Forming a voting bloc is as old as politics. Members join together to vote together to increase their chances of winning. For those in the bloc, it probably seems to be a good thing. For everyone else, it's usually a bad thing. If the bloc gets big enough — enough for a majority — it's probably illegal under Texas law in the sense that bloc members are "meeting" outside a posted meeting to determine their vote. It doesn't matter if they talk two at a time by phone until all know the desired outcome: it's illegal.
 

Such a clique sat on the Council in 2006, often called the Gang of Five, that voted on most matters together. Since they were able to do this without public discussion, it was obvious they were violating the Open Meetings Act. The apex of the gang's abuse came on Oct 3, 2005, the first time the five refused to call the Charter-mandated 2006 city elections, intending to give themselves an extra year in office. Meeting after meeting Mayor Bob Day attempted to enforce the Charter, with some meetings running to 3 a.m. and later. Most citizens spoke against the power grab but a number of speakers tied to the bloc spoke in favor. They were content to disenfranchise the voters if it meant their connection to power continued. A synopsis of these events is here and, if you are willing to spend some time and to dig, a treasure trove is here.
 
The Gang of Five fell when the Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled that the Council had to call the election. Four did not make it past the resulting election and the one not then standing for election was gone after the next.
 
You could call it principled or you could call it naive, but the business of the citizens is best served by representatives voting their consciences and convictions independently each time. There is no guarantee of being on the winning side each vote but over time the citizens always win. Forming a voting bloc and swapping promises and advantages is easy. It is much harder to take a principled stand and to refuse to be in a bloc. Our system envisions individuals voting, not blocs. Having faith in the system and not trying to manipulate it is a sign of ethical maturity.
 
Voting blocs distort the people's business. They will work to get things in their interest and all others are left with the crumbs. That distorting leads to taking a bit more and a bit more.
 
This Council, since 2006, has not formed any major voting blocs. Some votes can be excruciatingly boring because the nitty-gritty details of a vote have to be dissected and examined under a microscope prior to the vote. It's enough to draw tears sometimes and make a voting bloc look almost desirable if it would shorten the pain. However, it is in public.
 
There has been a small bloc though. Mayor Ron Jones has been approached more than once with statements of "I've got five votes." Just saying it could be an admission of violating the law, which he has reminded them. In the cases of which I'm aware, they weren't violations because they weren't truthful statements; they didn't have five. That's a different ethical problem.
 
The irony of the voting bloc is that members will eventually manipulate themselves out of office. Sometimes it's the backlash from citizens that demand fair play. Sometimes it's the bit-by-bit reaching too far. Sometimes it's believing they are beyond the rules, like refusing to call an election. Sometimes it's when members begin refusing to follow along. Blocs always fall.
 
For every force there is an equal and opposite force.