council that would force the city to adopt single-member districts, an idea which seemed to have little support from the council. “I have been advised this opens the door to interference from the federal government,” said Councilman Don Tipps regarding expanding the council. Councilman Les Simpson expressed a desire for the legal implications of the proposal to be more carefully studied and expressed an openness to supporting the idea, assuming that it would not trigger single member districts.

(During the election, several of the current council members seemed more open to the idea of single member districts. Councilman Tipps in particular noted in our questionnaire that, regardless of his position, he felt that “we should allow the voters to decide by putting it on the ballot.” Councilman Les Simpson seems to have remained more consistent, maintaining opposition during the meeting he had expressed in his response to our questionnaire.)

There did seem to be a general consensus on increasing the length of terms in office. There was some debate about whether the term of office should be either three or four years, but all agreed that terms should be staggered. Mayor Stanley expressed support for keeping the position of Mayor as a two-year term while moving the council to four-year terms.

Councilman Josh Craft also suggested that, along with staggering terms, the threshold for a recall petition should be lowered. Under the current charter, a recall petition must be signed by at least 30 percent of registered voters, “at least one-fifth (⅕) of whom shall certify that at the election at which the officer or officers was or were elected, they voted for the election of such officer or officers proposed to recalled.” Given the low turnout typical of local elections, this standard is difficult (and, in some cases, impossible) to meet.

Regarding elections, Councilman Tom Scherlen expressed support for moving elections to November of even-numbered years. A consultant from Baker-Tilley present during the meeting outlined some potential drawbacks, with the main argument being that the voter base turning out for November elections often are not as involved with city governance as those who turn out during May elections.

Councilman Les Simpson expressed a desire to look into whether the city should eliminate the runoff requirement, noting that runoff winners usually also won first place in the first round. In addition, he pointed out that runoff turnout is often significantly lower than turnout in the first round.

Outside of election issues, there seemed to be support for making the position of City Attorney directly appointed by the council, similar to the way the council directly appoints the City Manager.

Another idea that was discussed was to “clean up” outdated provisions of the charter that were no longer in line with state law. Some hesitancy was expressed regarding this proposal, with Mayor Stanley expressing a desire to limit the number of changes placed on the ballot. City Attorney Brian McWilliams did note that, even in instances where the charter is not in line with state law, state law controls anyways.

The council also discussed specifics regarding the citizen committee that will be tasked with the charter review and making recommendations on amendments. A more finalized version of the list of members was announced by Mayor Stanley. That full list, along with more details about the meetings for the committee, can be found in our full story here.