[00:00:03]
[CALL TO ORDER]
DO WE NEED TO GIVE, UH, ANY HEADS UP TO THE LIVE FEED? WE'RE GOOD.I'M THE CHAIR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION, AND I CALL THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER.
THE TIME IS 6:17 PM WE ARE AT CITY HALL IN THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ROOM.
ROOM NUMBER 1101 AT 3 0 1 WEST SECOND STREET, AUSTIN, TEXAS 7 8 7 0 1.
I WILL BEGIN BY CALLING THE ROLE, UH, THE CHAIR.
SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS. HERE.
UH, COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA? HERE.
COMMISSIONER TER I DO NOT BELIEVE IS WITH US IN PER IN PERSON OR REMOTELY.
UH, AND COMMISSIONER POEY HERE.
WE HAVE SEVEN WHO ARE IN, OR EIGHT WHO ARE IN ATTENDANCE.
DID I COUNT RIGHT? 1, 2, 3, 4.
UM, THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.
MS. WEBSTER, DID WE, DID YOU GET TO CHECK IF WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION? NO ONE SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.
[EXECUTIVE SESSION]
THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS FOR THE COMMISSION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.SO WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE ETHICS REVIEW WILL GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO TAKE UP, IT SAYS ONE ITEM.
IT SHOULD BE TWO ITEMS. IT SHOULD BE TWO ITEMS PURSUANT TO SECTION 5 51 0.07, ONE OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.
THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION WILL CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ON LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO THE FOLLOWING, AND WE MAY GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS TWO COMPLAINTS FILED BY BETSY GREEN'S GREENBERG AGAINST DOUGLAS GRECO AND KIRK WATSON, WHICH ALLEGE VIOLATIONS OF THE CITY CHARTER ARTICLE THREE, SECTION EIGHT A THREE, WHICH DEALS WITH ELECTIONS AND LIMITS ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES.
IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE ITEMS ANNOUNCED? HEARING NONE.
THE COMMISSION WILL NOW GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
THE TIME IS 6:19 PM WE ARE OUT OF CLOSED SESSION.
THE TIME IS 7:13 PM ENCLOSED SESSION.
WE TOOK UP AND DISCUSS, DISCUSSED LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO TWO COMPLAINTS FILED BY BETSY GREEN GREENBERG AGAINST DOUGLAS GRECO AND KIRK WATSON, WHICH ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF CITY CHARTER ARTICLE THREE, SECTION EIGHT A THREE.
NOW, HAVING READ US BACK INTO OUR OPEN SESSION, WE WILL MOVE TO OUR, UH, OUR NEXT
[3. A complaint filed by Betsy Greenberg against Douglas Greco raising claimed violations of City Charter, Article III (Elections), Section 8 (A)(3) (Limits on Contributions to Candidates).]
AGENDA ITEM.SO WE HAVE TWO PRELIMINARY HEARINGS AND WE WILL HOLD THEM.
TECHNICALLY THEY WILL BE SEPARATE HEARINGS.
SO THE FIRST ONE IS THE COMPLAINT FILED BY BETSY GREENBERG AGAINST DOUGLAS GRECO.
UM, MS. GREENBERG, UH, YOU WILL HAVE 10 MINUTES TO MAKE A STATEMENT, AND THEN IF, UH, EITHER MR. GRECO OR SOMEONE ON MR. GRECO'S BEHALF IS HERE, THEY MAY ALSO MAKE A STATEMENT FOR 10 MINUTES.
UM, VICE CHAIR LOWE HAS AGREED TO BE OUR TIMEKEEPER, AND I WILL LET YOU KNOW THAT I VIEW THAT 10 MINUTES AS SACROSANCT.
AND SO WHEN THE TIME EXPIRES, UM, PLEASE, YOU CAN FINISH YOUR SENTENCE, BUT, UM, LET'S, AND AND COULD YOU GIVE LIKE A 3, 2, 1 30 SECOND WARNING? YEAH.
DOES THAT SOUND GOOD, MS. GREENBERG? YES.
UM, WITH THAT, UM, THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE COMPLAINANT, BETSY GREENBERG, REGARDING THE COMPLAINT AGAINST DOUGLAS GRECO.
MY NAME IS BETSY GREENBERG AND I'M HERE TO PRESENT THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE ETHICS COMPLAINT THAT I FILED AGAINST DOUGLAS GRECO, A CANDIDATE FOR MAYOR.
I BELIEVE THAT MR. GRECO VIOLATED CHARTER ARTICLE THREE, SECTION EIGHT A THREE, WHICH LIMITS THE TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS A CANDIDATE MAY ACCEPT FROM OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN ZIP CODES.
THE CHARTER AMENDMENT WAS SPONSORED BY A POLITICAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE CALLED AUSTINITES FOR A LITTLE LESS CORRUPTION.
IT WAS APPROVED IN NOVEMBER OF
[00:05:01]
1997 BY 72% OF THE VOTER.THE CHARTER READS NO CANDIDATE AND HIS OR HER COMMITTEE SHALL ACCEPT AN AGGREGATE CONTRIBUTION TOTAL OF MORE THAN 30,000 PER ELECTION AND 20,000 IN THE CASE OF A RUNOFF ELECTION FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN NATURAL PERSONS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN A POSTAL ZIP CODE COMPLETELY OR PARTIALLY WITHIN THE AUSTIN CITY LIMITS.
THE AMOUNT OF THE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS ARE BASED, ARE UPDATED EACH YEAR BASED ON THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX.
WHEN THE BUDGET IS PASSED, THE CLERK PROVIDED A MEMO TO CANDIDATES ON MAY 1ST SPECIFYING THAT THE LIMIT AT THE TIME WAS $46,000 PER ELECTION AND $30,000 FOR THE RUNOFF.
THIS THE LIMIT THAT WAS IN EFFECT UNTIL LAST MONTH WHEN THE LIMITS WERE EACH RAISED BY $1,000.
MR. GRECO WROTE A LETTER TO THE AUSTIN CHRONICLE AND POSTED THE LETTER ON X, MAKING CLEAR THAT HE QUOTE, KNEW WHAT THE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS WERE GOING IN.
THE CLERK'S MEMO PROVIDES A LIST OF ZIP CODES THAT ARE COMPLETELY OR PARTIALLY WITHIN AUSTIN CITY LIMITS AS SPECIFIED BY THE CHARTER.
I HAVE HAD PEOPLE TELL ME THAT I SHOULD LOOK AT WHETHER ADDRESSES ARE REALLY WITHIN AUSTIN, IN PARTICULAR ZIP CODES LIKE 7, 8, 7, 4, 6, THAT ARE NOT COMPLETELY WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE CHARTER SAYS.
SO I LOOKED ONLY AT CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ENTITIES OR INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE LIST, WHO LISTED ADDRESSES WITH ZIP CODES THAT ARE NOT ON THE CLERK'S LIST.
BEFORE WE LOOK AT THE DATA, I WANNA COMMENT ABOUT THIS CHARTER PROVISION.
IN MY OPINION, THE PURPOSE IS TO ENSURE THAT THE VOICES OF AUSTINITES WHOSE LIVES ARE IMPACTED BY THE DECISIONS OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS MAKE ARE NOT DROWNED OUT BY OUTSIDE INFLUENCES WHO DON'T HAVE TO LIVE WITH THOSE DECISIONS.
THE CHARTER IS THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW FOR AUSTIN, WHICH WE CAN THINK OF AS OUR CONSTITUTION, AND THE LAWS PRESUME LEGAL UNTIL A COURT RULES.
OTHERWISE, THESE PAGES LIST THE CONTRIBUTIONS TO MR. RECO WHERE DONORS LIST AND ADDRESS WITH A ZIP CODE THAT IS NOT ON THE CLERK'S LIST.
I'M SORRY, THE PRINT IS SO SMALL, BUT THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE COMPLAINT, SO YOU CAN LOOK AT THAT INSTEAD.
UM, I PREPARED THE LIST USING THE CONTRIBUTIONS DATA SET AVAILABLE ON THE CITY OF AUSTIN OPEN DATA PORTAL.
I ALSO DOUBLE CHECKED TO MAKE SURE THE CONTRIBUTIONS WERE LISTED ON THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT.
BY HIGHLIGHTING EACH CONTRIBUTION I THOUGHT ABOUT PROVIDING THE HIGHLIGHTED REPORT, BUT BETWEEN MR. GRECO AND MR. WATSON, THOSE REPORTS WOULD'VE AMOUNTED TO A REAM OF PAPER FOR EACH COMMISSIONER.
I WILL REALLY QUICKLY SHOW MR. GRECO'S REPORT AT THE END.
IF I HAVE TIME REMAINING, I SHOULD KEEP GOING.
SIX 19, NO, YOU AT OCCASIONALLY I CAN'T SEE THE PAGE NUMBER, BUT OCCASIONALLY DONORS ARE LISTED AS ENTITIES, WHICH ALSO DON'T QUALIFY AS NATURAL PERSONS LIVING IN THE RIGHT ZIP CODE.
THE CONTRIBUTIONS OVERALL WERE LISTED IN DATE ORDER WITH A RUNNING TOTAL, SO THAT YOU COULD SEE WHEN THE 46,000 THRESHOLD WAS REACHED WITH AN ASTERISK, I BELIEVE THERE WERE 314 DONATIONS ON WHAT I LABELED AS EXHIBIT A AND TWO LISTED ON WHAT I LABELED AS EXHIBIT B.
EXHIBIT B OOPS INCLUDES LIST TWO DONORS WHO PROVIDED AN ADDRESS THAT SAYS AUSTIN, TEXAS, BUT THE ZIP CODES ARE NOT ON THE CLERK'S LIST.
THE CLERK'S MEMO IS PART OF THE CANDIDATE PACKET, WHICH IS NOT TO BE TAKEN AS LEGAL ADVICE.
SO FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE FOLLOWING SUMMARY, I DID NOT COUNT THE DONATIONS ON EXHIBIT B AS OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN, ONLY THE ONES ON EXHIBIT A.
SO CONSIDERING ALL THE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ZIP CODES NOT LISTED ON THE CLOCK CLERK'S MEMO AND NOT SPECIFYING AUSTIN, TEXAS, YOU CAN SEE THAT MR. GRECO EXCEEDED THE $46,000 THRESHOLD ON JUNE 28TH, JUST TWO DAYS BEFORE THE END OF THE REPORTING PERIOD.
AND THAT HIS TOTAL DONATIONS FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN NATURAL PERSONS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN THE POSTAL CODE.
POSTAL CODES ON THE CLERK CLERK'S LIST WAS 52,221.
BY THE END OF THE REPORTING PERIOD, WHICH ENDED JUNE 30TH, OVERALL ABOUT $52,000,
[00:10:01]
THE CONTRIBUTIONS TO MR. GRECO'S CAMPAIGN CAME FROM OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN COMPARED TO ABOUT $36,000 FROM INDIVIDUALS INSIDE OF AUSTIN.THIS IS A PRELIMINARY HEARING.
SO THE COMMISSION'S JOB IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OF A PROVISION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION HAS OCCURRED.
I BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR THAT MR. GRECO VIOLATED CHARTER ARTICLE THREE, SECTION EIGHT A THREE BY ACCEPTING MORE THAN $46,000 IN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ZIP CODES DEFINED AS OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN.
SINCE THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION HAS OCCURRED, THE CODE SPECIFIES THAT THE COMMISSION SHALL SCHEDULE A FINAL HEARING.
I BELIEVE I STILL HAVE MORE TIME, SO I'M GOING TO JUST FLY THROUGH THE HIGHLIGHTED.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN EVEN SEE THE HIGHLIGHTS.
UM, SOME PAGES HAVE JUST A FEW HIGHLIGHTS.
UM, BUT I DEFINITELY CHECKED THE C AND E TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE THINGS LISTED IN THE CITY'S DATA SET WERE ACTUALLY ON THE, UM, CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS LIST.
I'LL JUST KEEP SHOWING THESE UNTIL WE RUN OUTTA TIME.
MAYBE WE'LL RUN OUT OF PAGES BEFORE WE RUN OUT OF TIME.
AND I AM APPRECIATIVE OF YOUR TIME AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
UM, DOES THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. GREENBERG BEFORE WE INVITE? UM, UH, MR. GRECO'S REPRESENTATIVE? SEEING NONE, THANK, THANK YOU, MS. GREENBERG.
I THINK UNLESS YOU WANNA SEE MORE OF THAT REPORT, UM, I CAN STOP
AND SIR, WOULD YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME? UH, YES.
UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, UH, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
I'M AN ATTORNEY REPRESENTING DOUGLAS GRECO AND HIS MAYORAL CAMPAIGN.
CAN YOU BE OUR TIMEKEEPER AGAIN? ALRIGHT, IT'S 10 MINUTES AGAIN.
THE GRECO CAMPAIGN AND MR. GRECO UNDERSTAND THAT UNDER THE RULES GOVERNING THE COMMISSION, THE RESPONDENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO ATTEND A PRELIMINARY HEARING OR MAKE ANY STATEMENT, BUT MR. GRECO WANTED ME TO ATTEND ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND HIS CAMPAIGN.
WE THANK THIS COMMISSION FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN OUR POSITION AND FOR YOU, YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT BECAUSE OF THE PENDING LITIGATION, HE THOUGHT IT BEST TO MAKE HIS STATEMENT THROUGH AN ATTORNEY.
BECAUSE OF THAT PENDING LITIGATION AND CONSISTENT WITH MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES, UH, I WOULD PREFER TO DECLINE TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL.
I APPRECIATE YOUR UNDERSTANDING.
AS YOU LIKELY KNOW, MR. GRECO HAS FILED A LAWSUIT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, SEEKING TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF SECTION EIGHT A THREE ONLY AS IT APPLIES TO DONATIONS BY INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO REGISTER TO VOTE IN AN AUSTIN ZIP CODE.
BASICALLY, SECTION EIGHT A THREE SAYS THAT CANDIDATES CAN RAISE UNLIMITED MONEY FROM DONORS WHO LIVE IN AUSTIN, BUT CAN ONLY RAISE $47,000 TOTAL FROM INDIVIDUALS WHO DO NOT LIVE IN AUSTIN ZIP CODES FOR THE REASON STATED IN THAT LAWSUIT, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS RULE IS ILLEGAL AND IT THAT IT UNJUSTLY FAVORS IN INCUMBENTS AND CANDIDATES WITH THE ABILITY TO SELF-FUND WITH NO LIMIT.
IT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST CANDIDATES LIKE MR. GRECO, A FORMER A ISD TEACHER AND LONGTIME COMMUNITY ORGANIZER WHO IS ORGAN RUNNING A GRASSROOTS FUNDRAISING CAMPAIGN FROM FRIENDS, FAMILY, COLLEAGUES, AND SUPPORTERS BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN.
MR. GRECO BELIEVES IT IS UNFAIR THAT PEOPLE HE HAS WORKED WITH IN HIS DECADES AS A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER IN AUSTIN WHO HAVE BEEN DISPLACED TO SAN MARCUS OR BASTROP BY RISING HOUSING COSTS, CANNOT DONATE TO HIS CAMPAIGN WHILE SOMEONE WHO DISPLACED THEM REMAINS FREE TO DONATE.
[00:15:01]
MR. GRECO BELIEVES THAT IT IS UNFAIR THAT HIS NIECE, WHO LIVES IN VIRGINIA, WHO WILL BE A FIRST TIME VOTER THIS ELECTION, AND WHO IS JUST MADE HER FIRST DONATION TO THE HARRIS WAL CAMPAIGN, CANNOT DONATE EVEN 1 CENT TO HER UNCLE MR. GRECO, WHILE ANOTHER CANDIDATE'S, BECAUSE HE NOW STANDS ALLEGED TO BE AT THIS LIMIT.WHILE ANOTHER CANDIDATE'S RELATIVE WHO MAY LIVE IN WESTLAKE OR WOOD IN THE 7, 8, 7 4, 5, AND 7 8, 7 4, 6 ZIP CODES THAT ARE LARGELY OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN, BUT ALLOWED TO DONATE UNLIMITED FUNDS CAN MAKE A DONATION.
LIKE MOST AUSTINITES, MR. GRECO GREW UP SOMEWHERE ELSE.
IN HIS CASE, THE WORKING CLASS COAL REGION OF PENNSYLVANIA GAVE MOST OF HIS ADULT LIFE TO PUBLIC SERVICE IN AUSTIN, AND HE IS NEITHER PERSONALLY WEALTHY, NOR DOES HE HAVE ACCESS TO GENERATIONAL WEALTH.
WHILE THIS MAKES HIM A TYPICAL AUSTINITE, IT MAKES HIM UNUSUAL AMONG THE CANDIDATES FOR AUSTIN MAYOR IN THE YEAR 2024.
SECTION EIGHT A THREE COMES FROM THE AT LARGE COUNCIL ERA OF AUSTIN'S HISTORY.
WHEN LOCAL GOVERNMENT WAS DESIGNED TO MAKE SURE THAT A FEW WEALTHY ZIP CODES CONTROLLED EVERYTHING IN CITY GOVERNMENT, CONTROLLED EVERY SEAT ON THE CITY COUNCIL, AND IT STILL HAS THAT EFFECT UNDER SECTION EIGHT A THREE, A WEALTHY DONOR FROM WESTLAKE CAN DONATE $450 TO EVERY SINGLE CANDIDATE.
AND, AND THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM YET WHEN MR. GRECO, WHO HAS LARGELY RAISED MONEY FROM FAMILY MEMBERS AND PEOPLE HE HAS WORKED FOR IN THE LGBTQ PLUS MOVEMENT AND THE MOVEMENT FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND IN, IN AROUND TEXAS, BUT ALMOST ALWAYS BASED IN AUSTIN, UH, IS NOW IN A POSITION WHERE THOSE PEOPLE CAN'T GIVE EVEN THEIR FIRST DOLLAR.
SECTION EIGHT A THREE'S RESTRICTION LIMIT LIMITING DONATIONS BASED ON GEOGRAPHY IS RARE AND UNUSUAL.
WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY EXAMPLES OF A SIMILAR RULE THAT HAS NOT BEEN FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
SIMILARLY, NO OTHER OFFICE HERE IN AUSTIN AT THE A-I-S-D-A-C-C COUNTY, STATE OR FEDERAL LEVEL ARE SUBJECT TO THIS TYPE OF GEOGRAPHIC RESTRICTION.
THAT IS WHY MR. GRECO, HIS CAMPAIGN AND ONE OF HIS LONGTIME COMMUNITY ORGANIZER MENTORS WHO HAPPENS TO LIVE IN SAN ANTONIO, BUT WHO WORKED WITH MR. GRECO FOR SEVERAL YEARS AS AN ORGANIZER IN AUSTIN, ARE CHALLENGING SECTION 8 83 AS IT APPLIES TO INDIVIDUAL DONORS WHO LIVE ELSEWHERE.
TO BE CLEAR, HE'S NOT CHALLENGING SECTION 8 83 AS A WHOLE AND IS NOT CHALLENGING THE $450 INDIVIDUAL DONATION CAP OR ANY LIMITS ON CORPORATE DONATIONS.
HE'S ONLY CHALLENGING THE $47,000 AGGREGATE LIMIT ON GRASSROOTS FUNDRAISING FROM ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS WHO DON'T LIVE IN AUSTIN.
FOR THE REASON STATED IN OUR LAWSUIT, WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT THAT LIMIT CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH CLEAR FIRST AMENDMENT PRECEDENTS FROM THE SUPREME COURT AND COURTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
BRIEFING ON THAT ISSUE IS UNDERWAY IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.
WE HAVE ASKED THE COURT FOR AN EXPEDITED RULING BY OCTOBER 4TH, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, WE ARE LIKELY TO HAVE AT LEAST A PRELIMINARY ANSWER ABOUT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE FAIRLY SOON.
IN THE MEANTIME, MR. GRECO WANTS TO REASSURE THIS COMMISSION OF HIS EFFORTS TO COMPLY WITH SECTION EIGHT A THREE.
WHILE HIS LAWSUIT IS PENDING, MR. GRECO HAS NO INTEREST IN IGNORING OR FLOUTING OR KNOWINGLY OR INTENTIONALLY VIOLATING THE LAW.
TO THE CONTRARY, HE BROUGHT HIS LAWSUIT BECAUSE HE THINKS IT IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO ABIDE BY THE LAW AND WANTS TO BE ABLE TO CONDUCT HIS CAMPAIGN WHILE SEEKING CLARIFICATION ABOUT WHAT THE LAW IS FROM THE FEDERAL COURT.
BUT UNTIL A COURT SAYS THAT SECTION EIGHT A THREE IS UNENFORCEABLE, MR. GRECO IS MAKING EVERY EFFORT TO COMPLY WITH SECTION EIGHT A THREE BECAUSE OF THE LITIGATION.
WE ARE NOT GOING TO DIVE INTO THE SPECIFICS OF THE COMPLAINT TONIGHT, OTHER THAN TO SAY THIS, MR. GRECO'S JULY 15TH REPORT WAS FULLY TRANSPARENT AND COMPLETE AND REPORTED EVERY DONATION THAT HE RECEIVED.
NO ONE CAN TELL SIMPLY, SIMPLY FROM LOOKING AT THE MAILING OR CREDIT CARD ADDRESS THAT A DONOR LISTED WHEN MAKING A DONATION WHETHER OR NOT THAT VOTER IS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE TO REGISTER TO VOTE IN AUSTIN.
AND THIS IS IMPORTANT ON MS. GREENBERG'S LAST SLIDE OF HER POWERPOINT.
SHE SAID, THESE ARE DONATIONS NOT FROM AUSTIN'S ZIP CODES.
WELL, THAT'S NOT WHAT SECTION EIGHT A THREE SAYS.
[00:20:01]
HAS TO BE FROM A PERSON WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO REGISTER TO VOTE IN A ZIP CODE.SO A PERSON WHO PERHAPS HAS A, A CREDIT CARD ACCOUNT IN A DIFFERENT CITY OR PERHAPS HAS TWO HOMES, UH, THERE ARE ANY NUMBER OF REASONS THAT A DONOR'S DISCLOSED ADDRESS ON THE, ON THE CAMPAIGN REPORT WOULD SIMPLY NOT GIVE YOU ENOUGH INFORMATION TO KNOW WHETHER THAT INDIVIDUAL WAS ELIGIBLE TO REGISTER THE TO VOTE IN AUSTIN.
COUNSEL, HOW MANY LEFT? TWO AND A HALF.
NO ONE CAN TELL SIMPLY FROM LOOKING AT THOSE ADDRESSES, WHETHER OR NOT THAT DONOR IS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE AND THE LAW OF WHERE A PERSON IS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE, REGISTER TO VOTE IS INCREDIBLY COMPLICATED AND DEPENDS ON THE SPECIFIC FACTS OF EACH PERSON'S LIVING SITUATION.
WE ARE AWARE OF AT LEAST SOME OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE LISTED IN THE COMPLAINT AS OUT OF AUSTIN, WHO MAY BE ELIGIBLE TO REGISTER TO VOTE IN AUSTIN, PROVING A VIOLATION WOULD REQUIRE AN IN-DEPTH VOTER BY VOTER ANALYSIS THAT IS ENTIRELY MISSING FROM THE COMPLAINT FACED WITH THIS AMBIGUITY THAT IS INHERENT TO THE RULE, MR. GRECO CHOSE THE PATH OF TRANSPARENCY AND LISTED EVERY DONATION THAT HE'S RECEIVED, BUT WE AGREED THAT EVEN THOUGH NO ONE CAN TELL THE EXACT NUMBER, THE CAMPAIGN IS LIKELY VERY CLOSE TO HAVING RAISED $47,000 FROM INDIVIDUALS WHO CANNOT VOTE HERE OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION.
SINCE RECEIVING THE COMPLAINT, THE CAMPAIGN HAS FELT THAT IT HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO CONDUCT ITSELF AS IF IT WERE AT THE LIMIT.
ACCORDINGLY, MR. GRECO IS TAKING STEPS TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW WHILE HIS LAWSUIT CHALLENGING IT IS PENDING.
HE'S DIRECTING HIS ONGOING FUNDRAISING EFFORTS AT AUSTIN DONORS AS TO THE DONATIONS LISTED IN THE COMPLAINT AND ANY OTHERS LINKED TO ZIP CODES OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN.
HE'S SEQUESTERING ANY MONEY THAT MAY POTENTIALLY BE IN EXCESS OF $47,000 WHILE THE CASE IS BEING LITIGATED.
IF AFTER THE LEGAL PROCESS PLAYS OUT, IT IS DETERMINED THAT THE $47,000 LIMIT IS LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL.
HE WILL RETURN ANY SUCH DONATIONS.
MR. GRECO IS DETERMINED TO ABIDE BY THE LAW, INCLUDING THE AUSTIN CITY CHARTER AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
HE'S SEEKING CLARIFICATION OF HIS AND HIS DONOR'S RIGHTS UNDER THOSE LAWS WHILE THAT LEGAL PROCESS IS PLAYING OUT.
HE'S TAKING EVERY STEP THAT HE CAN OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION TO ENSURE THAT HE IS IN COMPLIANCE AND CAN REMAIN IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION EIGHT A THREE AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS.
AND, UH, MR. LACKEY, IF YOU WOULD REMAIN THERE, 'CAUSE I UNDERSTAND YOU DON'T WANT TO TAKE QUESTIONS, BUT OUR RULES DO SAY THAT MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT.
IT, IT'S INTERESTING, THEY ALSO SAY THAT THERE IS NO CROSS-EXAMINATION AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE, UH, I HOW THOSE TWO ARE SUPPOSED TO BE RECONCILED.
WELL, THIS WOULD NOT BE CROSS-EXAMINATION.
IF, IF THE COMMISSION HAS THEM, IF THE COMMISSION HAS THEM.
YOUR 10 MINUTES ARE UP, APPARENTLY
UM, WITH THAT, UH, DID ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. LACKEY? ALL RIGHT.
WELL, MY POINT ABOUT QUESTIONS IS MOOT VERY WELL.
HAVING HEARD FROM BOTH THE COMPLAINANT AND THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE RESPONDENT, MR. GRECO, UH, IS THERE DELIBERATION OR MOTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? UH, COMMISSIONER.
CAN WE ASK QUESTIONS OF THE PERSON FILING THE COMPLAINT OR? YES.
UM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO, DO YOU WANT TO CALL HER BACK UP? YEAH, IF POSSIBLE.
UM, ANY OBJECTION TO THAT? THAT'S FINE WITH ME, MS. GREENBERG.
UM, THANKS FOR BEING HERE, MS. GREENBERG.
I WANTED TO ASK YOU ABOUT, UM, SOMETHING THAT COUNSEL FOR MR. GRECO BROUGHT UP, WHICH IS THAT, UM, DIFFICULTY IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT SOMEBODY IS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE VERSUS WHETHER OR NOT JUST RECONCILING THAT WITH THE ZIP CODE OF WHERE THE CONTRIBUTION CAME FROM.
AND I WAS GONNA SEE IF YOU COULD RESPOND TO THAT.
UM, SO THERE WERE TWO ADDRESSES THAT WERE DIFFICULT FOR ME TO RECONCILE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE, UM, ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN THE ZIP CODE LIST.
THE, UM, THOSE, I JUST COUNTED THEM AS INSIDE OF AUSTIN BECAUSE I COULDN'T BE CLEAR THAT THEY WERE OUTSIDE THE,
[00:25:01]
AND WHEN I SAY OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN, I MEAN ALL THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THE CHARTERUM, BUT THE OTHERS ARE DONATIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT CLAIMING TO LIVE INSIDE OF AUSTIN.
THEY REPORTED ADDRESSES OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN AND THOSE REPORTED ADDRESSES WHEN THEY MADE THE CONTRIBUTION WERE ALSO, UM, PASSED ON TO THE CONTRIBUTION AND EXPENDITURE LIST.
SO I'M TAKING IT FROM THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY, UM, THE CAMPAIGN.
UM, I BELIEVE WHEN YOU DONATE, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE AT LEAST 18 OR THERE'S SOME CRITERIA THAT YOU HAVE TO CHECK.
UM, SO THEY SHOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE, BUT THEY'RE NOT CLAIMING TO BE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE INSIDE OF AUSTIN.
MY QUESTION IS, UM, UM, ALSO RELATED TO THE TWO THAT DONORS, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO AS EXHIBIT B? IS THAT CORRECT? YES.
AND YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT YOU DID NOT CONSIDER THEM AS THE, AMONG THE DONORS, UM, FOR OUTSIDE.
AND WHAT, WHY WAS THAT? UM, BECAUSE THEY'RE IN ZIP CODES THAT AREN'T ON THE CLERK'S LIST, BUT THEIR ADDRESSES LISTED AS AUSTIN, TEXAS.
SO I FEEL LIKE THEY'RE KIND OF A MAYBE, AND I DON'T WANNA MAKE A COMPLAINT BASED ON A MAYBE, SO I DID NOT COUNT THEM AS OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN.
ISN'T THERE A, THERE'S A, THERE DEFINITIVE LIST OF ZIP CODES, CORRECT? WELL, IT'S IN THE CANDIDATE PACKET AND THE CANDIDATE PACKET COULD HAVE MISTAKES.
I MEAN, I CAN'T BE SURE THAT THOSE TWO ADDRESSES AND IT WAS ONLY $125.
EITHER WAY THAT YOU COUNT THAT $125, UM, THE VIOLATION CLEARLY OCCURRED.
ANYTHING ELSE FOR THE COMPLAINANT? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MR. GREEN.
I THINK WE'LL HEAR FROM YOU AGAIN IN A MINUTE.
WHAT WE'LL HEAR FROM YOU AGAIN IN A MINUTE.
ANY, UH OH, NO, YOU MIGHT BE MORE THAN A MINUTE.
WELL, YES, I, I I'VE BEEN ON THIS COMMISSION.
ANY, ARE, ARE WE, I GUESS WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION BEFORE WE DELIBERATE ON A MOTION.
I THINK YOU NEED A MOTION TO EITHER HEARING WHETHER OR NOT REASONABLE GROUNDS.
SO DOES ANYBODY HAVE A MOTION REGARDING WHETHER THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS? LEMME MAKE SURE I GET THE LANGUAGE RIGHT.
UH, REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED.
UM, I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION TO MOVE IT FORWARD BASED ON REASONABLE GROUNDS.
SECOND, SECOND, COMMISSIONER, EY SECOND.
ANY DELIBERATION ON THAT MATTER? COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA? YES.
MY, MY ONLY DELIBERATION, UM, IS THE ISSUE OF ELIGIBILITY OF VOTER.
IF A STUDENT IS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN AUSTIN, BUT LIVES OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN AND CONTRIBUTES TO THE CAMPAIGN, WOULD THAT PERSON BE, UM, LISTED AS ELIGIBLE? WOULD THAT PERSON BE LISTED AS A PERSON OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN AUSTIN? SO THAT'S THE ONLY, UM, THING THAT'S GOING THROUGH MY HEAD IN TERMS OF ATIONS THAT WE CAN GO THROUGH IN THE, I ASSUME IN THE NEXT ROUND OF, UM, SOME FACT FINDING.
UM, BUT I JUST WANTED TO RAISE THAT NOW AS ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT I THINK IS WORTH EXPLORING.
UH, I, I THINK MY COMMENT ON THAT WOULD BE WE'RE HERE ONLY FOR REASONABLE GROUNDS NOW.
UM, HOW IT, IF WE MOVE IT ONTO A FINAL HEARING, HOW IT PLAYS OUT IN THE FINAL HEARING? WE DON'T KNOW.
UM, BUT THIS IS, THIS IS REASONABLE GROUNDS ONLY.
UH, AND I THINK, UH, THE ULTIMATE DETERMINATION,
[00:30:01]
IF WE FIND REASONABLE GROUNDS, THE ULTIMATE DETERMINATION ON THAT MATTER IS DOWN THE ROAD.I'M, I'M STATING THAT JUST AS ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION, THAT'S NOT LIKE A CHAIR RULING OR ANYTHING.
UH, ANYONE ELSE? UH, SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS? UH, YES, CHAIR.
I DO HAVE A QUESTION THAT WOULD AFFECT, UM, OUR DETERMINATION FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, WHICH IS, ARE WE, DO WE KNOW IF, IF THERE IS A CAUSE OR PART OF THE PROCESS, IF FOR SOME REASON A DONOR CHANGES HIS OR HER MIND ON THE CONTRIBUTION AND IT'S REFUNDED THAT WOULD AFFECT THE AGGREGATE TOTAL, RIGHT? THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT CONTRIBUTIONS.
BUT IS THIS BASED ON LIKE A FINAL REPORT? DO WE KNOW THAT? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE WHAT I'M ASKING? AND WHAT IF IT DOESN'T? WHAT IF THE REFUND DOESN'T HAPPEN UNTIL AFTER BECAUSE OF, UH, TRANSACTIONAL LOGISTICS? CAN I, I, I, MR. CASTO, I THINK WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT ACCEPTANCE AT, AT LEAST IN, LIKE, IF, WHEN WE'RE REFERENCING ELECTION CODE ACCEPTANCE IS THE DECISION TO ACCEPT IT, IF YOU'VE REPORTED IT, YOU'VE MADE THE DECISION TO ACCEPT IT, YOU MIGHT LATER MAKE A DECISION TO REFUND IT, BUT YOU HAVE ACCEPTED IT AS OF THAT REPORTING PERIOD.
IT'S, UH, WOULD BE HOW I, THAT THAT IS, THIS IS, UH, CHRIS FELDMAN, UH, THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH HOW, UH, STATE LAW APPLIES TO CONTRIBUTIONS.
UH, AND IT WOULD BE AFFIRMATIVE ON THE PART OF THE CANDIDATE OR, UH, THE, THE CANDIDATE TO ACTUALLY RETURN AND REPORT IT AS RETURNED.
ANYONE ELSE WITH ANY COMMENTS BEFORE WE MOVE TO A VOTE? ALL RIGHT.
UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO A ROLL CALL VOTE, BUT I GOTTA GET THE ROLL FIRST.
SO THE MOTION IS TO FIND THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS, UH, TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT WE MOVE ON TO A FINAL HEARING, PRESUMABLY AT OUR NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING.
DOES EVERYBODY AGREE WITH MY STATEMENT OF THE MOTION? OKAY.
IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION COMMISSIONER CASTO? YES.
UH, COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA HAS EITHER RECUSED OR ABSTAINED.
UH, COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA? YES.
I IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION COMMISSIONER KALE? YES.
UH, COMMISSIONER TURN IS NOT HERE.
AND THE CHAIR ALSO VOTES? YES.
WHICH MEANS THAT IT IS UNANIMOUS AND THE MOTION PASSES.
AND SO WE WILL NEED TO, UH, FIGURE OUT THE DETAILS OF SCHEDULING, BUT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO DO THAT AT THIS MOMENT.
DO WE SCHEDULING THE FINAL HEARING? I THINK IT HAS TO BE WITHIN 30 DAYS, CORRECT? IT NEEDS TO BE IN 30 DAYS.
AND THE NEXT SCHEDULE MEETING FOR THE COMMISSION IS OCTOBER 23RD.
SO, SO WE'RE WITHIN THAT, WE WOULD BE WITHIN THAT.
ON OCTOBER 23RD? UM, PROCEDURALLY, I MEAN, I, THAT'S AN AGENDA ITEM.
WE DON'T NECESSARILY NEED A MOTION TO PUT IT ON THE THAT'S RIGHT.
IT'S PLACED ON THE AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 23RD AND YOU WOULD DIRECT CITY STAFF TO CREATE AN AGENDA SHIP REFLECTING SUCH.
ALL RIGHT, THAT CONCLUDES THE PRELIMINARY HEARING ON THE COMPLAINT AGAINST MR. GRECO.
[4. A complaint filed by Betsy Greenberg against Kirk Watson raising claimed violations of City Charter, Article III (Elections), Section 8 (A)(3) (Limits on Contributions to Candidates)]
PROCEED, PROCEED TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM, WHICH IS A COMPLAINT FILED BY BETSY GREENBERG AGAINST KIRK WATSON RAISING CLAIMED VIOLATIONS OF CITY CHARTER ARTICLE THREE, SECTION EIGHT A THREE.UH, MS. GREENBERG, ONCE AGAIN, UH, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR 10 MINUTES.
CAN'T I HAVE 20
WELL, I'LL DO MY BEST, UM, BY SKIPPING SOME STUFF.
MY NAME IS BETSY GREENBERG STILL, AND I'M HERE TO PRESENT THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE ETHICS COMPLAINT COMPLAINTS I FILED AGAINST MAYOR KIRK WATSON, WHO'S CURRENTLY RUNNING FOR REELECTION.
I BELIEVE THAT MAYOR WATSON HAS
[00:35:01]
VIOLATED SAME CHARTER ARTICLE THREE, SECTION 8 8 3, WHICH LIMITS THE TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS A CANDIDATE MAY ACCEPT FROM OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN ZIP CODES.UM, SO I THINK I CAN SKIP THESE SLIDES, WHICH ARE EXACTLY THE SAME AS BEFORE, EXCEPT TO POINT OUT THAT WHEN THIS PARTICULAR CHARTER AMENDMENT PASSED, MR. WATSON WAS THE MAYOR IN HIS FIRST TERM IN OFFICE.
OKAY, SAME MEMO, NO DIFFERENCE.
UM, AND SAME, ALL OF THAT IS THE SAME.
UM, MY OPINION ABOUT THE CHARTER PROVISION IS STILL THE SAME.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS, BUT I THINK FOR TIME'S SAKE, I CAN CERTAINLY SKIP THE REPEATED SLIDES.
OKAY, SO HERE IS THE DATA FOR, UM, MR. WATSON, AND I'VE LOST THE PAGE.
UM, AGAIN, THIS WAS PROVIDED OR, UM, GATHERED USING THE CONTRIBUTIONS DATA SET AVAILABLE ON THE CITY OF AUSTIN OPEN PORTAL.
AND I ALSO DOUBLE CHECKED, UM, MAYOR WATSON'S REPORT FOR THE 2024, UM, WAS 469 PAGES.
SO I'M NOT GONNA SHOW IT TO YOU, BUT I REALLY DO HAVE IT IF YOU WANNA SEE IT.
UM, I SEPARATED THE CONTRIBUTIONS AGAIN INTO EXHIBITS A AND B, AND I'LL EXPLAIN WHY IN A MOMENT.
UM, BUT GOING THROUGH THIS, FIRST I'LL SUMMARIZE CONSIDERING ALL THE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ZIP CODES THAT ARE LISTED OUTSIDE OF THE CLERK'S ZIP CODE LIST, UM, MR. WATSON EXCEEDED THE $46,000 THRESHOLD ON MAY 20TH, 2024, AND HIS TOTAL DONATIONS FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN NATURAL PERSONS ELIGIBLE FOR VOTE IN POSTAL ZIP CODES ON THE CLERK'S LIST WAS 68,104 AND 77 CENTS FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD THAT ENDED ON JUNE 30TH.
EXHIBIT B IS LONGER IN THIS CASE.
IT INCLUDES CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ZIP CODES NOT LISTED ON THE CLERK'S MEMO.
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM SPECIFY A POST OFFICE BOX ADDRESS INSTEAD OF A RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS.
THESE ADDRESSES DO NOT PROVIDE THE NECESSARY INFORMATION TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THE DONOR IS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN A POSTAL ZIP CODE COMPLETELY OR PARTIALLY WITHIN AUSTIN CITY LIMITS.
SO TO BE CAUTIOUS AND NOT TO FILE A COMPLAINT WHERE I'M NOT SURE, I LOOKED ONLY AT THE CONTRIBUTIONS LISTED ON EXHIBIT A, WHICH ARE DEFINITELY CLAIMING ADDRESSES THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN AND OUTSIDE OF THE CLERK'S LIST.
SO CONSIDERING ONLY THE CONTRIBUTIONS LISTED ON EXHIBIT A, IN OTHER WORDS, THOSE THAT ARE NOT FROM ZIP CODES ON THE CLERK'S MEMO AND NOT LISTING AN AUSTIN, TEXAS ADDRESS, MAYOR WATSON STILL EXCEEDED THE $46,000 THRESHOLD FOR OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN CONTRIBUTIONS WITH A TOTAL OF 52,000 FIVE HUNDRED AND FOUR SEVENTY SEVEN BY THE END OF THE REPORTING PERIOD.
SO IT SEEMS CLEAR TO ME HE VIOLATED THE, UM, PROVISION IN 2024.
AND 2024 IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT KIRK WATSON ACCEPTED CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE THREE, SECTION EIGHT A THREE.
THE 2022 RUNOFF ELECTION WAS LESS THAN TWO YEARS AGO.
SO WITHIN THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AT THAT TIME, THE LIMIT FOR A RUNOFF WAS $30,000.
THESE LISTS ARE LABELED C AND D INSTEAD OF A AND B.
BUT AS BEFORE, I PREPARED THEM THE SAME WAY WITH THE CONTRIBUTIONS DATA SET FROM THE OPEN DATA PORTAL.
AND I CHECKED TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE ALL ON THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS.
HOWEVER, THERE WERE MULTIPLE REPORTS FILED FOR THE RUNOFF AND THERE WERE SOME DUPLICATES IN THE DATA SET.
AS YOU CAN SEE, OH, THERE IT IS.
I FOUND A $450 ERROR ON MY WATSON RUNOFF CALCULATIONS THAT WERE SUBMITTED WITH THE COMPLAINT.
MR. CASINO, HIS CAMPAIGN MANAGER, HAS CLAIMED THAT MY COMPLAINT IS WRONG AND THAT THEY WOULD PROVE IT AT THE HEARING.
OF COURSE, I'M HUMAN AND I CAN MAKE MISTAKES AND CORRECT MISTAKES.
I WOULD'VE BEEN HAPPY TO WITHDRAW THE COMPLAINT IF THEY HAD TOLD ME WHAT I DID WRONG.
HOWEVER, I HAVE RECEIVED NO INFORMATION FROM THE RESPONDENT THAT WOULD HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY MR. CASINO MADE THIS CLAIM,
[00:40:01]
UM, GOING ON.EXHIBIT D INCLUDES THE CONTRIBUTIONS, LISTING ADDRESSES, WHICH ARE POST OFFICE BOXES WITH ZIP CODES THAT ARE NOT ON THE CLERK'S LIST.
PEOPLE DON'T LIVE IN A POST OFFICE BOX, SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY LIVE.
SO I AGAIN CONSIDERED THE CONTRIBUTIONS BOTH WAYS, EITHER HERE, THIS IS THE TOTAL SUMMARY WHERE MR. WATSON EXCEEDED THE $30,000 THRESHOLD ALLOWED IN A RUNOFF ON NOVEMBER 11TH AND TOTALED 54,775 FOR THE RUNOFF.
BUT IF I ONLY LOOK AT THOSE, UM, CONTRIBUTIONS THAT ARE ON EXHIBIT C, WHICH AGAIN ARE THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE SAYING THEY DON'T LIVE IN AUSTIN, THEY DON'T LIVE IN A ZIP CODE, WHICH IS ON THE CLERK'S LIST, SO ONLY LOOKING AT C, THOSE ARE THE ONES I CONSIDER TO BE AS.
AND THE SUMMARY OF THE RUNOFF CONTRIBUTIONS TELLS THE SAME STORY CONSIDERING ONLY CONTRIBUTIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT C, MAYOR WATSON EXCEEDED THE $30,000 THRESHOLD ON NOVEMBER 27TH, 2022, AND TOTALED 40,000 SLIGHTLY MORE, UM, FOR THE RUNOFF.
UM, AGAIN, UM, I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT WHEN YOU REGISTER TO VOTE IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, YOU HAVE TO GIVE A RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS.
IT SAYS REALLY SPECIFICALLY THAT DO NOT INCLUDE POST OFFICE BOX, RURAL ROUTE, OR BUSINESS ADDRESSES.
THERE ARE ALSO INCLUDED IN THE DONOR LIST INDIVIDUALS OF EXAMPLES WHO PROVIDED A BUSINESS ADDRESS.
SO AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY LIVE, AND IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO VERIFY THAT THEY LIVE IN A ZIP CODE WITHIN THE CLERK'S LIST.
OKAY, MS. GREENBERG, TWO MINUTES.
THE PROVIDED INFORMATION DOES NOT ALLOW VERIFICATION OF WHETHER THE CONTRIBUTIONS ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN A POSTAL ZIP CODE COMPLETELY OR PARTIALLY WITHIN THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
UM, BUT THIS IS A SAMPLE, NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST, AND I NEVER DID ANYTHING WITH ANYBODY WHO PUT A BUSINESS ADDRESS IF IT WAS WITHIN THE ZIP CODE ENVELOPE.
UM, SO CONSIDERING ONLY THE ONES THAT WERE LISTED IN EXHIBIT C, HE WENT OVER THE THRESHOLD FOR A RUNOFF.
AGAIN, THIS IS A PRELIMINARY HEARING.
UM, SO YOUR JOB IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE'S REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OF A PROVISION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION HAS OCCURRED.
WATSON VIOLATED THE CHARTER ARTICLE THREE, SECTION EIGHT A THREE BY EXCEEDING THE AGGREGATE LIMIT FOR CONTRIBUTIONS IN BOTH 2024 AND THE 2022 RUNOFF.
IF THE COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS, THEN YOU GO TO A FINAL HEARING.
UM, IF THIS LAW IS TO BE ENFORCED GOING FORWARD, WHICH I THINK WE ALL KNOW IS UNCLEAR, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT CONTRIBUTORS NEED TO PROVIDE THEIR RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS AND THAT CONTRIBUTORS CAN BE RESTRICTED TO NOT JUST GIVE A POST OFFICE BOX OR A BUSINESS ADDRESS SO THAT GOING FORWARD YOU CAN ACTUALLY TELL WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE LIVE IN THE ZIP CODES AND ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE.
AGAIN, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND MAYBE YOU WANNA WAIT UNTIL YOU HEAR FROM THE RESPONDENT, AND ACTUALLY, UNLESS THERE'S AN OBJECTION, I THINK THAT IS THE, THE BETTER WAY TO PROCEED.
UM, SO IF YOU'LL STAND BY AND THEN WE'LL HEAR FROM MAYOR WATSONS.
UM, CHAIR, COMMISSIONER'S COUNSEL.
I'VE PRACTICED, UH, CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND ELECTION LAW SINCE THE 1980S.
UM, THIS INCLUDES REPRESENTING, UM, MAYOR WATSON AND HIS EARLIER CAMPAIGNS, UH, IN 1990S AND SENATE AND CURRENT CAMPAIGNS.
UM, I'VE ALSO, IN THE INTEREST OF FULL DISCLOSURE, I'VE ACTED AS SPECIAL COUNSEL TO THIS COMMISSION, UM, ON NUMEROUS
[00:45:01]
OCCASIONS.AND I'VE REPRESENTED RESPONDENTS, UH, ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS BEFORE THIS COMMISSION.
SO, UH, I'M, I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH BOTH THE CITY OF AUSTIN CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW AND TEXAS CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW.
AND THE THING THAT IS MOST IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMISSION TO UNDERSTAND IS THE COMPLAINT IS BASED ON A MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE CANDIDATE OFFICE HOLDER, COH REPORT AND SPECIFICALLY SCHEDULE A ONE.
UM, SCHEDULE A ONE IS WHERE A CANDIDATE, UH, OR CAMPAIGN REPORTS CONTRIBUTIONS.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT IT, IT HAS A BOX FOR ADDRESS CITY, STATE, AND ZIP CODE.
YOU CAN GO TO THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION GUIDANCE IF YOU WANT THAT FLESHED OUT.
AND FOR CONTRIBUTOR ADDRESS, IT SAYS, ENTER THE COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE CONTRIBUTOR.
THERE'S NOTHING IN TEXAS LAW OR IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN CAMPAIGN ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES ANY CONTRIBUTOR TO TELL A CAMPAIGN THEIR HOME OR RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS.
IT'S EXTREMELY COMMON IN TEXAS AND HAS BEEN FOR THE 40 SOME YEARS I PRACTICED LAW INDIVIDUALS USE PO BOXES.
INDIVIDUALS MAY USE SECOND HOMES, INDIVIDUALS MAY USE, UH, AN ADDRESS WHERE THEY RECEIVE MAIL, BUT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT ANY INDIVIDUAL DISCLOSE, UH, A HOME OR RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS.
THIS IS NOT AT ALL LIKE REGISTERING TO VOTE.
NOW, THE WATSON CAMPAIGN, UNLIKE ANY OTHER CAMPAIGN I'M AWARE OF IN AUSTIN, AND BEFORE I GO INTO THIS, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, DID ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION GET THE MAYOR'S STATEMENT AND EXHIBITS, WHICH WE FILED WITH THE COUNCIL ON SATURDAY? THE THERE WERE MATERIAL, MR. COWER WAS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD CHAIR, BUT IT WAS CONSIDERED TO BE EVIDENCE.
AND SO IT WAS NOT CIRCULATED TO THE COMMISSION AS A WHOLE FOR THIS HEARING.
UH, MAY, MAY I PROVIDE THAT TO THE COMMISSIONERS AT THIS TIME, AND I AM SORRY YOU'VE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THIS.
DO YOU WANT ME TO CIRCULATE IT? LLOYD, DO YOU HAVE A PREFERENCE? I GUESS THE CLOCK'S TICKING.
I DON'T, THERE SHOULD BE ENOUGH.
WILL YOU PAUSE HIS TIME JUST FOR A SECOND? I WANT TO SO, COURSE, I'M SORRY, START AGAIN.
NOW WHAT? MAYOR WATSON'S, HOLD ON ONE SECOND.
MR. COWER, THE QUESTION IS, RIGHT, I MEAN, I'M GONNA, SO RULE, UM, MR. COWER, THE, THE RULES GOVERNING OUR HEARING SAY THAT THE EVIDENCE CAN BE DESCRIBED IN NARRATIVE FORM.
SO I'M GONNA ASK YOU TO LIMIT IT, LIMIT YOUR DESCRIPTION TO THE NARRATIVE FORM.
UM, AND I DON'T THINK WE'RE PERMITTED TO ACCEPT EXHIBITS AT THIS TIME.
AND ALSO THIS IS ALL UNDER OATH.
UM, LOOK, THIS WAS ALL PRE-FILED, CHAIRMAN, WELL, THERE'S NOT REALLY, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A FILING SYSTEM HERE.
IT WAS, IT WAS EMAILED IN, UM, BUT NEVERTHELESS, IT'S NOT, UH, I, I DON'T, THE CHAIR IS RULING THAT IT'S NOT A, A PROPER EXHIBIT TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION.
I UNDERSTAND THE CHAIR'S RULING IT.
IT'S QUITE CONTRARY TO PREVIOUS PRACTICE IN MY OWN EXPERIENCE ADVISING THIS COMMISSION AND REPRESENTING.
BUT I UNDERSTAND YOUR, AND I'LL RESPECT YOUR RULING.
THE MAYOR, MAYOR, THE WATSON CAMPAIGN CONTINUES TO, UH, WITH ITS, UH, CAMPAIGN FINANCE CONSULTANT SUSAN HARI, WHO HAS WORKED FOR THE WATSON CAMPAIGN SINCE THE 1990S, ASKS CONTRIBUTORS ON FOR THE INFORMATION ON SCHEDULE A ONE, WHICH IS THE ADDRESS, AND THEY GO BEYOND THAT AND THEY ASK THE CONTRIBUTOR, WHAT IS YOUR HOME ADDRESS ON THIS PAGE OF THE EXHIBIT, THERE'S INFORMATION ON THE WATSON CAMPAIGN WEBSITE, AND ON EVERY CONTRIBUTION FORM SAYS, WE CAN ONLY ACCEPT CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PERSONS RESIDING IN THE FOLLOWING ZIP CODES.
AND THEN THERE IS A QUESTION THAT SAYS,
[00:50:01]
HOME ZIP CODE MUST LIVE IN A ZIP CODE LISTED ON TOP OF THIS FORM.ATTACHMENT A TO THE WATSON, UH, STATEMENT IS A LIST OF THE CONTRIBUTORS IN 2024 THAT THE WATSON CAMPAIGN AGREES ARE FROM ZIP CODES OUTSIDE THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
AND THE TOTAL OF THE CONTRIBUTION FROM THOSE INDIVIDUALS IS 45,000.
WE VERIFIED THEIR HOME ADDRESS, THEIR HOME ADDRESS IS OUTSIDE THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
ATTACHMENT B TO THE WATSON RESPONSE IS INDIVIDUALS WHOSE SCHEDULE A ONE HAD ZIP CODES OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN, BUT WHO RESPONDED TO THE CAMPAIGN WHEN ASKED WHAT IS YOUR HOME ZIP CODE? AND THEY PROVIDED A HOME ZIP CODE WITHIN THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
THEY MIGHT HAVE PREVIOUSLY GIVEN A PO BOX OR A BUSINESS ADDRESS OR A VACATION HOME.
THE TOTAL FROM THOSE CONTRIBUTORS IS 23,000.
SO THE TOTAL AMOUNT FROM ZIP CODES NOT PERMITTED IN AUSTIN IS WITHIN THE ZIP CODE LIMIT.
EXHIBIT C IS THE SAME DOCUMENT FOR 2022.
IT LISTS CONTRIBUTORS FROM OUTSIDE AUSTIN ZIP CODE.
THEY GAVE US THE INFORMATION FOR SCHEDULE A ONE.
WE AGREED THAT THEY'RE FROM THE OUTSIDE THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
AND THE TOTAL FROM THOSE CONTRIBUTORS IN 2022 WAS $27,725 ATTACHMENT D, WHEN WE ASK THE CONTRIBUTORS, WHAT IS YOUR HOME ZIP CODE? AN ADDITIONAL 50, SOME CONTRIBUTORS IN 2022 RESPONDED, MY HOME ZIP CODE IS ONE OF THE HOME, ONE OF THE ZIP CODES, NETTE AUSTIN.
AND THE AMOUNT FROM THOSE CONTRIBUTORS IN 2022 WAS $27,050.
SO THE WATSON CAMPAIGN AND THE MAYOR RESPECT THIS RULE.
WE HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THIS RULE SINCE THE LATE 1990S.
I'M NOT AWARE OF ANOTHER CAMPAIGN THAT GOES TO THE SAME MEASURES.
NOT ONLY TO GATHER THE ADDRESS, TO LIST ON SCHEDULE A ONE, BUT TO ASK PEOPLE, TELL US YOUR HOME ZIP CODE AND TO ADVISE THEM ON ALL CAMPAIGN MATERIALS SAYING IF YOU LIVE IN ONE OF THESE ZIP CODES, YOU MAY CONTRIBUTE.
IF NOT, ONCE WE'VE REACHED THE MAX AND WE HAVE REACHED THE MAX, WE DO NOT ACCEPT THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS.
WE HAVE NOT ACCEPTED A CONTRIBUTION FROM OUTSIDE THE CITY OF AUSTIN BASIC ZIP CODES SINCE THAT WAS MAXED OUT SEVERAL MONTHS AGO.
AND YOU KNOW, WITH ALL RESPECT, COMMISSIONERS, YOU CAN'T JUST LOOK AT A SCHEDULE A ONE BECAUSE SCHEDULE A ONE IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF A HOME OR RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS.
THAT'S WHY WE WE GO BEYOND IT.
SO COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE PROVIDED THIS TO YOU IN SUMMARY FORM, BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR YOU TO KNOW IS THIS CAMPAIGN IS DILIGENT IN TAKING STEPS TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES.
IT DOES COMPLY WITH THE RULES AND IT HAS THE DOCUMENTARY SUPPORT TO SHOW THAT IT'S COMPLYING WITH THE RULES.
I'M, I'M SORRY YOU'RE NOT EACH ABLE TO REVIEW THIS DOCUMENTATION, BUT IT'S VERY CAREFULLY DOCUMENTED.
IF YOU GO TO THE WATSON WEBSITE TODAY AND TRY TO CONTRIBUTE FROM A, A ZIP CODE NOT ON THE LIST, IT'S NOT ACCEPTED.
IF A CHECK COMES IN WHERE WE DON'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VET IT ELECTRONICALLY, WE DON'T ACCEPT THAT CHECK BEFORE THE END OF THE REPORTING PERIOD.
SO COMMISSIONERS, I THINK THE, BASED ON THIS RESPONSE, BASED ON THE WORK THIS CAMPAIGN HAS DONE, BASED ON THE CAMPAIGN'S OWN FORMS, THERE ARE NOT REASONABLE GROUNDS TO CONCLUDE THAT THE WATSON CAMPAIGN VIOLATED THE ZIP CODE LIMIT EITHER IN 2022 OR THIS YEAR.
AND IT IS NOT, IT IS NOT IN VIOLATION AND IT WILL NOT BE IN VIOLATION BECAUSE WE HAVE THE STEPS TO COMPLY.
AND I'M HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS.
UH, MS. GREENBERG, IF YOU WANT TO COME BACK UP TO THE TABLE, WE WILL OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS FOR,
[00:55:01]
UH, MR. COWER.UM, I'M SORRY I CAN'T GIVE IT TO YOU.
DOES THE COMMISSION HAVE, AND AND ACTUALLY I, I BELIEVE YOU WERE DECLINING TO GIVE A COPY OF YOUR DOCUMENT TO MS. GREENBERG.
WELL, IF, IF THE COMMISSIONERS CAN RECEIVE IT.
I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE, UH, COMPLAINANT.
DID YOU JUST DEC DECLINE? AND I'M NOT CRITICIZING IT.
I'M JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND.
WELL, I DON'T WANT TO GIVE HER SOMETHING THAT THE COMMISSION CANNOT REVIEW IT.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE MY RULING ON THAT WAS CLEAR.
IT DOESN'T PREVENT YOU FROM GIVING IT TO MS. GREENBERG.
I JUST DON'T WANT TO BE UNCLEAR ON IT.
WE'LL, WE'LL DISCUSS IT OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE COMMISSION.
CAN I ASK, I'M SORRY, WHO? OH, YOU AND MS. GREENBERG? YES, I GOTCHA, YOU.
I'M GONNA, SO ALL, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT FOR THE PROCESS, I WOULD LIKE A LITTLE MORE CLARITY ON WHY WE'RE NOT ABLE TO SEE THAT INFORMATION FROM MR. ER COWER.
UM, IT'S BECAUSE THE, THE RULES THAT GOVERN THIS HEARING SAY THAT THE RESPONDENT AND I'LL, I'M JUST READING IT FROM TWO DASH SEVEN DASH FOUR FOUR B.
UH, THE SECOND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT MAY DESCRIBE IN NARRATIVE FORM THE TESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD BE PRESENTED TO DISPROVE THE ALLEGED VIOLATION.
UH, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT MS. GREENBERG WAS SHOWING US IS THAT THOSE WERE PART OF THE COMPLAINT.
AND, UM, SO THAT'S SORT OF, THAT'S IN THE RECORD.
UM, AND SO THAT, THAT'S THE BASIS OF MY RULING.
THAT MAKES SENSE ONCE I'M LOOKING AT THE CODE.
UH, ANY QUESTIONS FOR EITHER MR. COWER OR MS. GREENBERG FROM THE COMMISSION? UH, SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS. MS. GREENBERG, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY DISTINCTION, UH, WITH THE CODE BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL DONOR TYPE VERSUS ENTITY DONOR TYPE? YES.
UM, ENTITIES ARE NOT THE NATURAL PERSONS.
THERE WERE NO ENTITIES LISTED ON MAYOR WATSON'S 2024, UM, CONTRIBUTIONS.
AND THERE WERE ON THE RUNOFF, BUT ENTITIES ARE NOT CONSIDERED NATURAL PERSONS.
AND SO I WOULD TREAT THEM LIKE THEY'RE OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN AND IT'S CLEARLY LISTED WHAT'S AN INDIVIDUAL AND WHAT'S AN ENTITY ON THE LIST IN EXHIBITS SAY C AND D? YEAH, I DO SEE THAT IT'S CLEARLY LISTED.
I AM HAVING TROUBLE RECONCILING WHETHER THE, THE ENTITIES SHOULD BE ON A SEPARATE LIST OR REMOVED FROM THE LIST.
BECAUSE ARE, IS IT NOT A DIFFERENT REQUIREMENT IF IT'S A, AN ENTITY VERSUS AN INDIVIDUAL? I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
I MEAN, IT SAYS NATURAL PERSONS ENTITIES DON'T QUALIFY AS NATURAL PERSONS.
SO I PUT THEM ON LIST C OR A BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT NATURAL PERSONS.
I THINK THERE WERE NONE ON THIS DAY THOUGH.
SO FOR, FOR ZIP CODES THAT ARE NOT ON THE CLERK'S LIST, OR NO, EXCUSE ME, ZIP CODES THAT ARE DEEMED TO NOT BE, UH, WHAT IS THE TERM ENTIRELY IN AUSTIN OR PARTIALLY IN AUSTIN? YES.
SO THAT LIST COULD INCLUDE OR WOULD INCLUDE ENTITIES AS WELL.
ENTITIES CAN BE AT ANY ZIP CODE, BUT AN ENTITY IS NOT A NATURAL PERSON.
LET ME THINK THROUGH MORE WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
LOWE, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YES.
FOR MR. COWER FIRST, BUT POSSIBLY FOR BOTH? UM, WHEN YOU WERE DISCUSSING THE A ONE, UH, LET'S START WITH THE SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT, WHICH IS THE MOST RECENT ONE THAT MUCH OF THIS COMES FROM.
UM, YOU WERE DESCRIBING A PROCEDURE IN WHICH THERE'S A WEBSITE NOTIFICATION.
THERE'S ALSO SOME CONTACT FROM THE CAMPAIGN TO THE CONTRIBUTOR.
IF THERE IS ANY QUESTION ABOUT THE ZIP CODE OR RESIDENCY OR ANY OTHER INFORMATION THAT YOU WOULD OTHERWISE THAT, THAT YOU WOULD AND WOULD HAVE TO LIST ON THE A ONE.
[01:00:01]
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.IT'S, IT'S ON, ON BOTH THE WEBSITE AND ALL, ALL PRINTED SOLICITATIONS.
AND AT ANY CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING EVENT, UH, THE PERSON'S ACCEPTING CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSTRUCTED TO INQUIRE AS TO THE HOME ZIP CODE OF THE CONTRIBUTOR.
SO THAT HAPPENS SOMETIME BETWEEN WHEN THE CAMPAIGN RECEIVES THE CONTRIBUTION MAIL ONLINE, WHATEVER, AND THE DATE IT IS REPORTED ON THE SEMI-ANNUAL, IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, THE CAMPAIGN KEEPS A RUNNING TOTAL.
AND AS, AS WE APPROACH THE CUTOFF, WHICH WAS 46,000 AND IS NOW 47,000, THE CAMPAIGN STOPS ACCEPTING ELECTRONIC CONTRIBUTIONS WITHOUT, UH, THE, UNLESS IT HAS A HOME ZIP CODE DECLARED BY THE CONTRIBUTOR.
AND IF SOMETHING COMES IN BY MAIL UNDER TEXAS LAW, YOU HAVE UNTIL THE END OF A REPORTING PERIOD TO RETURN A CONTRIBUTION AND IT'S NOT CONSIDERED ACCEPTED SO THAT THE CAMPAIGN KNOWS WHEN IT IS IT NEW IN 2022 WHEN IT HIT THE $30,000 LIMIT AND IT NO NEW IN 2024 WHEN IT HIT THE $46,000 LIMIT.
SO BEFORE FILLING OUT THE A ONE, YOU HAD ALREADY MADE THAT DETERMINATION YES.
FOR EVERY CONTRIBUTION THAT WAS ON THE A ONE.
IF THE CONTRIBUTION, UM, IF BOTH THE, THE CONTRIBUTOR'S ADDRESS WAS FROM AN ADDRESS WITHIN THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND THE DECLARED HOME ADDRESS WAS WITHIN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, THEN THERE'S NO FURTHER QUESTION.
THE QUESTION ARISES WHEN THE CONTRIBUTOR STATES AND ADDRESS ON THAT GOES ON SCHEDULE A ONE THAT IS LIKE A PO BOX OR AN OUTSIDE THE CITY OF AUSTIN ADDRESS.
BUT THEN THEY SAY, MY HOME ADDRESS, MY HOME ZIP CODE IS 7 8 7 0 3.
SO WE, WE KNOW BEFORE THE, THE FORM COH IS CONTRIBUTE IS COMPLETED WHETHER WE HAVE A ZIP CODE LIMIT CONTRIBUTOR OR AN OUTSIDE ZIP CODE LIMIT CONTRIBUTOR.
SO YOU KEEP A RUNNING TOTAL, YOU KNOW, EVERY SINGLE DAY WHERE YOU ARE TOWARD THAT TOTAL? I DON'T DO TOWARD THE, UH, AGGREGATE, YES, WE HAVE, YES, WE HAVE VERY CAPABLE PROFESSIONAL, UM, REPORTING AND COMPLIANCE STAFF THAT WE'RE, IT'S, IT'S THE SAME IT INDIVIDUAL AND HER COMPANY WHO HAS WORKED WITH MAYOR WATSON SINCE 1997, TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
AND SHE ALSO HANDLES A LARGE NUMBER OF OTHER CAMPAIGN.
AND BY THE WAY, THE CITY OF AUSTIN IS THE ONLY ORGANIZATION THAT I DEAL WITH OR THAT MS. HARRI DEALS WITH WHERE WE HAVE TO DO THIS.
AND I, I'M NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT THIS, I'M JUST SAYING IT'S VERY UNUSUAL IN CAMPAIGN FINANCE TO HAVE TO TRACK A HOMES, EXCUSE ME, A HOME ZIP CODE OF YOUR CONTRIBUTORS BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT FOR FEDERAL LAW.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT FOR STATE RACES.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT FOR COUNTY RACES.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT FOR SCHOOL BOARD RACES.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT IN WESTLAKE HILLS OR IN GEORGETOWN OR ROUND ROCK.
IT'S A CITY OF AUSTIN REQUIREMENT.
AND YOU KNOW, WE WORK TO COMPLY WITH IT, BUT IT'S AN EXTRA STEP THAT YOU ONLY HAVE TO DO WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO COMPLY WITH THE AUSTIN LIMIT.
BUT YOU'RE SAYING THIS WHOLE COMPLIANCE PROCEDURE THAT YOU HAVE IN PLACE, UM, IS SOMETHING THAT KEEPS A RUNNING TOTAL THAT NOTIFIES YOU THAT SOMETHING MAY AMISS AND THAT YOU VERIFY AND IT IS ONLY AFTER ALL OF THAT THEN IT GETS ON THE A ONE? I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THE LAST QUESTION? IT IS ONLY AFTER YOU'VE DONE ALL THAT VERIFICATION THAT IT IS THEN LISTED ON THE A ONE TO BE FILED ON ON JULY 15TH.
THE A ONE ADDRESS IS, IS GATHERED ON A RUNNING BASIS.
THE A ONE ADDRESS IS GONNA BE THE SAME REGARDLESS.
THE QUESTION IS WHERE IS THE INDIVIDUAL'S HOME ZIP CODE AND THAT'S THE INFORMATION THAT'S GATHERED SEPARATELY FROM THE A ONE ADDRESS.
SO IF THE CONTRIBUTION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED, THE A ONE, THE SCHEDULE A ONE IS GONNA BE FILLED OUT IN THE SAME WAY.
BUT IF THE CONTRIBUTION IS NOT ACCEPTED, THEN IT WILL NEVER APPEAR ON THE A ONE.
UM, MS. GREENBERG, COULD YOU RESPOND TO THAT? NO, UM, NOT VERY EASILY.
I MEAN, I, I FEEL LIKE THIS WHOLE PROCESS IS LACKING IN TRANSPARENCY.
UM, AS I MENTIONED IN MY PRESENTATION, IF, IF THERE WAS SOMETHING
[01:05:01]
THAT I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND, THERE WAS NO REASON NOT TO EXPLAIN IT TO ME IN ADVANCE.I CANNOT LOOK AT THIS AT THE HEARING TO VERIFY WHAT'S WHAT.
THERE'S, THERE'S NO WAY, UM, TO VERIFY THIS IN THE MOMENT.
I, I WISH I WOULD'VE BEEN PROVIDED THIS INFORMATION AROUND THE TIME WHEN THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED BECAUSE THIS INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE AROUND THE TIME WHEN THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED.
THE COMMISSION ALSO SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED THIS INFORMATION IN A TIMELY MANNER.
BUT AS A BROADER ISSUE, THIS WHOLE CONCEPT OR THIS WHOLE MECHANISM FOR, UM, VERIFYING ADDRESSES, CAN YOU COMMENT ON HOW YOU THINK, THINK THE LAW APPLIES TO THAT? UH, AS PART OF YOUR COMPLAINT? I'M NOT A LAWYER.
NO, WELL, I MEAN, BUT YOUR COMPLAINT IS BASICALLY SAYING THAT REGARDLESS OF THE I COMPLIANCE MECHANISMS, IT'S, IT'S, SORRY, I'M SORRY.
I, I'M, I'M JUST ASKING IF, IF YOUR VIEW IS THAT, UM, REGARDLESS OF ANY OF THESE COMPLIANCE MECHANISMS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE EXISTED, UM, THE DOCUMENTS AND THE DATA YOU HAVE PROVIDED TO US SHOWS, UM, IT IS A COMPLAINT THAT, THAT YOU FEEL SHOWS A VIOLATION REGARDLESS OF WHAT ANY OF THE OTHER, UH, INFORMATION THAT MR. COWER GAVE US.
I THINK IT'S REASONABLE TO ASSUME, AS I DID THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE CAMPAIGN, UM, C AND E AND ON THE, THE CITY'S WEBSITE, WHICH MATCHES, UM, WHICH IS PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC FOR PURPOSES OF TRANSPARENCY.
MM-HMM,
THOSE PEOPLE ARE GIVING ADDRESSES THAT ARE NOT INSIDE THE ENVELOPE OF ZIP CODES.
AND STILL THEY'RE SAYING IN AUSTIN, TEXAS.
SO I DON'T WANNA SAY THEY'RE NOT INSIDE OF AUSTIN.
UM, BUT AGAIN, I, I SHOULD BE ABLE TO RELY ON THE INFORMATION THAT'S SUBMITTED FOR THE PUBLIC.
UM, I UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU WERE SAYING ABOUT YOUR PROCESS AND I APPRECIATE IT.
AND I THINK, I THINK ONE OF THE ISSUES FOR US RIGHT NOW, IT'S A PROCESS ISSUE.
IN OTHER WORDS, WE HAVE A CERTAIN COMPLAINT, WHICH I WILL SAY TENTATIVELY WOULD PROVIDE REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR ANOTHER HEARING, NOT FOR A DECISION FOR, FOR ANOTHER HEARING.
AND WE HAVE NOT YET RECEIVED AS COMMISSIONERS, YOU KNOW, FOR WHATEVER PROCESS REASON WHAT, WHAT YOU SUBMITTED FRIDAY OR SATURDAY, WHENEVER IT WAS.
UM, AND SO I WOULD TENTATIVELY SAY WE HAVE REASONS TO PROCEED TO ANOTHER HEARING IF YOU HAD PROVIDED MS. GREENBERG WITH THAT INFORMATION SOONER.
'CAUSE THE, THE, THE PROCESS YOU DESCRIBED SEEMED VERY DILIGENT OKAY.
BUT SINCE IT WASN'T PROVIDED TO MS. GREENBERG, THEN WE HAVE A CERTAIN COMPLAINT TO DEAL WITH.
SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? UH, COMMISSIONER, IF, IF I CAN REPLY, I, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE KIND OF GETTING IT COMING AND GOING HERE BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING IN THE, THE COMMISSION'S RULES, NOTHING IN THE ORDINANCE, UH, NOTHING IN THE BYLAWS THAT SUGGESTS THAT A RESPONDENT SHOULD DEAL DIRECTLY WITH A COMPLAINANT.
AND IN THE, THE 30 PLUS YEARS I'VE BEEN DEALING WITH THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION, I MEAN, REALLY GOING BACK TO 1985, SO IT'S CLOSER TO 40 YEARS.
I, I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF AN INSTANCE IN WHICH RESPONDENTS AND COMPLAINANTS KIND OF PRIVATELY EXCHANGE ACCUSATIONS AND REFUTATIONS, THAT'S WHY THE COMMISSION IS HERE, BECAUSE YOU, THE COMMISSIONERS ARE SUPPOSED TO MAKE THESE DETERMINATIONS.
SO, UM, WHAT, WHAT YOU'RE, WHAT MS. GREENBERG IS SUGGESTING, IF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO WRITE THAT INTO THE RULES AND CREATE SOME KIND OF MEDIATION PROCESS OR EXCHANGE OF, OF, YOU KNOW, COMPLAINTS AND RESPONSES OUTSIDE THE COMMISSION PROCESS, THAT'S FINE.
BUT I'M, I'M KIND OF HEARING, WELL, YOU SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED DOCUMENTATION TO THE COMPLAINANT, BUT YOU SHOULD, BUT I'M NOT ALLOWED TO PROVIDE IT TO THE COMMISSIONERS.
[01:10:01]
THE RULES ARE HERE.I THINK WE HAVE MADE A PRIMA FACIA CASE THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO COLORABLE VIOLATION HERE.
THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS ADOPTED FORM COH IN ITS CAMPAIGN FINANCE ORDINANCE, AND THIS IS A STATE FORM, AND THIS IS THE ONE WE USE, AND IT DOES NOT INCLUDE A REQUIREMENT OF A RESIDENTIAL OR HOME ADDRESS.
NOW, THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS OTHER FORMS YOU HAVE TO FILL OUT THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HOME OR RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS OF A CONTRIBUTOR.
I MEAN, THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS FORMS THAT POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES HAVE TO FILL OUT IF THEY MAKE INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES THAT ARE NOT STATE FORMS. I MEAN, THE CITY OF AUSTIN CAN COME UP WITH ITS OWN FORMS AND IT'S DONE, AND IT'S DONE IT IN THE PAST, BUT WE, WE FILE OUR CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS ON A <