fbpx
Home Blog Page 3

Siegel running for City Council District 7

0

After losing in two hard runs for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, attorney Michael John Weills Siegel (D-Austin) has lowered his political sights in hopes of winnning a seat on the Austin City Council.

Leslie Pool

He is running for the District 7 seat now occupied by Leslie Pool. She has been on the council since elected in 2014 and is term-limited. She confirmed to the Bulldog that she will not exercise the option to get on the ballot again by petitioning for signatures.

“I’m running because this council seat is really important,” Siegel said in an October 27th telephone interview. “The Council really impacts peoples lives…I ran for Congress as a Democrat in a state controlled lockstep by Republicans and in the legislature. The City Council is where we can do the most good.”

“I think District 7 represents a new Austin in some ways, or the evolving Austin. At the bottom of the district we have traditional single-family homes owned by long-time residents who are frequent voters. On the north end we have the soccer stadium, The Domain, apartments, the suburban Wells Branch area, and major business areas in Tech Ridge and Fortune 500 companies.”

“The District has an important role to play in affordability and housing issues,” Siegel said.

Siegel said he’s planning to roll out a detailed platform in January and didn’t want to address current hot-button issues like how many houses could be built on single-family lots. “I’m running to be a council member starting in January 2025. We will see if that’s on the table then or not.”

“My mission is that we’re going to try to represent all Austinites at every stage of life, where people can take their kids to a park, two-income families can afford a home, and those who are retired on a fixed income can enjoy the housing they live in,” Siegel said.

“One reason why I feel qualified and could be very useful,” Siegel said, “as an assistant city attorney I have represented and advised city departments, I understand the council-manager form of government, and I could hit the ground running.”

Before deciding to move to Austin, he said he had visited when a cousin was attending the University of Texas. “Longer story, of course, but this seemed like a great place for my wife and I to raise our family.”

Siegel, who will turn 46 in early December, is married to Hindatu Mohammed, a veterinarian who joined the Allandale Veterinary Clinic in 2014 and purchased it in 2016.

In 2022 she launched the nonprofit Sankofa Veterinary Project to expose high school students of color to the veterinary field. The family lives in in a home they own in the Crestview neighborhood. They have two children in Austin public schools.

Siegel first voted here in October 2014 and since has voted every year and in primaries conducted by the Democratic Party, according to Travis County voter records.

Issues he will work on if elected

Affordability—“Trickle down economics is not the solution here,” he said. “City government has little ability to change these factors. We need to be honest about that. We agreed to live in a market economy where land goes to the highest bidder. This is a desirable area. Housing will be expensive.”

The federal and state governments are not doing much to address affordability, Siegel said.

“People direct their ire to City Council but it has less ability (to solve affordability problems),” he said. “We can’t turn a blind eye to growth. Tesla brought tens of thousands of jobs. That one company is causing massive changes. Add to that other companies and the regional impact.

“Austin has to do its share. I don’t want to promote sprawl or facilitate segregation. We need clear values. If we don’t do infill housing we are pushing people out.”

“We have to balance interests, to make more room for young professionals and preserve options for older people. I hear a lot of consensus overall…The activists and new urbanists on one side, and neighborhood protectionists on the other side (are) a small part of the electorate. Homeless folks need more housing, so we should stay the course because it takes a while to get people off the street. We need to incentivize affordable housing through entitlements. In terms of supply, there’s support for more supply in the corridors.”

Climate change—“In my congressional campaigns I emphasized climate action. It’s an important and exciting issue. People here are ready to take action”

He cites the freeze suffered in Winter Storm Uri and this year’s scorching-hot summer as reasons why public awareness is keen.

“Under the Inflation Reduction Act the city could get tens of billions of dollars for climate action,” Siegel said. He pointed to the Direct Pay provision of the Act that allows municipalities to take advantage of tax credit financing.

Information about the Inflation Reduction Act published by the White House states it provides expanded tax credits for entities that manufacture, install, and produce clean energy in the coming decade. It also enables local governments and others “to take an active role in building the clean energy economy, lowering costs for working families, and advancing environmental justice.”

Through the Act’s “elective pay” (also called “direct pay”) provisions, governmental entities will be able to receive payments for building qualified clean energy projects.

Campaigning in council district

Siegel said he plans to personally knock on at least 5,000 doors in this campaign. “In one three-hour shift I can knock on 50 doors,” he said. “I try to talk to voters. I will talk to thousands of voters myself and my campaign can talk to tens of thousands of voters.”

Campaigning in a council district with a population of 95,095 may seem like a stroll in the park, given Siegel’s experience campaigning in a congressional district with eight times as many people spread over a far larger area.

In Council Member Pool’s last reelection in 2020—also a presidential election year—40,776 votes were cast. She got 27,423 votes to win with 67.25 percent against a single opponent and no runoff.

Siegel will have at least two opponents. Edwin Bautista and Pierre Nguyen also have appointed campaign treasurers to compete for Pool’s District 7 seat. (More about them later.)

Winning could be costly

The Bulldog’s analysis of spending for the three open district seats in the 2022 election—all of which required runoffs—showed that winning candidates spent sums ranging from $158,000 in Jose Velasquez’s District 3 to $207,000 in Ryan Alter’s District 5. Zohaib “Zo” Qadri spent $183,000 to win his District 9 race. (Not to mention that Kirk Watson blew through $2 million to win a narrow runoff victory over Celia Israel.)

Siegel didn’t want to provide a budget figure for his District 7 campaign or name the consultants or staff he will hire. One thing is certain though—he won’t be able to take the big-buck donations he garnered for his Congressional campaigns.

He got a lot of congressional campaign donations from local elected officials. Mayor Steve Adler contributed $2,800, Council Members Qadri gave $1,075, Alison Alter tossed in $350, and Jose Vela contributed $250. Travis County Judge Andy Brown kicked in a total of $2,700, while Travis County Commissioner Jeff Travillion gave $350, and Commissioner Brigid Shea and husband John Umphress contributed a combined $11,200, according to Federal Election Commission records.

City Council candidates are limited to $450 for individual donations in the general election and that amount again in a runoff, although that figure could be adjusted when the City Council adopts its next budget in August 2024. The aggregate contribution limit from donors outside of Austin is $46,000 per election, and $30,000 per runoff election, per the City Clerk’s webpage.

“My goal is to have all the resources I need to communicate with voters, talk on their doorsteps, to hire a team at a living wage for staff to talk to voters, and to pay for mail and digital ads,” Siegel said.

“The key for me is to remember that voters aren’t paying attention till Labor Day. I can’t have a big team 13 months out. I have a good sense of what needs to be done. I’m talking to a lot of people and I’m making phone calls. By the end of this year I will have spoken to hundreds, if not thousands, and some will be willing to part with their hard earned money. I’ll just build this campaign one voter at a time.”

Election day is November 5, 2024. Candidates can’t file for a place on the ballot until July 22, 2024.

Siegel twice a congressional competitor

Mike McCaul

Siegel lost his 2018 bid to beat incumbent District 10 U.S. Representative Michael McCaul (R-Austin). McCaul first won election to the newly created 10th District in 2004. Siegel lost to McCaul again in in 2020.

While Siegel was running against McCaul in 2018, his field director was arrested while delivering a letter on behalf of student voting rights to Waller County officials—right after being asked the political party of the candidate for which he worked.

The case involved Waller County’s effort to bar students at historically black Prairie View University from voting. Siegel was interviewed about this on MSNBC on the Rachel Maddow show October 12, 2018. The matter was resolved with the help of the Texas Secretary of State and the students were allowed to vote.

Siegel spent $485,682 on his 2018 campaign, while McCaul spent $1,870,327, according to online records of the Federal Elections Commission. Though outspent nearly four to one, Siegel got 144,034 votes (46.8 percent) to McCaul’s 157,166 votes (51.1 percent). The Libertarian candidate netted 2.2 percent.

Losing the 2018 matchup with McCaul by just 4.3 percent points was a success in one sense. McCaul’s margin of victory over his previous Democratic Party challenger, Tawana Cadian, was 18.9 points.

To run against McCaul in 2020, Siegel first had to get through a tough Democratic primary. He bested two others there and then beat his runoff opponent, Pritesh Gandhi, with 54.2 percent of the votes. Against McCaul in the general election he fell with 45.3 percent to the incumbent’s 52.5 percent, a margin of 7.2 percent. (Again a Libertarian netted 2.2 percent.)

Siegel spent $2,932,842 in that 2020 campaign while McCaul spent $3,927,931, according to FEC records.

Julie Oliver

In November 2022, after abandoning his congressional ambitions, Siegel cofounded the nonprofit Ground Game Texas. The other cofounder was Democrat Julie Oliver, also a defeated congressional candidate. She lost the District 25 election to incumbent Republican Roger Williams in 2020. Oliver serves as executive director while Siegel is political director and general counsel.

Ground Game’s mission is to build coalitions to achieve progressive wins for Texas communities. Siegel said he will keep his job at Ground Game Texas while campaigning but if elected he will be a full-time council member.

As a legal entity Ground Game Texas grew out of the Register2Vote nonprofit created in 2018 by Jeremy Smith, Sarah Etsy, and Kimberly Francisco. It was formed to “promote social welfare and to defend human and civil rights secured by law,” according to the Certificate of Formation. The certificate was amended in November 2022 to change the name to Ground Game Texas.

Work as an attorney

Siegel was born and raised in Oakland California, where his father Daniel Mark Siegel is a civil rights attorney who ran for mayor of Oakland in 2014. He campaigned to raise the city’s minimum wage to $15 an hour and reorganize the police department to foster deeper community engagement.

Mike Siegel earned a bachelor’s degree from Brandeis University and his law degree from Cornell University in 2009. He was licensed to practice law in Texas in November 2014.

He served as an assistant city attorney for Austin 2015 to 2019. In that capacity he sued Governor Greg Abbott to stop implementation of Senate Bill 4, which among other things prohibited “sanctuary city” policies.

In that federal court case filed in 2017 (City of El Cenizo, et al v. State of Texas et al (Case No. 5:17-cv-00404-OLG) the City of Austin was among a number of plaintiffs seeking and winning a preliminary injunction.

The case went to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (Case No. 17-50732). Its decision stated, “The plaintiffs have not made a showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits of any of their constitutional claims…there is no merit in their remaining arguments, and none of the challenged provisions of SB 4 facially violated the Constitution.”

In other legal work for the City, Siegel said he co-wrote the City’s Ordinance 20180215-049 on paid sick leave. The ordinance would have required private employers to grant an hour of earned sick time for every 30 hours worked.

Greg Casar

The ordinance was pushed hard by then Council Member (now Congressman) Greg Casar, who packed council chambers with people dressed as construction workers. They booed anyone who spoke against the proposed ordinance and were not silenced by Mayor Steve Adler. On a vote taken well after midnight, the council approved the ordinance on a vote of 9-2.

The victory was short-lived. Ultimately the ordinance was shot down in the courts. The Texas Tribune reported in June 2020 the Texas Supreme Court let stand a lower court’s ruling that the ordinance is unconstitutional because it conflicted with the Texas Minimum Wage Act.

If elected, and if Mayor Kirk Watson and District 4 Council Member Jose “Chito” Vela are reelected, Siegel would be the fourth attorney on the council. District 5 Council Member Ryan Alter just won election last year.

Siegel’s campaign website is https://www.siegelforaustin.org.

His LinkedIn page is at https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaeljwsiegel/

Campaign kickoff video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQPth07rYgo

Early opposition for Siegel

Two others have already appointed campaign treasurers and plan to compete for the District 7 council seat:

Edwin Bautista

Edwin Bautista is 26 years old. He was born in Wichita Falls and moved to Austin in 2016 for higher education. He graduated from the University of Texas at Austin with a bachelor’s degree in urban studies in May 2020 and a master’s in community and regional planning in August 2023, according to the university’s online records.

He works as a management assistant at Texas Housers, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Its mission, according to its website, is to support low-income Texans’ efforts to achieve the American dream of a decent, affordable home in a quality neighborhood.

What qualifies Bautista to serve on the City Council?

“As far as the community I feel like I’ve been integrated in past seven years here…I was working part-time and involved in the community while a student, advocating for student and affordable housing. I served on an Austin City commission to push recommendations.

“I felt I’ve been involved in those conversations, certainly not as the loudest voice in the room. Regarding homelessness, I took time out of my day to give the council and planning commission my perspective.

“I would like to see someone my age advocating for young adults. A lot of what Greg Casar (elected to the City Council at age 25) stood for and did changed Austin’s direction…I would like to continue that tradition of younger people pushing the city in a new and better direction.”

Bautista’s goals as a council member are to promote innovative and transparent local government, reimagine community engagement, and develop strategic ideas for affordable housing. He wants to guide Austin toward prosperity and see Imagine Austin, Project Connect, and the I-35 expansion successfully completed.

Bautista owns a small condominium on Burnett Road that he purchased last year.

His campaign website is https://edwinfordistrict7.squarespace.com/ An innovative feature on the site is to list under Civic Duty the details of how he has voted in local elections from 2018 (the first year he voted here, according to Travis County voter records) to 2022. He always votes in Democratic Party primaries.

His LinkedIn page is at https://www.linkedin.com/in/bautistaedwin/

Pierre Nguyen

Pierre Nguyen—Pierre Long Huy Nguyen is a 35-year-old son of Vietnamese immigrants. He was appointed by Council Member Pool to serve on the Public Safety Commission effective March 1, 2023. He is listed as a stakeholder member of the Asian American Quality of Life Advisory Commission effective May 4, 2023.

He started work as a full-time as a firefighter with Travis County Emergency Services District 8 in July 2023, according to his LinkedIn page. He is also listed with American Youthworks as its environmental health and safety director. The latter position he works on his firefighter days off, he said. That page also states that Nguyen is a boatswain’s mate third class in the U.S. Coast Guard Reserve in Galveston, where he has served since July 2020.

He said he moved to Austin in 2017.

“I came to Austin because my background is in emergency management,” Nguyen said. “I wanted to focus on that. Texas has the most federally declared disasters. That’s where my passion is.

“I worked for American Youthworks running disaster response program. I saw some gaps in infrastructure…As we grow as a city we need to be able to response to crises through the Austin Fire Department, Austin Police Department, and Travis County EMS.”

Nguyen said he wants voters to know, “I think the important things for me especially is working locally is getting communities to work together. This is a challenge because people are not always willing to have conversations and reach solutions together.

“That’s what drew me to run for office. I work with a wide array of people and one thing I’ve benefitted from is having conversations with people I don’t agree with to reach common ground, to reach consensus, and to work together as a community.”

Nguyen first voted in Travis County in October 2018 and has not voted in a primary election, records show.

He does not own a home but lives in a house his parents bought in January 2021. “They plan to retire soon,” he said.

His campaign website is at https://nguyenforcitycouncil.com/about-pierre

Photo of Ken MartinTrust indicators: Ken Martin has been covering local government, politics, and elections in the Austin area for 42 years. His first major election story titled “Decency Ordained: Austin’s Anti-Gay Crusade,” was published by Third Coast magazine in January 1982. See more on Ken on the About page. Email [email protected].

Related documents:

Campaign treasurer appointment of Mike Siegel, October 11, 2023 (2 pages)

Campaign treasurer appointment and Code of Fair Campaign Practices of Edwin Bautista, October 16, 2023 (4 pages)

Campaign treasurer appointment of Pierre Nguyen, September 14, 2023 (2 pages) in which he listed himself as treasurer

Campaign treasurer appointment of Pierre Nguyen, September 25, 2023 (2 pages) in which he lists his mailing address in Block 5 not in District 7

City of Austin Ordinance No. 20180215-049, establishing earned sick time standards in the city, February 15, 2018 (9 pages)

City of El Cenizo, et al, v. State of Texas, et al (Case No. 5:17-cv-00404-OLG) August 30, 2017  (91 pages)

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision (Case No. 17-50762) May 8, 2018 (42 pages)

Michael Siegel’s State Bar card (2 pages)

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

This story was updated at 2:45pm October 17th to add documentation that shows the City Attorney has taken no enforcement action or spent even one staff hour devoted to enforcement of lobbyist regulations.

More than a hundred and ten people are registered with the City of Austin as lobbyists. Their job is to represent the interests of their clients and gain buy-in from Austin’s elected officials and other decision-makers.

Six Austin City Council members do not want you to know that they or their staffs have been meeting with these lobbyists. Let alone the names of clients the lobbyists represent.

That’s an inescapable conclusion based on the Bulldog’s compilation and summary overview of 2,252 pages of records that were obtained with six public information requests. The requests were filed in April, July, and September, and collectively cover the period from January 1st through September 11th.

A serious contributing factor to this dire situation is the City Attorney’s utter lack of attention to and enforcement of the City’s lobbying regulations. (More about that later.)

What’s the big deal?

Every person who lobbies a council member or council staff (or other city official for that matter) is required to supply certain information in writing.

Council offices (and city departments) are required to record information about each lobbyist’s visit, either on the City’s Visitor Sign-in Sheet or by other means that capture the equivalent information.

The purpose of this requirement is set forth in City Code Section 4-8-1 for regulation of lobbyists:

“The council declares that the operation of responsible democratic government requires that the fullest opportunity be afforded to the people to petition their government for redress of grievances and to express freely to any city officials their opinions on pending municipal questions and on current issues.

“Further to preserve and maintain the integrity of the government decision-making process in the city, it is necessary that the identity, expenditures, and activities of certain persons who engage in efforts to influence a city official of matters within their official jurisdictions, either by direct communication to the official, or by solicitation of others to engage in such efforts, be publicly and regularly disclosed.” (Emphasis added.)

Failure to comply with the City’s lobbying regulations appears to be a criminal offense for both council members and lobbyists. (More about that later.)

Council majority fails to meet requirements

Five who complied—Council Members Paige Ellis and Jose Velasquez properly recorded the required information on the City’s Visitor Sign-in Sheet forms.

Mayor Kirk Watson and Council Members Alison Alter (only lately) and Vanessa Fuentes have kept the required information on a Google form or in an Excel spreadsheet.

“Lately” for Alison Alter because she provided no records in response to public information requests filed April 23rd and July 25th. Those omissions led to a vigorous exchange of text messages with the Bulldog in which she asserted she “rarely met with lobbyists.”

The Excel spreadsheet she supplied in response to the Bulldog’s September 11th request shows that she recorded her first-ever lobbyist visit in 2023 on May 8th.

Collectively, these five council offices properly recorded a total of 286 lobbyist visits over the first eight-plus months of 2023.

Six didn’t comply—Council Members Ryan Alter, Natasha Harper-Madison, Mackenzie Kelly, Leslie Pool, Zohaib “Zo” Qadri, and Jose “Chito” Vela, totally ignored the recording requirement through September 11th.

In response to the Bulldog’s public information requests, all but Pool provided just their calendars. The calendars for individual council members totaled from as few as 40 pages to as many as 830 pages. But these calendars provide no means to identify lobbyists and their addresses, the city official they met with, their clients, or whether the lobbyists expected to receive compensation for the meetings.

Pool provided 29 pages of emails that reflect her scheduled meetings with groups of people that may have included one or more registered lobbyists. But no one is identified as a lobbyist. Other required details are also missing.

The Bulldog’s detailed analysis of these 2,252 pages of records involved looking for the names of people who communicated or met with a council member or council staff member, then searching for each name in a dataset of 251 registered or formerly registered lobbyists. The analysis identified 78 instances in which lobbyists have communicated with a council member or council staff member.

The analysis shows that each of these six council offices did, in fact, interact with lobbyists and many of those interactions were meetings that should have been recorded per City Code Section 4-8-8(E) and were not. More importantly, the analysis proves that—despite assertions to the contrary—calendars do not satisfy the requirement to record the details of lobbyist meetings. In reality, these calendars obscure lobbyist activities and prevent public access to required information.

Lobbyists have a right to, on behalf of their clients, appeal to elected officials and their staff members. They do not have the right to keep those interactions secret. And public officials have a duty to keep records of such meetings.

Bill Aleshire

“If Council Members do not let the public see which lobbyists visit them on behalf of which clients, then they are complicit with the lobby ordinance violation,” said attorney Bill Aleshire. “These Council Members also damage trust. Voters should be be able to have that information to know they are not being secretly influenced by special-interest lobbyists

”It sends a horrible signal that the majority of the City Council members are not honoring the lobbying ordinance. That’s an astoundingly low standard for earning the public’s trust.”

(Disclosure: Aleshire represents the Bulldog in all public information requests and on our behalf has twice successfully sued the City of Austin for public information.)

What do the offenders say?

Council Member Ryan Alter—Via text message, the Bulldog asked Alter why his file of 581 pages of calendar entries (the most recent batch supplied in response to the  Bulldog’s September 11th request) is the equivalent of sign-in sheets for keeping track of lobbyist activity in his office?

He responded: “We keep track of our meetings digitally through our email system, which is allowed under the Code. Please let me know if you have any additional questions.”

The Bulldog responded with this: “City Code Section 4-8-8(C) & (E) requires written disclosure of lobbyist visits to include: ‘A person who communicates in person with a City official for compensation on behalf of another person during a scheduled meeting on a municipal question shall disclose in writing to the city department, or office: (1) the name and address of the person; (2) the name of the City official with whom they are meeting; (3) the name of the client or person on whose behalf the appearance or contact is made; and (4) a statement regarding whether the person has received or expects to receive compensation for the appearance or contact.’ Please tell me how calendar entries capture that information.”

To which Alter—a graduate of Harvard Law School—replied: “We believe our system captures this necessary information. As the code states, a formal sign-in sheet is not required.”

The Bulldog sent another message pointing out that the council member’s calendar lists (for example) only the last names of two prominent lobbyists, (Michael) Whellan and (Richard) Suttle. “How is the public supposed to look at your calendar and know these are lobbyists?”

Alter did not reply.

Council Member Kelly—Kelly’s calendar totals 397 pages (the batch supplied in response to the September 11th request). As with other council calendars, these documents provide none of the required information about lobbyist activities in her office. In fact, 291 of those 397 pages contained redactions—and 146 entire pages were redacted.

The Bulldog initiated a lengthy dialogue via text message with Council Member Kelly, which proved more constructive. She initially said that she had been told “keeping track on my calendar was the equivalent of a sign-in sheet.”

She pointed to video of a September 27th meeting of the Audit and Finance Committee, of which she is a member. Agenda Item 2 called for discussion and possible action on amendments to City Code Chapter 4-8 and (Section) 4-8-8.

Corrie Stokes

City Auditor Corrie Stokes was at the meeting to present the item on behalf of the Ethics Review Commission’s recommendation. Kelly asked Stokes how lobby activity should be recorded in a council office. Page 12 of the 50-page transcript of that discussion left the unfortunate impression that council member calendars were acceptable as a record of lobbyist visits.

They are not.

In the Bulldog’s follow-up telephone interview with Stokes, she noted that she had not seen the detailed records obtained by the Bulldog.

Calendar entries naming a person who may be a lobbyist, but is not identified as such, buried in scores or even hundreds of pages of calendars, and lacking information as to clients and other essential details, is not sufficient, Stokes acknowledged.

Stokes said, “The audit’s we’ve done focused on whether lobbyists were complying with the registration requirement…We’ve been focused on the lobbyists and not on the council offices.”

In other words, city auditors have not reviewed council member records to see if they are recording lobbyist activity as required.

The Bulldog also sent similar text messages to the other four council members who did not supply records of lobbyist visits, but got no responses. Harper-Madison is on mental health leave. Pool and Vela did not reply. Qadri referred me to an aide, who after asking for a deadline, did not reply.

Criminal violations appear to be involved

Fred Lewis

Attorney Fred Lewis wrote the ordinance enacted September 22, 2016, and incorporated into City Code as Chapter 4-8, Regulation of Lobbyists. He said that he and Jack Gullahorn, a retired state lobbyist and ethics expert, collaborated on that project. Gullahorn previously headed the Professional Advocacy Association of Texas, which on its website claims to be “the gold standard for compliance with the law and professionalism.”

The ordinance they wrote was modeled on existing state statutes for tracking lobbyists who appear for representation before state agencies under Government Code Chapter 2004.

Council Member Pool sponsored the ordinance and it passed, “but it has not worked out well,” Lewis said. “It is, in my opinion, one of the best written municipal lobby laws in the United States. It focuses on important things and the triggers are very clear.”

He told the Bulldog that the six council members who have not kept the required records have committed criminal offenses as set forth in City Code Section 4-8-14 by “failure to perform a required act.”

In this case, the “required acts not performed” were the failures to keep records of visits made by lobbyists paid to represent clients on matters of a “municipal question.”

City Code Section 4-8-2(10) defines a “municipal question” as “the proposal of, consideration of, approval of, or negotiations concerning municipal legislation, an administrative action, or another matter that is, or may be in the future be, subject to an action or decision by a City official.”

City Code Section 4-8-8(E) states, “Each City department or office shall provide a reasonably practicable method for recording the information required by subsection (C). That information includes the date, the name and address of the lobbyist, who the lobbyist is meeting with, who the lobbyist is representing, and whether the lobbyist is being compensated for this meeting.

“They didn’t do that,” Lewis said of the six council offices. “The intent was was to make the law very clear, with penalties. The requirement to have a sign-in sheet was part and parcel of the ordinance to let the public know what lobbyists are doing and on whose behalf.”

Lawyer Aleshire is just as adamant that the lobbyists who failed to provide to council offices the written information required by City Code Section 4-8-8(C) have likewise committed criminal misdemeanors. In fact, “one for each day in which they visited a Council or other City office without providing the information in writing as required.”

Legal terminology explained

City Code Section 4-8-14 addresses criminal penalties and requires that offenses be committed “intentionally or knowingly.”

Greg Abbott
Greg Abbott

To unpack those legal terms, attorney Lewis points to the Texas Supreme Court decision in Osterberg v. Peca (Case No. 97-1027) in which then-Justice (now Governor) Greg Abbott delivered the court’s opinion.

The case is relevant to the City of Austin’s criminal penalties for lobbyist violations because it defines “knowingly” as an action or omission having been done—not whether the violator knew the act or omission was a violation.

“It doesn’t mean you knew the law, but you knew you didn’t fill out the form,” attorney Lewis said. “You are aware of the fact that you didn’t fill out the form. Every single time you don’t do it you violate the law.”

Such offenses are Class C misdemeanors punishable by a fine not to exceed $500. Each failure is a separate offense.

“It has been seven years since the ordinance was enacted,” Lewis said. “Council members have blown off this requirement for years because they don’t want to disclose this information. Therefore a penality is warranted.”

How could offenses be prosecuted?

One way the enforcement process could begin is for someone to file a sworn complaint with the City Clerk. The complaint form is published online, as are the instructions. The complaint would go the City’s Ethics Review Commission for consideration.

After determining the complaint involves matters within its jurisdiction the Ethics Review Commission would hold a required hearing. But, unlike most the matters that are considered by the Ethics Review Commission, per City Code Section 2-7-50(B), complaints involving Chapter 4-8 for regulation of lobbyists, “the commission shall hold only a preliminary hearing, and shall not hold a final hearing.”

Per City Code Section 2-7-50(C), “The commission shall refer an allegation for which the commission finds a reasonable basis to believe that there may be a violation to the city attorney for prosecution.”

But these provisions do not “limit the prosecutorial discretion of the city attorney,” per City Code Section 2-7-50(D). As stated in this article, “Prosecutorial discretion is when a prosecutor has the power to decide whether or not to charge a person for a crime, and which criminal charges to file.”

City attorney has not enforced lobbying regulations

Ultimately, the City Attorney is responsible for enforcing the criminal penalties found in City Code. But when it comes to enforcing the City’s lobbying regulations, this is an area in which the City Attorney has failed utterly.

That’s quite clear based on the fact that the City Attorney has not been submitting the written public reports to the Audit and Finance Committee, as required by City Code Section 4-8-12. These reports are extensive. They are required to be made at least quarterly.

The reports are to contain: (1) the number of referrals by the city clerk, city auditor, and other City departments; (2) the number of citizen complaints; (3) the number of investigations opened by the city attorney, whether on account of a referral or on the city attorney’s own initiative; (4) the number of cases settled; (5) the number of subpoenas for documents issued; (6) the number of witnesses subpoenaed; (7) the number of cases tried; (8) the number of cases in which a fine was imposed; (9) the number of cases in which a fine was not imposed or the person was adjudged not liable; (10) the amount of fines assessed and collected; and (11) the number of city attorney staff hours devoted for the period for the enforcement of this chapter.”

Neal Falgoust

The Bulldog filed a public information request October 6th for copies of these reports covering the three most recent quarters. Assistant City Attorney Neal Falgoust, who a few months ago was made the new division chief for ethics and open government in the City’s Law Department, called October 14th to say these reports had not been made.

“We’ve had a lot of turnover in the division in the past year and these reports slipped through the cracks,” Falgoust said. “We are going back and getting caught up and will give you a report for this year to date.

“We haven’t submitted these reports to Audit and Finance Committee but we’re getting caught up,” he said.

After this story was published, the Bulldog downloaded the Law Department’s written summary of “Enforcement: Regulation of Lobbyists” that is responsive to the Bulldog‘s request.

The summary shows: zero referrals; zero citizen complaints and complaints addressed by the Ethics Review Commission; zero investigations opened by the City Attorney; and zero staff hours devoted to enforcement by Law Department staff. All of which documents and supports the conclusion that the City Attorney has failed to enforce lobbyist regulations.

The Bulldog made a follow-up call this morning to ask Falgoust just how far back the failure to make these reports goes. “I honestly don’t know,” he said. “We can go back and look.

“Our focus right now is getting the problem fixed going forward. When we find problems we like to fix them. I can get back to you later today,” Falgoust said.

Lewis said. “The City Attorney needs to stop playing politics and enforce the law.”

“The result of all this is nobody takes the lobbying laws seriously because they know they will not be enforced. That’s on the City Council and the City Manager. They allow it because they want it.

“If the city attorney is not going to prosecute offenders and take the law seriously,” Lewis said, “why don’t we just announce that we don’t care about lobbyist transparency and admit the hypocrisy?”

City Attorney Anne Morgan has not yet responded to a voice message left for her late this morning asking for comment on this story.

Council trashed a stronger enforcement mechanism

Soon after gaining passage of the lobbyist regulations that he and Jack Gullahorn wrote, Lewis learned the City’s was not enforcing them. That motivated him to work on fixing the problem. Starting more than five years ago, as an appointed member of the 2018 Charter Review Commission, he drafted, and the Commission recommended to the City Council, that the City put a proposition on the ballot to allow voters to decide whether to establish an Independent Ethics Commission.

Its purpose would be “to impartially and effectively administer and enforce all city laws relating to campaign finance, campaign disclosure, conflicts of interest, financial statement disclosure, lobbyist regulations, revolving door, disqualification of members of city boards, certain conflict of interest and ethics laws, and other responsibilities assigned the Commission.”

Among the commission’s many powers and duties laid out in the 11-page recommendation, this independent body would “enforce all Commission-administered laws by receiving and initiating complaints; authorizing and conducting investigations; holding hearings; making findings on violations of any Commission-administered laws; levying appropriate civil sanctions, fees and administrative fines; issuing and enforcing administrative orders to compel reports and other required filings; and all other necessary authority to enforce Commission-administered ordinances.”

If voters approved its establishment, the commission would have been empowered to “investigate and report criminal violations and to make referrals to Municipal Court and other appropriate jurisdictions. It could “administer oaths and affirmations; examine witnesses; and compel attendance of persons and production of documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, and records by subpoena.” (Emphasis added.)

That’s real power. That power would have provided strong enforcement. As it turned out, however, it was power the City Council did not want an independent body to possess. Or even to allow Austin voters to decide if they wanted to establish the commission.

The recommendation to establish an Independent Ethics Commission was one of nine the commission submitted to the City Council May 7, 2018. As the Bulldog reported in “Charter revisions flushed down the drain,” the council picked the two least substantive charter changes to put on the November 6, 2018, ballot.

Council Member Pool, whose resolution was enacted to establish that Charter Review Commission, said, “We still have time to consider other items on the list. But at this time the council lacks the bandwidth to assess the many and important items the Charter Review Commission brought to us.”

Why do elected officials ignore city code?

“In an effort to slow the spread of the new coronavirus, most City of Austin employees began working from home” after the Covid emergency was declared by Mayor Steve Adler March 6, 2020, said City spokesperson Shelley Parks via email.

When working remotely, theoretically at least, there were no in-person meetings with lobbyists. Thus, no recording of interactions with lobbyists would have been required by City Code.

Now they the council members are back working in City Hall and meeting with lobbyists, but not all are recording these visits.

There’s a big loophole in current lobbyist-recording requirements. At present lobbyist visits need only be recorded if the visits are in-person. That hole will be plugged if the City Council approves the proposed amendment to City Code Section 4-8-8 at its scheduled October 19th meeting (agenda item 44).

This amendment was proposed by the Ethics Review Commission. It was approved unanimously by the council’s five-member Audit and Finance Committee September 27th. The amendment would require lobbyist activity to be recorded when a person “communicates directly” (rather than in-person) with city officials,

The amendment would also modify City Code Section 4-8-10 to change how often the City Auditor reviews lobbyist activities. In addition, it would change the auditor’s focus away from reviewing compliance by those who have voluntarily registered. Instead the job would be to identify people who lobby but have not registered as required. The findings would be reported to the City Clerk, City Attorney, and the Ethics Review Commission.

Scheduled meeting loophole

Greg Casar

Another glaring omission in the current City Code—that is not addressed in the proposed amendment up for consideration October 19th—is the “scheduled meeting” exception.

That was inserted when the September 2022 ordinance was passed in response to a last-minute amendment by then Council Member (now Congressman) Greg Casar. He inserted language that requires a lobbyist’s visit to be recorded only if the visit was “during a scheduled meeting.”

Attorney Lewis said, “The language about ‘scheduled meetings’ was not in the proposed ordinance; it’s about not having to record it if you didn’t schedule a visit and just walked in. You can walk in that door and get greeted with a hug.

“Casar did that knowingly,” Lewis said. “He didn’t want our (the ordinance drafters’) input. He did it for some lobbyist…It’s an obnoxious loophole written by Greg Casar and consented to by our council.”

That’s a loophole of potentially gigantic proportions, although there is no way to determine whether it is actually being exploited.

Should follow Ora Houston’s example

Ora Houston

When it comes to following the City Code requirement to make a record of interactions with lobbyists, City Council Member Ora Houston set the supreme example.

She was elected in 2014 and took office in January 2015. Houston and nine others were the first council members elected from geographic districts. She represented District 1 and was the only African American on the council. She served her four-year term and chose not to seek reelection.

City Auditor Stokes recalled, “Council Member Houston carried her lobbyist sign-in form with her to church. If someone wanted to talk to her about city business she would pull out that form and make them sign it. She was meeting the intent of the regulation by making sure everything was written down.”

Houston confirmed that to the Bulldog: “Sundays are my day of rest, so do not talk to me about city business on Sundays,” she would tell her church congregation.

“Every once in a while, not often, somebody would show up in church, and would ask to speak to me. I said, ‘No, this is my sabbath and I don’t talk about city business on the sabbath. But if we do talk, you have to sign the sign-in sheet.’ They would say, ‘This is not in city hall.’ I said, ‘Wherever I am you have to sign.’ It was real clear to the people in the congregation.”

Let this be warning to others

Every City office and every city employee who meets in person with a registered lobbyist is required to use the sign-in sheet (or equivalent record) to record the visit. If they don’t, then they are also committing a misdemeanor, just like the lobbyist who goes to the meeting and doesn’t supply the required information in writing.

There literally could be hundreds of criminal defendants if the City Attorney begins enforcing Chapter 4-8 of the City Code.

Trust indicators: Ken Martin has been covering local government and politics in the Austin area since 1981. See more on Ken on the About page. Email [email protected].

Who funds this work? This report was made possible by contributions to The Austin Bulldog, which operates as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit for investigative reporting in the public interest. You can help support this independent coverage by making a tax-deductible contribution.

Related documents:

2018 Charter Revision Commission proposal to create an Independent Ethics Commission, May 7, 2018 (11 pages)

Mayor Kirk Watson sign-in sheets showing 26 lobbyist visits

Kirk Watson Excel file showing 41 lobbyist visits

Council Member Alison Alter Excel spreadsheet showing four lobbyist visits

Council Member Ryan Alter calendars totaling 249 pages

Council Member Ryan Alter calendars pages 1-300

Council Member Ryan Alter calendars pages 301-581

Council Member Paige Ellis Excel sign-in sheets showing 32 lobbyist visits

Council Member Vanessa Fuentes Google file showing 10 lobbyist visits

Council Member Vanessa Fuentes Excel file showing 23 lobbyist visits

Council Member Natasha Harper-Madison calendars totaling 14 pages

Council Member Natasha Harper-Madison calendars totaling 26 pages

Council Member Mackenzie Kelly calendars totaling 83 pages

Council Member Mackenzie Kelly calendars totaling 397 pages, of which 146 pages are redacted in their entirety

Council Member Leslie Pool emails totaling 3 pages

Council Member Leslie Pool emails totaling 20 pages

Council Member Leslie Pool emails totaling 6 pages

Council Member Jose “Chito” Vela calendars totaling 56 pages

Council Member Jose “Chito” Vela calendars totaling 374 pages

Council Member Jose Velasquez sign-in sheets showing 57 lobbyist visits

Council Member Jose Velasquez sign-in sheets showing 32 lobbyist visits with inappropriate redactions of all lobbyist addresses

Council Member Zohaib “Zo” Qadri calendars totaling 352 pages

Council Member Zohaib “Zo” Qadri calendars totaling 147 pages

Ordinance No. 200160922-005, an ordinance repealing and replacing Chapter 4-8 of the City Code related to lobbying, etc. Enacted September 22, 2016 (19 pages)

Proposed Independent Ethics Commission Amendment, Appendix D to full report of May 7, 2018 (11 pages)

The Austin Bulldog’s detailed analysis of Austin City Council Members calendars and emails showing interactions with lobbyists (Excel spreadsheet)

The Austin Bulldog’s summary overview of City Council members’ compliance with City Code Section 4-8-8(E) to maintain records of lobbyist visits (Excel spreadsheet)

Related Bulldog coverage:

Charter revisions flushed down the drain, June 28, 2018

Trust, but verify

We would like to think people in our nation’s highest offices adhere to the highest ethical principles.

Yet recent news reports have exposed U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who let billionaires pick up the tabs for expensive vacations, private jet flights, and pay the private school tuition for his kinfolk.

U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey) was just indicted in a sprawling corruption scheme. A search of his home found he had more than $550,000 in cash and 13 bars of gold bullion worth more than $100,000.

Former President Donald Trump (R-Florida) is under indictment for numerous state and federal criminal offenses. A New York state judge just ruled that he committed fraud by inflating the value of his real estate holdings.

What about local government?

We would like to think that local public officials follow a stronger moral compass. We hope they are making ethical decisions without being swayed by opportunities for personal gain.

But how can we be certain?

Fact is, we can’t, as our reporting in recent months illustrates.

Jacqueline Yaft

Airport chief executive—Our investigative report showed the City’s highly paid chief executive of Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, Jacqueline Yaft—despite being explicitly warned by the City’s Law Department—failed to report a conflict of interest involving her former employer. That former employer is an airport contractor. Yaft signed off on more than $500,000 in payments to that firm. The City Auditor’s office confirmed Yaft’s conflict.

City commission members—We reported that members of two City of Austin commissions were under fire for alleged conflicts of interest because the nonprofit organizations they work for might profit from their official actions. If the Ethics Review Commission had been up to its authorized strength, when it conducted a preliminary hearing, the complaints against them likely would have proceeded to final hearings and possible sanctions.

Jose Velasquez

City Council member—We reported that Austin City Council Member Jose Velasquez failed to report his connection to, and income from, the East Austin Conservancy. After a hearing, the Ethics Review Commission slapped him with a Letter of Admonition.

Are we to believe these the only ethical transgressions committed by local officials?

How would we know?

Citizens need to monitor conduct

If we want our local public officials to behave ethically and honestly we need to be able to surveil their conduct.

To do that, we need tools. We need details about their financial interests so we can spot situations in which they may be tempted to help themselves instead of serving the public interest.

Did they benefit from awarding contracts to certain businesses?

Will approving a zoning case benefit their personal real estate values?

Might approving a technology project increase the value of their stocks?

These rhetorical questions offer concrete examples of things we would have no way of knowing about. Not unless we were armed with information about their business interests, real estate holdings and stock ownership.

The Bulldog’s Government Accountability Project (GAP) provides that information for some—but not all—local government officials. Not all because not every local government agency requires such disclosures. (More details about that later.)

Officials required to self-report conflicts

State law requires most public officials to file reports when they, or their family members, have an interest in a business or real estate, or a relationship with a vendor, that might cause them to personally benefit from their official decisions or votes.

That amounts to an honor system, defined as “a system granting freedom from customary surveillance with the understanding that those who are so freed will be bound by their honor to observe regulations and will therefore not abuse the trust placed in them.”

Some local government officials—such as city and county elected officeholders and candidates for these elective offices—must file Personal Financial Statements on forms prescribed by the Texas Ethics Commission. These statements require disclosure of sources of income, retainers, investments, interests in real estate and businesses, boards and executive positions, interest in business in common with lobbyists, and contracts with governmental entities.

But these statements are not published by the agencies that collect them.

State law requires that Personal Financial Statements be kept from public view—unless you jump through bureaucratic hoops.

Local Government Code Section 145.007(b) requires that anyone who wants to see these statements must file a public information request and complete a form that shows the date of the request, the name and address of the requestor, and the name of the organization the requestor represents.

In addition to Personal Financial Statements, City Code Section 2-7-72 requires elected officials, high-level employees, and members of boards and commissions to file Statements of Financial Interest that contain additional details. But these, too, are not published; they are released only in response to a public information request.

Adding to shroud of secrecy, the City of Austin and Travis County do not publish anything that would let the public know these financial documents even exist—let alone how to obtain copies.

Other local governments require even less

Austin Independent School District—The nine elected trustees who form the governing body oversee an annual budget of $1.8 billion. Yet they are not required to file financial disclosures of any kind.

Austin Transit Partnership—This organization was formed by the City of Austin and the CapMetro after voters in 2020 voted to implement Project Connect. Its seven-member board and executive director are responsible for successful delivery of a multi-billion-dollar plan to expand transit options and add light rail services.

The board members each file a Statement of Financial Interests and Affiliations just one time, when appointed. The form lists employment, entities from which a member or a member’s immediate family received more than 10 percent of gross income in the previous year, substantial ownership interests, loans, and interests in real estate other than their personal residence. The agency’s general counsel told the Bulldog, “ATP Board Members are expected to keep their Statement of Financial Interest and Affiliations up to date and submit new or updated forms as appropriate.”

Central Health—This agency wins the award for the most bizarre arrangement for personal accountability. The nine people on the Board of Managers are appointed by Travis County (four members), the City of Austin (four members) and one member jointly by these two agencies.

Travis County appointees were required to file Personal Financial Statements on the Texas Ethics Commission’s form as part of their applications to serve on the Board of Managers. But they are not required to update those forms, no matter how many years they serve on the board.

City of Austin appointees to the Board of Managers are not required to file any financial disclosures whatsoever.

Travis Central Appraisal District—Nine members of the Board of Directors are appointed by the taxing jurisdictions served by TCAD. The Travis County tax assessor-collector serves as an ex-officio (non-voting) member. TCAD Operating Policies adopted by the board in 2012 required board members to file Financial Disclosures on the district’s own internal form each January. These covered their financial activities in the preceding calendar year.

Policy changes subsequently adopted by the board eliminated the requirement for its members to file annual financial disclosures.

Records public officials don’t want you to see

The local government agencies that do require public officials to submit these reports just collect and file them away. No one reviews the documents to see if the information they contain raises red flags about how the officials carry our their official duties.

“It is the duty of the individual filer to ensure the submitted information is correct and complete,” a city spokesperson said in response to the Bulldog’s question about internal reviews. “The Law Department provides legal advice as requested.”

Further, “It is the duty of the individual filer to disclose conflicts of interest and/or decide whether to abstain from decisions or votes. The Law Department provides legal advice as requested on any potential conflicts.”

The policy of leaving disclosures to personal discretion was challenged by the City’s Ethics Review Commission. In July 2022, the Commission passed a resolution recommending that financial disclosures of council members and council candidates be posted to the City’s website. But as the Bulldog reported, City Council members have shown no interest in establishing that requirement. So, the Bulldog will continue to file public information requests to get these records and publish them in the GAP.

Freedom of information is critical

Kelley Shannon

“Thank you, Ken Martin and The Austin Bulldog, for launching this new open government project. It is sure to help Austin area residents as they keep a watch on their public officials,” said Kelley Shannon, executive director of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas.

“We at the FOI Foundation of Texas are always urging governments to post more information online. It makes it easier for citizens and for government employees who respond to Public Information Act requests. In this case, the Government Accountability Project is making important documents available online on one site so everyone can stay informed.”

Photo of Ken MartinTrust indicators: I’m editor Ken Martin and the GAP is my baby. It has taken me nine months to deliver this project. I’m making it available as a free public resource. If access to this kind of information is important to you, please donate now to show your support. You can reach me at [email protected].

Announcing the Government Accountability Project

Local officials manage government organizations that spend billions of our tax dollars. They should always act in the public interest—not for personal profit. We want to trust, but we need to verify. The Government Accountability Project (GAP) provides a means to do that.

We’re making several hundred documents available so that anyone can monitor conduct and spot ethical lapses in these government officials.

By publishing documents not otherwise available online, the GAP provides maximum government transparency. It contains 6,500 pages of records about specific officials in six local government agencies who are entrusted with the duty and fiduciary responsibility to manage institutions of major importance. We got them by filing more than 135 public information requests.

If government officials wanted you to see these records they would publish them on their own websites. But they don’t.

Hundreds of documents. Thousands of pages. All searchable by the public official’s name. Easy access by entering your email address. For free.

Pick your target and see what we’ve got: https://theaustinbulldog.org/gap/

Ruling allows immediate fundraising for 2024 elections

3
Robert Pitman

The City Council is scheduled to get a closed-door executive session briefing from the Law Department September 14th to discuss legal fallout from Judge Robert Pitman’s August 30th decision. The judge’s order declared unconstitutional an Austin City Code prohibition on candidates soliciting or accepting campaign contributions until a year before an election. (Case No. 1:21-cv-00271, Jennifer Virden v. City of Austin.) The item is not on the agenda for action. At issue is whether the City will appeal that decision.

The mayoral and council elections will be held November 5, 2024, according to the Texas Secretary of State’s website. Early voting by personal appearance in that election starts October 23, 2024.

If not for Pitman’s decision, fundraising by candidates running in 2024 would have been prohibited before November 5th per City Code Section 2-2-7(B) and (G).

Two high-profile candidates—one who ran in recent elections and another who served three terms on the council—have expressed interest and are waiting for clarification of the legal start date for fundraising (more about them later).

Who’s eligible for the 2024 ballot?

The terms of six Austin City Council members will end December 31, 2024. Four of them are eligible to run for reelection:

Kirk Watson

Mayor Kirk Watson narrowly defeated Celia Israel in the December 2022 runoff. He won a two-year term that was set so that all mayoral elections, including this one, will be held during a presidential election year.

District 4 Council Member Jose “Chito” Vela won a special election in January 2022 to serve out the unexpired term of Greg Casar, who left office early to run for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

District 2 Council Member Vanessa Fuentes and District 6 Council Member Mackenzie Kelly both won their first-term elections in 2020.

Two incumbents term-limited

Two current council members are term-limited. City Charter Article II Section 5, requires such candidates to step down. Or they may get on the ballot again by gathering signatures from at least 5 percent of the qualified voters within their districts. They are:

Leslie Pool

District 7 Council Member Leslie Pool. She was elected to a two-year term in 2014, then reelected to four-year terms in both 2016 and 2020. She did not respond to a Friday text message asking if she will seek another term.

District 10 Council Member Alison Alter. She won four-year terms in both 2016 and 2020. She did not respond to a Friday text message asking if she will seek another term.

Daryl Slusher

Successful petition drives by previous term-limited council members were run by Kathie Tovo in 2018, and by Jackie Goodman, Beverly Griffith, and Daryl Slusher in 2002. All four succeeded in getting the ballot again.

The successful 2002 petition drives were all the more notable because at that time council members were elected at-large. They each needed more than 21,000 signatures to qualify for a place on the ballot.

Goodman and Slusher were reelected with thumping margins without a runoff. Griffith fell far behind her challenger, Betty Dunkerley, who garnered almost 42 percent of the votes in the general election to Griffith’s 29 percent. Griffith withdrew without a runoff.

Seriously interested potential candidates

Jennifer Virden

Jennifer Virden—She is the plaintiff whose lawsuit blew a hole in the City Charter prohibition on raising funds until a full year before the election. Virden is eyeing two possible options. She could run for mayor again, meaning she would be running an uphill battle to unseat Watson. Or she could run for the District 10 seat that will be vacated by Alter, unless the incumbent gains ballot access by petition.

In a Friday email, Virden told the Bulldog, “I am waiting for clarification as to whether the fundraising window is open. I am considering both options.”

Alison Alter defeated Virden in 2020 by 656 votes out of the 24,304 votes cast in the December 15, 2020, runoff. That gave Alter a win with 51.35 percent of the votes.

Two years later in 2022, Virden ran for mayor. She plopped down a $300,000 loan to her campaign on the first day of the fundraising period. Despite Virden’s immense early edge in cash on hand, she managed to attract just $183,009 in contributions to support her campaign through the general election. Meanwhile Israel finished out the runoff by raising $706,055—slightly more than a third of Watson’s $1,978,354.

Virden failed to make the runoff. She placed a distant third with 18.40 percent of the general election votes. (Watson netted 34.90 percent in the general election, second to Celia Israel’s 40.00 percent. But Watson went on to edge Israel in the runoff by 942 votes out of the 114,188 cast.

After the election was over, Virden repaid herself $220,000 of that $300,000 loan.

Kathie Tovo

Kathie Tovo—This former three-term Council Member also is considering the mayor’s race for 2024.

In a text message last Friday, Tovo told the Bulldog, “I haven’t made a decision yet about the mayor’s race but am mulling things over and will begin a period of more focused discernment here soon!”

Tovo was first elected to the council in June 2011 by knocking out incumbent Randi Shade in a runoff. That election happened in the wake of the Bulldog’s investigative report about the City Council’s institutionalized practice of violating the Texas Open Meetings Act. That practice involved the mayor and council members meeting with each other, one-on-one or two-on-one, behind closed doors before every council meeting. Travis County Attorney David Escamilla launched his investigation the day the story broke.

The Bulldog’s investigative report was published in January 2011. The Shade-Tovo runoff was held in June 2011.  Like all others on the council at that time, Shade was under criminal investigation. Tovo breezed to an easy win with 56.26 percent.

When Tovo ran for reelection in 2014, that for the first election requiring council members to be elected to represent 10 geographic districts. When district lines were drawn by an independent redistricting commission, Tovo and Council Member Chris Riley landed in the same District 9. In the general election Tovo got 49.11 percent of the votes, Riley got 40.39 percent, and withdrew instead of participating in a runoff.

To get on the ballot again in 2018 Tovo had to petition. She and volunteers gathered at least the 3,516 signatures needed. She went on to get 52.73 percent of the votes cast in the general election, winning without a runoff against three challengers. That term was ended in 2022.

Like Virden, Tovo has very deep pockets. She loaned her campaign $61,807 for the 2011 campaign against Shade. Over the course of her 2014 reelection campaign she invested another $100,000 to bring her loan total to $161,807. The campaign finance report she filed January 13, 2023, shows that she is still carrying that debt.

Tovo appointed a treasurer in early February 2022 to indicate she would run for mayor that year. Ultimately she made no effort to raise funds and did not file for a place on the ballot.

This story was updated at 3:42pm September 5, 2023, to correct the erroneous statement that Kathie Tovo had not loaned money to her council campaigns. She is, in fact, still carrying total campaign debts of $161,807 from those campaigns.

This story was updated again 9:33am September 6, 2023, to correct the erroneous date for the 2024 election, which is November 5th, not November 7th.

Photo of Ken MartinTrust indicators: Ken Martin has been investigating local government agencies and officials in the Austin area since 1981. He founded The Austin Bulldog in 2009 and began publishing on the website in April 2010. You can reach him at [email protected].

Related documents:

Judge Robert Pitman’s Order in Jennifer Virden et al v. City of Austin, August 30, 2023 (18 pages)

Related Bulldog coverage:

Virden lawsuit overturns city campaign restriction, August 31, 2023