This story was updated a fourth time at 2:06pm July 10th to clarify that the Design Workshop was authorized $600,000 for its work on the Zilker Plan. The $1.35 million paid to the firm, as stated in the story, includes other work the firm has done for the city.
This story was updated a third time at 3:06pm June 13, 2023, to add links to letters from Ross Hunter and Evan Taniguchi that were not made available at the preliminary hearings on complaints against Hanna Cofer and Taniguchi. The Austin Bulldog obtained copies of these letters with a public information request after this story was published.
This story was updated a second time at 2:53pm June 12, 2023, to correct the name of the Design Workshop, and to add information on how much the City has paid for its services to date.
This story was updated at 1:26pm June 12, 2023, to include the employer of Ethics Review Commissioner Amy Casto.
The Ethics Review Commission convened a half-hour late June 5th while waiting for a sixth member to show up to create a quorum. With one member absent (Michael Lovins), one member recused (Mary Kahle), and three vacancies, complainant Teri Adams faced long odds for success in the Preliminary Hearings on her two complaints.
The commission’s bylaws require six votes to approve a motion. To get her sworn complaints against Environmental Commissioner Hanna Cofer and (now former) Design Commissioner Evan Taniguchi scheduled for Final Hearings, Adams needed every commissioner present to vote in favor. That did not happen.
While the details differed in each of Adams’s complaints, both centered on allegations that Cofer and Taniguchi had conflicts of interest and should have recused themselves from participating in matters concerning the Zilker Park Vision Plan.
Her contention is that as commissioners they advocated and voted for approval of the Zilker Park Vision Plan despite massive public opposition, which is not an ethical violation. What is a violation, she contended, is that the plan’s approval would set up nonprofits they are involved in to benefit from arrangements with the City’s Parks and Recreation Department by providing revenue opportunities from events and concessions at Zilker Park.
Complaint against Hanna Cofer
Cofer was appointed to the Environmental Commission by Council Member Ryan Alter, who was elected in a December 2022 runoff. She started her first term March 23rd and pretty quickly crossed ethical boundaries, Adams claimed.
According to a résumé that Hanna Cofer included in her application to be on the Environmental Commission, which the Bulldog obtained with a public information request, since 2020 she has been the chief operating officer of The Trail Conservancy of Austin. From 2011 to 2017 she worked with the Hill Country Conservancy, where her father, George Cofer was the longtime CEO.
Adams’ complaint centers on Cofer not recusing herself from voting in an Environmental Commission meeting on a motion to remove a 5,000 person music venue from the Zilker Park Vision Plan.
The minutes of the Environmental Commission’s meeting of April 5th confirm the complaint’s allegation about the vote, which took place shortly after midnight. The minutes state that Adams was among the 30 people who addressed the Environmental Commission that night about ecological recommendations in the draft Zilker Park Vision Plan.
The complaint states, “I am calling this matter to your attention because the already controversial and unpopular draft Vision Plan is only being made worse by these concerns about these conflicts of interest.”
The complaint notes Cofer’s role with the Trail Conservancy and its membership in the Zilker Collective Impact Working Group, which was formed by 16 organizations in 2021. Recently the group created Zilker 351 as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit.
The complaint goes on to name Cofer’s boss at the Conservancy, Heidi Anderson; Cofer’s husband James Russell, who the complaint states is an events manager for the Trail of Lights, the ABC Kite Festival, and the Umlauf Sculpture Garden and Museum; and her father George Cofer of the Hill Country Conservancy.
An infographic labeled “Overview of the Zilker Vision Plan Process” included on the last page of the complaint indicates that Hanna Cofer and her boss Heidi Anderson are members of the Zilker Collective Impact Working Group. It also shows numerous other ways in which people and organizations allegedly are connected to the Zilker Park Vision Plan.
Adams’s oral presentation against Cofer
Adams was given 10 minutes to brief the Ethics Review Commission about her complaint. She read from a prepared script, accompanied by slides.
“The Zilker Park Vision Plan is extremely controversial. One of the most controversial proposals is the inclusion of an umbrella nonprofit partner for Zilker Park to act as the single point of contact between the city parks department and nonprofits and parks concessions,” Adams said.
She detailed how Cofer’s nonprofit, The Trails Conservancy, is one of a group of 16 nonprofits that “have banded together to collectively advocate for features in the (Zilker Park Vision) Plan which would benefit their individual organizations called the Zilker Collective Impact Working Group….”
Adams told commissioners that she had urged Cofer to recuse herself from the Environmental Commission vote, to no avail. Adams pointed to Local Government Code Chapter 171 that, among other things, requires filing an Affidavit and Abstention from Voting when a person has a substantial interest in a business, funds received from that business exceeds 10 percent of gross income for the previous year, and the effect of voting on a matter would have an effect on that person distinguishable from its effect on the public.
“A local public official is also considered to have a substantial interest under this section if a person related to the official in the first degree by consanguinity (blood relative) or affinity (married) has a substantial interest under this section,” Adams said.
“The question of direct financial conflict of interest is possible in this case. I need the assistance of the ethics committee to access financial records for the relevant organizations which Ms. Cofer has known relationships: The Trail Conservancy, the Hill Country Conservancy, the Friends of the ABC Kite Fest, the Umlauf Sculpture Garden and Museum, and the Trail of Lights Foundation.
“I’m asking this body to use subpoena power to look into the financial ties Ms. Cofer has to these organizations, including the required public statement of financial information for Ms. Cofer under City Code 2-7-75 . At a full hearing I’m prepared to submit evidence that Ms. Cofer; her husband, James Russell; and her father, George Cofer were apprised of the internal workings and active participants in the Collective, now (renamed) Zilker 351.”
“Ms. Cofer’s interest is not remote nor incidental, such as a member of The Trail Conservancy would have, or a member of the public who participated in an event sponsored by The Trail Conservancy. The benefit to her organization, and potentially to her personally, required her recusal from participation on the issue of the Zilker Park Vision Plan. There are reasonable grounds to believe that a violation may have occurred. I hope you will agree and move this matter forward to a full hearing.”
Cofer’s defense
Hanna Cofer was represented by attorney Ross Fisher, an Austin-based attorney who is general counsel for the State Bar of Texas and a former chair of the Texas Ethics Commission.
“Conflict of interest gets thrown around,” Fisher told the commissioners. “It’s a defined term, a legal term. We have to have bright lines to have predictable results. I will focus on defined terms tonight.”
He said the question is whether The Trails Conservancy is affected by the Zilker Park Vision Plan, adding, there is no assertion in the complaint of how the Conservancy will be affected.
“The burden is on the complainant to show proof now,” he said, “She needs to show how Cofer has a connection to an organization and benefits. At most my client or her father has no interest. Complainant has not stated any reasonable grounds.
“We ask this complaint be dismissed.”
Commissioners’ questions
Once Adams’ presentation of the Cofer complaint was completed the commissioners spent the next 45 minutes exploring how the legalities involved in the complaint might justify holding a final hearing.
Commission Chair Luis Soberon introduced this phase of the hearing by emphasizing, “Our decision is not about Zilker Park Vision Plan.” Then he asked how The Trails Conservancy is a party to it.
Adams said the conservancy is with a group that has an inside track with the (consultant) Design Workshop that prepared the Zilker Park Vision Plan and the Design Workshop’s principal is the incoming chair of the conservancy. A graphic illustration included in the complaint shows that Claire Hempel of the Design Workshop is the chair-elect of The Trails Conservancy.
Austin Finance Online records published by the City indicate the consultant has been paid $1.35 million to date, most of it for architectural and land planning services. However, “That total is for multiple projects done by Design Workshop over the years,” according to a July 10th email from an Austin Parks and Recreation Department spokesperson. The email states that the City Council on August 27, 2020, authorized an amount not to exceed $600,000 for “master planning services for the Zilker Metropolitan Master Plan Reissue.”
The commissioners went on to question both Adams and Fisher about points in the complaint.
Adams noted the criteria that the Austin Parks and Recreation Department (PARD) established for Nonprofit Public Partnerships allows nonprofits whose mission aligns with the department’s to seek a level of autonomy to construct, operate, maintain and program projects on parkland.
Among the criteria to qualify for a Level A Partnership, a nonprofit must have a minimum of seven years history of collaborating with the department and at least five years of success in philanthropic fundraising. She noted that the recently former Zilker 351 nonprofit does not have that track record.
“In my opinion, Adams said, “the Zilker Park Vision Plan as a document is important for those organizations to advance this plan. This is their first step to be Level A partner with PARD to derive revenue.” She conceded it’s unclear how the collective nonprofits could bring their influence to bear. “It’s murky,” she said.
Adams noted that the definition of conflicts that should be avoided or reported may not adequately address how nonprofit organizations, and the individuals within them, may benefit.
Commissioner Nguyen Stanton-Adams moved that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a violation had occurred and after it was seconded the commissioners discussed it for another 20 minutes.
Chair Soberon said, “I recognize this is a particularly contentious issue, and a lot of discussion is about the project and the plan. Whatever I believe about what happens to Zilker Park is divorced from what I say about this complaint. My job is to interpret provisions of city code on complaints. I’m struggling with ‘substantial interest.’ I don’t know if what was presented today meets the definition…The city code we have jurisdiction over does not address the appearance of impropriety.”
Which drew a quick retort from Commissioner Mikki Teneyuca. “Isn’t that what a formal hearing is for?… I feel reasonable doubt has been presented and community members feel the same and came to us to investigate. I feel strongly we should do that.”
Commissioner Sidney Williams said, “This is chess, not checkers. The Zilker Park Vision Plan is necessary for them to be a Level A partner. The respondent is saying this is premature. That’s the question we have to answer. No doubt these organizations are combining to have influence and staffing boards and commissions with these folks. That’s the complainant’s assertion.”
In response to Soberon’s statement that he was struggling with whether the respondent would benefit, Williams replied the standard is low. “Complainants don’t have investigative power. They come to us to get to the heart of the matter. If we deny this, we won’t know. So we can investigate.”
Commissioner Amy Casto said, “Reasonable grounds is what we’re talking about today, not about some point in the future.”
Just before the vote, Stanton-Adams said, “What I’m hearing is there are many community members who showed up, and asked us to please look into this and not dismiss it right off. If this motion fails I feel personally disappointed.
Nevertheless, fail it did.
Voting to take the complaint to a final hearing were Commissioners Haksoon Andrea Low, Stanton-Adams, Teneyuca, and Williams. Voting no were Casto and Soberon.
Complaint against Evan Taniguchi
The preliminary hearing for Adams’s complaint against Evan Taniguchi, whose term on the Design Commission recently ended, started with an agreement about how much time each party would have to present their cases, but it was immediately sidetracked with an unusual comment from Commissioner Teneyuca.
She said, “I’m also just wondering if it’s good transparency to tell the public who all (on the commission) is friends with Mr. Fisher.”
Chair Soberson replied, “I am an attorney and Mr. Fisher is an ethics attorney. He has conducted continuing education courses on certain state laws I have attended. He has represented parties before the commission in the past…Individual commissioners decide on the extent to which they can impartially participate in proceedings based on relationships with parties. If commissioners would like to disclose relationships with parties in the last (Hanna Cofer) case, go ahead.
Commissioner Low said, “I’m acquainted with Mr. Fisher as well. I’m an attorney. He was with the Texas Ethics Commission. He was appointed by Rick Perry to the commission and he was chair for some part of that time. I worked with the commission 2017-2021. He was not on the commission at that time but often appeared before the commission representing parties.”
“He is currently the general counsel for the State Bar of Texas… I’m employed as the disciplinary rules and referenda attorney at the State Bar of Texas,” Low said.
Commissioner Casto, who is the general counsel for the American Council of Engineering Companies Texas, said, “I have also known Mr. Fisher for several years in a professional, personal and legal capacity. We’re both attorneys in the same section.”
Commissioner Williams said, “I’m an attorney and do not know him.”
Commissioners Teneyuca and Stanton-Adams did not say whether they had a connection with Fisher. State Bar of Texas records do not list them as member attorneys.
Adams presentation against Taniguchi
Adams started by saying, “In dealing with nonprofits, whose foremost stated goals and missions aren’t financial, few conflicts of interest are direct. An individual representing a nonprofit can achieve a benefit that is not personal via any prospective benefit that could be conferred upon a nonprofit they represent. If a person’s vote confers a benefit to their nonprofit, that presents the appearance of impropriety.”
“During the two-year vision planning process, a group of nonprofit stakeholders with an interest in Zilker park came together. This group of 16 stakeholder organizations included park concession operators. They called themselves the Zilker Collective Impact Working Group, which I will refer to as the Collective for short.
“Collective members banded together to advocate for items in the Zilker Park Vision Plan benefiting their individual organizations. These projects comprise the bulk of the proposals we see in the Vision Plan, specifically: the parking garages, the land bridge, the new hillside theater, new bridges over Lady Bird Lake and Barton Creek, and a new welcome center.
“One of the most controversial items in the Zilker Park Vision plan is the inclusion of a nonprofit partnership to steward Zilker Park. This aspect of the Vision Plan was never revealed during public engagement. It appeared without public vetting in the deliverables after two years of planning.”
Her presentation continued by noting that Commissioner Taniguchi did not recuse himself from the April 13th meeting of the Design Commission, as he had at a March 27th meeting.
“The question before you is, is (whether) Mr. Taniguchi’s interest as a public official and a board member of Zilker 351 (is) remote and incidental, or could it be substantial? City Code 2-7-63(A) states a city official may not participate in a vote on a matter affecting a natural person, entity, or property in which that official has a substantial interest,” Adams said.
She went on to note that Zilker 351, the nonprofit in which Taniguchi is a founding board member, is seeking to attain Partnership A status. If attained that would give it exclusive rights to fundraise and promote the park.
“City Code 2-7-63 Subsection B states, ‘a city official who serves as a member of the board of directors of a nonprofit entity may not participate in a vote or decision regarding funding by or through the city for the entity.’ ”
She noted that Taniguchi not only failed to recuse himself from consideration of the Zilker Park Vision Plan but wrote a letter to members of the Parks and Recreation Board in support of it.
Adams claimed to be in possession of minutes from a Zilker 351 board meeting that state, “For now there is no plan or intention to assume park management and operations.
“This ‘for now’ (wording) is a clear indication that later, they do intend to assume park management and operations,” Adams said. “Mr. Taniguchi should not have used his position on the Design commission to argue for elements in the Zilker Park Vision Plan nor should he have voted to recommend it. His interest in the passing of the Vision Plan for Zilker Park is of substantial interest to the nonprofit organization he represents as a member of the board of directors.”
She closed by saying there are reasonable grounds to believe sections of City Code had been violated. Noting there are only six members of the commission present, she asked them “to consider that when you vote and allow this matter to receive a hearing before a fully seated board.”
Taniguchi’s rebuttal was terse
“I am a member of Zilker 351,” he said. “I’ve been on the Design Commission for eight years and never had a complaint. I stepped down two weeks ago because my term expired. Someone’s trying to make me out an evil person. That’s all I have to say.”
Commissioners discussion
Commissioner Teneyuca noted that Adams had asked the commission to be at full strength before acting on the complaint.
Staff attorney Wajiha Rizvi said City Code sets a 60-day limit for jurisdictional hearings, although the commission could vote to extend that.
Chair Soberon said he had plans to discuss “in strong words” the need for the council to fill vacancies.
Commissioner Williams asked Taniguchi if he was aware of his nonprofit’s attempt to profit from the Zilker Park Vision Plan.
“No,” Taniguchi replied. “We want to use our expertise to benefit the people of Austin…We want to promote it as a metro park. We hope to benefit from that, not for ourselves but for the best for the city.”
Commissioner Low asked Taniguchi about his claim that the City’s Law Department had advised him that he need not recuse himself from the Design Commission’s second consideration of the Zilker Park Vision Plan.
Taniguchi said he recused himself from the first commission meeting on that matter because Zilker 351 had not been publicly announced, but felt free to participate after it had been.
Soberon pursued the question further, asking what facts Taniguchi had supplied the Law Department in asking for a ruling.
Taniguchi said he told the Law Department the Design Commission would be reviewing the Zilker Park Vision Plan but not recommending funding and not taking a position on the merits of the plan.
Commissioner Casto asked if including the words “for now” implies an intent to do so in the future, and Adams said yes.
Taniguchi said, “I think there is no plan to do what’s being insinuated in the complaint.” Later he added that he had been on the Zilker 351 board since January 12th and he had “no selfish reason to promote Zilker 351.”
In response a question from Soberon about proving intent, Adams replied, “If you have an organization that wants to be a partner in the plan, then it shouldn’t vote in recommending the plan…Zilker 351 has made no bones about wanting to be that nonprofit.”
Adams noted that the Waterloo Plan is operated by the Waterloo Greenway Conservancy, which will derive revenue from it. “This is the same model,” she said. “This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to install a unified nonprofit for Zilker Park. It’s not stated in the Vision Plan whether the city would go out with a Request for Proposals.”
Asked about the potential economic impact on Zilker 351, Taniguchi said of the complaint, “If it’s about the Zilker Park Vision Plan, it’s one thing, or if it’s about me. It’s not against me but against the whole movement of Zilker 351. I will answer any questions. I’m not getting financial benefits. I’ve not broken rules, and I ran it by the city’s legal department.”
Commissioner Williams asked if Zilker 351 would like to be the unified nonprofit for Zilker Park. Taniguchi replied, “I hope we can move forward in that way but it’s not a slam dunk.”
Commissioner Low asked Adams how Waterloo Greenway benefits from its arrangement over Waterloo Park. Adams said it has control of the theater that holds expensive events and sells alcohol. That’s a benefit they realize. “Whether Taniguchi realizes a benefit is irrelevant. We have individuals sitting on boards and commissions whose organizations benefit from their votes.”
Commissioner Low moved to find reasonable grounds that a violation had occurred, seconded by Teneyuca.
In the ensuing discussion, Commissioner Williams said, “Zilker 351 wants to be this nonprofit. They want to be in control of parks and garages. The real issue isn’t whether there’s funding but whether the process has integrity, and the appearance of impropriety is what this is about.”
Commissioner Casto said, “What do we have to lose by going a little further into it? But I also wonder about the service of the board and commission members and not assuming an intent that isn’t there, or looking for something doesn’t exist, so no one will ever improperly benefit from a vote. It’s not an easy decision and the struggle is real.”
Chair Soberon replied, “I don’t think any of us volunteered to be on this commission thought it would be easy.”
With that the commissioners voted. Casto voted no, the other five commissioners voted yes. Soberon announced, it’s five to one but not a majority so the motion does not pass.
He thanked the commissioners and said he would be writing to the City Council members about the importance of filling the vacancies and that the commission’s performance depends on it.
Sour aftertaste for Adams
Teri Adams was left feeling shortchanged. After the hearings, in an email, she told the Bulldog, “I want to thank the commissioners who showed up and voted to move these complaints to a full hearing. Cofer and Taniguchi escaped investigation due to what feels like a technicality. This is not a democratic process. The ethics committee was hamstrung by their own bylaws.
“I fulfilled the necessary requirement to show a reasonable basis for a full hearing. A majority of the commissioners present agreed with me, and that feels like a victory. To have only six commissioners present and to have them agree with me 4-2 and 5-1 is a victory, but I’m not sure why a hearing was allowed to happen under those circumstances. It was an impossible standard to meet.”
Others also suspect conflicts of interest
The first thing the Ethics Review Commissioners heard when the meeting started was communications from three citizens.
Laura Massengale said that her family’s business had been a member of the Zilker 351 organization but dropped out after finding out its agenda was to “take over concessions without transparency and oversight.” (Massengale’s LinkedIn profile states she is general manager and community outreach coordinator for Zilker Park Boat Rentals.)
“That raises serious red flags,” Massengale said. Further, she said, the organization has “used the media to discredit all opposition.”
“There are serious conflicts of interest here” and the respondents “have vehemently refused to recuse themselves from voting on the vision plan.” They “put people on different boards and commissions to move their agenda forward. This is not right.”
Massengale spoke briefly again just before the commission began the preliminary hearing on the complaint against Hanna Cofer, saying, “Please hold her accountable and send a message that back-door influence is not acceptable.”
Dorothy Lopez Barnett said rules for boards and commissions state members should not vote when they have a conflict. “Their votes should be tossed out and they should be expelled from the board.”
Nina Miller said there’s not been enough transparency in the Zilker Park planning process. “It seems all is for naught. Is it (Zilker Park) for people who profit or for people who live here?”
Vacancies on Ethics Review Commission
The three vacancies on the commission was a decisive factor in the outcome of the preliminary hearings on Adams’s complaints.
Each commissioner is appointed by a member of the Austin City Council.
Mayor Kirk Watson, District 3 Council Member Jose Velasquez, and District 8 Council Member Paige Ellis are the officials responsible for filling the vacant positions. Watson and Velasquez were elected in the December 2022 runoffs. Ellis won reelection in November 2022 without a runoff.
The Bulldog emailed requests to each of them for an indication of when these vacancies might be filled to each official.
Mayor Watson quickly emailed a reply June 7th saying, “By the next meeting.”
Council Members Ellis Velasquez have not responded to those emails or to two voice messages left on their cell phones asking for an indication of when they will fill their vacancies.
Trust indicators: Ken Martin has been investigating local government agencies and officials in the Austin area since 1981. He founded The Austin Bulldog in 2009. You can reach him at [email protected].
Related documents:
Agenda for the special-called meeting of the Ethics Review Commission, June 5, 2023 (3 pages)
Bylaws of the Ethics Review Commission, revised March 10, 2022 (6 pages)
Evan Taniguchi’s application to be on the Design Commission, September 28, 2016 (4 pages)
Evan Taniguchi’s letter responding to Teri Adams’s complaint against him, May 26, 2023 (2 pages)
Hanna Cofer’s application to be on the Environmental Commission, with résumé, March 10, 2023 (6 pages)
Ross Fisher’s letter responding to Teri Adams’s complaint against Hanna Cofer, May 17, 2023 (4 pages)
Teri Adams complaint against Hanna Cofer, April 19, 2023 (10 pages)
Teri Adams complaint against Evan Taniguchi, April 19, 2023 (7 pages)
Teri Adams oral presentation in her complaint against Hanna Cofer (2 pages)
Teri Adams oral presentation in her complaint against Evan Taniguchi (2 pages)
Teri Adams slides used in her oral presentation in her complaint against Hanna Cofer (9 pages)
Teri Adams slide used in her oral presentation in her complaint against Evan Taniguchi (8 pages)
Thank you for this detailed account. It would be impossible for a citizen not on all three of these commissions to have a complete picture of the issue. The direct quotes make it possible to more clearly grasp the positions.
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment, Jon. Semper Fi.
Thanks so much for this Ken!!