The planned departure of City Manager T.C. Broadnax has some wondering if several Dallas City Council members worked behind the scenes in violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act to ensure the embattled official would get a substantial severance payment.
According to the WFAA, Broadnax worked with eight council members in secret to orchestrate his resignation announcement, which purportedly allowed him to pick his last day and secure a severance.
The process has been criticized by some over the seeming lack of transparency and potential circumvention of the Texas Open Meetings Act, which is meant to ensure that government bodies in Texas are “transparent, open, and accountable to the people.”
One self-identified Dallas resident with the X handle Johnyalamo posted online, “So 8 elected officials worked behind closed doors for a $431,646 @CityOfDallas expenditure? How does this not violate Texas Open Meeting Act laws?”
The maneuvering also appeared to upset Council Member Tennell Atkins (District 8), who alleged that what had occurred did not follow established procedure.
“But that’s something under the bridge now. We’ve all got to move forward. If we all going to move forward, I know I am Chair of Administration, there is a process,” Atkins said, NBC 5 DFW reported.
The Dallas Express reached out to every Dallas City Council member, Broadnax, and Mayor Eric Johnson about the allegation. A City spokesperson replied, “The Texas Open Meetings Act defines a quorum, and the Dallas City Charter provides the quorum number for the Dallas City Council.”
Philip Kingston, a lawyer and former Dallas City Council member, told the Dallas Observer that he did not think the council members violated the law, citing a section in the language that does not require an open public meeting when officials convene to “deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of a public officer or employee; or to hear a complaint or a charge against an officer or employee.”
“The issue becomes what is the harm in doing this in private if the public never has a right to participate,” he said. “So, the [attorney general] or the [district attorney] is unlikely to care.”