No sir, I do not think so.
Is there any way that this council can make it binding?
That's right.
Mr. Fielden, there's a process for making it binding.
This is not the process.
No sir.
That's why I don't think the council can make
it binding.
The question that I asked was, is there any way
that this council can make it binding?
I do not believe so.
That's what I wanted to know.
In that case, I think I would be in favor of
the council just go ahead and voting it
up or voting it down.
Councilwoman Crenshaw, second round.
We know that our constituents are going to be
voting on some capital improvements.
I don't want constituents being put in the
position of saying, should I vote for public
safety or should I vote for my streets to be fixed?
I don't want that kind of confusion.
So if there's any way that we can get a
commitment, then let's do it.
If that's, if we can't, then let's go to the ballot.
They're only going to say what they sent us
down here to say.
Mayor Pro Tem Garcia on the motion for
discussion on the motion to postpone.
I'm going to be opposing the motion to postpone.
Let me tell you why.
The fact of the matter is this council had the
opportunity to give the 5% raise to the
firefighters and the police officers when we
did our 1994-95 budget.
We didn't do it.
I made the motion and it failed.
So to say now that we're going to make a
promise that we didn't keep or didn't even
attempt to do is a disservice to the men and
women who put their lives on the line to save
our citizens, who work and have dedicated a
large portion of their careers for the citizens
of Dallas.
And I believe it's time that the voters have an
opportunity to make that decision.
And if we postpone this debate, I think we're
only postponing and demoralizing the people
who work for us.
As stewards of the public trust, as elected
representatives, we have a duty and an obligation
to put issues like this before the voters of Dallas.
I don't understand why people are afraid of the
voters of Dallas.
It just boggles my mind when people don't trust
that they have the intelligence or they
have the capability to absorb these type of issues.
They can either decide that there's fair pay
for safety or they can decide not to.
But when we've had the lowest reduction in the
murder rate in 10 years, I think that's
something the citizens will take into account.
When Dallas is one of the only major cities in
this country where crime has gone down
for three years in a row, I think that is
something the citizens will take into account.
When our firefighters have been having a record
in terms of fire fatalities in this
city, that is something the citizens will take
into account.
But it's up to the citizens.
We shouldn't presume that we are all knowing
and that we can make decisions without public input.
That is what a democracy is about.
So I'm going to be opposed to this motion to postpone.
And again, I would ask my colleagues to oppose
that, because we've already went through that.
This is just round two of something that's
already been tried.
Councilman Hicks, second round on the motion to postpone.
You know, I hope the police and fire department
does not believe that the request by Councilwoman
Crenshaw to postpone to see if we can just get
that done by resolution is any different
than the non-binding referendum, because it
can't be done, in fact, until we get ready
to go into budget.
And if we have already said we're going to do
it by resolution, that's the same thing.
If we can't do it, then go to referendum.
But this stuff about the voters this and the
voters that, we didn't take that opportunity
when we had the Gay lesbian issue.
We can do that now.
Y'all want to do that now?
We have a lot of issues we can take to the
voters right now.
So I don't want to hear that.
See, you told me to stay off of it, but you
know, when you start using words like disservice
and disingenuous and all of these implications,
like we're trying to run a scam, then I have
to respond to that, Mayor.
And that's just not really true.
We're going to take the gay lesbian issue now?
Yeah, I'm glad you support that.
We're going to do that?
I mean, with that kind of rhetoric that you got
going on, you are dangerously close to
putting a whole bunch of stuff on that deal.
So you know, it's a legitimate request for
legitimate reasons, and it's not for anything
other than that.
They know that.
The vote now occurs on the Crenshaw motion to
postpone for one week.
Vote on the board.
It would postpone it with the Mays motion pending.
Mr. Mayor, all members have voted on the motion.
Voting on the motion to postpone, Bartlett,
Mallory, Halstead, Wells, Box, Stimson, Hicks,
and Crenshaw voting no, Garcia, Mays, Luna,
Bloomer, McDaniel, Fielding, and Duncan.
The ordinance that would order a special
election to present a non-binding proposition
to the
question of increasing the base salary of
police and fire will be postponed for one week.
We will take it up at the time of 1:00 next
Wednesday, 11:00 as an agenda item,
as an action item.
And we'll take it up in these chambers, I
think, but that will be posted subsequently.
I think it will be in these chambers, but that
will be posted.
Mr. Secretary?
The next item, item 14 on page 14, is an
ordinance ordering a special election for the purpose
of submitting to the voters a non-binding
proposition on the question of whether the
city should construct a new sports arena facility.
This item was postponed to be considered at
this time with the, or deferred with the
deferral pending.
Councilor Luna?
Mayor, I would move that the item be undeferred
and considered this afternoon, and I'd also
request an executive session. Second.
Motions made and seconded to undefer item 14,
agenda item 14.
For the discussion on the motion to remove the
deferral, Councilman Fielding?
Mayor, as we did on the last issue, it was
properly posted.
People came down here to debate the issue, and
since you deferred this item when it was
placed on the addendum to the agenda, everyone
assumed that it was going to be deferred and
not heard today, so the people did not come
down here to speak on it.
I think you do a disservice to the people to
bring it back up today.
I think it was inappropriate to have it
reconsidered, and I would ask you to reconsider
your reconsideration
of it so that the citizens who want to speak on
this issue would have the opportunity to
come down here and speak on it.
Mayor Pro Tem Garcia?
Sir, are you, would you answer my question, please?
Mayor Pro Tem Garcia?
Mayor, that wasn't a rhetorical question.
Would you answer?
Councilman Fielding, I believe that it was a
disservice for the three Councilmembers
to have placed this on the agenda with no
notice at 5:00 on Friday afternoon in
a way designed to disrupt the negotiations on
the arena.
Whichever side you're on on whether to have it
on the arena or not, I think it was a disservice
to place it in such a way.
Therefore, I did defer it over the course of
the week.
Every single Councilmember has told me that
they don't need additional information on it.
They're ready to vote on it today.
So, as soon as we vote on it, we will, then it
will take this cloud off of the negotiations.
Well, in that case, Sir, then as soon as you
vote this, and if you're successful in it,
then I will ask for an Executive Session
because there absolutely is new information
that this
Council is not aware of and that the Manager
does not want in the public purview.
So if it does pass, then I'll be asking for an
Executive Session.
Councilwoman Bloomer?
Council, Mayor Pro Tem Garcia on the motion to
remove the deferral?
I prefer that we go into Executive Session
first, and then I'll make my comments after
we come out of Executive Session.
Councilwoman Bloomer?
Well, I'd just like to express my outrage at
this manipulation, Mayor.
You did that, in my opinion, deliberately to
circumvent the voters again.
When you put that on the addendum with our
resolution, you knew that people couldn't
come down here in time to express their feelings.
And so this little end run right here is going
to backfire, and I think it is a great disservice
to this community.
Councilman Wells?
Motion to remove the deferral on addendum item 14.
All in favor say aye. Aye.
No, I thought we were going to go into
Executive Session.
No, no, no.
The motion is to defer.
You can't go into Executive Session unless you
have something.
Unless you have an item on that's posted.
We can go into Executive Session on the motion
to remove the postponement.
If it's relevant.
I think we can go into Executive Session at any time.
The two people that made the request to go into
Executive Session, they make them under
the motion to remove the deferral or under item
14, and is it under legal or real estate?
I have some legal and real estate questions
about number 14, if it's undeferred.
That's why I said if it's undeferred, I would
like an Executive Session.
I have no legal question about the undeferral,
which is self-evident on its face.
Is there a request to go into Executive Session
on the motion to remove the deferral?
Well, Mayor, I think that there are
Councilmembers who may change their mind if
they were aware of the information.
So, if the Attorney thinks it's appropriate,
and he knows what I'm talking about,
if he thinks it's appropriate, then I would ask
that we go into Executive Session on the deferral.
If he doesn't think it's appropriate, then we
can go ahead and vote on the deferral.
Attorney, can we go into Executive Session?
There's a request to go into Executive Session
on the pending motion for legal advice.
On the pending motion, no, but once it gets
back on the floor, yes.
The City Attorney advises me that you can't go
into Executive Session on the pending motion,
but if the pending motion passes, then you can
go into Executive Session.
Mayor Pro Tem Garcia.
With all due respect to my colleagues who are
supporting the motion to undefer,
the fact of the matter is, last week, three
Councilmembers said the citizens of Dallas had
a right to have input on an issue
that's going to cost them a considerable amount
of dollars.
Now, it might cost them in terms of revenue
bonds, it might cost them in terms of
hotel-motel tax,
whatever the revenue, they still had a right to
have input in that,
especially in terms of all the different
circumstances that have surrounded the debate
on the new arena for the Mavericks and the Stars.
Now, to undefer an item after the public has
been told that we were not going to hear it today,
I feel is one of the most violent types of
breakdowns of the democratic process at City
Hall that I've seen,
because that is, again, basically a way to,
again, circumvent the voters, circumvent the
taxpayers of Dallas from having input.
People have a right to come down and get before
that podium and tell us what they feel about
our new arena, either yea or nay.
Then, after we hear the public input, then we
have a right and an obligation to make a decision.
But to have an underferral and to take a vote
without having any speakers,
without giving the public an opportunity to
come and express their viewpoints,
again, it is one of the rankest forms of
disenfranchisement of the voters of Dallas that
I have seen in the close to four years that
I've been on this council.
And I think it's totally inappropriate.
If you want to not put it to the voters, that's fine.
But let's at least have the speakers come
before us.
Let's have the council have a debate.
And then let's take the issue.
And if it goes down.
I can live with that.
But we ought to let the citizens of Dallas have
a voice, and their voice is not going to be
heard if we take a vote today
because they were told that it wasn't going to
be heard, that it was deferred.
Councilwoman Bloomer.
I have some new information, too, and I can
only present that in executive session, right?
We have to vote on the deferral first before
that can happen.
If we go into executive session, I will talk
about it there.
Otherwise, I'll talk about it on the microphone.
Councilman Wells.
I'm a little uncomfortable with the undeferral,
Mayor, and let me tell you only why.
Because on the agenda, on the addendum, it was printed.
And I admit I'd never seen that before.
I do admit that or, well, I'd just say on some
days when I'm a little cynical about the world
in general, not maybe this specific item,
those people who always call for let's take
just to the voters usually fall in one of two categories.
Either they're opposed to it and they want to
in their current forum, they cannot prevail.
Or in some cases, which I don't think this is
the case here, they don't have the courage to
vote on it.
I've seen that happen from time to time when a
government body just didn't want to vote on
something, thank you.
It does seem I'm uncomfortable, Mayor, with the
way the deferral was handled,
and I'm perfectly prepared today to vote
against the motion that was put on the floor.
I think, in fact, it was an attempt, or my
reading of it is it was an attempt to make the
negotiations more difficult.
I think it was put on by two or three members,
at least a couple of the members, who have
pretty much been against this proposal always.
I am not against it.
But I am uncomfortable with the way it was
deferred, and I think I will, I don't know, I'm
not quite sure how the motion is.
Is the motion to lift the deferral, Mayor?
To undefer the item.
It is reluctant, and I'm ready to vote today.
But I also think the notice lacks some of the
way it was handled in the end, unintentionally
as it was.
I don't think the intention of those who put on
the item late Friday was to not let anyone know
it was coming.
I don't think your intention was to not have
the public here.
I think the end result, though, may be all the
same, that the public is not here, or some
members of the public are not here that would
have been here to speak.
And whether, and I don't think they would
change my mind, but you never can tell.
So, I am reluctantly not going to support the
motion to undefer.
If we are able to vote on it later, I think I
know how I want to vote.
Deputy Mayor for Tim Mays.
You know, I have a serious problem with the way
that all of this is transpiring.
It's really very, very strange to me because
this is a city that should know better.
This is a city that is not at all new to them
that they have lost a major sports franchise.
What is really haunting me and tearing at me is
the fact that it would be different
if this council were not told that we have a
time stipulation to our negotiations regarding
to our sports teams.
And I don't believe that that extension extends
all the way to May 6th.
I mean, I don't know how we got this far off
track or what,
but the time stipulation for the negotiations,
if I was hearing it clearly, was this month.
If I was hearing it clearly, it was this week.
So, I don't know how I could have gotten off
track with extending something until May the 6th.
If we were going to do that, we should have
done that from the beginning.
And I can understand us listening to input of
the citizens,
but I think that some of us have short memories
that there seems to be something on the table
at this particular time.
Or have I gotten off track?
I don't know about you all, but I feel like
where there's a will, there's a way,
and there's got to be a way that we can save
our sports franchises.
And hopefully at a cost, and not a cost to the
taxpayers of the city.
But it seems like here lately we keep getting
off into these binders where we are debating everything,
and our city is not progressing.
And I'm having a very serious problem with that.
It's as though no one has said anything,
and we can put off a couple of months down the
road when in fact we have been given an ultimatum,
unless I've missed something where that
Ultimatum has been changed.
I'd like to ask the city manager, do we in fact
have negotiations in the works for this month?
Or has something changed that I'm not aware of?
We are currently negotiating with the Mavericks. Yes.
I'm sorry, we couldn't hear the response.
I said we are currently negotiating with the Mavericks.
I don't think that's the question she asked you.
She said do we have negotiations going on this month?
I'm sorry, I thought she said that something changed.
I did ask if something had changed about
negotiating with them this month.
Are we in negotiations this month?
And those are the questions that I was asking
because of the fact that, you know,
are we in a position that we have time that we
can toss around and play with?
I thought we were in serious negotiations to
save our sports franchises.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought this was
something serious
and this is something that we are trying to do.
And we had just this month to get really
serious about it and not extend it for May 6th.
Am I correct?
That's part of the negotiation process that we
need to discuss in executive session.
Thank you.
Councilwoman Mallory.
For discussion on the motion to postpone.
The council is currently in negotiations to see
how particularly the arena
and whether or not a new one will be built or
renovated or just negotiations, period.
And I do think it's decisive that we do need to
make a decision about what we're going to do
in terms of stop bringing this issue up
continuously to divide the city and the council.
I clearly think, though, however, that based
upon the deferral,
the last thing we need is the more
grandstanding mayor.
It would become even more political to say that
we're trying to do things behind closed doors
and circumvent the public.
And Ms. Bloomer said that she didn't appreciate it.
It would become even more divisive for the community.
We just said by discussing the police and fire
referendum that the council has perceived
if we went this route unable to make decisions.
And asking the public whether or not they think
we should build an arena is also being undecisive.
So I think that the council can make a decision
that it doesn't even need to go to a referendum,
that we can make that decision of what we want
to do, but based on the fact that it has been deferred,
that I would hope that we would leave it in
that position because we don't need more
political rendering at this point.
So I would hope that we would at least allow
the process to go on.
Councilman Stimson.
I'll make the motion to undefer.
Councilman Luna.
Councilman Luna, I'm also going to be one that
is swayed by the mechanics of this operation.
It does not appear that it would be a wise
thing at this point,
considering that there are speakers that could
or would have come down for this.
I think everybody knows about how this is going
to come out when the vote does come down,
but I am swayed by the fact that it was posted
as a deferred item, if you will,
and it's probably appropriate to leave it as
such and take it up in one week.
Mr. Chair, before you remove the motion, the
chair would like to speak,
and I'm going to renew the deferral and ask
Councilman Luna to remove the request to undefer.
Tempers flew pretty hot around here a few
minutes ago,
and I want to comment on the process and what
we ought to be trying to do.
Now, there are several council members who have
recently expressed their opposition to a new arena.
That's fine. That's why we have a council to
make those kinds of judgments.
The majority of the council has continuously
expressed our support for providing facilities
for these teams
and support for the negotiations.
We don't know what we'll vote on until we get
the negotiations, and at that point we can make
a decision.
We have adopted several principles, including
no taxpayer financing and site selection and
other kinds of things.
What we need to do as a council is we need to
do what's best for this city and for the taxpayers,
and that is to be able to focus on the public
policy goals and stop the almost what has
become in recent weeks
this continuous sense of bringing up one side
issue after another.
Last week, it was whether we were going to get
another briefing on renovations, so we did,
and the numbers came out fairly clear.
The week before, or several weeks before, it
was on a site selection, and, in fact, council
decided to change sites.
Before that, it was on the study last spring by
the convention center and who authorized it and
what did it say.
Now, as to why I deferred it last Friday, I do
want each one of you to know it was to protect
this council
and the members of this council, your right to
make orderly decisions.
I've stated to this council continuously since
I've been chairing it that I don't think it is fair,
and I think it is a circumvention of the rules
in the process for three council members to,
on 5:00 on Friday prior to the next Wednesday's
agenda meeting,
to post an item that has not been briefed or
discussed or had any notion of discussion by
the council,
and the idea of putting the arena on the
ballot, the sports facilities on the ballot,
has not been discussed by this council at any
time, has not been briefed,
it hasn't had a single piece of paper on it
other than what we saw last Friday.
So, therefore, automatically, I posted it for
deferral because I don't want any council
member to be forced
to vote on an issue like that or any issue
without the proper briefing and all the information.
Since last, we're in the middle of
negotiations, and so, therefore, it matters
whether we turn down this idea early or late.
So, since then, I've talked with or heard from,
through others, every member of this council,
and every member of this council expressed to
me in one form or another that they'd just as
soon vote on it today as next week.
So, if we'd just as soon vote on it today as
next week, then we ought to vote on it today.
But if the council now wishes to wait until
next week, then that's fine with me.
I'm told, and I wasn't here, I was in state
legislature testifying on legislation for this city,
I'm told that the mayor Pro Tem announced this
morning that I had removed my request for a deferral.
I'm told he announced it.
Now, maybe he forgot, or maybe the rest of the
council forgot, but I'm told he announced it in
public session.
I was a little surprised at that.
I would have chosen to announce it myself.
But, nevertheless, if the council wants to
withhold and hold it for next week, we'll just
handle it next week.
Motion's removed.
Mr. Secretary, item 47.
There is no motion on the floor.
There's no agenda item on the floor.
Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Mayor, item 47, which was deferred this
morning until later in the meeting.
Councilman Hicks for a point of personal privilege.
I think that we jeopardized the negotiations.
We're close.
And we allow these three people we know are
grandstanding, who never were forward and won,
you know, on the political side.
So I'm going to just tell you something right
now, making it very difficult, Mayor, for
us to come to a resolution on this, and I think
we were so close on something everybody would like.
Oh, so close.
But then when we come in now, what we do is
send an open
invitation for people to say, well, I can't
make a deal with these guys.
We don't know whether they want to do anything
with us at all anyway.
I think we really damaged ourselves, and I
think we cow-toed to all these people who are
practicing law without a license, run around
here and make any kind of
allegation, and then we respond to that.
I'm tired of responding to people with
frivolous claims.
Councilman Fielding for a point of information
or a point of personal privilege.
I'll pass, Mayor.
Mr. Secretary, Item 47.
Item 47 would authorize an amendment to the
agreement for support of a proposed
redevelopment in southeast Dallas.
Are there any speakers?
No, Sir.
Motions on Item 47.
Are there any speakers?
There were no speakers who registered to speak
on Item 47.
No, Sir.
There were no speakers who registered to speak
on Item 47.
Motions made and seconded.
All in favor say aye. Aye.
Opposed, no. Carried.
Mr. Mayor, that's all we have.
Mr. Secretary, if you'd suspend.
Have we got lights for a reason?
Councilman Duncan.
That was before you called the last vote.
I appreciate being expeditious, but.
I didn't look up.
Councilman Duncan.
Now, have we voted on that?
I mean, I would raise a point of order that I
was seeking recognition before the vote.
Councilman Duncan to speak on Item 47. Yes.
I have a question of the manager, Mr. Benavides.
What exactly does this motion, does this
resolution and agenda item do anything beyond adding
Paul Quinn College to the group that's working
on the project? No.
So it does not foreclose, narrow, or speak to
it all the exact location? Correct.
Thank you.
I'll join in supporting it.
I have confirmed with the city secretary that
there were no speakers who signed up on Item 47.
Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, the vote then has been taken
without objection.
Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Mayor, you have your workshop scheduled on
the bond program.
You also have speakers that registered for the
end of today's meeting. Yeah.
The workshop on the bond program in 6 East
South, and you do have speakers that registered
to be heard at the conclusion. Eleven.
Mr. Secretary, call the speakers.
Three minutes each.
We have 11 speakers for the open microphone at
the end of the session.
We're now at the end of the session except for
the workshop.
Joe Martin.
Point of order.
Some speakers signed up for the bond program.
When do we hear those speakers?
Before we go to workshop or after workshop?
There would be no speakers signed up for the
bond program because that's in workshop.
Well, on the sheet, two individuals did sign
up, Mayor, to speak on the bonds.
We'll just call them all now, Mr. Secretary.
Joe Martin.
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Secretary.
John Loza.
Honorable Mayor, honorable council members, I
come before you here today as a Hispanic and as
a lifelong resident of Dallas,
and I come before you today to speak on behalf
of the Hispanic Cultural Center.
Now, when I was growing up here back in the
60s, the early 70s, the main goal at that time
for Hispanic people was a goal of assimilation.
You wanted to try to get yourself into American
culture as much as possible and as quickly as possible.
Now, mind you, I believe that that's still a
valid and a worthwhile goal, but along with
that goal comes another important priority.
That is the priority that we should all have of
feeling proud of our own culture.
The Hispanic citizens of this city need a
Hispanic or Latino cultural center as a means
of being able to express that pride in our culture.
It is especially important, I think, for our
Hispanic youth, and I ask for you to think of
the cultural center as not only a cultural resource,
but also as a crime prevention program, as a
gang prevention program.
If we can channel the energies of our Hispanic
youth into more productive areas, if we can get
the Graffiti artists to become artists,
if we can show our young Hispanics the rich
culture that they have, that will not only
improve their lives, but give them something to
strive for.
So I ask you respectfully to consider the
Hispanic Cultural Center when you do vote on
the bond program.
Thank you.
Moselle Battles.
Mary Hill.
Don Mearshan.
Calvin Howard.
Bernetta Kennard.
Joyce Brown.
Vera Williams.
Ross Jones.
Jimmy Lee.
Claudia Reyes.
Maria Perez.
And George Hicks is the last speaker.
Point of information.
Councilman Hicks.
We had a person waiting to deal with item 14,
and would it be all right for him to give his
comments now rather than having to come back?
Councilman Hicks, that's a good point.
Item 14 was deferred, but we'd be happy to hear
from him at this time.
And actually, yeah, go ahead.
And also, too, Mr. Williams gave up two minutes
of the time that was given to him earlier,
Mayor, to speak on this item, so we'd like to
ask him which item.
That's against our rules, Mayor, I object.
You can't give people additional time.
Beg your pardon?
You cannot give somebody additional time.
We had already granted it to him, and one of
the council members recommended that he speak
at the time that we discussed item 14.
Mr. Secretary, which item did Mr. Williams sign
up for?
Mr. Williams to speak.
If he signed up, that's fine.
Which item?
Did the council please come to order?
I need to ask the Secretary a question.
What item did Mr. Williams sign up for?
Mr. Williams did not sign up for any item
today, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Williams spoke on a public hearing.
He had a question that he was going to relate
that to.
Mr. Fielding intervened and asked that he speak
on it at a later time, so he stopped with time
left on the clock for him to speak.
Councilwoman Crenshaw, if you're making a
motion to suspend the rules and call on Mr.
Williams for three minutes, I'll be happy to do that.
Well, for two minutes.
For two minutes, I'll be happy to do that.
Yes, Sir.
Jacques Natanson.
Thank you.
What a way to spend a vacation for three and a
half hours to speak to the city council.
Thank you very much, Councilman Hicks, for
speaking up for me.
Mr. Mayor, city council members, ladies and
gentlemen, my name is Jacques Pierre Natanson.
I come down here to advocate that the city does
not build a new arena, renovate the old one,
and at the same time make sure that the
infrastructure as a whole in the city of Dallas
is improved upon rather than having
capital-extensive expenditures as such, as I've
just stated.
I also feel, though, that watching the
proceedings this afternoon is the best drama in
town, and it shows no leadership.
It shows complete backtracking, peddling, and
politicization of the election that's going to
take place May 6th.
I see everybody's culpable to this.
I mean, I should say those who are seeking
office are culpable.
And it reminds me of the 107th Congressional
Assembly doing the same thing, dragging their feet.
Get up, stand up, and stand up for what's right.
If you're going to pay the city police a pay
raise, give it to them.
Do something.
Show some initiative.
I am very disappointed.
I used to come down here from 1984-1989 solidly.
And people ask me why.
I mean, and I wondered myself, why did I come
down here?
And the reason is because if I don't say
anything, if I don't have the right to say
anything, and I don't defend that right, this
here right in front of me would not be here.
You'd be a horseshoe.
You'd be a mafia of sorts.
I'd also like to say this.
I watch all these little silver servants
peddling around.
I want to know who's paying for this.
I'm disgusted.
I've seen one person stay in one position for
three hours.
We can save money.
We're all trying to be frugal.
Hell, I haven't had to pay increase in three
years myself.
And I just think to myself that I'm glad I
don't have to come here next week three and a
half hours peddling and spilling and so on.
Because if you don't show some leadership and
cohesion and emphasize what's important in the
city of Dallas, which is road improvements and
not spending more money on entertainments, let
the Dallas Stars go.
I also have 20 seconds.
This whole problem started with the leadership
that is sitting right in front of me going and
getting Lisa LaMasters and trying to make a deal.
Instead of consulting the council, you went
ahead and took initiatives.
Well, my second's up, and I thank you very much.
Just keep hope alive.
Mr. Williams, if you could spend for just a
moment, I've just noticed a public official
come into the chambers, Judge Thomas Jones, and
then disappeared.
Judge Jones, I didn't know whether you'd want
to speak or not, but if you do, we'd like to
call on you at this time.
I know that your court docket is crowded, and
we'd like to hear from you on any subject.
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
It is indeed a blessing to be here.
I thank you for this opportunity, and I will
attempt to be brief, but to the manager, to the
mayor, and to the council, I have a concern
about a case that has been referred to the
Dallas grand jury.
What concerns me about this particular matter,
that it appears that it's been handled
differently than other cases that are similarly situated.
Recently, according to the news, there was, I'm
not allowed to call names, but the newspaper
had the name of 2 officers, Chief Rollins and
Chief Hattler,
where a judgment was rendered against them for
some illegal wiretapping and the suppression of
other officers.
To the public knowledge, it is not known if
that case has been referred to the grand jury,
nor is it known if an internal investigation
has been conducted, such as the case with Chief Tolliver.
What we have, council, mayor, and manager, is
that a complaint from a rogue officer who was
dismissed from this department and subsequently reinstated,
and then resigned under investigation and files
a complaint, and this department now refers
this to the grand jury.
I'm wondering why that this other case, it too,
has not been referred to the grand jury, nor
has an internal investigation been conducted.
If that is the case, I submit to you there is
some serious mishandling of this department at
this point in time.
I feel that the council should look into this
and that someone should be held responsible to
the extent that they should be dismissed,
because this is a gross injustice that has
happened here.
I recall Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
stated that what happened in his situation was
a technological lynching.
This is what we have here, in that these
individuals that have been named Officer Chief
Tolliver, that his character, his reputation,
and his career has been maligned.
Yet, on the complaint of someone that this
department dismissed, and I don't understand that.
What I'm asking is that, and there are some
other allegations, and I don't know the
protocol, Mr. Mayor, but if it is permissible,
and no disrespect to other council members that
I know, but Councilman Hicks is elected from.
Mr. Judge, we'd go ahead and like to hear from
you for an additional minute or so.
Thank you . for the courtesy.
Before you finish up, I might say that I think
we're all aware of the case, but only through
the newspapers.
The council has not been briefed, and I don't
know that it would be appropriate in that it's
strictly a personnel issue that the manager
deals with, or a justice issue that the
attorney does.
It doesn't mean that we're not interested in
it, or interested in what you have to say, but
I'm not sure that the council has any action
that we could take, but we would like to go
ahead and hear additional.
I think based upon some of the information,
even from the media that we have, that the
council would take a particular interest in
this matter.
On the 18th of this month, at St. Luke
Community United Methodist Church, there was a
public meeting.
In that meeting, Chief Click stated that based
on his review of that case and the
circumstances, that Chief Toliver was not
guilty of any malicious intent nor criminal action.
My question was, at a public meeting attended
by more than 20 persons, if you have found
that, then why send it to the grand jury?
It seems to me that he, or someone in the
department, that they are succumbing to some
kind of pressure that's been placed.
That's my concern, why the council should say
to this police department, pull that case from
the grand jury, until we begin to treat all
cases the same.
Because at the same time we send Chief
Toliver's case down, we need to send Rollins
and Hadler's case down.
Because right now, as a taxpayer, I'm liable
for $2.1 million.
Thank you, Judge.
Briefly, what I would like to do, I was going
to say, Mr. Mayor.
For one additional minute.
Councilman Hicks is elected from my district.
I'm not showing any disrespect to any other
council persons.
I want to hand a letter to Councilman Hicks and
ask Councilman Hicks if he would see to it that
an investigation is underway in this department
based on some allegations and some facts that I
have in this letter.
If it is permissible, because I don't want the
security guards to come after me, I'd like to
step over there.
Judge Jones, you're more than welcome to hand
Councilman Hicks a letter.
Judge, we appreciate you being here and your interest.
There may be a question of you if you'd hold
just a second.
Councilman Hicks.
Mayor, I want to vehemently disagree with you.
It is not a personnel matter as far as we're
concerned because this is the same thing that
goes on over and over and over.
Our people get up.
They get the experience.
They get the resume building assignments.
And then we find some Mickey Mouse thing to
wipe them out on so that they can never exceed
to the chief level or be in a position.
I don't know what all of this is about, but the
judge, you're right.
I see a big difference between a $2.1 million
judgment for wiretapping and I see also we got
a liability on a botched raid and we were sanctioned.
And I know this is true and it was in the paper
and you can read it.
We were sanctioned and not able to put on a
case because staff didn't divulge information
that was requested and discovered.
I didn't see anybody sanctioned.
I didn't see any careers damaged.
So I guess what we're saying here is that you
have Tarlava, you have Hampton, and you have
what's the other one's name?
Chief Bolton. Bolton.
And those guys are climbing up the ladder.
They're getting a resume building activity.
And it seems like we're looking for any kind of
little thing to write them on.
So it's more than a personnel matter for the
community that I represent.
And people have been calling me and calling me.
I've tried to ignore it.
I haven't said anything.
But now I have a formal complaint and I'm sworn
to try to pursue it because we see this as a
way to wash out qualified officers.
Grandma Tarlava is well-loved in that area.
He responds to the citizens.
He tries to do what they need him to do.
Now we're trying to send it to the grand jury.
I'll put it to you this way.
The chief executive officer has a right to fix
any ticket he finds ain't right.
If he goes out and does an investigation and
finds out that it's wrong, I feel that way
because we do it around here.
Everybody, I mean, the management staff does
what they need to do when they find an
injustice exists.
It's practical.
It's common sense.
And what we're saying here, now I don't know
all the facts.
I don't know all the facts, Judge, and I'm not
guaranteeing you anything.
But I am guaranteeing you one thing, that since
I do have a formal complaint, I'm looking for
the mayor and the rest of you guys to let us
look into this.
Because what I see is taking this thing to a
grand jury is harsh.
And I look at it from a discriminatory, and you
know all the white people leaving now that
we're talking about discrimination.
But I look at it like this, Judge, and I'll
talk to you.
You all can get up and go if you want to.
I look at it like this.
We have a qualified person performing the job.
He gets, maybe he can get sanctioned.
But why would we go to the worst sanction?
Why would we go to the sanction that cuts his
throat where we know they're going to shop it
at the grand jury?
And we know that he's not going to have any
defense at that level.
And we know that what he's being brought up on
is calculated to be bad in his report and to
cast him down one more notch.
Now, I don't know if they're looking to put an
Anglo woman out there, Hispanic or what, but it
looks like he's being chopped, and we're going
to try to fight that.
Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Mays for a question.
Could I respond to that?
Judge Jones.
He may have some additional questions, so just
stay there.
You might just want to hold for all of them.
There are two or three.
Councilwoman Mays.
Well, what I've been told, Judge Jones, on the
situation, that the case is very weak at most
that is being carried to the grand jury.
And I do have some questions in mind as to if
it's so weak, why did it go to the grand jury? Yes.
I think that a lot of us are looking at this
particular case in particular because I do know
that Chief Toliver has a very good reputation
with working with the community and being very diligent.
And this particular case within itself is, I'm
told, over a year old.
Is that correct, Mr. Davis?
The case itself is over a year old.
It's well over a year old.
And why at this particular time would it
escalate to a grand jury is something that
would be, in my opinion, questionable also.
Yes, Ma'am.
So I want you to know that there are those of
us that are looking at this on very serious
nature for something to have occurred over a
year ago, well over a year ago,
to come back up to the degree that it is then
directed to the grand jury is something that I
think we need to all be concerned about and
start questioning.
So I want you to know that there are those of
us on the council that are watching this very,
very closely.
And I know that Chief Toliver does have a very
good reputation and a very good rapport in the community.
And I'm keeping a close vigil watch on it.
And I can assure you that a lot of my other
colleagues are, too.
Thank you.
Councilwoman Crenshaw for a brief
acknowledgement of factual questions.
I, too, would like to speak in support of Chief Toliver.
And I'm not saying this simply because the two
chiefs that the district that I serve in are African-American,
but other staff members who now attend my town
hall meetings that you will find unsolicited
reports of a reduction in crime in their
neighborhoods in the last year.
And certainly that is reflective of their
abilities to reach the community.
There has not been anything that we have asked
Chief Toliver or Chief Hampton to do that they
have not responded very quickly to our needs.
You know, today we have had lots of discussion
about whether or not we as elected officials
should take full responsibility for what we
were elected to do
and not have to keep going back to the voters
and asking.
The problem that I have with this whole
situation is that Chief Click has been given
the full authority to discipline and to take
care of matters within his own department.
And for him to pass this on to another
political jurisdiction disturbs me.
In addition to that, one of the reporters who
is covering this story, I'd like an additional
minute, Mayor.
Without objection.
One of the reporters that is covering this
story, they too spoke in amazement to the fact
that when they approached Chief Toliver about
this issue being referred to the grand jury,
that he knew nothing about it. Right.
And the least that we could do in showing
respect to people who work under you is that if
you're going to do something like that,
refer something to the district attorney that
you at least make and bring that officer in for
counseling and make him aware of the directive
that you are about to take
so that when the reporters and different people
bombard them, they at least know how to respond.
So we will be looking at this issue very
closely and we're very much in support of Chief Toliver.
Councilman Hicks, second round brief acknowledgement.
One minute. Yes.
Well, I can say what I need to say in one minute.
I'm really concerned about this area because
this same area and the same patrol and same
mentality that was infested with, they whipped me.
Because I was making a basic inquiry and
nobody, not anybody got disciplined.
In fact, they got promoted.
And I'll just tell you something, Mayor.
Black folks see the difference.
White folk get up and run around and they
aren't interested in it, but this stuff is emotional.
When I look back on the mentality that was
infested in that like a den, it was bad.
You were out there.
We saw.
We went out there and these officers, man, were
jumping on kids and women.
We saw this.
Didn't we, Judge?
Yes, Sir.
We did.
And nobody in command tried to exercise
discretion to cause that situation to subside.
They tried to employ every technology they had
out there.
Horses, dogs.
What's the name of that car they had with the
big thing on Jack Gorman?
Might know about it.
He's military.
You know, bulldozer.
It was horrible out there.
And when Tolliver came in, he's trying to bring
a different mentality because just because
you're white and these people are poor out
there doesn't give you the right because you
have the blue and the badge to do badly by them.
And so the mentality is changing and he still
has problems out there.
He still has a nest of people out there trying
to circumvent and subvert his command out there.
And this is what we're fighting against.
And we've got to try to find support.
And you can't tell me.
I'm an expert in police activity.
Police brutality.
I can speak from personal experience.
Councilwoman Mallory.
They are excessive.
The point is, Mayor, they're excessive when
they want to be, and generally the
excessiveness is directed toward people of color.
Councilwoman Mallory.
Judge Jones, I think, too, that based upon the
comments around the horseshoe today, that the
council is clearly aware of this issue.
And even though some may say we have not been
as vocal as they would have liked for us to
have been, that clearly once this issue went
into internal affairs, the process had to take place.
And now with the completion of that process,
Chief Click, based upon his authority, thought
it should be referred to the grand jury.
And now, based on that process, there's really
nothing we can do about that in terms of
allowing the process to work.
But we have all asked for information about
Granville Tolliver's case as well as Chief
Collins and the other officers' case.
The council has been briefed on that particular issue.
But I think you hear Councilmember Hicks
complaining a lot about our form of government.
And unfortunately, once again, that's our form
of government, that our city manager and the
people under him have the authority for
personnel issues,
and that the council has to at least allow that
process to continue.
But we are aware and have individually,
personally inquired about this case, and we'll
just have to see what happens at the grand jury
at this point.
Thank you.
Judge Jones?
I'll try to be brief, Mr. Mayor, but I'll try
to address several of the points.
One is that what happened, it is my
understanding, and I don't have personal
knowledge, that this particular case was sent
down to the DA.
And the DA, they reviewed it and kicked it back
and said there was no basis for a felonious charge.
But yet there are some within the department
who went grand jury sharp, and I heard somebody
say that.
And now they're sending it back.
It's already been down there once, Counsel, so
that's the point we're trying to tell you.
The other part of it is what really concerned
me is that in our meeting with Chief Click on Saturday,
he stated that he had met with members of the
manager's staff and that the manager's staff
had agreed to send this to the grand jury.
Yet I hear Counselwoman May saying that there
was some very weak charges, and this is what we
understand, very weak, weak charges.
Counselwoman Mallory talked about the process.
We all know of an unfortunate incident that
occurred with Commissioner John Wiley Price and
Mr. Bernal.
It may have been this counsel or someone else
that withdrew that case from the grand jury.
It can be done.
You can pull this case back.
Chief Click worked for this city council.
Tell him to pull that case back and don't send
it down until you send Rollins and Hatler down
at the same time.
That's a sense of fairness.
I haven't said a word about race.
I'm talking about fairness, and it's only fair
that they be treated the same, and that's all
that I'm saying.
It's been done before.
And just an aside, Mr. Mayor, it may not be
protocol, but I think it is appropriate.
I'd like to say to the manager I'm glad to see
that our prayers are being answered and they're
ever with you, Sir.
Thank you.
Manager, based on both what I heard today but
probably over the last two weeks as I've read
the information in the newspaper,
I, for one, would like to have a report on the
whole subject in an appropriate way, of course,
to make sure that we follow the personnel rules.
But I'd like to know some more of the information.
Counselwoman Crenshaw, do you have a brief acknowledgement?
Well, I wanted to.
It's another subject matter.
Another subject matter?
I'd like to offer to undefer an item.
Is that appropriate to take in at this time?
There's a motion.
Mr. Secretary, number two on the agenda had
previously been deferred on the consent agenda,
and I'm told that Councilwoman Crenshaw, who
had deferred it, would like to bring it back up now.
Mr. Secretary, if you would read the entire item.
Item two would authorize an award of a
professional services contract with the Oyukon
Group U.S.A.
to provide engineering services for the design
of a water distribution mains in Singleton
Boulevard from Hampton to Canada Drive.
Mr. Mayor.
Councilwoman Crenshaw.
For a brief statement.
Ms. Mays, we talk all the time about what I
don't have in my district.
I don't have in my district any place that
sells tamales or the Mexican sweetbread that I
like to eat.
So I travel on Singleton Boulevard, and I shop
there to purchase those items at a business
there on Singleton Boulevard.
As Vice Chair of the Transportation Committee,
we have been briefed on the Singleton Boulevard
improvement and expansions,
and I had not had an update on that, and I had
some questions in terms of the expansion
and how it was going to impact me being able to
get out of that little shopping strip that I
frequent on a weekly basis.
And that was my reason for deferring.
Now, the contractor in question approached me
in a very negative manner,
and I want to let them know that I am not
undeferring this because of the threats that he
made to me.
That is not the reason why I'm undeferring it.
I'm undeferring it because my questions have
been answered by Mr. Maguez, and I want to go
on record of that, that it is council's privilege.
We can defer an item if we have questions.
We don't have to go on trial.
We don't have to go on jury.
Beg your pardon?
We don't have to, we don't have to, oh, all
kinds of retaliation.
But anyway, I just wanted to make it clear that
that is my reason for having some questions
about the Singleton project.
Motion's made and seconded.
Who seconded it?
Councilman Garcia seconded it. Second.
To suspend the rules, remove the deferral on
agenda item two, and pass the item.
Councilman Hicks for discussion.
I'm not voting for anything.
If somebody's coming down here threatening
somebody, I want to find out what the threat was.
Well, Mr. Hicks, I don't really want to go into
this agenda, but I do want, and I'm supportive,
and everyone knows I'm supportive of minority businesses,
but at the same time, I don't take light to
threats that were made to me and the manner in
which I was approached about this
and told what I was going to do and what I
wasn't going to do and what he was going to do.
I don't want to go into it at this time of this change.
We were trying to get on to the city business,
and I will deal with that and that business
person in my own manner.
May I, I'd like to defer the item so I can
check into this because the problem is,
is that if people are going to come down here
and whip us because we make our public policy decisions
and operate within the scope and extent of the
rules and regulations, I've got a problem with that.
I don't care who they are, and so I want to
defer it.
Make a motion to defer.
Died for lack of a second.
Councilwoman Mallory.
Motion's made and seconded to suspend the rules
and to remove the deferral and to pass agenda
item two.
All in favor say aye. Aye.
Opposed, no. Carried.
Mr. Secretary, we'll now move to 6 East South
for our long-awaited-
Mr. Williams, for two minutes.
Mr. Mayor, you have to say that we need to, we
welcome Mr. Williams with open arms.
It has not been down here in a long time
bringing light on issues and directives that we
need to be taking,
and so Mr. Williams, your two minutes.
Thank you, Ms. Williams.
Council will suspend.
Before you start, Mr. Williams, last night you
were missed at Jefferson Davis Elementary School
where they had an award plaque for you also,
and a gentleman got it for you.
Did you receive it?
Yes, I did.
That was my godson, Mr. Pipkins, who father I
went to college with up in Colorado.
I have a cable access show that I host on the
first and third Tuesday.
Ms. Williams, for two minutes.
I'm sorry.
I just want to make sure you got it.
Thank you very much.
Councilwoman Mays diverted you a little bit,
but you now have two minutes.
Thank you, Sir.
Thank you, Ms. Crenshaw.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Councilman, for
allowing me to reiterate this two minutes.
My concern, Mr. Mayor, is about the public
input into the reunion arena scenario.
I was at reunion arena on Monday morning when
there was a posted meeting, which was council
10 minutes into the meeting.
I came here on yesterday evening.
There was a posted meeting for the public input.
That was council also.
More importantly, Mr. Mayor, I think it was
reported in the Dallas Morning News last week,
and I think it was near the end of the week,
about an economist that had come to the city of Dallas
and offered a resolution that might be a means
of resolving this issue.
Philadelphia had gone into negotiations in a
similar manner, Mr. Wells, dealing with the
Flyers and the 76ers,
and where they did a joint venture.
My understanding is that the city came in and said,
Listen, we'll put up half of the money if you
put up half of the money,
but from the point of value being today,
whatever that team is.