Springfield's Charter is not simply another city ordinance. It is our city's constitution, and ultimately it belongs to us — the voters.
Last month, City Council voted unanimously, 8-0, to place four proposed Charter amendments before Springfield voters. One of them, Question 3, deserves far more public attention than it has received.
Question 3 asks voters to move important purchasing authority out of the Charter and allow this council — and future councils — to establish those rules by ordinance. The council used its emergency authority to advance an amendment that would reduce voters' direct control over future spending and purchasing decisions.
The concern is not today’s promise. It is tomorrow’s power. Once authority moves from the Charter
to ordinance, every future council inherits the ability to change it without requiring voter approval.
Springfield residents should also understand the timeline.
On April 7, voters rejected the proposed hotel and motel tax for the convention and events center for the second time. Just 14 days later, on April 21, development of this Charter amendment was underway in a City Council workshop without public comment or interaction.
Then, on Aug. 10, the council voted 8-0 under emergency authority, without a second reading, to send these amendments to voters. The intervening four months provided ample time for the normal two-reading process. A consequential Charter change should not bypass additional public notice and consideration without a compelling reason.
I am not accusing the City Council of using Question 3 to circumvent the convention center vote. I have not found evidence establishing that connection. But the timing raises legitimate questions, and those questions make transparency even more important.
Because I wanted to understand how these amendments were developed, who proposed them, why they were considered necessary, and what discussions occurred behind them, I filed a Missouri Sunshine Law request. The city failed to properly respond to my original request. Only after a complaint was filed with the Missouri Attorney General's Office did I receive a response estimating nearly $400 in charges for records concerning proposed changes to Springfield's own Charter.
Springfield residents should not have to pay hundreds of dollars to understand changes to their own city constitution. Missouri law allows fees to be waived when disclosure serves the public interest.
If understanding how Springfield's constitution is being amended does not qualify as being in the public interest, what does?
If a purchasing rule remains in the Charter, council cannot simply change it whenever circumstances or political priorities change. If a future council went too far after those rules were moved to ordinance, residents might have to petition simply to restore the voter control they already have today. A "no" vote on Charter Amendment 3 would leave the current Charter structure in place, where it belongs.
Springfield voters are being asked to give up a measure of direct control over the rules governing how their city spends and purchases. That kind of authority should never be surrendered casually, quietly or quickly.
If City Council believes Charter Amendment 3 is necessary, it should have no hesitation about opening the records, explaining the process, and showing residents exactly how and why this amendment was created.
The Charter restrains City Council because changing it requires voter approval. An ordinance is different: Council itself can later rewrite it to fit its spending priorities without returning to the voters.
The Charter belongs to the people of Springfield. Before asking voters to give up any part of that control, City Hall owes them transparency and the full truth. Not a Trojan Horse backdoor to unauthorized spending, unchecked contracting authority or decisions made behind closed doors.
The city calls this change “modernization,” but it really is a transfer of power. And when you strip away the wording and look at what actually changes, it simply does not pass the smell test.
Start asking questions, Springfield.
Kevin Mueller lives in Springfield.
This article originally appeared on Springfield News-Leader: Beware the fine print on Springfield Question 3 in November | Opinion
