Charles Lane, Appellant, v. City of St. Louis, Respondent.

CHARLES LANE, ) No. ED113533 ) Appellant, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of the City of St. Louis v. ) ) The Honorable Joseph P. Whyte CITY OF ST. LOUIS, ) ) Respondent. ) Filed: November 25, 2025

Charles Lane challenged the validity of Article V, Section 7, a recent amendment to the Charter of the City of St. Louis that created a Charter Commission. Lane maintains the amendment is invalid as violating Article VI, Section 32(a) of the Missouri Constitution. The circuit court entered judgment granting the City's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denying Lane's cross motion for judgment on the pleadings. Lane now appeals. We affirm. Factual and Procedural Background

On January 1, 2023, the City enacted Ordinance 71607 ("Ordinance"). The Ordinance called for submission to the City's voters of a proposition regarding a proposed amendment to the City's Charter that would, if approved at an election, create a "Charter Commission" and establish a process through which the lawmaking body of the City may submit proposals for the amendment

2

or revision of the City Charter to the qualified voters of the City. This proposition to amend the City Charter was popularly known as "Prop C." The City's voters approved Prop C at the April 14, 2023, election. On or about July 13, 2023, the City Registrar caused Prop C to be integrated into the City's Charter such that the substantive content of Prop C is now set forth in Article V, Section 7 of the City's Charter ("Charter Amendment"). The Charter Amendment in its entirety is set out in an appendix to this opinion. In August of 2023, Charles Lane ("Lane"), a resident and taxpayer of the City, brought this action pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, Sections 527.010, et. seq., seeking a declaration that the Charter Amendment is invalid, in that it conflicts with and violates Article VI, Section 32(a) of the Missouri Constitution, which provides for the amendment of the charter of the city of St. Louis. 1

Both parties moved for judgment on the pleadings. 2 Lane argued the Charter Amendment violates the Missouri Constitution because it prescribes a charter amendment process that bypasses the City's lawmaking body entirely. Lane asserts Article VI, Section 32(a) prescribes the exclusive method for amending or revising the City's Charter, and requires that amendments or revisions to the City Charter be submitted to the qualified voters of the City only "by the lawmaking body of the city," which Lane asserts is the City's Board of Alderman. The parties do not dispute that the City's Board of Alderman is the lawmaking body for purposes of Article VI, Section 32(a) of the

1 Lane also pleaded that the Charter Amendment violated Article VI, Section 19 of the Missouri Constitution; however, Lane did not assert this argument in his cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings, which is the motion upon which the circuit court ruled and entered the judgment that is now being appealed. 2 Specifically, City filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Charles Lane then filed a motion for summary judgment followed by a cross-motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. Lane's motion for summary judgment was identical to his cross-motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. The circuit court did not rule on Lane's motion for summary judgment but instead limited its review and judgment to the parties' cross motions for judgment on the pleadings.

3

Missouri Constitution. 3 Lane argues the Charter Amendment violates the constitutionally- ordained method for the city to amend its charter because the Charter Amendment purports to vest a new City body – the Charter Commission – with the power to "submit any new charter, charter provision, or amendment to a charter provision" directly to the Board of Election Commissioners for placement on the ballot. Lane argues the Charter Amendment thus purports to authorize the Charter Commission to directly suggest proposed charter amendments to the voters. He claims this directness violates the mandate of Article VI, Section 32(a) of the Missouri Constitution, which requires that amendments or revisions to the City charter be submitted to the voters "by the lawmaking body of the city." The City argued the Charter Amendment is valid because the City's broad authority under the Missouri Constitution to amend its charter includes the power to revise or provide additional methods of amending the charter. The City contends no conflict exists between Article VI, Section 32(a) of the Missouri Constitution and the Charter Amendment because the Charter Amendment merely provides for a process by which proposed amendments and revisions to the City's charter are "framed" by the Charter Commission and then in turn are "submitted" to qualified voters by the lawmaking body. The City noted the Charter Amendment does not call on the Charter Commission to "submit" charter revisions or amendments it may propose to the qualified voters; rather the Charter Amendment limits the Charter Commission's role to that as a body that may "frame" proposed amendments or revisions, leaving their "submission" as an undertaking of the Board of Alderman, the City's lawmaking body. The City further noted the Charter Amendment expressly provides that the amendment process shall be "in accordance with the provisions of the Missouri Constitution." The City thus contended that nothing about the work of the Charter

3 See City Charter Article IV, Section 1: "The legislative power of the City of St. Louis shall, subject to the limitations of this charter, be vested in a board of alderman."

4

Commission implicates much less offends the Missouri State Constitution because nothing in Article VI, Section 32 (a) restricts the ability of the Charter Commission – or any other public body or citizen or citizen group – to "frame" charter proposals. The parties' motions for judgment on the pleadings were called and argued to the circuit court. The circuit court took the matter under submission, reviewed the cross motions for judgment on the pleadings, and then entered judgment granting the City's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denying Lane's cross motion. In so doing, the circuit court reasoned that the City, as a constitutional charter city with a home rule charter, has the authority not only to amend its charter, but to amend the methods and process by which amendments may be pursued. The circuit court further noted that Lane had cited no authority, applicable to the City, that would compel the conclusion that the Charter Amendment violates the Missouri Constitution. Lane now appeals. Standard of Review This appeal arises from the circuit court's grant of judgment on the pleadings in favor of City. "This Court reviews a circuit court's ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings de novo." City of Crestwood v. Affton Fire Prot. Dist., 620 S.W.3d 618, 622-23 (Mo. banc 2021); McCloskey v. State, 683 S.W.3d 702, 705 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023). "A motion for judgment on the pleadings should be sustained if, from the face of the pleadings, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." McCloskey, 683 S.W.3d at 705 (internal quotation omitted); City of Crestwood, 620 S.W.3d at 622–23. "'The well-pleaded facts of the non-moving party's pleading are treated as admitted for purposes of the motion.'" McCloskey, 683 S.W.3d at 705 (quoting Eaton v. Mallinckrodt, Inc., 224 S.W.3d 596, 599 (Mo. banc 2007)). "Before the court can grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings, all averments in all pleadings must show no material issue of fact exists; that all that exists is a question of law." McCloskey, 683 S.W.3d at 705 (internal quotation omitted). The circuit court's judgment will be affirmed if the facts pleaded by the

5

petitioner, considered by the court as admitted, together with the benefit of all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, demonstrate that petitioner could not prevail under any legal theory. City of Crestwood, 620 S.W.3d at 622–23; Emerson Elec. Co. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, 362 S.W.3d 7, 12 (Mo. banc 2012). Discussion

"St. Louis is a constitutional charter city operating pursuant to Article VI, Sections 31, 32(a) and 32(b), of the Constitution of Missouri." State ex rel. St. Louis Fire Fighters Ass'n Loc. No. 73, AFL-CIO v. Stemmler, 479 S.W.2d 456, 457 (Mo. banc 1972). "Those provisions authorize the city to amend or revise its charter, subject only to the requirement that such charter be in harmony with and subject to the Constitution of Missouri and its laws in matters of general interest and statewide concern." Id. 4

Article VI, Section 32(a) of the Missouri Constitution, at issue here, provides: The charter of the city of St. Louis now existing, or as hereafter amended or revised, may be amended or revised for city or county purposes from time to time by proposals therefor submitted by the lawmaking body of the city to the qualified voters thereof, at a general or special election held at least sixty days after the publication of such proposals, and accepted by three-fifths of the qualified electors voting for or against each of said amendments or revisions so submitted.

(Emphasis added). Lane has the burden of showing that this constitutional provision was violated. Associated Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. City of Springfield, 793 S.W.2d 517, 523 (Mo. App. S.D. 1990). Lane argues the Charter Amendment violates this constitutional provision because the Charter Amendment purports to authorize the Charter Commission to directly suggest proposed charter amendments to the voters instead of the City's Board of Alderman submitting those proposed amendments to the voters, as mandated by the constitution. In support, Lane first cites the following provision from the Charter Amendment:

4 The parties agree City has the power to make amendments to the City's Charter, subject to the Missouri Constitution.

6

The Charter Commission's mandate shall be to frame charter amendments for submission to the qualified voters.

Article V, Section 7.3.C. And then, citing Article V, Section 7.3.E, Lane argues the Charter Amendment "wholly eschews" the constitutionally-ordained method for the City to amend its Charter by purporting to vest a new City body with the ability to "submit any new charter, charter provision, or amendment to a charter provision" directly to the Board of Election Commissioners for placement on the ballot. Article V, Section 7.3.E provides: The Charter Commission shall select officers and make other decisions as necessary subject to a majority vote of the voting members of the commission. In order to submit any new charter, charter provision, or amendment to a charter provision to the Board of Elections Commissioners, it must receive the affirmative vote of two- thirds of all voting members of the Charter Commission.

(Emphasis added).

In construing city charter provisions, we seek the intent of the drafters as gleaned from the language used and give effect to that intent if possible. Associated Elec. Co-op., Inc., 793 S.W.2d at 523 (Mo. App. S.D. 1990); Client Servs., Inc. v. City of St. Charles, 182 S.W.3d 718, 724 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006). We give the words used their plain and ordinary meanings. Associated Elec. Co-op., Inc., 793 S.W.2d at 523. In addition, all parts of the charter provisions are construed together. Client Servs., Inc., 182 S.W.3d at 724. We presume that the enacting body intended a logical result, and favor a construction that tends to avert unreasonable and absurd results. Associated Elec. Co-op., Inc., 793 S.W.2d at 523. In so construing the Charter Amendment, we cannot reach the conclusion urged by Lane – that the Charter Amendment authorizes the Charter Commission to "directly" submit proposals to the voters. The Supreme Court of Missouri long ago noted that the constitutional delegation of power to the City to frame a new charter includes delegation of power to indicate a method or methods of amending the same. State ex rel. Harry L. Hussmann Refrigerator & Supply Co. v.

7

City of St. Louis, 5 S.W.2d 1080, 1083 (Mo. banc 1928). We see no reason why the same principle and delegation of power should not also apply here, where the City is amending or revising its charter. The Charter Amendment – and the Charter Commission process set out therein – is a method adopted by the City to amend the City Charter. The Charter Amendment clearly states at the outset that the Charter Commission process is the process through which the lawmaking body of the City may submit proposed amendments or revisions to the voters. The Charter Amendment states: In accordance with the provisions of the Missouri Constitution, and in addition to the people's power of initiative, as described in Section 1 of Article V, the lawmaking body of the City of St. Louis may submit proposals for the amendment or revision of the City Charter to the qualified voters through a Charter Commission process in the manner hereinafter provided.

(Emphasis added). Article V, Section 7.1. The Charter Amendment does not mandate or even suggest that the Board of Alderman must follow the Charter Commission process in submitting proposals to the voters. Rather, the Charter Commission process is a permissive process by which the Board of Alderman may exercise its constitutional authority to submit proposals to the voters. Further, the Charter Amendment certainly does not state that the Charter Commission is the distinctive and exclusive method of proposing amendments to the Charter, such as to usurp or bypass the Board of Alderman. We next note Section 2 of the Charter Amendment, which provides for the selection and appointment of the Charter Commission itself. The section begins by stating that "...a Charter Commission shall be appointed to consider whether to revise and amend the charter according to the following process." (Emphasis added). The language of the Charter Amendment does not state that the Charter Commission must revise and amend the charter, but only to consider whether

8

to do so. Reading this language in its plain and ordinary meaning, we view this as meaning the Charter Commission is operating in an advisory capacity to the Board of Alderman. Section 3 of the Charter Amendment sets out the operating framework for the Charter Commission. Under that section, the Charter Amendment provides that the Charter Commission's mandate under the Charter Commission process shall be to "frame" charter amendments. Article V, Section 7.3.C. The plain and ordinary meaning of "frame" in this context means "to draw up (as a document);" 5 "to create and develop (plans or a policy);" 6 "to give expression to." 7 Frame is not synonymous with "submit." Next, the Charter Amendment provides that the Charter Commission shall "publish a draft set of proposed charter amendments...." Article V, Section 7.3.C. "Draft" in this context means "a preliminary or tentative sketch, outline, or version (as of a document or picture)." 8 The Charter Amendment uses the term "draft" multiple times when describing the work of the Charter Commission. A "draft" does not bespeak a final version that is ready for submission to the voters. We note, and Lane admits, there is nothing in Article VI, Section 32(a) of the Missouri Constitution that says the Board of Alderman itself must frame or draft proposed charter amendments. Further, as Lane conceded at oral arguments before this Court, nowhere in the Charter Amendment does it expressly state that the Charter Commission submits proposals directly to the Board of Election Commissioners for placement on the ballot – or in other words, that the Charter Commission submits proposals directly to the voters. And such a construction cannot be

5 Merriam Webster Dictionary, online at www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/frame (accessed November 12, 2025). 6 Collins Dictionary, online at www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english-thesaurus/frame (accessed November 12, 2025). 7 Webster's Third New International Dictionary Unabridged; Merriam-Webster, Inc., Springfield, Massachusetts, 2002; page 901. 8 Webster's Third New International Dictionary Unabridged; Merriam-Webster, Inc., Springfield, Massachusetts, 2002; page 683; see also, Merriam Webster Dictionary, online at www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/draft (accessed November 12, 2025).

9

reasonably implied, when the provisions of the Charter Amendment indicate that the Charter Commission process is not a mandated but rather a permissive process, by which the Charter Commission acts in an advisory capacity, drawing up preliminary versions of amendments. Reading the provisions of the Charter Amendment as a whole does not convey a direct submission to the voters by the Charter Commission, as Lane would have us read the Charter Amendment. Turning, then, to the specific provisions relied-upon by Lane, Article V, Sections 7.3.C and 7.3.E. Lane would have the court read those provisions as purporting to authorize the Charter Commission to submit proposals directly to voters. But reading those provisions in the context of the entire Charter Amendment, as we must, such a construction cannot be reasonably implied. While the relied-upon provisions (Article V, Sections 7.3.C and 7.3.E) are not artfully drafted, we cannot add language to the Charter Amendment. See Peters v. Wady Industries, Inc., 489 S.W.3d 784, 792 (Mo. banc 2016). However, looking at the entirety of the Charter Amendment, we cannot ignore the opening provision of the Charter Amendment that expressly states the Charter Commission process is the process by which "the lawmaking body of the City of St. Louis may submit proposals" to the voters. Article V, Section 7.1. In other words, at the end of the day and the Charter Commission process, it is the Board of Alderman that is submitting proposals to the voters. The parties do not dispute that the City's Board of Alderman is the lawmaking body for purposes of Article VI, Section 32(a) of the Missouri Constitution. Though the Charter Amendment provides that the Charter Commission's mandate shall be to frame charter amendments "for submission to the qualified voters," read in context, we construe this provision as meaning that it is still the Board of Alderman that is submitting proposals to the voters. In other words, though the Charter Commission may frame, or draw up proposals, it is still the Board of Alderman who submits the proposals to the voters. Similarly, we construe the provision requiring

10

two-thirds affirmative vote of all voting members of the Charter Commission "in order to submit any new charter, charter provision, or amendment to a charter provision to the Board of Elections Commissioners," as not authorizing direct submission by the Charter Commission. Rather, looking again at the entirety of the Charter Amendment, we construe this provision as simply meaning that a two-thirds affirmative vote is needed by the Charter Commission to approve its framed proposal before the Board of Alderman may submit proposals to the voters. Construing the Charter Amendment as authorizing the Charter Commission to directly submit proposals to the voters would produce an unreasonable and absurd result. Such a construction would be contrary to the express terms of the Charter Amendment, which provides that the Charter Commission process be in accordance with the provision of the Missouri Constitution and that "[t]he provisions of the Missouri constitution for framing and adopting a city charter shall app l y." Article V, Sections 7.1 and 7.5. Having twice provided that the Charter Amendment and the Charter Commission process be in accordance with the provisions of the Missouri Constitution, the drafters could not have intended a result that was not in harmony with the Missouri Constitution. Such an illogical result could not have been intended. Again, we favor a construction that tends to avert illogical, unreasonable, and absurd results. Associated Elec. Co- op., Inc., 793 S.W.2d at 523. Conclusion

Looking at the Charter Amendment in its entirety, we construe the Constitutional Amendment as providing that proposals framed by the Charter Commission are in turn submitted to the voters by the Board of Alderman, the lawmaking body of the city. Accordingly, we find

11

Lane did not plead or demonstrate a violation of Article VI, Section 32(a) of the Missouri Constitution. The circuit court properly entered judgment on the pleadings for the City. 9

We affirm the circuit court's judgment.

_________________________________ ANGELA T. QUIGLESS, J.

Renee D. Hardin-Tammons, P.J. and Thomas C. Clark II, J., concurs.

APPENDIX

Section 7 - Charter Commission.

1. In accordance with the provisions of the Missouri Constitution, and in addition to the

people's power of initiative, as described in Section 1 of Article V, the lawmaking body of the City of St. Louis may submit proposals for the amendment or revision of the City Charter to the qualified voters through a Charter Commission process in the manner hereinafter provided.

1. After April 4, 2023, and before August 1, 2023, and every ten (10) years thereafter, or

upon the certification of a petition as provided for in Paragraph F of this subsection, a Charter Commission shall be appointed to consider whether to revise and amend the charter according to the following process.

A. Application: Within five (5) days of certification of April 4, 2023 election results, and on March 1 every ten (10) years thereafter, or within ten (10) days of certification as provided in Paragraph F, the Mayor of the City of St. Louis shall publish and make available to the public an application to serve on the Charter Commission. Such application shall remain open for fifty (50) days, shall verify applicant's eligibility under the provisions of subparagraph a of this paragraph, and require applicants to disclose conflicts of interest and inform applicants that their responses will be made public.

a. Eligibility Criteria:

9 On appeal, Lane argues the Charter Amendment unconstitutionally restricts the broad constitutional authority granted to the Board of Alderman to propose changes to the charter by requiring a two-third's vote of the Charter Commission to submit changes and by placing limits on when the Charter may be amended. We do not address this argument as it was not part of Lane's petition or his motion for judgment on the pleadings, and thus is not properly before this Court.

12

i. Be registered voters in the City of St. Louis for at least two (2) consecutive years immediately preceding the date of appointment to the Commission.

ii. Be free of conflicts of interest. For the purposes of this bill, a conflict of interest arises if, in the two years immediately preceding the date of appointment to the Commission, an applicant, or a first-degree relative of the applicant has:

1. Been a lobbyist representing clients with interests in

front of city government; or

1. Have financial or service contracts with any City

department or office.

B. Recommendation: Within five (5) days of applications closing, the Mayor's Office shall provide copies of each application, categorized by the ward in which the applicant resides, to the Board of Aldermen for review. Within ten (10) days of receipt of applications, each member of the Board of Aldermen shall review the applications and select three (3) applicants to forward to the Mayor's office for nomination. If any member of the Board of Aldermen fails to select three (3) applicants by the timeline herein, the member forfeits their unselected applicants.

C. Nomination: Within fourteen (14) days of receipt of aldermen's recommendations, the Mayor shall deliver, from the pool of recommended applicants, nine (9) nominations to serve on the Charter Commission to the Board of Aldermen for confirmation. Said nominations to the Charter Commission shall be made so as to provide for a total geographical representation of the residents of this City.

1. Geographical representation shall mean:

a. Three nominations from the Mayor shall come from the geographical area south of Arsenal Street and extending to the city boundaries to the east, west, and south; and

b. Three nominations from the Mayor shall come from the geographical area north of Page Boulevard at the western city limit east to Martin Luther King Drive, continuing north of Martin Luther King Drive to the eastern city limit, and extending to the northern city boundaries; and

c. Three nominations from the Mayor shall come from the geographical area between Arsenal Street to the south and Page Boulevard and Martin Luther King Drive to the north as described in section (b), extending to the east and west city boundaries.

13

D. Confirmation: Within twenty-one (21) days of the Mayor's nomination, the Board of Aldermen committee that is ordinarily charged with hearing bills and issues related to intergovernmental affairs shall hold public hearings with public testimony concerning the nominees and the full Board of Aldermen shall vote on whether to confirm the nominees. If a majority of the members of the Board of Aldermen vote to confirm a nominee, the nominee shall be appointed as a Charter Commission member. In the event an individual is not confirmed by a majority of the Board of Aldermen, the Mayor shall deliver to the Board of Aldermen a new nominee from the pool of applicants recommended by members of the Board of Aldermen for the Charter Commission within four (4) days of the Board of Aldermen voting not to confirm the prior nominee.

E. Alternative Selection Mechanism: If, by August 7, 2023 and every 10 years thereafter there are any remaining open positions on the Charter Commission, any open positions on the Charter Commission shall be filled by random selection according to the following process. At a public meeting of the Board of Aldermen committee that is ordinarily charged with hearing bills and issues related to intergovernmental affairs the names of all remaining candidates recommended to the Mayor by members of the Board of Aldermen, and neither appointed nor rejected by the Board of Aldermen, shall be placed into a container, and names shall be drawn by the Chair of the committee to fill open positions until all open positions are filled. This public meeting shall take place immediately so as to have a fully appointed Charter Commission by the required start date of August 15, 2023 and every 10 years thereafter. If there is a vacancy on the Charter Commission resulting from the death, resignation or inability of any member to serve for more than thirty days, the process outlined in this Subsection E shall be followed within thirty (30) days of the Charter Commission notifying the Board of Aldermen of said vacancy.

F. Initiative Petition Process: Upon the filing with the Board of Election Commissioners in the city of St. Louis of a petition proposing the exercise of the Charter Commission powers hereby granted, signed by registered voters of the city in such number as shall equal five percent of the total vote cast in the city at the last general election for Mayor, and the certification thereof by the Board of Election Commissioners to the mayor, then, within ten days after the certification, the mayor shall publish and make available to the public an application to serve on the Charter Commission and follow the process set out in Paragraphs A, B, C, D and E of this subsection.

1. Charter Commission Operating Framework

A. The appointment of the ten year Charter Commission shall take effect on August 15, and the Charter Commission shall hold its first public meeting no later than 4 September 10. The Charter Commission shall hold public meetings on at least a monthly basis, and shall recommend any Charter amendments to the Board of Election Commissioners within one year of its first public meeting. The Charter

14

Commission shall stand discharged and cease to exist within one year of its first public meeting.

B. In addition to the voting members of the Charter Commission, described in Sub- section 2, the Charter Commission shall include the following six non-voting ex- officio members, who shall not count for the purposes of a quorum, and who shall present information and expertise to the Charter Commission upon request: the Mayor or their designee, the Comptroller or their designee, the President of the Board of Aldermen or their designee, the Director of Personnel or their designee, the City Counselor or their designee, one member from the Labor community to give input on workers' interests and knowledge of public sector employment, and the Chairperson of the Board of Aldermen committee that is ordinarily charged with hearing bills and issues related to intergovernmental affairs. It shall be the responsibility of the City Counselor's Office to ensure that the Charter Commission is adequately staffed and funded.

C. The Charter Commission's mandate shall be to frame charter amendments for submission to the qualified voters. In order to fulfill this duty, the Charter Commission shall solicit input from the public and from experts, publish a draft set of proposed charter amendments not more than 10 months into its term, and hold at least one public hearing before and after the publication of the draft proposed charter amendments. The draft of proposed charter amendments shall be made publicly available no less than two weeks prior to the required public hearing.

D. Each voting member of the Charter Commission shall receive a stipend, if requested, for each meeting they attend to provide for child care, transit, and/or parking vouchers. These stipends shall be vetted by the City Counselor's Office to insure allocations are proportionate to need, and paid out of the City Counselor budget.

E. The Charter Commission shall select officers and make other decisions as necessary subject to a majority vote of the voting members of the commission. In order to submit any new charter, charter provision, or amendment to a charter provision to the Board of Elections Commissioners, it must receive the affirmative vote of two-thirds of all voting members of the Charter Commission.

F. All meetings of the Charter Commission shall be open, public meetings when a quorum is present, and shall follow the Transparency in Government Law (City of St. Louis Ordinance 69707, April 15, 2014) requirements for Public Meetings.

1. Any charter or amendments framed by the Commission shall take effect on the day fixed

therein if approved by vote of three-fifths of the City's qualified voters voting thereon at a general election held on a day fixed by the Commission not less than sixty (60) days nor more than one (1) year after the completion of the charter or amendments.

15

1. The provisions of the Missouri constitution for framing and adopting a city charter shall

apply. Submission Ordinance No. 71607 Submission Substance: establishing a Charter Commission to consider and recommend amendments and revisions to the voters on a decennial basis following the census or upon initiative by the qualified voters of the City as provided in the bill.