After 15 meetings, Tampa’s Charter Review Advisory Commission (CRC) has finished its work. Now Tampa City Council is deciding which of its recommendations Tampa voters should see on their ballots next spring—for a municipal election that will also decide a new mayor and city councilmembers.
The charter is essentially Tampa’s constitution, first written when the city was incorporated, and updated periodically since then. It establishes the basic architecture of city government and the powers granted to its elected officials. And the review process happens every eight years. The cadence was changed from 10 years to eight by voters in 2023.
Nine uncompensated Tampa residents—seven appointed by City Council and two by the mayor, plus two alternates—were tasked with reviewing the charter and recommending changes. They met from January-September, heard from city officials and outside experts, took public comment, and debated proposed changes.’
The advisory commission’s work is finished, but Tampa’s charter-review process isn’t.
As of now, City Council is still shaping the amendments rather than casting the final votes that would send them to voters. After reviewing the CRC’s recommendations in September and giving additional direction on Oct. 1, Council is expected to see revised language from CRC attorney Kenneth Tinkler on Oct. 15.
If Council advances the revised language, the amendments are scheduled for a Nov. 5 public hearing, followed by final adoption on Nov. 19. Proposed amendments that win the required two-thirds Council vote would move through the ordinance process—including the mayor’s opportunity to sign or veto them—before going to voters.
Meet the people reviewing Tampa’s constitution, and recommending changes
Nine uncompensated Tampa residents—seven appointed by City Council and two by the mayor, plus two alternates—were tasked with reviewing the charter and recommending changes. They met from January-September, heard from city officials and outside experts, took public comment, and debated proposed changes.
- Garrett Greco A local podcast host and real estate broker, appointed by City Council Member Alan Clendenin, District 1 At-Large. He filed to run for District 3’s City Council seat last July.
- Stephen Benson A transportation planner and former City of Tampa Planning Director, appointed by City Council Member Guido Maniscalco, District 2 At-Large
- Bobby Creighton A speech-language pathologist, appointed by City Council Member Lynn Hurtak, District 3 At-Large
- Bill Schifino An attorney and former Florida Bar president, appointed by City Council Member Bill Carlson, District 4
- Ashley Morrow A historian and photographer, appointed by City Council Member Naya Young, District 5
- Rebecca Kert A land-use and zoning attorney and former senior assistant Tampa city attorney, appointed by City Council Member Charlie Miranda, District 6
- Alan Cohn A former investigative television journalist and communications adviser, appointed by City Council Member Luis Viera, District 7. He has filed to run for the District 7 City Council seat.
- Alison Hewitt A local business owner and longtime member of the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), appointed by Tampa City Council as an alternate.
- Kathleen Shanahan A business executive, corporate board director, and former chief of staff to Gov. Jeb Bush, appointed by Mayor Jane Castor
- Ron Christaldi An attorney and managing partner of Shumaker’s Tampa office where former Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn went to work after leaving office. Christaldi was appointed by Mayor Jane Castor.
- Sue Carlton A retired journalist and former Tampa Bay Times columnist, appointed by Mayor Jane Castor as an alternate. Carlton’s name has been floated by local politicos as a potential city council candidate.
CRC member Garrett Greco told Creative Loafing Tampa Bay, “We brought forward meaningful changes aimed at transparency and efficiency; City Council has expanded some and rejected others.”
The CRC doesn’t unilaterally rewrite Tampa’s charter. It recommends changes to City Council, which then determines what—if anything—advances toward the ballot.
Voters ultimately decide whether the charter changes—here are four takeaways from the CRC report.
CRC proposed the creation of an Inspector General, or independent watchdog for Tampa City Hall
The CRC proposed an independent Inspector General (IG) empowered to conduct investigations, audits, and reviews involving city contracts, programs, projects, and expenditures to identify inefficiency and investigate fraud, waste, mismanagement, misconduct and abuse of power. Importantly, the CRC version did not allow the IG to initiate an investigation completely on its own; it required a referral from the mayor, city council, city staff, or a resident. It also permitted subpoenas for interviews, but not records.
The debate over independent oversight wasn’t only theoretical. Written public testimony submitted during the CRC’s deliberations cited a 2023 federal discrimination case involving Tampa’s parental-leave policy. The U.S. Department of Justice alleged that the city denied male employees benefits offered to female employees, resulting in a $300,000 settlement and required reforms to its internal complaint procedures. Tampa denied wrongdoing.
The case illustrates a question at the heart of their debate: whether the city’s existing oversight mechanisms provide sufficient independence to investigate misconduct within city government.
City Council went further than the CRC’s recommendation, strengthening the proposed Inspector General’s independence and investigative powers, including the authority to initiate investigations without a referral and subpoena records. Council unanimously accepted the revised language on Oct. 1, advancing it toward the formal ordinance process that would put the proposal before voters.
Council Chair Alan Clendenin told CL the CRC’s recommendation had balanced competing interests between City Council and the mayor’s administration, while Council saw an opportunity to strengthen the proposal further.
He emphasized: “Independence is key for an IG to be able to investigate the full plate of city activity, both city council and administration, to dive deep without the burden of prejudice.”
The CRC proposed creating a city zoning hearing officer, who’ll help decide what gets built—and what doesn’t—in the City of Tampa
When a developer wants to change what can be built on a piece of land, who hears the case—and how—can matter as much as the final vote.
A zoning hearing officer (often described during the process as a zoning hearing master) would have conducted a public hearing announced in advance, taken evidence and testimony, and issued a written non-binding recommendation within 15 days—shifting an initial stage of certain land-use hearings from City Council to a professional officer. City Council would then hold a subsequent public hearing and retain the right to approve, condition, or deny the rezoning.
During the CRC’s June 23 CRC meeting, Hillsborough County Attorney Julia Mandell detailed the county’s hearing-master model.
Mandell argued that a hearing officer offers a more legally sound process for quasi-judicial zoning decisions by ensuring that evidence is evaluated against established legal standards, rather than a decision based simply on public opinion or political pressure.
She also acknowledged that the additional step could lengthen the process and leave residents feeling more removed from their elected representatives, while adding that “nobody can be expected to make a good decision at 2 o’clock in the morning”—referring to the lengthy City Council rezoning hearings that can last late into the night.
City Council declined to advance the recommendation during its Sept. 24 meeting, eliminating it by unanimous consent without a recorded roll-call vote.
Council Chair Alan Clendenin acknowledged the advantages of having a land-use expert review complicated zoning cases but questioned whether those benefits justified adding another layer between residents and their elected representatives.
“Is the juice worth the squeeze?” Clendenin asked.
Clendenin said City Council reached a consensus not to pursue the proposal for now—not a consensus about its merits. With numerous other charter recommendations to consider, members chose not to spend more time debating it.
That’s also an illustration of the word “advisory” in the commission’s name. The CRC could study, debate and recommend changes, but Council isn’t obligated to put them before voters.
Greco—who’s running for city council’s District 3 seat in the March election—was the CRC’s lone vote against advancing the zoning proposal. He told CL he didn’t oppose the concept, but doubted it had enough support on Council to survive.
Still, he said he would have liked to hear Council engage more directly with the commission’s reasoning before rejecting it.
“For the sake of our involvement, and the public record, decision-making should be more bilateral between the CRC and City Council,” Greco said.
The CRC proposed forcing the mayor’s office to update the public on the status of taxpayer-funded projects
The CRC proposed requiring the mayor or designee to give Council an annual progress report on capital projects—such as road improvements, sewer upgrades and new fire stations—including their status, delays or other issues and anticipated completion dates. It would cover projects in the current capital improvement plan plus previously funded unfinished projects valued over $100,000, including grant-funded projects.
City Council is considering addressing the reporting requirement through an ordinary ordinance rather than a charter amendment.
Clendenin said decisions about which recommendations to handle through ordinances instead of charter changes should become clearer by mid-November.
The CRC also uncovered charter changes that voters never saw
The CRC also uncovered an unusual discrepancy in Tampa’s governing document: Five changes involving city officials’ terms, oaths and salaries, property taxes, and citizen referendums had been incorporated into the published charter even though voters never approved them.
According to a July memorandum from the City Attorney’s Office, the changes were approved by City Council in 2018 but omitted from the March 2019 ballot because of a drafting error. The city subsequently moved to remove the unauthorized language, while the CRC unanimously recommended putting the five changes before voters for consideration.
Pitch in to help make the Tampa Bay Journalism Project a success.
Subscribe to Creative Loafing newsletters.
Follow us: Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | BlueSky
CORRECTION 10/16/26 12:27 p.m. Corrected to describe Garrett Greco as a real estate broker, not a developer.
This article appears in Oct. 08 – 14, 2026.
