Voter guide: San Antonio City Charter amendments

State of play: The City Council last month finalized a list of six amendments to the City Charter, which dictates how local government operates, for the election. They will appear on the ballot as propositions A through F.

• A group of high-profile residents appointed by outgoing Mayor Ron Nirenberg recommended the changes, and city councilmembers weighed in.

Catch up quick: Not all councilmembers were happy with the process, and some said it didn't include enough public input. District 6 Councilmember Melissa Cabello Havrda, who's considering a mayoral run next year, had suggested other changes to put before voters.

• "While these are important changes to the City Charter, we're missing opportunities to propose amendments that directly affect our residents' daily lives," she said in a statement.

The latest: District 5 Councilmember Teri Castillo recently filed a proposal to allow city councilmembers, not just the mayor, to appoint people to the Charter Review Commission in the future to represent their districts.

How it works: San Antonio's City Charter can only be amended every two years by a public vote.

• The charter was last amended in May 2021, when voters approved a change to allow the city to spend bond money on affordable housing.

What's next: Election Day is Nov. 5. Early voting begins Oct. 21.

• Check your voter registration status at VoteTexas.gov.
• Update your name or address with the secretary of state if needed.

Here's what you need to know about all six propositions.

Proposition A

This proposition is aimed at strengthening the Ethics Review Board and has not proven very controversial so far.

It would:

• Add a definition of "conflicts of interest"
• Require enough funding for the board to operate
• And allow the board to choose to accept or decline complaints that have already been resolved elsewhere.

Proposition B

What it means: This amendment would modernize charter language — for example, referring to city officials not only as "he/him" but with more gender-neutral pronouns.

• It would also revise or eliminate parts of the City Charter that state law has superseded.

Proposition C

A "for" vote on this proposition would remove the current caps on the city manager's tenure and pay, allowing the City Council to set those instead of the City Charter.

• That would allow city manager Erik Walsh to potentially earn more money and serve beyond 2027.
• An "against" vote would keep the caps on the city manager.

Context: Voters approved the current cap — which ties the city manager's pay to 10 times the lowest-paid city employee, and caps tenure at eight years — in 2018 during a feud between the firefighters' union and former city manager Sheryl Sculley.

Proposition D

This would allow civilian employees to donate to or campaign for candidates running for local elected office, while ensuring protection if anyone retaliated against an employee for not supporting a campaign.

• City executives would still not be able to participate in local campaigns.

Context: It was not included in Nirenberg's initial charges to be considered, but the union representing city employees pushed for it and found support among a majority of the City Council for placing it on the ballot.

• Supporters say city employees should have the same opportunities to participate in local politics as everyone else.
• Dallas restricts city employees' political activity. Austin and Houston do not, per supporters.

Proposition E

This proposition would raise annual pay for city councilmembers to $70,200, and yearly pay for the mayor to $87,800.

• Future raises would be tied to federal income limits for the city.
• The proposition divided current councilmembers, and community members have shown varying views so far.

Context: Councilmembers are paid $45,722, equivalent to the then-median household income in San Antonio when the pay was set in 2015. The mayor's salary is $61,725.

• Supporters of raising council pay have said it will break down barriers for people to run for office, opening the opportunity to people who couldn't otherwise afford to serve as an elected official.
• Opponents have said it doesn't send the right message to a city known for its high poverty rate.

Proposition F

A "for" vote would extend City Council terms to four years instead of the current two years.

• The maximum amount of time the mayor and councilmembers would be allowed to serve would remain the same, at eight years total — but they would campaign every four years, instead of every two years, if passed.

Context: Supporters say this would allow councilmembers to focus on the job without the distraction of constantly campaigning, and that it can take two years for a new councilmember to learn the ropes and prove effective.

• Opponents say the current two-year terms help keep councilmembers more accountable to residents.