Charter Review Commission Rejects Proposal to Eliminate Parks And Recreation Board Oversight
Share News:
A charter change that would have moved the Dallas Parks and Recreation Department under the authority of the city manager was rejected by an oversight committee last week as dozens of Dallasites voiced concerns about the proposal.
The measure, referred to as Amendment 85, was submitted to Dallas’ Charter Review Commission by former Dallas City Councilman Chris Luna, who claimed that placing the department under the city manager’s supervision — rather than the Parks and Recreation Board — would streamline city government and make procedures more efficient.
It was unclear whether Luna had another motive for his proposal; he did not attend the March 4 Charter Review Commission meeting to plead his case.
Park Board member Rudy Karimi suggested it could be an attempt by the Dallas Theater Center board of trustees to pursue bond funds for the Kalita Humphreys Theater Master Plan and a $308 million “takeover of William B. Dean Park.”
About $50 million would have been requested for the theater project in the 2024 bond, but the project was heavily criticized and failed to make the project list.
“The author [of the amendment] is well aware the elimination of the Park Board greatly improves his group’s chances at another attempt to take over at Dean Park while also taking a large bag of money with it in the next bond,” Karimi said.
Another Parks-Related Amendment Rejected By Charter Review Commission
A similar proposal, Amendment 70, authored by Civil Rights activist Dominique Alexander, proposed that the Parks and Recreation Department “be administered by the Park and Recreation Director under the supervision of the city manager and oversight authority to the Park and Recreation Board.”
Alexander attended the March 4 meeting and said he supports parks but is concerned about transparency and equity.
“It’s about making sure that this council, when it votes on racial equity, when it votes on redlining, that it actually stands up to those principles,” he said.
That measure also was widely opposed by members of the public and rejected by the Charter Review Commission.
Another amendment, submitted by Charter Review Commissioners Adam Medrano and Marshall Mills, would have the Parks and Recreation Director report directly to the Dallas City Council. The proposal was not discussed March 4 and will be taken up at another CRC meeting later this month, officials said.
More Defense of Keeping Park Department, Board Intact
Former Park Board president Bobby Abtahi had a copy of the letter Luna submitted to the Commission and offered counter-arguments.
Abtahi addressed the allegation that it’s a duplication of efforts for city staff to present issues to the Park Board and later to City Council for a vote.
“This is transparency at its heart,” he said. “That’s what this Commission does. It makes recommendations to the council. The Park Board is vital for the public to have direct input and impact into their Park Board members. Mr. Luna talks about aligning management and operations of the Park Department under the city manager like all other city departments. I challenge you to read the press this building has gotten over the last few years and tell me, would you like the Park Department to be more like permitting? Would you like it to be like 911 response times? Would you like it to be like the streets?”
Park Board member Scott Goldstein said the three parks-related charter amendments were “solutions in search of a problem that does not exist” and would undo almost 120 years of Dallas parks’ independence.
Review a list of proposed amendments here. A full slate of charter amendments will be recommended by the CRC, forwarded to the Dallas City Council for a vote, and ultimately placed on a November ballot for voters to decide.
Charter Review Commission Response to Park Amendments
Charter Review Commission member Michael Jung said he’s spent 40 years as a civic activist and has worked frequently with the Parks and Recreation Board.
“During that time I’ve seen Park directors come and go, and I’ve seen Park board members come and go,” he said. “But what I have seen throughout that time is a high degree of accountability, as you have heard from the many speakers here today. That accountability is on account of the fact that there is a direct conduit to our City Council person through the council member’s Park Board appointee … This wasn’t a problem 100 years ago and it’s not a problem today.”
The “cure would be worse than the disease” if the amendments were adopted, Jung added.
Commission member Adam McGough, a former District 10 City Councilman, said he was persuaded by Abtahi’s comments.
“As a council member, when issues came up, it was a comfort to me to know that it was coming through the Parks Department and not through city management,” McGough said. “It gave me some confidence that things would be done in the right way. I am certainly opposed to these amendments.”
