AGENDA
CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE
April 19, 2017
After determining that a quorum is present, the City of Denton Charter Review Committee of the City of
Denton, Texas will convene in a meeting on Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council
Work Session Room, 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas at which the following items will be
considered:
Regular Meeting
1. Public Comment. (5 Minutes)
2. Housekeeping. (5 Minutes)
A. Consider approval of the March 15, 2017 Charter Review Committee Meeting Minutes.
3. Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding the work of the Recall Percentage, Council Stipend,
and Ethics subcommittees. (105 MINUTES)
4. Concluding Items. (5 Minutes)
A. Scheduling of next meeting(s).
5. Adjourn. (Committee Chairperson)
CERTIFICATE
I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the City Hall of the City of
Denton, Texas, on the _____ day of _______________, 2017 at _______ o’clock (a.m.) (p.m.)
_____________________________
CITY SECRETARY
NOTE: THE CITY OF DENTON WORK SESSION ROOM IS ACCESSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. THE CITY WILL PROVIDE SIGN
LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED IF REQUESTED AT LEAST 48
HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE SCHEDULED MEETING.
PLEASE CALL THE CITY
SECRETARY’S OFFICE AT (940) 349-8309 OR USE TELECOMMUNICATION DEVICES FOR THE
DEAF (TDD) BY CALLING 1-800-RELAY-TX SO THAT A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN
BE SCHEDULED THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY’S OFFICE.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
AGENDA
CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE
March 15, 2017
After determining that a quorum was present, the City of Denton Charter Review Committee of the City of
Denton, Texas convened in a meeting on Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council
Work Session Room, 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas at which time the following items were
considered:
Present:
Dr. Jim Alexander, Dr. Bob Bland, Sheryl English, Herbert Holl, Phil Gallivan, Colette
Johnson, Ron Johnson, Dr. Patrice Lyke, Joe Mulroy, Dr. Annetta Ramsay, Prudence
Sanchez, Steve Sullivan, Jorge Urbina, Michael Upshaw, David Zoltner.
Absent:
Billy Cheek, Erin Clegg, Kyle Eaton, Stu Moorhead, Marty Rivers
Staff:
Kelly Campbell, Vernell Dooley, Jr., Robin Fox, John Knight, Bryan Langley, Aaron Leal,
Sarah Kuechler
Mulroy called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Regular Meeting
1. Public Comment. (5 Minutes)
No one present.
2. Housekeeping. (5 Minutes)
A. Consider approval of the March 1, 2017 Charter Review Committee Meeting Minutes.
English Motioned to approve March 1 minutes, Upshaw seconded. Motion passed.
Langley introduced Sarah Kuechler, Assistant to the City Manager.
3. Continue discussions concerning Ethics and other charges assigned to the Charter Review Committee
by the City Council. (Joe Mulroy, Chairman). (105 MINUTES)
Mulroy – Thanks again to Phil Gallivan, David Zoltner, and Billy Cheek for getting Alan Bojorquez here
so quickly for the last meeting. He was the appropriate person, gave us a good overview. I’ve gone over
the minutes twice, and he has captured the essence of where we are. I want to start with Aaron Leal, of the
Legal Department, because when you read back through the minutes, Alan indicated that there really was
nothing legally preventing City Council from writing an Ethics Ordinance right now, but it was not his
recommendation. He gave us a very solid recommendation of how to approach this. There are two areas,
one recurring concern is the percentage of ownership, but we cannot change that without changing the
Charter. The other is participation behind the scenes. Our Charter addresses just voting, not participation.
There’s two obvious things you’ll have to overcome if you are writing the ordinance under the present
Charter language. You’d really have to carve those areas out and I don’t think you’ll have a good and
complete ordinance. Aaron will take us through what he sees as the barriers. Alan had pointed several out.
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
We will not write it, but when we recommend Charter language, we will also recommend what should be
included in an ordinance.
Leal – Alan Bojorquez was asked last week, whether or not there was anything that is preventing the City
Council from enacting an Ethics Ordinance. He had answered no. In general, I agree with his answer. That
has been my position. The question that wasn’t asked and should be as a follow up is “is there anything in
the Charter that could potentially prevent us as we enact an Ethics Ordinance”? There are actually some
provisions in the Charter that might keep us from this. I’ve been here for six years now and have heard a
lot of the citizens’ concerns on the issues and one of the reoccurring themes that I hear with respect to an
ethics ordinance is the Chapter 171 conflict of interest, the 10% rule specifically, the 10% ownership
interests in a business and 10% salary. We adopted Chapter 171 as part of our Charter requirement, back in
2006. With a separate ethics ordinance, if we were to go below the 10%, and this is what I hear from you
and the citizens outside this room, that we should go lower than 10% which is the general consensus, down
to 5%, 1%, even 0%, which would in essence be an appearance of impropriety. If you adopt an ordinance
and reduced the percentage of ownership in a business or salary down to 2%, and then you finally file an
ethics complaint against someone who violated the ordinance, they could come back and challenge the
ordinance as being contrary to the Charter, since it allows 10%. The person charged with an ethics violation
could challenge it in District Court and argue that the ordinance is in direct conflict with the Charter. This
is one of the key questions that was not asked as a follow up - are there limitations if we were to do that?
That is one, and it is a strong one. The other, as Chairman Mulroy pointed out, is participation versus the
vote. In the Charter we do provide that if there is a conflict, then that council member or official will abstain
from voting, Chapter 171 restricts participation in the matter which includes discussing and deliberating.
So if you want this ethics ordinance to include deliberation and discussion, again, you run into the same
problem I just described and the ordinance could be challenged as being contrary to the Charter.
Alexander – Your interpretation of the existing State Law 171, was that it only prohibits voting, but does
not include participation?
Leal – No. The State Law says participation; and participation also includes voting by extension. Our
Charter after it specifies Chapter 171 as our conflict of interest statute, has an additional clause that says
when a conflict is identified that official shall abstain from voting. We modified State Law by making it a
little more expansive to say that they cannot vote, but can still participate in discussion. Which hasn’t
occurred.
Alexander – So our Charter may be in conflict with the State Laws if it were challenged on that point.
Leal – It’s possible.
Sullivan – It’s interesting because as a P&Z member I excuse myself from participation in voting because
that was what I was told I needed to do. Just this past week our Chairman recused himself from all discussion
and voting because that is what we were told he needed to do. Is that separate from what we’re talking
about here?
Leal - No, that is actually one in the same. The attorney on that Board took a cautious approach and advised
against participation because, as Alan described in his presentation, you still can have that potential where
somebody just sitting in the front row, a board member just looking at his fellow his/her commissioners
could somehow influence that. That is why it is the participation. But technically under the Charter we
modified to be from the voting and as member Alexander pointed out, we could be in conflict with State
Law. That is another potential risk, and as Alan tried to get to, it’s clean and would be preferable in his
opinion, as embodied in the meeting minutes, to get to undo those, to do the repeal and replace. He kind of
hesitated to say repeal and replacement, but that was his ultimate recommendation.
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Upshaw – Also in 171, it has a provision that allows municipalities to increase the ethics standards. Why
would adopting 171 in the Charter not also include that aspect of it? They would definitely have an
argument in a declaratory action, but I don’t think it would carry the day necessarily.
Leal – It ultimately comes down to what a judge would actually say. There’s another argument that Alan
brought up, which the previous City Attorney also stated in her presentation back in December 2015. I think
that was a stronger one in an ethics complaint. Let’s say that you are a member of council and you have a
4% interest and violate the 2% interest limitation in the ethics ordinance, nothing prevents you from making
the argument that the Charter is the higher body of law and it says 10%.
Upshaw – It doesn’t directly espouse the 10%, it adopts by reference 171, which then means all of 171,
which would include the other provision. If that were me, I would never make that declaratory judgment
action because I would be afraid of losing and have to pay attorneys’ fees to the other side. I think we
should take some steps to adjust things that clears the air of this 171 argument/conflict. It’s critical to allow
it by adopting it, you’ve got a strong argument on both sides.
Leal – The point is, why face those potential arguments? We talk about the legal side. What about the
political side. If council members are actually faced with such an action filed against the city; you’re
preempted by your provision. I don’t take in the politics, but I think that is what Alan was trying to get at.
At the end of the day it would be cleaner to repeal and replace them and establish a platform mandating that
an ethics ordinance will be adopted.
Alexander – Our officials in Denton are always going to be covered at a minimum under the State Law. So
we don’t necessarily need reference to the State Law as such and certainly not to the specifics of the State
Law in our Charter, because if we do and for some good reason the State might come in later and pass a
State Law that makes the ethics standard even higher than the old law, then if our Charter has the old law
numbers in it, our Charter would be out of line with State Law. Seems to me we need to steer clear of
anything other than a reference to State Law in our Charter and then we can go further with more detailed
provisions if we choose. That’s where the ordinance needs to take over.
Upshaw – When it went from the rules to the codification they specifically adopted whatever the subsequent
clause was. Is that not correct?
Leal – What if Chapter 171 is repealed? So you now have no personal conflict of interest on the books. I
don’t anticipate that the legislature will delete Chapter 171, but it could be modified substantially.
Mulroy – In the earlier comments on voting vs participation, participation is in State Law, voting is in our
Charter. Our practice has been to step down and leave the room. That’s a clear differentiation that’s visible.
Alan brought to our attention the other part of participation is behind the scenes, like walking down the hall
here and saying “I really need this access off of Carroll Blvd.” using your “presence” which is a presence
an ordinary citizen would not have. I don’t think we’ve defined that or addressed it. In practice, we’ve been
loose. When we go forward, that is one of the things we need to tidy up and tighten up. Regardless of the
State Law, the black and white language, it’s an opportunity to recommend an ordinance that’s much more
specific in that area.
Leal – One other thing I wanted to mention, there was another argument that Alan mentioned on page 19
in the meeting minutes. This is another argument that a crafty attorney on the outside could use to find a
loophole. This is consistent with what the previous City Attorney said as far as the argument, that by
adopting the nepotism and conflicts of interest, the voters have spoken that these will be the ethics for the
city, and nothing else. This is what Alan was actually saying. At the end of the day, I don’t think that’s an
argument that would win in court. I think it is the weaker of the two. I think the first one we discussed a
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
short bit ago is the stronger of the two. But that is another argument that could be raised against the city.
As I mentioned, that was pointed out by the previous City Attorney in a work session about a year and a
half ago. Any questions?
Holl – Can you repeat that argument for me, please?
Leal – The second argument? Since we only have two provisions that deal with ethics, Nepotism and
Conflict of Interest, the argument as Alan had presented it…“Are lawyers doing what lawyers do? I can
look at it and say the voters have already given you the ethics provision they want and so, don’t do anything
else. State law covers everything else. If the voters wanted you to have more ethics power, they would
have given you more ethics power. To do anything else is beyond the charter, go beyond the voters, and
possibly conflict with the Charter.” That is the other argument. I missed it the first time, until I went back
and read the meeting minutes; and I’ve heard that before. But I don’t think that is an argument for court.
Cheek – I think it is a perfect description, less is more, as far as this goes. There’s already laws in place,
who would go above and beyond that, to eliminate certain language.
Leal – That’s part of where he was going with that. Ultimately he was leading to the conclusion that you
need to repeal and replace to make it very clear that this is what the voters want, they want an ethics
ordinance and that’s what we’re going to put before them. That is what this is leading to; one basis to his
ultimate conclusion.
Zoltner – This confuses me a little bit, because Alan did mention the word repeal, more than once. Is he
suggesting that 171 or 14.04 must remain because of the voters? Or would you discuss the wisdom and
propriety of just repealing or removing 14.04 in entirety and letting the City Council start from scratch?
171 is going nowhere. It’s still going to be out there; protecting every other common law city. Would you
talk about that?
Leal – Alan’s recommendation was to repeal and replace. There’s too many open ended questions with
those two provisions and leaving them in place. Start from scratch, let the voters decide if they want to
have an ethics ordinance, which in my opinion would probably pass. That would give us the platform to
start building an ethics ordinance; to draft the provisions and not run into problems and potential issues like
I described with trying to reduce the 10% limitations to 2% or 0% or the participation versus voting dilemma
that we have in our Charter. That’s what is meant by that. I think the argument that I just read to you, it is
just another potential argument that an attorney on behalf of someone who has filed an ethics ordinance
complaint would try to show that you’ve gone beyond the authority granted to you in the Charter. I don’t
think it would win in court.
Sullivan – Don’t we run the risk of repeal and replace; who’s going to be in charge of that? We are going
to have the fox writing an ordinance as to when the hen house door is going to be open? Or would it be a
separate group from us that would sit down with the citizens and let them indicate this is the ethics ordinance
we want written?
Leal – That would be up to the Council to decide.
Mulroy – We are representing the community, wanting to gain the voters trust again. After Alan’s
presentation, and we break that down and go back and reread his recommendations, there is a little delicacy.
The essential bifurcation, we look at the charter language, we revisit it, whether repeal and replace or revisit
modifications to make it clean and simple, but the one provision is the City Council shall write an ethics
ordinance. We will bifurcate that, it’s our charter obligation to recommend that language. Joined with a
recommendation to include within the ordinance these elements, captured tonight on the easel. If we can
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
present these elements to council, it will be a pretty good direction and writing the ordinance will simply
be a matter of drafting. This committee will communicate what we feel are the important elements, and I
feel the Council will honor a high percentage of these elements.
Alexander – That would not prohibit this council from appointing a committee to help recommend a draft
ordinance to the Council for consideration.
Mulroy – That’s correct and they could ask us to extend our time and ask us to do this. But that wasn’t in
our charge, to write an ethics ordinance.
Cheek – I’m sorry what did you say? It says to advise on how to write it. That’s all we are doing anyway,
right?
Upshaw – It is only to amend the Charter, so it is consider and advise the City Council of Denton whether
and in what manner to revise the current City Charter provisions of Article XIV, Section 14.04 and 14.05
so as to replace the Denton citizen-adopted Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 171 conflict of interest
and nepotism standards with alternative ethics provisions, and to revise any other City Charter provisions
that relate to ethics. Anything that goes to an ordinance goes beyond our scope. And if we are going to take
a light touch approach we really won’t get much into the nuts and bolts of what that ordinance will entail,
unless we want to really go full gusto.
Mulroy – I hope to capture the elements tonight and record them. We will make a recommendation.
Upshaw – Are you talking about make a recommendation of a Charter amendment?
Mulroy – We are going to make a recommendation on specific language on the Charter amendment/change,
whatever we decide. It is not in our charge to write an ethics ordinance nor is it advisable to write the
ordinance into the Charter itself. But we can say, we recommend this Charter language, the revisions to
clean it up, and one to advise is that City Council will write and enforce an ethics ordinance or adopt one.
And then we will recommend a paragraph or so of elements that we highly recommend go into your ethics
ordinance.
Upshaw – You don’t think that goes beyond our charge and makes a recommendation to what should be in
the ordinance?
Mulroy – No, I don’t think so.
Urbina – I wonder if what he just said would allow us to have set at least a minimum in there which would
be the State guidelines, and if we run in that direction, then we are basically giving them where to start and
then they can build it up from there.
Holl – For what it’s worth, I think approaching this, a phrase comes to my mind, we don’t necessarily want
to tell them everything about it, but we kind of know where it is supposed to end up. So in line with that,
if we think of this as rather than trying to set policy, but trying to set guiding principles, and how the City
should approach this and what it should accomplish at the end.
Mulroy – Instead of splitting hairs on our charge, we are really working for the community. Under this
environment, the community’s expectation from us is to come up with what is needed, what should be
included. We are going to get everyone’s experience of what the negative things are around the community
and capture them.
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Zoltner – One of the Charter language terms that Alan used was non-negotiables. These would be things
that are important to this committee that the Council could use as a starting point. They are not specifics,
in terms of the actual ethics ordinance itself. There are some things that are very clear that are nonnegotiable.
Mulroy – If there are no other questions, or if you need time to reread Alan’s recommendations, they are
on page 17-18. It’s very good guidance on this idea that we really do need to change our Charter language
and use it as enabling legislation for Council to write an ordinance. We are in the position, speaking for the
community, to recommend to Council what you should include in the ordinance based on our collective
experience and based on the last couple of years of the doubts that have risen and the trust that has been
forfeited. To come out at the end of this process with something that the citizens feel is an improvement,
definitive, going to help rebuild their trust and provide guidelines. I do like what Alan presented us on the
leads, like leadership, training, administrable. This could be something we recommend that the Council
goes back and reemphasize continuous training on ethics, for everyone, P&Z, PUB, and other boards and it
should be an open discussion. No questions for Aaron, I’d like to capture from you the elements that you
think we need to recommend coverage in the ethics ordinance. Define participation. Includes discussions
behind the scenes. Bryan, that could be our first one, define participation. That no one would abuse their
position.
Langley – Do you want to extend that to include lobbying, city staff, etc.?
Mulroy – Yes, that’s where I’m headed, that’s the soft spot.
Upshaw – Excusing oneself from the room when a discussion is going on is recusal.
Mulroy – Another one Alan brought up is this revolving door. I don’t think we have any City policies that
addresses the director of engineering showing up tomorrow morning working for the bio-diesel plant, which
in fact happened here. And that’s how you lose trust in the community. We had no repercussion, no
prohibition, other than we should have cut ties with the bio-diesel company, if that’s what they are doing.
Not talking about a mechanic, but the director of engineering.
Upshaw – So you’re talking about city staff not being employed with contractors or contractual relationships
with the City for at least a couple of years?
Mulroy – We’d have to designate a level.
Upshaw – We should probably restrict that geographically and in time, you are essentially creating a noncompete, which has pretty strict limitations attached to it.
Sullivan – His ability to work for the bio-diesel company wouldn’t be hampered, he just couldn’t do
anything with the City of Denton, he could still go to Garland or Fort Worth.
Upshaw – Potentially, but let’s say you’re head of operations are in Garland or Fort Worth and you have
specific knowledge that relates to the contracts with Denton, you may not interface with Denton, but you
have knowledge that could be adverse to negotiations.
Cheek – Because Denton happens to be in a partnership with Garland and that’s very specific and those sort
of things have happened.
Mulroy – And as the devil’s advocate, it could have been someone in that director position that’s made
decisions on contracting and we do more proprietary contracts than you would realize. He makes those
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
decisions and he goes to work for Joe’s Engineering company, and you never see him again here, Steve but
he’s got my contract for my company and I’ve got him down in Garland. We’ve got to have a barrier that
at a certain level, you cannot be enticed by or influenced by promises of future employment.
Sullivan – But if you’re hired and you know that rule’s in place, then you know your future is going to be
somewhat limited. You go in knowing that situation. Just like our State and Federal elected officials,
putting in a revolving door thing, this is a volunteer job to begin with and you know going into it what the
limitations are so just “buyer beware.” If you are already employed and this is put into place, maybe it
would keep that engineer from jumping ship and going to work for a company and we could still use him
at the City.
Upshaw – I think enforceability becomes a problem because you’re essentially making a non-compete by
law, which I don’t know if that could carry any weight because you have to give consideration for a noncompete. I don’t know if we are creating a back door on compete and then let’s say we’re not technically,
how is that enforceable, are we going to get an injunction against that person from working for anyone else?
Is there going to be any recommended remedy for that? Or are we making some sort of a general policy
statement?
Holl – Are we talking staff?
Alexander – We have not yet talked about Council. With the same issues that arise regarding Council
members after leaving their council term.
Mulroy – So we have no revolving door on consideration at a certain level higher folks operating on
contracts. There are termination clauses and that could be a consideration that at the higher levels it would
not be hard to overcome. At the mid to lower levels it would.
Upshaw – I would extend that at least to elected officials, I think the revolving door with regard to becoming
board members or active participation on other non-profit boards in the community, for instance I think
there is real problem with revolving door between the Chamber and the City. That’s a situation that needs
to be addressed. To serve two masters, when we have an economic development partnership with that
organization. They’re going to double dip members of that board basically because of that revolving door
that goes back and forth.
Sullivan – Well, the idea here is to say this is what we want to see. Y’all figure out the details, get your
legal people involved, kind of thing, right? We don’t necessarily come up with all the answers just with
the guiding principles you are going to try to have in place.
Upshaw – I feel like we are getting into competition issues with staff and maybe that is a little too far field
from where we are supposed to be. I think we must be more concerned with whether or not elected officials
are going to benefit from deals that they have direct control over. I think we are going to get involved in a
whole hornet’s nest of issues if we start trying to deal with competition from staff even at the upper levels.
Something to consider during contractual negotiations when we employ them, but not necessarily
something that goes into the Charter. But if in the ordinance, you’re going to have to give consideration
for it, what is reasonable job consideration?
Mulroy – What level does the staff get into contracts with the City as an employee? Director or higher?
Langley – That’s a good question, can you contract with them? I’m not sure I have an answer to that.
Mulroy – When you hire someone, what level do you do it at a contract basis.
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Leal – Just the appointed officials, city officers. Judge, City Manager, City Attorney, and City Auditor.
Sullivan – Everyone else is at will?
Leal – That’s right.
Cheek – You have to sign the 1295, which is the State form you fill out that says you have no lobbying
interest in this contract. Cities have a lot of loss of their top officials through contractors, so I’m not sure
who all that applies to, but I know it applies to state officials cannot go to work for someone who performs
RFP’s or has gotten an RFP, which is a negotiated contract.
Langley – I don’t know the answer to that.
Leal – I don’t know the answer to that one.
Mulroy – That’s something we can do some research on. It is a bullet point we want to capture, because
we don’t have any policy. There are those who have approval policy at a high level, have left and
immediately gone to work for the same people they were approving. It may be completely innocent, it may
be just a coincidence, a crossroads, but it raises the specter of what control do you have?
Upshaw – In those situations though you do have some other grounds for holding that person accountable
for any sort of loss. There are other grounds for accountability outside of including in the ethics ordinance.
Holl – Would it be an accurate reflection of what I’m hearing, in principle, we’d like this ethics ordinance
to apply as far into the organization as legally possible? At some point personnel policies take over, but
maybe investigate. Currently who does this ordinance apply to? Are we limited to this or can it go deeper?
Mulroy – On one occurrence, and the community’s question is “What is going on?”
Holl – Had there been an ordinance in place earlier that covered them, would there had been more recourse?
Langley – Apply the ordinance to as many positions as possible.
Urbina – What I remember Alan saying a couple of times is part of the problem is more the enforcement
side, than the ordinance or what is actually included. Is this something that can be put as a tag line up there
and have it come around to an issue of enforcement? I don’t know how you’d enforce this. But we want
to make sure we don’t overreach. We also need to make sure it has some teeth.
Langley – Enforcement is possible.
Upshaw – Mechanisms and appropriate remedies adjust for that.
Sanchez – Since that is something bipartisan, so really it talks about a time frame, they couldn’t go to work
for some period of time after being involved in City government.
Mulroy – Yes, ma’am, define that, time and geography.
Zoltner – Number five and six are really getting closer, I think, to the Charter authorization that Alan was
talking about. For example, number five - Apply the ordinance to as many employees, this was one of my
major issues, down to the level of department heads. That could be one of the non-negotiables that this
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
committee would recommend. As many employees as possible; that would be up to the Council. Number
six - the City Council shall provide for an internal enforcement mechanism. It’s an ethics review board.
So this body should recommend some form of an ethics review commission or ethics review board. We’ve
already heard about the problems with enforcement. That would be one of the non-negotiables. Council
can figure out how they’re going to enforce this.
Zoltner – It’s not going to be by an ethics review board, it’s going to be by a commission or whatever. Two
more real quickly. One sounds kind of stupid but “the City Council shall enact an ordinance.” Now that
seems kind of primary but we are kind of done with the resolutions. We don’t want any more policies. It’s
almost an assumption here that you will enact an ordinance. This will become written into law and so we
really haven’t gotten there yet.
Mulroy – Yes we have.
Zoltner – One more would be that the ethics review board shall be funded. It will need money. We’re still
at the authorization level here. We’re getting close here to actually writing this ordinance, which is fine,
but we’re still discussing authorization.
Cheek – I thought we agreed we were saying “shall”.
Zoltner – We need to be very clear here. Shall enact by ordinance ...you guys can write the wording but we
need to make it very clear that we’re talking about an ordinance, not a policy.
Holl – When I heard number five, read back, not knowing who this is going to, where it says “as many
employees as possible”. Sort of suggests this wide net. I think what we mean is as many administrative
levels. It’s part and parcel but that’s really the intent. How many administrative levels does it go down to?
Sullivan – Shouldn’t it be pervasive throughout the city? All employees, whether on the back of a trash
truck or head of DME. Everybody should be ruled by the same ethics and same rules.
Upshaw – 171 applies to all elected officials and employees. So it should be extended to all employees and
that would be fine. If we’re going to get into competitive issues with staff, I think that is best left to the
manager level to make that kind of call or maybe Council. Competitive issues like that are better addressed
there. With us, we’re talking about the voting aspect, the lobbying aspect. Let’s say I’ve got my side
business of providing widgets to cities. I can’t go around knocking on doors saying, “Hey! Hire my
company”. You don’t want to be involved in voting. If we’re getting involved in competition issues with
staff, then we’re getting out there.
Mulroy – Tonight we just need your thoughts. One item we haven’t touched on from Alan is gifts. $50,
do we want to say no gifts, or say $25, or is everybody happy with $50? And transportation. That was a
surprise to me. They can give me a ride all the way to Montana. So, do we want to put that as an item to
explore? The value of gifts and a separate item for transportation. These are elements I’m looking for that
we should recommend they address.
Upshaw – I would like to add any sort of fiduciary obligations to any organization that has any sort of
contract with the city.
Langley – Conflicts of interest?
Upshaw – Yes. But not based on one’s ownership interest but one’s fiduciary responsibility to an
organization. Like if you are a director of a non-profit.
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Mulroy – Mike, I’m glad you brought that up because the practice, as a non-profit or all non-profits, I can
vote on it but that’s not really kosher.
Upshaw – Let’s say my client has an interest in a deal and I don’t. If my client stands to have an interest in
it, I have a fiduciary obligation to my client. I shouldn’t say a peep about whatever it is, whether I make
money on it or not.
Cheek – I’m concerned that’s a broad vision of the whole thing because the fact that you buy electricity
from Denton, also water, sewer. Where do we cut off that fiduciary interest?
Upshaw – For example, to get a fence permit, you don’t have a fiduciary obligation to some organization
that’s contracting with the City. We can refine the language if you’re not comfortable with it but I think,
as a matter of principle, this is something we could agree on.
Cheek – Agreed. My $250 fence permit probably took longer. That’s not necessarily a big fiduciary interest
but it is something.
Ramsey – Uh huh.
Cheek – I’ve done some development in this town and they can tie you up forever.
Ramsey – And they do.
Cheek – If you don’t get somebody interested in helping you, and getting somebody interested in helping
you means calling your Council member to tell this guy to get off his behind and help get this done for me.
Upshaw – That’s not a fiduciary responsibility. Now if you’re on a board of directors,
Cheek – I develop properties so yes, I do have a fiduciary responsibility.
Upshaw – Yeah, to your business. Not trying to contract necessarily.
Ramsey – Could be favoritism.
Cheek – I’ve had actual experience with that.
Upshaw – I get it. You want to carve that out for sure.
Cheek – It’s a broad net you throw when you say fiduciary responsibility.
Upshaw – Fiduciary responsibilities don’t arise very often. Not really about fiduciary at that point. Really
looking at whether or not you are contracting versus just acquiring a permit. Is that different? Or if you’re
asking for some sort of favor and need an exception such as a variance that would definitely be inappropriate
to lobby on.
Cheek – I’m not on the City Council.
Upshaw – No but I’m saying if you were.
Alexander – Which is, ultimately, a really important point. Because if we’re not careful here, we’ll create
a situation where good people cannot afford to be on the Council. And that worries me.
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Mulroy – And I will respond to that. To me, this is the high import on having a crisp ordinance so that Jim
Alexander can stand up and say, “Well I’ve got my landscape business and I’m on the Council. Bring me
one of three bidders and mention the deal and I’m stepping down, stepping out of the room.” So, if it’s a
crisp ordinance, we’ll have a path for people.
Upshaw – Also, I’m only looking at City Council voting and discussion. When it comes to asking for a
permit or something I don’t think that necessarily applies.
Cheek – Because I’ve been doing this for twenty years. I’ve developed a lot of relationships and I didn’t
call but I’m not voting on City decisions. Whereas if I were a City Council person, I couldn’t be in a
room...ever.
Ramsey – What about saying no favoritism or targeting because that’s different from fiduciary.
Mulroy – Elaborate on that with a different example.
Ramsey – Giving someone a fence permit because you know them or like them versus not giving them a
fence permit because you don’t like them, and I speak from personal experience.
Alexander – That’s just wrong.
Ramsey – Yeah. It was targeting, basically.
Urbina – Should be equal treatment for all.
Zoltner – Joe, one more. Most of the newer ethics models that are out there also have some provision for
financial disclosure for these employees we’re talking about. These employees, say down to some level,
the Council would have to decide financial disclosure for employees, boards and commission members,
similar to the elected folks. That needs to be discussed and considered.
Mulroy – Financial disclosure, big question mark. Staff, elected officials, and appointees.
Upshaw – Might be helpful. A lot of these things are addressed in 171. Maybe we just go a little further.
Maybe use that model and the numbers need to be checked and raised or lowered.
Holl – On number eleven, my question is this. Would this apply to people who would actually vote on
policy, as opposed to advisory?
Langley – That is a question here too.
Holl – Is it a liability for an advisory board or decision making?
Alexander – Decision making.
Holl – Is that what you had in mind?
Mulroy – We have so many non-profits and in the past, a number of City Council members that were also
on the non-profit boards. I just don’t think there is a prohibition. Right now, there’s not a clear delineation
or recusal and I think there should be because you’re voting on funds that go to the Chamber or Arts Council.
You can’t legitimately serve two masters. I think you should declare to step away from it, but I don’t think
that’s what they are doing.
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
English – No, I agree with you. I’m on the Human Services Advisory Commission and all the non-profits
that apply for those funds come and interview. Then you make the decision on who to allocate. But if
you’re on a non-profit board, which we do have some, they do recuse themselves. I’ve just gotten off a
board. It’s easier to not be on the non-profit board and stick to one thing. Sometimes we’ll have a person
who is the executive director and they don’t have any conversation. In fact, they are out of the room when
we’re talking about their non-profit.
Urbina – I’m wondering if we can add one more point that relates to the possibility that although, it’s not
going to the lean and mean ordinance, it goes to the perceived potential conflict violation guidelines that
we’re trying to get Council to look at. But let them have an out so that perception, especially in the
community’s eyes, whereas they might possibly have some excuses that we’ve looked at, allowing them to
stay on rather than recuse themselves. Maybe some language with advise and consent that says, “But if
there is a perception of a potential conflict, that Council Member or whoever that may be, may have the
option without it affecting the fact that he/she’s removing themselves”, even though it’s not a conflict. Now
I know that’s a lot of language to think through but I still feel we have to let the community know we’re
thinking about what you’re saying and if someone thinks they are doing something wrong, they ought to be
able to get off.
Mulroy – Somewhere there’s some language too that you don’t want to create a perception. Not sure where
that is but we can dress it up on an ordinance or recommendation to say that the community is sensitive to
perceptions and that should be addressed.
Holl – Is this still in the context of non-profit boards?
Urbina – No. It’s a separate line to consider in response to the charge.
Holl – Back to non-profit boards. I have a lot of history in this. In the Arts Council, we had an unwritten
policy that when one of our members was elected to City Council or Mayor, we asked him to leave the
board. We thought they could do more for us by not being on our board and assumed there would be
recusal. I don’t know what is being done now but that’s what we did. That ties up that last issue of you’re
on the board of a non-profit that is in considering a funding decision involving City money, they simply
recuse themselves.
Sullivan – Couldn’t we just make a statement somewhere in the beginning that this applies to real or
perceived issues. Kind of put that at the top and go down from there.
Lyke – I just wanted to say when we’re talking about non-profit boards and elected positions, and this isn’t
a number on the board, if people are required or encouraged to step down, we’re not talking about someone’s
entire life, we’re talking two-year term or six-year term, we hope. But if you step down, you open up a spot
for somebody else and isn’t that a good unintended consequence? By removing yourself from the board, it
can bring in more people.
Cheek – You’re talking about non-profit boards. At the same time, once you get to know some of those, I
end up giving more money after I’ve been on some of them awhile.
Upshaw – Not saying they can’t be on a non-profit board, just that if there’s some business related to that
non-profit that comes before City Council, you shouldn’t lobby, you should disclose your conflict and
recuse yourself.
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Sullivan – But if we’re considering a stipend, because it’s such a full time job, when are they going to have
time to serve on a board anyway? If you want the stipend, then you need to relieve your other time to make
room and be sure to get the money’s worth.
Upshaw – It’s up to the City Council; because we’re not paying their salary or dictating their time. It’s just
something for their trouble. They should still be able to do what they think they have an obligation to.
Mulroy – There’s pluses and minuses once you’re an elected official. You remain on a board because it
keeps you in the mix. We’re a small town. We have growing pains. People are members of several boards.
The bigger the city gets, there will be less boards you serve on because we will have more eligible
participants.
Ramsay – What about nepotism?
Bland – I have four ethical areas (1) improper economic benefits; (2) advancing personal interests; (3) gifts;
and (4) nepotism. Then we have three issues in each of those areas – (1) the scope of the ordinance; who
does it apply to; (2) the participation, like personal and family, or clients and customers, or boards, or
employers; and (3) the process of recusal and disclosure, when is it appropriate to recuse.
Cheek – We need to find out the difference in what we’re doing with personnel issues vs official issues.
Holl – In the past we’ve talked about some sort of institutionalized process for training and refreshing
people in ethics.
Urbina – Since we’re talking across the board is to have it included in the employee handbooks.
Alexander – My hunch is, it is better defined for the employees than it is for the council. Most of our
concern at this point is doing what we need to do for the council. There are probably very good things in
the personnel policy that if we reflected on them, could be borrowed and utilized in a broader ethics
ordinance for elected officials.
Mulroy – I’d like to go back to the percentage of ownership. What is your feeling on the 10% and $2,500?
Bland – The principle ought to be that there is no personal gain out of this. The point is I’m serving, and
that service comes with a price. And that price is, there’s no personal gain as a result of my service.
Sullivan – We’re not just talking about council members, we’re talking about director level.
Mulroy – I’ll give you a “what if” from personal experience. I’ve done business in Denton for 35 years.
And routinely 2% of my business happened to be with the city; providing service. So I got elected on
Council. For me, it didn’t go to 4% or 6%. It probably dropped a little bit because some people were
sensitive in making sure there was no favoritism. But for me to say, “well I can’t run for council because
my business is already established” ……. Where is the threshold on that?
Upshaw – The problem isn’t the threshold. The remedy isn’t that you can’t serve on Council, you just have
to disclose and recuse yourself from that particular matter. If there is any appearance that you’re going to
get any gain, or interest in the contract, you need to step out.
Alexander – I agree Mike, but if you’re talking about the “appearance” of impropriety, those who know
you and your colleagues on the council may trust that you are in fact disclosing and recusing when
necessary. But if there is 2% that might still be there, some may be inclined to take a negative view of
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
government. We as a committee have to take some responsibility for making sure that people can continue
to serve as public officials and not be constantly under criticism for being in conflict of interest.
Mulroy – Certain portions of our contract is bid work. It’s real easy to say, we got a job with the City, but
I’m not voting on the contract. My company would still be doing call-in service business with the city, even
though Council is blind to it; I’m blind to it. I had the business before I got elected. I didn’t get elected just
to promote my business. But that’s the criticism that seems to be out there. I’m advocating a crisp
ordinance. It has to be better than what we’ve had. We’ve been pretty oblique. We open ourselves up to
criticism by not having definitive boundaries.
Urbina – There’s also the reason to not go so far in our recommendation that would self-limit us from the
good people that are already use to volunteering; want to do public service; and have served on boards and
understand the concept of how to follow a certain rule of order, etc. Because quite often, the people who
have successful businesses have been on the boards of trustees and deacons at their churches, and have
served on non-profits; it’s almost like a resume. But we’re saying if you have a business here, we don’t
really think that perception of that conflict of interest is something we want to see. We’d rather you not
have any business with the city at all is limiting those wonderful people from serving.
Sullivan – I’m thinking more of the assistant or associate director of something at the City, who gets those
tickets to the Cowboy game, gets in the suite and gets wined and dined and now there happens to be someone
who wants a contract and they have influence to help that company get the contract. That’s where I have a
problem. I think there needs to be a specific dollar amount that all employees don’t get anything in excess
of.
Mulroy – To me if you don’t have any gifts, then there’s never a question. If you never take a comp meal,
there’s never a question. But that may be too stringent.
Lyke – I’m comfortable with no gifts. I like when Alan said his client donated the gift. I don’t want to be
in charge of policing $25/$50 gifts.
Zoltner – What is the gift limit that you guys have now?
Langley – I don’t really know. I can tell you, there are some practical issues with that. Around Christmas
time, stuff just shows up around here. Chocolates, cookies; what do you do with that?
Mulroy – Is it a gift to the office in general?
Upshaw – I really strongly feel that if we start getting off into how we’re going to monitor the ethics of the
employees that we’re getting too far off into left field. I feel that we should stick with the scope of 171,
which really deals with the decision-making bodies. I think that is what we’re tasked with. And while I’m
totally sensitive to the idea that we want ethical behavior within the city office, I think that is something
that should be managed at the director level. I think internal policies and procedures can be changed without
the Charter.
Mulroy – We don’t want to run that deep and create unintended consequences. We to want to frame it
around elected officials and appointed officials. But it cascades, but somehow we have to have the whole
culture to be ethics conscious.
Bland – On the economic interest, it’s not that it’s improper for you to have a business relationship with the
City, even as a city council member. But when you improperly use your position to advance personal
economic interest, that’s where it becomes an issue. The same with gifts and all these things across the
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
board. Where it becomes an issue is when we improperly use a position of power to exploit an opportunity
that others otherwise would not have an opportunity to do. I don’t have problem with gifts, if they are not
used improperly.
Mulroy – You’ve opened the door for an additional discussion I want to have. In the past behavior have
gotten borderline. But who is supposed to issue a reprimand? It’s your fellow council members and there
isn’t one in the records. So our council hasn’t said, okay Joe I know you’ve had business before you got
on council, but you’re over here talking to the facilities manager and that’s really out of line; if we see that
again we’re going to publicly reprimand you. That’s never happened.
Gallivan – That goes to #6 and 7. My only concern is the power that is offered in terms of recommendation
to council of the members of the ethics review board. Make sure that there is some power there to say that
this calls for reprimand, or this calls for censure, and we recommend expulsion.
Mulroy – There’s a built in dichotomy now, because the council ethics committee is fellow council
members.
Zoltner – Who exactly would administer this ordinance? Hopefully the Ethics review board would be
independent. You’re never going to separate politics from this completely. Some of them have actually
gone so far as to establish an ethics review commission with powers to determine its own rules, duties, and
procedures to administer such code. They would decide who would get the letter of reprimand.
Alexander – What if they’ve got a conflict of interest?
Upshaw – The rules would apply to them because they are appointees.
Mulroy – For simplicity sake, right now we need to look at an arms-length, separate review board and its
powers. We’ll figure out how to compose it.
Zoltner – The only way to completely separate politics from it would be something I’ve heard of, and I
don’t know that it will ever happen in Texas, would be to have what they call regional ethics review
commissions. For example, someone from Flower Mound would send a complaint to Denton. We don’t
know any of the players and vice versa.
Upshaw – You could potentially have three people appointed or however they get on the committee and
have them sitting like a grand jury, but they’re called out when we have something like that happen.
Alexander – That initial screening could be more private and not public to keep it less political until that
initial screening results in a conclusion that a reprimand might be appropriate.
Upshaw – You have to follow the open meetings act. You also have to figure out what rules to use in the
fact finding. In a court case, we have rules of evidence that have to be followed to make sure there isn’t
hearsay.
Mulroy – One idea is to have a panel of retired judges and rotate them because they’re already well versed
in fair play.
Upshaw – We’d have to formally adopt the Texas rules of civil procedure or something like that.
Holl – To Phil’s observation on number 5 and 6. We need to define a system of remedies.
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Upshaw – Then what is your appeal process? Do you go to county court, or district court? Or is it a
kangaroo court.
Sanchez – Maybe an arbitration provision to keep it out of court. And maybe a legal notice in the paper of
the reprimand.
Urbina – We have to be careful of overextending and self-limiting. There are some things in closed session
that lead to participation that could become an issue for a panel in discussing this publicly.
Mulroy – If you think of anything else, email it in. I’m going to create a subcommittee. I’m asking Jim
Alexander and Patrice Lyke to be co-chairs of the Ethics subcommittee. Members will be Herbert Holl,
Prudence Sanchez, Phil Gallivan, Marty Rivers and myself.
Upshaw – Can I make a recommendation to include Erin Clegg? She did her graduate thesis on ethics
ordinances, I think she would have a lot of valuable information.
Mulroy – I will take it under consideration.
4. Concluding Items. (5 Minutes)
A. Scheduling of next meeting(s).
I want you to hold April 5th open. Depending on how far the subcommittees get, we’ll come back on the
5th. If not we will definitely meet on April 19th because all three subcommittees will have a report. We’ll
let you know in 3 or 4 days.
Bland – The Stipend committee will have a recommendation ready for the 5th.
5. Adjourn. (Committee Chairperson)
Meeting adjourned at 7:30 pm.
16
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
April 19, 2017
TO:
Members of the Charter Review Committee
FROM:
Bryan Langley, Deputy City Manager
SUBJECT:
Subcommittee Communication
In an effort to keep you abreast of all communication related to the Subcommittees, I am
providing the following documents.
I. Committee Information
A. Stipend Subcommittee
1. Minutes from March 15, 2017
2. Proposed Stipend Charter Language
B. Recall Subcommittee
1. Minutes from March 15, 2017
2. Minutes from April 5, 2017
3. Agenda for April 19, 2017
4. Recall Subcommittee Recommendations
C. Ethics Subcommittee
1. Minutes from April 5, 2017
2. Agenda for April 17, 2017
17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Minutes
Charter Review Committee
City Council Stipends Subcommittee
March 15, 2017
After determining that a quorum was present, a subcommittee of the City of Denton Charter
Review Committee of the City of Denton, Texas convened in a meeting on Wednesday, March
15, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. in the City of Denton, City Hall Conference Room, 215 East McKinney
Street, Denton, Texas at which time the following items were considered:
Present:
Co-chair, Dr. Bob Bland; Co-chair, Sheryl English; Ron Johnson, Dr. Annetta
Ramsay, Steve Sullivan
Absent:
Kyle Eaton, Monica Glenn, Stu Moorhead
Staff:
Bryan Langley, Sarah Lollar
REGULAR MEETING
Co-chair, Dr. Bob Bland, called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m.
1. Public Comment
Co-chair, Dr. Bob Bland, Kyle Eaton is out of town this week. We do not have any public
comment so we will move on to the second item.
2. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give direction regarding potential changes to
the Denton City Charter related to compensation for the City Council members.
Bland – We have Ron Johnson on our committee that is with us today. A brief recap from last
week was, we had a discussion about the different bases for compensation. Kyle suggested using
a percentage of the FPL (Federal Poverty Level) instead of the CPI (Consumer Price Index). I
sent the committee a link on the FPL so you can become more familiar with those amounts. At
the last meeting, we decided on 75% of the FPL. Also, we decided to compensate based on “per
meeting”. Bryan Langley brought up some very interesting problems with doing this so we
agreed on a monthly stipend.
Bland – Dooley gave us an updated draft with all the input discussed, I will open up the meeting
for comments and suggestions at this time.
Bland – I made a copy of the FPL from www.Healthcare.gov for us to discuss. They have a lot of
different types of FPL listed but I believe we are interested in the amount for an individual. I
think we need to be very clear with the language so I added “75% of the current annual federal
poverty rate for and individual.” This percentage comes out to $9,045 annually, or $753.00
monthly. I also recommend adding “the provision shall be established at the 2017 individual
FPL”.
18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Bryan Langley – Will the Mayor have the same rate as Council?
Steve Sullivan – One of the issues I encountered when doing research online is that, on
www.familiesusa.org for Medicaid, the amount was $11,880 in 2016. On
www.parkviewmc.com for average cost of living amount was $11,770, the www.usda.gov for
the SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) program is $15,312. All of these
amounts are for an individual. With all the different type of indexes, how do we know which one
is the best one to use? Instead of matching this amount any kind of index, I recommend using the
number from where ever we decide to take it from and not continue to link the changes of that
index. Once we have that number we can set a maximum amount this number can be raised
annually.
Sullivan – If the idea of a stipend is what we are trying to do, than set a dollar amount with an
allowable increase.
Langley – How is this amount allowed to be increased?
Bland – This charter gives the City Council the power through an ordinance to raise it above that
threshold. The initial level will be set by charter, above that, the Council may raise it by
ordinance and majority vote.
Bland – I think Steve’s point in setting a dollar amount will help Citizens know what they are
voting for. Nobody really knows what the FPL is.
I think we should round it to $9,000, and annual increases up to 4% thereafter.
Dr. Annetta Ramsay – Lets set the Mayor to 100% of the FPL.
Bland – What if we put the Mayor at $12,000. It’s $750 per month for each Council member for
a total of $9,000 annually. The Mayor gets $1,000 per month for a total of $12,000 annually.
This brings the total stipend to $66,000 a year out of the budget.
Langley- I’d like to make a clarifying point that we discussed in the overall committee at the last
meeting. It was decided that the Council couldn’t receive the increase in their current term. Any
increase became effective following the election cycle.
Ron Johnson – The last part of the first paragraph should be revised to exclude information about
the Federal Poverty Level.
Langley – So, this means we could have two Council members being paid different amounts. For
example, someone who has been in their term for a 1.5 years compared to another member who
is newly elected at the new rate will make more.
Sheryl – Would the Council members be a 1099?
Langley – Yes.
19
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Bland – The other topic we need to discuss is the percent increase above the current rate.
English – We need to set a limit on the increased amount.
Bland – I think a flat 3% is sufficient.
Langley – This will not have a reference to the poverty rate? It will have a bifurcated rate of
$1,000 monthly for the Mayor and $750.00 for Council. The maximum amount of increase is 3%
per adjustment. The adjustment can’t be made more than once annually.
Bland- This will become part of the budget cycle as a separate line item.
Langley – Is this is all new language proposed to be added to the Charter?
Bland – Yes
Bland – With everyone’s consensus I will eliminate the 2nd paragraph.
Ramsay – Read the final decision of the stipend charter provision draft. “Compensation in the
form of a monthly stipend for each member of the City Council shall be determined by the City
Council by a separate ordinance, but no increase in such compensation shall take effect until
commencement of the terms of the Mayor and/or Council Members elected at the next regular
election”. Any increase in compensation approved by ordinance may not exceed 3% per
adjustment from the current stipend level. Adjustments can’t be made more frequently than on an
annual basis. The initial annual stipend shall be $9,000 per City Council member, and $12,000
for the Mayor, effective upon ratification of this charter provision.
Bland – I will make the final revisions and send to Bryan tonight. Bryan will work with Legal on
any additional revisions needed.
English Motioned, and Ramsay seconded to approve the amended charter provision. Motion
passed unanimously.
3. Adjourn (Subcommittee Co-Chair).
Meeting was adjourned at 5:39 pm
20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 CHARTER REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE ON RECALL
April 5, 2017
Draft Meeting Minutes
The Subcommittee on Recall, of the City of Denton Charter Review Committee of the City of Denton,
Texas, convened in a meeting on April 5, 2017, at 5:00 p.m. in the City of Denton City Hall Finance
Conference Room, 215 East McKinney Street, Denton, Texas at which the following items were considered:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Billy Cheek, Erin Clegg, Mike Upshaw, and David Zoltner.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Colette Johnson, Ron Johnson, Jorge Urbina.
STAFF PRESENT:
Sarah Kuechler and Theresa Jaworski
Regular Meeting
After determining that a quorum was present, Mike Upshaw called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m.
1. Public Comment.
Upshaw – Is there any public comment? With no public representation, we will look at the minutes from the
last meeting.
2. Consider approval of the March 15, 2017 minutes.
Upshaw – Did everyone have a chance to look over the minutes?
Following a brief discussion on the March 15 Meeting Minutes, Billy Cheek made the motion that the minutes
be approved. Motion was seconded by David Zoltner. Vote to approve the minutes was unanimous. Motion
passed.
3. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give direction regarding potential changes to the
Denton City Charter related to recall provisions.
Upshaw – Was anyone designated to make a report specifically?
Kuechler – No. The only thing I put together and emailed out was that first chart in the meeting materials
titled the City of Denton Election Statistics and Recall Percentage Scenarios. From the discussion at the last
meeting, I’m was trying to help provide information on a minimum based on a percentage of votes cast or
registered voters. I just wanted to provide that information from the last four elections and run some scenarios
for you. I can do any other type of analysis that might help you to know the numbers and how they work,
based on past elections.
Upshaw – Last time, we readily acknowledged that percentages were a little weak when it came to unopposed
or under voted single member districts. I think that we also agreed that it was not a problem so much for the
at-large candidates because both in total number of votes made it reasonably difficult to get a recall. We came
to the conclusion that to apply a general rule of a percentage of registered voters in the districts and somewhere
in the three to five percent range.
21
50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 Zoltner - Yes. That’s where we were getting. I made the comment last time and I still believe that we are
very, very close to where we need to be. I’m even more inclined to believe that now than last time. I’ve been
reviewing information since we last met. Section 14-11 of the Charter has been on the books for 58 years and
there are three generations that have come through this town and I have a list of 106 people that have gone
through that Chamber as either a Council Member or a Mayor. We are only sitting here right now because of
one glitch in almost 60 years. The more I think about this, the whether or not, and in what form, so we jumped
on the whether last time. I’m comfortable with bumping this percentage a little bit.
Upshaw – Of the votes cast?
Zoltner – I’m thinking if we take that 25 percent or 30 percent like many of our sister cities, I’m just not
willing, on one vote, to go down that road of complex percentages or on registered voters. I just don’t think
that’s necessary. I think that if we bump that percentage, out of respect for whatever has happened in the past
and very recently, align ourselves with other sister cities, we may have fixed the problem for another 58 years.
Upshaw – That’s fair enough.
Zoltner – And I think that if it were the greater of 30 percent of the last turnout that included the Council
Member in question. The greater of that or I’m even prepared to throw in this minimum of 150 votes like
Flower Mound or Sanger. But I think if we need to add just five percent to that recall, I think we’re good for
another 60 years.
Upshaw – You raise an interesting point. I thought just the percentages of total votes is a bit uncomplicated
as well.
Zoltner – In my opinion, I don’t see us as being here to protect Council Members. This recall percentage is
an insurance policy for the citizens of this town to guarantee accountability on the part of their Council
Members. And I’ve actually called a few of the Council Members to get a consensus. There is not even a
consensus right now on our current Council, whether or not they’re involved in it. Their main concern is that,
“if I’m recalled, I’m recalled”. To your point, don’t take it personally. So, we can kick percentages around
but at some point, I’m going to make a motion to bump it five percent and leave it at that.
Upshaw – Anyone have some input?
Clegg – I would agree. For simplicity sake in changing anything or bringing it forward to the voters, this is
so much information and conveying the actual meaning behind using a different type of percentage
determination of population or whatever it may be, is just too complex to explain or put on the ballot to voters
to make them understand this is what we are trying to do and or prevent. I agree with you. There has just
been this one incident recently and changing it a little bit would be a simplistic way to do it and in looking at
the data, it puts us right in there.
Zoltner – In that same 58 years, we have never, ever, removed a sitting Council Member. We have had two
petitions but we have never recalled a Council Member in this town. I think we are discussing solutions for a
problem that doesn’t exist right now. I’m not unsympathetic to the fact of the low turnout in that one incident.
We can talk about what brought that petition on. But it was kind of a perfect storm that one year. I think we
can fix this fairly simply. I’m not totally unsympathetic of having to go through a recall, but the process works
there and I think that’s what it’s designed to do.
22
99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 Upshaw – Okay. Let’s talk about some findings that we can have. We can agree that in recent times, there
have been two recall petitions with one certified. Due to recent events, a community concern has arisen about
the process of having a recall is too easy in some of the single member districts.
Cheek – Yes. I totally agree with that.
Upshaw – We have also found that in surrounding communities that it is common for 30 percent of the actual
voters to be required for a recall petition.
Zoltner – Yes. The 30 percent was a common number and there were some minimum numbers of votes on
some of them. But again, the problem is that our Charter is not that loose. The problem is the voter turnout,
not the Charter.
Cheek – Sure. We all know that the number of registered voters in Denton and voter turnout is just deplorable.
That percentage is going to be low on an unopposed ballot. But you can still go to registered voters who didn’t
even vote in that election, who qualify to recall someone. That would be my concern. I like a little higher
percentage and I like the simplicity of going with the number of people who voted instead of making it
registered voters. I hate throwing a hard number out there. Right now, it makes sense but what about ten
years from now? We’re just making this all about one Council Member and that was the circumstance.
Zoltner – But that was relevant. There were 1700 votes cast on this recall. Only 400 votes put him in office.
Well, the number of registered voters in District 4 was a 70/30 for 1700 votes. Here comes all those registered
voters right then so it’s not like 77 people could throw anybody out of office. That’s the way the system is
set up. It’s worked for 60 years.
Clegg – And procedurally, there’s still the safeguard of it being pushed to the voters to determine whether or
not they should be recalled. That’s just like the threshold issue, getting them on a petition to be recalled. Am
I correct?
Zoltner – Right.
Clegg – So, they still have another thing that they have to go through and that obviously caught things for
Joey and he didn’t get recalled.
Cheek – No. But it was a distraction for the City, I think an undue distraction. I don’t know anything for a
fact but I’ll bet there was a lot of outside influence involved with this whole thing. People that didn’t really
have any skin in the game.
Clegg – Sure.
Cheek – And that can happen at any time. I understand that. I don’t want to make a recall an easy thing to
do.
Zoltner – All of those signatures had to be District 4 voters. It was all about Buc-ees. We can be honest about
it. There were a lot of people that took that Buc-ees vote very, very hard. And the point was, Joey had an
opportunity there. It was a 5-2 vote for Buc-ees. He could have voted with his constituents and Buc-ees still
would have passed. That was just the disagreement with a vote your Council Member made, is not a recall
event. If I was backed up to I-35 that might have been important enough for me too.
23
148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 Cheek - But they had plenty of time to show up in these meetings and they didn’t. There weren’t many people
who showed up in opposition and they should have.
Zoltner – I think the way it is set up right now, it’s not very far from where we need to be.
Upshaw – So, recall efforts have raised community concerns about the number of signatures required to obtain
a recall in single district member council seats who are unopposed in their elections. Recall elections are
considerable cost to tax payers and the recall process should not be unduly burdensome.
So, we’re not trying to stymie that by creating a high percentage, neither are we trying to protect the jobs.
Zoltner – We’re not trying to prevent recalls by raising this much but trying to be consistent.
Upshaw – Yes. That’s what I’m saying. We’re not trying to unduly burden them.
Zoltner – There might be some people in this town that have a problem with us even messing around with 25
percent. We might have to defend that extra five percent.
Cheek – Hopefully, they will pay attention and ask some questions.
Upshaw – I think that’s why it’s important for us to have some finding before we go on to what our suggestion
is. So the goal of the committee is to provide a recommendation that makes the recall burden commensurate
with the recall cost. We have reviewed the recall standards for some communities and have reviewed voter
turnouts, voter registrations and weighed the burden of the percentage of votes cast versus percentage of
registered voters. We find that the recent recall petition was an anomaly?
Zoltner – That would be a good word. Yeah. And some wording in there about having respect or integrity in
the necessity of a recall process. That it shall not be so far out of reach with the amount of time that it has
successfully worked in this town.
Cheek – We don’t want it to become a trend but will have a respect for the ability to recall.
Clegg – Furthermore, a point should be made, as the Charter Review Committee is, that we’re looking at an
auditor, we’re looking at ethics and all of that comes into play when you’re looking to recall your elected
official. So in a sense, we’re promoting the downward trend of that anyways by other methods through the
committee and that would, hopefully not make this problem revert.
Zoltner – Or less likely in the future, than it has been.
Cheek – That’s where I was and I’m very flexible. That’s why I want a higher percent.
Upshaw – With these findings having reviewed these statements:
1. Recall efforts have raised community concerns about the number of signatures required to obtain a
recall in single district member council seats who are unopposed in their elections.
2. Recall elections are considerable cost to tax payers.
3. The recall process should not be unduly burdensome to voters.
4. The goal of the committee is to provide a recommendation that makes the recall burden commensurate
with the recall cost.
24
197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 5. We have reviewed the recall standards for some communities and have reviewed voter turnouts, voter
registrations and weighed the burden of the percentage of votes cast versus percentage of registered
voters.
6. We believe that the recall petition was an anomaly and was the first recall vote in 58 years.
7. We believe that in order to keep our percentages in line with that of surrounding communities and to
further ensure that recalls are not easily accomplished.
8. We believe that the percentage should be raised to 30 percent from 25 percent.
Zoltner – That’s my motion. I’m going to make that a motion of 30 percent.
Clegg – I’ll second the motion.
Upshaw – Any commentary before we put it to a vote.
Cheek – You know how I feel about that point.
Zoltner – Well, wait 35-40 is debatable.
Upshaw – You were saying higher?
Cheek – Yes. I was thinking 40 earlier today, but if we can do 35, I would be very comfortable with that. It
gives us a few more votes and historically, this district doesn’t have a large voter trend.
Upshaw – So you’re offering an amendment to 35 percent?
Zoltner – I would, with the understanding that Council can still tweak that number too. This is just our
recommendation. We could give them a range of 30 to 35 percent.
Cheek – I think that’s a good idea. I would make that amendment too.
Jaworski – Excuse me. I’m sorry Mr. Cheek, you made a motion to raise the percentage from 30 to 35%? And
Ms. Clegg, you seconded the motion? Okay. Thank you. Did you want to vote on that?
Upshaw – Yes. Motion was made by Billy Cheek to raise the percentage from 30% to 35% and seconded by
Ms. Clegg. All those in favor of the motion? All opposed? Without objection, the motion carried by
unanimous vote. We have made some findings and made a recommendation with those present and those who
are not here will probably be okay with it too. Anything else to be addressed?
Zoltner – I think we are where we need to be.
Kuechler – The next committee meeting is on Wednesday, April 19. I think the final plan is to bring this
recommendation back to the entire committee and report back as well as the statements.
Cheek – Does the recommendation need to be written up?
Kuechler – Do you want me to do that?
Upshaw – You can type up what we’ve got and I’d like to revise it. So just put it in a formal document and
we can all sign it.
25
246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 Upshaw – Type up what we have there and we can refine the language in the last section.
Kuechler – Want to meet at 5:30 just before the Charter Review Committee Meeting on the 19th?
Cheek – To finalize the wording.
Upshaw – We will suspend entry of our final language until we have an opportunity to review it and adopt
final, formal language before next overall committee meeting.
Kuechler – I will post a subcommittee meeting for 5:30 p.m., on Wednesday, April 19th.
Upshaw – To finalize language of our final recommendations. Alright, with that, is there a motion to adjourn?
Zoltner – So moved.
Cheek – I second.
Upshaw – With no objections, the meeting is adjourned.
Meeting adjourned at 5:31 p.m.
26
DRAFT #3 Council Stipend Charter Language
March 15, 2017
Each member of the City Council shall receive compensation in the form of a monthly stipend as set
forth in this section. The initial annual stipend shall be Nine Thousand Dollars ($9,000) for each
member of City Council elected from a district or at large position, and Twelve Thousand Dollars
($12,000) for the Mayor elected at large. These initial amounts shall become effective on ratification of
this charter provision.
City Council may, by a separate ordinance, approve an adjustment in the stipend no more frequently
than once per fiscal year, but no increase in such compensation shall take effect until commencement of
the terms of the Mayor and/or Council Members elected at the next regular election. Any increase in
the stipend approved by ordinance shall not exceed three (3) percent per adjustment of the current
stipend amount. Any increase greater than 3 percent shall require a two-thirds (2/3) vote of approval by
the Council. The stipend shall be reported in the annual city budget as a separate line item.
27
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Minutes
Charter Review Committee
Subcommittee Meeting on Recall
March 15, 2017
After determining that a quorum was present, the Subcommittee on Recall for the Charter Review
Committee of the City of Denton, Texas convened in a meeting on Wednesday, March 15, 2017,
at 5:00 p.m., in the Finance Conference Room, 215 E. McKinney St., Denton, Texas to consider
the charge of giving direction regarding potential changes to the recall provisions in the Denton
City Charter.
Present:
Billy Cheek, Mike Upshaw, Jorge Urbina, and David Zoltner.
Absent:
Erin Clegg, Colette Johnson, Ron Johnson
Staff:
Vernell Dooley, Theresa Jaworski, Sarah Kuechler
REGULAR MEETING
Mike Upshaw called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m.
1. Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding potential changes to
the Denton City Charter related to recall provisions.
Upshaw – Asked for thoughts on the discussion of recalls and percentages. Any thoughts as to
what threshold? I think the general consensus is the threshold is a little too low at this point in
light of the recall on Joey and Kevin. Regardless of why one thinks they should be recalled whether
that’s an appropriate threshold standard to move forward under. Are there any thoughts as to what
we want to move things to?
Zoltner – I have come full circle since we first brought this up earlier in meetings. Initially, there
was some discussion on a fixed percentage of registered voters. The more I think about that, I
really think that we are not that far off here in Denton right now from where we need to be, with
Joey’s situation, notwithstanding. I really don’t want to go down that road where we have to start
making phone calls to the City elections and County elections folks. Is there such a disconnect
between the 15,000 registered voters and how many are actually turning up in Denton? So I really
don’t want to go down that road and have come full circle back to something close to where we
are now. This is just my thinking. I think the only time we would really have had a problem would
have been Joey in 2015 with only 300 votes, a low threshold of 88 signatures for a recall election
and then the only other time prior to that, would have been Kevin Roden, in 2013 with only 200
votes total, a 50 signature threshold. So I think those are both, being sympathetic to Joey, probably
not a good idea. So I’m kind of coming back to some of the other cities in the backup we were
given and I’m just going to throw this out. This is just for discussion, I think we need to bump
28
44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 that. We would have had no problem with any of the at-large elections. It would take at least
1,000 signatures in any of the other at-large elections, going back as far as 2014. Say 30% up from
25%, could be 35%, but let’s say 30% of the way it’s actually worded now. Some of these other
cities have had it kind of confused about the total number of votes cast in the election but Denton
has made it fairly clear that at least 25% of the number of votes cast for that council member or
that place and all the opponents in the preceding general municipal election which was counted.
I’m okay with that. What we might do, I’m going to throw out 30% with also the possibility that
some of these single member districts, if there’s an unopposed candidate, some of these have a
minimum threshold where it takes at least 150 votes.
Upshaw – Like an alternative minimum.
Zoltner - It could be an alternative minimum, similar to Frisco and Plano. 30% of each of those
cast but in no event less than 150 petitioners. So I like that and I’m coming back to where we are.
I don’t think we have as much to think about here as we might have, initially.
Urbina – I also have come around to where we are using a double factor. Based on the votes, we
can only say, much like you said, we are looking for at least this number but no less than this
number, which is a factor that we come up with, based on total number of registered voters. This
is what was discussed and we also discussed total population. But if we look at the numbers just
for votes cast, it’s a false number, if we are going to be allowing it where there is no second
candidate running. If just one person is running, we’re going to get those 200 totals and that’s
going to be a real easy thing to beat and we’re paying money every time we have one of these
recall elections. A double standard will ensure we have a minimum factor to bump it up to say, no
less than this amount and that could be based arbitrarily on a ten percent of the total registered
voters, it would bump up the number, or five percent even. Right now, we’ve gotten locked in
between 15,000 to 20,000 registered voters.
Zoltner – There’s such a disconnect here between this number of registered voters and the number
of votes cast.
Urbina - I know. And I have to have two factors in my mind to make it work. We don’t want it
too low but we don’t want it too high. The high one is the critical one in my mind, not to force too
big an issue where we’re not allowing the populace to say, we don’t like this guy or this woman.
We need to get her out, we’re going to recall. But that’s where it is in my mind, based on the
higher number. It’s easy to come up with the voting number. We have the numbers you know,
that’s an easy number to go out and get a petition signed. That was in the February 15 meeting
that we got those numbers from 2016. But then the total number of registered voters is an arbitrary
number.
Zoltner – Yes. It’s a soft number. It’s moving all the time.
Urbina – That’s still a number we can lock into a factor.
29
88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 Upshaw – Yes. I agree. I think maybe moving up the percentage somewhat to where, when there
is a contested election, it gives us a higher threshold but then having a lower minimum would be
just a pick. A number that would at least give us this many people in the community to get behind
this thing to spend all that money and trouble and put somebody else through another campaign
that they would need to raise money for.
Zoltner – I just don’t think we are that far off.
Cheek – I don’t like the hard numbers, I like percentages because of the growth.
Urbina – Percentages are also going to be able to move.
Cheek - Otherwise, we’d be updating the Charter every ten years.
Upshaw- There is some sort of basis for that. We’re on the same wheelhouse but we need to
formulize some recommendations.
Zoltner – What kind of a percentage are you looking at?
Ubina – If we’re looking at the numbers in the districts, not looking at so much at-large conditions
but just looking at the districts, we’re looking at 20,000 registered voters. So, it depends on the
upper limit we want to place. Doesn’t matter if it’s 20 or 30 or 15 thousand. We have one District
1 that has 15,000 registered voters. So ten percent is 1500 votes or 1500 signatures on that recall,
if we go by that upper limit, not less than. But if we put a minimum in there and we say but not
less than 15 that might be tough, when we have only 140 people vote. But it’s not unreasonable
to ask somebody that’s going to force... how much did you say it cost for a recall election? About
$17,000?
Dooley – Yes approximately. Aaron had mentioned that.
Urbina – For somebody to go out and get 1,000 or 1500 signatures to say we’d like to place this
recall on the ballot. Whereas, it’s ridiculous to ask for 50, only 50, because that’s a snap. But
whether or not to go 1500 or bring it down to five percent is where I’m looking at my margin, my
factor between five and ten. And that places it where it’s at least manageable, not too much of a
hardship but still not so easy that they can get it on the ballot.
Zoltner – So, would you say, not less than or more? Because if you say ten percent of 15,000,
that’s 1500 people which would be five times the number of people that even voted the first time.
Urbina – That’s correct. But there’s 15,000 people that can sign their names on that recall petition.
It’s just a matter of not making it too hard and I think 1500 is a little tough, in my mind, on some
of the districts. Shouldn’t be too hard where there’s 5,000 voters. Again if we’re looking at five
percent and now we’re looking at 750 votes, that gets closer to the bottom end to it and that’s easier
to get it but still more than voted. I agree with you. So if we go with the factor that says, not less
30
132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 than this amount, whether you want to call it for the signature of those who actually voted or people
that actually voted that number. It’s going to be tough because in most districts, we’re at about
220 and 220 signatures is pretty simple, in my mind, to go out and canvass a neighborhood.
Cheek – I don’t think we really want it to be simple to recall someone.
Urbina – Yeah. 220 signatures is nothing. I can go out to my family and get 20 of those. But I
like the idea of two factors.
Upshaw – So the greater of the percentage of the votes cast or percentage of the registered voters.
Urbina – But not less than this percentage of registered voters. And I think the easiest way is to
just sit down and play with some numbers. It seemed like it started working into a range of between
five and ten percent of registered voters is a pretty reasonable number but it would be closer to
about 750 in three of our districts.
Upshaw – That’s reasonable. I think also, if you’ve got one of these situations where one did run
unopposed and a lot of people not participating in the municipal election just because whoever is
in their district is not opposed. If that person does becomes a problem, having some sort of recall
threshold where they can be signatories to it in the situation you’re pointing out there. It would
enable them to recall their representative who is doing a blatantly poor job, if they can get that
done. Is that what you’re thinking?
Cheek – Registered voters in that election.
Upshaw – Yes.
Urbina – Now on the other side, I had a little problem figuring out the minimum because of the
fact that we have so few voted. That’s why I said that in my opinion, we need to factor two
numbers because then, you look at 50% of who voted, now we’re looking at 200 people. That’s a
difference of about 500. Not cumbersome but a little less likely to cause a runoff, unless people
take an issue and start signing.
Zoltner – Okay. Just give me some real numbers here. Let’s just take 2015. Roden and Doyle
Cain had 520 votes between the two of them. Let’s say one of the two elected was up for recall so
give me what you’re thinking.
Urbina – I would say 50% of who voted in that district. 50% would be about 250.
Zoltner – Okay 50% would be about 250 or what.
Urbina – Okay. But before we go to that next leap of faith to the second factor, take one district
that’s a little bit larger in numbers. I’m looking at 2016.
31
175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 Zoltner – I’m looking at single member. Mostly these at-large deals that are going to take care of
themselves.
Urbina – I’m looking at the districts. In 2016, we had 561 votes cast. If we look at 50%, that
would be 280.
Cheek – That would be more like 1400.
Urbina – That number is 50% of the votes cast.
Zoltner – Except in 2016. Those were at-large rates. So they actually had them broken down by
district and you would be looking at 5800 or 5900 or Mayor was 4700 so, you’re looking at 6,000
votes on Place 5. So you’re not looking at District 1.
Urbina - But we also look at that second factor is that would limit us to that five percent of
registered voters. Now factor that one to the first one you gave me. What would that come out
to?
Zoltner – Last year, Place 5 was: Armintor, Dalton Gregory, Ortiz… with over 5856 votes between
the five candidates.
Urbina – Oh. You’re looking at the total combined votes.
Zoltner – Well, that’s the way it’s got to be by our deal here. They’re broken down by districts on
this chart here.
Urbina – I was thinking in terms of the minimum being 50% of that district vote. Why are we
giving the whole community the right to do a recall?
Zoltner – We’re not. The Charter says it’s only those who cast votes for that council member.
Dooley – He’s referencing the at-large position not the single district.
Zoltner – The way it’s presented here is a little confusing because there’s either at-large or single
member.
Urbina – So maybe we will need to have a determining third factor as to whether its single member
or at-large.
Upshaw – I think whatever it is, the standard will apply. Our at-large districts, the number for the
thresholds going to be sufficient that it’s not going to be a problem. They’ll still have to have an
onerous amount of people sign up to have the votes cast.
32
218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 Zoltner – 30% of 5800 is already a good size with a lot of signatures. I think the at-large elections
are pretty well covered. The single members have the lowest votes. The only two on there that
would really be a problem were the 208 votes for Roden and Hawkins.
Upshaw – This only comes up in single member districts where there’s people unopposed. So we
need to figure a one size fits all scenario that addresses all and doesn’t make it too onerous where
we must have some huge number of registered voters, but will bring everyone together.
Zoltner – I think so too.
Upshaw – In your proposed scenario, they would need to have signatures from people who actually
voted in that but had to be number based.
Urbina – Yes. At least a number.
Upshaw – You might have a situation where you have an alternative threshold but no one could
meet it because there weren’t that many who voted in that particular election. So standard thus far
has been one of percentage of actual votes cast. I think if we put an alternative minimum based
on the number of registered voters, we have to open it up to those who registered, but didn’t vote
in that election.
Urbina – That’s why I was going with the idea of a percentage based on votes cast and a percentage
based on registered voters. It’s this number but not more this number.
Upshaw – But then you create an alternative minimum situation. So, it has to be this number.
Urbina – Has to be at least this number.
Upshaw – But that threshold is something that’s above the number of votes actually cast and that
threshold can never be reached.
Urbina – That’s the problem. Not enough people voted because they didn’t care in the fact that
one was just running and that caused the grief.
Upshaw – I know just picking a number is not popular but, to just throw it out there, how many
signatures should there be to actually take this thing seriously? Is the number 1,500 or 2,000 to
effectuate that?
Cheek – Hate to give it a hard number. The City will be revisiting this.
Upshaw – Forgetting that aspect for now, just taking it at something that might work for now.
Urbina – That would be about 7.5% for three of our single districts. In terms of total number of
registered voters and look at numbers instead of percentages. But if we look at the percentage, we
33
261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 are still looking at a factor that I thought would work, somewhere between five and ten. It is where
we should ask the people to go out and find people that are willing to sign their petition.
Cheek – If we have a council person that is doing serious enough damage to recall them, in my
opinion, you should be able to get 400 or 500 people, easily. People might have disagreed with
Kevin or Joey but they weren’t coming at your soul’s stuff on the doorsteps, as far as we know.
Urbina – Again, if we look at the numbers we’re in that 500 - 700 - 800 range, just calling it 50
percent. If we call it 40 percent, it would lower it to the 500, as a percentage.
Upshaw – If for some reason the number of votes cast does not equal a certain percentage of
registered voters, should we require some sort of super majority of the votes cast in that situation,
instead? Let’s say 30% is the standard in a typical situation. If the number of votes cast is less
than the alternative minimum you stated as the percentage of the registered voters, it kicks in that
a super majority or different percentage of the votes cast must be reached to qualify for a recall.
Not going outside of the actual voter base, just requiring more of them.
Urbina – What was that city you referenced? Plano? The one closer to the model.
Zoltner – I’m just working the math backwards. Another District 1 election will be this next
year. Let’s say it went from 208 votes in 2013 up to 520, two years ago. Let’s say 750 District 1
votes which is historically, the lowest turnout. Let’s say 750 District 1 votes this spring. Of
those 750 District 1 votes, how many do you think it should take to recall. Give me a number,
and I’ll work backwards into the math. Should it be twice that? Of 750 total votes, say there’s
two candidates: one gets elected, one screws up and there were 750 votes total cast. Just what
kind of number do you think it will take?
Upshaw – I think even with 750 votes cast, I’d like to see about 500 people committed to this thing.
That’s why I think a super majority of votes cast is like kicking in maybe if the number of votes
cast is less than a percentage of registered voters. Sort of that calculation with alternate standards
if the number of votes is less.
Cheek – Conceptually, are you trying to say, because they didn’t show up, they don’t get a voice?
I don’t have a problem with that position but is that what you guys are saying?
Urbina – To answer your question and address yours, in my mind, we really need to consider not
who voted. In other words, it’s open to anybody in that district that can sign a petition because,
they should have just as much say, “I’m sorry we elected this guy, I want to get him out” and let
him sign the petition to recall. I’m not self-limiting that number but we had 15,000 registered
voters at least last year in District 1 and only 208 people voted. I think the big question is where
is our minimum? I looked at it and I studied that and thought 10% or 1,500, that’s kind of onerous
but five percent is not. For any one of our districts. That may be a number that at least I would
call a starting point. Five percent of registered voters is where we need to look at the number and
34
304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 see how we word the minimum so that it’s not 104 people, or 50% or 30% of the votes cast. Is
that what it is right now?
Dooley - It’s 25% of the votes cast.
Urbina – So, 50 people could make that judgement call on recalls.
Zoltner – In all these other cities, when they talk about qualified voters, I think they are referring
to those that were qualified to vote for the particular candidate that’s recalled. So registered and
qualified are different. And nowhere does it ever take more signatures to recall than were
originally cast. That’s my dilemma.
Urbina – Do we have that breakdown? I thought that was a number of registered voters per district.
Upshaw – What I’m hearing are three different questions we can look at. First: Should the petition
be limited to actual voters? Qualified or registered? Second: Should an alternative minimum
threshold be set based on the number of registered/qualified voters?
Urbina – And that’s where I would agree that if we go with a minimum, then we just plug a number
in there. At least 750 of 15,000 registered voters in District 1 have to sign this petition, but not
more this amount. Or reverse that, if we want to make a better call for numbers.
Upshaw – Third: Should there be an alternative percentage of actual voters (for example, a super
majority) if actual votes are less than five to ten percent of the number of registered/qualified
voters?
Dooley – I can get some clarification from Aaron in Legal in reference to the qualified versus
registered language. I believe it’s more of what you were talking about, qualified meaning those
who could vote for that person in the last election but will ask him to confirm.
Urbina – In the last election we had for example, if we use the 50% threshold of actual votes cast,
250 would be the minimum in District 1, not quite 1,000 in District 2, 800 in District 3 and about
850 in District 4. If we’re looking at qualified being the voters that cast votes, not the specific
voter but just that number of votes.
Upshaw- I’m getting the feeling that everybody doesn’t care whether people actually voted or not.
I would like to give some preference to people who bothered in the first place. Not to exclude the
gripes of people who weren’t there but it seems like we should give that some thought. In that
case, if we do want to stick to actual voters, this might be a solution to just raise the percentage of
actual voters with an alternative threshold being the number or percentage based on registered,
actual, or qualified voters, that’s something we still need to figure out.
Cheek – And, we do complicate it with the third option.
35
347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 Upshaw – Yes. It does complicate it but it keeps it if we’re really married to it and I’m not. I’m
just putting this out there as some way of raising the threshold without having to introduce people
who didn’t vote in that election. If we are committed to the actual voters, that is something we can
kick out there.
Cheek – As a reminder on the last recall, how many voters showed up?
Dooley – On the recall elections?
Upshaw – Wasn’t on the same date as the re-election for Joey.
Zoltner – They were way over on signatures but he was very comfortable. He was 60-70%
successful at turning it back. Only 88 signatures required for the recall and they had 100-200.
Upshaw – To some degree, we need to realize that happened and it put a burden on those who run.
It’s on the candidate to shore up their seat. They have to get some real support.
Zoltner – It was almost a joke with Chris when he ran unopposed for Mayor. He was campaigning
out there to “recall proof” my election.
Upshaw – That recall sure shook things up.
Zoltner – I think our problem is the single number districts. I don’t think we have an at-large
problem here. I really don’t.
Upshaw – I think those will be fine. We need to make sure that whatever our solution is, it is a
one size fits all.
Zoltner – I don’t want separate rules for at-large versus single districts.
Upshaw – We have some things to think about. Things we should talk about next time. Maybe
talk about actual voters versus registered voters.
Action Item: Determine if there is a difference between qualified voters versus registered
voters (as referenced in comparable community charters) and get numbers of voters.
Dooley – I’ll get with legal for clarification on what that means.
Upshaw – If you guys want to come up with some proposed language or at least bullet points on
an ideal situation you’d like to see so we can kick them around to see if we are on the same page
or within spitting distance of each other and get this thing wrapped up pretty quick.
36
389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 Ubina – I didn’t think it would be this cumbersome for us to look at simply the votes cast, not the
votes that are available in this district to bring it forward. And the second thing, I believe would
be self-limiting would be not using percentages I know we can figure a marginal factor or two
which might be better or easier to control.
Zoltner – If it might help a little bit, I went to the County Election site for the results. If we can
make copies of the actual numbers, this might help if you want to plug in the vote totals and the
people that ran and actual results before we get too far into the weeds.
Dooley – There was a bit of discrepancy from the County website to what the County emailed as
totals. For instance, that day they said 520, now they’ve since changed it to 528.
Zoltner – Well they took some of the early votes out and some were absentees. The County website
is pretty close.
Upshaw – That would be good for information purposes.
Dooley – I can definitely work on this for you. Can I make a copy?
Zoltner – Yeah. That’s my homework, go ahead.
Urbina – Are there any other subcommittees kicking up?
Dooley – Not at this time. The Stipend Subcommittee will possibly wrap up tonight. The Ethics
Subcommittee will start at some point. That is up to the Chair and the rest of the committee to
decide. But we’re trying to mitigate the number of subcommittees we have. I think from what
I’m getting from you guys, we may be looking at one more meeting, then see how it goes.
Cheek – Don’t see a lot of yellin’ and spittin’ going on here, so I think we can come up with a
pretty quick recommendation.
Upshaw – I think everybody recognizes there are issues that we need to deal with. But whether
for or against, we all feel accountability and democratic involvement is important. Particularly in
regard to the way people perceive our municipal government. Want to be sure we give the people
a chance to get out there.
Urbina – I agree. Try to get the numbers where we are for the past few years and see how they
level out. Because I can see a percentage working. I just don’t want it to be too onerous but not
too easy. Somewhere in the middle is what we’re shooting for and if each one of us come up with
our own numbers, we can match them.
Zoltner – I’m sympathetic to Joey’s situation for sure but I don’t want to jack this up so far that
everybody becomes recall proof.
37
432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 Urbina – I agree.
Zoltner – There was one successful recall 20 years ago and it was justified. Just don’t want to
recall everybody.
Upshaw – I don’t think anyone wants that. Does someone want to move to adjourn?
Zoltner – So move.
Ubina – I second the motion.
Meeting adjourned at 5:48 p.m.
38
AGENDA
CHARTER REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE ON RECALL
April 19, 2017
After determining that a quorum is present, a Subcommittee of the City of Denton Charter Review
Committee of the City of Denton, Texas will convene in a meeting on April 19, 2017 at 5:30 p.m. in the
City of Denton City Hall Finance Conference Room, 215 East McKinney Street, Denton, Texas at which
the following items will be considered:
Regular Meeting
1. Public Comment
2. Consider approval of the April 5, 2017 minutes.
3. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give direction regarding potential changes to the Denton
City Charter related to recall provisions.
4. Adjourn (Subcommittee Co-Chair)
CERTIFICATE
I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the City Hall of the City of
Denton, Texas, on the _____ day of _______________, 2017 at _______ o’clock (a.m.) (p.m.)
_____________________________
CITY SECRETARY
NOTE: THE CITY OF DENTON WORK SESSION ROOM IS ACCESSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. THE CITY WILL PROVIDE SIGN
LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED IF REQUESTED AT LEAST 48
HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE SCHEDULED MEETING.
PLEASE CALL THE CITY
SECRETARY’S OFFICE AT (940) 349-8309 OR USE TELECOMMUNICATION DEVICES FOR THE
DEAF (TDD) BY CALLING 1-800-RELAY-TX SO THAT A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN
BE SCHEDULED THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY’S OFFICE
39
DRAFT as of 4/13/2017
Recall Subcommittee Review on 4/19/2017 at 5:30pm
CHARTER REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE ON RECALL
Findings and Recommendation
ON THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017, The City of Denton Subcommittee on Recall
Elections of the City of Denton Charter Review Committee met and made the following findings
and recommendation.
RECITATIONS
WHEREAS, the Subcommittee was charged with reviewing, discussing, and providing a
recommendation to the Charter Review Committee regarding the Committee’s fourth charge “to
consider and advise the City Council of Denton whether and in what manner to revise the current
City Charter provisions of Article IV, Section 4.13 so as to increase the percentage signature
requirement necessary for a council member recall petition, and to revise any other City Charter
provisions that reference the current percentage signature requirement.”
WHEREAS, recent recall efforts have raised community concerns regarding the number
of signatures required to obtain a recall in single district member council seats who are unopposed
in their elections;
WHEREAS, recall elections are a considerable cost to tax payers;
WHEREAS, the number of signatures required to file a recall petition should not be unduly
burdensome to voters;
WHEREAS, the goal of the committee is to provide a recommendation that makes the
burden of filing a recall petition commensurate with the cost of having a recall election;
WHEREAS, the subcommittee has reviewed the recall standards for other communities
and found that it is common for 30 percent of votes cast to be required for a recall petition;
WHEREAS, the subcommittee has reviewed voter turnouts, voter registrations, and
weighed using the percentage of votes cast versus another method such as the percentage of
registered voters; and
WHEREAS, the subcommittee believes that the last recall petition and election was an
anomaly as it was the first recall election in the City in the last 58 years.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDS THAT, the City of Denton
Charter Review Committee Adopt the foregoing findings, and recommend that the Council:
1) choose a recall percentage between the range of 30-35%; and
2) create an ordinance to bring a City Charter Amendment to the Citizens of Denton
changing Art. IV, §4.13 as follows:
40
Sec. 4.13. - Filing and certification of petitions, recall election.
(a) All papers comprising a recall petition shall be assembled and filed with the city secretary as one
instrument. Within seven (7) days after a petition is filed, the city secretary shall determine whether
each paper bears the names of five (5) electors who constitute a committee of the petitioners, and the
required affidavit of the circulator thereof, and whether the petition is signed by qualified voters of the
constituency of the councilmember whose removal is sought equal in number to at least twenty-five
(25) [percentage selected by council—e.g., thirty (30)] percent of the number of the votes cast for that
councilmember and all of his opponents in the last preceding general municipal election in which he
was a candidate. As used herein "constituency" shall mean the qualified voters eligible to vote for the
councilmember whose removal is sought, either by geographical district or at large, as the case may
be.
(b) If the city secretary finds the petition insufficient he shall return it to the committee of the petitioners,
without prejudice, however, to the filing of a new petition based upon new and different grounds, but
not upon the same grounds. If the city secretary finds the petition sufficient and in compliance with the
provisions of this Article of the Charter he shall submit the petition and his certificate of its sufficiency
to the council at its next regular meeting and immediately notify the councilman whose removal is
sought of such action.
(c) If the councilman whose removal is sought does not resign within seven (7) days after such notice the
city council shall thereupon order and fix a date for holding a recall election not less than thirty (30)
nor more than sixty (60) days after the petition has been presented to the council. If no general election
is to be held within this time the council shall provide for a special election.
(Ord. No. 79-86, § 2, 12-11-79, ratified 1-19-80)
41
CHARTER REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE ON RECALL
Findings and Recommendation
Members: Mike Upshaw (co-chair), Jorge Urbina (co-chair), Bill Cheek, Erin Clegg, David
Zoltner, Colette Johnson, and Ron Johnson.
Charge: To review, discuss, and provide a recommendation to the Charter Review Committee
regarding the Committee’s fourth charge “to consider and advise the City Council of Denton
whether and in what manner to revise the current City Charter provisions of Article IV, Section
4.13 so as to increase the percentage signature requirement necessary for a council member
recall petition, and to revise any other City Charter provisions that reference the current
percentage signature requirement”.
Discussion and Findings: The subcommittee met to review and discuss increasing the
percentage of signatures necessary to support a recall petition. The following were the major
findings of the subcommittee:
1. Recent recall efforts have raised community concerns regarding the number of signatures
required to obtain a recall in single district member council seats who are unopposed in
their elections;
2. Recall elections are a considerable cost to tax payers;
3. The number of signatures required to file a recall petition should not be unduly
burdensome to voters;
4. The goal of the committee is to provide a recommendation that makes the burden of
filing a recall petition commensurate with the cost of having a recall election;
5. The subcommittee has reviewed the recall standards for other communities and found
that it is common for 30 percent of votes cast to be required for a recall petition;
6. The subcommittee has reviewed voter turnouts, voter registrations, and weighed using the
percentage of votes cast versus another method such as the percentage of registered
voters; and
7. The subcommittee believes that the last recall petition and election was an anomaly as it
was the first recall election in the City in the last 58 years.
Recommendation: On April 12, 2017, the subcommittee passed a motion to recommend
increasing the percentage signature requirement necessary for a recall petition from 25% of the
number of votes cast to either 30% or 35% of votes cast, with the City Council having a final
determination on whether it will be 30% or 35% when considering any amendments to the
Charter.
42
Current Charter Language Article IV, Section 4.13
Sec. 4.13. - Filing and certification of petitions, recall election.
(a) All papers comprising a recall petition shall be assembled and filed with the city secretary as one
instrument. Within seven (7) days after a petition is filed, the city secretary shall determine whether
each paper bears the names of five (5) electors who constitute a committee of the petitioners, and the
required affidavit of the circulator thereof, and whether the petition is signed by qualified voters of the
constituency of the councilmember whose removal is sought equal in number to at least twenty-five
(25) percent of the number of the votes cast for that councilmember and all of his opponents in the last
preceding general municipal election in which he was a candidate. As used herein "constituency" shall
mean the qualified voters eligible to vote for the councilmember whose removal is sought, either by
geographical district or at large, as the case may be.
(b) If the city secretary finds the petition insufficient he shall return it to the committee of the petitioners,
without prejudice, however, to the filing of a new petition based upon new and different grounds, but
not upon the same grounds. If the city secretary finds the petition sufficient and in compliance with the
provisions of this Article of the Charter he shall submit the petition and his certificate of its sufficiency
to the council at its next regular meeting and immediately notify the councilman whose removal is
sought of such action.
(c) If the councilman whose removal is sought does not resign within seven (7) days after such notice the
city council shall thereupon order and fix a date for holding a recall election not less than thirty (30)
nor more than sixty (60) days after the petition has been presented to the council. If no general election
is to be held within this time the council shall provide for a special election.
(Ord. No. 79-86, § 2, 12-11-79, ratified 1-19-80)
43
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Minutes
Charter Review Committee
City Council Ethics Subcommittee
April 5, 2017
After determining that a quorum was present, a subcommittee of the City of Denton Charter
Review Committee of the City of Denton, Texas convened in a meeting on Wednesday, April 5,
2017 at 5:00 p.m. in the City of Denton, City Hall Conference Room, 215 East McKinney Street,
Denton, Texas at which time the following items were considered:
Present:
Co-chair, Dr. Jim Alexander; Co-chair, Dr. Patrice Lyke; Phil Gallivan, Herbert
Holl, Joe Mulroy
Absent:
Marty Rivers, Prudence Sanchez
Staff:
Bryan Langley, Sarah Lollar
REGULAR MEETING
Co-chair, Dr. Patrice Lyke, called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m.
1. Public Comment
Neil Durrance, 1108 N Locust St. - I think this subcommittee has 3 choices. 1. The majority of
the Council wants nothing to happen. 2. Adopt an ethics ordinance with many exceptions. 3.
Pass a strong ethics ordinance. I recommend using San Antonio’s. Doing this would put half the
vendors that work with the City out of business. I think people in this committee will be held
accountable for those consequences. The Council member that argued against the ethics
ordinance a few weeks ago recently won the Otis L. Fowler award for being the best business
man in town. I think that this speaks volumes about our City politically and business wise. We
need to do the right thing because many people in this town want an ethical government.
I’ve spoken with too many people who are purposely not involved in the City because they either
feel like their opinion doesn’t count or that the City is going to do what they want anyway.
Our City Council recently received bad advice from our former City Attorney. That was the
worst advice I’ve ever seen a City Attorney give a Council in my life. Believe me, I’ve seen a
lot. We need a strong ordinance, it needs to be quick and have 4 additional powers in it that
follows the San Antonio Ordinance. I believe the committee brought someone in to speak on
ethics at the last meeting. I spoke to this man a few years ago and was surprised to learn that he
knows all about the City of Denton for negative reasons.
Thank you for your time.
2. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give direction regarding the Denton City
Charter related to:
a.
Ethics provisions in the Charter; and
b.
Recommendation of elements that should be included in an Ethics
Ordinance.
44
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Co-chair, Dr. Patrice Lyke, drafted a list of items from the Ethics Ordinance Charter Amendment
(attachment 1) and Jim did as well (attachment 2).
Co-chair, Dr. Jim Alexander – In addition, we have a list that Bryan made for us (attachment 3)
from a photograph of all the charts we had on the wall at our last meeting. I think we both did a
good job of combining these lists to make it easier to read. I like that Dr. Patrice Lyke started
with the enactment for the first item to recommend as an amendment to the ethics ordinance.
Alexander – There is a substantial amount of overlap in the process. We need to talk about what
we want the charter to look like tonight. The existing City charter incorporates a lot of language
from the State Statutory Law.
Alexander – We need help from attorneys to put this final draft in place. We need to eliminate
the existing wording in the charter that references the State charter because it might change. It
should acknowledge that the Denton City Council will operate under all relevant laws relating to
ethics enacted by Texas Legislature. We should develop language that says the ethics committee
should be composed of 3 individuals appointed by the Council. I think we need to go into
specifics about how that charter would read.
Joe Mulroy – I agree with Alan that the charter language should be held to a minimum and be
meaningful. The two paragraphs we have now would be replaced with the States standards shall
be on a minimum basis of the ethics ordinance that the City Council shall adopt.
Bryan Langley – If you have all the concepts that you want, we can work with Aaron Leal on
providing a few examples to bring back for the committee’s reaction?
Herbert Holl – The issues for me are the training, awareness, monitoring, application, and the
remedies. If there is an ethics complaint, what will happen? Remedies need to be in place for
situations like this. All of these things need to work in concert for this to be effective.
Phil Gallivan – How do you enforce these things? With fine or expulsion?
Gallivan – The City shall adopt an ordinance that fulfills the requirements of policy.
Alexander – There is an election going on right now where 3 places are being contested, what
I’m hearing is, that ethics is a major issue. The new Council members will need advice from us.
Mulroy - I don’t think we should get too broad on the charter amendment.
Alexander – The ICMA (International City and County Management Association) has always
taken ethics very seriously. I don’t think City staff would have difficulty incorporating most of
these ideas into an ordinance that would be consistent with ICMA policy and guidelines. ICMA
has had a long standing and commitment to those principles.
Langley – I agree, ICMA, TCMA (Texas City Manager Association) is more geared to the
management side and doesn’t cover elected officials, but this is a good starting point. The
45
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 ordinance would be very specific about the items and elements the committee has recommended
to Council.
Alexander – A good example is the training program that Herbert mentioned.
Langley – I think we did a good job capturing all the ideas but some of these need definition or
explanation with a brief description for others to understand the intended meaning.
Alexander – We are nearing consensus that we wish the Legal staff to develop a proposed
amendment to the charter that would adjust the language, recognize the reference to the State
law, including that their shall be an ethics ordinance. We must make sure that the charter
empowers Council to do this. It is directed by the people through the charter to do so. We don’t
want to get into detail about the 3 member commission. I think this committee has a
responsibility to develop a recommendation to the charter to the Council that is an amendment to
the charter language that is clear.
Langley – I’d like to make sure I understand the elements you would like to include in that draft.
1) Adjust language to require that the City Council adopt an ethics ordinance.
2) Reference that state law will be followed at a minimum in the ethics ordinance, but the
Council has the flexibility to also have more stringent requirements.
Alexander – I observed a number of things in this list that may already exist for the staff. I
believe our hiring policies and HR policies already include some of these elements.
Langley – That is correct. I can bring that information forward if you would like.
Alexander – I’d like to make some of these same principals to the elected officials. I believe it is
the responsibility of the Citizens to hold their elected officials accountable for following
appropriate ethical practices. With the 2 year terms, this is important. Citizen diligence and
transparency is critical.
Alexander – Let’s go through the list (attachment 2) and pick 3 items and go over our votes.
Alexander read through the list with the committee and discussed the level of interest in
including these concepts in the charter or ethics ordinance.
Mulroy – We now have the general areas that we feel are important. We need to work on
reducing those ideas for the charter with an emphasis on firm barriers.
Langley – This is the list I’ve come up with regarding the components you would like to include
in the ordinance. Let me know if I’m going in the right direction.
Identify the administration and enforcement of the ordinance with strong and meaningful
remedies for infractions. Define and prohibit improper economic interest and personal gain.
Define and prohibit improper participation and discuss recusal issues.
Require no perception or appearance of conflict.
46
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Langley – If there was a perception of impropriety or appearance of conflict, this ordinance
would take care of that types of issues.
Holl – The problem is that we can’t create perceptions of ourselves, they are created by others.
Lyke – If one person has a perception that is one issue, but if 5 people have that same perception
it becomes more relevant.
Mulroy – For the Charter, let’s use the word “conflict” and let Council decide where to go from
there.
Alexander – Having an impartial committee to handle these issues would help us to resolve
conflict within the community. That same committee can’t override what State law says.
Mulroy – When you write an ordinance you have to be highly attuned to the perceptions and
appearances received by the community.
Holl – My hope is that with this in place, when people run for office they understand.
Gallivan – If a reprimand or censure is recommended by this committee, it will have an effect on
the voters because the Council has to accept these recommendations.
Langley – We can meet next week to talk about the drafts from Legal and move forward the
following week.
Alexander – For the next meeting on April 12th continue to perfect our language and have a
rough draft of a proposed charter amendment relative to ethics.
Langley – Let’s plan to meet on April 12th at 5:00 pm.
Lyke – Has anyone looked at the San Antonio ordinance?
Alexander – I’ve seen the ordinance and wouldn’t cite it as my ideal.
Mulroy – I’m going to agree with Alan that it was high level micromanagement. Ours needs to
be more delicate than a 90 page document.
Alexander - We need to create a circumstance in which the Council can actually govern.
Gallivan – Do we any idea where we would find a good example of an ordinance?
Alexander – I asked Alan about this and he did not because ethics are unique to each area, are
based upon the individual problems of the community ensuring it is appropriate for the culture.
47
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Langley – We can bring Alan or anyone you would like to give feedback? That is always an
option for you.
Mulroy – I advocate to bring in retired Judges. They would already have the predisposition to be
fair and open minded, arms-length and independent.
Alexander – Draft 2 or 3 bullet points before the meeting next week.
Adjourn (Subcommittee Co-Chair).
Meeting was adjourned at 6:40 pm
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
AGENDA
CHARTER REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE ON ETHICS
April 17, 2017
After determining that a quorum is present, a Subcommittee of the City of Denton Charter Review
Committee of the City of Denton, Texas will convene in a meeting on April 17, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. in the
City of Denton City Hall Conference Room, 215 East McKinney Street, Denton, Texas at which the
following items will be considered:
Regular Meeting
1. Public Comment
2. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give direction regarding the Denton City Charter related to:
a. Ethics provisions in the Charter; and
b. Recommendation of elements that should be included in an Ethics Ordinance.
3. Adjourn (Subcommittee Co-Chair)
CERTIFICATE
I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the City Hall of the City of
Denton, Texas, on the _____ day of _______________, 2017 at _______ o’clock (a.m.) (p.m.)
_____________________________
CITY SECRETARY
NOTE: THE CITY OF DENTON WORK SESSION ROOM IS ACCESSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. THE CITY WILL PROVIDE SIGN
LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED IF REQUESTED AT LEAST 48
HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE SCHEDULED MEETING.
PLEASE CALL THE CITY
SECRETARY’S OFFICE AT (940) 349-8309 OR USE TELECOMMUNICATION DEVICES FOR THE
DEAF (TDD) BY CALLING 1-800-RELAY-TX SO THAT A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN
BE SCHEDULED THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY’S OFFICE
56
AGENDA
CHARTER REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE ON ETHICS
April 19, 2017
After determining that a quorum is present, a Subcommittee of the City of Denton Charter Review
Committee of the City of Denton, Texas will convene in a meeting on April 19 at 5:00 p.m. in the City of
Denton City Hall Conference Room, 215 East McKinney Street, Denton, Texas at which the following
items will be considered:
Regular Meeting
1. Public Comment
2. Consider Approval of the April 12, 2017 Minutes.
3. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give direction regarding the Denton City Charter related to:
a. Ethics provisions in the Charter; and
b. Recommendation of elements that should be included in an Ethics Ordinance.
4. Adjourn (Subcommittee Co-Chair)
CERTIFICATE
I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the City Hall of the City of
Denton, Texas, on the _____ day of _______________, 2017 at _______ o’clock (a.m.) (p.m.)
_____________________________
CITY SECRETARY
NOTE: THE CITY OF DENTON WORK SESSION ROOM IS ACCESSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. THE CITY WILL PROVIDE SIGN
LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED IF REQUESTED AT LEAST 48
HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE SCHEDULED MEETING.
PLEASE CALL THE CITY
SECRETARY’S OFFICE AT (940) 349-8309 OR USE TELECOMMUNICATION DEVICES FOR THE
DEAF (TDD) BY CALLING 1-800-RELAY-TX SO THAT A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN
BE SCHEDULED THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY’S OFFICE
57