The Dallas City Council voted Wednesday to elevate Darrell Christopher Herbert, a longtime City employee, to vice chair of the City Plan and Zoning Commission (CPC) — one of the City’s most influential volunteer boards.
The 8–7 vote came from Council Members Gay Donnell Willis, Chad West, Zarin Gracey, Maxie Johnson, Jaime Reséndez, Adam Bazaldua, Paula Blackmon, and Kathy Stewart.
Herbert has worked for the City of Dallas since 2017 and currently serves as Manager of Water Utility IT. His dual role as both a City employee and CPC vice chair has prompted questions from residents and ethics watchdogs about whether the appointment violates the City’s own conflict-of-interest provisions.
Critics say Herbert’s salary effectively means taxpayers are paying for him twice — once for his full-time job and again for the hours he spends at CPC meetings, briefings, and internal committee sessions held during regular business hours. They also question who performs his day-to-day duties while he attends commission meetings that often run most of the day.
Public trust in the CPC has already been strained.
Earlier this year, The Dallas Express reported that longtime CPC Chair Tony Shidid served more than 4 years beyond the board’s 8-year term limit—an overstay that drew sharp criticism from residents and media outlets. City Code Section 8-1.4(2) limits members to “four consecutive two-year terms,” underscoring the importance of transparency and accountability.
“This isn’t just about Darrell Herbert,” said Dallas watchdog Damien LeVeck (@DallasEnFuego on X). “It’s another example of City Hall ignoring the ethics rules meant to keep it honest — and no one who’s been watching is surprised.”
The Dallas City Code and municipal ethics standards set clear expectations that board and commission members remain independent from City employment to maintain public trust.
Under Chapter 8, which governs boards and commissions, appointees must meet qualification standards that prevent conflicts of interest and preserve independence. Section 8-1.4 warns against appointments that could create “a conflict of interest” or otherwise compromise the board’s neutrality.
Section 8-1.4 further specifies that appointees must “not be an employee or a business associate of either an adversary party or a representative of an adversary party, nor have a pecuniary interest, in any pending litigation or claim, other than an eminent domain proceeding, against the city relating to the board on which the appointee will serve or the department providing support services to that board … disqualification of an appointee under this subparagraph may not be waived.”
While this clause primarily addresses adversarial relationships, ethics observers say it reflects the City’s broader intent—to prevent any situation in which an appointee’s City employment could compromise a board’s independence or the public’s confidence in its impartiality.
The Code of Ethics (Chapter 12A) also emphasizes impartiality and integrity.
Section 12A-4(a)(1) requires that “city officials and employees shall operate with integrity in a manner that merits the trust and support of the public.” Section 12A-4(a)(6) instructs officials to “carefully consider the public perception of personal and professional actions and the effect such actions could have on the city’s reputation.”
City attorneys and ethics officers have historically interpreted these rules to mean city employees should not hold advisory or oversight roles that could influence other City departments or programs, a situation some critics say Herbert’s appointment directly creates.
Ethics provisions further highlight that “independent advice from boards and commissions is essential to the public decision-making process.” City Council staff are expressly barred from serving on boards, and critics argue that the same standard should apply to any City employee whose board recommendations could affect their own department’s operations or funding.
As Manager of Water Utility IT, Herbert is part of the same municipal structure whose land-use, zoning, and infrastructure decisions are shaped by CPC recommendations. Even if he recuses himself from cases touching Dallas Water Utilities, ethics experts say his presence undermines the commission’s perception of neutrality.
“Independence isn’t just about avoiding actual bias,” said an ethics lawyer consulted by The Dallas Express. “It’s about protecting the appearance of impartiality. When the public sees a City employee serving in a decision-making capacity, it erodes confidence that boards and commissions are acting independently of City Hall.”
The Code of Ethics explicitly warns against any “appearance of impropriety that could erode public confidence in the integrity of city government.”
Council Member Cara Mendelsohn, who has previously criticized potential conflicts on city boards, told The Dallas Express that “City employees are hired to carry out the will of the city council. Allowing staff to serve on city volunteer boards or commissions blurs the line between implementing policy and shaping it, which could create a possible conflict of interest.”
Supporters of Herbert’s appointment argue that the City Code does not explicitly prohibit employees from serving on volunteer boards and commissions. They contend that since Herbert is not an “adversary party” to the City, his service does not violate the letter of the law. They also note that his technical background at Dallas Water Utilities brings valuable expertise to planning and zoning discussions, potentially improving coordination among departments.
Others contend that the Code of Ethics already provides mechanisms for recusing from potential conflicts of interest, meaning Herbert could abstain from voting on matters related to his department if necessary. They further emphasize that commission service is unpaid and conducted in public meetings, which they argue ensures transparency and prevents undue influence.
As Dallas continues to grapple with questions of transparency and accountability, Herbert’s appointment has reignited debate over the independence of City oversight bodies — raising the question: How independent can oversight be when it’s on the City’s own payroll?