Richardson Charter Review Commission Meeting March 6th, 2025

CORRECTION

Before I begin my summary of the March 6^th Charter Review Commission meeting, I want to acknowledge something that happened before this meeting began. As I was setting up my equipment to record this meeting, Commissioner Thomason called my attention to an error in my reporting. That error is in my calculation for this commission’s 75% attendance policy. Commissioner Thomason pointed out that I was only counting 11 of this commission’s meetings. I have thus far left out the joint Council/Charter Commission Work Session scheduled for June 2^nd, which is absolutely a meeting of this commission that should be included when calculating the number of absences allowed. In previous reports, I have incorrectly stated that Commissioner Thomason was one absence away from being out of compliance with the attendance policy. This is not true, and I stand corrected. Commissioners are allowed three absences out of the 12 scheduled meetings. A fourth absence would put someone out of compliance with the attendance policy.

I sincerely thank Commissioner Thomason for calling my attention to this error. In addition to highlighting my error, Commissioner Thomason also shared that he was able to catch up on the meetings he has missed, thanks to my video recordings and summaries. This is why I do what I do, to keep people informed of what is happening. It feels good to know that at least one member of this commission is benefiting from someone keeping a record of their proceedings. I hope this can serve as an example to all of Richardson, highlighting the benefit of an open dialogue and an open mind. Communication and feedback improve outcomes for us all. Thank you to Commissioner Thomason for communicating and sharing this feedback with me.

Now, here’s what happened once the meeting began.

OPENING

The meeting is called to order at 6:01 pm. At the start of this meeting, nine of the eleven commissioners are present. Commissioner Gaziani will arrive in just a few minutes. Commissioner Dunn is absent. Commissioners are allowed three absences, so no one is in danger of being out of compliance with the attendance policy at this time. Also present are City Attorney Pete Smith, City Secretary Aimee Nemer, and Asst. City Manager Dannette Garcia.

The first item, as usual, is acknowledging public comments. Chair Bright acknowledges one written comment submitted by Mark Steger. He does not state what this written comment regards. Unfortunately, I am once again the only public speaker for this meeting’s visitors forum. I respond to a recommendation from HR Director Jose Moreno to add the following language to Sec. 6.06, which addresses the requirement of a surety bond for the city manager: “In lieu of a bond, the city shall purchase Public Officials Liability coverage for purposes of faithful performance of the duties of the office, with the premium to be paid by the City.” Since this language reads to me as adding an option to replace a surety bond with Public Officials Liability coverage, I ask the commission to maintain the requirement of a surety bond for the city manager. Whereas Public Officials Liability coverage provides liability coverage to protect the public official, a surety bond holds the public official personally liable for the faithful performance of the duties of their office. This is an important protection for the public that I ask the commission to maintain.

Minutes of the previous meeting are unanimously approved.

Dep. City Secretary Crystal Brown now arrives at the meeting. (To clarify, she isn’t late. She directs attendees of these meetings to the meeting room, so it simply takes a few minutes to make sure everyone who wants to attend has arrived. I’m glad the city is providing clear directions to those who wish to attend.)

TEXT AMENDMENTS – ARTICLES 5 AND 14

Now, the commission considers text amendments for Articles 5 and 14 based on discussion and feedback at the Feb. 20^th meeting. Atty Smith first shares that he recommends keeping the language “qualified voter” instead of replacing it with “registered voter”. He references sections 11.002 and 277.021 of the Texas Election Code and Article 6, Sections 2 and 3 of the Texas Constitution as his reasoning for this recommendation. Commissioner Gaziani now arrives at the meeting at 6:08 pm. Commissioner Strecker expresses that the language in the state’s constitution and election code is confusing.

Atty Smith explains that recommendations for Sec. 5.02 include clarification on stating the grounds for seeking to recall a mayor or councilmember. Other recommended amendments provide consistent references to “qualified voters of the city”. The recommendation for Sec. 5.02 replaces “…contain a complete statement of the grounds for which removal is sought.” with “…must distinctly and specifically state the ground or grounds upon which the petition for removal is predicated such as incompetency, misconduct, or malfeasance in office with such certainty as to give the mayor or council member sought to be removed, notice of the matters and things which such officer is charged.”

Sec. 14.01 has been recommended to add language clarifying that one or more papers may be circulated separately and lists the requirements of a signature, printed name, address, county, date of signature, and either voter ID or date of birth for a signature to be valid. Sec. 14.09 is also recommended to add language clarifying that one or more papers may be circulated separately.

Commissioner Strecker thanks the members of the public who submitted input on the petition thresholds. He references the chart I provided at the Feb. 20^th meeting and states that six of the municipalities on the chart use a percentage of registered voters to base their petition thresholds on. (For context, when you look at each of the three powers of Recall, Initiative, and Referendum, five out of the 12 included municipalities attach their thresholds to the number of registered voters. Mesquite doesn’t reserve rights for Initiative or Referendum. Additionally, Garland attaches their Initiative and Referendum petition thresholds to the number of registered voters and their Recall petition threshold to the number of actual votes. I still think it’s fair to say that we are in the minority when compared to other municipalities for our petition thresholds.)

Commissioner Strecker maintains his opinion that Richardson is not out of the mainstream in this regard. He also states that the suggestions from members of the public to align petition thresholds with a percentage of actual votes in the last municipal election is not unreasonable. He notes that, on the state level, only four recalls of governors have ever been initiated across the nation. Two of those successfully recalled their governors, both from California. He notes that, in the most recent case, the petition to recall Gov. Newsome included a number of signatures equal to 12% of the number of votes for the preceding gubernatorial election. He also does not think our current threshold is too high. He acknowledges the arguments made on all sides but doesn’t think the current threshold is unreasonable.

Commissioner Ziegler states that the language in Sec. 5.02 (f) is clunky. Vice-Chair Quirk offers alternate wording.

Commissioner Thomason thanks Commissioner Strecker for his research. He states that we would need a compelling reason to change the thresholds. He has not heard a compelling reason to change the thresholds. (For me, the fact that we require a higher number of signatures to place something on the ballot than would win such an election is a compelling enough reason.) Commissioner Thomason states that he is caught up on the discussion last week thanks to the video recording I uploaded. He states that these thresholds have served the city well, and he doesn’t see a reason to meddle with them.

Atty Smith now offers a rewrite of Sec. 5.02 (f). The commission unanimously adopts the text amendments for Sec. 5.02. 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.

Commissioner Thomason suggests that they retain the requirements laid out by state law for financial reporting of political activities. City Manager Don Magner now arrives at the meeting. Atty Smith states that the commission can vote on the proposed text amendments tonight and may still return to discuss the financial reporting aspect at a future meeting. Commissioner Ziegler notes that the first sentence of Sec. 14.01 includes language that reads, “…be submitted to the qualified voters of the city council by submitting a petition…”. He asks if this should instead read, “…qualified voters of the city…” Atty Smith states that it should read “…submitted to the city council…” (I’m not sure about this. Legislation initiated by petition should go before the qualified voters of the city. Unless they are saying that it goes before Council to give Council a chance to adopt the legislation instead of holding an election? I’m not clear on this.)

The commission unanimously adopts the suggested amendments for Sec. 14.01.

Regarding Sec. 14.02, Commissioner Gaziani notes an additional instance where consistent language referencing “qualified voters of the city” should be added. Atty Smith and the rest of the commission agree. The commission unanimously adopts the amendments for Sec. 14.02.

Atty Smith notes additional grammatical and consistency amendments necessary for Sec. 14.09. Commissioner Strecker asks if language specifying the required information for a signature to be valid should be included as it is in Sec. 14.01. Atty Smith and Sec. Nemer agree that this language should be included in Sec. 14.09. The commission unanimously adopts these amendments for Sec. 14.09.

ARTICLE 6 – CITY MANAGER

After 40 minutes of reviewing text amendments from the last meeting, the commission now discusses tonight’s sections, starting with Article 6, titled City Manager. Atty Smith shares a recommendation to move language referencing the removal of the city manager from Sec. 6.01, titled Appointment, to Sec. 6.04, titled Removal.

Commissioner Gaziani asks for clarification regarding the second sentence in Sec. 6.01. This sentence states that the city manager may be appointed without a definite fixed time. He asks if both the words “definite” and “fixed” are necessary in this sentence. Atty Smith answers that it’s just a matter of style. Both of these words used together don’t offer any specific meaning that would change if one were removed. The commission unanimously adopts Atty Smith’s recommendation for Sec. 6.01.

For Sec. 6.02, titled Qualifications, Atty Smith doesn’t have any prepared recommendations. Commissioner Pratt asks for clarification on the definition of “resident”. This is referenced in the second sentence of Sec. 6.02, which says that the city manager must be a resident of the city within six months after appointment. Commissioner Pratt mistakenly states that someone must live in the state for six months before being considered a resident and being allowed to register to vote. Atty Smith states that Commissioner Pratt is reading too much into it.

(The Voting Rights Act passed in 1970 pre-empted states’ abilities to require lengthy residency requirements to register to vote. I can’t find anything that states that someone must live in the state for a certain period of time before registering to vote, just that someone resides in the county they register in. I’m not sure where Commissioner Pratt is getting this assumption from.)

The commission’s consensus is that adding “of the city” is a necessary update to this charter, even though the sentence already references being a resident of the City of Richardson, and Atty Smith advises that this implies a requirement to be a resident of Richardson. Commissioner Thomason asks how this would be enforced if the city manager owned multiple homes in different cities. Atty Smith answers that a city manager may be removed by a majority of Council if they are not happy with their presence in the city. The commission unanimously approves the redundant reference to Richardson in Sec. 6.02.

Sec. 6.03 is titled Absence or disability. It is exactly one sentence long. It simply states that Council may designate “some qualified person” to perform the duties of the office during such absence or disability. Commissioner Benner thinks “some qualified person” sounds flippant. Commissioner Gaziani asks if an Asst. City Manager wouldn’t assume the duties in such an absence. Atty Smith clarifies that the administrative code dictates that the Dep. City Manager would serve in such an absence. He also states that this language appropriately allows Council to still appoint who they desire. CM Magner clarifies that the city manager designates someone to serve in his place if he must be absent. This charter section enables Council to designate someone to serve in the role if the city manager is unable to make that designation due to disability.

Sec. 6.04 is titled Removal. Since the commission voted earlier to move language from Sec. 6.01 to 6.04, an amendment adding that language here is necessary. Commissioner Strecker asks why the text “Unless otherwise provided in an employment agreement…” was added. Sec. Nemer points out that the existing language includes “unless otherwise set out in any contract”. This is just a re-wording to increase clarity. The commission unanimously adopts the recommended amendments for Sec. 6.04.

Sec. 6.05 is titled Powers and duties. Atty Smith has two recommended amendments. The first is to add language that clarifies that the city manager will exercise control over departments created by the city manager in addition to those created by Council. The second is to clarify the requirement for the city manager to attend all meetings of the council to allow absence due to illness, vacation, or city business, designating an employee to represent the city manager during any absence. Commissioner Thomason asks if subsection (e) requires the city manager to attend all meetings of the council. Atty Smith confirms that it does. Commissioner Thomason asks if the city manager must be present if there is any quorum of councilmembers. Atty Smith explains that a quorum of councilmembers at an HOA meeting does not qualify as a meeting of the council. Council meetings are only those that are posted as such.

Sec. 6.06, titled Bond of city manager, includes a recommended amendment from HR Director Jose Moreno that adds the following language: “In lieu of a bond, the city shall purchase Public Officials Liability coverage for purposes of faithful performance of the duties of an office, with the premium to be paid by the City.” This is the section I commented on at the start of the meeting. Atty Smith describes this recommendation as adding an option to purchase this coverage instead of a surety bond. Commissioner Thomason asks for confirmation that the difference between this proposed coverage and a surety bond is regarding the city manager’s personal financial liability. Atty Smith states that this is typically not correct. Usually, the city will have insurance coverage to cover any losses, and the city would be able to pursue that loss. He states that a surety bond company pursues the loss with a surety bond vs. the city pursuing the loss with insurance coverage. He also states that if the city manager steals money, there may not be any money to recover from them.

(I’m more comfortable with a guaranteed surety bond payout, especially after the difficulties the city had with insurance payouts for the city hall fire. And, even more especially after the example the city attorney gives about the possibility of there being no money to recover from the guilty party. Let the surety bond company pay us out and then pursue their loss. That’s better for the public, in my view.)

Commissioner Baker prefers to keep the surety bond requirement without the proposed amendment. Commissioner Pratt asks if there is an issue with the availability of bond products. CM Magner confirms that they are available. Atty Smith states that if the market ceases to offer these products, there would be a charter issue. Commissioner Thomason asks how much the premium on a surety bond is. CM Magner answers that it is roughly $400 annually.

Vice-Chair Quirk makes an improper motion by just saying “so moved”. Chair Bright takes this as a motion to adopt the recommendation from HR Director Moreno. Commissioner Gaziani asks if the intention of this language is to allow the purchase of liability coverage only in the event that a bond product isn’t available or if the intention is to create the option. Atty Smith states that the city will always at least have error and omissions coverage in addition to the surety bond. Commissioner Gaziani presses for an answer to his question about the words “in lieu of”. Chair Bright attempts to explain that the city could still purchase a bond if they wanted. This doesn’t prevent them from doing so. (Still, not his question.) Commissioner Gaziani settles on the fact that he does not understand the intention of this proposed language. Chair Bright asks if there is a second on Vice-Chair Quirk’s motion. No, is the answer from the commission.

Commissioner Pratt suggests they amend the language to make it clear that the allowance for Public Officials Liability coverage will only be in the case of a bond product not being available. Atty Smith accepts this direction. CM Magner suggests the language “in the event a bond is unavailable” instead of “in lieu of”. With Vice-Chair Quirk’s motion failed for lack of a second, Commissioner Thomason moves to adopt CM Magner’s suggested language. The commission unanimously approves this motion. (If this was the intent of the suggested language, it’s good that the commission clarified this in their motion. If the intention was to create the option, it’s even better that the commission turned down the creation of such an option. This was an important discussion and vote to protect the public from harm.)

Sec. 6.07 is titled Investigations. Commissioner Benner suggests updating the language in this section to include updated language referencing what forms of evidence may be compelled, matching their update to Sec. 9.12(d). The commission unanimously adopts this amendment.

ARTICLE 7 – CITY ATTORNEY

Article 7 is titled City Attorney – Municipal Court. Sec. 7.01 is titled City attorney. Sec. 7.02 is titled Municipal court. Sec. 7.03 is titled Municipal court judge. Sec. 7.04 is titled Alternate municipal court judge. Sec. 7.05 is titled Compensation. Sec. 7.06 is titled Municipal court clerks. Commissioner Thomason asks if there are any legal changes needed for these sections. Atty Smith answers that there are no changes needed from a legal standpoint. He does recommend deleting Sec. 7.05 as the compensation for judges is something that is determined by Council during the annual budget process. Commissioner Strecker asks for clarification since he didn’t see an amount determined in the budget. CM Magner answers that it is a block item under municipal courts - compensation. Since some hours of work are not predictable, a block of funds is designated as opposed to a specific salary.

Commissioner Pratt asks why this section should be deleted. CM Magner answers that the city manager, not Council, designates merit increases to an employee’s salary. The commission has no recommendations for changes to Sec. 7.01, 7.02, or 7.04. The commission unanimously recommends the deletion of Sec. 7.05. Commissioner Pratt suggests removing “bona fide” from Sec. 7.03, which references a residency requirement for the municipal court judge. The commission unanimously approves this amendment. The commission decides no change is needed to Sec. 7.06.

ARTICLE 8 – ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS

Article 8 is titled Administrative Departments. Sec. 8.01 is titled Creation and control. Sec. 8.02 is titled Administrative code. Sec. 8.03 is titled Responsibility of department directors. Atty Smith recommends amended text in the second sentence of Sec. 8.03 to clarify that directors prepare operating budgets. The commission unanimously approves this amendment.

Commissioner Gaziani asks if language is redundant in Sec. 8.01. Atty Smith and CM Magner confirm that this is necessary language, not redundant. Commissioner Pratt asks how often “time to time” is in the first sentence of Sec. 8.02. CM Magner answers that this is defined in the administrative code. It’s every other year. With business concluded, the meeting adjourns after an hour and 49 minutes. The next meeting of this commission is on March 27^th and covers articles relating to city council and their nominations and elections. I hope to see you there!