City Council Member Dan Smith's attempt to discredit accurate reporting about his charter change proposals by manufacturing controversy over semantics does not serve our community's need for clear, factual information about his important ballot measures.
Due to his claims, we feel it's important to take a deeper look at how he's attempting to quietly recast the power structure of Katy's government in a way that's not apparent to most voters.
Smith first proposed changing the city's charter to eliminate term limits. When residents revolted, he proposed keeping term limits but doubling the total time council members can serve from 6 to 12 years. Council members Rory Robinson and Chris Harris gave him the votes needed to put the issue on the ballot in May for voters to approve.
Charter changes are a big deal and should be handled with care. That's why Katy's former mayors have sharply criticized Smith's plan.
A city charter acts as a municipality's constitution, outlining the structure and powers of its local government, defining the roles and responsibilities of elected officials, and establishing how the city operates based on local preferences rather than just following general state laws; it is the foundational document for the City of Katy.
While changes to Katy's City Charter can legally bypass the Charter Review Commission, this circumvention defeats the purpose of having the Commission in the first place. Council Members Smith, Harris, and Robertson have chosen to skip this traditional review step despite the Commission being specifically designed to provide valuable oversight.
The Charter Commission, led by former Mayor Skip Conner and staffed by respected community leaders, was established to evaluate proposed charter changes carefully. By avoiding this review process, these Council Members bypass an essential safeguard in the city's governance system.
Council Member Smith claims term limit changes are urgently needed to prevent a complete Council turnover in the next 12 months, arguing that the city cannot afford to lose its current high-quality council leadership. However, this alleged crisis is one of their own making.
Smith, Robertson, and Harris have known about this impending turnover for three years. Yet, they waited until the eleventh hour to act, conveniently bypassing the Charter Review Commission in the name of urgency.
Their lack of action raises a serious question: What kind of leadership deliberately delays addressing a known problem for three years, only to use the resulting time crunch to justify skipping established review processes? Their inaction undermines their claims of exceptional leadership and their argument for emergency measures.
While the term limits issue is getting all the attention, there is a much more concerning change that the three men on council have sent to the voters for approval. It is one that would recast the power structure in favor of the City Council by removing the Mayor's unilateral ability to choose who runs his departments.
The current City Charter grants the mayor authority to fire department heads, a power crucial for implementing reforms when a mayor finds a department is being unresponsive to his directives.
However, the proposed changes would fundamentally undermine this authority by allowing terminated department heads to appeal to the City Council, which could then overturn the Mayor's decision. While this might seem fair on the surface—after all, other city employees, including the city administrator, already have appeal rights—it would create a dangerous power imbalance.
Consider this scenario: A newly elected mayor attempts to address problems that voters mandated through their vote. However, a department head refuses to implement these changes. If that department head has just three buddies on the City Council, they could effectively block the Mayor's authority and allow a department head to continue operating against the Mayor's directives with impunity.
Such a system would cripple executive authority and potentially create a dysfunction that would be harmful to the city.
Ironically, the same Council members who claim their leadership is indispensable fail to recognize how this change would severely handicap the city's leadership structure and its ability to implement the will of the voters.