This op-ed was printed in The Dallas Morning News on February 28, 2006 By Tom Baker and John Ware, Co-Chairmen, Greater Dallas Chamber Bond Program Task Force

Next month, the Dallas City Council will begin the difficult process of prioritizing the long list of "public needs" that could be funded through a bond election later this year.  The Greater Dallas Chamber of Commerce supports the concept of a robust, but fiscally responsible, bond program that would address the myriad of infrastructure requirements for the city.  However, we believe a caution flag should be raised about continuation of the so-called district and mayoral "discretionary" funds. 

In a major departure from accepted municipal practice, as part of the 2003 bond issue, each of Dallas' 14 council districts received $4 million in these "flexible" funds.  The eventual application of those dollars was, or will be, determined by the sitting council representative.  In addition, the mayor was allowed to allocate some $15 million for spending on her preferred projects.  Therefore, a huge portion of the funds borrowed, on behalf of the taxpayers, was not necessarily verifiable as a top city priority.  Instead, the money has been spent, or will be spent, according to the wishes of one person, either a council member or the mayor. 

Spending policies should be determined in a process that considers and balances the needs of all parts of the city, and voters should be made aware of all projects under individual propositions.   That's basic economics, and it's especially true when the Council is discussing a record bond issue that is likely to raise property taxes.  Dallas does not have unlimited resources available nor, as City Manager Mary Suhm has suggested, can the taxpayers annually fund every desired city service or isolated neighborhood project.  Once a city asset or program is built, it has to have money to operate.  Very few capital expenditures are one-time expenses. 

Voters are more likely to be supportive of this proposed investment if they know in advance of specific projects, and if they believe that all projects have had a full discussion by the council as a whole.  It doesn't matter if you were for the  "strong mayor" charter proposals or if you support the council-manager form of government.   No other major city in the country, under any governance structure, puts the decision on capital spending priorities in the hands of one person as opposed to the entire elected body or all the voters.   Quite simply it's not good government.

Bond funding should be determined by needs and not politics.  This council has established its priority goals.  In addition, City Hall has instruments that evaluate the needs that are most essential and then the projects are ranked.  We need to re-institute that method of choosing bond projects because it is logical and provable to the citizens.

Finally, we don't believe the discretionary dollars can pass a "perception test" in the next election.  Voters know that, fairly or unfairly, questions have been linked to those funds.  In the public debate, "discretionary funds" get labeled as "slush funds." Such "re-branding" may not seem fair, but, at this point in our city's history, we can't risk that interpretation of City Hall's motives.

We endorse a decision-making process that is rational, visible, understandable, and has clarity in the recommendations.  Hopefully, then, the Chamber can join a campaign effort that truly "lets the voters decide" how to invest the money.

For more information contact Government Relations at 214-746-6724.