Artist: John Trumbull.
The once-every-ten-years Charter Review Commission concluded their service with their submission to the City Council of a report of their recommendations. I've blogged about the commission meetings. Justin Neth has reported them as well. Dustin Butler of Community Impact (the closest thing Richardson has to a local newspaper) reported on the commission submitting its report to the City Council.
The changes recommended by the commission:
- A whole bunch of wordsmithing for consistency throughout the charter and for clarity and readability. I have no issues with any of that.
- Increase in council member pay from $100 per meeting to $1,200 per month. This raise is significantly more than a simple inflation adjustment. Council members' responsibilities have not increased since the last pay increase. The average Richardson resident is unlikely to see pay raises of this magnitude. It looks bad for the City Council to give themselves a raise.
- Allow board and commission members to be eligible for economic incentive agreements with the City. There's a reason the current charter prohibits board and commission members from entering into such contracts. It's to require that "officers of the city shall at all times strive to avoid even the appearance of impropriety." It says so in the Code of Ethics. The rule is simple. If you want to benefit from economic incentives, just stay off boards and commissions. This door should remain shut, tightly shut.
- A whole new section of the charter was created, a "Continuity of Government" section spelling out what should happen if, say, a small asteroid hit city hall on a Monday evening. I can't say whether it's how I would have written it, because it was too low on my list of priorities to pay it much attention. If it's better than building a "Golden Dome" for Richardson I won't object.
- Another whole new section of the charter was created, requiring the City Council to enact a Code of Ethics and review it every two years. I know Richardson already has a Code of Ethics, and this new Charter section doesn't strengthen it, but it does signify an importance to the Code that a simple city ordinance lacks. That makes it a step in the right direction.
- Perhaps most significantly, there were things this commission decided not to do. They didn't mess with term limits, length of terms, or staggering terms. They voted down an effort to add red tape to grass roots petition efforts to change the charter. I was worried about what this commission was going to do. In the end, my fears didn't come to pass.
Am I happy with the results of this Commission? Overall, yes. "First, do no harm" is not just good advice to physicians. It's good advice for anyone who doesn't like how politics played out in the past and thinks the way to fix things is to start tinkering with the laws. This commission didn't fix much, but at least they did no harm.
But...you knew there'd be a but. Going into the commission's work, I had offered five suggestions for charter amendments. Two made government more representative. One made it easier for grass roots efforts to enact change in the face of closed doors at city hall. One put limits on governmental power, with a goal of preventing abuse of power. One made it harder to conduct government out of the public eye. These suggestions never had a chance with this commission. Most weren't even brought up for discussion.
My suggestions (each submitted in writing, each acknowledged as being
received, none discussed):
City Charter: Single-Member Districts
City Charter: Initiative and Referendum
City Charter: Video Record of City Council Meetings
City Charter: Transparent Appointment of Boards and Commissions
City Charter: Ending Pretext Stops
Where does this go from here? That's up to the City Council. The council can reject the commission's recommendations. It can amend them. It can add its own amendments to the mix. It can retrieve for consideration one or more of the ignored suggestions from members of the public (cough, cough). In the end, the City Council will decide which amendments to send to the voters in November for their consideration and final approval.
The City Charter currently requires the City to review the charter every ten years. That means, in most cases, individual council members get one shot at doing this during their whole career on city council. Practically, it's now or never. Council members who have given good governance any consideration and have had ideas on how local government can be done better have only a very short time to dig those ideas out of their desk drawers and offer them to their fellow council members for consideration before this decade's opportunity passes them by for good. Destiny's clock is ticking.
"Ten years come and go.
A charter waits, paper-bound,
for hands bold to move."
—h/t ChatGPT
No comments:
Post a Comment