We like Dennis Carroll. That said, we do not like what Councilman Carroll did concerning City Hall's 10% utility users tax.

In case you missed it, LBReport.com has documented what took place and posted it on this web site for all to see. Trust us, it's excruciating.

• Candidate Carroll campaigns for a 5% utility tax rate cut, including a "Dear Neighbor" letter reciting his "commitment" to this. (We've posted it in our permanent Reference section at Carroll Commitment Letter.) Mr. Carroll also uses documents obtained under the Public Records Act to sandpaper incumbent Del Roosevelt and City Hall, charging wasteful spending. 4th district residents elect Carroll.

• Less than three weeks after moving into Mr. Roosevelt's old City Hall office, Councilman Carroll co-sponsors (co-sponsors!) a proposed ballot measure to defeat Norm Ryan's 5% utility tax rate cut (1% per year for five years) with a 3% utility tax rate cut (1/4% for four years, 1% in the fifth year).

• At the Council meeting where his 3% proposal is scheduled to be discussed, Mr. Carroll leads the cheerleading for a 2.5% (not a 3%) utility tax rate cut. He narrates turgid budget graphics of the type usually presented by the City Manager or some subordinate.

  Councilman Carroll doesn't bother to explain what became of his 3% measure but opines that after five years, the Council may reduce the tax further. (In truth, many current Councilmembers probably won't be on the Council in five years thanks to the term limits law Mr. Carroll wrote; even if they were, his words now will have no legal effect then.)

• A week later, Councilman Carroll votes yes on a proposal to label City Hall's 2.5% utility tax rate cut as a "25%" reduction on voters' ballots and put City Hall's measure ahead of Ryan's 5% measure (which will be labelled a "50%" reduction.)

  The tactic of inflating numbers by showing a percentage reduction instead of the actual tax rate paid by consumers was advocated a week earlier by Councilwoman Jenny Oropeza, who opposes any utility tax cut. Mr. Carroll and other Councilmembers can't reasonably claim to have been surprised by the proposed ballot verbiage since they received it in writing in their agenda packs more than four days before the Council meeting.

• After voting just minutes before to approve the ballot verbiage and position, Councilman Carroll attempted to revisit the issue after Mr. Ryan publicly protested. Councilman Carroll found himself flummoxed by Roberts Rules of Order which forbid reconsideration without a Council majority vote.