On November 3, 2026, Willow Park voters will decide whether to adopt a Home Rule Charter — a local governing document, sometimes called a city’s constitution. The City Council placed the charter on the ballot at its August 11, 2026 meeting, putting forward the version the citizen Charter Commission finalized on January 31, 2026, without changes.
The commission was made up of twelve Willow Park residents who volunteered to draft the document: Tandy Blackstock, Darrell Boughner, Carol Bracken, Michael Chandler, Mary Diedrich, Gwendolyn Galle, Charles Hodges, Roy Kurban, David Laurenzo, Gene Martin (chair), Dixie Smith, and Jonathan Stickland.
The charter is submitted as a single yes-or-no question: under its own terms (§10.02), the ballot asks voters to be simply “for” or “against” adoption of the charter as a whole, rather than voting on individual provisions. If a majority votes in favor, the charter becomes the city’s governing law; if not, the city continues under its current general-law structure.
Texas cities fall into two broad categories. General-law cities can do only what state law specifically authorizes, and they operate under a form of government set by the state. Willow Park is one today — a Type A general-law city under the aldermanic (mayor-council) form, Chapter 22 of the Local Government Code. A city may become home rule once its population passes 5,000 (Willow Park’s did in 2016). A home-rule city writes its own charter and, within the limits of state and federal law, can do anything not prohibited by the state.
The practical trade-off: home rule gives a city more local control and lets it tailor its own structure, but a home-rule city remains subject to state law, including any future state “preemption” that overrides local rules. And once adopted, a charter can only be changed by another public vote — which is why the specific provisions matter, and why charter debates draw close attention.
The clearest way to see the proposal is to compare how the city is organized today with what the charter would establish. The most consequential shift is at the top: today the Mayor is the city’s statutory chief executive and votes only to break ties; under the charter the City Manager becomes the chief executive officer, and the Mayor becomes the ceremonial head of the city while gaining a full vote on the Council.
| Feature | Today (General Law, Ch. 22) | Under the proposed charter |
|---|---|---|
| Form of government | Mayor-council (aldermanic) | Council-manager (§1.02) |
| Chief executive | The Mayor (by statute) | The City Manager (§4.04) |
| Mayor’s vote | Only to break a tie | A full vote; counts toward quorum (§3.04) |
| Council size | 5 members | 6 members, at-large, Places 1–6 (§3.01) |
| Terms | 2 years | 3 years, staggered (§3.02) |
| Direct democracy | None available to general-law cities | Initiative, referendum, and recall (Article VI) |
| Removing an official | Petition and trial in district court | Recall by petition and city election (§§6.09, 6.13) |
| Budget & tax rate | Majority of council | Requires five affirmative votes of the elected officials (§3.13) |
| Ethics & campaign finance | State law | Independent Board of Ethics; disclosure of donors giving $250+ (§§9.01, 9.03) |
| Fiscal year / audit | Oct–Sep in practice | Oct 1–Sep 30; independent annual audit required (§§7.01, 7.8) |
One of the charter’s most significant additions is a set of powers general-law cities generally lack: initiative (residents can propose an ordinance), referendum (residents can force the Council to reconsider or repeal an ordinance), and recall (residents can move to remove an elected official). Each requires a petition signed by the lesser of 30 percent of those who voted in the last city election or 10 percent of the city’s registered voters (§6.05). Today, removing an official requires going to district court; the charter would let voters do it at the ballot box.
The Council would grow from five members to six, all elected at-large to numbered places on three-year staggered terms. Under the transition article (§10.03), the first Place 6 member would be appointed by the sitting council and mayor, with that seat then going to the voters at the next city election.
The charter directs the city to create an independent Board of Ethics to enforce a code of ethics (§9.01), requires campaign-finance disclosure of contributors who give $250 or more (§9.03), and requires council members to complete training on open government, ethics, cybersecurity, budgeting, and parliamentary procedure within 90 days of taking office (§3.02(d)). It also bars council members from directing or interfering with city staff except through the City Manager (§3.03).
The charter does not set term limits. It establishes three-year terms for the Mayor and Council but places no cap on how many terms a person may serve.
These are the kinds of points raised on each side. They are summarized here so you can weigh them — not endorsed by WPCN.
Home rule gives residents direct tools they don’t have now — initiative, referendum, and recall.
It gives the city more local control to shape its own government as it grows, rather than being confined to the state’s general-law template.
A charter is durable — changing it later takes another election.
Home-rule cities remain subject to state preemption, so local control has limits; and a longer three-year term replaces the current two-year term.
Everything above this line is the neutral part, and it stays that way. But WPCN is my project, and once in a while — when something this big comes along — I feel comfortable telling you my stance, clearly labeled as my own opinion so you can take it or leave it.
I’m voting for the charter, and I’d encourage you to do the same.
Here’s my reasoning. Parker County is one of the fastest-growing counties in America, ranking roughly in the top 15% nationally for growth since 2020, and Willow Park is the second-largest city in it. A city growing this fast needs a government that gives its residents more direct say, and as a general-law city, right now we don’t have much. Home rule changes that. It gives us initiative, referendum, and recall: real tools to propose an ordinance, push back on one, and, if it comes to it, remove an official — without having to go to court to do it. And it lets Willow Park shape its own government to fit the city we’re becoming, instead of being locked into the one-size-fits-all template the state hands every general-law town.
That’s my view. Read the full charter, weigh the points above, and decide for yourself.
— David Allen, Willow Park Citizens Network
The charter question shares the November 3 ballot with the state general election, and it is administered by Parker County Elections. Voter registration, early-voting dates, and polling locations are set on the state election calendar and run by the county — check Parker County Elections and the Texas Secretary of State’s VoteTexas.gov for the exact dates, sample ballot, and where to vote. To vote on the charter you must be a registered voter residing within the Willow Park city limits.
This page is a summary; the charter itself is the authoritative document, and it runs to eleven articles. Read it in full and form your own view before you vote. It is the City of Willow Park’s document, prepared by its Charter Commission — WPCN links to it here so you can go straight to the source.
