Richardson Charter Review Commission Meeting January 16th, 2025

WHY THIS MATTERS

Regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, thank you for standing. I want to remind you all of something very important about our system of governance. I want to remind you that it is up to you, not someone else, to keep our Republic. We don’t have a Monarchy. We have Democracy, but only if you keep it. If you do not take your rightful place in our system of governance, someone else will.

It is important that you know what is happening. It is important that you know what the people who represent you are deciding on your behalf. To this end, I will be covering this year’s Charter Review Commission meetings. I also hope to offer my input when this commission allows for public input. I hope you will too. The Charter Review Commission met for the first time this year on Jan. 16^th. Their charge is to review the city’s charter for any necessary updates. Richardson is a home-rule city, and our charter is our governing document. It gives us the right to self-governance. It distinguishes us from simply being governed by the state or federal level. We have local control, but only if you keep it. Please take the time to be informed. Please study your charter and know what it says here: https://www.cor.net/government/charter-code-of-ordinances#article13 .

As a reminder, your 2025 Charter Review Commissioners are: Chair Gerald Bright, Vice-Chair Kimberly Quirk, Jennifer Baker, Dorris Benner, Lisa Dunn, Shayan Gaziani, Chip Pratt, Richard Strecker, Jeremy Thomason, Jerry Walker, and Terry Ziegler. At the Jan. 16^th meeting, all commissioners are present as well as City Manager (CM) Don Magner, City Secretary Aimee Nemer, City Attorney Pete Smith, Asst. City Manager Dannette Garcia, and Joe Gorfida, who is also introduced as a city attorney. Atty Gorfida’s nameplate states that he is from the Nichols, Jackson, Dillard, Hager, and Smith law firm based in Dallas. I tried to verify this information on the city’s website to no avail. I couldn’t find any mention of who our city attorneys are. I hope this information is prominently displayed somewhere and that I am just too incompetent to find it. If anyone can find this information, please let me know. (Shoutout to reader Nivasha Howery for finding the following link. Though it’s not on the city website, it at least shows elected officials and staff directors within the city organization. It still does not list Joe Gorfida. https://directory.tml.org/profile/city/803 )

I also want to note that, except for a scheduled public hearing, these meetings are not recorded. I hate that you have to take my word for what happened. I can’t understand why these meetings wouldn’t be recorded. I also encourage you to read Mark Steger’s coverage of this meeting at The Wheel here: https://www.marksteger.com/2025/01/charter-review-sneak-preview-of-changes.html

Now, here’s what happened.

OPENING

The meeting is called to order at 6 p.m. by Chair Bright in the Spring Creek Room of the current city hall facility. This room is located, as far as I can tell, behind secure doors that require a badge to enter. I and other visitors are greeted by city staff from the city secretary’s office and directed to the meeting room. Roughly a dozen seats are available to seat visitors. By my count, four visitors are present as well as someone I assume is from the communications department, taking pictures for the city. Tonight’s agenda has nine items. The first item is Welcome and Introductions. Sec. Nemer presents the agenda. The eleven commissioners each introduce themselves. Chair Bright and Vice-Chair Quirk share that they both served on the 2015 Charter Review Commission. CM Magner thanks the commissioners for doing something and serving rather than just complaining as some others do. (What a welcome, huh?)

The second item on the agenda is to Review Home Rule Charters, History, and Requirements. Sec. Nemer presents this item and explains the difference between a home-rule charter city and a general law city. She explains that a charter can only be changed with an election. She also explains that the 2015 charter amendments implemented a new requirement to review the charter every 10 years.

The third, fourth, and fifth items are to Review City Council Charge to the Charter Review Commission, Review Roles and Responsibilities of the Commission, and review City Council Input. CM Magner presents these items. He presents the charge and states that these commissioners were selected because of their unique perspectives and skills. He states that he met with councilmembers individually to get feedback for the commissioners. He does not share feedback in a way that reveals which councilmembers asked for which items of consideration. He only states that this is Council’s feedback for them to consider. He states that ensuring compliance with state law is important. Staff is also compiling a list of items of consideration to improve citizen understanding of the charter. The third part of the charge is for commissioners to offer their suggestions for updating the charter. A report will be submitted to Council on May 30^th.

COUNCIL INPUT

This process will include two public hearings, one held by this commission and one held by Council. Specific input from staff and councilmembers will be shared at future meetings. CM Magner shares that Council wants the commissioners to consider the timing of Council terms and elections. Considerations include possibly longer terms and staggered terms. Council is not suggesting that they consider extending term limits. Well, except for considering possibly resetting the clock on a term limit if a councilmember becomes mayor. (Enabling someone to serve for over 20 years does not seem like a good idea to me.)

CM Magner briefly mentions the commission considering doing something with the current per diem that Council receives. This was so brief that I almost missed it. Council currently receives a $100 per diem on meeting days. I believe that equates to roughly $3,800 a year. (I don’t mind this consideration, though others may have a different opinion. I think it would be a good thing to pay Council a wage that enables them to not have to split their time between a day job and their role as councilmember. City Council should be a full-time job.)

CM Magner also shares that the commission might want to consider whether certain sections of the Code of Ethics should apply to board and commission members or just to Council. He uses the prohibition of all public officers from participating in the Home Improvement Incentive Program as an example. (Let’s not roll back our ethics code and its application to all public officers, please?) The Ethics Code is also something you should be familiar with. This can be viewed here: https://library.municode.com/tx/richardson/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH2AD_ARTICOET .

Commissioner Thomason asks if staff could provide a benchmark comparison with other cities to establish best practices for these considerations. Staff replies that they can provide that benchmarking. Commissioner Pratt asks how often other cities review their charter. Atty Smith answers that it varies. There is no set established timeline for reviewing a charter. (We are a home-rule city, not a general law city. I don’t think we should set out to do things the way everyone else does them. We should do things the Richardson way.) Commissioner Thomason remarks in jest that staff should exclude Dallas from any benchmarking.

MEETING SCHEDULE

Item 6 is to Review the Charter Review Timeline and Proposed Schedule. Sec. Nemer presents this item. She notes that Council decided that it would be appropriate for the report from this commission to be provided to the next elected Council. Staff will propose specific text amendments based on feedback from the commission. The photo below shows the schedule for the remainder of this commission’s meetings. As you can see, they will meet 9 or 10 more times until the end of May. These meetings are Thursdays at 6 pm on the dates shown below.

OPEN MEETINGS ACT COMPLIANCE

The seventh item is to Review the Texas Open Meetings Act, Code of Ethics, Social Media Policy. Atty Smith presents this item. Atty Smith explains that texts or emails, if related to the business of this commission, can be considered public information. He explains that a quorum of this commission is six members. He also explains that it is a crime to participate in an unlawful meeting. Any questions the commissioners email to staff are also considered public information.

MEETING LOGISTICS

Item 8 is Meeting Logistics. Sub-item 8.a. is Consider adoption of Rules of Procedure and Rules of Conduct. The commission holds a discussion on the attendance policy. Commissioner Pratt asks if a member may remove themselves from the commission and if they would then be replaced. CM Magner answers that appointments to the commission are made by Council. The commission unanimously adopts a 75% meeting attendance policy.

Chair Bright states that public input should be taken at every meeting. He suggests a 3-minute limit for individual speakers. Commissioner Strecker asks if they can take public input outside of these meetings. Atty Smith answers that they can establish a direct method for citizens to provide public input. Staff could then convey that input to the commission during a meeting. CM Magner suggests creating a dedicated email for input to the commission. The commission unanimously approves that suggestion.

Back to the question of allowing public input at meetings, Commissioner Walker asks how this was handled in 2015. CM Magner explains how Council holds their visitors forums and suggests that the commission consider the same approach. Commissioner Strecker asks how much input was received in 2015. Chair Bright answers that he does not recall much input being given by the public. Sec. Nemer now mentions a suggestion that Chair Bright had apparently given earlier to aim to conclude these meetings by 9 pm. Chair Bright acknowledges the importance of being efficient but also acknowledges that they may go over that time some nights and they shouldn’t limit their work or public input for the sake of a meeting end time.

Commissioner Pratt suggests putting a visitors forum at the beginning of a meeting so they can consider public input before discussing an item. He also suggests a 15-minute total limit for speakers. Sec. Nemer states that she can create a public input form for the commission. The commission discusses establishing a total time limit, individual time limits for speakers, and a signup deadline to speak at meetings. They also discuss allowing comments on agenda items before hearing any comments on nonagenda items. Commissioner Dunn suggests a signup deadline of 6 pm since that’s when meetings begin. Sec. Nemer confirms this is similar to the way Council handles it. Commissioner Gaziani suggests allowing the commission time at the beginning of the meeting to review any emailed public input. He also asks if they have to allow comments on nonagenda items at all. He would rather limit speakers to comments on agenda items only. Commissioner Thomason adds that he would like to avoid any speakers who are seeking to make content for social media and cause a scene. He acknowledges, though, that this would be difficult to regulate.

Commissioner Pratt wants to hear all earnest speakers. He is against limiting the comments that the public can make. Commissioner Gaziani suggests loosening his suggested restrictions by allowing comments on past agenda items. Atty Smith states that they should probably stay away from attempting to limit what a speaker is allowed to say. The commission comes to a consensus and unanimously approves a series of regulations for public comments. Speakers will be allowed three minutes each and a total of 21 minutes for all speakers at the beginning of the meeting. Speakers must fill out a speaker card to speak and will be allowed to speak as long as they are present for the visitors forum. Speakers will speak in the order of cards submitted. The chair will have full discretion to enforce these regulations or, for instance, allow one additional speaker if the 21-minute time allotment has been reached.

Rules will be officially adopted at the next meeting. Commissioner Thomason asks if commissioners may still offer their input if they will be absent from a meeting. Staff answers that they may submit it to Sec. Nemer or Atty Smith and they will share it with the commission during that meeting.

RULES OF PROCEDURE

The proposed Rules of Procedure are presented on a slide. (I apologize for the blurriness of this picture, and for missing the second slide of these rules which mentions the social media policy.)

Commissioner Dunn suggests an amendment to clarify the definition of social media. She sees social media as just Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. She suggests adding something to clarify that commissioners should also avoid comments on blog posts. The commission settles on adding ‘or other similar platform’ to the rule that states commissioners should avoid commenting on their business on social media. The presented rules along with this amendment are unanimously adopted by the commission.

SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING & CLOSING

The final item is to Consider Setting a Public Hearing. Staff proposes a public hearing be held on Jan. 30^th at 6 pm in the Council chambers. Commissioner Pratt asks what the purpose of a public hearing is. Sec. Nemer explains that this provides an opportunity for citizens to make any comments or suggestions on what the commission should consider. CM Magner suggests that they consider time limits for individual speakers but not a total time limit for the public hearing. Commissioner Baker suggests a limit of five minutes for each speaker. The commission unanimously approves setting a public hearing for Jan. 30^th at 6 pm with a five-minute limit for individual speakers who will be required to fill out a speaker card. CM Magner asks for clarification on whether the commission desires to have both a public hearing and a visitors forum on the 30^th, or just the public hearing. The commission’s consensus is to only hold the public hearing on the 30^th. Commissioner Strecker asks to confirm where the public hearing will be held. Sec. Nemer answers that the public hearing portion will be held in Council chambers with the remainder of the meeting held in the Spring Creek Room.

The meeting adjourns at 7:39 pm. After the meeting adjourns, a fellow visitor points out to me that the screen they are presenting slides on appears to have a camera attached to it. (Scroll back up and see for yourself.) It seems that this setting would make it easy for the city to record these meetings since they likely have the necessary equipment to do so. I hope you will study the charter and offer your suggestions at the Jan. 30^th public hearing and at future meetings. Remember, if you don’t, they will decide without your input. I hope we can all do our part to ensure this commission has plenty of input to consider as they decide what changes to make to our charter. See you all on the 30^th.