Dallas City Hall debate shouldn’t distract from ethics code reform

Dallas City Hall has been packed with people lately as the City Council ponders the fate of 1500 Marilla St.

The building is important, and the drama addictive to many of us, but other crucial public business is happening in sparsely attended meetings that Dallasites should also be watching.

One of these meetings in June had to do with a review of the city ethics code that is scheduled to happen every two years. These are the rules that govern how city officials should behave when performing their jobs to ensure the city’s business is transparent and above board.

A council committee discussed several proposed amendments worth highlighting. One would clarify that a former city employee or official — within one year of leaving City Hall — can’t seek a city contract as an agent of a private business. This closes a loophole that the interim inspector general said has been exploited previously. The current restriction applies only to former officials acting as “the officer or principal” of the business. 

Another code amendment would give the city’s inspector general the discretion to refer ethics complaints about council members to outside attorneys. That seems necessary. The inspector general reports directly to the City Council, and a complaint against a council member means the inspector general has to investigate his or her boss. Referring such complaints to external attorneys would insulate these investigations from politics.

Council members also weighed the possibility of amending the ethics code to prevent situations like one recent instance in which a sitting park board member was awarded a no-bid contract for an airport restaurant lease. It was a terrible look for the city. Concerns about protecting the appearance of impartiality also inspired a discussion on whether to ban officials like city plan commissioners from announcing their position on a zoning case on social media before there is a public hearing. 

One item that gave us pause was a debate about council communications with developers or groups applying for public subsidies — tax abatements, housing tax credits, economic development grants and the like. 

The council wisely amended the ethics code in 2021 to ban council members from discussing public subsidy applications with developers once their applications have been filed. But several council members raised the possibility of changing this rule to have more flexibility in giving feedback to applicants on their projects. One idea was to have a city staffer present in those conversations, although not someone from the council member’s office.

We don’t doubt the good intentions of the council members who said they want to improve developments, but that rule is there for good reason. Some of the biggest corruption scandals at Dallas City Hall in recent memory involved council members taking bribes from developers seeking council support for housing tax credits. 

A council member holds the power in his or her district. Colleagues will usually defer to a council member’s wishes on development votes involving that district. 

Having a city staffer present for discussions doesn’t allay our concerns. 

“Who would it be?” asked council member Cara Mendelsohn at a recent meeting. “Who would be the person who’s gonna go say, this council member asked for, demanded, threatened something inappropriate? That’s a pretty tough position to be in.”

Council members can share concerns or feedback with city staff, who can relay that to an applicant. Inefficient, maybe, but better for public transparency. 

Some of these ideas will go back to the Ethics Advisory Commission, a citizen panel, for refinement before returning to the council. We urge the commission and the council to also consider policing another concerning behavior: texting during public meetings.

We know council members are texting with lobbyists or others with pending matters because we’ve seen it. We’ve heard about it. Anyone watching a meeting can see council members typing away on their phones while they should be tuned into a staff briefing or council debate. 

Are council members replying to a family text or deliberating public business by phone? The public doesn’t know.

The most important thing for the council to get right is the inspector general’s office. The inspector general investigates the ethics complaints, but Dallas can’t hang on to one long enough for that person to make a difference. We’re on our third inspector general since the office was launched in 2022, and he is an interim. The council is still searching for a permanent replacement.

We pray the city gets it right this time. The rules matter only if someone enforces them. 

Have thoughts about this? Send a letter to the editor using our letters form or email letters@dallasnews.com. Letters should be no more than 200 words and include the first and last name of the writer and city of residence.