The staff report does say that a Charter review committee must be established at least every 5 years. The last review and modification was about two years ago. Gee, we need one already? Why? The staff report says that, "inquiries have been received," but no indication from who. The only "purpose of this item is to discuss a Commission to review and receive feedback on the scope of the review that Council sets." "Scope that council sets" are very important words. That means the council is going to "set" the body of work to be discussed. The "scope" is not being generated or determined by an investigtation; the needs and/or desires of the community. They are only going to discuss the whims of council.
Therefore, Council, all at once, requested a Charter review? All at the same time now, on three, "We of council want a Charter review!!!" See how easy it was? Now, no single individual requested the Charter review. I can only assume you believe this.
So, let's take a more sinister look.
Who on Council would want the term limits eliminated or extended? Would it be reasonable to assume that those whose terms are ending might wish "another go?" To further this thought, we have two definite and one maybe. Let's get rid of the "maybe" first. The mayor has been elected twice, thus suggesting two terms. However, one of his terms was short. It was only for two years to fill in the slot left vacant by ex-mayor, John Harper's resignation. The question becomes, can he run for a third term? I will write an email to the city attorney asking for clarification. I will share with you his answer.
That leaves only two sitting councilmembers with expiring term limits. One is Michael Gallops and the other is Carl Pankratz. It would be reasonable to assume that these two might want term limits extinguished. However, it is probably easy to assume there is support from the mayor (who might already know something) or other council members that are good at planning for the future.
The timing is urgent for the Charter review committee. If they don't get the council's biding concluded by next election, two, maybe three, sitting members of the ruling body of Rowlett will be gone.
Now here is the sad part. Our sitting ruling body will be controlling and voting in their own future. They are being instrumental, altho not exclusive, in voting themselves into Rowlett's future without any input from the voters. There would be an election, but incumbents have a good chance of winning. If council felt limiting term limits was good for Rowlett, and they were planning for future generations, that would be a different matter.
This attempt to eliminate term limits is clearly a power grab without any worry because of citizen apathy. The proponents will say that it is a waste of good experience to lose seasoned council members. Well, it's also a way to keep unhealthy alliances broken up. If experience is the only consideration, let them make kings, queens and princes out of themselves and rule forever.
If you don't make noise out of this, you deserve kings, queens, and princes.