Thursday, May 8, 2008

McKinney city council candidates at odds over term limit definition

By Brett Ryder of McKinneyNews.net

Pete Huff and Sherry Tucker David

Seventy-six percent of McKinney voted in 2001 for City Council term limits. Seven years later, City Attorney Mark Houser says we got ‘em. Sherry Tucker David, running for one of the city’s at-large council seats against Pete Huff and Marta Gore, isn’t so sure.

The city charter, which contained no provision for council term limits, was amended in 2001 to reflect what former Mayor (1997-2003) Don Dozier said was his initiative to impose council term limits for the benefit of the community.

A review committee was assembled and new charter verbiage was presented to council which read: “Beginning with the 2002 election, and every election thereafter, each person duly elected to the position of mayor or council member shall be allowed to hold any one position for a limit of two (2) consecutive full three-year terms per position.”

The committee also composed a ballot question for the citizenry that read: “Shall section 9 of the city charter be amended to provide that the city council shall have (3) year terms and term limits beginning with the 2002 election?”

Council approved both the committee’s charter and ballot wording and a special election was held May 5, 2001. The term limit amendment passed 2,491 to 777.

Flash forward to 2008.

Tucker David is under the impression that Huff shouldn’t be running for the at-large council seat. Her logic is rather simple: Huff has had six good years, elected to one three-year council term in 2002 as District 2 representative and reelected in 2005. What’s more, Tucker David says, Huff may not be violating the letter of the law, but in taking advantage of a “loophole” in the revised Charter, he may well be violating the spirit of the law in attempting a third three-year term in office.

“As citizens we voted on term limits,” Tucker David said. “Six or seven years ago we had a system that perpetuated a close knit power base [on council], a good-ol’ boy system” potentially beholden to big-moneyed interests.

Tucker David made it clear she was not questioning Huff’s integrity or specifically suggesting Huff was/is involved in big interest pandering. Instead, she insisted her inquiry is one of principle.

“If you discover [a term limit loophole] and you know that wasn’t the intent of the citizens, I think you have a responsibility to do the right thing,” she said.

The city charter, Tucker David said, can be read in such a way as to allow for a councilperson to theoretically serve his/her district for two consecutive terms, bounce to an at-large seat and serve for two consecutive terms, and then either run for mayor or return to his or her home district seat for two terms. The councilperson could then begin the entire process again. The verbiage in the revised charter is not unambiguous, the potential for abuse and the nullification of any real term limits is very real, she said.

In an email, Huff, who made it clear that he was not sitting on council when the revised Charter was written, addressed Tucker David’s misgivings.

“Rather than there being some sort of legalese fine-print wiggle-room accidentally left in the rules, it is clear from the very specific wording of the provision that the intent from the start was to allow for a Council Member to run for any other office after their two terms expired,” Huff wrote. “I am in full compliance with both the spirit and the letter of the charter.

“[Tucker David’s questions represent] a campaign tactic designed to question my character,” Huff continued. “Every candidate when filing for office has the term limit rules explained fully and it has never been questioned until this election.”

Huff raised the specter of Thad Helsley, a councilman who was present during the 2001 Charter amendment process.

“Thad was elected to his first two terms to the at-large council seat in 1998 and, after the rules changed, ran for and was re-elected to an additional two terms on the Council…Thad had no reservations about running again and no one raised any concerns at that time.”

City Attorney Houser, via email correspondence, said the city charter does not allow for the bouncing hypothetical suggested by Tucker David and stated that the Charter should be read “two consecutive terms per position. Once all positions [district, at-large, and mayoral] were held for two consecutive terms, the person could [no longer] serve.”

Using Houser’s calculus, if any council member were to actually succeed in running for office six times, he or she would tap out after 18 years of service.

Though voters were overwhelmingly in favor of council term limits, the less than precise wording of the 2001 ballot (see exact ballot wording in paragraph four) makes it difficult to determine precisely what kind of term limits voters actually wanted.

When asked about the ambiguity of the ballot, Houser said that the city’s election code “does not allow for definitions,” referencing section 52.072(b) of the code: “A proposition shall be printed on the ballot in the form of a single statement and may appear on the ballot only once.”

Dozier, a Huff supporter, was circumspect about the entire charter wording issue.

“All I can tell you is the intent was [to initiate term limits],” he said. “And you know sometimes people reach agreement on something, either through lack of debate on issues or incompleteness of thought, and the final product doesn’t come out exactly perfect. If that’s the case here, then there are remedies for that and the city council should address those remedies.”

City council elections will be held from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Saturday, May 10. For voting locations, click here and then "vote, click to learn more," then "voter guide."

Pegasus News content partner - McKinneyNews.net

See more stories in:

• Politics and Government > City Government > McKinney

Comments