fbpx

City of Austin

Court halts $354 million development subsidy

A Travis County court issued a ruling to halt the use of future property taxes to subsidize luxury development of 118 acres of land...

Austin City Manager: Dallas discard vs Austin retread

Council members make policy. The city manager’s job is to implement those policies. A great city manager can get that done and keep the ship...

Will lawsuit blow up Project Connect train tracks?

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit Dirty Martin’s et al v. Mayor Kirk Watson et al claim they’re victims of a bait-and-switch scheme because Project Connect...

Sworn Financial Statements

Posted Thursday, June 2, 2011 12:21pm
Updated Friday, June 3, 2011, 2:30pm
Council Members Riley and Shade
May Have Violated Austin City Code

Sworn Financial Statements Give Public
Tools to Monitor Their Elected Officials


Investigative Report by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2011

City Council Members Chris Riley and Randi Shade may have violated the Austin City Code by not reporting the financial activity of their domestic partners.

Many financial statements filed by the mayor and other council members are incomplete or erroneous, and one annual statement is missing.

Perhaps a larger problem is that neither these elected officials (with some exceptions) nor the city staff is paying sufficient attention to ensure that these important statements are accurately prepared to fully comply with state law and the City Code. The penalties that apply to the more serious violations are not being enforced. And citizens are kept in the dark because few are aware these documents exist or where to find them.

These problems were discovered during The Austin Bulldog’s broader investigation aimed at bringing greater transparency to city government by giving citizens the tools to monitor the conduct of their elected officials.

Do Austin’s mayor and council members have conflicts of interest in the decisions they make? How would you ever know?

Aside from the fact that these officials are required to withdraw from even discussing something in which they have a substantial interest, the public is entitled to be informed of their financial interests so they can observe and monitor how these officials conduct themselves.

System lacks transparency

BCCP Celebration

Posted Tuesday May 17, 2011 4:49pm
Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan
Looks Back On 15 Years of Accomplishments

Preserve Still Short of Acreage But Provides
a Lasting Legacy for Future Generations

by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2011

Balcones Canyonlands Preserve: 15th Anniverary Hat from 2011 Celebration, Commemorative Cup from 1996 CelebrationSpirits were high on May 2, 1996, when Nancy Kaufman, regional director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, signed the permit at 10:24am, the stamp of approval obtained through the Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan (BCCP). The plan called for the creation of a preserve system (the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve or BCP) to protect endangered and at-risk species. The overcast morning cooled temperatures and saved a lot of sweat for those who attended the invitation-only celebration, including Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, former U.S. Representative J.J. “Jake” Pickle, and other dignitaries.

Holding the permit aloft after signing it, Kaufman said, “It looks like it’s made out of paper but it’s really made out of blood, sweat and tears.”

That was not an exaggeration, considering the plan was eight years in the making. From 1988 through 1996, concerned citizens, business leaders, landowners, developers, environmental groups, scientists and the Fish and Wildlife Service collaborated to create a Habitat Conservation Plan that allowed the permit to be issued under the Endangered Species Act.

We were bussed in that morning amid tight security that blocked access by the protesters, who had massed outside the gate to Reicher Ranch on Ranch Road 620. Inside, we stood amid the junipers and watched turkey vultures coasting lazily on the currents overhead. Remarks were purposely kept short so that all in attendance would have time to sign the registry that would stand as testimony to this unique achievement, which Babbitt called, “the very first place in the United States we have produced an urban conservation plan.”

Kerry Tate, chair of the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce said, “In developer’s terms, we could shout, ‘Done deal.’”

But Babbitt issued a warning: “I recognize this as the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end. We’ve got a long way to go.”

The irony of this project being ramrodded by Babbitt, who said he was drawn to the challenge of working on the Endangered Species Act for President Bill Clinton, is that around here Babbitt wasn't exactly thought of as a friend of the environment. As I later wrote in the July 2002 edition of The Good Life magazine, in a story titled “The Life and Death of Barton Springs,” it took two federal lawsuits filed by the Save Our Springs Alliance to force Babbitt to finally declare the Barton Springs Salamander an endangered species in 1997.

But then, theBalcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan was not simply about the environment. It gave landowners who wanted to develop or otherwise alter habitat for endangered species that’s outside the preserve boundaries an alternative to seeking an individual permit from the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The FWS permitting process requires development of an individual habitat conservation plan tailored to the project and may require additional habitat to be set aside.

The Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan offered landowners a faster process administered by Travis County in which they could buy participation certificates to allow development in habitat located outside the preserve.

On May 13, 2011, fifteen years after the BCCP permit was signed, there were no protesters at the gate and precious little cloud cover to ward off the heat, but the spirit of the event was again one of celebration.

Bad press, mea culpas

Searchable Mayor and Council E-mails

Posted Thursday, May 12, 2011 9:09am
Treasure Trove of Public Documents
Made Available in Searchable Format

E-mails, Text Messages, Meeting Notes
Obtained Through Open Records, Lawsuit


by Ken Martin
© The Austin  Bulldog 2011

While many e-mails exchanged by the Austin mayor and city council members have been made public previously, as they were released in large batches by the city or dribbled out in small quantities by individual council members, The Austin Bulldog continues to get requests for these files to be made available in a searchable format.

To that end, this report consolidates all records previously made public, adds hundreds of new records, and presents them in searchable files.

All told, The Austin Bulldog obtained more than 4,800 pages of public records through a series of requests filed under the Texas Public Information Act and a lawsuit against the mayor, council members and City of Austin.

More than 600 pages of these records—in the lingo used by the City of Austin—came out of computer folders titled “deleted” or in “dumpsters” that were not searched initially in response to our open records requests. Salvaging these records is important because otherwise they could have been permanently removed at the touch of a button, in possible violation of state law and city regulations governing records retention.

More than 500 pages of these never before published records were obtained from City Manager Marc Ott, including a volume of notes in his own, fairly legible handwriting that reflect the topics discussed with the mayor and council members during private one-on-one meetings.

The Austin Bulldog's lawsuit triggered the release of about 1,500 pages of these e-mails. These include:

• E-mails about city business that were sent or received using the mayor and council members private e-mail accounts (almost 300 pages).

• E-mails about city business that Council Member Bill Spelman sent on his University of Texas account (200 pages).

• E-mails located by the city's Communications and Technology Management (CTM) office through additional searches for responsive records (1,000 pages).

The documents

Proposed City Charter Amendments

Posted Wednesday April 27, 2011 10:38pm
City Council to Consider Proposal
to Create Geographic Representation

Election Dates, Term Lengths, Redistricting
and Other Charter Changes in Council Resolution

by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2011

Geographic representation for the citizens of Austin is being driven from the top down and the bottom up. The Austin City Council is squeezed in the middle and trotting out its own proposal at today’s council meeting.

The pressure from the top comes from bills pending in the Texas Legislature that would force the city to form at least six single-member districts for the May 2012 election, when the mayor and three council members will be up for reelection.

The bottom-up pressure comes from the possible petition drive that if successful could result in a citizen-driven plan for geographic representation of council members to be put on the ballot this November or the following May.

Barring interference from the legislation or an earlier election forced by a successful petition drive, the city’s proposal is geared to be on the ballot in November 2012.

The Austin City Council is scheduled to vote today on a resolution that would direct the city manager to prepare draft City Charter amendments to accomplish a range of reforms. Among these are adding geographic representation to the council, consisting of six members elected from districts, with the mayor and two members elected at-large.

The resolution further directs: moving municipal elections from May to be held in November of odd-numbered years; increasing the term of office from three years to four years; and eliminating staggered terms, so that all council members would be elected once every four years (except for special elections for unexpired terms).

Charter changes for geographic representation on the council have been on the ballot six times and failed six times.

Broad support for council districts

 

Bulldog’s Complaint Dismissed

Posted Friday, April 22, 2011 4:21pm
County Attorney’s Office ‘Cannot Determine’
City of Austin Committed Alleged Violations

Bulldog’s Complaint Was the First Presented
for Violation of Texas Pubic Information Act

by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2011

The Travis County attorney’s office today issued a response to The Austin Bulldog’s complaint that alleged the City of Austin had violated the Texas Public Information Act by withholding public information.

The letter signed by James W. Collins, executive assistant Travis County attorney, states that the county attorney’s office “cannot determine that the violations alleged in your complaint were committed by the City of Austin.”

The letter states that this was a first complaint received by the Travis County Attorney’s office that was filed under Section 552.3215 of the Texas Public Information Act.

Attorney Bill Aleshire of Riggs Aleshire and Ray LP, who represented The Austin Bulldog in this matter, said, “This decision does not say the county attorney’s office exonerated the city, just that the county attorney’s office could not determine that the violations occurred as worded in the complaint.