Voters Guide: City Charter Amendments 61-70

Seventh 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. 61: Shall Section 9.12 (g) of the Charter relating to the prohibition of employment discrimination practices be amended to include age and disabilities.
  

  YES. Cleanup. Federal law prohibits discrimination based on age and disabilities, so adding these classes to Richardson's charter offers no new protections. I wish that the charter review commission had shown some leadership by letting Richardson voters decide whether to extend protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity, but that's no reason to vote against this meaningless change.

• Proposition No. 62: Shall Section 10.03 of the Charter relating to the list of eligible candidates for the classified service be amended to eliminate the requirement for the civil service board to certify to the city manager that positions in the classified service have been filled.
  

  YES. Minor change. I don't know why this responsibility is being eliminated, but I doubt that it will have any practical difference on the hiring practices of the city.

• Proposition No. 63: Shall Section 10.03 of the Charter relating to the list of eligible candidates for the classified service be amended to provide that a designee of the city manager may requisition people from the eligibility list to fill positions.
  

  YES. Minor change. The current charter allows for only the city manager to requisition people to fill positions. This allows the city manager to designate someone else to also have this power. It seems prudent to have a designated alternate if the need arises.

• Proposition No. 64: Shall Section 10.06 of the Charter be amended to clarify the procedure for the city manager and department heads to follow relating to disciplinary action of an employee after the probationary period of employment.
  

  YES. Cleanup.

• Proposition No. 65: Shall Section 11.10 of the Charter be amended to clarify the existing charter provision relating to making the adopted budget available to the public.
  

  YES. Cleanup. The requirement to "mimeograph" the budget is being eliminated. That the charter review commission didn't add a requirement to make the budget available online is an unfortunate omission, but it is not a reason to oppose this amendment.

• Proposition No. 66: Shall Section 12.02 of the Charter prohibiting the grant of an exclusive franchise for a private or public utility and relating to the time in which such franchises must take effect after adoption of a franchise ordinance be amended in its entirety to read "No franchise to construct, maintain or operate a public or private utility, or renewal or extension thereof, shall be exclusive.".
  

  YES. Cleanup. The wording changes, but the meaning is the same.

• Proposition No. 67: Shall Section 12.03 of the Charter be amended to clarify and simplify the existing charter provision relating to the authority of the city to grant a franchise for a public or private utility.
  

  NO. Minor change. A requirement is being eliminated that there be three readings of the ordinance, the last at least thirty days after the first. I suppose this requirement was put in there to give the public an opportunity to protest the granting of a particular franchise. That seems to be a good idea. Without knowing any reason why the charter review commission recommends eliminating this requirement, I recommend a "NO" vote.

• Proposition No. 68: Shall Section 12.07 of the Charter be amended to allow the city to charge a public or private utility for the grant of a franchise such sums as are allowed by law.
  

  YES. Substantive change. The current charter caps franchise fees at "two (2) percent of the gross receipts." This amendment changes that to "or such other sums as may be allowed by applicable law." It seems reasonable not to preemptively limit the price of something that could be much more lucrative to a franchisee.

• Proposition No. 69: Shall Section 12.08 of the Charter be amended to provide that the authority of the city to regulate the fees charged by a holder of a franchise of the city is subject to state and federal law.
  

  YES. Cleanup. This amendment adds that the city has to follow the law. It shouldn't have to be said, but it doesn't hurt to be explicit.

• Proposition No. 70: Shall Section 12.12 of the Charter be amended to provide that the authority of the city to regulate railway and transit operations is subject to state and federal law.
  

  YES. Cleanup. This amendment adds that the city has to follow the law. It shouldn't have to be said, but it doesn't hurt to be explicit.

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