Dallas, TX
Monday, November 28, 2022
English Español


Fine Print

English Español

Dallas City Council Debates Fiscal Transparency, Holiday Pay


Empty Dallas City Council Chambers | Image by City of Dallas

Donate to Dallas Express to Keep it Free

The issue of financial transparency has come to the forefront of recent discussions at Dallas City Council meetings this past week on holiday pay.

During Wednesday’s City Council meeting, councilmembers voted on an ordinance to allow holiday pay for city temporary employees, with an estimated annual cost of over $575,000. However, some council members pushed back on the proposal because the estimated cost had doubled since it was originally reviewed.

Councilmember Paul Ridley of District 14 expressed concerns about the ordinance, saying that it was not the same proposal he saw during a prior Government Performance and Financial Management Committee (GPFM) meeting on October 24.

“This is not the same item,” he said. “This is going to cost us $575,000. At GPFM, staff briefed it to us as costing less than one-half of that number: $277,000. There’s been no explanation of the doubling of the cost, and this changes the whole cost-benefit analysis of this item.”

“Staff failed to present any data really justifying this expenditure,” he continued. “We deserve an explanation at the committee level of this doubling of the cost so that we can assess whether this is still worth doing.”

Kimberly Tolbert, deputy city manager, was called upon to explain the dramatic cost change to the council, suggesting that the $277,000 price tag presented to the GPFM committee was calculated using the number of individuals who would be eligible after six months, while the $575,000 number takes into consideration every single temporary employee.

“When we presented [the item] to the GPFM committee, we actually gave you the number that would be considered eligible after six months, which was $277,000 annually,” she said. “What’s in the agenda item [is] if you were taking into consideration all the temporary employees whether or not they moved beyond that six-month period, so that’s why the number is higher.”

“But the annual estimated cost based on the number of temporaries who would actually qualify is the $277,000 that we presented,” she continued, “So that number in the agenda item is like the worst-case scenario.”

Councilmember Cara Mendelsohn of District 12 continued to question Tolbert about the cost disparity, saying, “I’m generally in support of this item, [but] I’m very concerned about the dollars. And I’m not concerned about the totality of the dollars. I’m concerned that we were briefed on one, and another one’s come up.”

Mendelsohn suggested that had Tolbert simply admitted that she made a mistake and briefed GPFM on the higher number from the start, she would have understood.

“But it appears that you’re presenting it to us as, ‘This was okay to sell you at GPFM, and now it’s okay that we’re doing this on your agenda,’ and I can’t match these numbers up,” she continued. “This is an ongoing issue I have about trust, and this is the kind of thing that makes me very concerned about numbers that come before council.”

Jack Ireland, the city’s chief financial officer, then stepped forward to explain further. “The difference is the number that was presented to GPFM included an assumption of paying for six city holidays, but we, in fact, have 12 city holidays,” he clarified.

Because temporary city employees enter a six-month probationary period before they are eligible for holiday pay, only six holidays were accounted for in the original budgetary calculation, Ireland explained, but he admitted that was a mistake.

Other council members, including District 13’s Gay Donnell Willis and District 6’s Omar Narvaez, argued that this item was less about the specific dollar amount and more about the “concept” of the city valuing and showing respect to its temporary employees.

However, Ridley maintained that there were still questions to be answered.

“There are still substantial questions about how this matter got to the full City Council after being briefed at GPFM at a totally different dollar amount,” he said. “This sounds like a bait-and-switch to me. And I think we as a council need to take a stand that we won’t accept this kind of action — that if something is briefed to the committee, it needs to come to the full council … in the same form at the same dollar amount, and not doubling the amount that it will cost us.”

“Put aside whether you think this is a good idea or not as a policy issue. The issue before us now is whether we are going to allow staff to come to us with a totally changed agenda from when it was briefed at the committee meeting just two weeks ago without sufficient explanation … as to why these new figures were not presented to the committee,” Ridley continued.

Councilmember Narvaez argued that while these are large numbers, they are relatively small when compared to the city budget — over $4.5 billion for the 2022-23 fiscal year.

“When we invest in people, we get a better return and better people, better staff, [and] better productivity,” he said, adding that this policy will allow the city to show its temporary employees “some dignity and respect.”

“This is not about dollars and cents and cost-benefit,” added City Manager T.C. Broadnax. “This is about treating people with respect and paying them for the work that they do and rewarding them for what work.”

Ultimately, following almost an hour of debate, the council approved the ordinance, allocating $575,000 for holiday pay for temporary city employees.

We welcome and appreciate comments on The Dallas Express as part of a healthy dialogue. We do ask that you be kind. Kind to each other and to everyone else in your comments. For more information, please refer to our Complete Comment Moderation Policy.

Subscribe to Comments
Notify of

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
15 days ago

The first lie is that “investing in people brings better people. Government employment in general brings average or less than average personnel.

The second lie is that anyone on probationary employment deserves any special respect, they have NOT earned it at all.

The fact is that once employed full time by the city, it is nearly an impossibility to terminate their employment at all. In fact generally speaking it is life long permanent.

The respect is due the TAXPAYERS not some person who became a new employee.

Lastly, Show me that holiday pay is standard in INDUSTRY in and around the USA DURING PROBATIONARY EMPLOYMENT AT ALL! That does NOT exist. IN fact in Industry the goal is to weed out anyone that can and should be weeded out during probation.

This body is forgetting what they are elected to do, and it is not to cost the taxpayers money that is not usual and customary in any industry. Thank God that at least some of the Council are honorable. They are still misguided in even considering this idea.

Linda Newland
Linda Newland
15 days ago

I don’t think this should have moved forward since the amount was not the same. We the tax payers need better representation.

Regina Imburgia
Regina Imburgia
Reply to  Linda Newland
14 days ago

I want to thank my council member Paul Ridley for catching this and speaking up!! DOUBLE the amount the committee was briefed — why have a committee and brief them if City Manager changes and then introduces it to Full Council for a vote?!? Letting this go— sets a precedent. City Manager did not address the real issue CM Rigley was making and diverted along with Omar to part dime workers deserving pay— also what are the 12 holidays?

Reply to  Regina Imburgia
14 days ago

I agree, what 12 city holidays? Sounds excessive.

15 days ago

They gave themselves a 12k dollar per yr raise, disguise as a car allowance ,why should they care, its not their money. They give alot of lip service.

14 days ago

The situation shows the contempt they have for the tax dollars being spent. The cherry on top: it’s such a small amount of our total budget just spend it. It was a bait and switch. The pressure being vote for it even though it’s double the amount we told you it would be or get called out as a grinch. Dems definitely have this tax and spend down to a science.

Tom Nolan
Tom Nolan
14 days ago

Full TRANSPARANCY is the keynote. The conversation by Kimberly Tolbert reminds me of a teenager who fibbed to the parents by not presenting ALL the facts (all aspects) from the get-go in order to get to spend the night at a friend’s house.
Dallas Water Utilities is under Tolbert’s management. DWU has deliberately withheld important information to the public and has sometimes deceptively presented issues.
The “argument” is not about temporary pay. It is about full transparency.