Richardson Charter Review Commission Meeting April 17th, 2025
OPENING
All eleven commissioners are present. City Secretary Aimee Nemer, Dep. City Secretary Crystal Brown, Asst. City Manager Dannette Garcia, City Attorney Pete Smith, and Attorney Joe Gorfida are also present. Tonight’s meeting covers Article 4 (Nomination and Election of City Council). Information will be presented by staff regarding Article 3 (City Council), but the commission will not review Article 3 for changes tonight. That will occur at the next meeting on May 1st.
Chair Bright acknowledges written comments from Mark Steger, Mark Baustian, and Marcia Grau. I am so relieved to share that two speakers are present for tonight’s meeting. I am the first speaker. I ask Council to keep terms and limits the way they are now. If they desire a change, I advise that four-year staggered terms would be the best option. I also ask them to consider the possibility of ranked-choice voting to save the city from the costs of a runoff election. I also ask for a 12-month residency requirement for any of the designated Council places (1-4). I also ask for the petition threshold to be clearly defined. I also made some suggestions related to Article 3. Since I will repeat those at the next meeting, I’ll summarize those suggestions at that time. Marcia Grau is the second speaker. She asks for voting to be changed from election by majority to election by plurality. She hopes this will open the door to ranked-choice voting. (Thank you, Marcia, for coming out to speak to this commission! I am so happy that I will not have been the only member of the public that this commission heard from.)
Minutes of the previous meeting are approved unanimously.
PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS FOR PREVIOUS SECTIONS
The commission now considers text amendments based on previous meetings’ discussions. The first is for Sec. 19.03. This amendment clarifies language stating that, regardless of the method of recommendation for changes to the charter, those changes will go before the qualified voters of the city in an election. The commission unanimously adopts the recommended text amendment. Regarding Sec. 16.04, which Commissioner Gaziani was concerned about negating the presumption of innocence, Atty Smith recommends no changes. Atty Smith states that the language in this section does not negate the presumption of innocence in criminal prosecutions. Other cities have similar provisions. The commission accepts this recommendation.
ARTICLE 4 – NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
The commission now reviews Article 4, titled Nomination and Election of City Council, for necessary changes. Atty Smith does not recommend any changes from a legal standpoint. Sec. 4.01 is titled Number and description of districts. No one has comments on this section. Sec. 4.02 is titled Designated places. Commissioner Dunn suggests adopting a 12-month residency requirement for Places 1-4 prior to the election date. She asks how this would be enforced. Sec. Nemer answers that no proof is required. An applicant signs an oath to the accuracy of the information they provide. If there were questions about someone’s residency, a citizen would have to make a legal challenge for the courts to work it out. Atty Smith adds that a conclusive document proving that their residence is not within the city would be required for the city secretary to declare someone disqualified for this reason. He is not aware of any such documents that exist.
Commissioner Thomason comments that this is too subjective. He would like to see more clarity in the language. He asks if there is any legal definition of residence. Atty Smith answers that it is simply where you live. This is the language commonly used in other cities’ charters. He states that no further clarity can be provided in the language. Commissioner Gaziani and Commissioner Pratt ask if they can adopt the standards used to determine someone’s domicile. Atty Smith answers that the election code states that you must use “residence”. This could even mean that someone living under a bridge in the city or living in a hotel room in the city counts as residing in the city. Any determination of fact, such as someone renting an apartment while owning another home and determining which property they spend more time at, would have to be determined in the courts from a legal challenge. The city secretary cannot determine these things. Atty Smith recites the state law passage that covers this residency requirement. Atty Smith will verify if any further definition exists and relay that information at the next meeting.
Commissioner Dunn still desires the change, even if it is difficult to enforce. The commission achieves a consensus to recommend this change. Atty Smith will return with a proposed amendment for this at the next meeting. Commissioner Benner asks if someone must reside in their district for the entirety of their term. Atty Smith answers that yes, they must. There are cases where someone may have to temporarily reside outside of the district due to an emergency or unforeseen circumstance. As long as the intent is to move back within that district, this would typically be allowed. Atty Smith adds that Council can take action if enough of the community desires it. If Council takes action, a councilmember would usually resign. If they don’t, Council can declare the seat vacant. The legal process would then take place.
Sec. 4.03 is titled District revisions. Commissioner Strecker asks how population is calculated to maintain substantial equality in the four districts. Atty Smith answers that it is based on census results. Commissioner Gaziani suggests making language consistent in this section to reflect “qualified voters”. Commissioner Pratt asks if we should establish population equality thresholds such as “within 5%”. Atty Smith advises against this. This matches the language in the Voting Rights Act. The commission unanimously approves adding “qualified voters” to this section.
Sec. 4.04 is titled Qualifications. Commissioner Gaziani asks if they should consider lowering the minimum qualifying age for a city councilmember to 18. He argues that if you can serve your country in the military at age 18, why shouldn’t we allow you to serve on Council? Commissioner Strecker adds that age requirements exist at the state and federal levels, so there is precedent for setting the minimum age higher than 18. Sec. Nemer notes that some cities have it at 18, but she doesn’t remember which ones. Atty Smith states that maturity is likely the consideration for this requirement. Commissioner Thomason states that many things have age requirements above 18. Again, there is precedent for this. We should have a compelling reason for lowering it. Commissioner Pratt notes that science shows that the brain isn’t fully developed until at least the mid-20s. The consensus is to keep the age requirement at 21.
Sec. 4.05 is titled Election date. Chair Bright notes that this section will be contingent on what they decide at the next meeting regarding Art. 3. Commissioner Walker notes that Plano has a 4-year term. Garland has a 2-year term, but they are also looking at extending that term length. He asks if changing any terms would result in a councilmember having to vacate a seat. Atty Smith answers that any change will be prospective. An effective date for a future election would be applied. Atty Smith agrees that they will need to revisit this section after considering changes to Art. 3.
Commissioner Dunn asks to consider adding language stating that someone must “reside continuously” in their district for the designated places in Sec. 4.04. Atty Smith states that Sec. 4.02 already includes this language, but he will return with suggested language to clarify this.
Sec. 4.06 is titled Nomination by petition. Commissioner Thomason asks where the nomination petition threshold is defined. Sec. Nemer answers that election law decides this number. Sec. 4.07 is titled Official ballot. Commissioner Strecker provides a background of research he conducted to verify what comparable cities use for their type of election. He states that, while the top six cities in the state by population do have single-member districts, most cities of comparable population to ours have at-large voting. For the top six cities by population, they average roughly one councilmember for every 84,000 residents. All of this to say, we are not out of the ordinary compared to cities of similar populations.
Commissioner Baker asks Commissioner Strecker if he also analyzed comparable cities for ranked-choice voting. Commissioner Strecker answers that he did not look at that, but he will. Commissioner Thomason notes that he will have more comments when this commission reviews Art. 3. Commissioner Baker asks to include in staff’s research a comparison of the cost of runoff elections versus a system of voting, such as ranked-choice voting, that would save those costs.
Sec. 4.08 is titled Election by majority. Commissioner Baker asks if this is the appropriate section to discuss the consideration of ranked-choice voting. Commissioner Pratt asks if Collin County election equipment can handle ranked-choice voting. Sec. Nemer answers that she can research that. She also states that she’s not sure if ranked-choice voting is even allowed in Texas. Atty Smith responds that he isn’t even sure what ranked-choice voting means. He will research this to determine if it is legal to consider. Staff will also research the cost savings of plurality vs. majority voting. Commissioner Dunn asks for clarification on what these different election methods are.
Plurality means a candidate has to receive the highest number of votes in an election to win. Majority means a candidate must receive at least 50% +1 of the votes in an election to win. Ranked-choice means that voters will rank their 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. choice of candidates in an election. If no candidate receives a majority of 1st choice votes, the candidate with the lowest number of 1st choice votes is eliminated, and the ballots marked with that eliminated candidate as 1st choice then have their 2nd choice candidate receive their vote. Rounds of this reassignment take place until one candidate receives a majority of votes. This is also known as instant-runoff voting and avoids the cost of having to hold a separate runoff election by allowing voters to state their 2nd or 3rd preference for candidates.
Vice-Chair Quirk incorrectly describes cumulative voting as ranked-choice voting. Cumulative voting only works for at-large districts where no geographical residency is required. Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD, for example, has cumulative voting, not ranked-choice voting. Cumulative voting allows voters to assign votes for as many places as are on the ballot. For example, if an elected body has four open seats and eight candidates are running, voters can assign up to four votes. They can use all four on one candidate or assign them to different candidates. Results are calculated by simply adding up which candidates received the most votes. These are four very different styles of voting.
Commissioner Pratt correctly describes ranked-choice voting. Commissioner Dunn incorrectly states that ranked-choice voting would cause us to remove any geographical residency requirement because she still thinks that ranked-choice voting is the same as cumulative voting. She is sincerely mistaken. Staff will also provide a history of how many runoff elections have taken place in Richardson municipal elections. Atty Smith notes that if terms are increased to three or four years, then the state dictates that we must hold elections by majority. Commissioner Thomason asks to make a change that would cause a runoff election to be held for the remaining top two candidates, even if one of those candidates withdraws from the runoff. He provides an example of a congressional election where a runoff election took place. This election had four candidates. In this runoff, one of the two candidates who made the runoff withdrew from the ballot. The result was that the other candidate in the runoff was declared the victor. He wants such a situation to result in the third and fourth candidates being considered in a runoff election. Asst. City Manager Garcia states that the current charter language wouldn’t allow this situation since we require election by majority. Atty Smith will review language to determine what is possible.
Commissioner Baker asks what “tie decided by lot” means in this section. Atty Smith answers that this means a tie vote would be decided by some sort of chance drawing (i.e., drawing straws). Provisions in the election code set a precedent for this. Atty Gorfida now notes that there is a bill moving through this legislative session that would prevent preferential voting, also called ranked-choice or instant-runoff voting. I assume that he also clearly understands what ranked-choice voting is. He also notes that there is a state attorney general opinion published that states that ranked-choice voting wouldn’t comply with the state’s election code. He will research this further.
REVIEW OF STAFF RESEARCH ON ARTICLE 3 (CITY COUNCIL)
The commission is now presented information that staff has compiled related to Art. 3. Asst. City Manager Garcia begins the presentation. She starts by explaining the advantages and disadvantages of changing term lengths. Advantages of 2-year terms are that voters have more opportunity to decide who represents them. It also allows councilmembers to commit to a shorter term. Disadvantages of 2-year terms are that they require councilmembers to be in campaign mode more often. It also provides a shorter time for councilmembers to become acquainted with the position. Advantages of 3-year terms include a longer period of service before facing an election, thereby giving councilmembers more opportunity to become proficient in their role. Disadvantages include that every other municipal election would end up happening during a national election year, increasing the chance of partisanship entering into the process. Advantages of 4-year terms include more time for councilmembers to complete their goals and a reduction in the need to be in campaign mode. Disadvantages include fewer opportunities for voters to change their representatives.
Staff provides a chart comparing other cities for their term lengths and whether they stagger terms, reset terms when someone becomes mayor, have geographical residency requirements for districts, have single-member districts, and how they decide who serves as mayor pro tem. Only two other cities have 2-year terms. Five cities have 3-year terms. Two cities have 4-year terms. Two of the cities do not have any term limits. Richardson has the longest term limit among those that have limits, at 12 years. Two cities have 9-year term limits. Three cities have 8-year term limits. Three cities have 6-year term limits. Three cities, including Richardson, do not stagger terms. The remaining eight cities stagger terms. Two cities, including Richardson, do not extend term limits when a councilmember becomes mayor. The remaining cities with term limits do have some sort of term limit extension when a councilmember becomes mayor. Three cities, including Richardson, have geographical residency requirements for some districts. Two other cities do not have any geographical residency requirements for any districts and do not have single-member districts. Six cities have single-member districts. Nine cities, including Richardson, let Council choose who will be mayor pro tem. Two cities let the mayor decide. None let voters decide.
Commissioner Pratt states that a 4-year term would also allow Council to maintain their same goal-setting cadence. Asst. City Manager Garcia explains that the advantages of staggering terms are that it could provide stability on Council by avoiding wholesale turnover. Disadvantages include that councilmembers may have to be onboarded frequently, depending on the term length. Most Richardson elections have resulted in three or fewer councilmembers being changed.
A comparison chart is also presented regarding Council compensation. Two cities decide compensation in their budget process. The remaining nine, including Richardson, set it in their charter. Compensation amounts and styles vary greatly. Almost no two cities are the same. Three cities, including Richardson, base compensation on the number of meetings, ranging from $5 a meeting to $100 a meeting. Eight cities provide a monthly compensation. One city provides annual compensation. Monthly compensation ranges from $100 - $1,000. Fort Worth provides annual compensation of $25K.
Commissioner Pratt mentions that some board of director positions don’t allow directors to receive more than $20K from another job. He suggests the commission should consider keeping compensation under $20K annually so as not to eliminate potentially good candidates. Commissioner Dunn suggests the amount of work required outside of meetings should also be considered. Staff presents a slide showing that Richardson councilmembers currently average about 19 hours weekly on their role, including Council meetings. The mayor reports that he spends 44 hours weekly on average in his role, including Council meetings.
Staff recommends not staggering terms unless they increase terms to four years due to administrative feasibility. Staff also asks the commission to consider whether compensation should be attached to the consumer price index. Commissioner Strecker notes that he sees a barrier to serving on Council. He suggests that only those who can afford to end up serving on Council. Providing full-time wages may increase opportunities for underserved communities. He also clarifies that this role should not be about the money. Councilmembers should have to volunteer to serve. Commissioner Pratt agrees and states that it isn’t all about the money, but he still supports increasing pay. Commissioner Walker adds that reducing term limits may also be another way to create more opportunities for new representatives. Commissioner Thomason asks staff to provide a historic comparison of how many councilmembers have served up to their term limit. Commissioner Pratt also asks for a history of contested races. Staff will conduct this research. Commissioner Dunn states that compensation should be decided in the charter, not by Council themselves.
With no further business before the commission, the meeting adjourns after 1 hour and 44 minutes. The next meeting will be on May 1st at 6 pm and should cover Art. 3, City Council. I hope to see you there. Please get out and vote for your preferred candidate!