Artist: John Trumbull.
On July 14, 2025, the Richardson City Council held a worksession where they reviewed draft language for amendments to the City Charter. That language would be placed on the ballot in the November election for the citizens of Richardson to approve or reject.
The Charter Review Commission recommended 48 amendments. Of those only four contain substantive changes. A fifth contains a requirement that the city have an ordinance setting out a Code of Ethics. That is substantive, but because the City already has a Code of Ethics, nothing will need to change. It does prohibit any future City Council from repealing the Code, and for that it is important, maybe the most important amendment, as it emphasizes the importance of a Code of Ethics to the people of Richardson. All of the other amendments are minor changes to clarify the language or to use consistent language in different parts of the charter. The council deliberated on the four substantive amendments and reached a consensus on the direction they'd like to see the City Manager take on the final draft wording of the propositions.
On July 28 a final draft of the amendments will be presented to the council for their approval. Then, on August 11, an ordinance calling an election in November, 2025, will be presented for council's approval.
The four substantive amendments are discussed below.
Proposition D
"Shall Article 3, Section 3.04 of the Home Rule Charter be amended to increase the city council per diem compensation for attendance at city council meetings from $100.00 to $150.00 not to exceed $7,800.00 per annum, and beginning January 1, 2030 to increase the per diem to $200.00 not to exceed $10,400.00 per annum?"
This is essentially an inflation adjustment from 2015, when the $100 compensation was last set. And it anticipates another inflation adjustment in five years. Because the charter has to be reviewed every ten years, this council will leave it to the council at that time to decide if further adjustments are necessary at that time.
I support this amendment. It's not what the Charter Review Commission recommended ($1,200 per month).
Proposition KK
"Shall Article 14, Section 14.01 of the Home Rule Charter be amended to change the required percentage of qualified voters required to sign a petition for initiative from ten (10) percent to ___ (__) percent?"
The Charter Review Commission left this requirement alone, at 10% of registered voters.
Mayor Amir Omar explained his preference: "I'd like to see it based on the total registered voters [rather than actual voters in the last election] because I think it's a more steady number, but I'd like to see the percentage lowered. And based on what we're seeing in the reference of the [cities] who base it on the previous vote history, to me, that somewhere between 5 and 10, call it 7 and a half, just feels like a number that is more achievable by our residents who are interested in starting their own referendum."
Mayor Pro Tem Ken Hutchenrider added, "Could we settle on 8%, 7.5% rounded, make it 8% and go that direction?" The council settled on a requirement of 8% of registered voters.
I think that even 8% of registered voters is too high of a bar to clear. For Richardson, that means a petition would need 5,768 signatures, not to actually remove a council member, but just to get the question to go to the voters. Voters make the final decision, not the people who sign the petition. In 2023, Bob Dubey was elected mayor with only 4,910 votes. To me, it seems too high a bar to require more signatures to get an election than it took to elect a person in the first place. But 8% is at least a change in the right direction. I support this amendment.
[Update: 10am. My comments just above are mistaken. There are three places in the Charter where a 10% threshold is specified, for initiatives, for referendums, and for recall elections. The proposed amendments (KK and MM) change the threshold for initiatives and referendums from 10% to 8%, but it leaves the threshold for recall elections at 10%. As this difference received no mention or discussion, I'm inclined to believe it was an oversight, not deliberate. I urge the city council to review that matter at its July 26 meeting and explicitly decided what the threshold for recall elections be set at.]
Proposition MM
Proposition MM is essentially the same charter change as Proposition KK, but for a referendum, not an initiative.
I support Proposition MM also.
Proposition V
"Shall Article 18, Section 18.08 of the Home Rule charter be amended to provide that the City Council may in addition to, or in lieu of a surety bond for the city manager and city employees obtain a crime policy or other insurance to protect the city against any loss?
This amendment received a lot of discussion by the Charter Review Commission and by the City Council and the final wording is still in some flux. City Manager Don Magner said, speaking of the City's insurance broker, "in their professional opinion, the crime policy that the City has covers essentially the same types of issues that the surety bond would cover, but covers it more extensively and to a greater and higher level. And so the punchline here is that they don't feel that there would be anything lost if the surety bond was not required if the crimes policy was in place."
The draft language left a surety bond as an option but added a crime policy as an alternative. The council saw no need to leave a surety bond as an option and recommended changing this proposition to require only a crime policy that would cover not just the City Manager but other city officials.
I support this amendment.
My last words? My own desires for charter amendments were ignored (what's new?), but at least neither the Charter Review Commission nor the City Council did anything harmful. The few substantive changes they do propose are changes for the good. I recommend a straight "yes" vote on the amendments in November.
Quotes have been lightly edited for clarity and brevity.
"Council shapes the path.
But public gets final vote.
Change comes through ballots."
—h/t ChatGPT
1 comment:
My comments are mistaken. There are three places in the Charter where a 10% threshold is specified, for initiatives, for referendums, and for recall elections. The proposed amendments (KK and MM) change the threshold for initiatives and referendums from 10% to 8%, but it leaves the threshold for recall elections at 10%. As this difference received no mention or discussion, I'm inclined to believe it was an oversight, not deliberate. I urge the city council to review that matter at its July 26 meeting and explicitly decided what the threshold for recall elections be set at.
Post a Comment