A bipartisan cohort of current and former elected officials convened in Dallas’ Aloft Hotel on Wednesday afternoon to share one message: “Vote NO on Charter S, T, & U.”
These charter amendments, supported by Dallas HERO, a nonpartisan citizen effort, will appear on the November 5 ballot and have received significant opposition.
On a website paid for by Together For Dallas, opposers claim propositions S, T & U will “hit the rewind button on progress… encourage lawsuits against the city, costing millions in taxpayer funds that will drain resources for essential services… strong-arm [Dallas police leaders] to hire unqualified recruits and rush them through training… [and] force city leaders to divert funding away from crucial services like fire, EMS, parks, streets, arts and libraries.”
What are these contentious propositions?
Proposition S
Broadly, this proposition would enable any resident of Dallas to take legal action against the city to enforce compliance with charter provisions, ordinances, and state law, thus removing the city’s immunity from lawsuits and liabilities.
Proposition T
The proposition would require the city to administer a yearly community questionnaire to be filled out by at least 1,400 residents. The outcomes of this survey could result in the city manager receiving extra compensation based on their performance (ranging from 0% to 100% of their annual base salary) or in the city manager’s dismissal.
Proposition U
This proposition would mandate the City Council to allocate a minimum of 50% of the annual revenue that exceeds the total revenue from the previous year to support the Dallas Police and Fire Pension. Any remaining funds from that 50% would be utilized to boost the initial compensation for the DPD and raise the officer count by approximately 900, bringing the total to at least 4,000 officers.
The “Vote NO on Charter S, T, & U” messaging was loud and clear during the October 2 meeting.
Everyone from former Republican Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert to Democrat County Commissioner John Wiley Price was present, with former Dallas Mayor Laura Miller being one of the first to speak.
“I have never seen anything that is a bigger threat [to the city] than these three charter amendments,” Miller said.
Leppert spoke next. He conceded that “we need more police officers.” However, he added that the lawsuits from this act would be “paralyzing” and that the city would “not be able to undue unintended consequences.”
Former Mayor Mike Rawlings said the propositions were “chocolate-covered rat poison.”
Former Police Chief David Brown called it “fiscal malpractice.”
Price said, “The end is near if you vote for S, T, U,” and several other speakers concurred.
Speaking to The Dallas Express after the event, Leppert added that these amendments could pull resources away from fire and water services and likewise stated that it is “a matter of doing all the core services that are necessary.”
He warned that these amendments could take away funds from officer training and said they were too inflexible.
“No one could have predicted ’08 [financial crisis], the pandemic,” he said, noting that these amendments could hamstring the government response when the next crisis occurs.
The Dallas Express asked Dallas City Councilwoman Paula Blackmon about the increase in the city’s budget and how some see an insufficient amount going to hiring police officers. Blackmon said that costs have increased with inflation, and so has the budget, but she said that does not necessarily mean the city suddenly has beaucoup bucks.
“[If all these amendments took effect] at one time, it would add $175 million to the budget, and there would have to be cuts to parks, libraries …. [and also] raise taxes,” she said.
When DX asked about the cost the city incurs implementing DEI housing programs while the city remains around 1,000 officers short of what reports say is necessary to maintain public safety, Blackmon did not deny that this does cost the city money; however, she noted that DEI is more of a way of making decisions than any major program taking an excessive amount of resources.
Blackmon added that there is always a question about “taking a balanced approach” to resources.
DX asked former Democratic Dallas Mayor and U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk why the city could not use a bond to fund the charter amendments, should they pass, given that voters passed a $1.25 billion bond package in the spring. Kirk responded, “There are two types of bonds: revenue and general.”
Kirk said revenue bonds go for services people pay for, like “building a new convention center.”
Kirk explained that general bonds go into the city council’s general fund. Referring to a figure of $250 million that Kirk had previously cited, DX asked why the city could not use a $250 million general bond to fund the amendments.
Kirk responded that the city has been very responsive to policemen’s needs, citing a $11 billion commitment to the beleaguered Police and Fire Pension Fund.
These amendment propositions come on the heels of Dallas residents repeatedly registering dissatisfaction with crime, vagrancy, and homelessness.
Several Dallas City Council members attempted to neutralize the HERO amendments by introducing three contradictory amendments to the ballot, as previously reported by DX.
This action provoked a series of lawsuits from Dallas HERO. The Texas Supreme Court recently ruled that the amendments had to be removed.
“[T]he propositions contradict each other, and the ballot language as a whole will confuse and mislead voters because it does not acknowledge these contradictions or address the effect of the primacy provisions, which are chief features central to the character and purpose of the council-initiated propositions,” wrote Justice J. Brett Busby for the court.
“Because the citizen-initiated propositions must appear on the ballot and the parties have agreed to the ballot language for those propositions, we conclude the proper remedy is to direct the city council not to include its duplicative propositions on the ballot. …[W]e conditionally grant mandamus relief in part and direct the City to remove Propositions K, M, and N from the ballot,” the ruling stated.