Ethics at Dallas City Hall? It’s a work in progress

Dallas City Hall has an ugly history of corruption that not only has embarrassed those of us who live here but that has hurt people in need of honest government services like affordable housing.

That’s why the city needs an effective ethics code, as well as an inspector general. But anyone who has read the city’s ethics code understands it is an imperfect document that needs improvement.

With that in mind, we broadly support amendments to the ethics code the City Council will take up Wednesday.

Probably the most controversial change being proposed is a shift in the burden of proof for the city’s inspector general to prove violations of the ethics code.

The current “clear and convincing” standard is a high bar that requires proving it is highly likely that the person committed a violation. The proposed “preponderance of the evidence” standard would only require what’s sometimes called a “tip of the scales” burden of proof.

While some council members think that’s too low a bar, we disagree. All of the city’s other administrative hearings operate on the preponderance standard. It’s reasonable for the ethics code to be aligned. The higher standard prevents cases that probably should be aired in public from getting a hearing.

Among the more concerning proposed amendments is the addition of a potential criminal penalty for disclosing what the city determines is confidential information. A council member, council appointee or staff member could face prosecution for a Class C misdemeanor by disclosing, for example, something he or she learned from a city document or in a closed meeting.

Creating a criminal penalty for disclosure could chill whistleblowing or disclosures of malfeasance within City Hall. If something is disclosed in furtherance of a criminal scheme that should be investigated by law enforcement.

Finally, there remains serious debate about how to deal with political consultants, including campaign managers, treasurers and others, who lobby city officials on other matters. The ethics code tries to curtail this by requiring a sit-out period of one year, and the proposed amendment would expand the list of those who must sit out.

Council members complain, fairly, that the rule punishes winners, since it only applies to those who worked for a sitting council member. There’s an easy remedy there: Require anyone paid for campaign work or whose work is described in the code to sit out.

We are unconvinced by some council members’ interest in eliminating the sit-out rule in favor of a disclosure requirement. Campaign consultants and managers have strong sway over council members. Having them take on other city business as lobbyists is a bad practice.

The sit-out rule is imperfect. But claims that it just drives lobbying work underground are hardly a reason to eliminate it. Just because people will do the wrong thing in the dark doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a rule that calls it wrong.

We welcome your thoughts in a letter to the editor. See the guidelines and submit your letter here.