Charter Review: "We the People"

Artist: John Trumbull.

On May 15, 2025, the Richardson Charter Review Commission completed their review of the Richardson City Charter. Well, almost completed. They still need to come back and review the final drafts of the amendments and formally vote on what they'll submit to the City Council.

After 10 meetings and I don't know how many suggested amendments (we won't know for sure what the number is until the City Attorney packages them up in way to submit to the City Council), the commission finally added one substantive amendment that I consider to be primarily in the public interest, not the commissioners' own interest, not the city council's interest, but in the people's interest. Read all the way to the end to see what it is.

---

The Preamble to the US Constitution says,

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, ..., do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The phrase "We the People" signifies that governmental power originates from the citizens. Likewise Richardson's City Charter is written by the people. It specifies the powers that Richardson citizens grant to the municipal government. It also imposes restrictions on the municipal government to protect the rights of citizens and prevent abuses of power. I think of these as handcuffs put on the City Council by the people. That's a good thing. In my opinion, the people should jealously guard such limitations, not seek to relax them for the convenience of government officials.

That's the lens I use to examine any proposed amendments. I support amendments that limit government. I oppose amendments that limit civil rights or make it harder for the people to exercise their rights. All others are debatable.

Most of the amendments proposed by this year's City Charter Review Commission are not substantive changes. They are wordsmithing for clarification and consistent use of language. Those should not be controversial. But several of the amendments contain what I consider to be substantive changes that deserve close inspection.

Financial benefit for Board and Commission members

One amendment opens the door for members of boards and commissions appointed by the City Council to benefit from financial incentive programs offered by the City. It relaxes the Charter handcuffs restricting government. It treats tax revenues as a piggybank for city council members to crack open for the benefit of people they appoint to boards and commissions. A case can be made for this amendment, but a strong case can be made against it. On principle, I favor keeping the handcuffs tight to make corruption harder.

Compensation for City Council members

Another amendment raises the compensation of City Council members about 3x. It also proposes changing the pay schedule from per meeting to per month, causing even greater sticker shock ($100 per meeting going to $1,200 per month). This amendment treats tax revenues as a piggybank for city council members to crack open to benefit, well, themselves. This one is my pick for the amendment most likely to cause some discomfort among council members wondering how it will be perceived by the voters. But coming off election wins, many of them unopposed, how much will the voters' perceptions weigh on council members' minds vs, say, their own pocketbook considerations? We'll see.

Continuity of Government

Another substantive amendment is one proposed by staff, and regards continuity of government during a major disaster, like for example, if a meteor strike kills everyone at city hall. That makes it substantive for sure, but also very unlikely. It's a "doomsday" amendment. City Attorney Pete Smith prefers to call it a "Continuity of Government" provision. It's neither a "piggybank" amendment nor a "handcuff" amendment. He agreed to research how other jurisdictions handle temporary transfer of power during disasters. The goal is to ensure government continuity in extreme circumstances while maintaining clarity about who can serve and make decisions. The commission left that loose end for the May 29th meeting.

Attribution Statement for Petitions

The commission returned to a desire expressed in a prior meeting for a requirement for citizen petitions, like for charter amendments (the 2012 charter amendment for direct election of the mayor was used as an example), to contain an attribution statement identifying who is funding or is otherwise the primary supporter of the effort, including a requirement that they follow the financial disclosure requirements similar to what's required for a political campaign.

This amendment adds red tape to the process citizens need to follow to exercise their right to petition the government. In general, I favor more transparency in government but less red tape making it harder for citizens to exercise their legitimate rights and powers. For me, who is behind a petition is less important than what the petition asks for. I think this amendment is unnecessary and is motivated more than a little by lasting bitterness over the 2012 charter change for direct election of the mayor. (I find it more than a little ironic that some commission members objected to having their own deliberations video recorded, but they want to force the originators of a petition to come out into the open.)

The City Attorney's preliminary opinion is that charter amendment petitions are governed by Texas election code that cities cannot amend. But he'll take another look and bring back a recommendation for the commission at the May 29th meeting.

[Update: By the way, a Specific-Purpose Political Committee (SPAC) was formed in 2012 to gather signatures for the petition calling for direct election of the mayor. The SPAC filed financial disclosures required by the state (contributions and expenditures). This charter amendment wouldn't have achieved what people opposed to direct election of the mayor were really after, confirmation of suspicions believed by conspiracy theorists.]

Code of Ethics

That brings us to my favorite amendment, one that "handcuffs" government. It's the only one proposed by this commission that addresses my desire to see the City Charter function as the people's tool to check and balance government authority, to guard against corruption, and to make government accountable to the people. It's a proposal to add to the City Charter a requirement that the City Council adopt a Code of Ethics for city officials. Here's the suggested wording:

City Council shall enact a code of ethics for officials, whether elected or appointed, paid or unpaid, to serve not only as a guide for official conduct of the city's public servants, but also as a basis for discipline for those that refuse to abide by its terms, the overriding interest being that such officers of the city shall at all times, strive to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

An expected reaction to this amendment is, why is this needed? Don't we already have a Code of Ethics? The answer is yes, we do have a Code of Ethics. It's an ordinance passed by the City Council. Meaning it's something that the City Council can repeal at any time. Putting a requirement to have a Code of Ethics into the City Charter emphasizes the people's interest in this and prevents any future City Council from simply repealing it altogether. They could still amend the ordinance, even gut it, but having this enshrined in the City Charter expresses the citizens' strong desire for having a strong Code of Ethics. One commissioner agreed that this is a good amendment, calling it a "no brainer."

The commission postponed voting on it pending a review by the City Attorney of the language used to ensure consistency between this new charter amendment and the existing city ordinance. I urge the commission to approve it at the final meeting of the commission on May 29, 2025.

---

Quotes have been lightly edited for clarity and brevity.

---

"Even good men fall,
Without rules that bind them fast.
Ethics must endure."
—h/t ChatGPT