Legally speaking, J.L. Chestnut said, Councilman Cecil Williamson may not have much of a chance in court if he sues the city over a recently proposed change in city law.

“It’s a very shrewd resolution,” Chestnut said. “I think it would be a very close case in the courts. Had this been an executive order of the Mayor, I think Cecil would be in a much better position.”

The law in question, voted to first reading status at Monday’s Council meeting, says that individual council members must present requests for information to the City Council as a whole before filing them with the Mayor’s office.

The Council asked City Attorney Jimmy Nunn to draft the resolution after Williamson was accused of not following proper procedure for getting information from city department heads.

Chestnut, a nationally known local attorney, said the case, if filed, would be unique.

“He’s (Williamson) not arguing the usual case,” he said.

Chestnut said that being part of the Council would weaken Williamson’s case.

“It’s the body that he’s part of (that’s) withholding the information,” he said.

Chestnut also said the issue probably wouldn’t be considered a First Amendment problem, citing precedent occurring in previous cases. Other cases, Chestnut said, indicated that courts decide narrowly on Freedom of Information cases.

He said that while courts appreciated the First Amendment right to open access, courts also recognized the right for information requests not to interfere with the work of government.

“It’s not a library,” Chestnut said, referring to City Hall. “Neither Council people nor the People can hamstring a department while seeking information.”

Even so, Chestnut said the resolution also harms the Council’s ability to function properly.

“The legislative branch (City Council) cannot be expected to legislate in the dark,” he said. “Anything that mitigates against the free flow of information from the executive branch (the mayor’s office) to the legislative branch (City Council) bothers me.”

Williamson said after Monday’s meeting that the only reason the resolution was introduced was because of a “personal vendetta” leveraged against him, by a group of Council members he called the Crenshaw Bloc.

The bloc is composed of Council members Bennie Ruth Crenshaw, Geraldine Allen, Sam Randolph, Johnnie Leashore and Jannie Venter.

In the past, the five members tended to vote together on most issues.

Williamson said Leashore and Crenshaw were opposed to him because of racial bias.

“(It’s a) personal vendetta against me because I’m white,” Williamson said.

While Chestnut didn’t refer to Williamson’s statement, he did agree that Williamson wasn’t the most popular Councilman with his fellow members.

“I think if any other Councilman had been involved we probably would not have come to a resolution,” he said. “It is no secret that Cecil opposes (Perkins’) administration.”

In the past, the bloc has voted with the mayor on the majority of issues, although Crenshaw and her compatriots did disagree with the mayor on a budget issue Monday.

Chestnut said he wished the Council hadn’t forced the issue.

“It is sad for a city to have to resort to this sort of situation,” Chestnut said.

“I would hope that everybody around there would be mature.”

Chestnut’s criticism was echoed by other government leaders.

A former City Attorney during the Joe Smitherman administration, Henry Pitts said the city was behaving badly.

“I personally think the council is being childish,” Pitts said. “They are acting like they are in elementary school and they need to grow up.”

Pitts said that while he was working for the city, there were few problems getting information.

“I haven’t researched the resolution, but any duly elected official should be allowed to get the information he wants without having to ask permission,” Pitts said.

Pitts said he believes too much micro-managing is going on in the council and its members should learn to trust each other.

“How is (Williamson) going to represent his constituents if the council blocks his every move,” he said.

Attempts to contact the city’s current attorney, Jimmy Nunn, were unsuccessful.

Perkins said during the meeting that while he believed the issue was strictly a council issue, that he still supported the law.

“We’ve had that discussion where individual members of the council would abuse their authority and twist (information) and paint this ill perception,” he said.

Other government leaders said the issue wasn’t something they could see passing.

Judge John Jones, Chairman of the Dallas County Commission, said he was familiar with the law.

“We (the commission) wouldn’t require anything like (resolution R146-04/05),” Jones said.

Even if the law passes, Chestnut said, some problems won’t be resolved.

Chestnut said whenever information is withheld, from private citizens, government officials or the press, that ultimately, it didn’t work.

“Any politician who can see past his nose understands more often than not if you want to get killed, withhold (information),” Chestnut said. “There’s only so far you can go withholding information.”

The Council will make a decision on the new law at the March 7 meeting.