Todd Bensman
                             

03/19/05  Apparently, Our Mayor needs more to do.

		This past Thursday, I and about 100 concerned Dallas and Park Cities citizens (not the same thing) attended a debate between Mayor Laura Miller and former Councilman Max Wells, which was sponsored by the Greater Dallas Planning Council.  The Mayor's basic positions were the same ones she espoused last Fall at her debate with Councilman Don Hill.

	Even though under Blackwood she will have the power to do otherwise, we can trust her to do what she says she will do if it passes.			03/20 Elaine:   The May 7 Strong Mayor decision can be summed up in a question and answer.   Would you want any previous mayors to have this much control as mayor?    You know our present mayor would not have "appreciated" this much control being exercised by the mayor SHE served under when she represented Oak Cliff on the council.    Maybe she should consider this?
	Even though the council promises to put a stronger mayor charter amendment on the ballot in November, we can't trust the council to do what they say they will do if Blackwood fails.
	She is smart, capable, honorable and only has the city's best interests at heart.  City employees are stupid, inept, dishonest and hate Dallas.
	Her new "Big Ticket Vision" is best for Dallas.  Single member district issues are selfish and not good for Dallas.

The gist of Bensman's story (see Todd Bensman) is that the city screwed up in how they fired these inept and underperforming employees -- not that they were unjustly fired.  Had the city followed its own procedures, the fired employees would still be unemployed.

My concern with Our Mayor's tale of woe was not about the merits of the firings or reinstatements; my concern was that Our Mayor took it upon herself to sit in on a civil service hearing.  Under our current form of government, the council-city manager system, those employees are the sole responsibility of the City Manager.  Our Mayor had no more authority or right to be in that hearing than were the media representatives who also wanted to attend, but were denied entry at the last minute.  If Our Mayor's presence at that hearing was not a violation of civil service rules, it should have been.

Under Blackwood's ill-conceived plan, the Mayor appoints all members of the civil service board.  Think about that for a minute.

You are a city employee and you are appealing your firing or some disciplinary action determined by your boss, the Mayor.  You walk into what you hope will be a fair hearing before the civil service board, and right behind you walks in the Mayor.  You are telling the civil service board why the Mayor's decision about you was wrong and why you should not be fired or disciplined.  They listen to you while they look at the Mayor, who has appointed them and can remove them at will.  Under Blackwood, the civil service board will be made up of cronies of the Mayor.  What do you think of your chances for a fair hearing?

Can you spell L-A-W-S-U-I-T for wrongful termination?

Political skills do not equate to management skills.

The problem is that she does not have a management degree, and she has no management experience.  She is a very good writer and a wonderful mother, but she has no experience managing an office, much less 17,000 employees.

I don't doubt Our Mayor's intentions were good when she intruded into that closed civil service hearing, but it was a bad management decision and could have been the grounds for that employee successfully suing the City.  It may be painful to have that employee back on the payroll, but the civil service board may have showed more political insight than Our Mayor demonstrated.

Another concern I had with Our Mayor's debate statements was her disdain for treating all 14 single-member districts equally when it comes to distributing city monies for district needs.  Particularly since her second election, her "vision" has become very myopic and does not go beyond Downtown and the Trinity Project.  She has shown very little concern for the rest of the city.

I live in one of the poorest council districts in the city.  Before 2003, Bachman to Walnut Hill neighborhoods were divided between three districts (2, 13 and 14).  We didn't make up enough votes in any of the districts to be bothered with, and our concerns and capital needs were pretty much ignored.  Now, most of the same area is in Council District 6 (Steve Salazar).  We have our councilman's ear and support, and we are making huge progress toward revitalizing the area.

At the 3/17/05 debate, Our Mayor stressed that we need to prioritize how city revenues are spent (rather than share them).  That means 95% of our resources go Downtown and into the Trinity Trough and the rest of the city goes begging and bumping along with our brown parks, bumpy streets and way too few police officers.

This is exactly why we do not need to have a monarchy at City Hall.  We should have more compact and geographically sensible council districts, but we are stuck with what we have.  Our council representatives are available to us and our mundane needs (like police protection).  Our Mayor no longer has her eye on the "little things" that matter to the "little people".

This city charter election should not have been about Laura Miller, but she stepped in front of the game when she thought it was a winning ticket.  I suspect she is not so sure about the success of her latest effort. 

Our Mayor needs to keep focused on her job at hand because she clearly does not have enough to do.   You know what they say about "idle hands" being the Devil's workshop.

sb