(From the City of Joplin)Joplin citizens are invited to comment on items under consideration by the Charter Review Commission in an upcoming Public Hearing. The public meeting is scheduled for 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 22, 2025, in the City Council Chambers of Joplin City Hall, 602 South Main Street.
At the September 15, 2025, City Council meeting, the Commission was charged with considering the five items listed below as amendments to the Charter. Citizens are encouraged to comment on these items and suggest other Charter items to be considered at this time.
The original five items are:
Should the Charter be amended to change Section 13.04 to reduce the number of signatures required for a nominating petition, and alternatively, for a nominating petition for an incumbent city council member who has already met the signature requirements?
Should the Charter be amended to change the term “emergency ordinance” in Section 2.12 to “expedited ordinance”?
Should the Charter be amended to remove the requirement that the Public Works Director be a professional engineer registered in the State of Missouri?
Should the Charter be amended to remove any publication requirements that are required under the current Charter?
After hearing from residents and reviewing all input, the Commission will submit its final recommendations to the City Council, which will consider whether to place these items on the April 7, 2026, municipal ballot. The final report is due by December 1, 2025.
Members of the Commission include: Phil Stinnett, Ryan Stanley, Melodee Colbert-Kean, Michael Seibert, Dan Pekarek, Diane Reid-Adams, Morris Glaze, Rob O'Brian, and Chuck Brown (Chairman). For questions, please contact Holly Nagy, City Clerk, at 417-624-0820, ext. 1220 or Hnagy@joplinmo.org.
Should the Charter be amended to change the rate of pay of the Council from $5.00 per meeting to an increased amount?
Should the Charter be amended to change Section 13.04 to reduce the number of signatures required for a nominating petition, and alternatively, for a nominating petition for an incumbent city council member who has already met the signature requirements?
Should the Charter be amended to change the term “emergency ordinance” in Section 2.12 to “expedited ordinance”?
Should the Charter be amended to remove the requirement that the Public Works Director be a professional engineer registered in the State of Missouri?
Should the Charter be amended to remove any publication requirements that are required under the current Charter?
After hearing from residents and reviewing all input, the Commission will submit its final recommendations to the City Council, which will consider whether to place these items on the April 7, 2026, municipal ballot. The final report is due by December 1, 2025.
Members of the Commission include: Phil Stinnett, Ryan Stanley, Melodee Colbert-Kean, Michael Seibert, Dan Pekarek, Diane Reid-Adams, Morris Glaze, Rob O'Brian, and Chuck Brown (Chairman). For questions, please contact Holly Nagy, City Clerk, at 417-624-0820, ext. 1220 or Hnagy@joplinmo.org.
3 comments:
Most of those on the Commission are former City Council members. Appointed by the current Council and Mayor. Most, if not all of the proposed changes benefit Council incumbents. Is this the best process for the City of Joplin and all its citizens? I have questions.
'Should the Charter be amended to change Section 13.04 to reduce the number of signatures required for a nominating petition, and alternatively, for a nominating petition for an incumbent city council member who has already met the signature requirements? ' (from above)
If an incumbent is using signatures from 4 years ago to qualify, and many of those citizens have moved, died, or are no longer in the city of Joplin, or no longer support the incumbent, then those signatures are invalid. This opens the door to challenges from others on the ballot to disqualify the candidacy of the incumbent and change the election results. A letter from the challenger to the names on the petition asking for address verification would result in a return of 20% or less, I would guess. Highly risky for the incumbents. Ask a lawyer on this one, but I think this needs further thought. I understand the Commission wants to grease the decks for the incumbents, but still...
Bless their hearts.
Post a Comment