Thursday, November 7, 2013

Does Houstons' city charter need to be revised?

This ran a month ago in the Houston Chronicle.

A couple members of Houston's city council think the current design of Houston's government makes governing the city too difficult and would like to see changes which modernize it. They would like to see a Charter Review Commission established to study possibilities. This seems to me a reaction to the limit on government placed when term limits were added a couple decades back as well as an attempt for the city council to assert more control of city government affairs. Perhaps they believe the mayor is too strong.

This is from an editorial written by the council members:
Over the past few years there has been a great deal of discussion among City Hall insiders about amending the city charter to change term limits for mayor, city controller and council members from two-year to four-year terms.

Two-year terms of office, combined with a six-year limit, hurt city government. The churn of frequent turnover disallows sufficient development of institutional knowledge and process know-how that are critical to effective policymaking. Changing the city charter to provide for two four-year terms for city-elected officials may reduce the number of city elections, but it won't make fundamental changes to the local governance process - including operations and the structure of city government - to address accountability and to meaningfully improve long-range infrastructure, financial, emergency and environmental planning in Houston.

But rather than limit ourselves to considering a term-limits charter change amendment, Houston needs a Charter Review Commission to review, update and propose recommendations to the voters to modernize our charter, the structure and operations of city government, with specific attention paid to the budget process.

. . . The commission's membership should be former city elected officials, academic and legal experts on Texas municipal governance, finance and infrastructure issues as well as local business leaders and entrepreneurs. No current elected city official or employee should be allowed to serve on the commission. The work of the commission should not be a political exercise.

Here are the specific questions they would like to see questions addressed by the commission:

- Should one council meeting per month be held in a city multi-service center in the evening, similar to how city Capital Improvement Process meetings are scheduled?

- Should all of Houston's 16 City Council seats go to single-member districts?

- Should the City of Houston consider a city manager form of government?

- Should the five at-large council members be elected to designated positions based on expertise in certain respective policy areas, such as position No. 1 budget and fiscal affairs, No. 2 public safety, No. 3 business development and international affairs, No. 4 transportation and general mobility, and No. 5 housing, land use and community development?

- Should the City Council nominate and elect the mayor pro tem, as this person would succeed the mayor if the person holding office were unable to serve out an unexpired term? If nominated and elected by council, should the mayor pro tem organize council committees by nominating committee members and chairs/vice chairs to be ratified by the full council?

- Should council members, or at least some designated number of council members, have authority to place items on the council agenda? Should all items approved by a council committee be automatically placed on the full council agenda within 30 days of having been voted out of committee?

- Should a budget calendar, with dates and times set for public discussion, be established earlier in the fiscal year?

- Should district council members have a council district service budget to be able to quickly address minor neighborhood issues?

- Should candidates for the City Council, mayor and city controller be required to attend a class or training session on Houston city government organized by a consortium of local universities as a condition for qualifying for the ballot, similar to the filing fee, signature or residency requirements?

If this happens, it will be very instructive to follow the process as it goes forward.