Question: What Sort of Items in the Charter Ought to be "Reviewed"? As noted in the previous RumorCheck Q&A article, "What is the History and Background on Charter Review Committees in Richardson?", a Charter "review" is not the same as a Charter "revision". A "review" is focused on addressing issues of obsolescence in the Charter due to State or Federal law changes or court rulings or even language that just needs to be clarified. Because home rule cities in Texas are authorized by the Texas Legislature, these cities and their Charters can be affected by changes in State law. Failure to update the language in the Charter from time to time can cause difficulties or misunderstandings. For example, in the summer of 2010 a local attorney approached the City Council during a meeting and accused them of violating the Charter by selling debt without voter consent. While it's true that the Charter states that voter consent is required for all debt, a law passed by the State of Texas in 1971 overruled the Charter. But if the Charter had been amended at some point to make note of this, a great deal of unpleasantness could have been avoided. Another example is the section of the Charter that defines the four Council Districts. The problem is that these boundaries are obsolete. District boundaries are now redrawn by ordinance, not by Charter change, yet the last one or more times that the district boundaries were changed by ordinance, the obsolete language was left in the Charter – yet another chance to confuse the unwary into thinking that the City is violating the Charter. The following list is provided with several caveats: •    This is NOT all the possible items that might deserve review – these were merely ones that jumped out at us on a single pass. •    It may (or even likely) turn out that many of these items to review don't actually need to be changed. •    Even the things that could be changed might not justify the expense of a Charter election. All section numbers below refer to the Charter of the City of Richardson, which can be found online at www.municode.com. A Quick List of Items for Review in the Charter 1.03 – The section on municipal annexation needs to be reviewed for possible changes in State law, including the use of a "local newspaper" to make the announcement. When the Charter was written, making announcements in the local newspaper was the gold standard, but there was no cable television, no cell phones, no personal computers, and no Internet. Now in the 21st century, governments are rethinking this requirement in light of other methods of communication with the public. 2.03 – The section on eminent domain needs to be reviewed in light of changes in State law on eminent domain. Recall that in 2009, the people of Texas passed a constitutional amendment placing some limits on the ability of governments to take private property for certain uses. 3.08 – Richardson has typically two "Council" meetings each month, but 4-5 Council worksessions each month – do these "worksessions" count as "regular" meetings under 3.08? This should be clarified as the City sometimes has scheduling problems trying to work in two Council meetings a month because of holidays, absences, and other unforeseen events. Clarifying that worksessions are "meetings" (if they are) per the Charter could ease this problem. 3.10 – "that citizens of the city shall have a reasonable opportunity to be heard at any such meetings, in regard to any matter there considered." This could be read as "any matter considered at that meeting", whereas the current practice is to allow citizens to speak about virtually anything, except for public hearings to be held at that meeting (in that case, citizens are encouraged to speak during the input part of the public hearing instead). The language should be clarified so that we don't run afoul of the broader language of the Texas Open Meetings Act (yes, we are aware that the Act does not require that the City allow the public to speak at all, but the intent of the Act is clear that if the public is allowed to speak, that they be able to speak of anything relevant to the City, and not just what is on the current meeting's agenda). 3.12 – "The council shall determine its own rules of procedure". The Council currently has no published rules of procedure, does the Charter call for that? Indeed, we recently saw a situation in Irving where a conflict between the mayor who was directly elected by the people and the majority of the City Council over whether the majority had the legal right to alter the agenda of a meeting in progress, resulted in the mayor walking out of the meeting. A clear set of policies and procedures would have prevented this situation. 3.13 – Does the Council still have the legal authority to summon witnesses under penalty of law? This is just a point of curiosity. 4.01 – This section should be removed or at least annotated, as 4.03 allows the Council to change the boundaries by ordinance (so the boundaries in 4.01 are obsolete). As noted above, the boundaries of the Council Districts are now changed by ordinance every ten years after the National Census. Why leave the obsolete and inaccurate older boundaries in the Charter, which can only cause confusion? 4.05 – We believe that Richardson's current scheme of electing Council members in the 2nd quarter of every odd year will still be valid until the new Federal voting laws, but it would be smart to verify it. The Federal government has changed the voting laws so that certain elections in the even numbered years must allow for the ability of our military serving overseas to have their votes counted – see the effect on Texas in 2012 at http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/candidates/guide/dates.shtml 5.02 – Do the changes to permissible election dates in Texas possibly invalidate subsection (g)? As noted in 4.05, regular elections in Richardson are probably not affected, but if a recall election is held during an even numbered year, would the timing be affected by the new federal regulations? 6.01 – Given that the City Manager can be hired for an indefinite period and dismissed at will, the discussion of a 2 year contract makes no sense. Simply put, there is no reason to have a two year contract if the City Manager is hired and fired "at will". 6.07 – Do we still require bonds of the City Manager? Is this still a best practice in home rule cities? Again, just a point of curiosity. 9.01 – This section lists 6 boards and commissions that the City must have, but notes that the City may freely create other boards and commissions at will - for example, the Environmental Advisory Commission and the Animal Services Advisory Commission. Do we still want to list these boards and commissions in the Charter? Add some? Subtract some? Note that the Charter lists the following boards: Section 9.07. - City plan commission. Section 9.08. - Parks and recreation. Section 9.09. - Library board. Section 9.10. - Zoning board of adjustment. Section 9.11. - Civil service board. Section 9.12. - Civil service appeals board. It is quite possible that other State laws refer to some of these boards, such as the City Plan Commission and the Civil Service Board. (Note: full disclosure: I am a member of the Library Board and see no reason to remove it from the Charter). 9.01 – Do we still want a term limit of 4 terms on boards and commission? Just a point of curiosity. 9.04 – Do we want to clarify the implication that all boards and commissions meetings are subject to the Texas Opens Meetings Act? True "advisory" boards are not subject to the Act per the Texas Attorney General; it's just that the City chooses to run the meetings as if they were. And if the meetings are run as open, are there any policies or procedures that the boards and commissions are not currently following? For example, meetings of the Library Board are open but currently the minutes are not posted online after the meeting (although they are open for inspection) – does this cause any problem as the understanding of transparency evolves over time? 9.06 – This section requires that members of boards and commissions voted on every agenda item, unless they have a clear conflict of interest. First, does this requirement to vote make sense for an advisory board or commission? Second, does the language here conflict with the conflict of interest language found in State law and in the City Charter and ordinances? 9.10 – This subsection refers to a restraining order that can be filed in the "District Court of Dallas County". But what if the property is in Collin County? 11.11 – Define what an annual audit is, to remove any confusion on the part of residents. Can we point to State legislation or to a standards board that may define what an "audit" consists of? 12.17 – This section allows the City to condemn property via eminent domain for utility purposes. Do recent changes in State law (Constitutional amendment in November 2009) on eminent domain required changes in this section? 13.03 – Ordinances that impose a penalty, fine, or imprisonment must be published in "a local newspaper". Review the language of describing the publishing of ordinances in a "newspaper" in light of technology changes and changes in State law. 14.03 – In terms of Initiative and Referendum, the Charter sets a minimum requirement for number of signatures, but is there a legal difference between "qualified" and "registered" voters (the term used by the Secretary of State)? 14.07 – Review the language referring to a "local newspaper" in light of technology changes and changes in State law. 16.05 – This is a curious phrase. Did the Charter really mean "cities having a population of more than five thousand (5,000) inhabitants by the general laws of the State of Texas" or did the Charter mean "home rule cities"? Cities of more than 5,000 inhabitants are permitted – but not required – to file for home rule status. Which did the authors of the Charter mean, 5,000 or home rule? 17.01 – The Editor's note at www.municode.com states that many of the sections referred to in 17.01 have already been transferred to the Tax Code. If we have cause to change the Charter for other reasons, shouldn't we take the opportunity to update this section as well? Article 18 – This entire article needs to be reviewed in light of State changes to eminent domain. 18.03 – Is the reference to an element of the State statutes still correct? 18.05 – Is the reference to the Local Government Code still accurate? 18.07 – Is the reference to an element of the State statutes still correct? 19.01 & 19.02 – This article authorizes the City to issue debt only with voter approval. However, the language in the Charter is now out of sync with State law. Clarify that there are situations in which debt can be issued without explicit voter approval (The Certificate of Obligation Act of 1971). Summary When Richardson was first made a "home rule" City in 1956, it was the practice to review the Charter every 5 years for language that had become obsolete or conflicting. Note that there is no legal requirement to do this. However, not until 1987-1989 did a charter review committee find enough to change that justified to the City Council to make the decision to send the proposed Charter changes to the voters in a charter election. That review was substantial, although it did not "revise" the structure of City government, but only updated the language. Although there was a Charter vote in 2007, there was no Charter Review Committee at that time (a formal review committee is not required as the City Council can legally send charter proposals directly to the voters). In fact, there have been no Charter reviews in the last twenty-plus years. While the Charter doesn't need to be completely overhauled like it was in 1988, over time, a number of errors and inconsistencies and previously overlooked items have crept into the Charter. It's time to get back on a schedule – 5 years, 10 years, whatever – of "reviewing" the Charter for these inconsistencies. Once again, a "review" does not imply a "revision" – revising the Charter to make structural changes in the City government is and should be a separate process, which should not interfere with a regular review.