Dallas politicians don't unanimously agree on much, and have many different visions for Dallas, except that Charter Amendments S, T, and U have horrifying consequences. VOTE NO on S, T, U!

CITY OF DALLAS NOVEMBER 5, 2024, ELECTION PROPOSITIONS EXPLANATIONS, ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST Proposition A: Amendments to the Employee Retirement Fund Explanation: This proposition seeks to update the city’s employee retirement plan by changing how contributions are calculated, adjusting the rules for who manages the plan, and adding flexibility for the city to contribute extra funds if needed. For: Ensures long-term stability of the retirement fund and offers flexibility for the city to add extra funds, which can protect retirees. Against: Increased contributions may place financial strain on both the city and employees. Changes to the board’s powers could reduce oversight. Proposition B: Adding a Preamble to the City Charter Explanation: This proposal would add a statement to the City Charter, declaring Dallas to be a fair, equitable democracy that works to ensure justice and safety for all residents. For: Reinforces Dallas's commitment to fairness, equity, and justice, promoting unity and trust among residents. Against: It is largely symbolic, with no direct legal impact. Some may argue it adds unnecessary language without practical value. Proposition C: Increasing Salaries for the Mayor and Council members Explanation: This would increase the annual salary for the Mayor to $110,000 and city council members to $90,000, with adjustments each year based on the cost of living. For: Higher salaries can attract more qualified candidates and ensure fair pay for city leaders. Annual adjustments tied to living costs keep salaries current. Against: Some residents may view the raises as inappropriate or excessive, especially if city leadership is perceived as ineffective. Proposition D: Removing Election Date from the Charter Explanation: This proposition would remove the requirement that city council elections be held in May, allowing elections to be scheduled based on state law or city decisions. For: Aligning with state law simplifies the process and reduces confusion, potentially saving money. Against: Changing election dates might confuse voters, potentially leading to lower turnout. Proposition E: Eliminating Ability to Run Again After Serving Term Limits Explanation: This proposal would prevent city council members and the mayor from running again after serving the maximum number of allowed terms. For: Encourages fresh leadership and new ideas while preventing long-term monopolization of power. Against: Experienced leaders may be forced out, leading to a loss of valuable experience and limiting voter choice. Proposition F: Providing City Secretary and City Auditor with Employees Explanation: This would require that the city council provide employees, in addition to assistants, to support the City Secretary and City Auditor. For: Providing additional staff will help these departments manage their responsibilities more efficiently and accurately. Against: It could increase city spending, and some may argue that existing staff levels are sufficient. Proposition G: Adding Eligibility Criteria for Redistricting Commission Explanation: This proposition would establish clear eligibility criteria for serving on the redistricting commission, which adjusts city council district boundaries. For: Ensures that commission members are qualified, leading to fairer and more transparent districting. Against: Could make it harder to find eligible members, limiting the pool of potential candidates. Proposition H: Removing Voter Registration Requirements for Boards and Commissions Explanation: This proposal would remove the requirement that members of certain city boards and commissions (like the planning or park boards) be registered voters or taxpayers. For: Expands the pool of candidates, allowing for more diversity and representation in important city roles. Against: Reduces accountability, as some board members might not be fully invested in the community. Proposition I: Extending Petition Deadlines and Reducing Required Signatures Explanation: This would give residents more time (120 days instead of 60) to collect signatures for a petition and reduce the number of required signatures from 10% to 5% of voters. For: Makes it easier for residents to participate in the democratic process by extending deadlines and lowering the threshold for petitions. Against: Could lead to an increase in frivolous or unnecessary petitions, wasting city resources. Proposition J: Allowing City Council to Replace Board Members Before Terms End Explanation: This proposition allows the city council to replace members of boards and commissions before their terms are over. For: Provides flexibility to remove underperforming or problematic members, keeping boards effective. Against: Could lead to politically motivated replacements, undermining the stability and independence of these boards. Proposition L: Adding the Office of the Inspector General Explanation: This would create an Office of the Inspector General, responsible for overseeing city operations to ensure transparency and accountability. The Inspector General would be appointed by the city council. For: Creates a watchdog to oversee the city’s actions, which could prevent corruption and increase public trust. Against: Adding a new office could increase costs without guaranteeing better outcomes, and may duplicate existing oversight functions. Proposition O: Amending Appointment Procedure for Associate Municipal Judges Explanation: This proposal clarifies how associate municipal judges are appointed, stating they must live in Dallas within four months of their appointment and be practicing attorneys in good standing. For: Clarifies rules, ensuring judges are qualified and connected to the local community. Against: May make it harder to find qualified candidates due to the residency requirement. Proposition P: Removing Requirement to Pay Half of Administrative Law Judge Costs Explanation: This would eliminate the rule requiring city employees to pay half the costs of having an administrative law judge conduct an appeal for job dismissals or demotions. For: Reduces financial barriers for employees seeking to appeal decisions, making the process more accessible. Against: Increases costs for the city, which may need to cover more legal expenses. Proposition Q: Technical Amendments to Conform to State Law, Correct Terms, etc. Explanation: This proposition proposes several technical changes to align the City Charter with state law, city code, and current practices, and to correct outdated language. For: Ensures the charter is accurate, up-to-date, and consistent with state laws and city practices. Against: Some may argue the changes are unnecessary if they don’t result in real improvements or impact daily operations. Proposition R: Reforming Marijuana Enforcement Explanation: This would reform how the city enforces marijuana possession laws, making minor marijuana possession the lowest priority for law enforcement and prohibiting arrests for small amounts unless tied to a serious crime. For: Reduces unnecessary arrests, freeing up police resources for more serious crimes. Helps prevent criminalizing non-violent offenders for minor drug possession. Against: Critics may worry it sends the wrong message about drug use and weakens law enforcement’s ability to maintain order. Proposition S: Granting Standing to Residents and Waiving Governmental Immunity Explanation: This would allow any Dallas resident to sue the city if they believe the city isn’t following its own rules or state laws. It also removes the city's immunity from such lawsuits, allowing residents to recover costs and attorney’s fees. For: Empowers residents to hold the city accountable, ensuring that the city follows its own and the State of Texas’ rules and laws. Against: Will lead to an increase in lawsuits by the State, which may drain city resources and taxpayer money. Proposition T: Annual Community Survey Explanation: This proposition would require the city to conduct an annual survey of at least 1,400 residents to measure satisfaction with quality of life. The city manager’s compensation or job security would depend on the results. For: Ensures the city manager is responsive to residents’ needs by tying performance compensation to community satisfaction. Against: Conducting annual surveys could be costly, and linking the manager’s job to survey results may promote short-term thinking over long-term planning considering the measures are societal issues outside of City manager’s direct control. Proposition U: Police and Fire Funding Appropriation Explanation: This proposal would require that at least 50% of any additional city revenue (above the previous year’s amount) be allocated to police and firefighter pensions, as well as increasing officer salaries and the number of police officers to at least 4,000. For: Ensures adequate funding for police and firefighters, helping retain staff and maintain safety. Against: Could reduce funding available for other city needs and over commits the city to policing, limiting flexibility in how future revenue is spent.