Dallas Is Now Operating Under Ethics Code That Makes It Easier to Investigate City Officials 

A change in Dallas’ Code of Ethics that will make it easier to investigate and prosecute city officials and board members was approved last month, over the objections of a couple of council members. 

The measure, which was ultimately unanimously approved, is an opportunity to get in line with other U.S. municipalities which require “a preponderance of evidence” rather than the more stringent “clear and convincing evidence” as the standard when prosecuting a city official. 

Mayor Eric Johnson, who rarely engages in debate at the horseshoe, said it would be a black eye on the city if the amendment was shot down. 

“I think it will be reported unfavorably and I think the residents of the city will be disappointed in us,” he said. “This isn’t about chasing public opinion. This is about representing people. I think they want their government to be one that they feel like is interested in rooting out its own bad apples.” 

But some say making it too easy to file a case against a public official could result in ruining lives and careers over frivolous allegations. Council members Chad West and Paul Ridley, both attorneys, made a case that decision-makers should be required to have a firm conviction of the truth before condemning a person for an ethics violation. 

“I believe that the current standard of proof, clear and convincing evidence, which has traditionally been the standard of proof for all ethics complaints in Dallas, should be retained,” Ridley said. “That is to ensure that the reputations and careers of people who are the subject of complaints are not unduly threatened or damaged by less than clear and convincing evidence. Clear and convincing evidence means a firm conviction of the truth of the matter. I think it’s important that we judge ethics complaints on that standard.” 

Inspector General’s Office 

Changes to the code of ethics, approved at a June 14 council meeting, involved changes in language and updated definitions governing things like conflicts of interest, campaign activities, and disclosure of confidential information. The code was last amended in December 2021.  

Inspector General Bart Bevers said most IG offices across the country have a preponderance of evidence as their burden of proof.

“I contacted IG offices in 17 different states and one in the federal system,” Bevers said. “All 38 offices use the preponderance of evidence for administrative cases. If you lower the standard, it’s going to make it easier to prove cases and you’re going to see more substantiated cases.”

Additionally, people will see those substantiated cases, and that will affect their behavior, Bevers said. 

Dallas has operated under the “clear and convincing” standard for at least 22 years, and during that time, five council members have been convicted of felonies related to ethics violations, Bevers said. 

Councilwoman Cara Mendelsohn said when she ran for office, she didn’t trust the government.

“I felt like good people have to step up to run, and we have to be that model for the city,” she said. “This is one of the most important items of moving toward a government that our people can support in terms of transparency and belief in what we’re doing and the process.” 

Clear and Convincing Versus Preponderance

When a complaint comes into the IG’s office, an investigation is conducted. If the IG believes he has enough evidence to prove the violation occurred knowingly, the matter is taken before a five-member, council-appointed Ethics Advisory Commission. 

About 300 cases came to the IG’s office from March 2022 to March 2023. Bevers said just one was filed. About a dozen cases couldn’t go forward last year because the IG’s office did not have clear and convincing evidence. 

The code changes approved last month would not apply to cases that have previously been submitted, Bevers explained. 

In addition to Mendelsohn, council members Paula Blackmon and Gay Donnell Willis expressed support for changing the standard to a “preponderance of evidence.” 

Johnson said it was an opportunity for the council to leave the city better than they found it. 

“This is one of those things where you have to make a decision about where you stand on this issue in terms of how important you think it is to convey to all the residents of Dallas — and people who don’t live in Dallas but are thinking about doing business with Dallas,” he said. “We, I think, should … really be the vanguard of any discussion when it comes to behaving ethically and honorably.”