Resign-to-Run Charter Amendment

Argued that making a resign-to-run rule retroactive is illegal under state law and unconstitutionally targets a sitting council member.

Expressed concern that retroactive rules act as a retroactive recall and undermine the votes of residents who elected the council member.

Stated there was no valid rationale for a retroactive rule and defended council members' ability to manage their time.

Called the retroactive proposal targeted, punitive, and lacking in comity.

Expressed confusion and frustration over why a retroactive rule was being introduced, calling it unfair and vindictive.

Argued that the retroactive wording violated open meeting expectations and would invalidate past actions.

Expressed sadness that her first council meeting involved such a targeted and unfair charter amendment.

Warned that retroactive rules move the city toward partisan conflict rather than nonpartisan consensus.

Argued the proposal deters qualified candidates from serving on city council.

Suggested using a clear future effective date like January 1, 2027, instead of reacting to current events.

Stated retroactive rules are not in Richardson's best interest during redistricting seasons.

Noted that no one spoke in favor of the retroactive portion and urged caution.

Spoke as a school board candidate against excluding local officials from seeking higher office.

Expressed pride in engaged residents and emphasized that none of the other 48 charter amendments were made retroactive.