Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Resign To Run Charter topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge council not to place retroactive resign-to-run charter amendment on ballot
Summary
About a dozen residents told the Richardson City Council they oppose a proposed charter amendment that would apply a resign-to-run rule retroactively, arguing it would be unfair, legally vulnerable and could function like a recall targeted at a single councilmember.
Dozens of residents asked the Richardson City Council not to place a retroactive "resign-to-run" proposition on the upcoming charter ballot, saying the measure would unfairly change the rules after candidates already filed and could remove a sitting council member without explicit voter intent.
Multiple speakers during the public-comment period named the proposal as their reason for attending. Elaine Campbell said the measure "would actually be a recall proposition targeting one city council person, Dan Barrios," and called retroactive application "unethical and unfair." Mark Wickersham told the council that applying a new candidate qualification after filing is "fundamentally unfair and legally questionable," warning that it would be vulnerable to a court challenge.
Other residents echoed those concerns. Candace Walter, who identified herself as a law professor and small-business owner, said she is “100% opposed” to any retroactive application because voters would not have known they were effectively voting to remove an elected official. James Myers called the change "undemocratic," saying it would rewrite rules after the fact and could remove an officeholder "without voters having the explicit knowledge they're even voting on the recall of a council person." Several commenters suggested the issue appears targeted to a particular councilmember.
City rules that govern public comment were read into the record at the start of the meeting; council members did not debate the charter language during the public-comment period. No formal motion or vote on that specific charter amendment occurred during the meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Ken Hutchenrider and other council members acknowledged the concerns and indicated staff and council will consider the feedback as the council proceeds with ballot preparation.
Next procedural steps will depend on whether the council moves the proposed charter amendments onto a future ballot or revises the language; council members also signaled interest in ensuring transparency and avoiding perceived targeting when changes are proposed.
