Richardson Charter Review Commission Meeting May 1st, 2025

OPENING

Nine of the eleven commissioners are present. City Secretary Aimee Nemer, Dep. City Secretary Crystal Brown, City Manager Don Magner, Asst. City Manager Dannette Garcia, City Attorney Pete Smith, and Attorney Joe Gorfida are also present. Commissioner Gaziani and Commissioner Pratt are absent. Tonight’s meeting covers Article 3 (City Council).

Chair Bright acknowledges written comments from Mark Steger and Marcia Grau. I am the lone public speaker tonight. I asked the commission to keep our terms at two years and unstaggered. I asked them not to extend any term limits. I asked them to consider absolute term limits rather than the current consecutive term limit we have. I also asked them to require a special election when a vacancy occurs on Council. Currently, if there is only one councilmember vacancy, Council appoints someone to serve the remainder of the unexpired term. I also asked them to consider ranked-choice voting, now that staff has confirmed we could implement it if we desired to.

Minutes of the previous meeting are approved unanimously.

TEXT AMENDMENTS

Now the commission considers text amendments to Article 4 prepared by Atty Smith as discussed at the last meeting. The proposed text amends Sec. 4.02 and Sec. 4.04 to require residency in the designated district for at least one year prior to Election Day for places 1-4. The commission unanimously adopts the recommended text. Commissioner Thomason clarifies the process for confirming someone’s residency in these sections. Atty Smith answers that the options to challenge someone’s residency include a citizen challenging someone’s claimed residency. This could be a legal challenge brought through the court system, by the qualified voters not re-electing the challenged councilmember, or by Council action to declare a vacancy. All of these would take place after a person in this situation is elected to Council.

Atty Smith’s memo also includes information about ranked-choice voting, so the commission takes up that discussion at this time. Sec. Nemer has reached out to Collin County and has confirmed that their machines are not equipped for ranked-choice voting. New software would need to be purchased. If Richardson were the only city implementing this style of voting, Richardson would be responsible for funding this new software. Commissioner Dunn is opposed to ranked-choice voting. Atty Gorfida describes the method of ranked-choice voting. This method enables voters to rank their choice of candidates in a particular race. If a voter’s first choice receives the least votes in the election, that voter’s second choice gets counted, and so on. Atty Smith characterizes this as potentially “voting for someone you didn’t vote for”.

(I don’t agree with that characterization. A voter can simply choose their first choice and make no other selections. If their preferred candidate gets the least amount of votes, so be it. That’s not “voting for someone you didn’t vote for”. If a voter chooses to express their second preference, that’s their second preference. That’s also not “voting for someone you didn’t vote for”. Voters always have a choice, and this method enables a voter to express their preference among all the candidates for a race.)

Atty Gorfida acknowledges that, if a race has more than three candidates, voter fatigue could be an issue. Voters may not be as likely to be informed about every candidate. (While true, as commissioners have stated on other suggestions, voter apathy shouldn’t be catered to.) Commissioner Strecker notes that Alaska used this system for their 2022 and subsequent congressional races. He attempts to describe the method of ranked-choice voting again, but I think some commissioners still are misunderstanding this method of voting.

(And, fair enough. The commission probably shouldn’t recommend something that they don’t fully understand. And especially not something that may cost us more money purchasing software upgrades. If it saves us money, great. If not, fine, we aren’t ready for it. But this is a proven method of voting that other states have used successfully. There is no flaw in this voting system. In the 2022 Alaska congressional race, Mary Peltola got 49% of the vote while the next candidate, Sarah Palin, got 26% of the vote. After the eliminated third candidate’s first-preference votes tabulated those second-choice votes, Peltola received 55% of the vote and Palin received 45%. The system worked and saved the cost of a runoff.)

Commissioner Thomason acknowledges that there may be some benefits to this system of voting, but he does not see a compelling reason for Richardson to adopt ranked-choice voting at this time, especially considering the cost to update Collin County’s voting machines. Commissioner Baker also favors ranked-choice voting but acknowledges that now is not the right time for Richardson to consider it. The consensus is to not change our system of voting.

ARTICLE 3 – CITY COUNCIL (LESS SUBSTANTIVE SECTIONS)

The commission now reviews the last final unreviewed article, Article 3, titled City Council. The commission chooses to move through the sections by order of substance, rather than numerical order. We begin with Sec. 3.02, titled Mayor. No changes are suggested for this section. Next is Sec. 3.03, titled Mayor pro tem. Atty Smith has a recommended text amendment to this section to clarify that the appointment of the mayor pro tem will take place after any runoff election. The commission unanimously adopts this recommendation.

Next is Sec. 3.05, titled No council interference. Commissioner Thomason asks for clarification on how this section relates to Council appointing the city secretary. Staff concludes that this section does not contradict the appointment of the city secretary by Council. Sec. 3.06 is titled Council misconduct. Commissioner Strecker asks if a councilmember who is being considered for misconduct is excluded from a vote to expel them from Council. Staff concludes that, under the current language, an offending member is not excluded from voting. An offending member may be excused from voting but is not required to recuse themselves currently. Commissioner Thomason notes that this consideration affects the number of votes that would ultimately be required to expel an offending member. Since two-thirds of Council must vote to expel, including the offending member makes the required number five. Excluding them would make the number four out of the remaining six, if such language was adopted.

Sec. Nemer states that the Council Rules of Procedure may address this. The consensus of the commission is that they want an offending member to not be able to vote on their own expulsion. City Manager Magner notes that preventing an offending member from voting on their own expulsion aligns with the Code of Ethics. Commissioner Thomason asks if they should tie the Code of Ethics into the charter. Commissioner Dunn states that anything the commission thinks should not be left up to Council should be included in the charter. Atty Smith suggests that deeming a violation of the Code of Ethics as official misconduct might help achieve what the commission desires. City Manager Magner wants to be careful about including the entire Code of Ethics in the charter, so they don’t have to call a charter election anytime they amend the Code of Ethics.

Staff notes that the Code of Ethics allows for censure but not removal. They suggest that there is a distinction. Charter violations may warrant removal whereas an ethics violation may not. Commissioner Thomason still desires a reference to the Code of Ethics without including it entirely in the charter. Atty Gorfida notes that the charter is something that the public votes on. The Code of Ethics is a Council document that the public does not vote on. Asking voters to consider an amendment allowing for the removal of a councilmember based on the standards of a document not subject to voter approval is something the commission should consider. The consensus is to leave the Code of Ethics out of the charter but to amend Sec. 3.06 to not allow an offending member to vote on their own expulsion and make the required number of votes for expulsion two-thirds of the remaining voting members. Atty Smith will return with suggested language.

Sec. 3.07 is titled Council vacancies. We’ll return to this section a bit later. Sec. 3.08 is titled Meetings. Atty Smith notes that comments have been received regarding recording Council meetings. (As far as my input is concerned, my intent is to ensure that the charter requires recording of all open meetings of the Council. Even though state law currently requires regular Council meetings to be recorded, I want the charter to require this in case state law ever rolls back that requirement. I also want to ensure meetings such as the Council Goals Session are always recorded.) The commission concludes that this discussion is more relevant to Sec. 3.10, which we will get to shortly.

Commissioner Thomason asks if anything needs to be amended in Sec. 3.08 to address virtual Council attendance at meetings. Atty Smith notes that virtual attendance still requires at least a physical quorum of the Council in person at the meeting place. Sec. 3.09 is titled Special meetings. No comments are made on this section. Now we consider Sec. 3.10, titled Open meetings. Chair Bright asks which meetings would need to be recorded that are not currently. City Manager Magner notes that special called meetings for advisory board appointments might fall into this category. (Again, the Council Goals session and ensuring that we shore up the current practice of recording all Council meetings by requiring it in the charter is my intent here. As the charter is written, there is nothing preventing the city from changing their practice to only recording meetings that are required by state law to be recorded.)

The commission has some discussion on recording board and commission meetings, but this section only applies to Council meetings. City Manager Magner notes that the Council Rules of Procedure also address when meetings should be recorded. This is something that Council can address currently without requiring a charter amendment. He also clarifies that the CPC is the only commission that currently has recorded meetings. Commissioner Strecker states that it might be preferable to require the quasi-judicial meetings to be recorded instead of just leaving it up to Council. Again, this section is only relevant to Council meetings. The consensus it to leave it up to Council.

Sec. 3.11 is titled Quorum. No comments are made on this section. Sec. 3.12 it titled Voting and rules of procedure. Besides the already discussed prohibition of an offending member voting on their own expulsion, no other amendments are suggested for this section. Sec. 3.13 is titled Summoning witnesses. Commissioner Baker suggests updating “books and papers” in this section as has been recommended for some other sections to be more modern. Atty Smith relays that Chief Tittle has also requested an amendment allowing any official allowed by law to process serve, rather than just the police chief or a police officer. The commission achieves consensus on these changes. Sec. 3.14 is titled Administering oaths. No comments on this section. Sec. 3.15 is titled City Secretary. No comments on this section either.

ARTICLE 3 – CITY COUNCIL (COUNCIL PAY AND TERMS)

Now the commission returns to some of the more substantive sections, starting with Sec. 3.04. This is titled Compensation. Atty Smith states that it may be administratively and financially easier to establish a fixed pay amount paid monthly, rather than paying a per diem on meeting days. Commissioner Dunn prefers to keep Council pay in the charter rather than leaving it up to Council during their budget process. The rest of the commission agrees. Commissioner Strecker asks where the current $100 per diem on meeting days came from. Vice-Chair Quirk, who was on the 2015 Charter Review Commission, answers that they doubled the $50 per diem in 2015. Commissioner Strecker analyzed what the current $100 per diem would be today if it increased annually based on the consumer price index (CPI). Since 2015, current pay would have increased roughly 30% if it was attached to the CPI. He notes that inflationary indexing is applied to social security and other benefits. If they want to keep up with inflation, they might consider doing the same.

Chair Bright reads Commissioner Pratt’s comments on the topic. Commissioner Pratt supports increasing Council pay and not making it different between the mayor and councilmembers. He also thinks that pay should be a fixed amount paid monthly, not a per diem amount based on meeting attendance. He suggests $18K/annually. Commissioner Dunn suggests that an increased pay could make Council more accessible to some people knowing that they could do this and another part-time job to make a living. Commissioner Benner replies that they shouldn’t base Council pay on someone’s ability to earn a living.

Commissioner Thomason offers an analysis of what $18K/annually equates to for an hourly wage. Remember, councilmembers reported an average of roughly 20 hours dedicated to the role weekly while the mayor reported roughly 44 hours weekly. Council is scheduled to have 40 meetings in 2025 if you include the two days of the budget planning sessions in August. So, I’ll use 40 weeks to divide the suggested annual pay by. $18K/annually is roughly $450/week for a 40-week workload. $450 divided by the 20 hours that councilmembers reported dedicating to the role equals about $22.50/hour. For the mayor’s reported 44 hours weekly, that would equal $10.22/hourly. If we instead assume that councilmembers dedicate the same number of hours regardless of whether a meeting is held that week, $18K divided by 52 weeks equals about $346/week. This would equal a $17.30 hourly wage for 20 hours worked and $7.86/hour for the 44-hour weekly workload. Commissioner Thomason states that it’s roughly equivalent to minimum wage.

Commissioner Thomason agrees with not compensating councilmembers as full-time employees. But he also wants to increase access to serve on Council by not requiring someone to have the existing means to afford to give their time to the role. Commissioner Walker has a similar line of thinking as Commissioner Thomason. Councilmembers should be compensated for their professional time without creating an opportunity for someone to make money from serving on Council. He does support an increase to Council pay. Commissioner Benner asks the commission to consider how much time should be expected from a councilmember for the role versus how much time they choose to dedicate. Commissioner Strecker suggests that increasing pay could increase the chances of younger councilmembers being able to serve. Commissioner Baker agrees with paying Council a fixed amount monthly and attaching pay to an annual CPI increase. She suggests a $14K annual pay.

Commissioner Baker expresses some concern about monthly pay not having as much incentive for a councilmember to show up to every meeting. If a councilmember will get paid regardless, they may be less inclined to show up to every meeting. Commissioner Thomason notes that more time is spent on the role outside of meetings than in meetings. The commission achieves consensus on paying Council a fixed amount monthly.

The commission now considers whether to attach an annual pay increase to CPI for Council. City Manager Magner cautions the commission on potentially setting Council up to get a pay increase in a year where employees might not get an increase. Commissioner Ziegler asks if Council could just get the same raise as employees get in that year. Staff notes that not every employee gets the same raise so that would be difficult to accomplish.

Chair Bright suggests perhaps $15K/annually paid monthly. Commissioner Thomason reminds the commission that the majority of this role should be of service to the city, not compensated. Council should always do more in their role than they get paid for. He thinks Council pay should be somewhere between $10K - $20K. Commissioner Dunn again advocates for enabling someone, such as a stay-at-home parent, to be able to receive some compensation to encourage them to run. Vice-Chair Quirk reminds the commission that this is a position of service. School board trustees get no pay at all. Commissioner Benner agrees with Vice-Chair Quirk’s perspective. The commission agrees to an annual pay of $14,400 to make it $1,200 each month. The commission also agrees to not include an attachment to an inflation index, so it will be a fixed amount.

Commissioner Dunn notes that this increase will likely be a shock to some voters. Commissioner Strecker also thinks this will be a tough proposition to pass as worded. Atty Smith suggests putting a monthly amount of $1,200 on the ballot to help with any voter sticker shock. The commission agrees with this, and they unanimously approve the motion adopting this recommendation.

The commission now reviews the final remaining section of the charter. Sec. 3.01 is titled Number, election, terms. Commissioner Walker begins the discussion on term lengths. After hearing all of the perhaps unintended consequences of changing our term lengths, he has settled on keeping our terms at two years and unstaggered. Commissioner Baker agrees. Commissioner Dunn also agrees. Chair Bright prefers three years to give councilmembers more time to settle into the role. Commissioner Thomason also agrees with keeping term lengths the way they are. He does not see a compelling enough reason to change them at this time. Commissioner Benner liked four-year staggered terms but now likes keeping terms at two years to keep councilmembers accountable to voters. Commissioner Ziegler also prefers to keep term lengths as they are. So does Commissioner Strecker. Chair bright reads Commissioner Pratt’s comments on the topic. Commissioner Pratt prefers two or four-year terms, not three-year terms. The commission’s consensus is to leave term lengths as they are.

On term limits, Commissioner Pratt supports keeping term limits at 12 years. Commissioner Benner asks if our term limits are consistent with other cities. Commissioner Walker notes that our term limits are not consistent with other cities. Commissioner Walker, in an effort to increase access to serve on Council, wants to discuss shorter term limits. Richardson currently has a 12-year term limit. On the list of comparison cities, two of them don’t have any term limits. Of the cities that do have term limits, Richardson has the longest. The next closest cities have term limits of nine years. He suggests that many people don’t want to run against incumbents. Having shorter term limits could increase the willingness of some to run for an open seat.

Commissioner Benner asks about the consecutive aspect of the term limits. Staff clarifies that a councilmember just needs to sit out for one term to reset the clock on their term limits as the charter currently reads. Atty Smith notes that the North Central Texas Council of Governments nonprofit board establishes leadership positions by seniority. This is one advantage to consider when considering term limits that may be longer than surrounding cities. Chair Bright prefers keeping term limits as they are if there is no compelling reason to change them. Commissioner Thomason comments on the question of extending term limits when a councilmember becomes mayor. He thinks that if we have a 12-year term limit, that should give anyone ample time to run for mayor if they choose without extending limits.

Commissioner Strecker asks to consider an absolute term limit instead of the current consecutive term limit. Commissioner Dunn wants to keep term limits consecutive. The rest of the commission agrees with Commissioner Dunn. So, Sec. 3.01 will remain exactly as it exists with no changes.

Commissioner Baker asks for a discussion on Sec. 3.07. She wants to consider requiring an election when any vacancy occurs on Council. Atty Smith states that the 2015 Charter Review Commission discussed this at length. They decided to avoid too many elections at that time. Commissioner Baker decides that the cost of an election and the shorter terms we have make it worth keeping it as is. Commissioner Benner wants to consider a stricter definition of “some qualified person”. She thinks it should be someone who has already run before. Chair Bright reminds Commissioner Benner of the term lengths, and she decides that it isn’t worth it to change it. Commissioner Thomason agrees with not requiring an election for a single councilmember vacancy. Sec. 3.07 will remain the same. The commission has now reviewed every section of this charter for necessary updates.

The next meeting will be on May 15^th at 6 pm. The commission will review text amendments based on tonight’s discussion and begin reviewing all their proposed charter amendments. A report from this commission is due to Council on May 30^th. The commission may still hold a meeting on the 29^th for a final wrap up session. Council will decide which recommendations to put on the ballot and staff will prepare proposition ballot language. A joint meeting with this commission and Council will take place on June 2^nd. This should also include a public hearing. Commissioner Thomason notes that the June 2^nd joint meeting will be recorded. (So, I will be relieved of recording duties that night!) The meeting adjourns after two hours and 52 minutes.