Home Rule Charter on November ballot
by Dolores Hamilton
On Nov. 4 local residents will have the opportunity to decide if they want Iowa Park to be a Home Rule city.

In May, voters approved the drafting of a Home Rule charter and elected 15 people to serve on the commission to put together a charter.

The commission met throughout the summer under the chairmanship of Dr. Erwin Soell to draft a home rule charter and in August sent the charter to the U.S. Justice Department for approval. When the city received notification last week that the charter had been approved, copies of the proposed Home Rule Charter were mailed to all registered voters in the city.

A town hall meeting will be held at 7:30 p.m. Monday in the high school auditorium. Members of the Charter Commission will be on hand to explain the charter and answer questions.

Also, members of the commission will be speaking to local civic clubs and organizations during the next few weeks to explain the charter.

Currently a General Law city, Iowa Park is one of the few cities in the state, with over 5,000 population, that has not adopted home rule, and the only one in Wichita County.

According to the Texas Municipal League (TML), the differences in General Law and Home Rule cities are:

General law cities are smaller cities whose powers are limited and they operate according to specific state statues that define their powers and duties. They are restricted to doing what the state directs or permits them to do. If a general law city has not been granted the expressed or implied power by the state to initiate a particular action, none may be taken.

Home rule cities are cities with populations of more than 5,000 in which citizens have adopted home rule charters. A charter is a document that establishes the city’s governmental structure and provides for the distribution of powers and duties among the various branches of government. In order to be implemented, the charter must be approved by the people at an election. Likewise, changes in the charter must be approved by a vote of the people.

TML also lists the advantages of home rule cities. Rather than looking to state law to determine what they may do, as general law cities must, home rule cities look to the state constitution and state statutes to determine what they may not do.

Home rule cities have the inherent authority to do just about anything that qualifies as a “public purpose” and is not contrary to the constitution or laws of the state.

Home rule cities have many inherent powers. An inherent power is one that is possessed by a city without its having been specifically granted by the state. It is the right to perform an act without having received that right from the Texas Constitution or the state legislature.

TML lists the inherent power to unilaterally annex adjoining areas as one of the most important home rule prerogatives. To annex “unilaterally” means that the city can bring an adjacent unincorporated area into the city without the permission of the persons residing in that area.

Legislation has been passed by the state that requires a city to have a three-year annexation plan to provide property owners in the annexed area with the same services available to city residents.

Another advantage is the city’s ability to pass an ordinance restricting residency. In 2006, Iowa Park’s City Council passed an ordinance prohibiting registered sex offenders from living in certain locations in the city. The state Attorney General came out with the opinion that a general law city does not have the authority under current state law to pass an ordinance prohibiting registered sex offenders from living in certain locations within the municipality - only home rule cities can have a residency ordinance.

This will be the fourth time a home rule charter election has been held. The last election failed by three votes.

An article in the Oct. 31,1985 issue of the Iowa Park Leader offered an explanation of why the charter continued to be turned down: “Some observers feel previous charters have been voted down because less than 10 percent of the qualified voters have cast ballots during special elections; some have found sections of proposed charters they disliked and voted against the entire charter; and possibly the most common reason offered is the general public’s lack of understanding because they did not read copies of the charter provided them.”