A.C. Gonzalez Was Not the Best Choice for City Manager

Picking the insider guarantees us more of the same.

Then you must take that aimless formulation at the center of things and marry it to the 14-1 single-member City Council system, in which council members rule over their districts like medieval dukes and duchesses. Each council member winds up with de facto total control over zoning and development rights in his own district, because the council has adopted and abides by a rule of member's privilege: If it's in your district, you rule, and everybody else butts out.

The single-member district system has its merits. It was court-ordered, in fact, to replace the old system, which was the no-member district plan under which the entire city was ruled by fiat by a private group with a scary name, the Dallas Citizens Council. Rule No. 1 from the world history of political regimes everywhere: Whenever a group of rulers call themselves citizens, comrades or "the people," you know they're not. The Citizens Council, still around and still quite influential on some issues, is the voice of the biggest and oldest special seekers, the old landholding families and the public works construction and engineering companies. They are "citizens" the way John Dillinger was a depositor.

But the main thing the 14-1 single-member district system does is provide 14 side-doors to City Hall. The heads-up special-seeker knows all he has to do to get his deal is swing the vote of the single council member in whose district the deal will take place. The rest will fall in line.

Add to that a key defect of the system, that at the time of its creation in the late 1980s, the Dallas single-member system included too many districts. The districts are too small to allow any person or group to raise money and create an independent movement with staying power. Especially in poor districts where voter turnout is tiny and the only voters elderly, an election can be tipped one way or the other with $5,000 to $10,000 — peanuts to the wealthy land sharks and contract vultures whose names show up regularly in the campaign finance statements of council members from poor districts.

Where exactly does all of that leave the city manager? He or she does not hold office by divine right. The council just voted to hire Gonzalez. They could vote to fire him. So the ultimate goal of a city manager who wants to survive longer than two weeks is to keep the council members relatively happy. And what could be wrong with that? Is that not the accountability to ownership that I just claimed did not exist? No, it's not. Not really.

A former city manager explained his job to a former mayor who passed the speech on to me. This was in response to the newly elected mayor's expression of shock and anger when she learned that the city manager was defying her on an important issue. She told me he said this to her:

"Laura, I work for the eight-vote majority on the council. Part of my job is counting the votes ahead of time. I have done that. You will not be in the eight vote majority on this issue. I must prepare the way for the council members who will be in the eight votes, because they will carry the day. Not you."

This is wrong with that: The eight votes shift from issue to issue. A city manager intent on surviving himself and on protecting his own staff and his own pet projects must count votes and whirl in their direction every whip-stitch.

So why isn't that a form of accountability? OK, if it is accountability, it is an accountability that is totally solipsistic, totally self-contained, closed to any larger direction from the outside world. The council members all bring their own small-bore issues to the dais on Wednesdays. The special-seekers line the halls waving proposals rolled up in their hands like 17th century courtiers, having greased the way ahead of time with the individual members.

The city manager finesses. But nowhere is there a true executive capable of imposing external direction or forward movement. The whole thing just sits there spinning like a ball bearing, whirring but never moving.

The point of giving the job to a newcomer rather than the inside apparatchik was to cut off the mossy tendrils of the past and start fresh. Appointing a newcomer would have hugely empowered the voices of change in the city, which obviously is why the citizens, comrades and people's people of the old regime didn't want it to happen. They won, we lost.

« Previous Page
 |
 
1
 
2
 
All
 
My Voice Nation Help
7 comments
ginger4v
ginger4v

What's new, the city make poor choices all the time. Why should it stop with city manager? I vote, and believe me. My vote won't or wouldn't go to any city council that voted him in.

WylieH
WylieH

Great article, and I realize you couldn't cover everything.  But.... one thing you failed to mention is how a crafty city manager can, by intentionally sowing internal dissent among individual council members, effectively prevent the forming of any sort of coalition that could ever bring about his or her ouster.

fracquestions
fracquestions

Jim sees the Mayor in a different light than me. I see the Mayor as the man who lied to the public when he claimed that he favored granting the SUPs to Trinity East because "that deal has already been made" on the basis of his argument that not granting the SUPs would result in Dallas being sued when he knew, full well, that there is no legal basis for a lawsuit against Dallas for executing its legally established police powers, which cannot be contracted away.


I see the Mayor as the guy who led the fight against citizens right up until the last minute when he finally realized that he was on the wrong side of the issue. I see the Mayor as the head cheerleader for Mary Suhm and Tom Perkins even after it was known that they had lied to previous City Councils and attempted to illegally grant something to a gas drilling company that was and is specifically prohibited by existing ordinances.


Contrary to Schutze's glowing praise for Mike Rawlings as a "good guy" who is "basically honest, with the best of intentions", I see a man who will say and do whatever it takes to support a corporation over the interests of the citizens who elected him. While I appreciate Mayor Rawlings' last minute conversion on the gas drilling ordinance I will always remember every vote he cast along the way when those SUPs were being opposed by citizens. And, I will always remember the Mike Rawlings who supported Suhm and Perkins even when it was obvious they had committed crimes and acted against the best interest of the city and its citizens.

Aphorist
Aphorist

Agreed! Unfortunately, the same old, same old, is what's wrong with all of our non-profit boards from the Trinity River committee to the Arts.  Anyone new? Anyone not entitled? Nope!

schermbeck
schermbeck

"The districts are too small to allow any person or group to raise money and create an independent movement with staying power." 

IMHO, exactly the opposite is true. Small districts are the friend of insurgents precisely because shoe leather can sometimes trump money in such places, and, relatively-speaking, it doesn't take a lot of cash - either legit or not - to win. If you're the head of a neighborhood association or belong to the right church, you already have a solid base that can swing the district. Add a reasonable amount of funding to that circumstance and it's possible to rage against the machine effectively. Your argument here, if followed to its logical conclusion, would bring us back round to at-large Council seats.


There's no reason why an organized group of reformers couldn't do what the Citizens Council is doing, and do it even better. But first you have to have that group. There is no better-government equivalent to the Citizens Council, save the Jim Schutze Fan Club, which sadly remains completely unorganized.



ozonelarryb
ozonelarryb

Yup. But according to the grapevine, the best candidate was ranked 3rd, so even a no on Amarillo Cab Gonzalez would not have been the game changer it coulda been.

C u next Wednesday.

 
Loading...