[00:00:29]
[CALL TO ORDER]
GREAT.UM, NEXT IS CITIZEN COMMUNICATION.
UM, BUT WE HAVE NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS REGISTERED TO SPEAK SO WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE FIRST ITEM ON
[1. EXECUTIVE SESSION]
OUR AGENDA, WHICH IS TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.SO WITHOUT OBJECTION, ETHICS, TRIBUTE COMMISSION WILL GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO TAKE UP FOUR ITEMS PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION, OR IT MIGHT BE THREE ITEMS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION FIVE, FIVE, 1.071.
UM, THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION WILL CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ON LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO THE FOLLOWING ITEM ONE A TO C FILED BY MARK LITTLEFIELD AGAINST PECK, YOUNG VOICES OF AUSTIN, WHICH ALLEGES VIOLATIONS OF CODE VIOLATION OF CODE SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH THREE THREE ADAM, ONE B AND TWO B COMPLAINTS FILED BY MARK LITTLEFIELD AGAINST ELLEN WOULD HAVE ENOUGH AUSTIN PAC AND ELLEN WOULD FIGHT FOR AUSTIN PAC, WHICH WILL COMPLAINT WHICH COMPLAINANTS ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF SECTIONS.
SECTION TWO FAST TWO DASH THREE AND TWO DASH TWO THREE TWO ITEM ONE C AND TWO, A A COMPLAINT FILED BY MARK RULE FIELD AGAINST SAVE AUSTIN NOW, WHICH LET THIS VIOLATION OF CITY CODE SECTION TWO DASH TWO TWO THREE.
IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE ITEMS ANNOUNCED HEARING AND SEEING NONE, THE COMMISSION WILL NOW GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION? THE TIME IS 6:13 PM.
I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER IS WE ARE GOING TO LEAVE THIS MEETING AND THEN JOIN THE OTHER LINK FOR THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.
SO I WILL SEE YOU ALL ON THE OTHER SIDE.
W DO WE JUST CLOSE THIS ONE ENTIRELY AND THEN REOPEN IT LATER? THANK YOU.
UM, AND THEN YOU SO QUICKLY, BUT THEN AT THE BOTTOM AND THEN JOINED THE OTHER ONE.
HEY, THEN HERE IS HYPOTHETICAL OR IMAGINARY RECORDER GETTING TURNED ON.
WE TOOK UP AND DISCUSS LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO THREE ITEMS AT A ONE A AND TO SEE A COMPLAINT FILED BY MARK LITTLEFIELD AGAINST PECK YOUNG VOICES OF AUSTIN TO ITEM ONE D AND TO BE COMPLAINTS FILED BY MARK LITTLEFIELD AGAINST ELLEN WOULD HAD ENOUGH AUSTIN PAC AND ELLENWOOD FIGHT FOR AUSTIN PACK AND THREE ITEM, ONE C AND TWO A COMPLAINT FILED BY MARK LITTLEFIELD AGAINST SAVE AUSTIN NOW.
SO WITH THAT, WE ARE GOING TO GO INTO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WHICH ARE THE THREE PRELIMINARY HEARINGS.
THE FIRST ONE THAT WE WILL TAKE UP, I BELIEVE
[2(a) A complaint filed by Mark Littlefield against Save Austin Now, which complaint alleges violation of City Code Chapter 2-2 (Campaign Finance) Section 2-2-23 (Political Committees).]
IS ITEM TWO EIGHT, A COMPLAINT FILED BY MARK LITTLEFIELD AND SAVE AUSTIN NOW, WHICH COMPLAINT ALLEGES A VIOLATION OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH TWO, CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND SECTION TWO DESTITUTE AS TWO, THREE, WAITING TO COOK POLITICAL COMMITTEES, STEVE SHEETS.IT WAS APPEARING AS AN OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION ON THIS ITEM AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY WHEN CARTER IS ALSO PRESENT, IF OUTSIDE COUNCIL HAS A PROCEDURAL QUESTION SPECIFICALLY FOR THE LAW DEPARTMENT.
SO I'M GONNA, UM, GO THROUGH THE PROCEDURES, UM, FAIRLY QUICKLY.
UM, I'M ASSUMING THAT COMPLAINANT AND RESPONDENT AND COUNCILS, RESPECTIVELY HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE RULES AND PROCEDURES.
UM, SO PROCEDURES, THE COMPLAINANT SHALL STATE THE ALLEGED VIOLATION AND THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE THAT WOULD BE OFFERED AT A FINAL HEARING.
RESPONDENTS WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, BUT IT'S NOT REQUIRED TO ATTEND OR MAKE ANY STATEMENT.
RESPONDENT MAY DESCRIBE IN NARRATIVE FORM THE TESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED TO DISPROVE THE ALLEGED VIOLATION.
ALL STATEMENTS BY THE PARTIES AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING SHALL BE UNDER OATH.
EACH STATE WILL HAVE 10 MINUTES FOR PRESENTATION UNLESS THE CHAIR EXTENDS THE TIME.
THERE WILL BE NO CROSS EXAMINATION.
THE COMMISSIONERS MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF THE PARTIES, ATTORNEYS, AND PARTIES, PLEASE ANNOUNCE WHO IS APPEARING FOR EACH PARTY.
SO I WILL FIRST START WITH COMPLAINANT.
AND THEN RESPONDENT AND COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT.
I WILL BE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF MY CLIENT.
[00:05:01]
THAT.UM, THEN IN THAT CASE, UH, SECRETARY GOBER, UH, IS OUR GRACIOUS TIMEKEEPER.
SO WE WILL START WITH A 10 MINUTE PRESENTATION FROM THE COMPLAINANT.
UM, WHENEVER YOU ARE READY, MR. LITTLEFIELD, YOU CAN START SPEAKING AND MR. SECRETARY GOBER IS GOING TO START THE TIMER.
SO I LEAVE THE FLOOR TO YOU, SIR.
I, UH, APPRECIATE THE TIME, UH, UH, THIS EVENING FOR THIS COMPLAINT.
UM, I DID NOT PREPARE MUCH MORE TO SEE ME FOR THIS.
UM, UM, WHEN I WAS NOTIFIED THAT THE CHAIR, UH, HAD, UH, RULED THAT, UM, UH, BUT THIS WAS, UH, UH, NOT GOING TO BE IN THE PURVIEW OF THE ESTIMATION.
I DID NOT PREPARE MUCH MORE FOR THE, UH, UH, ON THIS COMPLAINT.
UM, THIS IS ABOUT SAVE AUSTIN.
NOW, THIS IS ABOUT, UH, UH, UH, UH, THE ISSUE WITH THAT.
UH, THEY FILED AS NON PROFITS.
THEY RAISED MONEY TO, UH, UH, TO COLLECT SIGNATURES, TO, UH, UH, TO OVERTURN A ORDINANCE AT THE CITY, UH, AT, UH, CITY COUNCIL, UM, AND, UH, WITHOUT HAVING TO DISCLOSE THEIR DONORS, UM, UH, I, IN THE BACKUP MATERIAL, IF YOU GUYS DO DETERMINE THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE, UH, A FINAL HEARING FOR THIS, UM, I HAVE, UH, EXHIBITS THAT I WILL, UM, UH, PRESENT AT THE FINAL HEARING, UM, ABOUT THE MATERIAL THAT THEY, UM, UH, SUBMITTED, UM, FOR THEIR PETITION, UM, UH, AND COMMENTS THEY MADE IN THE PRESS, UH, ABOUT, UH, THE, HOW THEY CONDUCTED THEIR ORGANIZATION, UH, AT A FINAL HEARING.
BUT AGAIN, UH, WISH I HAD PREPARED MORE, BUT I DIDN'T, DIDN'T EVEN SAY THIS WAS GOING TO BE ON THE AGENDA SINCE THE, UH, CHAIR HAD ALREADY MADE A RULING.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I WILL BE GLAD TO ANSWER THEM.
UH, MR. LITTLEFIELD, AND, UM, I'LL LET THE RESPONDENT, UH, GET THEIR 10 MINUTES.
UM, AND THEN, UM, I'M HAPPY TO JUST BEFORE A COMMISSIONER, START WITH YOUR QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO KIND OF CLARIFY THE JURISDICTIONAL RULING AND WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY.
UM, BUT I WILL LET RESPONDENT, UH, GO AHEAD.
WHEN I LET SECRETARY GILBERT TIMEKEEPER EXTRAORDINARY, GET READY.
UM, THE RESPONDENT, I WILL TURN TO COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT WILL TURN IT OVER TO YOU.
WHENEVER YOU START TALKING, YOU WILL PRESS START.
I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT MY CLIENT.
UM, SAVE AUSTIN NOW, BEFORE THE COMMISSION, UH, I DID SPEAK ON BEHALF OF FIGHT FOR AUSTIN ARE Y'ALL ABLE TO HEAR ME.
IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S SOME GLITCHES.
WE CAN HEAR YOU CUTTING A LITTLE BIT IN AND OUT, UM, AND WE'RE GETTING A BANDWIDTH NOTICE.
UM, SO, UH, WE'LL LET YOU KNOW IF WE'RE HAVING TROUBLE HEARING YOU, UM, AND WE'LL DOCUMENTS FOR THE TIME, I GUESS, JUST CUT THE VIDEO IF YOU THINK THAT WOULD HELP.
UM, SO AT THE LAST MEETING, UM, I ACTUALLY REPRESENTED BIDE FOR AUSTIN, AND THERE WAS A JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION BECAUSE THERE WAS A STATUTORY PROVISION THAT WAS RELATED TO THE COMPLAINT.
UH, THIS IS SIMILAR IN THAT THE COMPLAINT IS ALLEGED THAT SAVE AUSTIN NOW IS A POLITICAL COMMITTEE AND THAT THE ACTIONS BEING TAKEN BY SAVE AUSTIN NOW CONSTITUTE SOME SORT OF A POLITICAL COMMITTEE.
UH, WE WOULD ARGUE THAT IT'S THE SAME JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION.
UM, THE ERC IS, IS CHARGED OBVIOUSLY WITH INTERPRETING ITS OWN ORDINANCES FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WE RESPECTFULLY ASSERT THAT, UH, WHETHER SAVE AUSTIN NOW AS A POLITICAL COMMITTEE IS NOT A DECISION THAT CAN BE MADE BY THIS COMMISSION.
IF IN THE ALTERNATIVE, YOU STILL FEEL THAT YOU HAVE JURISDICTION.
WE ARE A FIVE OH ONE C4, AND WE ACTUALLY JUST RECENTLY GOT, AND THE NOTIFICATION FROM THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE THAT WE HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED AS SUCH, UH, WE DID PROVIDE THE, UM, SECRETARY OF STATE FILING THAT WE DID TO SHOW THAT WE WANT TO EDUCATE, INFORM AND HELP WITH THE BETTERMENT OF
[00:10:01]
AUSTIN, UH, JUST OVERALL WITH, UM, ANYTHING THAT DEALS WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN.SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY, UM, ACTUAL BALLOT PROPOSITION.
WELL, IF THERE WERE TO BE A PETITION ITEM, WE WOULD CREATE A G PACK AND WE WOULD REPORT ACCORDINGLY ANY AND ALL EXPENDITURES AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO THAT END.
HOWEVER, UM, AS WE ARE NOT ACTING AS A POLITICAL COMMITTEE AT THIS TIME, I UNDERSTAND THE STATE LAW, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST DISMISSAL OF THIS COMPLAINT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. DAVIDSON.
WITH THAT, UM, COMMISSIONERS, WE'LL GO TO QUESTIONS.
UM, AND I THINK, UH, MR. LITTLEFIELD, I JUST WANT TO BRIEFLY KIND OF CLARIFY, UM, THE, UH, AND THIS'LL ACTUALLY SEGUES VERY NICELY INTO, I THINK MY FIRST QUESTION, UM, FOR RESPONDENT, BUT, UM, SO MR. LITTLEFIELD, UH, THE COMPLAINT IN THE NOVEMBER HEARING THAT I HAD MADE A JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION ON WAS AGAINST, UM, MR. CHENEY, UH, AND THE, THE RULING WAS ON THE BASIS THAT THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH THREE OF CITY CODE, WHICH IS SIMPLY, UM, IT'S A KIND OF REFERENCE PART OF OUR CITY ORDINANCE THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S EXPECTED THAT THERE'S COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW AND STATE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE.
AND DOESN'T ACTUALLY LIST A SPECIFIC THING TO BE VIOLATED OTHER THAN, UM, STATE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION.
UM, AND I DO, UH, I APPRECIATE THE ARGUMENTS THAT RESPONDENT IS MAKING, BUT IN TURNING TO RESPONDENT AND WITH A QUESTION YOU, UM, WOULD IT, IT, DO YOU THINK IT'D BE THE CASE THAT BECAUSE, BECAUSE THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S CAMPAIGN FINANCE CODE, UM, INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE THE TERMS THAT ARE USED UNDER THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE, UM, BORROWS THEIR DEFINITIONS, ARE YOU KIND OF ARGUING THAT THE TEXAS ETHICS OR SORRY THAT THE CITY'S ETHICS ETHICS COMMISSION IS KIND OF BLIND TO ANY QUESTIONS THAT RELY ON THOSE TERMS THAT ARE DEFINED IN STATE STATUTE? UM, BECAUSE IT SEEMS THAT WE WOULD, WE'D BE HARD PRESSED TO ENFORCE A LOT OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE RULES THAT ARE FOUND IN OUR CITY CODE, IF IT IS THE CASE THAT BECAUSE IT USES A TERM THAT'S DEFINED IN STATUTE, THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO, UM, SOME OTHER BODY TO RESOLVE A QUESTION OF A CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS, BUT I JUST KIND OF WANT TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT AND FLUSHING OUT THE DISTINCTION.
AND I APPRECIATE THAT QUESTION.
THIS WAS A QUESTION FOR RESPONDENT.
UM, COMPLAINANT, UH, MIGHT HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU LATER, BUT GO AHEAD.
I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WAS ANSWERING RECORDING.
UH, YES, BY REFERENCE IN THE MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES, THERE ARE SEVERAL THINGS THAT ARE UNIQUE TO THE AUSTIN.
UM, THE CITY OF AUSTIN, I HAVE REPRESENTED CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATES AND OTHER JURISDICTIONS, INCLUDING GALA'S SAN ANTONIO, HOUSTON AND OTHER AREAS, AND THEY HAVE THEIR OWN CAMPAIGN FINANCE OR LIMITATION REQUIREMENTS.
THERE ARE THINGS THAT CAN ONLY BE RESOLVED, BIG COMMISSIONS THERE REPRESENT THE CITY, UM, WHEN IT COMES TO POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND A POLITICAL COMMITTEE.
AND, UM, THERE ARE STATUTORY AND INTERPRETIVE RULES THAT ARE PROMULGATED UNDER THE STATUTE AND ARE REFERENCED IN YOUR ORDINANCES AS SAYING THAT YOU DO HAVE THE SAME MEANINGS, OR YOU DO HAVE THE SAME, UH, DEFINITIONS AS THE STATE DOES.
SO IF WE LOOK TO THE STATE, WHAT IS A POLITICAL COMMITTEE WILL A COMM A POLITICAL COMMITTEE IS AN ENTITY THAT IS CREATED TO MAKE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND MAKE POLITICAL EXPENDITURES RIGHT THERE ON THE FRONT OF THE BASIS OF THE DEFINITION OF POLITICAL COMMITTEE, SAVE AUSTIN NOW IS NOT A POLITICAL COMMITTEE.
THERE ARE POLITICAL COMMITTEES THAT ARE INCORPORATED AND FILED WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
AND THEIR PURPOSE IS SAID TO MAKE POLITICAL EXPENDITURES AND MAKE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS.
THAT IS NOT IN OUR PAPERWORK, AS I HAVE SUBMITTED TO YOU, WHAT WE FILED WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
SECONDLY, SINCE THAT IS DEFINED AND IS UNDER TEXAS LAW, WHICH YOU ALL AGAIN HAVE REFERRED TO.
UM, ANOTHER ISSUE IS WHAT CONSTITUTES A POLITICAL
[00:15:01]
COMMITTEE.IF YOU ARE A FIVE OH ONE C4, WELL, THERE ARE CERTAIN THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE MET, UH, AS TO WHETHER CERTAIN THINGS ARE CONSIDERED POLITICAL ACTIVITY.
THE ETHICS COMMISSION HAS SAID THAT IF A JUDICIAL CANDIDATE OR A CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE IS COLLECTING, UH, PETITION SIGNATURES, THAT'S NOT CONSIDERED REPORTABLE POLITICAL ACTIVITY.
SO IT WOULD SEEM THAT THAT REASONING WOULD APPLY TO THE ERC BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT, WHAT HAS BEEN INTERPRETED PRIOR.
SO I GUESS ON A CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT BECAUSE THE MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE IS DO IN FACT REFER TO THE FACT THAT IT IS, UH, REFERENCING AND, AND TALKING ABOUT THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE AND DIFFERENT THINGS THAT THOSE, UH, OPINIONS OR, UH, RULES OR INTERPRETATIONS BY THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION WOULD SOMEWHAT APPLY.
UM, COMMISSIONERS, I'M HAPPY TO OPEN THE FLOOR TO OTHER QUESTIONS THAT, UM, YOU HAVE, UM, I WILL, UH, I'LL WAIT FOR HANDS OR, UM, FEEL FREE TO CHIME IN AND ANNOUNCE YOURSELF IF YOU'RE NOT ON VIDEO AT THE MOMENT, UH, SECRETARY GILBERT.
SO THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE RESPONDENT.
I BELIEVE IF I, IF I HEARD CORRECTLY, IF ENOUGH SIGNATURES HAD BEEN GONE OR IN THE PETITION, THEN THE RESPONDENT AT THAT TIME WOULD HAVE FILED.
I THINK YOU SAID A DEEPAK, UH, DOCUMENTS OR FORMATION WOULD THAT HAVE THEN PRECLUDED YOU FROM CONTINUING AS A FIVE OH ONE C4, WOULD YOU HAVE HAD TO RE FILED WITH THE IRS TO A NEW DOCUMENT? WOULD YOU HAVE NEEDED TO AMEND FILINGS WITH THE TEXAS SECRETARY OF STATE, OR WOULD YOU HAVE KEPT ALL THOSE FILINGS, UH, AND JUST CREATED THE G PACK AND GONE ON AS A POLITICAL COMMITTEE AT THAT TIME HAVING GARNERED ENOUGH SIGNATURES? ACTUALLY, THERE'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION, SIR.
SO LET ME ANSWER IT IN TWO PARTS PARTS ONE, THE FIRST PART IS THAT THE FIVE OH ONE C4 WILL NOT CEASE TO EXIST AND WILL CONTINUE TO EXIST AND WILL CONTINUE TO TRY TO HELP IMPROVE THE CONDITIONS IN AUSTIN UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF THE FIVE OH ONE C4, IN ADDITION TO WHAT THEY WILL BE DOING, THEY CAN CREATE AND ADMINISTER A G PACK.
AND THAT IS ALLOWABLE UNDER IRS RULES AND LAWS, A FIVE OH ONE C THREE, THAT'S A CHARITABLE NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION.
PURELY EDUCATIONAL WOULD HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE TROUBLE, UH, WITH POLITICAL ACTIVITY, BUT A FIVE OH ONE C FOUR DOES NOT IN CREATING A G PACK.
AND THE G PACK WOULD EXIST WITH THE FIVE OH ONE C4.
THERE WOULD BE NO CHANGE, EXCEPT THERE WOULD NOW BE ACTUALLY SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT, ACTUALLY, UM, POLITICAL ACTIVITY THAT COULD BE ENGAGED IN BY THE PACK ON BEHALF OF THE BUBBLE AND C4.
SO, UM, THE POP WOULD, WOULD BE THE POLITICAL ARM, CONTRIBUTIONS EXPENDITURES, EVERYTHING WOULD BE REPORTED THROUGH THAT, THAT RELATES TO THE BALLOT MEASURE AND THEN THE WORK OF THE FIVE OH ONE C4 AND TRYING TO HELP WITH OTHER ISSUES THAT ARE NOT RELATED TO THE BALLOT MEASURE ITSELF AND UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE C4.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? OKAY.
COMMISSIONERS OTHER QUESTIONS.
UH, MS. DAVIS, I WAS LISTENING AND I THINK YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT CASE LAW OR SOME PRIOR DECISION THAT SAID GATHERING PETITIONS IS NOT, UH, IT DOES NOT COUNT AS CAMPAIGNING.
UM, DID YOU MENTION SOMETHING LIKE THAT? I BELIEVE I HEARD YOU MENTIONING GATHERING PETITIONS IS NOT A PART OF SOMETIMES POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.
WHAT I SAID WAS THAT THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION ACTUALLY WAS ASKED IF, WHEN SOMEONE IS GATHERING PETITION SIGNATURES OR, UM, TO BE ON THE BALLOT, FOR EXAMPLE, WHETHER THAT WAS CONSIDERED, UM, SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE REPORTABLE OR, OR ACTIVITY THAT IS CONSIDERED, UM, SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE REPORTED.
[00:20:01]
FOR EXAMPLE, IF I WERE RUNNING FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE AND I HAD VOLUNTEERS GATHERING PETITION SIGNATURES, THAT'S NOT A POLITICAL EXPENDITURE, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S REPORTABLE AND THERE IS AN ETHICS ADVISORY OPINION TO THAT EFFECT.DO YOU HAVE A CITATION FOR THAT? I CAN GO GET THAT.
IT MIGHT BE FILED IN THE RIGHT PLACE.
UM, WHO WOULD I SAY, DO YOU WANT ME TO SEND THIS TO YOU? OKAY.
AND THAT IS THE ONE THAT TALKS ABOUT, ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE ARE PROHIBITIONS FOR, UH, UM, DIGITAL CANDIDATES, WHEN THEY'RE PROHIBITED FROM ACCEPTING POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS, THAT IS, THEY'RE NOT CONSIDERED POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS.
UM, UH, I LOVE THE CHANCE TO KIND OF DEEP DIVE INTO THAT EAO OPINION.
UM, BUT JUST, UH, KIND OF A QUICK SKIM, IT SEEMS LIKE IT IS IT PERTAINS TO GATHERING PETITIONS FOR, UH, CANDIDATES, UH, POTENTIAL CANDIDATES PLACEMENT ON THE BALLOT.
AND SO YOUR, YOUR POSITION IS THAT IT'S ANALOGOUS.
UH, COMMISSIONERS OF SEE COMMISSIONER, DANBURG GO FOR IT.
THE TASK, MR. LITTLEFIELD, IF HE CAN DIFFERENTIATE WHY HE BELIEVES OTHERWISE RECORDING, UH, ISSUES, ISSUE PETITION.
MR. LITTLE PILLAR, ARE YOU STILL HERE SAYING SEVERAL THINGS SAYING BANDWIDTH PROBLEMS POPPING UP HERE AND THERE? SO I DO NOT SEE HIM CURRENTLY IN THE LIST OF PARTICIPANTS.
UM, SO HERE'S WHAT I'LL OKAY, GO AHEAD, SECRETARY.
GOBER IT'S A QUESTION FOR THE RESPONDENT AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE SHOULD PROCEED IF IT, I DON'T KNOW IF MR. LITTLEFIELD CAN ACTUALLY STILL HERE OR NOT.
IT'S A QUESTION SPECIFICALLY AS I'M READING THIS ETHICS, UH, FIVE OPINION.
I, IT SEEMED THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER ACCEPTING SIGNATURES IS A CONTRIBUTION.
UM, WHAT WAS THE QUESTION IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE THOUGH? I DON'T THINK THE COMPLAINT IS ABOUT COLLECTING SIGNATURES, BUT EXPENDITURES IN ORDER TO COLLECT SIGNATURES.
IS THAT, IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING OR DO YOU THINK THE COMPLAINT IS THE, THE MIRROR COLLECTION OF SIGNATURES WOULD TRIGGER SOME REPORTING REQUIREMENT? I'M NOT STATING THAT VERY WELL, CAUSE I'M TRYING TO READ IT SIMULTANEOUS TO BEING PRESENT IN THE MEETING.
NO, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT.
AND BELIEVE ME, THIS IS THE AREA I PRACTICE AND IT GETS PRETTY COMPLICATED, BUT LET ME ALSO EXPLAIN THAT THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION ALSO SAYS, EVEN IF YOU DID CONSIDER IT POLITICAL ACTIVITY, A FIVE OH ONE C3 OR A FIVE OH ONE C FOUR OR A FIVE OH ONE, C6, WHATEVER THE ENTITY IS, CAN ENGAGE IN POLITICAL ACTIVITY UP TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT, EVEN MAKING EXPENDITURES OR ACCEPTING, UM, CONTRIBUTIONS, BUT STILL DOES NOT BECOME A POLITICAL COMMITTEE
[00:25:01]
UNTIL IT PASSES A CERTAIN THRESHOLD.SO IT'S NOT JUST THIS ADVISORY OPINION.
IT'S ALSO THE ETHICS COMMISSION RULES.
UH, LET ME SEE IF I HAPPEN TO HAVE PULLED THOSE INTO MY ACTUAL, UM, FOLDER ON THIS, OR IF I HAVE TO GO TO THE RULES REAL QUICKLY, BECAUSE THERE IS A DEFINITION THAT SAYS WHAT THE PRINCIPLE PURPOSE OF AN ENTITY IS.
AND THE ETHICS COMMISSION HAS OPINED THAT YOU CAN HAVE MORE THAN ONE, UH, PRINCIPLE PURPOSE.
AND IF ONE OF THE PRINCIPLE PURPOSES IS COLLECTING AND EXPANDING CAMPAIGN, UH, EXPENDITURES, AND YOU, I THINK THE, AND I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.
I'M TRYING TO GET THAT UP, BUT MY COMPUTER IS HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF TROUBLE WITH BEING ON, UM, THIS MEETING AND DOING THE SEARCH.
UM, BUT THE ACTUAL DEFINITIONS IN THE RULES DO A, THAT, UM, CERTAIN ACTIVITIES COUNT TOWARD THE THRESHOLD.
AND THEN YOU BECOME A POLITICAL COMMITTEE IF YOU MEET THAT THRESHOLD.
SO WE ARGUE THAT WE HAVEN'T MET THAT THRESHOLD EITHER.
SO DESPITE THE FACT, EVEN IF IT WERE TO BE QUANTIFIED AS POLITICAL ACTIVITY, WE CAN ENGAGE IN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND STILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO, TO FORM A PACK OR BECOME A PACK BY OUR ACTIONS.
UM, AND I BELIEVE WE'RE TRYING TO GET INTO A LITTLE SO BACK ON LINE, BUT IN THE MEANTIME, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR RESPONDENT AT THE VERY BOTTOM, ANY GOODS OR SERVICES THAT ARE USED OR PROVIDED TO OBTAIN SIGNATURE ON A CANDIDATES PETITION.
AND WE'LL SAY THAT THE, UM, VALID PROVISION IS, UM, ANALOGOUS SUCH AS PAPER OR PERSONNEL SERVICES WOULD CONSTITUTE A POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE CANDIDATES.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT PEOPLE WEREN'T PAID TO COLLECT THOSE SIGNATURES OR NOT ENOUGH MONEY WAS SPENT, UM, PAYING PEOPLE TO COLLECT THOSE SIGNATURES WHERE ALL THE SIGNATURES COLLECTED BY VOLUNTEERS.
UM, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, UH, THERE WERE, UH, AND IN THE INSTANCE THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING, I BELIEVE WE FAILED TO MAKE IT ON THE BALLOT.
UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT IT WAS ALL ALL, UH, BY VOLUNTEERS.
AND WE ARE, WE'RE TRYING TO GET THEM BACK, UM, RIGHT.
I'M JUST WANTING TO WEIGH IN TO MS. DAVIDSON, BEING ABLE TO KEEP ALL OF THESE THINGS SEGREGATED AND WITHIN THE LAW IS REALLY COMPLEX.
AND I THINK THEY DO NEED TO BE HIRING PROFESSIONALS AND LAWYERS AND, UH, UH, PROFESSIONAL AND TRAINED, UH, TREASURER'S MUCH, MUCH MORE THAN IS CURRENTLY HAPPENING.
NO, I WAS A VICE-CHAIR VERY, UM, IT WAS THAT YOU TRYING TO CHIME IN, YOU CAN GO AHEAD.
UM, I WAS, UH, GONNA, UH, COMMENT.
I SAW A NEW PARTICIPANT JOINED AND I WAS GOING TO SEE IF THAT WAS MR. LITTLEFIELD VIA PHONE, BUT, UM, YEAH, THERE YOU ARE TALKING BACK.
UM, SO BASICALLY I HEARD TO GO FOR A QUESTION.
SO WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH IS EITHER, I'LL SAY, JUST IN LISTENING TO THIS AND ABSORBING ALL OF THIS, IT DOESN'T SEEM THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN IS EXEMPTED OR THE COMMISSIONER TEMPTED FROM THE TERMINATING, WHETHER THIS IS A POLITICAL COMMITTEE, AS IT RELATES TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN CODE, WHICH REFERENCES THE TEXAS ETHICS OR THE TEXAS ELECTIONS CODE.
AND SO WE DO HAVE SOME LEEWAY TO INTERPRET THE TEXAS ELECTIONS CODE AND WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH.
[00:30:01]
C FOUR, WHICH IS A FEDERAL DESIGNATION.UM, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT HAVING A FEDERAL DESIGNATION IS JUST ENOUGH TO SAY, WELL, I'M NO LONGER, UH, NO LONGER SUBJECT TO TEXAS OR THE CITY OF AUSTIN LAWS.
I DON'T THINK IT GOES THAT FAR OF A, CERTAINLY IT WOULD BE A LOT EASIER IF THIS ISSUE HAD BEEN LITIGATED IN A FEDERAL COURT AND A FEDERAL, YOU KNOW, THIS IS ABSOLUTELY A FIVE OH ONE C4.
AND IF THEY COMPLY WITH THE LAW, IT'S ABSOLUTELY NOT A FIVE OH ONE C4.
AND SO, UM, THAT LITIGATION, IF IT HAD HAPPENED, WHAT WOULD BE WONDERFUL, RIGHT? BUT WE DON'T LIVE IN A PERFECT WORLD.
SO WE'LL DEAL WITH THE CIRCUMSTANCES YOU HAVE.
BUT, UM, THE FEDERAL COURTS WOULD APPLY THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES TESTS TO DETERMINE IF AN ORGANIZATION WERE POWER ONE C4.
SO SIMILARLY, THIS BODY CAN LOOK AT THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND DETERMINE REALLY WHAT IS THE PRIMARY PURPOSE.
AND SO LOOKING AT SOME OF THE STATEMENTS THAT WERE MADE BY, AND I DON'T WANT TO MISPRONOUNCE HIS NAME, UH, BUT I GUESS THE PRESIDENT OF HIS ORGANIZATION IS SITTING THERE A LITTLE LOW, OVER A THOUSAND PEOPLE CONTRIBUTED 900.
SO THOSE AT LEAST GAVE CONTRIBUTIONS, UH, THAT WERE SMALL CONTRIBUTIONS.
WHAT THIS MEANS IS THERE WAS A VERY LARGE, UM, THERE WAS A VERY LARGE DONOR, UH, AND MOST OF THE COMMUNICATION THAT WENT OUT THERE, THERE WASN'T ANY NEW INFORMATION.
WE, WE UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT HOMELESS, CAMPING, THE BATTLE HOMELESS, CAMPING HAS BEEN LIFTED.
SO THAT'S NOT REALLY A LOT OF NEW INFORMATION.
A LOT OF THE ADVOCACY WAS FOR A PETITION MEASURE.
IT'S NOT REALLY TRYING TO SQUARE THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES SERVE THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE CITIZENS ABOUT, ABOUT ANYTHING.
I MEAN, W WHAT WAS, WHAT WAS THE PRIMARY INFORMATION THAT WAS SHARED BY THE ORGANIZATION AND HOW DID THE $150,000 CONTRIBUTE IN VERY SPECIFIC TERMS TO DISSEMINATING THAT INFORMATION? OKAY.
UM, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND I DO, I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THAT A FIVE OH ONE C FOUR CAN ENGAGE IN POLITICAL ACTIVITY THAT DOES NOT ENDANGER THEIR FIVE OH ONE C4 STATUS, A FIVE OH ONE.
C6 IS LIKE A CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO GET POLITICALLY INVOLVED, A FIVE OH ONE C4, A LOT OF ASSOCIATIONS.
IT'S NOT IN JANE DURING THE FIVE OH ONE C4 STATUS.
UM, THERE'S MORE THAN JUST THE PETITION SIGNATURES.
UM, WE'LL LEADERSHIP FOR SAVE AUSTIN NOW, UH, HAS BEEN TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT IT GETS WORKING, UH, TOWARD AND IN COORDINATION WITH OTHER GROUPS IN THE CITY AND IN THE COMMUNITY TO TRY TO ADDRESS HOMELESS ISSUES, UH, TO TRY TO PROVIDE FOR THE HOMELESS, NOT JUST TO DEAL WITH THE BALLOT ISSUES, BUT ALSO TO DEAL WITH THE QUALITY OF LIFE.
UM, I, UH, I DON'T WANT TO MISPRONOUNCE NAMES EITHER, SO I'LL JUST THE CLIA IT'S TERRIBLE SELLS, AND SHE'S ENCOURAGING OTHERS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN SAVE AUSTIN NOW, TO TRY TO HELP THE HOMELESS, IN ADDITION TO THE ACTIVITIES THAT THEY'VE BEEN UNDERGOING WITH THE PETITION SIGNATURES ON A VOLUNTEER BASIS.
SO JUST BECAUSE ONLY A SLICE OF WHAT SAVE AUSTIN NOW HAS BEEN DOING HAS BEEN HIGHLY PUBLICIZED.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE ARE NOT OTHER EFFORTS TO EDUCATE, TO INFORM, TO WORK TOWARD THE BETTERMENT OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
UM, SO AGAIN, YES, YOU CAN DETERMINE POTENTIALLY THIS WAS POLITICAL ACTIVITY.
UH, AND, AND I THEN ARGUE THAT, UM, BECAUSE THE FEDERAL LAW SAYS THAT YOU CAN ENGAGE IN UP TO WHATEVER THE PERCENTAGE IS AND POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND NOT BE CONSIDERED A PACK.
AND THAT THE STATE UNDER THE ETHICS COMMISSION FOLLOWED THE FEDERAL LAW AND SAID, YOU CAN HAVE UP TO AN X AMOUNT PERCENTAGE OF POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND NOT BE A POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE THAT I WOULD PRESUME THAT THE ERC WOULD FOLLOW SUIT AND UNDERSTAND THAT A FIVE
[00:35:01]
OH ONE C4 IN MAKING AN EDUCATING AND, UH, PROPOSING AND ADVOCATING POSITIONS CAN STILL ENGAGE IN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF THAT.EVEN IF THERE WERE MONIES EXCHANGED AT SOME POINT, UH, POSSIBLY, I MEAN, AS FAR AS I KNOW, AGAIN, THEY WERE ALL VOLUNTEERS, BUT LET'S JUST SAY SOMEBODY WAS PAID TO GO AND HELP COLLECT PETITION SIGNATURES.
THE OVERALL PURPOSE OF THE ONES FIVE OH ONE C FOUR IS STILL BEING MET IN EDUCATING AND HELPING BETTER THE ENVIRONMENT IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
SO IS, THIS IS MY ISSUE, AND I DON'T WANT TO HOG UP A LOT OF TIME, BUT THE REALITY IS THAT SPECIFIC, THE VERY FACT-SPECIFIC DETERMINATION AND WHAT WE HAVE, WHAT IT SEEMS TO ME IS AN ALLEGATION FROM MR. LITTLEFIELD, UH, THAT THERE WERE LARGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY, RIGHT? THAT THERE WAS SPECIFIC ADVOCACY FOR, UH, A PETITION FOR SPECIFIC MEASURE, WHICH WAS, WHICH IS TO OVERTURN THE LIFTING OF THE HOMELESS CAMPING BAN.
UH, AND THAT INTENT WAS MADE PRETTY CLEAR BY ANY ACTORS THAT WERE WILLING TO SPEAK TO THE MEDIA AND THEN OPPOSITE THAT WE'RE 12.
WELL, HEY, THERE'S A THRESHOLD, BUT WE'RE NOT GIVEN WHAT THAT THRESHOLD IS.
UM, WE'RE TOLD THERE WERE SOME POLITICAL COMMUNICATION AGAIN, BUT WE'RE NOT SPECIFY, WE'RE NOT GIVING SPECIFICS IN TERMS OF WHAT, HOW MUCH WAS ACTUALLY SPENT.
UH, WE REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY REPRESENTATION, THE SPECIFICITY OF WHAT MAILERS WENT OUT AND WHAT THOSE MAILERS ACTUALLY SAID.
AND I MEAN, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THIS IS JUST AN INITIAL DETERMINATION.
WE CAN FERRET OUT THOSE ISSUES MORE RIGHT NOW.
IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF INFORMATION TO, BUT THE ALLEGATION, UH, THAT THIS FALLS OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARY OF A FIVE, ONE, ONE C FOUR AS WELL, THEN WE WANT TO PROVIDE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT.
I KNOW YOU CAN'T NECESSARILY GIVE US PRINT OUTS RIGHT NOW, BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF GENERALITIES THAT ARE BEING GIVEN IN CONTRAST TO SPECIFIC AMOUNTS OF MONEY THAT HAD BEEN SPENT ON A SPECIFIC TYPE OF ADVOCACY.
SO, UM, I WILL PASS IT OFF TO COMMISSIONER DANBURG FIELD.
I DON'T KNOW AT WHAT POINT YOU DROPPED OFF.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU, UH, HEARD WHAT MS. DAVIDSON WAS SAYING ABOUT THE ETHICS ADVISORY OF KENYON, UH, FIVE 11 AND WITHIN THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE ELECTION, UH, ADVISORY COMMITTEE, UH, SORRY, THE ELECTION, THE ELECTIONS COMMISSION, THE ETHICS COMMISSION.
UM, BUT WHAT I HAD ASKED YOU THAT I HOPE YOU DID HEAR IS SHE WAS REFERRING TO, UH, PETITIONS FOR JUDICIAL CANDIDATES TO GET ON THE BALLOT AS WHAT WAS AT ISSUE AT THAT.
AND I'M WONDERING IF YOU CAN DISTINGUISH YOUR, UH, YOUR CLAIM THAT THIS DOES A VIOLATION COLLECTING PETITIONS FOR JUDGES WOULD NOT BE, IF YOU COULD DISTINGUISH THOSE TWO.
UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S AN OLD, UH, IT'S A, IT'S ALMOST A CLICHE NOW, BUT IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S WHAT SUPREME COURT JUSTICE POTTER STEWART, YOU KNOW, SAID ABOUT TRINITY IS THAT IT'S, UM, YOU KNOW, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, IT, WHEN YOU SEE IT, UM, IS THAT THIS IS A CITY ISSUE.
THERE PROBABLY IS IN, UH, IN 2019.
AND, AND IN, I WOULD SAY IN 2020, THE PANDEMIC IS OBVIOUSLY THE BIGGEST ISSUE IN 2020, BUT IN 2019, WHEN WE STARTED, THERE WAS NO BIGGER ISSUE IN, IN 2019, UH, IN AUSTIN THAN PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS.
WHEN THESE FOLKS STARTED SAYING, HEY, WE'RE STARTING SAVE OFF THE NOW.
AND WE'RE STARTING THIS PETITION EFFORTS, UM, IS THAT WE ALL KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING AND WHY THEY WERE DOING IT.
AND WE KNEW THAT THEY WERE STARTING, UH, WITH THE NON-PROFIT AND OTHER, UH, IN ORDER TO NOT DISCLOSE THEIR DONORS.
UM, UH, UH, THIS WAS AN EFFORT OR A BALLOT MEASURE.
UM, AGAIN, I WANT TO APOLOGIZE THE COMMISSION.
UM, I THOUGHT THIS WAS A DONE DEAL TONIGHT.
[00:40:01]
WE WERE GOING TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A DEBATE AND, AND, AND HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS, OR I WOULD HAVE COME MORE PREPARED.AND I HAD SOME FOLKS WHO WANTED TO COME HELP ME, AND I'M SORRY, I TOLD THEM, I SAID, I'M SORRY, THEY'D ALREADY MADE A DETERMINATION THAT THEY WEREN'T GOING TO HEAR THIS TONIGHT.
PEOPLE PISSED OFF TO BE TOMORROW MORNING.
UM, SO, UH, COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS? CAUSE I, UM, I HAVE SOME THOUGHTS AND THEN I THINK I'M READY FOR EMOTION.
UM, BUT I WANT TO ENTERTAIN ANY LAST QUESTIONS THAT COMMISSIONERS MIGHT HAVE.
THEN WE'RE SEEING NO OTHER QUESTIONS.
UM, COMMISSIONERS, IF ANYONE HAS A MOTION I'M WILLING TO ENTERTAIN IT.
UM, I'M GOING TO WAIT FOR SOMEONE TO SEE ANYONE CHAMPION AT THE BID.
SO THEN I'M HAPPY TO, UH, MAKE A MOTION.
UM, AND MY MOTION WILL BE THAT WE PROCEED TO A FINAL HEARING, UM, BECAUSE REASONABLE GROUNDS EXIST, UM, THAT, THAT A VIOLATION MAY HAVE OCCURRED OF CITY CODE.
I'LL WAIT FOR A SECOND AND THEN I CAN START THE DISCUSSION ON IT.
THE COMMISSIONER DANBURG, UM, STOPPED HER IN FIRST.
SO THANK YOU FOR THE SECOND DAN BERG AND MY, SO JUST TO KIND OF KICK OFF THE DISCUSSION.
UM, SO THE REASON I'M MAKING THE MOTION, UH, IN READING THROUGH THE RESPONSE, AND I WANT TO THINK RESPONDENTS FOR THE RESPONSE, CAUSE IT WAS THOUGHTFUL AND IT WAS, UM, IT WAS GOOD RELATIVE TO SOME OF THE THINGS, UM, I'VE SEEN.
SO, UM, I DON'T, I DON'T PARTICULARLY BUY THESE SORT OF INITIAL JURISDICTIONAL ARGUMENTS, UM, JUST BECAUSE ENOUGH OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S CAMPAIGN FINDINGS CODE RELIES ON, ON REFERENCES ON DEFINITIONS THAT ARE IN STATE STATUTE, UM, JUST FOR THE SORT OF CONVENIENCE OF NOT RESTATING LITERAL STATE STATUTES, UM, AND UPDATING THEM EVERY TIME THE STATE'S AGITATED.
I THINK THAT THAT WOULD KIND OF NEUTER A LOT OF THE OVERSIGHT THAT WE HAVE AS A COMMISSION OVER CAMPAIGN FINANCE RULES.
UM, AND THAT ANY TIME THAT CAMPAIGN FINANCE RULE, UH, INCLUDES A REQUIREMENT AND THAT REQUIREMENT MAKES A REFERENCE TO, UH, SOME STATE STATUTE DEFINED TERM THAT SOMEHOW WE'D BE KIND OF OFF LIMITS BECAUSE THAT'D BE A QUESTION FOR ANOTHER ENTITY ON HOW PRECISELY DO YOU DEFINE THAT? UM, I THINK, I THINK I'M SAFE ON THOSE GROUNDS.
UM, AND THAT WAS A LEAST PART OF MY THINKING INITIALLY, GOING INTO THIS IS THAT, AND THAT DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE PRIOR COMPLAINT, THAT IS NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY.
SO I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT AS A COMPLAINT.
UM, BUT ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MATTER, I THINK THERE, THERE ARE ENOUGH.
UM, THERE THERE'S ENOUGH HERE THAT I THINK WE, WE DESERVE TO LEARN MORE AT A FINAL HEARING.
I THINK WHAT THE RESPONDENT SAID IN ANSWERING AND ENTERTAINING.
MY INITIAL QUESTION, UM, YOU KNOW, SHE HAD SAID THAT, UH, THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT, EXCUSE ME, SHE HAD SAID THAT WHETHER OR NOT SAVE AUSTIN NOW IS A PACK IS A FACT QUESTION.
AND I AGREE, AND I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH FACTS, UM, OTHER THAN WHAT WE'VE SEEN, UH, AS GENERAL MEMBERS OF THE AUSTIN COMMUNITY OVER THE PAST YEAR AND A HALF OR SO.
UM, WE DON'T HAVE, YOU KNOW, SPECIFIC DOCUMENTATION ABOUT WHEN, UH, FILINGS WERE MADE WITH THE IRS ON THE FIVE OH ONE C4 STATUS WHEN IT WAS RECEIVED, UM, INFORMATION ABOUT THE KINDS OF CONTRIBUTIONS, THE THRESHOLDS, WHETHER OR NOT THEIR MEDS, JUST GIVEN WHAT WE HAVE IN TERMS OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE CITY CODE, WHAT IS REQUIRED, WHAT IS PROHIBITED AND WHAT, WHAT WE'VE HEARD THUS FAR, AND WHAT WE'VE SEEN JUST AS BEING AUSTINITES ON THE COMMISSION.
I THINK THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THE VIOLATIONS OCCURRED.
AND I WOULD APPRECIATE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF EVIDENCE FROM BOTH COMPLAINANT AND RESPONDENT ON THE QUESTIONS.
UM, I'M WILLING TO ENTERTAIN A DISCUSSION FOR, OR AGAINST THE MOTION AND I'LL START LOOKING FOR HANDS AND I SEE COMMISSIONER GREENBERG GO FOR IT.
I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE MOST.
UM, THE BIGGEST THING THAT MR LITTLEFIELD IS SAYING IS THAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS ORGANIZATION WAS TO COLLECT SIGNATURES AND PUT
[00:45:01]
THIS ON THE BALLOT.AND WE HAD TESTIMONY THAT THE SIGNATURES WERE COLLECTED BY VOLUNTEERS.
SO I DON'T REALLY SEE HOW THIS IS A VIOLATION.
UM, I DON'T THINK MR. LITTLEFIELD HAS SHOWN ANY EVIDENCE REALLY THAT THIS IS A VIOLATION.
UM, AND I WOULD ALSO DISAGREE WITH YOU ABOUT THE, WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT WAS FILED BECAUSE THE DOCUMENT SHOWS CLEARLY THE DATE IT WAS FILED IN 2018.
UM, THE APPLICATION FOR THE FIVE OH ONE C4 HAS THE DATE ON IT.
I MEAN, LOOK, SCROLL THROUGH AND I CAN FIND THAT DATE, ACTUALLY, I'M LOOKING AT THE WRONG DOCUMENTS AND THE RESPONSE, WHICH HAS THE EXHIBITS AND THE EXHIBIT INCLUDES YOU.
UM, WE HAVE A TESTIMONY THAT SAYS THE SIGNATURES WERE COLLECTED BY VOLUNTEERS, AND I DON'T SEE THAT WE HAVE CLEAR REASON TO BELIEVE THERE'S A VIOLATION.
UM, UH, RESTATING THE, THE KIND OF CRITERIA, JUST ONE MORE TIME FOR EVERYONE'S, UM, AWARENESS IT'S REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION MAY HAVE OCCURRED.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.
I SEE COMMISSIONER DAN BURKE STAND FIRST, AND THEN I'LL GO TO SECRETARY GOPHER.
UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE HAVE IS NOT SO MUCH TESTIMONY WHAT DONNA DAVIDSON SAID IS THAT SHE BELIEVES THAT'S THE CASE.
SHE HASN'T LOOKED INTO THAT THAT MUCH.
SO I DON'T, I DON'T CONSIDER THAT TESTIMONY.
I CONSIDER THAT WHAT SHE IS JUST KIND OF ASSUMING AT THIS POINT, I AGREE WITH YOU, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS A FAT QUESTION.
AND ONE OF THE REASONS, FRANKLY, THAT I SECONDED THIS IS THAT IT RAISES A LOT OF ISSUES THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH ON A REGULAR BASIS.
AND WE HAVE TWO VERY CAPABLE COUNSEL, UH, ATTORNEYS HERE.
UM, AND I'M, I'M KIND OF WHY I'M WANTING TO GO FORWARD ON THIS, TO DEAL WITH OVER ONE, WITH FACT ISSUE, BUT ALSO FOR US TO GET OURSELVES EDUCATED BY TWO VERY COMPETENT ADVOCATES, UM, ABOUT WHERE SOME OF THESE LINES ARE FOR OUR FUTURE ENLIGHTENMENT.
AND YOU KNOW, I'M GOING BACK AND FORTH ON THIS AS WELL, BECAUSE I THINK THAT IN JUST FAIRNESS TO ALL PARTIES, BUT ALSO JUST THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN, THIS IS GOING TO BE AN ISSUE THAT'S GOING TO BE AROUND, UM, FOR A WHILE.
IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR THIS BODY TO FAMILIARIZE ITSELF WITH DECISIONS, BUT ALSO SEEMS TO BE COMING UP IS WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A MEASURE? BECAUSE IF I'M TRYING TO GET ON THE BALLOT IS NOT AS SUPPORTIVE OF MEASURE BECAUSE THERE'S A NONEXISTENT MEASURE AT THIS POINT.
UM, IF THAT'S NOT A MEASURE, THEN WE REALLY DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS CASE, BUT IF THE PETITION ITSELF AND GATHERING THE SIGNATURES IN SUPPORT OF THAT MEASURE, BUT DO HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT.
UM, AND I KIND OF WISH THERE WAS JUST MORE, MORE LAW.
I KNOW THAT, UH, WE'RE BILLIONS AND WE DON'T HAVE TO BE ATTORNEYS TO BE ON THIS COMMISSION, BUT I FEEL LIKE THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE, MORE, UH, NONE OF THAT JUST FROM THE LEGAL ASPECT ON WHAT IS A MEASURE.
UM, SO YEAH, I, IF I WERE TO VOTE IN FAVOR, THIS IS REALLY SOME MORE LEGAL ISSUES CAN BE PRINTED OUT, BUT AS WELL BACK ISSUES, UH, WHAT COMMUNICATIONS WERE ACTUALLY CONVEYED.
UM, AND WE CAN ONLY GO OFF OF THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE.
SO IF WE HAVE A FINAL HEARING AND IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THERE'S A THOROUGH PRESENTATION OF EVERY COMMUNICATION THAT HAPPENED, FACEBOOK COMMUNICATING THAT HAPPENED, THE COPIES OF THE MAILERS THAT WENT OUT, UH, IF WE GO TO A FINAL HEARING, THE SUBMISSION IS GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION BASED OFF OF THE EVIDENCE THAT IS PRESENTED TO US.
[00:50:01]
MCCORMICK, FROM LISTENING TO ALL OF THIS, I COULDN'T FEEL LIKE IT'S DISJOINTED.IT'S A LITTLE HERE AND A LITTLE THERE AND WHERE ARE WE EXACTLY GOING BULLET POINTS.
I'M A BIG BULLET POINT PERSON.
UH, HOW WAS THIS DONE? AND I'M JUST, IT'S JUST KIND OF HERE AND THERE.
AND I DO KNOW ABOUT FIVE OH ONE C3 FOURS AND WHATEVER, BUT IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM THAT THERE'S MUCH HAS BEEN A PLAN OR A CLEAR PATH.
AND THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO HEAR AND I'M NOT HEARING IT.
UM, SO, UM, WE, WE KIND OF ENDED OUR QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD, IF THAT WAS A QUESTION FOR RESPONDENT OR COMPLAINANT, I THINK, UM, I'M HAPPY TO, YOU KNOW, WHAT WOULD BE HEARING THAT AND, AND FOR THEM IN A FINAL HEARING, COME PREPARED, COME AND PRESENT TO US.
ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED.
ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, THIS IS THE RULES.
WE'RE JUST HEARING A LITTLE HERE AND A LITTLE THERE, AND WE'VE GOT TO PUT IT ALL TOGETHER.
AND IS THIS THE WAY IT'S DONE OR IS THIS NOT THE WAY IT'S DONE OR IS THIS THE WAY IT'S, IT WAS DONE? THAT'S JUST A DISH NEEDS TO BE MORE FACTS, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, SOMEBODY ELSE MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT, BUT SURE.
UM, INSTEAD OF INJECTING MYSELF, I'M GOING TO JUMP TO COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.
UM, SO, UM, SINCE THE QUESTION AND ANSWER FOR THE COMPLAINANT AND THE RESPONDENT HAS DONE, UM, AND THE MOTION MAKER AND THE PERSON MAKING THE SECOND SAY, THIS IS, THIS IS A FACT QUESTION, IS THIS A PACK? I GUESS MY QUESTION FOR THOSE TWO WHO ARE ADVOCATING THAT WE GO FORWARD IS WHAT EVIDENCE ARE YOU EXPECTING WHEN MR. LITTLE FIELD IS BASICALLY SAYING IT WALKS LIKE A DUCK AND QUACKS LIKE A DUCK, THEREFORE IT'S A DUCK.
I MEAN, WE NEED BETTER EVIDENCE THAN, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHEN YOU SEE IT.
UH, I'LL, I'LL TAKE A STAB AT IT, UM, AT THE FIRST, UH, I GUESS MOVER, UM, AND THEN COMMISSIONER DAN BURKE, IF YOU WANT TO JUMP IN AS WELL.
SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THE CRITERIA OF THE QUESTION FOR US, RIGHT? THE BURDEN, THE BURDEN OF PROOF, SO TO SPEAK, IT'S THAT REASONABLE GROUNDS, UM, THE REASONABLE GROUNDS EXIST THAT A VIOLATION MAY HAVE OCCURRED, RIGHT? UM, REASONABLE GROUNDS MAY ALSO EXIST THAT A VIOLATION MAY NOT HAVE OCCURRED.
UM, THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS IF YOU CAN REASONABLY INTERPRET, LIKE THIS COULD HAVE HAPPENED, THIS COULD BE THE CASE.
IT COULD BE THE, LIKE THE FACT QUESTION, WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A POLITICAL COMMITTEE, UM, THERE'S REASONABLE GROUNDS BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW CURRENTLY COULD BE THE CASE THAT SAY, AUSTIN NOW IS A POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE.
IT COULD BE THE CASE THAT IT'S NOT A POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE.
UM, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S UNREASONABLE TO THINK ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ON IT.
UM, COMING THROUGH DAN BURKE, I'M HAPPY TO GET YOUR 2 CENTS.
YEAH, THAT'S EXACTLY MY FEELING ON IT.
UM, AND I, I FEEL BADLY THAT MR. LITTLEFIELD THOUGHTS THAT IT WAS A DONE DEAL, BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT HE'S CAPABLE OF PUTTING ON AS DONNA BETH IS SAYING A POINT BY POINT.
HE KNOW HE'S GOT THE BURDEN OF PROOF, OF COURSE, BUT I, I FEEL LIKE HE'S CAPABLE OF DOING THAT.
AND I THINK THAT THERE'S ENOUGH THERE, THAT THERE IS A QUESTION IT MAY HAVE HAPPENED.
AND I THINK THAT THAT HAVING HIM COME MORE PREPARED, UH, WITH MORE FACTS AND MORE EVIDENCE, UH, IS A REASONABLE THING TO DO.
AND I THINK MS. DAVIDSON IS VERY CAPABLE OF, UH, REFUTING THOSE AND, AND BOLSTERING HER SIDE OF IT.
BUT AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I THINK WE DON'T REALLY KNOW ENOUGH EXCEPT THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A VIOLATION, WHICH IS THE BASIS UPON WHICH WE GO FORWARD.
AND THE JUMP IN AGAIN, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT, IT IS NOT OUR PLACE AT THIS HEARING.
AND THE PRELIMINARY HEARING IS NOT DESIGNED TO MAKE THOSE KINDS OF JUDGMENTS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WHETHER OR NOT THEY'VE ALSO NOW AS A PACK, WHETHER OR NOT EVEN IF IT IS A PACK OF VIOLATED CITY CODE.
UM, YOU KNOW, THE ONLY TIME WE'RE ABLE TO DO THAT IN A PRELIMINARY HEARING IS IF THE RESPONDENT ADMITS TO VIOLATING CODE,
[00:55:01]
RIGHT.UM, IT'S NOT OUR JOB RIGHT NOW TO KIND OF MAKE THOSE FINAL CALLS.
SO I AM JUST, AGAIN, IT GETS HERE, UM, I WOULD WANT TO KNOW WHAT KIND OF EVIDENCE YOU WOULD EXPECT OR SEE.
AND THAT IS, UM, THAT IS A GREAT POINT.
AND THAT'S PART OF THE PROCESS.
UM, WHEN, WHEN WE DECIDE, WE WANT TO GO TO A FINAL HEARINGS TYPICALLY, UM, OUR PROCESS IS WE SORT OF SPELL OUT, UM, EITHER IN THE HEARING, UM, ON THE RARE OCCASION, WE'VE HAD EVEN A SEPARATE KIND OF EVIDENTIARY HEARING, SO TO SPEAK, UH, BETWEEN THE PRELIMINARY AND THE FINAL HEARING, WHERE WE SPECIFICALLY TALKED TO THE PARTIES IN AN OPEN MEETING TO TALK ABOUT THE KINDS OF EVIDENCE WE WOULD WANT TO SEE.
UM, BUT NO, THE POINT'S WELL TAKEN.
I THINK, UM, IF, IF WE DO DECIDE TO GO FORWARD ON THE MOTION OR ADOPT THE MOTION, UM, WE WOULD WANT TO BE PRETTY CLEAR ABOUT THE KINDS OF EVIDENCE THAT WE WOULD WANT TO SEE.
UM, C UH, COMMISSIONERS, OTHER OTHER DISCUSSION, SECRETARY GOPRO, GO AHEAD.
I TRIED THIS SPACE BARK SCREWED UP FROM ANOTHER, ANOTHER SCREEN.
SO, UH, WHILE THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON AND WHY WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT, I GOOGLED SAVE AUSTIN NOW WENT TO THE WEBSITE AND THE HEADING AT THE VERY TOP UNDER SAVE AUSTIN NOW IS RE-INSTATE THE BAN ON HOMELESS, CAMPING IN AUSTIN.
IT DOES HAVE A MISSION STATEMENT ABOUT, UM, EDUCATE AND MOBILIZE, BUT THEN THE NEXT PART IS SECOND PETITION COLLECT PETITION SIGNATURES.
AND IT'S ASKING FOR MONEY FOR A LAWSUIT FOR THE PETITION TO GET ON THE BALLOT.
UH, AND SO I THINK IT'S A SITUATION WHERE THIS IS THE TYPE OF CASE WHERE A COMPLAINANT, THEY DON'T HAVE THE BOOKS THEY DON'T HAVE, WHO RECEIVED CHECKS AND FOR WHAT, AND WE'VE NOT HAD TESTIMONY FROM ANYBODY.
I MEAN, I DON'T THINK A LAWYER TELLING US THAT SHE DOESN'T BELIEVE, I, I'M NOT GOING TO QUESTION HER ABOUT WHAT CONVERSATIONS SHE HAS AND HAD HASN'T HAD WITH HER CLIENT, UH, TO TEST WHETHER SHE'S DONE DILIGENCE IN THAT BELIEF.
I'LL TAKE HER OUT A WORD FOR IT.
UH, BUT I'M AT THEIR WEBSITE AND I'M CONVINCED, UH, JUST FROM THE WEBSITE THAT THERE'S ENOUGH INFORMATION THERE THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A VIOLATION.
AND SO FOR THAT REASON, I WOULD WANT TO GO TO A FINAL HEARING SO THAT WE CAN OPEN THE BOOKS AND WE CAN SEE, WAS IT VOLUNTEERS, OR WERE THERE PEOPLE BEING PAID? WERE THERE OTHER EXPENDITURES, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR THE LAWSUIT, UH, TO GET THE ISSUE ON, ON THE BALLOT AND WAS THAT OVER ANY KIND OF THRESHOLD AT ALL? THANK YOU.
UM, THERE'S OTHER DISCUSSION, OTHER THOUGHTS ON THE MOTION, COMMISSIONER, KALE? UM, ACTUALLY I WAS THINKING EXACTLY THE SAME THING THAT COMMISSIONER GOBER WAS DOING.
I HAD GOOGLED IT MYSELF WHILE WE WERE SITTING HERE TALKING, BUT I WASN'T SURE IF AS COMMISSIONERS, WE SHOULD BRING FORTH OUR OWN EVIDENCE, YOU KNOW, THAT WE FIND AS WE'RE TALKING, BUT I WAS LEFT WITH THE SAME IMPRESSION AFTER READING THE WEBSITE, THAT IT SEEMS TO HAVE A VERY CLEAR, A CLEAR POLITICAL MISSION.
IN ADDITION TO ITS STATED MISSION OF EDUCATING THE PUBLIC ABOUT ISSUES.
THAT'S A VERY PROMINENT THING ON THEIR WEBSITE IS THAT WE WANT TO GET THIS BACK ON THE BALLOT.
UM, JUST, JUST KIND OF MY 2 CENTS ON THE COMMISSIONER, UH, INVESTIGATING KIND OF QUESTION, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE CITIZEN OF THE CITY AND APPOINTED AS SUCH FOR A REASON, AND WE'RE NOT A JUDICIAL BODY FOR A REASON.
UM, THAT JUST TYPICALLY DON'T DO FACT SIDINGS FINDING, BUT AS A COMMISSION, WE'VE GOT SEPARATE POWERS, WE ACTUALLY HAVE THE POWER TO INITIATE OUR OWN COMPLAINTS.
UM, SO, UM, BUT I DO APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERN ON THAT FRONT END.
THAT'S UM, COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE, ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE MOTION? OKAY.
SEEING NONE, I'M HEARING NOTHING FROM, I THINK WE'RE ALL ON VIDEO.
THEN IN THAT CASE, UM, WE CAN MOVE TO A VOTE ON THE MOTION.
UM, THE WAY I WILL DO THIS, LIKE I'VE DONE IN THE PAST IS I WILL CALL FOR THE EYES FIRST, UM, GO DOWN THE LIST, PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF AND CLEARLY STATE I, AND THEN I'LL GO THROUGH THE NAYS.
UM, AND THE SAME THING, A MUTE YOURSELF.
[01:00:02]
AMAZING STAFF ATTORNEYS AND LIAISONS TO KIND OF HELP TRACK, UM, SUBMISSION OR DANBURY, EXCUSE ME FOR INTERRUPTING, BUT I DON'T SEE MR. LITTLEFIELD ONLINE.I'VE GOT VARIOUS COMMISSIONERS BOUNCING AROUND THAT.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE HE WAS THERE TO HEAR WHAT IT WAS.
WE WERE SAYING THAT WE WERE INTERESTED IN.
SO THIS IS JUST TO RESTATE THE MOTION.
THIS IS MOTION TO PROCEED TO A FINAL HEARING, FINDING THAT REASONABLE GROUNDS EXIST THAT A VIOLATION MAY HAVE OCCURRED, UM, CALLING THE EYES FIRST.
UM, I'M JUST GOING TO GO DOWN THE SAME ORDER AS IT IS ON THE AGENDA.
SO BRIAN, I VOTED HI VICE CHAIR.
SECRETARY BY COMMISSIONER DAN DANBURG YES.
COMMISSIONER KALE, COMMISSIONER LAURIE.
DO YOU DO THAT ONE MORE TIME? COMMISSIONER LEARNER? I DIDN'T HEAR IT.
COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK, COMMISSIONER RYAN.
UM, WON'T GO THROUGH THE NAYS OR THE EXTENSIONS.
UM, SO THE MOTION PASSES AT THIS POINT, COMMISSIONERS.
UM, I'M GOING TO LET LYNN CARTER INTERRUPT ME IF I'M ABOUT TO MISSTATE WHAT COMES NEXT, BUT AT THIS POINT, COMMISSIONERS, I THINK WE CAN, AT THIS, WE CAN ASK SPECIFICALLY FOR THE EVIDENCE WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE AT THE FINAL HEARING AND INCLUDE THAT.
UM, AS PART OF, UM, NOTICE WHEN ACTUALLY I'M JUST GOING TO STOP TALKING BEFORE I WALKED MYSELF OFF A CLIFF, IF YOU WANT TO CLARIFY HOW WE GO ABOUT THE ASKING OF EVIDENCE, GO FOR IT.
SO THE PARTIES CAN REQUEST THAT YOU REQUEST EVIDENCE, UM, WHETHER IT BE WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS AND THE COMMISSION ITSELF CAN ALSO VOTE TO REQUEST EVIDENCE, EITHER DOCUMENTS OR WITNESSES TO APPEAR AT THE FINAL HEARING.
THEN, UM, IN THAT CASE, I AM, UH, READY TO START TAKING NOTES COMMISSIONERS.
IF THERE ARE SPECIFIC, UM, ITEMS, PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE AT YOUR FINAL HEARING, UM, THEN WE CAN GET STARTED THAT WAY.
ALTERNATIVELY, I CAN OPEN IT UP TO, UM, THE COMPLAINANT AND RESPONDENT FOR EVIDENCE THAT THEY WOULD LIKE POTENTIALLY AT A FINAL HEARING.
UH, SECRETARY DOVER, IF POSSIBLE.
I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM MS. DOLE, MR. LITTLEFIELD, FIRST TO SEE WHAT HE WOULD LIKE, UH, BEFORE I WOULD CHIME IN, UH, MR. LITTLEFIELD, IF YOU'RE STILL WITH US.
UM, AS WE, AS WE GO INTO A FINAL HEARING, UM, WHAT'S THE KIND OF EVIDENCE YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE US REQUEST.
I THINK I'D LIKE TO, IF IT COULD, UM, UH, SEND THE COMMISSION A EMAIL NEXT WEEK, EARLY NEXT WEEK WITH MY THOUGHTS ON THAT, BUT PROBABLY INFORMATION ABOUT, UM, THE PETITION GATHERING AND THEIR PAID COMMUNICATIONS.
UM, I WILL BRING, I WILL BRING WITNESSES AND I WILL BRING EVIDENCE, UM, ABOUT, UM, UH, THE PEOPLE WHO INTERACTED WITH THEM ON THERE.
AND, UM, I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR IS THAT THERE WAS THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT PETITION GATHERING, UM, UH, GOING ON THERE WAS, AND THIS COMPLAINT IS ABOUT THE LET'S CALL IT THE FIRST ROUND, UH, UH, THAT THAT HAPPENED.
AND I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT, UH, THAT WE DON'T BRING EVIDENCE.
[01:05:01]
THAT, THAT THEY MIGHT'VE SPENT MONEY ON ON THIS SECOND ROUND IN THE FIRST ROUND.I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT, UH, FOR, FOR THIS COMPLAINT.
UM, SO, UM, IF THEY DID AN ACTIVITY IN THE SECOND ROUND, THEY DIDN'T DO THE FIRST ROUND OR WHATEVER I DON'T TO COMPLY TO YOU THINK THAT'S UNFAIR.
UM, SO, UM, UH, UH, I'LL BRING WITNESSES TO WHO INTERACTED WITH THEIR PETITION GATHERED, UH, UH, AND IN THE COMMUNICATION THAT THEY, UH, SENT OUT, UH, AND WHETHER THAT WAS, UM, UH, CAMPAIGN ACTIVITY OR NOT STUFF LIKE THAT.
BUT THEN I WOULD LIKE TO SEND THE COMMISSION, UH, UH, A, A, AN EMAIL, UH, ABOUT, UH, FURTHER NEXT WEEK.
UM, LYNN, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA CALL ON YOU AGAIN.
UM, JUST BECAUSE MY MEMORY IS HAZY, UM, UH, AFTER, AFTER THIS HEARING, UM, ARE WE ABLE TO WORK WITH THE PARTIES TO DISCUSS, UM, THE KINDS OF EVIDENCE THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED AT THE FINAL HEARING FURTHER, OR WOULD THAT REQUIRE A FUTURE HEARING? CAUSE, UM, LIKE WHAT I WAS HOPING FOR WERE LIKE KIND OF SPECIFIC, IT'S GOOD TO HEAR ABOUT THE KINDS OF EVIDENCE THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED AT A FINAL HEARING.
UM, BUT IF, IF THERE'S NOTHING KIND OF SPECIFIC FOR US TO REQUEST, THEN I DON'T THINK THERE'S A NEED TO KIND OF GO THROUGH, UM, A NEW MOTION, UH, TO ASK FOR OTHER EVIDENCE.
SO, UM, SO LET ME ACTUALLY FRAME THIS IN A, IN A QUESTION FROM MR. LITTLEFIELD, IS THERE, IS THERE A SPECIFIC EVIDENCE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE THE COMMISSION TO REQUEST? UM, NOT AT THIS TIME.
UM, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, MAKE SURE YOU'RE UNMUTED.
IF THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT YOU DO WANT THE COMMISSION TO REQUEST, WE CAN'T REALLY DISCUSS THAT.
UM, BUT I WOULD DEFER TO THE CHAIR TO REQUEST THAT EVIDENCE.
UM, IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN DO AS A COMMISSION SAY, WE'RE GOING TO DEFER TO THE CHAIR.
Y'ALL ARE REALLY HERE TO PUT A LOT ON ME RIGHT NOW.
UM, I'M GONNA, I'M GOING TO DEFER TO LYNN ON WHETHER OR NOT THAT WOULD BE AN ALLOWABLE THING TO DO, BUT I THINK, UM, LYNN, IS IT, IS IT NOT THE CASE THAT IF, IF THERE IS SOME, CAN YOU REFRESH MY MEMORY ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE WAS A CASE WITH AN EMPLOYEE OR A FORMER EMPLOYEE OF AUSTIN ENERGY IN WHICH WE HAD NOT ONE OR TWO, BUT THREE HEARINGS PRELIMINARY THE SECOND AND EVIDENTIARY, AND THEN WE HAD A FINAL HEARING.
WHY DID WE HAVE THAT EVIDENTIARY HEARING? UM, IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE WOULD HAVE TO DO HERE, IF WE DECIDED WE NEED TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE.
SO I'M GOING TO READ THE PROVISION OF THE CITY CODE TO YOU.
SECTION TWO SEVEN FOUR, FOUR F COMPLAINANT'S LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION AND THE RESPONDENT MAY ASK THE COMMISSION AT A PRELIMINARY HEARING TO REQUEST CERTAIN PERSONS IN EVIDENCE FOR A FINAL HEARING.
IF ONE IS SCHEDULED, UM, THERE WAS A, UM, HEARING INVOLVING AN AUSTIN ENERGY EMPLOYEE, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TRUST THAT MY MEMORY IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT ON THAT.
UM, I KNOW WE MET AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING TO DECIDE FOR THE COMMISSION TO DECIDE WHAT EVIDENCE TO REQUEST, BUT, UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE PARTIES WERE ABLE TO ADD TO WHAT WAS REQUESTED AT THE SUBSEQUENT MEETING OR NOT.
UM, AND OKAY, THE CODE SAYS RESPONDENT AND THE COMPLAINANT, AS WELL AS LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION MAY ASK THE COMMISSION AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING TO REQUEST CERTAIN PERSONS IN EVIDENCE FOR FINAL HEARING.
IF ONE IS SCHEDULED, UM, I INTERPRETED THAT AS IT SHOULD HAPPEN AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, THAT PROVISION WAS INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE TO THE PARTIES.
UM, BUT CERTAINLY THAT DOES NOT LIMIT WHAT THE COMMISSION ITSELF, YOU KNOW, WANTS TO REQUEST.
[01:10:02]
IS NOT LIMITED TO, UM, WHAT IT DESIRES TO REQUEST.AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE'RE REQUIRED BY STATE LAW TO ALLOW PUBLIC SPEAKERS ON AGENDA MATTERS.
SO IF YOU SCHEDULED IT FOR ANOTHER MEETING AND A PARTY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA MATTER, THEY WOULD HAVE THREE MINUTES TO DO SO.
I SEE THE COMMISSIONER, DAN BERG'S HAND GO FOR IT.
I THINK WE ALL RECOGNIZE THAT THE BURDEN REMAINS ON THE COMPLAINANT.
UH, AND SO I WOULD REALLY WANT TO HEAR MORE DETAILS ABOUT THAT.
AND I UNDERSTAND AN EMAIL NEXT, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THE WEEK THAT WOULD ALSO BE SHARED OF COURSE, WITH THE DEFENDANT, UM, IS ONE WAY TO ADDRESS THAT.
UH, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FROM THE DEFENDANT'S SIDE, UH, WHICH WE HAVE DONE YET.
UM, WELL, THE FLOOR IS OPEN IF, UH, YOU WANT TO DISCUSS ITEMS THAT YOU THINK THE COMMISSION SUPER REQUESTS GO FOR, IT IS DAVIDSON.
UM, I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU FIND THE FIVE 11 ETHICS ADVISORY OPINION ANALOGOUS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR SOME MORE EVIDENCE OR SUPPORT FOR THAT PLACE, THE RULES, UM, FEDERALLY AT, OH, THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT AT FINAL HEARING.
I W THE RULING I'M JUST GOING TO ASK FOR CLARIFICATION, THE RULING WAS MADE THAT YOU ALL HAVE JURISDICTION.
SO THAT WAS A, THAT WAS A DETERMINATION.
UH, I DON'T, I DO NOT BELIEVE SO THEN YOU CAN ALWAYS INTERRUPT ME AND SHUT ME UP AT ANY POINT, UM, IF I GET THIS PROCEDURE WRONG, BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT'S AN APPEALABLE RULING BY A PARTY.
UM, THE, UH, AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND THE RULES ON THE JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION, IF YEAH, IF I, IF I MADE A RULING THAT IF I MADE A DETERMINATION PRIOR TO A HEARING THAT THERE WAS NO JURISDICTION, UM, THEN THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE COMMISSION CAN OVERTURN, BUT I DON'T THINK IT GOES THE OTHER WAY.
LYNN CARTER, FOR THE LOT OF PARLIAMENT, I THINK A PARTY, CAN YOU USE WHATEVER IT WANTS TO USE AS AN ARGUMENT AT THE FINAL HEARING? THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE COMMISSION IS GOING TO CHANGE, CHANGE ITS DECISION ON JURISDICTION, BUT I DON'T DON'T THINK THE PARTY EVER WAIVES JURISDICTION IN TERMS OF NOT BEING ABLE TO ARGUE IT AT A FUTURE DATE.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
UM, UH, SO IF WE WERE TO APPEAL, THEN THAT WOULD BE AT THE FINAL HEARING.
UH, WE STILL DON'T THINK THAT THERE, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR AN EMAIL.
THE, I AGREE WITH, UH, MS. CARTER'S INTERPRETATION THAT IF THERE IS A REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE MADE.
SO PROCEDURALLY, UM, WHEN CARTER FOR THE LAW DEPARTMENT, I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE COMMISSION NEEDS TO VOTE ON WHAT EVIDENCE WILL BE REQUESTED FOR THE FINAL HEARINGS.
SO THERE NEEDS TO BE, WHAT IF THE COMMISSION DOES NOT VOTE TO DEBBIE ON EVIDENCE? IT WOULD HAVE TO DO SO AT A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING OR REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING PRIOR TO WHEN THE FINAL MEETING OCCURS.
AND THE FINAL MEETING IS SUPPOSED TO FINAL HEARING IS SUPPOSED TO OCCUR WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THIS, UM, CHEERING, UNLESS THE COMMISSION VOTES TO CHANGE THAT.
BUT, UM, MY POINT WAS NOT ABOUT THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY TO REQUEST EVIDENCE, BUT ABOUT THE COMPLAINANTS AUTHORITY UNDER WHAT I SAW OR READ AND WHAT I THOUGHT YOU JUST INTERPRETED AN EMAIL NEXT WEEK IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE MECHANISM FOR THEN REQUESTING EVIDENCE BY THE COMPLAINANT.
THIS WOULD BE HIS OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST IT.
AND IF HE MAKES NO REQUESTS, THEN HE, THIS IS HIS OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.
IS THAT INCORRECT? SO, NO, YOU'RE, IT'S VERY WELL TAKEN THAT THERE'S, THERE'S AN INAPPROPRIATE WAY TO MAKE REQUESTS FOR THERE'S INAPPROPRIATE WAY TO ASK FOR DECOMMISSION TO REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS OF EVIDENCE OF ANY PARTY.
[01:15:01]
INDIVIDUAL EMAIL, UM, MAY NOT BE THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO DO THAT.I THINK WHAT LYNN IS ARTICULATING IS THAT, UM, THIS IS, THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE FORUM FOR THE COMMISSION TO ARTICULATE BY EMOTION.
WHAT EVIDENCE WILL BE, WHAT EVIDENCE WE EXPECT TO BE PRESENTED AT A FINAL HEARING, AND THAT IF WE DON'T DO THAT RIGHT NOW, THEN WE MAY HAVE TO HAVE A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING FOR A REGULAR MEETING, SOME POINT BEFORE THE FINAL HEARING, WHERE WE DO MAKE THAT MOTION, BECAUSE IF FINAL HEARING IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE EVIDENCE, UM, MR. LITTLEFIELD, GO AHEAD.
UM, CAN WE REQUEST THE, UM, UH, CAN WE REQUEST THE EXPENDITURES MADE FROM SAY BOSTON NOW, JUST THE EXPENDITURES.
UM, I'M TRYING TO, UH, I'M TRYING TO GO THROUGH MY CALENDAR AND SEE IF WE CAN, UH, FIND DATE END DATE AND APPROPRIATE END DATE.
I'M TRYING TO FIND WHEN THIS COMPLAINT WAS FILED AND USE THE, UH, COMPLAINT DATE AT THE END DATE OF THE REQUEST.
SO, UH, THE COMPLAINT, THE COMPLAINT THAT WAS FILED LAST YEAR, UM, IT SAYS THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION IS JULY 15TH OF 2020.
THEN LET'S USE THAT AS THE DATE THAT WE WOULD ASK FOR THE EXPENDITURE.
WHAT, WHAT WOULD BE, WHAT, WHAT IS, WHAT IS THE PERIOD? SO I'M ASSUMING THAT, UM, ALL EXPENDITURE THROUGH JULY 15TH, 20, 20.
SO FROM, FROM INCEPTION TO JULY 20, UM, AND THEN ALL, UM, WRITTEN AND EMAIL COMMUNICATION, OR ALL COMMUNICATION FROM SAY BOSTON NOW.
SO, UM, I, I'M GONNA JUST ASK THAT THEY BE A LITTLE MORE NARROWLY TAILORED.
UM, SO FOR EXAMPLE, I WOULD BE UNCOMFORTABLE ASKING FOR ANY EXPENDITURE MADE BY SALES TO NOW FROM FORMATION AS A GROUP THROUGH THE DATE THAT WE HAVE A STATUTE WITH.
I MEAN, I'M TRYING TO RECALL MY OWN CALENDAR AND TIMELINE, UH, TIME MEANS NOTHING TO ME NOW.
UM, BUT WE HAVE A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND I WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAPTURE, UM, THIS KINDS OF EXPENDITURES THAT ARE AT ISSUE AND THE PERIOD THAT IS AT ISSUE, AS OPPOSED TO EVERY EXPENDITURE EVER MADE BY AN ORGANIZATION OR A SET OF INDIVIDUALS.
LIKEWISE, THE COMMUNICATIONS, I WOULD, I WOULD ASK THAT THIS, THIS REQUEST, OUR REQUEST BE A LITTLE MORE NARROWLY TAILORED TO COMMUNICATIONS.
JERMAINE, SO TO SPEAK TO, UH, WHETHER OR NOT TO THE QUOTE, TO THE FACT QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT SAVE AUSTIN NOW IS A POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE AND ENGAGED IN THE KIND OF ACTIVITY THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT WOULD TRIGGER THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE THE SUBJECT OF THE COMPLAINT.
UM, SO WE TAKE TO GET THE CALENDAR YEAR 2020, YOU KNOW, UM, HERE'S COMMISSIONERS, HERE'S WHERE I'M SITTING RIGHT NOW.
I THINK THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE TAKE.
I'LL PASS THE DATA THEY COMPLAINTS.
SO, BUT HERE'S WHAT, HERE'S WHERE I'M GOING TO JUMP IN AND DO SOME, SOME CHAIRING IS THAT COMMISSIONERS IT'S 8:30 PM AND WE HAVE TWO OTHER PRELIMINARY HEARINGS TO GO THROUGH AND THEY DO NOT PROMISE TO BE QUICK PRELIMINARY HEARINGS, UM, ON TOP OF OTHER ISSUES.
SO WHAT I'M GOING TO RESPECTFULLY ASK IS THAT WE, WE TAKE THIS QUESTION ABOUT THE EVIDENCE THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED AT A FINAL HEARING AND MOVE IT TO A FUTURE MEETING SO THAT HOPEFULLY WE CAN, WE HAVE TIME TO DISCUSS THIS FURTHER.
UM, AND WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE'S ASKING FOR WHAT THEY WANT TO ASK FOR.
UM, SO IF THAT'S OKAY, SECRETARY, GOBER GO AHEAD.
MAY I SUGGEST THAT THERE BE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE COMPLAINANT, THE RESPONDENT, SEE IF THEY CAN WORK TO NARROWLY TAILOR WHAT THE REQUESTED INFORMATION WOULDN'T BE, AND THEN HAVE A LIST OF ITEMS ON WHICH THEY COULD NOT COME TO AN AGREEMENT SO THAT WE'RE NOT HERE TO HEAR THAT DISCUSSION, BUT RATHER ONLY THE ITEMS ON WHICH THERE COULDN'T BE AN AGREEMENT AND IT WOULD BE EVERY SINGLE ITEM THAT THEY CAN'T COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON, BUT HOPEFULLY THERE'S CERTAIN ITEMS THAT THEY CAN COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON AND
[01:20:01]
SAVE THE COMMISSION TIME.AND I THINK THAT'S BEEN, I THINK THAT'S BEEN A COMMON WHERE THE PARTIES, THE PARTIES WORK KIND OF WITH THE LIAISON OR THE CITY, THE OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION CC'D RIGHT.
THEY SORT OF HAVE THAT DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT KIND OF EVIDENCE IS FOR GAME AND WHAT'S NOT.
UM, SO IF THAT LYN, IF THAT IS PROCEDURALLY APPROPRIATE, THEN I THINK I'M GOING TO LEAVE THAT THERE.
UM, AND JUST MAKE A REQUEST THAT YOU, UH, OR RATHER MR. SHEETS AND YOURSELF WITH JUST, I GUESS, OPERATIONAL SUPPORT, UM, WORK WITH, WITH COMPLAINANT AND RESPONDENT ON THE KIND OF EVIDENCE THAT THEY MAY AGREE ON, BUT THAT WE SAID THE QUESTION OF WHAT WE ACTUALLY REQUEST FOR THE FINAL HEARING FOR A FUTURE DATE.
UM, LYNN, DO I PROCEED, REALLY NEED A MOTION TO DO THIS? UM, I BELIEVE YOU NEED A MOTION.
THEN I MOVE THAT WE TABLE THE QUESTION OF EVIDENCE OR A PANEL HEARING YOU, UH, A FUTURE DATE, UM, NOT TO EXCEED 60 DAYS, UM, THAT WE TABLE THE QUESTION OF THE EVIDENCE TO BE PRESENTED AT A FINAL HEARING TO A FUTURE DATE AND, UH, REQUEST THAT, UH, OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL WITH SUPPORT FROM OUR CITY LIAISON WORK WITH THE PARTIES ON THE EVIDENCE THAT WILL BE PRESENTED AT THE FINAL HEARING.
IS THAT FAIR? THAT COGNIZANT MOTION.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, THEN WE JUST SPECIFY IT BE AT THE NEXT FEBRUARY MEETING.
REGULARLY SCHEDULE COMMISSIONING.
UM, THEN I WILL, LET ME CLARIFY MY MOTION.
UM, AND THEN I WILL CALL FOR A SECOND.
UM, SO THAT THE CITY LIAISON AND OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL WORK WITH THE PARTIES, UM, IN DISCUSSING THE KIND OF EVIDENCE THAT MAY BE PRESENTED AT A FINAL HEARING, SO THAT AT OUR NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING, THE COMMISSION CAN FORMALLY REQUEST WHAT KIND OF, THAT IT WAS.
WE WANT TO HEAR AT FINAL HEARINGS.
SO MS. DAVIDSON, I'M HAPPY TO, UM, I SEE YOUR HAND RAISED.
I'M NOT GOING TO INVITE YOU TO, UH, IF YOU HAVE A COMMENT OR CONCERN, UH, GO AHEAD.
MY QUESTION WAS, I DID NOT GET TO ASK FOR EVIDENCE, AM I SUPPOSED TO WAIT UNTIL ALL OF THIS AND THEN JUST DO IT THROUGH THAT? OR SHOULD I ALSO TO WHAT WE ANTICIPATE WE WOULD REQUEST AS EVIDENCE.
UM, NOW I, I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE I DO THIS PROCEDURE REALLY CORRECT.
UM, I, YOU KNOW, MY, MY SENSE SINCE WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF DISCUSSING THE MOTION, UM, TO TAKE THIS UP AT OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING, I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE THE RIGHT WAY TO GO.
IF ANYONE DISAGREES WITH ME AMONG THE COMMISSION, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
UM, TIME IS FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES.
WELL, WHEN WE CO WHEN WE STARTED THIS, WE KIND OF ASKED BOTH OF THEM TO TELL US WHAT KIND OF EVIDENCE THEY WOULD WANT.
AND SO WHILE WE'RE LYING, JUST A FEW OF THE CARDS ON THE TABLE, I THINK IT'D BE FINE FOR BOTH SIDES TO LIE.
YOU KNOW, UH, COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT, IF YOU WANT TO GIVE A PREVIEW FOR THE KIND OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU WOULD BE SENDING OUT A FINAL HEARING, I'M HAPPY TO HEAR THAT.
UM, AND THEN WE CAN CONTINUE DISCUSSING THE MOTION BEFORE US.
WHAT I WANTED TO DO WAS REQUEST OF THE COMPLAINANT, SOME EVIDENCE, UM, AND THE COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN MR. FIELDS AND, UH, UM, STEVE ADLER OR GREG CASAR, OR CHRIS HARRIS, UH, JIM WICK OF HOMES, UH, NOT HANDCUFFS, AND THEN ANYTHING THAT HE'S ALSO PRODUCED RELATED TO MATT MCKENNA, THE ACT OR CLIQUE CLEO, PETRA SACK, OR SAVE AUSTIN NOW AND HOMELESS BETWEEN JULY 1ST AND THE COMPLAINT THAT WOULD BE EVIDENCE THAT WE WOULD WANT TO REQUEST, JUST SO THAT WE COULD SEE WHAT EVIDENCE HE HAS
[01:25:01]
TO PRESENT AND WHERE HE GATHERED SOME OF THE EVIDENCE THAT FORMED THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT.WELL, THANK YOU FOR THE PREVIEW.
UM, I, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO MAKE A DECISION COMMISSIONERS AND COMMENTS ON, ON THAT RIGHT NOW.
UM, JUST WANTED TO LET THE, GIVE THE RESPONDENT AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO KIND OF DISCUSS THE SORTS OF EVIDENCE THAT THEY WOULD BE REQUESTING THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE VOTING ON IN THE MOTION BEFORE US.
AND I WANT TO BE A STICKLER FOR ROBERT'S RULES AND STICK TO THE MOTION BEFORE US.
SO, UM, AT THE NEXT REGULARLY CALLED HERE, AND WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE EVIDENCE THAT WILL BE PRESENTED AT A FINAL HEARING.
AND IN THE MEANTIME, THIS IS ASKING THE CITY LIAISON AND OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO WORK WITH THE PARTIES, TO SEE WHAT THEY AGREE ON AND WHAT WE CAN NARROW DOWN AT THAT HEARING AT OUR NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING.
SO THERE'S ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION.
OTHERWISE COMMISSIONERS I AM TO START CALLING ABOUT THAT'S ABOUT RIGHT.
THEN I'M GOING TO GO DOWN THE LIST LIKE I DID, AS IT APPEARS ON THE AGENDA.
UM, SO FIRST CALLING THE EYES HERE.
OH, HURRIED BY SECRETARY GOBER BY COMMISSIONER DANBURG.
COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, COMMISSIONER KALE COMMISSIONER, LAURIE.
SO WE WILL TAKE THIS UP AT OUR NEXT REGULARLY CALL REGULARLY CALLED MEETING.
UM, MR. LITTLEFIELD, MS. DAVIDSON.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR PATIENCE, MR. MCCAUGHEY.
THANK YOU FOR SITTING HERE AS WELL.
UM, I KNOW THAT THIS CAN BE LONG AND ARDUOUS SOMETIMES, OR FEELS LIKE LONG IT'S A LONG AND ARDUOUS THING, BUT WE APPRECIATE YOUR PARTICIPATION WITH THAT COMMISSIONERS.
[2(b) Complaints filed by Mark Littlefield against Ellen Wood, Had Enough Austin PAC and Ellen Wood, Fight for Austin PAC, which complaints allege violations of City Code Chapter 2-2 (Campaign Finance) Sections 2-2-3 (Conformity with Texas Election Code) and 2-2-32 (Reporting of Direct Campaign Expenditures).]
UM, LET US MOVE TO OUR NEXT ITEM.UM, FIRST MR. SHEETS, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR SERVING AS OUTSIDE COUNSEL ON THAT HEARING.
IS HE ALREADY GONE? THAT WAS FINE.
UM, SO ITEM TWO BEYOND THE AGENDA, LET ME READ IT REAL QUICK.
WE'RE MOVING TO COMPLAINTS FILED BY MARK LITTLEFIELD AGAINST THE ELLEN WOULD HAVE ENOUGH AUSTIN PAC AND ELLEN WOULD FIGHT FOR AUSTIN, WHICH ALLEGED VIOLATION.
SO TWO DASH TWO DASH THREE PERFORMANCE CODE SECTION TWO, TWO DASH TWO, REPORTING OF DIRECT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES.
UM, MR. LITTLEFIELD, YOU HEARD THE PROCEDURES, UH, IN THE LAST HEARING AND MR. O'TOOLE, IT SEEMED LIKE YOU WERE ON THE CALL TO HEAR THOSE PROCEDURES, IF YOU WOULD LIKE, I'M HAPPY TO DO A SPEED READ OF THOSE RULES AGAIN, BUT, UM, NO, I, I HEARD THEM IF IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO REPEAT.
WELL, IN THAT CASE, UM, 10 MINUTES, A PIECE SECRETARY GOLDBERG, WHO WAS OUR, UM, WORLD RENOWNED TIMEKEEPER.
SO I WILL, UH, AS SOON AS HE IS READY TO GO AND SETTING THE CLOCK, SO YOU CAN SEE IT, I'M GOING TO KICK IT TO THE COMPLAINANT, THEIR 10 MINUTES.
YOU GO TO THE RESPONDENT TO THEIR 10 MINUTES QUESTION.
WHEN THEY START SPEAKING, I DRANK MY WATER CAN, SO IT'S NOT HEAVY ENOUGH TO HOLD MY OWN, BUT I WILL FIND SOMETHING TO PROP IT UP IN THE MEANTIME.
FAIR ENOUGH THEN, UH, MR. LITTLEFIELD, WHENEVER YOU ARE READY TO START, WE'LL START THE 10 MINUTES AND WE'LL GET, UH, GET A PROMPT TO DO THE CLOCK, SO GO FOR IT.
UM, COMMISSIONERS, MY NAME IS MARK LABELLE FIELD.
UM, UH, THIS IS ABOUT FOUR COMPLAINTS, UH, THAT WERE FILED.
UM, I HAVE WRITTEN A, UH, A, UH, A LETTER TO MISS ELLEN WOULD APOLOGIZING FOR ONE OF THE COMPLAINTS.
AND I THINK YOU'VE HEARD ME BEFORE IS THAT A LOT OF TIMES, YOU KNOW, UM, ON SMALL CIRCULARS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO REASON TO FILE A COMPLAINT BECAUSE YOU KNOW, MISTAKES ARE MADE ALL THE TIME.
AND I MADE A MISTAKE ON THIS ONE WHERE I COPIED AND PASTED AND I,
[01:30:01]
AND I PASTE INTO HER NAME ABOVE THE COMPLAINT THAT WAS FOR A DIFFERENT PACK.AND SO I SENT HER A LETTER APOLOGIZING TO THAT, AND I APOLOGIZED TO THE PUPPET, THE COMMISSIONER SAYING, UH, I APOLOGIZE FOR THE OVERSIGHT.
SO ON ONE OF THEM, THAT WAS IT, UH, UH, ON THE OTHER, UH, AGAIN, THESE ARE ABOUT, UH, FOLLOWING REPORTS ON TIME AND
AND I THINK THAT WHAT YOU MIGHT HEAR FROM THE RESPONDENT IS THAT, UH, THESE RULES ARE COMPLICATED.
AND THAT, BECAUSE I FOUND OUT THAT, THAT THESE, UH, UH, ERRORS WERE MADE THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE DATA AND THE INFORMATION IS OUT THERE TO BEGIN WITH.
SO NO HARM, NO FOUL, UH, AND AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S THAT YOU HAVE, UH, THE SAME TYPES OF DONORS, THE SAME TYPES OF PATHS THAT ARE, THAT ARE FILED, UH, IN OUR CAMPAIGN, UH, AT THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
UM, UH, AND, UH, WE ENDED UP HERE EVERY TWO YEARS, UH, WHERE FOLKS, THEY SAID IT'S, UM, THAT THESE EXTRA REPORTING REQUIREMENTS THAT, THAT WE REQUIRE ARE, ARE, ARE, ARE, ARE NOT, ARE NOT REQUIRED OF THEM OR THAT THEY ARE, UH, BURDENSOME OR RIDICULOUS, OR THEY'RE TOO DIFFICULT.
UM, AND HERE WE ARE, AGAIN, UM, IF, IF THE COMMISSION WERE TO DECIDE THAT, UM, THESE COMPLAINTS WERE, UH, WORTHY OF A FINAL HEARING, UM, UH, I WOULD BRING TO THIS MISSION, UH, THE, UH, THE 30 DAY REPORT, THE EXPENDITURES THAT, UH, UH, WERE LISTED ON THOSE REPORTS, UH, AND THE FAILURE TO LIST THEM, UH, ON THE HDX ONE REPORT, UH, IN A TIMELY MANNER.
UM, UH, UH, UH, AND THEN FINALLY WE HAVE ANOTHER ONE.
UH, THE LAST ONE OF COURSE IS A $25,000 CONTRIBUTION FROM A CORPORATION CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE GROUP.
UM, UH, THIS IS A, UH, A CORPORATE, UM, CONTRIBUTION, UM, PER CITY CODE.
THIS TYPE OF CONTRIBUTION IS NOT SUBMITTED.
UM, UH, I THINK WE NEED TO, UM, UH, I I'M BRINGING THIS TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION, I SUPPOSE, BECAUSE I THINK THAT WE NEED TO EFFICIENTLY, YOU KNOW, THE COMMISSION, I, I GUESS, IS THE PLACE TO START THE PROCESS TO TELL THE CITY COUNCIL, WELL, I GUESS WE NEED TO AMEND CITY CODE BECAUSE THIS IS NOT AGAINST, SO YOU ALL ANYMORE, UM, THE CITY CODE SAYS IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO ACCEPT CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS, BUT IT IS NOT, UH, ACCORDING TO STATE LAW.
UM, SO, UM, I, I FILED THIS COMPLAINT, UM, BECAUSE LITERALLY THE DAY I FILED IT, I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS, I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS STILL A VIOLATION.
AND THEN, UH, AN HOUR AFTER I FILED IT, UH, SOMEBODY TOLD ME, NO, NO, NO, IT'S NOT ANYMORE.
UM, AND I SAID, WELL, WE NEED TO, WHEN YOU TELL EVERYBODY THAT, BUT THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT THE RULE ANYMORE.
UM, AND SO I, AND SO Y'ALL ARE GONNA MAKE A RULING TODAY AND IT'S GOING TO BE DISMISSED, AND I'M GOING TO TAKE THAT ON SINCE EVERYBODY COUNSEL AND GO, HEY, WE NEED TO TELL EVERYBODY THAT YOU CAN NOT TAKE CORPORATE MONEY AND THESE PAST, AND THAT'S A DIFFERENT DAY FOR FOUR OSCAN CAMPAIGNS, SO WE CAN NOT DO THIS.
AND IT'S, UH, IT'S NO ONE'S FAULT HERE AND THIS MEETING OR, OR DOWN THE ROAD.
UH, ANYWAY, IF YOU GUYS DECIDE THAT THERE IS A FINAL HEARING ON THESE LAST TWO COMPLAINTS, UH, THEN, UH, I WILL BRING THE EVIDENCE, UH, ABOUT THE APX ONE REPORTS AND THE, UH, THREE, UH, AND THE 30 DAY, 30 DAY OUT CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS FROM HAD ENOUGH, UH, OFTEN PASSED.
AND THAT IS ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. LITTLEFIELD.
UM, MR. O'TOOLE AS COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT, UM, I WILL LET, UH, SECRETARY DOVER RESET THE CLOCK.
AND WHENEVER YOU ARE, SIR, YOU MAY BEGIN YOUR 10 MINUTES.
[01:35:01]
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND IN ALL OF THE, UH, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, UH, W WHAT I'D FIRST LIKE TO DO, IF I'M A, HER MOM, MY NAME IS BRIAN O'TOOLE, AND I'M AN AUSTIN ATTORNEY FOR MANY, MANY YEARS.UM, FIRST THING I'D LIKE TO DO, SO I DON'T WASTE TIME ADDRESSING MATTERS THAT THAT APPARENTLY ARE NO LONGER AN ISSUE.
CAN WE GET CLARIFICATION OF WHICH OF THE FOUR COMPLAINTS THAT MR. NORTHFIELD IS? HIS SCENT APPEARS TO HAVE DROPPED, BUT, UH, I'M UM, I WASN'T ENTIRELY CLEAR ON IT.
UM, SECRETARY GILBERT, IF WE CAN PAUSE THE CLOCK, UM, I THINK THAT'S FAIR.
UM, UH, SO MR. LITTLEFIELD, IF YOU WANT TO CLARIFY, UM, I, I'M JUST GOING TO ASK IF IT IS THE COMPLAINT, UM, THAT, UM, SORT OF IMPLIES OR SAID THAT, UH, MS. ELLEN WOULD, IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE, UM, OH GOODNESS.
WHERE WAS IT? I HAD IT, UM, RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME, THE FIGHT FOR AUSTIN PAC.
IS THAT THE COMPLAINT THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO IS THE ONE THAT YOU, UH, APOLOGIZE FOR? CORRECT.
OKAY, SO THAT, OKAY, SO THAT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU'RE YOU WANT TO ALLEGE ANYMORE.
WHICH WHEN YOU WERE REFERRING TO, UM, THAT IS WHAT HE WAS REFERRING TO.
UM, I WILL LET SECRETARY, BEFORE WE START TO TALK TO YOU, YOU CAN GO FOR YOUR 10 MINUTES TO, UM, CORPORATE CONTRIBUTION.
I'LL ASK, UH, TO BE THE COMMISSION, THE HANDLE, THE CORPORATE CONTRIBUTION ONE ON THE REST.
UM, SO MR. O'TOOLE, YOU HAVE 10 MINUTES AND I'LL LET YOU GET STARTED.
WELL, I'LL START WITH THE, THE CORPORATE CONTRIBUTION, UH, IF THAT'S STILL A LIVE ISSUE AND SIMPLY SPEAKING, IT JUST DOESN'T STATE A VIOLATION AS THE COMMISSION WELL KNOWS.
IT'S THE COMPLAINANTS BURDEN TO SPECIFY WHAT HE BELIEVES, WHAT HE OR SHE, OR IT, WHO THE COMPLAINANT IS BELIEVES HAS BEEN VIOLATED.
THE SECTION OF CODE CITED TO HAVE BEEN VIOLATED BY THE CORPORATE CONTRIBUTION IS SECTION 2.2 DASH TWO DASH THREE, WHICH BY MY READING OF IT, ESSENTIALLY JUST INCORPORATES SOME KIND OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE TEXAS ELECTIONS, THAT THERE REALLY IS NO WAY TO TELL.
AND EVEN THOUGH MR. LITTLEFIELD CLAIMS THAT IT SOMEHOW IS STILL PER PREVENTED BY CODE OR PROHIBITED BY CODE, AND THAT SOMEHOW, PERHAPS THE CODE SECTION IS LAWFUL.
IT'S NOT CLEAR AT ALL WHAT SECTION HE'S TALKING THAT THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT THIS DOES NOT STATE A VIOLATION, THAT THERE ARE NO REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT THIS COMPLAINT AS STATED, UH, PRESENTS ANY KIND OF REASONABLE BASIS TO BELIEVE A VIOLATION MAY HAVE OCCURRED.
I WOULD FURTHER POINT OUT THAT EVEN IF THERE WAS MORE CLARITY, IF THERE WAS AT LEAST SOME TEXTUAL BASIS FOR THE COMPLAINT, THAT IT WOULD LARGELY BE OVERWRITTEN BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISION IN CITIZENS UNITED.
SO, UM, I, I COULDN'T TELL IF THAT'S WHERE MR. LITTLEFIELD WAS INDIRECTLY GOING, BUT THAT IS THE FIRST COMPLAINT.
AND, UH, HAD ENOUGH AUSTIN, ELLEN, THE CLIENTS BELIEVE THAT THERE THERE'S NO GROUNDS TO PROCEED ON THAT ONE.
THERE SHOULD BE NO PRELIMINARY HEARING RIGHT ON THAT MATH, THE REMAINING COMPLAINTS, OKAY.
ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING THAT THEY SAY THAT, UH, BASICALLY ATX ONE REPORTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED BY CERTAIN DATES.
AND THEY WANT, WHAT IS UNDISPUTED IS THAT THE COMPLAINANT HAD THE INFORMATION THAT HE COMPLAINS WAS NOT DISCLOSED ON THE PROBLEM BECAUSE HE SPECIFICALLY REFERENCES IT.
IT WAS, AS WE EXPLAINED, IN OUR WRITTEN RESPONSE, IT WAS REPORTED ON A, IN DIFFERENT FORMS. THIS WAS A NEW PACK.
IT, UM, I BELIEVE SUBMITTED THE PAPERWORK TO EVEN BE FORMED ON OCTOBER 2ND, WHICH WAS A SIGN THAT PAPERWORK WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE CITY CLERK MONDAY.
AND THEN REPORTS WERE FILED THAT SAME WEEK.
THEY TRIED TO DO WAS FIGURE OUT WHAT WHAT'S THE SIGN.
SO YOU CAN GET ON THE COMMISSION WEBSITE OR THE CITY WEBSITE, EXCUSE ME.
[01:40:01]
TO AN ATX ONE, BUT THERE ISN'T ANY WAY TO LINK FROM THAT PAGE TO DETERMINE HOW TO FILL OUT AN ELECTRONIC FORM.SO IN A FULL EFFORT TO COMPLY WITH THE REPORTING OBLIGATIONS, MY CLIENTS FILED A 30 DAY REPORT WITH ALL OF THE INFORMATION DISCLOSED ON THAT REPORT.
AND SO ONE THING THAT I DID AS AN ATTORNEY AND I NOTICED FROM, FROM LISTENING TO MS DAVIDSON'S TALK, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS, UH, WAS VERY WELL DONE.
SOME PEOPLE SPEND AN AWFUL LOT OF TIME IN THIS ARENA, THE, THE ETHICS AND REPORTING, UH, LEGAL OBLIGATIONS.
I MAY COMMERCIAL LAWYER AND FOLLOW THE SAME PATTERN ON EVERY CASE, YOU FIGURE OUT WHAT THE LAW IS.
YOU FIGURE OUT WHAT THE APPLICABLE STATUTES ARE AND YOU APPLY THE EFFECTS TO IT.
SO STEP ONE, HERE WAS TO GO TO THE CODE AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT, IS THERE ANY REQUIREMENT IN THE CODE ANYWHERE THAT MY CLIENT EVEN FILE AN ATX ONE CAN AND GET ON THE, THE SEARCHABLE DATABASE OF CODE SECTIONS AND TYPE IN
IT SIMPLY IS NOT A CODE VIOLATION, NOT TO FILE THAT PARTICULAR FORM.
NOW SUBSEQUENTLY THE, THE CLIENTS HAVE, HAVE LEARNED HOW TO FILE THE ATEX ONE ELECTRONICALLY THAT THERE'S NO ISSUE.
THEY HAVE FILED MANY OF THEM SINCE THAT TIME, BUT, UH, IMPORTANTLY AS IT, AS IT IS HERE WITH RESPECT TO THE COMPLAINT,
INFORMATION IS ON FILE WITH THE CITY.
IT WAS TIMELY FILED ALL OF IT.
IT WAS SIMPLY FILED ON A 30 DAY REPORT INSTEAD OF AN ATX ONE.
AND THAT REALLY IS THE PREMISE OF TWO OF THE REMAINING THREE COMPLAINTS.
ONE IS THAT A CERTAIN EXPENDITURE WAS NOT DISCLOSED.
ANOTHER ONE IS THAT CERTAIN EXPENDITURES WERE NOT DISCLOSED ON A 30 DAYS.
AND AGAIN, IT'S, IT REALLY IS AN ARGUMENT THAT PURELY CHAMPIONS FORM OVER SUBSTANCE, THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE SUBSTANCE WAS PROVIDED IT'S IT'S ALL IN THE RECORD.
AND THIS IS IN OUR RECORDS, UH, SUBMITTAL, IF, IF ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE NOT HAD ACCESS TO THAT YET, BUT IT WAS ALL ON FILE IT'S RIGHT THERE.
IT APPEARED FROM, IT SOUNDED FROM MR. LITTLEFIELDS COMMENTS, THAT, THAT HE WAS ATTRIBUTING SOMETHING OF A DISMISSIVE ATTITUDE TOWARDS THIS TO MY CLIENTS, THAT THEY JUST DIDN'T CARE MUCH ABOUT WHETHER THEY HAD TO FILE THIS AND DIDN'T WORRY ABOUT IT.
AND THAT MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT THE CASE AT ALL.
UH, YOU HAVE SOME, SOME EXTREMELY CONSCIENTIOUS PEOPLE WHO DID EVERYTHING THEY COULD TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO TIMELY FILE THE CORRECT REPORTS WITHIN DAYS OF EVEN FORMING AT ALL.
THEY HAD FILED REPORTS WITH THE CITY TO THE BEST OF THEM, THEIR INFORMATION, AND TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY.
AND THEY INCLUDED ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT THAT IS BEING COMPLAINED OF ON AND OFF.
SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE COMPLAINT SEEMS TO BE THE ONES THAT I PRESUME ARE STILL BEING ACTIVELY PURSUED.
HOW ARE THAT ATX ONE REPORTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED VIA A DATE.
CERTAIN NOT THAT THE INFORMATION WASN'T PROVIDED THAT THE REPORTS, UH, WE SUBMIT THAT DOES NOT PRESENT ANY REASONABLE BASIS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED.
THE ATX REPORTS ARE NOT REQUIRED BY CODE.
IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE GUIDANCE ON THE WEBSITE, HOW TO EVEN FILE ONE WITH THE NEW ELECTRONIC REPORTING SYSTEMS. AND SO NOT HAVING THAT INFORMATION IN THAT TYPE WINDOW, MY CLIENTS DID THE BEST THEY COULD AND SUBMITTED THE INFORMATION ON A DIFFERENT REPORT.
THE CITY CODE REQUIRES REPORTS TO BE FILED WITH THE INFORMATION THAT WAS DONE.
UH, AGAIN, WE, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THIS PRESENTS ANYTHING.
THERE ARE NO ISSUES AT THE HEARING OR AT A HEARING REALLY TO DISCUSS WHERE THE FACTS ARE ALL OUT THERE.
THE INFORMATION IS THERE AND, UH, MY CLIENTS AND WE'LL SELF RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THIS COMMISSION.
I FIND THERE'S NO REASONABLE BASIS TO PROCEED AND DISMISS THESE COMPLAINTS.
[01:45:02]
THANK YOU.UM, SO WITH THAT COMMISSIONERS, UM, WE ARE NOW ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT AND COMPLAINANT, BUT I THINK I'M GOING TO DO SOME SHARING AGAIN AND, UM, UH, TRY TO MAKE OUR LIVES A LITTLE EASIER IN NARROWING THE SCOPE OF OUR DISCUSSION.
UM, AND HERE'S, HERE'S WHAT I'M ULTIMATELY PROPOSING.
SO TWO OF THE, TWO OF THE COMPLAINTS, UM, THAT MR. LITTLEFIELD, UH, PROVIDED THEY, THEY CITE THE SECTION OF CHARTER ORDINANCE VIOLATED AS TWO DASH TWO DASH THREE.
UM, AND THAT IS THE SAME SECTION THAT IS THE, UH, KIND OF INCORPORATION OF STATE ELECTION LAW INTO THE DEFINITIONS, THE TERMS THAT WE USE, UM, OR RATHER THE, JUST THE, THE, UM, THIS IS, THIS IS THE PART OF THE DAY WHERE I START TO FADE FAST AND MY WORDS FAIL ME.
UM, WE'VE DISCUSSED A PREVIEW PREVIOUSLY, AND I BELIEVE WE DISCUSSED IT, UM, AT SOME LENGTH, UH, IN THE NOVEMBER HEARING ACTUALLY.
UM, WHEN I EXPLAINED TO MR. LITTLEFIELD, WHY WE DISMISSED A PRIOR COMPLAINT AGAINST, OF PRIOR RESPONDENT, UM, WHERE THE COMPLAINANT ALLEGED THE SAME TWO DASH TWO DASH THREE VIOLATION.
SO, UM, WHAT I AM, WHAT I'M ULTIMATELY PROPOSING TO DO, UH, SINCE, SINCE THIS WAS A COMPLICATED SET OF COMPLAINTS THAT WE COMBINED INTO ONE HEARING, UM, IT WAS NOT AS EASY OR CLEAN PROCEDURALLY ME TO MAKE THE JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AS CHAIR AS IS ALLOWED UNDER OUR RULES.
UM, BUT IN LIEU OF THAT, UM, I, WHAT I'M GOING TO PROPOSE IS THAT WE FIND THAT THERE'S A FAILURE TO ALLEGE A VIOLATION, AND I'M GOING TO QUICKLY READ WHAT THAT MEANS.
SO THE DISPOSITION OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING, ONE OF THE OPTIONS.
SO THERE'S OBVIOUSLY THE OPTION THAT THE EXISTENCE OF REASONABLE GROUNDS, WE WOULD TRY TO GO TO A FINAL HEARING.
UM, THERE WAS AN UNCONTESTED VIOLATION.
UM, BUT THERE'S ALSO FAILURE TO ALLEGED THE VIOLATION.
IF THE ERC DETERMINES THE COMPLAINTS OF NOT ALLEGED VIOLATION OF PRA OR THE PROVISION WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION, THAN BEFORE A COMPLAINANT DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO LAUNCH A VIOLATION, THE COMPLAINANT OR LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE ERC SHALL BE PERMITTED ONE OPPORTUNITY WITHIN A PERIOD OF TIME TO BE SPECIFIED BY THE ERC TO REVISE AND RESUBMIT THE COMPLAINTS.
SO IF WE WERE TO VOTE, FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE IF, IF SOMEONE WERE TO MAKE A MOTION, I MOVE THAT THERE'S A, THAT THE COMPLAINTS, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE ACTUALLY MIRACLE DESIGNATIONS LIKE CASE NUMBERS, BUT, UM, THE, THE COMPLAINTS FILED ON THIS DATE, THE ONES THAT HE TYPE COPY, NO I'M REFERRING TO THE ONES THAT ALLEGED VIOLATIONS THAT ONLY ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF TWO DASH TWO DASH THREE, UM, THAT WE FIND THAT THOSE COMPLAINTS THERE'S A FAILURE TO ALLEGE A VIOLATION.
AND THEN WE WOULD DISCUSS MAYBE TIME, I THINK TYPICALLY LIKE 30 DAYS TO AMEND OR REVISE THE COMPLAINT IF A COMPLAINANT DECIDES TO DO THAT.
BUT THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO PITCH.
UM, COMMISSIONERS, IF YOU'VE GOT THOUGHTS FOR QUESTIONS TO DISCUSS BACTERIAL HURT, GO AHEAD.
UH, I'M ABLE TO FIND THAT THEY CAN CLAIM AGAINST MS. WARD FILED BY MR.
THAT'S TWO THAT'S THREE DOZEN FACT NOT ALLEGED A VIOLATION OF ANY CODE.
IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND THAT I HAVE A QUESTION THOUGH.
UH, WELL, LET ME, UH, I GOT, I SAW SECRETARY GERBER'S HAND UP FIRST BY WITH HIM.
HE'S THE SECOND, BUT NOW IT'S DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
DOWN ABOUT MY QUESTION IS THEY WERE HAVING ALL OF THESE PROBLEMS AND WITH THE DIFFERENT FARMS, DID SOMEBODY PICK UP THE PHONE AND CALL FOR CLARIFICATION OR HELP? SO, UH, WELL, YEAH, SO, UM, WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS JUST KIND OF CLARIFY WHERE WE ARE.
WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THE QUESTION AND ANSWER OF COMPLAINANT OR RESPONDENT.
WHAT I'M, WHAT I'M PROPOSING IS THAT FOR THE TWO, FOR THE TWO COMPLAINTS WHERE I WOULD HAVE MADE A JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION,
[01:50:02]
UM, PRIOR TO THE HEARING I'M, UH, PITCHING THAT THIS MOTION AND WHAT VICE YOUR HURRY MOVED IS THAT WE SAY THERE'S A FAILURE TOOL, IT'S A VIOLATION.AND THIS, THEN, YOU KNOW, I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO HAVE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT WE GIVE THE TIME WINDOW THAT'S REQUIRED BY THE RULE FOR THEM TO AMEND THEIR COMPLAINT OR REVISER, RESUBMIT A COMPLAINT, UM, CAUSE THAT'S CONTEMPLATED IN CITY CODE AS WELL.
BUT, UM, JUST TO CLARIFY, WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO ASK ALL THE QUESTIONS WE WANT SUSTAINING IN RESPONDENTS.
UM, BUT RIGHT NOW WE'RE ON A MOTION.
SO FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
UM, NO WE'RE GOING TO, WE ARE GOING TO ASK QUESTIONS.
WE'RE MAKING QUESTION AND ANSWER TIME ATHENS.
UM, SO IF THERE'S NO OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, THEN I'M GONNA OFFER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION THAT WE GIVE THE COMPLAINANT 30 DAYS TO AMEND OR RESUBMIT THE COMPLAINT WE'RE FINDING IT'S NOT ALLEGED VIOLATION.
SO, UH, ACTUALLY JUST SAY 10 DAYS AND BEFORE WE EVEN ADDRESS THAT, FIGURE OUT IF HE WANTS TO REFILE THIS, I MEAN, IF HE HASN'T ABOLISHED IN TWO ALLEGED OR NOT A COUPLE OF PRETTY CLEAR, UM, I DON'T PERSONALLY SEE THE PURPOSE OF DOING 30 DAYS, 10, 10 DAYS, AND THEN WE JUST KEEP IT MOVING.
UM, THAT'S, UH, I MEAN, THAT'S FAIR.
I THINK WE CAN ADD KIND OF AGREE TO DISAGREE ON HOW MUCH TIME SHOULD BE ALLOTTED FOR IT.
UM, MY THOUGHT IS 30 DAYS IS GOING TO TAKE US THROUGH OUR NEXT HEARING.
AND, UM, IF IT IS RESUBMITTED, UH, THEN WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER HEARING TO GO, UM, BEFORE IT COMES BEFORE US AGAIN.
UM, AND ALSO THAT OUR NEXT HEARING MIGHT BE AS A BUSY ONE POTENTIALLY.
SO, UM, IN 30 DAYS, I DUNNO AS NOT BEING SOMEONE WHO'S LITIGATED A LOT, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH TIME YOU TYPICALLY GO TO A MEDICAL COMPLAINT PETITION.
SOMEONE COULD CORRECT ME ON THAT.
UM, SO, UH, I'M GONNA, I'M GOING TO RESTATE MY MOTION, UM, WHICH IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION 30 DAYS BEING THE PERIOD THAT THE COMPLAINANT HAS TO, IF THEY WANT TO, THEY DON'T HAVE TO, BUT IF THEY WANT TO AMEND OR RESUBMIT THEIR COMPLAINT ON THESE TWO SPECIFIC COMPLAINTS TO DESK, TO DESK THREE.
SO THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER KALE, DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO AMEND THE MOTION.
UM, SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF AMENDING THE MOTION, I'M GOING TO TAKE HANDS AND CALL OUT NAMES THIS TIME, IF THAT'S OKAY.
UM, SO YOUR CAMERA IS OFF, UM, THEN I'LL THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THEN I'M GOING TO START OUT NAMES ONCE I GET TO THE FOLKS THAT AREN'T ON SCREEN YET, I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A SHOUT OUT.
I SEE COMMISSIONER GREENBERGS.
HI COMMISSIONER LARVAE, COMMISSIONER LERNER.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER VOTE ON THE MOTION.
THIS IS TO SAY THAT THERE IS A FAILURE, UH, TO ALLEGE A VIOLATION FOR THESE TWO COMPLAINTS AND THE AS AMENDED PART THAT THE COMPLAINANT HAS 30 DAYS, IF THEY WISH TO AMEND OR RESUBMIT THE COMPLAINT.
PARDON ME? THIS IS LEN CARTER FROM THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT.
CAN YOU JUST MAKE SURE THERE ARE NO, NO VOTES ON THE MENTIONED TO ME? FAIR ENOUGH.
SO ON THE MOTION TO AMEND, DOES ANYONE VOTE? NO.
ARE THERE ANY, NO VOTES I'M GONNA GO ONCE, TWICE, THREE TIMES HEARING NO NAYS.
I BELIEVE THAT WAS A UNANIMOUS PASSAGE.
SO THEN THE QUESTION IS NOW ON THE MOTION AS AMENDED AS IT JUST DESCRIBED IT.
UM, IF IT WAS OKAY WITH COMMISSIONERS, I'M GOING TO GO BY THE SAME METHOD OF, UH, CALLING OUT NAMES AND HANDS AS I SEE THEM.
UM, JUST SO THAT WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE MORE SUBSTANTIVE, MAYBE CONTENTIOUS PARTS OF THIS GEARING.
UM, SO I'M STARTING TO CALL THEM OUT AS I SEE THEM.
I SEE COMMISSIONER DANBURG VICE CHAIR.
COMMISSIONER KALE IS THEIR EYES STARTED.
UM, LET ME CLARIFY AND I'M GONNA START OVER AGAIN.
[01:55:01]
ON THE MOTION.SO COMMISSIONER KALE, I VICE CHAIR.
COMMISSIONER
I THINK RYAN, UH, COMMISSIONER LAURIE.
I SECRETARY GOBER EYE COMMISSIONER VIA LOBOS.
I UM, AND I WILL CALL OUT IN CASE ANYONE'S VOTING DAY ON THE MOTION, ANY EXTENSIONS OF THE MOTION HEARING AND SEEING NONE.
I THINK THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY, SO, OKAY.
WE ARE NOT LOOKING IN A QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD, AND I DID HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, UM, TO CLARIFY THE COMPLAINT THAT MR. LITTLE IS, UH, WANTING TO WITHDRAW OR THOSE THAT THERE'S NO ISSUE ON ARE MISTAKENLY FILED, JUST SO I CAN GET JUST SO I CAN FEEL CONFIDENT IN WHAT NEXT STEPS WE MIGHT BE TAKING AS A COMMISSION.
SO MR. LITTLEFIELD, DO YOU WANT TO KIND OF EXPLAIN THAT COMPLAINT, HOW IT WAS FILED AND WHAT YOU ARE TRYING? WHAT DO YOU WANT TO FEED DONE WITH IT NOW? I'M SORRY, CAN YOU PICK A QUESTION FOR A SECOND? I APOLOGIZE.
UM, I'M, I'M GOING KIND OF FAST.
UM, SO EVERYONE IS INVITED TO SLOW ME DOWN AT ANY POINT.
UM, SO THE COMPLAINT, UM, YOU KNOW WHAT, I'M GOING TO SCRATCH THAT.
UM, I THINK WE JUST TOOK CARE OF THAT COMPLAINT.
ON TO, UM, QUESTION AND ANSWER, PERIOD.
I'M GONNA WITHDRAW EVEN PRETENDING TO ASK A QUESTION, COMMISSIONER, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PLAINTIFF, THE RESPONDENT VICE-CHAIR OKAY.
I JUST WANT TO ASK THESE TWO QUESTIONS.
FIRST QUESTION IS WE ALL AGREE THAT THE COMPLAINT THAT WAS FILED THAT REFERENCES FIVE FOR AUSTIN IS A COMPLAINT THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FILED.
IS THAT CORRECT? MR. LITTLEFIELD? CORRECT.
THAT WAS A COMPLAINT THAT WE JUST TOOK CARE OF IN THE MOTION WE JUST PASSED.
UM, CAUSE IT ALLOWS TO VIOLATION OF TWO TO THREE.
AND THEN MISS AND THEN AS WELL, MR. LITTLEFIELD, YOU DO AGREE THAT WITHIN THE CITY OF AUSTIN CODE, THERE IS NO SPECIFIC MENTION OF HAVING THE FOLLOW-UP REPORT OF A BOWEL AND SPECIFICALLY AN ATX ONE REPORT.
I'LL ASK YOU, IS THERE ANY FRAMES WITHIN THE CITY OF AUSTIN COLD? THAT IS 80 X DASH ONE.
WHERE IS THAT? I'LL GET MY CODE BOOK TWO DASH TWO DASH TWO SECTIONS.
NOPE, NO, MY HOLD ON LONG SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH 31.
I'M LOOKING AT MY CRIB NOTES THAT I ALWAYS, I ALWAYS USE.
[02:00:01]
TO THE ACTUAL CODE CRIB NET TWO DEATHS TOO.UM, WHAT SOME OTHER QUESTIONS I'LL I'LL OPEN.
IT'S IN THE SAME VEIN, UH, THIS KIND OF GETS TO THE SAME ISSUE MR. LITTLEFIELD, THE RESPONDENT HAS TOLD US THIS IS AN ISSUE OF FORM OVER SUBSTANCE AND THAT ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT WAS REQUIRED BY CODE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER CODE ASKS FOR
CAN YOU TELL US, IS THERE ANY PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED, PROVIDED BY CODE THAT WASN'T PROVIDED IN THE, IN THE FORM OF THE FILING, EVEN THOUGH IT WASN'T THE ATX ONE FORM WAS IN OTHER WORDS, WAS THERE ANYTHING MISSING OTHER THAN IT NOT BEING IN THE FORM THAT THE, UH, NO, IT WAS ALL, BUT NO, IT WAS ALL, IT WAS ALL ABOUT TIMING.
UH, SO THE, THIS ONE IS, UH, IT WASN'T ABOUT, UH, THAT THE EXPENDITURES WERE MISSING.
THE HTS ONE REPORT ISN'T ABOUT IS NOT ABOUT INFORMATION.
THAT'S WHAT, APX ONE, ACX ONE REPORTING IS ABOUT, IT'S NOT TIMED.
THAT'S WHY WE REQUIRE ACX ONE REPORTING IT SO THAT IF YOU MAKE A EXPENDITURE THAT IT IS REPORTED WITHIN EITHER 48 HOURS OR 72 HOURS, 24 HOURS.
AND SO, SO THAT'S MY QUESTION, I GUESS THEN IS WHAT WAS FILED.
IT'S NOT THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED WAS INADEQUATE.
IT WAS THAT IT WAS PROVIDED, UH, LATE, CORRECT? CORRECT.
WHAT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN ATX FORM OR SOME OTHER FORM IT'S THAT THE INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED, LIKE, CORRECT.
AND SO THIS IS JUST ME JUST LOOKING AT THE CODE ITSELF TWO DASH TWO 32, THAT DOESN'T MENTION WHAT REQUIREMENTS REGARDING TIMING AS, AND WHEN SOMETHING HAS TO BE FILED.
ARE YOU ALLEGING ANY SPECIFIC CODE? AND RIGHT NOW I'M ON THE TWO DASH 32 DASH C'S.
ARE YOU ALLEGING THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF ANY PORTION OF THAT CODE? AND IF SO, WHAT SPECIFICALLY, IF I CAN, IF I CAN REPHRASE THE QUESTION, CAN YOU POINT US TO THE VISION THAT REQUIRES THE 24 48 HOURS 72 HOURS TIME LIMITS THAT YOU WOULD DESCRIBE AS WELL? SEE
[02:05:03]
I THINK IT'S PART C WHO ASKED DASH THAT'S TWO DASH 32.UM, SEEING MIGHT BE A NATURAL PLACE FOR IT, BUT I DON'T SEE IT THERE.
UM, YOU CAN POINT TO ANOTHER PART.
WELL, IT DOES HAVE LIMITS FOR WHEN THEY HAVE TO BE REPORTED IN PART C NO LATER THAN THE SECOND DAY, NO LATER THAN 5:00 PM ON THE FIRST BUSINESS DAY AFTER THE EXPENDITURE, DEPENDING ON WHEN THE EXPENDITURE WAS MADE RELATIVE TO THE 60 DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION OR 90 DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION, THAT'S ALL IMPORTANT.
THEN I THINK, UM, MY KIND OF FOLLOW-UP CLARIFYING WHETHER OR NOT THE ATX ONE REPORT THAT REQUIRES THIS, THE TITLE DESCRIBES, UM, MR. LITTLEFIELD, WHETHER THE ATX ONE REPORT IS SUPPOSED TO BE DEFORMED THAT COMPORTS WITH TWO DASH TWO DASH 32.
I DON'T, I DON'T SEE THAT IN THE CODE.
I DON'T SEE THAT FORM LISTED IN THE CODE.
YOU SEE THAT FORM LIFTED ON THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE FORM, BUT NOT IN THE CODE.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE, I'M PERSONALLY KIND OF STRUGGLING THAT, UM, I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY FOR THE CITY CODE TO SPECIFICALLY SAY SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH 32 OR SORRY.
THE CITY CODE IS NEEDED SPECIFICALLY SAY A T X, N ONE.
UM, I THINK WHATEVER THE CITY CLERK DECIDES TO NAME A FORM, AS LONG AS IT IS A FORM THAT COMPORTS WITH CITY CODE, UM, THAT'S, THAT'S ALL WELL, AND GOOD.
I'M TRYING TO DETERMINE WHETHER TWO DASH TWO DASH TWO B TWO IS IN FACT THE UNDERLYING CODE, UM, THAT THE ATX ONE FORM IS MEANT TO SATISFY.
COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, UM, ALLEGATION IS THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE FILED THE APX ONE REPORT, UM, WHICH IS NOT IN THE CODE.
I THINK WE SHOULD DISMISS THIS.
IF THE COMPLAINANT WANTS TO BE FILED, THEY DIDN'T COMPLAIN THAT IT WASN'T FILED THE INFORMATION WASN'T FILED IN A TIMELY MANNER, IF THAT'S THE ALLEGATION, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS COMPLAINT SAYS.
SO I WOULD MOVE TO DISMISS THIS COMPLAINT.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, UM, THEN WE ARE NOW IN DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION COMMISSIONERS.
SO WILLING TO ENTERTAIN THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS ON THE MOTION ITSELF.
UM, I'M SEEING NO, UH, GO AHEAD, VICE CHAIR.
IT DIDN'T AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE, WHICH IS SOMEWHAT ANALOGOUS TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN CODE ACTUALLY DOES SPECIFY THE FORMS. THIS CODE DOES IT FOR THAT REASON.
I THINK THE CASE SHOULD BE DISMISSED ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS, SECRETARY.
GOBER JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION ON, ON WHAT THE MOTION IS.
IS THIS, THIS ISN'T A DISMISSAL ON LACK OF JURISDICTION WHERE THE COMPLAINANT WOULD HAVE A TON OF TIME TO REMEDY.
THIS IS A DISMISSAL BECAUSE BASED ON THE SPECIFIC VIOLATION ALLEGED, WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT'S A VIOLATION.
THAT'S WHAT I'M COMING BACK TO.
IT ALMOST FEELS LIKE IT'S A JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION.
[02:10:01]
SURE.NO, THAT'S, THAT'S A FAIR, IT'S A FAIR POINT TO RAISE.
UM, AND SOMETHING THAT I KIND OF I'M I'M GRAPPLING WITH MYSELF IS WHETHER OR NOT THE APPROPRIATE METHOD, THE APPROPRIATE ROUTE FOR US TO TAKE IS A FLAT OUT DISMISSAL BECAUSE WE DO NOT BELIEVE REASONABLE GROUNDS EXIST, UM, FOR A VIOLATION THAT A VIOLATION MAY HAVE OCCURRED, UM, SURE.
UM, I THINK DISMISSAL SORT OF DEPENDS, UH, DISMISSAL OUTRIGHT, UH, KIND OF DEPENDS ON IT BEING, IT CITING A CORRECT PIECE OF CODE.
UM, BUT THAT THIS SORT OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS, AS WE UNDERSTAND THEM IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, DON'T LEND THEMSELVES TO BELIEVING THAT REASONABLE GROUNDS EXIST, THAT A VIOLATION OCCURRED.
SO I, I KIND OF STRUGGLED THERE MYSELF.
UM, SECRETARY GOBER, THIS IS PART OF THE DISCUSSION I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR THE MOTION, BUT THE REASON I'M VOTING FOR THE MOTION IS AS A MATTER OF NOTICE FOR THE RESPONDENT, I THINK IT WAS ENTIRELY FAIR FOR THE RESPONDENT TO COME HERE TODAY, TO BE PREPARED, TO TALK ABOUT THE INFORMATION THAT THEY HAD IN WHAT THEY FILED VERSUS WHAT WAS REQUIRED IN AN ATX FORM.
I THINK THAT MR. LITTLEFIELD HAS CONCEDED THAT THE ISSUE ISN'T SUBSTANCE OF WHAT THE DIFFERENT INFORMATION WAS, BUT TIMING, AND AS I'M LOOKING AT THE COMPLAINT, AS I'M LISTENING TO THE MOTION FROM, UH, FROM COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, I DON'T SEE A COMPLAINT ABOUT TIMING OF THE FILING.
I SEE A COMPLAINT ABOUT SUBSTANCE OF THE FILING, UH, AND I THINK THAT'S ALREADY BEEN CONCEDED.
SO THAT, FOR THAT REASON I WOULD JOIN THE MOTION.
FURTHER DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS.
THEN I'M GOING TO CALL A VOTE.
UM, THIS TIME I'M GOING TO CALL NAMES AND ASK FOR COMMISSIONERS TO UNMUTE THEMSELVES, UM, AND SAY I, AS I CALL THE EYES AND THEN I'LL CALL THE NAYS.
SO AS I HAVE BEEN DOING, WHERE DID MY, WHERE DID MY AGENDA GO? HERE WE GO.
SO THIS IS, UH, A VOTE ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS THIS COMPLAINT.
CAN I CLARIFY, THERE ARE TWO COMPLAINTS THAT ALLEGED THE ATX ONE REPORT, UM, AT THE 11TH HOUR, I'D LIKE TO SAY DISMISS BOTH OF THEM FOR THE SAME REASON.
WELL, SO THERE'S NO CODE FOR THE ATX ONE REPORT.
OTHERWISE I'M NOT EVEN CLEAR FOR WHICH ONE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
WELL, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
AND THAT THAT'S A POINT OF CLARIFICATION THAT'S WORTH.
UM, SO IF YOU WANT, UH, WHAT I'M HAPPY TO DO, UM, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG AND I THINK COMMISSIONER KALE, SINCE HE SECONDED IT, IF YOU WANT TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION AND WE CAN RESTATE IT WITH A LITTLE MORE CLARITY, WE CAN DO THAT AS WELL.
SO WOULD YOU LIKE TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION, SHEILA? SURE.
GENDER KALE, SINCE YOU SECONDED IT I'LL OKAY.
YOU WOULD LIKE TO RESTATE THE MOTION, BUT WE, I MOVE THAT WE CAN DISMISS BOTH OF THE, UM, ALLEGATIONS OR WHATEVER THESE CALLED VIOLATIONS, ALLEGED VIOLATIONS THAT, UM, STATE THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE FILED.
MOTION HAS BEEN SECONDED DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION COMMISSIONERS IT'S BEEN OKAY.
SEEING NONE, SEEING NO HANDS AND TAKERS, THEN I'M GOING TO DO WHAT I SAID I WAS GOING TO DO BEFORE.
I'M GOING TO START CALLING THE EYES FIRST.
UM, AND THEN I'LL GO THROUGH THE NAYS AND I'LL GO IN THE ORDER.
I HAVE ABOUT 15 MILLION TABS OPEN RIGHT NOW.
[02:15:01]
OKAY.UM, ALL RIGHT, SO YOU SOBER ON, I VICE-CHAIR HURRY.
WHERE DID IT GO? I SEE, I SEE YOUR HAND UP.
I'M GOING TO ASK THAT, UH, COMMISSIONERS, UM, SAY THEIR VOTE.
UH, AS OPPOSED TO THE OTHER KIND OF PROCEDURAL MOTIONS WE WERE DOING BEFORE.
UM, SO BY SHARING HER, HEARD YOU VOTE.
COMMISSIONER DANBURG COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.
COMMISSIONER KALE, COMMISSIONER LAURIE.
COMMISSIONER LEARNER, COMMISSIONER MCCORMICK, COMMISSIONER, RYAN COMMISSIONER, LOCALS.
I'M LEARNING THIS WHOLE, USE THIS ANYWAYS.
COMMISSION COMMISSIONER BE A LITTLE BIT VOTING.
SO WHAT I HAD AS THE EYES IS ANYONE ELSE? NAH, I'M GOING TO JUST HAVE A CALL FOR THE NAYS.
UM, WHAT I HAVE AS THE EYES BEING 10 NAYS BEING ONE.
UM, SO THE MOTION PASSES AND THOSE COMPLAINTS CORRECT ME IF I DID SOMETHING PROCEDURALLY, UM, OFF THE CULTURE.
BUT I THINK WITH THAT, THEN YOU ARE DISMISSED.
MS. SQUATS ARE SERVING AS THEIR COUNSEL.
WE'VE GOT A, UH, ONE MORE HEARING, UM, WITH A DIFFERENT ATTORNEY AND A DIFFERENT RESPONDENT, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.
UH, COMMISSIONER DANBURG YOU GOT YOUR HAND UP.
WHAT'S UP? OH, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT.
I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE MR. LITTLEFIELD KEEPING US HONEST AND MS. SON AND UH, WHOEVER THE OTHER ATTORNEY WHO WAS RECENTLY A TOOL, I BELIEVE.
I WANT TO SAY Y'ALL FOR KEEPING IT AS LEGAL.
[2(c) Complaints filed by Mark Littlefield against Peck Young, Voices of Austin, which complaints allege violation of City Code Chapter 2-2 (Campaign Finance) Section 2-2-33 (Disclosure Statement Required).]
THAT.UM, WE ARE GOING TO GO TO ITEM ITEM TO SEE WHERE WHERE'S MY, WHERE DID MY HANDY-DANDY SCRIPT GO? ITEM TWO C, WHICH IS A COMPLAINT FILED BY MARCH.
WE'RE LOCATED AGAINST PECK, YOUNG VOICES OF AUSTIN, WHICH ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH THREE, THREE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT REQUIRED.
UM, I THINK RESPONDENT PICK DOWN IS REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY ROGER PORK OUT.
UM, UH, JUST AS A REMINDER, THIS IS A THING THAT WE STARTED IN NOVEMBER AND THAT WE OPTED TO POSTPONE AFTER, UM, A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT WAS AWARE OF THE COMPLAINTS, PLURAL THAT WERE AGAINST HIS CLIENT OR OTHER COUNSEL WAS YES.
UM, AND IF, UH, IF IT IS OKAY, UM, IF Y'ALL ARE FAMILIAR ENOUGH BY NOW WITH THE PROCEDURE, UM, I'M HAPPY TO FOREGO AN EXPLANATION OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, MR. PORTUGAL, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO RESTATE THEM? I'VE HEARD THEM NOW A COUPLE OF TIMES, SO NO NEED TO DO THAT.
THANK YOU FOR SPARING ME, UM, WITH THAT, THEN WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO THE 10 MINUTE PRESENTATIONS FIRST.
WE'LL BE COMPLAINANT FOR 10 MINUTES, FOLLOWED BY RESPONDENT FOR 10 MINUTES.
I WILL LET OUR, UM, LEFT ME AS TIMEKEEPER SECRETARY.
SO MR. LITTLEFIELD, WHENEVER YOU ARE ALMOST THERE, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, IT'S OUT SOMEDAY, BUT I, I WILL START THE TIME CORRECTLY.
MR. LITTLEFIELD CAN START, UH, HE'LL HIT THE CLOCK CODE.
CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING.
[02:20:01]
I REALLY APPRECIATE IT.UH, THIS I THINK IS PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT COMPLAINT THAT I HAVE BROUGHT.
I KNOW I BROUGHT A LOT OF THEM.
UM, UH, WE STARTED OUT HERE TWO MONTHS AGO WITH, UH, UH, WITH THE VOICES OF AUSTIN, UH, COMPLAINT.
UM, UM, THERE WAS, THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION ON THIS ONE.
UM, UH, THERE WERE TWO BOND VOICES OF AUSTIN.
UH, ONE OF THEM WAS ON AN AUTOMATED, UM, PHONE CALL THAT WENT OUT.
UM, BUT I THINK IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN THAT THERE WAS ANOTHER ENTITY THAT, THAT SAID THAT THE, UM, UH, UH, UH, THAT, THAT SAID THAT, UM, UH, UH, OUR, OUR MOBILITY PACK SAID THAT THE, UH, UH, THE AUTOMATED VOICEMAIL, WHAT DATES AND NOT VOICES OF BOSTON, THAT, THAT VERY NOT.
UM, UH, AND SO I THINK THAT, UH, AND I, I WASN'T SURE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO DISCLOSURE MADE, UH, ON THAT AUTOMATED VOICE, UH, ON THAT AUTOMATED MESSAGE.
UM, BUT, UH, OUR MOBILITY PACK, UH, SAID THAT, UH, WE, WE, WE MESSED UP AND THEY SAID IT WAS, UH, AND THEY SAID IT WAS THERE.
THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING OF IT.
AND SO WAS, IT WAS, I THINK THAT THIS COMPLAINT CAN BE DISMISSED THE FIRST ONE AGAINST, UH, VOICES OF OFFICE.
THE SECOND ONE, HOWEVER, I THINK SHOULD GO TO A FINAL HEARING.
THE SECOND COMPLAINT IS, UH, IS ABOUT A MAILER THAT WENT OUT, UM, IT'S ON OR ABOUT DECEMBER 26, 20, 20 VOICES OF AUSTIN, A FIVE OH ONE C4 ORGANIZATION PAGE.
I MEAN, I'M READING THE WRONG ONE, UH, EXCUSE ME, UH, ON, ON, UH, COBER SECOND 20, 20 VOICES OF AUSTIN, UH, FIVE OH ONE C4 ORGANIZATIONS SEND AN EMAIL, UH, UH, UH, TO AUSTIN VOTERS, UH, PER CITY BOSTON CODE.
WHAT WAS YOUR STATEMENT IS REQUIRED THAT NAMES, THE FIVE LARGEST CONTRIBUTES, UH, WHEN YOU SEND OUT A MAILER, UH, UH, TO VOTERS, VOICES OFTEN FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THIS SECTION, THE, THIS IS, THIS IS, THIS IS PRETTY IMPORTANT HERE.
UM, UH, THEY'RE GOING TO SAY THAT THEY ARE A FIVE OH ONE C4, AND THIS IS NOT CAMPAIGNING, UH, UNLESS THERE WAS MAGIC WORDS AND THE DON'TS DON'T VOTE FOR VOTE AGAINST, UM, YOU KNOW, THOSE, THOSE MAGIC WORDS.
UM, IN THE END, THE FINAL HEARING, UH, I'M GOING TO BRING EVIDENCE FROM OTHER PEOPLE THAT WILL, UM, UH, UH, UH, OTHER NEWS REPORTS AND WHERE THERE ARE PRESS CONFERENCES WHERE VOICES OF OFTEN ATTENDED WHERE THEY DO SAY VOTE AGAINST THIS BALLOT MEASURE.
AND THERE'S OTHER NEWS REPORTS WERE VOICES OF AUSTIN AND SAYING, VOTE AGAINST THIS BALLOT MEASURE.
AND I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU, UH, OTHER, OTHER, UM, UM, OTHER COMMUNICATIONS FROM THIS, UM, UH, ORGANIZATION WHERE IT'S RIGHT ON THE LINE.
HE WAS VERY AGGRESSIVE WHERE THEY SAY VOTE, YOU KNOW, WHERE, UH, UH, UH, UH, IT SEEMS VERY CLEAR WHAT THEY WANT VOTERS TO DO.
UH, BUT BECAUSE THEY'RE HIDING BEHIND THIS FIVE OH ONE C4 THAT, UM, YOU'LL NEVER KNOW WHO THEIR DONORS ARE, OR HOW MUCH MONEY THEY ARE SPENDING IN ORDER TO AVOID COMPLYING WITH, UM, UH, CITY LAW.
SO I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT, UH, THAT THE, AS COMMISSION TONIGHT, UH, VOTES TO MOVE THIS TO A FINAL HEARING SO THAT WE CAN, UH, UH, SEE AND HEAR, UH, THIS EVIDENCE, UH, AT A FINAL HEARING TO MAKE A DETERMINATION, UH, I THINK IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT DISCUSSION FOR OUR COMMUNITY TO HAVE, UH, NOT SURE IF WE WIN THAT BATTLE, UH, UH, WHEN DID THIS ARGUMENT HERE, BUT I LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING IT, UH, UH, IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS HERE AT THE, AT THIS COMMISSION, UH, WITH THAT I'LL, UH, I'LL LOOK FORWARD TO ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. LITTLEFIELD, UM, WITH THAT, UH, OVER TO COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT, MR. FORT BELL, UM, AM I PRONOUNCING THAT CORRECTLY? UH, ONCE AGAIN, YOU REMEMBERED IT AFTER 60 DAYS, SO I APPRECIATE IT.
YOU KNOW, I'M TYPICALLY NOT MY STRONG SUIT, SO I'M EXCEEDING MY OWN EXPECTATIONS.
SO MR. BORGELT, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, WE CAN START AND I AM READY AND, UH, NICE
[02:25:01]
TO SEE YOU ALL AGAIN, COMMISSIONERS ROGER BOARD GAL FOR THE RESPONDENT, UH, BECKY YOUNG AND VOICES OF AUSTIN.UH, FIRST AND FOREMOST, I GUESS, TO GET THE, UH, THE INITIAL COMPLAINANT AND MR. LITTLEFIELD BROUGHT UP TAKEN CARE OF RIGHT AWAY.
IT IS CORRECT THAT VOICES OF AUSTIN DID NOT ENGAGE HIM IN ANY ROBOCALLS, EITHER THIS OR ANY OTHER ROLE IN THIS ELECTION CAMPAIGNS.
SO TO THE EXTENT THAT THAT'S STILL A LIVE ISSUE, AND I DON'T THINK IT IS, I THINK HE'S WITHDRAWN IT, BUT WE WOULD SIMPLY FACTUALLY DENY THAT WE DID ANY ROBOCALLING YEAH, INCLUDING THAT ROBOCALL.
SECONDLY, UH, AND I HAVE TO SAY AT THE OUTSET, I'M A LITTLE DISTURBED.
THIS STARTED TO HAPPEN AT THE LAST HEARING THAT THAT WAS, UH, POSTPONED.
AND, UH, MR. LITTLEFIELD RAISES A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT HE SAYS THAT HE WILL BRING EVIDENCE ABOUT OTHER THINGS THAT MY CLIENT ALLEGEDLY DID, BUT THEY'RE NOT A PART OF THE COMPLAINT THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED TO ME.
AND SO IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO RESPOND TO THOSE THINGS, THE SEASONINGS, SINCE I HAVEN'T SEEN THEM.
SO I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT INAPPROPRIATE FOR HIM TO BE TALKING ABOUT EVIDENCE THAT'S NOT RELATED TO THE ACTUAL OCTOBER COMPLAINT THAT HE FILED.
SO I JUST WANT TO GET CLEAR AT THE OUTSET, BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT I'M BEING ASKED TO RESPOND TO EVIDENCE THAT HE HASN'T PRESENTED, I DON'T THINK I COULD DO THAT, UH, TO GET TO, UH, THE ISSUE ABOUT VOICES OF AUSTIN AND THIS PARTICULAR COMPLAINTS, UH, VOICES OF AUSTIN, UH, AS HE CORRECTLY STATED IS A FIVE OH ONE C4 ORGANIZATION.
IT IS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FOR THE PURPOSE OF VOTER EDUCATION.
IT IS NOT DESIGNED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADVOCATING FOR OR AGAINST ANY PARTICULAR CANDIDATES OR MEASURE OR PROPOSITION.
AND WITH YOUR INDULGENCE, I'M GOING TO READ FROM YOU A LITTLE BIT FROM THE MISSION STATEMENT, WHICH IS POSTED VERY PROMINENTLY ON ITS WEBSITE.
I WON'T READ THE ENTIRE THING, BUT YOU'LL GET A GIST OF WHAT I'M SAYING HERE, IN TERMS OF THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT VOICES OF AUSTIN IS ABOUT AS A FIVE OH ONE C4, UH, AND MISSES STATED NUMEROUS TIMES.
IT'S VERY CLEAR WHAT THIS ORGANIZATION IS ABOUT.
VOICES OF AUSTIN IS A GRASSROOTS VOTER EDUCATION COALITION, WHICH WILL EDUCATE THE MAJORITY OF AUSTINITES WHO ALREADY WANT BETTER GOVERNMENT THAT HAS SENSIBLE AFFORDABLE TRANSPORTATION LAND, USE LAWS TO PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS INSTEAD OF DESTROYING THEM TAX MONEY SPENT ON WHAT AUSTINITES WANT AND INCREASED PUBLIC SAFETY.
BUT I'M GOING TO SKIP DOWN A LITTLE BIT.
IT GOES ON, AND THERE ARE MORE BULLETS HERE.
UH, THE GOAL OF THE ORGANIZATION IS TO CHANGE WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW.
IT'S TO BE HARMFUL AND HAVE THE REAL VOICES OF AUSTIN RESIDENTS BE HEARD, VOICES OF AUSTIN WILL COMMUNICATE ON VARIOUS ISSUES, INCLUDING THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL POLICE OFFICERS TO ENSURE OUR SAFETY, A SENSIBLE, WORKABLE TRANSPORTATION POLICY THAT ADDRESSES AUSTIN'S TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS, AND HELPS MOVE PEOPLE WHERE THEY NEED TO GO A LAND USE POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OWNERS AND ENHANCE THIS AUSTIN'S NEIGHBORHOODS AND A TRANSPLANT RESPONSIBLE PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING BUDGETS AND BOND PROPOSALS, WHICH RESULT IN A BUDGET AND BOND NEEDS FOR THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY.
AND THEN FINALLY, AND PROBABLY MOST OF THEM, THE CONCLUSION OF THIS STATEMENT, UH, VOICES OF AUSTIN, WE'RE NOT ROTATED IT'S THE CITY.
SO AS A VOTER EDUCATION COALITION, ONCE THE VOICES OF AUSTINITES ARE HEARD, NEW AND DIFFERENT CANDIDATES WILL CHOOSE TO RUN FOR CITY COUNCIL.
WE CANNOT TELL PEOPLE HOW TO VOTE, BUT WE WILL TELL THEM THE TRUTH.
WHEN THE MAJORITY OF AUSTINITES NOTICE THE TRUTH CHANGE WILL COME TO CITY HALLS.
SO THE POINT OF ALL OF THAT BEING, UH, THIS IS THE FIVE OH ONE C4 ORGANIZATION, ITS PURPOSE, THIRDLY, IS, IS MULTIFACETED.
IT INVOLVES MANY AVENUES, MANY AREAS OF INTEREST, MANY AREAS OF VOTER EDUCATION, UH, THE PARTICULAR FLYER, THAT'S THE ACTUAL SUBJECT OF THIS COMPLAINT THAT I RECEIVED, UH, MENTIONED CODE NEXT PROJECT CONNECT AND PUBLIC SAFETY AS BEING THE PRIMARY ISSUES OF CONCERN, UH, TO THE EXTENT THAT IT, IT SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT VOTERS OR HOW TO VOTE.
IT TELLS PEOPLE ON THE REVERSE SIDE, UH, WHAT THE DEADLINES FOR VOTER REGISTRATION ARE EARLY VOTING LAST DAY TO APPLY FOR BALANCE WHEN ELECTION DAY IS NOWHERE AND IN NO WAY, DOES IT TELL ANYONE HOW TO VOTE FOR OR AGAINST ANY PEOPLE, PERSON MEASURE, ISSUE CANDIDATE.
AND WE NEED TO KEEP IN MIND THAT AT THE TIME THIS MAILER WAS BEING SENT OUT, UH, THERE WERE ACTUALLY FIVE
[02:30:01]
CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS GOING ON AS WELL AS THE VARIOUS PROPOSITIONS THAT WERE ON THE BALLOT.SO, UH, THIS WAS HE VOTER EDUCATION INITIATIVE.
THE ORGANIZATION CONTINUES TO EXIST AS A FIVE OH ONE C4 WITH THE PURPOSE OF VOTER EDUCATION.
IT WILL CONTINUE TO BE SO, UH, WE, WE SIMPLY START, THE COMMISSION HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THIS.
IT'S SIMILAR TO THE ARGUMENTS THAT MS. DAVIS AND MADE EARLIER.
UH, THIS IS A FIREWALL AND C4 ORGANIZATION.
IT'S NOT A POLITICAL, NOT ENGAGING IN EXPRESS ADVOCACY OR POLITICAL ADVOCACY.
AND WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE COMMISSION DECLINED TO TAKE JURISDICTION OVER THIS AS THERE'S SIMPLY NO TYPE OF ADVOCACY OR, OR POLITICAL EXPRESSION GOING ON HERE THAT WOULD TRIGGER THE NEED TO BE THERE REGISTER, UH, AS A POLITICAL ORGANIZATION, AS A POLITICAL COMMITTEE OR FILE ANY SORT OF POLITICAL REPORT.
AND, UH, IN FACT, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COMMISSION, UH, FIXED THAT HE DOES, THAT'S IN VIOLATION SPECIFICALLY OF A SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT AND BUCKLEY VERSUS VALLEJO, WHICH EXPRESSED THE LIMITS AS TO WHAT POLITICAL EXPENDITURE REQUIREMENTS, WHAT SORT OF COMMUNICATION IS THAT GOING TO ENCOMPASS? AND I GUESS I CAN SAY THAT BETTER GUESS.
I COULD SAY THAT BETTER CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS, CAN'T GO BEYOND WHAT BERKELEY VERSUS THE WHITE HOUSE SAYS.
AND IF YOU INTERPRET YOUR REGULATIONS, THERE'S GOING BEYOND WHAT BERKELEY SAYS, TONS OF EXPRESS ADVOCACY.
THEN YOU'RE IN VIOLATION OF SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT IN TERMS OF HOW FAR YOU CAN GO WITH THIS.
SO I, AGAIN, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOU DECLINED JURISDICTION ON THIS CASE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
UM, OUR PARTIES WILL HAVE ANSWERS.
UM, AND IF WE GO TO, UH, NINE 55, UH, BEFORE WE WRAP THIS UP, THEN I'M GOING TO BRIEFLY INTERRUPT US FOR A MOTION TO GO PAST 10 AS OUR RULES REQUIRE.
UM, SO I'M GOING TO FEEL QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
UM, LET'S SEE, I SEE HANDS, ANYONE WANT TO CHIME IN, UH, SECRETARY DOVER.
WE'VE HAD CASES SIMILAR TO THIS BEFORE, AND I, UM, I'M KIND OF DISCUSSING, BUT I'M GOING TO PUT IT IN THE FORM OF A QUESTION.
I'M DOING THIS BECAUSE IT'S 9:41 PM.
UH, WE'VE HAD CASES SIMILAR TO THIS BEFORE WHERE IT'S A QUESTION OF, UH, ELECTIONEERING.
IS IT MAGIC WORDS? IS IT NOT? FRANKLY? I THINK THAT'S A FACT QUESTION.
I THINK THAT, I THINK IT'S AN ISSUE OF THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A VIOLATION, BUT YOU KNOW, WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THE WEBSITE NOW, I MEAN, WHEN I GOOGLE VOICES OF AUSTIN, THE BYLINE IS AWAKENING.