From the beginning, there have been two major worries about the 14-1 Council-Mayor system. One, that district-elected council members had no incentive to think about the city as a whole. Two, that council members would defer to each other on each other’s district matters to such an extent that council councils would turn into mini-mayors, with total power over zoning.
The first concern is a non-issue. Council members have proven over the years to be forward-thinking and deeply invested in the entire city. The second concern, however, has turned out not only to be real, but a real quagmire. It leads — as total power always does — directly to corruption. It’s no surprise that Don Hill was convicted on a zoning case.
Mayor Leppert strikes directly at the core of the problem today with his new ethics proposal. Those who vote against are voting knowingly and deliberately against a reform to protect the taxpayers and the reputation of the City of Dallas. We will publish the vote results by council member as soon as we can after the vote.
11 comments
Just an aside, but a meaningful one: the Potashnik and Fisher developments rarely involved zoning. They involved City endorsement of state housing tax credits, without which the state won’t issue the credits. Same principle, but if you limit the new rules to zoning, you fall short. As Angela Hunt notes, you should also include TIF funding and tax abatement requests.
This is a nice first step – if it passes – but it lacks teeth.
Right now it’s akin to being gummed by a kitten. I don’t think we need a sabre-toothed tiger, but something in the midrange would be nice.
“If you vote against this bill you are voting against the city of Dallas.”
I think the issue is not that ethics reform is needed (only Dave Neumann seems to oppose it), but that seven council members wanted to defer today’s vote to December.
The intent was, as Bethany noted, to come up with a more comprehensive and effective policy.
A vote to do so failed earlier today, 8-7, with Big Hands holding the tiebreaker, according to the DMN City Hall blog.
While I do agree that additional ethics rules are necessary at this time, I’ve always found the “mini-mayor” arguments to be specious at best. Not saying you fall in this group, Wick, but those that suggest that the previous at-large systems are better than 14-1 is an insult to neighborhoods that had no representation.
While we have had Council People over the years that get a thrill out of such tactics, why wait until you get to the horseshoe to throw grenades when you office next to each other and can talk about an issue before the City Council meeting? It’s just a form of governance at which I find our current Mayor.
To say it’s a mini-Mayor system suggests that people just show up and hit the button because it’s not in their district, which is an insult to the City Council people who take their position seriously.
In many cases, a lot of the issues have been worked out once a case gets to council so there is likely agreement at that level. In many cases in which City Plan denies a zoning case, the applicant never appeals to Council and the case ends at that point.
As someone that votes on the city’s zoning cases every two weeks or so (albeit not as a City Councilperson), just because a vote comes out with a heavy majority on one side doesn’t mean that there was not discussion on the pros and cons of the case.
Contrary to public belief, most zoning cases are noncontroversial and involve projects or changes that are easy to support. Some involve heavy discussion, and at City Plan Commission we have a ton of votes that end up 10-5, 9-6 or 8-7.
Michael – Isn’t that a bit of a slippery slope, though? A couple of council people talking is one thing, but you start getting into open meetings issues when you edge toward a quorum.
Not really Bethany. Two council people can sit in an office and talk.
Two, sure. But people sitting around talking is kinda what got us at this crossroads to begin with.
Sunshine is good. And it’s never been a matter of the amount the council is OK with – it’s a matter of what the citizens want.
I really would’ve preferred they waited til December. To me, this is a matter that each council person should be taking up with his or her constituents – take their temperature.
I guarantee you there are plenty of voters out there with opinions on the trial, and what the ultimate outcome for city politics should be.
“Council members have proven over the years to be forward-thinking and deeply invested in the entire city.”
Giggle.
Michael, Your affirmation of 14-1 is correct. 14-1 was an essential step toward a more functional democracy, but we are still not there yet. Somehow we allowed the southern city council districts to be criminally gerrymandered to the extent that it appears they were designed by someone whose only intent was weakening the representation from southern Dallas. There are MANY problems with such heavily gerrymandered districts:
1) It is significantly more expensive to campaign in a gerrymandered district, therefore allowing money from outside the district to more easily control the elections therein.
2) It is more difficult for a solid leader within one community to wage an election in a gerrymandered district because they have to campaign within other communities, often communities far away wherein they may be unknown. Money to campaign therefore has more power in a gerrymandered district than in a district that is more of a true, natural community.
3) It is more difficult for a significant percentage of the citizens within a gerrymandered district to monitor the actions of their representative. Therefore there is greater potential for unethical, and even illegal, activity to happen in City Hall.
4) The potential for a coherent community to gather around a strong community leader is almost eliminated in a heavily gerrymandered district such as those on the south side of Dallas.
5) Gerrymandered districts increase the potential of having an entire community unrepresented with no local representation. (In the Dallas City Council this frequently happens to the southeast quadrant of the city, the Pleasant Grove area, which currently, again, has no local resident as a city council representative. What percentage of citizens live over 5 miles from the home of their City Council representatives, or any representative for that matter, in North Dallas Council Districts compared to South Dallas Districts?)
The redistricting that will happen following the 2010 census could do much more for reducing corruption in Dallas, and improving city government, than today’s proposed ethical improvements. I certainly support today’s proposed improvements, but they are only a step in the right direction.
Good points Bill. I know Mayor Pro Tem Caraway is on record saying that he’s favors a more fair redistricting process. Here’s a Q&A he did last year.
http://bit.ly/4C9vBj
It would be interesting to know where the other southern Dallas council people stand. I’ve heard some prefer the lines the way are today.