Photo by Noah Dawson
The 2024 Charter Review Committee has finalized its recommendations for amending the Amarillo City Charter. If approved by Amarillo City Council, the amendments will be placed on the November 2024 ballot for voter approval.
(Please note that the designations of the proposals are as they were recommended by the committee and are subject to change. For instance, what was recommended as Proposition B could end up on the ballot as Proposition C. The final authority for deciding what propositions are placed on the ballot is Amarillo City Council.
Committee Recommendations
Proposition A
The first proposal would change the requirements for recalling a member of Amarillo City Council.
What the current charter says: To recall a member of Amarillo City Council (including the Mayor), the following steps must be taken:
Intent to circulate a recall petition must be filed with the City Secretary. The filing may not be done within 6 months after the person was elected nor within 6 months after another recall election for the same office.
The petitioner must collect signatures from 30% of the number of registered voters within the city.
At least one-fifth of those who sign must certify that they voted for the person they are seeking to recall.
The petition must be submitted within 30 days of the initial filing of the petition.
If these requirements are met, the City Secretary shall inform the officer subject to the recall. If that person does not resign within 5 days, the city must schedule a recall election.
What the Charter Review Committee is proposing: To recall a member of Amarillo City Council (including the Mayor), the following steps must be taken:
Intent to circulate a recall petition must be filed with the City Secretary. The filing may not be done within 6 months after the person took office, within 6 months before the seat is up for election, nor within 6 months after another recall election for the same office.
The petitioner must collect signatures from 30% of the number of people who voted in the election in which the officer was last elected.
The petition must be submitted within 60 days of the initial filing of the petition.
If these requirements are met, the City Secretary shall inform the officer subject to the recall. If that person does not resign within 5 days, the city must schedule a recall election.
Reason for the proposal: Since the current language regarding recalls was adopted in 2013, critics have said it not only makes recalling elected officials too difficult but that it can, in some cases, make it impossible.
For example, given that there are roughly 100,000 voters in the city, a petition would need to be signed by roughly 30,000 voters. Since at least-one fifth of signatures must be from voters who voted for the person to be recalled, approximately 6,000 people must say that they voted for that person. But, if turnout is low enough, a person can win a seat on the council with fewer than 6,000 votes.
Another issue noted with the current requirements is that, even though signatories must certify that they voted for the person, there is no mechanism to verify that they actually did vote for that person.
For those reasons, the committee easily found consensus on dropping the one-fifth requirement.
The issue of how many overall signatures should be required, as well as the time period allowed, caused more debate. While most committee members felt that the number of signatures currently required is too high, they still wanted to ensure that the threshold was high enough to bar frivolous recall attempts. Additionally, some committee members expressed hesitancy towards expanding the amount of time to collect signatures. However, the committee eventually reached a consensus on the final version of the proposal.
The one new requirement introduced, which bars a petition from being filed within 6 months before the next election for the office, was added to avoid having a recall shortly before the office is already about to be up for election.
Proposition B
The second proposal would increase the length of the term of office for members of the council while also introducing term limits.
What the current charter says: Amarillo City Council members, including the Mayor of Amarillo, are each elected for two-year terms in May of each odd-numbered year. There are no term limits.
What the Charter Review Committee is proposing: Amarillo City Council members, including the Mayor of Amarillo, shall be elected to four year staggered terms. This will be implemented by having all seats up for election in May of 2025. But, instead of each seat being up for a regular two year term, some seats will be up for four year terms while some will be up for 2 year terms. The seats up for 2 year terms will then be up for four year terms beginning in May of 2027.
Additionally, the Mayor and Council cannot be elected for more than two consecutive full terms of office. After serving two full terms, they must take at least two years off before running again.
Reason for the proposal: Four year staggered terms has long been a political goal pushed by some in local politics. A similar proposal, also placed on the ballot as Proposition B, was narrowly rejected by voters in 2020.
Reasons given for the change fall into two broad categories. First, some have expressed concern that, under the current charter, voters can change the entire council within a single election, creating a council that has no experience.
Second, some committee members felt that longer terms could help encourage council members to make good decisions without worrying about political repercussions.
One major difference between this year’s Proposition B and the version from 2020 is that the new version contains term limits. If passed, elected officials would be limited to serving two full consecutive terms. After these two terms, they must take at least two years off before seeking election again.
Proposition C
The third proposal would expand the number of seats on the council and make changes to how some seats are elected. (These proposals were originally set to be grouped with the changes in Proposition B but were split off. If passed, these changes would only go into effect if Proposition B also passes.)
What the current charter says: Amarillo City Council is composed of a Mayor and four Councilmembers, designated as Place 1, Place 2, Place 3, and Place 4.
Any registered voter living anywhere within the city, as long as they have lived in the city for at least 12 months before the election, may run for any seat. All voters in the city may vote to decide the winner of each seat.
What the Charter Review Committee is proposing: Amarillo City Council will be expanded to add two additional seats, designated as Place 5 and Place 6. Additionally, the city will be split into 3 regions of roughly equal population.
Three of the seats on the council will be subject to residency requirements, meaning that, in order to run for that seat, a candidate must reside in a particular region and have lived in that region for at least 12 months prior to the election. While the candidates for those seats must live in that region, all voters in the city may still vote to decide who wins that seat.
Reason for the proposal: The current council has expressed a desire to expand the council, arguing it could do two things to help increase efficiency.
First, the individual workload regarding citizens bringing forward issues would be lessened on council members with more councilmembers. During the charter review committee process, it was noted that Amarillo has one of the smallest councils compared to similar sized cities in Texas and, as a result,m has one of the highest counts of constituents per councilmember.
Second, a larger council would more easily allow the creation of subcommittees to study particular issues. With the current council consisting of 5 members, the largest a subcommittee may be is 2 members, as a meeting of 3 or more would be a quorum, creating implications regarding the Texas Open Meetings Act. If the council had 7 members, a 3 member subcommittee would fall short of a quorum, allowing subcommittees of that size to hold meetings without invoking legal requirements regarding public notices.
The other component of the proposition, creating geographic area residency requirements, was proposed to help increase representation from North and East Amarillo without implementing single member districts.
The issue of single member districts has long been a hot-button local issue. With single member districts, a person seeking to run for a certain seat on the council must not only live in the district assigned to that seat, but must also be elected solely based on voters also living in that district. Proponents have said this would expand representation while opponents have argued it would cause legal issues during redistricting and would possibly create isolated silos where council members would only consider the desires of their district rather than the city as a whole.
The model of having geographic residency requirements for candidates while keeping all seats at-large for voters was pioneered by Plano, which has a Mayor and eight council members, with four of the seats on their council subject to geographic residency requirements.
The committee also recommended a draft map for the geographic areas, included below:
Proposition D
The fourth and final proposal would change language regarding the appointing authority of the City Manager.
What the current charter says: The City Manager shall “appoint all appointive officers or employees of the City with the advice and consent of the Council.”
What the Charter Review Committee is proposing: The City Manager shall “appoint all appointive officers or employees of the City with consultation with the Council prior to offer of employment being made to an unclassified employee in an executive position such as an assistant or deputy city manager or as the director of any department.”
Reason for the proposal: Interest in this section of the charter was spurred by controversy surrounding changes to senior city staff initiated by former Interim City Manager Andrew Freeman earlier this year.
Freeman moved several high-level staff into new roles, but his plans were cut short when members of the current council expressed concern that the changes were being made without their knowledge and input. Some noted that the first they learned of the changes was when members of the media reached out for comment on the changes. This sparked discussion and debate over the role of the City Manager and culminated in Freeman stepping down from his role as Interim City Manager.
In addition to the committee recommending changes to the language of the charter regarding this topic, the committee also recommended changes to language of the Governance & Ends Policy to ensure that council members are kept apprised of planned high-level appointments before the appointments are actually made.
Rejected Amendment Proposals
Moving city elections to November
What the current charter says: Elections take place “on the date allowed by state law that occurs on or nearest to May 1 in each odd numbered year.”
What was proposed: Moving the city’s elections to the November general election in even-numbered years.
Reason for the proposal: Turnout for current city elections is typically very low. Though the 2023 city election did draw greater turnout than most city elections, more than three times as many people voted in the November 2020 Proposition A City of Amarillo bond election.
Moving city elections to November of even numbered years gained support from the current members of Amarillo City Council during their campaigns last year. When asked by The Amarillo Pioneer about making such a change, all candidates who eventually won election other than Les Simpson expressed support for the idea.
Reason the committee rejected the proposal: Some committee members felt that moving elections to November, while boosting turnout, would also mean that voters less educated on city issues would vote. Further concerns regarding the number of races on the ballot and partisanship during November elections were mentioned.
Giving the authority to appoint the City Attorney to City Council
What the current charter says: The only offices that Amarillo City Council has the power to hire and fire are the City Manager and Municipal Court Judge. The City Attorney is appointed by the City Manager.
What was proposed: Adding the City Attorney as a position directly appointed by Amarillo City Council.
Reason for the proposal: Most other cities in the state give their city council the power to appoint the City Attorney. One common reason given for this arrangement is that the City Attorney acts as the attorney for the city as an organization. Since policy is set by the City Council and since the council is the second-highest position on the organizational chart, after the people, this could help align the City Attorney with the stated role, rather than putting the Attorney is a position where they answer to the City Manager.
Another reason given is that having the City Attorney under the council rather than the City Manager is that the City Attorney could provide a check on the power of the City Manager. For instance, if the City Manager were acting improperly, it would be easier for the City Attorney to speak up if the City Attorney didn’t report directly to the City Manager.
Reason the committee rejected the proposal: The committee felt that, especially with their desire to expand the length of term for the council members, it would be tough to sell giving greater powers to the council. Additionally, the council has the power to hire outside special counsel, as they recently did with approving a contract with Hyde Kelly LLP.
Expanding the term lengths of City Council but keeping the Mayor at two years
What the current charter says: Amarillo City Council members, including the Mayor of Amarillo, are each elected for two-year terms in May of each odd-numbered year.
What was proposed: Moving all council seats, including potential new council seats, to four-year staggered terms, while keeping the position of Mayor at two years.
Reason for the proposal: This proposal was made by Mayor Cole Stanley. While the Mayor’s powers are similar to the rest of the council, they have additional formal and informal responsibilities.
Formal responsibilities include running city council meetings, placing items on the agenda, and calling special meetings. Informal responsibilities include ceremonial responsibilities and acting as a figurehead for the city.
Given the additional responsibilities held by the Mayor, it was suggested that requiring four years for the position would be tough, especially given the fact that the Mayor, along with the rest of the council, only earns $10 per regular meeting.
Additionally, keeping the Mayor at two years while moving the council to four-year staggered terms would allow voters to have a majority of the council on the ballot in every regular city election.
Reason the committee rejected the proposal: The committee felt that the responsibilities for the Mayor were too similar to the rest of the council to necessitate having different term lengths. Additionally, they worried that having two different terms lengths for city officials would create voter confusion.
The committee also noted that the council, if they feel strongly enough about the proposal, could override the recommendation given.
Increasing pay for the Mayor and City Council
What the current charter says: The Mayor and Councilmembers receive $10 per regular meeting attended.
What was proposed: Paying the Mayor $9,000 per year and Councilmember $4,500 per year.
Reason for the proposal: This would help cover incidental expenses incurred while completing the working duties of the Mayor and City Council and would potentially expand the number of people willing to run.
Reason the committee rejected the proposal: While the committee did not express opposition to the idea in theory, one committee member likened the proposal to “a political hand grenade that you would toss onto the ballot.”
Creating charter-mandated regular charter review process
What the current charter says: The charter may be amended by a vote of the people, with the power to place changes in the hands of the council. (The state also bars city charters from being changed more often than once every two years.)
What was proposed: Setting up a formalized and regular method for appointing a charter review committee that would study the charter once every two years and make recommendations for changes.
Reason for the proposal: While the city usually creates a citizen committee to review the charter when considering making changes, this process is somewhat informal and does not occur on a regular basis. The last three charter review and amendment processes were in 2020, 2013, and 1989. Several other cities have provisions in their charter setting a more formal and regular process.
Reason the committee rejected the proposal: While the committee expressed support for regularly revisiting the charter, they worried that placing this on the ballot would create voter fatigue. Additionally, other methods for setting up a formal and regular charter review can be implemented through the Governance & Ends Policy or by ordinance.
Making general clean-up changes to the charter
What the current charter says: The charter, first implemented in 1913, contains several outdated passages and has several provisions which have been superseded by state law.
What was proposed: To make changes to modernize language and move the charter more in-line with state law.
Reason for the proposal: Given the fact that the current charter is over 100 years old and contains provisions in conflict with state law, numerous minor changes could be made to make it more up to date.
Reason the committee rejected the proposal: Similar to several other rejected proposals, the committee worried about voter fatigue. Additionally, while some provisions are in conflict with state law, state law prevails.
What Comes Next
Special meeting to present proposals
The charter review committee will present their recommendations to the council during a special meeting in the coming weeks.
City staff recommended making the presentation a standalone special meeting, as the next upcoming meeting will feature a separate major issue. While staff did not clarify, they are likely referring to the council calling an election on the Sanctuary City for the Unborn ordinance. With the petition committee having recently submitted their formal request for the item to be placed on the ballot, the item is likely to be taken up at the next regular meeting of the council.
City Secretary Stephanie Coggins confirmed to The Amarillo Pioneer that the special meeting will be held on July 16th at 10:00 am.
Calling the election
Amarillo City Council has final authority over what proposals to place on the ballot. The council may place the proposals as presented on the ballot, they could modify the proposals (for instance, they could choose to change the proposed Prop B to keep the Mayor at two years), they could reject any of the proposals, or they could add different proposals to the ballot.
The deadline to call the election is August 19th.
The people vote
Any changes placed on the ballot will come before voters participating in the November 5th general election.
The first day of early voting will be October 21st, while the last day will be November 1st.
Following the election, Amarillo City Council will canvas the results and officially implement any changes approved by voters.