Cothrum: Here’s how to reform Dallas City Council

The recent Supreme Court ruling in Louisiana v. Callais is provoking significant national discussion about voting districts and race. It makes me think there’s a likelihood someone will challenge the city of Dallas council district maps. The districts have been drawn for racial reasons, dating to an era when that was the legal mandate. The current 14-1 system — that is 14 council members in defined districts and one mayor for the whole city — has served as a means to address inequities in representation on the Dallas City Council.

This was a major historical achievement of which the city should be proud. When souther Dallas activists Marvin Crenshaw and Roy Williams sued the city of Dallas, they were correct that minority voters had little say in the process. U.S. District Judge Jerry Buchmeyer’s opinion noted, “the history of minority participation in the political process of Dallas is not one of choice; it is a record of what blacks and Hispanics have been permitted to do by the white majority.” The decision resulted in the move to 14 single-member districts and ended the city’s perpetuation of racial discrimination.

The city and its residents are much changed since Buchmeyer’s decision. In 1990, whites made up 48% of the population. Now the census reports non-Hispanic whites account for only 28%. Hispanics were only 21% of the city in 1990; now they constitute 43%. Black population has declined from 29% to 23%.

Greater racial representation is a good thing, and Dallas has made important strides in becoming a fairer city. 

But setting that aside, there’s also a good case that the city is not in a better place now than it was in 1991. Many communities in the region have surpassed it in growth and dynamism. Dallas’ population is now older and less affluent than that of many suburbs. During a period of robust population gain in North Texas, the city has been in a slow to no growth period for years. It has significant debt, a poor credit rating and a budget deficit.

More and more, I’m hearing rumblings about a shift to a strong mayor form of government. That’s not the answer, but reform is needed. 

The 14-1 system has come at the cost of good governance. I often refer to the system as 14 mayors and one person who runs the meeting. I should amend this to someone who occasionally presides at the meeting, because the current mayor is certainly not running anything.

I once served on the Municipal Library Board, and a council member came to visit and press us to change the name of a branch library. The attendance of the elected official was inappropriate, perhaps violating the charter. The most amazing part of the meeting, however, was this person telling the board members that people living in District 2 could check out books in District 10, or any district. 

I remember thinking, “Yeah, we’re the Library Board; we know all this. How can you think we don’t?”

The vignette occurs to me frequently because council members act like the mayors of their districts. All too often, they think in terms of “their library” and “their parks.” The worst of them behave like feudal lords of their wards. 

Some districts struggle for eight years with an ineffective elected official; their colleagues don’t mind because it’s one less voice at the horseshoe and mouth in the trough. 

In some districts, fewer than 1,000 votes win elections, allowing elected officials to cater to the wishes of a small number of voters who may not have the best interests of either the city or the district. 

In the current system, the council elects its leadership: the mayor pro tem and deputy mayor pro tem. It’s been done typically on a Hands Across America system: one white, one Hispanic, one Black. I recall getting many high school and college basketball officiating assignments with the same system. It didn’t make for any better officiating than does the Dallas system. It also deprives the voters of the chance to select the executive leaders of the city — something they should do.

The worst part of the Dallas system is it creates a myopic orientation for elected officials. They care about only their district, leaving the mayor to watch out for the interests of the city. The mayor, however, has few powers. In the end, no one watches out for the interests of the city.  

It’s why Frisco, McKinney, Irving, Plano and so many other cities have passed Dallas. In Frisco all the members are elected at large along with the mayor. McKinney has a mayor and two at large members along with four elected from a district where they reside. Irving has six district members, two at large, and a mayor. I like the Plano system:  Places 1 through 4 are district specific, with the candidates having to reside in the district, but elected by all voters. Three others plus the mayor are fully at large with candidates able to live in any part of the city.  

Fort Worth employs a similar system to Dallas with a 10-1 makeup. The difference there is that elected officials work together and want the entire city to do well. They don’t play the “whatever you want in your district is fine with me” game.

The current system works when we have either a good city manager or a good mayor. It works well when we have both at the same time. Recently, it hasn’t worked well at all.  The intersection of one of the worst city manglers (not a typo) in Dallas history , T. C. Broadnax, and our absent mayor, Eric Johnson, demonstrated how the system doesn’t work.

How can the city have a more than a $30 million dollar budget gap? Broadnax and Johnson squandered a good economy and millions in federal money. At the same time, council members were only worried about their districts, spending in their communities, instead of saving.

In an era of what some call post-racial America, Dallas continues to be rigidly held in place by racial politics. 

Perhaps an overhaul of the entire system is in order. If it’s not considered, we may find such a system being forced by outsiders. The efforts by the well-funded and organized HERO groups serve as a potent example of how political outsiders are demanding local change. 

Here’s my solution. Dallas should maintain its council-manager form of government. The number of district representatives should shrink to nine. The mayor and mayor pro tem should be elected at large. (Dallas has a history of mayors not serving out their full terms, so voters should select who the next leader might be.) There should be two additional at large members elected; the candidate with the most votes in this category would be the deputy mayor pro tem. The at-large officials would chair committees.

Electing more officials citywide beyond the mayor may also improve voter turnout. At the very least, it will reward those who care enough to vote. 

A plan like mine might, understandably, raise concern about going backward in racial representation. But there’s evidence that won’t happen. Charlotte has a similar system to my suggestion, though with only seven district members. Charlotte is 38% white, 33% Black and 18% Hispanic. Its council is composed of eight Blacks, two whites, one Hispanic and one Asian. The mayor and three of the four at-large members are Black, and all five are people of color.

When my children are sick, I do not look for a doctor of a certain race or gender. I just want the best doctor. Make no mistake, the city of Dallas is sick. It’s time to consider a new system where the priority is the health of the city.