57°
53º | 75°
Former Houston Housing Director Tom McCasland’s public criticism of Mayor Turner’s housing directives was a tactic not often seen in Houston City Hall.
McCasland accused Turner of “political meddling” and a “do it because I said so” approach to his administration, including when it came to steering affordable housing funds to a favored developer despite competitors able to produce more units, at a lower cost, across other areas of Houston. McCasland called it “straw that broke the camel’s back,” so he used his presentation during a joint meeting of city council’s committees on Housing & Community Affairs, Quality of Life, and Regulatory and Neighborhood Affairs to make that point.
Whether the allegations to prove to founded or just frustration from a disgruntled employee, now is the time when our local institution, dotted with checks and balances, should exert its force, as limited as it may be, to reassure citizens’ faith in local government.
In Houston, the Mayor has what has become known as near “dictatorial” control over city matters. Appointing of officials who serve at his pleasure, designating heads of committees, and most importantly, setting the weekly agenda.
Given these accusations, though, other checks should come into play.
The Houston Ethics Commission, tasked with making sure the city’s ethics and financial disclosure policies are implemented, should have a chance to weigh in. According to the city, “The Commission shall have the duty and power to review and investigate allegations of impropriety on the part of City officials and candidates for City elective office,” calling this an allegation of improprieties would be putting it lightly. The Commission also can request special outside counsel from City Council.
Shortly after McCasland’s revelations, the mayor announced his firing and announced that the City Attorney, appointed by the mayor, would investigate the allegations.
A report and investigation conducted by a department that reports directly to the mayor would be hard to be viewed as unbiased. In the immediate firing of McCasland, the mayor made it clear that those who serve the city and publicly opposed him won’t have a job for long.
The mayor, like former Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York, should order an independent review of the allegations and remove himself and his administration from any oversight of a review. Any reviewer should report to either the council, an ad hoc committee on the council, or the Houston Ethics Commission.
There’s also Houston’s Controller, tasked with overseeing city finances, as another avenue to elevate this issue, and, of course, Council.
As a body, while they can’t set the agenda, they must vet anything that comes before them, even this contract. Given the accusations, a simple up or down vote isn’t doing justice for Houstonians.
According to the City Charter, the city’s primary governing document, council has the power to “summon and compel the attendance of witnesses,” as well as the production of books and papers any time that the content would aid them in discharging their duties. Given the questions surrounding the contract, how can council effectively “discharge their duties” without additional information regarding the allegations that doesn’t come from the administration?
The point is to say, there are more than a few avenues to evaluate the allegations made by McCasland and audit the proposal. They may prove to be no more than a frustrating feature of our strong-mayoral form of government, or they may be more serious than the administration is leading on. Without an independent review we won’t know.
Our local officials and bodies they sit on within our local institution have an obligation to seek answers to the questions raised and anything short of that isn’t in the best interest of Houstonians.
Trust in institutions is diminishing, this is an opportunity to restore a semblance of faith that, at least, our local government can act appropriately when presented with a difficult situation.