Charleston committee finalizes recommended charter amendments, sets outreach and election timeline

The Charter Review Committee on July 15 reviewed and refined a large set of proposed changes to the city charter and agreed to forward those recommended amendments to the city commission for consideration and public outreach.

Chair opened the meeting at 5:00 p.m. and, after a roll call confirmed a quorum, the committee approved the minutes of the July 9 meeting by voice vote. The motion carried unanimously. The committee then discussed Item C2 — the city attorney’s draft propositions and accompanying redline of the charter — and worked through how to present the package to voters and the commission.

The city attorney told the committee she had prepared two long documents: a packet of numbered and lettered propositions and a redline version of the charter showing proposed language. She said the single‑subject rule for ballot propositions required splitting some charter sections into multiple propositions and led to a package that currently totals roughly 40 or more propositions. “I sent you all two very long documents,” the city attorney said, describing the draft and how some sections were split so that each proposition addresses one subject.

Why the changes matter: committee members said the revisions aim to make the charter clearer and more transparent for residents. The group debated whether to remove purely non‑substantive, editorial changes (for example, replacing references to “City Council” with “City Commission”) to reduce the number of propositions on the ballot, but several members favored keeping an easy first proposition so voters are not immediately overwhelmed.

On recall, initiative and referendum, the city attorney described a multi‑proposal approach. One proposition (proposition q in the draft) is written as a procedural, stand‑alone provision to give the city secretary a clear step‑by‑step process for handling petitions. She said the draft currently omits the prior “petitioners committee” concept; under that draft, a single person could start a recall process unless the committee decides to reintroduce a petitioners‑committee provision. “There’s no concept of petitioners committee in this charter amendments right now,” the city attorney said, adding that she can reinsert that concept if the committee wants it.

Members pressed on timing rules tied to recall petitions (separate, single‑subject propositions would limit when a recall can be started — for example, restrictions tied to months in office or to prior insufficient petitions). The city attorney said she had written each timing change as its own proposition so that any one could pass or fail independently without leaving contradictory or unclear drafting in the charter.

The committee asked why the group did not propose a full rewrite of the charter. The city attorney explained a wholesale rewrite requires a different process — more public steps and multiple votes — and could introduce many more changes; she recommended the current approach of targeted amendments proposition by proposition.

Logistics and outreach: the city attorney said the proposed changes would be emailed to the city commission (rather than placed in the printed packet) ahead of the commission meeting; redline copies and single‑page handouts would be made available at the meeting for the public to follow along. The committee discussed public outreach plans, including a town hall (one date mentioned was Aug. 20), one‑page proposition summaries, and a QR code linking to the full language. The order of election was scheduled to appear in the commission packet on Aug. 4, with an Aug. 17 deadline to order the election, and the committee agreed to support presentation and town‑hall outreach.

Commitments and next steps: the city attorney agreed to add a missing proposition to reflect a change in the notice‑of‑claim period (from 30 to 90 days) and to correct misplaced comments found in the redline before sending materials to the commission. The committee directed the city attorney to proceed as discussed and to provide the commission with the finalized materials this week; members said they will help with town‑hall presentations and voter materials.

The meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m.