2001-03-21 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES2001 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON MARCH 21, 2001
Present at the Meeting:
Judy Zavalla, Chairman
Charles McMurrey, Vice Chairman
Neil West
Nghiem Doan, Assistant City Attorney
The 2001 Charter Review Commission held its fifth scheduled meeting on Wednesday,
March 21, 2001, in the First Floor Conference Room, City Hall, 3519 Liberty Drive,
Pearland, Texas.
The meeting was called to order at 6:44 p.m. by Chairman Judy Zavalla.
The minutes of the February 28, 2001, meeting had been mailed to each member of the
Commission. Mr. McMurrey made a motion to accept the minutes. Mr. West seconded
the motion. The motion to accept the minutes passed unanimously.
Chairman Zavalla stated that future discussions with guests and citizens must be held to
three minutes so that the Commission will have time to cover the entire Charter. The
Chairman then reminded the Commission that they have the option to suggest drafting an
entirely new Charter if their review indicates one is needed.
Mr. Doan provided the Commission with a draft of changes which would be required if
districting is implemented. He also stated that he would like to draft revisions which would
be required as a result of suggested changes discussed earlier by the Commission
(i.e., clarification of city attorney position, amendment of intervals for convening the Charter
Review Commission, amendment of definition of City Council). He inquired as to whether
the Commission would wish to present districting and redefinition of Council as
two separate amendments, rather than presenting them together as one change.
The Commission discussed the best way to present these amendments to voters.
Mr. West suggested that the amendments to Section 3.01 be presented to voters in one
amendment. Mr. McMurrey clarified that this amendment would include a redefinition of
Council and redistricting changes in same amendment. Mr. West suggested that the
Commission's report include an explanation regarding the relationship between the
districting amendment and other amendments.
The Commission discussed the amendment of Article 6 regarding recall petitions.
Mr. McMurrey suggested that the signature of five percent (5%) of all registered voters be
required on a petition. Mr. West suggested that a higher percentage which would result
in stricter requirements. Mr. Doan stated that five percent would actually increase the
Page 1 of 3
number of signatures required. The Commission agreed that five percent should be
sufficient and asked that Mr. Doan draft a new Section 6.04 to reflect this percentage.
Mr. West inquired as to the possible adoption of a standard form for recall petitions, since
procedural problems have halted previous recall efforts. Mr. Doan stated that Section 6.04
clearly sets forth rules for recall petitions. He further informed the Commission that the
most recent recall petition was not halted due to a misunderstanding of the Charter, but
rather fraud on the part of those involved in the recall effort.
Mr. Doan informed the Commission that Mr. Coker had suggested a public hearing at the
Commission's first meeting in May. Mr. West asked if the Commission would be able to
have the Mayor and new City Manager speak at future meetings. The Commission
discussed that possibility in relation to the time frame involved.
Mr. McMurrey suggested that in addition to normal legal notice of the public hearings, the
Commission may pique public interest by informing the press that the proposi-
tion of districting is being reviewed. Mr. Doan suggested that the Chairman might
issue a press announcement to inform the newspapers. Mr. West suggested that
Chairman Zavalla be the official spokesperson for the Commission, and the Commission
agreed with that proposal.
Mr. Doan requested that the Commission consider the status of existing Councilmembers
if the voters approve districting. Mr. West suggested that the current Councilmember serve
out their terms and the City gradually phase in districting as new Councilmembers are
elected by district. Mr. Doan suggested writing the amendment so that the first election
after adoption of such amendment would re-elect all Council positions, having initial
one-year, two-year, and three-year terms. The Commission asked Mr. Doan to research
methods used by other cities implementing districting.
Chairman Zavalla asked the Commission for comments or concerns regarding Article 7,
and no members present had comments. Mr. West questioned the fiscal year of the City
beginning October 1 and ending September 30, as presented in Section 8.01.
Mr. McMurrey stated that the County fiscal year also runs from October 1 through
September 30, and that those same dates may have been adopted by the City because
this linked the City's fiscal year to the due date of property taxes.
Mr. West questioned the reference to "established emergencies" presented in
Section 8.14, Contingent Appropriation. Mr. McMurrey stated that under the Charter such
appropriations are under the control of the City Manager and distributed by him after
approval of the City Council. Mr. West expressed concern as to whether all emergency
expenditures would really be considered emergencies. Mr. Doan explained that budget
amendments are made throughout the year to provide for unforeseen matters that arise,
but they are not all considered emergencies.
Page 2 of 3
The Commission had no further comments on Article 8, but agreed they would discuss
Section 10.15 regarding powers of the Charter Review Commission at a future meeting.
Mr. McMurrey stated that he would be interested in discussing conflict of interest issues,
specifically referring to an ethics ordinance. He further stated that an ethics ordinance has
been tabled for several months, and he would like to see the present Councilmembers and
Council candidates address this issue. Mr. Doan stated that the City now follows the strict
common law rule of conflicts as contained in the Charter. He further stated that a majority
of cities now follow state law under Chapter 171, which states that if a Councilmember has
an indirect conflict, he is not prohibited from serving. He further informed that Chapter 171
requires that the person disclose the conflict, file an affidavit, and abstain from voting on
the particular issue in conflict, and that Pearland's Charter is stricter. Mr. Doan stated that
the City Attorney's office, rather than rendering an opinion on a politically charged issue,
requested and received an opinion from an independent law firm. Mr. West commented
that if an ethics issue were included as a Charter amendment, it would have a positive
effect, because many voters would be interested. Mr. McMurrey stated that the ethics
ordinance issue should be revisited by this Commission. Mr. Doan stated that the Charter
provision does not require clarification, but the Charter could state that for conflict of
interest purposes, the City will abide by Chapter 171 of state law. Mr. West suggested that
the Commission recommend that Council propose an ordinance to that effect.
The Commission agreed to discuss Article 9 at the next meeting which will be held April 4,
2001, at 6:30 p.m.
The Chairman adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:00 p.m.
Page 3 of 3