Austin’s Ethics Review Commission opted last week not to advance a complaint filed by Tiffany Washington against Council Member Natasha Harper-Madison, ending a months-long process over allegations that Harper-Madison violated multiple provisions of the city’s ethics code.
The complaint, filed in two parts earlier this year by Tiffany Washington, accused Harper-Madison of violating five sections of the city’s ethics code, including improper use of her official title and representing private interests in a way that could undermine public trust. The commission’s decision effectively closes the matter unless new complaints are submitted.
The Ethics Review Commission must vote to determine whether reasonable grounds exist to believe a violation has occurred in order to schedule a final hearing. In Washington’s case, no commissioner made such a motion following the preliminary hearing, which led to the automatic dismissal of the complaint.
Harper-Madison did not appear in person or online for the meeting, and no legal representative submitted a response on her behalf. Chair William Pumfrey thanked Washington for her persistence in attending multiple delayed meetings and acknowledged frustrations with the timeline, noting that one postponement was due to an attorney scheduling conflict and another was caused by severe weather.
Washington’s complaint, filed in two parts this spring, accused Harper-Madison of misusing her position by promoting cooperation with the private developer Eureka Holdings and using her official title on social media to engage in personal attacks against constituents. Washington argued that these actions undermined public trust, blurred the line between public service and private advocacy, and went beyond what’s considered acceptable personal use of city resources or influence.
“We have to be very diligent when we deal with people or leaders in positions of power who psychologically coerce their constituents, who use psychological coercion to manipulate their constituents into not speaking up against them,” she said.
“She’s never not said that it was ‘anything but imperative to work with Eureka,’ meaning I feel like only someone who is representing someone else would say something like that. You’re not gonna tell me you need to work with somebody if you’re not representing them.”
Washington included over 40 pages of material, including screenshots of Facebook discussions, email correspondence, text messages. and references to prior news coverage. In one cited exchange, Harper-Madison responded to a constituent’s criticism of a developer-led redevelopment effort. Washington asserted that this type of language amounted to lobbying on behalf of the developer.
She also accused Harper-Madison of using her platform to belittle or threaten constituents. The complaint described some of the council member’s public comments as “defamatory,” alleging that such behavior undermines trust in local government.
Washington acknowledged during the hearing that she could not provide direct evidence that Harper-Madison had received compensation from Eureka Holdings or had formal business ties. Still, she argued that the totality of the behavior, particularly repeated public alignment with the developer, warranted deeper scrutiny.
Harper-Madison did not reply to a request for comment.
While questioning Washington, commissioners emphasized that the city’s ethics code does not clearly define many of the terms in the complaint, which complicated their ability to evaluate the complaint on legal grounds. While some expressed personal discomfort with aspects of Harper-Madison’s tone and judgment in the cited exchanges, they noted that ethical violations require a specific showing of harm, benefit, or abuse of office under city code.
Commissioner Luis Figueroa called for a future subcommittee to clarify vague portions of the code, particularly terms like “special privilege” that have appeared in recent complaints without a standard definition.
“’As we continue to get these complaints without any definition, it makes it very difficult as a commission, as well as for the public who want to bring complaints to know what even evidence is necessary,” he said. “Since we don’t have a definition in the code, it’s increasingly becoming a problem.”
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.