Artist: John Trumbull.
On February 20, 2025, the Richardson Charter Review Commission continued their review of the Richardson Charter, covering Articles 5 (Recall) and 14 (Initiative and Referendum).
(Still no video by the City to link you to. Mayor Bob Dubey slammed the door on that, saying, "Initially, I'll be honest, I said I don't think we even really need to discuss that." Forced to discuss it, and vote on it, he supplied the tie-breaking vote to reject video recording.)
Before new business, the Commission finalized their recommendations on Articles 9 and 10.
Civil Service Appeals Board
During public comments, Justin Neth proposed adding appealable disciplinary actions, such as assignments to undesirable shifts, to Section 9.12.b., which covers appeals to the Civil Service Appeals Board by "suspended, reduced, demoted or discharged employees." A statement of policy by the HR Director was read: "Performance evaluations are given to all Civil Service employees by their supervisors. If an employee does not agree with their evaluation results, the employee can appeal it to their department director. Performance evaluation appeals are not heard by the Civil Service Appeals Board, but if a Civil Service employee falls below the minimum standard of performance on the official evaluation, the employee will be called before the board to show cause why such employee should not be released by the organization. At this time, the board would review the facts and make a final determination of the employee's employment." The Charter Review Commission decided not to make any change to the appealable grievances defined in the City Charter.
After reviewing and agreeing on a lot of non-substantive changes to clean up things like inconsistent language, paragraphs in the wrong section, and duplications, the Commission was done with Articles 9 and 10 and moved on to new business, Articles 5 and 14.
Petition Signature Threshold
Article 5 deals with Recall of the Mayor and City Council Members. Article 14 deals with Initiative and Referendum. In his public comments, Justin Neth asked to change the number of signatures required on a petition for recall, initiative and referendum. Neth reported that the City of Richardson required more signatures than all but two cities in the area.
Richardson requires signatures from 10% of registered voters. In the last general election, we had 72,092 registered voters and 9,963 ballots cast, according to the City Secretary. 10% of registered voters would be 7,209. So the way that the charter currently reads, a petition would require almost 80% of the number of actual votes cast in the last election (7,209/9,963). The City Secretary gave the Commission a handout showing that Allen and Irving have the same threshold as Richardson (10% of registered voters), whereas Carrollton, Frisco, McKinney, and Plano have a formula based on percentage of votes cast, not registered voters (usually 30%, sometimes 25%).
Going by the numbers presented by the City Secretary, Richardson would require 7,902 signatures on a petition to place a recall, initiative, or referendum on the ballot for citizens to decide, whereas only 4,982 votes would be needed to pass it, if voting turnout matched 2023. It seems unreasonable (to me) to require so many more signatures just to put something on the ballot than it would take to actually pass it.
The Commission was having none of it. One said the current threshold (10% of registered voters) "is completely reasonable. Voter apathy is pathetic, but we don't lower our standards because of voter apathy." I would argue that we shouldn't lower our standard because of voter apathy. Our standard has always been too high. Another said, "The ability to do a recall with a low hurdle creates churn and inconsistency and turning around within the city that would not make us a better place." No data supporting that argument was offered. Do cities like Plano, Frisco, Carrollton, or McKinney have more "churn" from recalls or initiatives or referendums? Not that I can see. A quick Google search didn't find any recall elections in Plano or Frisco. There was one recall election in Carrollton thirty years ago (in which there's an interesting Richardson connection ("Tumultuous and Divisive"). McKinney had only one recall election in its long history, in 2020, in which more than 72% of voters supported removal of a city councilman. In truth, recalls are rare, even in cities with lower threshholds than Richardson's. A third Commissioner said, "The last referendum that we had [in 2012, for direct election of the mayor] was done on the steps of the library, and they were able to reach that threshold without much trouble."
Speaking of that last petition, it, like McKinney's recall, was for something, that was extremely popular with voters. In our case it was direct election of the mayor, which passed with over 74% of the vote. It was so popular that City Councils for years should have realized that voters would want that change, and, in response to popular will, should have submitted a Charter Amendment for voter approval themselves instead of waiting for a petition drive to force their hand.
Petition Organizer and Funder
But the wisdom of being more responsive to the public is not the lesson one of our commissioners drew. The commissioner appeared to still be ticked off that the public favored direct election of the mayor. He is now seeking ways to change the charter to make a repeat of a citizen initiative even harder. The commissioner complained that the organizer and funders behind the petition were not required to identify themselves. That commissioner said, "Today, we have the option to change that." City Attorney Pete Smith interjected, "Well, I don't know. When we talk about statutory right for them to petition for a charter amendment, they have to follow that statute." There was nothing secret about who put the amendment on the ballot. It was Richardson citizens who did it by openly signing their names to a petition. As for who originated it, even that had more transparency than the commissioner claims.
In Texas, if the originators of a petition engage in activities that meet the definition of a "political committee" under Texas Election Code, they must comply with certain reporting and disclosure requirements. And, in fact, a PAC was formed in 2012, named "Richardson Citizens For A More Democratic Government" with the specified purpose, "This organization is dedicated to amending the Richardson City Charter so that its citizens can vote directly for a Mayor." A campaign finance report that the PAC filed, as required by state law, lists Alan North as Treasurer. It lists, by name and amounts, donors and expenditures, including one to a consultant for "Management/Execution of Petition & Fundraising Process."
Maybe there are some changes to ask for even more transparency that Richardson could consider, but state law already demands a lot. If false reporting is going on, a Charter change is not the remedy. More vigorous enforcement of existing state law is. In any case, City Attorney Pete Smith will research what latitude state law gives Richardson to tighten the requirements for citizen petitions. For now the Charter Review Commission did not identify any amendments to Articles 5 and 14.
How a Recall Works
As a footnote here, the commissioners seemed (to me) to have some misunderstanding of the differences among recall, initiative and referendum, even though City Attorney Pete Smith summarized the meanings of the terms in his introductory remarks.
There also seems (to me) to be a misunderstanding of how "recall" works. One commissioner said about some cities having a threshold of 30% of actual voters in the last election, "Why 30%? Why not 50%? It took 50% or more to elect them. Why not more than 30% to recall them? I don't understand the 30% at all." I have generally found that if there is some law that I don't understand "at all", the problem is sometimes not with the law, but with my homework in researching the reasons why a law was passed in the first place. My guess is that's what's happening in this case with our commissioner's research to understand laws in place in Plano, Frisco, Carrollton, and McKinney, cities we like to claim we compare ourselves to.
The signature petition to recall a mayor does not itself remove the mayor from office. That misunderstanding was echoed by another commissioner who said, "You say there were 9000 votes in the last election, okay, so if we went by these, some of these cities, and we said we only need 30%, that's only 2700 people that could recall someone. That just seems like not enough people. At least by going to the 10% of the registered voters we're forcing more people to make that decision."
Let me restate how a recall works. The recall petition itself doesn't remove a mayor. A successful petition drive only puts the recall question to the voters in an election. It will still take 50% of voters voting in that election to remove a mayor or councilmember. In effect, Richardson's petition threshold is not 30% of actual voters, not 50%, but 79% (7,209 signatures required compared to 9,963 votes cast). This, to me, is anything but a low hurdle. 79% is an unreasonably high hurdle. Maybe that's why we have never had a successful recall or referendum petition and only one successful initiative petition in my memory.
Qualified Voter vs Registered Voter
The Commission briefly got bogged down in a discussion of whether the Charter should say "qualified voter" or "registered voter." City Attorney Pete Smith said, "Maybe something to put on our evolving list of definitions or interpretations. Qualified voter means registered voter." In short, Smith is right. The 2015 Charter Review Commission bogged down over this question, too. Don't go down that rabbit hole again. Even state law has conflicting answers to that question. I said in 2015, in "Qualified Voter vs Registered Voter": "It's ironic that even after all that, there's still a question about what 'qualified' voter means. Well, there'll be another charter review in two to ten years. Maybe this detail can be cleaned up then. By the way, Richardson can make sure this never becomes an issue by making sure future candidates for city council remember to register to vote."
And with that, the Commission adjourned, having rejected any and all substantive reform proposals. They did agree to a lot of wordsmithing changes. The task to capture those was given to City Attorney Pete Smith, to "smith" it up.
Quotes have been lightly edited for clarity and brevity.
"How many miles must we walk through this town
To gather the names we need?
How many people must write down their names
Before the law takes heed?
Yes, and how many times must we call for reform
Before the old leaders leave?
The answer, my friend, is we walk and we sign,
The answer is we walk and we sign."
—with apologies to Bob Dylan and h/t to ChatGPT
No comments:
Post a Comment