By CJ Gresh
Special Contributor
When two public servants provide conflicting versions of historical facts expect sparks to fly, especially when it comes to redistricting the city’s political boundaries.
An ethics complaint has been filed against newly elected District 14 Dallas City Council member Paul Ridley regarding statements made by Ridley during a meeting in which a commission appointee was ousted. “The Ethics Advisory Commission preliminary hearing is scheduled for Friday Oct. 8.
The complaint relates to statements and claims made by Ridley during the public hearing ousting Kristin Scholer from the Redistricting Commission. While it seems reasonable that a newly elected council memeber should be able to make his or her own appointments, it was the manner in which Ridley went about removing Scholer, a civic volunteer with undergraduate and graduate degrees from Texas State University. Scholer is in a profession where she navigates Census data and maps software daily: Scholer is the associate VP of data science and insights for the marketing tech firm Ansira. Scholer was appointed by Ridley’s predecessor and opponent, David Blewett, whom she supported.
Firing By Email
Ridley called for the resignation of Scholer via email. Rather than accommodate Ridley’s request, Scholer exercised her right to a public hearing.
That public hearing occurred on August 25 and turned out to be a near one-and-a-half-hour discussion. Three “charges” were considered: (1) Scholer not being representative of District 14 “as a result of a mandate” rising from the most recent city council election (i.e. Blewett lost and Ridley won); (2) a “failure to respond to multiple attempts to communicate with her” on Scholer’s part; (3)Scholer’s inadequate history of leadership and experience.
Further, the Redistricting Commission is a unique animal: every 10 years, the City of Dallas examines existing council boundary lines and considers changes depending on population growth. The work is done by the Redistricting Commission: a group of 15 members appointed by each council member and the mayor. Unlike other boards and commissions, the Redistricting Commission’s term does not expire until their work is complete and reported to the Mayor.
The specifics of this are available in Section 5 of the City Charter.
Sec5(b)(5) “City council members may not have contact, directly or indirectly, with a redistricting commission member, or with redistricting commission staff, with respect to redistricting, except by testimony in an open meeting. Redistricting commission members may not engage in any discussions, directly or indirectly, regarding redistricting or the work of the redistricting commission with city council members, except during an open meeting or by written communication given to the entire redistricting commission. If a redistricting commission member engages in a prohibited discussion or violates the Texas Open Meetings Act, the redistricting commission may, by majority vote, remove the commissioner from the redistricting commission.”
Who’s Telling The Truth?
The sticky wicket, and the meat of the ethics complaint, revolves around the communications charge and conflicting testimony: is someone not being truthful?
During the discussion, District 13 Dallas City Council member Gay Donnell Willis asked Scholer about the nature of her communications from Ridley. Scholer responded “I never received a phone call,” and went further, stating, “it was a single email requesting my resignation.”
Scholer’s statement is a clear conflict with Ridley’s claim of “multiple communication attempts both email and telephonically.”
Willis again asked for clarification, with Scholer stating, “Had I received additional communication from Mr. Ridley, I then would have reached out to somebody.”
Willis again asked, “Mr. Ridley said he had made a phone call to you and so you are saying you did not receive a message?” To which Scholer responded, “I absolutely never received a message from him.”
Enter District 6 Dallas City Council member Omar Narvaez.
“Mr. Ridley, how many times did you try to communicate with the commissioner?” Narvaez asked.
Ridley said that he had contacted her twice.
“What were those two different times?” Narvaez asked.
“I phoned her to ask her, since I didn’t know her, hadn’t met her, knew nothing about her, about her qualifications, and her experience in the community as a suitability measure of her service on this commission,” Ridley said.
“I assume she didn’t answer the phone,” Narvaez responded. To which Ridley replied, “that’s correct, I left a voicemail.”
An Ethics Code For Council
Scholer was removed by a council vote of 10-5.
The complaint focuses on the number of times the councilmember claimed to have attempted to contact Scholer, her claim those communications never happened, and thus a possible violation of essential values and ethical behaviors as outlined in the Dallas City Code of Ethics. One would imagine that telephone records from each party would straighten this out.
Why is this “he said, she said” so very interesting? The city may finally be attempting to institute an ethics code.
The encounter evokes the ghost of the failed appointment of political consultant Anna Casey who managed the campaigns of council members Chad West, Adam Bazadula, Adam Medrano, Jaime Resendez, and Ridley, plus a host of former council members.
At the time, District 7 Dallas City Council member Bazaldua was quoted:
“This is definitely setting the tone for having more of an opinion who it is our colleagues put forward, and I plan on utilizing this as a precedent if this is the way it’s going to go.”
Political influences now on commissions? Stay tuned.
CJ Gresh is a longtime observer of Dallas City Hall. An honorably discharged United States Marine photographer and videographer, Gresh was deployed to Asia, North and West Africa, Europe, and the Caribbean. Post-service endeavors include stints in technology, management, and consulting.
