Showing posts with label citizen powers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label citizen powers. Show all posts

Sunday, November 17, 2024

The Vague and Misleading Ballot Language that Almost Got McKinney’s Mayor a Third Term

The city of McKinney had four charter ballot measures before the public in November’s election. One of them, the controversial Prop A, asked to extend city council terms from two to three. See articles here, here, and here. The problem was that the official ballot language did not indicate any change or extension of terms. It simply stated:

Note how no context with descriptive language is used on McKinney's ballot to explain a yes vote is really extending terms from two (2) terms to three (3).

The Prop A measure failed 51-49%. Early voting favored the failure of the proposition. The election day voting favored passing the proposition. If you ask Mayor Fuller and his supporters, the surge in pro-Prop A election day votes indicated voters became more educated as they learned more about how important it was to have city leadership serve 12 years instead of 8.

A more likely explanation (that most early voters voted against Prop A and most election-day voters voted yes for Prop A) has more to do with the lack of clear ballot language coupled with misleading mailers from the pro-Prop A group. See the article here about the special interest backers.

A pro-Prop A mailer with "Prop A maintain term limits - 3 Terms."

As soon as the City Council authorized the final ballot language, McKinney residents let the city leadership know they were concerned about the vague, confusing language on the ballot. The public could not understand why descriptive words like ‘extend terms’ or even simply listing the change ‘from 2 to 3 terms’ were not put in the ballot measure. After the public's outcry, there was plenty of time to change the ballot language. That did not happen.

All concerns were met with variations on the standard 'legal' requirement of ballot language. Are legal requirements the only consideration for proposition ballot measure wording? Is there no requirement for citizens to understand what they’re voting on?

According to Texas’ election code

Sec. 52.072. PROPOSITIONS. (a) Except as otherwise provided by law, the authority ordering the election shall prescribe the wording of a proposition that is to appear on the ballot.

In other words, the proposition language is up to the entity writing it. There is a lot of leeway in ballot language. Ballot language can be legal and understandable to voters. Why wasn't it?

 Dallas provides their voters with descriptive and comprehensible official ballot wording. Dallas even provided details on what specific charter spelling and outdated charter changes it would make if approved. The city of McKinney did not give any details on those either.  

Here is a sampling of official ballot wording on many Dallas propositions that were voted on this November:

Note the word "increase" in the ballot proposition.


Note the use of descriptive words like "deleting" and "instead."






This one specifies what is explicitly being amended.

How will we ensure future ballot measure wording is more descriptive and comprehensible to voters in McKinney? Who must citizens talk to in order to change our city's status quo?

 

 

 

 

Sunday, July 16, 2023

The Airport Bond Postmortem – Were There Warning Signs?

A lot of taxpayer money was wasted on the idea and execution of the airport bond from the moment the first consultant was hired in 2019. Were there signs that the city council would go on to spend $4M on consultants alone? Did we just miss the signs?

Were public hearings missed? Are there even public hearings for consultants? If not, would there be a total amount that might trigger a public hearing? Are there explicit wording requirements for the spending that can be seen on agenda items that aren’t public hearing items? Does the secret nature of this kind of economic development actually prevent public input and involvement?

The good news is that Mr. Grimes, the city manager, helped answer my questions. The bad news is that there was really no way for us to know what was coming. I know that when looked into the agenda items they were vague. Nor were there any ways we could have gotten involved in the decision-making process. That must change, or we’ll end up in this situation again.

I will just cut and paste his emailed answer because it is inclusive of all my questions:

"I have reviewed the approvals you reference below.  The consent agenda is where you will find many of our ordinances amending the budget and resolutions authorizing the City Manager to sign contracts.  While there is not a set contract amount threshold that, when crossed, requires an item to be moved to the regular agenda, larger contracts sometimes do get placed on the regular agenda to allow for a staff presentation.  Consent items are still on the public agenda, and the City Council can always request that a consent agenda item be pulled down for discussion.  If a member of the public wished for an item to be pulled down from consent and be considered individually, they can certainly speak at the public comment period and/or send a note to the council in advance requesting so.  My hunch is that at least one member of the council would grant such request, and every council member has the ability to exercise that discretion.

 

Below are the agenda items relating to the east side EA and the east side programming documents.  Of these items, the only public hearing was held during the TIRZ 2 Board meeting where $2 million was approved towards the programming document process.  Airport Director Ken Carley presented during this meeting and explained the request for TIRZ funding.

 

12/7/21 City Council Meeting – Agenda Item #21-1072 (consent) – Ordinance amending budget providing $550,000 for East Side Environmental Assessment

12/7/21 City Council Meeting – Agenda Item #21-1080 (consent) – Resolution approving contract with Garver for East Side Environmental Assessment

 

1/4/22 TIRZ 2 Board Meeting – Agenda Item #21-1183 (public hearing) – Resolution authorizing $2.0 million in TIRZ funds for East Side Programing Documents

1/4/22 City Council Meeting – Agenda Item #21-1170 (consent) Ordinance amending budget providing $1.5 million from Airport Operating Fund Balance and $2.0 million from TIRZ 2 Fund Balance for East Side Programming Documents.

1/4/22 City Council Meeting – Agenda Item #21-1173 (consent) – Resolution approving contract with Garver for East Side Programming Documents

 

3/7/23 City Council Meeting – Agenda Item #21-0166 (consent) – Ordinance amending budget appropriating $234,000 from the Airport Construction Fund balance to Airport Long Range Planning"


How many people would know what "East Side Programming Documents" meant? I know I thought they were talking about the runway extension that we already knew about.

If we asked our city council members what was going on at the time of the first or second consultant authorization, how many would have told us that they were in the planning stages of another airport bond, especially if they considered the airport an economic development that possibly included secret negotiations? It would be interesting to get their thoughts on this question. 

Transparency must be improved, especially in the case of consultants—any consultants.


Wednesday, October 7, 2020

McKinney's Special Election--Recall and Parkland Sale

There are two McKinney-specific propositions on the ballot this November. Here are my suggestions.

Proposition A – FOR

Proposition B – AGAINST

I’ll start with Proposition B. It asks if citizens want to allow the city to sell a specific parcel of parkland. I am against Prop B. The land in question is in back of the Heard Natural Science Museum & Wildlife Sanctuary

    Wilson Creek runs right between the Heard and the parkland in question. If the parkland is sold for an industrial purpose (and it most likely will be), the new industrial business may interfere with the wetlands area.

    Old landfills are made into parks throughout the country. Please see examples here and here.  

    The Heard should be a positive, protected amenity of McKinney.

Proposition A asks if citizens should remove the District 1 representative by recall. I am for Prop A.

I will just hit on the highlights of why Mr. Shemwell should be recalled. Even though Mr. Shemwell was elected to represent District 1, he has spent the majority of his time in office representing and promoting himself at the expense of his district and the entire city.

I’ll focus on 2018 because it was a pivotal year for Mr. Shemwell and for his relationship with the city. In 2018, Mr. Shemwell was arrested twice. In 2018, citizens began to seriously consider using the recall process. In 2018, citizens realized the recall provision in the city’s charter made it nearly impossible to recall anyone. 

It all began on May 9, 2018, less than a year after he was elected. Mr. Shemwell was arrested for refusing to sign a traffic ticket. He wasted no time in calling a press conference in the City Hall chambers to claim he was racially profiled. He demanded the officer be suspended. Read what he said happened here

A week later, the bodycam footage was released, and Mr. Shemwell talked back some of his claims. On the body camera footage, Mr. Shemwell was also seen clearly directing the police officer to call the chief of police more than once. It is against the city charter for councilmembers to direct city employees to do anything. He took some responsibility for his argumentativeness with the officer. You can read about it here and here.

He voted to censure himself trying to direct the policeman during the stop, a violation of the city charter.  Before that, there was about an hour of public comments devoted to the situation he created. Read about it here

Throughout this time and into July, the city was dealing with an ongoing environmental problem with concrete batch plants located in District 1—Mr. Shemwell's district. The residents of the trailer park and the housing development nearby were forced to seek help from other city council members due to Mr. Shemwell’s inaction when it was repeatedly brought to his attention by several of his constituents. Read about it here.

Another issue playing out at that time was the forced annexation of the ETJ area in the northwest side of the city— Mr. Shemwell’s district was very close to it. In fact, some parts of the ETJ could have been incorporated into his district depending on whether the ETJ area was forcibly annexed or not.

By October, Mr. Shemwell had enough of the constant public comments at meetings regarding the forced annexation plans for the ETJ. He said he was tired of meetings being ‘hijacked’ by people at meetings. He also proposed moving public comments to the end of meetings. He suggested if people were forced to sit through meetings, it would help them get educated on how government works. He also brought up limiting handouts and presentations during comment periods. Unfortunately, other council members agreed. Read about it here.

December 6, 2018 – Mr. Shemwell was arrested on continuous violence against family charges, a 3rd degree felony. Here are the details of the charges from the article:

"LaShadion got on top of (victim) as she laid on her back, and straddled her torso area and struck her in the mouth one time and continued to put his hands over her mouth so she couldn't scream," one document reads.
Another incident also details a fight that happened after a birthday party. The woman claims she and Shemwell had physically assaulted each other beginning in the car and later in the home. A member with the housing authority came to the residence because of a complaint of a disturbance.

The alleged assault resulted in injuries to both people.

And in a recent November incident, documents reveal the couple got into a physical altercation in which Shemwell wrestled away car keys from the woman. During that altercation, the woman broke three fingernails and injured her middle finger on her right hand.”


This arrest and details of the charges mirrored some of Mr. Shemwell’s past criminal legal problems related to his treatment of women. It was also his second arrest in one year.


Here is Mr. Shemwell's statement to WFAA from the above article:

Shemwell released a statement on Friday to NBC 5 saying "This is yet another example of why I wholeheartedly advocate for criminal justice reform and bail reform. In a country where one should have the presumption of innocence UNLESS proven guilty, it’s clear that this is merely theoretical and not practical, especially for people of color and impoverished communities alike; dealing with a money hungry and racially biased criminal justice system. As far as people being concerned about my smiling in the mugshot picture, would you rather I cower like a hurt dog? Knowing that these are premeditated unmerited attacks from my adversaries, I prefer to hold my head high through all trials and tribulations. I refuse to be yet another broken body, created in a broken criminal justice system. For no weapon formed against me shall prosper. With every arrow shot in my direction I will smile and smile much bigger. In the words of 45, “This is fake news.” Prayers for my children who are old enough to hear and read the rumors and whispers about their father."

It was after this arrest (and Mr. Shemwell's response to the arrest) that people in the city began to seriously consider their options for his removal from office. Many investigated the prospect of a recall.  All found that requirements for signatures to get a recall on the ballot were so high as to prevent the recall of any city council member under nearly any circumstance, now and in the future.

December 18, 2018 – Changing the recall provisions in the city charter were discussed at a city council meeting due to community outrage over his arrest. Read about it here

Here’s the video of the exchange during the discussions at that meeting. Starting at minute 39 to 48:49. These kind of exchanges became more common and more destructive to city council meetings as time went on. 

The revised recall requirements were placed on the ballot in May of 2019. They all passed.

A month later, the charges against Mr. Shemwell were dropped, possibly because the woman did not want to testify against him in a trial. Read about it here and here.

October 15, 2019 – Mr. Shemwell came out with his emergency declaration. Here are the objectionable statements from it:

"WHEREAS, the State of Texas and its local governments have declared war on black and brown citizens by conspiring to kill, injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate, and to willfully deprive citizens of their constitutional rights while acting under the color of law;

WHEREAS, the State of Texas and its local governments harass and prosecute its minority citizens both in daily interactions and as punishment for speaking out against said institutions;"


That city council meeting degenerated into yelling, interrupting, and name calling. A citizen filed an ethics complaint against Mr. Shemwell due to his behavior at the meeting that came to nothing. The mayor was forced to call a recess. Mr. Shemwell continued yelling during the recess. 

November 16, 2019 – The recall petition was submitted to the city secretary. A total of 3083 valid signatures were turned in. District 1 turned in 598 signatures, District 2 turned in 669 signatures, District 3 turned in 909, and District 4 turned in 907 signatures.

COVID postponed the May recall to this election cycle. He has continued to disrupt meetings since then. 

Thursday, August 20, 2020

Redrawing McKinney's Districts

 

Redrawing our city district boundaries goes hand-in-hand with the 2020 census. The process will begin in the next few months. 

According to Mr. Grimes, the city has hired an outside firm, Bickerstaff-Heath, to work with Mr. Houser (City Attorney) and Ms. Drane (City Secretary). They will be presenting a timetable to city council eventually. Mr. Grimes also said there would be a citizen committee and citizen oversight throughout the process. 


McKinney has four districts with a city council representative for each. There are also two at large council positions and the city mayor position that are responsible for representing all residents.

Here is the map of districts and the demographics of each district in 2010 vs 2020.


Saturday, December 15, 2018

Help Get Revised Recall Rules on the May Ballot

Citizens have powers in home rule cities, like McKinney, to propose any ordinance, to approve or reject an ordinance passed by City Council, to change the City Charter, and to recall their local elected officials at the ballot box. Citizens are limited to those initiatives and referendums that do not appropriate money, issue bonds, or levy taxes.

In McKinney’s city charter, the rules are spelled out for these citizen powers The citizen power of the initiative requires at least 25% of the number of votes cast at the last regular municipal election. The citizen power of the referendum requires at least 25% of the number of votes cast at the last regular municipal election. However, the recall requirements have an additional hurdle the initiative and referendum rules do not—the signatures must also include at least 15% of the qualified (registered) voters in the whole city.

Here are the two changes the recall requirements in the city charter need to ensure that the power of the citizen recall is restored:

1.    Remove the Percentage of Total Registered Voter Requirement in the City Charter
This requirement needs to be removed as it requires an extremely high number of signatures that will only get larger as the city grows. The registered voter requirement isn’t reflective of those who actually vote in local elections either. It is just reflective of those who have registered. For example, there are mass voter registration drives for national and state elections which artificially inflate the registered voter totals. Most often, those same voters do not vote in local elections.
Removing the total registered voter requirement would also be more consistent with the requirements for citizen initiatives and referendums already in McKinney’s charter.

2.    Change the Recall Signature Requirement from Whole City to the District of the Official Being Recalled
The recall signature rules should be district specific, not whole city. Now, anyone in any district can sign a recall petition for a City Council member in another district even if they can’t vote for or against them in an election. Also, a city-wide recall without approval of the citizens in the district in question might very likely result in that district re-electing the recalled representative in the next election.
Other cities with district-oriented City Councils, like Dallas, El Paso, Garland, for example, require the signatures collected to be district specific, usually with a requirement of 30% of the number who voted in the last municipal election.
The At Large City Council positions would stay whole city recall since the whole city votes for those positions.

(iStock/adamkaz)
City Council has already called for a May 2019 bond election. City Council is already planning to clean up and update areas of the city charter. If City Council amends the city charter in May, it cannot be done again for two more years. This is the perfect time to do it.

At Tuesday’s City Council meeting, there will be a public hearing item on the city charter. Please plan on speaking at the public hearing or send an email regarding the public hearing item and ask for changes to the recall requirements of the city charter.

18-1065 Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss the City Charter Amendment Election Process

12/18 at 6pm in City Hall

Email contact-citycouncil@mckinneytexas.org
Refer to the item number and that you support changing the recall requirements in the city charter to go on the ballot in May.


Below are the relevant sections of the current city charter. For the entire city charter, go to Municode:
https://library.municode.com/tx/mckinney/codes/code_of_ordinances

Sec. 132. - Power of initiative.
The voters shall have the power to propose any ordinance except an ordinance appropriating money or authorizing the issuance of bonds or the levy of taxes, and to adopt or reject the same at the polls, such power being known as the initiative. Any initiative ordinance may be submitted to the City Council by a petition signed by registered voters of the City equal in number to at least twenty-five (25) percent of the number of votes cast at the last regular municipal election.

Sec. 133. - Power of referendum.
The voters shall have the power to approve or reject at the polls any ordinance passed by the City Council or submitted by the City Council to a vote of the voters, such power being known as the referendum. However, there is excepted from such power of referendum ordinances making the annual tax levy and bond ordinances authorizing the issuance of bonds. Ordinances submitted to the City Council by initiative petition and passed by the Council without change shall be subject to referendum in the same manner as other ordinances. Within twenty (20) days after the enactment by the City Council of any ordinance which is subject to referendum, a petition signed by registered voters of the City equal in number to at least twenty-five (25) percent of the number of votes cast at the last regular municipal election, may be filed with the City Secretary, requesting that such ordinance be either repealed or submitted to a vote of the voters.

Sec. 145. - Recall petitions.
The recall petition to be effective must be returned and filed with the City Secretary within thirty (30) days after the filing of the affidavit required for initiative and referendum petitions, and it must be signed by registered voters of the City equal in number to at least twenty-five (25) percent of the total number of votes cast at the last regular municipal election; provided, however, that the petition shall contain the signatures of at least fifteen (15) percent of the qualified voters of the City and shall conform to the provisions of initiative and referendum petitions. No petition papers shall be accepted as part of petition unless it bears the signature of the City Secretary as required in initiative and referendum petitions.

Sec. 149. - Limitations on recalls.
No recall petition shall be filed against the Mayor or a Council Member within four (4) months after he takes office nor in respect to the Mayor or any Council Member subject of a recall election and not removed thereby, until at least six (6) months after such ele