Richardson Charter Review Commission Meeting May 15th, 2025
OPENING
Nine of the eleven commissioners are present. City Secretary Aimee Nemer, Dep. City Secretary Crystal Brown, Asst. City Manager Dannette Garcia, and City Attorney Pete Smith are also present. Commissioner Dunn and Commissioner Walker are absent. Tonight’s meeting covers a few final recommended amendments based on previous commission discussions and staff input. The commission will also review all of the recommended changes so far and make any last tweaks.
Chair Bright acknowledges written comments from Mark Steger. I am the only speaker for tonight’s visitors forum. I thanked the commission and staff for their contributions and hard work throughout this process. I also made a suggestion to double the per diem that Council gets paid on meeting days. I suggested that this might be easier to justify to voters than the currently recommended $1,200 monthly fixed pay. For context, Council currently gets paid $100 on meeting days with a maximum of $5,200 annually. A $1,200 monthly pay results in $14,400 annually, regardless of how many meetings are attended.
Minutes of the previous meeting are approved unanimously.
TEXT AMENDMENTS – ARTICLE 3
Atty Smith now reviews four suggested text amendments based on the last meeting’s discussions. The first is amending language in Sec. 3.03, regarding the mayor pro tem, to clarify that the selection of this position will take place after any applicable runoff elections, that the mayor pro tem will serve for the remainder of the term, and that someone may be selected to serve as mayor pro term for more than a single term. Commissioner Baker asks to consider replacing the word “selected” with the word “elected” in the last two sentences of the section. This amended recommendation is unanimously approved by the commission.
The next recommended amendment based on the last meeting’s discussions is to Sec. 3.04, regarding compensation for councilmembers. As I mention above, this amends the current Council pay of $100 per diem on meeting days to a fixed $1,200 monthly pay. Atty Smith rightly notes that the commission had a lengthy discussion on this topic at the last meeting. Commissioner Thomason acknowledges the merit of my suggestion to double the per diem pay. But he does not think the commission’s role is to only prioritize what voters will approve. That’s up to voters. He agrees with the $1,200 monthly pay recommendation that the commission landed on at the last meeting. He also acknowledges that Council will have an opportunity to consider what makes the most sense to put on the ballot in June. Commissioner Gaziani agrees with Commissioner Thomason.
Commissioner Pratt suggests adding a note in their report to Council mentioning that voters might better understand consistent dollar amounts of an increase to the per diem versus a pay increase and a change to the way pay is calculated in the same proposition. In other words, mention that it might be better to achieve the $1,200 monthly pay through an equivalent increase to the per diem rate. The commission unanimously approves the $1,200 monthly Council pay recommendation.
The next recommended amendment is to Sec. 3.06, regarding Council misconduct. This amendment would exclude an offending member from voting or being counted in the numbers required for a vote to expel the offending member. An offending member would still retain the right to present evidence in a public hearing. This ends up reducing the number of councilmember votes required to expel a member for misconduct from 5 to 4. Commissioner Gaziani asks if language should be clarified to distinguish between the charge and conviction of “official misconduct.” Atty Smith explains that this language just defines the grounds for what can be considered “official misconduct.” This is also similar to the language found in other city’s charters. Vice-Chair Quirk suggests clarifying by including “charge” or “grounds” for misconduct. The commission agrees with adding these words.
Commissioner Thomason now suggests an amendment to the charter, perhaps in Sec. 3.06, that would require Council to adopt a Code of Ethics. Such an amendment would create a charter requirement to always have and maintain a Code of Ethics. Though Council does have an adopted Code of Ethics, it’s because they have chosen to keep and update such a code. The charter doesn’t currently require it. Such an amendment would also still allow Council to decide what is in the Code of Ethics.
Commissioner Pratt agrees with Commissioner Thomason’s suggestion. He further suggests that the definition of official misconduct in Sec. 3.06 should include any violations of the Code of Ethics. Atty Smith advises against this as some provisions in the Code of Ethics are somewhat ambiguous. Currently, violating the Code of Ethics doesn’t allow Council to vote to remove a councilmember from office. It does allow the removal of officers that are not councilmembers. It also allows Council to pass a resolution of censure or a recommendation of recall. Creating the ability for someone to pursue the ousting of a councilmember using an ambiguous section of the Code of Ethics could create unintended consequences. Atty Smith advises the commission to carefully consider these consequences.
Commissioner Gaziani also likes the recommendation to require a Code of Ethics. Chair Bright also likes the suggestion. Chair Bright thinks that this might belong better in its own section. He suggests letting Atty Smith form a recommended text amendment to bring back at the final wrap-up meeting. Sec. Nemer and Atty Smith conclude that this might belong as a new section in Article 18, which includes general provisions, especially since the Code of Ethics also applies to officers other than just councilmembers.
Commissioner Pratt asks for language emphasizing that the purpose of a Code of Ethics is to avoid not just the appearance of impropriety, but also impropriety itself. (Aligning the language of this amendment with the current language in the ‘Purpose’ subsection of the Code of Ethics should clarify this, I think.) Staff and the commission conclude that the proposed language accomplishes what Commissioner Pratt is asking for. Atty Smith will return with recommended language and placement for this within the charter. Commissioner Gaziani asks if they should include a requirement to regularly update the Code of Ethics. Staff advises that the current Code of Ethics includes a requirement to review it every two years. Commissioner Thomason is fine with requiring a review every two years in the charter.
The commission now unanimously adopts the recommendation for Sec. 3.06 regarding excluding an offending member from voting on their own misconduct. The next recommended amendment based on the last meeting’s discussions is to Sec. 3.13, regarding Council’s ability to summon witnesses if necessary. This amendment just adds modern language when referencing what type of records may be required to be produced. It also allows any peace officer or authorized service processor to serve a notice to appear and/or provide records. The commission unanimously adopts this recommendation.
TEXT AMENDMENTS – ARTICLES 18 & 19
Now the commission considers the final pair of proposed amendments based on staff input. The first is an amendment to Sec. 19.06, which references Council’s ability to renumber articles and sections within the charter by ordinance. This proposed amendment will also allow Council to correct spelling, punctuation, and cross references by ordinance in addition to renumbering articles and sections. This amendment does not allow for any substantive changes to be made without voter approval. Commissioner Pratt asks if anything else should be included in this amendment such as grammar or formatting. Atty Smith advises that changing grammar might end up changing the substance of something. The commission’s consensus is to leave the amendment as recommended. The commission unanimously approves this recommended amendment.
The final recommended amendment is for the addition of a new section that would be Sec. 18.09. This section would either be labeled Disaster Clause or Continuity of Government. This amendment would, in the event of a state or nationally declared disaster within Richardson that results in a majority of Council being unable to be present at a meeting, allow the surviving members of Council or highest surviving city official if no councilmembers remain, to request the Dallas County Judge to appoint a commission of up to five members to govern the city during the disaster. If it is known that the Council that existed prior to the disaster will never meet again, this amendment also requires this newly formed commission to set a date for a city election within 15 days of the commission’s appointment. This amendment ensures continuity of government in a worst-case scenario.
Vice-Chair Quirk asks what would happen if the Dallas County Judge does not survive such a disaster. Atty Smith indicates that, since state law doesn’t address this situation for local governments, he’s admittedly unsure of what would happen in that instance. The commission discusses how the term “surviving member” might be interpreted. They want to make sure that a councilmember who may be alive but incapacitated isn’t relied upon to govern. Atty Smith will return with clarified language at the next meeting for this concern.
REVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The commission now reviews all the recommended amendments they have adopted for any final improvements. Amendments to Secs. 2.02, 2.04, 3.03 (adopted tonight), 4.02, 4.03, and 4.04 are fine without further amendments according to the commissioners. The commission unanimously adopts a suggestion for improved grammar in the recommended amendment for Sec. 5.02. Secs. 6.01, 6.02, 6.04, 6.05, 6.06, 6.07, 7.03, 7.05, and 8.03 are fine as recommended. One grammar improvement is unanimously adopted by the commission in the recommendation for Sec. 9.10. Secs. 9.11, 9.12, 10.05, 11.04, 14.01, 14.02, 14.09, 17.01, 17.03, 18.01, 18.05, 18.07, and 19.03 are fine as recommended.
However, regarding Sec. 14.01, Commissioner Pratt asks about adding a requirement for an attribution statement and fundraising reporting requirements for petitions for Initiative, Referendum, or Recall. Atty Smith replies that he understood this concern to be resolved by the Texas Election Code. (I’ll include a quote from my March 6th report here to remind everyone of what occurred. “Chair Bright reminds the commission of Commissioner Pratt’s suggestion to require financial reporting for petition efforts. Commissioner Pratt replies that his concern actually appears to be covered by the Texas Election Code. Atty Smith states that we can come back to that section after he gets clarification from the Secretary of State.” So, yes, Commissioner Pratt stated that his concern may be addressed in the election code. But Atty Smith still intended to address this matter after getting a response from the Sec. of State.) Atty Smith clarifies the commission’s desire and states that he will return with facts on this matter. Sec. Nemer notes that a charter amendment such as the example Commissioner Pratt gives about the petition on directly electing the mayor is actually regulated by the Texas Election Code since it is a charter amendment petition, not a petition for Initiative, Referendum, or Recall.
The commission considers when to meet next but decides to maintain the formerly agreed upon schedule. The next meeting of this commission will be on May 29th at 6 pm. This next meeting will include a draft report to Council. A joint meeting with this commission and Council is scheduled for June 2nd. Sec. Nemer states that Council is planning to schedule a public hearing on the charter amendments on June 23rd. The meeting adjourns after roughly two hours.