Legal questions cause delay in considering changes to petition rules

At Thursday’s City Council meeting, after hearing complaints from two attorneys that a proposed ordinance would violate state law and the city charter, Mayor Kirk Watson announced that the item would be withdrawn. The proposed ordinance would govern petitions for initiatives, referendums and recall of City Council members.

After hearing about problems with the proposed ordinance from Bill Bunch and Bobby Levinski of the Save Our Springs Alliance, Watson said, “The city attorney has asked that we withdraw this item and bring it back at another point in time so the city attorney’s office can look into a question that has been raised.”

Bunch told Council, “You’re proposing to erect barriers and delays and obfuscation to the powers reserved to the people by the charter for initiative, referendum and recall. Your proposal violates the city charter itself and is therefore completely illegal under state law.”

In addition, he said the notice concerning the proposed ordinance did not include sufficient information to comply with the state’s Open Meetings Act.

The charter gives the power to enact legislation directly to the people and also reserves to the people the right to recall a Council member, he said. Although the charter specifically says the city must follow the requirements of state law and the charter, he said, there is no reference to ordinances.

In concluding his remarks, Bunch warned Council that if they were to approve the ordinance they would be sued. He specifically directed his comments to the three attorneys on Council – Ryan Alter, Chito Vela and Watson. Alter asked the mayor to make sure there would be an executive session on any similar ordinance that might come back to them in the future.

Levinski explained to the Austin Monitor that the proposed ordinance includes a provision that the city clerk has 10 days to approve the form petitioners are required to use in collecting signatures. Under current city regulations, an ordinance takes effect 10 days after it wins Council approval.

However, if a person or group decides they want to hold a referendum election on an ordinance that Council has approved, the petitioners have only 10 days to collect sufficient signatures to put the item on the ballot. Waiting for the city clerk to approve a form could take the entire time petitioners have to collect signatures, Levinski noted.

Such an ordinance would clearly be in conflict with the charter, he said.

City staff proposed the ordinance in response to a request from Council that they come up with ordinances that do some of things the Charter Review Commission hoped to achieve through a charter amendment election. This is apparently the first attempt to respond to that request.

On Aug. 30, a Travis County district judge granted a request from Bunch and another attorney to remove the charter items from the Nov. 5 ballot. In granting that request, Judge Maya Guerra Gamble ruled that the city had violated the Open Meetings Act by not providing sufficient information to the public when they set a hearing on the proposed charter items.

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.