Voters Guide: City Charter Amendments 21-30

Third in a series:

• City Charter Amendments Nos. 1-10
• City Charter Amendments Nos. 11-20
• City Charter Amendments Nos. 21-30
• City Charter Amendments Nos. 31-40
• City Charter Amendments Nos. 41-50
• City Charter Amendments Nos. 51-60
• City Charter Amendments Nos. 61-70
• City Charter Amendments Nos. 71-83

There are 83 propositions for amending the Richardson City Charter on the November ballot. I'm here with a voter's guide to tell you how to vote. You're welcome.

---

• Proposition No. 21: Shall Section 1.03 of the Charter be amended regarding the procedures for the annexation of territory into the corporate limits of the City.
  

  YES. Minor change. For example, the requirement to publish annexations in a local newspaper is eliminated. Remember newspapers?

• Proposition No. 22: Shall Section 2.03 of the Charter be amended to clarify and simplify the existing charter language regarding the exercise of the power of eminent domain by the City as authorized by state law and Sections 18.01 and 18.02 of the Charter be repealed to eliminate a redundancy with Section 2.03 as amended.
  

  YES. Cleanup. The current charter details a long list of purposes for which the city can exercise the power of public domain. The proposed amendment captures all this (and more?) by saying the city "shall have the full power, authority and right to exercise the power of eminent domain in any manner authorized or permitted by the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas." I think the city already had such powers, whether or not it's stated in the charter, so this amendment grants the city no new powers.

• Proposition No. 23: Shall Article II of the Charter be amended to add Section 2.04 relating to the authority of the City to construct, improve, maintain and pay for public streets and other public facilities as authorized by state law, and Article XVII and Sections 18.03, 18.04, 18.05, 18.06, and 18.07 be repealed to eliminate conflicting provisions with the new Section 2.04.
  

  YES. Cleanup. The new section grants the city all the powers authorized by state law regarding construction of streets. I think the city already had such powers, whether or not it's stated in the charter, so this amendment grants the city no new powers. As for the five whole sections of the charter that are being eliminated entirely, these sections all (redundantly) grant the city powers, so if they are eliminated, so are the powers granted therein. In other words, eliminating those sections doesn't expand city powers.

• Proposition No. 24: Shall Section 3.04 of the Charter relating to the compensation paid to the members of the city council be amended by increasing the per diem compensation from $50 per meeting to $100 per meeting.
  

  YES. Substantive. A $100 remuneration for a day devoted to running a multi-million dollar business is hardly excessive.

• Proposition No. 25: Shall Section 3.08 of the Charter relating to the time and frequency of city council meetings be amended to clarify that there shall be at least two (2) council meetings each month unless canceled by the city council.
  

  YES. Minor change. This amendment allows the council to cancel an occasional meeting, not just postpone it.

• Proposition No. 26: Shall Section 4.01 of the Charter be amended to provide that the boundaries of the council member districts shall be established by ordinance from time to time.
  

  YES. Cleanup. The charter should specify only how many districts (4) the city is divided into, not their boundaries, which necessarily will change with every census.

• Proposition No. 27: Shall Section 4.06 of the Charter be amended to provide that a petition for nomination of a candidate for the offices of mayor or council member shall be in a form in compliance with the Charter and state law.
  

  YES. Cleanup. The current charter details the areas that petitions have to comply with state law. The amendment collapses all that into a catchall: "The petition must comply in all respects with the requirements of this charter and state law."

• Proposition No. 28: Shall Section 4.07 of the Charter be amended regarding the method for the preparation of the election ballot for the offices of the mayor and council members.
  

  YES. Cleanup. Wording is different, but the meaning is the same.

• Proposition No. 29: Shall Section 4.08 of the Charter be amended to provide for the method for conducting runoff elections for the offices of mayor and council members and repeal Sections 4.09 and 4.10 of the Charter to eliminate provisions redundant and inconsistent with said Section 4.08, as amended.
  

  YES. Cleanup. Wording is different, but the meaning is the same.

• Proposition No. 30: Shall Section 5.02 (a), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) of the Charter related to the procedures for calling a special election for the recall and removal for the office of the mayor or council member be amended.
  

  YES. Minor change. There are many changes, but only one that seems to be substantive. A signatory to a petition for recall of the mayor or council member will henceforth be required to provide "either voter registration number or date of birth." I doubt that one voter in a thousand, when presented with a petition to sign, could provide their voter registration number without looking it up, but everyone should be able to provide date of birth. Why this should be necessary is another question, but it doesn't seem to be a serious enough burden to cause me to oppose this amendment.

Recommendations for the rest of the amendments will be coming in due time.