Kayla Kiese, co‑chair of the League of Women Voters of the CSRA, told the Charter Review Committee that its work "must be grounded in accountability, transparency, consistency, and public trust." She said draft language and consultant documents have appeared online without dates, explanation or consultant attribution and urged the committee to publish all draft and consultant materials with dates and context so the public can follow the review process.

Kiese told the committee the League continues to observe "procedural inconsistencies that undermine those principles," and cited the committee’s rules of procedure (sections 3.01 and 4) requiring motions be moved, seconded and properly debated before full‑committee action. She warned that voting on motions that have not come from a subcommittee or been available for public review would undermine the adopted procedures and erode public confidence.

Committee members acknowledged the concern and described the mechanics they are using. Counsel and consultants said substantive drafting and model language frequently come out of subcommittee meetings and workshops; the chair and vice chair review requests with consultants between meetings to clarify the scope of work. Counsel said the team will circulate a red‑line charter, a clean version and appendices including research and public comments once the items are finalized.

Several committee members said distribution and turnaround times have been uneven and asked that requests to Carl Vinson Institute be routed through the chair or through staff so the consultant receives a single, clear assignment and the committee receives a predictable schedule for responses. City legal counsel also told members that, by practice, when information is requested during a meeting consultants confirm requests with the chair to ensure accuracy before they proceed.

The committee asked staff and the Carl Vinson Institute to produce a clearer project sequence and to publish dated draft documents on the city website so public commenters can follow which charter sections are under review and when materials will be available. A committee member said she had already provided transcripts and subcommittee records to verify where earlier discussions had occurred and asked the clerk to ensure those materials are posted.

What’s next: committee members instructed counsel and the consultant to return language and a roadmap that clarifies which issues will be handled in ordinance versus charter language and to circulate those materials in advance of the next full meeting so public review can occur.