Our recommendations on Dallas charter amendments

This election, Dallas voters will be asked to weigh in on 17 propositions to amend the charter and one to amend city code. They are lettered Propositions A-U. (Note that there are no propositions lettered K, M or N, as these were removed prior to making the ballot.)
These propositions are often confusing, so we have attempted here to clearly explain what each would do along with our recommendation of how you should vote. We think four of these propositions — R, S, T and U — are extremely dangerous to the city of Dallas, and we urge you to give special attention to each of these. These propositions arose from activist-led petitions.
The remaining propositions come through the Dallas City Council. Some of these also raise serious concerns, while others are necessary amendments to the charter. Charter changes are, by their nature, legalistic and complex. We hope that the explanations below clarify these important referendums for our city and help inform your vote.
Get smart opinions on the topics North Texans care about.
Or with:
By signing up you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
This proposition is intended to address a $1.4 billion shortfall in the city’s civilian pension fund. The amendment to the city code is necessary to move forward with changing actuarially determined contributions from employees and the city. The code requires voter approval to change city rules governing the retirement fund. Note that this does not relate to the more severely underfunded police and fire pension system.
Proposition language — Shall Chapter 40A of the Dallas City Code, known as the employees’ retirement fund of the City of Dallas, be amended in accordance with Ordinance No. 32801 to: add, revise, and delete various definitions; provide amended terms and term limits of the board; modify the retirement fund board’s powers and duties; specify the date the board shall adopt the actuarially determined contribution rate, the current total adjusted total obligation rate, the current total obligation rate, and the pension obligation bond credit rate for each fiscal year; provide amended contribution amounts for the city and employees; provide a contribution maximum for Tier A and Tier B employees; provide that the city may contribute additional monies to the retirement fund in its sole discretion; amend the modifications of contribution rates; provide guardrails with respect to the calculation of the actuarially determined contribution and incorporating the guardrails into actuarial assumptions; and amend the procedure to amend Chapter 40A?
The city charter does not need a preamble. This amendment was born of an effort by a single council member to add progressive political language to the city’s charter in line with similar preambles adopted by progressive city councils around the country. After much controversy and dispute, it was watered down into a statement that Dallas is an “equitable democracy.” The phrase is innocuous in itself, but it raises questions about what the city’s responsibility is to fulfill the equity mission that would be added to the charter. We urge voters to decline inserting language into the charter that has ambiguous consequences.
Proposition language — Shall the Dallas City Charter be amended by adding a preamble that declares the city to be an equitable democracy, comprised of representatives that act to make the city fair, equitable, just, and safe for all residents?
It’s been a long time since service on the Dallas City Council was a volunteer role, as it was originally intended to be. No one doubts that being on council can be hard work, but we aren’t ready to see it become a high-paying full-time job either. Council members currently make $60,000 a year, and the mayor is paid $80,000 by charter. Many council members have other jobs. The fact that council members spend so much time answering constituent service concerns or dealing with zoning matters is a signal that our municipal government isn’t delivering service as it should be and that council members have become too engaged in the day-to-day work of city government.
Council members want to see council salaries increased 50% to $90,000 and the mayor’s salary 37.5% to $110,000 a year, effective Jan. 1. They also want to tie future raises to inflation. Wouldn’t we all like that?
Dallas residents have been displeased with the service they get from City Hall for some time. The council is ultimately responsible for ensuring city management delivers good service. There aren’t many jobs where you can ask for a huge raise when you aren’t getting the job done. Voters should remind council members that they voluntarily ran for office. Dallas does not need a professional political class serving on the council. That’s what salaries at this level would create. We need citizens who are prepared to step forward to do a service.
Proposition language — Shall Chapter III, Section 4(a) of the Dallas City Charter be amended to increase the annual salary for the mayor to $110,000 and the annual salaries for councilmembers to $90,000 with salaries subject to a yearly adjustment equal to the year-over-year percentage increase in the local consumer price index, effective January 1, 2025?
With some hesitation, we encourage voters to approve this amendment. The hope is that removing the charter requirement to elect council members in May will lead to elections being moved to November of odd-numbered years. We have some concern because this proposition does not specify the month in which elections would be held, and we worry that could lead to problems. That said, on balance this represents a good opportunity to improve abysmal voter turnout in local races.
Proposition language — Shall Chapter IV, Section 3 of the Dallas City Charter be amended by deleting the requirement that elections for members of the city council be held in May and instead be held according to state law and as designated by city resolution or ordinance?
We strongly encourage voters to support strengthening term limits for council members and the mayor. Certain council members don’t seem to know that eight years is enough. So they sit out at least one term, as required by charter, and then run again. We need fresh eyes and voices on the council. This amendment would ensure that council members don’t make this a perpetual job.
Proposition language — Shall Chapter III, Section 3A of the Dallas City Charter be amended to eliminate the ability for members of the city council to run for city council again after serving the maximum four two-year terms and to eliminate the ability for the mayor to run for mayor again after serving the maximum two four-year terms?
This technical amendment would permit the city secretary and the city auditor to more easily hire rank-and-file employees vs. what the charter describes as “assistants.” Both of these offices need staffing flexibility that this amendment would provide.
Proposition language — Shall Chapter IIIA, Section 2 and Chapter IX, Section 2 of the Dallas City Charter, which requires the city council to provide assistants to the city secretary and city auditor, be amended to also require the city council to provide employees to the city secretary and city auditor?
This amendment strengthens the requirements and accountability for a person to sit on the city’s redistricting commission that is charged with drawing council district lines. There have been examples of council members trying to place their political consultants or others with clear conflicts of interest on the commission. Spelling out that people with clear conflicts cannot serve is necessary.
Proposition language — Shall Chapter IV, Section 5(b)(2) of the Dallas City Charter, which establishes the redistricting commission, be amended by adding eligibility criteria for serving on the redistricting commission?
This amendment is part of a broader effort on the part of some council members to diminish the charter’s requirement that members of key city boards and commissions be citizens. These boards and commissions have significant power, and those who serve on them should be citizens.
Proposition language — Shall Chapter IV, Section 5; Chapter XV, Section 3; Chapter XVI, Section 1; and Chapter XVII, Section 2 of the Dallas City Charter be amended by eliminating the requirement that members of the redistricting commission, city plan commission, civil service board, and park and recreation board be registered to vote, qualified voters, or qualified taxpaying citizens?
This amendment would diminish the requirements to set up voter referendums to introduce new city ordinances or to alter city ordinances. It would double the number of days to gather signatures to start a referendum and reduce the number of required signatures. Petition-driven referendums are bad ways to govern, in our view, and should have a high threshold for being placed before voters. Two months is enough time to gather signatures for referendums. Extending the time period to four months gives activists more time to use misleading campaigns that can hurt representative government.
Proposition language — Shall Chapter XVIII, Section 11 of the Dallas City Charter, which establishes procedures for initiative and referendum of ordinances, be amended to extend the deadline petitioners must meet to collect required signatures from 60 days to 120 days and reduce the number of signatures required on a petition from 10 percent of the qualified voters of the City of Dallas to five percent?
This amendment would permit elected council members to more quickly replace unelected board and commission members who are holdovers from prior council members. To the greatest degree possible, board and commission appointments should be the appointees of current elected council members.
Proposition language — Shall Chapter XXIV, Section 17(b) of the Dallas City Charter be amended to allow city council’s appointments to city boards and commissions to be replaced by city council prior to completion of a member’s two-year term?
This amendment would create an independent office of inspector general for the city, and provide adequate staff to that inspector general. Dallas government needs a watchdog with teeth who can investigate ethics, fraud, waste, abuse and corruption.
Proposition language — Shall Chapter XI, Section 2 be amended and a new chapter be added to the Dallas City Charter that establishes the Office of the Inspector General with the Inspector General being appointed by city council and lists the duties of the Inspector General?
This amendment strengthens the qualifications for the city’s municipal judges and requires that they be residents of the city of Dallas. It also ensures greater accountability by aligning judicial terms with those of council members.
Proposition language — Shall Chapter VIII, Section 6 of the Dallas City Charter be amended to clarify the terms of associate municipal judges and state that associate municipal judges are appointed by city council, receive assignments from the administrative judge or the administrative judge’s designee, and must be residents of Dallas within four months of the date of appointment and practicing attorneys in good standing?
This amendment would lift the requirement that city employees who are appealing their discharge or demotion pay half of the cost for an administrative law hearing. We think that employees who face demotion or discharge should have some skin in the game by the time such an act reaches the point of a legal hearing.
Proposition language — Shall Chapter XVI, Section 12.1 of the Dallas City Charter be amended by deleting the requirement that a city employee who appeals his or her discharge or reduction in grade to an administrative law judge pay one-half of the costs attributed to having the administrative law judge conduct the appeal hearing?
This confusing proposition is being advertised to voters as “technical changes” to the charter, but it actually sweeps in important and substantial matters. This proposition should have been considered under separate propositions to offer greater clarity to the public. For example, one proposed change would permit five residents rather than citizens to initiate proposed ordinance changes to the City Council. The proposition would also make council members salaried city employees rather than people compensated for service to the city, conferring substantial benefits on them. It would also relieve the city from publicly publishing through a general interest newspaper critical city information, from contract bid opportunities to new city ordinances. Yes, that last part could affect this newspaper, but the larger problem in this proposition is a city that is backing away from public transparency.
Proposition language — Shall Chapter III, Section 3; Chapter III, Section 4; Chapter III, Chapter 8(b); Chapter III, Section 13(a); Chapter III, Section 19; Chapter IV, Section 6(a); Chapter IV, Section 6(c)(2); Chapter IV, Section 13; Chapter XI, Section 1; Chapter XI, Section 3; Chapter XII, Section 4; Chapter XIII, Section 2(2); Chapter XIII, Section 9; Chapter XIV, Section 8; Chapter XV, Section 3; Chapter XV, Section 4; Chapter XVI, Section 3(b)(1); Chapter XVI, Section 7; Chapter XVI, Section 10(a); Chapter XVI, Section 11(b); Chapter XVIII, Section 7; Chapter XVIII, Section 11(1); Chapter XVIII, Section 15; Chapter XIX, Section 7; Chapter XXII, Section 2; Chapter XXII, Section 3; Chapter XXII, Section 4(1); Chapter XXII, Section 10; and Chapter XXIV of the Dallas City Charter be amended to conform to state law, conform to the city code, match actual practices, correct terms, clarify language, and other technical amendments?
We strongly urge you to vote against the last four propositions on the ballot.
These propositions did not arise from council discussion or the city’s charter amendment commission. They instead came about through what we believe were misleading and manipulative petitions that misrepresent the harm that will come from their passage.
The first, Proposition R, is the work of a left-wing activist group called Ground Game Texas that seeks to undermine the statewide debate around marijuana legalization through local referendums.
The last three, Propositions S, T and U, arise from a right-wing activist group known as Dallas Hero. The three referendums it placed on the ballot again came about through what we believe were misleading claims about the proposals and their potential consequences.
This proposition describes itself as the Dallas Freedom Act. It would more honestly be called the Dallas Drug Dealers Act. In contravention of state law, it would diminish police enforcement of marijuana laws. Outgoing Police Chief Eddie García has said this would make the city less safe, and we wholeheartedly agree. This referendum is not about avoiding criminalization of small amounts of marijuana. It would instead give great latitude to people in possession of up to 4 ounces. That is an amount that only a dealer would carry at any given time. Debate over marijuana legalization is something that should happen in an open and honest way, not in the underhanded manner that this referendum represents.
Proposition language — Shall the Dallas City Charter be amended by adding a new section in Chapter XXIV that reforms marijuana possession enforcement by prohibiting the Dallas Police Department from making arrests or issuing citations for marijuana possession or considering the odor of marijuana as probable cause for search or seizure, except as part of a violent felony or high priority narcotics felony investigation; making enforcement of Class A (currently, two to four ounces) and Class B (currently, up to two ounces) misdemeanor marijuana possession the Dallas Police Department’s lowest enforcement priority; and prohibiting city funds or personnel from being used to test cannabis-related substances to determine whether a substance meets the legal definition of marijuana, except in limited circumstances?
If enacted, this proposition would spell disaster for the city of Dallas by giving any resident the right to sue the city for perceived violations of the city’s charter or ordinances or state law. Every day, city employees, from the city manager to police officers to sanitation workers, must make individual decisions that someone might believe violates one of those categories. Should a police officer avoid citing someone for speeding to go stop a robbery? Is that a lawsuit waiting to happen? This is nonsense, and the public should reject it as such.
Proposition language — Shall the Dallas City Charter be amended by adding a new chapter that grants standing to any resident of Dallas to bring a lawsuit against the city to require the city to comply with provisions of the city charter, city ordinances, and state law; entitles claimants to seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the city and recover costs and reasonable attorney’s fees; and waives the city’s governmental immunity from suit and liability in claims brought under this amendment?
This proposition would make the city manager’s employment and compensation contingent on a public survey. Imagine, for a moment, the annual political campaign over what the survey results should be. Should the city manager be fired or have her salary doubled based on the survey results? If you wanted to create a perfect environment for lobbyists, contractors and other interested parties to mess with local government, it would be hard to dream up a crazier scheme than this.
Proposition language — Shall Chapter VI of the Dallas City Charter be amended by adding a new section compelling the city to conduct the city-commissioned Community Survey on an annual basis, to be completed by a minimum of 1,400 Dallas residents on their satisfaction on quality of life issues, the results of which will result in the city manager earning additional performance compensation (between 0 percent and 100 percent of the city manager’s annual base salary) or the termination of the city manager?
This proposition will sound tempting to many of us who feel Dallas needs to be safer. But read this carefully before you vote. It would require the city of Dallas to budget for at least 4,000 police officers, an increase of 800 to 900 officers. That sounds great on its face until you dig into the reality of what that would cost. That’s not to mention the fact that, even if we could afford it, there aren’t enough police recruits available to fill that number. The city budget already devotes most of its general fund dollars to public safety spending. Policing accounts for the biggest slice of the pie.
This requirement, by charter, would spell doom for spending on parks, streets, libraries and other city services. Meanwhile, it would be impossible to fulfill, and the city could possibly be sued for not fulfilling a charter requirement it cannot practically fulfill (see Proposition S above). The city already budgets each year to expand its police force. The problem is getting people to take on this rewarding but challenging career. Managing the annual budget by charter referendum is fiscal malpractice.
Proposition language — Shall Chapter XI of the Dallas City Charter be amended by adding a new section compelling city council to appropriate no less than 50 percent of annual revenue that exceeds the total annual revenue of the previous year to fund the Dallas Police and Fire Pension, with any monies remaining of that 50% to be appropriated to increasing the starting compensation of officers of the Dallas Police Department and to increase the number of police officers to a minimum of 4,000, and to maintain that ratio of officers to the City of Dallas population as of the date of passage of this amendment?
Correction 1:09 p.m., Sept. 27 2024: An earlier version of this editorial cited an incorrect figure for council pay. The current pay for a council member is $60,000 a year.
We welcome your thoughts in a letter to the editor. See the guidelines and submit your letter here. If you have problems with the form, you can submit via email at [email protected]