Richardson residents tell council a retroactive ‘resign-to-run’ charter change would be unfair and legally risky
Loading...
Summary
Dozens of residents urged Richardson City Council to remove or not apply retroactive language from a proposed resign-to-run charter amendment, saying it would effectively act as a recall without statutory safeguards and risk litigation; council heard the comments but took no vote on the amendment tonight.
Dozens of Richardson residents told the City Council on Monday they oppose placing a retroactive "resign-to-run" proposition on the upcoming charter-election ballot, saying it would rewrite rules after the fact and could remove a duly elected official without voters’ explicit intent.
"Changing the rules afterwards — that's just not fair," said Elaine Campbell, a longtime Richardson resident, who said a retroactive provision would operate like "a recall proposition" targeted at one council member, Dan Barrios. "This would be unethical and would be unfair."
Other speakers made similar points. Mark Wickersham, who serves on a city advisory board, warned the council that applying a resign-to-run rule retroactively would be ``highly vulnerable to court challenge'' and could expose the city to litigation costs. James Myers called retroactive application "undemocratic," saying it would remove an official "without voters having the explicit knowledge they're even voting on the recall of a council person." Gerald Plumb and Candace Walter also asked the council to remove any retroactive element from the proposed amendment.
City staff did not act on the ordinance during the meeting. Public-comment time is advisory, and the Texas Open Meetings Act limits council discussion of items not on the posted agenda; staff officials only acknowledged the remarks and preserved written comments for council review. Several speakers asked the council to consider prospective (non-retroactive) resign-to-run language if the city wishes to adopt such a policy going forward.
Supporters of prospective resign-to-run rules argue they create clarity for officeholders and voters; opponents say retroactive rules change the legal landscape for candidates after they have relied on the existing rules. Council members did not take a procedural vote on the charter language at Monday’s meeting.
What happens next: the written comment cards were entered into the record and staff will provide council with the submitted remarks. Any future council action to place charter language on the ballot, and any final ballot language, would be posted publicly and subject to Texas election statutes and charter procedures.
Quotes in this article come from public-comment speakers who addressed the council during the Jan./Feb. meeting; council members declined to debate the matter during the public-comment period because the Texas Open Meetings Act limits off-agenda deliberation.
