Mayor or manager? Killeen mayor’s power, responsibility ongoing debate | Local News

At home, the mayor is empowered to lead discussion during City Council meetings and to engage with his or her constituency. The mayor does not, however, have administrative duties — and it is this line in Article III, Section 25, of the charter that drew a line of professional disagreement between Mayor Pro Tem Ken Wilkerson and Mayor Debbie Nash-King during a discussion of the appointment of City Council members to various boards and commissions.

Under Killeen’s city manager-city council form of government, “administrative” duties associated with the running of the city are executed by the city manager; this is meant to level the mayor and City Council, empowering them as directors of city policy and solicitors of public opinion. In contrast, a mayor-council form of government would see the mayor assume all or most administrative duties, leading and taking direction from his or her city council. In that form, there usually is no city manager, and the mayor fulfills those duties, typically as a full-time job.

The relationship of the mayor and city manager to the council has been an ongoing discussion; just earlier this year, residents of Killeen voted on several proposed amendments to the charter, and in 2021, Killeen’s City Council raised two proposals to the city’s governing standards that would have prevented the mayor from attempting to influence a vote during discussion of an item at City Council meetings or from speaking on a matter after the vote. That proposal failed in a vote of 5-2, with then-Mayor Jose Segarra saying the following:

“When you run for mayor, citizens expect certain things from you. They want to know what you’re gonna do in there, even if you don’t have a vote. The only thing that the mayor has, is that power, to try to steer the council. The mayor does not call council members behind the scenes, he does it up here where everyone can see it. You risk that opportunity where people will try to do things behind the scene.”

Wilkerson described that proposal as an attempt to keep decorum; at the time, the council member said that an overly verbose mayor may lead to a lack of decorum.

In the latest debate about the mayor’s role, Wilkerson is spearheading a move to change the way council members are appointed to the city’s various board and committees — vital components of the local government where proposed laws are often hatched and thoroughly discussed before they get to the City Council for final approval.

According to City Council’s governing standards document, the current process of appointment starts with council members completing an interest form for first-, second- and third-choice committees. The mayor then takes that information, and using his or her best judgment, assigns council members to more than a dozen different committees.

The mayor pro tem said at Tuesday’s council meeting that the mayor currently exercises administrative power when they should not, according to the city charter. He said the same in an email correspondence with the Herald Wednesday.

“I am attempting to bring the mayor’s role in alignment with the City Charter, and produce a system that allows council members to serve to the extent citizens expect. These appointments are an extension of the responsibility council members are obligated to serve. I am not sure where the idea came from that the mayor exerts control over council members in this manner, but due to our identity as a council-manager form of government and the language in Section 25 of our Charter our current system is inappropriate,” he said.

Wilkerson described his concerns with the process as “procedural.”

Wilkerson’s proposal Tuesday called for the creation of a three-part process for allowing council members to select their own boards. Selection would first go to the mayor, then down the line based on current tenure — meaning how long a council member has served in his or her role without a break.

Nash-King objected to the proposal, arguing that she had remained fair and neutral and pointed out that the issue of fairness only arose this term, about a month after she was elected mayor.

“Now, I’m the mayor and there’s a need to change but there wasn’t a need to change when (Segarra) was,” Nash-King questioned at last week’s council meeting.

Wilkerson’s proposal on how appointments are made was tentatively approved in a vote of 4-1, with council members Michael Boyd, Jessica Gonzalez and Riakos Adams joining Wilkerson in supporting the proposal. Councilwoman Nina Cobb was the sole vote in opposition as Segarra left the meeting at 11 p.m., just before the item was put to a vote.

The proposal is among several potential changes to the city’s “Governing Standards and Expectations,” which lays out procedures and policies that the council must follow. The document is typically updated every year, and the council is set to vote on the proposed changes this coming Tuesday.

Wilkerson has maintained that the debate is not particular to the current mayor.

However, while the pair remained professional in the latter half of the meeting, tensions flared when the City Council discussed whether to table the issue of committee appointments until Tuesday.

Nash-King expressed her frustration with the situation, saying, “There has never been any problem with these appointments while Mayor Segarra was in charge. Now there’s a problem. The only difference is he’s a man and I’m a woman.”

On Friday, the Herald asked the mayor if she stood by that statement, among other questions. Her response:

“I’ve always tried to relay in our council meetings that, as Mayor, I want what is best for the residents, council and the city. As I mentioned in our recent council meeting, this matter could have been resolved last year when the council spent months submitting revisions to the City Charter, and now the same charter is being used to justify taking authority from the mayor’s position to appoint council members to boards and committees, which has been the tradition for at least 20 years,” Nash-King said in her statement. “Citizens have contacted me questioning the motives behind the reason for the changes to the Governing Standards and Expectations, which silences the voice of the mayor. I also question why it is a problem now during my tenure, which brings me to the conclusion that the only difference between past and present leadership is gender. No matter what the outcome of the council’s vote on Tuesday’s night, I will continue to work diligently with the council to move the city forward.”

Wilkerson is also standing by his efforts to adopt the new way of appointing council members. The current method of the mayor making the appointments — which is believed to have been in place for decades — goes against Section 25 of charter, Wilkerson said in a phone call with the Herald on Friday.

That section outlines the power of the mayor, which says in part: The mayor “shall have no regular administrative duties. The mayor shall only be entitled to vote upon matters considered by the council in the event there is a tie.”

While Wilkerson has questioned the mayor’s role before, he said he decided to take action recently because of Nash-King’s initial proposed council committee assignments earlier this month, which the council did not approve. In that initial proposal, Nash-King appointed herself to six different board and committee seats, and Wilkerson to four of them.

Since then, Nash-King made a new list of proposed appointments, in which she is on three boards and committees, and Wilkerson is on five.

That revised list of appointments was not moved forward at Tuesday’s meeting.

If it does resurface, Wilkerson said he still plans to vote against it and push to get the governing standards changed.

“We can fix this item in short order, and get on with the business” of the city, he said Friday.

Moreover, there is nothing preventing the current appointees — set last year — from meeting, even though newly elected Councilman Ramon Alvarez is not yet on any boards, Wilkerson said, reacting to criticism that his efforts to change the procedure have stalled meetings from happening.

For those who say Wilkerson is trying to take away power from the mayor, and give it to himself or others on the council, “I say go back and read the charter,” Wilkerson said.

“The mayor is part of the council. She has a voice, but just doesn’t vote,” he said when asked if he considers the mayor a part of the council.

After some heated discussion and frayed tempers at the Tuesday meeting, Boyd spoke up.

“I am concerned that this kind of discussion is on display on the dais … I believe our citizens may lose confidence as a result,” he said.

However, when the topic was brought up again during discussion of the governing standards document, both Wilkerson and Nash-King had cooled off.

In the emailed response to the Herald, Wilkerson said the following.

“Let me add that this is not emotional or personal. It’s procedural. I hope both KDH and the Mayor can understand the difference,” he said.

In the phone call on Friday, Wilkerson said Nash-King does tend “to take things personal.”

Additional proposed changes to the city’s governing standards include the following:

Modify section 1-80: to disallow the mayor pro tem from voting when acting as mayor. Section 1-80 discusses the mayor pro tem’s responsibilities and powers when acting as the mayor.

Strike section 2-70: which says that no city tax dollars will be used to support non profit events. This item, which is meant to prevent council members from having potential ethical problems, was raised in response to questions from council members regarding the city’s policy on purchasing tables or chairs at fundraising events.

Modify section 2-80: to add the Juneteenth parade as a city supported event. Section 2-80 provides a list of events the city supports financially and otherwise; the addition to 2-80 was part of a “clerical error” last year when Juneteenth was added as a recognized holiday, but the parade was not added.

Modify section 1-50: to allow council members one minute to comment on city comments. Boyd said this section would allow the City Council to offer acknowledgement or reassurance rather than moving immediately onto the next agenda item. Section 1-50 governs Citizens Comments.

Modify 2-60: to increase the amount of allowable sponsored meetings per year from one to three. Nash-King pointed out that the city would lose revenue due to a loss booking power, but Boyd argued that the change would be to the benefit of residents.

Modify 2-60: to increase the list of sponsored meeting locations. Section 2-60 allows members of the City Council to utilize government spaces for a certain amount of meetings per year; it also lists which spaces are available for use for the purpose of community engagement by the City Council.

The above proposals will be brought back at Tuesday’s City Council meeting for formal approval.