Home Blog Page 3

District 10 Council candidates jump in early

2

With 2024 being a presidential election year—maybe a rerun of the 2020 election between Joe Biden and Donald Trump—we should be expecting record-breaking turnout in Austin voting.

Add to that, for the first time in Austin’s history, the mayor’s race will be on the same ballot as the presidential contest.

Candidates running for the five council seats on that November 2024 ballot will need to work extra hard to get the attention and support of local voters who will be constantly bombarded on all media platforms by deep-pocketed candidates seeking higher office.

As of January 31, 2023, there were 70,666 qualified voters in District 10, according to information supplied by a city spokesperson. In the general election of November 3, 2020, when the District 10 council seat was last contested, seven candidates drew a combined total of 49,372 votes. For the runoff of December 15, 2020, 24,304 votes were recorded, with incumbent Alison Alter defeating Jennifer Virden with 51.35 percent.

A Council District Demographic Profile published by the Planning Department indicates District 10’s population in the 2020 census, updated in 2021 by the American Community Survey, was 98,455. The median age was 38.8.

Fourteen percent were immigrants, the same percentage as for age 65 and older. Nineteen percent were under the age of 18.

They lived in 45,979 households with a median income of $102,303. That makes District 10 the second most affluent, behind District 8’s median household income of $118,336.

Ninety-nine percent had high school diplomas and 76 percent had a bachelor’s degree or higher education.

Early District 10 entrants

Marc Duchen (no middle name) is 45 years of age and has a long history of involvement in the issues that face the Austin City Council.

Asked why he’s running for City Council, Duchen said the council will have a “big hole in District 10” when it loses Alison Alter’s experience.

For nine years he’s been on the Stillhouse Hollow Condominium Owners Association, which consists of 180 units surrounded on three sides by greenbelts. He is currently its president and helps oversee an annual budget he says is $750,000.

He is a board member of Community Not Commodity, a group in the forefront of fights against the City Council’s plan to eliminate single-family neighborhoods. The group organized against CodeNEXT in 2017 and recently provided a system for filing protests to protect homes and neighborhoods. That effort resulted in some 16,000 protests being filed against the HOME initiative, which the council nevertheless approved 9-2 December 7th.

Duchen is also vice president of programming for the Austin Neighborhoods Council and for five years he has been a member of ANC’s executive committee. “We need a smart, pragmatic person to ask questions and be a balanced advocate for neighborhoods and capable of understanding city’s finances, where we’re spending, and what we can afford,” he said.

“The public has been largely shut out of policies and we’re worse off for it. We need to bring in someone that favors an inclusive process and has the courage to acknowledge when things aren’t working. Someone with creativity to find new and data-informed solutions.

He was encouraged by the Zilker Rewilding outcome that prevented Zilker Park from being turned into a commercial venue. “I felt like that really demonstrated that we can achieve a broad-based coalition to push back against the council’s excesses. For me that’s a potential roadmap going forward.”

Duchen has been involved in politics for decades. He does business in that arena as HD Campaigns LLC. He formed the company in August 2009 with Herb Holland, according to records maintained by the Texas Secretary of State. The latest Public Information Report for the firm filed May 13, 2023, lists him as principal and director.

He first voted in a Travis County election in 2007 and has voted in only Democratic primaries.

Ashika Lekha Ganguly is 28 and sees things from a different perspective. She is a former Austin ISD school teacher.

Ashika Ganguly in a Matthews Elementary School classroom.

Asked why she’s running for council, Ganguly said, “Sometimes I think every experience I’ve had has prepared me for this moment. I was born and raised in West Austin…I really saw as a teacher how everything in the city shapes our families stability, happiness and success.

“I want to take that experience I saw as a teacher and add to it my experience with policy making at the state on property taxes, voting….”

“I feel strongly about bringing a fresh face to strong leadership at the local level. (I want) to represent my community, the families I taught, in a way that stands up to state preemption and allows us to fight for equitable policies at the local level.”

Since January 1st she has been legislative director for State Representative John Bucy (D-Cedar Park).

It should be noted that although she is campaigning under her maiden name, both her state personnel file and Travis County voting record are still under her former married name, Parker.

She married Ryan Lee Parker in December 2018 and was divorced in November 30, 2022, a month before she began work on Bucy’s staff. Her divorce decree permitted a name change. She told the Bulldog, “I’m planning to change back to my maiden name in public identify. That’s the name I grew up with, was born and raised with. It also ties me to my heritage. I have not quite gotten around to it.”

She first voted in Travis County in 2014 and has voted in only Democratic primaries.

Key issues for these candidates

Ganguly said if elected she will focus on “smart spending,” by developing preventive and proactive policies that would spend money upfront to counter “reactionary policies in spending government money.”

Environmentalism and sustainability and her second priority issues. She notes that the Edwards Aquifer is “in dire straits right now” and lakes are at “the lowest levels in years.”

“A big issue for my district is wildfire prevention and protection. There’s a lot of open land. Anything from robust first response and development practices that mitigate wildfire, I’m putting my interest there.”

A ”thriving community” is her third priority, a community where you can live, work, play and be mobile in your own community. She advocates for robust urban transit, trails, sidewalks, and development that contributes to vibrancy of the community.

She said the bulldozing of the old Randall’s supermarket at Lake Austin Boulevard and Exposition and replacing it with a “new, fancy-schmancy HEB” was transformative for her neighborhood.

Duchen starts with the bigger picture, saying, “Austin faces significant challenges on most city fronts including land use, mobility, affordability, and public safety. These challenges have all been compounded by over a decade of hypergrowth, and further complicated by a series of unsuccessful or misaligned council policies.

“But it’s not just Austin.  My two decades of experience in politics and engagement suggest that our entire American Democratic system of government is in trouble.  Austin’s challenges may as well be ‘Exhibit A.’ ”

On the issue of mobility, Duchen cites the failure in executing plans for Project Connect, whose scope has been reduced and its cost increased. “The central challenge right now is that we have already earmarked a generation’s worth of transit dollars for a project that has both been downsized and continues to carry enormous risks—including whether it can actually solve our transit needs.” Instead, he advocates “Prioritizing busing including dedicated busing lanes, flyovers, even tunnels, that could be part of a multi-modal system that includes more bike lanes and other modes of transit that is both flexible to the public’s needs and that people would actually use.”

Duchen points to the shortage of police officers, low morale, and lengthy response times. “We need to be thoughtful, going forward, about how we invest in and support public safety and our police, including our cadet classes, and how communities and residents can partner with them to make their communities safe and reduce emergency response times.”

“We need to re-establish the connection between communities and their APD representatives.  We can both hold APD accountable and support public safety initiatives. They aren’t mutually exclusive.”

Regarding homeless housing, Duchen said, “There are nonprofits in this space that have decades of experience working with the chronically homeless, such as New Hope Housing in Houston.  They raise money privately and fund operations through housing tax credits. Most importantly, they have a wealth of experience building and managing facilities and working with neighbors in a way that the City of Austin and city providers do not. We can partner with these groups, incentivize them using city land or other benefits, and over time scale up a program that supports both homeless housing and low-cost housing.”

Both connected to the immigrant experience

Ganguly was born in Austin and is the daughter of immigrants who came from India for graduate studies and stayed. She said she considers herself an Asian American Pacific Islander.

Ashika Ganguly with her dog Rani

She is single with no children and lives with her mixed-breed dog Rani in a condo near the Lions Municipal Golf Course (and that fancy-schmancy HEB). The dwelling is owned by her parents, who reside just outside the District 10 border in the city’s two-mile extraterritorial jurisdiction.

She attended Eanes ISD campuses at Barton Creek Elementary, West Ridge Middle School, and Westlake High School before enrolling at UT Austin in the fall 2013 semester. She graduated with a bachelor’s degree in applied learning and development December 17, 2016, and started work two days later as a school teacher at Blazier Elementary, she said. Ganguly then transferred to Matthews Elementary in Clarksville for her last four years of teaching, ending in May 2021.

Duchen was born in Johannesburg, South Africa. His family emigrated to the United States when he was 4. He became a naturalized U.S. citizen at about age 12, he said. He attended public schools in Houston.

Marc Duchen with his dog Crumpet

He is single with no children and lives with his cocker spaniel, Crumpet, in a condo owned by his father, who lives in Houston.

Duchen came to Austin in 1996 to enroll at the University of Texas, the year after Ganguly was born. He graduated with a bachelor’s degree in government in 2001. In 2009, he said, he earned a master’s in business administration from the Acton School of Business in Austin.

He says he ran political campaigns across Texas in his early career and ran Betty Dunkerley’s reelection campaign in 2005. (She defeated four challengers without a runoff.) After spending the next year in Corpus Christi running a successful state house race, he returned to Austin to work for the Texas Progress Council and served as research director for the Texas Democratic Party, he said.

After graduate school he did more political consulting, he said, before transitioning to work in a variety of technology projects.

Far different campaign styles

The City Council members who won open seats in the 2022 election spent from around $150,000 to a bit more than $200,000, according to the Bulldog’s analysis. How much will these two spend?

Duchen said “From the git-go I need at least $100,000. To get to $150,000 to $200,000 by next November seems doable. There’s no way I would have jumped in if I didn’t think so.”

“The takeaway (from the 2022 election) was not money, but who did what…I’m going to have to go work really hard and knock on doors myself…I plan to knock on 50,000 doors over the next 11 months, which would mean that some people will get more than one knock.”

Duchen said he will not be aided by the tool that Democrats often use as a guide for which doors to knock, the NGP VAN (Voter Access Network). “I feel like its outdated and not the best data. I have my own database,” he said, “that’s part of what I do professionally. But I’ll probably enlist Leland’s targeting advice,” he added, referring to Leland Beatty. “Leland is brilliant and probably knows more about campaign data and specifically Austin data than anyone I know.”

Duchen has a “coming soon” placeholder for a campaign website, marcforaustin.com, but no campaign manager and no plans to hire one till next summer. “The logic is to keep overhead as low as possible,” he told the Bulldog.

Duchen initially said in an interview that he would be using Mark Nathan of the City Lights Group as a campaign consultant.But on December 18th he emailed the Bulldog to say that Nathan “has another commitment and as a result will not be able to formally help my campaign next year.”

Ganguly posted a video to Facebook November 18th saying she had raised $15,000 in the first week of her campaign. Later she held another fundraiser at her parent’s home. “I’m thinking in terms of increments,” she told the Bulldog. “I plan to raise $30,000 to $40,000 by January and will have good momentum, and will be close to $200,000 by end of it.”

She is active on X (formerly Twitter) and Instagram. And her campaign website (dominated in bright orange reminiscent of UT’s burnt orange) provides a long list of supporters, both elected officials, community leaders, and others.

“I made the decision to run at the beginning of June, talking to community leaders, friends, and neighbors every day to get the campaign off the ground. The response has been overwhelming and positive. I’m so grateful to have people work with me for a better Austin.”

Ganguly said she will “likely use the VAN” to guide her efforts in knocking on doors. “I’m still looking through the voter data, especially after redistricting. I want to be intentional with our outreach and meeting voters who are new to District 10. But we plan to engage voters in every precinct throughout the campaign in order to effectively represent every precinct on the dais.”

Ganguly’s campaign manager is Kyle Burke, who, like her, is an aide for State Representative Bucy. She has no campaign consultant but told the Bulldog she has “some folks helping me” and has “sat down with a number of people involved in Austin politics to pick brains and think about a path to victory.”

She said that Burke has worked on campaigns including Mike Collier for lieutenant governor in 2018, Jay Kleburg for land commissioner in 2022, and for Vanessa Fuentes in her 2020 election to win a seat on the City Council. Fuentes’s campaign finance report posted in January 2021 shows that she paid Burke $500 for contract labor in that entire campaign.

Differences in personal health

Ganguly said when she was a teacher, “I don’t think I ever had a free moment.” Since then she’s found time for a number of activities, including involvement in Indian-American community events. She said she volunteers with Keep Austin Beautiful and for Shoal Creek cleanups, and enjoys happy hours and social activities, including exercising with two groups.

She said she works out with Trinity Training Company, which offers a variety of experiences. She also trains with Relay, which on its Instragram page appears to have a large member base that engages in a variety of strenuous physical exercises.

Cruise through her Instagram photos and you’ll quickly see that Ganguly is super fit.

Duchen has had a far different life experience. He is a cancer survivor. “I’m five years cancer-free, which is the point that the odds of a recurrence plummet.”

In this council campaign he is following in the footsteps of many public officials who have been open about chronic health challenges, among them New York Mayor Eric Adams, who has diabetes; Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman, who suffered from depression following a stroke; and closer to home, Council Member Natasha Harper-Madison, who recently returned from a couple of months off for a mental health break.

“This year has been extremely challenging for me,” Harper-Madison told the Austin American-Statesman last month. “I live with depression and anxiety. Thankfully these issues can be treated with focused care.”

Duchen said, “Far more so than cancer, my life changed as a high school freshman when I woke up one day and could not move—or barely breathe.  It took nearly four years to receive a diagnosis: an unusual and little-known auto-immune illness called ‘Ankylosing Spondylitis.’ AS is a form of rheumatoid arthritis and is degenerative. If left untreated, it can cause spinal fusion on top of chronic pain and fatigue. I’m deeply grateful to western medicine which has allowed me to work, start a business, and contribute to my community.

“I have overcome many obstacles to get to where I am and my philosophy has always been to do what I can, with what I have, while I am able.  I am inspired to run for City Council because I have a chronic illness—not in spite of it.”

“The chronic illness never goes away and requires daily attention: I take medication at 5am and 5pm every day so that I can do things that most of us do without thinking, like walk or breathe. On the other hand, I have some insight into how some 50 million other Americans with chronic illnesses live, insight into the opioid epidemic, and insight into healthcare access issues that others might not necessarily have.

“I think there is lived experience and perspective I could bring to Council that could be valuable in dealing with certain issues or understanding and serving a diverse community.”

What Duchen’s supporters say

Duchen has upwards of 50 supporters to be listed on his campaign website, which has not yet been launched, but adds that he’s done a lot of work for Democrats over the years and is confident “folks will come out.” He’s counting on strong grassroots support.

Linda Bailey

Among those on board are his campaign treasurer, Linda Bailey, who said she’s known him for six or seven years. “I know him to be balanced, professional, and data-driven.

“He’s not a reactionary and that’s important to me. I like his policy. I’ve seen him have good reasons to improve the HOME initiative. He works with coalitions very well.

“We need an adult in the room on city council,” Bailey said.

Cecilia Burke

Cecilia Burke has also known Duchen for quite a few years, including when they were fighting a planned unit development in the area.

“Marc is thoughtful and deliberative,” Burke said. “We fight over land issues all the time but there’s more than that. The city has grown fast. The roads, bus system, and transportation are not good.

“I don’t think of Marc as a NIMBY. He’s smart, will do his research and make good decisions for the people of Austin,” Burke said.

Jennifer Mushtaler

Jennifer Mushtaler was herself a City Council candidate. She ran against incumbent District 6 Council Member Jimmy Flannigan in 2020, placing third in the general election, while Mackenzie Kelly went on to beat Flannigan in the runoff. She is currently serving her second term on the Planning Commission as Kelly’s appointee.

She said she got to know Duchen when she was running for council. “I really like him. He’s very thoughtful. He asks the tough questions and digs in and gives matters careful thought. He doesn’t react emotionally, he reacts thoughtfully.”

After redistricting resulting from the 2020 census, Mushtaler is now in District 10 herself. She said she admires incumbent Council Member Alison Alter and says finding the right person to succeed her is important. Mushtaler opposed the HOME initiative the council approved December 7th, with Council Members Kelly and Alison Alter opposed.

“I admire Alison’s service. She asked hard questions. That’s an important element on the dais that needs to be there. I think Marc will ask hard questions. That’s good for us, the district, and the city.”

She added, “Marc works very well with both sides of the aisle. He’s aligned with the Democratic Party but reaches across. District 10 is very purple and that should be very appealing.”

Heidi Gibbons

Heidi Gibbons is also a strong Duchen supporter. “I want someone who has a stake in this community, not someone paid off by developers,” she said. “I was with the group that interviewed Alison Alter when she was first asked to run for council. Because of her involvement with the Parks Board I knew she had the smarts and the passion.

“I’m looking for someone with smarts and a passion for Austin. I want someone who has worked in the city and can get things done.”

What Ganguly’s supporters say

John Bucy

State Representative Bucy, Ganguly’s boss at the State Capitol, was enthusiastic about the work she did during 2023’s regular legislative session and four—count ‘em four—special sessions called by Governor Greg Abbott.

He said that he serves on the Higher Education Committee and Ganguly played a “vital role to help me and in constituent services and worked on many education bills. We had a huge win staving off vouchers.”

“Ashika has been incredibly important,” he said, noting that she “has real-world classroom experience. She was born and raised in that district. She cares about kids and their futures.”

Manny Gonzalez

Manuel “Manny” Gonzalez, PhD, is regional director of the nonprofit Western Governors University. He also serves as secretary for the Austin Community College’s Board of Trustees.

He told the Bulldog he worked closely with both Bucy and Ganguly on developing policies to provide greater access to higher education, including opportunities for financial incentives for adult learners. “She was excellent collaborator,” he said.

“Ashika asks questions and solves problems with ideas to address these issues. I highly value her inquisitive and thoughtful approach. I have to give her credit for passionate, creative public service.

“Austin needa a lot of voices at the table to be sure it stays a special city,” Gonzalez said. “As a former school teacher, she has focused on education but it’s not the only thing. She has talked about housing affordability issues and how to ensure everybody has lots of opportunity to find success.”

Andrea Chevalier

Andera Chevalier is director of governmental relations for an organization involved in special education. She was careful to say that she is expressing her personal opinions and she does not speak for the organization.

Concerning Ganguly, Chevalier said, “She really surprised me in the legislative session when I saw her interacting with stakeholders, the way she listens really deeply and takes all viewpoints into account.

“She’s really strong. When she believes in something she really speaks out and fights for it. She comes across as being more reserved or quiet because she’s listening but when she speaks out it’s because she really believes in what she’s fighting for, which is helping people.

“I really like her because she’s a former teacher and I know she’s been exposed to different family situations and knows there’s lot of diversity and how that impacts families and that’s really important.”

Ganguly provided the names of two other people who are listed as supporters, former State Representative Eddie Rodriguez and Leander ISD Trustee Anna Smith. Neither returned multiple calls for comment.

It’s a long way till November 5, 2024

The Bulldog tracks when candidates appoint campaign treasurers. That’s when they can start soliciting and accepting campaign donations. It’s also when we begin gathering information that will guide our reporting about the candidates.

The Austin City Clerk’s webpage states the 2024 Candidate Package will be released May 2, 2024.

The first day to file for a place on the ballot is July 22, 2024, and the deadline is August 19th.

The Bulldog will continue working through election year 2024 and doing our best to provide deep-dive coverage of the candidates and their campaigns.

This article was updated 9:48am December 15, 2023, to correct a person’s name: It’s Leland Beatty (not Bailey).

This article was updated 2:39pm December 19, 2023, to clarify that Mark Nathan will not be formally helping Duchen’s campaign.

This article was updated 10:02am December 21, 2023, to remove the remark about Ganguly’s appearance.

Trust indicators: Ken Martin’s first big political story about an Austin election was published by (the now defunct) Third Coast magazine in January 1982. The story covered the petition campaign led by the anti-gay group Austin Citizens for Decency that put an ordinance on the ballot of January 16, 1982: “Providing that it shall not be unlawful to deny housing on the basis of sexual orientation.” That election drew 57,236 voters to the polls. Sixty-three percent voted to defeat the ordinance.

If you appreciate getting this kind of in-depth coverage of candicates, you can show your support for this work by making a tax-deductible donation. Because the Bulldog is now participating in the national NewsMatch fundraising campaign, all donations will be matched dollar-for-dollar through the end of this month.

Related documents:

Ashika Ganguly degrees and dates of attendance at UT Austin (1 page)

Ashika Ganguly (Ashika Parker) personnel file for her employment by State Representative John Bucy (19 pages)

Ashika Ganguly (Ashika Lekha Parker) Voter Lookup record, showing she registered to vote April 14, 2013 (2 pages)

Ashika Ganguly records of her Wedding of December 28, 2018 and Divorce of November 30, 2022 (3 pages)

Demographic Profile for City Council District 10 (3 pages)

LinkedIn page for Kyle Burke, policy and operations specialist for State Representative John Bucy (1 page)

Mark Duchen campaign treasurer appointment, November 13, 2013 (2 pages)

Mark Duchen degree and dates of attendance at UT Austin (1 page)

Marc Duchen Secretary of State records for HD Campaigns LLC formation and latest Public Information Report, May 13, 2023

Marc Duchen Voter Lookup record, showing he registered to vote September 23, 2007 (2 pages)

Travis Central Appraisal District records for the condo residence of Ashika Ganguly (2 pages)

Travis Central Appraisal District records for the condo residence of Marc Duchen (2 pages)

Travis County Tax Office records for the condo residence of Ashika Ganguly (1 page)

Travis County Tax Office records for the condo residence of Marc Duchen (1 page)

Related Bulldog coverage:

Siegel running for City Council District 7, October 31, 2023

Latest zoning changes may trigger new litigation

Jessica Magnum

District Judge Jessica Mangrum has driven another nail into the City of Austin’s defense of three zoning ordinances. (Cause No. D-1-GN-19-008617, Acuna v. City of Austin.)

In an order issued December 8th, she ruled that the ordinances were void from the beginning for failure to follow statutory requirements. She ruled these actions exceeded the city’s authority and violated state law.

The violation was in not providing written notice to property owners and permitting protest of the changes in zoning regulations.

Anne Morgan

Austin City Attorney Anne Morgan issued this statement this afternoon: “We received Judge Mangram’s order today, which formalizes her earlier letter ruling. We are pleased that the judge did not issue the requested sanctions, as the city continues to make efforts to comply with all laws and judicial rulings related to the land development code changes.

“City management and City Council will follow the judge’s ruling,” the statement said.

New litigation possible over zoning

Doug Becker

Although Mangram’s order confirmed the validity of Ordinance No. 20190509-027, passed May 19, 2019, plaintiffs in the Acuna litigation may well file another lawsuit against it. Plaintiff’s counsel, Austin-based attorney Douglas “Doug” Becker of Gray & Becker.

The press release Becker issued today states, “Plaintiffs’ attorneys are now assessing the legality of the City’s rushed passage last Thursday of Council Member (Leslie) Pool’s anti single-family ordinance. Ms. Pool repeatedly proclaimed that her ordinance did not change the zoning on anyone’s property, which appears contrary to the Court’s ruling. Nor did Ms. Pool and the Council consider the 16,000 filed protests against her ordinance, as if protest rights and their constituents’ views were irrelevant.”

As to whether litigation seeking to overturn those actions will be filed, Becker told the Bulldog, “I have to look at the facts as objectively as I can and decide what can we prove. I haven’t reached a conclusion yet.”

The City Council voted 9-2 December 7th to implement that ordinance by allowing up to three housing units, including tiny homes, on single-family zoned property; revise regulations that apply to property with two housing units; and remove restrictions on the number of unrelated adults living in a housing unit.

Court neither ordered sanctions nor permitted development

If it’s any consolation for the City of Austin Judge Mangram’s order makes no mention of sanctions. As the Bulldog reported November 27th, Becker had sought sanctions totaling $309,250. That was based on Becker’s calculations of $250 a day for each day the voided ordinances had been in effect.

The City’s letter to Judge Mangram December 4th argued that sanctions would be punitive and a deprivation of a right to a jury trial.

Plaintiffs’ attorney Becker responded with a letter to Judge Mangram December 5th to note the “defendants did not request a jury trial or pay the required jury fee….”

Further, he wrote, “the Court has some leeway in determining whether a case involves ‘serious’ sanctions…the Court can consider all the circumstances, including the fact that the City’s 2023-2024 budget is $5.5 billion, of which the Court can take judicial notice. The sanctions in the Plaintiffs’ proposed Order comprise a minuscule percentage of that budget.”

“The court didn’t address the issue of sanctions in its order, so I can only infer the court decided not to award sanctions,” Becker said.

But the judge’s order also failed to mention an important consideration sought by the City. Despite conceding the the three zoning ordinances were voided, the City nevertheless sought to allow applications for developments made under those ordinances to proceed.

The City wrote in its proposed order: “Although Vertical Mixed Use II, Residential in Commercial, and Compatibility on Corridors are hereby declared void, any development with an application approved in reliance on Vertical Mixed Use II, Residential in Commercial, and Compatibility on Corridors may be build (sic) in accordance with the development standards set forth in those ordinances.”

That omission seems to leave applications filed by developers under the three voided zoning ordinances (listed below) in legal limbo.

Plaintiffs’ attorney fees pending 

The order is “interlocutory” and not final and may not be appealed until a final order is issued incorporating plaintiffs attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses.

“The Court finds that an award of attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses is appropriate and the parties shall set the matter for a hearing at subsequent date,” he order states.

Attorney Becker has asked for “at least $150,000” in attorney’s fees. “These costs are a direct result of the City’s repeated refusal to abide by state law on zoning,” he stated in a press release.

He told the Bulldog that a hearing would not be necessary if he and the City can reach an agreement to present to the court.

The voided ordinances

The City’s version of the draft order sent to Judge Mangram acknowledged that in enacting three zoning ordinances without providing written notice to landowners it had violated Texas Local Government Code Chapter 211.  And it agreed that the three ordinances are declared void. Those ordinances are:

Vertical Mixed Use II enacted June 9, 2022, (Ordinance No. 20220609-080),

Residential in Commercial enacted December 1, 2022 (Ordinance No. 20221201-055), and

Compatibility on Corridors enacted December 1, 2022 (Ordinance No. 20211201-056).

“After losing three times in court,” Becker’s press release states, “we hope, going forward, that the City finally learns from this embarrassing experience, does the right thing, and respects the interests and legal rights of Austin homeowners.”

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

Related documents:

City of Austin letter to Judge Mangram re: Objections to Plaintiffs’ proposed order, December 4, 2023 (17 pages)

Plaintiffs’ letter to Judge Mangram, in response to City of Austin’s letter of December 4, 2023 (2 pages)

District Judge Jessica Mangram’s Order in Acuna v. City of Austin, December 8, 2023 (5 pages)

Doug Becker’s press release concerning the Order, December 11, 2023 (1 page)

Related Bulldog coverage:

Plaintiffs in Acuna v. City of Austin seek sanctions and attorney’s fees, November 27, 2023. This story includes links to a dozen additional documents concerning the Acuna litigation.

Political shift on council undercuts land-use lawsuit, January 19, 2021

Plaintiffs in Acuña v. City of Austin seek sanctions and attorney’s fees

Jessica Magnum

The plaintiffs won. All that’s left is a final order. To achieve that end, the trial court presided over by District Judge Jessica Mangrum requested that counsel for plaintiffs in Acuña v City of Austin (D-1-GN-19-008617) “draft an order memorializing these rulings and send same to opposing counsel for review as to form.” The draft order was due for the court’s review November 17th.

Doug Becker

Plaintiff’s counsel, Austin-based attorney Douglas “Doug” Becker of Gray & Becker, followed the court’s instruction and provided a draft order to the City Attorney’s Office. Becker said he submitted his proposed order November 17th and submitted a revised draft November 20th.

Becker’s draft order, in keeping with the decisions of the trial and appellate courts, voids three zoning ordinances for not following statutory requirements to provide landowners with written notice and hindering their right to protest.

Because the three ordinances were enacted despite a final judgment that required written notice to landowners, the draft order proposes the City be sanctioned $250 for each day the voided ordinances have been in effect.

As of November 20th these sanctions totaled $309,250, according to Becker’s draft order.

In addition, Becker expects to ask the court at a later date for attorney’s fees in the “ball park” amount of “$150,000, with more in the event the city appeals.”

If those sanctions and attorney’s fees were approved by the court, then the City, i.e., taxpayers, would have to pay nearly $460,000.

City seeks to deny sanctions, allow development

The trial court did not ask the defendant City of Austin for a draft order but provided the usual opportunity for review of the plaintiffs’ draft before the court issues its final order.

But, instead of agreeing to Becker’s draft, or negotiating changes, the City proposed its own order.

The City’s version acknowledges that in enacting three zoning ordinances without providing written notice to landowners it had violated Texas Local Government Code Chapter 211.  And it agrees that the three ordinances are declared void. Those ordinances are:

Vertical Mixed Use II enacted June 9, 2022, (Ordinance No. 20220609-080),

Residential in Commercial enacted December 1, 2022 (Ordinance No. 20221201-055), and

Compatibility on Corridors enacted December 1, 2022 (Ordinance No. 20211201-056).

Despite conceding the ordinances are void the City nevertheless seeks to allow applications for developments made under those ordinances to proceed:

“Although Vertical Mixed Use II, Residential in Commercial, and Compatibility on Corridors are hereby declared void, any development with an application approved in reliance on Vertical Mixed Use II, Residential in Commercial, and Compatibility on Corridors may be build (sic) in accordance with the development standards set forth in those ordinances.”

The number of development applications that might be affected is unknown.

There is a rationale for allowing developments to proceed as if these ordinances had not been voided. Significant sums may have been expended in reliance upon those ordinances. Cancelling approvals might trigger new litigation from developers. And the City may seek to approve the ordinances again—presumably with proper written notice to affected landowners.

The City also seeks to have the court deny the plaintiffs’ request “to hold Defendants in civil contempt and for sanctions and attorneys fees.” Which is remarkable in that Becker’s draft order does not request the City be held in contempt.

Becker requests resolution by December 1st

On November 22nd Becker wrote to the court, “I recognize that Ms. (Hannah) Vahl, (an assistant city attorney) having received a settlement proposal from me, is ethically bound to present it to her clients. For several years I worked at the Texas Attorney General’s office and am aware that the process takes time. Yet, given the history of this litigation, Plaintiffs have little hope that our offer will be accepted. We are not enthusiastic about further delays in litigation that has been continuing for years now.

“Ms. Vahl requests that the Court ‘not enter an order before 12/1.’ I suggest that if the parties haven’t informed the Court that settlement has been achieved by 12:00 noon on Friday, December 1, it would be appropriate for the Court to enter the Order that afternoon, or as soon thereafter as practicable.

Litigation started in 2019

The legal battle started four years ago. That’s when the Austin City Council had voted on two readings to adopt a comprehensive revised Land Development Code that sought to rezone property throughout the entire city. (Three readings are required for final passage.) The two readings were completed without providing notice to affected landowners. And without allowing protests by those landowners.

In December 2019, landowners sued (Acuña v. City of Austin). The lawsuit alleged the City’s failure to provide written notice of the comprehensive zoning ordinance and to recognize property owners’ protest rights violated Chapter 211 of the Texas Local Government Code..

In March 2020, the district court agreed and called a halt before third and final vote to approve these sweeping changes in zoning. The court’s final judgment voided the votes on the first two readings. In addition the court issued a permanent injunction to require the City before enacting future zoning ordinances to send written notice to affected landowners and recognize protest rights.

The City appealed the district court’s ruling in April 2020. Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to keep the final judgment in effect pending appeal. In other words the City Council was prohibited from enacting new zoning ordinances unless it provided written notification to affected landowners and accommodated their right to protest the zoning changes.

Two years after the appeal was filed, the 14th Court of Appeals on March 17, 2022 affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

The appeals court decision (City of Austin v. Acuña, Case No. 14-20-00356-CV) states, “We conclude that a comprehensive revision ‘changes’ existing zoning ordinances, and thus, the statute’s written notice and protest provisions apply….”

Just 12 weeks after the appeals court decision was handed down the City Council was scheduled to consider and vote on a zoning ordinance concerning Vertical Mixed Use (VMU)—again without providing written notice to affected landowners.

City warned of consequences

Becker warned the City Council the day before it was scheduled to vote on the VMU ordinance there would be consequences. Becker’s letter of June 8, 2022, stated: “I have been advised that the Council is considering amendments to Austin’s land development code regulations governing Vertical Mixed-Use (VMU) properties. (Ordinance No. 20220609-080).

“I also understand that while Council Member Ann Kitchen has proposed implementing those changes through existing rezoning processes that would provide affected property owners state-mandated written notice and an opportunity to support or protest, others have suggested that these changes and other amendment such as compatibility reductions be implemented without these protections.

“With those understandings, I write to remind you that changes to the land use regulations on VMU properties without providing written notice and protest rights, as required by state law and the district court as affirmed by Acuña et al. v. City of Austin, subjects the city to further costly litigation. At that time, the City will be asked to explain why it again—this time within weeks of the Court of Appeals mandate—violated state law. As you know from the Acuña case, the City’s failure to follow the mandatory requirements of Chapter 211 renders its action void.”

The City Council ignored Becker’s warning and passed the VMU ordinance June 9, 2022. The ordinance was approved on a vote of 10-1, with Council Member Kathie Tovo voting nay, according to the meeting minutes.

Then on December 1, 2022, the City Council approved two additional zoning ordinances—one allowing residential dwellings in commercial zoning districts, the other revising compatibility standards along corridors—both without providing written notice to affected landowners. (Ordinance Nos. 20221201-055 and 20221201-056).Ordinance 20221201-055 passed on a vote of 10-1 with Council Member Mackenzie Kelly voting nay. Ordinance 20221201-056 passed on a vote of 9-0 with Council Member Kathie Tovo abstaining and Council Member Vanessa Fuentes off the dais, according to the meeting minutes.

Consequences come due

Although the City of Austin is finally getting its legal comeuppance in this litigation, one must wonder why it violated an explicit injunction and insisted on ramming through zoning ordinances while ignoring state law that requires written notices to affected landowners.

Fred Lewis

Attorney Fred Lewis, who is one of the 19 plaintiffs in the Acuña case, said the City’s actions are driven by “arrogance.”

“Because they didn’t want the public to participate.”

“By not giving people notice and misleading them about protest rights…how much trust has the city lost? The reason there is no trust is because of attitude and actions of the city. They have caused their own problems,” Lewis said.

The courts have found that the City violated citizens’ rights. Now the City will use taxpayers’ money to pay for its ill-advised actions. The only question remaining is, how much?

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

Related documents:

Acuña v. City of Austin, Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce permanent injunction (Cause No. D-1-GN-19-008617) March 6, 2023 (159 pages)

Final Judgment, Acuña v City of Austin, March 18, 2020 (4 pages)

14th Court of Appeals decision in City of Austin v. Acuña (Case No. 14-20-00356-CV March 17, 2022 (10 pages)

Doug Becker’s warning letter, June 8, 2022 (2 pages)

Ordinance No. 20220609-080, Vertical Mixed Use II, June 9, 2022, (11 pages)

Minutes of the City Council meeting, June 9, 2022 (45 pages)

Ordinance No. 20221201-055, Residential in Commercial, December 1, 2022 (11 pages) )

Ordinance No. 20211201-056, Compatibility on Corridors, December 1, 2022 (23 pages)

Minutes of the City Council meeting, December 1, 2022 (40 pages)

Acuña v. City of Austin, Plaintiffs’ second amended motion to enforce permanent injunction and request for declaratory judgment, August 18, 2023 (18 pages)

City of Austin’s proposed order to settle Acuña lawsuit, November 16, 2023

Plaintiffs proposed order to settle Acuña lawsuit, November 17, 2023

Related Bulldog coverage:

Political shift on council undercuts land-use lawsuit, January 19, 2021

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