Artist: John Trumbull.
On February 6, 2025, the Richardson Charter Review Commission continued their review of the Richardson Charter, covering Articles 9 (Boards and Commissions) and 10 (Civil Service). (Still no video by the City to link you to.)
Before new business, they finalized their recommendations on Articles 1, 2, 17, and 18.
Articles 1, 2, 17, 18
As expected, the Commission voted to recommend the repeal of the Charter's prohibition (Section 18.01) against members of Boards and Commissions participating in city economic development programs (e.g., Home Improvement Incentive Program) that require participation through a contract. In its place, the Commission recommends granting the City Council the power to grant exceptions to members of boards and commissions. The Commission discussed, but decided not to recommend including employees of the City in this exception.
It's a bad look for this Charter Commission to make their first substantive business repealing the rules that prohibit them from benefiting from city financial incentive programs.
The Commission also discussed the inclusion of "desirable" in eminent domain language defining when the city could exercise eminent domain (Section 2.03). It appears that the phrase "necessary or desirable" is a commonly used phrase in legal contexts to provide flexibility in interpreting the law. I don't have a problem with that as much as I have a problem with City Attorney Pete Smith's explanation of why the commission shouldn't want to eliminate the "desirable" part of that, leaving "necessary." Smith said, "So the whole point of the public charter is to make sure we have the full powers of self government." In my mind, that's not the "whole point." A city charter should also regulate municipal powers. If the citizens of a city like Richardson want to restrict the powers granted to the city manager and city council, the city charter is the place to spell out those restrictions. When listening to Smith, the Commission should keep in mind that the Commission represents the people of Richardson. Smith, on the other hand, represents the City of Richardson. Those are two different things. In the end, the Commission agreed with Smith that the term "desirable" should remain, as it captures all the power granted by the state constitution and laws.
The other parts of Articles 1, 2, 17, and 18 received only minor changes, none of a substantial nature.
Then it was on to Articles 9 and 10.
Boards and Commissions
Article 9 is a long part of the City Charter. The Charter explicitly creates six boards and commissions and adds "such other boards and commissions as may be hereafter created." None of the boards and commissions are required by Charter. The City Council has the power to abolish boards and commissions at any time. No Commissioner expressed any reservations about this. But it means, for example, that the newly created Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) and the Community Inclusion and Engagement Commission (CIEC) exist at the whim of four members of the City Council who can abolish them arbitrarily at any time. Just thought that might be worth keeping in mind.
About other things, Article 9 generated much discussion by the Charter Review Commission, most of which was educational in nature, with Commissioners asking questions and either the City Attorney, or Assistant City Manager, or City Secretary providing answers. In the end, only one substantive change was approved for amendment to the City Charter and that was one offered by city staff.
City staff (Jose Moreno) offered an amendment to Section 9.11 (Civil service board) regarding the powers of the board. He asked for the subtraction from the powers of the board of "rules regulating reduction of forces of employees and in what order they shall be dismissed and reinstated." In short, the City wants to remove the role of Civil Service Board in approving RIF policy, leaving all power in the hands of the City Manager. The Commission heard from city staff, but there was no input from the current or past Civil Service Board members on this change. One Commissioner expressed concern about giving more power to the City Manager, questioning whether the role of the Civil Service Board as a check and balance on the City Manager is needed. The Commissioner received no support from the rest of the Commission, which ended up voting to support the City's proposed amendment.
On another subject, one Commissioner questioned the wording of the last sentence of Section 9.03 (Removal and vacancies): "Vacancies in the appointive board or commission, whether by resignation, death, removal or other cause, shall be filled by council appointment for the unexpired term." He asked if we wanted to change "shall" to "may" to give the Council flexibility in cases where the vacancies occur close to the end of the term. He said, "As I read this, it says you gotta do it, and if you don't, you're not doing your duty, regardless of whether there's one day left or six months." City Attorney Smith's answer left me scratching my head: "They have the discretion within that language to make an appointment or not make an appointment, because there's no minimum time specified by which they have to fill the unexpired term." Why say "shall" (which in legalese means "must") if Council has as long as they damn well please to do something the Charter says they shall do? Either change the language from the mandatory "shall" to the permissive "may" or set a time period by which the Council "shall" do what the Charter says they "shall".
In discussion of Section 9.04 (Meetings), one member of the Commission asked about video recording of meetings of boards and commissions. City Attorney Smith interjected (in my opinion, exceeding his role of offering legal advice), "I don't know if you realize how much time and effort staff has to do to prepare for every single board and commission." The commission member weakly defended himself, "I bring it up simply because public input has brought it up. So I'm not advocating." He might have been referring to me. I do advocate for recording all City Council meetings, including worksessions and special called meetings. I didn't advocate for video recording all board and commission meetings (but it would a great stretch goal for the city). A Commissioner asked, "Where is it that we codify that we're going to do that for Council and CPC? Is it state law that requires us to [video record] City Council meetings? The City Secretary answered, "It's required by state law." Let me clarify that state law provides an exception for work sessions and special called meetings, where some very important business of Richardson City Council is conducted and for which the City does not provide a video record. That should change. If the City won't change voluntarily, the citizens through the charter should make the City change.
Civil Service
The Commission went through Article 10 at a rapid clip, not only not offering charter amendments but not asking for much education on how the existing Charter operates in practice today.
The Commission did approve one amendment offered by City Attorney Smith to Section 10.05 (Probation period). He asked the Commission to recommend deleting the Charter's defining periods of probation as "not to exceed six (6) months." This is to give the City the flexibility to define periods of probation of different lengths for different job classifications.
And with that, the Commission adjourned.
"City power grows.
Flexibility expands.
Still no video."
—h/t ChatGPT
No comments:
Post a Comment