The Richardson City Council's "Rules of Order and Procedure", as approved by Resolution No. 24-03 on February 26, 2024, is the single best place to get your questions answered about how things are run at City Hall on Monday nights. I don't have a change history for that document, but rereading it just now, I see that it (finally) answers questions that I first had years ago. I still have some ideas on future changes needed.
Council Agendas
For example, as long ago as 2011 I wondered how City Council agendas are set. At the time, a knowledgeable member of the public, Bill McCalpin, offered good insight. Now the 2024 "Rules of Order and Procedure" spells out the details, mostly.
The 2024 "Rules of Order and Procedure" states, "2.2 The City Manager shall establish City Council meeting agendas based on the policy direction of the Mayor and City Council." What's the policy direction? Is that the adopted Goals and Strategies and Tactics? That happens only every two years. What can council members do to react to newly arising issues?
The 2024 "Rules of Order and Procedure" says, "If a Council member requests the City Manager to place an item on the City Council meeting agenda that does not fall within the scope of the current City Council goals or policy direction, the Council member may submit a written agenda request to the Mayor accompanied by written support of at least two other Council members for the placement of that item on an agenda." That answers the question. Although it could be kind of tricky lining up that support without running afoul of the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA). If a council member strikes out with the first two fellow council members they approach to get their support, that means they'll have to approach two more. That makes a total of five discussing the matter outside of a regularly posted meeting. That's a violation of TOMA. Personally, I'd like to see an action item at the end of every meeting where council members can request future agenda items.
Also, does the method of submitting agenda items apply to the mayor as well as other council members? Or can the mayor just take agenda items directly to the City Manager himself without getting support from two other council members? The "Rules of Order and Procedure" really needs some clarification here.
Gag Order on Whistleblowers
Even longer ago, 2010, I pointed out the newly adopted Code of Ethics contained a gag order on whistleblowing, something I considered contrary to good ethics. Here's the offending clause carried over into the "Rules of Order and Procedure":
2.6a: "Council members may not disclose the nature of discussion from a closed Executive Session unless required by State law. Disclosure of the discussion from a closed Executive Session is a violation of the City's Code of Ethics."
Texas law does not require city council members to publicly disclose statements made in executive session that violate state law. Texas law *allows* concerned council members to report violations to the proper authorities, but such is not *required*. I would amend the Code of Ethics and the "Rules of Order and Procedure" to state that council members "shall" report violations to the proper authorities. How can anyone be against that?
Expertise on Boards and Commissions
The City's website says, "The City has twelve (12) Boards and Commissions which have been established by City Charter, City Council, or State Law. Board members are selected by the City Council."
I've seen enough council meetings to realize that the official votes naming members to these boards and commissions happens in the open at council meetings, but I have yet to see the council deliberate in open session about who gets to have their names put up for a vote.
Recently, the City Council was asked to offer their opinions about the public art recommended by a selection panel. Mayor Amir Omar recommended relying on the opinions of the subject matter experts on this panel. Mayor Pro Tem Ken Hutchenrider pushed back, saying, "I understand your comments about relying on the experts, etc, etc. But every meeting we have we'll have the CPC vote seven-nothing on something, and we go against it." I don't think this point supported Hutchenrider's argument like he thought it did. To me there's something wrong in the process when the City Plan Commission (CPC) can vote unanimously to approve something only to have the city council, looking at the exact same thing, vote 7-0 to reject it. If we're not appointing experts, that's on us. If we're not listening to the experts we do appoint, that's on us, too.
The city council should look closely at their "Rules of Order and Procedure" in how appointments to boards and commissions are made to understand how that kind of disconnect between the left hand and right hand can happen. I suspect there's nothing in the process to rigorously recruit and examine the subject matter expertise of the candidates considered. That should be changed.
If the council is looking for out-of-the-box thinking in this, maybe searching for best practices from our neighboring cities, I offer the appointment process recommended in this blog post: "Council Recap: Charter Review Commission".
Ad Hoc Public Input
That covers the makeup of the existing boards and commissions. How about getting public input less formally? In his campaign, soon-to-be-elected Mayor Amir Omar pledged to hold regular coffees with constituents and quarterly "town hall" meetings around the city, all at various times and places, to increase the chances that constituents can meet with their representatives.
This raised doubts whether these are campaign events or city functions. It is a legitimate and useful need for public officials to hear from constituents. More than just during council meetings on Monday nights. More than during campaign events. Members of Congress get an official taxpayer-funded budget that covers official town hall expenses, provided the events are about representation, not campaigning. Council members should as well. "Rules of Order and Procedure" should enable the mayor and the rest of the council to hold events like this, either individually or collectively (always abiding by the Texas Open Meetings Act, of course).
What about other means of getting public input? I can imagine the value of creating an ad hoc or select committee of subject matter experts on hot topics like missing middle housing, homelessness, loss of local government control, water conservation, risk of other cities pulling out of DART, etc. The "Rules of Order and Procedure" should enable the mayor or members of the council to set up temporary ad hoc panels to receive public inputs. Put guardrails in place to limit the public resources involved, also to keep these panels from exercising anything more than advisory power, but don't make the red tape so burdensome as to prevent elected representatives from going through the process. We need *more* public input. Let's craft ways to get it.
"Citizens still ask,
How can wisdom be better
brought within these walls?"
—h/t ChatGPT
No comments:
Post a Comment