Council opposes anti-referendum bill, seeks local dialogue on charter

The issue of local control was center stage at last night’s meeting of Springfield City Council, which passed a resolution 7-1 reaffirming commitment to the principle.

The resolution declared a second aim as well: to initiate a community discussion on the appropriate role of referendums in the implementation of the city’s Forward SGF comprehensive plan.

The bill was promised by Councilmember Brandon Jenson at the Feb. 2 council meeting during his remarks to Springfield Area Chamber of Council President and CEO Matt Morrow. Morrow had appeared during the public comment portion of that meeting to claim responsibility for requesting clarity through state legislation on the constitutionality of Springfield’s referendum process. 

The resulting state legislation, House Bill 2847, would disallow referendums for zoning changes, but only in home-rule cities located within counties with populations of 260,000-300,000 – a description that matches only Springfield.

Rep. Jeff Knight, R-Lebanon, filed the bill, despite the fact that his district does not include any part of the Queen City.

Last night’s bill came before council with three sponsors, with Jenson joined by Councilmember Craig Hosmer, who also spoke out against the state legislation on Feb. 2, but also Mayor Jeff Schrag, a business leader who ran for office on the campaign goal of efficiency in government.

Schrag explained his decision to cosponsor the bill.

“I came to this bill as a cosponsor because I felt like a conversation was being had that was very important to the future of the city in which the city of Springfield was not a participant,” he said.

He emphasized that the city was not involved in the filing of the bill, but he indicated that community discussion is needed on whether referendum reform is needed.

One issue, Schrag noted, is the number of signatures required for a zoning referendum – a bar that has been described as low, requiring petition signatures from only 10% of the number of voters participating in the most recent previous election. Another issue to be discussed is the city charter’s list of issues for which referendums are not permitted.

“I hope we can all agree to disagree in an agreeable manner, and that we can take the higher road and assume the best from everyone else,” Schrag said.

The lone holdout in the vote was Councilmember Derek Lee, a civil engineer by trade – but Lee did not express support for the House bill. Rather, his “no” vote was based on his belief that discussion would not be the result of the measure.

“You know where it’s headed, and it’s not a discussion or a conversation,” he said.

He added that the two sides are clear, based on ongoing discussions for several years.

“I feel very comfortable at the end of whatever discussion or conversation that we have, I can tell you what it’s going to be: The developers are going to want to have more certainty, and the neighborhood leaders and our voters are going to want to keep it,” he said. “I don’t see any scenario where our voters are going to vote away their ability to vote.”

Lee added, “I think that this is just going to be bickering.”

Councilmember Abe McGull was absent and did not cast a vote on the measure.

Reached this morning, Morrow invited Springfield Business Journal to sit in on an upcoming discussion of the council legislation.

He also offered a statement of support for the council resolution. The resolution has six sections that can be summarized as follows:

• Council reaffirms the city’s commitment to local control.

• Council urges the Missouri General Assembly to continue its tradition of supporting communities empowered to govern themselves in accordance with local needs and values.

• Council reaffirms that Springfield residents should determine any charter changes.

• The city clerk is directed to transmit a copy of the resolution to each member of the southwest Missouri delegation of the Missouri General Assembly upon passage.

• Council initiates a community discussion on the role of local referendum in implementing its comprehensive plan.

• The resolution goes into effect immediately upon adoption.

“With regard to the resolution, we agree with all six sections of the resolution and look forward to a productive dialogue,” Morrow said.

Sponsor support
Jenson said he was pleased to be joined in drafting the resolution by Schrag, and together they arrived at what he considered optimal legislation.

He noted the resolution does not mention House Bill 2847 specifically, and he would have liked to include that.

“It sends a clear message to our delegation of state legislators that we value the importance of local control and believe that conversations need to be held locally, even – and especially – when there are differing opinions,” he said.

He said the mayor’s touch on the resolution language minimizes potential acrimony from the legislature for taking a stand.

“Every day that HB 2847 remains before the General Assembly, it creates further harm to the city and the chamber,” Jenson said. “It threatens our community support for some major initiatives over the next six months that’s going to require goodwill between voters and the city, including some priorities that the chamber has been an advocate for.”

He said council has no control over the House bill, but the bill upholds the value of a conversation about the charter.

Jenson also pointed out some troubling discourse and communication about the House bill, though most has been direct and respectful.

He offered a letter to the editor in SBJ by Susan Robinson as an example of positive discourse on the subject.

However, Jenson said he felt compelled to comment on some inappropriate rhetoric.

“When we talk about the importance of having a local conversation, it’s important that we’re all engaging in a healthy local conversation,” he said.

He said he had seen name-calling and altered photos of community leaders on social media, including misogynistic attacks directed at Councilmember Callie Carroll.

“You can disagree with any one of our actions or priorities, and we certainly have disagreement with each other at some points, but I hope that we demonstrate a way to engage in that disagreement where you’re not name-calling or cutting each other down, understanding that we all want to make our city better, even if we have a different understanding or different ways of achieving that outcome,” Jenson said.

Jenson said he had also received critiques from the business community for making this a conversation right now and distracting from things the city is trying to do.

“I recognize how harmful it is to be having this type of conversation when we’re going through those efforts, but the genesis of this issue is important to keep in mind,” he said. “I would remind everyone that it wasn’t I who asked the state legislature to file a bill and force this conversation to happen. The chamber took a public action that has ignited a firestorm of community conversation to which this body is having to respond as representatives of the city and its charter.”

Jenson said he had also heard a critique that the conversation should not have happened in a public meeting.

“As a public servant, I don’t believe that it serves the highest interest to engage in back-door conversations, especially on issues of accountability,” he said. “I have consistently and publicly owned the mistakes that I have made during my service on council because that’s how I was raised, and that’s how I think we build a healthier community.”

Jenson added that people are distrustful of government because they don’t see their legislators reflecting their voices and concern.

“It’s my hope, both for the health of community trust and for the really awesome efforts of our city that this resolution makes it clear that HB 2847 should be withdrawn and that our local delegation, regardless of political strategy, use their official powers as representatives of our community to fend off the numerous attempts to preempt local control that are currently occurring in Jeff City,” he said, adding that HB 2847 is only the most recent example.

Other council input
Councilmember Monica Horton began her comments on the council resolution with a singular audience in mind.

“I just have a comment if Rep. Knight is listening tonight,” she said. “I just simply say, ‘Pull that bill.’”

Horton said she agrees with Lee on just one thing – that all sides are clear already. However, she said, that is not a sufficient reason to avoid the conversation.

“You certainly should not leave the table of the conversation just because there’s a fear that it’s just going to get ugly. You press forward anyway,” she said.

She added that she fundamentally does not agree with weakening referendums or initiative petitions, but she expressed support for the resolution, which she called a symbolic gesture.

“I think a lot of people are counting on us to forget about it, quite honestly,” she said. “I do think that this has raised alarm here locally, and we need to continue to watch this because it is concerning.”

Councilmember Heather Hardinger also supported a community conversation.

“Sometimes when you have an issue like this that can be divisive for a community, bring it into the light to discuss it and talk about it, even if you don’t agree,” she said. “We can at least have a conversation about clarity, a conversation about the facts, and then make a decision with all of that information together.”

In his remarks, Hosmer emphasized that Springfield is a home-rule city, governed by its charter.

“We’ve taken an oath of office to say we will support the charter and we will defend the charter,” he said. “The citizens of Springfield aren’t going to be part of that debate, because it’s going to be happening in Jefferson City.”

He added that the charter has been in effect for 70 years with the referendum process used only once. In that instance, a council decision was overturned.

“That is democracy,” he said. “It may not be pretty; it may not be the way you want it to work, but that’s the way we established the charter in the 1950s, and it’s worked very well.”

Hosmer said the council resolution is important.

“Local control has been on our legislative agenda since I’ve been on council, 13 years,” he said. “We want local control.”

Hosmer added that he served on the state legislature for a dozen years.

“For a representative in Lebanon to be dealing with an issue that affects Springfield is unusual at best,” he said.

Added Hosmer, “There are Democrat and Republican legislators, House members and senators, that the chamber went to, and obviously they told them no, and so what did they do? They go behind our back – because I didn’t know about it until it became public – and they go to a representative in Laclede County, and they get them to basically change our charter without a vote of the people. That’s not right.”

Hosmer added that the chamber believes it runs the city.

“The power of the referendum is the one thing that people still retain in the charter that gives them the power to change things that we do that they think are wrong,” he said.

Carroll said she supported the council resolution.

“The hatred for the chamber is not helping our city in a healthy way at all,” she said. “In order for Springfield to be a successful city, we have to have a strong city, a strong chamber, and strong neighborhoods as well as business community. I think any time that we find opportunities to put the other one down, I don’t think is helpful.”

She said that the city’s relationships and conversations can get better with these partners, and that is necessary for the city’s success, particularly with initiatives that are underway.

“Let’s work with them,” she said. “I think we can be better. I want a Springfield where Springfield and the chamber and neighborhoods can work together.”

Councilmember Bruce Adib-Yazdi criticized the strategy used to move the state legislation forward.

“The tactic that has been used – using a termed-out representative to carry a bill that affects our local city charter – is just bad policy,” he said.

He added that the conversation called for in the resolution needs to include a full coalition of community leaders.

“If we’re going to have that conversation, it needs to be a full-on open discussion with the entire stakeholder group,” he said.