Richardson Charter Review Commission Meeting February 6th, 2025

OPENING

Nine of the eleven commissioners are present. Commissioner Thomason and Commissioner Gaziani are absent. According to the rules set by this commission, these commissioners can only miss one more meeting before being removed from the commission. Also present are City Attorney Pete Smith, City Secretary Aimee Nemer, Dep. City Secretary Crystal Brown, Asst. City Manager (ACM) Dannette Garcia, and HR Director Jose Moreno. I was able to record this meeting as well and I appreciate your patience as I navigate how best to capture a recording of these meetings. This recording hopefully has fewer gaps due to necessary cuts to prevent my camera from overheating. I also only had to do one battery change. Since battery changes take about 30 seconds to complete, I held out hope that my second battery would last until the end of the meeting. Well, it almost made it. Roughly two seconds before this meeting adjourned, my second battery died. I assure you that the meeting adjourned right after my recording stopped but I apologize for not capturing this on camera.

This meeting, as all of these meetings will, begins with public comments. Chair Bright acknowledges two written comments submitted by Mark Baustian and Mark Steger. (I’ve gotten feedback from some that it may be better to refer to public commenters and speakers by name, so that is the approach I’m going to take as long as I can identify the names of speakers. Minutes verifying speakers’ names aren’t published until they are adopted at the following meeting. This won’t be perfect, but I’ll do my best to capture the names of speakers from now on.)

I was once again the only public speaker at this meeting. I sincerely appreciate those who submitted written comments, and I hope more of you will join me to provide your feedback at the Feb. 20^th meeting. At tonight’s meeting, I asked the commission to remove unnecessary language from the charter. I also asked staff to provide any proposed text amendments to the public for the record. (I’m happy to report that staff was very helpful with this request. They provided me a copy of tonight’s proposed text amendments at the end of the meeting.) I also attempted to clarify the purpose of a surety bond, that it adds a necessary layer of personal liability and should be considered as a requirement for certain positions. I asked for clarification on the definition of “qualified voters”. I also suggested that they amend the charter to require that all board and commission meetings be audio/video recorded with transcripts uploaded to the city website. I asked for charter language to reflect guidelines for the City Plan Commission. I also suggested moving certain sections to a more appropriate place. I also asked them to consider adding other disciplinary actions to the list of actions an employee can appeal to the Civil Service Appeals Board. Finally, I asked them to consider reviewing the anti-discrimination clause to determine if any of this language should be updated.

Minutes of the Jan. 30^th meeting are unanimously approved.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS – ARTICLES 1, 2, 17 & 18

Now, the commission considers text amendments brought by Atty Smith for Articles 1, 2, 17, and 18 which were discussed at the Jan. 30^th meeting. No amendments are suggested for Article 1. Article 2 amendments begin with Sec. 2.02. This proposed amendment clarifies language by adding conjunctions and adopting consistent language when referencing the city. The commission unanimously approves this proposed amendment.

Atty Smith acknowledges the discussion on considering the removal of “desirable” from Sec. 2.03. He concludes that there is no uniform use of the word when compared to other city’s charters and the state constitution. He also concludes that the use of the word does not grant any additional authority to the city. Therefore, he recommends no changes to this section. Commissioner Dunn asks if these powers need to be enumerated in the city charter if they are already granted by state law. Atty Smith answers that it’s important to retain all the rights that the city wants to retain. Since the state constitution can change, it’s necessary to specify these rights and powers in the charter. Sec. Nemer advises that no motion is necessary to keep this section unamended. To be safe, the commission still unanimously approves a motion to keep the section as written.

The proposed amendment for Sec. 2.04 is adding “public buildings and facilities” to the list of described types of infrastructure. The title of this section is also proposed to replace “Streets” with “Infrastructure”. The commission unanimously approves the proposed amendments for this section.

The next proposed amendment is for Sec. 17.01. This amendment replaces “church” with “religious organization” in the text. It also amends the title of the section to simply read “Property assessments”. It also achieves the desired consistent language when referencing the city. The commission unanimously approves this amendment.

The next proposed amendment is to Sec. 17.03. This amendment is just a language clarification to make the section easier to understand. Commissioner Dunn expresses concern about how the language will read to the average citizen voting on the amendment. Atty Smith replies that the proposition will appear on the ballot as “shall this language be amended to clarify understanding”. The exact text amendment won’t appear on the ballot. This isn’t a substantive change. Director Moreno explains situations where garnishment of wages would still apply in accordance with state law. The commission unanimously approves this amendment.

Now, the commission considers proposed amendments to Sec. 18.01. Two options are brought forward by Atty Smith in response to their discussion. One amendment allows board & commission members to participate in the Home Improvement Incentive Program (HIIP). The other also allows employees to participate in the HIIP. The language specifically reads, “… city council may by ordinance allow appointed members of a city board… to participate in a city economic development incentive program or other similar program, that is otherwise available to the residents of the city, where such program requires participation through a contract.”

Commissioner Walker asks for a summary of the discussion on this consideration. ACM Garcia explains that the city manager views it as difficult to determine which employees should or shouldn’t be allowed to participate in the HIIP. He would prefer they not recommend allowing employees to participate. Commissioner Pratt advocates for allowing certain employees below the director level to participate. Atty Smith states that employees have their own incentive programs and benefits. Commissioner Baker is against allowing employees to participate unless they make it very specific which employees and which programs. She thinks this is too broad for allowing employees to participate. Commissioner Dunn is also against allowing employees to participate due to the potential for impropriety. Commissioner Benner supports including certain employees below the director level.

The commission unanimously approves the amendment allowing board & commission members to participate in the HIIP. Vice-Chair Quirk asks if they can just recommend this first version and mention that they had a lengthy discussion on including employees while not making it an official recommendation to Council. Atty Smith answers that they can. Chair Bright agrees with this recommendation. Commissioner Walker moves to not recommend allowing employees to participate but let Council know they discussed it if they wanted to consider it. The commission unanimously approves this motion.

The next proposed amendment is to Sec. 18.05. This is another amendment to clarify language. This is not a substantive change. Commissioner Dunn reminds the commission that they have already voted on this amendment on Jan. 30^th. Atty Smith still requests another vote. The commission unanimously approves the amendment again.

The next amendment is for Sec. 18.07. This clarifies that “the city manager or other appropriate official” shall determine when condemnation is appropriate in addition to Council. The commission unanimously approves this amendment.

ARTICLE 9 – BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Now the commission begins their review of tonight’s Articles. These include Articles 9 and 10. Article 9 is titled Boards and Commissions. Article 10 is titled Civil Service. A total of 19 sections are covered within these articles, many of them having subsections.

The first section, 9.01, is titled Creation. I suggested they consider adding some of the boards and commissions not currently included in this section. Only the CPC, Parks & Rec Commission, Library Board, Zoning Board of Adjustments, and Civil Service Board/Board of Appeals are currently included in this section. If the city wants to mandate the permanent existence of any board or commission, this is the place to do it.

Commissioner Thomason, who is absent tonight, shared his recommendations for this section. Chair Bright reads them aloud. Commissioner Thomason expresses that some consistent language clarification may be desirable for this section. He also shares that other boards may also be considered for inclusion in this section for consistency. Atty Smith states that they don’t list every board here because they could change with different Council terms. Atty Smith adds that boards and commissions not in this section of the charter are codified by ordinance. Commissioner Walker asks why different boards have different numbers for membership. Atty Smith answers that this can be dictated by state law or Council. Commissioner Walker clarifies his understanding of certain boards’ membership requirements. Commissioner Strecker asks if term limits are reset when someone steps off a particular board. Staff confirms this is the case. The consensus is to make no change to this section.

On Sec. 9.02, titled Appointments, Commissioner Dunn asks if appointments to boards are made in an open session. Atty Smith answers that appointments, once decided, are announced in an open meeting. Atty Smith clarifies that, for officers, an executive session may be called to deliberate appointments. This applies only to boards that are considered quasi-judicial. Other boards that are considered advisory boards must have appointments deliberated in an open session. Commissioner Dunn asks if there are attendance requirements for boards included in the charter. Atty Smith states that these shouldn’t be included in the charter. Making appointments should be up to Council. Sec. Nemer explains that there is no written attendance policy. The current expectation is to have 75% attendance. Individual boards may also adopt their own attendance policy in their bylaws. Commissioner Baker asks for clarification on the term “qualified voter”. Atty Smith answers that this means registered voter. Commissioner Baker asks if they should change it to say registered voter. Atty Smith says that they shouldn’t since this is a universal term.

For Sec. 9.03, titled Removal and vacancies, Commissioner Thomason shared that they should consider referencing the Code of Ethics in this section. Atty Smith states that the Ethics Code evolves so it isn’t included in the charter. The Code of Ethics is already codified by ordinance. Commissioner Dunn asks why someone should have to resign to run for office. Atty Smith answers that they should consider how a sitting commissioner could influence things or make campaign messages while running for office and serving on the commission.

Now for Sec. 9.04, which is titled Meetings. I suggested that they consider requiring audio/video recording of all board & commission meetings as well as keeping transcripts. Commissioner Strecker is the first to address this suggestion. He starts the conversation and asks if they should consider recording for transparency. Atty Smith answers that a lot of time and effort goes into recording. Commissioner Strecker clarifies that he isn’t advocating for it. He’s just bringing it up because members of the public brought it up. Commissioner Pratt suggests that this would open a can of worms by preventing meetings from being held if recording equipment malfunctions. Atty Smith reminds him that Council meetings currently have the same constraints due to state law requirements.

Commissioner Baker suggests making the posting of minutes a charter requirement. Chair Bright answers that these minutes are already posted, and the charter requires them to be kept. Chair Bright suggests that the distinction might be between quasi-judicial and advisory boards. Sec. Nemer clarifies that only CPC and Council meetings are recorded (by the city). Atty Smith states that another issue to consider is that the public may want to speak more at recorded meetings. Atty Smith also states that Council can direct the city manager to record certain meetings even if the charter doesn’t require it. Vice-Chair Quirk suggests specifying that minutes must be posted to the city website. Sec. Nemer replies that she doesn’t think it’s appropriate to put that in the charter even though this is the current practice.

Commissioner Pratt diverts the discussion away from the current item being discussed and goes back to Sec. 9.03. He asks if Council should be given a window of time to appoint members of a commission when there is a vacancy.

(Even if there are those who take advantage of the microphone for personal gain, increased public engagement is actually a goal of the city, or at least the new Community Inclusion & Engagement Commission. Their decisions are much easier to make when the public shows up and tells them what we need. I want to take a moment to highlight how important recordings of these meetings are. As you can see on the video footage around the hour-and-a-half mark, I had to step out to take a break. I came back as the conversation about recording meetings was wrapping up. If I hadn’t had my camera there to capture the conversation, I would have missed it entirely. And so would you because the city, for some reason, isn’t recording these meetings. Don’t you need to know what this commission is recommending to Council and why? Don’t you need this information to be an informed voter on any of these propositions in November? I feel strongly about this. All open meetings should be recorded, and transcripts should be kept.)

Atty Smith replies to Commissioner Pratt by saying Council has the proper discretion if there isn’t much time left in a term. Vice-Chair Quirk supports changing the language in this section from “shall” to “may”. Atty Smith advises that this change may have unintended consequences. Council should be the ones who appoint members of boards and commissions.

Now we’re back to Sec. 9.04. Commissioner Dunn asks if handouts are uploaded along with minutes to the city website. Atty Smith states that these are all public records even if they aren’t posted. Commissioner Dunn asks if citizens have to pay for public information. Sec. Nemer answers that digital records don’t cost citizens money. So, that’s that.

Now onto Sec. 9.05, titled Quorum. No changes are needed here according to the commission, so we move immediately on to Sec. 9.06, Voting. Commissioner Baker suggests adding language referencing when members should recuse themselves due to a conflict of interest. Atty Smith answers that this section compels members to vote unless they have a conflict of interest. The current language reflects this.

For Sec. 9.07, titled City plan commission, Commissioner Strecker asks why powers are enumerated in this section. Atty Smith states that the difference here is for quasi-judicial and advisory boards. The former has enumerated powers in the charter.

On to Sec. 9.08, titled Parks and recreation commission. Commissioner Strecker asks if Council always decides the chair and vice-chair of a board. Atty Smith states that this is the current requirement. Commissioner Dunn now brings up my suggestion to add the same language other sections have for the CPC, “Guidelines, regulations, and responsibilities shall be prescribed by ordinance.” Atty Smith answers that the procedures are currently regulated by the state and by local ordinance, though he can’t explain why other sections have this language enumerated while this section does not.

The commission decides no changes are necessary for Sec. 9.09, titled Library board. On to Sec. 9.10, titled Zoning board of adjustment. Commissioner Pratt asks if there is an issue with a 75% vote being required on a five-member board to reverse any determination. Atty Smith says that is a minimum so you would obviously round up. Commissioner Strecker asks a different question about how the Zoning board can compel witnesses. Atty Smith answers that he will research and provide an answer at the next meeting. Chair Bright points out a grammatical issue. Atty Smith will return with any proposed text changes.

Moving onto Sec. 9.11, titled Civil service board. HR Director Moreno proposes a change to this section to remove the requirement for the Civil Service Board to approve, in the event of a necessary reduction in force, the method of that reduction. His reasoning is so that the city manager isn’t inhibited from managing an effective reduction of force if necessary. Commissioner Dunn asks if that removes any checks and balances. Atty Smith answers that a reduction of force would affect both civil service and non-civil service employees. Commissioner Dunn asks why this is necessary now. Atty Smith says that they just haven’t caught it before. Director Moreno clarifies that this has never been needed so far.

Sec. 9.12 is titled Civil service appeals board. Commissioner Pratt now brings up a recommendation of mine to consider whether the Minimum standard and Payroll subsections of Sec. 9.12 belong in Sec. 9.11 instead. These seem to fall under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Board, not the Civil Service Appeals Board. Director Moreno agrees that this might be more appropriate for Sec. 9.11. Atty Smith also agrees. Sec. Nemer now states that they looked at moving these sections in 2015 but an unidentified memo from Atty Smith dissuaded the commission from recommending it at that time.

Commissioner Strecker asks why the Civil Service Appeals Board isn’t an independent body. This board is formed from the membership of the Civil Service Board. Atty Smith explains that this is appropriate. The Civil Service Board becomes the Appeals Board to hear appeals.

(Now that I’m thinking about it, I think Commissioner Strecker has a point here. It’s appropriate to have a different set of people looking at an appeal of the Civil Service Board’s decisions. There should be a separate appellate board.)

Commissioner Strecker also suggests amending language in the Appeals proceedings subsection to include records beyond just books and papers. Atty Smith will come back with a recommended text amendment.

Commissioner Pratt now brings up my suggestion to look at updating the No discrimination subsection of Sec. 9.12. Atty Smith will also look at this and return with a recommended text amendment.

ARTICLE 10 – CIVIL SERVICE

Sec. 10.01, Organization of civil service board, doesn’t require any changes as the commission sees it.

For Sec. 10.02, Unclassified and classified service, Commissioner Baker asks if “unskilled labor” is the most up-to-date term. (This is simply a vocational classification by the way, not a portrayal of anyone’s opinion of the skill required for a particular job.) Director Moreno explains that this refers to entry-level positions. He is fine with changing it to “entry-level”. Chair Bright cautions that this might be necessary language for classifying positions appropriately. Atty Smith agrees with Chair Bright. Atty Smith says this current language is appropriate.

Sec. 10.03 is titled List of eligibles. The commission doesn’t recommend any changes here. Nor for Sec. 10.04, titled Promotions in the classified.

Sec. 10.05 is titled Probation period. Director Moreno has a recommendation to remove the specified time for a probationary period. He states that the Civil Service Board should apply different lengths for this period to different positions as appropriate. Commissioner Baker supports enumerating this duty to the Civil Service Board instead of removing it altogether. It’s fine to allow flexibility on the length of a probationary period, but it should be specified that the board will decide that. This is one of the few items that the commission actually takes a vote on for tonight’s sections. They unanimously adopt the proposed text amendment without Commissioner Baker’s suggestion.

Sec. 10.06 is titled Discharge of employee after probation period. Atty Smith remembers the suggestion I had about adding “discipline” to the list of actions that an employee can appeal to the appeals board. But, that was for Sec. 9.12, not this section. The commission eventually figures this out. (And I sincerely appreciate Atty Smith calling their attention to that missed recommendation of mine.)

So, back to Sec. 9.12 we go. Commissioner Baker is the first to catch the purpose of my suggestion. She asks if there are any examples of discipline that do not fall within the listed categories of “suspension, reduction, demotion, or discharge.” Director Moreno states that written reprimands are an example that he can think of. Atty Smith clarifies that only the listed disciplinary actions may be appealed under the current language. Not every disciplinary action may be appealed. Chair Bright sees the current language as appropriate. Commissioner Pratt advocates for consideration of my suggestion. He thinks discipline may be too broad but thinks that disciplinary actions that affect the employee might be worthy of consideration. Director Moreno comments that letters of reprimand can be used as evidence for future disciplinary action. Commissioner Pratt states that they might consider adding it but defining it to not make it too broad. No consensus is reached on this recommendation, so it doesn’t sound like any change is likely to be made.

Back to Sec. 10.06, no changes are recommended by the commission. Sec. 10.07, titled Appeals board, is the last section for the evening. Commissioner Pratt suggests this section is redundant. Atty Smith will return after some research with an official recommendation.

CLOSING

And with that, though my recording doesn’t capture it, the meeting adjourns. After the meeting, I clarified my suggestion for adding other disciplinary actions to the list of appealable actions to the Civil Service Appeals Board. I appreciate the commission’s willingness to listen, but I acknowledge that I spoke out of order. I’ll provide the same clarification during the public comments portion of the next meeting on Feb. 20^th.

For this suggestion, I’m thinking of a specific situation. Imagine a police officer whose supervisor considers to be below the minimum performance standards for a certain metric. And imagine that officer has disciplinary action taken against them. Maybe they’re given an undesirable shift. Let’s say they work third shift (night shift) because they have children and want to spend time with them. And let’s say that part of their disciplinary action is being assigned a different shift. This impacts them. It affects their life in that it disrupts the previously established work-home-life balance. I want this officer to be able to appeal this disciplinary action to the Appeals Board. Under the current language, they would not be able to. I still support capturing other disciplinary actions in Sec. 9.12. If we need to define “disciplinary action” in the definitions section, that seems appropriate.

The next meeting will take place on Thursday Feb. 20^th at 6 pm. It will cover Articles 5 (Recall) and 14 (Initiative and Referendum). These are some of the most important items for you to provide feedback on as they relate to your direct powers as citizens. I hope to see you there as you join me to advocate for reasonable thresholds for these important actions.