It’s being called the most stunning political fall from grace in the city’s history. On Monday, August 5, the corruption trial of former Mayor Pro Tem Don Hill ended with a guilty verdict. The decision has left many political observers thunderstruck, and has raised fundamental questions about the way business gets done in City Hall—in particular, the power wielded by city council members over development projects in their districts. The verdict has also left in its wake much anguished speculation about the fate of some of the important issues that Hill championed, among them the idea of minority participation in city projects. For the cynical, there remains the question of whether Hill was singled out because of his politics or race. For everyone, there persists the question of how to undo the damage.
Found guilty on 8 of 9 counts in the case, and facing years in prison, Hill continues to deny that there was any corrupt intent in any of the actions he took while on the city council.
“We were very confident not only about our case and how it was presented,” says Hill, “but we were also confident in our own innocence, and that justice and truth, when pressed down, would rise up and the jury would see that.”
Upon speaking with Hill, it immediately becomes clear that he foresaw a different outcome. “It’s been very painful. It feels like a kick in the gut. The truth is, we didn’t expect that [verdict] at all. We didn’t plan on it, we didn’t think about it.”
Many of his former colleagues, it seems, have not yet fully grasped the new reality that a man once seen as a rising star in Dallas politics is now a convicted criminal. “First of all, my heart goes out to him, his family, and his children,” says Councilwoman Carolyn Davis. “It’s clearly sad for the African-American community, all the service that Don has given this community as a council member and as Mayor Pro Tem, and I hope that does not go in vain.”
“I just hope that people will look at what he’s done in the past and some of the things that he’s tried to do to build a better city and a better community,” Davis continues.
The essence of the government’s case against Hill and his co-defendants is that the councilman wrongfully used his authority over zoning decisions to extort money from developers in his district. What makes this case unique is that Hill green-lighted development projects under the guise of helping minority contractors, which leaves many wondering if the worthy cause of minority participation in city projects—which many still claim to support—has been set back by the Don Hill drama.
“I don’t think it should be,” says longtime precinct chairwoman Ruth Wyrick. Active in the community for many years and chairing a precinct that mostly voted for Hill in the 2007 mayoral election, Wyrick has closely followed the trial from the beginning.
“Just as one Black person doesn’t represent all Black people, one minority contractor doesn’t represent all minority contractors.”
For his part, Hill fully grasps the dimensions of the problem to which his own predicament has contributed. “We have been underutilized and our minority contractor programs have been underperforming for years. So it’s not only a fear, it’s a reality.”
“There was a recent disparity study done with the North Texas Tollway Authority for the period 2003 through 2007,” says Hill, “which shows that out of almost a billion dollars’ worth of contracts of various types, about 97 percent of them went to white males. So our record across North Texas is not a good record for minority contractors. We have been struggling, and we’ll continue to struggle.”
Likewise, South Dallas will continue to struggle to attract development. Because of its socioeconomic profile, the southern sector has a difficult enough time drawing commercial interest and activity. On top of that is the area’s growing reputation, deserved or not, as a place where pay-to-play is the ruling ethic, which may also have a chilling effect on development.
When asked whether he bears any responsibility for contributing to South Dallas’ woes, Hill’s response is a somber one. “I have to acknowledge that the guilty verdict is something that will create even more barriers for development in the southern sector. Even if it turns around, you can potentially have some residual negative implications with other developers coming in. That’s just something we’re going to have to overcome. Southern Dallas continues to fight towards development.”
Charles O’Neal, president of the Dallas Black Chamber of Commerce, has a more jaundiced view of the situation. “Those who oppose any diversion from the status quo will find supporting arguments wherever they can.”
“The fight for increased participation by African-Americans is legitimate,” O’Neal says. “We certainly invest in government through our taxes, fees, and licenses at a rate commensurate with other groups, but our yield on that investment is significantly less than other groups. So we still have a big fight in front of us. “
While voicing his own belief that the “pay to play” label is spurious and undeserved, O’Neal nonetheless anticipates that Hill’s conviction will be used as ammunition by those who view South Dallas as a hopeless cause. “I’d anticipate that as we move forward from this point, and the rate at which development occurs does not speed up, then that will be attributed to the reluctance of [developers] to ‘play the game’.”
Others caution against viewing South Dallas in isolation.
“I think we’ve got to move past that,” says Carolyn Davis. “This is about bringing development. This is about the city as a whole. What’s good for Dallas should be good for South Dallas. What’s good for Dallas should be good for Oak Cliff. What’s good for Dallas should be good for East Dallas. This is about bringing together the city as a whole.”
“I think that South Dallas is on the rise,” Davis continues. “You have all these southern sector communities that need a lot of attention, and I think that this council, that’s what we’re looking at. We can’t treat the many wonderful things that are going on this city like they don’t exist.”
Davis, who claims not to have had a close working relationship with Hill, maintains a dispassionate stance towards his conviction. “It went through the process. It had a jury selection, and the jury has spoken. Now it goes back to the judge, and the judge will make a decision. Our former Mayor Pro Tem followed the process, hired an attorney, which he was supposed to do. The jury has spoken.”
But the case is far from over. Don Hill says that he intends to appeal the decision, and whether that succeeds or fails, shadows of doubt about the government’s case will continue to linger.
“I attempted to separate Don Hill from some of the other defendants who were charged,” says Hill’s attorney, Ray Jackson. “I thought our biggest hurdle was that they wanted to tie Don to the other defendants, because they felt like they had stronger evidence against them. And by tying him to the other defendants, they could get Don even though they had no evidence against him.”
One of the linchpins of Hill’s defense was the “selective prosecution” argument—in essence, that Hill was being unjustly singled out for behavior that is endemic to City Hall, and commonplace among White politicians.
“We felt strongly enough about that that we filed a motion,” says Jackson, “and it may become one of the appellate issues.”
Although Jackson’s motion for dismissal (on the grounds of selective prosecution) was ultimately denied, it did advance a line of thinking prevalent among some African-American observers of the case. One of them is longtime activist Lee Alcorn.
“I had some real concern about that when the indictments first came down,” says Alcorn. “I wrote letters to the FBI arguing that the indictment was contaminated or racist in nature. I think that if you’re a city council person, then you have to get involved with developers. I don’t know if they were corrupt or not, but I know what they were doing was the kind of things that most political people do. “
Recognizing the need for reform, Mayor Tom Leppert and others on the city council have indicated their desire to dilute the power that individual council members have over zoning matters in their districts, an issue which lies at the heart of the Don Hill trial. With the near-total control exercised by council members over zoning, a perverse incentive exists for council members to squeeze kickbacks out of developers seeking zoning approval.
One reform proposal would require three council members to “second” any zoning proposal in another member’s district before it could be voted on by the full council. This promises to be a tough sell given the council’s traditional unwillingness to interfere in zoning decisions made by individual members for their districts.
Carolyn Davis is noncommittal. “I can’t speak to that without the city attorney giving us full information about it. I just cannot make a hasty decision without seeing what’s before me.”
For now, Don Hill remains undaunted. “We’re doing it one day at a time right now, with the overriding idea that it’s not over. We’re going to press several points in our appeal, and that’s the way we have to look at it. It’s been a staggering blow to us, but it hasn’t been a knock-out blow. We’re going to do what we believe is necessary what I know is an unjust verdict.”
© Dallas Examiner. All rights reserved.
© Dallas Examiner. All rights reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment