Our Wonderland Legal System

'Consider your verdict,' the King said to the jury, in a low, trembling voice.
'There's more evidence to come yet, please your Majesty,' said the White Rabbit.
...
'Let the jury consider their verdict,' the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first - verdict afterwards.'
'Stuff and nonsense!' said Alice loudly. 'The idea of having the sentence first!'
'Hold your tongue!' said the Queen, turning purple.
'I won't!' said Alice.
'Off with her head!' the Queen shouted at the top of her voice.

-- Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll

Two legal cases in the news this week caught my attention. Both show our legal system in a bad light, where strict adherence to law is at least unwise and at worst, outrageous.

After the jump, our own adventures in Wonderland.

Tax Exemption Versus Tax Freeze

Which is better? In the 2009 Richardson City Council race, Amir Omar ran on a platform that included a property tax freeze for seniors:

"Although the City has insituted [sic] Senior property tax exemptions, home values increase almost every year. These exemptions are not permanent and risk being outpaced by property value increases. If the budget tightens, the City Council has the option of rolling back the exemptions. This would be a way to raise taxes without publicly 'raising taxes'. Our Seniors deserve better. They live on a fixed income and should not have to worry year over year about the Council's whims. That is why a permanent freeze in property tax is important. A freeze will remove the temptation of turning to exemptions during a budget shortfall while giving the final assurance to our Seniors that they deserve."

That platform won for Omar a seat on the City Council. After the jump, how Omar is trying to make good on that campaign promise.

Paying Salaries With Bonds

Ian McCann, in the The Dallas Morning News Richardson blog, reports that the City Council of Richardson plans that "Spending on 14 employees whose salaries are covered by bond debt will be moved to the general fund. The actual source of the funds will transition to the general fund over several years."

McCann doesn't say what reasoning was behind that decision. Because the city didn't telecast this council work session (unlike all other work sessions -- more about that here), and I didn't attend in person, I can only speculate on what's going on. It sounds like an implicit admission by the city that its critics were right. During the bond election campaign, opponents made a big deal of the fact that the bond package included salaries for city employees who would be managing the bond projects in some way. Supporters of the bond largely ignored the charge, voters did too, and the bond package passed. This week's decision to move those salaries out of the bond debt suggests that someone at city hall did notice the critics, after all.

Why Pete Sessions Will Win

Pete Sessions is running for re-election in US House District 32. He is the GOP candidate and faces Democrat Grier Raggio and Libertarian John Jay Myers in November's general election.

After the jump, why the candidate no one likes will win anyway.

City Council Retreats From Open Government

I won't be blogging about the Richardson City Council meeting this week. I won't be watching. The meeting won't be shown via cable telecast. That's because the Richardson City Council is meeting not at its usual city hall venue, but at the Richardson Woman's Club instead. The work session is billed as a "retreat." But it's still a council meeting and an important one at that, one in which the council will deliberate the 2010-2011 budget. The meeting is still subject to the Texas Open Meetings Act. It's still open to the public. It's really no different from any other council meeting other than this meeting will be witnessed only by those members of the public who follow the council members in person to the unusual venue for this one meeting. In other words, things are back to the way they were a year ago, before the public demanded and received, in the interest of open government, cable telecasts and Internet streaming of council meetings. These annual "retreats" may be a long-standing tradition, but it's a tradition that needs updating. Until the cameras follow the council, these "retreats" limit public access in a way that is no longer considered acceptable week in and week out at city hall. Calling a regular weekly meeting a "retreat" shouldn't change our expectations about open government. It shouldn't change how open our city government is.