On August 24, 2026, the Richardson City Council interviewed eight applicants for the vacant Place 3 position on City Council. On September 14, they reduced the field to three finalists. Rather than primarily evaluate the applicants based on their answers, I'm going to focus on the questions the council members asked, in hopes of getting good questions asked September 21, when the three finalists will face the Council again for another round of questions.
Two council members deserve kudos for asking great questions.
Council Member Jennifer Justice: "I believe that a healthy City Council is one that can collaborate, compromise and respectfully disagree. In that spirit, what is one decision you think the City Council got right? One you think it got wrong and why?"
What makes this question great is that, first, it shows whether the applicants have been paying attention. It's worded so much better than the usual question, "How many meetings have you attended?" Second, it separates an independent thinker from the conformists by demonstrating whether the applicant is willing to openly disagree with his peers. The question was so predictable that, to me, failure to come prepared with an answer should be a strike against the applicant.
One of the three finalists, Daniel Burdette, failed this basic test. He failed to identify any decision he thinks the City got wrong.
Another finalist, Jordan Noret, got tangled up in his answer, saying he first supported the Amazon drone decision, then his doubts grew when one landed in his yard. He gets credit for being open to changing his mind, if that's what he did, but he never clearly said that the original decision was wrong. So, at best, he gets only partial credit for his answer.
That leaves just one of the three finalists who unambiguously identified a decision he disagreed with. Jeff Davis said he thought that including money in the 2026 bond package for the Breckinridge Park bridge—he mistakenly referred to it as the Huffines Park bridge—should have been postponed. Jeff Davis is a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission that participated in shaping the bond package that was presented to the City Council. So he's familiar with the pros and cons of that part of the bond package, perhaps even more so than the council members themselves. The council member who lobbied for moving the Breckinridge Park bridge above the cut-off line was Mayor Pro Tem Ken Hutchenrider. It takes self-confidence to openly disagree with one of the people sitting in front of you who will be deciding your own fate.
The other council member who asked a great question was Mayor Amir Omar.
Mayor Amir Omar: "Should Council simply accept what the market brings us or, when appropriate, challenge the market and hold out for something [better]?"
What makes this question great is that it encapsulates a dividing line in Richardson politics for at least a decade. Richardson has plans (e.g., Envision Richardson) that call for something better, but year after year, developments fall short of the plan. We want vibrant, walkable, mixed-use developments, but the developers bring to the council boxy, brick-and-stick four-story apartment buildings. Council members wring their hands and say they can't approve things the city's plans call for if developers don't bring them to us. In 2025, then-mayoral candidate Amir Omar wasn't willing to settle in cases like that. He wanted to talk to landowners and businesses to help recruit a better quality of development for Richardson. He was told by his opponent, Mayor Bob Dubey, "That's not your job." Omar won the election. His subsequent comments at a town hall meeting suggest that Mayor Omar wants to see people who share his vision join him on City Council.
I personally will be looking for someone who believes that Richardson can actually demand more from its developers than what we demand today. I want someone who believes that Richardson deserves and is actually worthy of something better than we've been willing to settle for over and over again in my life. And for me, that's going to be one of the things I'm going to be looking for. Yes, I'm going to look for experience. Yes, I'm going to be hoping that the person, you know, has a reasonable way that they think through things. But in the end, at the heart of it, I'm looking for someone who wants more, not someone who's just comfortable exactly the way it is. We have a city manager form of government. We have an exceptional city manager in that role. But I also want council members that are going to be free thinkers, people who are actually going to look at a situation and, despite what is told to them by staff, that they actually try to still come up with their own reasoning and their own solution, and then make a decision based on that.Source: The Wheel.
So, did the applicants answer the mayor's question in a way that aligns with the mayor's own vision? Two of the applicants gave strong answers.
Scott Ricamore said, "We should always be holding out for better." Rick Bell said, "We're never going to sit and wait for somebody to bring us something." But neither of them were selected as finalists. What about the three who were?
Daniel Burdette said the answer has to be "a balance of both." Using the Interurban sub-district as his example, he said Richardson has had a vision for that area for more than a decade, but if the market isn't producing that vision, the Council should be willing to reexamine the plan itself. Not so fast, I say. Burdette hasn't even been appointed to Council yet, and he's already surrendering the vision. Remember, the "Richardson Way" is to "Plan the Work. Work the Plan." Maybe the fault in Interurban is not with the plan, but in how the plan has been worked...or hasn't been worked.
Jordan Noret gave a case-by-case answer. Sometimes he'd be willing to wait. Sometimes, he said, the timing isn't right for patience and the city needs to fill a space. If Noret's premise is that there are times when the city "needs" to fill a space now, he didn't give any examples. Another weakness in Noret's answer, in my opinion, was saying, "I do have some ideas, but in a seven-and-a-half month term, I don't know if it's really appropriate to be pushing those ideas." Elected officials don't have the luxury of knowing how long their service will last, or when opportunities will present themselves. An applicant for an open seat should come not just with stated principles, but with specific priorities that they want to pursue. If appointed, they will have equal standing with the other six council members and should be ready to work on those priorities from day one.
Jeff Davis gave a planning-oriented answer. He said Envision Richardson provides the framework for deciding whether to accept a development proposal or wait for something better. His central point was that Council should think 10, 15, even 25 years ahead. He framed the choice as sometimes rejecting a short-term gain in order to work towards the longer-term goal if that better serves the vision established through the planning process.
I believe that there's nothing wrong with a council member seeking to choose a replacement who shares the council member's own principles and priorities. They should ask questions that reveal philosophical compatibility. Ask questions that make it hard for applicants to give generic answers. Sharpen those questions to better draw distinctions between applicants. Ask the same question of every applicant to enable a direct comparison. Don't ask for priorities in the abstract; ask for choices between specific competing priorities. Don't ask about aspirations; ask about tradeoffs. Don't ask questions where the "right" answer is obvious; ask questions on which reasonable people can disagree. Don't just ask applicants their position on a given topic; also ask what it would take to change their minds.
Here's hoping that the second round of questions to be asked of the three finalists on September 21, 2026, are even more revealing than the questions asked of the eight applicants selected to interview on August 24.
Quotes have been lightly edited for clarity and brevity.
"Seek one who can think,
Not merely read the room.
Leaders must choose."
—h/t ChatGPT
No comments:
Post a Comment
Keep it courteous, clean, and on topic.
Include your name.
Anonymous commenters are unwelcome.