Mayor Mattie Parker is not legally required to abstain or recuse herself from city decision-making related to data centers because of her husband’s position at a firm that lobbies for a data center coalition, three experts in local government ethics told the Fort Worth Report.
But the experts all advised that Parker abstain anyway from such decisions, to maintain public trust and avoid the appearance of an ethical conflict of interest as data center developers increasingly seek to do business in Fort Worth and as the city council weighs regulations on the supercomputer hubs.
The unusual absence of a board or commission to independently review such ethics complaints at City Hall leaves it to Parker and other elected officials to maintain a greater degree of transparency with the public, experts said. Fort Worth is the only large city in Texas without a standing ethics review commission.
“The best thing to do from an ethical perspective would be for her to abstain, which isn't to mean that she has a conflict of interest directly — but indirectly, there is a conflict here,” said Mark Jones, a political science professor at Rice University.
Parker’s husband, David Parker, is one of six partners at the Austin-based consulting firm Longbow Partners. One of the firm’s clients is the Virginia-based Data Center Coalition, which lobbies for data centers by advocating for policies that support their growth and touting their economic benefits to state and local officials.
Responding to a request for comment Wednesday, Parker’s spokesperson referred to the mayor’s statement last week: “Let me reiterate again, David Parker has never advocated for or received any compensation from the Data Center Coalition. David's firm's clients do not, nor does his profession, have any (bearing) on my voting or perspective for any zoning case or business before council.”
David Parker also denied that his employment poses a conflict of interest for the mayor, maintaining that he has not financially benefited from the coalition or even met with its employees.
The Data Center Coalition does not lobby in Texas and has never been involved with Fort Worth, David Parker said last week. None of the group’s data center-operating clients, which include Google and Amazon Web Services, appear to be building or seeking to develop in Fort Worth.
Still, local activists and data center critics have suggested Mayor Parker sit out future city council votes related to data center projects, saying her husband’s connection to the coalition could impact her decision-making.
“Even if he doesn’t take a penny of lobbying money, he is still a registered lobbyist for data centers, and he’s a part of a company that’s doing that,” Fort Worth resident Michael Raulerson told council members at their June 23 meeting. “That should be immediately a red flag for everyone.”
The core question in determining if there is a conflict of interest is whether or not it appears that Mayor Parker may be serving her own personal financial interest instead of the public interest, said Kedric Payne, senior director of ethics for the Campaign Legal Center, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that advocates for ethical government.
“It is always a priority for a public official to give confidence to the public that their priorities are being served and not any personal financial interest,” Payne said. “If the mayor believes that there’s no financial interest, yet still recuses (herself) simply to build trust with the constituents, that is a positive thing.”
In recent weeks, some residents have asked the city council to halt or pause data center construction via a moratorium, giving the council and staff time to develop standards to regulate the centers. Those residents join a growing chorus across the state of people pushing back against data centers in their communities.
Fort Worth City Council is scheduled to vote Aug. 11 on zoning regulations that would require a minimum of 250 feet between data centers and residential homes, as well as landscaping standards to create more boundaries.
The mayor and council receive guidance from the city attorney’s office on when to recuse themselves or disclose potential conflicts of interest. A city spokesperson said last week there was “no known reason” for the mayor or any council member to disclose a legal conflict of interest regarding data centers or recuse themselves from such discussions.
Texas law requires city government officials to abstain from city decisions that would benefit them economically more than the general public or that would substantially benefit their entity or property. The city’s charter also prohibits council members from voting on matters that involve their own financial interests.
Although she does not appear legally required to, abstaining from council votes on data centers would likely help Mayor Parker foster public trust while avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest, said Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston.
“Any kind of public sector activity should maintain a high degree of public trust, and that means that elected officials should avoid any conflict of interests — either real or perceived,” Rottinghaus said.
The ethics scrutiny may also be driven, or at least heightened, Rottinghaus added, because data centers have become “such a political boogeyman in modern politics.”
Jones, the Rice University professor, said the increased scrutiny can lead to added pressure on elected officials when ethics concerns arise, regardless of whether there’s actually an ethics violation.
“Elected officials have to decide for themselves, even if they are not required by law to recuse themselves, from a perspective of fairness and equity, would recusing themselves be the best alternative?” Jones said.
Fort Worth is an outlier among top U.S. and Texas cities because it does not have a standing commission that meets regularly to review ethics complaints and compliance with the city ethics code.
The city council voted in 2019 to modify city code that mandates the ethics review commission, which had not met since 2012. The commission shrank from five members to one, a city attorney appointed by the council. That position is currently held by Carter Burdette.
City officials should consider reinstating the commission, Rottinghaus said, especially after Fort Worth claimed a spot in the country’s most populous 10 cities this year.
“There needs to be a sort of nonpartisan adjudication of these issues, because increasingly politicians can't be relied upon to act on their own with these issues,” Rottinghaus said.
Today, the ethics review commission only meets after a sworn ethics complaint has been filed, or by direction of the city council or city manager, city secretary Jannette Goodall said via email. When that happens, four new members are appointed to the commission after random selection from the current council appointees to certain boards.
The size and format of ethics review boards and commissions varies across Texas and the country. In Dallas, a 15-member ethics advisory commission meets quarterly to review ethics complaints.
New York City has a Department of Investigation, headed by a commissioner of investigation approved by the city council, that serves as the city government’s independent, nonpartisan watchdog.
In Chicago, the third largest U.S. city, a board of ethics is composed of eight full-time employees appointed by the mayor and approved by the city council. The board meets monthly.
The bigger a city’s population, the more complicated its politics, Rottinghaus said. Big cities have a heightened need for responsive government when conflicts arise, he added.
In March, the council faced backlash from data center critics because the mayor and eight members, including one who has since stepped down to run for state office, had accepted a cumulative $46,000 in campaign contributions from the CEO of the energy consortium Black Mountain, which is developing a data center in Fort Worth. Council members said at the time that the contributions have not influenced their decision-making on the project.
Generally, campaign donations do not necessitate a recusal or abstention from city decision-making because Texas law already mandates transparency around donors and caps donation amounts, Payne said. Candidates and elected officials are required to disclose their donors in publicly available campaign finance reports, which lets voters hold their elected representatives accountable, he added.
Still, an ethics commission could bring clarity and guidance to concerns around the campaign donors, as well as potential conflicts such as David Parker’s employment, Payne said.
“Major cities typically have an ethics commission for this particular reason,” Payne said. “You're going to have complicated situations that come up where clear rules, clear advice and clear enforcement are needed to build public trust in government.”
Cecilia Lenzen is a government accountability reporter for the Fort Worth Report. Contact her at cecilia.lenzen@fortworthreport.org.
At the Fort Worth Report, news decisions are made independently of our board members and financial supporters. Read more about our editorial independence policy here.
This article first appeared on Fort Worth Report and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
