Thursday, July 12, 2012

Richardson Echoes

In case you're late to the party, let me catch you up. Richardson citizens face a referendum in November in which they'll be asked whether to change Richardson's city charter to make the office of mayor directly elected by the voters.

OK, I know it doesn't sound like much of a party. No fun here. Still, some are cackling about it like they somehow got into the good stuff. At least those people should find something to amuse them here.

Previously, I wondered, if direct election of the mayor is such an obviously fair and democratic way to do it, why in the world did Richardson's voters not set it up like that way back in 1956 when they adopted the current system? I started searching to find out what I could about that long ago decision, to find out if there might be any faint echoes of it still reverberating today that might inform the choice about to be thrust upon us in this year's November election.

I didn't find the answer to why Richardson made the choice they did in 1956, but I did discover that the City of Dallas, in 1949, switched from a system remarkably like Richardson's today to a system of direct election for mayor. I also found a back story that suggested that contentious council government after Dallas made the change would have justified Richardson's decision not to follow Dallas, but I didn't find any hard evidence that was behind Richardson's decision. For whatever reason, Richardson rejected Dallas's decision.

After the jump, the results of a little more digging.



Thanks to helpful reader Andrew Laska (a great resource for all things Richardson: Richardson Echo, Preservation Richardson, Richardson Heights Homeowners Association), I found my way to old copies of Richardson's newspaper of the 1950s, The Richardson Echo (the original one, not Laska's current site named in honor of the original). Here's what I found.

Before 1952, tiny Richardson was governed by what is called a commission form of government, consisting of an elected mayor and two elected commissioners.

In 1952, Richardson held an election and switched to an aldermanic form of government, consisting of an elected mayor and five aldermen. The functions of commissioners and aldermen were not much different, so I'm guessing the change was prompted primarily by Richardson's population growth and a belief that more elected officials were needed to manage Richardson's municipal government. The key thing for our purposes about Richardson's government at the time is that in both the commission and aldermanic forms of government, the mayor was elected.

One thing that sounds like something is confused is that Dallas, according to the history I found earlier, switched from an aldermanic form of government to a commission form in 1907, while Richardson went the other way in 1952. WTH?

Anyway, in 1956, Richardson held another election and switched from its aldermanic form of government to a council-manager form of government. The most obvious changes were, first, the number of council members grew to seven; second, the mayor was no longer elected, but selected by the seven council members from among their ranks; and third, a professional city manager was hired by the council to run the daily operations of city government. Again, I'm guessing that the changes were prompted primarily by Richardson's growth.

At least that would explain the larger council and the addition of a professional city manager. But why did the city switch from an elected mayor to one chosen by the city council? Why, indeed, given that neighboring Dallas had gone in exactly the other direction just seven years before? Was there something about the Dallas experience that led Richardson's voters in 1956 to decide to voluntarily put aside their right to directly elect their mayor? Or was there something in Richardson's own experience with an elected mayor to prompt the change? Curious minds want to know.

Shouldn't we all be curious? Wouldn't the answer to that question have been worth knowing before we started down the road to a referendum to revoke that long-ago decision, a decision by Richardson voters much like ourselves? Doesn't anyone care anymore to think through changes instead of just forcing them through because they sound good on first thought? Especially when people living right here in our place a generation or two earlier, when faced with the same questions, made the exact opposite decision? Whatever happened to prudence?

24 comments:

Mark Steger said...

P.S. Anyone who already knows the answers to all these questions that I'm stumbling around in the dark trying to answer and you're just not telling me ... I hate you.

dc-tm said...

:0) Don't hate 'em too much.

Nathan Morgan said...

I'm curious, too. Where are all the public records of the decision making process that lead to this controversial situation? And, why has the public outcry been ignored? Did nobody care enough to take notes? Or, was there the same absence/discouragement of community involvement back then as there is today?

There are few reasons these kind of records are not preserved by the responsible public servants. (Because the law did not mandate it is no excuse for failing to do the right thing.) Did those holding positions of authority, with the help of a gerrymandered electorate, force this upon the residents. Or, were the citizens actually involved and participating (not merely invited to, then ignored) in the process. Yes, curious situation to be sure.

One thing is certain. Due to those who have commanded positions of power for many, many years, Richardson has become stodgy in its efforts to modernize in a way that has left the city infrastructure and finances in pitiful shape for the public resources that have been spent.

There is no hope for new tricks from old dogs. It would have been much better if the elders of the community were forthcoming and devoted to the City of Richardson such that there would now be throngs of citizen involvement and a younger generation that had been carefully groomed to carry the torch under their benevolently watchful eye.

Instead, what we have is a handful of stingy old coots who behave as if citizens who seek to get involved are no more than a public nuisance.

And, by the way, it really doesn't matter if we like the law. It is the law, laid out in the Texas Constitution, that the Mayor will be directly elected through ballots cast by all qualified voters.

Why all this discussion about right and wrong, good and bad, needs to take place with our State representatives, or execute a petition drive to the qualified voters in the State of Texas to change the Constitution.

Until then, you might as well dance to the tune that's being played. The music is not going to change.

Nathan Morgan said...

I'm curious, too. Where are all the public records of the decision making process that lead to this controversial situation? And, why has the public outcry been ignored? Did nobody care enough to take notes? Or, was there the same absence/discouragement of community involvement back then as there is today?

There are few reasons these kind of records are not preserved by the responsible public servants. (Because the law did not mandate it is no excuse for failing to do the right thing.) Did those holding positions of authority, with the help of a gerrymandered electorate, force this upon the residents. Or, were the citizens actually involved and participating (not merely invited to, then ignored) in the process. Yes, curious situation to be sure.

One thing is certain. Due to those who have commanded positions of power for many, many years, Richardson has become stodgy in its efforts to modernize in a way that has left the city infrastructure and finances in pitiful shape for the public resources that have been spent.

There is no hope for new tricks from old dogs. It would have been much better if the elders of the community were forthcoming and devoted to the City of Richardson such that there would now be throngs of citizen involvement and a younger generation that had been carefully groomed to carry the torch under their benevolently watchful eye.

Instead, what we have is a handful of stingy old coots who behave as if citizens who seek to get involved are no more than a public nuisance.

And, by the way, it really doesn't matter if we like the law. It is the law, laid out in the Texas Constitution, that the Mayor will be directly elected through ballots cast by all qualified voters.

Why all this discussion about right and wrong, good and bad, needs to take place with our State representatives, or execute a petition drive to the qualified voters in the State of Texas to change the Constitution.

Until then, you might as well dance to the tune that's being played. The music is not going to change.

Sassy Texan said...

Good questions to ask. From the District Attorneys office to the AG, all say the Texas Constitution is the reigning document. Would be nice to see someone step up and answer with some truthfulness.

mccalpin said...

In 1956, the major change was not the switch from aldermanic form of government to council-city manager form of government, but was the adoption of a home rule charter for the City.

The State of Texas, long ago, used to write rules for every city. Yes, if the State Legislature wanted a city to do "X", they would just pass a law, even if the citizens objected. Even in the 19th Century, this proved to be insane.

Thus, by 1913, the State Legislature passed the enabling legislation to permit the creation of home rule cities. [http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/mvhek]
The purpose of having home rule cities was to permit the cities (normally referred to as "municipalities") to conduct their own affairs, so long as no action or ordinance contradicted anything in State law. This reduced quite a bit of the burden on the Legislature in terms of dealing with a rapidly growing state, and also placed governance closer to the people.

A town had to have at least 5,000 residents to apply for home rule status. Richardson achieved this in the mid 1950s, and thus a Charter Commission was formed for the purpose of writing a home rule charter that the citizens would vote up or down. As history shows (but oddly, Wikipedia no longer does - someone's been removing Richardson's history from the article), the citizens approved the new charter in 1956.

Yes, this charter allowed for a 7-member council with all members elected at large, and the mayor selected from the council. This plan was not all that unusual, because in the early 1900s, reformers bent on rooting out the corruption inherent in strong-mayor cities (i.e., where the mayor was the CEO) created the council-city manager form of government, where the city would be run by a professional city manager, with the council setting policies and performing oversight, but having no direct exectutive function.

The model city charters created by these reformist groups were indifferent to whether the mayor was elected by the people or by the council - the mayor's position was so weak that it really didn't matter. Indeed, in the minutes of the 1988 Charter Review Commission, there is a document entitled "A Study of the City Charter" done by the League of Women Voters in Richardson. My notes from reading this document have the following:
"About 1/2 of council-manager cities have council elected mayor and 1/2 have direct election. 'The Model City Charter' recommends the former (council elected), to avoid conflict between elected mayor and city manager on 'who's in charge'."

While the number of council-selected mayors has declined over the years in Texas - down to about 12 now - in 1956, there was nothing the least bit odd about having the council choose the mayor, for the reason listed above.

(cont.)

Bill

mccalpin said...

(cont.)

In a previous RumorCheck article, I laid out the history of the Charter and Charter Review Commissions. You can see it at http://www.rumorcheck.org/CharterCommissionHistory

In 1961 and 1966 (following a "let's review it every 5 years" model), a review was done on the Charter, but the Council judged that any changes were too insignificant to justify sending them to the voters...after all, elections cost money.

In 1973-76, a great deal of work was done to create a new Charter. The reason that this overhaul was done was that by the mid 1970s, the State has changed a lot of language relating to home rule cities. That is, prior to this point, charters tended to have a lot of verbiage on a lot of subjects, but as time went on, the State put additional language in the Codes that rendered the redundant language in each charter superfluous.

However, for reasons that I didn't find in the record, the City Council chose not to send this overhauled charter to the voters.

By 1987, after turnover on the Council, the commitment was made to have a charter review. The Commission spent about 14 months in many open meetings and public fora reviewing every single paragraph of the Charter. See http://www.rumorcheck.org/ClosedMeetings-CharterCommission.hmtl.html for the complete list of meetings, minutes, public hearings, etc.

At the end, by early 1989, the Commission had deleted about half of the Charter as it was no longer needed in light of changes in State law - really, it went from more than 100 pages to about 50.

Early on, there was discussion of 5 items in particular, for which subcommittees were formed:
- Term of office for Council (and staggered terms)
- Redistricting
- Single member districts
- Elections, popular vote for the mayor, filing dates, etc.
- Boards and Commissions, length of terms, term limits

There were long discussions on some of these issues up until March 1988, but the Commission finaly asked itself the question, "Are we a Charter Revision Committee or a Charter Review Committee?" They decided that they were the latter - charged with updating the charter, not making changes in governance. The 5 subcommittees were abolished, and they went back to single common meetings.

In any event, there was no great call for direct election of mayor. At most Commission meetings, there were no visitor speakers at all. At the four public hearings, there was of course public comment, but while it's possible that a few spoke for direct election of mayor, it clearly was not a burning issue.

The following is what local attorney (and later City Council member) Jim Shepherd said:
"Vote on all seven City Council candidates [ED: at-large voting was OK with him], City Council should elect the Mayor [ED: as opposed to popular vote], 7 member council is fine, [ED: Council members should have] 2 year terms, but stagger them [ED: the terms]."
The only change that Mr. Shepherd wanted in the structure of the Council was to look at staggered terms.

So, contrary to what some may think, the issue of direct election of the mayor was considered in 1988, there was no great call for it, and so the existing process of selecting the mayor from the Council was continued. No great conspiracy, no insiders trying to keep power, no cabal trying to lord over the people. Frankly, the people were given a chance to speak, and the people didn't seem to have a problem with the current system of selecting the mayor from the Council.

All of the above notes are taken from an in-depth review of the two boxes of records that the City Secretary has from the 1988 Charter Review Commission, compiled while researching the issue of "all meetings...shall be open" [http://www.rumorcheck.org/LawsuitagainstClosedSessions.html].

Bill

Mark Steger said...

Bill, thanks for the history lesson. The money line:

"So, contrary to what some may think, the issue of direct election of the mayor was considered in 1988, there was no great call for it, and so the existing process of selecting the mayor from the Council was continued."

That sounds plausible. Although no one has dredged up a similar record of the original 1956 charter commission meetings, I wouldn't be surprised if the original decision against direct election of the mayor was as uncontroversial.

Sassy Texan said...

Bill, I guess you have not spent any time at the library doing any minor research.

20 Speakers Express Ideas on the Charter
By Elizabeth Pearsall
Friday, February 5, 1988
Daily News Staff

In a cerebral debate more reminiscent of a college campus than a run-of-the mill city government meeting, the Richardson Charter Commission and about 20 local residents met Thursday over possible changes to the city charter.

Commissioners and their audience discussed issues that included efficiency in government; what motivates people to vote; whether people really know or care what goes on in their government; and other topics dear to the hearts of many political scientist.

The audience-boasted many local political figures, including plan Commissioners Carol Wilson and John Laine, Municipal Judge Carl McClellan, former council candidate Glen Zook, as well as generally less well-known civic activists. While there were few if any radical ideas expressed, the consensus of the meeting was for revisions in the present charter.

Thursday’s meeting was the first of two public forums and scheduled by the commission to allow public input to the comision’s task of proposed revisions to the city’s 32-year-old charter. The present document has never been revised.

The next forum will be held Thursday at 7:30 p.m. at the Huffines Recreation Center.

Last spring’s City Council election, when the city elected five rookie council members to the seven-member council, was a recurring theme as speakers debated the benefits and dangers of inexperience in city government.

Former Mayor Ray Noah, a member of the Charter Commission, drew gasps of outrage from the audience with a comment about pay standards for council members.

“Say you‘ve got an attorney on the council, who customarily makes $150 an hour,” Noah questioned Patricia Martin, a member of the city’s Arts Commission. “And the say you’ve got a housewife on there who’s really just looking for a reason to be out of the house … Would you pay them the same?”
When the audience erupted in murmurs of disapproval at Noah’s remark, he said he had made the statement “to make a point, not to be taken literally.” Men and women in the audience and on the commission did not appear amused.

Martin said she would not tie a council member’s pay to his private salary, but would attempt to adjust the present $10 per meeting to compensate for inflation.

The remainder of the discussion was orderly as 10 members of the audience filed to the speaker’s stand in Room E of the Civic Center. Although the meeting was slated to end at 9 to allow time for informal private discussion, pseakers kept the forum going until about 9:30 p.m.
Several mentioned last year’s City Council election and the level of interest in government among voters, but opinions differed.

Glen Zook, a local businessman who ran unsuccessfully in that race, spoke first. One of his main concerns was the ability of one area of the city to “control” government.

"The last election showed that one section of the city can control city government … Canyon Creek and the associated areas pretty much controlled the election, with more than half the voters,” he said.

Zook Proposed that the council be expanded to nine members, with six single-members districts. Zook also said the mayor, popular elected at large in his plan, should act as chairman for the council and only vote to break a tie.

con't

Sassy Texan said...

John Laine also deplored the imbalance on the council.

“We have one part of the city that can sweep an election as happened the last time, and I don’t think that’s entirely reasonable,” Laine said in his call for more continuity on the council.

Mayor Charles Spann and Council members Mary Ann Fraley, Ken Bell and Gary Slagel are all from the Canyon Creek area of the northwest Richardson, in the fourth City Council district.

The speakers also discussed the motivations that bring voters to the polls.

“If we have controversy, like we did this time, we may have a lot of voters (in the 1989 council election),” Zook said.

“I think people come out when the feel good about their situation … and when the identify with the candidates,” said Louise Chandler.

Sassy Texan said...

Or what about this story from the Richardson Daily News:


Charter Changes Called For
Wednesday, February 10, 1988
By Elizabeth Pearsall
Daily New Staff




Citizens request “Maximum Democracy”

The Charter Commission’s second public hearing, held Tuesday at the Huffines Recreation Center, proved scrappier than last week’s forum as speakers advocated stands from “maximum democracy” to library user fees.

Testimony centered on several major potential changes – the method of electing Richardson’s mayor, single member districts for all or part of the City Council and the length and number of council terms allowed. Comments indicated that some local residents see the council as closed, inaccessible body that makes “behind the scenes” decisions.

About 25 residents came for Tuesday’s forum, slightly more than the first hearing last week.
The forums were designed to give the commission fresh ideas from the public on proposed changes in the 32-year-old charter. After a debriefing session tonight, the commission plans to begin drafting its proposal for changes to the charter.

From there, the document goes to the City Council and the U.S. Justice Department for approval. If the changes meet those tests, Richardson voters will vote on the proposed changes Aug. 13.

Mary Lou Hoffman, Richardson League of Women Voters administrative assistant, called for “maximum democracy,” asking that all seven members of the City Council be elected by single-member districts.

“I don’t think it really hurts if you have members who disagree with each other,” Hoffman said. “I think disagreement is healthy, and … it’s far better to have a council that represents the people.”

Hoffman said some local residents perceive that the council often makes decisions behind closed door.

She advocated all single-members membership on the council, with four of the seven members one year and the remaining three elected the next.

Jeff Hacker, a member of the city Civil Service Board who spoke at length early in the meeting, said he preferred that four of the council members from single-member districts and that three be elected at large. Hacker also asked for a limitation on the number of terms a council member can serve.

“Nobody should consider this town their personal fiefdom ... the best way to ensure against that is not to allow unlimited terms. With the mayor elected by the council, there tends to be behind-the-scenes negotiating between council members” says Jeff Hacker.

Sassy Texan said...

And then there is this one:


Single-Member Districts on Charter Agenda
Tuesday, March 1, 1988
By Elizabeth Pearsall
Daily News Staff

Major decisions should come on proposed city charter revisions including single-member City Council districts and popular election of the mayor, when the Richardson Charter Commission meets Wednesday.

Chapters Three, Four and Five, governing the City Council, council elections and recall requirements, are up for final consideration Wednesday. Those section include several of the most controversial items under the commission’s scrutiny. The first two chapters of the charter cover the incorporation and territory of Richardson and the powers of the city, routine sections that have not drawn local debate.

The 12-member commission was appointed last fall to draw up a list of proposed revisions to the city’s charter. After months of research and debate, with two lively public forums in February, the commission has set its Wednesday meeting for the first round of voting on major proposed changes.

The three chapters set for voting Wednesday have been the focus of commission discussion for the last two weekly sessions. However, the group has delayed formal votes to give all members equal opportunity to be present for the vote. Both of the recent meetings have lacked the attendance of three commissioners, several of whom have been traveling on business.

During last week’s debate, the commissioner still showed a wide range of opinions on key issues, and Wednesday’s decisions are not expected to be easy ones.

Possibly the most far-reaching question Wednesday will be whether to propose switching Richardson to a single-member district City Council, similar to the present systems in Garland and Dallas.

The seven-member council is now composed of three at-large members and one from each of the city’s four voting districts. However, candidates from those four districts are voted on by all city voters. A traditional single-member system would mean voter in each quadrant would vote for their district’s representative on the council and the three at-large council members.

Some commissioners have said they favor the more direct democracy of single-member districts, while others such as former Plan Commissioner Dick Thompson and former Mayor Ray Noah have said they fear the system’s possible side effects of dissension and regional loyalties on the council.

The commission also has debated the pros and cons of allowing the city voters to elect the mayor in a separate race. The mayor is now chosen by his fellow council members.

However, the commission appears to agree on at least one important change, the need for the new city district lines to make the quadrants more equal in size and population.

The first and third districts, now south of Belt Line Road, are considerably smaller than the second and fourth districts north of that boundary. Central Expressway is the north-south divider.
The exact method of equalizing those districts, whether by moving the Belt Line boundary north as suggested by the commissioners Virginia Stennson and Sue Sloos or slicing the city into four vertical strips as Noah has mentioned, will be up for discussion Wednesday.

The main action during last week’s meeting was a decision to have City Attorney Louis Nichols bring the charter into conformance with state laws. Many procedural points of the original charter have been superseded by new state laws. The commission plans to submit it fin- … (rest of text is missing).


Looks like there was all kinds of drama back then on some of the same topics. I wonder why Bill doesn't remember this? Maybe he was not present to the activities to know....

dc-tm said...

These are the three articles.

http://dc-tm.blogspot.com/2012/07/present-charter-concerns-are-really-old.html

Mark Steger said...

A helpful reader (who didn't identify himself or herself) cites several articles from the old Richardson Daily News reporting on the work of the city charter commission in 1988. There were two public hearings at which some speakers argued for direct election of the mayor, single member districts, more council members, increased pay for council members, and various other changes to the city charter. The old stories were republished here.

mccalpin said...

These Richardson Daily News articles are in the material related to the 1988 charter review commission which I reviewed when researching the "all meetings...shall be open" issue. You will see that the newspaper articles just confirmed what I noted: that the issue of direct election was mentioned, discussed to some extent, but really was not a burning issue.

Bill

Nathan Morgan said...

Surprised you chose not to censer my post on this subject. Am I that "anonymous" poster to whom you refer?

Nathan Morgan said...

Yup, "mentioned, discussed to some extent, and not considered a burning issue" by the same gang denying it today.

Sometimes the people have to take back control in order to get things done. It is a shame our public servants have to be reminded who they serve like this.

It would have been much better for the community if they set their personal ambitions aside and behaved like the servants they pretend to be.

Sassy Texan said...

Oh please, I have identified myself to you several times over the last year. But if that is the best you can do to REFUSE to post dialog on the topic at hand you are no better than the rest of the liars in this city. And to quote a McCalpin post to me....I expected better of you.

Mark Steger said...

Confidential to the helpful reader who failed to identify himself or herself: Yes, I know who you are. The posting requirements demand more. You have to identify yourself to readers on each and every comment. For example, using your real name instead of an alias, adding your real name to your profile, or simply signing each and every comment, all would be acceptable means of meeting this requirement.

dc-tm said...

What can I say? I am just ornery that way. Have a good day Mark

Nathan Morgan said...

The issue is painfully clear. The law prohibits political subdivisions from imposing charter provisions contrary to the Texas Constitution and Statutes.

Richardson leadership have been defiant in the provision for direct election of the Mayor.

A commission of members elected by the citizens, not a committee appointed by the same group blocking such revisions needs to be assembled to review the Charter.

One of the reasons many citizens don't vote is because of the way Richardson rigged elections like these. They lost confidence in the value of their vote, and those who despotly cling to power.

Nathan Morgan said...

What's controversial about the Richardson way is the fact that it defies the Texas Constitution, wherein it plainly states Mayors are to be elected directly by the qualified voters (not by proxy).

All this squabbling about feelings is of no consequence. We either abide by the law, or we don't.

It appears there are a bunch of gambling outlaws who have sharked all the aces.

mccalpin said...

Nathan, your answer makes no sense. Are you saying that I am denying that it was discussed?I most certainly did not. Are you saying that it was a burning issue? Where's the proof? These articles show that it was discussed but was not as active a subject as other items. Furthermore, unlike you, I reviewed all the minutes for all the charter review commission meetings, and, frankly, most meetings had no visitors at all speaking about direct election of the mayor or anything else.

In your response, you do what you always do: you make an assertion, you offer no evidence to back it up, then ridicule any one who disagrees with your opinion. Then you add unsupported accusations of bad behavior to try to distract the reader.

So, although I know it will be a complete waste of time, "do you have any evidence that direct election of the mayor was a burning issue?" because those articles sure aren't it...

Bill

mccalpin said...

To whom are you referring here?

Bill