REGULAR MEETING OF THE 2024 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION TUESDAY January 30, 2024 at 5:30 P.M. Austin City Hall, Boards & Commissions Rm 301 W 2nd St AUSTIN, TEXAS Public comment will be allowed in-person or remotely via telephone. Speakers may only register to speak on an item once either in-person or remotely and will be allowed up to three minutes to provide their comments. Registration no later than noon the day before the meeting is required for remote participation by telephone. To register to speak remotely, please call Myrna Rios, (512) 974-2210, 2024 or email your request to myrna.rios@austintexas.gov. CURRENT COMMISSIONERS: Jessica Palvino, Chair Ryan Botkin Cynthia Van Maanen Julio Altamirano Randy Ortega Betsy Greenberg Alejandro Garcia, Vice Chair JC Dwyer Brian McGiverin Michael O Cowles Megan Lasch AGENDA CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the 2024 Charter Review Commission regular meeting of January 18, 2024. STAFF BRIEFINGS 2. Law Department briefing regarding staff proposed charter revisions. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS 3. Discussion and possible action on the City Attorney Working Group initial recommendation report. (Chair Palvino, Commissioners Garcia and McGiverin) 4. Discussion and possible action on the Petition Process Working Groups initial recommendation report on revisions to the petition process. (Commissioners Cowles, Dwyer, and McGiverin) 5. Discussion and possible action on the Initiative/Charter/Referendum Mechanics Work Groups initial recommendation on proposition lettering. (Commissioners Altamirano, Botkin, and Ortega) 6. Discussion and possible action on Recall Petitions Work Group recommendations. (Commissioner Van Maanen) 7. Discussion and possible action regarding community engagement of the Charter Review process from the Outreach Work Group. 8. Discussion and possible action of future meetings and meeting location. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 9. The Commission may discuss and identify future agenda items, topics, or presentations. ADJOURNMENT The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American 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 Myrna Rios at the Office of the City Clerk, at (512) 974-2210 or myrna.rios@austintexas.gov, for additional information; …
2024 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING January 30, 2024 The 2024 Charter Review Commission convened in a regular meeting on Thursday, January 30, 2024, Austin City Hall, 301 W. Second Street, Room 1029, Austin, Texas. Chair Palvino called the Commission Meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. Commissioners Dwyer and Lasch attended virtually. Vice Chair Garcia absent. Commissioner Cowles Commissioner Lasch (virtual) Commissioner Van Maanen Commissioner Ortega Commissioner Greenberg Commission Members in Attendance: Vice Chair Garcia (absent) Commissioner Botkin Commissioner Dwyer (virtual) Commissioner McGivern Commission Altamirano Staff in Attendance: Myrna Rios, City Clerk’s Office Caroline Webster, Law Department PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL Bobby Levinski – SOS (remote) Linda Curtis (remote) Lisa Chang (remote) Joe Riddell APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the 2024 Charter Review Commission regular meeting of January 18, 2024. The motion to approve the minutes from the January 18, 2024 meeting were approved on Commissioner Botkin’s motion, Commissioner Cowles’s second on an 8-0 vote. Commissioner’s Dwyer and Lasch were off the dais. Vice Chair Garcia absent. STAFF BRIEFINGS 2. Law Department briefing regarding staff proposed charter revisions. Withdrawn 1 DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS 3. Discussion and possible action on the City Attorney Working Group initial recommendation report. (Chair Palvino, Commissioners Garcia and McGiverin) The presentation on the City Attorney Working Group recommendation was made by Commissioner McGiverin. No action was taken. 4. Discussion and possible action on the Petition Process Working Groups initial recommendation report on revisions to the petition process. (Commissioners Cowles, Dwyer, and McGiverin) The presentation on the Petition Process Working Group recommendations were made by Commissioner Van Maanen and Commissioner Dwyer. It was discussed to discuss the recommendations further at the February 15, 2024 meeting. No action was taken. 5. Discussion and possible action on the Initiative/Charter/Referendum Mechanics Work Groups initial recommendation on proposition lettering. (Commissioners Altamirano, Botkin, and Ortega) The presentation on the Mechanics Work Group recommendations was made by Commissioner Altamirano. The motion to approve the Alphabet Rotation of Proposition language recommendation was made by Commissioner Altamirano, seconded by Commissioner Van Maanen on an 8-0 vote. Commissioner’s Dwyer and Lasch were off the dais. Vice Chair Garcia absent. 6. Discussion and possible action on Recall Petitions Work Group recommendations. (Commissioner Van Maanen) The presentation on the Recall Petitions Work Group recommendations was made by Commissioner Van Maanen. Staff were directed to provide information if Political Action Groups can have contribution limitations. …
To: Commissioners, 2024 Charter Review Commission (“2024 CRC”) From: City Attorney Working Group (the “Working Group”) (Alex Garcia, Brian McGiverin and Jessica Palvino) Subject: Preliminary Report Summary and Recommendation: Building on the work of and recommendation from the 2018 Charter Review Commission (see Attachment A), the City Attorney Working Group conducted additional research and interviewed a subject matter expert regarding whether the 2024 CRC should recommend amendments to Article V, Section 6 of the City of Austin’s Charter, which provides that the city manager shall appoint the city attorney. Upon concluding its work, the Working Group unanimously supports amending Article V, Section 6 and recommends a two‐pronged approach: (1) The city attorney shall be nominated by the city manager and confirmed by the council, and shall serve until removed by the joint action of both council and manager; and (2) One attorney within the office of the city attorney shall be appointed as “legislative counsel” to the city council, during which time appropriate ethical walls will be in place to protect the attorney‐client privilege. Resources: In reaching this recommendation, the Working Group relied heavily on the report from the 2018 Charter Review Commission (see Attachment A). The Working Group confirmed that Texas Home Rule Charters, Second Edition (2010), published by the Texas Municipal League, has not been updated since its last publishing. Additionally, the Working Group studied the National Civic League Model City Charter provisions relating to the appointment of the city attorney (see Attachment B), along with the associated commentary, and spoke with the author about the drafting of Section 4.03. The Working Group met three times to discuss its proposed recommendation and considered various written resources, including those included as Attachment C. Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3
DRAFT Recommendation: Background City Council Resolution 20230309-025 establishing the 2024 Charter Review Commission indicated City Council’s intent to hold an election in November 2024 to allow voters to decide on several important changes to the charter including “changes to petition requirements for initiative and referendum or City Charter amendments including (…) Use of a durable signature threshold that utilizes a percentage of the total number of registered voters in the City.” Among the reasons cited for this change, the Resolution stated: “WHEREAS, in November 2012, voters approved a Charter amendment to change the number of required signatures for initiative and referendum petitions to be equal to the number of signatures required by state law to initiate a Charter amendment: 5% of qualified voters or 20,000, whichever number is smaller, and this change resulted in petitioners needing fewer than half the number of signatures than before;” and “WHEREAS, in 2012, when the change was made, 20,000 signatures was 4% of qualified voters,but this fixed number represents a steadily decreasing percentage of Austin voters as the City's population continues to grow;” and “WHEREAS, an October 2019 report by the City Auditor regarding citizen initiatives to amend the City Code noted that most peer cities require more signatures for citizen initiatives than Austin and that only Austin provides for a set number of signatures required or a percentage requirement, whichever is smaller”. The Charter Review Commission established the Petition Process Working Group on October 2nd, 2023. Its membership consisted of Commissioners Cowles, Dwyer, Greenberg, McGivern and Van Maanen. This recommendation was presented to the full Commission on XX/XX/XXXX. It was adopted/rejected by a X-X vote. Substance of the Proposed Amendments, Revisions or Repeals to the Charter This recommendation sets a durable signature threshold for the approval of citizen initiative and referendum petitions at 5% of qualified Austin voters. The Charter Review Commission recommends amending Article IV, § 1 by replacing the current language: “Any initiated ordinance may be submitted to the council by 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.” with the following amended language: “Any initiated ordinance may be submitted to the council by a petition signed by five percent of qualified voters of the city.” and amending Article IV, § 2 by replacing the current language: “a petition signed by …
Recommendation: Maintain the Current Petition and Initiative Signature Requirements Background City Council Resolution 20230309-025 establishing the 2024 Charter Review Commission emphasized City Council’s intent to utilize “higher voter participation” for Charter Amendments, a motivation that also appears to also animate Council’s thinking with regard to elections to consider referendums and initiatives. The Charter Review Commission established the Petition Process Working Group on October 2nd, 2023. Its membership consisted of Commissioners Cowles, Dwyer, Greenberg, McGivern and Van Maanen. This recommendation was presented to the full Commission on XX/XX/XXXX. It was adopted/rejected by a X-X vote. Reasoning of the Proposal This recommendation would maintain current ballot initiative requirements. Texas Local Government Code § 9.004 states that “governing body of a municipality…shall submit a proposed charter amendment to the voters for their approval at an election if the submission is supported by a petition signed by a number of qualified voters of the municipality equal to at least five percent of the number of qualified voters of the municipality or 20,000, whichever number is the smaller.” Current Austin City Charter Article IV, § 3 states that a petition or initiative process “is subject to the requirements prescribed by state law for a petition to initiate an amendment to this Charter, and shall be in the form and validated in the manner prescribed by state law for a petition to initiate an amendment to this Charter.” A recommendation was presented to the full Commission on XX/XX/XXXX and was adopted by a X-X vote that would submit to voters proposed ballot language limiting citizen petition and initiative elections to general municipal election dates, so as to increase the total number and diversity of Austinites participating in those elections. Such an amendment would be an important tool in avoiding petition and initiative elections considered by significantly smaller electorates that are less representative of Austin residents. It is the opinion of the City Law Department that city charter amendment elections may not necessarily be limited to municipal general election dates under State law. Consequently, this could result in some charter amendment elections falling on May election dates, thereby resulting in the high likelihood of much lower voter turnout for those elections. Imposing a higher signature threshold for referendums and initiatives while permitting charter amendment elections to move forward with a lower signature requirement (as required by state law) will incentivize those wishing to make changes to city …
Recommendation: Elections for citizen-initiated Charter changes and initiatives held on municipal general election dates Background The City Council Resolution 20230309-025 establishing the 2024 Charter Review Commission indicated City Council’s intent to hold an election in November 2024 to allow voters to decide on several important changes to the charter including a “Limit on citizen-initiated changes to the City Charter to November elections with a stated preference of holding elections on presidential election years.” The Charter Review Commission established the Initiative, Charter, and Referendum Mechanics Working Group (“Mechanics”) on October 2nd, 2023. Its membership consisted of Commissioners Altamirano, Botkin, and Ortega. The Working Group was supported by Ms. Caroline Webster of the City of Austin Law Department. This recommendation was presented to the full Commission on 1/30/2024. It was adopted/rejected by a X-X vote. Substance of the Proposed Amendments, Revisions or Repeals to the Charter This recommendation requires City Council to select the earliest municipal general election date when it orders an election for Charter changes or citizen-initiated initiatives. The City of Austin has its municipal general elections every two years, matching the presidential and “midterm” Congressional election cycle. For citizen-initiated Charter changes, Local Government Code 9.004 (b) already affords City Council the ability to select either the soonest of the next municipal general election or the presidential election: (b) The ordinance ordering the election shall provide for the election to be held on the first authorized uniform election date prescribed by the Election Code or on the earlier of the date of the next municipal general election or presidential general election. The election date must allow sufficient time to comply with other requirements of law and must occur on or after the 30th day after the date the ordinance is adopted. This recommendation binds Council to selecting the soonest of these two higher turnout elections. Additionally, there are no limitations from state statute or the Texas Constitution preventing Austin’s Charter from placing the same requirement on citizen-initiated initiatives. In consultation with City Law, the working group recommends the following language for for the ordinance ordering the election of this charter change: If Proposition __ is approved by a majority of voters voting in the election, the City Charter is amended to read as follows: ARTICLE IV.- INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, [AND] RECALL, AND CITIZEN- INITIATED CHARTER AMENDMENTS. § 4.-COUNCIL CONSIDERATION AND SUBMISSION TO VOTERS. (A) When the council receives an authorized initiative …
Recommendation: Maintain the Current Petition and Initiative Signature Requirements Background City Council Resolution 20230309-025 establishing the 2024 Charter Review Commission emphasized City Council’s intent to utilize “higher voter participation” for Charter Amendments, a motivation that also appears to also animate Council’s thinking with regard to elections to consider referendums and initiatives. The Charter Review Commission established the Petition Process Working Group on October 2nd, 2023. Its membership consisted of Commissioners Cowles, Dwyer, Greenberg, McGivern and Van Maanen. This recommendation was presented to the full Commission on XX/XX/XXXX. It was adopted/rejected by a X-X vote. Reasoning of the Proposal This recommendation would maintain current ballot initiative requirements. Texas Local Government Code § 9.004 states that “governing body of a municipality…shall submit a proposed charter amendment to the voters for their approval at an election if the submission is supported by a petition signed by a number of qualified voters of the municipality equal to at least five percent of the number of qualified voters of the municipality or 20,000, whichever number is the smaller.” Current Austin City Charter Article IV, § 3 states that a petition or initiative process “is subject to the requirements prescribed by state law for a petition to initiate an amendment to this Charter, and shall be in the form and validated in the manner prescribed by state law for a petition to initiate an amendment to this Charter.” A recommendation was presented to the full Commission on XX/XX/XXXX and was adopted by a X-X vote that would submit to voters proposed ballot language limiting citizen petition and initiative elections to general municipal election dates, so as to increase the total number and diversity of Austinites participating in those elections. Such an amendment would be an important tool in avoiding petition and initiative elections considered by smaller electorates that are less representative of Austin residents. It is the opinion of the City Law Department that city charter amendment elections may not necessarily be limited to municipal general election dates under State law. Consequently, this could result in some charter amendment elections falling on the next uniform election date, thereby resulting in the high likelihood of much lower voter turnout for those elections. Imposing a higher signature threshold for referendums and initiatives while permitting charter amendment elections to move forward with a lower signature requirement (as required by state law) will incentivize those wishing to make changes to …
Item 4 - Transparency 2024 Charter Review Commission, 1/30/24 Recommendation to Increase Transparency in Citizen-Initiated Petitions Background City Council Resolution 20230309-025 establishing the 2024 Charter Review Commission to make recommendations to the Council to, in part, “improve and enhance transparency and the general functions of city government.” a) The signer is a qualified voter in the City of Austin; b) The signature includes the signer’s printed name, residence address, date of birth or Voter Unique Identifier (VUID), the date of signing, and the signer’s live signature, as described in Texas Election Code Sec. 277.002 (a); and Draft Recommendation Section 1: Notice of Intent. A signature of presented as part of a petition for a Ballot Initiative or Referendum, and for a Charter Amendment to the extent allowable under state law, is considered valid only if: The City Charter does not currently require public disclosure of the intent to collect signatures for a petition, the person(s) responsible for collecting petition signatures, or contact information for the petitioners, among other disclosures commonly seen in citizen-initiated petition policies in other cities, nor does the Charter require that the the parties responsible for collecting and submitting petition signatures be residents of Austin. As such, the current petition process does not encourage or require the level of transparency that Austin residents deserve. DRAFT Notices of Intent for Initiatives and Referendums are considered to be in effect for 90 days after they have been accepted by the City Clerk. The Clerk may grant one additional 90-day extension upon request by the petitioners of the Notice, for a total period of 180 consecutive days prior to submitting the petition signatures to the Clerk. 1) The request for an extension must be a written request; must update the information provided in section (d) below, if applicable; and may be in the form of an email to an email address specified by the Clerk from one of the five petitioners listed on the Notice of Intent. Notices of Intent for Charter Amendments are considered to be in effect for 180 days preceding the submission of the petition signatures to the Clerk, in compliance with Texas Election Code Sec. 277.002 (e). c) The signature was collected during the effective period of a Notice of Intent filed with and accepted by the City Clerk. ii) i) Section 2: Information disclosed on a Notice of Intent. A Notice of Intent must include …
MEMORANDUM TO: Jessica Palvino, CRC Chair FROM: JC Dwyer, CRC Commissioner CC: Charter Review Commissioners, Charter Review Commission City Staff DATE: 1/29/24 RE: Signature Threshold Proposal Overview The Petition Process Working Group seeks Commission discussion and possible action on two proposals related to the signature threshold for valid citizen initiative and referendum petitions. One proposal would make no change to the current, de facto threshold of 20,000 qualified voters; the other would update this threshold to 5% of qualified voters. This memo argues for the Commission’s support of the latter proposal and addresses several concerns that have been raised in the discussion to this point. Do our appointers want this change? Our Commission’s founding resolution, passed by Council in a 9-0 vote, declares Council’s clear intent to hold a charter amendment election that includes “a durable signature threshold that utilizes a percentage of the total number of registered voters.” This proposal is our opportunity to influence the contours of that threshold. Do “the people” want this change? Among the respondents to our public survey who do not vote in every election: ● 44% believe there are too many elections; and ● 44% don’t understand the proposals on the ballot. More specifically, among those who do not vote on citizen-initiated proposals: ● 40% don’t understand what they would do; ● 30% believe there are too many proposals; and ● 30% don’t trust citizen-initiated proposals. Insofar as voter participation may be considered a proxy for interest in the issues present on the ballot, standalone elections on citizen-initiated changes in Austin have consistently fared poorly. Our most recent citizen-initiated election (May 2023) resulted in a voter participation rate of just 10%, despite widespread media coverage and the significant engagement of organized groups. These issues are simply not a priority for most voters. Certainly, the interest groups from whom our Commission has heard represent a segment of “the people” that is strongly engaged and passionate about public policy, just like every member of this Commission. But it’s important to remember that our passion is not necessarily shared by the median Austin voter, and that the practitioners who have provided their perspective and expertise to us have an incentive to support the status quo. Won’t forcing petitioned changes onto November ballots sufficiently address these issues? Certainly, requiring petitioners to face a November electorate will increase the difficulty of passing their proposals, and so may incentivize …
Item 4 - Transparency - Updated (Version 2) 2024 Charter Review Commission, 1/30/24 Recommendation to Increase Transparency in Citizen-Initiated Petitions Background City Council Resolution 20230309-025 establishing the 2024 Charter Review Commission to make recommendations to the Council to, in part, “improve and enhance transparency and the general functions of city government….” a) The signer is a qualified voter in the City of Austin; b) The signature includes the signer’s printed name, residence address, date of birth or Voter Unique Identifier (VUID), the date of signing, and the signer’s live signature, as described in Texas Election Code Sec. 277.002 (a); and Draft Recommendation Section 1: Notice of Intent. A signature presented as part of a petition for a Ballot Initiative or Referendum, and for a Charter Amendment to the extent allowable under state law, is considered valid only if: The City Charter does not currently require public disclosure of the intent to collect signatures for a petition, the identity of the person(s) initiating the petition and responsible for collecting petition signatures, or contact information for the petitioners, among other disclosures commonly required in citizen-initiated petition policies in other cities, nor does the Charter require that the parties responsible for collecting and submitting petition signatures be residents of Austin. As such, the current petition process does not encourage or require the level of transparency that Austin residents deserve. DRAFT Notices of Intent for Initiatives and Referendums are considered to be in effect for 90 days after they have been accepted by the City Clerk. The Clerk may grant one additional 90-day extension upon request by the petitioners of the Notice, for a total period of 180 consecutive days prior to submitting the petition signatures to the Clerk. 1) The request for an extension must be a written request; must update the information provided in section (d) below, if applicable; and may be in the form of an email to an email address specified by the Clerk from one of the five petitioners listed on the Notice of Intent. Notices of Intent for Charter Amendments are considered to be in effect for 180 days preceding the submission of the petition signatures to the Clerk, in compliance with Texas Election Code Sec. 277.002 (e). c) The signature was collected during the effective period of a Notice of Intent filed with and accepted by the City Clerk. ii) i) Section 2: Information disclosed on a …
Recommendation: Alphabet rotation for proposition lettering Background This recommendation was presented to the full Commission on 01/30/2024. It was adopted/rejected by a X-X vote. City Council Resolution 20230309-025 establishing the 2024 Charter Review Commission indicated City Council’s intent to hold an election in November 2024 to allow voters to decide on several important changes to the charter including an “Alternative proposition lettering or numbering system to prevent voter confusion.” The Charter Review Commission established the Initiative, Charter, and Referendum Mechanics Working Group (“Mechanics”) on October 2nd, 2023. Its membership consisted of Commissioners Altamirano, Botkin, and Ortega. The Working Group was supported by Ms. Caroline Webster of the City of Austin Law Department. DRAFT This recommendation requires ballot proposition labels increment through the alphabet until its completion. When sufficient propositions are ordered for an election to go past the last letter of the alphabet (“Z”), then the ballot proposition label resets back to the first letter of the alphabet (“A”). For example, if the next available ballot proposition label is the letter “X”, but six propositions are ordered for the election, then the ballot labeling would reset to “A”. Additional labeling approaches were considered, including a mix of letters and numbers, but only the recommended change is clearly allowed by state law. As City legal staff indicated to the Mechanics Work Group, adding a number to our letter would risk suit since the law only allows a letter or a number and reserves numbers for State props. Election Code Section 52.095(b) states that: Substance of the Proposed Amendments, Revisions or Repeals to the Charter (b) Each political subdivision's proposition on the ballot shall be assigned a unique number or letter on the ballot as follows: (1) except as provided by Subdivision (2), for each proposition on the ballot, the authority ordering the election shall assign a letter of the alphabet to the measure that corresponds to its order on the ballot; and (2) for each proposition on the ballot to be voted on statewide, the that corresponds to its order on the ballot. authority ordering the election shall assign a number to the measure Ballot propositions will use the next available letter of the alphabet, starting with the letter that follows the last letter used letter of the alphabet without utilizing the remaining letters of the the alphabet, then ballot propositions labels will reset to the first by municipal ballot propositions …
Item 6 – Transparency 2024 Charter Review Commission, 1/30/24 Recommendation to Increase Transparency in Citizen-Initiated Recall Petitions Background City Council Resolution 20230309-025 establishing the 2024 Charter Review Commission to make recommendations to the Council to, in part, “improve and enhance transparency and the general functions of city government….” The City Charter does not currently require public disclosure of the intent to collect signatures for a petition, the identity of the person(s) initiating the petition and responsible for collecting petition signatures, or contact information for the petitioners, among other disclosures commonly required in citizen-initiated petition policies in other cities, nor does the Charter require that the parties responsible for collecting and submitting petition signatures be residents of Austin in order to initiate and back a petition to recall of the mayor, or residents of the council district of a council member subject to a recall petition. As such, the current petition process does not encourage or require the level of transparency that Austin residents deserve. Further, the current recall rules present a significant vulnerability in the community-centered representation and accountability afforded to Austinites under the 10-1 single-member district council system, in that they allow recalls to be initiated and backed by people from outside these districts. Since adopting the 10-1 council system, recall petitions have been initiated or threatened by corporations based in California and by residents of one council district seeking to recall multiple council members representing other districts in which the initiators of those petitions do not reside. This draft recommendation amends the draft recommendation of the Petition Process work group to include the same transparency items for recall petitions. Draft Recommendation Section 1: Notice of Intent. A signature presented as part of a petition for a Ballot Initiative, or Referendum, Recall, and for a Charter Amendment to the extent allowable under state law, is considered valid only if: a) The signer is a qualified voter in the City of Austin, and for petitions for recall of a council member, a qualified voter of the council district of the member the petition seeks to recall; b) The signature includes the signer’s printed name, residence address, date of birth or Voter Unique Identifier (VUID), the date of signing, and the signer’s live signature, as described in Texas Election Code Sec. 277.002 (a); and c) The signature was collected during the effective period of a Notice of Intent filed with and …
Item 6 - Campaign Finance 2024 Charter Review Commission, 1/30/24 Background City Council Resolution 20230309-025 establishing the 2024 Charter Review Commission to make recommendations to the Council to, in part, “improve and enhance transparency and the general functions of city government….” The City Charter does not currently require any public disclosure or campaign finance reporting on contributions received or expenditures made in connection with collecting petition signatures in order to recall a mayor council member, or for any kind of petition, which means that it is generally not possible to determine which interests are backing the use of petitions to change policy or to recall the representatives that Austinites elect to serve them on City Council. Through the regular electoral process, candidates for mayor and City Council must comply with limits on campaign funds, contributions, and expenditures imposed in the City Charter, Article III Section 8. The following are some, but not all, of these limitations: limits on individual campaign contributions and a limit on the total amount of contributions received outside of Austin, limitations on contributions from political committees, and the prohibition of soliciting and accepting campaign contributions outside of the 180-day period preceding of an election for mayor or council member, or the recall election of the mayor or a council member. DRAFT If any provision of this section, or the application of that provision to any persons or circumstances, shall be held invalid, then the remainder of this section, to the extent that it can be given effect, and the application of that provision to persons or circumstances other than those to which it was held invalid, shall not be affected thereby, and to this extent the provisions of this section are severable. Draft Recommendation Any person or entity responsible for initiating and submitting a petition (“the petitioner”) to recall the mayor or a council member shall file a campaign treasurer appointment with the City Clerk, and shall submit reports of all contributions received and expenditures made in connection with a recall petition per the City of Austin’s campaign finance rules. Additionally, petitioners for the recall of the mayor or a council member shall comply with limits on campaign contributions and expenditures, similar to those described in City Charter Article III, Sec. 8, to the extent allowed by applicable law. Policy Reasons for the Recommendation The expressed intent of collecting petition signatures is to place an item …
