Travis County Attorney
City staff failed to stop mayor from misusing city resources
Background Investigation: Comparing the candidates for Travis County Attorney
Denton endorses Eiserloh for county attorney
Deferred Prosecution Ends Open Meetings Investigation
- Deferred Prosecution Ends Open Meetings Investigation
- Mayor and five current council members sign agreements
- waiving the statute of limitations and requiring major reforms
- by Ken Martin
- © The Austin Bulldog 2012
- Posted Wednesday, October 24, 2012 11:54pm
Travis County Attorney David Escamilla today issued a seven-page press release to announce the results of an investigation that began 21 months ago into the question of whether then-members of the Austin City Council violated the Texas Open Meetings Act.
“This investigation was always about compliance with the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA) and other legal standards requiring transparency at City Hall, which are crucial to ensuring a government that is accountable and responsive to its citizens,” Escamilla’s statement says.
The investigation found no evidence of corruption, but voluminous proof of communications among the mayor and council members by every means possible, the sum of which violate the criminal provisions of the Act.
The agreements signed by each elected official affirm long lists of detailed, specific communications among the council members that constitute probable cause. These include specific dates on which a quorum of the council communicated face-to-face, in phone calls, and via e-mail and text messages.
Bulldog’s Complaint Dismissed
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.