tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2498525082522582900.post9067769320739253351..comments2024-03-22T16:02:08.213-05:00Comments on The Wheel: Who Killed D.E.? A Richardson WhodunnitMark Stegerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02376182294736839659noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2498525082522582900.post-45526495605757282582013-04-12T09:55:27.889-05:002013-04-12T09:55:27.889-05:00Thank you for working thru the discussion. BTW, c...Thank you for working thru the discussion. BTW, can a person have the last word if they ask YOU a question? lol But Mr McCalpin filled the bill by doing so. Completely confident he would. If you think many do not understand after a lawsuit and a petition drive, then you might rethink your conclusion. Have a wonderful day. Sassy Texanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00498774040581968874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2498525082522582900.post-10561235532707966052013-04-10T00:34:00.876-05:002013-04-10T00:34:00.876-05:00And all the discussion that follows in this thread...And all the discussion that follows in this thread about charter commissions and whatnot is predicated on one person’s misinterpretation of state law. As Mark correctly states, section 9.002 refers ONLY to the initial adoption of a new charter – so think the Texas City Attorneys as shown in a series of presentations at their conferences – see <a href="http://www.texascityattorneys.org/2013speakerpapers/RileyFletcher/TypesOfCityGovernment_Heather%20Mahurin.pdf" rel="nofollow"> page 11 </a>for their 2013 session (the 2099 and 2011 sessions say the identical thing). Indeed, even the state code itself states “This chapter applies to the adoption or amendment of a municipal charter”. But the word “amendment” does not appear until Section 9.004, implying – as the Texas City Attorneys think – that sections 9.002 and 9.003 apply only to the initial adoption of a home rule charter, and not subsequent amendments thereof.<br /><br />Billmccalpinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02768191960822864278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2498525082522582900.post-8966206210246402102013-04-10T00:32:03.812-05:002013-04-10T00:32:03.812-05:00Prior to this seemingly interminable thread, I had...Prior to this seemingly interminable thread, I had already taken it upon myself to review the Council discussion from the date in question - kudos to you, Mark, for writing about it.<br /><br />The discussion is eye-opening, because the more you listen, the more you realize that Laura didn't lead the charge against direct election of the mayor, she lead the charge to – as we say in Texas, "fish or cut bait"...that is, [Laura] “I’ve got to tell you, I don’t think that it’s a simple as just saying we’re going to directly elect the mayor.”<br /><br />For that reason, Laura argued that direct election of the mayor should be part of an overall charter review, and [Laura] “If we are going to do that (look at everything), we need to give it the due diligence that it deserves.” <br /><br />From the discussion, it was clear that Steve Mitchell explicitly agreed with her, and that Scott Dunn and Mark Solomon were not interested in changing the way to elect the mayor anyway.<br /><br />Mark's comments began to wander away from the subject of election of the mayor onto the subject of a charter commission, so Laura brought the discussion back on point. She then flat out asked if the Council wanted to vote “tonight” on whether to put direct election of the mayor on the May 12 ballot as the near term action item stated. She wanted that action item to be put to rest, even if it resurfaced later in the charter commission discussion.<br /><br />Thus, what Laura was showing was the leadership to stand up and state that this subject wasn't going anywhere so let's vote on it and move on. And, indeed, that's what happened. The Council voted 6-1 against the near term action item of putting direct election of the mayor in the May 2012 ballot.<br /><br />Then came the discussion on whether or not to start on a charter review commission. Indeed, each Council candidate in the 2011 election had called for charter review. <br /><br />Laura asked, "Was this the most pressing issue?" She continued, "If we think it is, then I will be in favor of jumping full course into it, but I think we need to be very realistic in knowing that if we take this on, what this term will be about will be the charter review."<br /><br />Curiously, Amir seemed to agree, "I agree with Councilman Maczka, I agree that there’s a lot more important things. I agree that this would take a lot of time if we did decide to do it."<br /><br />He then correctly pointed out the seemingly odd contradiction that people were opposed to the direct election of mayor because it would take a lot of thought, but that they were also opposed to a charter review commission at this point because it would take a lot of thought. But then he suggested that the Council direct the staff to go off and investigate what would be involved short of a full review to determine what direct election of mayor would need - but the Council had just clearly indicated that they didn't want this.<br /><br />Why did he do this? Because a full charter review wasn’t actually very important to either Amir or Laura at the start of the term: both of them rated “Utilize work sessions to discuss community interest of a City Charter Review” as “52”, that is, the lowest interest possible. Clearly, what was important to Amir was only direct election of the mayor, and what was important to Laura was moving on.<br /><br />In terms of the original post, “Who Killed Direct Election?”, the answer is clear – the Council had zero interest (outside of Amir) in pursuing direct election of the mayor, and all Laura did was to acknowledge that fact and ask the Council to move on. <br /><br />(continued)mccalpinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02768191960822864278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2498525082522582900.post-19370693922997481942013-04-09T16:56:00.085-05:002013-04-09T16:56:00.085-05:00Readers who have persevered this far might have pi...Readers who have persevered this far might have picked up on an irony. In the original blog post, I said Omar was making a tactical error by criticizing Maczka for "leading the charge" against direct election of the mayor, allowing her to avoid having to explain why she was opposed to direct election of the mayor at all. <br /><br />Now, in this long comment thread, another person has decided to attack Mazcka for the wrong thing. The comment thread is lost in the weeds about the legal procedures of how city charter amendments are drafted and submitted to the voters. Once again, Maczka could (if she were somehow drawn into this debate, which she's smart enough to avoid) talk endlessly about municipal code niceties, sounding all smart and in control, and once again skate from having to explain why she opposed direct election of the mayor at all.<br /><br />Maczka is golden.<br /><br />Cheri, if you want the last word on the topic, have at it.Mark Stegerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02376182294736839659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2498525082522582900.post-33236770386490792662013-04-09T16:09:59.057-05:002013-04-09T16:09:59.057-05:00Already explained. The municipal code does not *re...Already explained. The municipal code does not *require* the city council to form a commission for the purposes of reviewing the charter and drafting amendments. It can do so if it wants. Or not. As I said before, "The city council can decide on these amendments in almost any way it wants. It can draw them up itself. It can rely on city staff or the city attorney. It can create a commission to make recommendations (which it then can accept or ignore). The key point is that all of these other sources are advisory only. The city council is empowered 'on its own motion' to submit amendments to the voters."Mark Stegerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02376182294736839659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2498525082522582900.post-4251980884818466982013-04-09T16:04:20.725-05:002013-04-09T16:04:20.725-05:00So where does charter review fit into that statute...So where does charter review fit into that statute?Sassy Texanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00498774040581968874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2498525082522582900.post-4303302887087480652013-04-09T15:23:15.356-05:002013-04-09T15:23:15.356-05:00The structure of paragraph (a) of Sec. 9.004 is id...The structure of paragraph (a) of Sec. 9.004 is identical to the structure of paragraph (a) of Sec. 9.002. The first sentence specifies what the city council can do of its own free will and the second sentence says what the city council must do if presented a petition by the citizens.Mark Stegerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02376182294736839659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2498525082522582900.post-84679655094978169522013-04-09T15:19:00.665-05:002013-04-09T15:19:00.665-05:00So if I am to understand you correctly, the two se...So if I am to understand you correctly, the two sentences in the same paragraph, 9.004, have different meanings by your definition, when in larger context different meanings are sequestered in subsections (like a,b,c etc)? Sassy Texanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00498774040581968874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2498525082522582900.post-88531834677809082842013-04-09T14:10:45.095-05:002013-04-09T14:10:45.095-05:00Sentence 1 of Sec 9.004 says the council "on ...Sentence 1 of Sec 9.004 says the council "on its own motion" "may submit..." Sentence 2 says the council "shall submit" "if the submission is supported by a petition."<br /><br />First sentence: council is free to do so on its own. Second sentence: council is forced to do so if citizens petition. Different matters.<br /><br />Everything the council was discussing on January 30, 2012 had to do with the first sentence. There was no petition at the time, so the second sentence didn't apply to what the council was considering at the time.Mark Stegerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02376182294736839659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2498525082522582900.post-42388214090006390082013-04-09T14:02:35.431-05:002013-04-09T14:02:35.431-05:00I am not confusing them at all. In fact, I have ta...I am not confusing them at all. In fact, I have taken a very large part of my life to read, understand and comprehend local governance. I continue to ask questions of difference agencies around the state. I have a very large library of documents for various ORR's around the state and this city. <br /><br />Texas Constitution, Article 11, Section 5 says no Charter shall be inconsistent with the Constitution or statute. Just because the charter has some very large consistency issues does not mean we can confuse it among ourselves. <br /><br /> You took sentence one and are excluding sentence two of 9.004 which defines how they can submit an amendment. They can submit amendments IF.....<br /><br />9.002 explains in part (d) that there is more than one charter commission by saying "Certain provisions do not apply to the first one....<br /><br />Cheri<br /><br />Sassy Texanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00498774040581968874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2498525082522582900.post-74141284761220358142013-04-09T13:42:55.839-05:002013-04-09T13:42:55.839-05:00§ 9.004. CHARTER AMENDMENTS. (a) The governing bod...§ 9.004. CHARTER AMENDMENTS. (a) The governing body of a municipality on its own motion may submit a proposed charter amendment to the municipality's qualified voters for their approval at an election.<br /><br />The key language is "on its own motion." The city council does not need a charter commission to submit amendments to the voters. The city council can decide on these amendments in almost any way it wants. It can draw them up itself. It can rely on city staff or the city attorney. It can create a commission to make recommendations (which it then can accept or ignore). The key point is that all of these other sources are advisory only. The city council is empowered "on its own motion" to submit amendments to the voters.<br /><br />You are confusing the "charter commission" defined in Sec 9.002 with what's informally called a charter review commission that the council would appoint and use to suggest amendments to the council for their consideration. Two different things.<br /><br />(The language about petitions is how the citizens can force the council to do something if the council chooses not to submit an amendment to voters. It's what happened last year after the council voted to cease discussion on the matter. It's not what the council was talking about in January, 2012.)Mark Stegerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02376182294736839659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2498525082522582900.post-49486045768936386482013-04-09T13:25:43.589-05:002013-04-09T13:25:43.589-05:00How then per "9.004' is the Charter Commi...How then per "9.004' is the Charter Commission selected? <br /><br />There is no language on their ability to do anything but submit an amendment to the voters IF they have a petition signed by qualified voters.<br /><br />Exact language is: <br /> The governing body of a municipality on its own motion may submit a proposed charter amendment to the municipality's qualified voters for their approval at an election. The governing body shall submit a proposed charter amendment to the voters for their approval at an election if the submission is supported by a petition signed by a number of qualified voters of the municipality equal to at least five percent of the number of qualified voters of the municipality or 20,000, whichever number is the smaller.<br /><br />That does not say anything about choosing or not choosing on their own merit. Nor does it say anything about their ability to choose a commission. Sassy Texanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00498774040581968874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2498525082522582900.post-23527422057815844512013-04-09T12:30:41.450-05:002013-04-09T12:30:41.450-05:00With all due respect, Sec. 9.002 does not come int...With all due respect, Sec. 9.002 does not come into play even with a full charter review. It only comes into play if the city intends to scrap its charter and frame a new one. No one has suggested that.<br /><br />As set out in Sec. 9.004, the city council is empowered, "on its own motion," to submit to voters amendments to an existing charter. It can use a charter review commission (or not, at its decision) to identify the amendments that it will submit to the voters (or not, at its decision).<br /><br />§ 9.004. CHARTER AMENDMENTS. (a) The governing body of a municipality on its own motion may submit a proposed charter amendment to the municipality's qualified voters for their approval at an election.Mark Stegerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02376182294736839659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2498525082522582900.post-22392587900232605402013-04-09T12:20:02.277-05:002013-04-09T12:20:02.277-05:00Mark,
Whether there is a reframing or a new one,...Mark, <br /><br />Whether there is a reframing or a new one, that will be determined by the Charter Commission. So whatever needs to be done it is the responsibility of the Charter Commission. We are speaking on how the commission is selected/elected by the collective, not the adminstrative. <br /><br />2007 is a prime example of a couple of specific issues to be changed/amended. And that is where 9.004 came into play. <br /><br />Currently, no one is asking for anything specific other than a review and 9.002 defines that. <br /><br />The specific point of Direct Election, ie a specific amendment, was accomplished to amend one non-compliant section of the Charter. The citizens handled that in the appropriate manner. <br /><br />With reference to Jan 30, the discussion was upon two different topics. As I recall, Laura did not want to address the direct election without a full charter review.<br />And that only comes with the selection of a Charter Commission. <br />Welcome to 9.002! <br /><br /><br />CheriSassy Texanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00498774040581968874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2498525082522582900.post-28503686889907191092013-04-09T11:21:48.460-05:002013-04-09T11:21:48.460-05:00Cheri, Sec. 9.002 applies to cities that want to d...Cheri, Sec. 9.002 applies to cities that want to discard their existing charter and "frame a new charter." The discussion on January 30, 2012, was not about that. It was about *amending* Richardson's existing charter, not discarding it and framing a new one. Sec. 9.004 sets out how to amend an existing charter.Mark Stegerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02376182294736839659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2498525082522582900.post-56759815065514330332013-04-09T11:15:06.392-05:002013-04-09T11:15:06.392-05:00Mark, section d of 9.002 says The provisions of Su...Mark, section d of 9.002 says The provisions of Subsections (a), (b), and (c) regarding the selection of a charter commission do not apply to the first charter election in a municipality. <br /><br />Mark, this is NOT the first commission. <br /><br />CheriSassy Texanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00498774040581968874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2498525082522582900.post-30889268787758645892013-04-09T08:15:27.295-05:002013-04-09T08:15:27.295-05:00Cheri, Sec. 9.002 sets out the selection of a char...Cheri, Sec. 9.002 sets out the selection of a charter commission "to frame a new charter." The discussion on January 30, 2012, was not about that. It was about amending Richardson's charter. Sec. 9.004 sets out how that is done.Mark Stegerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02376182294736839659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2498525082522582900.post-51847506733364707152013-04-08T19:38:32.546-05:002013-04-08T19:38:32.546-05:00This topic has more to do with just Laura and Amir...This topic has more to do with just Laura and Amir, but that is the only race so we will speak to her specifically. The whole Council is lacking in initiative on this specific topic.<br /><br />Amir is correct for the most part. Go back and look/listen to what Laura said. Laura is absolutely WRONG in her posturing of the procedural choices of who will be chosen for charter review commission and what staff's role will be in the process. The truth is they really do not have one. <br /><br />She was against it because of one time issue of May and never once said that November is a ballot time also. So when did the direct election item appear on the ballot? <br /><br />The general voting public gets to choose the charter commission so her ideas of keeping personal agendas at bay requires a mirror to everyone in the work session room. <br /><br />Here is local government code 9.002<br /><br />Sec. 9.002. SELECTION OF CHARTER COMMISSION. <br />(a) The governing body of the municipality may, by an ordinance adopted by at least a two-thirds vote of its membership, order an election by the voters of the municipality on the question: "Shall a commission be chosen to frame a new charter?" The governing body shall by ordinance order the election if presented with a petition signed by at least 10 percent of the qualified voters of the municipality.<br />(b) The election ordinance shall provide for the election to be held on the date of the municipality's next general election scheduled after the 30th day but on or before the 90th day after the date the ordinance is adopted. However, if no general election is scheduled during that period that allows sufficient time to comply with other requirements of law, the election shall be ordered for the first authorized uniform election date prescribed by the Election Code that allows sufficient time to comply with other requirements of law and that occurs after the 30th day after the date the ordinance is adopted and published in a newspaper published in the municipality.<br />(c) The ballot at the election on the question prescribed by Subsection (a) shall also provide for the election from the municipality at large of a charter commission to draft a charter if a majority of the qualified voters voting on the question of choosing a charter commission approve the question. The commission must consist of at least 15 members, but if it has more than 15 members it may not have more than one member for each 3,000 inhabitants of the municipality. The ballot may not contain any party designation.<br /><br />There is nothing in the Charter or Local Government Code or the Texas Constitution that says the Council is a "Board of Trustees" to make decisions on a charter review commission. It is not their document to decide. It is their job to see that the requirements contained within are upheld. Period. One could say the misrepresentation was purposeful, but it is getting most tiresome to read and wonder why the lies. <br /><br />Laura can say all day long it is complicated and lots of work, but it is only complicated if she wants to make it so. Here is one more instance where she has failed at understanding the responsibility of her position. She can go back and look at the Council term action items which are more vague than finite, but if she had done one simple little thing, sentiment might be very different. Take that city provided iPad and looked up the Charter and then to the reference of Local Government Code, she would know everything she said was completely misguided. The fact she was misled by staff is a completely different issue. And we all understand why they want to control the review. <br /><br />This is a MAJOR issue for an assessment of her qualifications to be Mayor. And once again she has proven she is not ready. <br /><br />Cheri Duncan-HubertSassy Texanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00498774040581968874noreply@blogger.com