OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Killeen City Council Special Meeting: Charter Amendments and Election Date Changes, June 9, 2026

City Council & CommissionsTuesday, June 9, 2026
BodyKilleen, Texas
SessionCity Council & Commissions
DateTuesday, June 9, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record

STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

Transcript — Verbatim
0:33

I just can't remember.

1:02

Is not now five PM.

1:05

I'll call this meeting to order.

1:08

Note that all council members are present, and council member Charles Kimball is on Zoom.

1:24

We will be gonna ask the council to when we vote to show we're gonna vote by showing of hands.

1:35

Okay.

1:37

I need a motion to approve the agenda.

1:46

It was motioned by council member Kendricks.

1:52

Second.

1:52

Second by Council Member Brown all in favor, signified by raising your hands and whatso member Kimball RCU.

2:07

The motion carries seven to zero.

2:11

Thank you.

2:14

And now it's time for uh citizen comments.

2:26

We have five people signed up.

2:28

The first person is Ank Anka Niagu.

2:33

Good afternoon, ma'am.

2:36

Thank you, Council.

2:37

Uh Mayor.

2:39

First of all, um I in my opinion, anyone who requests an extra minute should automatically receive it.

2:46

Otherwise, you you're gonna have to you're gonna discriminate if you s one person can get the extra minute and the other person cannot, that means you're gonna, in my opinion.

2:57

Uh regarding citizen comments, the governing standard well, actually city council in twenty twenty-three added non-agenda items for the public after the city council voted to add the non-agenda items.

3:14

Mr.

3:15

Cagle changed that to restrict to only residents of Killeen.

3:21

And after that the mayor at the time, uh and I quote, we're going to put on the agenda in January in detail with our legal team on how we can address the same five or six citizens citizens who come up to the podium and only attack the council.

3:42

End of quote.

3:43

So the and the non-agenda items were removed as a result.

3:48

The purpose of removing the non-agenda items was to silence those five individuals.

3:55

Council, you didn't silence five individuals, you silenced hundreds, if not thousands.

4:02

Respectfully, if you cannot take criticism, again respectfully, you should not be on the council.

4:10

And I I agree there are people that come up here and I don't like the tone of their voice.

4:16

I don't like some of the things they say.

4:18

I don't agree with them.

4:21

But they have the right to say it.

4:24

And they're gonna they're gonna be disrespectful, they're gonna be critical whether it's agenda item or non-agenda item.

4:31

Um the only people uh the only problem I have with non-agenda item, and I am for them.

4:37

I am for them.

4:38

But I'm wondering what if fifty people show up and they all want to speak on non-agenda items.

4:43

I wonder how if there is a way to limit that, so you know it'll get a little bit overwhelming.

4:51

Um I don't have much more to say.

4:53

I am for non-agenda items.

4:56

Um was denied speaking.

5:02

Well, I was one of them, the other one was CJ Gersham.

5:06

I understand he's very intimidating, but he's a member of the public, and he should be allowed to speak.

5:17

Being intimidating, being whatever you want, disrespectful, whatever you think the case may be.

5:23

You're a member of the public, unless somebody threatens one of you.

5:28

Yeah, that would not be okay.

5:31

But other than that, tone of voice that sounds critical to some of you, they have the right to use.

5:41

Thank you, ma'am.

5:41

Your time is up.

5:42

Thank you.

5:47

Madam City Attorney, Michael Fernino for some house cleaning, sir.

6:06

The discussion consider changing time for special meetings scheduled, whoever's bonehead idea that was, deny it.

6:13

I already suspect that somebody's trying to rig it to have these meetings to where the public can't participate at a very inconvenient time.

6:21

That being said, uh I attended all but one of the charter review committee meetings, and some of the things that I think that you should definitely, especially in the signs of today's issues with KDC and others that I'm sure to follow on shortly.

6:36

City council initiated investigations.

6:38

Uh, we have the unique position right now where Mr.

6:42

Kimball is not present, but he is more than qualified to write up an SOP that would be standard operating procedure on how to conduct an investigation.

6:51

I think his qualifications on that are impeccable and unquestionable.

6:56

So as far as any of that goes, that follows on to something that I also further advocated for.

7:04

As we're a home rule city, if we have a council member that is indeed not performing depar, not responding, not living up to the expectations of the constituents.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Legislative Process█████████████████████████████████████████████59%
Procedural███████████████20%
Public Engagement███████9%
Community Engagement██████8%
Personnel Matters███4%
Summary of Proceedings

Killeen City Council Special Meeting – June 9, 2026

The Killeen City Council met in special session at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 9, 2026, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 101 N. College Street. All council members were present, with Councilmember Charles Kimball participating via Zoom. The council approved the agenda 7–0, heard citizen comments, and discussed changing the time of upcoming special meetings and a series of proposed charter amendments. The meeting adjourned before completing all scheduled charter-review items.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Anka Niagu: Expressed support for restoring non-agenda citizen comments, arguing their removal was intended to silence citizens. She said criticism should be accepted and that council members who cannot take criticism should not serve. She also raised a practical question about limiting speakers if 50 people show up.
  • Michael Fernino: Called the proposal to change special meeting times a “bonehead idea” and suggested it was an attempt to make meetings less accessible. He advocated for judicial removal of elected officials, resign-to-run for offices outside the city, and council-initiated investigations, citing his attendance at charter review committee meetings.
  • James Sills: Urged the council to restore non-agenda citizen comments and put that right in the charter so it could not be removed at the council’s whim. He criticized reliance on email as an inadequate substitute for listening to citizens and noted that only three council members acknowledged his June 3 email.
  • Dr. Sue Neasy Croft: Asked for a cross-reference document mapping each proposed charter amendment to the specific article/section of the charter, the current language, the proposed change, and rationale. She requested this matrix before the next special meeting and said her purpose was transparency, not support or opposition.
  • Leo Gukizen: Spoke as a charter review committee member. He supported the committee’s recommendations, including putting non-agenda citizen comments in the charter, requiring the city manager to brief council on change orders in open session, and requiring resignation when running for another office. He cautioned the council not to “butcher” the recommendations to meet personal opinions.

Discussion Items

DS-26-046: Changing Time for Special Meetings

  • Staff asked the council to confirm the 5:00 p.m. time for special meetings scheduled on June 22, 2026, July 14, 2026, and July 28, 2026.
  • Councilmember Kimball supported keeping 5:00 p.m., noting citizens cannot participate during work hours. Councilmember Brown suggested 5:30 p.m. to improve access. Councilmember Williams agreed with 5:00 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Gonzalez supported 5:00 or 5:30 and suggested a 10:00 p.m. cap for productivity. Councilmember Nash-King noted that meeting length is driven by council behavior, not citizen comments.
  • Consensus: Keep the special meetings at 5:00 p.m.

DS-26-047: Charter Amendments

The council discussed five of the eleven proposed charter amendments. A staff presenter described current charter provisions, Charter Review Committee recommendations, and comparative language from other cities. The council took the following actions:

  1. Election Dates

    • The committee recommended aligning the charter with the council’s December 19, 2025 resolution moving all regular elections to the November uniform election date in odd-numbered years, requiring changes to Sections 22 and 93.
    • Discussion included concerns about staggering terms and the prohibition on November elections in even-numbered years. Councilmember Nash-King favored two-year terms; Councilmember Brown said voters should decide.
    • Motion to accept the amendment as proposed passed 5–2.
  2. Term Limits

    • Current charter limits officials to three consecutive two-year terms per office but no total limit. The committee recommended a cap of six consecutive terms in any combination of offices, followed by a one-term wait.
    • Councilmember Bass said he trusts voters and opposed the change. Councilmember Nash-King recommended keeping current language. Councilmember Kendrick moved to reject the recommendation, seconded by Nash-King.
    • The motion to reject passed 6–1, so the term-limit amendment will not appear on the ballot. Councilmember Brown voted in opposition.
  3. Resign-to-Run

    • Current charter requires resignation when filing for a different city office, but not for outside offices. The committee recommended applying the requirement only to outside offices.
    • A motion by Councilmember Brown to accept the committee recommendation failed for lack of a second.
    • Councilmember Nash-King then moved to remove the resign-to-run provision entirely, allowing officials to continue serving while running for any office, with immediate resignation upon winning. The motion passed 7–0 and will go on the ballot.
  4. Filling Vacancies on City Council

    • Current charter requires appointment for a single vacancy occurring more than 90 days before an election, allows appointment within 90 days, and requires a special election if two or more vacancies occur. The committee recommended all vacancies be filled by appointment, with a special election only if a quorum no longer exists.
    • Councilmember Nash-King moved to accept the recommendation, seconded by Bass. Councilmember Brown proposed an amendment capping appointments at two per two-year term; the amendment failed 4–3.
    • The original motion to accept the committee recommendation then passed 6–1, placing the vacancy-appointment amendment on the ballot.
  5. Council-Initiated Investigations

    • Section 39 of the charter already authorizes council investigations and subpoenas. The committee recommended adding a requirement that the council adopt an ordinance establishing investigation procedures.
    • Several councilmembers argued procedures would be better placed in governing standards. Councilmember Nash-King strongly opposed the change as overreach. Councilmember Brown moved to accept the recommendation but strike the “by ordinance” requirement, so the charter would simply say the council shall provide procedures.
    • After procedural votes, Councilmember Nash-King successfully amended the motion to specify that procedures be provided through governing standards rather than ordinance. The amendment passed 6–1.
    • The final motion as amended was declared carried by the mayor, though the transcript contains confusion about the vote count. The amended language would require the council to provide investigation procedures through its governing standards and would go to voters in November.

Key Outcomes

  • The agenda was approved 7–0.
  • Upcoming special meetings will remain at 5:00 p.m.
  • Election-date charter amendment approved for the November ballot (5–2).
  • Term-limit amendment rejected (6–1).
  • Resign-to-run removal approved for the November ballot (7–0).
  • Vacancy-appointment amendment approved for the November ballot (6–1); a two-appointment cap amendment failed (4–3).
  • Council-investigation procedures amendment approved for the November ballot (declared carried; vote count not clearly recorded).
  • The meeting adjourned on a motion by Councilmember Brown before considering the remaining charter amendments—candidate filing fees, initiative/referendum requirements, recall procedures, judicial removal of elected officials, citizen comment period, and change-order briefings by the city manager.

Meeting Transcript

I just can't remember. Is not now five PM. I'll call this meeting to order. Note that all council members are present, and council member Charles Kimball is on Zoom. We will be gonna ask the council to when we vote to show we're gonna vote by showing of hands. Okay. I need a motion to approve the agenda. It was motioned by council member Kendricks. Second. Second by Council Member Brown all in favor, signified by raising your hands and whatso member Kimball RCU. The motion carries seven to zero. Thank you. And now it's time for uh citizen comments. We have five people signed up. The first person is Ank Anka Niagu. Good afternoon, ma'am. Thank you, Council. Uh Mayor. First of all, um I in my opinion, anyone who requests an extra minute should automatically receive it. Otherwise, you you're gonna have to you're gonna discriminate if you s one person can get the extra minute and the other person cannot, that means you're gonna, in my opinion. Uh regarding citizen comments, the governing standard well, actually city council in twenty twenty-three added non-agenda items for the public after the city council voted to add the non-agenda items. Mr. Cagle changed that to restrict to only residents of Killeen. And after that the mayor at the time, uh and I quote, we're going to put on the agenda in January in detail with our legal team on how we can address the same five or six citizens citizens who come up to the podium and only attack the council. End of quote. So the and the non-agenda items were removed as a result. The purpose of removing the non-agenda items was to silence those five individuals. Council, you didn't silence five individuals, you silenced hundreds, if not thousands. Respectfully, if you cannot take criticism, again respectfully, you should not be on the council. And I I agree there are people that come up here and I don't like the tone of their voice. I don't like some of the things they say. I don't agree with them. But they have the right to say it. And they're gonna they're gonna be disrespectful, they're gonna be critical whether it's agenda item or non-agenda item. Um the only people uh the only problem I have with non-agenda item, and I am for them. I am for them. But I'm wondering what if fifty people show up and they all want to speak on non-agenda items. I wonder how if there is a way to limit that, so you know it'll get a little bit overwhelming. Um I don't have much more to say. I am for non-agenda items. Um was denied speaking. Well, I was one of them, the other one was CJ Gersham. I understand he's very intimidating, but he's a member of the public, and he should be allowed to speak. Being intimidating, being whatever you want, disrespectful, whatever you think the case may be. You're a member of the public, unless somebody threatens one of you. Yeah, that would not be okay. But other than that, tone of voice that sounds critical to some of you, they have the right to use. Thank you, ma'am. Your time is up. Thank you.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com