Miers' time on Dallas City Council provides some insight

Dallas Morning News ^ | 10/7/05 | DAVE LEVINTHAL

[Ol' Sparky]

Miers' time on Dallas City Council provides some insight

BY DAVE LEVINTHAL

The Dallas Morning News

DALLAS - (KRT) - She may have no judicial record, but Supreme Court justice nominee Harriet Miers took firm stances on issues ranging from taxation to democratic reforms abroad as a one-term member of the Dallas City Council, a Dallas Morning News study of city records indicates.

For example, in 1991, Miers voted in favor of a council resolution reaffirming economic sanctions Dallas had imposed against South Africa, then under a white minority-rule apartheid government. The council adopted the resolution by a 6-2 vote with three absences.

At the time, President George H.W. Bush was considering repealing federal economic sanctions against the country.

A 1989 city ordinance prohibited Dallas government from buying goods that originated in South Africa or conducting business with firms that sold goods or services there for use by the police, military or prison system.

"As she goes through this nomination process, something like that should cheer the liberals and lead to gnashing of teeth among the very conservative social conservative," said Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University, Miers' alma mater. "Hers was the appropriate moderate Republican position of the day, but beating up on South Africa wasn't a way to win friends with conservatives."

It was one of several council votes that will be scrutinized as her court nomination moves forward. She served between June 1989 and November 1991.

Miers was one of 10 Dallas council members to unanimously approve a 1989 agenda item that revised minimum height, weight and vision requirements for Dallas firefighters to facilitate "promotion of certain ranks in the Fire Department," particularly women.

The agenda item's title: "Implementation of Fire Department Affirmative Action Plan."

In one of her first meetings as a council member, Miers sponsored a resolution "recognizing democratic aspirations of students and civilian population in Beijing, China." The council ratified the resolution 10-1.

"It's important for the city to let those people know we realize what they're going through," Miers said at the time, a few weeks after the Chinese government violently quashed pro-democracy rallies centered in Beijing's Tiananmen Square.

Records from council meetings during her tenure also indicate that she:

_Voted for a 1990 resolution requesting that Congress "pass legislation which would prohibit judicial taxation of local governments." The council unanimously adopted the resolution, which came at a time when courts in some places had seized control of floundering school districts and administered taxes. "This is a position that would be almost universally accepted by Republicans," Jillson said.

_Abstained from an otherwise unanimously adopted 1990 resolution urging Congress to pass legislation bolstering AIDS emergency treatment programs and provide funding to local governments for such programs. Before the vote, Miers said she had a conflict of interest, although no record detailing that conflict was available.

_Voted to ratify a 1990 resolution urging the governor to call a special session of the Texas State Legislature and consider a bill that aimed to limit state power and return regulatory jurisdiction over pawnshops to municipalities. The council ratified the resolution by an 8-2-1 vote.

_Voted in 1989 to levy property taxes on "business personal property temporarily located within the state." The agenda item passed 10-1, but the record indicates Miers directed Dallas' city manager to search for alternate revenue streams so that the tax could be repealed in 1991.

_Was absent when the council in 1990 unanimously resolved to install City of Dallas and U.S. flags within all municipal parks.

_Was absent in 1991 when the council formally urged Congress to pass the Brady Bill, which limited gun accessibility. The council adopted the resolution unanimously.

_Voted in 1991 to ratify a resolution urging the Texas State Legislature to observe the Rev. Martin Luther King's birthday as a state holiday. The council unanimously ratified the resolution.

_Voted in 1991 to ratify a resolution supporting passage of the federal North American Free Trade Agreement. The council ratified the resolution by a 7-2-2 vote.

_Voted in 1991 in favor of a resolution urging Congress to approve a presidential request for "fast track" trade negotiation authority. The resolution passed 5-2-3.

_Abstained from voting on a resolution urging Congress to allow toll road development along interstate highway right-of-ways. Records did not indicate why Miers abstained; the resolution passed by a 6-1 vote with three absences and an abstention.

---

[Ken H]

Changing height and weight requirements is different, in my opinion. I do not think the standards of the job should be lowered, however, and women should be able to compete.

The ht/wt requirements are themselves part of the standards set by the FD for the job, and they were lowered for the sake of diversity. I don't see how that is different from requiring the law school to lower its LSAT/GPA standards.

I am against discrimination as well as quotas and other forms of affirmative action programs, especially in education where standards are lowered for racial, social or economic reasons.

But, if a woman at 5'5" can compete with a man 5"7' and meet the same requirements, I am not opposed to either getting the job as a fireman or whatever.

Same could be said of the law school example:

But, if a minority student with a GPA of 3.0 can compete with a non-minority student with a GPA of 3.6, I am not opposed to either being admitted to the law school.

[RTINSC]

I appreciate your concern. I have been on FR since 1997 off and on and understand the rules. I do not mind if you have something to say, just say it to other posters. Thanks.

[Ken H]

That's not true, affirmative action is when you give one applicant preference over another because of race,sex,etc. Changing the admission standards does no such thing. To put it another way, let's say the legislature decided to raise the minimums instead; and it resulted in a less diverse body. By your logic, that's discrimination.

It's not discrimination unless the minimums were raised with the goal of having a less diverse student body.

In the case of the fire dept, the minimum standards were lowered with the stated purpose to facilitate "promotion of certain ranks in the Fire Department," particularly women.

[RTINSC]

"The ht/wt requirements are themselves part of the standards set by the FD for the job, and they were lowered for the sake of diversity."

Standards and qualifications are two different things.

The "standards" of a position are the things that you are expected or required to do for a particular job. 'The job requires you to lift and carry 150lbs for 50 yards, for example'

The "qualifications" for the job are the attributes that one possesses to qualify for the job. 'You must have the physical ability to lift and carry 150Lbs a distance of 50 yards, for example.

Lowering the qualifications of the applicant (age, weight, height)does not lower the standards required of the job. I am against lowering the standards.

[politicket]

(and would have to make up the SAT deficiencies with letters of recommendation, extracarriculars, etc.)

You're arguing against your own logic. You are explicitly lowering standards to create opportunity for those that would not otherwise achieve admission.

This is the same exact thing that our public schools do. They teach the classes based on the lowest common denominator. This result in generations of children that "graduate" as functional illiterates - do absolutely AWFUL on the SAT - and then are admitted to colleges because of lowered admission standards.

This is a little off topic, but our society needs to learn that children will aspire to the level of the bar held out for them. And right now, that bar is barely off of the ground.

[RTINSC]

Perhaps the best way to handle things is to set standard requirements for a particular job and let everyone compete for the job. Eliminate all age, height, weight requirements for jobs requiring physical capabilities and let the competition begin. It works in all other aspects of society.

[A Jovial Cad]

"I have been on FR since 1997 off and on and understand the rules"

RTINSC: Since 2005-09-03

Gosh almighty! That's got to be some sort of all kind FR record for the lame "long time listener; first time caller" excuse from some newbie poster poseur.

Eight years of lurking, less than a month of registered posting, and ba-da-bing! A legend is born...

...(snicker)...

[Ken H]

Lowering the qualifications of the applicant (age, weight, height)does not lower the standards required of the job.

True. But that is the same as saying "lowering the qualifications of the law school applicant (LSAT, GPA) does not lower the standards required for getting through law school."

[skr]

Were the female recruits being evaluated or were they hired despite their inability to do the work?

[Ken H]

If we evaluate it your way then it all depends on our ability to read the legislators minds (Presumably none of them would actually admit to being racists). For that matter, what if half of them want to discriminate and half genuinly want to change the policy?

If someone believed the motivation was racial exclusion, rather than academics, then it would be up to them to present their evidence in court.

Sure that's the newspaper's spin, but by your logic we now need to know whether that's what Miers wanted.

If the newspaper is misreporting it, then most of the discussion on this thread is academic, so to speak.

[RTINSC]

I hate to disappoint you. I recently came back after several years and have been on and off for a long time. I guess I don't get it when posters like you think being online to an anonymous forum for a LONG time is a mark of something. Why is this so important to you and why do you feel you need to make such snide remarks?

[stockstrader]

So if you can carry 160# over 60 yards, you are OVERqualified?....lol Get real....you better draw that picture, and don't use crayons...lol

[RTINSC]

No. If you meet or exceed the "standards" for the job (carry 150 lbs of shit for 50 yards,) you not only are "qualified" for the job, you also are awarded the Stockstrader Award for passing the Standards and Qualification Comprehension test.
Congratulations!

[A Jovial Cad]

"I hate to disappoint you"

Don't worry 'bout that: my opinion of your intellectual posting prowess is so low that it would take a good deal indeed for one of your random musings to disappoint me.

"I recently came back after several years and have been on and off for a long time. I guess I don't get it when posters like you think being online to an anonymous forum for a LONG time is a mark of something."

Uh-huh...whatever ya say.

"Why is this so important to you and why do you feel you need to make such snide remarks?"

I'm just an old meanie, I guess. Cry me a river...

...(snicker)...

[Ken H]

It's not discrimination unless the minimums were raised with the goal of having a less diverse student body.

Not true, the policy is either discriminatory or it's not, regardless of what the motivations are.

If the State-funded law school lowered its LSAT minimum with the stated goal of a more diverse student body, would that be discriminatory toward non-minorities in your opinion?

[RTINSC]

No. You have it backwards:


The affirmative action candidate going to law school is accepted with a lower SAT score than others who have higher scores. Based on socio-economic factors, generally.

The affirmative action student has the same standards applied once in law school. He is graded the same as everyone else. He does not receive special grading.

The problem is affirmative action prevents more qualified students from attending.

You're wearing me out!