I have a question for Dallasites

[ChickMagic]

What do you guys think of the "strong mayor" proposal. I'm having a problem with Laura Miller because she codifies her own personal likes and dislikes. However, the city council has a habit of stalling proposals because of personality conflicts.

I don't really want Ms. Miller to become our hip dictator, but I don't want to continue in council limbo.

I'm interested in your opinions.

[Gman]

1. With a strong mayor system, San Antonio

would have ended up with that $300K/year city manager that our clueless mayor wanted. Council/Manager is a good check and balance.

[ChickMagic]

2. That's a very good point

I just have a bad, bad feeling about Miller having that kind of power.

[tammywammy]

7. Would Miller be given this power or would it go to the next Mayor?

Eventhough I'm not a Dallasite, I don't think I like this idea. I do think the mayor should be given a little more, but not the whole shabang. It's about checks and balances, and this proposal would effectively remove it.

Something should be done, but I just don't think this is the answer.

[redqueen]

3. I'm facing the same dilemma.

However seeing the way things have run for the past however long we've been running under the current system, I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

I'm very interested to hear others' opinions on this issue.

[Bouncy Ball]

4. I've been reading the Jim Shutze articles on this in the Observer

and I'm like you gin, I cannot make up my mind on this. It's just baffling.

[ChickMagic]

9. It's such a complex problem Bouncy

I'm just going with my gut that it's not such a great idea, but I do understand the frustrations.

[crispini]

5. I did a lot of reading on this -- I even read the full proposal.

and I think it's a bad idea.

Several points:
The mayor would be the CEO of the city, effectively. Lotsa power. Yet, the mayor would still only get paid $60,000 a year. This sounds like a recipe for corruption for me.

The proposal has internal inconsistences that could result in it actually being incorrect or even illegal and would probably wind up in court.

I'm for the mayor being able to hire and fire the city manager, I think it's a good idea. But all of the OTHER things, the board appointments, hiring and firing of the city attorney AND all the attorneys under that person, AND the mayor pro tem -- that's a LOT of power. The DMN has been citing Houston as a comparable system but Houston has an elected city attorney, for example.

Plus, the League of Women voters is against it. I've often studied their policy recommendations and they have always given me sound advice and seemed very solid. Also ALL of the chamber of commerces. The gal at DallasArena.com (who originally supported Laura Miller) calls it a "Park Cities power grab" because of who's behind it. I kind of wonder. The fact that one of Blackwood's moneymen was also behind the Swift Boat Vets doesn't make me like it at all.

Here's a good bit about the lack of checks and balances:

But back to the real objection: separation of powers. The Mayor should not have both the executive function and the legislative function. For example, in the proposed system, the Police and Fire Chiefs, as well as the heads of the Parks, Streets, Water and Sanitation Departments would report to the Mayor. They would set policy at the direction of the mayor.

The poorer neighborhoods in Dallas have long had a legitimate beef with selective enforcement. Streets in poorer neighborhoods such as Jefferson Avenue are in much worse condition than in the wealthier neighborhoods. Police presence in upscale commercial districts such as lower Greenville has long been better than in poorer residential neighborhoods.

The policy making authority of 14 single member council districts has helped alleviate historical inequities. Placing that policy making authority in a single person dramatically increases the perception of preferential treatment as well as increases the opportunity for abuse.

The bottom line here is that policy should be set by the most democratic body: the council. The Mayor as executive should have increased power commensurate with the power formerly wielded by the City Manager. The council should continue to have some checks on the authority of the executive.

from
http://www.retrogrouch.net/MT/archives/000738.html

Anyway. here's the thread where I did some of my first research, more links there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=180x8536

the official website is www.keepitopen.org

The more I learned about this the less I liked it. We may need a change, but this isn't it.

[ChickMagic]

8. I can always count on you crispini!

Oh, to be young and energetic! Thank you for your valuable input. I tend to agree with you. In spite of the council infighting, the thought of the mayor having that much power is a little frightening. She thinks nothing of calling certain public servants stupid in a public forum. I understand her frustration, but this power grab gives me the heebie jeebies.

[crispini]

10. Thanks! :)

Yeah, I read an interesting article recently on the problems with Laura Miller and they attributed her style to the fact that she came from a go-it-alone investigative reporter background, rather than coming up through the ranks as a community activist and learning how to Play Well With Others. Which had the ring of truth to me.

[ChickMagic]

17. Crispini

I used to read her articles in the Dallas Observer saying, "Wow. This woman should run for office!" She was a real crusader. She ran on fixing potholes, basically, and that hasn't been done. She disliked her neighbor's pet chicken, so she banned chickens as pets. She dislikes smoking in restaurants so she made the restaurant owners pay their own way with a city mandate to provide separate rooms and ventilation systems. Then she banned it altogether. Some restaurants went broke over it.

I hate to see what she'd do with absolute power.

[Lithos]

6. Too much power in one place

It would enshrine cronyism and corruption which Dallas seems to have enough problems with already. Basically the person would have little accountability and no one in a position to stop them until well after the fact.

L-

[TexasThoughtCriminal]

11. Tinfoil hat? Or Rovian plot?

OK, this may be far fetched, but we got Park Cities Republican trash pushing for a strong Dallas mayor. And we got George P. Bush (Jebby's boy) newly relocated in Dallas. Coinky-dink? Could it be that GPB is being groomed by the same evil forces that brought us his father and uncle?
:scared:

[crispini]

12. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

My dear Holmes, I believe you must be right!

Oh, crap, why didn't you point this out to me WEEKS ago? I would've worked even harder against the proposition. I just sort of told everyone I know it's bad, in a sort of desultory way, but I didn't really get out there and evangelize. :(

[Lithos]

13. That is very scary indeed

L-

[adamd]

14. If you oppose the proposal because of Miller

I think you're looking at the wrong side of the issue. Sure, she would be a terrible strong mayor, but there will come a time where she can be unseated.

I think regardless of what system is in place, corruption and cronyism can both be found ad nauseum. I think those that are making the argument that somehow a change in the structure will "fix" Dallas are missing the point. There are problems inherent within the city government that won't be cured, or even helped, by adopting the proposal. The people in office don't seem to be concerned with the problems directly facing the city, instead they would rather build some bridges and parks and pretend like that's going to fix the problems. Regardless of the structure of the council, that won't change until people do something about it. Most of the city has been stagnant for over a decade, and nothing changes because the council won't do anything. They're almost all wealthy people looking out for the people who line their pockets, and everybody else gets shafted. And the way the city has been gerrymandered, the vast majority of the population will never get to see the city revitalized where they are.

Like Bush said...regime change is the only option.

[crispini]

15. No, I oppose the proposal

because I think it's a bad one, and I think it might very well be a Park Cities Power Grab, as DallasArena.com says. I think it gives the mayor too much power. Hiring and firing city manager - yes. City manager, city attorney AND their staff, mayor pro tem, AND all of the citizen boards? Too much.

League of Women Voters and ALL of the Chambers in Commerce in town are against it. It's a bad deal.

[ChickMagic]

16. Same here

I keep mentioning Miller because she's an effective punching bag. However, I think she may be re-elected unless Jebbie's spawn is planning to run.