As Monday night's Richardson City Council meeting showed, the Council's judgment alone, or even in conjunction with city attorney or paid staff, is not so good particularly when it comes to the Council (and staff) itself. If so many citizens had not become concerned and been involved this time (which is not always the case), a very bad bill would have come away last night (and it still might).
I agree with others who have been paying attention right now and with the cities over time who have had to deal with ethics issues, when they conclude that it is appropriate to have citizens and professionals as needed/called upon according to guidelines, such as an independent investigator or accountant-- some checks and balances -- involved in reviewing ethics questions and charges and not only leave it up to an ethics questioned mayor and his city council slate, manager and city lawyer, or count on enough people paying attention to what is happening at the time each thing happens, especially at times like the last Council meeting of a year, very late, where things have happened (more about those later).
It will save problems and money in the long run by letting everyone know they need to not abuse their position and our coffers, that they are held accountable even if they are the least worst candidate elected (or even if they are not), that the city accounts should be handled as transparently as possible, and to clue some others in who have had clear conflicts of interest in a matter and still tried to control the issue, like involving a certain housing development complaint, hypothetically (a word used at Monday's council session).
A first line process and review needs to be in place with people who are not directly the complainee or complaintant or slate co-politician, who is not lobbied/briefed by the CM/O, who is assigned to look at the facts as a commissioned (standing) group (and not lost track of for years at a time as described in another hypothetical senario presented). Ultimately council can make a call, but after more than just itself and direct hire/s have looked into a matter following the guidelines.
Hypothetically speaking, it has been too easy for council members (politicians) to shrug responsibility about what the other (politician) is doing. If they say something to the wrong co-politician whose coat tails they may or may not have ridden in on, or to the wrong CM, they may not get elected again, gasp. If they don't block for the grand pupah, they don't get treats. Is it really one politician's job to corral another serving in the same body when that politician may owe the fact that he is on the council thanks to the coat tails of the other politician who is his "leader" or who he blocks for or the reverse, who is knitpicking at him in public when he can even if they have the same "leader"? Monday night is evidence that the Council does need guidance from people other than itself. It also smelled like elections are on the way.
If the City Council is so able to handle everything, then might as well get rid of City Plan Commission, Zoning Board of Adjustment (as "someone" had suggested finding some way of getting rid of that board any way several years ago, more than once, but really couldn't find a way to), etc. (Then of course there is state law). The ZBA had an odd occurrence itself a couple of years ago via one member which should not have happened in my opinion (I won't get into that right now unless I see that person doing more of it or up on a slate).
Often the people appointed by the council as a whole show better judgment on certain items once presented with facts than the Council and this could be true of matters involving the city council itself (or a question involving the conduct of a deliberative body itself). Of course a commission may be stacked, of course it can be highly biased, but at least there is more of a chance that the facts are examined and an attempt at a more objective recommendation is made, as opposed to what has gone on for years that is not so good that taints all the good things that do go on.
Hypothetical examples of concerns [edit: note that the concerns fall under different, overlapping areas in some cases and in other cases, completely separate areas, that need to be kept separate. They should be addressed under the applicable policy and if policy doesn't exist and is needed, it can be addressed.]
The rehiring a departed fire chief on the last couple of days of the year as a consultant to gain retiree benefits; voting in another city (not Richardson) less than a year before seeking Richardson office; approving or looking the other way while personal business is mixed with city business repeatedly and including at the expense of and ahead of projects that would serve many more citizens; issuing a contract to a relative;
unauthorized use of city logo, name, backing and property of the City; holding a non posted meeting to discuss city manager's pay; complaints of faulure to fulfill FOI requests; failing to audit a contract for over a decade;
concerns about putting non employees into the employee retirement system; leasing a private jet for personal business and bilking taxpayers for it but getting caught and paying for it after getting caught and calling a reporter and round robin council calling to cover, hypothetically;
hypothetical things like that, and oh, calling citizens nasty names in public like b _ _ _ _ _ _ s and b _ _ _ _ es and a_ _ _ _ _ es and a crazy b_ _ _ _ , giving obscene gestures to people at neighborhood meetings, etc.
Hypothetically speaking, there doesn't seem to hypothetically be a lot of evidence of a Richardson City Council's ability or willingness to substantially police itself and live up to an ethics and conduct policy, although not all of this would fall under such a policy as currently proposed.
This doesn't even get into hypothetically taking money from a developer with an open specific case in front of council, being a founder of a PAC and endorsing yourself and the "PAC" claiming "it" didn't financially support candidates, filing late, getting slapped with a fine, hypothetically, all the while pointing a finger at others who took fireman and realtor PAC money and reported it right away, hypothetically.
I wonder what happened to the young guy who came to the town hall meeting and described being alledgedly raped by the former fire chief and from the audience a former councilman and RC'er yells from the "open town hall" audience, "sit down, shut up!" Now that is complaint transparency RC mentorship legacy pillary for us.
The attitude has been from many, "what you don't know about city issues won't hurt you."
"Don't tell them how to count cars."
Learning about what we don't know about city issues will be as engaging as if the RC and its special members and founders fire up the old slate machine and lie about all the candidates who "won't play footsie with the pillars." Oh, but come on, they can come up with better lies than to lie about flyers on windshields, or can they?
I use the word "pillar" because it was used at Monday's night Council meeting by one of the council members. Do "pillars" get city car allowances and special permanent parking passes to the Eisemann Center for the Performing Arts too? "I was just curious." Totally unrelated, but have you ever noticed that the pillars at Eisemann Center are a little skewed (concrete stacks don't exactly line up, probably intentionally), look at the "look" of the pillars for yourself.
I would rather have a process, and the chance at some objective organized feedback rather than counting on this council or any other council or board to monitor itself or hoping enough people show up to scare politicians into doing the right things. "Doctor heal thyself" and "we'll handle it don't worry about it," is the exact thinking and cajoling and dismissing that has caused the calls for an ethics policy in the first place.
Regarding complaints about use of "cellular devices," I personally do not care as much about who is tweeting, twiddling and fidgeting as I do about other things and that they are not repeated (repeatedly) and swept under the council rug (unless they are roving quorumming right in front of us). There are things equally or more off putting than someone quietly tweeting under the desk and not making eye contact. (Some of those kids can do more than one thing at once I heard. Some councils have those typer machines right on the shiney contraptions in front of them. In France, they wear those things at meetings in their ears that tell them what hamburger means.)
This would also include ending the end runs around citizens in issuing substantial debt like for a performance center or other things outside of and on the heels of bond election(s), things that were conveniently not prominently featured so citizens would know what was coming. Or funding certain things with taxpayer money outside of any vetting process that allows all interested (not just "friends") to apply if Council and CM is set on doling out, dealing out taxpayer dough, which isn't such a good idea many times, especially in those closed door sessions.
Not all organizations, non profits and otherwise, and people are treated fairly in my personal opinion as to access in Richardson with the use of city resources. Look at the numbers and arrangements, if you can get them and decipher them. Good luck with that, since the City is all transparent and everything and audits a city account and arrangements when multiple complaints have been received. Oh wait. Nevermind. They don't.
By the way, I have seen every one of these councilmen and all senior staff fiddling during council sessions. With "cellular devices." So the public remarks from the one councilman are him taking the shot to nitpick on A-dude (again) in public, which is their call to do that while representing the public, and trying to get at each other, that's nothing new with them, although it doesn't necessarily prove they all know how to actually operate the "cellular device, beeper," or city that they are fiddling with, while.
Their personal (own) belly scratching and fidgeting and bathroom leave is only mildly interesting, although it was funny in a non ha ha way when I had to show one of them that there was a another bathroom on the first floor of City Hall following him being handed the key and pass to City Hall Offices. If we want to go there, it should be mentioned that a couple of people complaining about personal fidgeting reek of cigarette stench and it is offensive when you sit next to people who still posses olfactory senses because I have heard them say so, although it does not really bother me personally about that or the failure to wear deo (I've been to Turkey, and to Amish country).
Also, for those hard of hearing, your unnecessary shouting and loud clapping hurts some peoples' ears, because I have heard them say so, so there are hearing aids that can help all of us with that. You shouldn't be embarrassed about wearing one, or two. Nothing else seems to embarrass Council that much. Then again, two of you need to learn how to lean forward from a reclined position (one of you) and speak a little louder into the microphone because we never know which way you are going to go until we hear it (and then it changes the next week, so nevermind). I know, I know, (more than) one of you particularly likes arranging results ahead of time with CM to suit your needs, but that doesn't always work out as you saw Monday night.
Oh, and your mother dresses you funny. And you are too fat, so stop profusely eating the double bag M&M's where you open one and pour the other one into it that you get from the Council snack basket during the meeting after dinner and dessert. And crunching so loudly. Ex'pecially Cheetos. And talking. And talking with your mouth full. Oh my, what big nostril and ear you have. Why doesn't it match the...
But seriously, I hope one day we shall get a mayor and a council that doesn't have their fingers and their special friends' and their family's fingers in our city coffer or seat fillers who uphold the nonsense and go out of their way to attack others who are different because they tweet, or don't and won't uphold the serious nonsense played behind the scenes or have a different religion, or country accent, or know how to speak French, or don't want flyover bridges to friend's parking lots, or who wear skirts, or know how to use a cellular device, or beeper.
