The Wheel: Voters Guide: City Charter Amendments 31-40

Fourth in a series:

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. 31: Shall Section 5.02 (b) of the Charter be amended to provide that the number of signatures required for a petition for the recall of the mayor or council member shall be based on the percentage of the number of qualified voters on the date of the last regular city election.

YES. Minor change. Currently, the number of signatures required is based on the "number of persons entitled to vote in the city, as appears on the county clerk's rolls." It seems reasonable to fix this number to the number at the last election, a number that can't vary during the petition process.
Proposition No. 32: Shall Section 6.05 of the Charter be amended to incorporate and clarify the authority of the city manager regarding the appointment and removal of the directors of the city departments and Section 6.06 of the Charter be repealed to delete provisions redundant and conflicting with said Section 6.05, as amended.

YES. Cleanup. "All heads of departments" is changed to "all directors of departments."
Proposition No. 33: Shall Section 7.01 of the Charter regarding the appointment and duties of the city attorney be amended to provide greater flexibility to city council in relation to services provided by the city attorney and repeal Sections 7.05 and 7.06 of the Charter to delete language redundant or in conflict with the provisions of Section 7.01, as amended.

YES. Minor change. The amendment adds "municipal court prosecutor" to the allowed duties of the city attorney. It also eliminates Section 7.05 which allowed the city council to appoint a person other than the city attorney to perform this function. Personally, I would have it so that the city council appoints both the city attorney and the municipal court prosecutor, who may or may not be the same person. But giving the city attorney the additional power to appoint the municipal court prosecutor is not a deal-breaker for me.
Proposition No. 34: Shall Section 9.07 of the Charter relating to the purpose, powers, membership and procedures of the city plan commission be amended to clarify and simplify the existing city charter provisions.

YES. Cleanup. If you think "comprehensive plan or plans, zoning, zoning regulations and changes thereto" sums up the area of responsibility of the city plan commission, then you ought to support this amendment. If you think street widening, routing of public utilities, and controlling traffic need to be explicitly listed as areas of responsibility for the city plan commission, then you ought to oppose this amendment because this amendment eliminates all that and more. Me? I'll go with the simplified language.
Proposition No. 35: Shall Section 9.08 of the Charter be amended to clarify and simplify the existing city charter provision regarding the composition of the city parks and recreation commission.

YES. Minor change. Eliminated is the provision for staggered terms of members of the commission. Why this is being eliminated isn't known, but I can imagine it's difficult to get volunteers whose personal lives neatly slot into the calendar defined by the existing charter. The amendment preserves the two year terms, which is good enough for me.
Proposition No. 36: Shall Section 9.09 of the Charter be amended to clarify and simplify the existing city charter provision regarding the composition of the city library board.

YES. Minor change. Eliminated is the provision for staggered terms of members of the commission. Why this is being eliminated isn't known, but I can imagine it's difficult to get volunteers whose personal lives neatly slot into the calendar defined by the existing charter. The amendment preserves the two year terms, which is good enough for me.
Proposition No. 37: Shall Section 9.10 of the Charter relating to the purpose, powers, composition and procedures of the city zoning board of adjustment be amended to clarify and simplify the existing city charter provision and to conform to state law.

YES. Minor change. There are lots of edits here but no major changes. Eliminated is the provision for staggered terms of members of the commission. Why this is being eliminated isn't known, but I can imagine it's difficult to get volunteers whose personal lives neatly slot into the calendar defined by the existing charter. The amendment preserves the two year terms, which is good enough for me.
Proposition No. 38: Shall Section 9.11 (a), (b) and (c) of the Charter be amended to clarify and simplify the existing city charter provision regarding the purpose, powers, composition of the city civil service board.

YES. Minor change. Eliminated is the provision for staggered terms of members of the board. Why this is being eliminated isn't known, but I can imagine it's difficult to get volunteers whose personal lives neatly slot into the calendar defined by the existing charter. The amendment preserves the two year terms, which is good enough for me. Also eliminated is the requirement that board members "reside in the City of Richardson." Why this is being eliminated also isn't known, but it isn't a deal-breaker for me.
Proposition No. 39: Shall Section 9.11 (d) of the Charter relating to the procedures of the city civil service board be amended to provide that the civil service board shall meet monthly or as needed.

YES. Minor change.
Proposition No. 40: Shall Sections 9.12 (a) and (c) of the Charter be amended to clarify and simplify the existing city charter provision regarding the purpose and composition of the city civil service appeals board.

YES. Cleanup.

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

Monday, September 21, 2015

Voters Guide: City Charter Amendments 31-40

No comments:

Post a Comment