Proposed charter changes for the November ballot.

Propositions 4 & 5
Propositions 4 & 5 propose changes in the number of signatures necessary for petitions
for Referendum and Initiative petitions {Sec. 9.3(a)} and Recall petitions {Sec. 10.3(a) }.
The proposed changes reduce these percentages.
Proposition 4: Shall Section 9.3(a) of the City’s Charter be amended to
reduce the percentage of signatures required for Initiative and
Referendum petitions from twelve percent (12%) to eight percent (8%)?
Proposition 5: Shall Section 10.3(a) of the City’s Charter be amended to
reduce the percentage of signatures required for a Recall petition from
twenty percent (20%) to fifteen percent (15%)?
Section 13.7, “Charter Amendment”, is not proposed to change. That petition
percentage will remain at ten percent (10%) as set in the original Charter.
Summary of the Percentage Change Issue
The Charter Review Committee recommends that the percentages for the number of
signatures necessary for petitions for Referendum and Initiative petitions {Sec. 9.3(a)}
and Recall petitions {Sec. 10.3(a)} be reduced.
The reasons that reductions of the percentages are being recommended are:
1) Crestwood’s current percentages are more restrictive than those in other cities.
2) The percentages for these two sections seemed significantly higher than those
required for a petition to amend the Charter itself.
3) The percentages are set by “all” registered voters. The percentage of those who
vote is significantly lower than those who are registered to vote. Lower
percentages of “all” registered voters would more accurately relate to the number
of those who regularly participate in political issues and vote.
INFORMATION ON THE PROPOSED
CHARTER AMENDMENTS TO BE PUT BEFORE
CRESTWOOD VOTERS ON
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Proposition 3
Proposition 3: Shall sections Section 3.7(b), 3.8 and 4.7(b) of the City’s
Charter be amended to provide for censure?
Summary of the Censure Issue
The Charter Review Committee recommends that Censure be added to the Charter as
a disciplinary tool.
The reasons that a measure of censure is being recommended are:
1) Censure would be provided as a warning for less egregious offenses.
2) Add another tool of discipline other than forfeiture of office.
3) Most Charters include censure as a method of reprimand.
The Charter Review Committee is recommending that Censure be included in the
Charter as a method of reprimand that is less drastic than forfeiture of office. The
Board of Aldermen can then adopt a Code of Conduct that addresses the specifics of
how/when they might use the method of reprimand. The Charter Review Committee felt
that although censure should and would be rarely used, the method should exist for
conditions that warrant it. It was generally agreed that the minimum procedural
standard for imposing forfeiture or censure should be the same as the standard for
passing an ordinance. This procedural standard should reflect that such a measure
could not take place on a single legislative day, and that it requires a majority vote of the
members of the Board of Aldermen. This standard should be spelled out in the
Municipal Code as agreed upon by the Board of Aldermen.
Proposition 2
Proposition 2: Shall Section 3.4 of the City’s Charter be amended by
removing the limitation on the number of successive terms to which an
Alderman can be elected?
Summary of the Term Limit Issue
The Charter Review Committee recommends having the voters decide whether to retain
term limits for members the Board of Aldermen, but not the Mayor. The difference was

recognized between term limits for executive positions and term limits for legislative
branches. Most other cities in St. Louis County do not have term limits for their
Aldermen or Council members. The Charter Review Committee decided to let the
voters revisit the issue.
The reasons that term limits might be eliminated are:
1) The long term effects of term limits were not really known when they were
adopted in 1995.
2) The effects had not yet impacted Crestwood at the time the Charter Review
Committee recommended the issue be revisited by the voters. (April 2006 was
the first election where Aldermen had to leave office due to term limits.)
3) Crestwood will face a major turn over on the Board of Aldermen in a short period
of time and the Board of Aldermen’s “institutional memory” will be lost.
Proposition 1
Proposition 1 is an amendment to several sections of the City’s Charter. This group of
proposed changes has been referred to as the technical amendments. These changes
were deemed to be benign language changes, words added for definition, revisions to
reflect current practices, or updating.
The ballot language will read:
Proposition 1: Shall the following Sections of the City of Crestwood
Charter be amended as proposed by the Charter Review Committee: 3.3,
3.10(a), 3.10(d), 3.10(g), 4.4(a), 4.8, 5.1, 5.2(a), 5.2(f), 7.1, 7.2(b), 9.3(b),
10.3(b), 13.8, 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, and 15.4?
In detail, the changes proposed to these sections of the Charter and which would be
authorized by the passing of Proposition 1 are as follows:
Article III – Board of Aldermen
Sec.3.3, Qualifications: Add the sentence, “For purposes of this Section, both
seats within a given Ward constitute the same office.” This would provide
clarification and declare a specific aldermanic position (seat held) – an Alderman
cannot run again for the same Ward by declaring that the other Aldermen’s seat in
that Ward is another seat.
ARTICLE IX – Initiative and Referendum
Sec. 9.3, Petitions (b): Add the words, “as provided by the City Clerk” following
“approximate cost of the election,” {same as in update of Sec. 10.3(b)}. This clarifies
the source responsible for providing the approximate cost.
ARTICLE X – Recall
Section 10.3, Petition (b): Add the words, “as provided by the City Clerk” following
“approximate cost of the election,” {same as in update of Sec. 9.3(b)}. This clarifies
the source responsible for providing the approximate cost.
Article XIII – General Provisions
Sec. 13.8, Charter Review Committee: Change “but not less than every ten (10)
year period,” to “and at least once during each ten (10) year period.” This provides
clarification that the Charter is to be reviewed at least once every ten (10) years.
Article XV – Transitional Schedule
These revisions are proposed in order for the Charter to reflect that the 2006 update is
taking place.
(Note to readers: To help readers of this document see and understand these proposed
revisions in Section 15, the proposed new language is italicized and the current Charter
language which is proposed to be changed is stricken through. These formats have
only been used in this document to help the reader see the proposed changes; the
formats would not be used in the Charter.)
Sec. 15.1, Purpose of Schedule
Revise to read:
The purpose of the following provisions is to promote the orderly transition from
the present current provisions to the amended provisions of the Charter.
government of the City of Crestwood, Missouri, to the new government provided
for in this Charter and to inaugurate the new government under the provisions of
this Charter. The provisions of this Article shall constitute a part of this Charter
only to the extent and for the time required to accomplish that aim
Sec. 15.2, Election to Adopt Charter
Revise to read:
Any elections pertaining to amendments to this Charter shall be submitted to a
vote of the electors of the City of Crestwood at an election to be held on the 7th

I know this is dis-jointed, but it will give you the jist of the Charter ammendments, so please read them, and decide for your self!

Just remember to please vote on election day!

Tom Ford

No. 232