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 …
REGULAR MEETING OF THE 2024 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION January 18, 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 December 14, 2023. DISCUSSION ITEMS 2. Discussion regarding a Charter amendment concerning an Independent Ethics Commission. (Commissioner Greenberg) DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS 3. Discussion and possible action on the Petition Process Working Groups initial recommendation report on revisions to the petition process. (Commissioners Cowles, Dwyer, and McGiverin) 4. Discussion and possible action on the Initiative/Charter/Referendum Mechanics Work Groups initial recommendation on proposition lettering. (Commissioners Altamirano, Botkin, and Ortega) 5. Discussion and possible action on Recall Petitions Work Group recommendations. (Commissioner Van Maanen) 6. Discussion and possible action regarding community engagement of the Charter Review process from the Outreach Work Group. 7. Discussion and possible action on the identification and creation of additional Work Groups. 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; TTY users route …
2024 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING January 18, 2024 The 2023 Charter Review Commission convened in a regular meeting on Thursday, January 18, 2024, Austin City Hall, 301 W. Second Street, Room 1029, Austin, Texas. Vice Chair Garcia called the Commission Meeting to order at 5:34 p.m. Commissioner Cowles was absent. Commissioner Cowles (absent) Commissioner Lasch Commissioner Van Maanen Commissioner Ortega Commissioner Greenberg Commission Members in Attendance: Vice Chair Garcia Commissioner Botkin Commissioner Dwyer Commissioner McGivern Commission Altamirano Staff in Attendance: Myrna Rios, City Clerk’s Office Caroline Webster, Law Department PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL Kathy Mitchell – Equity Action Joe Riddell APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the 2024 Charter Review Commission regular meeting of December 14, 2023. The motion to approve the minutes from the December 16, 2023, meeting were approved on Commissioner Lasch’s motion, Commissioner Altamirano’s second on a 10-0 vote. Commissioner Cowles was absent. DISCUSSION ITEMS 2. Discussion regarding a Charter amendment concerning an Independent Ethics Commission. (Commissioner Greenberg) The presentation on an Independent Ethics Commission was made by Commissioner Greenberg. A request for the final report made to the council was requested be distributed to the Commission. 1 DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS 3. 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 petition process work group presented current findings and require to meet with Caroline Webster to gain clarification on code/charter language and to obtain public input. Continue discussion of draft proposals at the January 30, 2024 meeting. 4. Discussion and possible action on the Initiative/Charter/Referendum Mechanics Work Groups initial recommendation on proposition lettering. (Commissioners Altamirano, Botkin, and Ortega) The mechanics work group provided an overview of proposed recommendations; most to be drafted with revisions discussed and ready to act on the draft proposals at the January 30, 2024, meeting. The motion to approve the Draft “Conflicting Initiatives” was approved on Commissioner Greenberg’s motion, Commissioner Ortega’s second on a 10-0 vote. Commissioner Cowles absent. 5. Discussion and possible action on Recall Petitions Work Group recommendations. (Commissioner Van Maanen) No action was taken, further discussion to occur at the January 30, 2024 meeting. 6. Discussion and possible action regarding community engagement of the Charter Review process from the Outreach Work Group. The 2024 CRC Survey Results were presented by Mia Warner, CPIO and Saul Gray, CPIO. Discussion was had …
2023 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING December 14, 2023 The 2023 Charter Review Commission convened in a regular meeting on Thursday, December 14, 2023, Austin City Hall, 301 W. Second Street, Room 1029, Austin, Texas. Vice Chair Garcia called the Commission Meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. Chair Palvino was absent, Commissioner Lasch attended virtually. Commissioner Cowles Commissioner Lasch (virtual) Commissioner Van Maanen Commissioner Ortega Commissioner Greenberg Commission Members in Attendance: Vice Chair Garcia Commissioner Botkin Commissioner Dwyer Commissioner McGivern Commission Altamirano Staff in Attendance: Myrna Rios, City Clerk’s Office Caroline Webster, Law Department (virtual) PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL Chris Harris APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the 2024 Charter Review Commission regular meeting of November 16, 2023. The motion to approve the minutes from the November 16, 2023 meeting were approved on Commissioner Van Maanen’s motion, Commissioner Botkin’s second on a 10-0 vote. Chair Palvino was absent. DISCUSSION ITEMS 2. Discussion regarding a Charter amendment concerning an Independent Ethics Commissioner (Commissioner Greenberg) Discussion was had regarding the current Ethics Review Commission appointment process. There is currently no real opportunity for violations. It was proposed to review the 2018 Charter Review Commission recommendations. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS 1 3.Discussion and possible action on the Petition Process Working Groups initial recommendation report on revisions to the petition process. (Commissioners Cowles, Dwyer, and McGiverin) Commissioner Van Maanen presented recommendations on recall petitions. No action was taken, further discussion to occur at the January 18, 2024 meeting. 4. Discussion and possible action on the Initiative/Charter/Referendum Mechanics Work Groups initial recommendation on proposition lettering. (Commissioners Altamirano, Botkin, and Ortega) Commissioner Altamirano distributed draft recommendations regarding election turnout; general election dates; conflicting initiatives; initiative November election; labelling alphabet rotation, days elapsed, and petition elections options to be presented at the January 18, 2024 meeting. 5. Discussion and possible action regarding community engagement of the Charter Review process from the Outreach Work Group. The work group shared that SpeakUp (survey) is live. Discussion was had regarding a timeline for public hearings to begin in February. It was asked that any media coverage conducted regarding the Charter Review Commission be forwarded to the commission. 6. Discussion and possible action on the identification and creation of additional Work Groups. The motion to approve the creation of an Independent Ethics Commission was made on Commissioner Greenberg’s motion, Commissioner McGiverin’s second. The motion failed for lack of sponsorship. …
Charter Review Commission Draft Charter Amendment of An Independent Ethics Commission (after 4/16/2018 CRC meeting and additional FL suggestions) 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 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 seven (7) members, who 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 , or registered lobbyist, or required to register as a lobbyist, with the City or assist such a lobbyistas defined in the Austin City Code.[FL1] . All Commissioners shall have demonstrated impartiality and have expertise in relevant subject matters, which may include ethics, conflicts of interest, transparency, campaign finance, investigations, civil rights, labor, 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 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 in May; and, on the expiration of these and successive terms of office, the appointments shall be 1 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 …
PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMMITTEE OF THE AUSTIN CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION RECOMMENDING AN INDEPENDENT ETHICS COMMISSION (1/22/2018) Executive Summary. Committee Recommendation for an Independent Ethics Commission. We unanimously recommend that Austin follow the lead of major cities that are recognized as having effective ethics enforcement and administration, and that Austin adopt an independent ethics commission. Such a commission would be independent of the Council, City Manager, and City Attorney; it would report to and be overseen by a public board. The board would hire the Executive Director, and the commission’s staff would administer and enforce all campaign finance, ethics, conflicts, and lobbyist disclosure laws. In addition, we would recommend requiring provisions in the charter that safeguards the commission’s independence by ensuring it receives sufficient resources and staff to do its work properly. Experts consider the best practice is to establish an independent ethics commission that is professionally staffed and that reports to a public board1, rather than elected officials or their hires, because of the political nature of the decisions being made. Experts “are concerned about the potential loss of autonomy for ethics agencies that merged with agencies which fall under the authority of those they are intended to regulate.” Comlossy, Ethics Commissions, p. 9. We believe effective enforcement and administration are crucial to the effectiveness of any laws, but especially in the areas of campaign finance and ethics. Because of the politicized nature of these issues, we believe ethics commission independence is the key to effective enforcement and implementation. The public’s trust in its decision‐making is crucial: “Ethics commissions work to ensure voters’ trust in policymakers and political institutions through external oversight and transparency…One of the greatest challenges to ethics committees is maintaining their credibility with the public.” Comlossy, Ethics Commissions: Representing the Public Interest (Center for Ethics in Government; National Conference of State Legislatures 2013), p. 1 Major Issues Involved in An Independent Ethics Commission: We believe Austin’s goal should be establishing an effective, trusted ethics agency that has autonomy, expertise and jurisdiction over all ethics related laws: lobbyist disclosure, conflicts of interest, revolving door, ethics and campaign finance laws. We have looked extensively at studies 1 “An ethics commission is usually an independent body that provides external oversight and enforcement of ethics laws.” Understanding the Role of Ethics Commissions (Institute for Local Government, December 2007), p. 3. “For an ethics commission to achieve the goal …
Introduction Current Situation in Austin Recommendations Independent Ethics Commission Betsy Greenberg 2024 Charter Review Commission January 18, 2024 Betsy Greenberg Independent Ethics Commission 2024 Charter Review Commission Introduction Current Situation in Austin Recommendations “Ethics commissions work to ensure voters’ trust in policymakers and political institutions through external oversight and transparency. . . One of the greatest challenges to ethics committees is maintaining their credibility with the public.” Comlossy, Ethics Commissions: Representing the Public Interest (Center for Ethics in Government; National Conference of State Legislatures 2013), p. 1 Betsy Greenberg Independent Ethics Commission 2024 Charter Review Commission Introduction Current Situation in Austin Recommendations Background This commission won’t need to reinvent the wheel to recommend an Independent Ethics Commission The 2018 Charter Review Commission passed a recommendation for an Independent Ethics Commission Today’s backup includes Preliminary committee report recommending an independent ethics commission (with rationale) Everyday Ethics for Local Officials Understanding the Role of Ethics Commissions Draft Charter Amendment of An Independent Ethics Commission City Council did not consider this and several other recommendations from the 2018 Charter Review Commission Betsy Greenberg Independent Ethics Commission 2024 Charter Review Commission Introduction Current Situation in Austin Recommendations Current situation in Austin Four entities are involved in ethics matters: City Clerk – hired by City Council City Attorney – hired by City Manager City Auditor – hired by City Council Ethics Review Commission – appointed by City Council No advisory opinions are provided for candidates, political committees, or the public Complaints are initiated by members of the public There is little enforcement and no fines for violations (except for lobbyist late fees) Betsy Greenberg Independent Ethics Commission 2024 Charter Review Commission Introduction Current Situation in Austin Recommendations City Clerk The Clerk accepts campaign finance reports, financial statements, and lobbyist filings Nothing happens when required campaign finance reports or personal financial statements are not filed Reminders and fines (up to $500) for lobbyist quarterly reports The Clerk provides a detailed candidate packet, but the contents cannot be considered legal advice Betsy Greenberg Independent Ethics Commission 2024 Charter Review Commission Introduction Current Situation in Austin Recommendations City Attorney Provides legal advice to the City Clerk and Ethics Review Commission Does not issue advisory opinions to candidates or give advice to the public Only enforcement action possible is to prosecute a Class C misdemeanor for a maximum fine of $500 Has never taken ethics or campaign finance enforcement …
Everyday Ethics for Local Officials Understanding the Role of Ethics Commissions PUBLIC SERVICE ETHICS 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. 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 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 positions or bodies can play …
2024 Charter Review Commission Meeting, 1/18/24 Item 5 - Summary of Recall Work Group Recommendations Notice of Intent Presented and signed by 5 qualified voters in Austin, providing sufficient information to confirm their voter status Phone number and email address to provide to the public Indicate petition type Proposed ordinance language or ballot language Short (1 sentence) summary of the intended purpose Campaign finance filer ID Date of election that petition initiators intend to get item on the ballot Sworn statement attesting to validity of information on Notice of Intent Clerk indicates date received Clerk indicates date that voter status of 5 presenters was verified by Clerk's office Clerk indicates a final date by which sufficient valid signatures must be received in order to appear on the ballot for the intended election Clerk indicates a safe harbor date by which signatures should be presented to give Clerk's office enough time to verify signatures Clerk assigns short identifier or number for Notice of Intent Clerk posts Notice of Intent on website Signatures are valid for 90 days after date Notice of Intent was accepted by Clerk + 90 day extension available Standardized Petition Forms Space to indicate type of petition Contact information provided on Notice of Intent Contact information for Clerk's office URL on COA website where Notices of Intent are posted QR code directing to COA website where Notices of Intent are posted Identifier assigned to Notice of Intent Short (1 sentence) summary of the intended purpose Space for valid signatures, as already defined in Charter Available in Spanish and English by default Available in other common languages upon request Signatures Number of valid signatures required Distribution of signatures Recall of Council Member Recall of Mayor Residents of relevant council district N/A N/A N/A N/A TBD N/A N/A N/A N/A 10% of qualified voters citywide At least 5% of total number of signatures collected must come from each council district Qualified voters of relevant council district Page 1 of 2 Campaign Finance File campaign treasurer appointment Adherence to limits on campaign contributions and expenditures (City Charter, Art. III, Sec. 8) Recall Election (City Charter Art. IV § 7) …
Charter Review Commission 2024 Survey Results Overall Engagement • Views: 857 • Participants: 160 • Responses: 2,109 • Comments: 43 2 How often do you vote? 85% Every single election 9% Every year in November 4% Every 2 years in November 2% Other Presentation title 3 If you don’t vote in every election, why not? (select all that apply) There are too many elections each year I don’t understand the proposals on the ballot I can’t take time off from work I don’t trust the electoral system I am not registered to vote 4 How much do local issues influence your decision to vote in elections? 7% 4% 12% Greatly influence my decision Somewhat influence my decision Neutral 77% Others 5 What motivates you to vote? (Select all that apply) Civic duty Influence on policy or change Support for a specific candidate or issue Community influence or peer pressure Personal or family Other 6 Have you ever voted on a citizen-initiated ballot proposal in local elections? 13% 2% If no, why not? (select all that apply) The names of the various proposals are confusing I don’t understand what the proposals would do There are too many proposals 85% I don’t trust citizen-initiated ballot proposals Yes No Not sure It’s only important to vote on candidates for government offices 7 Have you ever signed a petition for a citizen-initiated ballot proposal? 19% 18% If no, why not? (select all that apply) I have never been asked to sign a petition 63% I don’t trust these petitions There are too many petitions Yes No Not sure The petitions are confusing 8 Have you ever started a petition or collected signatures for a citizen-initiated ballot proposal? 13% 87% Yes No 9 What would improve the City’s citizen-initiated petition process? (select all that apply) • 64% - Ensure the information that signature collectors present to potential signers is true • 62% - Require that each signature sheet has the exact proposal language and the filer’s contact information at the top of the sheet • 61% - Create ethical guidelines for how people can collect signatures • 41% - Create ethical guidelines for who can collect signatures • 41% - Require filers to sign a statement affirming that they believe each signature is genuine and that collectors witnessed each signature, showed potential signers the proposal, and verified that each signer is a registered voter • …
