For a month and a half, the Killeen City Council has considered amendments to every page of the city charter, a process expected to reshape the legal structure of the city.

Many of the substantive and most debated changes will alter how residents in Killeen recall their elected officials.

As written, the charter strips the city of much of its authority to regulate a recall, something city staff knows all too well after 2011, when five council members were removed through a recall election.

As a result, the council — under advice of city lawyers — has proposed hundreds of relatively unsubstantial changes, which will update the charter language and eliminate redundancies and potential legal loopholes.

“One of the main reasons for doing this is because of the confusion over the recall last summer,” Mayor Dan Corbin said. “But if we are going to do it, we have to decide whether to just do it halfway or go ahead and revisit the entire document.”

The council must pass a resolution establishing the ballot language by Feb. 12, for submission to the U.S. Department of Justice, if it wants to hold the charter election in May. All changes to the document must be approved by voters.

Public hearings designated for residents to weigh in on the process are tentatively scheduled for January, a city spokesperson said.

District debate

The current consensus of the council is to change the charter so that only residents of single-member districts can sign recall petitions and vote in a recall election, although the agreement is far from unanimous.

During last year’s recall, registered voters from all over the city were allowed to sign the petitions. It was an interpretation of the present charter language that became a sticking point for several single-district council members and their supporters.

Throughout the charter review process, Corbin has proposed returning to a municipal government, which the city had before 2005, that requires four of the seven council members to represent and live in one of the four city wards, but allows all residents to vote for them.

Although Corbin has been undecided over these substantial changes, he said the pre-2005 government would simplify many of the issues that complicated the 2011 recall. So far the council has agreed not to put it on the ballot.

Councilman Terry Clark said he supports maintaining single-member districts in the city, as established in 2005. “As the community grows, the concept of a district will become more and more important,” he said.

Clark gave the example of his own District 3 residents contacting him to push for more water infrastructure in that area of the city.

“Residents can call their council member and tell them what they want,” Clark said. “That’s how it is supposed to work and that’s how it is working now.”

Recall signatures

The proposed changes to the charter limit who can sign recall petitions and who can vote in a recall election.

In 2011, the recall language in the charter was read closely by the city’s legal staff, residents and Corbin, a prominent local lawyer who became intimately involved in the recall legalities.

Revising these sections is much of the impetus for the charter review because key sections of the charter, those regarding the recall process, were not consistent with the amendments establishing district council representation in 2005.

At the time, most residents were not thinking about a recall.

The council’s current proposal is to limit the process for recalling district council members to residents in the district they represent.

During the 2011 recall, all registered voters in the city were allowed to sign the recall petitions and vote in the recall election.

If approved, the new proposal will shrink the number of required signatures on the recall petitions for district council members, while shrinking the pool of residents allowed to sign them.

Council members are debating whether the change will make district council members more or less vulnerable to recall.

Corbin said he thought it would make it easier to recall council members because the number of signatures required would be very small, in some cases as few as 185 signatures.

However, by making the signatures specific to the districts, problems arise in how the city determines the number of signatures required for a recall election.

As it is written now, the number of signatures is based on “at least 51 percent of the total number of votes cast in the last municipal election at which four councilmen were elected.”

The proposal is to tie this language to district races for district recall petitions.

But if those races go uncontested for many years it would skew the numbers and the resulting number may not be an accurate reflection of a district’s population.

Corbin, still undecided on the issue, agreed the process could be greatly simplified if the number was determined through a percentage of the number of registered voters in each district, as is the case in Copperas Cove.

But Corbin, who does not vote on council matters, has not had the support to put these options on the ballot.

E pluribus unum

Clark disagrees with the council’s current proposal to limit recall petitions.

He said when a council member commits an offense worthy of recall, it affects all residents.

If the city votes to limit who can sign the petitions, three-fourths of the city would not be allowed to weigh in on the recall of district council members.

“When the council conducts a vote, whether it is three to four, or seven to zero, their decisions affect the entire community. Every citizen should have the opportunity to sign a petition of recall,” Clark said.

Acts of individuals

Councilman Jose Segarra said a lot of the signatures on the recall petition for former District 2 councilman Juan Rivera did not come from his district.

Segarra said the majority of the constituents in his district did not want Rivera recalled.

Rivera did not vote in favor of the resolution that approved the $750,000 buyout of former City Manager Connie Green, which led to the 2011 recall.

“He voted against it,” Segarra said. “He did the right thing and yet he was kicked out.”

Segarra argues that the system needs to provide only those who vote a council member into office with the ability to take him out. “It gives people that opportunity to focus on that individual, instead of, ‘Get rid of everybody because I’m unhappy with everybody.’”


Over the past half century, many state laws have been created that supersede laws set forth in the Killeen city charter, originally written in 1949.

As a result, city lawyers advised council members to eliminate many of the laws from the charter that are now covered in the state constitution.

Clark has cautioned the council to slow down in its slashing of the document. “We have been going at this with a chainsaw, but now we have to get out the scalpel and make sure we are doing our job carefully.”

Clark believes the large number of changes may be difficult for voters to understand when the ballot initiatives appear in May.

Corbin has maintainted that, however challenging it may be to read the laws, an overhaul is necessary to fix the broken document. “I think the public is often a lot smarter than we give them credit for. But it’s our duty to make it understandable by the public.”

Contact Brandon Janes at or (254) 501-7552

(2) comments


@Corbin has maintainted that, however challenging it may be to read the laws, an overhaul is necessary to fix the broken document. “I think the public is often a lot smarter than we give them credit for. But it’s our duty to make it understandable by the public.”------ After reading the above article today,there seems to be a lot of, one will vote for this or that but another one doesn't think either is the right or fair thing to do. vis a vis.- Councilman Segarra himself, seems to have a personal interest concerning just 1 person, ex councilman Juan Rivera, as his reasoning on why he's making his decision on any re-call changes to the charter, concerning who is allowed to vote and in what areas the voter should be allowed to cast the vote. I personally have never cared for that type of reasoning when a decision is to be made concerning a group as a whole, not just 1 aquaintence or individual. When it comes to something as important as the voters rights, and especially their tax money being involved, the entire lot of voters should be thought of, not just one who was a councilman at one time. Mr Rivera didn't as Mr Segarra states, vote for the pay off of Ex City Manager Green in the amount of $750,000,but maybe that isn't the only reason all of the council members were voted to be removed by so many citizens. It could have also been for other reasons that had become disagreeable to the citizen voters. And so the voters during Re-call decided to remove all. To start fresh Below which was posted in KDH in July 2010 while all Recalled council members were sitting, is a couple of the things that could have disturbed the city's voters as a whole. One item that could have caused a problem and upset the citizens was money being spent by council members in another city instead of where the money was collected. This was the trip to Salado when not only such things as polo shirts, a grill and other etc was bought to entertain council members while they said they did their council work, But thousands of dollars,was also spent to bring the councils own counselor, from Denton,Tx. into talk to them, and advice them on how to better get along with each other, (the counselor stated he charged $10,-15,000 for his work, but, City Mangaer Green said it would only be $5,000-10,000) Mr Rivera was one of the attendees as stated in the KDH article. A Mr Moreno appeared before the council and complained that he thought tee shirts weren't needed nor the trip out of town to have a Killeen City Council meeting.(showing below) A second item that may have made voters feel the need to be rid of the entire council during Recall, was the fact they decided to spend more money (thousands of dollars again) to have a company look for candidates to fill the seat of the city manager who had been paid the hundreds of thousands of dollars himself when he left city employement. The people this company brought forward were un satisfactory,so it was again a waste of tax payer money. All of these things can add up and the voters have the right to be rid of anyone who they feel may not be looking out for their best benefit. Probably the Croix de Guerre was, the tax payers were never given the reason the council paid Green $750,000 instead of the $455,000 they had originally stated was owed. Even though Mr Rivera didn't sign off on the amount,he could have told the tax payer why it was given.He was at the same meetings as all other councilmen/women were when the decision was made. All that was ask which started the Recall was , Why did you spend so much of our tax money? No one would ever answered, the only Re-course was to have the Re-call. Killeen pays speaker thousands to pull council together Jul 23, 2010 [url removed] Salvador Moreno - Funds used for Council Retreats Salvador Moreno, 1817 Kingwood Drive, expressed his concern regarding the recent Council retreat held in Salado at a cost to the taxpayers. He believed the money should have stayed in Killeen, and he questioned whether the Council really needed polo shirts. City Manager Green advised the money for the retreat came from funds set aside for the Council training, and this was a training session. [url removed]

(Edited by staff.)


In 2011, the recall language in the charter was read closely by the city’s legal staff, residents and Corbin, a prominent local lawyer who became intimately involved in the recall legalities!! Which is why it's totally ridiculous that he's involved in changing the charter now. Who solicited Corbin's services to get involved in the interpretation of the city charter? Were they a group of concerned a voters? Indeed not. They were the people sitting on the council that didn't want to be recalled. Charter revision seems like a way to make sure that people in this town who like to control how city is run stay in charge of how the show is run. Some of them did the right thing and shouldn't have been recalled says one of our councilmen? Newsflash: Recall was well past the $750K buyout. Didn't that recalled councilman own an insurance business? Who were some of the insured clients? Conflicts of interest abound all over Killeen. It's shocking that we have a current councilman affiliated with a military museum project which gets its funding in part from KEDC which in turn is funded by the taxes Killeen collects and of these taxes the council has input in deciding the amounts allocated to entities like KEDC.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.