Special City Council Meeting on Charter Amendments - June 22, 2026
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Special City Council Meeting - June 22, 2026
The Killeen City Council held a special meeting at 5:00 PM on June 22, 2026, to discuss and vote on several proposed charter amendments recommended by the Charter Review Committee. Topics included council-initiated investigations, candidate filing fees, initiative and referendum requirements, change order briefings, recall procedures, and judicial removal of elected officials. Six citizens provided public comments, and the council took final votes on each item.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Charles Carroll (District 3) urged the council to codify a detailed process for council-initiated investigations, stating that currently employees can stop responding and no resolution is reached.
- Jeff Sidel (former council member) attempted to speak about a former employee but was ruled off-topic by the mayor; his comments were not heard.
- Patsy Bracey criticized the council for not listening to citizens, saying the current citizen comment limitations discourage participation.
- Michael Fornino argued for adding judicial removal of elected officials to the charter, citing specific allegations against a council member and stating that citizens need a tool when the council refuses to investigate.
- Leo Gukisen advocated for enshrining the citizen comment period in the charter itself, calling it a constitutional right that should not be removable by a future council.
- Aeroselli Cook (District 4) supported easier recall procedures and investigations, saying officials who do the right thing should not fear scrutiny.
Discussion and Votes on Charter Amendments
1. City Council Initiated Investigations
- Proposal: Amend charter to require an ordinance specifying procedures for council investigations.
- Councilmember Kendricks moved to not advance the change to the charter and instead address procedures in governing standards.
- Motion passed 5–2.
- Outcome: The charter will not be amended; the council will create investigation procedures via governing standards.
2. Candidate Filing Fee
- Proposal: Require a $100 filing fee or a petition signed by 50 registered voters (for district candidates, 25 per amended motion).
- Councilmember Brown moved to amend: 25 signatures for district candidates, 50 for at-large/mayor. Motion passed 5–2.
- Councilmember Bass then moved to reject the entire recommendation (maintain status quo with no fee or signature requirement). Motion passed 5–2.
- Outcome: No filing fee or signature requirement will be added to the charter.
3. Initiative and Referendum Procedures
- Proposal: Reduce signature requirement to the number of voters who voted for mayor; extend certification deadline to 30 days; allow council to adopt a petition if consistent with state law.
- Councilmember Kimball moved to accept with a modification: use "all voters who voted in the last regular municipal election" instead of only mayoral voters.
- Motion passed 6–1.
- Outcome: The amended changes will proceed to the ballot for voter approval in the next charter election.
4. Change Order Briefings
- Proposal: Require the city manager to brief the council quarterly on all monetary change orders (increases or decreases).
- Councilmember Bass moved to reject.
- Motion passed 5–2.
- Outcome: No charter amendment; the council will rely on existing communication and oversight.
5. Recall Procedures
- Proposal: Reduce signature requirement for at-large recalls to 50% of votes received by that council member; limit one recall per term; extend city secretary response time from 1 to 5 business days.
- Councilmember Bass moved to reject the entire recommendation. Motion passed 6–1.
- Councilmember Nash-King then moved to adopt only the five-day extension for the city secretary. Motion passed 6–1.
- Councilmember Bass moved to add grounds for recall: incompetency, official misconduct, or malfeasance. Motion passed 6–1.
- Outcome: The charter will be amended to (1) give the city secretary five business days to issue recall petition blanks, and (2) require that recall petitions allege incompetency, official misconduct, or malfeasance. Other changes were rejected.
6. Judicial Removal of Elected Officials
- Proposal: Adopt state-law provisions allowing a citizen to petition a district court for removal of an elected official on grounds of incompetence, misconduct, or intoxication.
- Councilmember Bass moved to reject.
- Motion passed 6–1.
- Outcome: No charter amendment; the existing recall process remains the only removal method.
Key Outcomes
- Approved (to be on ballot): Initiative and referendum changes; recall procedure changes (five-day extension for city secretary and added grounds).
- Rejected: Amendments on council investigations (moved to governing standards), candidate filing fees, change order briefings, and judicial removal.
- Adjournment: The council adjourned after the final vote (motion passed 4–3).
Meeting Transcript
The call to order. Thank you. It is now 5 p.m. on June 22nd. I call the city council meeting to order. Let the record show that all council members are present. Councilmember Nash King is participating on Zoom. I need a motion to approve the agenda. Councilmember Brown. Move to your perfect. Councilmember Kendrick. I second. It was motioned by Councilmember Brown and second by Councilmember Kendrick's. All in favor. Signify by saying yes, and I see Councilmember Nas King. I see your hand, ma'am. Thank you. The motion carries seven to zero. It's now for citizen time for citizen comments. Citizens will have three minutes to speak with one minute time allotted for city council to respond with a statement or explanation without engaging in dialogue. Madam City Attorney, please call the person's name. Charles Carroll. Good afternoon, sir. How are you? How are you all? So my name is Charles Carroll, uh member of District 3. Uh today I'm here just to make some comments regarding council investigations. All right. Investigation by council needs to be codified in a detailed way that serves the citizens of clean. Currently, the process can end when city employees refuse to communicate. They simply stop responding, whether it is to council or to residents. When the city council does not have the interest in the wrongdoings, damaging activity, conflicts of interest, illegal or corruption, communication simply stops. Without being able to bring our own items to agenda or request an investigation, all traction on any issues stops and no resolution or progress is made. This is simply unacceptable government behavior and not typical of other public servant roles such as state and federal level jobs. There is not typically a legal goes to public cause which covers these positions from not being held accountable. There needs to be a complete process in which if a city employee comes under investigation, either by city council initiation or by public request, that the issue is fully investigated to include council or residents submitted information and evidence, and that the investigation results in either correction at corrective action or the overall resolution of the issue. Other areas of public service jobs lay out a clear framework for filing grievances that should be investigated and the time frame in which they must be completed based on severity of those grievances. Currently, there is no way for a resident to request an investigation without going to the state level or in some cases even the FBI. This is not functional. The City Council should seek serious input from local residents and the state regarding how to make the most thorough language to protect the investigative process. Citizens and public monies. City employees must have a high bar to include being able to communicate and defend their decisions, choices, and actions in the rows. Staying silent can't continue on the public's money. This must be written into our governing standards. On a piece that's kind of similar. So today, if I wanted to sit up here and talk about for my three minutes on why I believe the duck bill platypus is the most important, and I'm on the face of this earth. So you turn it on. The citizens say what they care about. Thank you. Thank you.
openpublica.com