Home rule vote bumped to November

The months-long process of forming the document was presented to the council by Gene Martin, chair of the Home Rule Committee that was appointed by Mayor Teresa Palmer last summer.

While the charter was presented, the council had no authority to reject the document, according to City Attorney Andy Messer.

Resident Libby Afflerbach pointed to a provision that the city council was to appoint an independent board of ethics to enforce the Code of Ethics, but she could find no printed code of ethics.

“Maybe I just can’t find it, but it seems like if this is a code of ethics, it’s going to be a written document someplace that all your city staff and everybody’s going to abide by, and then this board of ethics is going to enforce it. So I would just like to know where the code of ethics is,” Afflerback said. 

That didn’t prevent council members from bringing up objections to the document.

Council member Scott Smith said the version of the charter in the council’s packet was approved by the charter commission on Jan. 31.

“Was there an open meeting on the 31st of January?” Smith asked.

“No,” Martin replied.

“Should there have been?” Smith asked.

Messer could not say definitively whether home rule charter commissions fall under the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA), but he did not believe so. Later in the meeting, Smith disagreed, citing his research.

“We have attempted to operate the home rule charter commission as if we were absolutely required to follow TOMA,” Martin said. “I’ve taken extraordinary steps to ensure that out-of-meeting conversation amongst the commissioners was disallowed, even from the way I distributed information and received information back from them. Everything I sent out was blind copied to all of the commissioners so that they could not respond as a group.”

Scott replied that if the city council had passed an ordinance by the same process, he didn’t think it would have the force of law. However, Messer said he did not see the issue as a roadblock to implementation of the charter.

Martin said the final edits approved by email on Jan. 31 were recommended by attorney Fritz Quast, and were on the same level as spelling and typo corrections.

Pointed questioning

But the most pointed questioning of the document itself came from council member Eric Contreras.

Contreras pointed out that some people on the charter commission disagreed with certain portions of the document.

“Are you saying that every person on the Commission approved of every single item of this when it came up to vote?” Contreras asked.

“Yes,” Martin replied.

“It wasn’t an open meeting and it wasn’t published,” Smith added.

Contreras asked why the proposed charter had a requirement that aggregate campaign contributions to local candidates had to report the name and address of the contributor if the amount was more than $250, while the Texas law is $50.

“Is the Home Rule Charter Commission trying to allow dark money in the form of campaign contributions?” Contreras asked.

Contreras also criticized the portion of the charter that limits campaign contributions. According to Contreras, U.S. Supreme Court rulings stipulate that campaign contributions are considered speech, so limiting contributions infringes on freedom of speech.

“We cannot change the charter at this point it is presented,” Martin replied.

Contreras was also critical of a provision that allows for possible future compensation for city council members and the mayor, but did not set a limit on that compensation.

For his final point, Contreras referred back to Afflerbach, who said the charter commits the city to pay legal fees for the Board of Ethics, but did not specify a limit on expenses.

“Why wouldn’t you put a cap on there? Because what this does is this hamstrings the council because we have to budget for something we have no idea how much money this is going to cost us.”

Home Rule Charter Commission member Carol Bracken rose to support the charter.

“When we began our deliberations, we made it very clear that we were trying to craft a charter, not just for this current period, but also for the future,” Bracken said. “We wanted to craft a document that was a living document that would hopefully last for 50 years, knowing that they will have to be changed over the years to deal with ongoing statutory changes as they occur. To that end, it’s important to remember that a charter is a framework. It’s not intended to be a six-volume compendium of the rules and regulations on policy. We specifically went to a lot of trouble to understand and respect the role of the city council.”

At the end of the discussion, Palmer asked for a motion to accept the charter.

Instead, Contreras moved to “thank the Home Rule Charter Commission for their time of service” and to “discharge the Home Rule Commission as they’ve submitted their final report. This releases them from any further obligation or duty.”

The motion passed unanimously, leaving the question of holding an election.

Approaching the deadline for a May election date, the next agenda item called for a May 2, 2026, election to take the charter to the voters of the city.

Messer said tabling the vote would, of necessity, move the charter election to the next uniform voting date in November.

“Well, that is correct, but [it would] deny the opportunity at the local election to vote on it as a local item and shove it into November under the umbrella of federal and state issues,” Martin said. “I put a lot of work. Several other people put a lot of work. I believe that a great number of citizens in Willow Park would like the opportunity to vote on this.”

Palmer stressed that several attorneys had participated in the drafting of the charter.

Silence greeted Palmer when she asked for a motion to to call a special election.

Council member Nathan Crummel made a notion to table the item pending clarification on the legal issues that were brought up during the discussion. He felt there would be better turnout at a November election as well.

The vote to table passed unanimously.