[00:00:02]
[CALL TO ORDER]
MY NAME IS SECRETARY.I'M SECRETARY WYNN STANTON ADAMS. AND TODAY I WILL BE FACILITATING THIS AND RUNNING THIS MEETING IN THE ABSENCE OF OUR CHAIR AS WELL AS OUR VICE CHAIR.
SO IN THIS ROLE, I NOW CALL TO ORDER THIS MEETING AT 6:24 PM EXCUSE ME, LET ME JUST DO IT PROPER AND, UH, RESTATE THAT.
I'M WAYNE STANTON ADAMS, UH, SECRETARY, BUT FUNCTIONING AS THE, UH, THE CHAIR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION.
AND I NOW CALL THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER.
MAY WE KEEP THE TIME OF 6:24 PM IT WAS JUST A MINUTE AGO.
ALRIGHT, IT IS NOVEMBER 13TH AND, UH, 6:24 PM WE ARE AT THE PERMITTING AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER IN PDC, ROOM NUMBER 14 0 5.
ADDRESS 63 10 WILLAMINA DELCO DRIVE, AUSTIN, TEXAS SEVEN EIGHT SEVEN FIVE TWO.
WE KNOW THAT CHAIR MICHAEL LEVINS IS ABSENT AS WELL AS VICE CHAIR HACK.
UH, VICE CHAIR LOWE IS ABSENT MYSELF AS SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS. I AM PRESENT.
WE'LL NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA IS JOINING REMOTELY.
COMMISSIONER FIGARO FIGUEROA PRESENT, ALSO NOTING THAT COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA IS JOINING REMOTELY.
COMMISSIONER KA ALSO IS JOINING REMOTELY.
UM, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER UR IS ABSENT.
DO WE HAVE COMMISSIONER MCGIVEN PRESENT? ALL RIGHT.
AND COMMISSIONER POEY PRESENT.
UM, WE'VE ALREADY STATED WHO, WHICH COMMISSIONERS ARE ATTENDING VIRTUALLY.
UH, NEXT IS PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS SIGNED UP? OH, THERE.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKERS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, SO WE ARE MOVING FORWARD ON THE AGENDA TO THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.
UM, LET ME EXPLAIN WHAT THAT IS.
[EXECUTIVE SESSION]
THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION WILL NOW GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 5 51, UM, 0 71.AND FORGIVE ME, I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY, SO I, I MAY BE MISREADING HOW TO CITE THAT OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE TO RECEIVE ADVICE FROM LEGAL COUNSEL ON ANY MATTER LISTED IN THIS AGENDA.
UM, WE ARE GONNA GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO, A COMPLAINT FILED BY BETSY GREENBERG AGAINST KIRK WATSON RAISING CLAIM TO VIOLATIONS OF CITY CHARTER ARTICLE THREE WITH ELECTIONS SECTION EIGHT A THREE LIMITS ON CONTRIBUTIONS TO CANDIDATES.
WE WILL ALSO DURING THIS EXECUTIVE SESSION DISCUSS, UM, ANOTHER AGENDA ITEM, UH, COMP A COMPLAINT FILED BY BETSY GREENBERG AGAINST DOUGLAS GRECO RAISING CLAIMED VIOLATIONS OF CITY CHARTER ARTICLE THREE ELECTIONS SECTION EIGHT A THREE LIMITS ON CONTRIBUTIONS TO CANDIDATES.
ALRIGHT, AT THIS TIME WE SHALL CONVENE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND WE WILL BE BACK
[00:05:03]
OUT OF CLOSED SESSION.THE TIME IS 7:19 PM ENCLOSED SESSION.
WE TOOK UP AND DISCUSSED LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO TWO CASES WE WILL REFER TO AS THE GREENBERG WATSON CASE AND THE GREENBERG GRECO CASE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE, EVERYONE THIS EVENING.
[3. 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).]
LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE PROCEDURES FOR THIS FINAL HEARING.FIRST WILL BE THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE PARTIES PRESENT.
SO STARTING WITH THE COMPLAINANT, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND THEN COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT.
PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF IF, UH, IF THAT IS, UM, APPLICABLE.
UM, MY NAME IS BETSY GREENBERG.
AND THEN ALSO, ARE WE HANDLING THIS IN BOTH? OKAY.
WE WILL FOCUS ON, BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO CASES, WE ARE FOCUSING ON THE GREENBERG WATSON CASE, UM, TO START OUT WITH, OKAY, LET ME DESCRIBE THE PROCEEDING.
THIS IS A FINAL HEARING HELD UNDER ARTICLE TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 45 OF THE AUSTIN CITY CODE.
THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON JULY 31ST, 2024.
PURSUANT TO ARTICLE TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 41, A PRELIMINARY HEARING WAS PREVIOUSLY HELD WHERE THE COMMISSION DETERMINED THAT THERE WERE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION DID OCCUR AND TO PROCEED TO A FINAL HEARING.
THE ISSUE AT THE FINAL HEARING SHALL BE WHETHER A VIOLATION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION HAS OCCURRED.
THE COMPLAINANT CARRIES THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO ESTABLISH A VIOLATION.
THE COMMISSION SHALL MAKE ITS DETERMINATION BASED ON THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PARTIES.
THE COMMISSION WILL ALSO CONSIDER THE ADMISSIONS, IF ANY OF THE RESPONDENT.
IF THE RESPONDENT AGREES THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, THE RESPONDENT MAY SO STATE AND THE COMMISSION MAY CONSIDER THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION OR PROSECUTION.
COMPLAINANT HAS THE RIGHT TO OPEN AND CLOSE THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT.
THE RESPONDENT MAY BUT IS NOT REQUIRED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND ANY ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING ITS DEFENSE, THE COMPLAINANT MAY BE PERMITTED TO PRESENT REBUTTAL EVIDENCE ON ANY DEFENSE RAISED IN THE RESPONDENT'S PRESENTATION.
THE CHAIR HAS THE OPTION OF ALLOWING PARTIES TO PRESENT A SHORT CLOSING STATEMENT SUMMARIZING THE EVIDENCE AND WHAT THE PARTIES BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE PROVES OR FAILS TO PROVE.
WE WILL PROCEED WITH OPENING STATEMENTS AT THIS TIME.
THE COMPLAINANT IS ALLOWED 10 MINUTES TO PRESENT THEIR POSITION ADDRESSING ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT, INCLUDING A SUMMARY OF DOCUMENTS AND WITNESS TESTIMONY TO BE PRESENTED.
THE RESPONDENT WILL THEN BE ALLOWED ALSO 10 MINUTES TO RESPOND AND EITHER PARTY, YOU MAY RESERVE ANY REMAINING TIME OF THAT 10 MINUTES AFTER YOUR, YOUR STATEMENT FOR REBUTTAL.
TOTAL TIME REMAINS 10 MINUTES.
ALL WITNESSES, THE COMPLAINANT AND RESPONDENT MUST MAKE THEIR STATEMENTS UNDER OATH.
THE COMMISSION MAY ALSO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE COMPLAINANT AND RESPONDENT OR ANY OTHER WITNESSES PRESENT.
THE PARTIES ARE INSTRUCTED TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS AND REFRAIN FROM INTERJECTING COMMENTS OR INTERRUPTING THE COMMISSIONERS OR OTHER PARTY'S PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE.
THE CHAIR REQUESTS THAT ANY QUESTIONS REFRAIN FROM LEADING A WITNESS UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY THE CHAIR OR PRESIDING MEMBER.
OPPOSING PARTIES SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESSES AFTER THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE, THE COMMISSION WILL DELIBERATE AND COME TO A DECISION IF THE COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT ONE OR MORE OF THE VIOLATIONS ALLEGED HAS OCCURRED.
THE COMMISSION WILL STATE ITS FINDINGS IN WRITING AND IDENTIFY EACH CODE, SECTION OR CHARTER PROVISION THAT HAS BEEN VIOLATED AND PROCEED TO A DETERMINATION OF THE APPROPRIATE SANCTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH AUSTIN CITY.
CODE SECTIONS TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 48 AND TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 49 AT THIS TIME WILL YIELD THE FLOOR TO THE COMPLAINANT FOR THE OPENING STATEMENT AND 10 MINUTES.
DO I HAVE SOMEONE WHO CAN THANK YOU MR. FELDMAN.
SO I DON'T DO PRESENT EVIDENCE
[00:10:01]
UNTIL AFTER THE RESPONDENT RESPONDS.IT'S OPENING, OPENING EVIDENCE.
YOU, YOU CAN PRESENT THE EVIDENCE AFTER YOUR OPENING STATEMENT.
OKAY, BUT THEN I HAVE IT SAID 30 MINUTES FOR PRESENTING EVIDENCE.
I'M HERE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE COMPLAINTS I MADE AGAINST KIRK WATSON FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHARTER ARTICLE THREE, SECTION EIGHT A THREE, WHICH LIMITS CONTRIBUTIONS THE CANDIDATES FOR MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL MAY ACCEPT.
MOST BUT NOT ALL OF YOU WERE HERE FOR THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, SO I'LL QUICKLY GO OVER THE BACKGROUND.
THIS CHARTER AMENDMENT WAS SPONSORED BY AUSTINITES FOR A LITTLE LESS CORRUPTION AND PASSED BY 72% OF THE VOTERS IN NOVEMBER, 1997.
THE AMENDMENT 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 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 LIMIT SHALL BE MODIFIED EACH YEAR.
AT THE TIME OF THE 2022 RUNOFF ELECTION AND UP UNTIL THE BUDGET WAS PASSED IN AUGUST OF 2024, THOSE LIMITS WERE $46,000 PER ELECTION AND 30,000 FOR A RUNOFF.
THE CLERK'S MEMO PROVIDED A LIST OF ZIP CODES THAT ARE COMPLETELY OR PARTIALLY WITHIN AUSTIN CITY LIMITS THE CHARTER LANGUAGE, THE WORDS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN A POSTAL ZIP CODE COMPLETELY OR PARTIALLY WITHIN AUSTIN CITY LIMITS.
I THOUGHT IT WAS WRITTEN THAT WAY FOR SIMPLICITY AND CONVENIENCE IN MONITORING, BUT I'VE LEARNED IT ISN'T SO SIMPLE.
TEXAS SELECTION CODE TWO SECTION 11.001 TELLS US THAT TO BE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE A PERSON MUST BE A QUALIFIED VOTER AND BE A RESIDENT OF THE TERRITORY COVERED BY THE ELECTION.
IT ALSO SPECIFIES FOR A PERSON WHO RESIDES IN MORE THAN ONE TERRITORY, A PERSON SHALL CHOOSE IN WHICH TERRITORY THE RESIDENTS OF THE PERSON IS LOCATED.
SECTION 11 0 2 0 0 2 SPECIFIES THAT A QUALIFIED VOTER AMONG OTHER THINGS MEANS A PERSON WHO IS REGISTERED TO VOTE.
THE RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT POINTED OUT THAT CONTRIBUTORS PROVIDE AN ADDRESS WHEN THEY DONATE, WHICH MAY BE DIFFERENT FROM THE HOME ADDRESS.
SO THEY CLAIM TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND BY INFORMING VOTERS THAT THEY CAN ONLY ACCEPT CONTRIBUTIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS WHO LIVE IN A LIST OF ZIP CODES AND THEN THEY ASK FOR THE HOME ZIP CODE.
THE FORM PROVIDES A LIST OF ACCEPTABLE ZIP CODES AND A TEXT BOX.
EXHIBIT R ONE LISTS THOSE THAT THE CAMPAIGN AGREES HAD A HOME ZIP CODE OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS WITH A TOTAL OF 45,104 77 CENTS FOR 2024 DONORS OUTSIDE OF THE CITY OF THE ZIP CODE ENVELOPE.
EXHIBIT R TWO LISTS THOSE THAT THE CAMPAIGN PROVIDES A SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODE THAT THE CAMPAIGN CLAIMS WERE NOT SUBJECT TO THE ZIP CODE LIMIT ONE CONTRIBUTION IS LISTED AS RETURNED.
EXHIBITS R THREE AND R FOUR ARE SIMILAR EXCEPT THAT THEY APPLY TO THE 2022 RUNOFF.
R THREE STIPULATES THE 27,725 WAS ACCEPTED FROM DONORS OUTSIDE OF THE ZIP CODE ENVELOPE.
NEXT SLIDE, NR FOUR YES LISTS THE SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODES WITHIN THE CITY ENVELOPE AND INCLUDES ONE CONTRIBUTION THAT IS RETURNED.
THE WATSON CAMPAIGN ONLY COLLECTS SELF-REPORTED HOME ZIP CODES AND HAS NO PROCESS TO ENSURE THAT CONTRIBUTORS ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN THE SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODE.
THE RESPONDENT ONLY PROVIDED INFORMATION
[00:15:01]
FOR THE CONTRIBUTIONS LISTED ON THE COMPLAINT, EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF ADDITIONAL CON CONTRIBU CON CONTRIBUTORS WHO MAY NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN A ZIP CODE WITHIN THE YELLOW ENVELOPE.THE CAMPAIGN PROCESS DOES NOT ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH CHARTER ARTICLE THREE, SECTION EIGHT A THREE AND I WILL DEMONSTRATE THE RESPONDENT'S VIOLATION IS A FACTUAL MATTER.
THAT IS THE END OF MY OPENING STATEMENT.
UM, MEMBERS JAMES ER I'M THE ATTORNEY FOR, UH, MAYOR WATSON, THE RESPONDENT.
AND I'M GONNA ASK AT THIS TIME THAT OUR PRE-FILED EXHIBITS BE ADMITTED, WHICH IS CALLED FOR THE COMMISSION RULES.
THOSE ARE PRE-FILED AND, UH, TIMELY AND THEY INCLUDE MAYOR WATSON'S SWORN STATEMENT IN THE EXHIBITS R ONE THROUGH.
UH, WHILE, WHILE YOU'RE DOING THAT, UH, MS. GREENBERG JUST WANTED TO, YOU KNOW THAT YOU HAVE, I I THINK THIS NEEDS NEEDS TO BE TURNED OFF IF MINE IS ON REMAINING, UM, FOUR MINUTES AND 50 SECONDS.
IS THAT CORRECT? IF YOU CHOOSE TO, TO USE THAT REMAINING TIME FOR THE REBUTTAL, JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW.
AND THEN IF YOU'LL GO AHEAD AND TURN OFF YOUR MIC FOR THE, OKAY.
SO ARE THOSE EXHIBITS ADMITTED AT THIS TIME? YES.
COULD YOU STATE THEM AGAIN? ARE THESE EXHIBITS PART OF WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED? SIR, THEY WERE PRE-FILED ACCORDING TO THE REQUEST FROM THE CITY'S ATTORNEY.
THEY WERE TIMELY RECEIVED, THEY WERE ACCEPTED AND THEY'RE THE MAYOR'S SWORN STATEMENT AND EXHIBITS R ONE THROUGH R SIX? YES SIR.
SO IS THAT A YES OR THEY'RE ADMITTED.
UM, I'M GONNA MAKE MY OPENING REMARKS BRIEF BECAUSE WE'RE MAINLY GONNA PRESENT OUR EVIDENCE THROUGH THE TWO WITNESSES.
UH, MAYOR WATSON AND HIS CAMPAIGN CONSULTANT SUSAN HARI.
UM, AND THE EXHIBITS AND THE TESTIMONY AND THE EVIDENCE WE'LL PRESENT WILL CONFIRM THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO VIOLATION OF THE ZIP CODE LIMIT.
UH, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW AND THE MAYOR WILL CONFIRM THAT HIS CAMPAIGN IS TAKEN DILIGENT STEPS NOT REQUIRED BY CITY RULES TO VERIFY WHETHER CONTRIBUTORS HAVE A HOME ZIP CODE IN AUSTIN.
UM, THE CAMPAIGN HAS ACCEPTED CONTRIBUTIONS FROM CONTRIBUTORS OUTSIDE AN AUSTIN HOME ZIP CODE UP TO THE LIMIT, AND AT THAT POINT IT HAS STOPPED ACCEPTING THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS.
THE ONLY WAY WE KNOW HOW TO DO THAT IS TO ASK OUR CONTRIBUTORS, WHAT IS YOUR HOME ZIP CODE? AND IN EVERY CASE WE DO ASK OUR CONTRIBUTORS WHAT IS THE HOME ZIP CODE? IF WE GET A CONTRIBUTION AFTER THE CAP IS REACHED, WE GIVE IT BACK.
IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT TEXAS LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE A CONTRIBUTOR TO PROVIDE OR A CANDIDATE TO LIST A HOME ADDRESS AND FORM.
COH, WHICH IS THE CAMPAIGN REPORT SCHEDULE A ONE SAYS ADDRESS, IT DOES NOT SAY HOME ADDRESS, RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS OR YOUR PLACE OF RESIDENCE.
UM, THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO FIND OUT WHERE OUR PEOPLE CLAIM HOME, WE ASK THEM AND THEY TELL US.
UH, BUT IF YOU JUST LOOK AT A FORM COH, NEITHER CANDIDATE CAN TELL WHETHER THAT IS A CONTRIBUTOR SUBJECT TO THE ZIP CODE LIMIT.
WHAT'S HAPPENED THIS EVENING IN THE UH, COMPLAINANT'S OPENING STATEMENT IS THIS CASE HAS TAKEN A VERY SERIOUS TURN IN AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT DIRECTION BECAUSE THE COMPLAINT IS NO LONGER THAT THE CAMPAIGN HAS ACCEPTED CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PEOPLE WITH A ZIP CODE OUTSIDE THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
THE COMPLAINT IS NOW, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT THE CAMPAIGN HAS ACCEPTED CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE IN AUSTIN.
THAT IS NOT WHAT THE COMPLAINT STATED.
THAT'S A SUBSTANTIAL DIVERGENCE FROM WHAT WAS IN THE SWORN COMPLAINT.
NOW WE CAN RESPOND TO THAT, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THIS COMMITTEE, THIS, UH, COMMISSION TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE 2006 CHARTER AMENDMENT THAT ADOPTED THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE ZIP CODE LIMIT THAT INFORMED AUSTIN VOTERS THAT THEY ARE BEING ASKED TO LIMIT CONTRIBUTIONS TO PERSONS WHO ARE REGISTERED TO VOTE.
AND THIS IS A MATTER OF RECORD AND WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL PUT IT INTO EVIDENCE WHEN THE TIME COMES.
[00:20:01]
BACK AND LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE OF PROPOSITION FIVE IN 2006, THIS IS WHAT WENT TO THE VOTERS WHEN THE CURRENT ZIP CODE LIMIT WAS APPROVED.THE QUESTION WAS PROP FIVE, SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO LIMIT CONTRIBUTIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS OUTSIDE THE AUSTIN LIMIT CITY LIMITS? THAT'S WHAT THE VOTERS VOTED ON, AND THAT'S WHAT FOR 20 YEARS HAS BEEN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ZIP CODE LIMIT.
NOW, IF WE'RE HEARING SOMETHING DIFFERENT TONIGHT, WE'RE GONNA RESPOND TO IT, BUT AGAIN, THIS IS NOT THE COMPLAINT THAT WAS FILED.
THIS IS A BRAND NEW ALLEGATION WE'RE HEARING FOR THE FIRST TIME.
AND IF IT WERE ADOPTED, IT WOULD HAVE VERY SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES BECAUSE PROHIBITING PEOPLE FROM MAKING CONTRIBUTIONS WHO ARE NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE WOULD SWEEP OUT A WHOLE CATEGORY OF PEOPLE.
PEOPLE WHOSE REGISTRATIONS HAVE BEEN CANCELED FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER, PEOPLE WHOSE REGISTRATIONS HAVE EXPIRED.
UH, LEGAL RESIDENT ALIENS WHO WERE ALLOWED BY FEDERAL AND STATE LAW TO MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS FORMER FELONS WHO MAY NOT VOTE, BUT WHO CAN MAKE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS.
MINORS, IT'S A, THIS IS A SERIOUS CHANGE TONIGHT.
SO WE WE WILL RESPOND TO THAT THROUGH OUR WITNESSES, BUT I WANT EVERYBODY IN THIS COMMITTEE ROOM TO UNDERSTAND.
AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, THE COMPLAINANT HAS ACCEPTED THAT WE HAVE DONE THE DUE DILIGENCE TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR CONTRIBUTORS HAVE PROVIDED US A, A RESIDENTIAL ZIP CODE WITHIN THE LIMITS.
WE'RE NOW HEARING THAT THE VIOLATION IS WE'VE ACCEPTED CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE.
AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN THE ENTIRE CITY OF AUSTIN CAMPAIGN FINANCE SYSTEM IS PROBABLY, UH, BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
SO I'LL RESERVE MY TIME COUNCIL FOR RESPONDENT.
UH, NOTE YOU HAVE REMAINING TIME OF FOUR MINUTES AND 30 SECONDS.
UM, THIS COMPLAINT WAS ALWAYS ABOUT A VIOLATION OF CHARTER ARTICLE THREE, SECTION 8 83, WHICH SPECIFICALLY SAYS NO CANDIDATE AND HIS OR HER COMMITTEE SHALL ACCEPT AN AGGREGATE CONTRIBUTION, UM, TOTAL OF MORE THAN 30,000 PER ELECTION AND 20,000 IN THE UM, CASE OF A RUNOFF FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN NATURAL PERSONS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN A POSTAL ZIP CODE COMPLETELY OR PARTIALLY WITHIN THE AUSTIN CITY LIMITS.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WAS STATED AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING WHEN I TALKED ABOUT THE, UM, CHARTER AMENDMENT.
IT WAS EVEN DISCUSSED BRIEFLY ABOUT WHAT ELIGIBILITY TO VOTE MEANT, AND I WILL TALK ABOUT THAT WITH THE EVIDENCE.
ALRIGHT, COMPLAINANT, YOU MAY PROCEED WITH YOUR ALLOTTED TIME OF UP TO 30 MINUTES.
UM, BEFORE THAT I THINK WE NEED TO SWEAR IN, UM, PEOPLE, SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE CARE OF THAT.
MAY I, I'D LIKE TO DEFER TO COMMISSIONER MCGIVER TO SWEAR IN I ALL, I SIGNED THE FORM SO IT WORKS.
WE DON'T NEED TO, THAT'S GREAT.
COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN, WILL YOU, UH, SWEAR IN THE COMPLAINANT AT THIS POINT? I WOULD BE HAPPY TO.
AND SO IN MY CAPACITY AS AS A NOTARY, WOULD YOU PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND? DO YOU SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE GIVING TONIGHT WILL BE THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I AFFIRM.
[00:25:08]
ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD MS. GREENBERG.UM, THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE WILL START WITH THE 2022 RUNOFF ELECTION.
THE $450 CONTRIBUTION FROM CHRIS HINBERGER WAS LISTED ON THE DECEMBER 5TH, 2022 REPORT.
ALTHOUGH IT WAS LISTED ON R FOUR AS RETURNED, THERE IS NO INDICATION ON ANY OF THE RUNOFF CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY REFUNDED.
THE REMAINING CONTRIBUTIONS THAT I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT FOR 2022 ARE ABOUT THOSE THAT ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN THE SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODES.
TO DETERMINE VOTER ELIGIBILITY, I USE VOTER ROLLS THAT I PROVIDED AS EXHIBIT C TWO THROUGH C FIVE.
TRAVIS COUNTY MAKES THE VOTER ROLL AVAILABLE FOR ANYONE TO DOWNLOAD.
C3 IS A FILE FROM 2022 THAT WAS ON MY LAPTOP.
IT IS A HUGE FILE THAT INCLUDES VOTER HISTORY BECAUSE I WAS USING IT FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE AT THAT TIME.
WILLIAMSON AND HAYES COUNTIES PROVIDE VOTER ROLLS IF YOU FILE A PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST.
I ALSO DID A SEPARATE PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST TO THE TRAVIS COUNTY TAX OFFICE CONCERNING SPECIFIC NAMES.
MOSTLY THOSE THAT I COULD NOT FIND ON THE VOTER ROLL.
THE REQUESTS ARE IN R 33 AND R 34 AND THE RESULTS ARE IN R 35.
I USED PROPERTY RECORDS AND INFORMATION I COULD FIND ON GOOGLE.
MY GOAL WAS TO VERIFY THE DONORS LISTED ON EXHIBITS R TWO AND R FOUR WERE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE CONSISTENT WITH THE SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODES.
MOST WERE, BUT I WILL GO OVER THOSE THAT WERE NOT.
OH, THAT'S ALREADY THE NEXT SLIDE.
THE DECEMBER 9TH, 2022 REPORT SHOWS $450 DONATED BY EACH OF CHARLES AND GINA COLEMAN.
THEY PROVIDED A SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODE OF 7 8 7 3 8 AND AT FIRST I WAS CONFUSED ABOUT WHY THEY WERE LISTED ON THE COMPLAINT AS THEY DONATED USING AN ADDRESS THAT IS WITHIN THE ZIP CODE ENVELOPE.
HOWEVER, THE JANUARY 17TH, 2023 CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT SHOWS $450 EACH DONATED BY CHARLIE AND GINA COLEMAN WITH A DRIPPING SPRING 7 8 6 2 0 ZIP CODE, WHICH IS OUTSIDE OF THE ZIP CODE ENVELOPE.
SO I UNDERSTAND WHY THEY WERE INCLUDED ON THE COMPLAINT.
IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THEY DONATED TWICE EACH USING TWO DIFFERENT ADDRESSES ON ONE.
CHARLES IS A HOME BUILDER ON THE OTHER, CHARLIE IS A PRESIDENT.
THE HAYES COUNTY VOTER ROLL SHOWS THAT BOTH CHARLES AND GINA WERE REGISTERED TO VOTE IN THE 7 8 6 2 0 ZIP CODE.
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THEIR REGISTRATION IS PRIOR TO THE 2022 RUNOFF.
THE TRAVIS COUNTY PROPERTY RECORD SHOW THAT THEIR PROPERTY THAT IS INSIDE OF THE ZIP CODE ENVELOPE WAS SOLD IN MAY OF 2022.
THE HAYES COUNTY PROPERTY RECORD SHOWS THAT THE PROPERTY WHERE THEY REGISTERED TO VOTE WAS THEIR HOMESTEAD IN 2022 AND OUTSIDE OF THE ZIP CODE ENVELOPE, $900 OR MORE LIKELY $1,800 WAS ACCEPTED FROM THESE DONORS WHO WERE NOT ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN THE SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODE.
GREGORY AND CARMEL VEZ EACH DONATED $450 AND PROVIDED A SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODE OF 7 8 7 3 1.
I FOUND THIS VERY SURPRISING AS IN 2020, GREG FEMS LEFT HIS POSITION AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AND BECAME PRESIDENT OF EMORY UNIVERSITY IN ATLANTA, GEORGIA.
I REMEMBER THIS CLEARLY AS I WAS A FACULTY MEMBER AT THE MCCOMB SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND MY DEAN, JAY HARTZEL BECAME THE NEXT UT PRESIDENT UNTIL 2020.
THE P VISES HAD A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION IN 7 8 7 0 3, BUT IN 2021 AND AFTER THEY DID NOT CLAIM THIS EXEMPTION, ALTHOUGH THEY STILL OWN THE PROPERTY.
NEXT SLIDE, BECAUSE PRESIDENT OF FES IS A PUBLIC PERSON, YOU CAN FIND HIS BIRTHDATE ON WIKIPEDIA AND USE IT TO LOOK UP HIS VOTER REGISTRATION.
HE REGISTERED TO VOTE IN GEORGIA IN OCTOBER OF 2020 AND HIS RESIDENCE ADDRESS IS THE LITTLE WATERHOUSE WHICH EMORY MAKES AVAILABLE TO THE UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT.
HIS VOTER PARTICIPATION HISTORY SHOWS CLEARLY THAT HE VOTED IN GEORGIA IN BOTH THE GENERAL
[00:30:01]
AND RUNOFF ELECTIONS IN 2022.SO HE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN A ZIP CODE COMPLETELY OR PARTIALLY WITHIN AUSTIN CITY LIMITS.
WHEN I DESCRIBED THIS EXAMPLE, ONE PERSON I SPOKE TO SAID, SO WHO LIED WATSON OR VUS? THE ANSWER IS, IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER.
THE RESPONSIBILITY IS ON THE CANDIDATE AND HIS OR HER COMMITTEE TO NOT ACCEPT MORE THAN THE LIMIT FROM SOURCES WHO ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN AUSTIN'S ZIP CODE ENVELOPE.
STEVEN AND DENISE LESLIE SPELLED THEIR NAME WRONG, BUT THEIR LIST, THEY LISTED THEIR ADDRESS WHEN THEY DONATED AS DRIPPING SPRINGS 7 8 6 2 0, WHICH IS OUTSIDE OF THE ZIP CODE ENVELOPE.
THEY ALSO PROVIDED A SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODE AS 7 8 7 0 3.
THE HAYES VOTER ROLL SHOWS THEM AS REGISTERED AT THE 7 8 6 2 0 ADDRESS AND THE TRAVIS COUNTY TAX RECORD UH, LISTS THEM AS CANCELED ON R 35, THE PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST.
THEY ALSO OWN THE HOMESTEAD PROPERTY IN 7 8 6 2 0 OUTSIDE OF THE ZIP CODE ENVELOPE.
AT SOME POINT WE NEED TO ACCEPT THE ADDRESS USED FOR THE DONATION, THE ADDRESS USED IN THE HAYES VOTER ROLL AND THE ADDRESS LISTED WITH THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION AND REALIZE THAT THE SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODES ARE SIMPLY NOT RELIABLE.
NEXT SLIDE, MARSHA AND THOMAS WILLIAMS DONATED USING A POST OFFICE BOX ADDRESS IN NAVASOTA, TEXAS.
THEY ALSO PROVIDED A SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODE AS 7 8 7 0 3.
WILLIAMS IS A VERY COMMON LAST NAME AND WHILE THERE ARE PEOPLE WITH THESE NAMES WHO ARE REGISTERED TO VOTE IN THE ZIP CODE ENVELOPE AND LISTED ON THE R 35 PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST, NONE HAVE AN ADDRESS WITH A 7 8 7 0 3 ZIP CODE.
THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO VOTE CONSISTENT WITH THEIR SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODE.
IN ADDITION, MARSHA AND THOMAS WILLIAMS HAVE A HOMESTEAD IN NAVASOTA, TEXAS 7 7 8 6 8 WHICH IS OUTSIDE OF THE ZIP CODE ENVELOPE.
HE USED A HORSESHOE BAY 7 8 6 5 7 ADDRESS WHEN HE DONATED, ALTHOUGH HE PROVIDED A SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODE AS 7 8 7 0 1.
HE IS NOT LISTED ON THE TRAVIS COUNTY VOTER ROLL.
ANO COUNTY PROPERTY RECORDS SHOW MARK PAPER MASTER OWNS THE HORSESHOE BAY RESIDENCE IN 7 8 6 5 7 OUTSIDE OF THE ZIP CODE ENVELOPE.
MELISSA AND RUDY GARZA DONATED USING A SPICEWOOD TEXAS ADDRESS WITH A 7 8 6 6 9 ZIP CODE WHICH IS OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN'S ZIP CODE ENVELOPE.
ALTHOUGH THEY PROVIDED A SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODE OF 7 8 7 4 7.
THEY ARE LISTED ON THE TRAVIS COUNTY VOTER ROLL AT THE SAME SPICEWOOD TEXAS ADDRESS THAT IS ON THE CAMPAIGN REPORT.
RUDY AND MELISSA GARZA ALSO CLAIM A HOMESTEAD EX EXEMPT EXEMPTION ON THE SPICEWOOD TEXAS PROPERTY THAT IS OUTSIDE OF THE ZIP CODE ENVELOPE.
BEN AND ELIZABETH BARNES EACH DONATED $450 AND PROVIDED A SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODE AS 7 8 7 0 1.
BEN IS REGISTERED TO VOTE IN THAT ZIP CODE BUT THE VOTER ROLL AND THE C 35 PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUESTS DO NOT SHOW ELIZABETH BARNES WITH THE CORRECT MIDDLE NAME OR ZIP CODE.
GARRETT BLINKERS DONATED $450 IN 2022.
HE PROVIDED A SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODE AS 7 8 7 5 8 AND HE IS NOT LISTED ON THE TRAVIS COUNTY VOTER ROLL.
GARRETT BLINKERS ALSO DONATED TO WATSON IN 2024 USING AN ADDRESS THAT WAS WITHIN THE ZIP CODE ENVELOPE.
SO HIS 2024 CONTRIBUTION WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE COMPLAINT.
HOWEVER, HE WAS STILL NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE AND THEREFORE NOT ELIGIBLE TO VOTE TO DONATE OR VOTE IN A POSTAL ZIP CODE COMPLETELY OR PARTIALLY WITHIN THE AUSTIN CITY LIMITS.
NEXT SLIDE SUMMARY FOR 2022 RUNOFF.
TO SUMMARIZE, THE WATSON CAMPAIGN STIPULATED TO 27,725 DONATE DOLLARS
[00:35:01]
IN DONATIONS THAT WERE FROM OUTSIDE THE ZIP CODE ENVELOPE FOR THE 2022 RUNOFF.THE DONATIONS IN IN YELLOW ARE FROM DONORS WHO WERE ALSO NOT ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN ZIP CODES WITHIN THE ENVELOPE.
UH, NEXT SLIDE CONTINUES THAT TABLE.
I ALSO LISTED ADDITIONAL DONORS WHO I FOUND ON VOTER ROLLS BUT AT ZIP CODES THAT WERE DIFFERENT FROM THE SELF-REPORTED ONES ON EXHIBIT R FOUR.
THESE DONATIONS ARE NOT HIGHLIGHTED AS THE INDIVIDUALS ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE WITHIN AUSTIN ZIP CODE ENVELOPE.
THEY DO HOWEVER, INDICATE THAT THE SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODES ARE FREQUENTLY UNRELIABLE.
CONSIDERING THE CONTRIBUTIONS ON EXHIBIT R THREE THAT THE WATSON CAMPAIGN ACKNOWLEDGED TO BE FROM OUTSIDE OF THE ZIP CODE ENVELOPE PLUS THE ADDITIONAL DONATIONS THAT I HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW ON THE PREVIOUS TABLE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE RESPONDENT WENT OVER THE $30,000 LIMIT DURING THE 2022 RUNOFF.
SO MOVING ON TO THE 2024 ELECTION, WHICH I PROMISE IS A BIT SHORTER.
EXHIBIT R TWO YES LISTS THE CONTRIBUTION FROM CURTIS CEIS AS RETURNED, BUT THERE IS NO INDICATION ON THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS THAT THIS CONTRIBUTION FROM OUTSIDE OF THE ZIP CODE ENVELOPE WAS ACTUALLY REFUNDED.
JOSEPH IL DONATED $450 AND LISTS THE CALL.
YEAH, DONATE, UH, DENVER COLORADO ADDRESS.
HE DID PROVIDE A SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODE AS 7 8 7 5 6.
HE IS ON THE TRAVIS COUNTY VOTER ROLL AT 80 RED RIVER IN 7 8 7 0 1.
HIS REGISTRATION IS LISTED AS CIN.
UM, THIS CAN HAPPEN IF ON THE NEXT SLIDE WHEN A VOTER REGISTRATION CARD IS RETURNED.
CECIL'S ADDRESS ON THE VOTER ROLL IS AT 80 RED RIVER, A BUILDING THAT HAS BEEN DEMOLISHED.
THE NEW TALL BUILDING IN RAINY STREET HAS NOT YET BEEN COMPLETED.
I FOUND NO INFORMATION ABOUT JOSEPH CECIL IN 7 8 7 5 6.
HOWEVER, HE COULD HAVE WALKED INTO A POLLING PLACE AND FILLED OUT A PROVISIONAL BALLOT AS HE IS ON THE VOTER ROLL.
SLA AND KAREN BENNETT ALSO DONATED $450 EACH ON THE SAME DAY AND LISTED WALLA WALLACE, GEORGIA ADDRESS.
INTERESTINGLY, BENNETT IS ACKNOWLEDGED TO BE OUTSIDE OF THE ZIP CODE ENVELOPE ON EXHIBIT R ONE, BUT SLAT IS LISTED AS ON EXHIBIT R TWO WITH A SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODE OF 7 8 7 4 6.
SLA, HOWEVER, IS NOT INCLUDED ON THE TRAVIS COUNTY VOTER ROLL.
KAREN BENNETT IS IN FACT A STATE REPRESENTATIVE IN GEORGIA PROPERTY RECORDS SO SHOW THAT SHE AND SUZANNE R SLA SR HAVE A PROPERTY IN COMMON.
IN FACT, THE ONE THAT EACH LISTED WHEN THEY DONATED $450 TO WATSON'S 2024 CAMPAIGN.
JEFF MJA DONATED $100, GAVE A SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODE OF 7 8 7 0 1 AND HE IS NOT LISTED ON THE VOTER ROLL.
PETE PETERS DONATED $450 AND PROVIDED A SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODE OF 7 8 7 0 3.
I CAN'T FIND ANYONE REGISTERED TO VOTE WITH THE FIRST NAME, PETE OR PETERS OR ANYONE.
NEXT SLIDE WITH THE MIDDLE NAME PETE OR PETERS.
DEBORAH DUNLAP AND MARGIE CHRISTOPHER EACH MADE DONATIONS AND PROVIDED A SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODE THAT IS INSIDE OF AUSTIN'S ZIP CODE ENVELOPE.
THEIR SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODES ARE CONSISTENT WITH HOME ADDRESSES FOUND IN THE TRAVIS COUNTY PROPERTY RECORDS.
HOWEVER, I COULD NOT FIND EITHER ONE OF THEM ON THE VOTER ROLL AND THE PIR FROM THE TRAVIS COUNTY TAX OFFICE EXHIBIT C3 35 HAD NO RESPONSIVE INFORMATION FOR THESE DONORS.
THE NEXT SLIDE IS IT STUCK? SORRY.
[00:40:01]
IT'S OKAY.THE NEXT SLIDE SUMMARIZES THE 2024 RESULTS.
THESE WERE $45,000, ONE 45,105 THAT THE CAMPAIGN ACKNOWLEDGES IS OUTSIDE OF THE ZIP CODE ENVELOPE.
ONE CONTRIBUTION LISTED IS RETURNED WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF A REFUND.
FIVE ADDITIONAL DONATIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE NOT ON THE VOTER ROLL.
TWO THAT ARE ON THE SUSPEND LIST AND ONE THAT IS ON THE VOTER ROLL, BUT WITH A ZIP CODE THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM THE SELF-REPORTED.
CONSIDERING THE CONTRIBUTIONS ON R ONE THAT THE WATSON CAMPAIGN ACKNOWLEDGES TO BE FROM OUTSIDE OF THE ZIP CODE ENVELOPE PLUS THE ADDITIONAL DONATIONS THAT I HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW ON THE PREVIOUS TABLE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE RESPONDENT WENT OVER THE $46,000 LIMIT.
THAT WAS IN EFFECT WHEN THE JULY 15TH REPORT WAS SUBMITTED AND I FILED THE ETHICS COMPLAINT.
THAT IS THE END OF MY EVIDENCE.
DO YOU WANT THE CLOSING STATEMENT? NOT AT THIS TIME.
HOW MUCH TIME DID I USE? YOU USED 16 MINUTES.
AT THIS TIME WE WILL HEAR FROM THE RESPONDENT FORM.
MS. GREENMAN, WOULD YOU TURN, TURN OFF YOUR MIC AND THIS WHERE YOU, IS THIS WHERE YOU WOULD LIKE THE RESPONDENT TO SIT? THAT WILL WORK.
UM, MAYOR, WOULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF PLEASE? IS THAT ON? YES, MY NAME'S KIRK WATSON.
I'M THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
UH, HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU RUN FOR MAYOR OF AUSTIN? UH, UH, THIS, UH, AS WE JUST FINISHED IN 2024.
UH, THAT'S THE FOURTH TIME I RAN IN FIRST IN 1997, UH, WAS REELECTED IN 2000.
AND THEN I'VE BEEN RUNNING FOR REELECTION HERE IN 2024.
UH, HOW MANY YEARS HAVE YOU BEEN IN ELECTORAL POLITICS? OH, UH, THAT'S A DIFFERENT QUESTION.
UH, I WAS, UH, IN THE TEXAS, I RAN, UH, I RAN IN, UH, 2002 FOR A STATEWIDE OFFICE THAT, UH, I, I DID NOT PREVAIL.
AND THEN I RAN IN 2006 FOR THE TEXAS SENATE AND SERVED IN THE TEXAS SENATE UNTIL 2020.
SO I GUESS IF YOU PUT 1997 UNTIL NOW, ALMOST 30 YEARS.
AND IN THOSE 30 YEARS TO YOUR, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, HAVE YOU EVER VIOLATED A STATE, FEDERAL, OR LOCAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW? NO.
UM, I'VE HAD, UH, ONE COMPLAINT THAT WAS FILED AGAINST ME THAT WAS UNRELATED TO MY ELECTION.
IT WAS RELATED TO SOMETHING I WAS HELPING, UH, DEAL WITH.
AND, UH, IT WAS DISMISSED ADMINISTRATIVELY.
AND THIS IS THE ONLY TIME A COMPLAINT HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST ME SPECIFICALLY FOR SOMETHING IN A CAMPAIGN I WAS RUNNING.
AND WAS THE CURRENT CITY OF AUSTIN ZIP CODE LIMIT THAT WAS ADOPTED IN 2006, WAS THAT IN PLACE IN ANY OF THE ELECTIONS WHEN YOU RAN FOR MAYOR? NO.
UH, IN 1997 THERE, UH, THERE WAS A GREAT DEAL OF CONTROVERSY.
UH, I'M SORRY, I'M ALSO A HISTORIAN, UH, BECAUSE I'VE DONE THIS FOR SO LONG.
BUT, UM, IN 1997 THERE WAS CONTROVERSY BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN A PETITION DRIVE TO PUT A, A LIMITATION ON THE, ON THE BALLOT FOR PEOPLE, THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN TO VOTE ABOUT CAMPAIGN FINANCE, UH, A NEW CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW.
UH, THERE WAS CONTROVERSY, UH, THAT HAD RESULTED IN A LAWSUIT, A A GROUP CALLED AUSTINITES FOR A LITTLE LESS CORRUPTION.
AND THEN THERE WAS ALSO TEXANS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE.
THAT WAS ACTUALLY ALSO INVOLVED, IS MY MEMORY.
UH, THAT ENDED UP BEING ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT INSTEAD OF THE MAY BALLOT.
SO IT ENDED IMPACT BACK THEN WE HAD MAY ELECTIONS FOR MAYOR, SO IT DIDN'T IMPACT THE, UH, 1997 ELECTIONS.
UH, BUT LET'S JUST FOCUS ON THE CURRENT LIMIT.
THE ONE THAT WAS ADOPTED IN THOUSAND AND THEN 2006, UH, THERE WAS SOME OF THE CONTROVERSY THAT CAME OUT OF THAT WAS THERE WAS DESIRE TO LIMIT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OUTSIDE THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
AND THERE, THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW WAS THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT.
AND THEN IN 2006, TEXANS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, UH, HAD A NUMBER OF THINGS TO TRY TO FIX.
'CAUSE THE LIMITATION, PEOPLE WERE COMPLAINING THE LIMITATION WAS TOO LOW, THE A HUNDRED DOLLARS LIMIT WAS TOO LOW, WANTED TO TIE IT TO CPI OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE.
UM, AND I'M NOT GONNA REMEMBER EVERYTHING ABOUT ALL THAT.
BUT, UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED AT THAT POINT IN TIME WAS THEY ALSO WERE TRYING TO CLARIFY WHERE YOU HAD TO LIVE AND ZIP CODES BECAME, UH, PART OF THE SOLUTION.
AND ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE CURRENT ZIP CODE LIMIT IN THE CITY CHARTER? I AM.
[00:45:01]
OF THE TERM SOURCES OTHER THAN NATURAL PERSONS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN A POSTAL ZIP CODE COMPLETELY OR PARTIALLY WITHIN AUSTIN CITY LIMITS? THE GOAL, THE GOAL HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO LIMIT IT.IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT GEOGRAPHY.
IT HAS BEEN TO LIMIT CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PEOPLE OUTSIDE THAT LIVED IN ZIP CODES, EITHER AS IT SAYS WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY OUTSIDE THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
UTILIZING ZIP CODES IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE EASIEST WAYS TO, TO, TO IDENTIFY WHERE PEOPLE LIVE.
WHAT THAT MEANT WAS PACS, YOU COULD ACCEPT MONEY FROM PACS, BUT IT HAD TO GO UP TO THE LIMIT.
UH, IN MOST PLACES YOU CAN ACCEPT, YOU CAN'T TAKE CORPORATE, UH, DONATIONS, BUT YOU CAN ACCEPT A LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION LIKE LAW FIRM LLC CHECKS.
BUT YOU CAN ONLY DO THAT, UH, UP TO A LIMIT IN AUSTIN.
AND WE HAVE A UNIQUE RULE THERE.
UH, SO IT HAS TO BE A NATURAL PERSON THAT LIVES WITHIN A ZIP CODE THAT IS WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
AND IT WAS RELATED TO THE GEOGRAPHY.
AND IN 1997, WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT PROHIBITING CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT REGISTERED VOTERS IN AUSTIN? I DO NOT RECALL ANY DISCUSSION OF THAT BECAUSE IT WAS ALWAYS THE, THE GOAL WAS ABOUT, UH, THE, THE WHAT GOT TALKED ABOUT WAS HOW DO WE KEEP IT AUSTINITES ELECTING AUSTINITES AND DONATING TO AUSTINITES.
UM, THAT I, I DON'T RECALL ANY.
AND, AND SINCE THAT TIME, I HAVEN'T, UH, YOU'VE NOT SEEN PEOPLE UTILIZE AS A PRACTICE THE IDEA THAT WE'RE ONLY GOING TO ACCEPT DONATIONS UP TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT FROM PEOPLE REGISTERED TO VOTE.
WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION WHEN THE CHARTER WAS METED IN 2006 ABOUT PROHIBITING CONTRIBUTION FROM PEOPLE WHO AREN'T REGISTERED TO VOTE IN AUSTIN? I DON'T RECALL ANYTHING ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THAT WAS, THAT IS SUCH A LIMITATION.
IF YOU'RE NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE, YOU DON'T HAVE THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO, TO DONATE.
UH, THAT WOULD NOT BE SOMETHING THAT, THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE IN ADDITION TO THAT.
DO YOU HAPPEN TO RECALL, OR CAN YOU REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION ABOUT THE LANGUAGE OF THE 2006 CHARTER AMENDMENT THAT LIMITED ZIP CODE CONTRIBUTIONS, THE PROVISION THAT THAT, AND I DID REFRESH MY MEMORY ON THIS.
I WENT BACK AND REFRESHED MY MEMORY.
IT SAYS, SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO LIMIT CONTRIBUTIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS OUTSIDE THE AUSTIN CITY LIMITS? DOES THAT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT WHERE PEOPLE ARE REGISTERED TO VOTE OR WHETHER PEOPLE ARE REGISTERED TO VOTE? NO.
AND IF IT HAD WANTED, IF, IF AUSTIN HAD WANTED TO LIMIT UNREGISTERED PEOPLE FROM CONTRIBUTING, IT COULD HAVE VERY EASILY SAID, YOU MUST BE REGISTERED TO VOTE.
IT COULD, IT SHOULD, IT COULD HAVE SAID NATURAL PERSONS REGISTERED TO VOTE.
IT MIGHT HAVE EVEN SAID AS, AS, UH, THE COMPLAINANT PUT UP IN ONE OF HER EARLIEST SLIDES.
IT TALKED ABOUT A QUALIFIED VOTER AND THE GOVERNMENT CODE DEFINES QUALIFIED VOTER AS A REGISTERED VOTER.
AND ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ELIGIBILITY TO VOTE, OF COURSE, IS RESIDENCE.
WHERE YOU LIVE, UM, HAVE, HAVE YOU EVER HEARD ANY CANDIDATE OR CAMPAIGN CONSULTANT OR CITY ATTORNEY OR CITY CLERK SAY THAT THEY UNDERSTOOD THE ZIP CODE LIMIT TO PROHIBIT ACCEPTING CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT REGISTERED VOTERS IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN? NO.
AND OF COURSE, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE INSTRUCTIONS THAT CANDIDATES GET.
THERE'S NOTHING OF THAT NATURE THAT'S PROVIDED TO CANDIDATES.
LET'S TALK ABOUT, UH, IF THE CHARTER LANGUAGE IN FACT PROHIBITED A CAMPAIGN FROM ACCEPTING CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE IN AUSTIN.
UH, WOULD INDIVIDUALS WHOSE REGISTRATION HAD EXPIRED BE AFFECTED AND PROHIBITED? YES.
UM, SO SOMEBODY, UM, LET, LET IT THEIR, UH, REGISTRATION LAPSE FOR WHATEVER REASON.
NOW THEY ARE, ACCORDING TO THIS INTERPRETATION, THEY WOULD BE BANNED FROM EVEN CONTRIBUTING AND EXERCISING THEIR, THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CONTRIBUTE TO A CAMPAIGN.
EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE, THEY, THEY MAYBE JUST INADVERTENTLY ALLOWED IT TO LAPSE.
AND TO, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, THE STATE LAW REQUIRE THE, THE VOTING REGISTRAR, IN THIS CASE, THE COUNTY CLERK PERIODICALLY TO PURGE THE ROLES OF PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T VOTED FOR SEVERAL ELECTIONS? YES, THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS ABOUT PURGING ROLES IF SOMEONE DOESN'T VOTE, SO SOMEONE COULD HAVE NOT VOTED.
UH, THAT MY MEMORY IS IT'S THREE ELECTIONS, SOMEBODY DOESN'T VOTE, THEY'RE PURGED.
AND NOW NOT ONLY CAN THEY NOT VOTE, BUT IF, IF THIS INTERPRETATION WERE THE, THE INTERPRETATION,
[00:50:02]
AND IT HAS NEVER BEEN THE PRACTICE IN, IN THIS COMMUNITY, BUT IF IT'S TO MY KNOWLEDGE, BUT IF IT'S, IF THAT WERE THE INTERPRETATION, YOU WOULD ALSO BE SAYING NOT ONLY CAN YOU NOT VOTE, BUT YOU'RE NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO CONTRIBUTE IN A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN.WHAT ABOUT PERSONS WHO JUST CHOOSE NOT TO REGISTER TO VOTE, BUT MIGHT WANNA MAKE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS? WELL, THAT'S THEIR RIGHT.
AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE, AUSTIN HAS NEVER SAID TO THOSE PEOPLE, NO, YOU CAN'T DO IT.
AND I'M GONNA GROUP THESE THREE TOGETHER.
BUT WHAT ABOUT LEGAL RESIDENT ALIENS, PERSONS WITH MENTAL DISABILITIES AND FELONY CONVICTIONS WHO CAN'T NECESSARILY VOTE BUT ARE ALLOWED TO MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS? THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THIS, IN THIS COMMUNITY THAT RESIDE IN THIS COMMUNITY THAT MAY NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO VOTE, BUT WE HAVE NOT DENIED THEM THE ABILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TO POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS.
AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT OUR CHARTER DOES.
DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THE RIGHT TO MAKE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS IS PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT? YES.
IN MY EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE, UM, IT IS PROTECTED.
THE, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAS INDICATED THAT IT IS FREE SPEECH AND IT IS PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
BUT THAT IS THE, WHAT, WHAT HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS, IF IT WERE THE EFFECT OF THE CHARTER AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE FOR MAKING POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS, DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER THAT WOULD STAND UP IN COURT OR BE LEGAL? I I, I DO.
AND, AND, AND I, I WILL SAY THAT I THINK THERE'S SOME, THERE OUGHT TO BE SOME CONCERN ANYWAY ABOUT THE LIMITATION FROM OUT ON, ON CONTRIBUTIONS ON FROM OUTSIDE ZIP UH, ELIGIBLE ZIP CODES.
UH, THAT'S NEVER BEEN CHALLENGED IN A WAY THAT THAT'S PREVAILED.
BUT IF WHAT YOU ALSO SAY IS YOU CAN LIVE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, BUT UNLESS YOU ARE REGISTERED TO VOTE, YOU CANNOT CONTRIBUTE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
I WOULD THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE, UM, VERY FRAGILE.
AND WHERE IN THE LAW IS THE ZIP CODE LIMIT FOUND? WHERE DO WE FIND THAT? IN OUR CHARTER PROVISION? THE CITY OF AUSTIN CHARTER.
THE CITY OF AUSTIN CHARTER PROVISION.
AND WHERE IS THE DEFINITION THAT THE COMPLAINANT READ ABOUT? THE MEANING OF ELIGIBLE VOTER AND QUALIFIED VOTER FOUND IN, IN THE, IN THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.
AND, AND THAT'S IN A DIFFERENT, COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PLACE.
AND IF WE WANTED IT TO BE IN OUR CHARTER IN A CERTAIN WAY, WE SHOULD PUT IT IN OUR CHARTER A CERTAIN WAY.
AND IS THERE A DEFINITION OF ELIGIBLE VOTER OR QUALIFIED VOTER IN THE AUSTIN CITY CHARTER? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.
IS THE AUSTIN CITY CHARTER BOUND BY TERMS IN A STATE LAW THAT IS NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE CHARTER? IT IS NOT.
LET ME SHIFT GEARS AND SAY WHAT STEPS HAS, IF ANY, HAS YOUR CAMPAIGN CAMPAIGN TAKEN TO COMPLY WITH THE ZIP CODE LIMIT? WELL, LET ME START BY SAYING THAT NO FORM BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN REQUIRES YOU TO DO SOMETHING TO COMPLY WITH THAT ZIP CODE.
THE FORMS THAT WE UTILIZE FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN, THE, THE CAMPAIGN, UH, AND OFFICE HOLDER FORMS THAT WE USE, WHAT'S REFERRED TO AS THE COH FORMS AND, AND THE, THE, UH, EXHIBITS, THOSE ARE THE SAME ONES THAT, THAT YOU DO WHEN YOU'RE RUNNING FOR THE STATE SENATE OR YOU'RE RUNNING FOR A STATEWIDE OFFICE.
THOSE FORMS, AND THOSE FORMS DO NOT REQUIRE YOU TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ZIP CODE REQUIREMENT.
BY THE WAY, NEITHER DOES THE 800 PAGE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO CANDIDATES.
TALK ABOUT HOW YOU COMPLY WITH, WITH THAT.
BUT THAT BEING SAID, UM, THE WAY WE DID IT IS, IS, IS WORKING WITH MY CONSULTANT, UH, BECAUSE SHE DOES OTHER POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS AS WELL.
AND SO ONE OF THE, THE FIRST THING WE DO IS WE SAY, WE WILL TAKE YOUR ADDRESS THE WAY EVERYBODY ELSE WOULD TAKE THE ADDRESS, BUT WE ALSO ASK A SPECIFIC QUESTION, WHAT IS YOUR HOME ZIP CODE SO THAT WE CAN GET THAT ELIGIBILITY FROM THE STANDPOINT OF YOUR RESIDENCE? AND THAT MAKES YOU ELIGIBLE TO, TO VOTE BECAUSE YOU, YOU LIVE IN THAT PLACE.
THE NEXT THING WE DO IS THAT WE ALWAYS ARE ON THE LOOK AND WE KEEP A RUNNING TAB OF, OF WHO'S OUTSIDE THE ELIGIBLE ZIP CODES.
AND EVEN TO THE POINT THAT IF WE HAVE A FUNDRAISER WHERE WE ANTICIPATE THERE WILL BE OUT OF ZIP CODE DONATIONS GIVEN, WE TELL THE PEOPLE HAVING THE, THE FUNDRAISER, HERE'S THE CAP, HERE'S HOW MUCH YOU CAN GIVE NO MORE THAN THIS.
IN THIS LAST CYCLE, WE HAD A FUNDRAISER WHERE, UM, THE, THE, THE, THE PERSON, WE GAVE HIM A SPECIFIC CAP.
YOU CANNOT RAISE MORE THAN THAT.
THE THIRD THING WE DO IS WE MAKE SURE THAT IF WE HIT THE CAP, WHEN WE KNOW WE'VE HIT THE CAP, WE PUT, WE, WE
[00:55:01]
HAND TO PEOPLE WHEN WE GO TO THE FUNDRAISERS, AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A FUNDRAISING EVENT OR, AND WE PUT ON OUR WEBSITE, WE PUT ALL OF THE ZIP CODES ON THE DONATION PAGE AND WE SAY, THESE ARE THE ONLY ZIP CODES WE CAN TAKE DONATIONS FROM.AND WHEN WE ASK FOR THE HOME ZIP CODE, WHICH IS NOT REQUIRED BY ANYTHING IN AUSTIN REQUIREMENTS, WE DO THAT OURSELVES.
WE, WE SAY IT HAS TO MATCH ONE OF THOSE ZIP CODES OR WE CAN'T TAKE THE MONEY.
AND AND DID THE CITY GIVE YOU ANY GUIDANCE ABOUT HOW TO DO THIS, INCLUDING THAT 800 PAGE CITY CLERK PACKET? NO.
DID DID YOU AND YOUR CONSULTANT HAVE TO DEVISE YOUR OWN SYSTEM ABOUT HOW TO COMPLY? WE DID.
AND WE, WE, WE TAKE, WE, WE ALSO, THIS IS NOT A REAL CHECK, BUT WHEN, WHEN, WHEN I'M SIGNING THANK YOU LETTERS, IF THEY'RE OUTSIDE, IF, IF THE ZIP CODE LOOKS WEIRD TO ME, IF IT LOOKS, DOESN'T LOOK LIKE ONE THAT I IMMEDIATELY RECOGNIZE AS AN AUSTIN ZIP CODE, I PULL THOSE ASIDE AND ASK MY CONSULTANT, HAVE WE CHECKED THIS? NOW, THE, THE COMPLAINANT HAS STATED TONIGHT, SHE DOESN'T THINK THE SYSTEM OF ASKING PEOPLE TO PROVIDE THEIR ZIP CODE IS WORKING 'CAUSE SHE'S DONE SOME SLEUTHING AND FOUND SOME THINGS THAT SHE DOESN'T THINK CHECKS OUT.
NOW DO YOU ASK YOUR CANDIDATE, YOUR CONTRIBUTORS TO SWEAR OR DO YOU MAKE 'EM FI FILL OUT AN AFFIDAVIT OR ANYTHING? IT, IT, IT IS NOT A, IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF ANYTHING.
ANYTHING THAT I'M AWARE OF AT STATE, FEDERAL, LOCAL LEVELS THAT, THAT A CANDIDATE HAS TO DO AN AUDIT OF ALL OF THEIR CONTRIBUTORS AND, AND, AND OR REQUIRE THEM TO SWEAR AN OATH.
YOU'RE ASKING THEM FOR INFORMATION.
A LOT OF DIFFERENT INFORMATION.
YOU'RE ASKING, YOU KNOW, EMPLOYER AND OCCUPATION IS ONE THING THAT YOU ASK FOR.
YOU ARE RELYING UPON THEM TO GIVE YOU THAT INFORMATION.
THERE MAY BE MISTAKES THEY MAY MISUNDERSTAND.
UM, BUT, BUT THERE'S NOT A REQUIREMENT THAT YOU DO WHAT WE WATCHED HERE TONIGHT ON EACH ONE OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS THAT, THAT SOMEBODY GIVES THAT'S AND, AND, AND RE REGARDLESS OF ASKING 'EM ABOUT THEIR ZIP CODE, DO DO YOU, DO YOU MAKE THEM VERIFY WHAT ADDRESS THEY GIVE JUST WHEN ASKED FOR THEIR REGULAR ADDRESS? NO.
HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF A CAMPAIGN THAT DOES THAT? NO.
I MEAN, DO YOU KNOW OF ANY OTHER WAY THAN WHAT YOU AND THE CONSULTANT HAVE COME UP WITH TO GATHER INFORMATION ABOUT HOME ZIP CODES AND TRY TO COMPLY WITH THIS? NO CHARTER PROVISION AND, AND HERE'S IT.
THERE'S, THERE'S SOME EFFORT TO STRIKE A BALANCE HERE, RIGHT? BECAUSE 'CAUSE SOMEBODY WANTS TO GIVE ME A, A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION, THEY MAY NOT, THEY MAY WANT TO USE A TEMPORARY, A, A SECOND HOME ADDRESS.
THEY MAY WANT TO USE A PO BOX BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THEY WOULD RATHER GET THEIR CAMPAIGN MAILED.
THEY'D RATHER GET IT AT THEIR, AT, I USED TO HAVE A LAW OFFICE THAT HAD A PO BOX, AND I WOULD, I MANY TIMES WOULD HAVE MY CAMPAIGN MAIL COME THERE, UM, BECAUSE I JUST ENJOYED GETTING IT AT, AT THE OFFICE AS OPPOSED TO AT THE HOUSE THAT THERE ARE REASONS THAT YOU MAY NOT WANT TO HAVE YOUR PERSONAL ADDRESS PUT ON A PUBLIC FORM.
THERE'S SOME EFFORT TO PROTECT PRIVACY HERE.
SO WHAT WE DO IS WE HAVE, WE PUT THE ADDRESS THEY GIVE US AS A CONTACT ADDRESS, BUT WE ALSO ASK LIKE WE WOULD ASK FOR THE LAST FOUR DIGITS OF A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER.
WE ASK, WHAT IS YOUR HOME ADDRESS THAT WAY? YOUR HOME ZIP CODE, YOUR HOME ZIP CODE.
THAT WAY WE GET THE, THE, THEIR CONTACT ADDRESS, BUT WE ALSO GET THE HOME ZIP CODE FOR PURPOSES OF TRYING TO COMPLY WITH AUSTIN'S UNIQUE REQUIREMENT.
DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY CONTRIBUTORS YOUR CAMPAIGN HAD IN 2022? IN THE, IN THE FIRST ROUND? IN, IN THE FIRST ROUND? UM, WE HAD, UM, UH, JUST OVER 4,700 I THINK IT MAY BE.
IS IS THAT THE COMBINED? UH, NO, THAT, SO WE HAD 1400 IN THE RUNOFF, OVER 1400 IN THE RUNOFF AND JUST OVER, UM, 3,800, OVER 38, JUST OVER 3,800 IN WHAT I'LL CALL THE GENERAL AND THEN OVER JUST OVER 1400 IN THE RUNOFF.
AND HOW ABOUT IN 2024, HOW MANY TRIBUTES AT THIS TIME WE HAD, UH, JUST OVER 2,800.
WOULD IT BE FEASIBLE FOR YOUR CONSULTANT TO GO IN AND INTERROGATE EVERY ONE OF THOSE CONTRIBUTORS ABOUT WHETHER THEY'RE BEING TRUTHFUL ABOUT THEIR ADDRESS OR THEIR HOME ZIP CODE? WELL, YOU, YOU, YOU WOULDN'T, NO.
THERE'S JUST, THERE'S, THAT IS NOT A REASONABLE THING AND THAT IS NOT DONE ANYWHERE IN ANY CAMPAIGNS THAT I'M AWARE OF.
UM, AND, AND IT JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE A UNIQUE REQUIREMENT ABOUT ZIP CODES SHOULD NOT PUT US IN A SITUATION WHERE WE OVERLAY ON THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF AN AUDIT.
[01:00:01]
OF ANY CAMPAIGN IN THE 30 YEARS YOU'VE BEEN IN POLITICS THAT'S GONE TO THE SAME LIMIT YOUR CAMPAIGN HAS GONE TO COMPLY WITH THE ZIP CODE LIMIT? I DON'T.UM, BUT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE COMPLIED.
AND IF YOUR CAMPAIGN IS NOT ALLOWED TO RELY ON THE CONTRIBUTOR'S STATEMENT ABOUT THEIR HOME ZIP CODE, HOW WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO COMPLY? WELL, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO COMPLY.
YOU AT SOME POINT YOU HAVE TO RELY UPON THE PERSON THAT'S MAKING THE CONTRIBUTION TO TELL YOU THE INFORMATION.
THAT WILL BE A PART OF WHAT IT IS.
UM, YOU'RE GOING TO REPORT, HOW MUCH TIME DO WE HAVE CHAIR? 12 MINUTES REMAINING.
WILL YOU TAKE ABOUT THREE TO FIVE MINUTES, UH, TO MAKE, PROVIDE ANY CLOSING COMMENTS ABOUT THIS COMPLAINT IN YOUR CAMPAIGN TO THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION? YEAH, THANK YOU.
UH, AND, AND I'LL, I'LL BE, I'LL TRY TO BE BRIEF.
THERE ARE THINGS WE PROBABLY OUGHT TO DO THAT ARE BROUGHT TO LIGHT ABOUT HOW WE COULD MAKE THIS, UH, BETTER, UM, MAYBE GIVE BETTER IF, IF THE CITY WERE TO GIVE BETTER INFORMATION TO CANDIDATES ABOUT HOW TO COMPLY WITH THIS, MAYBE EVEN HAVE, I MEAN, THE CITY, THE CITY IS, HAS ADDITIONAL FORMS WHERE IT GETS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT, UH, CONTRIBUTIONS THAT, THAT'S NOT REQUIRED ON THE STATE FORMS. MAYBE DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
BUT WHAT I WOULD URGE, UH, WHAT I WOULD URGE THE COMMISSION TO NOT DO IS BASED UPON AN ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDING WHERE SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO FIND FAULT WITH A, WITH A FILINGS AND SOMEONE WHO IS THE RESPONDENT WHO HAS REALLY GONE ALL OUT TO DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO COMPLY.
THAT'S NOT THE WAY TO MAKE THAT POLICY.
THE BETTER WAY TO MAKE THAT POLICY WOULD BE TO SAY, AND, AND BY THE WAY, THAT'S NOT A REASON TO FIND SOMEBODY HAS AN ETHICAL VIOLATION EITHER.
IT IS, INSTEAD, THE BETTER WAY TO DO THAT WILL BE TO HAVE A CONSIDERATION OF WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO ADDRESS THIS.
BUT WHAT I WOULD SAY TO YOU IS, I HAVE DONE EVERYTHING I KNOW AND THERE, AND, AND THERE'RE GONNA BE MISTAKES ON SOME OF THOSE REPORTS, UH, THAT'S GONNA HAPPEN.
THERE ARE GONNA BE TIMES WHEN SOMEBODY MAY NOT HAVE UNDERSTOOD AND DID SOMETHING WRONG.
BUT WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS WE'VE GONE OUT OF OUR WAY TO TRY TO COMPLY WITH THIS.
AND I DON'T KNOW OF A BETTER WAY TO COMPLY, UH, EVEN WITH, EVEN WITH SOME FAULTS THAT MAY BE THERE AND 20 YEARS OF PATTERN AND PRACTICE ON HOW WE ADDRESS THIS ABOUT IT JUST BEING A GEOGRAPHIC, UH, UH, APPROACH IS THE WAY WE'VE DONE THAT.
THEN THE LAST THING I'M GONNA SAY, WHICH, UH, I'M GOING TO, I AM, UH, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M, I'M MAYOR.
I'M GONNA SAY THIS TO, TO ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
THANKS FOR BEING HERE AFTER EIGHT O'CLOCK ON, UH, UH, ON A WEDNESDAY NIGHT.
REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE, THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR THAT, WHAT YOU DO, AND I WANNA SAY THANK YOU, IS IS NOT, NOT AS A COM NOT AS A RESPONDENT, BUT AS YOUR MAYOR.
AND, AND HE GAVE ME TIME TO DO THAT.
AND WE'D CALL, UM, SUSAN HARI, MAYOR WATSON'S CAMPAIGN CONSULTANT AT THIS TIME.
AND HOW MUCH MORE TIME DO WE HAVE? NINE MINUTES.
UH, WOULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF, PLEASE? I'M SUSAN HARI, MAYOR WATSON'S FUNDRAISING CONSULTANT.
AND, UH, SUSAN, ON HOW MANY OF THE MAYOR'S CAMPAIGNS HAVE YOU WORKED
UM, UM, THE CITY OF AUSTIN CAMPAIGNS.
AND DID THAT INCLUDE 2022 AND 2024? YES, IT DID.
AND WHEN DID YOU FIRST HAVE TO START DEALING WITH THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE ZIP CODE LIMIT? UM, WELL, FOR HIM AT THE BEGINNING OF 2022, BUT I'VE DONE A NUMBER OF REPORTS FOR OTHER, UM, CITY OF AUSTIN CANDIDATES AND ELECTED OFFICIALS FOR ABOUT 20 YEARS.
AND, AND WERE YOU AWARE OF THE ZIP CODE LIMIT WHEN YOU BEGAN WORKING FOR THE MAYOR IN 2022? YES.
AND WHAT STEPS DID YOU TAKE AT THAT POINT TO TRY TO ENSURE THAT THE CAMPAIGN WOULD STAY IN COMPLIANCE WITH IT? UM, WE DECIDED TO ADD A CUSTOM FIELD TO OUR ONLINE FORM WHERE PEOPLE MAKE DONATIONS.
UM, IT'S A REQUIRED FIELD A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE MIC.
IT'S A REQUIRED FIELD, UM, ASKING FOR THEIR, UH, HOME ZIP CODE.
AND, AND DO YOU TRACK THE PERSONS WHO REPORT A HOME ZIP CODE OTHER THAN ONE OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN ZIP CODES? YES.
EVERY DONOR HAS ASKED FOR THAT INFORMATION.
DO YOU KEEP A RUNNING TOTAL? WE DO.
WE HAVE A DATABASE SOFTWARE WHERE ALL OF THAT IS STORED.
THE INFORMATION THAT THEY ENTER INTO
[01:05:01]
THE FORM, UM, GOES INTO THE DATABASE.UM, AND THEN I REGULARLY RUN TOTALS IN ANOTHER SOFTWARE PLATFORM.
AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE CAMPAIGN, IF AND WHEN THE CAMPAIGN STARTS TO HIT THE ZIP CODE LIMIT IN EITHER A, A GENERAL ELECTION OR THIS MAY BE A MOOT QUESTION, A RUNOFF? RIGHT.
UM, WHEN WE START GETTING CLOSE TO THAT NUMBER, UM, I RUN THAT TOTAL DAILY, UM, SOMETIMES A COUPLE OF TIMES A DAY SO THAT WE CAN IMMEDIATELY PUT THE LANGUAGE AT THE TOP OF THE FORMS, UM, REQUIRING THEM, REQUIRING THE ZIP CODES AT THE TOP.
UM, AND THEN AS SOON AS, UM, THAT INFORMATION IS UP, UM, ANYTIME ANYONE DONATES WHO IS IN A ZIP CODE THAT IS NOT IN THE ALLOWABLE AREA, UM, THEN IT IS IMMEDIATELY RETURNED.
WHAT, WHAT'S THE REGULAR FORM THAT YOU REPORT THE MAYOR'S CON CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES ON? WHAT'S THAT CALLED? THE COH FORM? THE COH FORM? YES.
AND IS THAT FILED WITH THE CITY? YES, IT IS.
AND WHAT PART OF THE COH FORM DO YOU REPORT CONTRIBUTIONS ON? UM, IT IS A, A ONE.
AND DOES THAT REQUIRE THAT THE CONTRIBUTOR IDENTIFY THEIR RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS OR THEIR HOME ADDRESS? NO.
AND IT'S FILED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE SOFTWARE AND THERE'S NOT EVEN, THERE'S NOT A, A FIELD WHERE YOU COULD ENTER THAT INFORMATION IF YOU WANTED TO.
AND DOES THE CITY ON ANY OF THE FORMS THAT YOU FILL OUT OR ANY OF THE REPORTS YOU FILL OUT, DO THEY ASK YOU TO GO GATHER INFORMATION ABOUT WHERE, WHETHER PEOPLE ARE REGISTERED TO VOTE? NO.
DO THEY EVER ASK YOU TO GATHER INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE CLAIM TO BE THEIR HOME ZIP CODE? NO.
IS IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE CAMPAIGN HAS DONE ON ITS OWN MOTION TO COMPLY? YES.
I'M GONNA ASK YOU THE, WE PRE-FILED EVIDENCE THAT'S BEEN ADMITTED, WHICH INCLUDED THE MAYOR'S SWORN STATEMENT, AND I HOPE THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION GOT THIS BECAUSE IF, IF IT WAS PRE-FILED, I THINK IT REALLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO YOU.
BUT THE, THE COMPLAINANT WAS GOOD ENOUGH TO PUT UP, UH, EXHIBITS R ONE THROUGH R FOUR, AND I WANT YOU TO EXPLAIN IN YOUR OWN WORD WHAT IS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT R ONE THAT WAS FILED WITH THE MAYOR'S SWORN STATEMENT.
AND, AND WHAT WAS THAT LIMIT? THE LIMIT OR THE TOTAL? I MEAN, WHAT WAS THE TOTAL, MY BAD.
UM, THE TOTAL WAS $45,105 WITHIN THE 46 OR $47,000 LIMIT? YES.
WHAT IS EXHIBIT R TWO? R TWO INCLUDES THE DONATIONS ON THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FROM 2024, UM, THAT, UM, WHERE THE DONORS HAD PROVIDED, UH, ZIP CODES THAT WERE IN THE ALLOWABLE ZIP CODE AREA.
AND HOW DID WE FIND OUT THAT, THAT THOSE WERE THE HOME ZIP CODES OF THE DONORS THROUGH THE CUSTOM FIELD? IN THE FORM WE COLLECT IT.
BASICALLY WE ASKED THEM, WE ASKED THEM, AND THEY TOLD US, YES.
WHAT IS EXHIBIT R THREE? R THREE IS A LIST OF THE DONATIONS THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FROM 2022 THAT WE AGREE ARE OUT OF THE ALLOWABLE, ALLOWABLE ZIP CODE AREA.
AND WHAT WAS THAT TOTAL? $27,725.
AND WHEN WE GOT TO THAT NUMBER, DID THE CAMPAIGN STOP ACCEPTING CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PERSONS WHOSE ZIP CODE WAS SH HOME ZIP CODE WAS SHOWN TO BE OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN? UM, YES, I BELIEVE THIS IS FOR THE RUNOFF.
AND THE RUNOFF TOTAL WAS 30,000 SO ONCE WE HIT THE 30, WE DID.
AND WHAT IS EXHIBIT R FOUR? UM, R FOUR IS THE LIST OF DONATIONS IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT, UM, FROM 2022, THE WHERE THE DONORS PROVIDED, UM, ZIP CODES INSIDE THE ALLOWABLE.
NOW THE, SHIFTING GEARS A LITTLE BIT, THE COMPLAINANT HAS COMPLAINED THAT, UH, THERE WERE TWO CONTRIBUTIONS THAT WE RETURNED, UH, FROM CURTIS SEITZ, AND I THINK THE OTHER GUY WAS NAMED MR. BERGER.
UM, WERE THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS RETURNED? THEY WERE, HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY WERE RETURNED? UH, MR. SEITZ WROTE A CHECK TO THE CAMPAIGN, WHICH WAS DEPOSITED, AND WE WROTE A CHECK BACK TO HIM, WHICH DID CLEAR THE BANK.
AND WHAT ABOUT MR. HINBERGER? UM, HE, HIS WAS AN ONLINE CONTRIBUTION, WHICH WAS RETURNED ONLINE.
AND I RECONFIRMED THAT TODAY IN OUR RECORDS.
DO YOU KNOW WHETHER AN EXPENDITURE WAS REPORTED IN EITHER CASE FOR RETURNING THE CONTRIBUTION? I DO NOT ON THE SUB, LET ME FINISH ON THE SUBSEQUENT COH REPORT, UM, I DON'T HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME.
IF THEY WERE NOT REPORTED, THAT'S AN ERROR THAT WE CAN AMEND.
IS IT, IF THEY WERE REFUNDED, IS IT COMMON TO CORRECT OLD REPORTS IF THERE'S BEEN SOME OMISSION? YES.
AND DO YOU HAPPEN TO RECALL HOW MANY INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTIONS WERE MADE TO THE MAYOR IN THE 2022 RACE? OH, UM,
[01:10:01]
HE'S ALREADY TESTIFIED TO, YEAH.UH, HE JUST MENTIONED IT I THINK IN THE 2022, THE RUNOFF, UH, THE FIRST ONE, UH, THE FIRST ONE WAS UH, 3,800.
IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT THERE MAY BE, MAY HAVE BEEN SOME ERROR THAT NEEDED TO BE CORRECTED IN THOSE 3,800 INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTION REPORTS? IT COULD BE.
WE, WE, WE ARE VERY, VERY DILIGENT
AND, AND HOW MANY CONTRIBUTIONS IN 2024 SO FAR? I BELIEVE THERE ARE OVER 2,800.
AND IF THERE WAS A MISTAKE THERE, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT CAN STILL BE FIXED WITHOUT PENALTY BY FILING A CORRECTION REPORT? YES, I BELIEVE SO.
AND DO, DO CAMPAIGNS ROUTINELY, FILE CORRECTION REPORTS IF THERE'S BEEN AN OMISSION OR AN OVERSIGHT? YES, THEY DO.
THE LAST THING I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT MS. HARI IS THE, THE COMPLAINANT HAS TAKEN THE POSITION THAT A CAMPAIGN SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ACCEPT CONTRIBUTIONS ABOVE A CERTAIN DOLLAR LIMIT FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT REGISTERED VOTERS IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
UM, WHAT WOULD IT INVOLVE IF YOU HAD TO CHECK THE VOTER REGISTRATION STATUS OF EVERYBODY WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THE CAMPAIGN? IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE, THOSE RECORDS ARE MADE AVAILABLE, UM, COUNTY BY COUNTY, AND IT'S, UM, THEY MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS ON HOW TO PROVIDE THAT.
HOW MANY, HOW MANY COUNTY ARE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN? WELL, THERE'S THREE.
IF I TOLD YOU THERE WERE 925,000 REGISTERED VOTERS IN TRAVIS COUNTY, WOULD THAT SOUND ABOUT RIGHT? MM-HMM.
THEY'RE NOT ALL IN AUSTIN THOUGH, ARE THEY? RIGHT.
HOW MUCH TIME WOULD YOU HAVE TO SPEND TRACKING DOWN THE REGISTERED VOTER STATUS OF 3,800 CONTRIBUTORS? I, I COULDN'T EVEN, I COULDN'T EVEN GUESS AT THAT NUMBER.
UM, LEMME JUST IN CLOSING, SAY, HAVE, HAVE YOU DONE YOUR BEST AS THE MAYOR'S CAMPAIGN CONSULTANT TO KEEP HIM IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZIP CODE LIMIT? YES.
AND DO YOU KNOW OF ANY CONTRIBUTION THAT WAS ACCEPTED THAT WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZIP CODE LIMIT? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.
AND WHAT WOULD IT DO TO THE CAMPAIGN IF WE HAD TO GET AN AFFIDAVIT OR A VERIFICATION FROM EVERY CONTRIBUTOR ABOUT WHAT THEIR ZIP CODE WAS AND YOU HAD TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER REGISTERED VOTER STATUS WAS, HOW, HOW WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO DO THAT? COULD YOU DO THAT YOURSELF? OH, NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT.
I'M NOT SURE HOW, HOW MANY TEAM MEMBERS IT WOULD TAKE TO DO THAT, OR IF WE COULD EVEN DO IT IF YOU EVER KNOW THE WE HAVE TO STOP TIME IS, YOU'VE REACHED THE, THE TIME LIMIT.
FINISH A ASKING, ANSWERING THE LAST QUESTION.
MM-HMM,
UM, I MEAN, IT WOULD TAKE, WOULD TAKE A HUGE STAFF, UM, TO BE ABLE TO, ESPECIALLY ALL OF THE NUMEROUS WEBSITES THAT MS. GREENBERG HAD USED.
UM, IT WOULD TAKE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF EFFORT.
NOW WE WILL OPEN IT UP TO THE COMMISSION TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE OF EITHER PARTY OR ANY, ANY INDIVIDUAL.
MAY I USE SOME OF MY ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESPOND TO THOSE COMMENTS? UH, THAT WAS ONLY FOR THE OPENING AND, AND REBUTTAL.
YOU MAY WANNA WAIT AND DO QUESTIONS AFTER THE CLOSING.
WE'LL MAKE THAT DETERMINATION IN A LITTLE BIT, WHETHER, EXCUSE ME, EACH PARTY WILL HAVE TIME FOR A CLOSING STATEMENT.
YEAH, I HAVE A, I HAVE A QUESTION.
UH, SECRETARY STANTON ADAMS. I HAVE A, CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME? YES, COMMISSIONER, DO THE COMPLAINT.
SO DID THE COMPLAINANT GET THE FULL AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THE RESPONDENT GOT JUST NOW? NO, SHE WAS ALLOTTED THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME.
SHE DID NOT USE IT ALL, BUT I, I JUST HEARD HER ASK IF SHE COULD USE THE REMAINDER OF IT.
I THINK THAT THE PROCEDURALLY WE WERE GONNA SAY EACH, THAT THEY GOT 10 MINUTES FOR THE INITIAL STATEMENT AND THEN AN ADDITIONAL 30 MINUTES.
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT IT'S MY RECOLLECTION OF HOW WE WERE GONNA DO THAT PROCEDURALLY.
WE SAID THAT, UM, THEY HAVE 10 MINUTES EACH AND THEY COULD USE THE REMAINING TIME OF THAT 10 MINUTES FOR THE REBUTTAL AND THAT THEY COULD HAVE UP TO 30 MINUTES.
AND SHE DIDN'T USE, SHE USED, I THINK WHAT SHE HAD LIKE 16 MINUTES LEFT.
[01:15:01]
GUESS, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER.I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS WERE THEY EXPECTED TO DO THAT 30 MINUTES ALL AT ONCE OR DO THEY HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT? TO, TO FINISH THAT OUT NOW? BECAUSE I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO HEAR IF IT'S ALLOWED IN THE TIME LIMITS THAT WE ESTABLISHED.
I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR SOME RESPONSES TO SOME OF WHAT THE RESPONDENT SAID.
COMMISSIONER KALE, YOU C CERTAINLY CAN ASK QUESTIONS, BUT THE TIME, THE, THE WAY THE PROCEDURE IS, UH, THERE IS NOT A TIME RESERVATION FOR THE 30 MINUTE PRESENTATION THAT WAS EXPRESSLY FOR THE 10 MINUTE OPENING, UH, REMARKS, OPENING STATEMENT AT ANY TIME REMAINING FROM THE 10 MINUTES COULD BE USED FOR THE REBUTTAL AND EACH SIDE WAS, UH, GIVEN THE SAME 30 MINUTES.
IF YOU DID NOT USE THE FULL 30 MINUTES, UM, THAT THAT WAS A CHOICE, BUT WE ARE NOT.
THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
RECOGNIZING COMMISSIONER, UH, MCGOVERN.
UM, SO I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT AND THEN I THINK I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE COMPLAINANT.
I'M NOT, I'M GONNA TRY NOT TO TAKE UP MUCH TIME.
UM, SO THE ARGUMENT THAT I HEARD YOU RESPONDING TO SOUNDED A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN THE ARGUMENT THAT I HEARD THE, I'M SORRY, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME HEARING YOU.
SORRY, I'M A CHRONIC QUIET TALKER.
PART OF THE ARGUMENT THAT YOU WERE RESPONDING TO FROM MS. GREENBERG, I THINK WAS ARTICULATED A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY THAN WHAT I UNDERSTOOD HER ARGUMENT TO BE.
SO I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AND I DON'T WANT TO LIKE FRAME THEM IN A GOTCHA WAY.
SO I'D LIKE TO JUST KIND OF GET THEM ALL OUT AND THEN LET YOU RESPOND TO THEM ALL.
SO YOUR RESPONSE FOCUSED ON WHETHER A PERSON WHO'S REGISTERED IN AUSTIN CAN MAKE A CONTRIBUTION.
WHAT I UNDERSTOOD HER MS. GREENBERG'S ARGUMENT TO BE WAS NOT THAT YOU WERE REGISTERED, BUT THAT YOU WERE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN AUSTIN, WHICH I THINK IS A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THING.
UM, YOU KNOW, THE RESPONDENT'S SWORN STATEMENT, YOU KNOW, POINTED OUT, AND I, AS FAR AS I KNOW THIS IS CORRECT, THAT RESIDENCY IS A MATTER OF INTENT.
AND SO IF I OWN A HOUSE IN AUSTIN, IF I OWN A HOUSE IN HOUSTON, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S MY INTENT THAT DEFINES MY RESIDENCY AND THAT CAN BE NEBULOUS, I'LL GRANT YOU.
BUT, UM, IF I REGISTER IN HOUSTON TO VOTE, AND IF I GO FURTHER AND VOTE FOR WHO I WANT TO BE THE MAYOR OF HOUSTON, I THINK THAT MORE OR LESS CLOSES OUT MY ELIGIBILITY TO VOTE IN AUSTIN.
SO I THINK IT'S SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT.
LET ME, AND I, I THINK IT'LL ACTUALLY BE HELPFUL FOR YOU IF I CAN JUST GET THIS ALL OUT.
UM, AND WITH THAT FRAMING, I UNDERSTOOD HER EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENT TO BE BASICALLY THAT Y'ALL, IN SUBMITTING ONE OF YOUR EXHIBITS, WHICH I KNOW WAS BASED ON A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THEORY OF FACTS IN THE COMPLAINT, YOU'ALL SUBMITTED AN EXHIBIT THAT YOU HAD REFUNDED X AMOUNT OF MONEY, WHICH I THINK IS TAKEN AS ULTIMATELY BEING LIKE A STIPULATION THAT THOSE PEOPLE WERE NOT ELIGIBLE AND THAT SHE FOUND THAT AMOUNT PLUS ADDITIONAL PEOPLE WHO SHE IDENTIFIED AS HAVING REGISTERED ELSEWHERE OR RESIDING ELSEWHERE AS BEING WHAT, WHAT TOOK THE COMPLAINT OVER THE THRESHOLD.
AND SO I GUESS MY TWO QUESTIONS THERE ARE, DO YOU DISAGREE? 'CAUSE I MEAN THE, THE THE CODE, I MEAN THE, THE CHARTER DOES SAY ELIGIBILITY TO VOTE, BUT I MEAN, I'LL GRANT YOU, YOU GAVE THE EXAMPLE OF SOMEBODY WHO'S LIVING IN AUSTIN WHO ALLOWS THEIR REGISTRATION TO EXPIRE.
WELL, AS FAR AS I KNOW UNDER ELECTION LAW, IF YOU'RE SIMPLY LIVING IN AUSTIN, YOUR REGISTRATION EXPIRES, YOU CAN, YOU'RE STILL ELIGIBLE TO VOTE WITH A PROVISIONAL VOTE OR ONE MECHANISM OR ANOTHER AS OPPOSED TO IF I'VE AFFIRMATIVELY REGISTERED IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION.
BUT IN, IN LIGHT OF IF THAT, IF THAT IS INDEED THE ARGUMENT, DO Y'ALL, I MEAN, WOULD YOU WANT TO REQUEST PERMISSION TO WITH, YOU KNOW, MODIFY YOUR EXHIBITS SO AS TO CLARIFY WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS A STIPULATION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THOSE PEOPLE WERE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN AUSTIN? YES, MR. MCGIVEN, WHAT YOU ARE SAYING MAKES GOOD SENSE, BUT IT IS NOT WHAT THE COMPLAINANT IS SAYING.
THE COMPLAINANT SAID IN VERY PLAIN LANGUAGE THAT YOU ARE NOT
[01:20:01]
ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN AUSTIN IF YOU ARE NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE.SHE LOOKED AT TWO PROVISIONS OF THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE 11.01 AND 11.02 AND 11.01 TALKS ABOUT ELIGIBILITY AND 11.02 SAYS TO BE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE, YOU MUST BE REGISTERED TO VOTE.
SO THE COMPLAINANT HAS GONE THROUGH AND BASICALLY DONE A, A SWEEP OF OUR CONTRIBUTORS GETTING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF NAMES, APPARENTLY FROM THE TRAVIS COUNTY CLERK AND HAS TRIED TO FIND PEOPLE WHO CONTRIBUTED TO OUR CAMPAIGN WHO WERE NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE IN AUSTIN.
AND OUR POINT IS THAT IS NEVER WHAT THE CHARTER AMENDMENT HAS BEEN ABOUT.
IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT WHERE PEOPLE LIVE AND WHEN IT WAS DRAFTED, THE INTENT WAS YOU'RE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IF YOU LIVE IN AUSTIN AND YOU MAY HAVE TO TAKE ADDITIONAL STEPS, BUT IT WAS NEVER ABOUT BEING REGISTERED TO VOTE IN AUSTIN.
SO THIS IS A BRAND NEW ARGUMENT THAT WAS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT.
AND THE POINT THAT WE WERE MAKING ABOUT THE 2006 CHARTER LANGUAGE WAS IT DIDN'T TELL ANYBODY IN AUSTIN THAT IF YOU VOTE FOR THIS, THEN PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO BE REGISTERED IN AUSTIN IN ORDER TO CONTRIBUTE IN AUSTIN.
SO YOUR QUESTION MAKES PERFECT SENSE BECAUSE THE ARGUMENT THAT, THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH IS, IS A NEW ARGUMENT, BUT YOU'RE NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT SHE SAID.
UM, CHAIR, DO I HAVE THE LATITUDE TO ASK A FOLLOW UP QUESTION? LET ME JUST A MOMENT.
UM, COMMISSIONER, WE'D LIKE TO CLARIFY SOMETHING.
MS. GREENBERG, YOU HAD ASKED EARLIER IF YOU COULD REPLY OR USE, UH, REMAINING TIME THAT YOU HAD TO REPLY AND WHEREAS YOU CANNOT REPLY, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO PRESENT REBUTTAL EVIDENCE IF THAT IS THE CASE.
IS IT CLEAR THE DISTINCTION? NO, I KNOW I HAD TO MS. GREENBERG, WE CAN'T JUST TAKE ARGUMENT, BUT IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO PRESENT IS THE POINT OF THE CHAIR, YOU, YOU, YOU HAD REQUESTED TO RES TO RESPOND, IT WASN'T CLEAR WHETHER OR NOT, UH, THAT WAS SIMPLY ARGUMENT OR YOU WISH TO PRESENT EVIDENCE IN MY EVIDENCE SLIDES, I WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK TO I THINK THE SUMMARY FROM 2022 AND POINT OUT ISSUES THAT WERE NOT BROUGHT UP.
IF YOU DON'T WANT ME TO SPEAK ANYMORE, I CAN TURN OFF MY MICROPHONE.
I WILL STATE THIS, HOPEFULLY IT WILL CLARIFY IT.
IF YOU HAVE EVIDENCE TO PRESENT AS A REBUTTAL, YOU MAY DO SO, BUT IT IS NOT, UH, IT IS NOT A FORM FOR YOU TO COUNTER ARGUE.
AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK TO THE SLIDE, UM, JUST BEFORE THAT.
THERE'S TWO PAGES OF TABLES THAT WILL BE FINE MS. GREENBERG.
AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE 15 MINUTES.
YEAH, I DON'T HAVE 15 MINUTES OF THINGS TO SAY CONCERNING THE EVIDENCE, BUT AS YOU NOTE, IF YOU LOOK VERY CAREFULLY, MANY OF THE PEOPLE, JUST ONE SLIDE, I KNOW YOU'RE TRYING TO GET THE TWO THAT HAVE THE YELLOW.
THEY LIVE IN ZIP CODES THAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODES, THE ONES IN WHITE, UH, FOR EXAMPLE, THE NEXT PAGE OR INSIDE OF THE ZIP CODE ENVELOPE.
AND I DIDN'T GO THROUGH THESE INDIVIDUALS ONE BY ONE BECAUSE THEY ARE INSIDE THE ZIP CODE ENVELOPE, BUT THEIR SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODE DOES NOT MATCH WHERE THEY LIVE.
IF WHERE THEY LIVE IS WHERE THEY'RE REGISTERED TO VOTE OR WHERE THEY OWN,
[01:25:01]
UM, PROPERTY, THE MOST OBVIOUS CASE OF A SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODE WHERE I KNOW THEY DON'T LIVE IN AUSTIN AND YOU KNOW THEY DON'T LIVE IN AUSTIN, WAS GREG VIS, THEY LIVE IN GEORGIA AND THEY REPORTED A SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODE IN AUSTIN.THE SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODES SIMPLY ARE NOT RELIABLE.
I'M NOT SAYING IT'S INTENTIONAL OR WHATEVER, AND MAYBE I SHOULDN'T SAY ANYTHING FURTHER, I'M JUST SAYING THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THEIR SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODES DO NOT MATCH IN MANY CASES WHERE THESE PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIVE.
WERE YOU DONE, MS. GREENBERG OR SURE.
DON'T WANT ME, DON'T WANT ME TO RESPOND, BUT I DO HOPE YOU'LL ALLOW A CLOSING NOTED.
UM, RECOGNIZING AGAIN, COMMISSIONER MCGIVEN GIVE THANK YOU CHAIR.
UM, SO LOOKING AT THE LANGUAGE WE HAVE, AND I MEAN WITH, WITH, YOU KNOW, OFFERING ALL RESPECT TO WHAT THE VOTERS MAY HAVE INTENDED, I'M, I'M ACCUSTOMED TO THINKING ABOUT RULES BASED ON LIKE HOW THEY'RE ACTUALLY WRITTEN ON THE PAGE.
UM, EXCEPT IN THE EVENT THAT THERE'S AMBIGUITY, OF COURSE, I I'M LOOKING AT SUBSECTION E, RESPONSIBILITY OF CANDIDATE TO PREVENT VIOLATIONS.
AND YOU KNOW, ONE, YOU KNOW, IT SAYS THE CANDIDATE OR HIS, HIS OR HER COMMITTEE SHALL DETERMINE.
AND, YOU KNOW, ONE WONDERS WHY WE DON'T HAVE WORDS THERE, LIKE WITH REASONABLE DILIGENCE OR IN GOOD FAITH.
UM, IS THERE, IF YOU'RE AWARE OF IT, ANY PRECEDENT FOR THIS BODY TO READ, YOU KNOW, LIKE A, A REASONABLE DILIGENCE OR GOOD FAITH REQUIREMENT INTO THAT SUBSECTION AS OPPOSED TO LIKE A STRICT SCRUTINY STANDARD, UH, ALL CAMPAIGN? I THINK ALL CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW IS BASED ON EFFORTS TO COMPLY.
I MEAN, IF, IF YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF CONTRIBUTIONS, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT HAS ENTERED CITY RACES, STATE RACES IN RECENT YEARS, UM, THERE, THERE ARE PROBABLY VERY FEW CANDIDATES AT THE STATE OR CITY LEVEL THAT AT SOME POINT MAY NOT HAVE GOTTEN SOME INCORRECT INFORMATION FROM A CONTRIBUTOR AND REPORTED THAT ON A FORM.
ANYBODY THAT'S BEEN INVOLVED IN, IN POLITICS WILL UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A FOOLPROOF AND FOOLPROOF.
AND AS BOTH THE MAYOR AND MS. HARI STATED, YOU HAVE TO RELY ON THE INFORMATION THAT'S GIVEN TO YOU BY YOUR CONTRIBUTORS BECAUSE THERE'S NEITHER THE, THE TIME NOR THE FUNCTIONAL ABILITY TO GO OUT THERE AND TRACK DOWN THE OCCUPATION EMPLOYER, UH, ZIP CODE, YOU KNOW, ADDRESS, UH, MIDDLE NAME OF EVERYBODY YOU REPORT.
SO IT, YOU HAVE TO READ IN A WHAT WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY A BEST EFFORTS AND GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO MAKE THESE THINGS WORK.
AND THERE WILL ALWAYS BE MISTAKES.
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE CORRECTION REPORTS
AT THIS TIME WE WILL TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AND WE WILL RECONVENE AFTER FIVE MINUTES.
BACK FROM RECESS AND RESUMING AT 8:56 PM NOTING THAT THE COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE PRESENT ARE THE SAME ONES THAT WERE PRESENT, UH, FOR THE FIRST HALF OR BEFORE WE TOOK A RECESS.
AND SPECIFICALLY THAT COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA HAS RE IS RECUSING AND PRESENT ARE COMMISSIONER CASTO, MCGIVEN, POEY FIGUEROA KALE, AND MYSELF, STANTON ADAMS AS SECRETARY AND ACTING CHAIR.
WE WILL RESUME WITH QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS FROM THE COMMISSION.
AND I'D LIKE TO PUT OUT THERE THAT LET'S TRY TO TARGET,
[01:30:01]
UM, ASKING QUESTIONS BY FINISHING WITH THE QUESTIONS BY NINE 15.I REALIZE THAT IS AN OPTIMISTIC TIME, AS WE KNOW IS OF THE ABSENCE HERE.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO TARGET.
BUT WE'LL SEE, UH, AS IT PROGRESSES SO THAT THAT'S WE'LL ALL BE KIND OF WORKING TOWARDS OKAY.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? UM, YES.
UM, MADAM CHAIR, I HAVE ONE QUESTION, UM, FOR THE COMPLAINT IN MS. GREENBERG? YES SIR.
RECOGNIZING COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA.
UH, MY QUESTION IS, UM, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU PRESENTED, IF WE ACCEPTED THE PREMISE THAT UNREGISTERED VOTERS BUT ARE LIVING WITHIN THE AUSTIN CITY LIMITS, UM, ARE, UM, NOT WHAT THE INTENDED STATUTE IS ABOUT, BUT WE WERE ONLY GONNA LOOK AT THE, UM, OF THE DONORS WHO WERE OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, AS YOU POINTED OUT, YOU KNOW, THE THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF UT AND OTHERS LIKE THAT.
WOULD THOSE DONORS BY THEMSELVES, UH, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE YOU PRESENTED BE OVER THE STATUTORY LIMITS? IS IS MY EVIDENTIARY QUESTION? I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE TABLES, UM, AND AND LOOK AT THAT AND TURN IN, IN 22 AND 2024.
UM, OR EVEN SEE WHY THAT'S A RELEVANT QUESTION BECAUSE THE CHARTER LANGUAGE IS CLEAR.
IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN WHAT WAS ON THE BALLOT.
THE BALLOT LANGUAGE IS USUALLY SIMPLER THAN THE ACTUAL LAWS THAT GET PASSED.
UM, AND I DON'T SEE WHY IT REALLY MATTERS.
UM, BUT LET'S, IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT, 27 7 2 5 OR MAYBE THE 2024 IS BETTER, BUT 27 2 5, UM, I'M SORRY.
YOU WANT ME TO DO KEEP A CALCULATOR TOO? UH, I, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR ME 'CAUSE I DO THINK THERE IS AN OPEN QUESTION ABOUT THE STATUTE ON WHETHER IT'S TALKING ABOUT ELIGIBLE VOTERS VERSUS, UH, REGISTERED VOTERS THAT'S ELIGIBLE VOTERS AND ELIGIBLE VOTERS IS JUST DEFINED IN STATE CODE.
AND I THINK THAT'S THE OPEN QUESTION OF WHETHER WE CAN USE THE STATE CODE OR NOT.
GARY, SO I'M, I'M LOOKING AT THE OTHER PART, GARRETT.
WELL, ALL OF THESE PEOPLE PROVIDED ZIP CODES THAT WERE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
AND THEN PROVIDED, UM, SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODES FROM A LIST THAT ARE INSIDE THE ZIP CODE ENVELOPE, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.
EXCEPT FOR CHRIS HINBERGER, WHO THEY'RE SAYING THEY RETURNED IT BUT DIDN'T PUT IT ON ANY CAMPAIGN, UM, FINANCE FORM.
SO THERE'S NO CAMPAIGN FINANCE FORM THAT CHRIS HINBERGER'S DONATION WAS ACTUALLY REFUNDED.
MELISSA AND RUDY GUARD GUARDS, UH, LIVE IN, I THINK IT WAS SPICEWOOD, BUT SEVEN, THEY DON'T LIVE IN THE SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODE, BUT THEY SAY THEY LIVE IN THE SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODE AND THE EVIDENCE SHOWS FROM WHERE THEY'RE REGISTERED TO VOTE AND WHERE THEY OWN A HOMESTEAD THAT THEY DON'T LIVE IN THE ZIP CODE ENVELOPE.
UM, CARMEL AND GREGORY VIS LIVE IN GEORGIA.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S, UM, REALLY UP FOR DEBATE.
CHARLIE AND GINA HAY, GINA COLEMAN, BESIDES GIVING TWICE EACH, UM, ARE ON THE HAYES VOTER ROLL OUTSIDE OF THE ZIP CODE.
UM, SO YEAH, THEY'RE NOT, THEY DON'T LIVE INSIDE OF THE ZIP CODE.
GAR BLINKERS IS ONE WHO GAVE A SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODE INSIDE, BUT ALSO AN ADDRESS OUTSIDE.
BRUCE KNOX IS SIMPLY A, UM, THAT'S INSIDE, IT'S JUST THE UNRELIABILITY
[01:35:01]
OF THE SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODE.DO YOU WANNA GO TO THE NEXT PAGE? YEAH.
DENISE AND STEVEN LESLIE ARE IN HAYES COUNTY.
THEY HAVE ADDRESS IN HAYES COUNTY.
THEY'RE REGISTERED, I THINK THEY WERE REGISTERED TO VOTE IN HAYES COUNTY, UM, OUTSIDE OF THE ZIP CODE, BUT THEY PROVIDED AN INSIDE ZIP CODE.
I MEAN, YOU CAN BELIEVE WHATEVER YOU WANNA BELIEVE, I CAN'T PROVE IT.
MARK PAPERMASTER GAVE US 7 8 7 0 1, BUT HE'S NOT ON THE TRAVIS COUNTY VOTER ROLL AND HE OWNS PROPERTY OUTSIDE OF THE ZIP CODE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY REALLY FOR YOUR QUESTION BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE OF WHERE PEOPLE LIVE IS NOT AS CLEAR AS WHERE THEY'RE, THEY ARE OR ARE NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE UNLESS, I MEAN, EVEN A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION DOESN'T PROVE THAT THAT'S THEIR PREFERRED ADDRESS.
BUT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THESE, UM, THAT YOU'VE HIGHLIGHTED ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE ADDRESSES OUTSIDE THAT REQUIRED.
UM, SO MOST OF THESE ARE NOT RELATED TO THE ISSUE OF REGISTRATION.
IT'S MOSTLY RELATED TO THEM BEING OUTSIDE THE ZIP CODE.
I I WOULD SAY THAT THAT'S TRUE, THAT THERE'S AN INCONSISTENCY WITH THE ACTUAL RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS AND THE SELF-REPORTED, UM, ZIP CODE.
THE PROBLEM IS IN MY VIEW, THAT THEY WERE GIVEN A LIST AND SAID, YOU CAN'T DONATE UNLESS YOU FILL IT IN AND SAY YOU LIVE IN ONE OF THE ZIP CODES FROM THE LIST.
AND THE RESULT IS THIS INCONSISTENCY OF WHERE PEOPLE LIVE AND WHAT THE SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODES ARE.
I APPRECIATE YOU GOING THROUGH 'EM WITH ME.
COMMISSIONER CASTO, JUST A QUICK, QUICK QUESTION, MS. GREENBERG.
SO JUST TO CONFIRM YOUR PROCESS, WHEN, WHEN YOU WERE DOING THIS CHECKING, YOU ONLY CHECKED PEOPLE THAT YOU ALSO FOUND A CONFLICTING ZIP CODE OR ADDRESS, SOMETHING PRESENTED ITSELF THAT MADE YOU THINK THEY LIVED ELSEWHERE? I PRETTY MUCH LOOKED UP EVERYBODY WHO WAS ON THE, UM, R TWO, R TWO AND R FOUR.
THESE WERE PEOPLE WHO GAVE ONE ZIP CODE WHEN THEY DONATED AND ANOTHER ZIP CODE AS A SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODE.
AND THE MAJORITY OF THOSE DID HAVE, UH, I GUESS A REGISTRATION TO VOTE AT THE SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODE.
AND THEN THE ONLY ONES I'M PRESENTING HERE ARE THE ONES WHERE THERE'S THAT INCONSISTENCY.
SO THERE WAS NO CHECKING OF ANY PEOPLE WHO CLEARLY LIVE INSIDE CITY OF AUSTIN ZIP CODES.
BUT YOU DIDN'T CHECK THOSE TO SEE IF THEY WERE REGISTERED TO VOTE? NO, THERE WERE THOUSANDS OF DONORS.
I MEAN, THE ONLY ONE I HAPPEN TO RUN INTO WAS THE DONATION IN 2024.
UM, OF THE SAME PERSON WHO WAS IN THE COMPLAINT FOR 2022 AND HE BY 2024 LISTED AN IN, UM, IN THE ENVELOPE ZIP CODE FOR HIS ADDRESS ON GUADALUPE, BUT HE WAS ACTUALLY NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE.
BUT I DID NOT LOOK UP THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE.
COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY THAT'S ON NOW.
UM, I THINK, I THINK WHAT BOTH SIDES HAVE PRESENTED IN DIFFERENT WAYS IS, UM, ARE, ARE PROBLEMS WITH THE SYSTEM, UH, PROBLEMS WITH IMPLEMENTING, UM, THE LAW AS I SEE IT WRITTEN.
UH, AND SO THESE PROBLEMS ARE PROBLEM, BUT I, ONE THING THAT OCCURS TO ME IS YOU CHECKED THE FOLKS WHO HAD ORIGINALLY REPORTED ZIP CODES OUTSIDE THE CITY, RIGHT? CORRECT.
BECAUSE, AND I THINK I MADE THIS POINT AT THE LAST HEARING, IF SOME OF THE PEOPLE, IF PEOPLE HAD REPORTED ZIP CODES OUTSIDE THE CITY FOR ALL SORTS OF REASONS THAT WERE UNDERSTANDABLE BUT ACTUALLY LIVED IN THE CITY, THE OPPOSITE COULD HAVE HAPPENED, RIGHT? ABSOLUTELY.
PEOPLE WHO REPORTED ZIP CODES IN AUSTIN, MAYBE THAT WAS THEIR BUSINESS ADDRESS AND THEY ACTUALLY LIVE SOMEWHERE ELSE.
BUT YOU DIDN'T CHECK ANY OF THOSE ABSOLUTELY.
AND PART OF THE PROBLEM HERE IS, IS IF YOU INTERPRET THE LAW THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN, IT BECOMES VERY, VERY DIFFICULT TO CHECK ALL
[01:40:01]
THESE THINGS OUT.SO I'M STUCK BETWEEN THAT AND THE FACT THAT I'M LOOKING AT THE LAW AS WRITTEN, AND I THINK I POINTED OUT LAST TIME, ELIGIBLE YOU DID ELIGIBLE TO VOTE, THAT MEANS YOU'RE REGISTERED TO VOTE.
I MEAN, TO ME IT WAS IMMEDIATELY OBVIOUS, BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT'S, AND THIS IS HISTORY, I GUESS, BUT I LOOKED AT IT, I THOUGHT I KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS.
I MEAN, THIS CAMPAIGN HAD A LOT OF DONORS.
AND AS A RESULT OF HAVING A LOT OF DONORS, THEY HAD A LOT OF MONEY.
UM, YOU CAN CHECK PEOPLE'S BED, THEY HAVE ACCESS TO VAN, THEY COULD HAVE LOOKED PEOPLE UP IN VAN.
UM, THEY ALSO, I MEAN, SOME PEOPLE THAT I HAD STRUGGLE WITH, I DID A PIR WITH THE, UM, TRAVIS COUNTY TAX OFFICE.
THEY ARE VERY RESPONSIVE, VERY FAST, AND THEY CHARGE $15 AN HOUR.
IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THIS CAMPAIGN TO DO A BETTER JOB OF COMPLYING SIMPLY ASKING FOR A ZIP CODE AND GIVING A LIST OF ACCEPTABLE ZIP CODES.
IT, IT JUST DIDN'T WORK TO MS. GREENBERG FOR COMPLIANCE.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE ANSWERING A QUESTION FROM A COMMISSIONER INSTEAD OF, UM, MAKING ANY REBUTTAL STATEMENTS OR POSITIONS.
UH, COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY DID YOU AN, YOU ASKED YOUR QUESTION AND SHE ANSWERED IT.
SHE, HE WAS ASKING ABOUT HOW TO ENSURE WAS IT POSSIBLE TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE AND I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT I WAS ANSWERING.
I APOLOGIZE IF I INTERRUPTED YOU.
YOU DIDN'T CHECK IT COULD GO THE OTHER WAY AND YOU DIDN'T CHECK AND YOU HAD ANSWERED THAT.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.
THIS WILL BE FOR BOTH PARTIES HERE.
WHAT IS YOUR, AND SEEING AS MS. GREENBERG, YOU, UH, LAST RESPONDED, IF YOU WOULD YIELD IT TO, UM, MR. ZER, FIRST, WHAT IS YOUR, UM, UNDERSTANDING MR. COWER OF HOW TO MEASURE OR HOW, HOW TO MEASURE WHETHER SOMEONE IS ELIGIBLE PER PER THE CODE, PER THE REQUIREMENT? THIS IS THE CORE QUESTION WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH AND IT BASICALLY COMES DOWN TO THE SAME THING WE'VE TALKED ABOUT REPEATEDLY.
WHAT IS AN INDIVIDUAL'S LEGAL RESIDENCE? NOW LEGAL RESIDENCE BASICALLY IS A COMPLICATED CONCEPT IN TEXAS, BUT IT'S A MATTER OF INTENT.
WHERE DO YOU LIVE? AND EVEN IF YOU'RE NOT STAYING THERE NOW, WHERE DO YOU INTEND TO RETURN TO LEGAL RESIDENTS? FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE LATE PRESIDENT BUSH SPENT PROBABLY 20 YEARS IN WASHINGTON DC WHILE CLAIMING A RESIDENCE AND VOTING IN HOUSTON BECAUSE HE SAID HE INTENDED TO RETURN THERE IN 1980, JUDGE JEAN MUIR OF AUSTIN.
IT TURNED OUT HER TRAILER WAS OVER THE LINE IN BASTROP COUNTY AND EVERYBODY SAID, WELL, YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF BAS, BASTROP COUNTY.
NO, THERE WAS A TRIAL AND AFTER THREE DAYS THE COURT RULED YOUR INTENT IS TO LIVE IN TRAVIS COUNTY.
SO WHERE SOMEBODY LIVES, YOU CAN'T DO A 30 MINUTE INTERNET SEARCH AND DECLARE SOMEBODY A LEGAL RESIDENT OF GEORGIA OR NEW YORK OR DRIPPING SPRINGS WHERE PEOPLE LIVE IS A QUESTION OF INTENT AND DO THEY INTEND TO RETURN THERE? AND IT IS NOT UNUSUAL FOR PEOPLE TO MOVE OUT AND RETAIN SOME CONNECTION TO AUSTIN OR TEXAS AND PLAN TO, TO COME BACK THERE.
WE'VE GOT PEOPLE VOTING IN TEXAS WHO LIVE IN, IN EUROPE.
SO TO ME IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO A QUESTION OF WHERE DO PEOPLE DECLARE THAT THEY LIVE? AND THEN IF THEY ARE DECLARING THAT TO BE WHERE THEY LIVE, THEY CAN REGISTER TO VOTE THERE AND THEY VERY SELDOM GET CHALLENGED ON IT.
NOW, THIS LANGUAGE THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT FROM THE CHARTER, YOU CAN'T GO AROUND GRAFTING STATE ELECTION CODE CONCEPTS ONTO IT BECAUSE THOSE ELECTION CODE CONCEPTS ARE DESIGNED TO DETERMINE WHO CAN GO INTO THE POLL ON ELECTION DAY AND VOTE.
AND OUR CHARTER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHO CAN GO INTO THE POLL AND VOTE ON ELECTION DAY.
OUR CHARTER HAS TO DO WITH WHERE DO PEOPLE LIVE.
[01:45:01]
SO LET ME CHECK MY UNDERSTANDING OF YOUR RESPONSE OR THAN YOUR RESPONSE TO HOW WOULD YOU MEASURE AND, AND RELATE IT IS HOW WOULD, WHAT WAS YOUR, WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF ELIGIBLE MEANING THAT WOULD BE RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS WHERE THE PERSON RESIDES IN RE RESIDENCE IS A MATTER OF INTENT.INTENDS TO RES RESIDE OR INTENDS TO, UM, TO RETURN TO, EVEN IF YOU'RE NOT THERE, IF YOU INTEND TO RETURN THERE IN TEXAS, THAT'S YOUR RESIDENCE.
THAT'S WHY LIKE IF, IF THIS ORDINANCE HAD BEEN IN PLACE, THIS CHARTER HAD BEEN IN PLACE IN HOUSTON, GEORGE BUSH COULD HAVE CONTRIBUTED, CONTINUED TO CONTRIBUTE TO HOUSTON CANDIDATES BECAUSE HE MAINTAINED A HOUSTON LEGAL RESIDENCE AND HE VOTED THERE, YOU KNOW, AND, AND HOW WOULD YOU KNOW SOMEONE'S RESIDENTIAL OR LEGAL RESIDENCE? IS THAT THE SELF-REPORTED? CORRECT.
THE ONLY THING I KNOW TO DO TO ASK THEM, BECAUSE IF YOU GET INTO A FIGHT ABOUT IT, YOU BASICALLY END UP WITH A, A LAWSUIT AND MR. GRECO'S ATTORNEY WHO WAS HERE AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING HAD JUST COME BACK FROM TRYING LAWSUITS ABOUT VOTER ELIGIBILITY WHERE THERE WAS DAYS OF EVIDENCE ABOUT WHERE DO PEOPLE LIVE AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN DO OFF THE INTERNET.
MS. GREENBERG, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND TO MY QUESTION? ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN A ZIP CODE INSIDE OF THE ZIP CODE ENVELOPE? YES.
WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THAT REQUIREMENT? OF WHAT ELIGIBLE, WHAT IT MEANS TO BE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN THE PREDEFINED LIST OF ZIP CODES? MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT ELIGIBLE TO VOTE MEANS WHAT IT SAYS IN THE STATE CODE FOR TEXAS ABOUT ELIGIBILITY TO VOTE, WHICH INCLUDES, YOU KNOW, THE RESIDENTS AND YOU ONLY GET TO CHOOSE ONE FOR WHICH IS YOUR RESIDENCE FOR ELIGIBILITY TO VOTE.
AND THERE'S A LIST I DIDN'T GIVE THEM ALL, WHICH INCLUDE, UM, MENTAL CAPACITY AND COMPLICATED RULES IF YOU WERE A FELON.
UM, BUT IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE CHARTER SAYS IN TERMS OF ELIGIBLE TO VOTE WITHIN THOSE ZIP CODES IS NOT JUST I INTEND TO LIVE IN IN AUSTIN IN THE FUTURE.
'CAUSE IF YOU INTEND TO LIVE IN AUSTIN IN THE FUTURE, BUT IN THE MEANTIME YOU'RE REGISTERED SOMEWHERE ELSE, YOU'RE NOT ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN AUSTIN IN ANY OF THOSE AUSTIN ZIP CODES.
SO IT SEEMS TO ME, AND LET ME KNOW IF I'M MISINTERPRETING, BUT I'M SEEING THAT THE COMMON, THE BASIC COMMON GROUND BETWEEN BOTH SIDES IS RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS, THE ZIP CODE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS AS SELF-REPORTED.
IS THAT ACCURATE? WHAT I'M SAYING IS IT'S THE INTENT THAT IS HOW LEGAL RESIDENCE IS DETERMINED.
AND EVEN IF I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, CURRENTLY PUTTING MY HEAD DOWN TO SLEEP IN AUSTIN, YOU KNOW, SAY I SPEND A YEAR IN COLORADO, I CAN STILL CLAIM LEGAL RESIDENCE IN AUSTIN AND VOTE HERE.
FOLLOW UP QUESTION, UH, UNDERSTOOD THAT, THAT FOR YOU MR. COWER, THERE IS THE, THERE IS THE, UM, THERE IS THE COMPONENT OF INTENT, BUT IT DOES SOUND LIKE THEN THAT IS WHERE BOTH SIDES ARE IN AGREEMENT.
THAT INTENT ASIDE BECAUSE THAT CAN BE AN EXTRA MM-HMM
YOU'RE NOT DISPUTING THAT, RIGHT? THAT IT, AGAIN, WE'VE, WE'VE GOTTA KEEP IN MIND THERE'S A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE IS DESIGNED TO SAY WHO CAN GO DOWN TO THE, THE VOTING PLACE ON ELECTION DAY AND CAST A BALLOT.
AND TO DO THAT, YOU HAVE TO BE REGISTERED IN THAT JURISDICTION.
OUR CHARTER DOES NOT ADDRESS, CAN YOU GO DOWN TO THE VOTING PLACE ON ELECTION DAY? OUR, OUR CHARTER HAS TO DO, PROVISION HAS TO DO WITH ARE YOU INSIDE OR OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN ZIP CODES FOR YOUR RESIDENCE.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO DO WITH BEING SOMEONE WHO CAN CAST A BALLOT.
AND, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT HERE TONIGHT IS GRAFTING THE CONCEPT THAT YOU HAVE TO BE A REGISTERED VOTER ONTO OUR CHARTER WHERE IT DOESN'T BELONG.
[01:50:01]
HAND, COMMISSIONER PUMPHREY, LET ME ASK THIS, UM, FOLLOW UP QUESTION, MS. GREENBERG, DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU MUST BE YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT IT MEANS THAT YOU MUST BE REGISTERED TO VOTE FOR THE ELIGIBLE? THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED ELIGIBLE TO VOTE, YOU HAVE TO BE REGISTERED TO VOTE.
AND MR. COWER, THAT IS WHERE YOU DIFFER, IS THAT CORRECT? THIS IS, I'M SAYING IF THE QUESTION IS CAN YOU VOTE ON ELECTION DAY, WHICH IS GOVERNED BY THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE, THAT'S A GOOD DEFINITION.
IF IT'S CAN YOU CONTRIBUTE TO AN AUSTIN CANDIDATE, WHICH IS NOT GOVERNED BY THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE, THAT'S NOT A GOOD DEFINITION.
COMMISSIONER PUMPHREY, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF THE LANGUAGE IN THE CHARTER IS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE, THERE'S NOT MUCH, THERE'S, I CAN SEE NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN BEING ELIGIBLE TO VOTE AND BEING ABLE TO GO TO THE POLLING PLACE.
TO ME, THEY'RE THE SAME THING.
NOW THERE MAY BE ALL SORTS OF PRACTICAL PROBLEMS HERE.
I'M ASSUMING THE CITY CAN USE A TERM OR A PHRASE LIKE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE.
I MAKE WHAT WE, WE CAN COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY, HUH? I'M GONNA PULL A JEOPARDY CARD AND ASK YOU TO STATE THAT IN THE FORM OF A QUESTION.
AM I UNDER, IS MY UNDERSTANDING CORRECT? HOW'S THAT
FIRST, I MEAN, I, I CAN'T BE CLEAR ENOUGH ABOUT THIS, BUT OUR CHARTER IS NOT PART OF THE CONSOLIDATED STATUTES OF TEXAS.
IT'S AN ORGANIC LAW OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN ADOPTED BY THE VOTERS IN AUSTIN.
AND IT MEANS WHAT IT SAYS TO THE VOTERS OF AUSTIN, AND WE DON'T HAVE TO BORROW LANGUAGE FROM STATE LAW, BUT YOU'VE ALSO GOT THE, YOU CAN'T STOP READING AT ELIGIBLE TO VOTE WHAT THE CHARTER SAYS.
AND THIS IS THE FOCUS NATURAL PERSONS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN A POSTAL ZIP CODE COMPLETELY OR PARTIALLY WITHIN THE AUSTIN.
THE FOCUS IS WHERE YOU ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE POSTAL ZIP CODE.
IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO SCREEN OUT PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE.
I MEAN, IT MAY, IT'S, IT MAY BE AN UNFORTUNATE USE OF ELIGIBLE, BUT IT WAS NEVER INTENDED.
AND, AND PEOPLE WHO'VE BEEN IN AUSTIN FOR 30 YEARS CAN UNDERSTAND THIS.
IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE.
MR. COWER, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.
DO YOU AGREE THAT THERE IS A FINITE LIST OF ZIP CODES FOR WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL CAN CONTRIBUTE TO A CAMPAIGN? YES.
AND THAT'S, THAT APPEARS IN THE, UH, CITY CLERK'S, UH, ELECTION RELATED PACKET EVERY TWO YEARS.
AND YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE RESIDENTIAL INCLUDING INTENT TO RETURN TO IS A SELF-REPORTED DATA.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S THE ONLY WAY I KNOW HOW TO GET IT.
DO YOU AGREE THAT THE EVIDENCE THAT MS. GREENBERG HAS PRESENTED IN THE TABLES THAT THERE WERE THOSE SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODES THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THIS PREDETERMINED FINITE LIST OF ZIP CODES PROVIDED BY THE CITY CLERK? I I'M SORRY, CAN CAN YOU REPHRASE THAT? 'CAUSE I'M NOT SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING.
I AM ASKING IF YOU AGREE WITH THE LIST THAT WAS PRESENTED BY MS. GREENBERG OF ZIP CODES.
I THINK THOSE WERE THE YELLOW, THE ONES THAT WERE HIGHLIGHTED THAT THEY ARE SELF-REPORTED ZIP, ZIP CODES THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE, OR DID I, DID I MISUNDERSTAND, UH, WHAT THOSE YELLOW HIGHLIGHTS WERE? MS. GREENBERG, YOU'RE YEAH, WELCOME TO CORRECT ME.
ALL SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODES WERE INSIDE.
BUT THE PEOPLE'S VOTER REGISTRATION OR ADDRESS OR
[01:55:01]
HOMESTEAD, UM, IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THOSE SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODES.AND, AND THAT'S WHAT I VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE WITH BECAUSE THIS NEITHER MS. GREENBERG NOR THIS COMMISSION CAN MAKE A VALID DETERMINATION ABOUT WHAT THE RESIDENCE IS OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE REPORTED TO OUR CAMPAIGN A SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODE IN AUSTIN.
I MEAN, IF, IF THE FORM, I MEAN, AND I FIND IT VERY DISTASTEFUL THAT WE'RE STALKING PEOPLE LIKE FORMER PRESIDENT VIS, I MEAN I IN, IN DRAGGING HIS NAME THROUGH THIS PROCEEDING AND THE AUSTIN ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION, BUT HE MAY WELL HAVE AN INTENT TO RE RETURN TO TEXAS.
HE MAY HAVE FAMILY HERE, HE MAY NOT WANT TO PAY INCOME TAX IN GEORGIA.
SO MAYBE HE'S KEEPING, YOU KNOW, A HOME, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY A CLAIM TO BE A TEXAS RESIDENT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FACTS ARE.
I KNOW THAT IT WOULD TAKE BASICALLY A HEARING WITH GREG BU AND HIS WIFE THERE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION ABOUT CAN THEY VALIDLY CLAIM THAT THEY ARE RESIDENTS OF TEXAS.
IT MAY SEEM FARFETCHED, BUT IT'S NO MORE FAR FARFETCHED THAN GEORGE BUSH REMAINING A RESIDENT OF HOUSTON FOR 20 YEARS AND NEVER SLEEPING THERE.
THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATIONS.
ARE, DO YOU AG AGREE THAT THERE ARE SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODES THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE LIST? WELL, IF, IF AN INDIVIDUAL SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODE OUTSIDE THE ZIP CODE LIST, WE PUT THEM EITHER INTO OUR LIST OF R ONE, R THREE AND SAID, WE'RE TAKING YOUR MONEY, BUT WE'RE COUNTING YOU AGAINST OUR LIMIT.
OR IF WE'D HIT THE LIMIT, WE SENT IT BACK.
SO PEOPLE DID SELF-REPORT ZIP CODE, A LOT OF PEOPLE SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODES OUTSIDE AND THAT'S WHY THEY WENT ON R ONE OR R THREE RATHER THAN R TWO OR R FOUR.
SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT STAR WARS.
YEAH, I JUST HAD A QUESTION ON, ON ONE OF THOSE LISTS, THERE WERE NAMES OF PEOPLE, THERE WERE THE PEOPLE WHO HAD DONATED $900 A PIECE.
AND THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE RESPONDENT WAS THAT, HOW WAS THAT MONEY RETURNED TO THAT TO THEM BECAUSE OF THEM HAVING DONATED TWICE THE AMOUNT THEY WERE ALLOWED TO? WE'RE NOT AWARE OF ANY CONTRIBUTOR HAVING DONATED TWICE.
WE HAD FATHERS AND SONS, YOU KNOW, WE HAD MULTIPLE MEMBERS OF A FAMILY.
I MEAN, WE HAD, IF WE WERE AWARE THAT SOMEBODY CONTRIBUTED TWICE, WE WOULD REFUND IT, BUT WE ARE NOT, AND AND THE FACT THAT IT'S INCLUDED IN AN ALLEGATION IN THE HEARING TODAY DOESN'T ESTABLISH IT TO BE TRUE.
IF WE KNEW THAT THERE WAS A DUPLICATE CONTRIBUTION BY THE SAME PEOPLE, WE'D SEND IT BACK, BUT WE'RE NOT AWARE OF THAT.
SO I'M GONNA FOLLOW UP THEN WITH MS. GREENBERG ABOUT THAT BECAUSE, UM, ON THAT LIST WHERE IT LISTS, UM, THE PEOPLE WHO DONATED 900 A PIECE, COULD YOU CLARIFY THAT FOR ME? NO, THE NINE HUNDREDS WERE ALWAYS, UM, TWO INDIVIDUALS I THINK YOU'RE REFERRING TO, UM, GINA AND CHARLES OR GINA AND CHARLIE COLEMAN.
UM, WHO WERE ON TWO DIFFERENT REPORTS WITH SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT NAMES.
MAYBE IT IS FATHER AND SON, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I ONLY PUT THEM DOWN AS 902 PEOPLE EACH FOUR 50.
I'M SORRY, I MISUNDERSTOOD THAT.
THE SUSPICION THAT IT COULD BE 1800, BUT I DID NOT PUT THAT ON THE CHART THAT WAY.
THEN THAT WAS MY MISUNDERSTANDING AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT CHAIR.
MAY I ASK A QUESTION? UH, YES, UH, APOLOGIES.
UM, FOR THE COMPLAINANT, MS. GREENBERG, UM, BEFORE I, I WAS CORRECT IN MY, IN PART, AT LEAST PART OF MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU, IN YOUR PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE WERE RELYING IN PART ON R ONE AND R THREE IS BASICALLY A CONCESSION FROM THE RESPONDENT THAT THOSE PARTICULAR ITEMS THAT WERE GIVEN BACK, I MEAN THEY'RE LISTED ON THE SPREADSHEET AS BEING OUTSIDE OF THEIR HOME ZIP CODES ARE LISTED AS BEING OUTSIDE AND, AND, UH, THE RESPONDENT'S, UM, FORM DESCRIBING THOSE EXHIBITS ARE ONE AND R THREE.
THE CAMPAIGN AGREES THAT THE HOME ZIP CODES THEY PROVIDED WERE OUTSIDE OF THE, THE ELIGIBLE ZIP CODES.
BUT ON THE SAME TOKEN, THAT WAS INFORMATION AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT THE CAMPAIGN VOLUNTARILY COLLECTED.
AND HAD THEY NOT DONE THAT, IF THEY HAD SIMPLY COLLECTED THE INFORMATION REQUIRED BY SCHEDULE ONE A, IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN, THAT INFORMATION WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN
[02:00:01]
GATHERED.SO FUNCTIONALLY, IF I UNDERSTAND IT, PART OF THE CASE AGAINST THEM IS BASED ON INFORMATION ABOUT DONORS THAT THEY VOLUNTARILY GATHERED OR VOLUNTARILY SOLICITED FROM THE DONORS.
EACH AND EVERY DONOR ON R ONE, R TWO, R THREE AND R FOUR WAS LISTED ON THE COMPLAINT.
SO THEY ADDRESSED THE INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE ON THE COMPLAINT.
BUT YOUR, YOUR, YOUR PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE AND YOU CARRIED THE BURDEN RELIES ON A CONCESSION THAT THEY WERE ONLY ABLE TO MAKE BECAUSE THEY WERE VOLUNTARILY COLLECTING MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR DONORS THAN WAS REQUIRED OF THEM BY STATE LAW.
YOU KNOW, THAT PART IS UNCLEAR TO ME.
IT SEEMS, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY ALWAYS ASK THE SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODE OR IF THEY ONLY ASK THE SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODE AFTER THEY REALIZE THEY'RE CLOSE TO THE LIMIT OR POSSIBLY AFTER RECEIVING A COMPLAINT.
I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHEN THEY START ASKING THAT.
THAT'S PROBABLY A QUESTION TO ASK THE CANDIDATES, UM, TEAM AND I WOULD RESPOND TO THAT SAID BY SAYING, IF YOU DON'T KNOW, YOU SHOULDN'T SPECULATE.
IN FACT, OUR, OUR, OUR CONSULTANT TESTIFIED, WE ASK EVERY CONTRIBUTOR TO PROVIDE A HOME ZIP CODE.
WE START IT WHEN WE START ACCEPTING CONTRIBUTIONS.
WE DO IT WHILE WE GET CLOSE TO THE ZIP CODE LIMIT AND WE DO IT AFTERWARDS.
WE DO IT TO EVERY CONTRIBUTOR.
SO JUST TO FOLLOW UP WITH MS. GREENBERG, UM, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND PART OF YOUR CASE IS ON, BASED ON INFORMATION THAT THE CAMPAIGN VOLUNTARILY GATHERED AND THEN THE REMAINDER IS BASED ON INFORMATION THAT YOU GATHERED THAT WAS IN ADDITION TO THE INFORMATION THAT THEY REPRESENT WAS AVAILABLE TO THEM AT LEAST ABSENT FILING THEIR OWN PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUESTS WITH HAYES COUNTY AND WHEREVER.
UM, SO IF WE WERE TO READ SECTION EE ABOUT THE, YEAH, I'M SORRY.
SECTION THE, THE CHARTER SECTION EIGHT, SUBSECTION E RESPONSIBILITY, THE CANDIDATE PREVENT VIOLATIONS, THE CANDIDATE OR HIS COMMITTEE, HIS OR HER COMMITTEE SHALL DETERMINE, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
GOING BACK TO MY QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS SHOULD BE READ AS HAVING SOME SORT OF LIKE REASONABLE DILIGENCE OR, OR, OR GOOD FAITH OR REQUIREMENT.
IF, IF WE WERE TO FIND A VIOLATION BASED IN PART IN LARGE PART ON INFORMATION THAT THE CAMPAIGN VOLUNTARILY GATHERED FOR ABOUT ITS CONTRIBUTORS, WOULDN'T THAT BE ACTUALLY CREATING A PERVERSE INCENTIVE TO CANDIDATES TO ENGAGE IN WILLFUL BLINDNESS? I DON'T THINK I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
I JUST HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION FOR BOTH OF YOU.
WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER AS THE MASTER SOURCE OF TRUTH OR DATA FOR, UH, LIST OF DONORS? UH, CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? I, SIR, MAYBE I HAD A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING.
WHAT DO YOU, WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER, WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE MASTER SOURCE OF TRUTH WITH RESPECT TO LIST OF DONORS? THE, THE MASTER SOURCE OF TRUTH? YES.
UM, I THINK THAT GETS INTO METAPHYSICS.
YOU KNOW, I MEAN IT'S, IT'S LIKE WE AS A CAMPAIGN, WE ASK OUR DONORS FOR A LOT OF INFORMATION AND THEN WE PUT IT ON SOME OF IT ON FORM, UH, COHA ONE.
SOME OF IT WE, WE KEEP FOR INTERNAL PURPOSES, BUT WE CAN'T GO OUT AND VERIFY EVERYTHING THEY TELL US.
I'VE NEVER HEARD OF A CAMPAIGN.
SO WE HAVE TO TREAT IT AS TRUTHFUL.
I MEAN, IF SOMETHING CAME ALONG AND WE JUST BECAME AWARE THAT THIS IS JUST ABSOLUTELY WRONG, IT CAN'T BE TRUE, WE MIGHT GO BACK AND DO THAT, BUT I'VE NEVER BEEN INVOLVED.
CANDIDATES ARE HAPPY TO GET A CONTRIBUTION.
YOU DON'T WANT TO GO AROUND AND GRILL YOUR CONTRIBUTORS AND DIS DISCOURAGE THEM FROM PARTICIPATING IN POLITICS.
SO THE TRUTH IS GENERALLY WHAT OUR CAN CONTRIBUTORS TELL US UNLESS WE HAVE SOME REASON TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE.
'CAUSE I, I REALIZE THAT MY QUESTION COULD BE CONFUSING, UH, FOR MS. GREENBERG AS WELL.
UM, MY QUESTION IS, WHAT IS THIS REPORT? THERE'S GOTTA BE AN OFFICIAL REPORT THAT IS PUBLIC RECORD FOR YOUR LIST OF DONORS.
WHAT IS THAT, FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THAT REPORT? THAT IS THE FORM COH THAT WE FILE 30 DAYS
[02:05:01]
BEFORE THE ELECTION, EIGHT DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION.UM, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, JUNE, JULY 15, YOU KNOW, JANUARY 15TH, THAT IS WHERE WE REPORT EVERYTHING WE KNOW THAT THE STATE REQUIRES, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE THE INFORMATION THAT'S NEEDED TO COMPLY WITH THE ZIP CODE LIMIT.
SO YOU CAN'T USE COH FORM COH TO COMPLY WITH THE ZIP CODE LIMIT.
THERE IS NO FORM TO COMPLY WITH THE ZIP CODE LIMIT.
MS. GREENBERG, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ANSWER THAT? WHAT? COULD YOU RESTATE THE QUESTION? SURE.
WHAT IS, WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER AS THE MASTER SOURCE OF LIKE, TRUTH THAT, THAT THE GENERAL PUBLIC, LIKE ANYONE WOULD HAVE TO RELY ON AS IN THIS IS THE LIST OF DONORS FOR SUCH AND SUCH CAMPAIGN.
IS IT THE SAME? I MEAN, YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THE SAME ONE, RIGHT? YEAH.
THE LIST OF DONORS IS, IS MADE AVAILABLE ON THE CANDIDATES CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS.
UM, THOSE ARE THE DONORS IF YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT, UM, ARE THEY ELIGIBLE TO VOTE, RIGHT? THAT IS, I THINK THE BEST SOURCE ARE THE COUNTY RECORDS.
BUT THAT IS, I'M NOT GONNA SAY THERE'S ANY SOURCE OF DATA THAT IS WITHOUT ERRORS.
IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND ASK, UM, EITHER PARTY OF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT YOUR CLOSING STATEMENT.
UH, I BELIEVE, DO YOU, DO YOU WANT ONE TO GO FIRST? UH, MS. GREENBERG, GO AHEAD AND OKAY.
PROCEED FIRST, UM, IF WE COULD GET THE SLIDES AGAIN AND GO TO WHERE IT SAYS CLOSING, WHICH IS PROBABLY SLIDE A MILLION.
I BELIEVE THAT THE RESPONDENT IS MISDIRECTING THE ETHICS COMMISSION BY FOCUSING ON THE REQUIREMENTS RELEVANT TO STATE LAW.
THE RESPONDENT'S ZIP CODE TEST OMITS ELEMENTS OF THE CHARTER RESTRICTION, WHICH IS ABOVE AND BEYOND STATE LAW.
ARTICLE THREE, SECTION EIGHT A THREE STATES NO CANDIDATE AND HIS OR HER COMMITTEE SHALL ACCEPT AN AGGREGATE CONTRIBUTION TOTAL OF MORE THAN AT THE TIME $30,000 PER ELECTION AND 20,000 IN THE CASE OF A RUNOFF FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN NATURAL PERSONS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN A POSTAL ZIP CODE COMPLETELY OR PARTIALLY WITHIN THE AUSTIN CITY LIMITS.
BY OMITTING THE REQUIREMENT FOR ELIGIBILITY TO VOTE, THE RESPONDING CONSTRUCTS A SCENARIO WHERE THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS ARE MEANINGLESS AS LONG AS A DONOR SELECTS AN ARBITRARY ZIP CODE FROM A LIST.
THE CONTRIBUTIONS, I THINK THIS IS THAT WERE YES, THANK YOU THAT WERE LISTED AS RETURNED WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
UM, ON INSTEAD, WHAT I FOUND ON EXHIBITS R TWO AND R FOUR WERE CONTRIBUTIONS THAT WERE LISTED AS RETURNED WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT THEY WERE REFUNDED.
THEY'RE SIMPLY NOT ON REPORTS.
CONTRIBU CONTRIBUTORS WHO ARE NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE AT THE ZIP CODE WITHIN THE ENVELOPE WAS CERTAINLY PART OF MY EVIDENCE, BUT IT'S NOT ALL.
THERE ARE CONTRIBUTORS WHO ARE ON THE SUSPEND LIST WHO MAY OR MAY NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE.
UM, THEY WERE NEVER HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW CONTRIBUTORS WHO ARE REGISTERED TO VOTE IN JURISDICTIONS OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN'S ZIP CODE ENVELOPE CONTRIBUTORS WHO SELF-REPORTED ZIP CODES ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE VOTER ROLL.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE VOTER, THE CONTRIBUTORS WERE ASKED TO GIVE A A PARTICULAR ZIP CODE AND THEY WERE GIVEN THE LIST OF THE ONES THAT WERE ACCEPTABLE.
THEY COULD HAVE BEEN ASKED THEIR ADDRESS AND ZIP CODE WITHOUT A HINT THAT IT BETTER BE FROM THIS LIST.
UM, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO DO.
UM, THIS PAGE SHOWS THE PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED SUMMARIES THAT DEMONSTRATE AS A
[02:10:01]
MATTER OF FACT, THAT THE WATSON CAMPAIGN VIOLATED THE CHARTER LIMITS IN BOTH THE 2022 RUNOFF.AND BY THE TIME OF THE JULY 15TH REPORT THAT WAS FILED FOR THE 2024 ELECTION, THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID TO SAY THERE'S NOT THIS VIOLATION, WHICH IS EXCEEDING THE LIMITS AS WRITTEN IN THE CHARTER.
THE RESPONDENT MISDIRECTS THIS COMMISSION BY FOCUSING ON REQUIREMENTS.
I THINK I ALREADY SAID ALL THIS.
UM, WATSON'S PROCESS LACKS TRANSPARENCY.
YOU COLLECT INFORMATION, BUT YOU DON'T SHARE IT WITH THE PUBLIC, EVEN IF IT'S NOT ON THE FORM FOR THE CITY.
THERE SHOULD BE A WAY TO SHARE YOUR INFORMATION WITH THE PUBLIC FOR TRANSPARENCY, AND IT CERTAINLY LACKS RELIABILITY.
THAT'S WHY I CAN FIND PEOPLE THAT ARE REGISTERED TO VOTE WITHIN THE ZIP CODE ENVELOPE, BUT NOT AT THE SELF-REPORTED, UM, ZIP CODE OF THE THOUSANDS OF ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTORS WHO LISTED ADDRESSES WITHIN AUSTIN ZIP CODE ENVELOPE.
I FEEL CONFIDENT THAT AS, UM, COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY SUGGESTED THERE PROBABLY ARE SOME WHO ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO VOTE, INCLUDING GARRETT BLANKS, WHO I MENTIONED, WHICH IS WHY WHEN SUMMARIZING, I SAY THE RESPONDENT ACCEPTED AT LEAST THE AMOUNT THAT I LISTED THE DEMONSTRATED AMOUNT BASED ON THE EVIDENCE.
THE COMMISSION SHOULD FIND THAT THE WATSON CAMPAIGN COMMITTED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE THREE, SECTION EIGHT A THREE IN BOTH 2024 AND THE RUNOFF ELECTION IN 2022.
UM, COMMISSIONER MCGIVEN HAS ASKED ABOUT, I THINK YOU WERE ASKING QUESTIONS RELATED TO INTENT THAT WERE SORT OF CONFUSING TO ME, BUT, UM, INTENT IS A SEPARATE ISSUE THAT HAS TO DO WITH SANCTIONS.
I'M REALLY NOT INTERESTED IN SANCTIONS.
WHEN I FILED THIS COMPLAINT, THE IDEA WAS, AND MY EXPECTATION WAS THAT, UM, THE CAMPAIGNS WOULD SAY, OH YEAH, WE DID GO OVER.
WE'LL GIVE BACK THAT MONEY AND WE'LL STOP TAKING ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OUTSIDE OF THE ZIP CODE ENVELOPE.
I NEVER EXPECTED IT TO BECOME, SHALL WE SAY, A FEDERAL CASE OR, UM, AN ARGUMENT LIKE THIS.
I'VE BEEN ON THIS COMMISSION AND IN GENERAL, THESE KINDS OF CAMPAIGN VIOLATIONS I THOUGHT WERE SORT OF BLACK AND WHITE.
YOU READ WHAT THE, THE RULE SAYS IF YOU FOLLOWED IT, YOU FOLLOWED IT.
IF YOU DIDN'T FOLLOW IT, YOU DIDN'T FOLLOW IT AND YOU JUST FIX IT.
THAT'S ALL I EVER EXPECTED IS THAT THESE CONTRIBUTIONS SHOULD BE RETURNED.
AND I DO THINK THAT GOING FORWARD AFTER THE COMPLAINTS WERE MADE, THAT THE CAMPAIGNS MADE BETTER EFFORT TO NOT CONTINUE TO THE VIOLATIONS AND COMPLIANCE IS THE ONLY THING I EVER WAS INTERESTED IN.
I DIDN'T WRITE THE CHARTER, I DIDN'T WRITE THE BALLOT LANGUAGE.
I THINK WE ALL KNOW THAT THE BALLOT LANGUAGE IS OFTEN MORE SIMPLE THAN WHAT THE LAW SPECIFIES.
WHEN THE LAW IS ACTUALLY WRITTEN.
THE LAW IS CLEAR THAT IT IS BASED ON ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN THE ZIP CODE
BUT THE CHARTER LANGUAGE IS, IN MY VIEW, I'M NOT A LAWYER, BUT I DO KNOW HOW TO READ AND THE CHARTER LANGUAGE IS CLEAR AND THE VIOLATIONS ARE CLEAR.
HOW MUCH TIME DO I HAVE? WE DIDN'T SET A TIME LIMIT FOR MS. GREENBERG.
SO HALF AT IT, MR. I DON'T THINK IT'S GONNA TAKE THAT LONG.
UM, THE COMPLAINANT JUST SAID THAT TO HER, THIS IS BLACK AND WHITE.
WELL, IN FACT, THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT THE ZIP CODE PROVISION OF THE CHARTER THAT'S BLACK AND WHITE AND THERE'S CERTAINLY NOTHING ABOUT COMPLYING WITH IT THAT IS BLACK AND WHITE.
IT'S, IT HAS BEEN A PART OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN CAMPAIGN FINANCE RULES IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER SINCE 1997.
AND THE ONE THING THAT ANYONE WHO HAS WORKED IN POLITICS IN THAT TIME WILL KNOW IS THAT IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT WHERE DO PEOPLE
[02:15:01]
RESIDE INSIDE OR OUTSIDE AUSTIN ZIP CODES.IT HAS NEVER BEEN IN THE PAST INTERPRETED OR CONSTRUED TO BE ABOUT YOU HAVE TO BE A REGISTERED VOTER IN AUSTIN TO MAKE A CONTRIBUTION.
WHAT WE'RE HEARING TONIGHT IS A COMPLETELY NEW CASE THAT WAS NOT PART OF THE COMPLAINT AS FILED.
AND IF THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION E ACCEPTS THAT COMPLAINT AND VALIDATES THAT POINT OF VIEW, UH, YOU HAVE CREATED SOME VERY SERIOUS ENFORCEMENT AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.
UM, YOU'VE ALSO BASICALLY TURNED THE LANGUAGE OF THE CHARTER ON THE HEAD ITS HEAD AND TOLD THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED ORIGINALLY BASED ON A CHARTER DESCRIPTION THAT IT WAS ABOUT PROHIBITING CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PERSONS OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN.
IT WAS ABOUT PROHIBITING CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT REGISTERED VOTERS.
UM, I WANT TO TRY TO GO OVER THIS ONE MORE TIME FOR EVERYBODY, BUT OUR CHARTER AMENDMENT IS OUR ORGANIC LAW FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
IT WAS ADOPTED BACK IN THE, ORIGINALLY BACK IN THE 1840S BY AUSTIN VOTERS.
IT'S BEEN CHANGED AND REWRITTEN MANY TIMES, BUT IT'S OUR LAW.
IT IS NOT PART OF THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE, AND WE ARE NOT BOUND BY TEXAS ELECTION CODE PROVISIONS THAT ARE INTENDED FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE.
AND THAT PURPOSE IS TO SAY WHO CAN GO DOWN AND VOTE WHETHER ON ELECTION DAY OR EARLY VOTING SECTION.
ARTICLE THREE, SECTION EIGHT WAS NEVER ABOUT KEEPING PEOPLE FROM CONTRIBUTING BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT REGISTERED VOTERS.
AND WITHOUT THAT CONTRIBUTION, WITHOUT THAT, UH, EXCLUSION, THE COMPLAINT DOESN'T ADD UP.
THE COMPLAINANT HAS NOT MET HER BURDEN OF PROOF.
THE OTHER PROBLEM WITH THIS COMPLAINT IS MS. GREENBERG THINKS THAT SHE CAN GO ONLINE AND MAKE A DETERMINATION ABOUT THE LEGAL RESIDENCY OF OUR CONTRIBUTORS AND AUSTIN VOTERS.
AND IF YOU SPEND 30 MINUTES ON DOING THAT, YOU CAN COME UP WITH AN OPINION ABOUT WHERE YOU THINK SOMEBODY IS A LEGAL RESIDENT.
BUT THAT IS NOT HOW LEGAL RESIDENCY IS DETERMINED.
THE REASON WE GET INTO FIGHTS OVER ELECTION, UH, CONTESTS IS BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE CHALLENGED SOMETIMES WHETHER THEY ARE ELIGIBLE VOTERS.
AND THOSE ELIGIBLE VOTERS OFTEN TURN VOTER DETERMINATIONS, OFTEN D TURN ON RESIDENCY, AND THOSE LAWSUITS CAN GO ON FOR DAYS.
SAME THING ABOUT CANDIDATE ELIGIBILITY.
BASICALLY THE SAME QUESTION ABOUT WHERE YOU RESIDE.
IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU DETERMINE BY FIGURING OUT, UH, WHERE DOES SOMEBODY APPEAR WHEN YOU DO AN INTERNET SEARCH ON THEM.
FINALLY, I WANT TO GET THIS COMMISSION REFOCUSED.
I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT HAVE WE BEEN DOING HERE? WE HAVE BEEN NITPICKING ABOUT A HANDFUL OF CONTRIBUTORS OF THE 3,800 THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE, UH, MAYOR'S CAMPAIGN IN 2022, THE THE 1700 IN HIS RUNOFF CAMPAIGN THAT YEAR, THE THE 4,000 THAT HE'S HAD.
YOU KNOW, ANYBODY WHO WHO WANTS TO CAN GO OUT AND TRY TO INVESTIGATE A CONTRIBUTOR AND COME UP WITH SOME REASON TO SAY, THIS CONTRIBUTOR LIVES IN ARKANSAS, OR THIS CONTRIBUTOR LIVES IN DRIPPING SPRINGS.
I MEAN, YOU ALL HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO.
MS. GREENBERG SHOULD HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO.
I I, I KNOW THAT THE MAYOR AND HIS CONSULTANT CERTAINLY HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO IF, IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THE ZIP CODE LIMIT FUNCTIONAL AND EFFECTIVE, YOU DON'T DO IT BY ARGUING OVER WHETHER THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS WITH TRUTHFUL OR NOT IN 2022 WHEN HE CLAIMED, UH, WHEN HE ADVISED THE CAMPAIGN THAT HE CONSIDERED HIMSELF A TEXAS RESIDENT.
THAT'S JUST NOT SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA MAKE THIS A, A FUNCTIONAL PART OF AUSTIN CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW.
I MEAN, IF, IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THIS WORK, THERE ARE WAYS TO DO IT.
BUT A CONTESTED CASE HEARING WHERE YOU, WHERE SOMEONE GOES AFTER THE ONE CANDIDATE THAT I'M EVER AWARE OF WHO HAS ACTUALLY GONE TO GREAT LENGTHS TO TRY TO COMPLY WITH THE ZIP CODE LIMIT, YOU CAN START YOUR OWN RULEMAKING.
YOU CAN START YOUR OWN WAY TO INTERPRET THE ZIP CODE LIMIT.
MAYBE YOU CAN ADVISE CANDIDATES
[02:20:02]
ON HOW THEY CAN COMPLY WITH IT.SO THE CAN CAMPAIGNS DON'T HAVE TO INVENT IT FOR THEMSELVES, BUT THIS IS A VERY INEFFECTIVE, BURDENSOME AND ULTIMATELY INEFFECTUAL WAY.
I MEAN, I THINK WE'VE POINTED OUT HERE A LOT OF REASONS WHY THE ZIP CODE LIMIT IS VERY HARD TO COMPLY WITH, BUT YOU DON'T FIX THAT BY GOING AFTER THE ONE CANDIDATE WHO HAS REALLY GONE TO GREAT LENGTHS AND EXPENSE TO TRY TO COMPLY WITH IT.
I MEAN, THAT'S JUST THE WRONG THING TO DO.
I'LL JUST CLOSE BY SAYING THE THE EVIDENCE THAT THE RESPONDENT, THE COMPLAINANT HAS PRESENTED IS NOT RELIABLE.
IT DOES NOT MEET THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
SHE CAN'T MAKE THE DETERMINATION ABOUT WHETHER PEOPLE WHO ADVISED US THAT THEY WERE RESIDENTS OF A CERTAIN ZIP CODE ARE IN FACT RESIDENTS OF THOSE ZIP CODE.
AND YOU CERTAINLY CANNOT MAKE THE DETERMINATION THAT THERE'S BEEN A VIOLATION BY ACCEPTING HER PREMISE THAT WE CAN'T ACCEPT CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT REGISTERED VOTERS IN AUSTIN.
THAT'S JUST NOT PART OF THE LAW.
SO WE'D RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT THE COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED.
DOES ANY PARTY HAVE ANY FURTHER PROOF TO OFFER OR WITNESSES TO CALL MS. GREENBERG? NO.
BUT YOU MIGHT WANNA EXTEND THE MEETING AT THIS TIME.
AND NOW COMMISSIONERS LOOKING AT THE TIME HERE, AND I BELIEVE WE WILL, WE SHOULD GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AS WELL.
WE ARE GOING TO NEED A MOTION TO EXTEND TONIGHT'S MEETING, OR I GUESS THAT'S OPTION IS TO, TO EXTEND, EXCUSE ME, LET ME BE MORE SPECIFIC TO EXTEND PAST 10 O'CLOCK.
WHAT IS THE OTHER OPTION? 'CAUSE IF NOT, THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO, WELL CONTINUE THIS MEETING AT A, AT ANOTHER, I'M GONNA CONTINUE THIS AT ANOTHER MEETING.
IS THAT CORRECT, MS. WEBSTER? MM-HMM.
UM, THE OTHER OPTION IS, WOULD BE TO, BASICALLY IF YOU, IF YOU DON'T GET A MOTION, CONTINUE PAST 10, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO SCHEDULE A, A MEETING FOR ANOTHER DATE WITH THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT OF AT LEAST 72 HOURS NOTICE.
OR YOU COULD CONCLUDE YOUR BUSINESS BY 10:00 PM THANK YOU.
THERE IS A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO EXTEND THIS MEETING PAST 10 O'CLOCK.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCGIVEN.
ALRIGHT, LET'S VOTE BY SHOW OF HANDS.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, MEANING YOU SUPPORT EXTENDING THE MEETING BEYOND 10:00 PM I COUNT 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
SO THAT MOTION DOES NOT PASS BECAUSE WE NEED SIX VOTES.
DID I SEE THAT? WAS I TRACKING THAT ACCURATELY, MS. WEBSTER? OKAY.
UH, THE OTHER OPTIONS WE HAVE ARE TO CONTINUE THIS MEETING IN THE MORNING OR TO SCHEDULE ANOTHER MEETING WITH 72 HOUR NOTICE OR CONCLUDE OUR BUSINESS, RIGHT? OH, OR IS THERE A MOTION? YEAH, WE DON'T HAVE TO, WE, IF THERE'S A MOTION TO, UM, DISMISS THE COMPLAINT OR, YEAH, I GUESS THAT IS THE, OR FIND OR FIND THAT THERE IS VIOLATION.
THERE IS A MOTION ON THE TABLE FROM COMMISSIONER CASTER TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT.
[02:25:03]
I'LL SECOND.SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCGIVEN.
LET'S TAKE A VOTE OR DO WE DISCUSS AND THEN, NO, UH, EXCUSE ME.
YEAH, I THINK AFTER THE SECOND WE HAVE TO OPEN IT TO DISCUSSION.
THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
YEAH, SO I WANTED TO ADD, I'M GONNA VOTE TO DISMISS IT BECAUSE I THINK THAT, UH, MAYOR WATSON WENT, UH, HIS CAMPAIGN DID WHAT THEY COULD TO TRY AND CAPTURE THE INFORMATION AND TO REPORT IT, HONESTLY.
BUT I ALSO WANTED TO WEIGH IN ON A FEW THINGS, AND THAT IS THAT, UM, WE REALLY RELY ON THE PEOPLE LIKE MS. GREENBERG TO HOLD US ACCOUNTABLE.
AND SO TO SUGGEST THAT HER EFFORTS ARE A WASTE OF, OF OUR TIME OR OF HER TIME, UM, I THINK DOESN'T DO HER CREDIT FOR, UM, THE TYPE OF WORK THAT WE NEED OUR CITIZENS TO DO, RIGHT? I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT AND TO, TO KIND OF HOLD PEOPLE'S FEET TO THE FIRE NO MATTER HOW POWERFUL AND IMPORTANT THEY ARE.
UM, AND SO I'M, UH, I THINK I JUST WANT TO, UM, SAY THAT I, I RESPECT THAT AND, UM, IT'S NOT ALWAYS EASY TO GO AGAINST, UH, MORE POWERFUL PEOPLE.
AND SO I APPRECIATE THAT SHE DID THAT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? DISCUSSION? I GUESS THE ONLY THING I JUST, SORRY.
UM, COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA, I DID NOT SEE YOUR HAND.
UM, BEFORE COMMISSIONER PUMPHREY, I'LL GET YOU AFTER COMMISSIONER PUMPHREY.
UM, SINCE WE HAVE THIS 10 O'CLOCK DEADLINE, AND I BELIEVE THAT MORE DISCUSSION IS NEEDED, AND I'M TEMPTED RIGHT NOW TO SAY THAT I'M TRYING TO FIND A BALANCE BETWEEN THE FACT THAT I READ THE CHARTER LANGUAGE AND IT'S PRETTY CLEAR TO ME THERE MAY BE ALL SORTS OF PRACTICAL PROBLEMS WITH PEOPLE IMPLEMENTING THAT LAW, AND WE'RE NOT HERE TO MAKE CONSTITUTIONAL DECISIONS, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S WITHIN OUR DISCRETION TO SAY, WELL, THEY MADE A MISTAKE WHEN THEY WROTE THAT LANGUAGE.
SO MY TEMPTATION IS TO VOTE AGAINST THE MOTION THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION, PERHAPS THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION, BUT THAT THE LOWEST LEVEL OF SANCTION BE APPLIED AND THAT, UM, UH, SOMEHOW WE MAKE IT CLEAR TO CITY COUNCIL THAT, UH, THERE ARE PRACTICAL ISSUES WITH THE LAW AS WRITTEN.
ANYTHING ELSE? COMMISSIONER PUMPHREY BEFORE.
RECOGNIZING COMMISSIONER, UH, FIGUEROA.
I, UM, I'M LEANING TOWARDS, UH, VOTING AGAINST THE MOTION TO DISMISS BECAUSE I AM, I THINK WE DO NEED MORE DISCUSSION ABOUT, UM, INTENT HERE.
THERE'S NO MENS REA INTENT, AND SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE'S A VIOLATION.
THERE'S A VIOLATION, EVEN IF THE CAMPAIGN TRIED ITS BEST, AND IF THE EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT THEY WENT OVER THE LIMITS BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PROVIDED.
UM, THEN THERE, THERE, THERE'S NOT A DEFENSE THAT SAYS, WELL, THEY TRIED THEIR BEST.
UM, SO I'M, I REALLY HAVE, UM, CONCERNS ABOUT DISMISSING THIS WITHOUT MORE DISCUSSION.
UM, SO I WOULD BE LEANING TOWARDS MORE DISCUSSION AT A, AT A LATER DATE.
UM, AND I, I WISH I COULD STAY LATE PAST 10.
UM, BUT, UM, PHYSICALLY, UM, I, I NEED, I NEED TO, I NEED TO LEAVE, UM, HEALTH WISE.
MS. WEBSTER, CAN YOU GUIDE US? IT IS 9 56 THERE.
IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION? I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT THIS HEARING HAS HIGHLIGHTED, UM, AGAIN, GAPS AND HOLES IN THE PROCESS AND DEFINITELY AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT IN, IN THE PROCESS.
I'M NOT SEEING ANY HAND FOR DISCUSSION, SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE IT FOR, I'M SORRY.
I KNOW HOW THIS IS GONNA GO ANYWAY.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO QUICKLY EXPLAIN WHERE I WAS ON THAT MOTION BECAUSE I DO AGREE WITH MS. GREENBERG THAT I ALSO
[02:30:01]
AGREE WITH MR. COWER THAT ELSEWHERE IN THE CODE IT DOES SAY IF A, IF A TERM IS NOT DEFINED, YOU USE THE ELECTION CODE.AND THAT TAKES US TO SAYING THAT YOU DO HAVE TO BE A REGISTERED VOTER IN ORDER TO CONTRIBUTE.
IF YOU FOLLOW THOSE THAT, UM, QUALIFIED VOTER DOES MEAN YOU HAVE TO BE REGISTERED.
SO I AGREE WITH THAT INTERPRETATION, WHICH MEANS I AGREE THAT THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ENFORCE AND IT'S NOT FAIR TO ENFORCE IT ON SOME AND NOT OTHERS BECAUSE YOU CANNOT LIVE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND CONTRIBUTE TO A CAMPAIGN UNLESS YOU'RE REGISTERED TO VOTE.
IF WE GO BY THAT INTERPRETATION, WHICH I DO THINK THAT'S HOW IT IS IN ARTFULLY WRITTEN, BUT STILL WRITTEN, AND THAT'S WHY I WOULD NOT VOTE TO SUPPORT ANYTHING OTHER THAN DISMISSAL BECAUSE THAT IS INHERENTLY UNFAIR AND UNENFORCEABLE AND AGAINST INTENTION AND PUBLIC POLICY CHAIR.
CAN I MAKE ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION BEFORE WE ADJOURN? APOLOGIES.
THAT WOULD BE OUTSIDE OF THE PROCESS.
ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALRIGHT, SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE IT FOR A VOTE.
SO THE MOTION THAT HAS BEEN SECONDED IS TO DISMISS THIS COMPLAINT.
ALRIGHT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF DISMISSING.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE THE COMMISSIONERS VOTING IN FAVOR IS COMMISSIONER KALE, COMMISSIONER CASTO, AND COMMISSIONER MCGIVEN.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED BE COMMISSIONERS FIGUEROA, EY AND STANTON ADAMS. OKAY, THE MOTION DOES NOT PASS.
MAY I MAKE A MOTION TO RECONVENE AT A, AT A LATER TIME? IS THAT WHAT WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD? THAT IS, THAT IS CERTAINLY A, A VALID MOTION.
UM, JUST WANNA PUT IT OUT THERE AS ANOTHER OPTION IS THAT THERE COULD ALSO BE A MOTION TO FIND THAT THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION AND OR HAS NOT BEEN A VIOLATION AS, AS ANOTHER OPTION FROM THE DISMISSING IT RIGHT.
CAN MOVE TO THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION MOVE THAT THERE IS NOT A VIOLATION MOVE TO TABLE.
THE DECISION CONSIDERING WE'RE AT, WE'RE AT 10 O'CLOCK, I, I WOULD PREFER TO MAKE THE MOTION TO RECONVENE AT A LATER TIME AND RESUME DISCUSSIONS AT A FURTHER MEETING.
MOTION TO RECONVENE HAS BEEN SECONDED.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? ALRIGHT, LET'S TAKE A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO RECONVENE.
I'M SEEING IN FAVOR COMMISSIONERS EY KALE FIGUEROA AND STANTON ADAMS, THAT MOTION, BUT THAT MOTION DID NOT PASS.
IS THAT CORRECT, MS. WEBSTER? UH, OKAY.
SO A MOTION TO RECONVENE IS REALLY ABOUT RECONVENING TOMORROW.
SO YOU'D HAVE TO SET A SPECIFIC TIME IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE, WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW IS YOU HAVE NOT AGREED TO GO PAST 10, THE MEETING IS ESSENTIALLY OVER AND WE'RE GOING TO JUST HAVE TO SCHEDULE TO FINALIZE THIS IN AN UPCOMING MEETING DATE, WHICH WILL EITHER BE A SPECIAL CALL MEETING OR THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING FOR THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION IS DECEMBER 11TH.
UM, SO THOSE, THOSE ARE RELIEVED ON THE OPTIONS.
I MEAN, REALLY THE ONLY OPTION AT THIS POINT IS TO RECESS, UNFORTUNATELY.
SO PER GUIDANCE FROM MS. WEBSTER, WE ARE RECESSING, RIGHT? UH, DID I UNDERSTAND EARLIER THAT THERE HAS TO BE A RESOLUTION WITHIN 10 DAYS? IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID
[02:35:02]
UPON COMPLETION? YES.ONCE YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A REPORT.
THE DECISION HAS TO BE RENDERED WITHIN FIVE DAYS.
BUT AT THIS POINT YOU HAVEN'T FINISHED TAKING, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVEN'T FINISHED YOUR DISCUSSION DELIBERATION, SO YOU CAN'T RENDER YOUR DECISION BEFORE YOU FINISH TAKING DIS FINISH YOUR DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION.
SO, I MEAN, THIS IS, I WOULD SAY THAT THE, YOUR, YOUR ONLY OPTION AT THIS POINT IS TO HAVE IT, YOU HAVE TO SUBMIT A REPORT WITHIN 10 DAYS ONCE YOU'VE RENDERED YOUR DECISION.
BUT AT THIS POINT, A DECISION HAS NOT BEEN RENDERED.
SO, WE'LL, LIZETTE AND I WILL HAVE TO BE IN TOUCH WITH YOU ALL ABOUT WHEN WE CAN, UH, SCHEDULE THE NEXT MEETING OR IF IT'LL HAVE TO WAIT TILL DECEMBER 11TH, BUT WE'LL, WE'LL COMMUNICATE WITH THE COMMISSION MEMBERS IN ORDER TO TRY TO GATHER SOME DATES.
AT THIS TIME THE MEETING IS RECESSED AND WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 10 0 3.