Ethics? Who gives a damn?

“I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now, and go to the window, open it and stick your head out and yell, ‘I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!’ Things have got to change. But first, you’ve gotta get mad! You’ve got to say, ‘I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!’ ” — Howard Beale (Peter Finch) addressing his live television audience in the 1976 movie, “Network”

The City of Austin apparently doesn’t give a damn that its moral compass is seriously out of whack.

Many of the City’s elected leaders are themselves exemplars of bad behavior.

Not one of the City’s elected leaders have shown interest in reforms.

A solution was offered and rejected twice: The 2018 Charter Review Commission recommended giving voters a chance to establish an Independent Ethics Commission. That idea was ignored by the 2018 City Council. The 2024 Charter Review Commission recently debated the proposal and chose not to revive it.

The City of Austin has proven it’s incapable of repairing its moral compass.

If Austin citizens want a more ethical government they’re going to have to fight for it.

Why this harsh attack, and why now?

Examples of the City’s ethical blind spots are plentiful. The evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consider the following examples—all of which the Bulldog has previously reported, to no avail.

This story combines all those reports in a single overview that more powerfully describes the ethical illness this city suffers.

Are citizens so turned off and tuned out of civic affairs that they don’t give a damn either?

Why aren’t citizens mad as hell and not going to take this anymore?

Council members’ criminal behavior—The Bulldog reported that six of Austin’s current council members—Ryan Alter, Natasha Harper-Madison, Mackenzie Kelly, Leslie Pool, Zohaib “Zo” Qadri, and Jose “Chito” Vela—appear to have criminally violated the city’s lobby law.

These violations fall within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Review Commission. These offenses also could be prosecuted by the City Attorney. But as this story reported, the City Attorney has not once taken action on these and similar violations.

City Attorney Anne Morgan did not respond to answer questions the Bulldog emailed to her January 26th. The questions asked what action, if any, the City Attorney’s office has taken to prosecute these lobby law violations and two reports about council candidates who failed to file required reports.

Council members’ ethical violations—The Bulldog reported that three current council members—Paige Ellis, Harper-Madison, and Jose Velasquez—have been sanctioned for ethics violations.

Council ignores ethics reforms—The Bulldog reported that the council’s Audit and Finance Committee at three consecutive meetings heard members of the City’s Ethics Review Commission as they advocated for two recommendations:

• Publish promptly on the City’s website all personal financial disclosures filed with the City Clerk by the mayor and council members and all candidates for mayor and council.
• Require that city officials more fully disclose in required Statements of Financial Interest their substantial interests in real estate.

Commissioner Betsy Greenberg told the Committee, “As council members, one of your important responsibilities is making decisions about land use. Members of the public need to be assured that the mayor and council members do not have conflicts of interest when making these decisions.”

Commissioner Mary Kahle said, “I believe both of these proposed changes—by increasing  transparency and accountability—will support a stronger, more responsive city government for all Austin residents. I hope you will consider including them for eventual consideration by the City Council.”

Those recommendations were never taken up by the City Council because not a single City Council member would sponsor putting them on the agenda for discussion.

It should be noted that although the City does not publish personal financial disclosures of council members and candidates, the Bulldog does so when reporting on election campaigns. We obtain disclosures by filing public information requests. The personal financial disclosures of current council members may be accessed through the Bulldog’s Government Accountability Project.

What else has been ignored?

Candidates didn’t file financial disclosures—The Bulldog reported that more than a third of City Council candidates running in 2022 failed to file personal financial reports. These reports provide information the public needs in order to monitor candidates and elected officials for conflicts of interest.

Local Government Code Section 145.004 requires candidates for municipal office to file these reports. Local Government Code Section 145.009 states that a candidate who fails to do so commits a Class B criminal misdemeanor.

Candidates didn’t file campaign finance reports—The Bulldog reported that 17 candidates—exactly half the number who filed for a place on the ballot in 2022—failed to file a campaign finance report.

Citizen complaints about these violations could have been filed with the City Clerk for consideration by the Ethics Review Commission.

In addition, citizen complaints could have been filed with the Texas Ethics Commission. Candidates for local offices who fail to timely file campaign finance reports may face a civil penalty from the Texas Ethics Commission of up to $5,000 or triple the amount at issue.

The Texas Ethics Commission encourages individuals who are aware of a violation to report it by filing a complaint with the Commission.

Austin’s ethics enforcement weak by design

The 11-member Ethics Review Commission is composed of volunteer political appointees. Most if not all of its members lack expertise in the byzantine complexities of campaign finance, ethics, financial disclosure, conflicts of interests, and lobbying regulations—all of which are within the commission’s jurisdiction to enforce.

Attorney Fred Lewis—a longtime critic of what he believes is a fatally flawed Ethics Review Commission—told the Bulldog, “The Commission needs expertise and independence. You cannot have good campaign finance or ethics compliance without enforcement. It’s pure law enforcement.”

Aside from those disadvantages, the commission has several mortal weaknesses:

Lacks investigative powers—The Ethics Review Commission has no investigative authority. As a result the Ethics Review Commission must turn a blind eye to wrongdoing—even when gross violations have been exposed by media coverage.

Sworn complaint required—The commission cannot even begin to examine alleged wrongdoing unless someone files a sworn complaint with the City Clerk about matters within the commission’s jurisdiction.

Six votes required—The commission’s bylaws require six votes to approve anything—even if only six members attend a meeting. This makes it virtually impossible for the commission to conduct hearings and produce results that are fair to both the complainant and respondent.

Case in point is the commission meeting of June 5, 2023. The meeting convened a half-hour late because it was waiting for a sixth member to arrive and create a quorum. At the time the 11-member commission had three vacancies. Two other members were absent.

Once it assembled a quorum, the commission conducted separate preliminary hearings about two complaints. The same complainant alleged conflicts of interest involving a member of the Design Commission and a member of the Environmental Commission.

In each of the hearings serious red flags were raised about the commissioners’ conduct. The votes to schedule the complaints for final hearings were 4-2 in favor and 5-1 in favor. Had the commission been up to strength the outcome would have more than likely resulted in scheduling final hearings. Instead, the complaints were dismissed.

Citizen action required

“There is no question that the City of Austin’s Ethics Review Commission is a farce, appointed by council members whose issues they review, chosen for ideological reasons, and usually with zero legal or campaign finance experience whatsoever,” said Matt Mackowiak, cofounder of Save Austin Now, and chairman of the Travis County Republican Party.

“Austin voters should demand improved and tightened ethics rules and a truly independent commission. You either believe in good government and transparency, or you don’t.”

The City appears to be incapable of policing itself. Given the status quo, the responsibility for initiating action against violators rests entirely with citizens.

Are citizens “mad as hell and not going to take this anymore?”

Are citizens aware they must file a complaint before enforcement action is considered?

Do citizens know how to file a complaint with the City Clerk on this written form following these instructions?

Do citizens know how to file a complaint with the Texas Ethics Commission? Know that they can file a complaint online after registering on the commission’s website?  Or know they can file a notarized complaint in accordance with these instructions?

Complaints cannot be filed anonymously with the City or the Texas Ethics Commission: Are citizens afraid to step up and fill the enforcement void, subjecting themselves to the glare of publicity that may follow complaints?

Do citizens lack confidence in their ability to understand in sufficient detail the types of wrongdoing that might justify a complaint?

Independent Ethics Commission DOA 2018

It seems unrealistic to expect citizens to bear the heavy burden of policing the conduct of candidates and public officials. But that’s how it stands.

It doesn’t have to be that way.

The 2018 Charter Revision Commission studied the City’s ethics problems in great depth. Its members debated at length the duties, responsibilities, and funding needed to establish an Independent Ethics Commission.

On May 7, 2018, the Charter Review Commission recommended that the City Council put this proposed City Charter amendment (and eight others) on the ballot for voters to consider. That was six full months before the November 6, 2018, election.

Yet the City Council never discussed the recommendation.

Instead, at its meeting of June 28, 2018—four months before the November election—the council voted to put on the ballot the two least-consequential charter changes recommended.

Then, as now, elected officials showed no interest in establishing a body that might actually police their unacceptable behavior.

Effort to revive Independent Ethics Commission

Betsy Greenberg, was appointed to the 2024 Charter Review Commission last November. She previously served nearly four years on the Ethics Review Commission. On January 18^th she made a slide presentation for the Charter Review Commission. She proposed to revive the six-year-old recommendation.

She asked commissioners to recommend the City Council put an Independent Ethics Commission on the November 5, 2024, ballot, which is nine months away.

“The most important piece is that the (current Charter Review) Commission will not need to reinvent the wheel to recommend an Independent  Ethics Commission. Because the 2018 Charter Commission did all the work for us,” Greenberg said. “The (2018) City Council did not consider this.”

“Right now…there’s four entities that are involved in ethics matters,” Greenberg said. She listed the City Clerk, City Auditor, and Ethics Review Commission (all appointed by the City Council) and the City Attorney hired by the City Manager.

The idea is to roll all these functions into a single entity that stands apart from the City Council, City Manager, and City Attorney with responsibility and authority to enforce existing statutes and regulations.

The Independent Ethics Commission would be established using the same procedures that created the City’s Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission. That commission drew maps to create boundaries for 10 City Council districts used for the first time in the 2014 council elections, and later adjusted those boundaries after the 2020 census. All of which was accomplished with public acceptance and free of legal challenges that frequently follow partisan redistricting. The City Council is prohibited from interfering with the Redistricting Commission’s work.

The Independent Ethics Commission would be free to straightforwardly enforce ethical mandates that the City Council itself has enacted or that voters approved to amend applicable ordinances or the Austin City Charter.

It would have authority to conduct investigations, seek injunctions, and prosecute alleged civil violations. It could refer criminal violations to Austin’s Municipal Court or other appropriate jurisdictions.

“The public has the right to transparency and accountability from our public officials, from our candidates, and from political action committees,” Greenberg said. “An Independent Ethics Commission that’s free to operate without political influence would help us achieve this goal.”

“The 2018 (Charter Review) Commission did so much work and the Council unfortunately didn’t even consider it. We should give the Council the chance to consider this,” Greenberg said in completing her presentation.

Details about the composition, powers, and duties of the Independent Ethics Commission are laid out in the 11-page Appendix D to recommendations of the 2018 Charter Review Commission.

Independent Ethics Commission DOA 2024

Attorney Jessica Palvino chairs the 2024 Charter Review Commission. She also chaired the 2018 commission that created and recommended the proposal for an Independent Ethics Commission.

“We did great work and it’s a great start,” Palvino told commissioners. “I do think this commission, though, would need to devote significant time and attention to this.”

Palvino reminded commissioners that it had four scheduled meetings left. To consider this matter would require formation of a working group. “If we do want to create another working group, I think we need to reevaluate our schedule….”

When Palvino asked for comment about the proposal it triggered a long and far ranging discussion among the commissioners.

Many points of view were aired.

Commissioner Julio Gonzalez Altamirano doubted that “Austin has an ethical crisis…No one is complaining…Maybe they should be concerned.”

He expressed reservations about creating a group of people that are accountable to no one once appointed. He said the proposal “is potentially very dangerous.”

“If we want to create another working group, we can do that,” Altamirano added. “If we do, I think we need to look at our meeting schedule to make sure that we give ourselves sufficient time to do this issue justice.”

Commissioner Cynthia Van Maanen, executive director of the Travis County Democratic Party, said the proposal contains so much information that in addition to the working group the commission would need to devote time to “really go through these things and hear from a lot of folks.” She mentioned people who have expertise in campaign finance, lobbyists, and political consultants.

At the end of the Charter Review Commission’s meeting, Commissioner Greenberg’s motion to form a working group failed to get a second.

DOA. Again.

Attorney Fred Lewis served on the 2018 Charter Review Commission and was heavily involved in drafting the recommendation to establish an Independent Ethics Commission. He said the proposal fails to gain traction because Austin’s elected officials suffer from an erroneous self-image.

“The problem is the mind-set that, ‘We’re liberal, we don’t have ethics issues,’ ” Lewis said. “But ethics issues are not partisan based—they’re human nature.

The attitude is, “We’re all Democrats, we’re part of the establishment. We don’t want to look bad—even if do bad shit,” Lewis said.

“It’s a joke.”

Big scandals bring big reforms

Attorney Bill Aleshire’s involvement in progressive politics goes back to 1973 when he was a legislative aide. That session convened in the wake of the Sharpstown scandal of 1971-1972 that rocked Texas politics and ended the careers of men in the highest levels of state government.

The scandal triggered sweeping changes in the 1973 session, according to Wikipedia. “The lawmakers…passed a series of far-reaching reform laws. The legislation required state officials to disclose their sources of income, forced candidates to make public more details about their campaign finances, opened up most governmental records to citizen scrutiny, expanded the requirement for open meetings of governmental policy-making agencies, and imposed new disclosure regulations on paid lobbyists.^”

“Those times were my personal base for professional life seeking government transparency and accountability,” Aleshire said. Fifty years later, after serving as Travis County Tax Assessor-Collector and Travis County Judge, he is no less passionate.

“Why should we care that government is honest? Because in a democracy we need to be able to respect government and hold it accountable,” Aleshire said. “Otherwise it undermines people’s trust in government. That’s not healthy for democracy. Americans shouldn’t accept it.”

(Disclosure: Aleshire represents the Bulldog in public information requests. In 2011 he twice successfully sued the City of Austin for failure to provide public information the Bulldog had requested.) 

Does Austin need another scandal?

The examples of unpunished wrongdoing listed in this story have not drawn much interest. They have not created the uproar and county attorney’s criminal investigation triggered by one of the Bulldog’s previous investigative reports.

That one exposed the Austin City Council’s institutionalized practice of violating the Texas Open Meetings Act. When the county attorney’s investigation was finished the City Council members were given an offer they couldn’t refuse: Sign deferred prosecution agreements or be charged with criminal offenses and, if convicted, serve jail time and forfeit their offices.

What we face now is the City of Austin’s seemingly inexhaustible tolerance for bad conduct. It’s a City headed by elected officials with no appetite for reform and a City Attorney who looks the other way.

One possible solution that might have overcome the City’s de facto indifference—by allowing voters an opportunity to amend the City Charter to establish a watchdog Independent Ethics Commission—has once again been sidelined.

If the citizens of Austin want ethical government, they’re going to have to fight for it.

Otherwise, it’s “Laissez les mauvais moments rouler.” 

Let the bad times roll.

This article was updated at 2:56pm January 29, 2023, to correct the name of one of the three council members who have been sanctioned for ethics violations. Also to correct the position title of Cynthia Van Maanan in the Travis County Democratic Party.

Trust indicators: Ken Martin, who has been doing investigative reporting since 1981, agrees with Mark Twain, who said, “A newspaper is not just for reporting the news as it is, but to make people mad enough to do something about it.”

Related documents:

Ethics Review Commission Recommendation to require the City Clerk to post to the City’s website the financial disclosures filed by city elected officials and candidates for elective office for the city, July 27, 2022 (2 pages)

Ethics Review Commission Recommendation to require disclosure of all legal, beneficial, or equitable interest in which a City Official has a substantial interest in real property, July 27, 2022 (2 pages)

Proposed Independent Ethics Commission Charter Amendment, (See Appendix D) to the 2018 Charter Review Commission Report to the City Council, May 7, 2018 (11 pages)

Slide presentation Betsy Greenberg made to the 2024 Charter Review Commission, January 18, 2024 (14 pages)

Related Bulldog coverage:

Six council members and numerous lobbyists appear to have criminally violated city’s lobby law, October 17, 2023

Velasquez third council member sanctioned for ethics violations, August 26, 2023

Council not anxious to publish financial disclosures, March 21, 2023

Austin’s got a $2 million mayor, January 26, 2023

Want to get elected but not be accountable?, September 28, 2022

Charter revisions flushed down the drain, June 28, 2018

Nine charter revisions recommended, May 8, 2018