Artist: John Trumbull.
On January 30, 2025, the Richardson Charter Review Commission started their review of the Richardson City Charter, article by article, beginning with Articles 1, 2, 17, and 18. (Only the five visitors in attendance saw what happened. Maybe someday, someone will invent something that could record government meetings for the convenience of people who can't attend in person.)
The Commission was looking for changes to the Charter to suggest to the City Council to put before voters in November. The City Council has the last word about what goes on the ballot. The citizens, at the ballot box, have the last word about what goes in the Charter. In three hours of deliberation, there was only one substantive change that was deliberated.
Personal financial interest
The substantive change to Section 18.01 deliberated by the Charter Review Commission was, as expected, the relaxation of the rules against members of Boards and Commissions from financially benefiting from contracts with the City. There was a consensus of the Commission for allowing board and commission members to participate in Richardson's Home Improvement Incentive Program (HIIP), which is currently prohibited by the Charter. Expect the Commission to draw up a couple of different versions of a Charter change for City Council consideration. One will be limited to boards and commissions and another will extend the benefit to employees of the City as well. Perhaps it will be specific to HIIP. Perhaps it will be general, giving the City Council to enact by ordinance which programs are open to boards and commissions and (maybe) employees.
It's a bad look for the Commission that their first discussion and seeming agreement on an amendment is one that opens up a City benefit to them personally. It's one of the few sections of our Charter that is stricter than state law and we're relaxing it.
Wordsmithing
The City Council opened the door to wordsmithing in the first meeting, when they charged the Commission to review the Charter for "clarity and effective application." The Commission raced through it, perhaps letting themselves be distracted from more substantive work.
Much of this Charter Review Commission meeting was spent on just such wordsmithing. For example, they spent way too much time discussing the use of "state law" versus "laws of the state of Texas." Some members of the Commission would like to do a global find-and-replace to make the Charter consistent throughout. They'll keep looking before deciding what to do.
Another inconsistency in the Charter is the use of "City of Richardson" in some places and just "city" in others (in one case, capitalized).
Related to this, the Commission briefly touched on a question I've long had about the use of phrases like "as required by state law" throughout the Charter. For example, Article 1, Section 1.02, says, "The city secretary shall maintain an official map of the city's boundaries as required by state law." If it's state law, then I don't see how the job of the City Secretary would change with or without that sentence in the Charter. So why not remove it? Ditto for all other cases like this. Maybe the Charter could be made half as long without changing the legalities on iota.
I see this as such a fundamental question about this whole Charter Review's existence and purpose that I'm going to have to go off on a tangent here to write about it. I'll come back to the rest of the Commission's deliberations in this meeting afterwards, when I think I can deal with them quickly.
Pardon My Digression. It's Important.
There is a hierarchy of laws in the United States. On top of all is the US Constitution, then federal laws. Next, there's the Texas Constitution and state laws. On the bottom, subservient to all, is a City Charter and ordinances.
Article 2 Section 2.02 of the Richardson City Charter declares, in part, "The City of Richardson shall have and exercise all powers conferred upon cities by what is known as the Home Rule Amendment to the Constitution of the State of Texas."
The Texas Constitution also states that "no charter or any ordinance passed under said charter shall contain any provision inconsistent with the Constitution of the State, or of the general laws enacted by the Legislature of this State."
These laws both empower and restrict what the City of Richardson can do. Home Rule cities can do anything not prohibited by state or federal law. I contend that the Charter shouldn't be trying to restate state law on the powers the City has or the limits on those powers set by the state. State law already covers that. Anything the Charter says about such things may be educational to Richardson citizens, but the Charter is not where the powers it proclaims are decided.
Instead, the Charter should focus on areas not covered by state law or on areas that the citizens of Richardson want to impose stricter limits than what state law does.
For example, state law leaves the composition of the City Council up to the City. That's a proper subject for the Charter to cover. Seven members? Nine? At-large elections or single-member districts? State law gives Home Rule cities broad latitude on such topics.
Also for example, state law regulates eminent domain. City Attorney Pete Smith introduced the Charter section on eminent domain by stating, "This talks about the City having the power to exercise eminent domain, which is also controlled by state law." Someone should have asked Smith if eminent domain is controlled by state law, why is this section in the Charter at all? The only reason to mention it in the Charter is if the citizens want to restrict the City's powers more than state law already does and I don't think our Charter does that.
What does all this mean as a practical matter for the Commission? Well, rather than seek to use consistent language every place "state law" or "the laws of the State of Texas" is used, ask instead whether the section can just be deleted altogether. If state law already addresses it, we don't need to say we'll follow state law. That's implied.
P.S. The Texas legislature recently put tighter restrictions on local control by the Texas Regulatory Consistency Act—commonly referred to by critics as the "Death Star Bill" (HB 2127). This law prohibits cities from adopting ordinances that regulate fields already occupied by a provision of state law (such as parts of the Agriculture, Business & Commerce, Finance, Insurance, Labor, Natural Resources, Occupations, and Property Codes). This is the first Charter review since HB 2127 was passed in 2023. At the very least, the Commission should ask, for each section, whether HB 2127 affects our Charter.
OK, moving back to the Commission's deliberations, taking my digression in mind...
Eminent Domain
Why is Section 2.03 even needed? If it isn't, delete it.
Streets and public improvements
Article 2 Section 2.04 is a mess. Besides redundantly declaring powers "authorized or permitted by the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas," it tries to do so exhaustively. Instead of trying to wordsmith it into respectability, ask why is Section 2.04 even needed? If it isn't, delete it. Wordsmithing avoided.
Church and school property assessments.
Why is Section 17.01 even needed? If it isn't, delete it.
Notice of Damage or Injury.
Why is Section 17.02 even needed? I inferred that maybe state law doesn't specify a time limit on when injured parties are required to file notice. If so, then maybe that's a suitable subject for the Charter. Or maybe we can leave it to the City Council to set the time limit by ordinance. In that case, delete Section 17.02.
Execution, garnishment and assignment.
Why is Section 17.03 even needed? If it isn't, delete it.
Liens against the City.
Why is Section 17.04 even needed? If it isn't, delete it. Is this an expansion of City power that state law doesn't prohibit, then consider keeping it.
Personal financial interest.
Section 18.01 was already covered above.
City contracts.
I infer state law doesn't specify which officer of the City needs to sign contracts. If so, then keep Section 18.02 as is.
Bid Openings.
Section 18.03 is a single long sentence that begins, "The city shall comply with state law regarding..." Of course we're going to comply with state law. Delete it.
Acquisition of land for parks.
Why is Section 18.04 even needed? If it isn't, delete it.
Public library.
Hallelujah! Finally, something that belongs in the Charter. I assume there's no state law requiring cities to maintain a public library. If not, then it's a good and proper thing for the citizens of Richardson to enshrine in our Charter the requirement that our City do maintain one. Keep Section 18.05.
Building Permits.
Why is Section 18.06 even needed? If it isn't, delete it.
Condemnation of dangerous structures.
Why is Section 18.07 even needed? If it isn't, delete it.
Bonds of city officials.
Section 18.08 gives the City the right to require City officials to be bonded. It doesn't require it. It simply gives the power to the City Council to require it. If so, keep this section as is.
An exercise I'd like the City Attorney to carry out is to go through the entire Charter with a highlighter marking all sections that could be deleted without causing any change in the powers of the City one iota. That could save some time in future sessions of this Commission and future Charter Review Commissions.
"Commission's first act:
Relax rules for those who serve,
Benefits to flow."
—h/t ChatGPT
No comments:
Post a Comment