The big news February 9, 2026, was that the Richardson City Council ordered a $223.4M bond election for May 2, 2026. So let's talk about something else instead.
Also on February 9, 2026, the council ordered a Charter Amendment election. There was some urgency involved. Ready or not, this week's council meeting was the last chance for the council to call an election for May, either for a bond package or for charter amendments.
The eleventh hour feel of the deliberations over one particular charter amendment felt a little rushed. Less than a month ago, the Richardson City Council directed the City Manager to draft a "Resign-to-Run" City Charter amendment (Proposition XX). It would require a council member who announces their candidacy for another office to immediately resign from the City Council. The amendment, as proposed two weeks ago, would apply retroactively, meaning that Council Member Dan Barrios, who is running for Congress, would automatically be removed from office if and when the amendment passes. Many members of the public attended last week's council meeting, and this week's, to express their opposition.
In "No Truman Exception in Richardson", I gave my own reasons for opposition, not to a resign-to-run provision in general, but to making one retroactive to candidates already running for higher office. I believe this would be wrong on every level — on principle, on historical precedent, and on the optics.
For various reasons of their own, on February 9, 2026, the City Council removed the retroactive provision. They passed, 5-2, a measure to put the amendment on the ballot for voters in May with only forward-looking wording, applying to anyone who announces a run after the amendment is formally passed by the voters.
Before I explain why I support this final version of the amendment, let me reiterate my reasons for opposing the retroactive nature of the earlier wording of the amendment.
On principle: I object to changing the rules in the middle of the game. When Barrios decided to run, there was no law requiring him to resign from City Council. Changing the City Charter to force him out now, after he is already running, is unfair to Barrios, unfair to his supporters, and unfair to others who made their own decisions based on the rules in force at the time. We should let the current election cycle play out with the rules in place when it started.
On historical precedent: The nation already went through this once before. In 1951, the nation changed the rules for elections to the Presidency, prohibiting anyone from holding the office for more than two terms. After much debate, and for good reasons, Congress chose to carve out an exemption for the then current officeholder, Harry Truman. The Richardson City Council should learn from their example.
On the optics: Individual council members can explain until they are blue in the face that they are not being vindictive to Dan Barrios, but they can't change the fact that Dan Barrios is affected by the amendment and they aren't. Even if there's nothing personal in their votes, and I don't believe that there is, that can't help just look bad.
OK, that's why I oppose the amendment that did NOT pass. Why do I support the amendment that did pass? I agree with Mayor Pro Tem Ken Hutchenrider: "I am concerned, and this is my overarching concern, that when someone declares to run for an office...we run the major risk of introducing partisan politics into our city council." Given that all higher offices that a city council member might aspire to are partisan offices, I find it reasonable to believe that running for another office while serving on Richardson City Council does impose the risk of introducing partisan politics into city government. Having a resign-to-run rule is a reasonable way of ensuring that this risk is eliminated before the situation arises. And so, I will be supporting proposition XX.
"Retroactive law
Affects one man, maybe two.
Optics leave deep scars."
—h/t ChatGPT
P.S. None of this means Dan Barrios should escape criticism. He must think resign-to-run is a good rule because, in the end, he voted for it. There was never anything keeping him from, you know, resigning to run. I think that if he thinks resigning to run is the right thing to do, he ought to do it, whether a law forces him or not.
P.P.S. There's another City Charter Amendment that could have benefited from a little adherence to historical precedent. The 27th Amendment to the US Constitution delays laws changing Congressional salary from taking effect until after the next election of representatives. Let the voters take retribution on politicians voting themselves a pay raise. Richardson City Council ignored that sensible practice when it drafted Proposition D raising council pay immediately upon passage of the amendment. They should have delayed it taking effect until a new council is sworn in in 2027.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Keep it courteous, clean, and on topic.
Include your name.
Anonymous commenters are unwelcome.