Dallas City Council divided over ethics reform
October 20th, 2009 During a meeting on Monday, Dallas City Council members voiced their opinions about proposed ethics reform for the city council. City council members criticized certain parts of the ethics reform, while other council members expressed their support and defended them. The ethics reform, which has been pushed by Mayor Tim Lippert, is planned to be put to a vote on October 28th [1]
Contents |
[edit] Need for reform
The proposal for ethics reform comes in response to recent political corruption in the city council. A few weeks ago, Don Hill, a former city council member, was convicted for extortion and bribery. While serving on the council, Hill extorted real-estate developers. He threatened them that he would not grant approval of their zoning permits unless he received money from them. On many occasions, Hill successfully employed this extortion scheme to secure large sums of money from real estate developers[2] .
The proposed ethics reform is designed to prevent other city council members from engaging in the sort of political corruption for which Don Hill was convicted. Specifically, the proposed ethics reform would limit a city council's member control over permit granting. As it currently stands, a single city council member has great control over any permit granting in his district[3] .
[edit] Three parts
The first part of the ethics reform requires lobbyist registration. Lobbyist registration, supporters say, would increase government transparency and hold city council members to closer scrutiny. This part of the ethics reform has been criticized, however, on grounds that it is unclear who would have to be registered as lobbyists, and it is unnecessary[4] .
The second part is a limitation on the times during which zoning applicants may donate to a city council member's campaign. Under this limitation, zoning applicants would be prohibited from donating to a campaign during the time between when a zoning application is filed and sixty days after it is resolved. Such a limitation, supporters say, would curtail a city council member from abusing his or her power over permit granting during the application period. Critics of a time limitation say that it would give an unfair advantage to political challengers, since they would not be prohibited from receiving campaign donations from zoning applicants while an application is being considered[5] .
The final part requires any approved zoning application to be reviewed by three city council members. The three city council members would have to express their approval before the zoning permit could be voted on by the entire city council. This requirement is designed to add oversight to the permit granting process. Opponents say, however, that city council members do not have enough time or resources to take on the extra workload that would accompany this requirement. Opponents say, moreover, that the requirement undermines the single-member district system by having other city council members to oversee the affairs of other districts[6] .
[edit] External Links
[edit] References
- ↑ The Dallas Morning News, Dallas City Council opens fire on proposed ethics changes
- ↑ The Dallas Morning News, Dallas City Council opens fire on proposed ethics changes
- ↑ The Dallas Morning News, Dallas City Council opens fire on proposed ethics changes
- ↑ The Dallas Morning News, Dallas City Council opens fire on proposed ethics changes
- ↑ The Dallas Morning News, Dallas City Council opens fire on proposed ethics changes
- ↑ The Dallas Morning News, Dallas City Council opens fire on proposed ethics changes
| |||||||
