Richardson loses last ditch effort, faces lawsuit over closed door meetings

by Nathan Morgan of Richardson City News

At 10:30 a.m. Friday Judge Martin Hoffman, Dallas County 68th District Court denied a motion for summary judgment made by City Attorney Amber Slayton in a last ditch effort to kill a lawsuit brought against the City of Richardson regarding unlawful closed door meetings held prior to the 2007 charter amendment election. In a scramble to change the charter that made the city's alleged illegal behavior lawful, city leaders convinced citizens to change the charter in a manner that would take away public oversight of its business. The case is scheduled for trial next week. As of 2:00 p.m. Friday, the City Council had not been notified of the ruling.

Filed recently by the firm that has held the contract as the Richardson City attorney for the past five decades, the motion for summary judgment represented to the court that there was no violation of the City Charter. Claiming that the rest of the Charter did not matter, Slayton told the judge that the preamble Article 2 gave blanket authority for the City to do whatever the law allowed. In a seemingly desperate effort Slayton attempted to convince the court that protocols for the City Council specified in Article 3 did not really mandate that all Council meetings will be open to the public. Pointing to the earlier Article 2 that states the City is governed by the State's Home Rule laws, originally established in 1913, which say a governing body can establish its own set of laws as long as they do not violate the State Constitution or other State Laws.

The argument got dicey as Slayton, with co-council Pete Smith passing her notes, bounced back and forth between State Law, which clearly says the Charter takes precedence over the limited circumstances under which the Open Meetings Act enables governing bodies to meet privately, and Article 2 of the Charter that describes Richardson as a Home Rule municipality.

The tide turned as the judge questioned the perceived logic of those who composed the Charter when Slayton presented that Boards and Commissions had the ability to meet privately, but the Council had not been provided that latitude. The court seemed to suggest that, if all work involving negotiations and public input was properly conducted at the committee level, like other fully functional governing bodies, there would be little need for any private meeting by the governing body that made the final decision. All facts would have been disclosed and any issues resolved before it appeared on the City Council Agenda.

As it is, and has been for as far back as any can remember, Richardson has centralized (sounds communist, doesn't it) public business in a small group of managers and gophers who privately engage the Council to craft up public business, make key decisions, take actions, and even vote on matters of public business never revealed to the citizens who live in the community.

As Pete Smith stated to Judge Hoffman in an earlier session, "The City can have as many illegal closed meetings as it wants, as long as the final vote is taken in public." This is the quality of legal advice that has driven City Council and staff actions for as many as five decades. Is there any wonder how the public has been excluded from its business?

• Staff
• Verified User
• Anonymous