Ethics Review Commission dismisses complaint against former parks board member

The Ethics Review Commission dismissed a complaint against former Parks and Recreation Board Member Nina Rinaldi after a two-and-a-half-hour preliminary hearing on Wednesday. Commissioners voted 4-5 to move to a final hearing, which required majority support of the 11-member body.

Scott Cobb, a city lifeguard, filed a complaint in June claiming that Rinaldi had violated city code provisions related to conflict of interest and recusal. Cobb questioned Rinaldi’s support of the controversial – and currently on-hold – Zilker Park Vision Plan in her former capacity as a parks board member. 

Rinaldi voted in the majority at a May 22 parks board meeting to recommend that City Council adopt the vision plan following a failed motion asking her to recuse herself. 

Rinaldi said she is a former employee of the Shoal Creek Conservancy as well as a current board member of Austin Outside, a coalition of nonprofits – including the conservancy – and businesses that champions outdoor places. 

Cobb raised several concerns to commissioners, including that Rinaldi’s involvement in the two organizations influenced her support of the vision plan, which proposed the creation of an umbrella nonprofit organization to serve as a liaison between the parks department and “the many active organizations and interested parties” supporting the park. The plan also proposed that the umbrella nonprofit “could” work with Austin Outside “to campaign for public funds … for Zilker and the entire Austin Parks and Recreation system.” 

“Getting a salary from an organization that is a member of Austin Outside, being a board member of Austin Outside … being on the parks board and advocating strenuously during the discussion for the Zilker Park Vision Plan sounds to me like a conflict of interest,” Cobb said.

Rinaldi emphasized that she served on the Austin Outside board in a volunteer capacity and has never received any “financial remuneration” from the organization. As a result, she told commissioners, she has no “substantial interest” in Austin Outside, citing the city code definition. She added that the vision plan, if passed, wouldn’t have had “any economic effects or consequences that are either positive or negative” on Austin Outside. 

Four of the nine commissioners in attendance agreed there were “reasonable grounds” to believe such a violation could have occurred, warranting a final hearing.

“Something’s up,” Commissioner Michael Lovins said.

Commissioner Sidney Williams said a final hearing would provide a chance to explore further whether Austin Outside and its member organizations stood to benefit from Rinaldi’s vote in favor of the vision plan. 

“We owe it to our community to get to the bottom of that, to see if these nonprofits are really self-serving,” he said. “If we’re not going to do that, then I don’t know what this board is for.”

But the remaining five commissioners disagreed. Although they acknowledged that the vision plan was a personal issue for many Austinites, they cited a lack of evidence behind Cobb’s complaint.

“(Conflict of interest) all has to do with economics, financial gain somewhere in the future, and I don’t see anything that was presented that makes me think that there was any expectation of funding from somewhere,” Commissioner Ross Pumfrey said. 

Chair Luis Soberon also felt there weren’t reasonable grounds to move to a full hearing, saying one mention of Austin Outside in the 254-page plan did not constitute a conflict.

“I’m not a bloodhound, and I don’t think a smell is enough to put the weight of the commission and its subpoena power to bear on a smell and something weird,” he said. 

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.