The Dallas Fiscal Accountability Ordinance
Submitted by Allen Gwinn on Mon, 05/11/2009 - 20:37.
This time let's write an ordinance and do a referendum that really matters.
The election is over and, for better or worse, we're getting a taxpayer-owned convention center hotel.
Regardless of the arguments or campaign mudslinging, the thing that taxpayers must not be concerned about is ownership of the hotel. What we should be concerned with is holding the management of our city accountable for the profit or loss of any such publicly-owned project (we'll call them "civic ventures").
Mayor Leppert (along with other city officials) is (are) on record as saying that Dallas taxpayers essentially risk nothing. They have assured us that these projects are boons for the city's coffers and our property taxes are safe and sound.
Bonds issued to finance the construction of the hotel, for instance, will be paid and serviced through collection of a "Hotel Occupancy Tax" borne by hotel guests.
It's cash in the bank! It's a sure thing! So let's work to keep it that way.
There is no reason to doubt the mayor, or anyone else. There is, however, every reason to hold our current, and future, city officials' feet to the fire.
The problem with past referendums is that they've been "pro" or "con". We either build a toll road or we don't. We either have a strong mayor or we don't. The public owns a hotel or we don't.
In the past, there have been legitimate arguments on both sides. One side supports the whole thing, the other doesn't. Next comes the politics, mudslinging, campaign promises, claims--the list goes on and on.
We shouldn't be concerned with any of this when it comes to a profitable city venture such as a convention center hotel.
Instead, Dallas needs a referendum to tie all of these projects together--keeping the focus on fiscal accountability. "Special interests" need to be out of it.
No one should be able to claim "this is only supported and paid for by one person."
Fiscal accountability is something that all Dallas citizens should overwhelmingly support--not just something that would simply squeak by with a 1% to 2% margin.
So let's hold them accountable.
Why?
Taxpayers don't need to look far to see the effects of a lack of accountability. The AIG bailout, for example, got the ire of politician and taxpayers alike when it was revealed how much public money was going to pay bonuses for senior executives.
Dallas should be proactive and put, into place, safeguards so this doesn't happen to our city.
So let's all work on this ordinance together?
No back-room deals, no special interests. Let's keep it open. Let's keep the ideas flowing and put something together that will strengthen and focus the city's leadership.
After we get something we can live with, we'll collect signatures on a petition and bring about an election that will be far more meaningful to those of us (taxpayers) who finance the operations of the city.
Ordinance Concepts
Here's where we'll start--in no particular order. We must define this concept of "civic ventures." These are projects, such as the hotel, where the city invests public funds with the goal of getting a return.
In any year where there is insufficient revenue from "civic ventures" to service bond debt (such that the burden would shift to taxpayers):
- salaries of city managers and council members shall be reduced by up to 50 percent to cover as much of the shortfall as possible.
- salaries which have been cut, thusly, may not be increased more than 20% per year in the two year period following the 50% cut.
- property taxes may not be raised for the year, nor the year following.
- no bonuses shall be paid to any manager, director or sales executive involved directly, or indirectly, with the civic venture.
If the shortfall in revenue from the "civic venture" continues for a second year:
- elections shall be held for all city council positions.
- incumbents shall be identified on the ballot along with the event which triggered the election (e.g. "John Smith, incumbent, $20,000,000 deficit from hotel in 2nd year").
There will likely to be "hey, wait a minute" and "you can't do this" from staff and council. What happens, they'll point out, if all the revenue projections are wrong?
Simply remind the concerned city official that revenue won't fall short. According to our senior leadership, it can't. Remind them of the promises made by city leaders.
They, and taxpayers, couldn't be safer!
Right?
Let's get to work and try to have this wrapped up in time to get it on the ballot for the next election.
Another thought
Major corperations are required to sign off on their yearly report to stock holders that the information contained is in the best of their knowledge acurate and truthfull. If it is found that they misrepresented information contained they are subject to criminal action. Perhaps we should expect the same for our Mayor and city council members?
Fiscal Accountability Ordinance Content
You are on to something here.
When the cost of a project is going to be $100M, at least 10% of voters must turn out to have the issue become valid. Then the issue must pass with 55% of voter approval.
If the cost is $200M, then 15% of voters must turn out to have the issue become valid. Then, the issue must pass with at least 60% of voter approval.
You get the idea. I am concerned that less than 10% of eligible voters have now saddled the rest of us with bond obligations thata we may not be able t meet or with the management choices of cutting services to meet bond obligations that are not coming through on the return on investment that was promised.
When the cost of the project is $1 Billion or more, then 20% of voters must show up to approve it or it dies. I think this concept will help keep Dallas on a sound fiscal and political footing.
When the City has rules that require 2/3 and 3/4 majority of Council approval on other types of measures, this concept is not out of the ordinary nor is it coounter to the best interests of the voters and more imprtantly, to the taxpayers. It also puts more RESPONSIBILITY on the shoulders of those who want to spend our money for things that are outside of BASIC CITY SERVICES.
The goal of this addition to your plan is to prevent the "tail frm wagging the dog".
Comment on Fiscal Accuntablity Ordinace
I like the idea; but, would like to see on the ballot the ablity to choose "none of the above" which would be useful in the event that any given incumbent council person was un apposed in their re election. So often they run un opposed and due to default find their way back in.
I wondeer too if the reduction in salary could (or should) include a reduction in benifits provided by the city?
It sure is a shame that we can't persue them after they leave office.
Perhaps too the incumbents "campaign funds" should be fair game too in satisfying the short fall. I know that this may not be legal but it sure wouod make me feel good.
Post new comment