Richardson Charter Review Commission Meeting May 29th, 2025
I am including an AI tool created using Google’s NotebookLM software. AI is not always accurate. This tool creates a podcast-style audio overview for your convenience. For this summary, here are the following corrections.
Errata: At the 3-minute mark, the AI "host" refers to Commissioner Thomason's suggestion to require a Code of Ethics as "18.8". This should instead be "Sec. 18.10."
At the 5-minute 37-second mark, the AI "host" states that the commission does not recommend a change in Council pay. Instead, this should say that the commission didn't recommend any further changes to their current recommendation. The commission's current recommendation is to increase pay to $1,200 monthly.
For an audio overview of the text in this report, click here: AI Podcast Summary Here
For your convenience, a brief bulleted summary of the meeting's key points is also provided below. The usual detailed report is still available below.
The Richardson Charter Review Commission held its final meeting, with ten of eleven commissioners present, and minutes from the previous meeting were unanimously approved.
The commission unanimously adopted two new proposed sections for the charter: Sec. 18.09 (Continuity of Government), which details a plan for appointing a commission of qualified residents during a disaster to call an election, and Sec. 18.10 (Code of Ethics), requiring the Council to enact and review a Code of Ethics every two years.
Following advice on state law and practices in other cities, the commission did not recommend requiring attribution statements on petitions.
During the final review, discussions included the level of elaboration needed for the report to Council, and the commission considered but decided not to amend Sec. 16.04 (misapplication of public funds), understanding the language describes the offense but does not determine guilt without investigation.
The commission unanimously adopted the final report to Council, authorized minor textual corrections, and prepared for the June 2nd joint meeting with Council to present their recommendations, clarifying their role is advisory.
OPENING
Ten of the eleven commissioners are present. City Secretary Aimee Nemer, Dep. City Secretary Crystal Brown, City Attorney Pete Smith, and Attorney Joe Gorfida are also present. Commissioner Ziegler is absent. Tonight’s meeting covers some final tweaks to two proposed additions to our city charter. The commission will also do one final quality control sweep of all the recommendations.
Chair Bright acknowledges written comments from Mark Steger. No speakers are present for this final meeting of this commission. (I appreciate Atty Smith’s gesture of surprise. It feels good for public engagement to not only be welcomed but also expected. Everything I have needed to say to this commission has been said. I thank them for listening.)
Minutes of the previous meeting are approved unanimously.
TEXT AMENDMENTS – ARTICLE 18
The commission first considers two proposed final versions of new sections proposed by staff. The first is a new section that would be Sec. 18.09 and titled Continuity of Government. This was previously described as a Disaster Clause. This proposed new section would, in the event of a declared disaster that incapacitates councilmembers, require the highest surviving official to request that the Dallas County Judge appoint a commission of five members to govern. The appointed commission would be tasked with calling a city election within 15 days of such appointment. Atty Smith includes two versions of this new section for the Charter Review Commission to consider. One simply reads that five members will be appointed. The second version specifies that the members appointed must be residents of the city who are qualified to hold office.
Chair Bright prefers the version that specifies that the appointed members would be qualified city residents. Commissioner Strecker agrees. Commissioner Pratt also agrees. The commission unanimously adopts the second version of this proposed new section to include in their recommendations to Council.
The second proposed new section to consider is Sec. 18.10. This is Commissioner Thomason’s suggestion that would require Council to enact a Code of Ethics and review it every two years. This essentially moves the existing Council policy of maintaining a Code of Ethics into the charter, so that they will always be required to do so. Commissioner Thomason is pleased with Atty Smith’s suggested language. Vice-Chair Quirk catches one grammar correction. The commission unanimously adopts the recommendation with the corrected grammar.
Atty Smith also responds to Commissioner Pratt’s question about requiring an attribution statement on petitions stating who is responsible for funding the petition campaign. Atty Smith notes that state election law requires a PAC to publish reports for activities that would include petition circulation. State law also requires disclosures to be included on any political advertising. He didn’t find anything that requires an individual to file reports or include disclosures. He also could not find another city that requires petitions to include disclosures or attributions. He concludes that he does not have a recommendation on this matter. Chair Bright cautions that there may be some unintended consequences since no other cities seem to require an attribution on petitions. Commissioner Pratt agrees with this conclusion and no change is proposed.
FINAL REVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Now the commission conducts their final review of all the sections to make sure they cover any final suggestions or tweaks. Commissioner Pratt asks to discuss the possibility of including elaborations on intent in their report to Council. He recalls that some of the recommendations may include alternate versions or other aspects for Council to consider. He uses Council pay as an example. Should Council consider the optics of increasing pay and changing to a fixed monthly pay versus just increasing the per diem? Chair Bright asks the commission to consider how much elaboration they should include in their report to Council. The commission notes that they included two versions for Council to consider on the Sec. 18.01 amendment to allow members of boards and commissions to participate in the Home Improvement Incentive Program. The alternate version opens it up to employees as well.
Sec. Nemer clarifies that the discussion regarding how to convey the Council pay recommendation was sparked from a public comment provided by Justin Neth. The commission decided to leave the recommendation the same and allow Council to weigh the optics. (Not to worry. I will convey this to Council myself in another public comment.) Commissioner Pratt desires to include this context in their report to Council. Commissioner Dunn also desires to include the basis for their recommendation, that Council spends much more time outside of the public meetings working in their role than the public may realize. Atty Smith adds that commissioners can ask Chair Bright to emphasize or elaborate on various things once they get to that agenda item.
Commissioner Gaziani asks if they should consider amending language in Sec. 16.04 regarding misapplication of public funds the same way they amended Sec. 3.06 regarding Council misconduct. The amendment to Sec. 3.06 clarifies that the text describes the grounds for a charge of the offense whereas the unamended text of Sec. 16.04 still concludes that an officer shall be deemed guilty if they willfully divert funds for an improper use. He still seeks to clarify that a person will not be deemed guilty without a fair investigation. His intent is to achieve consistency.
Atty Smith explains that the language in Sec. 16.04 should not be interpreted as a determination of guilt. It just explains what would constitute misapplication of funds. Chair Bright notes that one difference between these sections is that Sec. 3.06 allows for removal of an elected official whereas Sec. 16.04 simply describes the offense for which an official could be charged under state law. Chair Bright cautions the commission to avoid unintended consequences in how this section might affect officers and employees. Commissioner Strecker notes that the language includes “willfully and knowingly”, indicating an investigation would have occurred to determine this. Commissioner Dunn agrees with Commissioner Strecker’s interpretation. Atty Smith confirms that an investigation would have to take place first to determine that a willful misapplication of funds has occurred. The charter has no authority to determine guilt. The commission decides not to make changes to Sec. 16.04.
Commissioner Pratt asks if they should consider adding that a Code of Ethics violation could be grounds for removal since they are adding the requirement to maintain a Code of Ethics. Chair Bright notes that members of boards and commissions can be removed by Council at any time for any reason. Commissioner Pratt concludes that his suggestion may not need to be added. The commission then devolves into an irrelevant discussion on how councilmembers can remove members of boards and commissions. Atty Smith suggests they should get back on topic. The commission decides not to recommend any further changes to their list of recommended amendments to the charter.
REPORT TO COUNCIL
The commission now reviews their report to Council and how the June 2nd joint meeting will be conducted. Chair Bright notes that, due to the size of this commission, Chair Bright and Vice-Chair Quirk will be seated at the dais while the rest of the commission sits in the front rows of the gallery. Chair Bright will present the report to Council and provide some brief background on the process. Chair Bright does not expect too much dialogue between Council and this commission at the joint meeting. Commissioner Dunn asks if Council will ask questions of Chair Bright since he will be presenting. Sec. Nemer answers that they may ask for clarification on some items. Atty Smith clarifies that the commission speaks as a body. Council will not ask for individual commissioners to elaborate on their personal justification on each recommendation.
Commissioner Benner asks if any Council amendments to recommendations will come back to this commission. Staff clarifies that this is an advisory body that is only making recommendations. The decisions that Council makes from here are completely up to Council. Chair Bright asks what commissioners want emphasized in his presentation to Council. Commissioner Baker asks to include a mention that this commission discussed and deliberated various aspects of each recommendation. Though consensus was achieved, it’s important to state that the commissioners had differing viewpoints on several recommendations.
Commissioner Thomason asks for elaboration to be shared on some of the Article 3 items like term lengths and limits. Some commissioners came in with predispositions on changing term lengths. But, after hearing all the unintended consequences, ended up settling on leaving things the way they are. He thinks it’s important for Council to understand why certain things did not end up being part of the commission’s recommendations. Chair Bright will also include a recognition of the members of the commission and city staff in his remarks. He will also highlight the extra research that commissioners conducted to make informed recommendations.
Commissioner Pratt suggests changing the language in the report to Council that draws a distinction between the most substantive recommendations and the recommendations that are primarily concerning consistency and clarification improvements. The report currently describes the latter as “nonsubstantive”. He doesn’t want to give the impression that these are unnecessary, so he suggests amending this reference to describe these as primarily addressing modernization, consistency, and improving clarity. Vice-Chair Quirk asks for a comment on how the commission thoroughly considered all public comments in their report as well.
Chair Bright thanks the commission and staff for their hard work. Commissioner Benner asks, since it’s now up to Council what they do with the commission’s recommendations, will Council and the public understand all that went on behind the scenes to reach the final recommendations? Atty Smith notes that another public hearing will be scheduled. Sec. Nemer notes that they will have the final report and each meeting’s minutes to explain all the recommendations. Commissioner Walker notes that, thanks to my recordings of every meeting, these are also available for anyone to review. Commissioner Benner replies with a pretty good point. She asks, “Who’s watching those?” Commissioner Walker replies that he watches them. The commission and staff also thank me for my attendance and participation at each meeting.
(I appreciate this highlight. Though, yes, I have recorded all these videos, a citizen must know where to find them to watch them. Citizens don’t have a central place to watch footage of these meetings unless they’ve seen my posts on Facebook or have been provided with a business card from me to direct them to the Richardson Review website. It might be good for the city to provide a central place to house any footage that might be beneficial for voters to have access to. I’m also glad to see that my recordings have benefited the commissioners in their work, especially when they need to catch up on a meeting they could not attend. To answer Commissioner Benner’s question, my Substack dashboard tells me that I have had 1,730 views over the last 30 days. It looks like my posts average roughly 200-225 views within 24 hours of posting. I have 144 total subscribers to date. Though I’m glad to see some are reading these summaries, I agree with Commissioner Benner. It would be better if all citizens had a central place to view these and know what all took place to reach these final recommendations.)
Sec. Nemer clarifies the tweaks to the report that the commission wants. Sec. Nemer will also note which sections have been moved to another section or why a section has been deleted due to duplication in an existing section. Commissioner Gaziani notes one needed capitalization correction in the recommendation for Sec. 18.10. The commission unanimously adopts the capitalization correction. The commission also unanimously adopts the report to Council with the tweaks made tonight. In the same motion, they also allow Chair Bright to make any necessary spelling or nonsubstantive corrections between now and the June 2nd joint meeting. The joint meeting is scheduled for June 2nd at 6:00 pm. The meeting adjourns after an hour and 43 minutes. (This report is being published after the June 2nd joint meeting has taken place. So, keep an eye out for that post in the coming days.)