Want to see a broader pool of qualified people run for political office in Garland? Get rid of these seemingly innocent six little words in the city charter.

The city's charter, Article 3, Section 11, says appointees to boards and commissions must resign if they intend to run for public office. It makes no such requirement of council members or mayor. All nine incumbents may benefit throughout their political careers because of this paragraph, which biases city elections in favor of incumbents and needs to be eliminated.

On Thursday night of this week, a vast array of Garland's current Boards and Commissions members will be honored at a glittering dinner at the Hyatt Place hotel.

In that audience will be a wide cross-section of Garlandites—people from all ethnic groups, ages, educational backgrounds, and socio-economic levels.

Some of these board and commission members have begun to stick their big toes into the wider pond of civic involvement. As City Council appointees, they have begun to learn the ropes of how the city operates. They have become some of the people most familiar with the city—and therefore, among the most interested and most passionate. Often some decide they might like to deepen their commitment by running for public office in a future race. They want to be good stewards of what they have learned and want to utilize that in a greater capacity to further help Garland.

But if any single one of those appointees—be they members of the Citizens Environmental and Neighborhood Advisory Committee, the Community Multicultural Commission, the Plan Commission, or any other group—should publicly state, "I am running for mayor (or city council from District ___"), that person immediately must resign his or her place on the board or commission where the individual is serving. That person would be jettisoned; another immediately could be appointed in his or her place.

Any platform that person might have, any exposure, any information source would be lost with that resignation. He or she would become a "former". And, if that person happened not to win the city race for which he or she resigned, there's no guarantee that the "former" appointee would regain his or her valued appointment to that board or commission soon, or ever.

Why do Garland's local elections get canceled so often? Why so often does a sitting council member run opposed? Why is it tough to find additional qualified people to run for local elections? Why is voter apathy in Garland so high?

All that has been described above can easily result from six little words in the city's charter—six little words that are described as having been deliberately inserted to favor the incumbent.

Over the past 12 years Kay and I have enjoyed attending the annual Boards and Commissions dinner and observing who the city's rising stars are. But despite their service, these individuals are hamstrung if they have political aspirations because of six little words in the city's charter. 

It's but one more example of my contention, mentioned in earlier blogs, that citizens sometimes don't seem to count for much in Garland. The city gives the appearance of seeking citizen input and appoints citizens for boards and commissions, but it then hamstrings them if they aspire to be good stewards of their knowledge and seek higher office.

Meanwhile, the same restriction does NOT apply—because of those six little words—to current sitting City Council members or to the mayor. If a council member or a mayor, simultaneously, announces, "I will seek re-election to my seat", that official may remain exactly where he or she is—in the current post he or she occupies.

Current councilmembers may grab as much air time as much as desired on city TV during council sessions, especially when running for re-election or for mayor. They continue to be able to maintain high visibility and access to city information, with the city's imprimatur behind them, while the former appointee is way-diminished from any influence or whatever small amount of public exposure that person might have had.

The political opponents are the only ones that get penalized, not the sitting councilmembers.

This is not to say that worthy incumbents should not be returned to office. If they've performed well, their record certainly will reflect that, and their constituents will be aware and reward them with a fresh term.

Elections provide an excellent opportunity for issues to be aired publicly and for the voters to understand more clearly the vision of the person they elect to represent them in city business.

If council members and the mayor have done a good job and desire to be re-elected, why then do they continue to support a blockade against others' running for their seats against them? Widening the tent to include all citizens simply does not occur here.

 What are those six little words? 

They are contained in Article 3, Section 11, of the portion, "Resign for candidacy", of the city charter. It says:

"If, at any time, any member of the Council, or any officer, boardmember or commissioner appointed by the Council, files to become a candidate (as defined by State law) in any general, special or primary election for any office of profit or trust under the laws of this State or the United States other than the office then held, such candidacy shall constitute an automatic resignation of the office then held, and the vacancy thereby created shall be filled pursuant to this Charter in the same manner as other vacancies for such office are filled."

Article 3, Section 11 looks so innocent, but the six little words ". . .  other than the office then held . . ." stuck in the middle of the article have much potential to do serious damage to Garland's electoral process. And those words do impact the city negatively! The city attorney's office defines "files to become a candidate" (as defined by State law) as the minute a candidate publicly states he or she definitely will run for specific seat on council or for mayor.

Those six little words in the charter show that the city is set up to be extremely biased in favor of incumbents or their surrogates in elections. It works to block and handicap potential challengers to the incumbent mayor or incumbent city councilmembers or their surrogates.

It was inserted in the charter deliberately to allow incumbents to keep their jobs, a long-time local political insider who had been on a previous charter committee told me a few years ago. Although councilmembers ostensibly are elected for two-year terms, they're really considered to be elected for six years (with the every-two-year election as merely a referendum if they haven't performed well), the insider told me.

That, to me, seems more like a "rigged" election. That's not the way our government is supposed to work. In fact, great turbulence is occurring today nationally over the issue of "rigged" elections and "rigged" party nominations. Those six little words make Garland seem guilty of the very thing that may have occurred nationally—the very thing that people everywhere are rising up against.

This article in the city's charter goes near the top of my list of the many laws, procedures, and practices that show that things are broken in Garland—they must be fixed for our city to achieve its maximum potential.

Fortunately, City Council recently approved a new Charter Review Committee, which is operational now. Whether the members appointed to the Charter Review Committee, which includes several repeats from years past including its chair, will be brave enough to act this time to remove this barrier remains to be seen.

Because of the political hurricane swirling in Garland these days and the approval over the mayor's objections of the short-term Charter Review Committee, I've been re-reading the city's charter. I'm amazed at some of the things I'm seeing that I've not discovered before. This is just one of them!

The deck is stacked against ordinary citizens. Unless a councilmember or mayor are lame ducks (have served their maximum number of terms), re-election is expected automatically.

However, lame-duck councilmembers, while they are still in office, hold some sway where elections of their successors are concerned. Lame-duck councilmembers sometimes anoint a potential successor and then use their TV time to overtly praise those they favor to succeed them in order to keep their power base as long as possible. Potential opponents to those blessed by the incumbent could face a virtual shutout. That setup is far different than an actual endorsement during a real campaign. One leans toward a "rigged" election where the lame-duck incumbent exercises unfair control and advantage; the latter is open and fair in the world of transparent, open politics.

This is the kind of electoral manipulation that honorable Republicans and Democrats in Washington, D.C., and Austin are fighting against—the power of the incumbency. Once elected, a person still needs to be accountable to his or her constituents. The incumbent should not be allowed to manipulate the outcome of future elections.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works in Garland. This needs to change!

The clause opens the city and its voters to all kinds of fraudulent activity, such as behind-the-scenes manipulation to try and keep someone from running for office. That's one of the reasons the rumor mill—a.k.a. the slander mill—works so effectively here. Potential candidates get scared off when they discover the mayor or a city councilperson is spreading false or half-true information about them and they have little way to fight back. I've seen it happen over and over to qualified potential  candidates here, who have quietly faded into oblivion. Some may prefer to call this practice "blackmail". I call it sleazy politics. Garland citizens deserve better than this.

It also may explain why the City Council has had so few nonwhite members over the years. District 4 City Councilman B.J. Williams is only the third African-American city councilmember EVER. District 6 City Councilman Robert Vera is only the second Hispanic EVER in the history of Garland. Former Mayor Ron Jones, a popular and respected city employee, was the only African-American to hold the office of mayor; he did so without being a councilmember first. No Asian-Americans. No Native Americans. No Jewish-Americans. Anglos (whites), who now are not the majority in the city, are the predominant officeholders.

Garland politicos desperately need to mentor Hispanics, African-Americans, and Asian-Americans as well as other non-Anglo groups—who together compose the majority of our citizenry—to run for public office and move into the seats of political power here. The boards and commissions are attracting more non-Anglo members, which is excellent. But these new faces in the political arena must come to grips with the same hurdle: challenge an incumbent, and one is immediately weakened by the unbalanced and unfair system.

The Charter Review Committee, consisting of people appointed by the same City Council members who benefit from this quirky provision in the charter, must get rid of this impediment to freer elections. However, even if the committee recommends it, City Council still gets the final say on what goes on the ballot to change the charter.

Remember, people in power seldom yield that power to citizens gracefully! I'm hoping our city council, despite its current state of disarray, will decide to do that which is right and remove the entire Section 11 of Article 3 from the charter.  

Then, in their final vote, let the people decide.

Garland's Hyatt Place, setting for this Thursday's annual Boards and Commissions dinner. Volunteer appointees will gather for this always-lovely event, but if they decide to serve in a higher capacity and run for office, they have to resign their appointment while the competing incumbent in that race gets to stay on.