One less chair and it would have felt like a child's game: last Monday the Council met first in executive session, then in work session, postponed the work session for the regular meeting that had been moved to Monday, and then resumed the work session.
 
The agenda items for the regular meeting went quickly. That's not to say that the meeting was over quickly. Numerous citizens spoke on euthanasia methods at the city's animal shelter, most for lethal injection of sodium pentobarbital and against carbon monoxide gas. The Council can only listen during the comment period. Open Meetings law prohibits the Council from discussing items that are not on the agenda.
 

Council member Rick Williams explains his research on carbon monoxide euthanasia of animals

When the work session resumed, one of the later items was the memo from Richard Briley, managing director of the health and code departments, that he recently sent to the Council explaining his department's future plans toward euthanasia. When the item was called to the floor, Mayor Ron Jones read a prepared statement that he and the city manager would continue to review the euthanasia process, that that advisory board to the shelter is being expanded, and that the city is transitioning away from carbon monoxide euthanasia. It was obvious that the Mayor intended to read the statement and move on.
 
However, several Council members indicated they too wanted to make statements. Council member Rick Williams spoke extensively of his research into the issue and his concern that the Council not react politically to what is a medical question [my words, not his]. He asked that the Council rescind the memo because he felt with certainty that it was issued for purely political reasons. The Council was polled: two voted to rescind and six voted to leave it to the city manager's discretion.
 
A subsequent article in the Dallas Morning News reported the events were conclusive and drew lines as to those in favor of eliminating carbon monoxide euthanasia and those that sought to keep it. The headline read: Garland council votes to restrict carbon monoxide gassing at animal shelter. To an observer, that would not be an unreasonable inference but it is not what was being decided. The question was much, much further reaching than that. That portion of the meeting is available here (Item 2e); watch so you can draw your own conclusions.
 
Quick background: this Council, more than any in my memory, has worked hard to not be guilty of micro-managing the staff. There are plenty of horror stories from the past and the ill consequences that we've chosen to avoid. Council member Laura Cox in her remarks even made reference to the charter and its provision of not interfering with the management of the city. Our role is to set policy, not manage. (Art IV, Section 3: Council and its members shall deal solely through the City Manager and neither the Council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any subordinates of the City Manager, either publicly or privately.)
 
Council member Williams explained that the city's animal shelter is not violating the law and is using methods well recognized as humane by the American Veterinary Medical Association. Under those parameters, it is not an area that calls for involvement by the Council.
 
Council members Williams and Barbara Chick felt there was sufficient political pressure and interference that initiated the memo that the Council should rescind it. Their action would have reset the process and given a clear indication from the Council that internal processes in the city are not to be arbitrarily decided by whatever way the political winds are blowing. I don't believe anyone on the Council disagreed with that view; I'm certain a majority supported it. However, I chose to leave operations to the city manager: if there had been interference, we didn't need to interfere again as long as the city manager understood he had the latitude handle the issue.
 
The end result is that the city is moving on the same path that it was anyway, although probably (definitely?) quicker than it would have otherwise. The result is the same even if the timing is not. The city manager and his staff now have a clear indication from the Council that the decisions are within their duties, not ours, and that we will back them in spite of the political winds. The result also has the effect of moving away from carbon monoxide euthanasia but that was not the subject of the vote. The vote did not indicate any Council member's preference and it would be wrong to infer individual positions on one subject when the vote was on another.