Marvin Steakley

02/07/02 A Joint Letter to the Low Five

Were governance and respect for the law not such a serious matter, the picture of the five of you interspersed with others in the latest Dunning-gate piece mailed to me would be a side-splitting cause for laughter.

I count ten people in the picture, not a one of whom displays even the hint of a smile. Rather, it is a sad- and dour-looking group, perhaps assembled against their wishes and waiting to hear the worst. Maybe they are scared to be there but afraid to run away.

Deleterious, antecedent events occurred in the council chambers of City Hall involving four of you, excepting James. Those events combined to fill my bucket to overflowing. Nothing ever came of the open abuse of those days of council procedures and Dallas citizens in the process, myself included.

The Dallas Morning Pravda had a reporter present each time, but he never reported the abuses (or did so and editors cleansed the reporter's filing). Such has happened before on other matters as stated to me personally by the reporter involved with the words of "I did not write the story that way." At best, some hundred or so persons were present, counting council, city staff members, police force, the audience, and assorted camp followers. None of that total group other than possibly some members of the audience would hang any of that day's dirty linen out to dry.

Before getting to James' pickle, it is common knowledge AND in printed instructions to speakers that the council always has adopted rules of procedure and conduct. Ostensibly, they are designed to protect the council and good order, as if the armed police combat force present could not achieve a condition of decorum and good order. The other side of the coin is simply that citizens know of these rules and tend to feel a slight sense of decency available to them in appearing, fully expecting that those rules of conduct are going to be enforced, evenly and fairly applied. Any experienced citizen who attends soon discovers that the rules are enforced selectively by the presiding official. The degree of latitude available to such presiding official is not one of complete freedom to abandon all provisions on the spot, thereby contravening the explicit rule of law imposed on citizen attendees who might deign to speak.

Veletta Lill threatened to kick me off a commission if I did not quit criticizing the council. She had obviously failed to examine the speaker request card that I had filed with the City Secretary. Had she done so, she would have discovered that I was representing myself; the totality of my remarks was personally generated for cause; and they had no connection or relationship to any other persons or group of persons. Her remarks were not in the realm of decorum and good order, banshee-shrill in nature, and failed to address the problem posed. Not only did Kirk refuse to call her out of order, but he refused me access to the microphone to defend myself and my citizen rights.

The remaining members sitting behind the well-protected horseshoe sat on their hands, not even calling for a point of order and a ruling from the city attorney. My own council member, Lois Finkelman, did not speak up for me that day. Of course, all of you suffer from the misnomer that you only represent persons in your district. Since two votes would not pass anything out of a quorum, you represent everyone.

As speedily as possible, I asked for an appointment with Veletta Lill to fill in the missing spaces of her history book.

Before Al Lipscomb and anyone else, four males -- one Democrat, one Republican, one black, and one Hispanic -- made the first thrust toward single member districts. I alone spoke out for a Commission on the Status of Women in Dallas and city government. At that time, only white males served on the council, all boards and commissions, and all of the upper reaches of city government.

Veletta Lill can call it coincidence if she wishes, but our work in the trenches in those early days and as they continued were for principle and NEVER for power, glory, or money. Ours was not a thrust toward winning a popularity contest.

Back to the Kirk days. In the enforced month's absence before being allowed to speak again, I baited Kirk with the charge of his violation of council rules. He took the bait. He spent about two minutes lecturing me that he could cut the three minutes to two anytime that he wished. Well, that was not his crime. But he and all of the council failed to grasp what had been Kirk's crime against citizens in that room.

Was it disinterest? Was it fear? Was it cowardice? Was it ignorance?

No court anywhere would allow a defendant to plead ignorance of the law against any charge. We do not allow even immigrants the protection of ignorance of the law. No one on the council challenged Kirk, including you stalwart four.

Quoting from yesterday's Pravda for James:

"Mr. Fantroy came under fire last month for sending out a letter endorsing Mr. Dunning on copies of his official city letterhead, (sic) said he wasn't concerned about the use of his title in Mr. Dunning's mailing. " ' I don't care one way or another , , , even if it gets me in trouble,' he said."

James Fantroy should be cashiered from office on the first count for sure for violating the oath that he took upon being elected and sworn in. The second matter is still open for review. While much of the law of the land is common law, what Fantroy is accused of violating is clearly printed in black and white as an ordinance. Until he learns some respect for the law, he should excuse himself from the council chambers when the Pledge of Allegiance is given before each meeting, spend some time alone examining those words, and the last six in particular. Of course, he may not survive the legal machinations now in motion. His blatant refusal to live and serve under the law is disgusting and reprehensible.

Mary Poss IS the bogeywoman, and she is standing IN FRONT of every door that she can imagine. Can you imagine that any action is superior to obeying the law? If the law is fraught with errors and unevenness, then change it legally. Until that happens, if at all, the law is supreme. Why didn't Mary say "No" to Pravda's request that she, as mayor pro tem, write the accolade piece for Dunning in its paper?

Of course, Poss has some difficulty in reading and understanding. She said that she read Starke Taylor's Criminal Justice Task Force report from 1987, but she failed to discover that not a word was said about family violence and abuse of children in Dallas in its near 200 pages. No one appeared with me that May day in 1987 to report that omission. After that Task Force meeting, three members -- all women -- came up to me and apologized for the abuse laid upon me that day. Mary should be told that several bogeymen WERE present that day. Where was she?

Quoting Pravda for Alan Walne:

"Ms. Lill said she did not give permission to the use of her title and said she considered this to be an attack on her integrity by Ms. Miller's campaign. . . . "I am an honest politician," she said.

Veletta chose to use the word honest herself as an adjective fitting her by charging it to Ms. Miller's campaign. It is really not necessary for anyone, including the protesting citizen, to do anything more than cite the illegal appearance of Veletta's city council title in the mailed ad piece, along with the other four similarly rendered.

There is some hope for the last three, because they admit that an error was made. However, these three as well as Mary and James are accessories after the fact in terms of violation of the ethics code of the City of Dallas. Had all five of them been smart enough, they would have known well before the complaint was filed that they needed to have a joint press conference, repudiate the end result, and disavow their participation in the violation.

Why did they not do so? James did not care. Did the other four think it would blow away, escape anyone's wrath, fail to identify violating the law, fear, cowardice, bring further disrepute upon their candidate of choice, or multiple obfuscation? Of course, James does not care, so it would have just been the other four. Complicity is the word for the remaining four.

Carol Reed is not running for mayor; Dunning is. Who is going to face the music? We have seen a plethora of shady manipulations (translated as: BOGEYMAN) from Carol Reed, the scapegoat -- conveniently -- for Dunning. At first we saw video pictures of much of North Texas, some of it used illegally. Was Dunning really running for mayor of the Metroplex? Next we saw DART videos, produced for DART at public expense, not for Dunning's free use. Then we saw use of a television channel copyrighted news film footage. The station complained, but are they really going to bite the hand that feeds them over time?