Charter Revision Commission Meeting Summary – April 28, 2026

The Charter Revision Commission met on April 28, 2026 (the agenda indicates April 29, 2026, but the transcript’s date is used as instructed) to discuss the timeline for finalizing the draft report, setting a public hearing, and to review and vote on several requests from the District Attorney’s office and other items.

Discussion Items

• Meeting Schedule and Public Hearing: Chair Lyndon Williams outlined the process: after the draft report is finalized, a press release will announce a public hearing. The date for the public hearing is being researched; currently June 9 is a target but earlier may be possible if the draft is completed sooner. The commission discussed notice requirements (likely 14–30 days), quorum for setting the hearing, and the role of the Board of Legislators. The chair noted that the public hearing would be held in the legislative chamber, and commissioners were encouraged to publicize it.

• District Attorney’s Requests: The commission reviewed seven requests from the District Attorney. Chair Williams provided a legal analysis, explaining that several requests would require a mandatory referendum because they would alter the framework of county government (separation of powers, budget authority). Specific requests discussed included:

  • Direct appropriation and budget control: Requests to give the DA control over a lump-sum appropriation and to establish a baseline budget floor were deemed incompatible with the current charter’s line-item budget and executive administration provisions.
  • Grant trust account: The request to create a trust account for grant funds under the DA’s sole control was not approved. The commission decided to recommend further research to ensure existing safeguards (federal/state rules, audits) prevent supplanting, rather than implying any unlawful activity.
  • Statement of independence: A request to restate the DA’s independence was considered superfluous, as state law already covers it.
  • Limiting county attorney’s role: A request to restrict the county attorney from prosecuting was noted to be already under consideration by the Board of Legislators, so no action was taken.
  • Safeguarding ethical obligations: A broad request to prevent county policies from impeding the DA’s duties was deemed too vague and could be addressed through existing ethics provisions.
  • Ex officio board membership: A request for the DA to serve on certain boards was not approved; the commission suggested the DA seek appointment through the existing appointment process.

• Performance-Based Incentives for Public Works: A request to amend county law to allow performance-based incentives for early completion and penalties for late completion of public works contracts. The law department advised that such incentives and penalties are not permitted under current state law. After discussion, the commission voted not to approve the request, but instructed that the summary include the commission’s support for the concept and note that the county executive recently signed a lowest responsible bidder law that already provides for penalties. The commission also considered recommending a change to state law.

Key Outcomes

• The commission voted (with one dissenting) not to approve the District Attorney’s seven requests for charter amendments.
• The commission voted (apparently unanimously) not to approve the performance-based incentives request, with the understanding that the summary will acknowledge the commission’s favorable view of the concept and note the existing county law.
• The next meeting is scheduled for May 12, 2026, at which the commission will review the updated draft report (now over 57 pages plus new sections) and vote to set a public hearing date.
• The chair will incorporate all edits and prepare the draft for the May 12 meeting. A group photo is planned for that meeting.