2018 Charter Review Commission Homepage

RSS feed for this page

April 7, 2018

Agenda original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

2018 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 7, 2018 at 1:00 P.M. Austin City Hall, Council Chambers 301 W. 2nd Street AUSTIN, TEXAS 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 7. Correction of clerical matters, routine harmonizing, and clarification of verbiage. The following recommendations are under Consideration …

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 11:43 p.m.
April 3, 2018

Agenda original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

2018 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2018 at 6:30P.M. Dove Springs Recreation Center 5801 Ainez Drive AUSTIN, TEXAS 78744 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 7. Correction of clerical matters, routine harmonizing, and clarification of verbiage. The following recommendations are under Consideration by the …

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 11:43 p.m.
March 28, 2018

Public Hearing at Anderson High School original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

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 …

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 11:43 p.m.
March 28, 2018

Item 1 - Attachment A original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

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?

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 11:43 p.m.
March 28, 2018

Item 1 - Recommendations original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

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 …

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 11:43 p.m.
March 28, 2018

Item 2 - RevenueBondProp original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

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.

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 11:43 p.m.
March 28, 2018

Item 3 - Attachment B original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

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 …

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 11:43 p.m.
March 28, 2018

Item 3 - Attachment C original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

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 …

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 11:43 p.m.
March 28, 2018

Item 3 - Seattle-Post Election Report original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

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 …

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 11:43 p.m.
March 28, 2018

Item 4 - Attachment D original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

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 …

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 11:43 p.m.
March 28, 2018

Item 4 - Ethics Commission Basics original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

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 …

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 11:43 p.m.
March 28, 2018

Item 5 - Attachment E original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

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 …

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 11:43 p.m.
March 12, 2018

Agenda original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

2018 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 12, 2018 at 6:30 P.M. Austin City Hall, Room 1029 301 W. 2nd Street AUSTIN, TEXAS 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 1) CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL (3 minutes to speak) The first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. 2) APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) Approval of minutes from February 26, 2018 and the March 5, 2018 meetings. 3) NEW BUSINESS The Commission may discuss and take action on the following agenda items: a) Recommendation from the Campaign Finance and Ethics Working Group on an Independent Ethics Review Commission. b) Recommendation from the Campaign Finance and Ethics Working Group on a Voucher Program. c) Recommendation from the City Auditor regarding staff of the Auditor’s Office being exempt from Municipal Civil Service. d) Discussion on the impact of redistricting on the 2022 Election. e) Discussion on Revenue Bonds 4) FUTURE MEETING DATES AND AGENDA ITEMS The Commission may discuss and identify additional meeting dates and future agenda items, topics or presentations. ADJOURNMENT The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least 2 days (48 hours) before the meeting date. Please call or email Myrna Rios or Jannette Goodall with the City Clerk’s Office, (512-974-2210 or myrna.rios@austintexas.gov or jannette.goodall@austintexas.gov), for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. For more information on the 2018 Charter Review Commission, please contact Jannette Goodall at 512-974-2210.

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 11:43 p.m.
March 12, 2018

Audio Recording of Meeting original link

Play audio

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 11:43 p.m.
March 12, 2018

20180226 Draft Minutes original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

1 2018 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 26, 2018 The 2018 Charter Review Commission convened in a regular meeting on Monday, February 26, 2018, Austin City Hall, 301 W. 2nd Street, Austin, Texas. Chair Palvino called the Commission Meeting to order at 6:36 p.m. Commission Members in Attendance: Commissioner Authur Commissioner Cotera Commissioner Hersh Commissioner Lewis Commissioner Musselman Chair Palvino Commissioner Smith Commissioner Ward Commission Members absent: Commissioner Borgelt Commissioner Martinez-Moncada Vice-Chair Weigand Staff in Attendance: Jannette Goodall, City Clerk’s Office Myrna Rios, City Clerk’s Office Jerikay Gayle, Law Department 1) CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL (3 minutes to speak) One speaker: Jason Hadavi (City Auditor’s Office) 2) APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) Approval of minutes from February 12, 2018 and February 19, 2018 meetings. The motion to approve the minutes from the February 12, 2018 (as amended to include the names of the organizations represented by the speakers) and the February 19, 2018 meetings was approved on Commissioner Lewis’s motion, Commissioner Smith’s second on an 8-0 vote. 3) NEW BUSINESS The Commission may discuss and take action on the following agenda items: a) Recommendation on budget presentation by Frank Rodriguez. Presentation was made by Commissioner Lewis (see attachment). The estimated fiscal impact is 5 full-time employees at an annual cost of $800,000. Action on this item was postponed to March 5th, 2018 without objection. b) Recommendation on public voucher program. 2 Commissioner Lewis provided an update on the recommendation submitted by the Campaign Finance and Ethics Working Group. (See attachment) A motion to adopt the proposed recommendation with the final recommendation returning to the Commission for adoption was approved on Commissioner Lewis’s motion, Commissioner Musselman’s second on a 6-2 vote. Those voting aye were: Chair Palvino, Commissioners Arthur, Cotera, Lewis, Musselman and Ward. Those voting nay were: Commissioners Hersh and Smith. Direction was given to the Working Group regarding the following proposed options (see attachment): • Consider two smaller voucher amounts ($25) rather than one $50 voucher on item 1. • Change the date to January 1, clarify an expiration date for the voucher and clarify any provisions to validate a voucher has been allotted to a candidate by a citizen for item 2. • Remove “or donate” from item 3. • Consider increasing the seed money from $5,000 to $20,000 for item 9. c) Discussion on the impact of redistricting on the 2022 Election. This item was postponed to …

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 11:43 p.m.
March 12, 2018

20180305 Draft Minutes original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

1 2018 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 5, 2018 The 2018 Charter Review Commission convened in a regular meeting on Monday, March 5, 2018, Austin City Hall, 301 W. 2nd Street, Austin, Texas. Chair Palvino called the Commission Meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. Commission Members in Attendance: Commissioner Authur Commissioner Borgelt Commissioner Cotera Commissioner Lewis Chair Palvino Commissioner Smith Commissioner Ward Vice-Chair Weigand Commission Members absent: Commissioner Hersh, Commissioner Musselman and Commissioner Martinez-Moncada Staff in Attendance: Jannette Goodall, City Clerk’s Office Myrna Rios, City Clerk’s Office Jerikay Gayle, Law Department Lynn Carter, Law Department 1) CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL (3 minutes to speak) No speakers registered. 2) APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) Approval of minutes from February 26, 2018 meeting. This item was postponed to March 12, 2018 without objection. 3) NEW BUSINESS The Commission may discuss and take action on the following agenda items: a) Recommendation Council Budget and Efficiency Officer. Presentation was made by Frank Rodriguez (see attachment). The item was approved as amended below on Commissioner Lewis’s motion, Commissioner Cotera’s second on a 7-0 vote. Commissioner Ward was off the dais. On the proposition language to read “….(1) information with respect to the budget, appropriations, …”. d) Recommendation from the Petition Working Group on revisions to the petition process. Commissioner Borgelt provided an update on the recommendation submitted by the Petition Working Group. (See attachment) 2 The following recommendations were made regarding Power of Recall requirements: • To revise the second sentence to state that “…and shall be treated as a ballot measure for campaign finance reporting requirements from the date such notice is filed.” • To revise the first sentence to clarify that “The people of the city reserve the power to demand to recall any member …”. A motion to adopt the proposed recommendation relating to the Power of Referendum was approved on Commissioner Borgelt’s motion, Commissioner Smith’s second on a 7-0 vote. Commissioner Ward was off the dais. A motion to adopt the proposed recommendation relating to the Power of Recall with the recommendations listed above was approved on Commissioner Lewis’s motion, Vice-Chair Weigand’s second on an 8-0 vote. b) Recommendation on Charter provisions related to terms and appointments of Planning Commission Members. Jannette Goodall, City Clerk’s Office and Jerikay Gayle, City Law Department provided a brief history of the issue and the staff recommendation for the planning commission appointments and terms to …

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 11:44 p.m.
March 12, 2018

3(a) Austin Independent Ethics Commission changes original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

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 to ethics, campaign finance, campaign disclosure, conflicts of interest, financial statement disclosure, lobbyist regulations, revolving door, disqualification of members of city boards, and certain conflict of interest and ethics laws, and other responsibilities assigned the Commission. Comment: The Commission’s jurisdiction is drafted broadly to provide the Austin Independent Ethics Commission (EC) authority over all City ethics-related laws. 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. Comment: Most cities have 5-7 Ethics Commissioners, rather than out current 11 Ethics Review Commissioners (ERC, because a smaller size tends to be more productive than a larger commission, in a specialized subject area such as ethics. 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 ethics, transparency, campaign finance, investigations, enforcement, or other relevant subject matters. All Commissioner shall attest to their support for administering and enforcing all laws under the Commission’s jurisdiction. ; no person shall be appointed who has a history of opposing the Commissions laws or similar laws. Commissioners not maintaining these qualifications automatically forfeit their office and can no longer serve on the Commission in any capacity. Comment: These qualifications are similar to those for Ethics Commissioners in other cities and for the Austin Independent Citizens Redistricting Commissioners. The period of time for various qualification can be adjusted as well as the scope of the restrictions. We thought it best city employees and city contractors not serve as Commissioners, but those provisions are not as typical. 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 …

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 11:44 p.m.
March 12, 2018

3(a) Ethics Commission and City Auditor Memo original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

The Proposed Independent Ethics Commission and the City Auditor: Which Body Should Have Jurisdiction Over Various Conflicts of Interest Investigations? By Fred I. Lewis (3/12/2018) The issue here is the respective investigation authority over conflict of interest and ethics investigations between the City Auditor and the proposed Independent Ethics Commission (“Ethics Commission”). The Commission’s other jurisdictional areas, such as campaign finance and lobbyist disclosure, are not in question. Currently, conflict of interest and ethics (hereafter conflicts of interest”) investigations are handled under Austin City Code, Section 2‐3, by the City Auditor for City officials and employees in various ways: 1) The City Council, City Council staff, and City Manager. The City Auditor hires an outside audit firm to investigate (because of the City Auditor’ sown potential conflict of interests) and the matter is heard by the Ethics Review Commission (ERC). Austin Code, Section 2‐3‐5(K). Recommendation: Since the City Auditor does not handle these investigations, I believe these conflicts of interest allegations should be investigated and presented by the proposed Ethics Commission’s staff. 2) Municipal Civil Service Employees. The City Auditor investigates municipal civil service employees for violations of city laws and policies, including ethics violations; the cases are heard by the Municipal Service Commission, not the Ethics Review Commission. Austin Code, Section 2‐3‐5 (L) Recommendation: Keep the process the same, with the City Auditor investigating and the Municipal Civil Service Commission hearing the conflicts of interest allegations. These municipal civil service cases will not be heard by the Ethics Commission, so its staff should not be investigating these issues. 3) The City Clerk, Clerk of the Municipal Court Clerk, members of Board and Commissions, and City employees who are not members of the Civil Service. The City Auditor currently investigates conflict of interest allegations against these officials and employees, and their cases are heard by the ERC. Austin City Code, Section 2‐3‐5 (L). All these cases would now be heard by the proposed Commission, since there would be no remaining body to hear them. Recommendation: I believe the 2 Clerks should be under the Commission’s investigatory jurisdiction (similar to the City Manager) and the non‐civil service employees under the City Auditor’s (because of the intermingling of city personnel policies with these issues and the workload). The more difficult issue, for me, is whether the Board members should be under the Auditor’s or Commission’s investigatory authority. I believe it should be …

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 11:44 p.m.
March 12, 2018

3(b) Draft Austin DemoDollars Charter Amendment original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

1 Campaign Finance Committee Recommended Draft (March 12, 2018) (Highlights below are changes pursuant to our preceding discussions since February 26) 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. On 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 Democracy Dollar …

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 11:44 p.m.
March 12, 2018

3(c) City Auditor Org Chart original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of None page

Office of the City AuditorAs of March 1, 2018Corrie StokesCity Auditor Jason HadaviDeputy City Auditor Katie HoustonAssistant City Auditor Patrick JohnsonAssistant City Auditor VacantChief of Investigations Andrew KeeganAssistant City Auditor Olga OvcharenkoQuality Assurance Coordinator Robert ElizondoAuditor III Karl StephensonAuditor II Rachel CastignoliAuditor II Sam NaikAuditor I Kathie HarrisonAuditor III Mary DoryAuditor III Matt Clifton Auditor III Tope Eletu-OdiboInvestigator III Keith SalasInvestigator II Angie GuerreroDept. Exec. Assistant Henry KatumwaAuditor III Jojo CruzAuditor II Galen Eagle BullInvestigator II Tyler MyersAuditor I Nick BroussardInvestigator 1 Cameron LagroneAuditor II Neha SharmaAssistant City Auditor Kate MurdockAuditor I John AcostaAdmin. Specialist Bobak ReihaniAuditor Temp

Scraped at: Jan. 19, 2020, 11:44 p.m.