City's charter has not been formally reviewed in 30 years

It's been nearly 30 years since Jefferson City voters approved the City Charter, setting up the foundation and rules for the city's government operations.

Since the charter was approved Feb. 7, 1986, it has been amended 15 times, with the most recent change eliminating the city's primary elections. (All charter changes require voter approval.) But there has never been a formal review of the city's charter to ensure it still holds up to city practices today.

Richard Sheets, deputy director of the Missouri Municipal League, said it's generally recommended that a charter be reviewed every five to 10 years, though he noted 10 years may be pushing the limit. In recent years, he said, many cities have begun building in charter provisions to require a review process.

"A standard is probably five to 10 years, but 10 years is a little long," Sheets said. "It's a pretty healthy process really."

Sheets said he was surprised to learn Jefferson City's charter has never been formally reviewed.

City Attorney Drew Hilpert said while there has been no formal review process, which likely would involve both community and council discussion, staff recommends minor changes when it's found city operations are not matching up with the charter. Hilpert said staff tries not to recommend any major changes, as that is more of a policy decision requiring community input.

"While good (for staff to be) a part of the discussion for information, major changes (are) better suited for a community visioning effort," Hilpert said.

Hilpert said he understands the reasoning behind the recommendation of the Missouri Municipal League and a periodic review of the charter and city code likely would be a good thing.

"MML's point, I think, is that charters should be living documents which reflect the will of the current citizens and reflect the updates in society and best practices learned since the last review," Hilpert said. "A review does not mean anything is wrong, of course. ... That said, one would hope the people involved in such a process would make a thoughtful review and not look to change for the sake of change."

Incoming Mayor Carrie Tergin, who will be sworn in Monday, said an annual review of the charter would make sense to familiarize council members and staff with the document, as well as ensure it does match city operations.

"I like to see things, whether it's the charter or other things, looked at more regularly," Tergin said. "It brings it to the forefront; it gets it on the council's mind that we are a charter city and what that means."

Tergin said an annual review also would be open to public input and involve the members of the original charter commission.

"What would come out of it is we would remain relevant and up to date on our charter," Tergin said.

Clyde Lear, former chair of the city's charter commission, said he was unfamiliar with any formal charter review processes, but he believes the charter is a living document that would benefit from periodic review and change over time.

"The charter ought to be an evergreen document. It ought to be changed frequently. We ought to go in and look at it," Lear said.

Lear specified a few changes he believed would benefit the city, including decreasing the number of council members to about five or six from the current 10, re-instituting partisan elections and switching to a city manager form of government instead of the city administrator position currently outlined in the charter.

"I think we need to continually look at it, update it and make changes to it," Lear said. "Why keep the same document that we've had all these years? That is stupidity."

Tom Rackers, former vice chair of the city's charter commission, said whenever the city considers a charter change, the original commission members are consulted and used as a sounding board. Rackers said the cooperation between the commission and the city makes the informal review process work just fine and no formal review process is necessary.

If something needs to be changed, Rackers said, either a charter commission member, a council member, the mayor or the city administrator would bring it up.

Rackers said the commission did get together about 10 years ago to discuss a possible review, but nothing ever came from it.

Carolyn McDowell, who served as secretary of the charter commission, said she does not believe the charter should be changed or reviewed. McDowell likened the document to the U.S. Constitution, saying the same principles are involved concerning review and the city charter has already been changed and reviewed too much.

"Why are we trying to fix something that is very good?" McDowell asked. "The City Council and the mayors have already over-reviewed it."

McDowell said the changes that have been made have not been beneficial to the city, pointing to the elimination of the city primary election as an example. The city most recently had a six-way race for mayor, with no primary, which Tergin won with 41 percent of the vote.

"There's several things that they've changed in the original charter that we need to correct," McDowell said.