City Council postpones ‘home rule’ vote again, this time indefinitely with the sponsor resigning

CLARKSVILLE, TN (CLARKSVILLE NOW) – At their regular session on Thursday, the Clarksville City Council voted to postpone an ordinance to put “home rule” on the upcoming ballot. After passing the first vote on June 3, the council postponed the second vote at their meeting in July until March 2. Now, the measure has been postponed again, and this time it’s indefinite.

Passing the ordinance would have given Clarksville citizens the opportunity to vote by referendum on whether or not they would like to see the city’s charter change from a “private act” charter to a home rule charter. A home rule charter would essentially allow Clarksville to make changes to its charter every two years via referendum without state approval.

Need for education

Councilperson Deanna McLaughlin made the motion to postpone after the measure was read once more before the council, citing the need for further education.

“I wasn’t part of this voting body when this came up before, and I had one short week to bounce this off my constituents. I would like to make a motion to postpone indefinitely for now,” she said. “The reason being, there could be a lot of potential consequences to this action, and even though this vote that we would make on this would not bind us to this home rule, it would allow for the public to decide. I think there needs to be a lot of education.”

McLaughlin added she would also like time to familiarize herself with the pros and cons of home rule, as well as possibly the opportunity to hear from an expert from the Municipal Technical Advisory Service (MTAS).

“I feel like we don’t have to rush because there is not another ballot until next year. We have time to go through the process, hear from an expert or two in this field, decide what the pros and cons are so that we can make an educated decision. In the meantime, (we can) educate ourselves and the public.”

Postponement support

Councilperson Stacey Streetman spoke in favor of the postponement.

“I support my colleagues and their request of this. I know that it was referenced last week by a different council member that if you ask 10 people what home rule is, you’re going to get 10 different answers, and I’ve experienced that myself as well from talking to different people. So I fully support your request (to postpone), and I would ask that others vote along with us,” Streetman told the council.

Councilperson Travis Holleman spoke up against home rule and cited concerns about amendments that could be made to the charter. He explained that these amendments could be worded in such a way that they entice voters.

“Any correction to fix home rule would take two years to fix. We can make loopholes for elected officials to exploit,” Holleman said, noting the council could pass amendments ending term limits or allowing private bonus payments. “Please vote no on that, or yes to postpone.”

Butler: ‘Just take the vote’

Councilperson Wanda Allen spoke in favor of postponing until April but not indefinitely; however, the motion to postpone could not be amended per parliamentary procedure.

Councilperson Trisha Butler, who sponsored the measure, explained she didn’t want to see the measure postponed again. She noted she would like to have the matter resolved by April 7. Butler later provided further clarity to that statement by officially announcing her resignation, which will take effect that day.

“We’ve had months to get MTAS in here to have a conversation with us. We can’t hold the newer members to that, but every one of us, if we wanted more information from MTAS, we could have scheduled that. It’s been six months or more,” Butler said. “I believe that postponing this, (and) this is not to the person who said to postpone it, but I believe in general, that postponing this is a cowardly move. It’s a (cowardly) move because we don’t just want to take the vote, and dang it, just take the vote already. It’s been forever.”

Councilperson Karen Reynolds said she recently held a town hall meeting for Ward 10, where she claimed about 70% of people in attendance supported home rule.

“I know that the person who made this proposal needed more time, but everybody else on this council has had a year. We’ve had a year to review, we’ve had a year to communicate and a year to do our due diligence,” Reynolds said.

What does ‘indefinite’ mean?

The bulk of the discussion centered on whether the measure could be brought forth again if it was postponed indefinitely. Councilperson Wallace Redd inquired as to if postponing indefinitely would ultimately kill the ordinance.

“It does not say, anywhere that I’ve read, that it kills it forevermore. It says it kills it for the session,” said City Attorney Lance Baker. He later explained how the matter could be brought up again if so desired.

“You can bring it back, but you have to first undo the motion to postpone indefinitely. You have to reconsider that and undo that if it passes. And only then, if it gets undone that way, can you then vote on the main question again. Otherwise, it is accurate to say that it is killed forever,” Baker told the council.

The motion to postpone the second home rule vote indefinitely passed 9-4. Voting no were Ambar Marquis, Allen, Reynolds and Butler.

Correction: The final line of a prior version of this report giving the vote total should have said “passed.” The article has been updated.