Charter Review: Sneak Preview of Changes

Source: Arefin Shamsul Facebook.

On December 2, 2024, the Richardson City Council appointed eleven members to a Charter Review Commission to review and suggest changes to Richardson's City Charter. I've been presenting my own suggestions (see links at bottom). The Commission held their first meeting Thursday, January 16, 2025. It was an orientation meeting. Nothing much was supposed to happen, and nothing was made of it when it did, but guessing how things will go tells me we got a sneak peek at some big changes that will be coming to Richardson's Charter. I'll get to those eventually, but first some scene setting.

---

The agenda for the first meeting reads like housekeeping.

• Welcome and Introductions
• Review Home Rule Charters, History, and Requirements
• Review City Council Charge to the Charter Review Commission
• Review Roles and Responsibilities of the Commission
• Review City Council Input
• Review the Charter Review Timeline and Proposed Schedule
• Review the Texas Open Meetings Act, Code of Ethics, Social Media Policy
• Meeting Logistics
• Consider adoption of Rules of Procedure and Rules of Conduct
• Consider Setting a Public Hearing

City Manager Don Magner thanked the Commissioners for being the secret sauce. "I want to thank you for volunteering and expressing an interest. That is the difference in Richardson. That's our secret sauce, people that are willing to get involved and to participate, rather than just make commentary and often complain." I might be overly sensitive, but I feel like there is a criticism of me buried in there. I like to think my commentary is a service to the community, my way of "getting involved." I do not believe that the City Council would ever choose me for a Board or Commission, specifically because I offer public commentary on the performance of the City, which includes criticism when I feel it is deserved. Maybe some people think my "secret sauce" is too hot.

Moving on...

City Secretary Aimee Nemer reviewed rules of conduct, including:
  "Avoid discussing Charter business on social media."
  "Avoid discussing Charter business with City Council."

The first rule, I infer, is to avoid violating the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA) by having a quorum of the Commission deliberating business outside of an open meeting. If so, OK. The second rule deserves more explanation. If it's to avoid having the Council violate the TOMA, hold that thought for later in this report.

Magner reviewed the City Council charge to the Commission. There were three bullets: review Charter for conformance to federal and state law; review Charter for clarity and effective application; and review Charter for "any other provisions". That last charge sounds like a catchall but is actually where the meat of this Charter review will be, if there's to be any meat, that is. It's the one where all of my own suggestions (see list below) reside.

Now let's circle back to those rules about not discussing Charter business with City Council. Magner said he was going to share sentiments on behalf of the Council. He said, "What I'm going to share with you is what I consider to be a consensus of the Council's thinking. I would describe this as I'm cleaning it up, if you will. And so I'm not going to sit here and list every single item every single Councilmember might have said to me. That's not what they asked me to do. They've asked me to share with you the things that they believe there's a consensus built around." That sure sounds like a violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act to me. It's a walking quorum of the Council deliberating Charter changes in one-on-one meetings with the City Manager, who then relays their "consensus" to the Charter Commission.

By the way, the City made no official video record of what Magner said in this meeting, or what anyone said. There was no explanation why there was no video recording. The meeting took place around a conference table, at the end of which was a video screen with a camera attached to the top, the kind of equipment used in business conference rooms all over the world to hold video meetings. So the lack of a video record of these Charter Commission meetings is not for lack of capability to record them. It's a deliberate decision by the City. It keeps the public in the dark as much as possible without violating the letter of the TOMA.

Now about that sneak peek into upcoming changes. It's in the Council's "consensus" that the Council wanted Magner to share with the Charter Commission.

I expect this Charter Commission, after consideration of a change the Council thinks is worthy of consideration, to recommend longer, staggered terms for Council members:

There's some thought around, would a longer term be more effective in that you would have more time between elections to not only create a work plan, but also to implement to achieve that work plan? And so the length of the term, the staggering of the term, you know, what you often hear is some consideration around, Wow, what if the whole council was turned over at one time? What would that do to the institutional knowledge? What would that do to a budget that maybe had been started to be developed, and then there was no one left from that Council to finish that budget? How would that look for the City? And so would you stagger the terms so that wasn't a possibility where all seven seats could be turned over at one time in one election? That's something for you to consider.

Source: City Manager Don Magner.

I expect this Charter Commission, after consideration of a change the Council thinks is worthy of consideration, to recommend that term limits should reset when a Councilmember is elected Mayor.

The way the Charter reads today is that that when they change to Mayor, that term limit is not reset. So if you've served three terms, and then you decide to run for Mayor and you're elected, you have three terms remaining. And so the Council was thinking around the idea of succession planning and giving Councilmembers the time to really get in and have developed a strong understanding of what we do, how we do it, why we do it, when we do it, all those things would, just for the transition from Council to Mayor, [have the] term limit possibly reset. So again, something for you to consider.

Source: City Manager Don Magner.

I expect this Charter Commission, after consideration of a change the Council thinks is worthy of consideration, to recommend raises for Councilmembers.

Talks about the compensation for serving as mayor and city council is something that's been in several Charter Commission reviews in other cities recently. I think there is some interest and a consensus among the council that is worthy of at least exploration and no recommendation here from the Council at all, just the idea of a lot of what they do is not during Council meetings, right? And so I think they would appreciate, they would appreciate that.

Source: City Manager Don Magner.

I expect this Charter Commission, after consideration of a change the Council thinks is worthy of consideration, to recommend relaxing rules against members of Boards and Commissions from financially benefiting from contracts with the City.

Things like the Home Improvement Incentive Program are considered and are, in fact, a contract with the City. The council here is really, really thinking about folks like you, not themselves at all, because they aren't suggesting that that shouldn't apply to the Council. What they're suggesting is, should a resident who steps up and serves on a Board or Commission, should they not be entitled to all of the same programs and services and opportunities as other residents?

Source: City Manager Don Magner.

In summary, the Council's "consensus" is that the Charter Commission should consider having longer City Council terms; staggered terms; relaxed term limits; higher Council pay; and relaxed rules against Board and Commission members financially benefiting from contracts with the City. That's a big bag of self-serving amendments. No amendments limit government, increase government transparency, tighten ethics rules, or expand citizens' powers and rights. Will the Charter Commission meekly go along? Will they recognize that they are being used as cover for Councilmembers getting more money and the voters getting fewer opportunities to weigh in at the ballot box? We'll have to wait to see.

"Council has ideas.
Self-serving changes for them.
Nothing for us."
—h/t ChatGPT

---

See my recommendations here:
Council Recap: Charter Review Commission
City Charter: Single-Member Districts
City Charter: Initiative and Referendum
City Charter: Video Record of City Council Meetings
City Charter: Transparent Appointment of Boards and Commissions