Code of Ethics "Covers the Basics"

Given thorough review and amendments in 2020, Staff has no recommended additions or changes.

Source: City of Richardson.

And with that, in 17 and a half minutes the Richardson City Council rushed through another biennial review of its Code of Ethics, making no changes.

---

Before the 2020 review, I offered a list of suggested changes in an article in the late, great magazine "Richardson Living" ("Building Trust"). Most of that article is still valid. After the 2020 review, the Council did adopt three changes. All of those 2020 updates were good. Not enough, in my mind, but good.

First, they reacted to a state law, adding a Richardson requirement that Council Members follow state law in filing a personal financial statement and a conflicts disclosure statement. This merely acknowledges what state law requires.

Second, they added that "The city attorney has the same power to subpoena witnesses and the production of documents, books, records and other evidence as are given the City Council." Outside legal counsel used by the City Attorney was given the same powers. I still have to wonder why, if the City Council had this power when former Mayor Laura Maczka was being investigated by the City, why the City Council didn't exercise their power. And why we should feel assured the City Council will use its power in a future complaint against one of its own if it didn't use it before?

Third, Council Members are required to sign a statement that they have received a copy of and read the Code of Ethics. That addition only makes it harder for Council Members to claim, afterwards, that "I forgot" that bribery was a crime.

I had hoped the City Council could build on that work. On October 10, 2022, the City Council had a chance, again reviewing the City's Code of Ethics. Unfortunately, in contrast to 2020, this time the staff had no suggestions. But in contrast to prior years, two Council Members did speak to the matter. I applaud those two for asking questions, even if they didn't bring any suggested amendments of their own to the table. Would that the rest of our City Council did anything to show that they had done any homework.

Joe Corcoran: "Real quick. Since the current code rejects consideration of anonymous complaints, what protections exist for someone who does come forward with a complaint against someone on city council?"

City Manager Don Magner seemed taken aback by the question, answering in a bit of a rambling fashion about possible retaliation before settling on, "I think that's just part of our DNA as an organization that we wouldn't tolerate that." He wants citizens to take him on trust, a trust that in my article I said needed rebuilding.

Jennifer Justice: "I'm curious, you mentioned best practice. So do we compare our ethics ordinance to surrounding communities?"

Assistant City Manager Charles Goff replied, "This is a pretty standard ethics ordinance from what I've seen and other cities that I've been a part of. So I think it covers the basics." So there. There doesn't seem to have been any systematic comparison with best practices, despite the staff slide claiming a "thorough review." Based on our assistant city manager's experience elsewhere, we're told that Richardson's Code of Ethics is "pretty standard." Consider me unimpressed. The City of Richardson just had a former mayor convicted of bribery for actions taken in office. We need a Code of Ethics that has more teeth than one that just "covers the basics." Charles Goff doesn't have the institutional memory that might have warned him that his answer was weak tea. Which is what our Code of Ethics is, too, and shall remain so for at least two more years.