2018 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2018 at 6:30 P.M. Anderson High School 8403 Mesa Drive, Austin Texas 78759 CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS: Joy Authur Roger Borgelt Martha Cotera Matt Hersh Fred Lewis Diego Martinez-Moncada Karl-Thomas Musselman Jessica Palvino Jeff Smith Tane Ward Ingrid Weigand AGENDA CALL TO ORDER Conduct a public hearing to receive feedback on the following recommendations being considered by the Charter Review Commission. The following recommendations have been adopted by the Commission: 1. City Council appoints the City Attorney rather than current law under which the City Manager appoints the City Attorney. Proposed Charter amendment included as Attachment A. 2. Create a City Budget and Efficiency Officer whose mission is to produce independent analyses of budgetary and fiscal issues to support the Austin City’s Council’s budget process by issuing reports and reviews of proposed and existing programs. Proposed Charter amendment included as Attachment B. 3. Establish a Democracy Dollars Program for public financing of campaigns to provide eligible Austin residents up to four (4) $25 Democracy Dollar Vouchers (“Democracy Dollars”) per election cycle. The Democracy Dollars may be donated to a resident’s district city council or mayoral candidate. The purpose of the Democracy Dollars program is to ensure that all of the people of Austin have equal opportunity to participate in political campaigns and are heard by candidates, to strengthen democracy, to fulfill the purposes of single-member districts, to enhance candidate competition, and prevent corruption. Proposed Charter amendment included as Attachment C. 4. Establish an Independent Ethics Review Commission to impartially and effectively administer and enforce all city laws relating to campaign finance, campaign disclosures, 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. Proposed Charter Amendment included as Attachment D. 5. Require that a notice of intent to circulate a referendum petition be filed with the city clerk prior to collecting signatures and that the signed referendum petition be filed with the city clerk within 180 days of passage of an ordinance. Proposed Charter Amendment included as Attachment E. 6. Require that a notice of intent to circulate a recall petition be filed with the city clerk prior to collecting signatures, that the recall petition contain the grounds on which the removal is sought, and that the recall petition be signed by at least 20% of the qualified voters …
Attachment A CRC Recommendation Regarding Article V, Section 6 (City Attorney) Recommendation: City Council appoints the City Attorney. Proposed Charter Revision: § 6. ‐ CITY ATTORNEY. There shall be a department of law, the head of which shall be the city attorney, who shall be appointed by the city council. The city attorney shall be a competent attorney who shall have practiced law in the State of Texas for at least five (5) years immediately preceding his or her appointment. The city attorney shall be the legal advisor of, and attorney for, all of the officers and departments of the city, and the city attorney shall represent the city in all litigation and legal proceedings, and the representation shall comply with the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. The city attorney shall draft, approve, or file written legal objections to, every ordinance before it is acted upon by the council, and the city attorney shall pass upon all documents, contracts and legal instruments in which the city may have an interest. There shall be such assistant city attorneys as may be authorized by the council, who shall be authorized to act for and on behalf of the city attorney. Policy Reasons: The City of Austin is an outlier in terms of how its city attorney is appointed. According to the most recent Texas Municipal League survey in 2010, most Texas home‐rule cities (73%) authorize their council to appoint the city attorney directly. The CRC is recommending this charter revision to ensure accountability of the city attorney’s office to the city council. Estimated Fiscal Impact: None Impact on existing city laws, rules, practices, and procedures: Other than the amendment of Article V, Section 6 of the City Charter, the appointment of the City Attorney by City Council will likely have an impact on existing City laws, rules, practices and procedures. Due to time and resource constraints, the full extent of this impact cannot be accurately assessed by the CRC. Proposed Ballot Language: Shall the City Charter be amended to provide that the City Council appoint the City Attorney?
Summary of Recommendations Adopted by the 2018 Charter Review Commission As of March 12, 2018 1. City Council appoints the City Attorney. Proposed Charter amendment included as Attachment A. 2. Create a City Budget and Efficiency Officer whose mission is to produce independent analyses of budgetary and fiscal issues to support the Austin City’s Council’s budget process by issuing reports and reviews of proposed and existing programs. Proposed Charter amendment included as Attachment B. 3. Establish a Democracy Dollars Program to provide eligible Austin residents up to four (4) $25 Democracy Dollar Vouchers (“Democracy Dollars”) per election cycle. The Democracy Dollars may be donated to a resident’s district city council or mayoral candidate. The purpose of the Democracy Dollars program is to ensure that all of the people of Austin have equal opportunity to participate in political campaigns and are heard by candidates, to strengthen democracy, to fulfill the purposes of single-member districts, to enhance candidate competition, and prevent corruption. Proposed Charter amendment included as Attachment C. 4. Establish an Independent Ethics Review Commission to impartially and effectively administer and enforce all city laws relating to campaign finance, campaign disclosures, 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. Proposed Charter Amendment included as Attachment D. 5. Require that a notice of intent to circulate a referendum petition be filed with the city clerk prior to collecting signatures and that the signed referendum petition be filed with the city clerk within 180 days of passage of an ordinance. Proposed Charter Amendment included as Attachment E. 6. Require that a notice of intent to circulate a recall petition be filed with the city clerk prior to collecting signatures, that the recall petition contain the grounds on which the removal is sought, and that the recall petition be signed by at least 20% of the qualified voters of the district from which the council member is elected, or 10% citywide for the mayor. Proposed Charter Amendment included as Attachment E. 7. Correction of clerical matters, routine harmonizing, and clarification of verbiage. Summary of Additional Recommendations Under Consideration by the 2018 Charter Review Commission as of March 12, 2018 1. Clarify that the timing and staggering of the Planning Commission terms are to be determined by ordinance. 2. Require a city election to approve major new …
Additional Recommendation #2 § 11. - REVENUE BONDS. The city shall have power to borrow money for the purpose of constructing, purchasing, improving, extending or repairing of public utilities, recreational facilities or facilities for any other self liquidating municipal function not now or hereafter prohibited by any general law of the state, and to issue revenue bonds to evidence the obligation created thereby. Such bonds shall be a charge upon and payable solely from the properties, or interest therein, acquired and the income therefrom, and shall never be a debt of the city. All revenue bonds issued by the city for projects whose total cost exceeds $__ million shall first be authorized by a majority of the qualified electors voting at an election held for such purpose. All power and water purchases whose total price for each project exceeds $__ million shall also first be authorized by a majority of the qualified electors voting at an election held for such purpose. The amounts subject to voter approval shall be modified each year with the adoption of the budget to increase or decrease in accordance with the most recently published federal government, Bureau of Labor Statistics Indicator, Consumer Price Index (CPI-W U.S. City Average) U.S. City Average. The most recently published Consumer Price Index on December 31, 2018 shall be used as a base of 100 and the adjustment thereafter will be to the nearest $1,000.00.
Attachment B CHAPTER 2-9. - CITY BUDGET AND EFFICIENCY OFFICER. § 2-9-1 – MISSION AND PURPOSE (A) The City Council Budget and Efficiency Officer’s mission is to produce independent analyses of budgetary and fiscal issues to support the Austin City Council’s budget process by issuing reports and reviews of proposed and existing programs. (B) The purpose of the City Budget and Efficiency Office is: (1) to provide the City Council and citizens with an independent and credible assessment of the budget; (2) to strengthen the budget process that improves transparency, accountability, and participation; (3) to influence the allocation of public funds through the budget; (4) to demystify the technical language of the budget and to open up the budget to public scrutiny. § 2-9-2 - APPOINTMENT. (A) The office of the city budget and efficiency officer (CBEO) is created under Section XXX (of Article XXX of the Charter. A majority of the council shall appoint a city budget and efficiency officer in accordance with the procedure established in Section 2-9-3 (Selection Process). (B) The council may not appoint a city council budget and efficiency officer who: (1) has served as the City's mayor, a council member, or city manager within five years before the date of the appointment; or (2) is related, by affinity or consanguinity within the second degree, to the mayor, a council member, or the city manager. (C) The council shall provide the city council budget and efficiency officer with a discrete budget sufficient to perform the auditor's responsibilities and duties under this chapter. (1) The appropriations available to pay for the expenses of the city council budget and efficiency office during each fiscal year shall not be less than twenty percent of the appropriations available to pay for the expenses of the City Manager’s Financial Services Budget office. (D) A majority vote of the members of the council is required to remove the city council budget and efficiency officer as provided by Section XXX (City Council Budget and Efficiency Officer) of Article XXX (Finance) of the City Charter. Attachment B § 2-9-3 - SELECTION PROCESS; CITY COUNCIL BUDGET AND EFFICIENCY OFFICER. (A) The council shall appoint a nominating committee to recommend candidates for city budget and efficiency officer. The committee shall consist of five members, including: (1) three council members appointed by the council from the Council Audit/Finance Committee; (2) the city auditor; and, (3) the …
Attachment C 1 Charter Review Commission Draft on Democracy Dollars (as of the end of the March 12, 2018 Commission hearing) I. Austin Democracy Dollars Program (A) Austin Democracy Dollars Program’s Purpose. Democracy Dollars are vital to ensure all the people of Austin have equal opportunity to participate in political campaigns and be heard by candidates, to strengthen democracy, to fulfill the purposes of single-member districts, to enhance candidate competition, and prevent corruption. (B) Issuance of Democracy Dollars. (1) Amount and Delivery. No earlier than the first business day of February of the year in every municipal election year, the Austin Independent Ethics Commission (hereafter “Commission”) shall mail to each person who was on or about that January 1 duly and actively registered to vote in the City of Austin, at his or her address in the voter registration records, two $25 in Democracy Dollars Voucher ("Democracy Dollars") for each city-elected position, council and mayoral that the person may vote for in Austin, for a maximum of four $25 Democracy Dollars Vouchers. However, the Commission may deliver Democracy Dollars online or in other manners if the Commission so elects. Thereafter, the Commission shall regularly issue two $25 Democracy Dollars Vouchers for each city-elected position that the person may vote for in Austin, to any person becoming a duly registered City of Austin voter after that January 1st, up until the third Tuesday in November of the election year. Any adult natural person who resides more than 30 days in the City of Austin, and who is a registered voter, or is eligible to vote under state law, may opt in to the Program and obtain an equivalent number of Democracy Dollars Vouchers by application to the Commission. Any such eligible adult may request Democracy Dollars be mailed or emailed to an address other than that indicated in the voter registration records, or be delivered at the Commission offices, and as soon as the Commission shall have developed a secure system for such distributions of Democracy Dollars, including distribution online, in person, or to an address not listed in the voter registration records. No resident outside Austin, no corporation or other non-human entity, no person under the age of 18 years, and no person ineligible to vote under state law, may receive a Democracy Dollars Voucher. The Commission shall set by regulations the delivery dates, redemption dates, and other deadlines for …
FIRST LOOK: SEATTLE’S DEMOCRACY VOUCHER PROGRAMReducing the Power of Big Money and Expanding Political Participation NOVEMBER 15, 2017CENTER SEATTLE’S DEMOCRACY VOUCHERS REDUCE THE POWER OF BIG MONEY AND INCREASE POLITICAL PARTICIPATIONSeattle’s new Democracy Voucher Program is reducing the power of big money and giving everyday people a bigger voice in local elections, according to initial analysis of the system in this year’s municipal elections by the Seattle-based Win/Win Network and national money-in-politics reform group Every Voice Center.In 2015, Seattle voters overwhelmingly approved the Honest Elections Seattle ballot initiative by a 63 percent to 37 percent vote to create the first-in-the-nation Democracy Voucher Program. In 2017, the program went into effect for the first time, distributing four $25 Democracy Vouchers to every Seattle resident for use in two at-large city council races and the contest for city attorney. The program will expand to other races including the race for mayor in future election cycles. To qualify to spend the vouchers, candidates agreed to only accept small donations of $250 or less, raise a threshold number of small contributions, gather signatures, and agree to limit their campaign spending. Use of the program was widespread in 2017, with 13 out of the 17 candidates in the primary election agreeing to participate, and six of them meeting the qualification requirements to redeem the vouchers. Five out of the six contestants in these races who advanced to the general election ran using Democracy Vouchers. As the following analysis details, Seattle’s Democracy Voucher Program is achieving its intended goals by generating historic numbers of new and small donors, diversifying the makeup of campaign supporters to better reflect the people of Seattle, and limiting the reliance on big money in local elections.Using data currently available, our initial analysis of the 2017 election surfaced these key findings:• At least 25,000 Seattle residents—a historic number—participated as campaign donors in this election cycle, three times the roughly 8,200 residents who donated to candidates in 2013. • As of publication, more than 18,000 Seattle residents gave nearly 70,000 Democracy Vouchers to 2017 candidates, and more Democracy Vouchers are likely to be received before the December 1 deadline.• An estimated 84 percent of this election cycle’s Seattle donors were new donors—about 20,900 individuals who had not contributed to city candidates in the 2015 or 2013 cycles. Among these new donors, 71 percent were voucher donors. • Contrasting voucher donors to city council …
Attachment D 1 Charter Review Commission Draft Charter Amendment of An Independent Ethics Commission (As of the end of the Commission’s March 12, 2018 Hearing) AUSTIN INDEPENDENT ETHICS COMMISSION Subchapter I - Commission 1.01. Commission Jurisdiction. The Austin Independent Ethics Commission is established to impartially and effectively administer and enforce all city laws relating 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. 1.02. Commission Membership The Commission shall be composed of five (5) members, whom shall be selected per Subchapter V below. The Commission shall select its chair from among its members. 1.03. Qualifications. All Commissioners shall be registered voters and be residents of Austin for at least 5 years prior to appointment. All Commissioners shall not have served for three years before their appointment as an elected official, political consultant, officer or employee in a political party (other than a precinct chair), lobbyist, City of Austin employee, City of Austin contractor, or candidate for state or local government. All Commissioners shall have demonstrated impartiality and have expertise in relevant subject matters, including without limitation, ethics, conflicts of interest, transparency, campaign finance, investigations, or enforcement. All Commissioner shall attest to their support for administering and enforcing all laws under the Commission’s jurisdiction. Commissioners not maintaining these qualifications automatically forfeit their office and can no longer serve on the Commission in any capacity. 1.04. Terms. Members of the Commission shall serve for a term of five (5) years ending on May 1 of the fifth year of such term and until their successors are appointed and qualify; except the initial five commissioners to be appointed shall by lot classify their terms so that the term of one commissioner shall expire at on each of the second, third, and fourth anniversaries of their terms on May 1 of such year respectively and two commissioners on the 5th anniversary of their terms on May; and, on the expiration of these and successive terms of office, the appointments shall be made for five-year terms. The initial shortened terms shall be appointed from the Commissioners from the existing applicant pool pursuant to subchapter 5. No person may serve more than one five-year term as a member of the Commission, provided that persons appointed to fill a vacancy for an unexpired …
PUBLIC SERVICE ETHICS 1400 K Street, Suite 205 • Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8208 • F 916.444.7535 • www.ca-ilg.org Everyday Ethics for Local Officials Understanding the Role of Ethics Commissions December 2007 QUESTION We have a citizens’ group in our community considering whether to propose establishing an ethics commission. We have looked for information about ethics commissions but have not really found much. Can you help? ANSWER There are a number of questions to ask in evaluating whether an ethics commission represents a useful tool for your community, including: 1. What is your overall goal? 2. What do you want an ethics commission to do? 3. How would commission members be selected? 4. What powers would the commission have? 5. What resources are available to support the commission? 6. What decision-making process should you use to determine whether a commission is right for the community? Let’s look at each issue. What Is Your Overall Goal? The interest in creating an entity with some kind of responsibility for public service ethics can be inspired by any number of goals. One goal may be symbolic: to convey the message that ethics is important to a jurisdiction -- so important that the jurisdiction has a body responsible for it. Unfortunately, symbolic gestures rarely accomplish much in terms of ethics. Everyday Ethics for Local Officials Understanding the Role of Ethics Commissions December 2007 Institute for Local Government 2 Other goals may relate to the type of role the entity will play. An ethics task force can determine whether additional ethics measures and activities would be helpful in a jurisdiction. The City of Long Beach used this approach in 2001 when it created an ethics task force that came back a year later with a series of recommendations on how to enhance the ethical climate in the city. This kind of entity is an information-gathering and advisory body. However, the city council made the ultimate decision on whether to adopt the measures recommended by the task force. One advantage of having an ethics task force is that it brings the community’s voice to the table about ethics in public service. Depending on the composition of the task force, the respect that task force members enjoy in the community can translate into community respect for the task force’s proposals. Types of Ethics Entities The following nomenclature may be helpful to underscore the differing roles that ethics-related …
Attachment E ARTICLE IV. - INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, AND RECALL. § 2. - POWER OF REFERENDUM. The people reserve the power to approve or reject at the polls any legislation enacted by the council which is subject to the initiative process under this Charter, except an ordinance which is enacted for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, which contains a statement of its urgency, and which is adopted by the favorable votes of eight (8) or more of the councilmembers. Within 180 days of passage of an ordinance upon third reading, a petition signed by qualified voters of the city equal in number to the number of signatures required by state law to initiate an amendment to this Charter may be filed with the city clerk requesting that any such ordinance be submitted to a vote of the people for repeal or approval. A notice of intent to circulate such a petition shall be filed with the city clerk prior to doing so. § 6. - POWER OF RECALL. The people of the city reserve the power to recall any member of the council and may exercise such power by filing with the city clerk a petition, signed by qualified voters of the district from which the council member is elected equal in number to at least 20 percent of the qualified voters of the district from which the council member is elected, or 10% citywide for the mayor, demanding an election for the removal of a mayor or council member. A notice of intent to circulate such a petition shall be filed with the city clerk prior to doing so, and shall be treated as a ballot measure for purposes of the campaign finance ordinance from the date such notice is filed. The petition shall be signed and verified in the manner required for an initiative petition, shall contain one of the following grounds for which the removal is sought: incompetency (gross ignorance of official duties, gross carelessness in the discharge of official duties, or inability or Attachment E unfitness to promptly and properly discharge official duties because of a serious mental or physical impairment that did not exist at the time of election); official misconduct (intentional unlawful behavior relating to official duties including an intentional or corrupt failure, refusal, or neglect of an officer to perform a duty imposed on the officer by law); habitual …
