Judge rules that city is violating open meetings law and the city charter

A second Travis County judge ruled Tuesday that the city of Austin is violating the Texas Open Meetings Act as well as the city charter in allowing people who wish to speak to City Council only two minutes, regardless of how many items they want to address. District Judge Daniella Deseta Lyttle ruled in favor of the Save Our Springs Alliance and its executive director, Bill Bunch, in their lawsuit against the city.

That means speakers wishing to address City Council will continue to have three minutes per item – not the two minutes for all items that has been in effect since 2023. In mid-April, Judge Madeleine Connor granted a temporary restraining order, giving each speaker three minutes on each item they wished to address. It is not clear whether a court would allow the city to give each speaker two minutes per item. But traditionally, each speaker had three minutes and that is what the plaintiffs were seeking.

The plaintiffs presented three witnesses familiar with testimony before City Council. Former Council Member Laura Morrison told the court she was very familiar with speaking to Council, which she did frequently before being elected in 2008. She said everyone would get three minutes to speak, giving Council members different perspectives. She said that on any number of occasions, Council meetings went beyond 10 p.m. According to Council rules, the Council must vote at 10 p.m. to continue the meeting or adjourn.

Morrison said when she was elected to Council, she understood that it would be a full-time job and that sometimes meetings would go late into the night. She said Council at that time would set controversial items later in the day to make sure that citizens could come after work to speak their piece. At that time, she said zoning cases were set at 4 p.m. to allow for more public input. Zoning cases are currently set at 2 p.m.

Assistant City Attorney Brandon Mickle argued that Council should not be expected to work late at night and that keeping such hours was not a good use of Council members’ time.

Roy Waley, who frequently addresses Council, particularly on environmental matters, recalled the 1990 Council meeting that lasted all night and ended up with a unanimous Council rejecting a massive development plan over the Edwards Aquifer that would have had tremendous environmental impact on Barton Springs. He said almost a thousand people signed up to speak that night and he was outside talking to everyone about the issues. He told the Austin Monitor, “No council member ran on the platform of ‘We’ll get it over quick and be home in time for dinner.’”

Monica Guzmán, a community organizer with Go Austin/Vamos Austin, told the court she studies Council agendas and finds numerous items of interest, particularly as they relate to residents of North and South Austin. She said she addresses Council at least once a month, and the two-minute rule has made it difficult for her to address a wide variety of items that relate to her job, particularly land use policies.

When Mickle cross-examined Guzmán, he said she had signed up to speak on 13 different items for a total of 39 minutes at the April 18 meeting. She said she registered for any number of items, including several that she merely wanted to support, not offer much testimony. Mickle said she actually spoke for 1 minute, 45 seconds. Guzmán is also a candidate for City Council District 4 on the November ballot.

After hearing from three witnesses, as well as arguments from Bunch and Mickle, Lyttle told the parties that she was extending the temporary restraining order for 14 days – the maximum amount of time she could extend it.

The judge said the resolution Council was relying on to allow only two minutes per speaker was in violation of the city charter. The city charter requires an ordinance – not simply a resolution – to set up the rules for public speakers. That resolution does not comply with the Texas Open Meetings Act, she said. Although the city’s lawyer argued against it, Lyttle ruled that the restraining order is the status quo to be maintained.

Lyttle then left the courtroom to allow the attorneys to discuss how long they might want to prepare for the final hearing. Bunch and Mickle agreed to an extension until June 17, but since the judge will be unavailable on that date, they agreed to meet again on July 1. In the meantime, Council can craft an ordinance that will meet the requirements of both the state law and the city charter if they choose to do so.

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. This story has been changed since publication to clarify the community that GAVA serves.