Proposed changes to the city’s ethics commission falter

A proposal to reenvision the city’s ethics commission as an independent entity appears to be on ice at the Charter Review Commission after a motion to form a working group to look into the issue failed without any support. 

Commissioner Betsy Greenberg, who made the motion to form an ethics commission working group, presented her research on the topic at the Charter Review Commission’s most recent meeting. Most of her presentation centered on a 2018 recommendation from the previous incarnation of the commission. But a combination of being short on time to solidify the recommendation and a suggestion that the change could be made by City Council has thwarted the 2018 recommendation’s revival for now.

Members of the Ethics Review Commission have no required expertise or qualifications and no restrictions on relationships to politicians. Greenberg reported that, in her opinion as a former Ethics Review Commission member, in the last two years no cases at the commission have gone to a final hearing and cases have been derailed by split votes, misunderstanding of the code and inaccurate complaints by the public. In addition, the body currently has a tepid ability to enforce their rulings.

“I think the Statesman wrote, ‘The ethics commission can write a mean letter or a slightly meaner letter,’” Greenberg said. 

Greenberg said that one of the most glaring problems with the current system is that complaints must be filed by the public. Because of that, she noted, violations occur but are never investigated. She pointed out that, for example, though The Austin Bulldog had reported a third of candidates didn’t fill out personal financial reports that could reveal conflicts of interest, a complaint was never filed. The same was true for a report on lobbyist violations for six City Council members.

Currently, there are four entities charged with “ethics matters” at the city. The city attorney is hired by the city manager. The city clerk and city auditor are hired by City Council. And the Ethics Review Commission is appointed by City Council. 

The 2018 recommendations stated that it would be more effective for a single ethics commission to handle everything. The previous Charter Review Commission also recommended that entity be independent – not answering to City Council, the city manager or the city attorney, with members selected in a manner similar to the redistricting commission. Unlike that commission, however, the proposed ethics commission would have staff and a director. 

In addition, there would be limits on terms and membership, with restrictions on lobbyists, candidates and political consultants, plus training requirements.

“The public has the right to transparency and accountability from our public officials, candidates and political action committees,” Greenberg said. “An independent ethics commission that’s free to operate without fear or favor would help us achieve this goal.”

At the conclusion of her presentation, Greenberg suggested that a working group could work from the 2018 10-page report that was never considered by City Council.

Chair Jessica Palvino, who served on the 2018 charter commission as well, explained that their recommendation was tied to the “democracy dollars” proposition that is no longer on the table. 

“While the 2018 commission did a lot of work, there was still significant disagreement, down to the end, about the proposal – specifically about how the commissioners would be appointed. I would say there is still work to do,” she said, noting that getting the 2018 report together took place over nine meetings and was a “heavy lift.” The current commission has four scheduled meetings left.

During the discussion, Assistant City Attorney Caroline Webster noted that the rules governing appointments to the ethics commission were a part of city code, not the charter, so they could be changed without a charter election. The charter amendment, she explained, could just propose an independent ethics commission and details of how that would work could be ironed out later. 

When asked directly, Webster said that she thought that, in fact, the whole proposal could be worked out without a charter amendment, but told the commission she needed to research the subject more to be sure. However, she noted, enshrining a new process in the city charter would have the advantage of making it harder to change since it would require another election.

“That’s kind of politics less than legal,” she said. 

While practical considerations appear to have sunk the charter amendment for the time being, discussion at the meeting also showed that there might be more work to do on the 2018 recommendation than just some editing. 

Commissioner Julio Gonzalez Altamirano said that his immediate concern with the drafted recommendation was how independent ethics commissioners would be removed. His concerns were not allayed by learning they, and any executive director, could be removed by fellow commissioners. 

“These folks are stuck forever with subpoena power and there’s no way to get to them,” he said. “We’re saying: Let’s have some very bespoke application process that no one can recall them from. Give them investigative power of elected officials and give them a budget … and for what? What is the quantitative evidence that Austin has an ethical crisis?

“What we have from 2018 in the presentation leaves a lot of pieces dangling out there for something that I think is potentially very dangerous.”

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.