HomeMy WebLinkAboutCharter_Review_Committee_Agenda_4_6_2021_3864Notice of Meeting for the
Charter Rev iew Committee
of the City of Georgetown
April 6, 2021 at 3:00 P M
at Virtual
T he C ity o f G eorgetown is c o mmitted to c ompliance with the Americans with Dis ab ilities Ac t (ADA). If yo u
req uire as s is tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting d ue to a disability, as d efined und er the ADA, reasonable
as s is tance, ad ap tatio ns , or acc o mmo d ations will b e provid ed up o n req uest. P leas e contac t the C ity S ecretary's
O ffic e, at leas t three (3) d ays p rio r to the s cheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin
Luther King Jr. S treet, G eo rgeto wn, T X 78626 for ad d itional info rmation; T T Y us ers route thro ugh R elay
Texas at 711.
This is a me e ting of the Counc i l appoi nte d C harte r R e vie w C ommittee .
C onsiste nt wi th Gove rnor Gre g A bbott’s suspension of vari ous pr ovisions of
the O pe n M e eti ngs A c t, effe ctive A ugust 1, 2020 and until further notice , to
r educ e the c hanc e of C O V I D -19 tr ansmi ssion, all C i ty of Geor getown
A dvisor y B oard me etings will be hel d vir tually. P ubl ic c omme nt will be
allowed via te le confe re nc e; no one wil l be allowed to appe ar i n per son.
To J oin Zoom M ee ting
https://ge or ge towntx.zoom.us/j/95589965197?
pwd=W G x4 TnJ We V R vYkgzZ E U 5 Sl N O N Xo5dz09
M e eting I D : 955 8996 5197
P assc ode : 669411
O ne tap mobi le
+13462487799,,95589965197# U S (H ouston)
+16699006833,,95589965197# U S (San J ose)
D ial by your l ocati on
+1 346 248 7799 U S (H ouston)
+1 669 900 6833 U S (S an J ose )
+1 253 215 8782 U S (Tacoma)
+1 929 205 6099 U S (N ew Yor k)
+1 301 715 8592 U S (Washington D C )
+1 312 626 6799 U S (C hic ago)
888 475 4499 U S Toll-fr ee
833 548 0276 U S Toll-fr ee
833 548 0282 U S Toll-fr ee
877 853 5257 U S Toll-fr ee
Page 1 of 44
M e eting I D : 955 8996 5197
C itizen c omments ar e ac ce pte d in thr ee di ffer ent for mats: Submit written
c omments to mayr a.cantu@ge or ge town.or g by 5:00 p.m. on the day be for e
the date of the mee ting and the R e c or di ng Se cr etar y wil l r ead your
c omments into the re cor ding dur i ng the i tem that is be ing di sc usse d.
L og onto the me eti ng at the link above and “r aise your hand” dur ing the
item.
U se your home/mobile phone to c al l the tol l-fre e numbe r.
To join a Zoom mee ting, clic k on the l ink provided and joi n as an atte ndee .
You will be asked to enter your name and email addr e ss (this is so we c an
ide ntify you whe n you are call e d upon). To spe ak on an ite m, c li ck on the ic on
labe le d "P ar tic ipants" at the bottom ce nte r of your P C or M ac scr ee n. A t
the bottom of the window on the r i ght side of the sc r e e n, c li ck the button
labe le d "R ai se H and." Clic k "R ai se H and" if you want to say something in
the mee ti ng. When you ar e c al le d upon by the Re cor ding S ec re tary, your
devic e wi ll be re mote ly un-mute d by the A dministrator and you may spe ak
for thre e mi nutes. P le ase state your name clear ly, and whe n your time is
over, your de vic e wil l be mute d again. You c an lowe r your hand by clic king
the same button, now labeled "L ower H and."
The same me thod c an be use d to r ai se your hand in a Zoom mee ting on a
mobile de vic e, simpl y tap "R ai se H and" at the bottom le ft c orner of the
scr ee n. The hand i con will tur n bl ue and the text below it wil l swi tch to say
"L ower H and" whil e your hand i s r aised.
U se of pr ofani ty, thre atening l anguage, slande rous r e mar ks or thre ats of
harm ar e not all owe d and will r e sult i n you be ing imme diate ly r emove d from
the mee ti ng.
Regular Agenda
A C all to O rd er - Lo uise Ep s tein, C hair
B R eview and approval of the minutes from March 16, 2021 C harter R eview C ommittee - Louis e Epstein,
C hair
C Intro d uc tio n to the benchmark Ho me-R ule C harter cities – S kye Mas s on, C ity Atto rney
Page 2 of 44
D Disc ussio n o f pos s ible amendment o f C ity C harter, S ectio n 2.01, Numb er, S elec tion, and Term o f O ffic e
relating to term limits - S kye Masson, C ity Attorney
E Disc ussio n o f pos s ible amendment o f C ity C harter S ectio n 2.02, Q ualific ations - S kye Mas s o n, C ity
Attorney
F Disc ussio n o f pos s ible amendment o f C ity C harter, S ectio n 2.03, Vacanc ies - S kye Mas s o n, C ity
Attorney
G Disc ussio n o f pos s ible amendment o f C ity C harter S ectio n 2.06, Mayor and Mayo r P ro Tem - S kye
Mas s o n C ity Attorney
H Disc ussio n o f pos s ible amendment o f C ity C harter p ro visions in Artic le I V related to petition
requirements fo r S ec tion 4.01, power of initiative; S ec tion 4.02, power o f referend um; and S ec tion 4.07,
R ec all of C ity O ffic ials ; and S ectio n 4.08, R ec all P etition - S kye Mas s on, C ity Atto rney
I Disc ussio n o f agenda items fo r Ap ril 20, 2021 and additio nal charter amend ments for cons id eration at a
future meeting – Louis e Epstein, C hair
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R obyn Dens mo re, C ity S ec retary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereb y certify that this Notice of
Meeting was p o s ted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgeto wn, T X 78626, a p lace readily
acc es s ib le to the general p ublic as req uired by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2021, at
__________, and remained so p o s ted fo r at leas t 72 c o ntinuo us hours prec eding the sc heduled time of s aid
meeting.
__________________________________
R o b yn Dens more, C ity S ecretary
Page 3 of 44
City of Georgetown, Texas
Charter Review Committee
April 6, 2021
S UB J E C T:
C all to O rd er - Louis e Epstein, C hair
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Page 4 of 44
City of Georgetown, Texas
Charter Review Committee
April 6, 2021
S UB J E C T:
R eview and ap p ro val o f the minutes fro m Marc h 16, 2021 C harter R eview C o mmittee - Lo uise Ep s tein,
C hair
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mayra C antu, Management Analys t
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
March 16, 2021 Minutes Backup Material
Page 5 of 44
Minutes of Meeting of the
CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE (CRC)
City of Georgetown, Texas
March 16, 2021
The Charter Review Committee met on Tuesday, March 16, 2021 at 3:00 PM via Zoom virtual meeting.
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If
you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA,
reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the
City Secretary’s Office, at least three (3) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or
City Hall at 808 Martin Luther King Jr Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay
Texas at 711.
The meeting was held with the Governor’s Order, all City Buildings are following these procedures:
• Masks are recommended
• Physical distancing; 6 feet between you and anyone not in your household
• Practice good hygiene and wash your hands
Committee Members Present: City Staff Present:
John Hesser
Louise Epstein
Bob Glandt
Joseph Burke
Troy Hellman
John Marler
Rick Vasquez
Ben Stewart
Skye Masson, City Attorney
Mayra Cantu, Management Analyst and Board
Liaison
Karen Frost, Assistant City Secretary
Board Members Absent:
Others present:
John Smith
Legislative Regular Agenda
Louise Epstein called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m.
A. Review and approval of the minutes from March 2, 2021 Charter Review Committee- Louise
Epstein, Chair
Motion to approve by John Marler; Second by John Hesser. Approved 8-0.
B. Discussion of possible amendment of City Charter, Section 2.02 Qualifications - Skye Masson,
City Attorney
Skye Masson explained the current Charter’s language conflict with state law.
John Marler recommends the alternate language:
Alternatively, the Charter language could be amended to provide at most that:
· Candidates must be 21 years of age on the first day of the term to be filled
· Candidates must have been resident of the District (or City for Mayor) for 12 months
preceding election day.
The alternative language is the maximum that State allows in residency and age requirements, going
beyond State limits voids the language.
Page 6 of 44
Discussion between the difference in age between 18 and 21 as people who are 18 have the right to vote.
There is a general preference for being at least 21, but not consensus.
City of Pflugerville’s and Sugar Land’s language in the exhibit of the agenda packet were pointed out as
a good model by the Chair and John Marler, respectively, for possible proposed language to be brought
back by staff. In particular the language that reads:
“No member of council shall hold any other city office or city employment while serving as a member
of council or hold any paid city employment within two (2) years thereafter.”(Sugar Land)
Question on whether the gap needs to be 2 years or 1 year.
“A city employee seeking city elective office is deemed to have resigned from city employment
immediately upon filing for a place on the ballot.” (Pflugerville)
Committee asked for research to be done by staff on how many cities have an 18 year age requirement,
and how many of those cities have had officials under 21 years of age actually elected in Texas.
C. Discussion of possible amendment of City Charter, Section 2.09, Rules of Procedure - Skye
Masson, City Attorney
Skye Masson presented the issues with current Charter language and its ambiguity detailing the majority,
for example is it Council present or all Council.
John Marler asked whether quorum plus one could suffice, but it goes back to the issue of whether its
Council present or all, with 3 and 4 sufficing for each as a majority.
John Hesser detailed if not all of Council is present then maybe we can have the Mayor automatically
become a voter. Questions arose on when the Mayor does and does not vote, and whether we allow the
Mayor to always vote. John Hesser explained that with the Mayor voting you have the opportunity for a
tie far more often. Committee would like to review research on how other Cities handle the Mayor vote.
How many other Cities in Texas have a Mayor that cannot vote? Staff will conduct research and survey
other City’s.
Preference for El Paso’s Charter language in the exhibit of the agenda packet.
D. Discuss agenda items for April 6, 2021 Meeting - Louise Epstein, Chair
Chair wants to add an item moving forward on agendas for Other Business, and two other items from the
original list of sections for review provided by Council and staff.
John Marler would like the Committee to review Article 4, Requirements for Petitions Section 4.03,
specifically what it requires for percentage of voters and possibly adding a maximum for
referendums/petitions and recall. Staff will research what other cities have written in their Charter and
bring back at a later meeting.
Committee would like staff to recommend a benchmark of Home-Rule Charter Cities that are similar to
Georgetown so that the Committee can review their language regularly with each section to have some
consistency in review.
Chair would like to review 2.01 term limits and 2.03 vacancies in the next meeting, see item B and C for
further instruction.
Troy Hellman would like to review at a later meeting the reporting structure of City Secretary, City
Attorney, and Municipal Judge to Council and whether they should report to the City Manager instead.
Review what other cities do.
Page 7 of 44
Chair would like to review the addition of a City Auditor, and review background research.
Committee would like to review research and survey of other cities conducted by staff on section 2.02
and section 2.09. Staff will bring back an item on voting and the various sections it touches.
Motion to adjourn meeting by John Marler, second by John Hesser, approved 8-0. Meeting adjourned at
4:12 pm.
__________________________________ ____________
Louise Epstein Date
Committee Chair
___ _______________________________ ____________
John Hesser Date
Committee Vice Chair
__________________________________ ____________
Mayra Cantu Date
Board Liaison
Page 8 of 44
City of Georgetown, Texas
Charter Review Committee
April 6, 2021
S UB J E C T:
Introductio n to the b enc hmark Home-R ule C harter c ities – S kye Masson, C ity Attorney
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mayra C antu, Management Analys t
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Charter Review Benchmark Cities Pres entation
Page 9 of 44
City Population Form of
Government
City
Type Charter
El Paso
679,813
Council‐
Manager
Home
Rule https://library.municode.com/tx/el_paso/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CH
Round
Rock
124,434
Council‐
Manager
Home
Rule https://library.municode.com/tx/round_rock/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTICH
Cedar Park
74,817
Council‐
Manager
Home
Rule
https://z2.franklinlegal.net/franklin/Z2Browser2.html?showset=cedarparkset&collection=cedarpark
&doccode=z2Code_z20000001
New
Braunfels
79,438
Council‐
Manager
Home
Rule https://library.municode.com/tx/new_braunfels/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIHORUCH
Sugar Land
118,709
Council‐
Manager
Home
Rule https://library.municode.com/tx/sugar_land/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTICH
Fort Worth
874,401
Council‐
Manager
Home
Rule https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/ftworth/latest/ftworth_tx/0‐0‐0‐8
Carrollton
135,834
Council‐
Manager
Home
Rule https://library.municode.com/tx/carrollton/codes/code_of_ordinances
Richardson
116,432
Council‐
Manager
Home
Rule https://library.municode.com/tx/richardson/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTICH
Page 10 of 44
City of Georgetown, Texas
Charter Review Committee
April 6, 2021
S UB J E C T:
Dis cus s io n of p o s s ib le amend ment of C ity C harter, S ec tion 2.01, Numb er, S elec tio n, and Term of O ffic e
relating to term limits - S kye Mas s o n, C ity Atto rney
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mayra C antu, Management Analys t
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Sec. 2.01 Charter and Examples Exhibit
TML Term Limits Res earch Backup Material
Page 11 of 44
Cover Sheet
Item D. Discussion of possible amendment of City Charter, Section 2.01 Number, Selection,
and Term of office related to term limits
1. Current City Charter Language (no term limits):
Sec. 2.01. - Number, selection, and term of office.
The Council shall be composed of seven (7) Councilmembers elected from single-member
districts and a Mayor elected at-large, each of whom unless sooner removed under the provisions
of the Charter, shall serve for three-year terms, from the first meeting of the Council following
the Councilmember's election until the first meeting of the Council following the election two (2)
years later, or until the councilmember's successor has been elected and duly qualified.
Four (4) members of the Council shall be elected each odd-numbered year and three (3)
members and a Mayor each even-numbered year.
Councilmembers must reside in the districts from which they are elected except that
Councilmembers may complete the terms to which they were elected if district boundaries are
changed during their terms causing their residences no longer to be within the districts from
which they were elected.
The authority to adopt council district boundaries shall reside in the council. The council may
revise district boundaries from time to time and shall adopt district boundaries within one year
after the publication of each United States decennial census.
Councilmembers and Mayor shall be elected for three-year terms, which shall begin with the
general election to be held in 1995, and the terms shall be staggered such that three Council
members are elected in one year, the Mayor and two Council members are elected in the
following year and two Councilmembers are elected the last year. For the staggering of the initial
three-year terms, the following procedure shall apply:
(1) In 1995, Councilmembers shall be elected for Districts 1, 3, 4 and 5. Following the election,
the Councilmembers shall draw lots to serve either a three-year term (2 members) or a two-year
term (2 members).
(2) In 1996, the Mayor shall be elected for a three-year team, and Councilmembers shall be
elected for Districts 2, 6 and 7. Following the election, the Councilmembers shall draw lots to
serve either a three-year term (2 members) or a two-year term (1 member).
(3) In 1997, the two Districts whose Councilmembers serve two-year terms shall elect
Councilmembers for three-year terms. All succeeding elections shall be to elect Councilmembers
for three-year terms in compliance with this Charter.
Page 12 of 44
2. TML Survey of Cities:
20. Term limit applies
Both council and mayor 88 35%
Separately 12 5%
N/A 149 60%
Total 249 100%
3. Samples from benchmark cities:
New Braunfels
Sec. 3.01. - Number, selection and term.
The legislative and governing body of the City shall consist of seven (7) Councilpersons and
shall be known as the "Council of the City of New Braunfels," and who shall each serve a term
of three (3) years.
The City of New Braunfels shall by ordinance be divided into six (6) districts. Each district
shall to the extent reasonably possible be equally populated and the City Council shall
maintain such equality of population, as from time to time deemed necessary, by ordinance.
The districts shall be designated Number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The qualified voters of each
district shall elect one (1) Councilmember for each of the six (6) districts. The six (6)
Councilmembers so elected from each district shall have been a resident of the district from
which the Councilmember is elected for no less than six (6) months prior to filing for office
and must continue to reside in said district for his or her entire term of office.
The Mayor of the City of New Braunfels shall be elected by the qualified voters of the City at
large and elections for the Mayor shall be held pursuant to Article IV, Elections, of the City
Charter of New Braunfels, Texas.
Each Councilperson shall hold office until his or her successor is elected and qualified.
Candidates elected at the municipal election shall take office at the regular City Council
meeting, the same being at the first regular meeting held after the meeting in which the election
returns are canvassed and the result of the election is officially declared.
No current or future elected official shall serve more than two (2) consecutive three (3)
year terms of office and no more than three (3), three (3) year terms during a lifetime.
However, years or time of service that an elected official may serve in filling an unexpired
term or a partial term of office shall not be counted toward the above limitations.
Sugar Land
Sec. 2.01. - Election and Term.
Page 13 of 44
(a) The council shall consist of a mayor and six (6) council members elected by the voters for a
term of three (3) years, or until their successors have been elected and qualified.
(b) The mayor and two (2) council members shall be elected at-large. The two (2) at-large
council member positions shall be respectively designated as Position 1 and Position 2. The
remaining four (4) council members shall be elected by districts, designated as Districts 1, 2, 3,
and 4. The council shall modify the size, configuration, and geographic definition of the council
districts as necessary to provide equal representation to all citizens of the city and to comply with
state and federal law.
(c) The council shall serve staggered three-year terms. Council elections shall be held in May on
the date specified by state law. A candidate must be elected to office by majority vote. If no
candidate for office receives a majority vote, a run-off election shall be held as required by state
law. The council shall be the judge of the election and qualifications of its own members.
(d) A person may not be elected in a city election to any council position more than four
times in any consecutive nine-year period. For purposes of this provision, district and at-
large council member positions are aggregated, while the position of the mayor is
considered a separate office from other council positions.
(e) The city secretary shall promptly notify all persons elected to office. The persons elected
shall take their oaths of office and begin their duties at the meeting at which the city council
declares the results of the election.
Richardson
Section 3.01. - Number, election, terms.
a. Except as otherwise provided by this charter, all powers conferred on the city shall be
exercised by a city council consisting of seven (7) members comprised of a mayor and
six (6) council members. The members of the city council shall each be elected by the
qualified voters of the entire City to numbered places in the manner provided in this
charter for a term of two (2) years and until a successor is elected and qualified. As used
in this charter, unless the context clearly means otherwise, the word or phrase “city
council”, “council”, “member(s) of the city council” and “member(s) of the council”
means and includes the mayor and the six (6) council members. The word or phrase
“councilmember(s)” or “council member(s)” means the six (6) members of the city
council excluding the mayor, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
b. No person elected or appointed to the city council at the May 2009 city officer
election or thereafter, shall serve as a member of the city council in any place for
more than six (6) consecutive terms until at least one full term shall have elapsed
from the expiration of such person's last term of office.
c. For purposes of this section and in computing term limits:
i. A member of the council, who resigns or vacates office prior to the expiration of the
term for which such person was elected or appointed, shall be deemed to have served
a full term.
ii. A person appointed or elected to fill a vacancy on the council for an unexpired term
shall be deemed to have served a full term if fifty percent (50%) or more of such
term is remaining at the time of such appointment or election.
Page 14 of 44
tricacies of city government and to learn
about the problems of city agencies and pro-
grams or those parts of the city with which
they may have had no prior experience.
Three-year term: A three-year term’s princi-
pal advantage is that it lengthens the period
of service before facing the voters, giving a
member time to compile a record and giving
a new member time to become proficient in
the job. The three-year term also clearly dif-
ferentiates council service from other public
offices. It is a long enough time to accom-
plish something, but too short to feel like
there is a lease on the position.
The principal disadvantage of the three-year
term is that one of every two municipal elec-
tions will fall in a state or national election
year. It could necessitate a separate elec-
tion, producing some voter confusion. There
is also some prospect that the partisanship
of state and national elections would be car-
ried over into city elections.
Four-year term: Most observers of govern-
ments tend to feel that four-year terms en-
courage those elected to them to invest more
time in working on substantive and larger
problems of government, rather than thinking
about campaign strategy, and to become
more proficient in policy issues.
Longer terms can, however, work to increase
the insulation of elected officials from the
electorate; although, the many arenas for di-
rect contact with constituents in city govern-
ment appear to make this a far less severe
problem than it is for members of Congress
or state legislatures.28
Staggered terms: More than 95 percent of
Texas charters call for staggered terms.
Charter drafters in Texas have obviously felt
that it is desirable to have some continuing
experience on the city council and avoid a
wholesale turnover of city councilmembers.
Staggered terms do tend to provide some sta-
bility on the council. On the other hand, they
also thwart the will of the people to make a
major change of direction. For example, with
a five-member council and two-year stag-
gered terms, three members would come up
for election one year and two the next. If the
council had taken or failed to take a stand on
a major issue before the election year when
two members were running, the vote for the
two incumbents or for two newcomers would
not necessarily change the stance taken by
the council prior to election.
Term limits
Perhaps no legislative issue in many years has
evolved with such gathering momentum as term limits. Orig-
inally proposed for members of the U.S. Congress and, in
some states, for state-elected officials, term limits have now
come to the local level. Actually, they may have started at the
local level in Texas. The citizens of the North Texas city of
Paris placed a two-term (four-year) limit on their city council
when they adopted their first home rule charter in 1948. A
few other cities adopted such provisions in the 1970s, but
the real movement did not start until the late 1980s. Today,
41 percent of Texas home rule cities have limits on the num-
ber of consecutive years their mayors and city councilmem-
bers may serve; the form of government or size of the city
appears to have very little influence on voter adoption of term
limits.
Arguments rage back and forth over the merits of
the “term limits” movement. Opponents generally include
political scientists and so-called “urban experts” who insist
that voters have the ability to terminate any elected official’s
career by merely turning him/her out at the polls. Proponents
of term limits maintain that advantages of incumbency, both
in campaign finance and in name recognition, deter or block
the termination vote. They argue that term limits are neces-
sary to bring “government back to the people.” Along with a
widespread distrust, or at least suspicion of government, this
“back to the people” plea accounts for term limit elections
passing across the country with generally wide margins.
Whatever the merits, term limits appear to be here to stay;
thus, this book will examine the charter provisions in Texas
cities and analyze the trend to 2008.
One of the obstacles to analyzing this movement
is the wide variation in charter terminology. It is impossible
to ascertain in a few cities whether the limits apply to com-
bined service of one person as a mayor and councilmember
or whether the two offices are meant to be considered sepa-
rately. An equally formidable obstacle is the absence of any
case law history and the resulting proliferation of different in-
terpretations.
Term limits in charters are expressed in one of two
ways. One way is to have separate limits for the mayor and
members of the council. A typical charter with this type limit
is Friendswood. That charter states: “The mayor and coun-
cilmembers shall be elected to serve for three-year terms as
provided below, but no person shall be elected to serve in the
capacity of councilmember for more than three consecutive
three-year terms, nor shall any person be elected to serve in
the capacity of mayor for more than three consecutive three-
year terms.”
41
The city council - election and service
Page 15 of 44
The other way to express limits is to count service as mayor
and service as a councilmember together. The charter of the
City of Rockport is very straightforward. It states: “No person
shall serve more than ten consecutive years on the City Coun-
cil.” The statement to look for here to assure that the mayor
is included in the definition of “City Council” is this additional
statement found in the Rockport charter: “The legislative and
governing body of the City shall consist of a Mayor and four
Councilmen and shall be known as the City Council of Rock-
port.”
Separate limits on years of service
A total of 36 cities have separate limits for mayors
and councilmembers. The most popular limit for these cities
is six years for each of the offices. This includes cities that
have a three-term limit on two-year terms, as well as cities
that have a two-term limit on three-year terms. The full break-
down by limit in years is as follows:
aJacksonville and Waco have limits on mayors, but not on the
council.
bPearland has limits on councilmembers, but not on the
mayor.
*This chart uses 1994 data, but other aspects of the recent
survey indicate that the numbers are essentially the same.
The chart above considers limits in one of the two
positions – mayor or councilmember. In this type of language,
a councilmember could serve his/her limit of, say, six years,
and then run and be elected as mayor and serve another six
years. Assuming both posts carry six-year limits, one individ-
ual could legally serve 12 years.
It should be noted that these limits have been
constrained in six cities by imposing “combination” limits.
For example, in Graham, although the mayor and coun-
cilmembers have six-years limits individually, the charter lim-
its any combined service in those two positions to ten years,
not twelve years.
The following chart portrays the maximum num-
ber of consecutive/successive years a person could serve as
council member or mayor under the separate limits category:
*This chart uses 1994 data, but other aspects of the recent
survey indicate that the numbers are essentially the same.
Counting service years together
Thirty cities combine mayoral and councilmember
service into a single-term limit. The Rockport charter is an
example: only “ten consecutive years” on the council. When
examining these charter provisions, we find the following term
limits:
*This chart uses 1994 data, but other aspects of the recent
survey indicate that the numbers are essentially the same.
Charter language on term limits
Since “model” language has not evolved on this
subject, current charter language varies widely. Many charters
simply place a limit on “consecutive” or “successive” terms,
leaving unanswered the question whether a person appointed
or elected to a partial term loses some of the time that might
otherwise be allowed. Occasionally, a charter will clearly state
that “a portion of a term” does not count as a term of office
42
Texas Home Rule Charters
Figure 9-3: Term limits in years when limits are separately applied*
Cities in which Limit in years Cities in which
the mayor has councilmembers have
separate limits separate limits
9a 47
18 6 18
9 8 10
b
2 9 2
Total Cities: 38 37
Figure 9-4: Maximum years service when limits separately applied*
Limit on years Number of cities
of service
6 1
8 9
10 1
12 15
16 8
18 2
Total cities: 36
Figure 9-5: Term limits in years when service applied together*
Limit on years of service Number of cities
as member of city council,
including mayor
4 2
6 19
8 3
9 1
10 3 (five two-year terms)
12 2
Total cities: 30
Page 16 of 44
for purposes of a limit. Some charters use the word “full
term” or “regular term.” These are generally interpreted to
mean that if a person comes into a partial term, the partial
time will not count toward the limit.
Several cities require a person to “sit out” one
year or one term before running for office again (one city re-
quires that an individual must sit out 30 months). Whether
this means that in the other cities a person reaching his/her
maximum can never come back is unknown. Two cities do
state that the term limit is for the “lifetime” of the individ-
ual.
Finally, a charter should make it clear whether the
limits apply to current councilmembers. Several charters spell
this out. Most do not at the present time.
In summary, the term limit movement is still rel-
atively young. If a city does not have this kind of provision in
its charter and desires to have a
charter amendment election, offi-
cials are urged to carefully review
with the city attorney the language
to be used in order to avoid some of
the ambiguities identified. In May
1994, Austin adopted a charter
amendment limiting terms of office,
but did provide that if an incumbent
councilmember, when his/her limit
of terms have been reached, can get
a petition signed by five percent of
the qualified voters in the city,
his/her name shall go back on the
ballot. Houston adopted such an
amendment in 1991, had several
councilmembers qualify under the
petition route in the 1993 election,
and decided at a January 15, 1994
election to rescind the petition by-
pass. Thus, Houston’s term limits
have no exception to them.
Qualifications for office
Early Texas city charters included a detailed and
lengthy list of qualifications for the prospective mayor or city
councilmember. The first officeholders and voters had to be
white, male, and citizens of the Republic. Several cities also
had property and residence requirements. The original Galve-
ston charter in 1840 required the mayor to own $1,000 worth
of property. A number of charters still require ownership of
property within the city and no indebtedness to the city, plus
three years residence in the city before filing as a candidate.
Arguably unenforceable, these provisions in current charters
are historical reminders of practices before state law and court
cases established the controlling criteria for qualifications of
all public officials.
For more than 30 years, state law has set forth re-
quirements to run for public office in Texas and these require-
ments apply to candidates for the governing bodies of Texas
home rule cities. In addition, federal court cases have held
that a city may not require an officeholder to be an owner of
property and may not refuse to seat a councilmember for
being delinquent in taxes to the city.
The Election Code criteria are set out in Section
141.001. Under that section, a candidate must:
(1) be a United States citizen,
(2) be 18 years of age or older upon the
commencement of the term to be filled at
the election,
(3) have been a resident of Texas for at
least 12 months as of the deadline for filing
for the office,
(4) have resided in the city for at least six
months as of the deadline for filing for
the office,
(5) not have been convicted of a felony
for which he or she has not been pardoned
or otherwise released from the resulting dis-
abilities, and
(6) not have been found mentally incom-
petent by a final judgment of the court.
Exceptions for home rule cities
The Election Code authorized home rule cities to
make two exceptions: (1) the charter can require council can-
didates to be up to 21 years of age, rather than 18, upon the
commencement of the term to be filled at the election; and
(2) the charter can require candidates to be residents of the
city for up to 12 months, rather than six months, as of the
deadline for filing for office.
Virtually every charter in the state says a candi-
date must be a qualified voter. This is not required by state
law, but a home rule city may include this requirement in its
charter.
Despite the provisions in the Election Code, some
cities still amend their charters to add requirements that are
not enforceable. In earlier days, charter writers might have
been accused of placing unenforceable qualifications in the
charter in an attempt to discourage citizens who might other-
wise consider filing for office. It is believed that today’s char-
ter writers are simply not aware of the state law limitations
that supersede any charter language.
One disqualification for office that some charters
have addressed is dual office-holding. There are two distinct
legal barriers to holding more than one public office at the
same time: (1) the Texas constitutional prohibition against
dual office-holding; and (2) the common law doctrine of in-
compatibility.
All three of these barriers are too complex to dis-
cuss in detail in this publication. Any mayor or councilmem-
ber contemplating elective or appointive office in another
43
The city council - election and service
AGAINST
THE GRAIN
Although the trend is
strong for adopting term
limits, Port Neches in
1983 and Sachse in
1990 adopted charter
amendments rescinding
the term limits then in
existence in their char-
ters. And Schertz, in
1994, defeated two dif-
ferent charter amend-
ments that would have
set limits on coun-
cilmembers.
Page 17 of 44
City of Georgetown, Texas
Charter Review Committee
April 6, 2021
S UB J E C T:
Dis cus s io n of p o s s ib le amend ment of C ity C harter S ec tion 2.02, Q ualific atio ns - S kye Masson, C ity
Atto rney
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mayra C antu, Management Analys t
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Sec. 2.02 City Charter and Examples Exhibit
TML Qualifications Res earch Backup Material
Page 18 of 44
Cover Sheet
Item E. Discussion of possible amendment of City Charter, Section 2.02 Qualifications
*This is a follow up to the discussion at the previous meeting.
As background:
1. Current City Charter Language:
Sec. 2.02. - Qualifications.
At the time of election to office, each Councilmember and the Mayor shall be at least
twenty-one (21) years of age, shall be a citizen and qualified voter of the State of Texas
and the City of Georgetown and a resident of the Council District the member would be
representing for a period of twelve (12) months as of the last legal date for filing. No
member of the Council shall hold any other office or employment under the City
Government while a member of said Council, nor hold any paid employment under the
City Government within two (2) years thereafter. A member of the Council ceasing to
reside in the City shall immediately forfeit that office.
2. Conflict with State law:
The Election Code authorizes home rule cities to adopt age and residency requirements greater
than those in state law, but such local provisions cannot require a candidate to be more than 21
on the first day of the term and cannot require residency in the District for longer than 12 months
immediately preceding election day. Otherwise, the local provision is void, and the applicable
statute would apply.
The current Charter language requires a candidate to be 21 at the time of election, which in turn
requires the candidate to be greater than 21 years on the first day of the term (as the term will
always commence after the election). Similarly, the current Charter requires a candidate to be a
resident of the District for 12 months prior to the filing deadline, which in turn requires the
candidate to be a resident for 15 months preceding election day (as the filing deadline is 3
months before election day). Therefore, the Charter’s age and residency requirements are both
void and the requirements of state law apply.
3. Options to consider:
If the Charter language does not add any additional time for either age or residency will simply
default to the requirements of the Election Code:
• Candidates must be 18 years of age on the first day of the term to be filled
Page 19 of 44
• Candidates must have been a resident of the District (or City for Mayor) for the 6 months
immediately preceding the filing deadline.
Alternatively, the Charter language could be amended to provide at most that:
• Candidates must be 21 years of age on the first day of the term to be filled
• Candidates must have been resident of the District (or City for Mayor) for 12 months
preceding election day.
4. TML Survey on ages:
Question 12: Minimum age for council members Count of Cities with this Age
Minimum % of
Total
18 109 50.70%
19 1 0.47%
21 82 38.14%
25 1 0.47%
minimum age for qualified voter in the State of
TX 1 0.47%
no minimum age specified 21 9.77%
(blank) 0.00%
Grand Total 215 100.00%
5. Potential revised charter language to consider (bolded language below currently
exists):
Sec. 2.02. - Qualifications.
At the time of election to office, eEach Councilmember and the Mayor shall be at least
twenty-one (21) years of age as of the first day of office, shall be a citizen and qualified
voter of the State of Texas and the City of Georgetown and a resident of the Council
District the member would be representing for a period of twelve (12) months as of the
last legal date for filingpreceding their election. No member of the Council shall hold
any other office or employment under the City Government while a member of said
Council, nor hold any paid employment under the City Government within two (2)
years thereafter. A member of the Council ceasing to reside in the City shall
immediately forfeit that office.
6. Direction requested:
1. Does the committee recommend amendment to include age and residency requirement as
allowed by State Law?
Formatted: Font: Bold
Page 20 of 44
2. Does the committee wish to alter bolded language in any way? Current language matches
Sugar Land and Pflugerville.
Page 21 of 44
for purposes of a limit. Some charters use the word “full
term” or “regular term.” These are generally interpreted to
mean that if a person comes into a partial term, the partial
time will not count toward the limit.
Several cities require a person to “sit out” one
year or one term before running for office again (one city re-
quires that an individual must sit out 30 months). Whether
this means that in the other cities a person reaching his/her
maximum can never come back is unknown. Two cities do
state that the term limit is for the “lifetime” of the individ-
ual.
Finally, a charter should make it clear whether the
limits apply to current councilmembers. Several charters spell
this out. Most do not at the present time.
In summary, the term limit movement is still rel-
atively young. If a city does not have this kind of provision in
its charter and desires to have a
charter amendment election, offi-
cials are urged to carefully review
with the city attorney the language
to be used in order to avoid some of
the ambiguities identified. In May
1994, Austin adopted a charter
amendment limiting terms of office,
but did provide that if an incumbent
councilmember, when his/her limit
of terms have been reached, can get
a petition signed by five percent of
the qualified voters in the city,
his/her name shall go back on the
ballot. Houston adopted such an
amendment in 1991, had several
councilmembers qualify under the
petition route in the 1993 election,
and decided at a January 15, 1994
election to rescind the petition by-
pass. Thus, Houston’s term limits
have no exception to them.
Qualifications for office
Early Texas city charters included a detailed and
lengthy list of qualifications for the prospective mayor or city
councilmember. The first officeholders and voters had to be
white, male, and citizens of the Republic. Several cities also
had property and residence requirements. The original Galve-
ston charter in 1840 required the mayor to own $1,000 worth
of property. A number of charters still require ownership of
property within the city and no indebtedness to the city, plus
three years residence in the city before filing as a candidate.
Arguably unenforceable, these provisions in current charters
are historical reminders of practices before state law and court
cases established the controlling criteria for qualifications of
all public officials.
For more than 30 years, state law has set forth re-
quirements to run for public office in Texas and these require-
ments apply to candidates for the governing bodies of Texas
home rule cities. In addition, federal court cases have held
that a city may not require an officeholder to be an owner of
property and may not refuse to seat a councilmember for
being delinquent in taxes to the city.
The Election Code criteria are set out in Section
141.001. Under that section, a candidate must:
(1) be a United States citizen,
(2) be 18 years of age or older upon the
commencement of the term to be filled at
the election,
(3) have been a resident of Texas for at
least 12 months as of the deadline for filing
for the office,
(4) have resided in the city for at least six
months as of the deadline for filing for
the office,
(5) not have been convicted of a felony
for which he or she has not been pardoned
or otherwise released from the resulting dis-
abilities, and
(6) not have been found mentally incom-
petent by a final judgment of the court.
Exceptions for home rule cities
The Election Code authorized home rule cities to
make two exceptions: (1) the charter can require council can-
didates to be up to 21 years of age, rather than 18, upon the
commencement of the term to be filled at the election; and
(2) the charter can require candidates to be residents of the
city for up to 12 months, rather than six months, as of the
deadline for filing for office.
Virtually every charter in the state says a candi-
date must be a qualified voter. This is not required by state
law, but a home rule city may include this requirement in its
charter.
Despite the provisions in the Election Code, some
cities still amend their charters to add requirements that are
not enforceable. In earlier days, charter writers might have
been accused of placing unenforceable qualifications in the
charter in an attempt to discourage citizens who might other-
wise consider filing for office. It is believed that today’s char-
ter writers are simply not aware of the state law limitations
that supersede any charter language.
One disqualification for office that some charters
have addressed is dual office-holding. There are two distinct
legal barriers to holding more than one public office at the
same time: (1) the Texas constitutional prohibition against
dual office-holding; and (2) the common law doctrine of in-
compatibility.
All three of these barriers are too complex to dis-
cuss in detail in this publication. Any mayor or councilmem-
ber contemplating elective or appointive office in another
43
The city council - election and service
AGAINST
THE GRAIN
Although the trend is
strong for adopting term
limits, Port Neches in
1983 and Sachse in
1990 adopted charter
amendments rescinding
the term limits then in
existence in their char-
ters. And Schertz, in
1994, defeated two dif-
ferent charter amend-
ments that would have
set limits on coun-
cilmembers.
Page 22 of 44
governmental entity would be well advised to consult with the
city attorney before making any definitive moves.
Some charters provide that city employees must
resign before they can run for the city council in their own
city. Provisions of this type have been struck down by the
courts for city employees covered under the state fire and po-
lice civil service law.29
Financial
disclosure
The Colleyville,
Friendswood, and San
Marcos charters each
have provisions that
candidates must file fi-
nancial disclosure
statements with the city
secretary before any
election in which they
are a candidate. Chap-
ter 145 of the Local
Government Code, en-
acted in 2003, now
mandates financial dis-
closure for certain can-
didates and officials in
cities over 100,000 in
population.
Filing
requirements
The Election Code
is very specific in regard
to a candidate filing for
a place on the govern-
ing body of a city.
Figure 9-6: Filing requirements for city council
(Section 143.005)
(a) A city charter may prescribe require-
ments in connection with a candi-
date’s application for a place on the
ballot for an office of a home rule city.
This section does not authorize a city
charter requirement in connection
with the timely filing of an applica-
tion, and any charter requirement re-
lated to an application’s timely filing
is superseded by Section 143.007
and other applicable filing provisions
prescribed by the code.
(b) If a city charter prescribes the re-
quirements that a candidate’s appli-
cation must satisfy for the candidate’s
name to be placed on the ballot, Sec-
tion 141.031(4)(L) also applies to the
application.* The other provisions of
Section 141.031 do not apply.
(c) If a city charter requires candidates to
pay a filing fee, the amount of the fee
and an alternative procedure to pay-
ment of the fee shall be prescribed by
the charter or by ordinance under
charter authorization. However, if an
ordinance prescribing an alternative
procedure to payment of a filing fee is
adopted before the effective date of
this code without charter authoriza-
tion, the ordinance, as it exists on the
effective date of this code, continues
in effect until the adoption of a char-
ter provision prescribing an alternative
procedure or authorizing prescription
of an alternative procedure by ordi-
nance.
(d) For any petition required or authorized
to be filed in connection with a can-
didate’s application for a place on the
ballot for an office of a home rule city,
the minimum number of signatures
that must appear on the petition is
the greater of: (1) 25, or (2) one-half
of one percent of the total vote re-
ceived in the territory from which the
office is elected by all candidates for
mayor in the most recent mayoral
general election.
(e) If the city charter of a home rule city
with a population of more than 1.8
million, that holds nonpartisan elec-
tions for its offices, requires both a
petition and a $50 fee to be filed for
a candidate’s name to be placed on
the ballot, those requirements super-
sede this section.
*Section 141.031(4)(L) referred to
above requires a statement that the
candidate is aware of the nepotism
law, Section 573.041 of the Govern-
ment Code, et seq.
44
Texas Home Rule Charters
WANTED:
ONE BRAVE CITY
MANAGER
“Any person having
the qualifications set for coun-
cilmember under Section 4.02
in this charter shall have the
right to file an application to
have his name placed on the of-
ficial ballot as a candidate for
any one elective office. Such
application shall be made in
writing and shall include name,
address, date of birth, and per-
sonal signature of each candi-
date. Such application shall be
accompanied by his loyalty affi-
davit, as prescribed by Section
141.031(k) Texas Election
Code; his signed affidavit indi-
cating willingness to submit
himself for substance abuse
testing, within thirty (30) days,
after elected and when randomly
selected by the city manager,
throughout the duration of his
term of office.”
Page 23 of 44
City of Georgetown, Texas
Charter Review Committee
April 6, 2021
S UB J E C T:
Dis cus s io n of p o s s ib le amend ment of C ity C harter, S ec tion 2.03, Vac anc ies - S kye Masson, C ity
Atto rney
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mayra C antu, Management Analys t
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Sec. 2.03 Charter and Examples Exhibit
TML Vacancies Res earch Backup Material
Page 24 of 44
Cover Sheet
Item F. Discussion of possible amendment of City Charter, Section 2.03 Vacancies
1. Current City Charter Language:
Sec. 2.03. - Vacancies.
When a vacancy occurs in the Council, the vacancy shall be filled at a special election called for
this purpose within one hundred and twenty (120) days after the vacancy or vacancies occur in
compliance with Article XI, Section 11 of the Texas Constitution and other applicable State
laws.
2. Relevant State Law Provisions:
The Texas Constitution requires that all members of the City’s governing body elected for a term
exceeding two years must be elected by a majority vote of the qualified voters in such
municipality. Any vacancy occurring must generally be filled by a special called election within
120 days of such vacancy except that by Charter a municipality provide a procedure for filling a
vacancy occurring with an unexpired term of 12 months or less.
3. TML Survey:
18. Filling one vacancy
Appointment 86 35%
Election 95 39%
Either election or appointment 54 22%
Other, please specify 10 4%
Total 245 100%
4. Samples from other cities:
Round Rock
Sec. 3.06. - Vacancies, forfeiture, filling of vacancies.
(a) Vacancies: The office of a Council member or office of the Mayor shall become vacant upon
his or her death, resignation, removal from office in any manner authorized by law, or
forfeiture of his or her office.
(b) Forfeiture of Office: If the Mayor or any Council member:
(1) fails to maintain the qualifications as required in Sections 3.02 and 5.02 herein;
Page 25 of 44
(2) has been found by at least a 2/3 vote of the City Council to have violated any express
prohibition of this Charter;
(3) is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude; or
(4) fails to attend three (3) consecutive regular City Council meetings without being
excused by the City Council,
the City Council shall, at its next regular meeting, declare the office to be vacant and shall
fill such vacancy as set forth in Subsection (c) below of this Section 3.06.
(c) Filling of Vacancies:
(1) When any vacancy shall occur on the City Council, and there remains an unexpired term
of more than 12 months, a special election shall be called to fill such vacancy in
accordance with Art. 11, §11 of the Texas Constitution.
(2) When any vacancy shall occur on Place 1 through Place 6 of the City Council, and
there remains an unexpired term of 12 months or less, the City Council by majority
vote may appoint a person who meets all of the qualifications of §3.02 to fill the
vacancy until the next regular City Election date. If the City Council elects not to
appoint such a person to fill the vacancy, then the City Council shall call a special
election to fill such vacancy in accordance with Art. 11, §11 of the Texas
Constitution.
(3) When any vacancy shall occur in the office of Mayor, and there remains an
unexpired term of 12 months or less, the City Council by majority vote may appoint
one of the Councilmembers to fill the vacancy until the next regular City Election
date. If the City Council elects not to appoint a Councilmember to fill the vacancy
of Mayor, then the City Council shall call a special election to fill such vacancy in
accordance with Art 11, §11 of the Texas Constitution.
(Charter amendment approved by voters November 6, 1979; April 5, 1986; January 20, 1996;
May 6, 2017)
Sugar Land
Sec. 2.07. - Vacancies.
If the office of mayor or a council member becomes vacant, the following provisions apply:
(a) If, at the time of the vacancy, more than twelve (12) months remain on the term, the
council shall within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the vacancy call a special
election for the position.
(b) If, at the time of the vacancy, less than twelve (12) months remain on the term, the
council shall within sixty days of the vacancy appoint a qualified person to fill the
vacancy.
(Ord. No. 1178, § 1, 6-15-99; Ord. No. 1245, § 1, 5-23-00; Ord. No. 2054 , § 6(Exh. A), 5-17-
2016; Ord. No. 2219 , § 1(Exh. A, §§ 4, 7), 12-15-2020)
Editor's note— Ord. No. 2219 , § 1(Exh. A, § 4), adopted Dec. 15, 2020, renumbered the
former § 2.07, which pertains to powers and duties of the Council, as § 2.08.
Page 26 of 44
Page 27 of 44
Vacancies on the council
Vacancies on the council can result from resigna-
tion, death, disability, recall, or failure of a councilmember to
meet the requirements of the charter. In some instances, a
vacancy can occur if a member of the council announces for
another elective office. For example, under Article XI, § 11,
of the Texas Constitution, in cities where the term of office
for councilmembers is three or four years, any councilmember
who announces for another elective office is automatically re-
moved from the council if more than one year remains in his
term at the time of such announcement.
Also, some city charters with two-year terms pro-
vide that any councilmember who runs for another office au-
tomatically vacates his or her seat on the council. A city
charter may provide that:
If any officer of the city shall file as a candidate for
nomination or election to any public office, except
to some office under this charter, he shall immedi-
ately forfeit his office.
Procedures for filling vacancies vary from charter
to charter. In some instances, charters require that vacancies
on the governing body be filled by appointment of the council
in every case; i.e., regardless of whether a regular municipal
election is imminent. The most popular provision for cities
with two-year terms of office is for appointment by the council
in the case of one vacancy, or special election in the case of
two or more vacancies. An election to fill a vacancy must be
on one of the uniform election dates specified in the Election
Code, unless it is a vacancy required to be filled under the
Texas Constitution.
Under Article XI, § 11, of the Texas Constitution,
cities with three- or four-year terms must fill all vacancies by
election of majority vote within 120 days of the vacancy. Fi-
nally, some cities with two-year terms require that all council
vacancies must be filled by special election. Among these
cities, the common practice is not to require special elections
in cases where a regular municipal election is imminent; e.g.,
within 60 to 90 days of the time the vacancy occurred.
53
The city council as a legislative body
Figure 10-4: Charter Requirements for Fulfillment of Vacancies
Appointed Elected Provides for Either
1 Vacancy 36% 39% 25%
2 Vacancies 13% 67% 20%
I NOMINATE MY
BROTHER-IN-LAW
“Section 2.06 Vacancies
A single vacancy in the Council shall be
filled within thirty (30) days of the oc-
currence of the vacancy by a majority
vote of the remaining members of the
Council by selection of a person quali-
fied for the position as described in this
Charter. If the vacancy is caused by the
resignation of a Councilmember who is
in good standing, that Councilmember
may submit a nominee for that position.
This nominee must be accepted or re-
jected by the Council before other nom-
inees can be considered. Once
appointed, this appointee shall serve
until the position can be filled at the
next regular City election.”
Page 28 of 44
City of Georgetown, Texas
Charter Review Committee
April 6, 2021
S UB J E C T:
Dis cus s io n of p o s s ib le amend ment of C ity C harter S ec tion 2.06, Mayor and Mayor P ro Tem - S kye
Masson C ity Atto rney
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mayra C antu, Management Analys t
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Sec. 2.06 Charter and Examples Exhibit
TML Mayor Res earch Backup Material
Page 29 of 44
Cover Sheet
Item G. Discussion of possible amendment of City Charter, Section 2.06 Mayor and Mayor
Pro Tem
1. Current City Charter Language:
Sec. 2.06. - Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem.
The Mayor shall preside at all meetings of the Council and shall be recognized as head of the
City government for all ceremonial purposes, for the purpose of receiving services of civil
process, for emergency purposes, and for military purposes; but the Mayor shall have no regular
administrative duties. The Mayor, as a member of the Council, shall be entitled to vote only in
case of a tie upon all affairs considered by the Council and shall have no veto power. At its first
meeting following each regular election of Councilmembers, the Council shall, by election,
designate one of its number as Mayor Pro Tem, who shall serve in such capacity during the
pleasure of the Council. The Mayor Pro Tem shall act as Mayor during the absence or disability
of the Mayor, and shall have power to perform every act the Mayor could perform if present;
provided, however, that in all cases the Mayor Pro Tem shall be entitled to vote.
2. Discussion:
The Committee requested discussion on the issue of the Mayor’s powers related to voting
specifically. Current language only allows for the Mayor to vote in order to break a tie.
3. TML Survey:
5. Authority of Mayor
Top number is the count of respondents
selecting the option. Bottom % is
percent of the total respondents
selecting the option.
Yes No
Appoints boards and commissions 89 142
39% 61%
--w/approval of council 188 58
76% 24%
Regular vote 159 87
65% 35%
Vote only in tie 92 143
Page 30 of 44
39% 61%
No vote 12 197
6% 94%
Enumerated ceremonial duties 179 63
74% 26%
Martial law 101 123
45% 55%
Enumerated emergency powers 164 74
69% 31%
Appoint CAO 37 190
16% 84%
Appoint department heads 15 223
6% 94%
--w/approval of council 56 176
24% 76%
Prepare budget 13 228
5% 95%
Mayor veto 26 217
11% 89%
4. Samples from other cities:
El Paso
Section 4.1 - POWERS OF THE MAYOR.
A. The Mayor shall be recognized as head of the City government for all ceremonial
purposes and by the governor for purposes of military law but shall have no
administrative duties except as may be specifically provided in this Charter.
B. The Mayor shall be a member of and preside over the City Council, having the power to
propose legislation; represent the City in intra-governmental and intergovernmental
relationships; appoint with the consent of the Council the members of citizen advisory
boards and commissions; make appointments and perform duties pursuant to federal
and state law; present an annual state of the City message, break tie votes, veto
legislation except for any City Council action which removes the City Manager or the
City Attorney, convene the Council in special session and perform other duties specified
by the Council.
Round Rock
Sec. 3.05. - Mayor and Mayor Pro-tem.
The Mayor shall be the official head of the City government. The Mayor shall be the chairman
of, and shall preside at all meetings of the City Council. The Mayor shall vote on every
proposition before the City Council, but shall have no power to veto. The Mayor shall see that
Page 31 of 44
all ordinances, bylaws, and resolutions of the City Council are faithfully obeyed and enforced.
Except as provided in Section 4.01, the Mayor shall, when authorized by the City Council, sign
all official documents such as ordinances, resolutions, conveyances, grant agreements,
contracts, and bonds. The Mayor shall appoint special committees he or she deems advisable
and as instructed by the City Council. The Mayor shall perform such other duties consistent
with this Charter or as may be imposed upon him or her by the City Council.
The Mayor Pro-tem shall be a Council member elected by the City Council at the first regular
City Council meeting following each regular City election. The Mayor Pro-tem shall act as Mayor
during the disability or absence of the Mayor, and in this capacity shall have the rights
conferred upon the Mayor.
Cedar Park
Section 3.05 Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem
The Mayor shall be the official head of the City Government, and shall work with the City
Manager with assistance from the City Secretary and other City staff members, as required, in
preparing agendas for the Council meetings. The Mayor shall preside at all meetings of the
Council, shall sign all ordinances, orders, resolutions, statements, agreements, conveyances,
plats, instruments, and documents, authorized or enacted by the Council. The Mayor shall vote
on all issues, proposals, questions, and motions which require Council votes. The Mayor shall
not have the power to veto or modify any ordinance adopted by the Council and shall not, in
any way, neutralize or negate any action of the Council. The Mayor shall be recognized as the
head of City government for all ceremonial purposes and shall be responsible for providing
initiative and guidance in the orderly management and growth of the City.
The Mayor Pro Tem shall act as Mayor during the disability or absence of the Mayor, and, in this
capacity, shall have the rights conferred upon the Mayor.
New Braunfels
Sec. 3.05. - Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem.
(a) Election of Mayor. The Mayor of the City of New Braunfels shall be elected in
accordance with Article III, Section 3.01 and Article IV, Section 4.05 of the Charter of the
City of New Braunfels, Texas. The Mayor shall preside at meetings of the City Council,
shall be recognized as head of the City government for all ceremonial purposes and by
the Governor for purposes of military law, but shall have no administrative duties.
(b) Election of Mayor Pro Tem. At its first regular meeting following the meeting at which
the official election returns are canvassed and the results are declared of each year, the
City Council shall elect from among its members a Mayor Pro Tem who shall serve at the
pleasure of the City Council, and he shall perform all the duties of Mayor in the absence
or disability of the Mayor.
(c) Emergency powers of Mayor. Whenever the Mayor shall deem it necessary in order to
enforce the laws of the City, or to avert danger, or to protect life or property, in case of
Page 32 of 44
riot, outbreak, calamity or public disturbance, or when he has reason to fear any serious
violation of law or order, outbreak, or any other danger to the City of New Braunfels or
the inhabitants thereof, he shall summon into service as a special police force, all or as
many of the citizens as in his judgment and discretion may be necessary and proper; and
such summons may be made by proclamation or orders addressed to the citizens
generally, or those of any ward of the City or subdivision thereof, or such summons may
be by personal notification. Such summons shall be made pursuant to a proclamation by
the Mayor that an emergency exists in the City of New Braunfels. During such
emergency, the police department of the City of New Braunfels, and such special police
as have been summoned by the Mayor, shall be subject to the orders of the Mayor, and
shall perform such duties as he may require, and shall have the same power while on
duty as the regular police of the City of New Braunfels. The Mayor shall have authority
during the continuance of such emergency to make and enforce such rules, regulations,
and orders as are necessary to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare from the
threatened danger. During such emergency, such rules, regulations and orders shall
have the force and effect of law.
The Mayor shall have authority in case of riot or other unlawful assemblage, to order and
enforce the closing of any theater, picture show, or other place of public amusement or
entertainment, ballroom, barroom, or other place of resort, or public room or building, and
may order the arrest of any person violating in his presence any of the penal laws of the State,
or any ordinances of the City; and he shall perform such other duties and possess and exercise
such other power and authority as may be prescribed by law or by ordinance.
Sugar Land
Sec. 2.06. - The Mayor.
(a) Head of City government. The mayor shall preside at all council meetings and be
deemed a council member and be entitled to vote upon all matters considered by the
council. The mayor shall be recognized as the head of the City government for all
ceremonial purposes and shall perform any additional duties as provided for by Federal
or State laws or regulations.
(b) Mayor pro tem. Following each city election in May, the council shall appoint one of its
members as mayor pro tem. The mayor pro tem acts as mayor during mayor's absence
and has the power to perform every act the mayor could perform if present.
(c) Acting mayor. In the event of the absence, disability or disqualification of both the
mayor and mayor pro tem at any particular meeting of the council, the remaining
members of the council, if a quorum be present, shall, by election, designate one of
theirs members as acting mayor, and he shall act as mayor for such particular meeting
and shall have the power to perform every act the mayor could perform if present.
Fort Worth
Page 33 of 44
§ 5 MEETINGS OF COUNCIL AND COMMITTEES OPEN TO PUBLIC; QUORUM; REGULATIONS OF
PROCEEDINGS; COUNCIL TO PROVIDE RULES OF PROCEDURE.
The City Council shall hold a meeting within the city limits of Fort Worth for the purpose of
canvassing the election results. The elected members of the new Council may take the oath of
office at the same City Council meeting where the election results are canvassed, but all elected
members shall take the oath of office no later than the next City Council meeting after the
results are canvassed. Special meetings may be called by the Mayor or by any three (3)
Councilmembers. Such call shall be in writing and shall state the object of the meeting, and no
business shall be transacted at such meeting other than that specified in the call. The Council
shall meet at such times and places as may be prescribed by ordinance or resolution but not
less than forty-four (44) regular and special meetings shall be held each calendar year.
A quorum shall consist of two-thirds (2/3) of the members. All official meetings of the Council
and all sessions of the Committees of the Council shall be public except as authorized by law.
The ayes and nos shall be taken upon the passage of all ordinances or resolutions and entered
upon the minutes of the proceedings of the Council, and every ordinance or resolution shall
require on final passage the affirmative vote of a majority of all of the remaining members.
No member shall be excused from voting except on matters involving the consideration of his
own official conduct, or where his financial interests are involved, or unless excused by the
Council for other valid reasons by majority vote. The Council shall determine its own rules of
procedure, and may punish its members for misconduct, and may compel the attendance of
absent members.
Carrollton
Sec. 2.05. - Presiding officer; the mayor.
The mayor shall preside at meetings of the council, and shall be recognized as head of city
government for all ceremonial purposes and by the governor for purpose of military law, but
shall have no regular administrative duties. The mayor may participate in the discussion of all
matters coming before the council. The mayor shall not be entitled to vote as a member
thereof on legislative or other matters, except in case of a tie, when the mayor shall have the
right to cast the deciding vote. The council shall elect from among the council members a
mayor pro tempore who shall act as mayor during the absence or disability of the mayor.
Richardson
Section 3.02. - Mayor.
The mayor shall be the presiding officer. The mayor shall vote on all matters coming before
the council, shall have no power of veto, shall represent the city on all ceremonial occasions
and shall be known as the official head of the government.
Page 34 of 44
Nevertheless, the absence of effective leadership,
a citistate totally adrift, is a more frightening
prospect. The nurturing of new leaders and the cre-
ation of metropolitan partnerships that open a way
for those leaders to play important region-wide roles
are two of the most critical challenges for American
citistates in the 1990s.24
Distinct differences in mayors’ positions
There remain, however, distinctive differences be-
tween the charter authority and duties of a mayor leading a
mayor-council city and a mayor leading a council-manager
city.
A comparison of key elements of the mayor’s role
in the three largest cities in Texas pinpoints the differences.
*The City Council, with mayor voting, does appoint the city
manager, city attorney, city secretary, and city auditor.
It seems obvious from the comparison in figure 8-
1 that an examination of the mayor’s role demands two sepa-
rate tabulations for the two forms of government. It would be
useless to report that the average salary of the mayors in the
three largest cities in Texas was something like $6,649 per
month. Yet, some national and state publications in the past
have combined mayors of all cities into one summary tabula-
tion.25
Charter language regarding the mayor
The pay and responsibility table displays the dif-
ferences between the mayor’s position in Houston, Dallas, and
San Antonio reflecting the content of the “Mayor” articles in
their respective charters.
The Houston charter, and similarly the mayor-
council charters of Pasadena, Bay City, and others, devote a
specific article to the mayor. These articles cover such areas
as the definition of the mayor’s position, general powers of
the mayor, privilege of vote and veto, authority for removal of
appointive officers and employees, and compensation of the
mayor. Mayor-council charters thus address the mayor as the
elected head of the city and the chief executive officer. For
the latter role, the provisions are similar to the city manager
sections in a council-manager charter.
The Dallas charter, and many other council-man-
ager charters, devote one section (one paragraph) to the mayor
exclusively. Other sections cover the responsibilities of the
mayor as a member of the entire city council.
Selection of the mayor
Mayors of all mayor-council cities in Texas are
elected at-large by the voters. Although this is the practice
in the great majority of council-manager cities, mayors in six
percent of council-manager cities are elected as councilmem-
bers and then selected by their colleagues as the city’s mayor.
Selection of the
mayor by the council
is reported in some
35 percent of coun-
cil-manager cities na-
tionwide. The Texas
number at six percent
is down from the nine
percent of the cities
in Texas reporting this
method in 1994.
Compensation
of the mayor
Salary of the mayor
is addressed in two different ways by Texas charters. The table
below shows these provisions and the number of charters, by
form of government, that utilize each of these methods:
*These figures include charters that specifically state the city
council shall set its own compensation and charters that are
silent on this subject. Where a charter is silent, Section
141.004 of the Local Government Code provides that a gov-
erning body of a home rule city may establish a level of com-
pensation for itself.
34
Texas Home Rule Charters
Figure 8-1: Differences in mayor’s positions
Factor Houston Dallas San Antonio
(Mayor-Council) (Council-Manager) (Council-Manager)
Pop. - 2,208,000 Pop. - 1,240,000 Pop. - 1,328,000
Pay $14,583/month $5,000/month $366/month
Appointment of city’s Appoints, subject to No individual decision No individual decision
Department heads City Council approval authority in this area* authority in this area*
Annual budget Prepares for City No individual decision No individual decision
Council approval authority in this area authority in this area
Figure 8-2: Setting the salary of the mayor
Mayor-Council Council-Manager
charters charters
1994 2008 1994 2008
Council sets pay* 46% 38% 55% 38%
Charter sets specific 54% 62% 45% 62%
salary or salary range
Page 35 of 44
Salary is an area in which the difference between
the two forms of government is very apparent, particularly in
the larger cities. The average pay of the mayors in mayor-
council cities is $861.68 per month. This is virtually mean-
ingless, however, since that figure includes not only Houston
and Pasadena, but also DeLeon (pop. 2,400) and Olney (pop.
3,300) as well as a host of other smaller cities. It is important
to note that 45 percent of mayors in mayor-council cities re-
ceive no compensation at all. It is more enlightening to note
that the salary of mayors in cities over 50,000 using the
mayor-council form of government ranges from $14,583 on
the high end (Houston) to $50 per month on the low end (San
Angelo), with an average salary of $5,277.
Overall, the average mayoral pay of the council-
manager cities is $159 per month. The average pay for the
three largest council-manager cities – Dallas, San Antonio,
and Austin – is $3,677.88. If the San Antonio mayor’s salary
at $4,020 per year were omitted, the average of the other two
would be $5,333 per month.
Mayors in council-manager cities not only receive
less in salary, but also the difference between the mayor’s
salary and the councilmembers’ salary is usually small.
Vote in council meetings
Mayor-council charters do not give mayors the un-
restricted right to vote as those in council-manager cities gen-
erally do. Among the mayor-council cities, 40 percent allow
mayors to have a regular vote in council meetings, while 55
percent allow the mayor to vote only in case of a tie by the
council, and the remaining 5 percent allow for no vote at all.
In council-manager cities, 65 percent have a regular vote,
while 35 percent of the mayors vote only in case of tie. Again,
these figures are not unlike national survey figures.
Deciding when a mayor votes has caused at least
two Texas council-manager cities a lot of grief. Several cities
have retained in their home rule charters a provision of the
Type A general law municipality. State law provides that if a
Type A city is not divided into wards (and many smaller home
rule cities are not), the governing body shall always consist of
a mayor and five councilmembers, and the mayor shall vote
only in case of a tie. The two cities in question had retained
this council number and the mayor’s restricted vote provision
when they adopted home rule charters. The city councils fired
their city managers over the protest of the mayor in each city.
Both mayors cited provisions in their charters that purported
to give the mayors voting power in the event of a vote on dis-
missing the city manager. The district court in one county
upheld one council’s dismissal of the manager, ruling the
mayor could not vote. A district court in an adjoining county
reversed the council decision of the second city and reinstated
the manager! The difficulty in both charters came from trying
to delineate the cases in which the mayor might have a vote,
other than on a tie vote by the council. Both cities have since
gone to an odd number on the council and given the mayor a
“regular” vote. Because of the problems of these two cities
and the difficulty of wording a charter clearly, several charter
consultants recommend that councils be composed of an odd
number of individuals and that mayors be given a “regular”
vote just as any other councilmember–on all matters. Urban
experts offer other reasons for allowing the mayor to vote on
all issues. They concur that a mayor’s leadership role can be
enhanced by the power to vote, particularly on such critical
policy issues as appointment and removal of a city manager
or chief administrative officer and on bond issues, tax rates,
and the adoption of the annual budget.
Veto
The veto power of the mayor is generally another
distinguishing mark of the difference between the two forms
of government. Veto provisions in mayor-council charters are
much more common than in council-manager charters–na-
tionwide and in Texas. Of those communities with mayor-
council charters in Texas, 32 percent provide for a mayoral
veto of council actions. Usually these vetoes can be overcome
only by a two-thirds or more vote of the council. But in a few
cases, the council can simply reconsider the action. If it votes
the action again by a majority vote, the mayor has no authority
to veto the item a second time.
Only nine percent of council-manager cities pro-
vide for a mayoral veto. The denial of the veto is a reiteration
of the historic background of the council-manager plan, which
saw the strength of the city in a body of policymakers, not in
a single individual.
Budget role
The mayor in 25 percent of mayor-council cities
prepares the budget and submits it to the city council. In
some small mayor-council cities, the charter says the council
shall prepare a budget.
Budget formulation and submission is one of the
chief differences between the two forms of government. Only
three percent of the cities under the council-manager plan
provide for the mayor to prepare the budget. In the council-
manager plan, the charter directs the city manager to prepare
the budget for the council as a whole. Increasingly, managers
are asking their city councils to give them early policy guid-
ance on the council’s priorities for the coming year. The
mayor obviously can play a lead role in this priority-setting,
but councilmembers are often fond of pointing out that in
adoption of the final budget, the mayor has only one vote–just
as the other councilmembers do. Although it is very rare,
mayors are outvoted on budget matters as they are sometimes
outvoted on other items in council-manager cities.
The Texas practice in both types of government
parallels the national experience.
35
The mayor
Page 36 of 44
City of Georgetown, Texas
Charter Review Committee
April 6, 2021
S UB J E C T:
Dis cus s io n of p o s s ib le amend ment of C ity C harter provis io ns in Article I V related to p etitio n req uirements
fo r S ec tion 4.01, p o wer o f initiative; S ec tion 4.02, p o wer o f referend um; and S ectio n 4.07, R ecall o f C ity
O ffic ials ; and S ec tion 4.08, R ec all P etition - S kye Masson, C ity Atto rney
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mayra C antu, Management Analys t
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Article IV Charter and Examples Exhibit
TML Referendum & Recall Res earch Backup Material
Page 37 of 44
Cover Sheet
Item H. Discussion of possible amendment of City Charter provisions in Article IV related
to petition requirements for Section 4.01, power of initiative; Section 4.02, power of
referendum; and Section 4.07, Recall of City Officials
1. Current City Charter Language:
Sec. 4.01. - Power of initiative.
• The people of the City reserve the power of direct legislation by initiative, and in the exercise
of such power may propose any ordinance, except ordinances appropriating money or levying
taxes, or ordinances repealing ordinances appropriating money or levying taxes, not in conflict
with this Charter, the State Constitution, or the State laws. Any initiated ordinance may be
submitted to the Council by a petition signed by qualified voters of the City, equal in number to
at least fifteen (15) per cent of the qualified voters of the City in the last municipal election, but
not less than two hundred fifty (250) qualified voters of the City.
• Sec. 4.02. - Power of referendum.
The people reserve the power to approve or reject at the polls any legislation enacted by the
Council which is subject to the initiative process under this Charter, except that ordinances
authorizing the issuance of bonds (either tax bonds or revenue bonds), whether original or
refunding bonds, shall not be subject to such referendum. Prior to or within thirty (30) days after
the effective date of any ordinance which is subject to referendum, a petition signed by qualified
voters of the City equal in number to at least fifteen (15) per cent of the qualified voters in the
last municipal election but not less than two hundred fifty (250) qualified voters of the City may
be filed with the City Secretary requesting that any such ordinance be either repealed or
submitted to the vote of the people. When such a petition has been certified as sufficient by the
City Secretary, the ordinance specified in the petition shall not go into effect, or if it shall have
gone into effect, then further action thereunder shall be suspended until and unless it is approved
by the voters as herein provided.
Sec. 4.07. - Recall of City Officials.
The people of the City reserve the power to recall any elected officer of the City of Georgetown,
on the grounds of incompetence, misconduct, or malfeasance in office, and may exercise such
power by filing a petition, as described herein, with the City Secretary.
A petition to recall the Mayor only shall be, signed by registered voters of the City equal in
number to at least fifteen (15) percent of the number of all of the registered voters in the City at
the time of the last regular municipal election, demanding the removal of the Mayor. The petition
shall be signed and verified as required by this Charter's provisions and State law.
A petition to recall a Council member shall be signed only by the registered voters of the single
member council district that the Council member represents, and the signatures must be equal in
Page 38 of 44
number to at least fifteen (15) percent of the number of registered voters residing in that council
district at the time of the last regular municipal election, demanding the removal of their specific
Councilmember. The petition shall be signed and verified as required by this Charter's provisions
and State law.
In the case of an election to recall the Mayor, any registered voter residing within the City may
cast a ballot on the issue of the Mayor's recall.
In the case of an election to recall a Council member, only registered voters residing within the
single member council district represented by the Council member sought to be recalled may cast
a ballot on the issue of their Council member's recall.
2. Discussion:
The Committee requested discussion on the issue of requirements for petitions for initiative,
referendum and recall.
3. TML Survey:
99. Charter provides for initiative
Yes 216 89%
No 24 10%
N/A 4 2%
Total 244 100%
100. If yes, percentage of
Registered 99 47%
Last vote 105 50%
Minimum names 8 4%
Total 212 10
Page 39 of 44
103. Charter provides for referendum
Yes 212 88%
No 26 11%
N/A 4 2%
Total 242 100%
104. If yes, percentage of
Registered 91 45%
Last vote 104 51%
Minimum names 9 4%
Total 204 100%
108. Charter provides for recall
Yes 223 93%
No 16 7%
N/A 2 1%
Total 241 100%
109. If yes, percentage of
Registered 96 46%
Last vote 105 50%
Minimum names 7 3%
Total 208 100%
Page 40 of 44
15 Initiative, referendum, and recall
The words are used so often together, one can almost
see them as one word: initiativereferendumandrecall! They
really are three separate facets of direct democracy or direct
legislation, and you generally find provisions for all three in a
charter. The citizens of California helped make initiative and
recall household words. The public generally hears informa-
tion regarding recalls in relationship to gubernatorial recalls.
California, the most infamous of the recall states, received a
great deal of attention in 2003 when Gray Davis was removed
from office. This led the way for Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger to be elected to the top spot in California. In
the last few years, members of local governing bodies in Texas
have been the subject of recall elections as well. The trend
has been for a dissatisfied public to utilize their rights as pro-
vided for in the city charter.
Introduction
All three of these actions begin with a citizen petition
to the governing body, and all three can lead to a vote by the
people. An initiative petition asks the city council to act on a
specific issue when it has not done so previously. If the peti-
tion is valid, the council must adopt it or submit it to a vote
of the people. Petitioners welcome council adoption, which
is faster. A referendum petition asks the city council to re-
verse an action already taken or proposed. The council can
rescind the ordinance or submit it to a vote of the people. A
recall petition asks the city council to call an election for a
vote on removal of one or more councilmembers from office.
If the targeted officials resign, an election is unnecessary.
Although an election is the final possibility in all three
situations, petitioners are delighted with any council or indi-
vidual action that avoids an election.
Early history of initiative, referendum
and recall (I R & R)
These three tools for direct citizen participation in
government are residuals of prerevolutionary debates and, par-
ticularly, of the drafting of the federal constitution.34 The de-
bate participants, our founders, argued the merits of “direct”
democracy with maximum citizen participation versus the
merits of “representative” democracy with elected represen-
tatives of the people as the predominant decision-makers.
The direct democracy proponents, led by Benjamin Franklin
and Thomas Jefferson, lost the debate to James Madison and
John Adams. Thus, our U.S. Constitution and our state con-
stitutions are instruments of representative democracy with
periodic elections in which the people name the leaders to
represent their interests.
State constitutions were not submitted to the people
for ratification until early in the nineteenth century. Texas
went directly to the voters in 1845 for a pre-annexation vote
on its draft constitution, and again five years later with a ref-
erendum to determine the location of the capital.
The movement toward greater use of initiative, refer-
endum, and recall (IR&R) at the state level gained impetus
in 1892 when endorsement of initiative and referendum at
the state level was included in the platform of the Populist
Party at its first national convention. In 1898, states began
incorporating these direct methods into law. Oregon was first,
followed during the next ten years by seven more states. By
1912, a total of 15 states had adopted both initiative and ref-
erendum and three more states had adopted one or the other.
The recall also appeared early in America. The 1780
Massachusetts Constitution stipulated that delegates to the
Congress of the United States could be recalled at any time
within their one-year terms, and others could be chosen and
commissioned in their place.35
In the late 1800s, recall was considered to be prima-
rily a weapon against governors and the executive branch gen-
erally; whereas, initiative and referendum were being targeted
to the legislative branch. Since governors at the turn of the
century were more highly thought of than legislators, the recall
movement did not have the impetus that the other two mech-
anisms had. Also, the states could not decide if members of
the judiciary should or should not be included in the list of
officials subject to recall. For these and other reasons, the
move to adopt recall along with initiative and referendum did
not materialize as quickly.
Texas, ironically, has no provision for any of the three
citizen participation methods to be used at the state level, but
about 100 years ago, shortly after the advent of commission
government at the local level in Texas, the legislature began
placing one or more of the three methods in the charters it is-
sued. And to this day, the legislature has not enacted any law
to block or even impede the use of the methods by home rule
cities.
I R & R at the local level
The circumstances surrounding the arrival and instal-
lation in 1901 of the commission form of government in
Galveston may have been the instigating factor for the addi-
tion of one or more of these three “direct” citizen processes
in early Texas charters. The commission form utilized a five-
member elected board that served as both legislative and ex-
ecutive branch and was acclaimed and embraced nationwide.
The short ballot (in Galveston, it was five elected members of
the governing body elected at large who replaced a mayor and
16 aldermen elected by wards) appealed to citizens. Praise
83Page 41 of 44
was widespread for its “businesslike” approach to city gov-
ernment.
To offset the criticism that the new form concentrated
power in too few hands, the Texas Legislature began placing
one or more of three “direct” methods in almost all of the spe-
cial legislative charters issued to cities, beginning in 1907.
All three features were placed in the Dallas and Fort Worth
special legislative charters enacted in 1907, the Amarillo and
Waco charters passed in 1909, and the Austin charter in
1911. Although all five of these cities, plus a host of others,
changed from commission to council-manager forms of gov-
ernment in the next few years, IR&R remained in their char-
ters.
NCL Model Charter
The eighth and latest edition of the NCL model city
charter provides a comprehensive section that addresses a va-
riety of issues regarding IR&R including: general authority,
commencement of proceeding, petitions, procedures for filing,
suspension of effect of ordinance, action on petitions, and the
results of the election. Below is the language provided on
General Authority from the NCL Model Charter:
General Authority for Initiative, Citizen Referendum,
and Recall.
(1) Initiative. The registered voters of the city shall
have power to propose ordinances to the council
and, if the council fails to adopt an ordinance so
proposed without any change in substance, to adopt
or reject it at a city election, but such power shall
not extend to the budget or capital program or any
ordinance relating to appropriation of money, levy
of taxes or salaries of city officers or employees.
(2) Citizen Referendum. The registered voters of the
city shall have power to require reconsideration by
the council of any adopted ordinance and, if the-
council fails to repeal an ordinance so reconsidered,
to approve or reject it at a city election, but such
power shall not extend to the budget or capital pro-
gram or any emergency ordinance or ordinance re-
lating to appropriation of money or levy of taxes.
(3) Recall. The registered voters of the city shall
have power to recall elected officials of the city, but
no recall petition shall be filed against any official
within six months after the official takes office, nor,
in case of a member subjected to a recall election
and not removed, until at least six months after the
election.
Charter provisions today
Today, an overwhelming number of Texas city charters
call for all three, with the recall provision being the most
prevalent; it is found in 93 percent of city charters. The ini-
tiative and referendum are provided for in 88 percent of char-
ters. In virtually every charter, IR&R are the subjects of a
separate article. Several cities make requirements that apply
to all three items. Seguin authorizes the city secretary to use
a sampling to check signatures against the voter registration
list when the petition names exceed 1,000. There must be a
minimum of a 25 percent sample. Several cities have provi-
sions for a minimum turnout before the election will be de-
clared successful, and a couple of cities require a second
petition in the case of initiative and referendum. These pro-
visions state that if the petitioners submit one petition and
the city council fails to act, the petitioners must then go back
and get additional signatures to force an election.
After an initiative or referendum is successful, cities
provide various ways for reversing that decision. A few cities
state that the council, within months, can simply reverse the
decision without an extraordinary vote of any kind. But most
charters provide a waiting period before the council can take
any action to reverse the vote, and several charters require a
majority or greater vote of the total council to reverse the ac-
tion even after a waiting period. Some charters prohibit peti-
tioners from coming forward on the same question more often
than every six months.
Cities are almost evenly split over use of a petitioners’
committee (usually five or ten persons). Proponents of such
a committee argue that requiring a committee places clear re-
sponsibility for the undertaking of initiative or referendum pro-
ceedings. Opponents find fault, however, in the fact that such
a committee is given the authority to speak for hundreds or
thousands of petitioners, and may agree to a city council com-
promise ordinance without consulting with the petition sign-
ers.
In some instances, charter writers have tried to save
a little verbiage by combining petition percentages and other
common language covering all three actions into one section,
stating that it is speaking for all three mechanisms at once.
This can be done if handled very carefully, but several charters
trying to do this have confused the requirements. Even
though it means repeating some requirements, the clearest
and cleanest way to state the charter requirements is to do so
one at a time for each of the three. In this way, there can be
no doubt about meaning.
Finally, when reading the following charts regarding
the percentage of signatures required to file a valid petition,
it should be remembered that many cities, in addition to re-
quiring a certain percentage of voter signatures, require a min-
imum number of signatures. The charter frequently provides
that the petition must contain the greater of these two: a per-
centage or a minimum number.
84
Texas Home Rule Charters
Page 42 of 44
Initiative provisions in charters
Most of the charters that provide for initiative prohibit
petitions being presented to the council that address appro-
priating funds or authorizing the levying of taxes. Occasion-
ally, a charter prohibits other initiated actions that the framers
of the charter felt were inappropriate for citizen initiation.
Requirements on the number of required signatures
vary widely. Some cities appear to purposely make it very dif-
ficult for voters to initiate ordinances; others have made it
fairly easy. The actual requirements reported are:
*Reading the chart: Using line 2 in the left-hand column, the
figure means that signatures representing five percent of the
voters must be secured; six cities require five percent of the
registered voters; one city requires five percent of the last
vote.
Referendum provisions in charters
Many cities and court decisions have declared several
areas “off limits” for referendum petitions. Many charters
prohibit referendum petitions on: (1) levying taxes, (2) ap-
propriating funds, (3) ordinances fixing rates and charges for
utilities, (4) annexations, and (5) ordinances authorizing the
issuance of bonds that have been authorized by a vote of the
people. Some cities prohibit referendum petitions relating to
personnel and administrative matters. The requirements re-
garding the number of signatures is usually the same as for
initiative petitions.
Recall provisions in charters
The recall sections of charters have several provisions
unique to that device. In less than 5 percent of charters, any-
where from one-tenth to one-half of all the petitioners must
swear in the petition that they voted for the councilmember
now the subject of their recall. In even fewer charters, can-
didates to replace the councilmember are listed on the ballot,
so that if the citizens vote to recall the councilmember, the
individual on the ballot with the most votes is elected at that
same election to succeed the recalled individual.
Charters also vary as to whether accusations against
a councilmember in a recall petition can be general or must
list specific causes for action. North Richland Hills’ charter
carries a notation immediately under Article XV on recall stat-
ing, “Note: Recall article of this charter has, by implication,
been held to be invalid by a district court of Tarrant County in
1991.” According to the city attorney of North Richland Hills,
the City of Lake Worth had copied the recall provision of North
Richland Hills. This provision states:
Any city official elected by the people, shall
be subject to recall and removal from office
by the qualified voters of the city on grounds
of incompetency, misconduct, or malfea-
sance in office.
A petition drive attempted to recall a councilmember
in Lake Worth in 1991, and the court ruled that the provision
was vague and unenforceable. This was a state district court
decision that was not appealed. Therefore, the case’s value
as precedent is minimal.
Most charter provisions on recall have a statement
85
Initiative, referendum, and recall
Figure 15-1: Signature requirements for initiative*
Number of cities requiring “X” percent of all registered voters
or of the number voting in the most recent election
Registered Voters Most Recent Election
Percent: 1994 2008 1994 2008
3% .5 1.0 0 0
5% 2.5 2.0 .5 1.0
10% 14.0 18.0 4.0 3.0
15% 9.0 8.0 3.5 3.0
20% 7.0 9.5 15.0 13.0
25% 6.0 2.0 19.0 20.0
30% 2.5 3.0 10.0 9.0
33/33.3% 0 .5 1.0 .5
35% 1.0 .5 0 0
40% 0 .5 1.5 1.0
50% 0 .5 2.5 2.0
51% .5 1.0 0 .5
60% 0 .5 0 0
Figure 15-2: Signature requirements for referendum*
Number of cities requiring “X” percent of all registered vot-
ers or of the number voting in the most recent election
Registered Voters Most Recent Election
Percent: 1994 2008 1994 2008
3% .5 1.0 0 0
5% 2.0 1.5 .5 1.5
10% 13.5 16.0 3.0 3.0
15% 9.0 7.0 3.0 3.0
20% 6.0 11.0 16.0 12.5
25% 7.0 3.0 21.0 21.0
30% 3.0 3.0 10.0 10.5
33/33.3% 0 .5 1.0 .5
35% 1.0 .5 0 0
40% 0 0 0.5 1.0
50% 0 .5 2.5 2.0
51% .5 1.0 0 0
60% 0 0 0 0
*See explanation under Initiative for example of
using this figure.
Page 43 of 44
Figure 15-3: Signature requirements for referendum*
Number of cities requiring “X” percent of all registered vot-
ers or of the number voting in the most recent election
Registered Voters Most Recent Election
Percent: 1994 2008 1994 2008
3% 0 1.0 0 0
5% 1.5 2.0 0 1.0
10% 9.0 18.0 1.0 3.0
15% 5.0 8.0 .5 2.5
16% 0 0 .5 .5
20% 6.0 9.5 7.5 13.0
25% 6.0 2.0 10.0 20.0
30% 8.0 3.0 20.0 9.0
33/33.3% .5 .5 1.0 .5
35% 2.0 .5 2.0 0
40% 2.5 .5 2.5 1.0
50% 1.0 .5 5.0 2.0
51% .5 1.0 8.0 .5
60% 0 .5 0 0
*See explanation under Initiative for example of
using this figure.
86
that if the mayor or city council does not call a recall election
when presented with a valid petition, the county judge shall
discharge these duties. Still other charters attempt to place
this duty on the district judge. These requirements also pres-
ent problems because a city does not have the authority to
prescribe duties for a county or district judge. The better rem-
edy may be for the charter to provide that any citizen could
file with the appropriate court for a writ of mandamus to force
the city to call the election.
Finally, charters with recall provisions do have some
restrictions on use. First, 55 percent of charters give a newly
elected mayor or councilmember a few months on the job be-
fore they can be the subject of a recall petition. Our survey
showed this grace period generally to be six months.
Similarly, 26 percent of charters provide that after
having weathered a recall election, a councilmember may not
be subjected to another recall election within a certain period
of time. Our review of the charters showed an array of “wait-
ing periods.” Again, six months was the norm, but the time
frames ranged anywhere from one month to one year.
To save money on an election, 12 percent of charters
make a specific provision that recall petitions will not be hon-
ored within a specified period before the person in question
will come up for election. These times range anywhere from
three months to one year, with three months being the most
common, followed by six months.
Finally, there are Texas charters which provide that a
councilmember will not be subject to a recall election more
than once during a term of office. The survey results in this
regard are:
I R & R in action
Our survey (Appendix A), which was sent to key offi-
cials in every Texas home rule city, asked how many times
each of the three provisions had been used in the last five
years. We chose five years because we felt institutional mem-
ory in most cities might not extend back beyond that period
of time.
Initiative results from the survey
The initiative was reported to be used in 24 cities, a
total of 41 propositions were presented to the voters, resulting
in 31 propositions being approved by voters, seven being
turned down by the voters, and three petitions being found
invalid. The subject of the measures presented by the citizens
varied widely–from an ethics ordinance to no smoking ordi-
nances, as well as funding for facilities. But the largest num-
ber of petitions dealt with freezing property taxes for senior
citizens and disabled veterans (authorized by separate state
law), all of which were approved.
Referendum results from the survey
Eleven cities reported use of the referendum in the
past five years. A total of 15 propositions were placed on the
ballot with 10 being approved, three failing, and two instances
where the city council took action, thereby removing the issue
from the election process. We attempted to eliminate all char-
ter and bond issue votes; our interest was in the traditional
use of the referendum petition. Here again, the diversity in
subject matter represented all sorts of issues, such as the sale
of alcoholic beverages in city parks.
Recall results from the survey
Twelve cities reported recall elections in the past five
years, with disappointing results for petitioners. Of the 28 in-
dividuals that were subject to recall, only twelve recall elec-
tions resulted in turning out the individual involved; whereas,
the remaining 16 elections resulted in a failure to recall. One
city reported that while the recall election may have failed,
none of the candidates subject to the recall vote were elected
in subsequent elections.
Summary of survey results
Clinton Rogers Woodruff wrote words in 1911 that are
still being used by advocates of the three mechanisms. He
said there had been too few IR&R elections up to that time to
justify a sound conclusion, and then added, “it may, however,
be fairly argued that their existence constitutes a substantial,
and on the whole, an effective safeguard. Their value rests in
their existence, rather than in their use.”36 This appears to
be the case in Texas today, with only 14 percent of all home
rule cities being forced into IR&R elections in the last five
years.
Texas Home Rule Charters
Page 44 of 44