[00:00:03]
[CALL TO ORDER]
MY NAME IS ROSS PUMPHREY, CHAIR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION, AND I CALL THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER.IT IS 6:10 PM WE ARE AT AUSTIN CITY HALL IN BOARDS AND COMMISSION.
ROOM NUMBER 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 WEST SECOND STREET, AUSTIN, TEXAS, SEVEN EIGHT SEVEN ZERO ONE.
I WILL NOW CALL THE ROLE, UH, I'M GONNA ASSUME I'M HERE.
UH, AND NO ONE IS ATTENDING VIRTUALLY, I BELIEVE.
UM, THE FIRST THING ON OUR AGENDA IS
[PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL]
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.AND I UNDERSTAND THAT JENNIFER ROBO WISHES TO SPEAK.
YOU'LL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES.
HELLO? UM, YES, I AM SPEAKING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER NINE AND, UH, TIFFANY WASHINGTON WILL BE PRESENTING ADDITIONAL, UH, INFORMATION REGARDING, UH, HER ETHICS ALLEGATIONS TO COUNCIL MEMBER NATASHA HARPER MADISON.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF ETHICS VIOLATIONS OBSERVED IN CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2022, APRIL 8TH, 2025, AND JUNE 5TH, 2025.
AND THESE ACTIONS VIOLATE ORDINANCES TWO DASH SEVEN DASH ONE AND TWO DASH SEVEN DASH TWO DASH NINE C ERODING PUBLIC TRUST, IMPARTIALITY AND ETHICAL STANDARDS.
ON SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2022, HARPER MEDICINE PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS FOR EAST 12TH STREET, ALLOWING COCKTAIL LAUNCHES AND MUSIC VENUES.
SHE CLAIMS THAT MY TEAM CONDUCTED A ROBUST COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS REGARDING OVER 500 UNIQUE RESPONSES, YET RESIDENTS COUNTERED WITH QUOTE, THERE HAD BEEN NO PUBLIC INPUT SINCE APRIL, 2021.
A PETITION SIGNED BY OVER 100 RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES OPPOSED THESE CHANGES, BUT HARPER MADISON IGNORED IT.
THIS FAILURE TO ENGAGE VIOLATES RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PEOPLE UNDER ORDINANCE TWO DASH SEVEN DASH ONE A CRITICALLY, SHE MISUSE CITY RESOURCES, STOP TIME EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES TO CONDUCT A SURVEY COVERING A SQUARE MILE, DILUTING THE AFFECTED NEIGHBORHOOD'S VOICE TO SUPPORT HER AGENDA.
A RESIDENT STATED QUOTE, THE D ONE OFFICE IS USING NCCD TO ROB PEOPLE OF PROPERTY RIGHTS.
THIS MANIPULATION SUGGEST FRAUD UNDER TWO DASH SEVEN DASH TWO DASH NINE C USING CITY RESOURCES FOR PERSONAL BENEFIT.
HARPER MADISON'S PERSONAL GAIN IS EVIDENT RESIDING ON EAST 13TH STREET, HER CAMP PER HER CAMPAIGN FINANCE RECORDS.
SHE STATES THIS PART OF TOWN THAT IS SO NEAR AND DEAR TO MY HEART FINALLY GETS SOME LOVE.
COMMUNITY MEMBERS ACCUSED HER OF FAVORING DEVELOPERS LIKE EUREKA HOLDINGS OF ONE SAYING WE ARE BEING IGNORED FOR THE SAKE OF DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTING EUREKA A DALLAS CORPORATION INSTEAD.
AND THIS UNDERMINES IMPARTIALITY AND PUBLIC CONFIDENCE BREACHING TWO DASH SEVEN DASH ONE A FURTHER CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS REVEALED THAT HARPER MADISON RESIDED IN NORTHWEST AUSTIN UNTIL OCTOBER, 2018, ONLY MOVING TO EAST 13TH STREET AFTER STARTING HER DISTRICT ONE CAMPAIGN.
THIS RAISES SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT HER STANDING TO RUN IN DISTRICT ONE AND SUGGESTS SHE TARGETED A MARGINALIZED COMMUNITY TO ADVANCE HER INTEREST VIOLATING PUBLIC TRUST UNDER TWO DASH SEVEN DASH ONE A ON APRIL 8TH, 2025 DURING AN I 35 CAPTAIN STITCH DISCUSSION, HARPER MADISON USED DEROGATORY LANGUAGE STATING QUOTE, IF YOU THINK I WANT TO FIGHT WITH YOUR IGNORANT ASS TODAY, I PROMISE YOU I DON'T.
THIS DISRESPECTFUL REMARK DIRECTED AT THE AUDIENCE ERODES PUBLIC TRUST IN FAILED HIGH ETHICAL STANDARDS VIOLATING TWO DASH SEVEN DASH ONE A AND TWO DASH SEVEN DASH ONE B.
SHE ALSO FALSELY CLAIMED RESIDENTS IN HER DISTRICT LACKED RUNNING WATER DISPROVEN BY A PUBLIC INFORMATION INQUIRY.
THIS ME MISLEADING STATEMENT UNDERMINES HER RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE ACCURATE INFORMATION BREACHING TWO DASH SEVEN DASH ONE AND RISKS MISGUIDING POLICY INCOMPATIBLE WITH CITY INTEREST UNDER TWO DASH TWO DASH SEVEN DASH ONE B AND CALLS INTO QUESTION HER OTHER ASSERTIONS.
ON JUNE 5TH, 2025, HARPER MADISON DISMISSED NEIGHBORHOOD
[00:05:01]
ASSOCIATIONS SAYING QUOTE, IF YOU'VE GOT 12 PEOPLE TALKING FOR 13,000 PEOPLE, THAT AIN'T RIGHT AND THAT'S NOT EQUITY.I BELIEVE YOU IN THREE MINUTES IS UP PEOPLE.
UH, THE MINUTES NEED TO INDICATE THAT COMMISSIONER LANGREN HAS ARRIVED.
UH, ITEM ONE ON THE AGENDA IS APPROVING THE MINUTES FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING.
WE WILL TAKE THE MEETINGS UP OR THE MINUTES UP AFTER OUR FOUR HEARINGS TODAY, SO AS NOT TO MAKE OUR GUESTS SIT THROUGH THAT.
[EXECUTIVE SESSION]
AND FIVE ON THE AGENDA REGARD THE COMMISSION GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 5 5 1 0.071 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION WILL CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ON LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO THE FOLLOWING, A COMPLAINT FILED BY ADAM HAYNES AGAINST MIKE SIEGEL RAISING CLAIMED VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH TWO, SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH 13, SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH 21 AND CITY CHARTER ARTICLE THREE SECTION EIGHT AND A COMPLAINT FILED BY ADAM HAYNES AGAINST ZACHARY JOHN SCOTT FADI RAISING CLAIMED VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH TWO, SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH THREE, SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH 21 SECTION TWO DASH 2 23, SECTION TWO DASH 2 26, SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH 31 AND SECTION TWO DASH TWO UH DASH 33.
AND A COMPLAINT FILED BY BRIAN MALLOY AGAINST JESUS GARZA RAISING CLAIM VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH SEVEN, SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 74.
AND FINALLY, A COMPLAINT FILED BY TIFFANY WASHINGTON AGAINST NA NATASHA NATASHA HARPER MADISON RAISING A CLAIM VIOLATION OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH SEVEN, SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH ONE, SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH TWO AND SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 62.
IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO GOING INTO OBJECT INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE ITEMS ANNOUNCED? HEARING NONE, THE COMMISSION WILL NOW GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
THE TIME IS 6:18 PM YOU'RE OUT OF CLOSED SESSION.
THE TIME IS 7 55 ENC CLOSED SESSION.
WE TOOK UP AND DISCUSSED LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO A COMPLAINT FILED BY ADAM HAYNES AGAINST MIKE SIEGEL.
A COMPLAINT FILED BY ADAM HAYNES AGAINST ZACHARY JOHN SCOTT FADI.
A COMPLAINT FILED BY BRIAN MALLOY AGAINST JESUS GARZA AND A COMPLAINT FILED BY TIFFANY WASHINGTON AGAINST NATASHA.
[6. A complaint filed by Adam Haynes against Mike Siegel raising claimed violations of City Code Chapter 2-2 (Campaign Finance), Section 2-2-13 (Candidates’ Contribution Limits), Section 2-2-21 (Additional Information Required on All Campaign Finance Reports Filed with the City), and City Charter, Article III, Section 8 (Limits on Campaign Contributions and Expenditures).]
ON THE AGENDA IS THE FINAL HEARING ON A COMPLAINT FILED BY ADAM HAYNES AGAINST MIKE SIEGEL RAISING CLAIM VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH TWO, CAMPAIGN FINANCE SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH 13 CANDIDATES.CONTRIBUTION LIMITS SECTION TWO TWO DASH 21.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED ON ALL CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS FILED WITH THE CITY AND CITY CHARTER ARTICLE THREE, SECTION EIGHT LIMITS ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES.
ALAN BOJORQUEZ IS APPEARING AS OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION ON THIS ITEM.
AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY CAROLINE WEBSTER IS AVAILABLE TO ASSIST WITH PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS.
AND I DO, YES, I'M RECUSING MYSELF ON THIS.
THAT WAS I LEAVE THE YES, LEAVE THE ROOM FOR THIS.
SO COMMISSIONER KING IS RECUSING HIMSELF ON THIS AGENDA ITEM.
I'M GOING TO READ THE PROCEDURES FOR AN ETHICS COMMISSION ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION, A FINAL HEARING.
I ASK THAT THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE NEXT AGENDA.
ALSO LISTEN TO THE DESCRIPTION BECAUSE IT PERTAINS TO THEM ALSO.
ALTHOUGH IF YOU WISH FOR ME TO REPEAT THESE LATER, I WILL DO SO.
UM, THERE'LL FIRST BE AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE PARTIES PRESENT AND THEN STARTING WITH THE COMPLAINANT, YOU'LL BE ASKED TO STATE THEIR NAME AND THEN COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT PLEASE INTRODUCE THEMSELVES AS WELL.
FOR RESPONDENT, PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF INCLUDING THE IDENTITY OF COUNCIL OF RECORD, IF THERE IS COUNSEL PRESENT, AND THEN I'LL ANNOUNCE IT'S A FINAL HEARING HELD UNDER A CERTAIN SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 45 OF THE AUSTIN CITY CODE.
THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON AND THAT I WILL STATE IN A MINUTE.
[00:10:01]
PURSUANT TO TWO SEVEN DASH 41, A PRELIMINARY HEARING WAS PREVIOUSLY HELD AT WHICH 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.AND THEN 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 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 OF 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 ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF 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.
UM, OPENING STATEMENTS, THE COMPLAINANT IS GOING TO BE 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 10 MINUTES TO RESPOND.
YOU MAY RESERVE ANY REMAINING TIME AFTER YOUR STATEMENT FOR REBUTTAL.
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 ANY QUESTIONS? I'M SORRY.
THE CHAIR REQUESTS ANY QUESTIONS REFRAIN FROM LEADING A WITNESS.
UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY THE CHAIR OR SIDING 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 2 7 48 AND TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 49.
SO WE WILL START WITH THE COMPLAINANT OPENING STATEMENT.
DO YOU WANT TO, YOU GOTTA READ WHERE THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON.
UM, THIS COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON, AND I'M SORRY, DO YOU HAVE THE DATE ON THIS? NOT HERE.
UH, COMPLAINT IS FEBRUARY, FEBRUARY 21ST, 2025.
SO WE WILL START WITH THE, UH, STATEMENT BY THE COMPLAINANT.
YOU MAY, UH, SIT AT THE TABLE AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF.
MR. CHAIRMAN? UH, I AM ADAM HAYNES.
I AM A CITIZEN OF DISTRICT SEVEN.
AND, UH, I WAS A PARTICIPANT IN THE, UM, THE LATEST ROUND OF ELECTIONS, BOTH THE GENERAL AND THE RUNOFF AS A VOLUNTEER FOR THE, UH, OPPONENT OF MR. SIEGEL IN THIS, IN THIS EFFORT AND IN THAT, UH, ROLE, IN THAT DECISION, UH, IN, IN THAT EFFORT, SAW VARIOUS, UH, ENTITIES AND, AND, AND VARIOUS, UH, ACTIONS BY, UH, MR. SIEGEL, UH, AS A CANDIDATE FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE THAT, UH, WERE CURIOUS TO ME DURING, AS, AS MY PROFESSION, I'M A LOBBYIST.
AS, AS A LOBBYIST, YOU'RE INVOLVED WITH ELECTIONS AND, AND THE LIKE.
AND SO I, I HAVE A, A GOOD BASE OF KNOWLEDGE, UH, RELATED TO ELECTIONEERING AND ELECTION, UH, ACTIVITIES.
[00:15:01]
ALL OF THESE ACTIONS HAPPENING.AND THEN, SO AS WE'RE GETTING TOWARD THE END, UH, WHEN I LOOK AT MR. SIEGEL'S, UM, EIGHT DAY REPORT, NONE OF THESE THINGS ARE, ARE REPORTED.
AND THEN AS I DUG A LITTLE DEEPER, I FIND THAT THERE WERE MIS UH, IN, THERE'S MISINFORMATION, THERE'S MISREPORTING AND THERE'S, UH, INACCURACIES IN MR. SIEGEL'S EIGHT DAY REPORT.
AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, I FILED ON, UH, I FILED A, AN ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST, UH, THE CAN AT THE TIME CANDIDATE, UH, SIEGEL, UH, WHO IS NOW COUNCILMAN SIEGEL.
AND, UM, UH, A LITTLE BIT OF BACK AND FORTH.
UH, THIS CASE IS NOW, DOES HAVE A, A FEBRUARY, UH, DATE ON IT, BUT IT'S A REFILE BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL HEARING, I WAS NOT AFFORDED, UH, DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.
AND THE, THE EMAIL DIDN'T COME TO ME.
I THINK IT WAS A COMPLETE ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR, UH, ON, ON SEVERAL PARTS.
AND SO IT WAS A REFILE IN FEBRUARY, BUT THE CASE HAS BEEN EX IN EXISTENCE SINCE DECEMBER THE 10TH, UM, UH, THREE OR FOUR DAYS AFTER MR. SIEGEL FILED.
AND SO SINCE IT'S BEEN SUCH A LONG TIME, I'VE PROVIDED EVERYBODY A, A SUPPLEMENTAL, UM, FILING.
AND IT, IT JUST LISTS OUT, UH, FOR MR. SIEGEL, THERE'S 13 INSTANCES WHERE I IDENTIFY WHAT I BELIEVE ARE VIOLATIONS OF, OF THE CODE, UH, OR THE CHARTER OR BOTH.
AND, UH, IN ADDITION, I'VE PROVIDED YOU WITH A LIST OF THE APPROPRIATE, UM, NOT A LIST, BUT, UH, PRINTING OF THE APPROPRIATE SECTIONS OF THE CODE, AS WELL AS THE APPROPRIATE SECTION OF THE CHARTER SO THAT YOU HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF YOU.
AND SO THAT, UH, YOU HAVE IT, UH, THERE AT, AT YOUR DISPOSAL.
AND, UM, WITH THAT, THE, THE BASICS OF THE CASE ARE THAT MR. SIEGEL HAS, UM, UH, AS A CANDIDATE, UM, MR. SIEGEL, UH, AND, AND LET ME, LET ME MAKE SURE EVERYBODY, I I'M, I'M GOING BACK TO DECEMBER THE 10TH WHEN HE WAS A CANDIDATE.
I, BY, BY NO MEANS DO I DO, I MEAN DISRESPECT.
I MEAN, HE IS COUNCILMAN SIEGEL, HE WON THIS RACE.
AND SO, UM, UH, UH, IF, IF I REFER TO HIM AS, AS MR. SIEGEL, I, I, I DON'T MEAN DISRESPECT, COUNCILMAN SIEGEL, UH, WAS A CANDIDATE AND, AND IS NOW, UH, THE, THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE FOR DISTRICT SEVEN.
BUT, UM, UH, DURING THE RACE, UH, IT'S, IT'S MY ALLEGATION THAT MR. SIEGEL NOT ONLY, UH, RECEIVED, UH, A NUMBER OF, OF NOT ONLY INKIND CONTRIBUTIONS, BUT DIRECT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, UH, AS THEY'RE DEFINED IN IN CHAPTER 2.2.
UM, AND THEN, UH, IN HIS EIGHT DAY REPORT, MISIDENTIFIED, UM, MISFILED SEVERAL ITEMS ON HIS EIGHT DAY REPORT.
UH, AND THOSE INDIVIDUALS, UH, MADE CONTRIBUTIONS IN EXCESS OF THE CAMPAIGN LIMITS THAT ARE ESTABLISHED IN AUSTIN.
UH, AND, UH, HIGHLIGHTED BOTH OF THOSE IN MY ORIGINAL FILING.
UH, SINCE THAT TIME, MR. SIEGEL HAS BROUGHT INTO EVIDENCE THE FACT THAT HE HAS AMENDED HIS REPORTS AND HE HAS DONE SO.
AND SINCE MR. SIEGEL BROUGHT THOSE INTO EVIDENCE, YOU KNOW, MY ORIGINAL COMPLAINT WAS ONLY ON HIS DECEMBER THE SIXTH CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT, UH, BECAUSE HE HAD NOT DONE ANY AMENDED REPORTS.
BUT SINCE MR. SIEGEL HAS BROUGHT THOSE INTO, UH, EVIDENCE, THEN, THEN I'M FREE TO TALK ABOUT THOSE.
AND SO I WILL TALK ABOUT THOSE.
UH, WHAT MR. SIEGEL HAS, HAS SUGGESTED IS THAT THIS CASE SHOULD GO AWAY.
UM, I SHOULDN'T GET MY DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.
AND THAT, THAT YOU SHOULD DISMISS THIS CASE BECAUSE HE CORRECTED HIS CAMPAIGN FINANCE, UH, MIS FILINGS, UH, CORRECT.
THE CORRECTION OF A CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT DOES NOT ABSOLVE HIM OF THE ORIGINAL, UM, UH, VIOLATION OF THE, OF THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT.
EVEN IF IT DID, MR. SIEGEL, WHEN HE FILED HIS ORIGINAL, UH, UH, HIS SECOND REPORT STILL HAD TWO VIOLATIONS LISTED.
AND WHEN HE DISCOVERED THAT AND FILED A SECOND AMENDED REPORT, THE WAY HE ADDRESSED ONE OF THE COMPLIANCE ISSUES WAS HE JUST REMOVED A PERSON AND REMOVED $450 FROM HIS CAMPAIGN REPORT, DIDN'T FILE AN F1 FORM.
THERE'S A CLEAR INDICATION, A CLEAR STATUTORY, UH, METHOD
[00:20:01]
BY WHICH IF YOU RECEIVE A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION IN EXCESS OF THE, OF THE, UM, $900, $450 PER PERSON, UH, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO RECORD THAT AS A, AS A CONTRIBU AS A RECEIPT, AND THEN RECORD IT AS AN EXPENDITURE.AND RETURNING THE, UH, THE CONTRIBUTION.
MR. SIEGEL STILL HAS NOT DONE THAT TO THIS DAY.
AND SO THIS, THIS CASE IS NOT FRIVOLOUS.
IT IS MORE THAN JUST ONE PERSON AND ONE ENTITY.
THERE ARE LARGER IMPLICATIONS HERE.
WE'LL GET INTO THOSE AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THOSE.
BUT, UM, AT THIS POINT, I'M PROBABLY CLOSE TO MY FIVE MINUTES.
SO I'LL, THAT'S MY, MY, UM, MY ORIGINAL OR MY OPENING STATEMENT IS THAT THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT STILL STANDS AND MR. SIEGEL HAS DONE VERY LITTLE TO ADDRESS THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT.
NOW YOU HAVE 10 MINUTES FOR YOUR INITIAL STATEMENT.
IF I MISSTATE AND I APOLOGIZE.
DID I SAY FIVE? I'LL RESERVE THE REST OF MY, I APOLOGIZE.
YEAH, I'LL, I'LL RESERVE THE REST OF MY TIME CHAIR, IF I MAY JUST CLARIFY QUICKLY.
YEAH, IT'S CAROLYN WEBSTER WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT.
UM, SO THE, THE PROCEDURE FOR THE FINAL HEARING IS 10 MINUTES TO MAKE AN INITIAL STATEMENT AND THEN 30 MINUTES TO PRESENT ALL OF YOUR EVIDENCE.
SO YOU HAVE, AFTER THE INITIAL LIST, AFTER YOUR INITIAL STATEMENT, UM, THE RESPONDENT GETS 10 MINUTES TO RESPOND, UP TO 10 MINUTES TO RESPOND, AND THEN YOU HAVE AN ADDITIONAL 30 MINUTES TO PRESENT ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE THAT, BUT THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ALLOTTED.
AND, AND I, SO I'LL USE ONE MORE MINUTE TO SAY, UH, UM, UH, MS. WEBSTER HAS BEEN A GEM THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS AND PROVIDING, UH, NOT PROVIDING ME DIRECT ASSISTANCE, 'CAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S NOT HER JOB, BUT GIVING ME THE, THE, THE DEFINITIONS AND, AND THE WHEREWITHAL TO PROCEED.
AND SO, YET AGAIN, MS. WEBSTER IS, HAS PROVIDED TOP-NOTCH QUALITY LEGAL SERVICE TO THIS COMMISSION AND CITIZENS OF AUSTIN, AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
AND WITH THAT, I'LL, I'LL, I'M DONE WITH MY OPENING STATEMENT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR, UM, YOUR INITIAL, YOUR OPENING STATEMENT.
UM, AND NOW WE WILL HEAR FROM THE RESPONDENT AND AGAIN, UH, 10 MINUTES.
UH, CAN YOU GIVE YOU A THUMBS UP IF YOU CAN HEAR ME? OH, YES.
UM, YEAH, GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND, UH, COMMISSION.
I'M MIKE SIEGEL, THE RESPONDENT IN THIS, UH, CASE.
UM, APOLOGIES FOR NOT BEING THERE IN PERSON.
I, UH, BASICALLY DUE TO ME NOT CHECKING MY CAMPAIGN EMAIL VERY OFTEN, I DIDN'T REALIZE I HAD THIS HEARING UNTIL, UH, A FEW HOURS AGO.
UH, I WILL ECHO, UM, MR. HAYNES COMPLIMENTS OF MS. WEBSTER AND, AND THE STAFF FOR BEING VERY ACCOMMODATING AND SUPPORTIVE.
UM, I HAVE, UH, PROVIDED A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT.
UM, I WANNA MAKE CLEAR, I DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE DOCUMENTS.
UH, MR. HAYNES REFERENCED, UM, WHERE HE, I IDENTIFIES 13 INSTANCES, BUT THE COMPLAINT THAT, UH, IS LIVE IN THIS CASE IS BASICALLY A COMPLAINT THAT STATES TWO ISSUES AGAINST MY, MY CITY COUNCIL CAMPAIGN.
UH, BASICALLY TWO INSTANCES OF ME RECEIVING $900 CONTRIBUTIONS, UH, IN EXCESS OF THE LIMIT.
AND IN BOTH THOSE CASES, UH, THE $900 CONTRIBUTION WAS RE RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF A MARRIED COUPLE, WHICH IS ALLOWED UNDER CITY CODE.
AND IN REGARD TO BOTH INSTANCES, MY CAMPAIGN AS ALLOWED BY CITY CODE FILED TIMELY AMENDMENTS TO CLARIFY ALL OF THE ISSUES, UH, THAT WERE RAISED BY THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT.
AND, UH, I'LL ALSO SAY TO MR. HAYNES, I'M, I'M MEAN NO DISRESPECT BY USING THE TERM FRIVOLOUS.
I DON'T MEAN THAT IN ANY SORT OF PERSONAL WAY, I JUST MEAN THAT THERE'S NO BASIS FOR THIS COMPLAINT.
AND, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, THE ISSUE THAT WAS COMPLAINED OF WITH YOUR INITIAL COMPLAINT, MR. OR I SHOULD ADDRESS THIS TO THE CHAIR, THE, THE, THE ISSUE MR. HAYNES COMPLAINED OF WAS LATER REMEDIED BY AMENDED DISCLOSURES.
AND THE COMPLAINT HAS NOT BEEN AMENDED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.
AND I'LL JUST GO STRAIGHT INTO IT.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UH, A $900 CONTRIBUTION FROM A MAN NAMED MICHAEL LEWIS, WHO IS MARRIED.
AND, UH, I ORIGINALLY, UH, MY STAFFER WHO FILED THE REPORT DID NOT DISCLOSE THE, THE, THE SPOUSE'S NAME, AND THAT WAS AMENDED.
SO EMILY SCRUGGS IS MICHAEL LEWIS' SPOUSE.
UM, AND THAT'S GONNA BE IN, UH, EXHIBIT B, UH, THE AMENDED DISCLOSURE.
AND THEN IN ADDITION, THE, THE OTHER, UH, CONTRIBUTION WAS FROM CATHERINE ROGERS FROM $900, AND HER HUSBAND IS MIKE MICHAEL, UH, BERGAL, UM, ON, AND THIS IS GONNA BE, WE'LL GET INTO THIS LATER WITH THE EXHIBITS, BUT AT THE TOP OF EXHIBIT C, WHICH IS THE COVER PAGE FOR THE LAST AMENDMENT, MY STAFFER NOTED THAT, UM, SHE ORIGINALLY ATTRIBUTED THE DONATION TO CATHERINE ROGERS AND THEN MANUALLY ADDED IN FRANK ROGERS, WHOSE NAME I HAD WRONG.
[00:25:01]
UM, BUT SHE SAYS THIS WAS, UH, AN ERROR.AND SO I THINK I DID WATCH THE, THE PRIOR, THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, THERE WAS NEVER A CONTRIBUTION FROM FRANK ROGERS.
THERE WAS ONLY A CONTRIBUTION.
UM, UH, IN TERMS OF THE COMPLAINT HERE, THERE'S A CO THERE'S A COMPLAINT AGAINST CATHERINE ROGERS, AND HER SPOUSE IS, IS MICHAEL BERGAL.
AND SO THERE'S NO ISSUE OF RETURNING A DONATION OR A MISSING DONATION.
WE JUST HAVE TWO $900 GIFTS, UH, FROM MARRIED COUPLES.
AND SO THAT, UM, THAT KIND OF EXPLAINS WHY I THOUGHT THIS WAS, WAS FRIVOLOUS, BECAUSE IT'S BASICALLY A CLERICAL ERROR BY MY STAFFER THAT WAS, UH, CORRECTED AS ALLOWED BY CITY CODE.
UM, THERE WAS NO MALFEASANCE, THERE WAS NO ILL INTENT.
UM, AND SO THAT'S WHY I, I BELIEVE THIS COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
I ALSO BROUGHT INTO THE RECORD, UM, INFORMATION THAT THE CAMPAIGN, UH, THAT MR. HAYNES REFERENCED.
THE BLEDSOE CAMPAIGN FILED A TOTAL OF OF THREE ETHICS COMPLAINTS AGAINST ME.
UH, THE FIRST ONE WAS IN FRONT OF THIS COMMISSION, UM, BY JULIE OLIVER.
THAT WAS, UH, I GUESS ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED FOR BEING INCOMPLETE.
A SECOND ONE THAT WAS FILED BY MR. HAYNES AT THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION, WHICH WAS DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING.
AND SO, UM, IF THE COMMISSION AGREES WITH ME THAT THIS COMPLAINT IS ALSO NOT WELL-FOUNDED, BUT HAS NO BASIS, I GUESS I WOULD LIKE THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER, UM, IS THERE AN INCENTIVE TO FILE FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINTS, UH, FOR PURPOSES OF GARNERING MEDIA ATTENTION? I MEAN, UH, THAT'S, THAT'S FRANKLY, MY CONCERN HERE IS THAT, UH, A COMPLAINT WITHOUT FOUNDATION CAN BE FILED AND, UH, YOU KNOW, THE RESPONDENT COULD BE DRAGGED THROUGH MULTIPLE HEARINGS AT CONSIDERABLE TIME OF COMMITMENT, AND THAT ALL THE WHILE THERE'S NO, UH, FUNDAMENTAL BASIS FOR THE COMPLAINT.
UH, SO WITH THAT, UH, I GUESS I'LL, I'LL RESPOND TO THE EVIDENCE.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF THE STAFF CAN EMAIL ME MR. HAYNES ATTACHMENTS, SO I CAN REVIEW THEM.
UH, BUT OTHERWISE I'LL JUST HAVE TO LISTEN CAREFULLY.
UH, MR. HAYNES, YOU MAY USE, UH, YOUR REMAINING TIME WITH, UM, A RESPONSE TO THE RESPONDENT.
THE, THE FIRST THING IS A MATTER OF JUST UTMOST CLARIFICATION.
I WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYONE IS VERY CR CRYSTAL CLEAR.
THIS CASE IS NOT BROUGHT BY THE BLEDSOE CAMPAIGN, NOR WAS THE COMPLAINT THAT I MADE AGAINST, UH, COUNCILMAN SIEGEL AT THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION, BROUGHT BY THE BLEDSOE CAMPAIGN.
THESE CASES ARE BROUGHT BY ME PERSONALLY.
I WAS A VOLUNTEER WITH A FRIEND OF MINE WHO I'VE KNOWN FOR 25 YEARS IN THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE, WHO HAS, UH, BEEN THERE LOBBYING FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND MENTAL HEALTH AND VOTING RIGHTS.
AND I HAVE BEEN RIGHT THERE WITH HIM LOBBYING ON MANY OF THOSE SAME ISSUES.
UH, AND, AND WHEN HE CHOSE TO RUN FOR CITY COUNCIL, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AND FULL THROATILY SUPPORTED HIM.
UH, SO THESE, THESE, THIS CASE IS NOT BROUGHT BY THE BLOOD.
SO CAMPAIGN THAT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT.
UM, SECONDLY, UH, MR. SIEGEL OR THE, THE, UH, RESPONDENT SUGGESTS THAT, THAT MY ORIGINAL, MY ORIGINAL COMPLAINT CONTAINS ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT I HAVE INCLUDED.
I'VE JUST SUMMARIZED IT IN A SHORTER FORMAT SINCE IT'S BEEN SO LONG SINCE WE, UH, HAVE, HAVE HEARD THIS ISSUE.
ALL OF THESE DETAILS ARE IN MY ORIGINAL COMPLAINT, THE, UH, THE, THE EFFORTS BY, UH, A THIRD PARTY IN ENTITY THAT WAS COORDINATING WITH THE SEGAL CAMPAIGN, NOT AS AN INDEPENDENT ACTOR, NOT AS A GENERAL PACT, NOT AS A SPECIFIC PURPOSE PACT, BUT WAS, WAS ACTIVELY, UH, CAMPAIGNING WITH AND COORDINATING WITH THE SIEGEL CAMPAIGN, AND WAS DOING SO, UM, EVERY WEEKEND AND, AND DOMINATING, UH, GETTING, UH, VOLUNTEERS AND BLOCK WALKING AND FLYERS AND THE WHOLE NINE YARDS THAT CAMPAIGNS ARE SUPPOSED TO DO.
BUT IN DOING SO, AND IN COORDINATING WITH THE SIEGEL CAMPAIGN, NEVER, MR. SIEGEL, COUNCILMAN SIEGEL NEVER LISTED THAT AS A CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE.
AND ALL OF THOSE ARE DIRECT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES AS PER SECTION TWO, TWO OF THE CODE.
THEY ARE DONE IN A SPECIFIC, UH, CAMPAIGN, UH, TIME PERIOD, A RUNOFF IN THIS CASE, AND BOTH OF THOSE ARE VIOLATIONS OF, OF THE, OF THE CODE.
AND SO YOU CAN FINISH UP, IS THAT 30 MINUTES? NO.
DID YOU WANNA FINISH THE SENTENCE OR THAT'S FOR YOUR 10 MINUTES.
[00:30:02]
THEN CAN I ASK A, I THOUGHT WE WERE, NOW, WE WERE PRO, OH, THIS IS STILL, GOTCHA.AND SO MY SENTENCE IS, MY FINISHING OF MY SENTENCE IS, UM, UH, IT'S THE, IT'S THE COORDINATION OF THE CAMPAIGN.
IT'S THE, UH, CONTRIBUTIONS THAT MR. SIEGEL FAILED TO, UH, THAT COUNCILMAN SIEGEL FAILED TO IDENTIFY AND REPORT THAT ARE VIOLATIONS OF, OF PRIMARILY OF, OF, OF ARTICLE THREE, OF, OF THE, OF THE CHARTER AND 2.2 OF THE, OF THE CITY CODE.
UH, NOW WE'VE HEARD THE, UH, OPENING STATEMENT FROM THE COMPLAINANT AND THE OPENING STATEMENT FROM THE RESPONDENT.
UH, YOU EACH HAVE A TOTAL OF 30 MINUTES TO PRESENT EVIDENCE, WHICH MEANS YOU EACH HAVE, UH, UH, 20 MINUTES LEFT, UH, OUT OF YOUR, NO, SORRY, THIS IS MY FIRST TIME CHAIRING A MEETING, AND SO I APOLOGIZE IF I GET ANY OF THIS WRONG.
UH, COULD YOU HAND ME THOSE PAGES BACK? YES.
CAROLINE WEBSTER WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT.
UH, JUST, JUST TO KIND OF CLARIFY.
UM, SO WHAT THE RULES OF THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION STATE FOR FINAL HEARING PROCEDURES IS THAT, UH, THERE THE, EACH PARTY GETS TO MAKE AN INITIAL STATEMENT WHERE THEY PRESENT THEIR POSITIONS IN A NARRATIVE FORM, INCLUDING A SUMMARY OF DOCUMENTS AND WITNESS TESTIMONY.
INITIAL STATEMENTS SHALL NOT EXCEED 10 MINUTES, AND THEN IT SAYS, PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE.
THE PARTIES MAY OFFER SUCH EVIDENCE AS IS RELEVANT AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPLAINT OR ANY DEFENSE.
ALL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED IN ADVANCE OF THE FINAL HEARING SHALL BE ADMITTED AT THE START OF THE FINAL HEARING.
PARTIES MAY OFFER TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
OPPOSING PARTIES SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESS, THUS AUTHORIZED BY THE CHAIR.
AND THEN IT STATES THE PARTIES SHALL BE PERMITTED 30 MINUTES PER SE TO PRESENT ALL THEIR WITNESS TESTIMONY AND DOCUMENTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE UNLESS OTHERWISE MODIFIED BY THE ERC.
SO I WOULD SAY THAT THE STATEMENTS, THE WORDS YOU WERE JUST UTTERING, THAT IS PART OF YOUR 30 MINUTES.
YOU HAD YOUR 10 MINUTES TO START YOUR INITIAL STATEMENT.
MR. SIEGEL HAD HIS 10 MINUTES FOR HIS INITIAL STATEMENTS.
THEN WE STARTED YOUR 30 MINUTES TO PRESENT ALL OF YOUR EVIDENCE, AND THEN MR. SIEGEL WILL GET 30 MINUTES TO PRESENT ALL OF HIS EVIDENCE.
AND THEN THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION IS, CAN ANSWER OR, UH, ASK QUESTIONS OF BOTH PARTIES.
SO, UH, IF I KNOW WE HAD YOUR 10 MINUTE TIME UP THERE, UH, BUT LET'S, I WOULD ASSUME, I THINK YOU ONLY TOOK SIX MINUTES THE FIRST TIME, SO LET'S JUST SAY THAT FOUR MINUTES HAVE GONE FROM YOUR 30 MINUTES, AND WE CAN CONTINUE FROM THERE.
AND I WILL GO AHEAD AND KEEP THE TIME SINCE LIZETTE HAS HAD TO STEP AWAY.
UH, SHE'S TRYING TO SEND MR. SIEGEL THE EVIDENTIARY MATERIALS THAT YOU SUBMITTED.
I WILL RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
AND, AND I, UM, I DO HAVE A, THERE IS ONE WITNESS HERE.
DO I, DO I, DO THEY COME UP, DO YOU CALL THEM UP, MR. CHAIRMAN, OR YOU'RE WELCOME TO HAVE THEM TAKE UP PART OF THAT TOTAL 30 MINUTES PER OKAY.
YEAH, YOU, IF YOU WISH TO HAVE THEM COME UP NOW, YOU SAY, UH, I NOW IS THE TIME TO DO THAT.
I WANNA GIVE COUNCILMAN SIEGEL TIME TO, TO GET THE DOCUMENTS THAT I PRESENTED, AND SO GIVE IT SO SURE.
SORRY,
WELL, LET'S JUST KEEP IT MOVING.
I MEAN, I'LL, I'LL LOOK FOR THE EMAIL AS IT COMES UP, BUT, UH, I'LL FOLLOW ALONG.
SO I THINK HE'S SAYING YOU CAN PROCEED.
IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND THEN, UH, PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE.
MY NAME IS NATALIE RELEY, AND, UM, I'VE BEEN RIGHTFULLY ACCUSED OF BEING DR.
I'M A POLITICAL SCIENTIST AND, BUT NATALIE IS FINE TONIGHT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ON A CAMPUS.
ALRIGHT, I WANT TO START OFF BY SAYING THAT IT IS UNFORTUNATE, THOUGH I'M NOT JUDGING.
IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT THIS PROCESS IS COMPLAINT DRIVEN AND INHERENTLY ADVERSARIAL BECAUSE IN FACT, I ADMIRE COUNCIL MEMBER SIEGEL AS BOTH NEIGHBOR AND PUBLIC SERVANT AS A CONSTITUENT.
I APPRECIATE HIS SERVICE AND I'M PERSONALLY GRATEFUL FOR THE CARE HIS FAMILY'S CLINIC
[00:35:01]
HAS GIVEN MY CATS.I'M HERE TONIGHT BECAUSE I CARE DEEPLY ABOUT LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND GOOD GOVERNANCE.
I HAVE TAUGHT, I HAVE WORKED ON DEMOCRACY AND NATION BUILDING OVERSEAS, AND I HAVE DONE QUITE A BIT OF RESEARCH ON THIS.
IT'S NEAR AND DEAR TO MY HEART.
YOU CAN CALL IT MY PA ONE OF MY PASSIONS.
I'VE TAUGHT US, TEXAS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AT A CC HOUSTON TILLSON, AND UT ALSO AT THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF AFGHANISTAN.
SOME OF MY RESEARCH IS FOCUSED ON PACS AND INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES.
SO I HOPE IT'S NO SURPRISE TO ANYONE IN THIS ROOM.
BUT I STRONGLY SUPPORT CAMPAIGN FINANCE DISCLOSURE AND ENFORCEMENT IN MY HOMETOWN.
TO BE CLEAR, I WAS NOT A PAID CONSULTANT IN THE DISTRICT SEVEN RACE.
I DID VOLUNTEER FOR GARY BLEDSOE'S CAMPAIGN AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN, AND I CONTRIBUTED TO BOTH THE BLEDSOE AND NEN CAMPAIGNS AS A POLITICAL SCIENTIST.
I FOLLOWED CAMPAIGN FILINGS VERY CLOSELY, ESPECIALLY THOSE FROM AURA AUSTIN, UNITED BACKPACK, DSA, AUSTIN, AND OTHERS, USING THE CITY CLERK'S PORTAL AND USING INFORMATION REPORTS THAT ARE REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
I ALSO FOLLOWED THESE GROUPS, PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS.
MY CONCERN TONIGHT IS WHETHER EFFORTS BY INTEREST GROUPS BENEFITED THE SIEGEL CAMPAIGN AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED.
THIS IS A MATTER OF GREAT SIGNIFICANCE, AND THAT GOES TO THE HEART OF DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS BECAUSE IN FACT, TRANSPARENCY AND DISCLOSURE WILL PARTLY AFFECT HOW VOTERS DECIDE WHEN CASTING THEIR VOTES.
UNDER AUSTIN CITY CODE TWO DASH TWO DASH TWO CONTRIBUTIONS INCLUDE NOT JUST MONEY, BUT ALSO GOODS SERVICES AND ANYTHING ELSE OF VALUE.
TRANSPARENCY MATTERS BECAUSE VOTERS USE THIS INFORMATION WHEN MAKING DECISIONS.
AND WE HAVE RESEARCH FROM THE SOCIAL SCIENCES THAT BACK THIS UP.
PROFESSOR ARTHUR LABIA OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN FOUND EARLY ON THAT VOTERS USE DONOR INFORMATION AS A SHORTCUT TO EVALUATE CANDIDATES AND TO ALIGN THEIR VOTES WITH THEIR VALUES.
THIS WAS DISCOVERED LAST CENTURY.
WE'VE KNOWN THIS FOR A GREAT TIME BACK IN 1994 MORE RECENTLY, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LAW PROFESSOR ABBY WOODS, 2022.
RESEARCH SHOWS THAT VOTERS CARE WHETHER CANDIDATES FOLLOW REPORTING RULES, EVEN SMALL VIOLATIONS CAN LOWER VOTER TRUST AND SUPPORT.
SO TONIGHT, DISCLOSURE ISN'T, OR MY DISCUSSION HERE, IS NOT ABOUT DISCLOSURE AS A TECHNICALITY, IT IS ABOUT DEMOCRACY AND HOW VOTERS DECIDE IN ELECTIONS.
THE HANES COMPLAINT IDENTIFIES THREE AURA ACTIVITIES THAT BENEFITED CANDIDATES THEN CANDIDATE SIEGEL'S CAMPAIGN.
FIRST, A DIGITAL, A DIGITAL INVITATION EMAIL TO A CURATED LIST TO BE TRUE.
I DO NOT KNOW AURA'S MEMBERSHIP, BUT I DO KNOW THAT AURA'S FACEBOOK HAS 100, HAS, UH, ONE 1900 FOLLOWERS AND THE USE OF MEMBERSHIP AND EMAIL PLATFORM SERVICES TO DELIVER THIS DIGITAL INFORMATION INVITATION.
SECOND, THERE WAS AN IN PER, THERE WERE IN-PERSON EVENTS WITH CATERED FOOD AND DRINK.
THAT WAS, THAT TOOK PLACE AT 12,001 BURNETT ROAD.
AND THIRD, THERE WAS A BLOCK WALK INVOLVING PURCHASED VOTER DATA, CANVASSING APPS AND VOTER TRAINING.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT DSA AUSTIN AS AN ORGANIZATION HELD SIMILAR EVENTS AT THAT SAME LOCATION IN NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER.
WHILE NOT PART OF THIS COMPLAINT, THEY DO RAISE RELATED CONCERNS.
EACH AURA EVENT INVOLVED MATERIAL COSTS AND DELIVERED CAMPAIGN VALUE.
THESE WEREN'T CASUAL GATHERINGS.
THEY WERE IN FACT A PART OF AN ORGANIZED CANVASSING OPERATION.
I KEPT WAITING TO SEE THESE CONTRIBUTIONS IN CANDIDATE SIEGEL'S REPORTS, BUT I NEVER SAW THEM.
THESE AURA EFFORTS DELIVERED CAMPAIGN VALUE BECAUSE SOCIAL SCIENCE HAS ABUNDANTLY SHOWN EMPIRICALLY
[00:40:01]
THAT CANVASSING WORKS.COLUMBIA AND YALE RESEARCHERS, DONALD GREEN AND ALAN GERBER HAVE SHOWN THAT DOOR-TO-DOOR CANVASSING INCREASES TURNOUT BY FIVE TO 10% OUTPERFORMING EVEN PERSONALIZED PHONE CALLS, TRAILING AT TWO TO 5% ON A GOOD DAY.
FOOD ALSO HELPS IN GROUNDBREAKERS ACADEMICS, MCKENNA HAN AND THE OBAMA CA 20 20 12, 20 12 CAMPAIGN DIRECT FIELD DIRECTOR, JEREMY BY DESCRIBED IN THEIR BOOK HOW PROVIDING FOOD HELPED TRANSFORM CANVASSING FROM A TRANSACTIONAL INTO A RELATIONAL EXPERIENCE.
WHAT'S THE, SO WHAT? IN FACT, FOOD MOTIVATES VOLUNTEERS TO DO MORE AND STAY LONGER AT CANVASSING.
SO THE BENEFIT TO CAN CANDIDATE SIEGEL'S CAMPAIGN WAS NOT TRIVIAL.
THESE EFFORTS STRENGTHENED ITS GROUND GAME AND UNDER THE CITY CODE'S DEFINITION OF CONTRIBUTION, THAT KIND OF VALUE WITH ITS CAMPAIGN IMPACT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPORTED.
UH, MR. HAYNES, YOU HAVE ANY OTHER WITNESSES? I WILL, NO, NO, SIR.
I'LL RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
NOW, YOU SUBMITTED, I UNDERSTAND YOU SUBMITTED THIS TO US, RIGHT? UH, YES, SIR.
AND MR. SIEGEL, ARE YOU THERE? YES.
NOW YOU HAVE PROVIDED MS. BENETTI WITH SOMETHING, IS THAT CORRECT? UM, AT THE PRIOR MEETING, UH, THAT WAS, UH, UNFORTUNATELY NOT ABLE TO PROCEED WITHOUT A QUORUM, I LEFT PAPER COPIES.
UH, OF A WRITTEN RESPONSE THAT INCLUDES THREE ATTACHMENTS.
UM, UH, AND I JUST HAVE TO PUSH MY CAT OUTTA THE WAY HERE.
UM, SO YEAH, I, I'LL JUST RESPOND.
UM, I GUESS FROM THE, THE MAIN PORTION OF THIS PRESENTATION, IT SEEMS LIKE THAT THE, THAT THE ISSUES THAT, UH, MR. HAYNES IS, ARE, ARE FOCUSING ON, UH, RELATE TO AURA, WHICH, UM, YOU KNOW, I AM NOT A MEMBER OF AURA, BUT AURA, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, IS AN URBANIST ORGANIZATION THAT SUPPORTS BUILDING MORE HOUSING, UH, IN, IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
AND THEY DID AS AN, AN ORGANIZATION ENDORSED ME, AND THEY DID, UM, USE THEIR INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS, INCLUDING THEIR SOCIAL MEDIA AND THEIR INTERNAL EMAIL TO PROMOTE EVENTS FOR AURA MEMBERS, UH, AND GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOLUNTEER FOR MY CAMPAIGN.
UM, I WILL RESPOND, I GUESS, UH, TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE ORDER THAT THE, UH, EXPERT WITNESS, UH, BROUGHT THEM UP.
UM, I MEAN, FIRST OF ALL, I JUST WANNA MAKE CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS ANY CONTRIBUTION OF VALUE, UH, MONETARY VALUE FROM AURA TO MY CITY COUNCIL CAMPAIGN.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE OVERARCHING THING HERE.
UM, I THINK FOR ANYONE WHO'S BEEN A PART OF A CAMPAIGN FROM DESCRIBING, UH, PROFESSOR F'S, UM, LIKE LISTENING TO HER TESTIMONY AND HER DESCRIPTION, THIS IS ACTUALLY AN EXTREMELY COMMON THING WHERE ORGANIZATIONS THAT SUPPORT A CANDIDATE HOLD EVENTS FOR THE MEMBERS OF THAT ORGANIZATION, AND THOSE MEMBERS THEN VOLUNTEER FOR THE CAMPAIGN.
AND I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH, WITH WHAT THE PROFESSOR SAID, THAT, UH, MY CAMPAIGN RECEIVED A BENEFIT, UH, FROM THIS VOLUNTEER LABOR, BUT THAT IS NOT A CAMPAIGN VIOLATION.
THAT WAS OBVIOUSLY EXTREMELY VALUABLE.
UH, I ABSOLUTELY AGREE THAT GROUND GAMES WIN CAMPAIGNS, UM, AND THAT THE BENEFIT OF THAT VOLUNTEER LABOR WAS VERY IMPORTANT.
I, UH, WAS VERY PROUD OF MY CAMPAIGN TO BE ABLE TO RECRUIT HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF VOLUNTEERS WHO KNOCKED THOUSANDS OF DOORS.
AND I, I WOULD NOT HAVE WON, UH, BUT FOR THAT VOLUNTEER SUPPORT, INCLUDING BY MEMBERS OF AURA, BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION AS CITY CODE, UH, DESCRIBES IT.
AND SO THE SPECIFIC THINGS, UH, THAT PROFESSOR LEY DESCRIBED, ONE, A DIGITAL INVITATION.
SO HERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EITHER A SOCIAL MEDIA POST OR AN EMAIL INTERNAL TO THE AURA ORGANIZATION.
FOR EXAMPLE, I AM NOT A MEMBER.
I DID NOT RECEIVE THESE EMAILS.
SO THEY ARE COMMUNICATING, COMMUNICATING INTERNALLY ABOUT A, UH, OPPORTUNITY TO VOLUNTEER FOR MY CAMPAIGN.
THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT THAT COST THEM ANY MONEY.
UM, AND THAT WAS NOT A, A DIRECT CONTRIBUTION TO MY CAMPAIGN.
THAT WAS A COMMUNICATION AMONG THEIR MEMBERS.
UH, THERE'S A REFERENCE TO SO-CALLED CATERED FOOD AND DRINK.
UM, I WILL SAY I DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY, UH, PAID FOOD OR DRINK FROM AURA.
AND IF AURA IS PROVIDING FOOD OR DRINK TO THEIR MEMBERS AT A MEETING OF AURA, THAT'S ALLOWED, THAT'S NOT A CONTRIBUTION TO MY CAMPAIGN.
[00:45:01]
UH, TAKING CARE OF EACH OTHER AND MAKING SURE EVERYONE IS COMFORTABLE AT, AT A VOLUNTEER EVENT.UH, THERE WAS A REFERENCE BY THE PROFESSOR TO PURCHASE VOTER DATA.
I JUST WANNA MAKE CLEAR THAT, UM, THE VOLUNTEERS FROM AURA USED MY CAMPAIGNS, UH, YOU KNOW, SO-CALLED MINIVAN, RIGHT? WE, WE PURCHASED A SUBSCRIPTION, UH, THROUGH MY CAMPAIGN.
THIS IS PROVEN IN MY FINANCE REPORTS.
WE, UH, PURCHASED A SUBSCRIPTION FROM THE TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY, UH, FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN VOTER FILE.
AND, UH, THEN, YOU KNOW, CREATED LISTS, UH, USING THE SOFTWARE.
THIS IS SOMETHING MY PAID STAFF DID.
UH, THEY CREATED LISTS THAT THEN VOLUNTEERS COULD THEN ACCESS, YOU KNOW, UH, GET 20 OR 30 OR 40 HOUSEHOLDS, UH, PER VOLUNTEER, UH, TO WORK A TWO OR THREE HOUR SHIFT.
UM, BUT THAT WAS NOT PROVIDED BY AURA.
THAT WAS PROVIDED BY MY CAMPAIGN.
UM, SO ALL OF THIS IS, UM, YOU KNOW, COMPLETELY, UH, COMMONPLACE WITHIN CAMPAIGNS.
UH, THERE'S UNIONS THAT DO THIS FOR CANDIDATES.
THERE'S COMMUNITY ADVOCACY GROUPS.
I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT MR. BLEDSOE HAD, UH, VOLUNTEER EVENTS AS WELL, UH, WHERE, YOU KNOW, UH, PEOPLE FROM HIS CAMPAIGN HOSTED VOLUNTEER GATHERINGS AND PEOPLE WOULD KNOCK DOORS.
AND THOSE ARE NOT CONTRIBUTIONS.
THOSE ARE NOT, UM, PAYMENTS TO THE CAMPAIGN.
THEY'RE NOT, UM, IT'S NOT LIKE, IT'S NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF, OF PAYING FOR LITERATURE OR, OR, UH, ADS ON, ON SOCIAL MEDIA.
THESE ARE NOT PAID CONTRIBUTIONS.
THESE ARE ACTIVITIES WITHIN AURA AS A, A, YOU KNOW, COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION TO BRING THEIR MEMBERS TOGETHER.
AND THEN, YES, THEY LET ME ADDRESS THEIR MEMBERS, AND THEN YES, I CONVINCED THEIR MEMBERS TO VOLUNTEER WITH MY CAMPAIGN.
UH, BUT THAT'S A CAMPAIGN, THAT'S NOT A CAMPAIGN, UH, CONTRIBUTION AS CITY CODE DEFINES IT.
UM, SO WITH THAT, I THINK I HAVE RESPONDED, UH, TO EVERYTHING THAT WAS RAISED.
UM, I GUESS THERE'S BEEN NO FURTHER ALLEGATION ABOUT THE, THE SO-CALLED FRANK ROGERS CONTRIBUTION.
UM, I GUESS AT THIS POINT, I WANNA FORMALLY, UM, ADMIT, UH, MY THREE EXHIBITS INTO EVIDENCE.
UM, EXHIBIT A IS A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DISMISSAL, UH, FROM THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION TO A PRIOR, UH, COMPLAINT BY MR. HAYNES.
EXHIBIT B IS THE COVER LETTER FOR MY FIRST AMENDMENT.
AND I WILL ADMIT, MY CAMPAIGN WAS A LITTLE, UM, I GUESS WE WERE UNDER THE GUN TIME, TIME CRUNCHED.
IT'S A LITTLE SLOPPY, I GUESS, THAT WE FILED TWO AMENDMENTS, BUT THAT IS NOT ILLEGAL.
UH, SO EXHIBIT B IS THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND, UH, I JUST INCLUDED ONE PAGE FROM THIS AMENDED DISCLOSURE.
UH, AND, AND ON THAT PAGE, YOU WILL SEE THAT EMILY SCRUGGS IS SEPARATED OUT.
UH, THAT'S THE, THE, THE SPOUSE OF MR. MICHAEL LEWIS.
AND SO WE AMENDED, UH, MY FILING TO, UH, CLARIFY THAT MICHAEL LEWIS DID NOT GIVE $900.
HE GAVE FOUR 50 AND HIS WIFE, EMILY SCRUGGS GAVE FOUR 50.
THEN EXHIBIT C DEALS WITH, UH, THE CATHERINE ROGERS $900 CONTRIBUTION.
AND, UM, IT CLARIFIES THAT MS. ROGERS DID NOT GIVE $900, THAT THE FOUR $50 SHOULD BE ATTRIBUTED, UH, HALF TO HER AND HALF TO HER SPOUSE, MIKE BERGAL.
AND IF YOU LOOK ON THIS COVER PAGE OF EXHIBIT C, ITEM TWO, THIS IS WHERE, UM, MY STAFFER, UH, EXPLAINED.
SHE SAYS, WE ADJUSTED THE AMOUNT ATTRIBUTED TO EACH PARTNER.
ORIGINALLY, I UPLOADED $900 ATTRIBUTED TO JUST KATHERINE ROGERS, BUT THEN MANUALLY ADDED IN FRANK ROGERS, WHOSE NAME I HAD WRONG TO BE FOUR 50, BUT I FORGOT TO CHANGE CATHERINE'S TOTAL.
SO THAT'S HER EXPLAINING THAT, UH, THE FIRST AMENDMENT DIDN'T COMPLETELY CORRECT THE ISSUE, BUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT DID.
UM, I WILL AGREE THAT THE, THE SENTENCE STRUCTURE IS A LITTLE VAGUE.
UH, MAYBE THERE'S, IT'S SUSCEPTIBLE OF MULTIPLE MEETINGS, BUT THERE WAS NO CONTRIBUTION FROM FRANK ROGERS.
AND THAT'S WHY, AS MR. HAYNES RIGHTLY NOTES, THE FINAL AMENDED REPORT DOES NOT INCLUDE A FRANK ROGERS CONTRIBUTION.
UH, SO THAT'S MY, MY FACTUAL RESPONSE TO, UM, THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED.
AND HAPPY TO RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS.
UH, MS. BENETTI, HOW MUCH IS THERE TIME REMAINING FOR THE COMPLAINANT? FOR A COMPLAINANT? WE HAVE 17 MINUTES, AND FOR RESPONDENT, WE HAVE 20 MINUTES.
ANYTHING MORE YOU WISH TO SAY? MR. HAYNES? I, YES, SIR.
I, I, UH, WILL TAKE SOME OF MY TIME.
UM, I KNOW I CAN'T RESPOND DIRECTLY TO COUNCILMAN SIEGEL, BUT RESPONDING TO YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
UM, I WILL READ FROM, UH, THE AUSTIN CHARTER ARTICLE TWO, SECTION EIGHT, UH, SUBPARAGRAPH E.
AND IT, UH, CLEARLY STATES THAT IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CANDIDATE TO PREVENT VIOLATIONS.
THE CANDIDATE AND OR HIS OR HER COMMITTEE SHALL DETERMINE WHETHER ACCEPTING EACH CONTRIBUTION WOULD VIOLATE, UH, THIS SECTION BEFORE ACCEPTING THE CONTRIBUTION.
AND THEN I TURN YOU YOUR ATTENTION TO, UM, UH, 2.2 0.2.
[00:50:01]
AND, UH, SPECIFICALLY E THE DEFINITION OF A CONTRIBUTION MEANS A DIRECT OR INDIRECT TRANSFER OF MONEY, GOOD SERVICES, AND ANY OTHER THING OF VALUE, UH, EMPHASIS ADDED BY ME.UM, UH, IN ADDITION, IN KIND LABOR MEANS THE VALUE OF PERSONAL SERVICES PROVIDED WITHOUT COMP COMPENSATION BY AN INDIVIDUAL WHO VOLUNTEERS ON BEHALF OF A CANDIDATE OR A POLITICAL COMMITTEE.
AND FINALLY, A PERSON IS A, THE MEANS, UH, MEANS AN INDIVIDUAL CORPORATION, PARTNERSHIP, LABOR UNION OR LABOR ORGANIZATION.
AND I SAID FINALLY, ONE LAST, A STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION MEANS A COMMUNICATION REGARDING ADVERTISING, CAMPAIGN STRATEGY, AND VOTER GROUPS BETWEEN THE CANDIDATES, THE CANDIDATES CAMPAIGN, OR THEIR AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES.
ALL OF THOSE THINGS, UH, RELATE TO THE SERVICES, THE STRATEGIC, UH, CAMPAIGN, UH, COMMUNICATIONS MADE BY AURA AND THEIR COORDINATION WITH THE SIEGEL CAMPAIGN.
IN FACT, IN MR, UM, IN THE REPLY, UM, I KNOW I CAN'T ADDRESS IT, BUT, UH, IN THE REPLY, MR. SIEGEL ADMITS THAT AURA USED ONE OF HIS CAMPAIGN, UH, APPS AND USED ONE OF HIS MAIN CAMP MINIVAN IS ONE OF THE MAIN.
THAT AND CONSTANT CONTACT ARE THE TWO OUTREACH APPS THAT ARE USED IN BY MOST CAMPAIGNS TODAY.
AND MR. SIEGEL ADMITS THAT AURA USED HIS, UM, CAMPAIGN APP TO DO SO TO, TO COORDINATE WITH THEIR VOLUNTEERS.
AGAIN, IF AURA HAD CHOSEN TO DO THIS AS AN INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY, THEY CAN DO THAT ALL DAY LONG.
IT IS THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT, AND I WOULD NOT BEGRUDGE THEM.
BUT WHEN THEY START TO MELD AND START TO FUDGE THE LINE AND START TO COORDINATE WITH THE, THE SEGAL CAMPAIGN, THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE IN VIOLATION.
NOT ONLY FEDERAL LAW, NOT ONLY STATE LAW, BUT ALSO CITY CODE SAYS THAT, UM, IF YOU DO THIS INDEPENDENTLY, YOU CAN DO SO, AND YOU DO EITHER DO IT THROUGH A GPAC OR AN SPAC.
BUT WHEN YOU COORDINATE WITH THE CAMPAIGN, WHEN YOU DO THIS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CAMPAIGN, IT IS NOW AN EXPRESSED CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION, AN EXPRESS CAMPAIGN COORDINATION, AND AN EXPRESS COMMUNICATION IN THIS INSTANCE, AND HAS TO BE REPORTED.
UH, MS. BENETS, IN TERMS OF THE TIME REMAINING, I BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE USED ALL THE TIME THEY WANT TO.
IS THERE ANYTHING MORE WE SHOULD DO BEFORE I OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE OR? I CAN ASK MS. WEBSTER TOO.
MAY, MAY I ASK A QUESTION? UM, YES, SIR.
UH, GIVEN THAT, MR. HAYNE, GIVEN THAT MR. HAYNES KIND OF, UM, ADDED ON TO HIS ARGUMENT, AND I, AND I DO HAVE A LITTLE TIME REMAINING, MAY I RESPOND BRIEFLY TO THE POINTS YOU RAISED? YES, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
UM, I NOTED, UH, FOUR POINTS THAT MR. HAYNES HAS BROUGHT UP.
UM, THE FIRST ONE WAS ABOUT THE CHARTER PROVISION, AND I DIDN'T WRITE DOWN THE WHOLE PART, BUT BASICALLY THAT A CAMPAIGN MUST DETERMINE BEFORE ACCEPTING A CONTRIBUTION, WHETHER IT'S LEGAL OR NOT.
AND I JUST WANNA MAKE CLEAR THAT, UM, IN TERMS OF THE $900 CONTRIBUTIONS, THOSE WERE LEGAL, UH, BECAUSE THEY WERE, UM, ATTRIBUTED TO TWO PEOPLE, UH, A MARRIED, UH, PARTNERSHIP IN BOTH SITUATIONS.
UH, SO WE'RE NOT IN VIOLATION OF THAT CHARTER PROVISION.
UH, IN TERMS OF HIS SECOND ARGUMENT THAT, UH, REGARD REGARDING SOMETHING THAT WAS A TRANSFER OF VALUE, UM, BY AA TO MY CAMPAIGN, I THINK THAT KEY WORD IS TRANSFER, UH, BECAUSE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE EMAIL THEY SEND TO THEIR MEMBERS DOES NOT TRANSFER VALUE TO MY CAMPAIGN, UH, OR BUYING FOOD, I'M SORRY, THERE'S A KIND OF, MY KIDS ARE MAKING NOISE DOWNSTAIRS.
UM, YOU KNOW, THEM BUYING FOOD FOR THEIR MEMBERS, UH, DOES NOT, UM, YOU KNOW, TRANSFER VALUE TO MY CAMPAIGN.
SO I THINK THAT SECOND ARGUMENT THAT MR. HAYNES RAISED IS NOT VALID, UH, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO TRANSFER OF VALUE AND THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING, UH, TRANSFER TO VALUE BY FROM AURA TO MY CAMPAIGN.
UH, THE THIRD POINT WAS KIND OF, UH, MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT DONATED LABOR, UH, AT TIMES CAN BE SOMETHING THAT A CAMPAIGN MUST REPORT.
AND I AGREE THAT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, UH, IF SOMEONE, YOU KNOW, UH, DONATES PHOTOGRAPHY SERVICES, YOU NEED TO LIKE ACCEPT, YOU KNOW, WRITE THAT DOWN AS AN IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION.
AND, AND MY CAMPAIGN DID THAT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT I DON'T THINK THIS, UH, ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION HAS EVER HELD THAT DONATED LABOR IN THE FORM OF VOTER CONTACT ACTIVITIES IS A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION THAT MUST BE NOTED ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS.
UM, I DON'T HAVE ALL OF THE CODE IN FRONT OF ME TO KIND OF, UH, FARED OUT THE DETAILS, BUT I THINK THAT WOULD COMPLETELY DISRUPT, UH,
[00:55:01]
THE ENTIRE ETHICS REVIEW PROCESS AND WOULD CREATE AN EXTREMELY CUMBERSOME BURDEN FOR CAMPAIGNS TO BASICALLY, UM, UH, I GUESS MEASURE EVERY DONATED HOUR OF, OF BLOCK WALKING, FOR EXAMPLE, OR PHONE BANKING OR LETTER WRITING, WHAT HAVE YOU, AND THEN ASSIGN A VALUE TO THAT AND REPORT THAT.SO I DON'T THINK THAT'S EVER BEEN, UH, CITY LAW.
UH, I THINK THAT WOULD BE KIND OF, UM, UH, UNREASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF CITY LAW.
UH, FINALLY, UM, I THINK THIS IS KIND OF THE, THE CORE PIECE OF MR. HAYNES'S ARGUMENT.
THE IDEA THAT, UM, AURA UNQUOTE USED MY APPLICATION, MY VOTER CONTACT TOOL.
AND THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT A CORRECT CHARACTERIZATION OF WHAT HAPPENED.
UH, WHAT HAPPENED HERE IS THAT AURA HELD AN EVENT FOR ITS MEMBERS, INVITED ME TO BE THERE, AND THEN I CONVINCED SOME, BUT NOT ALL AURA MEMBERS TO BECOME VOLUNTEERS FOR MY CAMPAIGN.
AND SO AURA NEVER HAD ACCESS TO THE VOTER FILE.
UH, YOU KNOW, THEY NEVER HAD ACCESS TO THE BACKEND OF, OF A VAN AS IT'S CALLED.
THEY WERE NE NEVER, UH, ABLE TO ACCESS THAT DATA INSIDE MY CAMPAIGN.
UH, I WAS ABLE TO CONVINCE SOME AURA MEMBERS, YOU KNOW, I THINK A COUPLE DOZEN PROBABLY TO KNOCK DOORS FOR ME, AND, AND THAT MAKES THEM, MY CAMPAIGN VOLUNTEERS AND, AND THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, DONATION OF THEIR TIME, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THEIR COMMITMENT, UH, TO MY CAMPAIGN AND THE GOALS I, I WAS, WAS REACHING FOR, UH, THAT THAT WAS AN ENTIRELY LEGAL ACTIVITY.
UM, SO WITH THAT, I'LL CONCLUDE.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO USE ANY MORE OF YOUR TIME, MR. HAYS? CAN I, PARDON? CAN I RESERVE IT UNTIL AFTER QUESTIONS, OR IS IT OKAY? ALRIGHT, WELL, UH, YES, AND I'LL, I'LL, I'LL TAKE JUST A, IT'S A, IT'S A CUMBERSOME PROCESS TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS BUT NOT ADDRESS.
UM, UH, AGAIN, BUT, BUT I WILL FOLLOW THOSE RULES.
UM, I, I, AGAIN, I I READ FROM THE, UM, UM, 2.2 0.2, UM, SUB SEVEN, AND IT, IT, IT CLEARLY STATES IN CITY CODE A CONTRIBUTION MEANS A DIRECT OR INDIRECT TRANSFER OF MONEY, GOOD SERVICES OR OTHER THING OF VALUE IT.
THAT IS, THAT IS THE CLEAR INTENT AND CLEAR LANGUAGE OF THE CODE.
AND, AND I AGREE WITH MR. SIEGEL, I'M, I'M, I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT COUNCILMAN SIEGEL OR, OR, OR ANY OFFICE HOLDER OR ANY CANDIDATE HAS TO TRACK INDIVIDUAL, UH, VOLUNTEER HOURS.
UH, THE BASIS OF THIS COMPLAINT IS THAT MR. SIEGEL RECEIVED THE, UM, THE VOLUNTEERS AND THE, THE STRATEGIC COMMUNIC, THE, THE CAMPAIGN COMMUNICATION AND THE, UM, UH, IS, I'M SORRY, IT IS STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION AND THE IN KIND CONTRIBUTION, NOT, NOT AS HE RECRUITED MEMBERS OF A GROUP, HE RECEIVED THEM DIRECTLY FROM THE GROUP ITSELF.
AND THAT IS THE CRUX OF THIS ARGUMENT AS THE CRUX OF THIS CASE, YOU HAVE AN INDEPENDENT ACTOR WHO COORDINATED WITH DIRECTLY WITH BLOCK WALKING WITH MIKE SIEGEL, VOLUNTEERING WITH, OR FOR MIKE SIEGEL POLL GREETING FOR MIKE SIEGEL.
ALL OF THIS HAPPENED DURING THE RUNOFF CAMPAIGN, WHICH IS AN EXPRESS CAMPAIGN PERIOD UNDER CITY CODE.
AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS DELIVERED A THING OF VALUE TO THE SIEGEL CAMPAIGN.
HE SHOULD HAVE REPORTED THOSE.
WHEN IT COMES TO THE, UM, THE, THE, UH, MISINFORMATION ON THE CONTRIBUTIONS, UH, MR. SIEGEL, RIGHTLY SO, SAYS THAT HE, HE CORRECTED IN A CAMPAIGN IN A, UH, AN AMENDED REPORT.
HE'S RIGHT, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE LAW THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
UH, BUT THE QUESTION REMAINS, AND, AND WE'LL GO STRAIGHT TO THE HEART OF THE MATTER, IS, UH, YOU HAD TWO INSTANCES WHERE HE ATTRIBUTES A $900, UH, CONTRIBUTION FROM MS. CATHERINE ROGERS AND SAYS THAT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE FOR HER SPOUSE, MR. NEBRAL.
AND I KNOW BOTH MS. ROGERS AND MR. NEBRAL AND, UM, YES, THEY ARE MARRIED AND, AND IF THEY BOTH CHOSE TO DO A $450, THAT'S $900.
BUT THE QUESTION THEN REMAINS, WHAT HAPPENED TO FRED ROGERS? WHAT HAPPENED TO THE $450? IT JUST MAGICALLY DISAPPEARED.
AND THAT IS A VIOLATION OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE IN
[01:00:01]
AND OF ITSELF.YOU CAN'T JUST AUTOMATICALLY TAKE AWAY, HE REPORTED A, A FIGURE OF 79,000 AND, AND, UH, $910, AND THEN TOOK $450 AWAY FROM THAT AND THEN JUST ELIMINATED FRED ROGERS' NAME.
THAT IS NOT THE WAY RETURN CONTRIBUTIONS ARE HELD, UH, ARE PROCESSED BY THE CITY, UH, UNDER THE CITY CODE.
MR. UH, COUNCILMAN SIEGEL FAILED TO DO THAT, AND, UH, AS A RESULT, THAT'S A CAMPAIGN VIOLATION.
I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF THE TIME.
MR. SIEGEL, I ASSUME YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME LEFT.
IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WOULD WISH TO SAY? YES, I GUESS JUST TWO BRIEF POINTS.
I MEAN, THE, THE LATTER ONE BEING, I THINK THE MORE, UM, SALIENT, UH, I, I DON'T KNOW HOW I CAN, UH, YOU KNOW, DISPROVEN NEGATIVE HERE.
UM, THERE WAS NEVER A CONTRIBUTION FROM A FRANK ROGERS.
THERE WAS A CLERICAL ERROR WHERE, UM, MY CAMPAIGN STAFFER, UH, FIRST REPORTED A $900 CONTRIBUTION FROM KATHERINE ROGERS, AND THEN SHE SAID IT WAS BETWEEN KATHERINE AND FRANK, BUT SHE MADE A MISTAKE.
AND THERE WAS NO FRANK ROGERS, IT WAS CATHERINE ROGERS AND MIKE NEAL.
NEAL, SORRY, I'M MISPRONOUNCING HIS NAME.
UM, IN REGARD TO AURA'S EFFORTS TO RECRUIT VOLUNTEERS, I GUESS I WOULD JUST ANALOGIZE THIS TO ANY ACTIVITY WHERE DURING A CAMPAIGN CYCLE WHERE SOMEONE OFFERS ME A PLATFORM AND I, UH, SOMEHOW INSPIRE, ENCOURAGE, UH, CONVINCE PEOPLE TO VOLUNTEER FOR MY CAMPAIGN, UH, TRADITIONALLY THOSE OPPORTUNITIES, UH, ARE NOT SEEN AS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.
UM, YOU KNOW, IF, IF I DO SOMETHING IN PUBLIC THAT, UH, WINS PEOPLE OVER TO MY CAMPAIGN, THAT DOESN'T MAKE THAT THE VENUE WHERE THAT OCCURRED, A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION.
AND I, I THINK I'VE ALREADY ADDRESSED THE SPECIFIC POINTS, BUT JUST TO REITERATE, THE EMAIL THAT ORA SENT WAS WITHIN ITS MEMBERS.
IT WAS NOT A CONTRIBUTION TO MY CAMPAIGN.
UH, THE FOOD THEY PROVIDED WAS FOR ITS MEMBERS.
IT WAS NOT A CONTRIBUTION TO MY CAMPAIGN.
AND THE INDIVIDUALS FROM AURA, UH, WHO VOLUNTEERED FOR MY CAMPAIGN BECAME MY CAMPAIGN VOLUNTEERS.
AND SO WHEN THEY USED MY CAMPAIGN TOOLS, THAT IS NOT A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION.
AND I WILL JUST, UH, SUM UP THE, THE POINT ON, UM, THE, THE, THE CATHERINE ROGERS EMAIL.
UM, I'M, I'M BLESSED TO BE, I'M MARRIED WAY OVER MY HEAD, AND MY SPOUSE HAS A DIFFERENT LAST NAME THAN ME.
AND IN THE, UM, IN THE LAST ELECTION CYCLE, I MADE FOUR CONTRIBUTIONS ABOVE 900 OR ARE AT THE $900 TO, TO THREE DIFFERENT CANDIDATES.
ONE CITY COUNCIL PERSON, A CANDIDATE OR, OR THE MAYOR AND A CANDIDATE FOR, UH, CITY COUNCIL, AND THEN THE SAME CANDIDATE IN THE RUNOFF.
AND ALL FOUR OF THOSE IN INSTANCES, ALL FOUR OF THOSE CAMPAIGNS, OR THREE OF THOSE CAMPAIGNS, ONE BEING IN THE GENERAL IN THE RUNOFF, NEVER GOT MY WIFE'S NAME AND MY LAST NAME MIXED UP.
AND SO FOR MR. SIEGEL TO SAY, OH, IT'S JUST A CLERICAL ERROR, IT JUST STATISTICS AND PROBABILITY, DON'T BEAR THAT OUT.
UH, YOU, YOU DRAW GREATER DETAIL WHEN CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND, AND REPORTS ARE ON THE LINE, YOU, YOU PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THOSE DETAILS.
AGAIN, I DID IT FOUR TIMES AND NEVER HAVE HAD THIS, AND I'VE DONE IT BEFORE AND NEVER HAVE HAD THIS ERROR, UH, ISSUE.
WITH THAT ALL IN MY TIME, I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON TO, UM, QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM ANY OF YOU, COMMISSIONER? LOW, UH, I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR BOTH OF YOU, BOTH THE COMPLAINANT AND THE RESPONDENT.
SO MR. HAYNES, THE, UM, DOCUMENT YOU GAVE US WITH 13 POINTS TIMELINE, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT 2024? I APOLOGIZE.
SO THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE, UM, DECEMBER 10TH, 2024, IS THAT CORRECT? UH, THE ORIGINAL ONE WAS, UM, WELL, THE TWO CORRECTIONS WERE OF THAT DATE.
WHAT IS THE ORIGINAL ONE? THE ORIGINAL ONE WAS, UM, WAS THE EIGHT DAY REPORT, WHICH WAS, UH, DECEMBER THE FOURTH.
[01:05:01]
THEN THE CORRECTIONS THAT MR. SIEGEL HAS, HAS BROUGHT INTO RECORDS THAT WAS THE 10TH.UH, COUNCILMAN SIEGEL THEN, UM, I AM LOOKING AT YOUR FEBRUARY 23RD, 2025 DOCUMENT AND YOUR MAY 28TH, 2025 DOCUMENT.
THE FEBRUARY ONE SAYS NONE OF THESE ALLEGATIONS STATES AN ACTUAL VIOLATION OF CITY CODE, AND THE, UH, MAY ONE SAYS NO VIOLATION OF CITY CODE OCCURRED.
UM, SO I THINK THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS THAT YOU SEEM TO BE TALKING ABOUT AT THE SAME TIME.
ONE IS EXCESS CONTRIBUTIONS, AND YOU'VE EXPLAINED THAT, BUT THERE'S ALSO THE REPORTING ISSUE.
SO WHEN YOU SAY NO VIOLATION OCCURRED, ARE YOU SAYING NO REPORTING VIOLATION OCCURRED ON, UM, DECEMBER 4TH, OR ARE YOU SAYING A VIOLATION OCCURRED, BUT YOU CORRECTED IT TWICE? DECEMBER 10TH.
YEAH, I THINK THE, THE LAST THING YOU SAID IS, IS ACCURATE THAT MM-HMM
THE ORIGINAL FILING, UM, AT LEAST, AND I, I THINK ARGUABLY YOU COULD SAY IT WASN'T A VIOLATION BECAUSE YOU'RE ALLOWED TO RECEIVE A $900 CONTRIBUTION FROM A MARRIED COUPLE.
BUT, UM, THAT THROUGH THE AMENDMENTS, WE CLARIFIED EXACTLY WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EACH PART OF THOSE DONATIONS.
OKAY, BUT YOU'RE NOT SAYING THAT IT WAS DISCLOSED CORRECTLY OR PROPERLY DECEMBER 4TH? NO, I, I THINK MY MAIN ARGUMENT IS THAT CITY CODE ALLOWS FOR AMENDMENTS, RIGHT.
OF BEFORE, OF COURSE, THERE'S A ACTUAL ETHICS VIOLATION, AND SO THAT ONCE THE AMENDMENTS WERE CONCLUDED, THERE IS NO VIOLATION.
SO YOU'RE SAYING YOU REMEDIED IT AND THEREFORE THERE'S NO VIOLATION? OR ARE YOU SAYING THERE WAS NO VIOLATION WHEN YOU FILED ON DECEMBER 4TH? I, I, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ACTUALLY A VIOLATION BECAUSE, UM, IN EACH INSTANCE IT WAS A MARRIED COUPLE GIVING $900, AND SO WHOEVER WROTE THE CHECK WAS CREDITED WITH THE, THE $900.
HOW DO YOU THINK IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE REPORTED ON DECEMBER 4TH? OH, HOW DO, DO YOU THINK IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPORTED? CLEARLY? UH, I WISH MY CAMPAIGN STAFFER HAD SEPARATED THE $900 INTO 2, 4 50 BITS, OF COURSE.
SO WITH TWO SEPARATE NAMES, 450 FOR EACH.
THAT WOULD'VE BEEN FAR CLEANER.
COMMISSIONER, TURN, UH, I HAVE, UH, QUESTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT AND MUCH LI COMMISSIONER LO ALSO FOR, UH, FOR THE COMPLAINANT.
UH, I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO START WITH THE COMPLAINANT, UH, COMPLAIN COMPLAINANT, THE RESPONDENT HAS INDICATED THAT THEIR CLAIM IS THAT THE 7,900 SOME ODD DOLLAR NUMBER IS SIMPLY ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR.
YOU'VE SEEMED TO INDICATE THAT $450 WAS REMOVED INAPPROPRIATELY.
CAN, DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT THERE WAS BOTH A $900 CONTRIBUTION AND A $450 CONTRIBUTION, AND THAT THAT 450 DO DOLLARS CONTRIBUTION WAS REMOVED? UH, NO, SIR.
I, UM, UM, COMMISSIONER, I, I DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE, BUT, UM, OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT MR. SIEGEL, UH, REPORTS, UH, ON THE FOURTH WHEN HE, WHEN HE DID HIS INITIAL FILING, A TOTAL CONTRIBUTION FOR THE RUNOFF PERIOD UP, UP TO EIGHT DAYS, HE, HE RECEIVED MORE AFTERWARDS, BUT REPORTS 7,000, UH, I'M SORRY, $79,010 AND 26 CENTS.
THEN WHEN HE MAKES HIS CORRECTION, HIS NOT HIS FIRST CORRECTION, HIS SECOND CORRECTION, UH, LIST $78,560 AND 26 CENTS, MAGICALLY REMOVING $450.
I HAVE NO EVIDENCE ABOUT WERE THEY, WERE THEY INCORRECT BY LISTING $79,010 AND CHANGE, OR WERE THEY INCORRECT ENLISTING, UH, $78,560.
ONE OF THEM IS INCORRECT, AND THAT'S A CAMPAIGN VIOLATION.
UH, SO I GUESS A FOLLOW UP QUESTION, UM, YOU'VE INDICATED THAT IF THEY RETURNED THE MONEY, THERE IS A PROCESS AND A, A REGULATORY PROCESS AND A FILING THAT REFLECTS THAT.
ARE, IS IT YOUR CONTENTION THAT THERE IS ALSO A PROCESS FOR RECOMMEND FOR REMEDYING AN ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR, AND THAT THEY DID NOT FOLLOW THAT PROCESS?
[01:10:02]
UH, NO, SIR.I, I THINK THE, I THINK THE, THE, UH, THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS FOR, FOR CORRECTING A, OR THE PROCESS FOR CORRECTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR IS TO FILE A, A, A SECOND FILING TO, TO AMEND YOUR ORIGINAL REPORT.
UM, AND, AND THAT'S THE ADMINISTRATIVE THANK YOU FIX.
UH, AND THEN MY QUESTION FOR THE RESPONDENT, UM, YOU'VE INDICATED THAT YOU, YOU, YOU PURCHASED DATA FROM THE D FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FOR LEADS.
UM, HOW DO YOU SEE IT AS ANY DIFFERENT THAT RRA MAY HAVE PROVIDED YOU SOMETHING OF SIMILAR VALUE THAT THEY GAVE YOU, THE ACCESS TO THEIR MAILING LIST, THEY GAVE YOU THE ACCESS TO THEIR POOL OF SUSCEPTIBLE VOTERS.
UH, HOW DO YOU RECONCILE THAT? THAT'S NOT A THING OF VALUE.
UM, THEY, TO BE CLEAR, THEY DID NOT GIMME ACCESS TO THEIR MAILING LIST.
UM, I DID NOT RECEIVE THE EMAIL.
THEY, THEY DIDN'T TELL ME WHO THEY SENT THE EMAIL TO.
UM, SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, UM, I ATTENDED A GATHERING OF ORA MEMBERS AND CONVINCED SOME OF THOSE MEMBERS TO VOLUNTEER WITH MY CAMPAIGN.
UH, AND THEY SUBSEQUENTLY, YOU KNOW, ADHERED TO MY CAMPAIGN GUIDELINES, INCLUDING USING THIS APPLICATION TO RECORD THEIR VOTER CONTACT.
UM, THAT WAS NOT A TRANSFER OF VALUE.
I MEAN, THE ONLY VALUE THAT I WOULD ADMIT IS OUT THERE IS THE VALUE OF VOLUNTEER LABOR TO KNOCK DOORS, AS THE PROFESSOR SAID, VOTER CONTACT, UH, YOU KNOW, FACE-TO-FACE IS EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE FORM OF COMMUNICATION, BUT THAT'S NOT CONSIDERED A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION.
AND SO THERE WAS NO TRANSFER OF VALUE AS FAR AS CITY CODE IS CONCERNED.
UH, AND THAT BRINGS ME TO A FOLLOW UP.
UH, YOU SAY THAT THEY GAVE YOU ACCESS TO AN EVENT, AND THEN YOU INDEPENDENTLY, UH, CONVINCED VOLUNTEERS TO VOLUNTEER FOR YOU.
HOWEVER, IN THESE EMAILS THAT RA SENDS, THEY SEEM TO CHARACTERIZE IT AS WE DID, WELL, WE HAD A GOOD TURNOUT.
HOW DO YOU RECONCILE THAT AS AURA? NOT SAYING THAT IT, THAT THERE WERE VOLUNTEERS WORKING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF AURA, NOT UNDER MIKE SIEGEL'S CAMPAIGN? HMM.
WELL, I MEAN, UH, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.
UM, I DON'T REALLY HAVE CONTROL ABOUT HOW THEY COMMUNICATE ABOUT MY CAMPAIGN.
UH, I THINK IN, IN THESE POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS, A LOT OF PEOPLE TAKE CREDIT FOR SUCCESSES.
YOU KNOW, IF, IF YOU FOLLOWED WHAT HAPPENED IN NEW YORK CITY LAST NIGHT, UH, I THINK THERE'S DOZENS AND DOZENS OF ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE CLAIMING CREDIT FOR, UH, ZORAN MOMANI WINNING THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY.
UH, BUT, UM, I, I DID NOT, AS FAR AS THE CODE IS CONCERNED, I DID NOT EXERT CONTROL OVER AURA.
UM, YOU KNOW, IF THEIR MEMBERS VOLUNTEERED, THAT'S ALLOWED.
UM, AND SO I, I CAN'T REALLY CONTROL HOW THEY, THEY CHARACTERIZE IT IN THEIR OWN COMMUNICATIONS, CERTAINLY, AND I, AND I WOULD JUST NOTE THAT YOU KEEP SAYING VOLUNTEERING IS NOT A CAN CAMPAIGN VIOLATION, OR THE CODE SAYS XI THINK IT IS, IT'S UP TO THIS COMMISSION TO DETERMINE IF THE DESCRIBED ACTIVITIES IS A VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODE.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA.
UM, SO YES, I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE COMPLAINANT AND RESPONDENT.
SO, UM, MR. MR. HAYES, UM, MY FIRST QUESTION TO YOU IS WHAT CORRECTIONS ARE STILL NEEDED THAT HAVEN'T BEEN CORRECTED AFTER THE AMENDED REPORTING? FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, ARE THERE STILL ADDITIONAL CORRECTIONS THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE? IS IT JUST THE $450 FROM MR. ROGERS THAT NEEDS TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR, OR ARE THERE, UH, AND THEN, UM, WOULD YOU LIKE, UH, CORRECTIONS AS TO THE AURA, UM, REPORTING? ARE THOSE THE TWO CORRECTIONS THAT YOU'RE STILL LOOKING FOR? UH, THE, I I THINK THE MAIN CORRECTION FOR MR. SIEGEL, FOR, FOR COUNCILMAN SIEGEL WOULD BE, UM, THE, THE DETERMINATION OF, OF, YOU KNOW, I DON'T MEAN TO BE FLIPPANT, BUT WHAT HAPPENED TO FRED, WHAT HAPPENED TO MR. ROGERS AND WHAT HAPPENED TO HIS $450 CONTRIBUTION? UM, IT WAS RECORDED, IT WAS ADDED TO A TOTAL, AND THEN I FILE A COMPLAINT AND TWO DAYS LATER IT'S GONE.
AND, AND THERE IS A PROCEDURE UNDER 2 2 2 DASH TWO DASH 24 ABOUT IF YOU RETURN A CONTRIBUTION THAT HAS STILL NOT BEEN FILED BY COUNCILMAN SIEGEL.
SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE OUTSTANDING.
IN TERMS OF, OF, OF AURA'S ACTION, I THINK, UM, COMMISSIONER MAIER HITS ON, UH, IN, IN THIS CASE, PREPOSITIONS MATTER WHEN YOU'RE BLOCK WALKING WITH MIKE SIEGEL, WHEN YOU'RE CAMPAIGNING
[01:15:01]
FOR MIKE SIEGEL, WHEN YOU ARE ORGANIZING A FUNDRAISER, YOU KNOW, AUSTIN HOUSER'S FOR MIKE SIEGEL, OUR POSITIONS MATTER.THAT WOULD NOT BE, I THINK MR. SIEGEL NEEDS TO ACCOUNT FOR AND REPORT THOSE DONATIONS.
UH, THAT WOULD BE A CONVERSATION THAT HE NEEDS TO HAVE WITH AURA AND HOW MUCH THEY WOULD ASSIGN TO THEIR ACTIONS IN THOSE, IN THOSE EFFORTS.
BUT, UH, AT SOME POINT, IT, IT, IT NOT ONLY NEEDS TO BE, WE'LL TALK ABOUT HOW, HOW THEY NEED TO ACCOUNT FOR IT, UH, IN, IN A LITTLE BIT.
BUT, UM, HOW MR. SIEGEL NEEDS TO ACCOUNT FOR IT AND REPORT IT IS EITHER AS DIRECT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, WHICH IS WHAT I WOULD ARGUE THEY ARE, AND IF NOT, THEN AT LEAST IN KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.
AND ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT I GAVE YOU IN ADDITION TO THE, THE SUMMARY IS THE WAY SEVERAL SPACS AND G THAT WERE ACTIVE DURING THE RUNOFF CAMPAIGN HANDLED THIS EXACT, UH, UH, INSTANCE WHERE THEY REPORTED, UH, DIGITAL ADVERTISING ON BEHALF OF MR. BLEDSO OR, OR, OR COUNCILMAN SIEGEL.
THEY REPORTED, UM, UH, CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES, UH, FOR, UH, A SHEIKA OR FOR, UM, VARIOUS OTHER CANDIDATES.
AND THAT'S THE WAY THAT IT, IT SHOULD BE, UH, REPORTED.
AND THEN MS. UH, GOLE, UH, REPORTED, UH, IN, IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS FROM SOME OF ORDOS MEMBERS FOR THAT EXACT REASON.
SO THERE'S EVIDENCE OF AT LEAST ONE CANDIDATE, UH, UNDERSTANDING THAT, THAT THERE WAS A, A THING OF VALUE TRANSFERRED AND MAKING THAT REPORT, I BELIEVE MR. SIEGEL NEEDS TO DO THE SAME.
COUNCILMAN SEGER NEEDS TO DO THE SAME.
I I THINK YOU ANSWERED MY FOLLOW UP, UH, BUT JUST TO BE CLEAR, UM, HOW WOULD YOU CALCULATE THE VALUE OF THOSE INDIRECT CONTRIBUTIONS, UM, PARTICULARLY IF IT'S, UM, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT BROAD, LIKE BRINGING IN VOLUNTEERS FOR A MEETING.
UM, DOES THAT HAVE, UM, MONETARY CONTRIBUTION NUMBERS BEHIND IT, OR IS IT JUST THE ADVERTISING NUMBERS? WHAT IS TYPICALLY SEEN IN, IN OTHER CANDIDATES? AND I, I THINK YOU TOUCHED ON THAT.
UM, WELL, OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, I, I CAN'T, I CAN'T KNOW WHAT THE COST, UM, THAT, THAT AURA WOULD, UM, ASCRIBE TO ITS, UM, DIGITAL ADVERTISING.
BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT, UM, ON, UM, DECEMBER THE SIXTH IN THE CAMPAIGN RUNOFF AUSTINITES FOR EQUITY, WHICH IS A, AND, AND IT'S IN, IT'S IN THE, THE FILING THAT I GAVE YOU, WHICH IS A SPAC, UM, UH, LISTED A, UH, DIGITAL ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN ON BEHALF OF, OF MR. SIEGEL FOR $1,500.
AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT AUSTIN UNITED PAC, UH, FILED ON THE, ON, UH, UH, THE, THE 9TH OF DECEMBER, UM, LISTED A, UM, $25,000, UH, DIGITAL ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN ON BEHALF OF, OF, OF MR. BLEDSOE.
AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT PROTECT AUSTIN PAC, UM, ON DECEMBER THE SIXTH, UM, LISTED $11,399 AND 64 CENTS, UM, DIGITAL CAMPAIGN ON BEHALF OF MR. SIEGEL.
AND I CAN TELL YOU THE VIBRANT AUSTIN PAC, UM, UH, IN THE RUNOFF, UH, LISTED SEVERAL, UM, DIGITAL ADVERTISING EFFORTS, ONE IN THE, THE AMOUNT OF $7,907 AND ONE IN THE AMOUNT OF 3080 $7.
UH, ONE, IT, IT WAS IN THE RUNOFF.
UH, THEY FILED IN THE RUNOFF, SO I DON'T KNOW WHY, BUT IT WAS FOR, UH, COUNCILWOMAN, UH, LANE.
AND THEN, UH, CANDIDATE, UH, MS. GOLE.
UH, SO YOU CAN SEE FROM REPORTS THAT WERE ACTIVE DURING, IN AND AROUND THE RUNOFF CAMPAIGN, DIGITAL ADVERTISING IS EXPENSIVE.
DIGITAL ADVERTISING IS THE MAIN, IT IS VERY EXPENSIVE.
AND THERE'S JUST SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT OTHER ENTITIES REPORTED AND WHAT THEY WERE DOING DURING THE RUNOFF PERIOD.
UM, MY ONE QUESTION FOR, FOR COUNCILMAN SIEGEL IS JUST IF YOU COULD PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE CONTEXT ON THE, UM, SITUATION BETWEEN FRANK ROGERS AND MICHAEL BERGAL.
UM, THOSE ARE TWO VERY DIFFERENT NAMES.
IT, IT'S NOT LIKE A CLERICAL ERROR WHERE IT'S LIKE, OH, IT'S MICHAEL ROGERS INSTEAD OF MICHAEL ALGER.
LIKE, SO IS, UM, COULD YOU PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE CONTEXT ON WHY
[01:20:01]
THAT, THAT HUGE DISCREPANCY AND, AND MAYBE, UM, PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT FOR THAT? SURE.AND DO YOU MIND, DO YOU MIND IF I ALSO RESPOND TO THE OTHER ISSUE, UH, THAT WAS RAISED IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTIONS BY MR. ANS, UH, THE AURA QUESTION? UM, GO AHEAD.
UM, SO, UH, FIRST OF ALL, I'LL SAY THAT I'M NOT THE ONE PREPARING THESE REPORTS, BUT MY STAFF MEMBER MADE A MISTAKE, UH, LISTED A FRANK ROGERS DONATION.
SHE WAS CONFUSED AND IT WAS CORRECTED.
SO THERE NEVER WAS A FRANK ROGERS DONATION.
UH, IF THERE WAS SOME SORT OF FORENSIC PROCESS, UH, IN FRONT OF THIS COMMISSION, Y Y'ALL COULD LOOK AT ALL MY, UM, YOU KNOW, ONLINE DONATIONS, MY CHECK DONATIONS.
THERE'S NO DONATION FROM FRANK ROGERS.
THE, THE, THE FINAL AMENDED REPORT IS THE MOST ACCURATE REPORT, AND THE ONE WE STAND BY IS THE CAMPAIGN.
UM, IN TERMS OF THE AURA PIECE, UM, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY THIS, THIS QUESTION OF, OF DIGITAL ADVERTISING.
UM, THE, FIRST OF ALL, I JUST WANNA SAY THERE'S NO EVIDENCE IN FRONT OF THIS COMMISSION THAT THERE WAS ANY TRANSFER, UH, OF VALUE, UH, A CONTRIBUTION OF VALUE BY AURA, UH, DIGITAL ADVERTISING.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IF YOU HAVEN'T WORKED ON CAMPAIGNS, YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE, UM, UNDERSTOOD THE DIFFERENCE.
YOU KNOW, GENERALLY SPEAKING, THESE SOCIAL MEDIA APPLICATIONS, YOU KNOW, INSTAGRAM FOR EXAMPLE, THESE ARE FREE APPLICATIONS.
SO AURA CAN PUT A PICTURE ON THEIR INSTAGRAM PAGE, AND THEY DON'T PAY ANY MONEY AT ALL.
THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE FREE INSTAGRAM SUBSCRIPTION THAT EVERYONE CAN HAVE ACCESS TO.
DIGITAL ADVERTISING IS SOMETHING ELSE WHERE YOU SET UP AN ADVERTISING ACCOUNT, YOU PUT A, A CREDIT CARD ON FILE, UM, YOU, YOU HAVE TO LIKE, ABIDE BY ALL THESE, YOU KNOW, LOCAL AND EVEN FEDERAL RULES ABOUT CAMPAIGN, UH, ADVERTISING.
I WOULD ABSOLUTELY AGREE THAT DIGITAL ADVERTISING, WHERE YOU QUOTE UNQUOTE BOOST A POST ON INSTAGRAM, THAT WOULD BE, UH, AN AD THAT HAS TO BE DISCLOSED IN THE CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REPORT.
THE, UH, AUSTINITES FOR EQUITY CONTRIBUTION THAT MR. HAYNES REFERENCED, THAT WAS A PAID AD WHERE THAT GROUP PUT TOGETHER SOME SORT OF VIDEO AND PAID TO SEND IT TO AUSTIN VOTERS.
BY CONTRAST HERE, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT.
THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT, UH, AURA PAID FACEBOOK OR PAID INSTAGRAM OR PAID ANY OF THESE GROUPS TO BOOST THEIR POSTS TO, UM, SEND IT TO A LARGER AUDIENCE.
THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF THAT PAYMENT.
THIS IS LIKE A, THESE ARE FREE TOOLS THAT AURA IS USING TO COMMUNICATE WITH THEIR OWN MEMBERS, AND THAT'S WHY IT WOULDN'T BE, UH, A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION.
UH, I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP WITH THE RESPONDENT.
YOU'VE REPEATEDLY SAID THAT BECAUSE AURA DID NOT SPEND, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT ARA SPENT MONEY, THAT THERE MUST THEN HAVE BEEN NO VALUE CONFERRED TO YOUR CAMPAIGN.
AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY YOU BELIEVE THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE STANDARD.
UM, IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE THERE IS A POSSIBILITY FOR SOMEONE TO SEE A COLLECTION OF INFORMATION, UH, SUCH AS THE ROLES FOR THE MEMBERSHIP OF AURA AS A VALUABLE RESOURCE, AND THAT AURA CONFERRED THAT RESOURCE ONTO YOU WHEN THEY SENT EMAILS POTENTIALLY IN SUPPORT OF YOUR CAMPAIGN.
AND SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF YOU CAN POINT TO A STATUTORY OR LEGAL REASON WHY THERE MUST BE SOME EXPENDITURE OF ACTUAL CASH MONEY FOR THERE TO BE A TRANSFER OF VALUE.
THAT DOES NOT SEEM TO FOLLOW FOR ME.
AND SO I'M, I'M ASKING, CAN YOU WITH PARTICULARITY SAY WHY I MUST FIRST UNDERSTAND R TO HAVE SPENT MONEY BEFORE I CAN ARRIVE AT THE DECISION THAT THEY CONFERRED VALUE ONTO YOUR CAMPAIGN? THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.
I GUESS I'M JUST RESPONDING TO THE COMPLAINT AS IT'S BEEN FILED AGAINST ME.
AND SO THE COMPLAINT, UH, LAID OUT THESE SPECIFIC THINGS, THE EMAIL INVITATION, THE THE FOOD AND DRINK FOR MEMBERS.
AND, UH, MY ARGUMENT IS THAT THOSE WEREN'T TRANSFERS OF VALUE TO MY CAMPAIGN.
THAT'S JUST, UH, AURA DOING THEIR INTERNAL ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIVITY, THEIR NETWORKING, WHATEVER YOU WANNA CALL IT.
THAT, THAT OUR CITY CODE DOES NOT SEE THAT AS A CONTRIBUTION OF VALUE.
UM, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT, YOU KNOW, IT COSTS AURA X DOLLARS TO SEND THAT EMAIL OR THERE'S NOTHING OF THAT NATURE.
SO I CAN ONLY RESPOND, UH, TO WHAT'S IN FRONT OF ME.
AND, AND THE EVIDENCE THAT MR. HAYNES HAS PUT FORWARD AND, AND THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING, UH, THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION OR CITY CODE.
THAT'S OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S MY ARGUMENT OF YOU.
THIS IS, THIS BODY IS, IS KIND OF THE JUDICIAL, UH, BRANCH HERE, RIGHT? UM, BUT THAT'S MY ARGUMENT.
AND, AND I CAN ONLY RESPOND TO THE EVIDENCE.
[01:25:01]
OH, YOU KNOW, SENDING AN EMAIL COSTS $20.WE ALL KNOW THAT EMAIL IS FREE.
THESE, THESE KIND OF DIGITAL TOOLS ARE FREE.
UM, AND I, I GUESS MY CORE ARGUMENT HERE IS THAT IN, IN THE CONTEXT OF A CAMPAIGN, WHEN THERE ARE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS, IT COULD BE A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, IT COULD BE A LABOR UNION, IT COULD BE ONE OF THESE ADVOCACY GROUPS LIKE THE URBANISTS.
UM, WHEN A CANDIDATE SHOWS UP TO AN EVENT OF ONE OF THESE GROUPS AND ADDRESSES THE MEMBERS AND CONVINCES SOME OF THEM TO SUPPORT THAT CANDIDATE, UH, THAT'S NOT A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION AS FAR AS OUR CODE IS CONCERNED.
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT MY CAMPAIGN WAS OBLIGATED TO RECORD.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT COMMISSIONERS HAVE? DOES ANYONE WISH TO, UH, MAKE A MOTION, BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION? I CLOSE THE HEARING.
IF, UH, DO COMMISSIONERS WISH TO GO INTO ANOTHER EXECUTIVE SESSION TO CLARIFY ANYTHING WITH OUR, WITH OUR ATTORNEY? OKAY.
THEN, UH, WE'RE FINISHED WITH ALL THE EVIDENCE AND PRESENTATIONS, AND I'M ASKING AGAIN IF THERE ARE ANY MOTIONS REGARDING VIOLATIONS.
CHAIR, IS YOUR SPEAKER ON? PARDON? IS YOUR SPEAKER ON? CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES.
MAYBE I WASN'T LEANING FORWARD ENOUGH.
UM, I'M NOW ASKING IF THERE IS A MOTION, IF FROM ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS, IF YOU WISH YOU HAVE THE OPTION OF GIVING THEM TIME FOR CLOSING STATEMENTS, BUT THEY'RE NOT ENTITLED TO IT.
I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO MOTION THAT, UH, THIS COMMISSION FIND THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION OF CITY CODE IN THAT A, A THING OF VALUE WAS CONFERRED FROM AURA TO MIKE SIEGEL'S CAMPAIGN AND WAS NOT REPORTED.
UH, AND THAT IN KEEPING WITH OUR PREVIOUS, UH, WITH OUR PREVIOUS, UH, DISCUSSIONS ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND, UH, THESE SMALL AMOUNTS THAT SEEM TO BE VERY CONFUSING TO ALL THE CANDIDATES, THAT, UH, WE NOT IMPOSE ANY SANCTIONS FOR THIS.
WE FIND THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION AND THAT WE IMPOSE NO SANCTIONS.
UH, BEFORE WE, BEFORE I ASK FOR A SECOND, DO YOU ASK TOO MUCH? IS THAT ASKING TOO MUCH AT THIS POINT? UH, LOOK FOR A SECTION.
I, I BELIEVE THAT ANYTHING OF VALUE WAS CON, WAS CONFERRED TO MIKE SIEGEL MAY, I'M SORRY, CHAIR, IF I MAY.
CAROLINE WET WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT.
SO IN, IN THE COMPLAINT FILED BY MR. HAYNES, HE NAMES SPECIFICALLY THESE SECTIONS, VIOLATION OF ARTICLE THREE, SECTION EIGHT, A VIOLATION OF CITY CODE 2 2 13 2 A, A VIOLATION OF CITY CODE 2 2 21 A ONE, AND A VIOLATION OF 2 2 21 A TWO.
AND I'M, I'M LOOKING AT THE R THE SECTION OF OUR AURA, UH, COMPLAINTS, WHICH ON THE SHORTENED VERSION IS ITEMS ONE THROUGH SEVEN, AND THEY ALL, UH, 0.2 CODE SECTION TWO, T TWO, T TWO ONE.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE AURA COMPLAINT WITH FATS OR THE S COMPLAINT? NEGATIVE.
THE, THE FIRST SEVEN, THE FIRST SEVEN ITEMS IN THIS, UM, ABRIDGED COMPLAINT ARE ALL, UH, COMPLAINTS RELATED TO THE PROVISION OF VALUE FROM AURA TO MIKE SIEGEL'S COMPLAINT, AND THAT THEY WERE NOT, THEY WERE NOT REPORTED BY MIKE SIEGEL.
THE ONLY THING YOU ALL CONSIDER ARE THE SECTIONS OF CITY CODE ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT OF THE ELECTION OF CITY CHARTER.
SO THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE JURISDICTION OVER, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED.
IS IS CODE TWO, TECH TWO, TECH 1, 2, 1 IN OUR JURISDICTION.
THAT'S WHAT WAS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT.
YOU CAN'T CONSIDER OTHER VIOLATIONS OF OTHER PARTS OF 2, 2 21? I DON'T BELIEVE THAT.
I AM TRYING TO, I BELIEVE THAT I'M POINTING TO THOSE TWO SECTIONS AS STATED IN THE COMPLAINT.
DO I HEAR A SECOND? UM, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE MOTION.
UH, CAN WE, I THOUGHT WE, UH, HAD A SEPARATE CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER THERE WAS A VIOLATION AND THEN A LATER DETERMINATION OF WHAT PENALTY THERE WOULD BE.
[01:30:01]
IS IT, IS IT OKAY TO DO IT ALL AS A, AS A SINGLE? I'M SORRY.IS IT OKAY? YOU'RE ASKING TO SEPARATE THE TWO? YEAH.
DO WE NEED, DO WE NEED TO SEPARATE 'EM AND I, THAT'S PROBABLY A QUESTION FOR YOU, MS. WEBSTER.
CAROLINE WEBSTER, LAW DEPARTMENT, THE, I WOULD SAY YOU COULD DO IT EITHER WAY.
YOU NEED TO, IF YOU FIND THERE IS A VIOLATION, THEN YOU CAN DETERMINE SANCTIONS.
BUT PROCEDURALLY, I THINK YOU COULD MAKE THE MOTION.
YOU'RE WELCOME TO DIVIDE THE QUESTION IF YOU LIKE.
SO THE MOTION ON THE TABLE COVERS BOTH, RIGHT? RIGHT.
NOW? DO I HEAR A SECOND? SECOND.
COMMISSIONER LUNDGREN SECONDS.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? YES, COMMISSIONER LOWE? NO, THANK YOU.
UM, I THINK THERE'S A VERY CLEAR VIOLATION, A REPORTING VIOLATION.
UM, HOWEVER, I DO NOT THINK ALL OF THE ALLEGATIONS REGARDING TWO DASH TWO DASH TWO ONE, UM, ARE VIOLATIONS.
SO, UM, CAN I JUST ASK THAT IT BE LIMITED, OR WOULD THAT HAVE TO BE A TOTALLY SEPARATE MOTION? YOU CAN MOVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION, PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION.
CAN, CAN AS A, YOU WANNA RESPOND DISCUSSION ITEM? SHALL I RESPOND? I, I DO BELIEVE THAT I'VE ONLY IDENTIFIED, UM, THESE SECTIONS THAT ARE IN RESPONSE TO THE RA COMPLAINTS.
THERE ARE 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 ITEMS THAT I, EVEN IF THEY FALL UNDER TWO, TECH TWO, TECH TWO, ONE, I HAVE NOT, I'M NOT SAYING THAT THERE ARE VIOLATIONS THERE, AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE HAVE TO COME TO A DETERMINATION OF THOSE IN THE SAME MOTION.
I WOULD JUST SAY THAT I BELIEVE THAT THERE'S A VIOLATION OF TWO T TWO T TWO ONE, UH, THAT IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED AND APPEARS TO BE, UH, AT LEAST THE FACTS OF WHICH ARE STIPULATED TO BY MR. SIEGEL.
I GUESS I JUST, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF I MUCH JUST WANNA CLARIFY ALSO WITH REGARD TO THE MOTION, IF THIS IS SOLELY RELATED TO THE AURA REPORTING ISSUE VERSUS THOSE OF, UH, MR. BERGAL AND MS. ROGERS AND THE OTHER INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINTS THAT WERE RAISED BY THE COMPLAINANT.
LIKE I, BECAUSE I DON'T, AGAIN, I, I WOULD JUST NOTE THAT I'VE ONLY MOVED THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION REPRESENTED BY OR ENCAPSULATED IN THESE COMPLAINTS.
I BELIEVE THAT A SUBSEQUENT MOVEMENT OR MOTION FROM ANOTHER COMMISSIONER ON SUBSEQUENT, UH, ALLEGATIONS IS PERFECTLY FINE.
SO YOUR MOTION IS LIMITED SOLELY TO THE AURA? THAT'S CORRECT.
JUST WANTED CLARIFICATION ON THAT.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IS THAT CONSISTENT WITH COUNSEL'S INTERPRETATION? THAT THE, THAT THE MOTION IS LIMITED TO THE, UM, COMPLAINANTS VIOLATIONS RELATED TO, UH, EXPENDITURES FROM THE ORAL CAMPAIGN AND NOT INCLUDING THE, UH, $450 FROM THE, UM, UM, FROM THE, LET'S SEE, FROM FRANK ROGERS.
UH, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT'S THE MOTION THAT MR. MAT TURN MADE COMMISSIONER, SORRY, COMMISSIONER RETURN MADE.
I, ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? WELL, UH, WHAT IS YOUR, WHAT IS YOUR THINKING ABOUT, UH, FINDING A VIOLATION, BUT, UH, NOT ANY PENALTY? YES.
UH, SO THERE ARE A LOT OF NAMES IN COMMON HERE.
UH, THE COMPLAINANT HAS REPEATEDLY MENTIONED, UH, PREVIOUS, UH, UH, EXCUSE ME, PREVIOUS RUNNERS, UH, MS. LANE AND MS. GANGLY, AND WE HAVE HEARD THOSE, UH, COMPLAINTS WE HAVE NOT IN THOSE COMPLAINTS INDICATED THAT THIS LABYRINTHINE, UH, FI CAMPAIGN FINANCE THING WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A FEW HUNDRED DOLLARS, UH, IS SOME GREAT MORAL FAILING THAT IT RISES TO A CRIMINAL LEVEL OR ANYTHING.
IS THIS THE ROGERS ISSUE? UH, THIS IS, THIS IS THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTING ISSUE WRIT LARGE.
I WOULD SAY WE HAVE NOT, IN GENERAL SAID, YOU HAVE MESSED UP YOUR CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND HERE IS A PUNISHMENT.
IN FACT, WE HAVE SAID MULTIPLE TIMES, YOU'VE MESSED UP YOUR CAMPAIGN FINANCE, AND WE DON'T BELIEVE A PUNISHMENT IS, UH, WARRANTED.
AND SO ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT THIS IS ANOTHER CAMP THAT WE HAVE YET ANOTHER CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATION ON OUR DESK.
I DO THINK THAT EVERYONE INVOLVED AGREES THAT IT'S A VIOLATION
[01:35:01]
OR THAT IT HAPPENED IN SUCH A WAY THAT IF WE AGREE, IT'S A VIOLATION THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.UH, BUT I ALSO THINK THAT WE HAVE NOT PUNISHED ANYBODY FOR THESE HISTORICALLY.
BUT YOUR RATIONALE IS BECAUSE IT'S CONFUSING.
BE I THINK THAT IN THE PAST, THE RULES ARE CONFUSING, CONVERSATION ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE MAY NOT BE GOOD INFORMATION OR EFFECTIVELY THAT IT IS CONFUSING, AND THAT IT SEEMS TO BE STYMIEING A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THIS PROCESS.
WHAT ELSE? MR. CHAIR? COMM, COMMISSIONER LOWE, I AM NOT CLEAR AS TO WHICH ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION COMPLAINT WE ARE LOOKING AT.
THERE IS A FEBRUARY 1ST, 2025 COMPLAINT, WHICH IS THE MOST RECENT ONE, RIGHT? NOT THE ONE THAT WAS, UH, DISMISSED.
SO WHICH CODE SECTIONS ARE WE LOOKING AT UNDER THE FEBRUARY COMPLAINT? UM, MS. WEBSTER OR WHOEVER CAN ASK.
YEAH, I THINK WE'RE LOOKING FOR, UM, MORE SPECIFIC CLARIFICATION OF PRECISELY WHAT, WHAT VIOLATION WE'RE FINDING.
SO THE, IN MR. HAYNES'S SECOND COMPLAINT, HE STATED THAT IT WAS A REFILE, ESSENTIALLY HIS FIRST COMPLAINT.
AND THEN HE, UH, INCLUDED THE EXHIBITS, ET CETERA.
SO I AM SORT OF TAKING, HE ALLEGES THE SAME, HE ALLEGES THE SAME THINGS ESSENTIALLY, THAT HE ALLEGED IN THE FIRST COMPLAINT.
AND SO THE, THOSE ARE THE ITEMS THAT WERE ALLEGED IN THAT INITIAL COMPLAINT.
THOSE SECTIONS, I'M SORRY, NOT ITEMS. THEY, THOSE SECTIONS OF THE CHARTER OR CITY CODE? I ACTUALLY THOUGHT THE SECOND COMPLAINT INCLUDED THAT.
I DON'T, I DON'T SEEM TO HAVE A COPY IN MY PACKET.
I BELIEVE THE COMPLAINTS IS CHAPTERS 2.2 OR TWO DASH TWO AND TWO DASH SEVEN.
WELL, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE FLOOR, IS IT SOMETHING MORE SPECIFIC IN TWO DASH TWO? IT IS.
IT IS A, A MOTION TO FIND THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION OF SECTIONS TWO DASH TWO DASH 21, A ONE AND TWO.
AND THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT COMPLAINT BEFORE US DATED FEBRUARY 21ST, 2025.
ARE THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? UM, I THINK THE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATES THERE WAS A VIOLATION, UH, FAILURE TO REPORT WITH REGARD TO THE AURA, UH, COORDINATION AND ASSISTANCE TO THE CAMPAIGN.
UM, I DON'T THINK THE ROGERS SITUATION, UH, HAS THAT THE, UH, PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE STANDARD.
IF WE'RE GONNA HAVE RULES AND SAY THEY NEED TO BE ENFORCED AND WE FIND THAT THEY'RE VIOLATED, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULDN'T HAVE SOME TEETH TO THAT.
SO I'M GONNA VOTE AGAINST THE MOTION.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? MORE DISCUSSION? MR. LOWE? I, I'M SORRY FOR CLARIFICATION.
AGAIN, THE MOTION IS NOT TO, THEN, THE MOTION IS ONLY TO FIND A VIOLATION.
I AM MOTIONING FOR BOTH A FINDING OF A VIOLATION AND A DETERMINATION THAT WE NOT IMPOSE A PUNITIVE ACTION.
AND I WANNA SAY THAT WHILE I'VE DISAGREED WITH THIS COMMISSION IN THE PAST, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE, UH, ANY TYPE OF PRECEDENT AS A NON-JUDICIAL BODY.
I DO THINK THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR ELECTION, WE HAVE LOOKED AT CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATIONS THAT ARE VERY SIMILAR DOLLAR AMOUNTS, WHERE WE HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID THAT WE DO NOT THINK THAT THIS RISES TO THE LEVEL WHERE WE SHOULD BE OFFERING PUNISHMENT FOR IT.
AND SO THAT IS SIMPLY MY BELIEF THAT IT'S A GOOD PRACTICE.
UH, WE, NO ONE HAS, NONE OF THESE PARTICIPANTS IN THE ELECTORAL PROCESS HAVE SEEN THE LAST FOUR OF THESE HEARINGS THAT WE'VE DONE AND BEEN ABLE TO REPRISE OR INCORPORATE THE, OUR RHETORIC INTO HOW THEY APPROACH THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE.
WE'RE DEALING WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING TARGETED AND IS BRINGING, BEING BROUGHT IN FRONT OF US.
WE HAVE ALREADY NOTICED BY THIS AS THIS COMMISSION THAT THERE ARE OTHER CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATIONS THAT ARE SIMPLY JUST NOT BEING BROUGHT TO US BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE A COMPLAINANT WHO IS ANNOYED BY THEM.
UH, THIS IS A WIDESPREAD PROBLEM, AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT BEFORE, ABOUT NOT IMPOSING PUNITIVE MEASURES ON SOMEONE JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE UNLUCKY ENOUGH THAT A CITIZEN SPECIFICALLY TOOK, UH, EXCEPTION WITH THEM AND NOT THE 19 OTHER VIOLATORS.
I THEN I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE, WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THIS COMMISSION? WELL, I, I THINK THAT IT, WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE FARFIELD OF THE DISCUSSION OF THIS MOTION, BUT I DO THINK THAT IN THE PAST WE HAVE NOTED THAT WHILE THIS COMMISSION MAY WANT TO NOTIFY
[01:40:01]
CITY COUNCIL AND ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE STRUCTURE SO THAT IT IS MORE CLEAR, AND THEN HAVE, WE WOULD HAVE MORE STANDING TO IMPOSE PUNITIVE MEASURES.I THINK THIS MOTION IN PARTICULAR IS JUST A MOTION SAYING, WE'VE DONE THIS BEFORE.
WE'VE DONE THIS RECENTLY, AND WE HAVE NOT TOLD ANYBODY ELSE THAT THEY NEED TO BE PUNISHED FOR THIS.
WELL, WELL, MAYBE IF WE IMPOSE SOME KIND OF PUNISHMENT, WE WOULDN'T HAVE SO MANY CASES.
WE PUT TODAY, WE WILL FIX MR. SEGAL'S, UH, EFFORTS.
NO PUNISHMENT THAT WE COULD HAVE GIVEN TO MS. KLI WOULD'VE FIXED MR. SEGAL'S, UH, PERFORMANCE.
AND WE JUST HAVE, AS A COMMISSION SAID THAT THIS IS A WEIRD THING TO PUNISH AN INDIVIDUAL FOR WHEN THERE ARE MULTIPLE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT BEFORE THIS COMMISSION, SIMPLY BECAUSE THE COMMISSION DOES NOT INSTIGATE COMPLAINTS AND NOBODY IS UPSET WITH THEM.
THERE ARE OTHERS WHO HAVE DONE THIS, AND THEY ARE NOT HERE BECAUSE NO ONE'S MAD AT THEM.
SO, UH, WHILE I PRINCIPALLY AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER MCC TURN, I WOULD HATE FOR THE RECORD TO HAVE, UH, TO BE UNCLEAR WHERE PEOPLE ARE VOTING AGAINST THE MOTION WHEN THEY THINK THERE IS A VIOLATION.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO SEVER THE MOTIONS AND HAVE ONE MOTION, UH, FOR THE VIOLATE, FOR DETERMINATION OF VIOLATION AND AS, AND, UH, RE OFFER AN AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THE SECOND, UH, PROVISION OF THE MOTION.
UM, SO YOU'RE SECONDING THAT, OKAY.
SO A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE TO SEPARATE THE TWO ISSUES OF FINDING A VIOLATION AND WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES SHOULD BE.
SO ARE WE DEALING ONLY NOW WITH THE VIOLATION? THE VIOLATION? WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT MOTION.
YEAH, THAT WAS A MOTION TO SEVER.
NO, NO, I'M SAYING I, I'M, I'M, UH, IS THAT THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION? OR IF THAT MOTION, IF MY MOTION PREVAILS, WE WOULD ONLY BE VOTING ON THE MOTION ON VIOLATIONS VIOLATION.
THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO CLARIFY.
IS THERE ANY, WE HAVE A, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS PROPOSED AMENDED MOTION? OKAY.
UM, I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ THE, UM, THE LIST.
WE'LL, WE'LL DO THIS PERSON BY PERSON.
UM, COMMISSIONER PRETY, JUST TO BE CLEAR, SORRY.
WE ARE VOTING NOW ON COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA'S MOTION, NOT ON COMMISSIONER RETURN'S ORIGINAL MOTION, BUT ON, THAT'S CORRECT.
COMMISSIONER AMEND THE MOTION.
COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA'S AMENDMENT OR MOTION TO SEVER? YES.
YEAH, WE'RE VOTING ON WHETHER OR NOT WE ONLY WANT TO HAVE THE MOTION DEAL WITH THE VIOLATION.
AND, UH, COMMISSIONER LOWE? YES.
UH, COMMISSIONER LUNDGREN? YES.
UH, ARE THERE ANY OPPOSED? I THINK WE WENT THROUGH EVERYBODY.
SO THAT SUBSTITUTE MOTION NOW HAD PASSED.
UH, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON WHAT REMAINS, WHICH IS A MOTION TO FIND A VIOLATION? OKAY.
SO WE'RE NOW VOTING JUST ON WHETHER THERE WAS A VIOLATION AND IT'S LIMITED YES, MA'AM.
TO THE AURA, NOT INCLUDING ANY OF THE OTHER THAT, THAT'S CORRECT.
I JUST, JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M, KNOW WHAT I'M VOTING ON.
UM, THEN I WILL VOTE, BUT YES, THERE WAS A VIOLATION.
IF ANYBODY HAS A DIFFERENT COUNT, LET ME KNOW.
[01:45:01]
YESES AND IT REQUIRES SIX.DOES, DOES IT? SORRY, I'M JUST LIKE, IS IT A, IS IT A MAJORITY? A MAJORITY OF THE QUORUM PRESENT? IT REQUIRE OR REQUIRES MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION REQUIRES A, A QUORUM EQUAL TO A QUORUM SIX.
A MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION REQUIRE.
SO WE, UH, WE CLOSE THAT CASE.
WELL, ANY OTHER MOTIONS? ARE THERE ANY OTHER MOTIONS? SORRY, COMMISSIONER.
I MOVE THAT WE FIND, UH, REPORTING, UH, A VIOLATION FOR THE, UM, INCORRECT REPORTING OR THE REPORTING ERRORS ON THE, UM, EIGHT DAY PRE-ELECTION REPORT FROM DECEMBER 4TH, 2024.
IS THERE A SECOND? NOW LET'S CLARIFY.
I SEE YOU'RE WONDERING WHAT WE'RE, WHAT THE MOTION IS, HUH? WILL YOU REPEAT THE MOTION? OH, UM, I MOVE THAT WE FIND A VIOLATION ON THE REPORTING ERRORS FROM THE EIGHT DAY PRE-ELECTION REPORT THAT WAS ORIGINALLY FILED DECEMBER 4TH, 2024.
AND THOSE REPORTING ERRORS REFER TO, UM, REPORTING OF, UH, OR INCORRECT REPORTING, WHICH FAILED TO REPORT CERTAIN PERSONS THAT THE, UM, $900 CONTRIBUTIONS WERE IN THE NAME OF.
DO, DO I HAVE TO SPECIFY EACH INDIVIDUAL OR JUST THOSE PARTICULAR ERRORS? I THINK THAT'S SUFFICIENT, YES.
DOES EVERYONE UNDERSTAND? DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA, SECONDED THE MOTION.
SO, UM, WE HAD TALKED ABOUT PRECEDENT, UH, COMMISSIONER MATERNITY HAD TALKED ABOUT.
SO FROM THE, FROM MY OTHER COMMISSIONERS, WHEN THERE IS A CORRECTED REPORT, UH, THAT ADDRESSES THE MAJORITY OF THE ERRORS, HAVE WE FOUND TO STILL BE IN VIOLATION? OR HAVE WE FOUND THAT THE CORRECTION, UM, NO LONGER, UH, THAT THE CORRECTION ADDRESSES ANY VIOLATIONS IN OUR PREVIOUS DECISIONS ON THESE ISSUES? AND THAT'S KIND OF AN OPEN QUESTION TO ANY COMMISSIONER WHO HAS MORE TENURE ON THIS, MR. CHAIR, COMMISSIONER LOW? I BELIEVE THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES.
SO IF WE FIND THE VIOLATION, THAT'S ONE THING.
IT IS UP TO US LATER TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY PENALTY OR SANCTION WILL ATTACH THAT FINDING OF VIOLATION.
UM, AND IT'S INDIVIDUAL TO THE VIOLATION AND TO THE RESPONDENT GENERAL, GENERALLY, WE HAVE FOUND A VIOLATION AND THEN DECIDE THAT THERE'S NO PENALTY OR THAT THE CORRECTION IS NEEDED.
I, I, I WOULDN'T SAY THAT'S ENTIRELY THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE.
ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? AND, UH, COMMISSIONER RETURN? YES.
UH, I WOULD SAY THAT I'M NOT CERTAIN THAT THE CAN, THAT THE COMPLAINANT IS ALLEGING THAT SIMPLY MISFILING A, WELL, EXCUSE ME, I I'M REFERRING TO, UH, A QUESTION I ASKED THE CANDIDATE.
I'M NOT CERTAIN THAT THE CANDIDATE, UH, IS ALLEGING THAT, UM, IF THERE WAS SIMPLY AN ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR THAT, UH, THAT ALONE RISES TO THE LEVEL OF A VIOLATION OF CITY CODE.
I, I THINK THAT THE CITY CODE SAYS THAT A, A CANDIDATE WILL NOT ACCEPT, UH, FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT.
AND I THINK THAT BOTH THE CANDIDATE, OR EXCUSE ME, THE COMPLAINANT AND THE RESPONDENT HAVE SAID THAT THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO AMELIORATE A, A PURELY ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR IS TO USE THE CAMPAIGN FILING AMENDMENT PROCESS.
UM, AND IF THAT IS THE CASE, I DON'T THINK THAT, UH, WE HAVE HEARD ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO SAY THAT THERE'S $450 FLOATING AROUND.
I THINK THE RESPONDENT HAS GIVEN US A RATIONAL EXPLANATION THAT IT'S SIMPLY AN ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR.
AND BOTH THE COMPLAINANT AND THE RESPONDENT HAVE SAID THE SOLUTION FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR IS AN AMENDED REPORT.
[01:50:04]
AND THE OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? YEAH.COMMISSIONER LOEB? YEAH, I'M, I'M NOT, I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT, UH, SECRETARY, ATTORNEY SAID, BUT, UH, I THINK THEY'RE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES.
ONE IS WHETHER THERE WERE EXCESSIVE CONTRIBUTIONS OR WHETHER OR WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE $450 OR WHATEVER THE AMOUNT IS.
THE OTHER ISSUE IS REPORTING, UH, WHICH CAN BE CORRECTED LATER, OF COURSE, BUT IT WAS STILL A VIOLATION WHEN IT WAS MISREPORTED.
SO, UM, MY MOTION WAS ABOUT THE REPORTING ERROR.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ONE THING IF LATER ON COMMISSION DECIDES IT IS NOT WORTHY OF A SANCTION, THAT'S, THAT'S A DIFFERENT THING.
I THINK BOTH THE COMPLAINANT RESPONDENT MADE IT CLEAR THEY UNDERSTAND THAT.
UM, AND THE CORRECTIONS ALSO, I THINK WERE ACKNOWLEDGED RIGHT THERE WA THERE WAS THE DECEMBER 4TH ORIGINAL FILING, AND THEN TWO DECEMBER 10TH FILINGS.
SO ALL OF THAT BEING SAID, THERE WAS ORIGINALLY A REPORTING ERROR.
SO MY MOTION IS CONFINED TO THAT PARTICULAR REPORTING ERROR.
YEAH, I, I MEAN, IF I DIDN'T STATE IT CLEARLY IN THE BEGINNING, ARE THERE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
I WILL CALL A VOTE, UH, ON THE MOTION TO FIND A VIOLATION WITH REGARD TO THE FILING.
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL MOTIONS? OKAY.
POINT OF ORDER QUESTION FOR, UM, FOR OUR ATTORNEY OR OUR STAFF ATTORNEY, UM, WHAT IS THE RESOLUTION FOR THIS ITEM IF WE SIMPLY DO NOT PASS A MOTION? SO TWO MOTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE.
SO AT THIS POINT, NO VIOLATION.
YOU, THERE'S NO BEEN NO DETERMINATION THAT A VIOLATION OCCURRED.
UH, AND, AND DO WE HAVE TO MAKE AN AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION THAT NO VIOLATION HAS BEEN MADE, OR SIMPLY AN ABSENCE OF A, OF A POSITIVE IS A NEGATIVE? IT'S THE LATTER.
SO I'LL ASK, UH, ONE FINAL TIME.
ARE THERE ANY MORE MOTIONS? THEN I BELIEVE THAT CLOSES THE HEARING ON THIS, THIS AGENDA ITEM.
THANK YOU ALL WHO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THIS.
NOW WE MOVE TO AGENDA ITEM SEVEN.
A FINAL HEARING ON THE COMPLAINT FILED BY ADAM HAYNES AGAINST ZACHARY JOHN SCOTT FADI RAISING CLAIM VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH TWO, CAMPAIGN FINANCE SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH THREE CONFORMITY WITH TEXAS ELECTION CODE SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH 21.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED ON ALL CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS FILED WITH THE CITY, SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH 23 POLITICAL COMMITTEES, SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH 26, FILING OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT.
DATA SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH 31 DEFINITIONS SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH 32, REPORTING OF DIRECT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES AND SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH 33 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT REQUIRED.
I NEED TO TAKE A DEEP BREATH NOW, MR. KING.
UM, MR. KING NEEDS TO COME BACK.
WE'LL TAKE A THREE MINUTE BREAK.
WE'RE TAKING A THREE MINUTE RECESS, AND I'M OFF THE TIME.
WE'RE GONNA BRING, CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER.
I'M GONNA MAKE A CHANGE IN THE AGENDA.
I'M WAITING FOR MS. WEBSTER TO COME BACK, OUR CITY
[01:55:01]
ATTORNEY PERSON, BUT[1. Approve the minutes of the Ethics Review Commission Regular meeting on April 23, 2025]
WE'RE GONNA TAKE UP THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING AND TRY TO GET THAT OUT OF THE WAY.UH, GO FOR, I DO HAVE ONE CHANGE TO THE MINUTES.
UM, AS SOON AS I FIND THEM, I, I HAVE RIGHT HERE.
SO, ON THE SECOND PAGE, UH, ITEM SEVEN, UH, THE BOLDED TEXT, WHICH DESCRIBES OUR ACTION, UH, WE, IT'S VERY SIMPLE.
WE HAVE FORMER VICE CHAIR LOAD DENIED REQUEST DUE TO LACK OF GOOD CAUSE BEING ESTABLISHED.
IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT THE COMPLAINANT FAILED TO, UH, ESTABLISH GOOD CLAUSE.
SO I WOULD SIMPLY RECOMMEND A CHANGE TO FORMER VICE CHAIR LOWE, EXCUSE ME.
DENIED THE REQUEST BECAUSE THE COMPLAINANT FAILED TO STATE GOOD CAUSE FOR THE REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? THAT'S AN, THAT'S AN AMENDMENT TO THE MINUTES.
DO YOU NEED A SECOND? IS THAT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR? I'LL GIVE EVERYBODY A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THE MINUTES.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? WE'LL TAKE A VOTE.
I'M JUST GONNA TAKE A RAISED HAND VOTE.
ALL IN FAVOR OF ACCEPTING THE MINUTES WITHOUT AMENDMENT.
I WAS, I WAS WAITING FOR, UH, MS. WEBSTER TO COME BACK, BUT I THINK WE'LL GO AHEAD AND START THE, UH, LET ME FIND THE NAME.
[7. A complaint filed by Adam Haynes against Zachary Jon Scott Faddis raising claimed violations of City Code Chapter 2-2 (Campaign Finance), Section 2-2-3 (Conformity with Texas Election Code), Section 2-2-21 (Additional Information Required on All Campaign Finance Reports Filed with the City), Section 2-2-23 (Political Committees), Section 2- 2-26 (Filing of Campaign Finance Report Data), Section 2-2-31 (Definitions), Section 2- 2- 32 (Reporting of Direct Campaign Expenditures), and Section 2-2-33 (Disclosure Statement Required)(Part 1 of 2)]
NEXT IN THE AGENDA, THIS IS ITEM SEVEN, IS THE FINAL HEARING ON COMPLETE, FILED BY ADAM HAYNES AGAINST ZACHARY JOHN SCOTT FADI RACING.I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THE TIME AND THE YES, YOU NEED RECONVENE WITH THE TIME.
WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION WITH RESPECT TO US GOING PAST 10 O'CLOCK.
AND IF THERE ARE ANY CONDITIONS ON THAT, WE HAVE TO DO THIS AS A MATTER OF OUR, OUR RULES AND REGULATIONS, WE HAVE TO VOTE ON GOING PAST 10 O'CLOCK.
YES, I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE CONTINUE PAST THE 10 O'CLOCK DEADLINE IN ORDER TO HAVE THIS FINAL HEARING TODAY, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE'VE HAD RESPONDENT PLAN IN ORDER TO HAVE THE, TO HAVE THE FINAL HEARING FOR THIS AGENDA, ITEM SEVEN TODAY, TO ENSURE THAT WE, AND SO IS IT IMPLIED BY THAT, THAT WE WILL NOT HAVE THE PRELIMINARY HEARINGS? I, I DON'T KNOW.
JUST A, JUST A MOTION TO EXTEND YEAH, JUST A MOTION TO EXTEND.
I'LL JUST MOVE TO THAT FOR NOW.
IN FAIRNESS TO THE OTHER FOLKS WHO ARE HERE, I SURE THINK WE OUGHT TO MAKE IT CLEAR WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GONNA STAY THAT YEAH.
BEYOND THAT AGENDA ITEM, UH, THE MOTION, AS I UNDERSTAND ON THE FLOOR, IS TO GO PAST 10 WITH OUR CURRENT AGENDA, WHICH MEANS THREE MORE CASES.
AND WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT, RIGHT? SECOND, YES.
WELL, I DO HAVE A, JUST A, I GUESS A REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION FROM, UH, MS. WEBSTER OR MAYBE THE CHAIR, BUT AS FAR AS GOING PAST 1159, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT IF WE EXTEND PAST 11:59 PM JUST GIVEN THAT THAT FIRST FINAL HEARING TOOK TWO HOURS, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, TO KNOW THAT IF WE ARE, ARE GONNA HAVE TO EXTEND PAST 1159, WHAT THAT MEANS, WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, WHAT THAT, WHAT DO WE DO IN THAT SITUATION? CAROLINE WEBSTER, LAW DEPARTMENT.
UM, WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND, SINCE YOU'LL BE GOING INTO THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY, IS TO, UM, RECESS THE HEARING AND, UH, THE, WHAT'S THE WORD I'M LOOKING FOR? RECONVENE.
THAT'S WHAT I'M, THAT'S WHAT THE WORD I'M LOOKING FOR.
IT'S JUST STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT YOU'RE, UH, RECESSING NOW.
AND THAT, UH, YOU ARE RECON WILL RECONVENE AT 1201 OR 1215 OR WHATEVER TIME YOU STATE.
UH, AND THAT JUST, IT'S NOT CLEAR THAT YOU MUST DO THAT, BUT I, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST ESTABLISH FOR THE RECORD THAT YOU DID MAKE THAT DECISION TO CONTINUE FORWARD INTO THE NEXT, THE NEXT DAY.
I SEE THAT AS AMENDED MOTION, RIGHT? THAT WE ARE, THE MOTION BEFORE US IS TO CONTINUE PAST 10 WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT AS OF 1150 9.9999, WE WILL, UH, RECESS AND THEN RECONVEY A COUPLE MINUTES LATER BECAUSE IT'S A NEW BUSINESS DAY AND WE HAVE TO DO IT THAT WAY.
THAT MAKE SENSE? SO THAT'S THE MOTION.
I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S FAIR TO THE COMMUNITY
[02:00:01]
AND TO THE RESPONDENTS AND TO EVERYONE ELSE HERE TO GO PAST MIDNIGHT ON A HEARING.UM, AND SO I DO NOT THINK IT'S UNFAIR FOR PEOPLE TO JUST BE WAITING AROUND SOMEONE WHO HAS THAT BEEN AT HEARINGS FOR A VERY LATE TIME.
UM, SO MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO JUST BE CERTAIN THROUGH THE COMMUNITY AND JUST SAY, WE'RE ONLY GONNA DO THIS FINAL HEARING AND THE NEXT PRELIMINARY HEARING AND CALL IT AT THAT.
'CAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE WE'RE GONNA HAVE TIME TO DO BOTH PRELIMINARIES AND THIS FINAL HEARING AT THE RATE WE'RE GOING, AND I THINK IT'S, AS OUR COMMISSIONER KEEL POINTED OUT, IT'S UNFAIR FOR PEOPLE JUST TO BE WAITING AROUND FOREVER, UH, PAST MIDNIGHT.
SO I'LL TAKE THAT AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION.
AND THE AMENDMENT HAS BEEN PROPOSED, IS THAT WE TAKE ONE MORE FINAL HEARING AND THE, AND THEN ONE PRELIMINARY HEARING THAT'S CORRECT.
IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT? WHICH AMENDMENT? WHICH PRELIMINARY HEARING NEXT ON THE AGENDA? JUST TO CLARIFY, FIRST ONE IS ON THE AGENDA.
UH, THE FIRST ONE ON THE AGENDA? YEAH.
[8. A complaint filed by Brian Molloy against Jesus Garza raising claimed violations of City Code Chapter 2-7 (Ethics & Financial Disclosure), Section 2-7-74 (Financial Disclosure by Candidates)(Part 1 of 2)]
YES.I'M JUST TRYING FIGURE OUT WHICH ONE IS THE AGENDA AND JUST TAKE ONE.
EIGHT IS THE MALLOY COMPLAINT.
AND THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST ONE ON THE AGENDA.
THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR CLARIFICATION ON.
OH, NOW WE HAVE SOME, UM, OH, MAN.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS THAT WE PROCEED WITH THE OTHER FINAL HEARING AND THE FIRST PRELIMINARY HEARING THAT IS ON OUR AGENDA.
AND DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT? SECOND.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE, WE ARE VOTING ON THAT AMENDED MOTION.
UM, FIRST LET'S JUST TRY RAISING HANDS.
ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED, ALL ABSTENTIONS.
SO IT IS, UM, I'VE LOST CREDIT.
THERE'S ONE ABSTENTION AND EVERYONE ELSE IS A YES.
SEVEN YAYS, SEVEN YESES, AND ONE ABSTENTION.
SO WE ACCEPTED THAT AMENDMENT.
I'M SORRY, MY BRAIN IS STUCK RIGHT NOW.
WE HAVE TO VOTE ON IT NOW, CORRECT? YEAH.
WE'VE ACCEPTED THAT AMENDMENT AND WE ARE NOW VOTING ON IT.
ALL, ALL IN FAVOR? RAISE YOUR HAND.
RIGHT? ALL OPPOSED, RAISED YOUR HAND.
[7. A complaint filed by Adam Haynes against Zachary Jon Scott Faddis raising claimed violations of City Code Chapter 2-2 (Campaign Finance), Section 2-2-3 (Conformity with Texas Election Code), Section 2-2-21 (Additional Information Required on All Campaign Finance Reports Filed with the City), Section 2-2-23 (Political Committees), Section 2- 2-26 (Filing of Campaign Finance Report Data), Section 2-2-31 (Definitions), Section 2- 2- 32 (Reporting of Direct Campaign Expenditures), and Section 2-2-33 (Disclosure Statement Required)(Part 2 of 2)]
IN THE AGENDA IS THE FINAL HEARING ON THE COMPLAINT FILED BY ADAM HAYNES AGAINST ZACHARY JOHN SCOTT FADI RAISING CLAIM VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO DASH TWO, CAMPAIGN FINANCE SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH THREE, CONFORMITY OF TEXAS ELECTION CODE SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH 21.ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED ON ALL CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS FILED WITH THE CITY, SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH 23 POLITICAL COMMITTEES, SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH 26, FILING OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT.
DATA SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH 31 DEFINITIONS SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH 32, REPORTING OF DIRECT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES AND SECTION TWO DASH TWO DASH 33.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT REQUIRED.
CAROLYN WEBSTER, EXECUTIVE LIAISON AND ASSISTANT, THE ATTORNEY WILL BE ADVISING COMMISSION ON THIS ITEM.
I WILL FIRST ASK THE PARTIES TO THIS COMPLAINT WHETHER THEY WISH ME TO READ AGAIN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCEDURE.
DOES ANYBODY WISH ME TO GO THROUGH THAT DESCRIPTION AGAIN? I'M GOOD, MR. HAYNES.
UM, SO WE HAVE THE SAME RULES AS BEFORE.
UH, OPENING STATEMENTS WILL BE 10 MINUTES EACH.
EACH SIDE IS ALLOWED 30 TOTAL MINUTES TO PREVENT ANY EVIDENCE OR WITNESSES THEY HAVE.
SO, UM, WE'LL PROCEED WITH THE COMPLAINANT OPENING STATEMENT.
GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
AGAIN, UH, ADAM HAYNES, UM, RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, RESIDENT OF DISTRICT SEVEN, AND A, UH, PARTICIPANT, UH, ON A VOLUNTARY BASIS IN THE, UH, NOT ONLY THE, THE GENERAL ELECTION IN NOVEMBER, BUT THE RUNOFF ELECTION IN DECEMBER OF 24.
UH, AND, UH, I MADE THE SAME MISTAKE ON THIS ONE.
UH, I HAVE PROVIDED YOU A SUPPLEMENTAL, UH, SINCE IT'S BEEN SO LONG, UH,
[02:05:01]
SINCE THE, UM, COMPLAINT WAS FILED.UH, IT IS MY SUMMARY OF THE VIOLATIONS THAT I ALLEGE THAT HAVE OCCURRED BOTH DURING THE GENERAL ELECTION AND DURING THE RUNOFF ELECTION.
UH, AND, UM, AS I DID AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, I WILL DO SO NOW THAT, UM, UH, AGAIN, I HOLD, UH, NO MALICE OR NO, UH, ILL WILL TOWARD, UH, MR. FADI.
UM, UH, I WAS INVOLVED IN MANY OF THE, UH, SAME POLLING LOCATION, SAME BLOCK WALKING AND, AND THOSE THINGS.
UH, FOR ANOTHER CANDIDATE, I SAW MR. FADI WORKING FOR THE CANDIDATE OF HIS CHOICE, UH, IN THOSE EVENTS.
UM, AND THE REASON THAT HE IS LISTED AS THE, UM, AS A RESPONDENT HERE IS THAT I WAS ADVISED, UM, BY THE CITY, UH, BY CITY ATTORNEYS THAT I HAD TO, TO FILE AGAINST A NATURAL PERSON, UH, COULD NOT FILE AGAINST AN ENTITY.
UM, IF THAT WAS ONE THING THAT I WOULD RECOMMEND TO THIS COMMISSION TO SEND THE CITY COUNCIL, I WOULD MAKE THAT RECOMMENDED CHANGE.
UM, UH, THIS SHOULD BE A COMPLAINT AGAINST AURA, THE ENTITY, UH, NOT AGAINST MR. FADI IN HIS ROLE AS PRESIDENT BORA, BUT SINCE I HAD TO DO IT WITH A NATURAL PERSON.
UM, MR. MR. FATTYS IS THE PRESIDENT OF AURA.
UH, WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, UH, LET ME PROCEED.
UM, IT IS, IT IS MY ALLEGATION THAT, UH, UH, AURA IS A DULY, UM, UH, INCORPORATED NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.
AND AS SUCH, THEY FALL UNDER THE NOT-FOR-PROFIT ACT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.
AND, UH, IT IS, IT IS MY FURTHER ALLEGATION THAT, UM, UH, DURING THE, BOTH THE GENERAL ELECTION AND THE RUNOFF ELECTION, UH, AURA PARTICIPATED IN AND CON AND ACTUALLY CONDUCTED, UH, STRATEGIC, UH, COMMUNICATION WITH, UH, VOTERS IN NOT ONLY THEIR LIST, BUT VOTERS IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
AND MR. CHAIRMAN, MR. CHAIRMAN? YES, SIR.
CAN I ASK A QUESTION AT THIS POINT? WE HAVE, THE WITNESS IS TALKING ABOUT AURA.
UM, COULD, COULD HE TELL US WHETHER HE'S TALKING TO YOU ABOUT AUSTIN AURA OR AURA FOR AUSTIN, WHICH APPARENTLY ARE TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIES? CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT, MR. HAYNES? IS THAT OKAY? SURE.
I'M, UM, UH, ACTUALLY, IT, IT DOESN'T MATTER.
UH, COMMISSIONER KING, UM, AURA, WHETHER THEY'RE ACTING AS A, AS A 5 0 1 C FOUR, OR A 5 0 1 C3, UM, THAT'S AN ISSUE FOR THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, NOT AN ISSUE FOR IT.
IT, THAT IS NOT A DECISION UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION, UH, AURA, UM, UH, FOR AUSTIN, UH, OPERATING AS A 5 0 1 C3, UM, OR, OR AUSTIN AURA OPERATING AS A 5 0 0 1 C FOUR.
UM, NEITHER ONE, UH, HAS FILED A PAC.
NEITHER ONE HAS FILED A CAMPAIGN TREASURER, UM, AND, AND, UH, EITHER OR BOTH, AND HAVE MADE STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION DURING THE GENERAL ELECTION AND DURING THE RUNOFF, AND HAVE DIRECTLY PARTICIPATED IN, UM, UH, CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES EXPRESSLY ADVOCATING FOR, UH, THE, EITHER THE, THE DEFEAT OR EXPRESSLY ADVOCATING FOR THE, UH, THE PARTICULAR CANDIDATES FOR ELECTION, UH, OR THE DEFEAT OF PARTICULAR CANDIDATES FOR ELECTION.
THAT IS BY DEFINITION A, UH, STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION.
UM, WHAT'S THIS CONDUCTED BY AURA? THAT IS A, THAT IS BY DEFINITION A, UM, A CAMPAIGN OF CONTRIBUTION.
AND AS A RESULT, UH, WHETHER THEY'RE OPERATING AS A 5 0 1 C3 OR A 5 0 1 C FOUR, THEY ARE IN VIOLATION.
AND SO THAT IS A MATTER FOR THE IRS, NOT THIS COMMISSION.
AND SO IT IS MY, UM, UH, PREMISE THAT, UH, IN MAKING DIRECT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES, UM, UH, THEY HAVE VIOLATED NOT ONLY STATE LAW AND NOT, UH,
[02:10:01]
DOING SO FROM A, UH, PAC, UH, THEY HAVE NOT IDENTIFIED IT, NOR HAVE THEY APPOINTED A TREASURER TO, UH, FILE THOSE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS.AND THEN THEY HAVE, UH, VIOLATED, UH, VARIOUS SECTIONS OF 2.2 OF THE CODE, UH, WHEN IT COMES TO THE REPORTING OF DIRECT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES, UH, IN MY FILING, UM, I'VE GIVEN YOU, UM, A SERIES OF THE, THE SUMMARY OF WHICH IS, IS INCLUDED HERE, UH, UM, 15 INDIVIDUAL EVENTS, WHETHER AURA WAS, UM, ORGANIZING A BLOCK, WALKING FUNDRAISING RALLY, AND EVERYTHING ELSE AT THEIR AURA FOR SHEIKA EVENT, WHERE THE CANDIDATE WAS, UH, PRESENT AT THAT EVENT.
AND THEY WERE EXPRESSLY ADVOCATING FOR THE ELECTION OF A CANDIDATE IN THE GENERAL ELECTION, WHETHER IT WAS A DIGITAL ADVERTISEMENT TO, UH, TO PRESENT AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME BLOCK WALK AND, AND ATTEND AN ORA HAPPY HOUR WITH ADAM POWELL, A CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE.
THAT WAS ON SEPTEMBER THE 25TH, WHETHER IT WAS ON AUGUST, I'M SORRY, OCTOBER THE NINTH.
AND IT WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO LIP DROP FOR AIKA IN DISTRICT 10, UH, AND ATTEND IN A SPECIFIC AURA FOR O AURA FOR AIKA ON SATURDAY, WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY AN AURA SPONSORED HAPPY HOUR AT A NEARBY BAR, WHETHER IT WAS, UH, PRODUCING AND DISTRIBUTING A, UH, COMPLETE CITY COUNCIL VOTER GUIDE, UH, FOR 2024, AND MAKING THAT AVAILABLE, UH, NOT ONLY TO ITS MEMBERSHIP, BUT A WIDE DISTRIBUTION OF AUSTIN VOTERS.
UH, WHETHER IT WAS A, UM, SPECIFIC, UM, TRAINING SESSION THAT AURA ORGANIZED AND HELD, UH, AND ADVERTISED, UH, ABOUT A MESSAGE TO TRAIN POLL GREETERS, UH, WITH CAMPAIGN LITERATURE, MAPS OF CAMPAIGN POLLING PLACES, AND HOW THEY SHOULD, UH, THE DO'S AND DON'TS OF HOW YOU SHOULD, UH, BE A, A POLL GREETER AT A CAMPAIGN, LOCA AT A POLL LOCATION, AND HOW YOU SHOULD APPROACH, UH, UH, POTENTIAL VOTERS AT THOSE POLL LOCATIONS.
AND TELL THEM ABOUT THE CAN CANDIDATES THAT, UH, AURA SUPPORTED, INCLUDING PRODUCING, UM, UH, LITERATURE THAT WAS HANDED OUT BY AURA MEMBERS AND OTHER VOLUNTEERS, SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING, UH, THE CANDIDATES THAT WERE ENDORSED BY AURA.
ALL OF THOSE MEANT TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF AN ELECTION AND TO, UM, UH, ADVOCATE FOR THE ELECTION OF THEIR CANDIDATES, OF THEIR CHOICE.
UH, ALL OF THOSE ARE, ARE ALLOWED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
IT IS ABSOLUTELY THEIR RIGHT TO DO SO.
BUT IN DOING SO, UNDER THE CITY CODE, AND IN DOING SO UNDER THE CITY CHARTER, YOU MUST REPORT THOSE EXPENDITURES.
TO DO SO, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CAMPAIGN TREASURER, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PAC TO DO SO.
AURA HAS FAILED TO, UH, DO THOSE, UH, THESE CONTINUED THROUGH THE MONTH OF OCTOBER WITH A GET OUT THE VOTE AND VOLUNTEER CANVAS FOR, UH, COUNT NOW, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER CRYSTAL LANE.
UM, AND, UH, THERE WAS AN ENDORSEMENT, UH, THERE WAS, UH, UH, ANOTHER ONE ENDORSE, UH, ENDORSEMENTS FOR AUSTIN CITY COUNT COUNCIL.
AND THE AURA, UH, VOTER GUIDE WAS SHARED, UH, WITH THE, THE MEMBERS THAT SHOWED UP TO A, UM, AN ELECTION EVE EVENT SPONSORED BY AURA.
AND THEN WHEN WE GET INTO THE RUNOFF, AURA SPONSORED A POST-ELECTION EVENT CELEBRATING THEIR VICTORIES AND ENDORSING COUNCILMAN SIEGEL IN THE DISTRICT SEVEN RUNOFF.
AND I WILL, YOU CAN FINISH YOUR SENTENCE.
I WILL, I WILL END THERE BECAUSE WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE OTHER EVENTS WITH COUNCILMAN SIEGEL, UH, SUPPORTED BY ORA.
UM, AND NOW, UM, WE WILL HEAR FROM THE RESPONDENT.
I, I WANT TO CLARIFY HERE, THE COMPLAINT THAT WAS FILED WAS AGAINST ZACHARY JOHN SCOTT VANIS AS PRESIDENT OF AURA FOR AUSTIN.
AND SO DURING THE CONVERSATIONS, YOU CAN TELL US
[02:15:01]
IF THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE, WHICH ONE THAT IS RIGHT.I'M COUNSEL FOR ZACH FADI AND AURA.
UH, AURA FOR AUSTIN IS THE 5 0 1 C3, WHICH DOES NOT ENGAGE IN ANY POLITICAL ACTIVITY WHATSOEVER.
IT IS A CHARITABLE NONPROFIT AND HASN'T BEEN ACTIVE.
AUSTIN AURA IS A 5 0 1 C FOUR AND HAS BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG TIME.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, I'VE BEEN THEIR ATTORNEY FOR A VERY LONG TIME, JUST HAVEN'T BEEN, UH, IN TOUCH WITH THE LATEST UNTIL RECENTLY.
UM, BROUGHT ABOUT BY THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.
I DEAL WITH CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND ELECTION LAW ISSUES ALL THE TIME.
I'M BOARD CERTIFIED AND LEGISLATIVE AND CAMPAIGN LAW.
AND SO THIS IS BASICALLY AN ISSUE OF DEFINING THINGS AND WHAT IS ACTUALLY REQUIRED, UH, UNDER THE LAW.
SINCE THE, UM, TWO DASH TWO, UM, DEFINITIONS ARE OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE FOR THIS CASE, I DO WANNA REMIND EVERYBODY, AND I APPRECIATE OBVIOUSLY THAT, UM, MR. HAYNES HAS SAID THAT FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH.
WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO BE PART OF THE PROCESS.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, IN G OF TWO DASH TWO DASH ONE, IT SAYS, CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN THE OPERATION OF CITY ELECTION CAMPAIGNS WILL ENHANCE A BROAD-BASED ELECTORAL PROCESS ACCOUNTABLE TO ALL CITIZENS RATHER THAN A PRIVILEGED VIEW.
AND THAT'S PART OF AURA'S MISSION IS TO GET PEOPLE EDUCATED AND INVOLVED.
THEY DO NOT HAVE A PRINCIPLE PURPOSE OF ACTUALLY ENGAGING IN POLITICAL ACTIVITY.
THAT IS, UH, A DEFINITION THAT IS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW IN THE, UH, DEFINITION SECTION OF TWO DASH TWO DASH TWO.
IF YOU GO TO ITEM NUMBER SIX, THE VERY LAST SENTENCE SAYS IN KIND LABOR AS DEFINED IN THIS CHAPTER, IS NOT A CONTRIBUTION.
IT'S EXPRESSLY STATES THAT IN TWO DASH TWO DASH TWO SIX, THEN IT DEFINES AN IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION OR IN-KIND LABOR UNDER 12, IT MEANS THE VALUE OF PERSONAL SERVICES PROVIDED WITHOUT COMPENSATION BY ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO VOLUNTEERS ON BEHALF OF A CANDIDATE OR POLITICAL COMMITTEE.
SO WHEN THE AURA MEMBERS WERE BEING INFORMED AND THERE WERE EMAILS OR PUBLICITY ENDORSEMENTS, THE RELEVANCE OF THE FOLKS THAT THEY FELT ACTUALLY AGREED WITH THEIR POSITIONS, THEY ENCOURAGED THEM TO VOLUNTEER.
IN THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE CHAPTER 2 54 0.033 SAYS, AND IS TITLED, NON-REPORTABLE PERSONAL SERVICE, A POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION CONSISTENT.
AND YOU'VE ALREADY SAID IN TWO DASH TWO DASH TWO THAT IT'S NOT A CONTRIBUTION.
BUT EVEN IF YOU WENT TO THIS, A POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION CONSISTING OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S PERSONAL SERVICE IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED UNDER THIS CHAPTER.
IF THE INDIVIDUAL RECEIVES NO COMPENSATION FOR THE SERVICE.
AS COUNCILMAN SIEGEL ENUMERATED MANY TIMES AND REITERATED, THERE WERE NO PAYMENTS MADE, THIS WAS NOT ANYTHING THAT WAS COORDINATED WITH HIS CAMPAIGN.
OVERALL, IT WAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO BE EDUCATED, TO VOLUNTEER, TO DECIDE IF THEY WANTED TO BE INVOLVED IN A CERTAIN CAMPAIGN OR NOT.
THEY WERE NOT MADE TO DO THAT WHEN THEY HAD, UM, SOME FOOD OR DRINK AND COORDINATION WITH OTHER FOLKS.
THAT WAS NOT A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION.
IT WAS AN ATTEMPT TO ENSURE THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTOOD THE POSITIONS OF THOSE ORGANIZATIONS WORKING TOGETHER ALSO, WHEN IT DOES SAY THAT AN INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE AS DEFINED UNDER TWO DASH TWO DASH, UH, TEN TWO DASH TWO DASH TWO 10, SORRY ABOUT THAT, IT MEANS THAT IT IS AN EXPENDITURE ON BEHALF OF OR OPPOSING THE ELECTION OF A CANDIDATE.
ENDORSEMENTS ARE THINGS THAT ARE OFTENTIMES DONE.
THE PUBLICITY FOR THOSE ENDORSEMENTS ARE NOT CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CANDIDATE AS COUNCILMAN SIEGEL, SO APTLY, UM, STATED.
AND SO I'D LIKE TO USING THOSE DEFINITIONS AND USING THAT PARAMETER, LET YOU KNOW THAT IN THE, UM, RESPONSE THAT I WAS ABLE TO SUBMIT, THAT HOPEFULLY Y'ALL HAVE BEEN ABLE TO REVIEW.
YOU'VE SEEN THOSE DEFINITIONS.
AND THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL ONE THAT I NEED TO, UM, SHARE WITH YOU REGARDING CORPORATE ENTITIES.
UH, 2 53 0.098 OF THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE SAYS A CORPORATION MAY MAKE ONE OR MORE DIRECT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES FROM ITS OWN PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMUNICATING DIRECTLY WITH ITS STOCKHOLDERS OR MEMBERS AS APPLICABLE OR WITH THE FAMILIES.
AND BASICALLY, SINCE IT IS AN A 5 0 1, C FOUR
[02:20:01]
HAS A VERY SMALL BUDGET, DOESN'T DO, DOESN'T ENGAGE IN POLITICAL ACTIVITY EXCEPT TO INFORM OR ENDORSE AND TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT ITS MEMBERS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITIES TO CHOOSE CANDIDATES FOR WHICH THEY CAN WORK AND BE A PART OF THE PROCESS.UM, THAT IS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE, AND IT'S ALSO NOT REPORTABLE UNDER CHAPTER 2 54 OF THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE.
SO I WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.
UM, ALSO IN THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE, IF THERE IS A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT PERFORM POLITICAL ACTIVITY JUST AS KIND OF, THEY GET TOGETHER, THEY MAYBE HAVE A LITTLE RECEPTION, THEY MAYBE SPEND A LITTLE MONEY ON SOMEBODY COMING AND MEETING AT THEIR HOUSE, AND THEY STUFF ENVELOPES OR THEY WANNA DO A BLOCK WALK OR THEY WANNA DO THINGS ALONG THOSE LINES.
THE STATUTE READS THAT YOU CAN SPEND UP TO $500 IN ACTIVITIES OR CONTRIBUTIONS COMBINED AND STILL NOT HAVE TO FILE A CAMPAIGN TREASURE REPORT, AN UH, APPOINTMENT UNTIL YOU HIT THAT $500.
THERE IS A DIFFERENT LAW IN THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE THAT REQUIRES THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION TO INCREASE THAT AMOUNT.
THAT'S STATUTORILY IN THE LAW WITH RULES.
THE RULES NOW STATE THAT YOU CAN HAVE UP TO $1,080 IN ACTIVITY BEFORE A GPAC IS TRIGGERED TO HAVE TO FILE A CAMPAIGN TREASURE APPOINTMENT.
SO I WANTED TO GIVE YOU THAT AS BACKGROUND.
I KNOW I'M PROBABLY PRETTY CLOSE TO THE 10 MINUTES, SO I'M GOING TO LET Y'ALL DIGEST THAT AND, UH, I WILL RESERVE MORE TIME FOR REBUTTAL AFTER THE COMPLAINANT HAS HIS OPPORTUNITY.
HOW MUCH OF THE 10 MINUTES WAS USED? I'M WONDERING HOW MUCH WAS AVAILABLE THEN FOR THE FIRST REBUTTAL? UH, THREE AND A HALF MINUTES.
UM, YOU MAY PROCEED WITH EVIDENCE WITNESSES.
UH, JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTION.
UM, THEY'RE STILL IN THERE 10 MINUTES, SO CORRECT.
YOU, YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR 10 MINUTES FOR OPENING STATEMENT, BUT YOU HAVE THE REMAINDER OF THE TIME FOR YOUR, UM, PRESENTATION.
AND THEY DO HAVE THREE AND A HALF MINUTES FOR THE OPENING STATEMENT.
YOU CAN DO A REBUTTAL AND THEN THAT IS ALL PART OF YOUR 30 MINUTES, CORRECT? RIGHT.
THAT'S NOT THE WAY WE DID IT IN THE LAST NO.
SO YOU'RE OPENING, I'M PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH THE LAST HEARING.
THAT'S NOT THE WAY WE DID IT, BUT HOW? RIGHT.
SO CAROLINE WEBSTER, LAW DEPARTMENT.
SO FOR A FINAL HEARING, YOUR INITIAL STATEMENT IS 10 MINUTES.
I BELIEVE YOU USED THAT ALL UP.
SO NOW YOU HAVE 30 MINUTES TO PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY, WITNESSES, ET CETERA.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
LET ME, LET ME GET STARTED WITH, UM, UM, I GUESS SOME OF THE EVIDENCE I'LL, I'LL PRESENT.
UM, IT'S, IT'S INTERESTING THAT, UM, UH, READ FROM SOME OF THE DECLARATIONS AND LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS ABOUT THE, UH, HOW THE INVOLVEMENT OF CITIZENS MAKES OUR ELECTIONS FREER AND, AND BETTER.
UM, IF, IF WE WOULD'VE READ THE NEXT ONE, IT WOULD'VE SAID THE CITY ELECTION PROCESS, UH, SHOULD BE PROTECTED FROM POTENTIAL UNDUE INFLUENCE BY INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS MAKING LARGE COURT, UH, CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ELECTION OF CANDIDATES FOR MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.
AND THEN THAT THE ELECTION PROCESS SHOULD BE PROTECTED FROM EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF UNDUE INFLUENCE BY INDIVIDUALS IN GROUPS.
UM, AGAIN, UM, UM, OR AURA FOR AUSTIN.
AURA HAS, UM, UH, AND, AND DOES SO ON THEIR WEBSITE PROUDLY, UM, ADVERTISES THAT THEY'VE HAD, UH, INFLUENCE IN THE ELECTION OF 10, OF 11 OF THE CITY COUNCIL, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SPOTS.
AND THAT THE ONLY ONE THAT THEY HAVEN'T, UH, BEEN ABLE TO, TO WIN WAS, UH, COUNCILMAN UCHIN, UH, LATEST RACE.
AND SO, UH, IT, IT STRIKES ME AS CURIOUS THAT THEY WOULD ADVERTISE SUCCESS IN 10 OF THE 11 COUNCIL RACES, BUT THEN, UH, TRY TO PRESENT TONIGHT THAT THEY HAVE, HAVE NOT HAD, UH, MUCH INFLUENCE AT ALL.
AND IN FACT, I'LL ARGUE WITH YOU THAT IT'S, UH, EXACTLY THE, THE, UM, THE, THE OPPOSITE.
AND, UM, WHILE AGAIN, IT'S, IT IS, UM, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO
[02:25:01]
KNOW WHAT AURA HAS SPENT BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T FILED, UM, 10 90 NINES AND THEY HAVEN'T FILED CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS.UM, I WILL POINT YOU TO THE FACT THAT, UM, UH, THEY DISTRIBUTED THEIR, UH, AURA CITY COUNCIL GUIDE, UH, AND THEY NOT ONLY DID TRAINING, BUT ALSO DISTRIBUTED THEIR ORA POLL GREETING, UM, UH, LITERATURE AT POLLING SITES.
AND, UM, IN THEIR DEFINITION, THEY HAD SEVEN OF THE LARGEST POLLING SITES THAT WERE THERE, UH, THAT THEY, THAT THEY COVER.
AND THERE ARE 13 DAYS OF, OF ELECTION, UM, EARLY, EARLY VOTING ELECTION.
AND IF YOU TAKE THOSE BY 12 HOURS TIMES SEVEN, THAT'S 1,092 HOURS WHERE THEY HAD GREETERS AT THE POLLS.
AND, UM, IF YOU ASSUME, OR IF YOU CALCULATE THAT THEY DISTRIBUTED 10, 15 PIECES PER HOUR, THAT IS IN EXCESS OF 17,000 PIECES OF LITERATURE.
UM, IF YOU GO TO ANY OF THE, UH, QUICK PRINTS OR THE, UM, UH, AUSTIN PRINT SHOP, UH, TO PRINT SOMETHING LIKE THAT, UH, IS IN EXCESS OF $1,600.
IF YOU DID IT THREE AND A HALF, THREE ACROSS, AND THEN HALF THREE.
AGAIN, IF YOU'VE GOT SIX PIECES OF MAIL PER PAGE, THAT'S MORE THAN $1,600.
UH, AND THAT'S JUST IN THE, THE, THE GREETERS, AND THAT'S JUST IN THE POLL GUIDE.
IT DOESN'T EVEN START TO, UH, COMPUTE AND CALCULATE THE AMOUNT THAT AURA HAS DONE IN THEIR EFFORTS WHEN THEY COORDINATE WITH, AND AGAIN, SPECIFICALLY COORDINATE WITH, WITH CAMPAIGN, UH, UH, UH, NOT ONLY EXPENDITURES, BUT UH, COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES COORDINATED WITH, UH, AT LEAST NINE MEMBERS THAT WERE RUNNING MAYOR CITY COUNCIL AND OTHER RACES, UH, I'M SORRY, SIX, UH, MEMBERS THAT WERE RUNNING THIS LAST ELECTION CYCLE.
UH, IN DOING SO, IN DOING ALL OF THOSE RACES, THEY'VE EXPENDED A GREAT AMOUNT OF, OF, UH, DOLLARS.
AGAIN, IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO KNOW THE EXACT DOLLAR, BUT IT CLEARLY EXCEEDS $1,080 OR IT EXCEEDS THE $500.
THAT'S LISTED IN THE, UM, UH, 2.2 DASH THREE TWO.
OKAY, NOW WE CAN HEAR AGAIN FROM THE, UH, RESPONDENT.
SO I WANT TO GO THROUGH EACH OF, UM, TWO DASH TWO.
WE TALKED ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN TREASURE APPOINTMENT.
IT'S NOT REQUIRED UNLESS THE ENTITY HAS SPENT IN EXCESS OF OR CONTRIBUTIONS THROUGHOUT OF $1,080.
THE REASON WHY THERE IS NO CAMPAIGN TREASURER APPOINTMENT IS BECAUSE AURA DID NOT MAKE THOSE EXPENDITURES IN EXCESS OR RECEIVE CONTRIBUTIONS IN EXCESS THAT TOTAL MORE THAN $1,080.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE LITERATURE THAT WAS DROPPED WAS GENERALLY PAID FOR BY A COUPLE OF AURA MEMBERS THAT PAID FOR THEM THEMSELVES.
SO THE POLITICAL ADVERTISING DISCLAIMER CONTAINED THEREIN WAS IN THE NAME OF THE CONTRIBUTORS.
SO THE POLITICAL ADVERTISING WAS PAID FOR BY, IF IT HAD BEEN ME, IT WOULD'VE SAID DONNA GARCIA DAVIDSON.
ALSO, WHEN IN TWO DASH TWO DASH THREE IT TALKS ABOUT STATE LAW PREVAILING, THEN THAT MEANS THAT ANY POTENTIAL VIOLATION UNDER TWO DASH TWO DASH 21 MEANS THAT NO PORT REPORTS WERE REQUIRED.
AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO VIOLATION UNDER TWO DASH TWO DASH 23.
SO THERE'S NO VIOLATION UNDER TWO DASH TWO DASH 26 IF NO REPORT WAS REQUIRED.
IN TWO DASH TWO DASH 31, IT SAYS THAT NOT MORE THAN 2,500 CAN BE EXPENDED.
IT DIDN'T EVEN COME TO $2,500.
AND THEN UNDER TWO DASH TWO DASH THREE THREE, THERE'S SUPPOSED TO BE DISCLOSURE ON INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES OF THE FIVE LARGEST DONORS.
BUT NOBODY MADE CONTRIBUTIONS TO AURA FOR THESE EXPENDITURES.
AGAIN, IF SOMEBODY MADE AN EXPENDITURE, IT WAS THEIR OWN EXPENDITURE.
IT WAS NOT A CONTRIBUTION TO AURA.
THEY PAID AND MADE SURE THAT THE POLITICAL ADVERTISING DISCLAIMER REFLECTED WHO PAID FOR THE PUBLICATION.
SO IF THESE ARE INDIRECT EXPENDITURES, BY DEFINITION, THAT IS NOT COORDINATED
[02:30:01]
WITH THE CAMPAIGN.THEREFORE, IT IS NOT AN EXPENDITURE UNDER FEDERAL LAW.
IT'S CALLED AN INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE.
AND UNDER YOUR ORDINANCES, OUR ORDINANCES, 'CAUSE I'M AN AUSTIN KNIGHT, SO UNDER THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY, THEN IT IS ALSO AN INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE.
THESE ARE CALLED DIRECT EXPENDITURES.
IN THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE, IF THERE HAD BEEN A DIRECT EXPENDITURE OF MORE THAN A HUNDRED DOLLARS, THERE WOULD'VE HAD TO BE A DIRECT EXPENDITURE REPORT.
THERE WAS NO EXPENDITURE OF A HUNDRED DOLLARS MADE ON BEHALF OF ANY CANDIDATE.
ANY FOOD THAT WAS PURCHASED WAS FOR THE MEMBERSHIP.
AGAIN, WE DIDN'T SAY THAT AURA DIDN'T HAVE ANY INFLUENCE.
AURA WANTS TO MAKE SURE IT'S MEMBERS ARE INFORMED.
ORA DOES KEEP ITS MEMBERS INFORMED.
THEY WANT THEM TO BE POLITICALLY ENGAGED.
THEY ARE NOT EXPENDING MONEY TO DO THAT.
THEY ARE DOING THE HARD WORK OF MAKING SURE THAT THEY MEET, THEY TALK, THEY BUILD COMMUNITY.
AND I HAVE DOUBLE CHECKED WITH MY CLIENT, AND HE HAS VERIFIED THAT THERE WERE NO EXPENDITURES EVEN REMOTELY MEETING THE THRESHOLD.
SO I THINK IF YOU NEED TO ASK QUESTIONS OF US, AND WE'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN MET IN THE BURDEN BY THE COMPLAINANT.
AND AS HE SAID, EVEN IF ORA DID PASS OUT SOMETHING THAT WAS LESS THAN $500, IT'S NOT EVEN REQUIRED TO HAVE A POLITICAL ADVERTISING DISCLAIMER ON IT.
SO THE ENDORSEMENTS THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN DIGITAL, IT WAS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO $500.
SO, UH, I THINK I CAN, UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING YOU THINK I MISSED.
MAYBE YOU CAN GET MORE THAN ONE PRELIMINARY AFTER THIS.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANY, EACH OF YOU HAS SOME TIME LEFT, I'M SURE IN YOUR 30 MINUTES.
DO EITHER, EITHER OF YOU WISH TO SAY SOMETHING? YES, SIR.
UM, I, I'M, I'M GLAD THAT, UH, UM, I CAN'T DO THAT.
UM, UH, THERE WAS AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT THE, UM, THAT THE POLL GREETING CARDS THAT AURA PASSED OUT, UM, THAT I'VE PROVIDED COPIES TO YOU, UM, HAD WHAT IS TECHNICALLY, UH, PROVI OR ARE, UH, UH, REFERRED TO AS A BUTTON, HAD A BUTTON AT THE BOTTOM PAID FOR BY, UH, MR. BERE AND, AND SOMEBODY ELSE IN AURA'S OWN JUDGMENT.
THOSE WERE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION.
THOSE WERE EXPRESS CAMPAIGN, UM, COMMUNICATIONS BECAUSE IT HAD THAT BUTTON ON THE BOTTOM.
AND THE INDIVIDUALS THAT, UH, PAID FOR THAT, UH, THAT WERE THEN DISTRIBUTED BY AURA, NOT ONLY DIGITALLY, BUT BY HAND, BY PRINTING, UM, WERE, WERE DONE.
SO, UM, AT THE BEHEST OF AURA, IT IS A, IT IS AN ADMISSION THAT THAT'S A STRATEGIC CAMPAIGN, UH, COMMUNICATION.
AND IF IT IS A STRATEGIC CAMPAIGN COMMUNICATION AND IT'S DONE BY AURA, THAT IS A CONTRIBUTION THAT IS A, UM, UH, COMMUNICATION BY AN OUTSIDE GROUP OR IN THIS, IN MANY CASES IT'S A CONTRIBUTION AND A, UH, CAMPAIGN COMMUNICATION BY AURA IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CANDIDATES AND THEIR CAMPAIGNS.
AND THEREFORE IT IS A DIRECT CONTRIBUTION TO THAT CANDIDATE.
AND THAT CAMPAIGN AND THE INCLUSION OF THE, UH, CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE, THE BUTTON AT THE BOTTOM SHOWS THAT AURA HAD THE SAME IDEA THAT IT WAS A DIRECT CAMPAIGN, CONTRIBU OR A COMMUNICATION ALL RESPONDENT.
THERE WAS NO ADMISSION OF AURA MAKING A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION.
THOSE MEMBERS DECIDED THEY WANTED TO SUPPORT THOSE CANDIDATES AND THEY DISTRIBUTED MATERIALS.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT WAS, THAT, UM, MR. HAYNES PICKED UP, BUT THAT WAS, I BELIEVE, DISTRIBUTED DIGITALLY AND THAT WAS ON THEIR WEBSITE OR THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED TO THEIR MEMBERS, WHICH AGAIN, IS NOT A REPORTABLE EXPENDITURE AND IS NOT COORDINATED WITH THE CAMPAIGN.
IN TALKING WITH MY CLIENT, HE HAS ASSERTED MANY TIMES THAT HE DID NOT COORDINATE THINGS WITH THE CAMPAIGNS.
HE MADE OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE FOR THE CANDIDATES TO COME
[02:35:01]
AND AFTER THEY MADE THEIR ENDORSEMENTS, BUT THERE WAS NO DIRECT STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION AS DEFINED IN TWO DASH TWO DASH 2 23 MEANS A COMMUNICATION REGARDING ADVERTISING.THEY DID NOT CONSULT WITH THEM ON THE ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN STRATEGIES.
NOBODY FROM AURA CONSULTED ON CAMPAIGN STRATEGIES WITH ANY CANDIDATE AND VOTER GROUPS BETWEEN THE CANDIDATE.
THEY DID MAKE THE GROUP AVAILABLE, BUT THEY DID NOT ENGAGE IN STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS.
SO THE STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION DEFINITION DOES NOT APPLY.
WE SAID THAT AURA WANTED TO BE RELEVANT AND EDUCATE ITS MEMBERSHIP ON THE CANDIDATES WHO AGREED WITH THEIR VISION FOR THE CITY.
SO I THINK THAT THAT MAY ADDRESS EVERYTHING, BUT OF COURSE, UM, AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
MR. HAYNES, DO YOU WISH TO USE ANY MORE OF YOUR TIME? NO.
I WILL OPEN UP NOW FOR, UM, QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? MR. CHAIR? COMMISSIONER.
UM, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR THE, UM, RESPONDENT MR. FAS AND ALSO, UH, MS. DAVIDSON, UM, I BELIEVE YOU CITED, UH, ELECTION CODE 2 53 0.098 ABOUT CORPORATION OR LABOR ORGANIZATIONS COMMUNICATING WITH SHAREHOLDERS OR MEMBERS.
UM, AND, AND YOU SAID THESE ARE COMMUNICATIONS THAT NEED NOT BE REPORTED BECAUSE, OR COST FOR THEM NEED NOT BE REPORTED, BECAUSE THERE, THE COMMUNICATION WAS TO THE MEMBERSHIP.
IS, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, MA'AM.
UNDER 2 53 0.09, EIGHT B MM-HMM
IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS IN EXPENDITURE UNDER THIS SECTION IS NOT REPORTABLE UNDER CHAPTER 2 54, CHAPTER 2 54, THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR PACS OFFICE HOLDERS.
ALL ENTITIES THAT ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT.
SO ON PAGE FIVE OF YOUR RESPONSE, YOU, UH, SAY TO SUMMARIZE, THERE WAS NO INTENT TO MAKE A CONTRIBUTION, NO MONEY WAS CONTRIBUTED, AND THE COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEMBERS, WHICH IS PERMISSIBLE, ET CETERA.
SO WHICH COMMUNICATIONS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT AND WHO ARE THE MEMBERS? THE MEMBERS ARE THOSE THAT, UM, DETERMINE TO BE RECIPIENTS OF THERE'S NOT A PAID, IS THAT A PAID YEAH.
YOU CAN BECOME A MEMBER FOR $25 A YEAR.
IF YOU WANT TO JOIN CORA, YOU CAN CHOOSE TO BE ON THE MAILING LIST WITHOUT BEING A MEMBER.
SO IF YOU CHOOSE AFFIRMATIVELY TO BE INFORMED AS EITHER A NON-MEMBER OR MEMBER, BUT SOMEBODY WHO IS CHOOSING TO RECEIVE COMMUNICATIONS MM-HMM
THEN IT IS A CHOICE THAT YOU OPT IN FOR.
SO NOT EVERYONE WHO'S GETTING THOSE COMMUNICATIONS THAT YOU'RE, THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO.
SO WHO IS GETTING THOSE COMMUNICATIONS WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS OR NOT HAVE NOT INDICATED THEY WERE SUPPORTERS? IS ANYONE ELSE? WELL, WHO'S ON THAT LIST? OKAY.
JUST AS A GENERAL, EVERYONE THAT'S PROACTIVELY SAID THAT THEY WANT TO RECEIVE THESE, UH, THESE COMMUNICATIONS.
UM, THERE'S A PLACE ON OUR WEBSITE WHERE YOU CAN SAY, SUBSCRIBE, UM, NEW, UH, WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU DONATE, I BELIEVE WE HAVE YOUR INFORMATION.
WE ALSO GIVE IT MO MOST OF THEM HAVE BEEN, WELL, I GUESS I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR A FACT.
MANY OF THEM HAVE BEEN MEMBERS OR MAYBE THEIR MEMBERSHIP IS CURRENTLY EXPIRED.
UM, BUT THEY'RE IN SOME WAY HAVE PROACTIVELY SAID THAT THEY WANT TO RECEIVE THESE COMMUNICATIONS.
SO FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT TECHNICALLY MEMBERS, UM, AND WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT SHAREHOLDERS HERE, BUT I BELIEVE MS. DAVIDSON SAID SOMETHING ABOUT NOT MORE THAN THE $100 AS HAVING BEEN SPENT.
SO THOSE COMMUNICATIONS, SOME ARE GOING TO THE MEMBERS, SOME ARE WHO PAID $25 EACH.
AND SOME ARE GOING TO PERSONS WHO DID NOT PAY THE $25 EACH, BUT WHO ARE ON YOUR MAILING LIST.
SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE, THE COST OF ALL OF THAT WAS LESS THAN THE THRESHOLD? IS THAT THE WAY THAT, IF I UNDERSTOOD THAT WAY, THAT CALCULATIONS ARE MADE AS TO HOW MUCH IS SPENT ON A COMMUNICATION ON BEHALF OF A CANDIDATE WOULD BE IF YOU HAVE AN ENTIRE NEWSLETTER MM-HMM
AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS EVENT, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT EVENT, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER EVENT, THE ENTIRE COST OF THAT EMAIL IS NOT ASCRIBED TO THE CANDIDATE.
IF AN ENDORSEMENT IS MADE, IF AN ENDORSEMENT IS MADE, YOU CAN THEN PARSE THAT PORTION OF THESE ENDORSEMENTS TO THAT COST.
[02:40:01]
THE EMAILS ARE PART OF AN EMAIL SERVICE THAT THEY HAVE.THAT PROBABLY DOESN'T EVEN, THEY PAY $80 A MONTH IN TOTAL FOR THE ABILITY TO SEND EMAILS.
SO THE COST IS NEGLIGIBLE AND WOULDN'T HAVE COME TO A HUNDRED DOLLARS IN DIRECT EXPENDITURES.
SO THOSE NEWSLETTERS OR WHATEVER THE CONTENT WAS, YOU'RE SAYING THE CONTENT WAS, WAS NOT POLITICAL? UM, NOT TOTALLY.
AND THE PORTION OR THE PRO RATA SHARE OF THE, IT WAS A NOMINAL AMOUNT.
SO A NOMINAL AMOUNT GOING TO PAY FOR COMMUNICATION THAT REFERS TO SUPPORTING OR OPPOSING A CANDIDATE, BASICALLY, IS THAT, WELL, WHEN IT IS A COMMUNICATION, OBVIOUSLY IT CAN BE DONE AS A PRESS RELEASE MM-HMM
UM, SO WOULD THAT BE A CONTRIBUTION? NO, THAT'S JUST TRYING TO SHOW MM-HMM
AND IF THAT'S EMAILED, THEN THE COST OF THAT ENDORSEMENT EMAIL IS NOT A POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION.
IT'S NOT EVEN REALLY A POLITICAL EXPENDITURE PER SE.
IT'S AN ANNOUNCEMENT, IT'S A NEWS RELEASE.
SO EVEN IF YOU TRIED TO ASCRIBE IT AS SOME SORT OF POLITICAL EXPENDITURE, THEN IT AGAIN, WAS STILL NEGLIGIBLE OVERALL, EVEN IF YOU ADDED IT ALL TOGETHER.
SO IS IT YOUR POSITION THAT IT WAS NOT A COMMUNICATION THAT WAS OUTSIDE OF THAT, UM, OUTSIDE OF THE LIMITATIONS FOR THE MEMBERSHIP? OR ARE YOU SAYING WHATEVER KIND OF COMMUNICATION IT WAS AND TO WHOMEVER IT WENT? 'CAUSE NOT EVERY I, OKAY.
I MIGHT BE SPEAKING OUTTA TURN, SO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THINK THAT ANYBODY WHO CHOOSES THE NEWSLETTER IS CONSIDERED A MEMBER, WHETHER THEY PAID THE $25 OR NOT, THEY'RE CONSIDERED TO BE A PART OF AURA BECAUSE THEY'VE CHOSEN TO, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN AN OPTION.
IF THEY'VE BEEN LAPSED IN THEIR MEMBERSHIP DUES, THEY'RE NOT KICKED OUT, THEY'RE NOT TAKEN OFF THE MAILING LIST.
SO ANYBODY WHO OPTS IN WOULD BE CONSIDERED A MEMBER.
UH, THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION IS IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO DEFINE WHAT A MEMBER IS FOR PURPOSES OF THE STATUTE.
SO THAT IS VERY TIMELY OF YOU TO ASK, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW GROUPS ARE GOING TO BE HANDLING THIS IN THE FUTURE.
UM, BUT ONE OF THE PRINCIPLE PURPOSES TESTS HAS ALSO BEEN THAT IF A 5 0 1 C FOUR ENGAGES IN MORE THAN 25% OF ACTIVITY, UH, THAT'S POLITICAL, THEN THEY NEEDED TO CREATE A PAC.
THE RULES THAT WERE PROPOSED AT THE LAST ETHICS COMMISSION MEETING TWO WEEKS AGO ARE PROPOSING THAT IT BE 49% OF THEIR ACTIVITY.
SO THEY RECOGNIZE THAT A 5 0 1 C FOUR CAN PARTICIPATE IN POLITICAL ACTIVITY TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, IT NOT BE THE PRINCIPLE PURPOSE, BUT NOT INFRINGE ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF THE ORGANIZATION TO INFORM PEOPLE WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ORGANIZATION.
SO IF YOU WERE TO LIST THE PRINCIPLE PURPOSE OR PRINCIPLE PURPOSES OF AURA, WHAT, WHAT ARE THEY? UM, TO MAKE AUSTIN A MORE AFFORDABLE PLACE WHERE EVERYONE WHO WISHES TO LIVE IN IT CAN, CAN BUILD A HOME TO PROVIDE EVERYONE THE DIGNITY OF TRANSPORTATION WITHOUT THE HUGE ECONOMIC COST OF BOTH THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE CITY OF, OF CAR OWNERSHIP, UM, TO, TO END HOMELESSNESS IN AUSTIN.
SO FOR THOSE TO GIVE US A MORE, I'M SORRY, UH, TO, TO GIVE EVERYONE A MORE, A FRIENDLIER PLACE TO LIVE WHERE THEY CAN, WHERE THEY CAN, THEY'RE MORE ABLE TO INTERACT WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS AND BUILD STRONGER COMMUNITIES WHERE THEY DON'T LIVE ALONE, UM, FAR, FAR AWAY IN SUBURBS WHERE THEY, YOU KNOW, IF ANYTHING HAPPENS TO 'EM, THEY HAVE NO WAY TO, TO MOVE AROUND BECAUSE SUDDENLY THEY CAN'T RIDE A CAR.
AND SO NOW THEY'RE STUCK IN THEIR OWN HOME.
I MEAN, I, I FEEL LIKE IT'S A PRETTY BROAD VISION WITH THE MM-HMM
YOU KNOW, UH, WE ALL HAVE A SHARED, SHARED VISION THAT'S PRETTY BROAD, UM, THAT, THAT INCLUDES A LOT OF THE SIMILAR CHANGES, BUT HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION IN CITY OF BOSTON IS THE CORE OF IT.
SO HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION ARE YOUR PURPOSE, YOU KNOW, IMPROVING HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION ARE YOUR PURPOSES.
WHAT IS THE, WHAT IS THE MODE BY WHICH YOU ACHIEVE THOSE OR TRYING TO ACHIEVE THOSE? UM, A A LOT OF THINGS MM-HMM
UM, WE ADVOCATE FOR POLICIES AT CITY HALL.
WE EDUCATE PEOPLE, UM, TO TRY AND, AND SWAY VOTERS THAT SWAY AVERAGE CITIZENS.
THAT, THAT THESE SORTS OF POLICIES, UM, ARE, ARE GOOD FOR THEM AND GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY, AND THERE'S SOMETHING THAT YOU SHOULD BE, UH, LOOKING TO WHEN, WHEN, WHEN YOU HAVE A WAY TO INFLUENCE, UH, YOUR CITY, BOTH THROUGH, THROUGH ELECTIONS AND THROUGH LOCAL CITY POLICIES AND, UH, AND TALKING TO YOUR NEIGHBORS.
UM, IT'S, IT'S QUITE A NUMBER OF THINGS.
[02:45:01]
A QUESTION FOR, UH, COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT.UH, YOU'VE REALLY FOCUSED IN ON THE 25% OF AN EXPENDITURE AS A POTENTIAL WAY TO IDENTIFY A PRINCIPAL PURPOSE.
OR ULTIMATELY, IF, IF THAT NUMBER CHANGES, UM, MAYBE IT GETS EXPANDED OR NOT.
UM, ARE YOU, ARE YOU SAYING THAT THAT TEST OUT OF THE SIX THAT ARE KIND OF IDENTIFIED, IT SHOULD BE DISPOSITIVE? UM, BECAUSE I, I JUST THINK, I JUST HEARD THAT THE GROUP'S ACTIVITIES ARE, UH, MAINLY POLITICAL IN NATURE.
THEY EDUCATE PEOPLE ABOUT POLITICAL INITIATIVES, THEY SWAY VOTERS, THEY MOBILIZE VOTERS.
THOSE ARE ALL, I I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING THAT IS NOT A POLITICAL, UH, ITEM.
SO I, I'M JUST WONDERING, DO YOU, ARE YOU SAYING THAT THIS 25% SHOULD BE DISPOSITIVE, UM, DISREGARDING THE ACTUAL ACTIONS OF THE GROUP? THE ACTUAL ACTIONS OF THE GROUP ARE NOT COSTLY.
THEY'RE VOLUNTEER, NON-REPORTABLE, NON COMPENSATED ACTIVITIES OF INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE GROUP.
SO THERE IS NO MONEY, UH, WHEN MR. HAYNES MENTIONS SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF MONEY, AND AS TWO DASH TWO DASH ONE, I BELIEVE TALKS ABOUT UNDUE INFLUENCE BY ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF MONEY, THERE ARE NOT ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF MONEY.
THESE ARE JUST PEOPLE THAT ARE DEDICATED TO CERTAIN PRINCIPLES THAT WANT TO MAKE SURE TO EDUCATE FOLKS.
AND THEY ARE NOT SPENDING MONEY.
THEY'RE TRYING TO LIVE IN AFFORDABLE, UM, FIND AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR HOUSING THAT IS AFFORDABLE IN AUSTIN.
THEY'RE TRYING TO ADVOCATE FOR THAT SO THAT OTHER PEOPLE CAN ENJOY OUR GREAT CITY.
COMMISSIONER LRE, YOU HEAR ME? YES.
PRESS IT ONE MORE TIME, COMMISSIONER.
I'M A RETIRED CAR DEALER AND I'M CONFUSED.
I JUST PULLED UP AURA AND IT SAID, LET'S WIN THIS RUNOFF, AND IT SAYS AURA HERE.
A URA, I ASSUME IT COSTS SOMETHING.
I DID A BUNCH OF MAIL OUTS IN MY CAREER AND I COULDN'T GET ANYTHING DONE FOR $50, AND I CERTAINLY COULDN'T HIRE A LAWYER FOR NOTHING.
SO, UH, I
SO, AND I FEEL BAD ABOUT THAT, SIR.
AND I TOTALLY GET IT BECAUSE I RAN A CAMPAIGN OF MY OWN AS A CANDIDATE IN 2018, SO I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT WHAT EVERYTHING COSTS.
UM, FOR EXAMPLE, ZACH ACTUALLY PAYS FOR THE WEBSITE OUT OF HIS OWN PERSONAL FUNDS EVERY MONTH.
I, I PAY FOR THE MAILCHIMP, THE $80 FOR THE MAILCHIMP.
THE, THE WEBSITE IS ACTUALLY MUCH SMALLER AND I PROBABLY ONLY ORDER A FIVE, $10 A MONTH, UH, THAT IS PAID THROUGH AURA.
UH, TO BE CLEAR, I DO PAY FOR THE MAILCHIMP, WHICH IS A GREATER COST.
WELL, I GUESS THE ISSUE IS IS DOES ZARA GIVE MONEY TO POLITICAL CANDIDATES AND NOT REPORT IT? OR IS THAT, IS THAT THEY DON'T GIVE ANY MONEY TO THE CANDIDATES? YOU DON'T GIVE ANY MONEY TO THE CANDIDATES.
THEY DO NOT GIVE ANY MONEY TO THE CANDIDATES, BUY 'EM COS AND SOMETHING AND HAVE 'EM GO KNOCK ON DOORS? NO.
IF THEY ACTUALLY, THAT WAS BROUGHT UP IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WHERE SOMEBODY ASKED ABOUT A LIT DROP.
SO THEY DID THE LIT DROP, THEY HAD THE MATERIALS THAT WERE PAID FOR BY ONE OF THE AURA MEMBERS, AND THEN THEY GOT TOGETHER AND HAD COKES AND SNACKS AND, YOU KNOW, NOT VERY MUCH WAS SPENT.
AND IT WAS JUST FOR THOSE MEMBERS, IT WAS NOT TO A CANDIDATE, AND THE CANDIDATE WAS NOT A PART OF THE WALK.
SO THE AURA MEMBER WENT AND PAID FOR THE REFRESHMENTS OR WHATEVER AND IT NEVER WENT THROUGH THE AURA THAT IS CORRECT.
BOOKS, IS THAT CORRECT? UH, THERE WERE A COUPLE INSTANCES WHERE, UM, OR WHERE WE PAID FOR, UH, MEMBERS' DRINKS OR FOOD, YOU KNOW, BURGER OR SOMETHING BEFORE OR AFTER.
UM, SOME OF THOSE EXPENSES I MADE PERSONALLY AND WERE NEVER REIMBURSED.
SOME OTHERS, OTHERS PEOPLE, OTHER EXPENSES, OTHER PEOPLES PAID FOR, AND IT WAS REIMBURSED.
UH, I THINK WE CALCULATED AT ONE POINT IT WAS AROUND $120 THAT WE SPENT ON FOOD AT THESE KINDS OF EVENTS, ALL STRICTLY FOR MEMBERS.
NONE WAS GIVEN TO CANDIDATES NOR TO CAMPAIGN.
LOOKS TO ME LIKE YOU HAVE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF INFLUENCE FOR A THOU UNDER A THOUSAND DOLLARS.
UH, I GUESS YOU DO THAT BY WORD OF MOUTH.
OUR, OUR ORGANIZATION'S BEEN AROUND FOR A DECADE OR SO.
UM, WE'VE BEEN INFLUENTIAL IN, IN THE CITY.
WE'VE BEEN HOSTING, UH, YOU KNOW, REGULAR SOCIAL HAPPY HOURS.
WE'VE BEEN FOSTERING COMMUNITY, UH, A MAILING LIST, UM, DIGITAL MEDIA, UH, ALL THROUGH PAID VOLUNTEERS.
SO WHEN I PULL UP ON GOOGLE, UH, R AND IT SAYS, LET'S WIN THIS ELECTION, OR WHATEVER IT SAYS, AND THAT'S GOOGLE.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT COSTS.
[02:50:01]
I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT SOCIAL MEDIA OR MARKETING OR ANYTHING, BUT THE FIRST THING I PULL UP IS LET'S WIN THIS RUNOFF AURA.WAS IT? WHAT WEBSITE WAS IT, SIR? GOOGLE.
IS IT? NO, WAIT, IS IT LIKE AURA ATX.ORG OR IS IT ON THE SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNT? WE DON'T PAY FOR ANY OF THE SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS.
WE PAY FOR, IT SAYS AURA RIGHT HERE.
BUT IF YOU COULD TELL ME THE, THE WEB, IF YOU COULD TELL ME THE WEBSITE, SIR, I CAN TELL YOU
X FORMERLY KNOWN AS TWITTER IS FREE.
UH, SO, SO WHAT, UM, MR EXCUSE ME SIR, SORRY.
UH, WHAT HE WAS SHOWING WAS OUR WEBSITE WHERE WE HAVE A, A BLOG ROLL.
UM, WE DO PAY FOR THAT WEBSITE.
UH, I, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY, BUT IT'S VERY, VERY CHEAP ON THE ORDER OF FIVE TO $10 A MONTH, I THINK IT COULD BE LESS.
RIGHT? IT SAYS, IT SAYS MIKE SIEGEL, WE JUST TALKED TO MR. SIEGEL.
SO THAT'S, DOES THAT GO THROUGH THIS? I DON'T UNDERSTAND THESE, UH, PACKS OR WHATEVER SO THAT WHEN I PULL APART IT SAYS MIKE SIEGEL, BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY MONEY.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
BUT IT IS NOT A, YOU DIDN'T PAY YOU FOR IT.
IT WAS NOT, AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE, THE LITERATURE DROPS THAT WERE PAID FOR BY THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF AURA WERE REPORTED TO MY KNOWLEDGE, ON WHICHEVER CANDIDATE BENEFITED FROM THAT.
SO WHEN IT WAS POLITICAL ADVERTISING PAID FOR BY WHO WAS IT? TIM BRAY? UH, YES.
TIM BRAY OR, UH, PETER BRAN WERE THE TWO NAMES WE USED OR PETER BRAN, IF THEY PAID FOR IT, THEIR CONTRIBUTION OF THAT LITERATURE WAS REPORTED.
AND IT WAS A CONTRIBUTION BECAUSE IT WAS DIRECTLY FROM THAT INDIVIDUAL.
IT DIDN'T, IT WENT DIRECTLY TO THE CANDIDATE.
DIDN'T HAVE ANY TO DO WITH AURA.
WE, WHAT DO YOU MEAN DIRECTLY TO THE CANDIDATE? WE, WELL, I MEAN, IF I'M RUNNING FOR CITY COUNCIL AND YOU CAN GIVE ME 500, I'VE, I'VE NEVER GIVEN ANY CANDIDATE, WELL, I'VE PERSONALLY, BUT LAURA HAS NEVER GIVEN ANYBODY, HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING, IF YOU COME TO GIVE ME $500, IT DIDN'T COME FROM OUR, IT CAME FROM YOU MM-HMM
IF IT'S AN INDIVIDUAL, THE INDIVIDUAL WOULD REPORT IT AS A CONTRIBUTION TO THE CANDIDATE.
AND SO WHATEVER MONIES, CANDIDATES YOU SUPPORT GET HAS COME FROM INDIVIDUALS OUTSIDE OF THAT.
OR THEY WERE MEMBERS OF AURA, BUT IT WASN'T AURA MONEY.
UM, SO I THINK WE'VE TALKED TO DEATH, THE IDEA OF MONEY, BUT I, I DO NOT THINK THAT WE HAVE ACTUALLY TALKED ABOUT THE IDEA OF SOMETHING OF VALUE THAT IS NOT MONEY.
AND I, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ASK, IF AURA ISN'T PROVIDING VALUE TO CANDIDATES, WHY ARE THEY WORKING WITH YOU? WHAT ARE, WHAT ARE THE CANDIDATES GETTING OUT OF WORKING WITH AURA? AND IF THEY'RE GETTING SOMETHING OUT OF IT, HOW DO YOU MAKE THE CONCEPTUAL LEAP THAT YOU'RE NOT GIVING SOMETHING OF VALUE TO THEM? MAY I ANSWER WITH THE DEFINITIONS THAT ARE FROM T DASH? YES, PLEASE.
TWO, THAT, UM, AGAIN, IF YOU LOOK AT THE DEFINITIONS, IT SAYS THAT, UH, VOLUNTEER ACTIVITY, UH, IS NOT A CONTRIBUTION.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE DEFINITION UNDER SIX OF TWO DASH TWO DASH TWO, THE DEFINITIONS GO TO SIX.
THE VERY LAST SENTENCE IN KIND LABOR AS DEFINED IN THIS CHAPTER IS NOT A CONTRIBUTION.
SO IF IT'S NOT A CONTRIBUTION, AND YOU GO AND LOOK AT WHAT IN KIND LABOR MEANS, IT MEANS THE VALUE OF PERSONAL SERVICES PROVIDED WITHOUT COMPENSATION, EXCUSE ME.
BUT IT'S PROVIDED BY AN INDIVIDUAL, CORRECT.
IN THE, IT IS PERSONAL SERVICES PROVIDED BY AN INDIVIDUAL.
AND SO THE INDIVIDUALS AURA IS DIRECT, IS AGGREGATING VOLUNTEERS AND THEN SAYING, WE'RE GOING FOR A, FOR A BLOCK WALK.
THAT'S NOT AN INDIVIDUAL GIVING PERSONAL SERVICE.
THAT COULD BE VIEWED AS A, AS AN ENTITY PROVIDING A, A SERVICE WHICH IS BLOCK WALKING.
AND IF YOU WANTED TO INTERPRET IT AS AN A GROUP, UH, OR AN ENTITY DIRECTING SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES, THAT WOULD BE MORE OF A DIRECT EXPENDITURE.
AND IF THERE'S NO MONEY EXPENDED, THERE'S STILL NO MONEY TO TRIGGER A REPORT.
AND AGAIN, THE BUT THE, SO COULD, ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU CAN HAVE A DIRECT EXPENDITURE, THAT THAT MUST BE MONEY AND IT, IT THEN FOLLOWS THAT IF IT IS A VALUABLE SERVICE PROVIDED THAT THAT IS NOT AN EXPENDITURE, A DIRECT EXPENDITURE? EXCUSE ME.
SO IF I, IF I ON BEHALF OF AURA GAVE THEM MY LEGAL
[02:55:01]
SERVICES, PERSONAL LEGAL SERVICES, NOT PAID FOR, TO HELP THEM ON SOMETHING WITH A CAMPAIGN OR TO REVIEW THEIR CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT, IF THEY HAD ONE, IF THEY HAD A PACK, IF THEY HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS, WHATEVER.THAT'S NOT REPORTABLE BECAUSE I WASN'T PAID AND I GAVE THEM MY SERVICES FOR FREE.
THERE IS VALUE I HOPE TO MY LEGAL SERVICES.
UH, AS A MATTER OF FACT, THEY'VE GOT ONE OF MY LOWER RATES.
'CAUSE THEY'VE BEEN A LONG TIME CLIENT.
SO THERE IS VALUE, WE'RE NOT SAYING THERE'S NOT VALUE, BUT IT DOESN'T TRIGGER REPORTING UNDER THE LAW AND WE ARE COMPLIANT WITH THE LAW.
I JUST, I JUST HAD COMMISSIONER FIGUERA, I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION REGARDING THE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE NONPROFIT.
SO ON PAGE THREE OF YOUR RESPONSE, YOU SAY, UM, YOU KNOW, LAST, THE, IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, LAST LINE AS WILL BE ELABORATED FURTHER, NEITHER IS THE PRINCIPLE PURPOSE OF EITHER AURA FOR AUSTIN ENTITY MENTIONED THE COMPLAINT, WHICH IS A NONPROFIT AND DOES NOT ENGAGE IN POLITICAL ACTIVITY OR OF THE ENTITY AUSTIN AURA.
SO, UH, YOU'RE SAYING THE NONPROFIT DOESN'T ENGAGE IN POLITICAL ACTIVITY, BUT THE C FOUR CLEARLY DOES ENGAGE IN POLITICAL ACTIVITY.
IS THAT CORRECT? THE C FOUR UNDER IRS LAW IS ALLOWED TO ENGAGE IN LIMITED POLITIC.
I KNOW IT'S ALLOWED POLITICAL ACTIVITY.
I'M JUST TRYING TO THAT IS CORRECT.
SO AND SO THE ENDORSEMENTS WOULD BE CONSIDERED POLITICAL ACTIVITY THAT THE 5 0 1 C3 COULD NOT ENGAGE IN.
SO WHEN, UM, YOU MENTIONED THE PRINCIPAL PURPOSE OF ENGAGING, UM, LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY AND ACTIVATIONS AND ALL THAT IS THAT, THAT IS THE NONPROFIT ACTIVITIES AND THE C FOUR IS LARGELY, THAT'S THE C FOUR.
OH, THE C FOUR IS THE ONE DOING THE, THE, UM, EDUCATION.
AND IT IS DOING EDUCATION AS WELL.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE C3 IS STILL IN THE PROCESS OF BEING ACTIVATED.
SO ALL OF THESE ACTIVITIES THAT YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT, WE'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT THE C FOUR.
THE C3 C3 DOESN'T REALLY DO ANYTHING.
THE C3 WAS ONLY CREATED IN 2020, MID TO LATE LAST YEAR.
YEAH, WE, IT'S ESSENTIALLY DONE NOTHING OUTSIDE OF HAVING A FEW INITIAL MEETINGS.
IT'S A NON-ENTITY FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES.
EVERYTHING DONE UNDER THE BIN OF AURA SINCE IT WAS FORMED IN 2016 HAS BEEN AUSTIN ORA, THE FIVE ONE C FOUR C3, I DON'T THINK IT EVEN HAS, I, MAYBE IT HAS A BANK ACCOUNT, IT MIGHT NOT HAVE A BANK ACCOUNT.
IF IT DOES HAVE A BANK ACCOUNT, THERE'S NOTHING IN IT.
I MEAN, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVE A LONG RANGE VISION FOR, FOR THE CHARITABLE ASPECTS OF THE ORGANIZATION.
AND I'LL JUST ASK FROM THE COMPLAINANT PERSPECTIVE, DOES THAT, HOW DOES THAT AFFECT YOUR COMPLAINTS? THE, THE, IN THE CON THE MIXING MATCHING OF THE C3 AND C FOUR? I AGAIN, UH, COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA, I, I BELIEVE YOU KNOW, THAT IS, THAT IS NOT AN ISSUE FOR THE, THE ETHICS.
THAT'S AN IRS, BUT, BUT SINCE YOU ASKED THAT QUESTION, HOW DOES THE, HOW DOES IT MIX? IT'S INTERESTING THAT TONIGHT, UM, PARDON THE, THE READING OF THE DEFINITION IS SAYING IS, IS FOCUSING ON THE IN-KIND LABOR, AND THAT, THAT LAST SENTENCE COMES FROM THE DEFINITION IN TWO DASH TWO DASH TWO SUB SEVEN, WHICH IS THE DEFINITION OF A CONTRIBUTION.
AND I QUOTE MEANS A DIRECT OR INDIRECT TRANSFER OF MONEY GOODS SERVICES OR ANY OTHER THING OF VALUE AURA, AS HAS BEEN STATED, IS MAKING THINGS OF VALUE, IS ENDORSING CANDIDATES, IS PASSING OUT LITERATURE AT POLLING PLACES, IS, UM, ATTENDING BLOCK WALKS WITH CANDIDATES, IS SUPPON IS SPONSORING, CALLING AND VOTER DRIVES FOR CANDIDATES.
ALL OF THOSE ARE A THING OF VALUE AND THEREFORE IS A CONTRIBUTION UNDER CITY CODE.
AND SINCE THEY'VE MADE A CONTRIBUTION, THEN THE QUESTION IS, DOES IT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF A REPORTABLE, UH, AMOUNT AS I, AS I STATED, JUST THE FACT OF THE, UM, DISTRIBUTION OF THE POLL, UH, OF THE AURA PRODUCED POLL HANDOUT AT THE SEVEN MOST POPULOUS, SEVEN MOST VOTER IDENTIFIED ENTITIES FOR 13 DAYS OF, OF EARLY VOTING
[03:00:01]
PLUS ELECTION DAY FAR AND EXCEEDS $1,000, $1,080.IT CERTAINLY EXCEEDS IN TWO DASH TWO DASH 32, THE $500 THRESHOLD THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS.
AND SO IT IS CLEAR, IT IS A CONTRIBUTION, IT IS CLEAR THAT IT'S STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION BY THE GROUP AURA, AND IT IS DONE DURING TWO VERY DISTINCT CAMPAIGN, UM, UH, PERIODS, THE GENERAL ELECTION AND THE RUNOFF.
AND IF YOU GO TO AURA TODAY, YOU GO TO THEIR WEBSITE TODAY AND LOOK AT THEIR POSTS IN OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, AND DECEMBER, ALL YOU WILL SEE ARE CAMPAIGN RELATED EVENTS FOR BLOCK WALKS, FOR VOTING, FOR POLLING, FOR, UM, CANVASSING, FOR, UM, MEETING OF CANDIDATES.
AND THAT'S WHAT THEY HAVE ON THEIR WEBSITE.
UM, I HAVE A QUESTION, AND I'M SORRY TO PURSUE THIS 5 0 1 C3 5 0 1 C FOUR THING, BUT LET ME JUST INDULGE ME FOR A MINUTE.
LIKE, IS AURA FOR AUSTIN IS, WHICH TELL ME AGAIN, SORRY, THE C THE C3, THE C3.
SO THIS COMPLAINT IS AGAINST MR. FADI AS PRESIDENT OF AURA FOR AUSTIN.
THAT'S THE C3 AND IT HASN'T DONE ANYTHING.
IS THAT RIGHT? ALMOST NOTHING.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO CLARIFY.
WHAT IS, THIS IS FOR THE RESPONDENT, MR. FADI OR HIS COUNSEL.
UM, WHAT IS YOUR ROLE IN, UH, THE C FOUR RATHER? THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET.
I, I KNOW YOU'RE PRESIDENT OF THE C3, BUT WHAT IS YOU, DO YOU HAVE A, A POSITION? I I AM THE, I AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE C FOUR.
UM, I, I'M ON THE BOARD OF THE C3.
I DON'T KNOW WHO ON PAPER IS THE PRESIDENT.
I DON'T THINK I AM, BUT I COULD BE WRONG ON THAT ONE.
UM, OKAY, WE, LIKE I SAID, WE'VE DONE VERY LITTLE.
UM, BUT I, I MEAN, I, YOU WANT ME TO SORT OF ELUCIDATE THE, THE ROLE OF, I MEAN THIS, RIGHT BEFORE OUR MEETING, WE HAD, UH, WE HAD A BOARD MEETING, WHICH I HELPED RUN AND I HELPED MAKE THE AGENDA FOR AND WE DISCUSSED, SO WE HAVE A LAND USE COMMITTEE, TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE, A SOCIAL COMMITTEE, UM, RIGHT NOW, UH, SO PLANNING THE NEXT LEDGE EVENTS OR I'M SORRY, PLANNING THE NEXT, UH, SOCIAL EVENTS.
UM, WE TALKED ABOUT TEXAS LEDGE, WHICH WHY I SAID THAT.
UM, AND UH, YEAH, I MEAN, I HELP COORDINATE ALL THE THINGS THAT IT DOES.
I THINK I'M NOT A GREAT PLANNER, BUT I THINK I'M GOOD AT HOLDING A LOT OF PERSONALITIES TOGETHER AND MANAGING A LOT OF AMBITIOUS PEOPLE THAT ARE TRYING TO DO AMBITIOUS THINGS.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER, MCC TURN? UH, I, I THINK JUST A, A FOLLOW ON QUICKLY.
I HAVE NOT HEARD FROM THE RESPONDENT ANY, UM, ASSERTION THAT BECAUSE THIS, UH, BECAUSE THIS COMPLAINT NAMES AURA FOR AUSTIN AND NOT AUSTIN AURA, UH, THE ORGANIZATION FOR WHICH, UH, THE RESPONDENT IS ACTUALLY THE PRESIDENT THAT YOU GUYS ARE, ARE SAYING THAT THAT IS THE REASON THAT IT IS, IT SHOULD BE PROCEDURALLY DONE AWAY WITH.
I I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT VERY SPECIFICALLY.
DO YOU GUYS TAKE ANY EXCEPTION TO THE FACT THAT IT IS FILED AGAINST A 5 0 1 C3 DESPITE SEEMING TO BE PROCEDURALLY WEIRD? WE WENT AHEAD AND SAID WE'D ANSWER AS IF IT WAS ACTUALLY AGAINST THE 5 0 1 C FOUR, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE COMPLAINANT WAS CONFUSED AS TO WHICH ENTITY IT WAS.
SINCE AURA IS IN THE NAME OF BOTH, AND I STILL GET THEM CONFUSED.
HE HAD TO WRITE A LITTLE NOTE TO ME TO REMIND ME WHICH ONE WAS WHICH.
SO WE DECIDED THAT EVEN THOUGH PROCEDURALLY WE COULD ASK FOR IT TO BE DISMISSED ON THAT BASIS, WE WANTED TO GIVE YOU FULL INFORMATION BECAUSE HE WOULD JUST REFILE AND THEN GET THE RIGHT ENTITY.
AND WE KNEW THAT THIS HAD ALREADY HAPPENED WITHOUT COUNSEL THE FIRST TIME.
AND THEN ONCE WE KIND OF FIGURED OUT EVERYTHING, WE WANTED TO HELP YOU ALL GET PAST THIS.
THE, THE COMPLAINT ISN'T FILED AGAINST A, AN ENTITY.
WELL, WELL, I THINK THAT THE, THAT HE'S NOT PRESIDENT OF THE 5 0 1 C3.
AM I CORRECT? I AM DEFINITELY PRESIDENT OF THE C FOUR
[03:05:01]
SO WE'RE ANSWERING AS IF WE WERE THE C FOUR I I APPRECIATE THAT.UH, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? SHALL WE MOVE AHEAD TO, UH, I WILL ENTERTAIN ANY MOTION.
COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER TURN, UH, THERE ARE A LOT OF TWO DASH TWO DASH SOMETHINGS, SO I'M GOING TO TRY TO DO THIS.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO MOTION THAT THERE, THAT THE COMMISSION FIND THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION IN THAT THE 5 0 1 C FOUR GAVE SOMETHING OF VALUE TO MULTIPLE CANDIDATES AND DID NOT REPORT THEIR POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS.
IF, IF, IF I NEED TO GO FIND A SECTION, I CAN DO THAT.
BUT, UH, AS THE COMPLAINANT HAS STATED, THERE IS A, THERE IS A SENTENCE THAT SAYS, UH, NO THINGS OF VALUE SHALL BE DONATED WITHOUT THAT BEING REPORTED THAT HAPPENED.
I THINK THAT WE SHOULD FIND THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION PRESENT.
UH, DOES THE COMMISSION WISH TO HAVE A, AN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO, UM, DISCUSS ANY OF THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF THIS POINT OF ORDER? DO WE HAVE TO RESOLVE THIS MOTION FIRST? I'M ALL FOR IT.
BUT I, I THINK YOU COULD, IF YOU WANTED TO GO BACK INTO ANOTHER EXECUTIVE SESSION, YOU COULD, UM, TABLE IT.
DO YOU SO MID MOTION, I THINK YOU COULD TABLE THE MOTION AND THEN, BUT IT, IT'S UP TO YOU ALL.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT? I SECOND THE MOTION.
UM, COMMISSIONER LUNDGREN HAS SECONDED NOW THAT WAS KEEL.
OH, I, YOU WERE POINTING AT HIM WHEN YOU PUT YOUR HAND UP.
COMMISSIONER KEEL HAS SECONDED IT.
UM, SO I'M INCLINED TO, UM, VOTE AGAINST THE VIOLATION BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A PREPONDERANCE OF AN EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT IT REACHES THE EXPENDITURE AMOUNT.
HOWEVER, I DO WANT TO GET ON THE RECORD THAT I DO THINK THAT THERE IS A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTS THAT THIS IS A POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE.
THERE ARE MEMBERS MAKING EXPENDITURES ON BEHALF OF THE ORG.
THERE WAS A LOT OF GAMEMANSHIP OF PAYING FOR FOOD AND HAVING INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE PART OF THE ORG THAT WERE RECRUITED BY THE ORG PAY FOR THINGS IN THE INDIVIDUAL, AND THEN BYPASSING THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS BY SAYING IT'S AN INDIVIDUAL EXPENDITURE.
AND THEY ARE MOST DEFINITELY ENGAGING IN POLITICAL ACTIVITY.
UM, WHETHER IT'S A PRINCIPAL PURPOSE OR, UM, JUST MAKING POLITICAL EXPENDITURES IN GENERAL.
I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF AN OPEN QUESTION.
UM, THE GAMEMANSHIP IS, IS REALLY CONCERNING BECAUSE I THINK, UH, FROM A SPIRIT OF THE LAW, YOU ALL ARE INFLUENCING ELECTIONS.
YOU ARE ENDORSING CANDIDATES, YOU'RE GETTING VERY MUCH INVOLVED IN THE, IN THE CANDIDACY AND DECIDING WHO'S GONNA WIN OR NOT BY ACTIVATING YOUR MEMBERSHIP AND GETTING AROUND IT BY, UM, SAYING THAT IT'S AN INDIVIDUAL, NOT A GROUP, EVEN THOUGH YOU'VE BEEN RECRUITED BY THE ORGANIZATION, YOU'RE MAKING FLYERS AND IT'S ALL OVER YOUR WEBSITE.
BUT I DON'T SEE THE EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS THAT IT'S AT AN EXPENDITURE AT AN AMOUNT THAT NEEDS TO BE REPORTED.
UM, AND WE DON'T HAVE A DISCOVERY PROCESS IN THIS PROCESS, SO WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY IS ACTUALLY BEING SPENT, WHICH THE COMPLAINANT, YOU KNOW, ADMITTED TO THAT.
HE, WE DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW THE AMOUNT.
AND THE INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE PROVIDED US SUGGESTS THAT IT WASN'T A LOT OF EXPENDITURES.
SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I CAN'T FIND A VIOLATION.
BUT I DO WANNA GET ON THE RECORD THAT I THINK THAT THERE IS, UM, SOME ISSUES WITH THE WAY THIS IS OPERATING AS A NON PAC COMMISSIONER RETURN.
UH, I, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT, WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF VERY ROUND NUMBERS.
OH, THAT SOUND, I THINK THAT THAT'S $5.
I THINK THAT THAT'S A FEW DOLLARS, BUT WE HAVE ALSO HEARD THAT, UH, WE PAY $80 FOR MAILCHIMP AS A MEMBER OF AURA PAYS $80 FOR MAILCHIMP.
THAT ALONE IS $960 AT THE END OF THE YEAR.
UM, THAT RAISES A QUESTION TO ME.
UH, WHEN'S THE LAST TIME YOU BOUGHT TACOS FOR A HUGE GROUP OF, OR A LARGE GROUP OF PEOPLE AND IT WAS CHEAP? WHEN'S THE LAST TIME THAT YOU MOBILIZED THAT THERE THESE THINGS HAVE VALUE.
THE IDEA THAT THESE CANDIDATES ARE PAYING FOR MAILING LISTS, THEY'RE PAYING FOR INFORMATION ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO BE POLITICALLY ACTIVE AND OR FOR AUSTIN IS MAKING THEMSELVES AVAILABLE.
AND YES, IT, IT IS A QUESTION ABOUT THAT VALUE THAT THEY PROVIDE, WHICH MEANS THEY SHOULD TELL US WHAT IT IS.
THEY SHOULD FILE CAMPAIGN FINANCE STATEMENTS
[03:10:01]
TO SHOW WHAT THE VALUE IS.AND IF IT'S $50, THAT'S GREAT.
THEN THE ACTIVE PEOPLE OF OUR CITY CAN LOOK AND SAY, OH, THEY ONLY GAVE $50.
MAYBE THEY'RE NOT BUYING THIS ELECTION.
BUT WE WON'T KNOW THAT UNTIL THEY ACTUALLY SUBMIT CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS.
UH, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO READ THE LAST SENTENCE IN TWO DASH TWO DASH TWO,
AND THEN LATER ON IN TWO DASH TWO DASH TWO 11, IT DEFINES INKIND LABOR.
YEAH, I WOULD JUST MAKE THE SHORT COMMENT THAT THERE PROBABLY IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE WORD VALUE, AND THIS WAS BROUGHT UP BEFORE THE WORD VALUE AND THEN THE MORE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO REPORT EXPENDITURES.
AND THERE'S A DISTINCTION THERE THAT MAYBE I THINK IS IMPORTANT HERE.
UM, AND THE OTHER COMMENTS, SUGGESTIONS, CRITICISMS? UH, I THINK I, I HAVE A COMMENT.
I WASN'T SURE IF MR. UH, OR EXCUSE ME, COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA HAD, UH, PROPOSED A, UH, AN AMENDMENT TO MY MOTION OR JUST, JUST WAS EXPRESSING THAT'S, THAT'S EXPRESSING.
ANY MORE COMMENTS? QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.
UM, WILL YOU RESTATE, I WAS GONNA SAY, WILL YOU RESTATE THE MOTION, PLEASE? YES.
UH, MY MOTION IS THAT THIS COMMISSION FINDS THAT THERE IS A, THAT THERE IS REASON TO BELIEVE BY PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT RF FOUR AUSTIN OR AUSTIN AURA, TAKE YOUR PICK.
UH, UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF MR. FADI HAS VIOLATED CITY CODE TWO, TAC TWO, TAC THREE, UH, IN THAT THEY HAVE PROVIDED A THING OF VALUE TO A CANDIDATE WITHOUT REPORTING THAT CONTRIBUTION.
OKAY, I'LL READ THE ROLE HERE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER MOTIONS? OKAY, WE WILL CLOSE THE HEARING ON THAT CASE.
THANKS FOR THE USE OF THE HALL.
ADAM, YOU GONNA TAKE OVER NOW? YES, I WILL.
HOPEFULLY YOU CAN LET ME AGAIN.
UM, I'M RECUSING MYSELF ON NEXT CASE.
SO I AM, UH, LEAVING THE ROOM.
TURNING IT OVER TO, UH, ADAM URA, OUR SECRETARY TO CHAIR.
NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS THE PRELIMINARY
[8. A complaint filed by Brian Molloy against Jesus Garza raising claimed violations of City Code Chapter 2-7 (Ethics & Financial Disclosure), Section 2-7-74 (Financial Disclosure by Candidates)(Part 2 of 2)]
HEARING ON THE COMPLAINT FILED BY BRIAN MALLOY AGAINST JESUS GARZA RAISING CLAIM VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE CHAPTER TWO, TAX SEVEN, ETHICS AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE AND CITY CODE SECTION TWO, TAX SEVENT SIX TWO STANDARDS OF CONDUCT.CAROLYN WEBSTER, EXECUTIVE LIAISON AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY WILL BE ADVISING THE COMMISSION ON THIS ITEM.
UH, COMMISSIONER PUMPHREY, CHAIR PUMPHREY HAS RECUSED, UH, ALL DISCUSSION AND ACTION UNDER AGENDA ITEM EIGHT.
UH, I'M GOING TO READ THE PROCEDURES FOR AN ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION PRELIMINARY HEARING.
I ASK THAT THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN ITEM NINE WHO ARE VERY REASONABLY ON NOTICE THAT THEY WILL NOT BE, UH, HEARING THIS.
UH, PAY ATTENTION IF YOU WANT.
OTHERWISE WE'LL BE POSTPONING THAT ITEM.
CAN I GO HOME OR DO I HAVE TO BE? SO, UH, ANNOUNCEMENT OF PARTIES PRESENT, STARTING WITH THE COMPLAINANT, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND THEN COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT.
PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF AS WELL.
FOR RESPONDENT, PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF INCLUDING THE IDENTITY OF COUNSEL OF RECORD, IF THERE IS COUNSEL PRESENT.
SO STARTING WITH THE COMPLAINANT, PLEASE.
BRIAN MALLOY, CHIEF OF INVESTIGATIONS AT THE OFFICE OF THE CITY.
AUDITOR, DO YOU HAVE COUNSEL PRESENT? I DO.
[03:15:01]
ROSS FISHER LAW, UH, COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT AND THE CHIEF IN THE AUDITOR'S OFFICED BY TRAVIS KANER WEAVER.UH, FOR RESPONDENT, PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND INCLUDE IDENTITY OF COUNSEL.
OF RECORD OF COUNSEL AS PRESENT.
JESUS GARZA AND MIKE SHAUGHNESSY IS MY ATTORNEY.
THIS IS A PRELIMINARY HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO TWO TECH SEVEN TECH FOUR FOUR OF AUSTIN CITY CODE.
THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON.
AND GIVE ME A MOMENT WHILE I, SHE'S 45.
COMPLAINT ALLEGED RESPONDENT VIOLATED AUSTIN CITY CODE SECTIONS TWO, TECH TWO TECH 13 CANDIDATES, CONTRIBUTION LIMITS, AND TWO TECH TWO, TECH TWO.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED ON ALL CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS FILED WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
IS THAT CORRECT? NO, I BELIEVE THAT NOT THERE WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR.
WE WE'RE JUST ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF 2 7 6 2 I, I BELIEVE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE OR PROHIBITION AGAINST SPECIAL PRIVILEGE AND EXCEPTIONS.
I THINK OUR, OUR SCRIPT IS A, IS, UH, OUT OF DATE.
UH, THE ISSUE AT DISCIPLINARY PRELIMINARY HEARING IS WHETHER REASONABLE GROUND EXISTS TO BELIEVE THAT VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODE IDENTIFIED BY THE COMPLAINANT, UH, FALLS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION.
UH, AND, AND WHETHER REASONABLE GROUNDS EXISTS TO BELIEVE THAT SUCH A VIOLATION OCCURRED AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, THE COMMISSION SHALL DECIDE WHETHER A FINAL HEARING SHOULD BE HELD.
IF THE COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION HAS OCCURRED, THE COMMISSION SHALL SCHEDULE A FINAL HEARING.
IF THE COMMISSION DOES NOT DETERMINE THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.
A DECISION TO CONDUCT A FINAL HEARING IS NOT A FINDING THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED.
PRESENT FOR A PRESENTATION OF THE PARTIES, THE COMMISSION'S REGULAR PRACTICE IS TO GIVE EACH PARTIES 10 MINUTES TO PRESENT THEIR POSITIONS AT A PRELIMINARY HEARING ON A COMPLAINT, UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS NECESS NECESSARY.
DO THE PARTIES CURRENTLY AGREE THAT 10 MINUTES IS SUFFICIENT OR DO THEY REQUEST ADDITIONAL TIME? 10 MINUTES.
HEAR HEARING AN AFFIRMATIVE FROM BOTH SIDES, UH, WILL PROCEED.
UM, THE COMPLAINANT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO STATE THE CLAIM VIOLATIONS AND DESCRIBE IN NARRATIVE FORM, THE TESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE THAT WILL BE PRESENTED AT THE FINAL HEARING.
IN SUPPORT OF THOSE CLAIMS, THE RESPONDENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO RESPOND OR MAKE ANY STATEMENT AT THIS HEARING, THE RESPONDENT MAY GIVE A RESPONSE DISPUTING THE CLAIMS. IF THE RESPONDENT AGREES THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, THE RESPONDENT MAY SO STATE IN THE COMMISSION MAY THEN CONSIDER THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION OR PROSECUTION.
WHILE STATEMENTS AT THIS PRELIMINARY HEARING ARE UNDER OATH, NO CROSS-EXAMINATION IS ALLOWED AFTER THE PARTIES COMPLETE THEIR PRESENTATIONS, MEMBERS OF THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF THE COMPLAINANT OR THE RESPONDENT.
NO WITNESSES OTHER THAN THE PARTIES OR THEIR COUNSEL ARE PERMITTED TO MAKE STATEMENTS AT THIS PRELIMINARY HEARING.
FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION OF THE PARTIES, THE COMMISSION MAY CHOOSE TO RETURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE AND, AND COUNSEL WITH RESPECT TO THE PRESENTATION FOLLOWING ANY SUCH ADDITIONAL EXECUTIVE SESSION, THE COMMISSION WILL VOTE IF SIX MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION VOTE TO DETERMINE THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OF CITY CODE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION HAS OCCURRED.
THE COMMISSION WILL SCHEDULE A FINAL HEARING.
UNLESS THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, WE CAN NOW PROCEED WITH THE COMPLAINANT'S PRESENTATION.
I WILL KEEP TIME AND GIVE YOU A THREE MINUTE WARNING WHEN YOUR PRESENTATION REACHES THAT POINT.
UH, COMPLAINANT, IF YOU ARE READY, WE ARE JUST MAKING SURE.
I'M OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR THE CITY AUDITOR'S OFFICE.
BEEN ASSIGNED TO HANDLE THIS CASE WITH ME IS TRAVIS KANER FROM WEAVER OUTSIDE INVESTIGATOR FOR THE, UH, CITY AUDITOR'S OFFICE.
WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE TONIGHT IS THAT THERE'S REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OF THE CITY'S CODE, UH, ETHICS CODE HAS, WAS COMMITTED BY THIS GENTLEMAN NEXT TO ME, JESUS GARZA, WHO WAS AT THE TIME SERVING AS INTERIM CITY MANAGER, UH, FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
UH, MR. GARZA'S USE OF HIS, WE BELIEVE THAT THERE'S REASONABLE CAUSE TO SHOW THAT MR. GARZA'S USE OF HIS OFFICIAL POSITION, HE MIS USED IT TO SECURE CONTRACTS FOR JOE CANAL AND LAURA HUFFMAN, UH, THAT REFLECTED A POSSIBLE VIOLATION OF CITY CODE TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 62 I THAT PROVISION READS THAT A SALARIED CITY OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE MAY NOT USE THE OFFICIAL'S OFFICIAL POSITION TO SECURE A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE OR EXEMPTION FOR THE OFFICIAL OR THE EMPLOYEE TO SECURE A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE OR EXEMPTION FOR ANOTHER PERSON TO HARM ANOTHER PERSON OR TO SECURE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION FOR A PURPOSE OTHER THAN OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITIES.
IT'S OUR POSITION THAT, UH, MR. GARZA USED HIS OFFICIAL POSITION TO SECURE A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE OR EXEMPTION FOR
[03:20:01]
TWO INDIVIDUALS, UH, MR. JOE CANALES AND THIS LAURA HUFFMAN.WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS WITHIN THE ERC'S JURISDICTION BECAUSE MR. GARZA WAS A CITY EMPLOYEE SERVING IN THE ROLE OF INTERIM CITY MANAGER AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION.
AND THAT THE, UH, THE YOU HAVE JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED WITH THE ERC ON NOVEMBER 1ST, 2024, WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THE CONDUCT OCCURRING, WE ASSERT THAT THE CONDUCT OCCURRED IN FEBRUARY OF 2023.
THE BASIS FOR OUR CONCLUSION, UH, IS THAT MR. GARZA WAS A SALARIED CITY OFFICIAL.
THAT HE USES OFFICIAL POSITION TO SECURE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, UH, FOR, UH, MR. CANALS AND MS. HUFFMAN THAT HE SECURED CONTRACTS FOR CANALS AND HUFFMAN IN A MANNER THAT AVOIDED CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL, AVOIDED THE PUBLIC PROCESS.
SO THE CITY COUNCIL HAS ADOPTED, DISREGARDED THE CITY'S, UH, PROCUREMENT PROGRAM AS IT RELATES TO WOMEN AND MINORITY OWNED BUSINESSES, AND ALLOWED MR. CANALES IN PARTICULAR TO RECEIVE MORE COMPENSATION THAN HE WOULD'VE LEGALLY BEEN ABLE TO DO HAD HE COME BACK AS A CITY EMPLOYEE.
UH, I KNOW THAT WE'RE SHORT OF TIME.
I DO WANT TO SAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME FOR A CLOSING, BUT I'M GONNA TURN OVER THE PRESENTATION OF THE EVIDENCE TO MR. CAST.
I'M GONNA TALK BRIEFLY ABOUT THE, THE SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE AND THEN THE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS.
UM, THE, THE CONTRACT, UH, THAT IS, UH, CENTRAL TO THIS INVESTIGATION RELATES TO THE CONTRACT FOR FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY AND PFM FINANCIAL ADVISORS, UH, WHICH THE CITY HAS RELATIONSHIP THAT GOES BACK TO THE MID NINETIES.
MOST RECENTLY, THIS CONTRACT WAS, UH, UH, EXECUTED IN 2017.
IT WAS, UH, FIVE YEARS, UH, AND WITH THREE ONE YEAR EXTENSIONS, UH, FOR A TOTAL OF 2.4 MILLION.
THE, UH, SUBCONTRACTS FOR BETWEEN, UH, P WITH PFM AND MR. CANALES AND MS. HUFFMAN, UH, TOTALED AROUND 550,000 OF THE, UH, FROM THIS CONTRACT.
SO WE'LL TALK MORE ABOUT THAT.
BUT, UH, JUST FOR, FOR BACKGROUND PURPOSES, I'D LIKE TO WALK THROUGH THE TIMELINE.
UH, FEBRUARY OF 2023, UH, MR. GARZA WAS APPOINTED AS THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER.
HE CONTACTED, UH, MR. CANALES AND MS. HUFFMAN, UH, TO DISCUSS THEM COMING ON BOARD TO WORK AS CONSULTANTS.
UH, IN MARCH, THERE WAS THE EXECUTION OF A LETTER AGREEMENT, UH, TO ALLOW SUBCONTRACT CONSULTING SERVICES, UH, THROUGH PFM GROUP CONSULTING.
AND THEN IN APRIL, UH, WAS THE EXECUTION OF THOSE SUBCONTRACTS BETWEEN PFM GROUP CONSULTING AND MS. HUFFMAN.
AND THEN AS WELL AS, UH, MR. CANALES.
THE TOTAL PAYMENTS TO MR. CANALES AS A SUBCONTRACTOR THROUGH PFM TOTALED $268,375.
AND THAT'S FOR THE 10 MONTH PERIOD FOR FEBRUARY, 2023 THROUGH THE END OF, UH, THROUGH DECEMBER 31ST, 2023, UH, THE, THE INVOICES WERE SUBMITTED BY MR. CANALES TO PFM AND THEN WERE PASSED THROUGH TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
UH, SO THERE WAS ESSENTIALLY PFM SERVED AS A, AS A PASS THROUGH FOR THOSE INVOICES.
REGARDING THE PAYMENTS TO MS. HUFFMAN, THOSE TOTALED $285,800, UH, FROM FEBRUARY, 2023 THROUGH FEBRUARY, 2024.
AND THIS IS THE, THE DETAIL OF THOSE INVOICES.
UH, SO THE AVERAGE, UH, MONTHLY INVOICES WAS AROUND 26,000.
THE ONE OF THE KEY ISSUES HERE RELATES TO THE SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE SERVICES THAT MR. CANALES AND MS. HUFFMAN PROVIDED, UM, THROUGH, UH, THEIR SUBCONTRACTS IN RELATION TO THE PRIMARY SCOPES OF WORK IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN PFM AND THE, AND THE CITY.
UH, WE'VE PROVIDED A HANDOUT THAT COMPARES THE, THE SCOPES OF WORK OF THE TWO CONTRACTS, UM, SO THAT IT'S LARGER FOR YOU TO SEE.
UM, BUT, BUT AT, AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL, THE, WE DETERMINE THAT THE SCOPES OF WORK FOR THE CONTRACT WITH PFM RELATES TO FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES.
IT'S PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON THE BOND ISSUANCES, UH, TECHNICAL FINANCIAL CONSULTING, FINANCIAL PLANNING.
UH, THOSE ARE OUR DESCRIPTION OF THE SERVICES BASED ON THE SCOPES OF WORK COMPARED TO THE SCOPES OF WORK, UH, IN THE SUBCONTRACTS WITH MR. CANALES AND MS. HUFFMAN, UH, WHICH WERE, AS YOU SEE RELATED TO HIGHER LEVEL, UM, STRATEGY, ORGANIZATIONAL, UM, REVIEW AND ASSESSMENTS.
AND ESSENTIALLY, WE DETERMINED THAT THEIR ROLES WERE THE, UH, DEFACTO ASSISTANT CITY MANAGERS, UH, TO THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER, AND WERE NOT ALIGNED WITH THE SCOPE OF WORK THAT WAS IN THE CITY'S CONTRACT WITH, WITH PFM.
TO SUMMARIZE THE, THE FINDINGS, UM, FIRST THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER GARZA FACILITATED THE SUBCONTRACTS OF
[03:25:01]
CANALS AND HUFFMAN THROUGH PFM.UH, THIS IS A EMAIL FROM, UH, MARCH 2ND, 2023, UH, WHERE THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM PFM IS EMAILING, UH, MS. HUFFMAN.
UH, IN, IN, IN THAT EMAIL, THE REPRESENTATIVE STATES THAT, UH, THEY SPOKE TO JESUS AND HE WOULD LIKE FOR YOUR LLC TO SUBCONTRACT FROM PFM ON WORK YOU WERE DOING FOR THE CITY.
UH, AND IT ALSO SAYS THAT I'M TRYING TO DO THE SAME THING FOR JOE AND ALICE.
AND THIS SHOWS THAT THERE WAS A DISCUSSION BETWEEN INTERIM CITY MANAGER GARZA AND PFM ABOUT THE DESIRE TO HAVE THEM WORK, UH, AS WE HAVE THREE MINUTES REMAINING.
UH, SUBCONTRACTORS, UH, SPECIFICALLY THROUGH THE PFM UH, CONTRACT, AS I MENTIONED, WE DETERMINED THAT CANALS AND HUFFMAN SERVED AS THE DEFACTO ASSISTANT CITY MANAGERS.
UH, WE DETERMINED THEIR HOURLY RATES, UH, WERE ACTUALLY DERIVED FROM THE, UH, HR POSITION FOR THE DEPUTY C CITY MANAGER OF 325,000.
UH, WE ALSO DETERMINED THAT ICM GARZA HAD PREVIOUSLY, UH, HAD PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH BOTH CANALS AND HUFFMAN FROM MS TENURE AS CITY MANAGER IN THE NINETIES AND, UH, EARLY TWO THOUSANDS, UH, AS WELL AS A PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM PFM THAT WAS REFERENCED IN THAT PREVIOUS E THE EMAIL ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE.
IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT PFM DID NOT RECEIVE ANY FINANCIAL BENEFIT, UM, AS THE, UH, IN, AS THE ENTITY THAT SUBCONTRACTED WITH CANALS AND HUFFMAN.
THESE WERE SIMPLY PASSING THROUGH THOSE, UH, INVOICES.
UH, THERE WAS VERY LITTLE INTERACTION WITH PFM AND, UH, MR. CANALS AND MS. HUFFMAN OTHER THAN ADMINISTRATIVE, UH, ITEMS RELATED TO SUBMITTING INVOICES.
UM, AND, UH, WHICH IS THE THIRD BULLET THERE, UH, WE TALKED ABOUT THE SCOPE OF WORK WAS, UH, WE DETERMINED, WAS NOT ALIGNED WITH, UH, PFMS CONTRACT WITH THE CITY.
UM, AND, UM, THE NEXT POINT, THE, THE KEY POINT HERE IS WHY WERE THE, UH, SUBCONTRACTS DONE THROUGH PFM? YOU KNOW, WHY DID THE CITY NOT CONTRACT WITH MR. CANALES AND MS. HUFFMAN DIRECTLY? AND, UH, IN DOING SO, UH, THAT WOULD'VE REQUIRED APPROVAL FROM CITY COUNCIL BASED ON THE DOLLAR AMOUNT OF 550,000, WAS WHAT IT ULTIMATELY COST, WHICH WAS IN EXCESS OF 76,000, UH, WHICH IS THE CITY MANAGER'S AUTHORITY.
AND SO, BY SUBCONTRACTING THROUGH PFM, IT CIRCUMVENTED THAT REQUIREMENT.
UM, AND WE DETERMINED BASED ON INTERVIEWS THAT THAT WAS DONE AS A MEANS TO BRING THEM ON BOARD AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
UH, AND IT WAS, THEY DETERMINED THAT SUBCONTRACTING THROUGH PFM WAS THE FASTEST VEHICLE TO DO.
IF THIS GOES TO A PUBLIC HEARING OR A FINAL HEARING, JUST FOR THE RECORD, WE ANTICIPATE THAT WE WILL INTRODUCE THE 25 EXHIBITS THAT WERE INCORPORATED INTO OUR NOVEMBER 1ST, 2024 COMPLAINT AND CALL THE WITNESSES LISTED ON OUR SLIDE.
DO I HAVE ANY MORE TIME? HALF A MINUTE.
I KNOW YOU'VE READ HIS RESPONSE.
I WANT TO JUST REPLY TO THREE THINGS IN THERE.
HE, THIS IS, HE CLAIMS THAT THESE ARE EMERGENCY EXPENDITURES.
THAT'S NOT THE CASE UNDER STATE LAW.
EMERGENCY EXPENDITURE IS ONE IN RESPONSE TO PUBLIC CALAMITY.
UH, HE SAYS THAT THIS WAS THE CFO'S IDEA TO SUBCONTRACT THROUGH PFM.
THAT'S DETAILED IN OUR REPORT.
AND FINALLY, UM, HE SAYS, THERE'S NO DEFINITION OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.
UH, SPECIAL PRIVILEGE IS DEFINED BY BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY AS A RIOT EXEMPTION OR IMMUNITY GRANTED TO A PERSON.
AND HERE WHAT HAPPENED WAS HE GRANTED AN EXEMPTION TO HIS FRIENDS FROM THE CITY'S PROCESSES.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION, RESPONDENT.
I, I WAS ASKED TO COME WORK THE CITY OF AUSTIN BECAUSE IT WAS A STATE OF CRISIS.
WE HAD HAD A STORM CALLED, UH, WINTER STORM TOMORROW IN 20 21, 23.
THE ISSUES THAT HAVE MANIFESTED THEMSELVES DURING THAT STORM WERE SIMILAR TO THE IN ISSUES THAT HAVE MANIFESTED THEMSELVES IN 2021.
WE HAD PROBLEMS WITH OUR HOMELESS POPULATION.
WE HAD AN ADEQUATELY RESPONDED TO THAT.
UH, COULD YOU MOVE YOUR MICROPHONE CLOSER TO YOUR FACE? SURE.
WE HAD, WE HAD, IN ESSENCE, A CRISIS IN THIS ORGANIZATION.
I, WHEN I WAS ASKED TO TAKE THIS ON, I WAS CLEAR WITH THE COUNCIL THAT I WOULD NEED TO BRING ON ADDITIONAL STAFF SO THAT WE COULD ADEQUATELY DEAL WITH WHAT I ANTICIPATED TO BE THE MAJOR PROBLEMS FACING THIS CITY.
SO I BROUGHT TWO HIGHLY QUALIFIED AND EXPERIENCED INDIVIDUALS TO STEP INTO THE ROLES THAT, UH, THAT WOULD BE NEEDED.
NOT AS ACMS, BUT AS SPECIAL PROJECTS WITH CROSS-FUNCTIONAL
[03:30:02]
RESPONSIBILITIES TO SOLVE SOME OF THESE PROBLEMS. WE DIDN'T NEED REPORTS.WE NEEDED ACTION AND A BIAS FOR ACTION.
AND, UH, AND THIS PROCESS WAS IN, UH, THIS ENGAGEMENT FOR MR. CANALES.
AND MS. HUFFMAN WAS APPROVED BY THE, UH, BY THE FINANCE DIRECTOR AT VAN NINO, AS WELL AS PFM.
I HAD A CHARGE FROM THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY WANTED US TO PROMPTLY FIX THE ISSUES THAT WERE REALLY ON THEIR PLATE BECAUSE WE HAD NOT PERFORMED ADEQUATELY DURING KEY EMERGENCIES WITHIN THIS CITY, STABILIZE THE OPERATION AND GET READY FOR THE NEW CITY MANAGER.
AND TO, UH, AND TO ALSO, MY SOLE INTENT WHEN I WAS DOING THIS AND BRINGING ON THESE INDIVIDUALS WAS THAT WE'D JUST BE ABLE TO HIT THE GROUND RUNNING AND GET THE WORK DONE.
WE KNEW WE WERE LEAVING WHEN THE, OUR WORK WAS DONE, AND WHEN THE NEW MANAGER CAME IN.
SO WHAT DID WE FIND? THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER WAS A MESS AND NEEDED TO BE CLEANED UP.
WE HAD TO WORK ON THAT MY FIRST WEEKEND AS CITY AT INTERIM CITY MANAGER, THE 9 1 1 SYSTEM NEARLY COLLAPSED.
WE HAD A HIGH NUMBER OF VACANCIES.
WE KNEW THE PROBLEMS. WE KNEW THE PROBLEMS BECAUSE THE AUDIT DEPARTMENT HAD GIVEN US A REPORT.
WE JUST HAD FAILED TO IMPLEMENT THOSE DEALS THAT NEEDED TO GET DONE.
THE, THE ISSUE OF HOMELESSNESS THAT, UH, THE COMMUNITY HAD ADOPTED THE CRAMPING BAN, WE HAD DONE LITTLE TO BE ABLE TO IMPLEMENT IT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE A WORKING HYPOTHESIS.
HOW WE'RE GONNA GET THAT DONE.
AFFORDABILITY WAS A BIG ISSUE, AND WE WERE WORKING ON TRYING TO FIX THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, AND WE HAD TO WORK A LOT OF STRUCTURAL ISSUES THAT EXISTED.
UM, AND SO WHAT I REALLY NEEDED WAS PROBLEM SOLVERS.
AND THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT WE'VE HAD WITH MR. CANALES AND MS. HUFFMAN, PLUS THE EXISTING STAFF THAT WAS THERE THAT WE WOULD BE COACHING THROUGH.
THEY HAD DEEP EXPERIENCE IN CITY OPERATIONS.
THEY HAD HISTORY WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN, AND THEY COULD HIT THE GROUND RUNNING FROM DAY ONE.
UH, IT WAS DIFFICULT TO BRING 'EM ON AS EMPLOYEES.
THE EXISTING CONTRACT WITH PFM THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL HAS PROVISIONED 2.4 TO BRING ON SUBCONTRACTORS.
THAT'S ANTICIPATED WHEN WE HAVE EMERGENCIES OR WE HAVE A NEED TO MOVE ON SOMETHING QUICKLY.
THE PFM HIRES THE SUBCONTRACTORS THAT MANY TIMES THE DIRECTORS OR THE DIRECTORS OF THE DEPARTMENTS HAVE SAID, THIS IS THE CONTRACTOR WE WANT.
THEY ENGAGE THEM, THEY ENTER INTO THE CONTRACT, AND IT IS PASSED THROUGH.
BUT THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THAT PROVISION.
UM, AND, UM, AND REALLY, UH, THERE WAS NOTHING HIDDEN ABOUT THIS PROCESS.
WE, WE, WE KNEW WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO GET DONE TO GET DONE.
NOW, THERE'S A REALLY A QUESTION HERE ABOUT WORK PRODUCT.
IF YOU'VE WORKED IN CITY MANAGEMENT FOR VERY LONG, ALMOST ALL THINGS THAT COME TO THAT OFFICE ARE ISSUES OF FINANCE.
HOW ARE YOU GONNA PAY FOR THIS STUFF? JOE AND LAURA WERE INVOLVED IN THE BUDGET PROCESS, AND THE RATE SETTING THAT WAS HAD TO BE APPROVED FOR THE 24 BUDGET.
THEY WERE INVOLVED IN DEVELOPING THE CAPITAL DELIVERY DEPARTMENT, WHICH WE HAD, UH, REALLY PRECIOUS SLOW IN TERMS OF, UH, EXECUTING ON CAPITAL.
AND THEY, UH, THEY WERE INVOLVED IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE NS DEPARTMENT.
THEY WERE INVOLVED IN FINANCIAL ISSUES FROM THAT GO.
AND I THINK THAT THERE'S JUST A MISUNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THEIR ROLE WAS, THE SPECIAL PROJECTS TO GET THESE ISSUES DONE, THAT THERE'S SAYING TO BE SOME REPORT TO GET IT DONE.
AND SO THAT'S WAS NOT WHAT WAS THE INTENT WHEN THEY CAME ON.
THEY, THEY REALLY WORKING AS SPECIAL PROJECTS WITH REALLY NO LINE OF RESPONSIBILITY EXCEPT TO BE MANAGERS OF THE ISSUE.
AND SO I REALLY DO THINK THAT, UH, THERE WAS NO INTENT ON MY PART TO VIOLATE ANYTHING.
UH, THE, THERE'S A CLEAR ISSUE THAT WE DIDN'T NEED A LOT OF DIFFERENT WRITTEN REPORTS WE NEED TO GET ON WITH IT AND WORK.
AND, UH, I WANT TO NOW TURN IT OVER TO MIKE, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
THE FIRST PROBLEM WITH THIS COMPLAINT IS A COMPLETE LACK OF DUE PROCESS.
THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT MR. GARZA, A LONG TIME EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, AND SOMEBODY WHO'S COMMITTED HIS LIFE TO PUBLIC SERVICE, SECURED A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.
WHEN WE WERE TOLD ABOUT THE COMPLAINT, THE FIRST THING I DID WAS LOOK THROUGH THE CITY CODE.
THERE'S NO DEFINITION OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.
THERE'S NO DEFINITION OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.
I ALSO MEET, REACHED OUT TO MS. WEBSTER FROM MR. MALLOY.
I GOT NO RESPONSE ON WHAT WOULD CONSTITUTE A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE FROM MS. WEBSTER.
THE RESPONSE WAS, AND I APPRECIATED IT.
THE CITY CODE PROVIDES NO ANSWER.
IT IS FUNDAMENTAL TO AMERICAN JUSTICE THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO SAY YOU VIOLATED A RULE OR WE'RE GOING TO HOLD YOU ACCOUNTABLE, THAT YOU CLEARLY HAVE OUTLINED OR DEFINED WHAT IS INAPPROPRIATE.
IN THIS INSTANCE, MR. GARZA'S REPUTATION'S ALREADY BEEN ATTACKED.
THE REPORT THAT GOT FILED IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR INVESTIGATION SOMEHOW WOUND UP AT THE CHRONICLE WITHIN DAYS OF ITS BEING FILED AT THE CITY CLERK'S
[03:35:01]
OFFICE.AND I, I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT HAPPENED.
MAYBE THE CHRONICLE MONITORS IT.
BUT WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THIS CASE IS HIS ETHICS AND HIS REPUTATION HAVE BEEN UNDER ATTACK FOR QUOTE, SECURING A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.
AND NOBODY CAN TELL ME WHAT THE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE MEANS.
BUT TELLING SOMEBODY TO GO LOOK AT BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY IS NOT THE STANDARD OF LAW.
YOU HAVE TO CLEARLY DEFINE WHAT IS THE PROHIBITED BEHAVIOR.
MOREOVER, THERE IS A VERY SERIOUS QUESTION ABOUT HOW THIS ENTIRE COMPLAINT WAS HANDLED.
NOW IN SEPTEMBER, UH, SEPTEMBER 15TH OF, UH, LET ME MAKE SURE I GET THE DATE RIGHT.
SEPTEMBER, UM, 15TH OF 23, THE CHRONICLE, UH, HAS AN ARTICLE THAT ALLEGES MISCONDUCT ON MR. GARZA'S PART IN BRINGING IN THESE TWO CONSULTANTS.
THE ONLY REASON I BRING THAT UP TO YOU, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES REMAINING.
THE REASON I BRING THAT UP TO YOU IS FOUR DAYS BEFORE HE LEAVES, HE GETS AN EMAIL FROM MR. MALLOY, WHO IS THE HEAD INVESTIGATOR, WHO SAYS, WE'VE RECEIVED A COMPLAINT AND THAT COMPLAINT, WE'VE HIRED OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS, AND THEY'RE GONNA INVESTIGATE IT, AND WE'RE GONNA NEED TO INTERVIEW YOU.
SO AFTER WE GOT THEIR REPORT, I REACHED OUT TO MR. MALLOY OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AND I SAID, CAN I GET A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT? I SAID, REDACT THE NAME.
I, I DON'T NEED TO KNOW WHO COMPLAINED.
AND THE RESPONSE WAS INITIALLY, WELL, WE GOT MORE THAN ONE COMPLAINT.
AND THEN THE FINAL RESPONSE WAS, NO, THE COMPLAINT WAS THE REPORT IN THE CHRONICLE SEVEN MONTHS BEFORE HE GETS NOTICE THAT HE'S SUPPOSEDLY DONE ANYTHING WRONG.
IF ANYBODY BELIEVES SOMETHING HAD BEEN DONE WRONG WHEN THE CHRONICLE ARTICLE CAME OUT, WHY NOT GO TO THE, UH, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND SAY, WE'VE GOT SOME CONCERNS.
WHY NOT GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND SAY, WE'VE GOT SOME REAL CONCERNS.
THIS WAS A LAST MINUTE WALK OUT THE DOOR AND TRY TO HIT HIM WHEN HE WAS LEAST ABLE TO DEFEND HIMSELF BECAUSE HE WAS LEAVING THE CITY'S EMPLOYMENT.
IF THERE WERE SERIOUS CONCERNS, WHY NOT GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL? THE CITY COUNCIL COULD HAVE TAKEN THIS UP.
THEY COULD HAVE TAKEN ACTIONS TO GET RID OF THOSE CONSULTANTS.
OR IF THEY'D HAVE GOTTEN THE CHANCE, THEY COULD HAVE AFFIRMED THEIR HIRING BY TAKING ACTIONS OF THEIR OWN.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO BROAD DUE PROCESS HERE.
AND THERE ARE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THIS COMPLAINT GOT BROUGHT FORWARD.
IS THAT THE CONCLUSION OF YOUR OPENING STATEMENT? YES, THAT'S THE CONCLUSION.
UH, I'LL MOVE ON TO QUESTIONS.
UH, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? DO, UH, I HAVE A GO AHEAD.
UM, YOU'VE, THIS IS FOR COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT.
YOU'VE INDICATED THAT THERE'S NO DUE PROCESS.
YOU'VE IDENTIFIED THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY COUNCIL.
UM, HOW DO YOU SQUARE THAT STATEMENT, UH, WITH THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF THIS COMMISSION? UM, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT A DULY SWORN OUT COMPLAINT TO THIS COMMISSION IS DUE PROCESS.
PLEASE, PLEASE ELABORATE, IF YOU WILL.
THEIR SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS AND PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.
Y'ALL ARE THE PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.
THE SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS IS, HAVE WE CLEARLY DEFINED WHAT IS THE PROHIBITED BEHAVIOR ON WHICH WE WILL ACT? THE, AND I'M SORRY.
THIS COMMISSION PROVIDES, UM, PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.
WHAT IT DOESN'T PROVIDE IS SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS BECAUSE THE ALLEGED ACT OF SECURING A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE ISN'T DEFINED ANYWHERE.
YOU CAN'T LOOK ANYWHERE AND DETERMINE WHAT THE PROHIBITIVE BEHAVIOR IS.
AND THAT, UH, DO HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION, UH, BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT THAT UP.
UH, IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS COMMISSION DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO READ STATUTE AS PLAIN LANGUAGE, UH, OR INTERPRET THE SPECIAL PRIVILEGES AS A JUST COMMON SENSE INTERPRETATION OF THE WORDS SPECIAL AND PRIVILEGED TOGETHER IN A PLAIN LANGUAGE DOCUMENT? THIS ISN'T A, AN INTERPRETATION ISSUE.
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS SAYS THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE A CLEAR RULE THAT BEFORE YOU TAKE THE ACTION, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S PROHIBITED OR NOT.
AND SITTING HERE TONIGHT, YOU MIGHT ALL DEFINE,
[03:40:01]
UM, SPECIAL PRIVILEGE THE SAME WAY.THE QUESTION IS WHETHER SOMEONE WHO IS CHARGED, KNEW IN ADVANCE THAT THIS BEHAVIOR WAS CLEARLY PROHIBITED.
AND THAT'S NOT ANYWHERE IN THE CITY CODE.
AND, AND I, I EVEN WENT SO FAR AS TO SEARCH ALL TEXAS STATUTES AND ALL TEXAS CASE LAW.
AND THIS TERM IS NOT A TERM THAT SHOWS UP ANYWHERE.
IT IS UNIQUELY A TERM THAT BY MY RESEARCH SHOWS UP IN THE CITY CODE WITHOUT ANY DEFINITION.
AND SO IS YOUR ARGUMENT, SO I'VE HEARD TWO THINGS.
ONE, THAT THERE'S NO CLEAR DEFINITION OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, UH, WHICH I BELIEVE I UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENT THERE.
UH, MY, I DO WANT YOU TO EXPAND ON THE IDEA THAT, UH, THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW IS TO GIVE INDIVIDUALS FOR WARNING.
UH, I, I WOULD SAY THAT THAT'S NOT MY UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE LAW WORKS.
IGNORANCE OF IT IS NOT, UH, RELEVANT.
UH, IT'S WHETHER OR NOT, UH, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING AND I'M HAPPY FOR YOU TO REFUTE THAT, THAT IF PLAIN LANGUAGE READING OF STATUTE IS SUSCEPTIBLE FOR REVIEW, THAT THAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT WE HAVE TO READ OUT A TERM IN OUR STATUTE SIMPLY BECAUSE IT DOES NOT HAVE A DEFINITION.
THERE'S A COUPLE OF ISSUES THERE.
AND, AND IF I COULD YEAH, PLEASE DO KIND OF GO THROUGH THEM ONE AT A TIME.
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NEVER A DEFENSE, BUT THAT IS, IF THE LAW HAS CLEARLY DEFINED A PROHIBITED CONTACT CONDUCT, THE FACT THAT I'VE NOT READ THAT, THAT THE, UM, THE TRAFFIC LAWS AND DON'T REALIZE THAT CERTAIN INTERSECTIONS ARE, THE UNSIGNED INTERSECTIONS ARE FOUR-WAY STOPS.
DOESN'T, EXCUSE ME, OF RUNNING THAT, THAT FOUR-WAY STOP.
BUT IN THAT CASE, WE HAVE A STATUTE.
ALRIGHT? THE DIFFERENCE IS WHEN YOU ARE TAKING A PUNITIVE ACTION AGAINST SOMEONE, AND THIS IS CLEARLY A BODY THAT IS ENTITLED TO TAKE A PUNITIVE ACTION, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE THE NOTICE AS TO WHAT IS OR ISN'T ALLOWED.
AGAIN, THE QUESTION'S, NOT WHETHER ALL OF YOU HERE TONIGHT WOULD AGREE ON WHAT A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE IS.
THE, THE QUESTION IS, WAS THERE NOTICE GOING IN? AND THAT'S WHAT'S MISSING.
YOU COULD, AND IT'S FUNNY BECAUSE LAST WEEK I WAS LITERALLY IN FRONT OF A STATE DISTRICT JUDGE HERE IN AUSTIN, ARGUING WHAT THE WORD CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVE MEANS.
AND I SAID, THE PLAIN MEANING OF THOSE WORDS, WE CAN'T CONSTRUCT OR IMPROVE EROD IN ANOTHER COUNTY STOPS US FROM CONSTRUCTING AND IMPROVING.
IT DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN'T DESIGN A ROAD IN THAT COUNTY.
OKAY? AND, AND THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT THE PLAIN MEANING STANDARD IS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
BUT MY, MY QUESTION IS THAT WOULD BE INTERPRETING A TERM OUTSIDE OF ITS PLANE MEETING, IF INSTEAD WITH YOUR UNSIGNED TRAFFIC STOP EXAMPLE, IF WE JUST DIDN'T DEFINE THE WORD UNSIGNED, BUT DUE TO THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND HOW SUFFIXES AND PREFIXES WORK, A PLAIN LANGUAGE READING OF THE WORD UNSIGNED WOULD STILL MEAN THAT THAT LAW WAS APPLICABLE.
I WOULD NOT HAVE TO DEFINE THE WORD UNSIGN.
THAT WORD IS CLEARLY UNDERSTANDABLE BASED ON THE WAY THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE WORKS.
I MEAN, WE, WE ACTUALLY, IN, IN, IN OUR TRANSPORTATION CODE, WE HAVE DEFINED WHAT AN UNSIGNED, UH, UH, INTERSECTION IS.
AND THAT'S WHY THAT'S ENFORCEABLE.
CAN I GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE? UM, UH, WE GOT RID OF VAGRANCY LAWS A LONG TIME AGO BECAUSE NOBODY COULD DEFINE WHAT A VAGRANT WAS.
AND ONE OF MY COLLE, ONE OF MY LAW SCHOOL PROFESSORS SAID, PEOPLE USED TO ASK WHAT VAGRANTS ARE, AND THEY ARE PEOPLE WHO SIT AROUND WITH NO APPARENT SOURCE OF INCOME OR, OR MEANS OF SUPPORTING THEMSELVES.
AND HE THEN LOOKED AT OUR CLASS AND SAID, THAT DESCRIBES ALL OF YOU PEOPLE.
OKAY? AND HIS POINT WAS THIS, WE COULD CERTAINLY PICK PEOPLE OUT ON THE STREET AND SAY, THOSE ARE CLEARLY VAGRANTS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT STUDYING THE LAW.
BUT WHEN YOU APPLY IT, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE DEFINITION.
AND IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO DEFINITION, THERE IS NO CLEAR SET OF RULES OR NO CLEAR SET OF DEFINITION THAT SAYS THIS IS PROHIBITED AND THAT'S NOT OKAY.
AND THAT, THAT'S ONE PART OF IT.
BUT HOW THIS ENTIRE COMPLAINT WAS HANDLED IS ANOTHER HUGE AND ENTIRELY SEPARATE ISSUE.
THIS PROBLEM WAS KNOWN IN THIS CITY HALL BY
[03:45:01]
THE EMAILS FROM THE COMPTROLLER OR FROM THE, UH, AUDITOR'S OFFICE.THEY KNEW IT IN SEPTEMBER OF, UH, UH, SEVEN MONTHS BEFORE THEY TOOK ANY ACTION.
I THINK WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE FAR FIELD OF, OF THE QUESTION, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN IT.
AND, AND YOU ASKED, YOU ASKED A LOT OF MY, MY QUESTIONS.
UH, I GUESS THE PART THAT I STRUGGLE WITH, THE LEGAL MIND OF, OF ME IS, UH, VERY SYMPATHETIC TO THE CONCERN OF AN UNDEFINED ELEMENT OF A VIOLATION.
UH, BUT WE'RE ALSO A CITY COMMISSION.
UM, AND NOT ALL OF US ARE ATTORNEYS.
UM, AND WE ARE REPRESENTING OUR COMMUNITY.
UM, AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF THE ALLEGATIONS ARE COMPLETELY TRUE, AND I'M NOT SAYING THEY ARE, WE DON'T, WE HAVEN'T GONE THROUGH ALL THE FACTUALS, UM, EVIDENCE YET.
UH, BUT FOR THE SAKES OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING, HIRING TWO BUDDIES, UM, AT A RATE THAT IS NOT COMMENSURATE WITH OTHER EXISTING SALARIES WOULD SEEM TO MEET THE COMMON SENSE DEFINITION OF A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.
UM, SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, UH, BEYOND YOUR LEGAL DEFINITION OF DUE PROCESS, FROM A, UM, JUDICIAL POINT OF VIEW, LOOKING AT THIS FROM A CITY COMMISSION POINT OF VIEW, DO YOU STILL FEEL THAT IT'S UNFAIR TO USE, UM, A COMMON SENSE DEFINITION OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE? LET ME START BY SAYING THAT WE DISPUTE THE FACTS SURE.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE LAY OUT IN THE RESPONSE IS THAT IF YOU MAKE THESE TWO PEOPLE CITY EMPLOYEES, THEN YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE THEM WITH HEALTH INSURANCE AND ALL THE OTHER BENEFITS.
AND WHEN YOU CALCULATE THAT ALONG WITH THE, WITH THE SALARY FOR AN ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER MM-HMM
IN POINT OF FACT, THE, THE, THE CITY WAS BREAKING EVEN OR, OR, OR BENEFITED.
SOMETHING THAT GETS LOST HERE IS HE WAS THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER.
THE ONE THING YOU DON'T DO IS GO HIRE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGERS 'CAUSE YOU ARE NOT GONNA BE THERE.
NOW, WITH REGARD TO YOUR, YOUR ISSUE, ASSUME THAT THE, ASSUME THAT THERE'S A JUSTIFICATION FOR WAITING AS LONG AS THEY DID TO, TO EVEN BRING THIS COMPLAINT FORWARD TILL THREE DAYS BEFORE HE LEAVES.
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER YOU HAVE MET THE LEGAL STANDARDS AND YOU HAVE TO, TO TAKE A PUNITIVE ACTION AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL.
AND IT'S NOT SUPPORTED BY THE CITY CODE.
'CAUSE THERE'S NO DEFINITION AND THERE'S NO FALLBACK DEFINITION UNDER TEXAS LAW.
MAY, MAY I, BECAUSE YOU, YOU MENTIONED BUDDIES.
I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THIS CITY.
AND I HAPPEN TO KNOW MR. CANALES AND MS. MS. HUFFMAN, BUT I, I DIDN'T BRING THEM ON 'CAUSE THEY WERE MY BUDDIES.
'CAUSE THEY WERE HIGHLY COMPETENT INDIVIDUALS WHO UNDERSTOOD THIS CITY ORGANIZATION AND WHO KNEW WHAT NEEDED TO HAPPEN.
AND THEY COULD HIT THE GROUND RUNNING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE SERVED THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN AND FULFILL THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL ON THE CHARGE THEY'D GIVEN US.
AND I JUST DON'T, I THINK IF I HAD TO ELIMINATE EVERYBODY I KNOW, THAT WOULDN'T BE A VERY SMALL UNIVERSE OF WHO WE COULD BRING FORWARD.
UH, MR. GARZA, WAS THERE ANY MYSTERY ABOUT THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS, MS. HUFFMAN AND MS. MR. CANALES, UH, BEING, UH, UH, BROUGHT IN BY YOU? UH, I ASSUME THEY WENT TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS.
ONE OF THEIR FIRST ASSIGNMENTS WAS TO START MEETING WITH ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS SO THAT WE GET A REAL ASSESSMENT OF WHAT THEIR CONCERNS WERE.
SO, I I, IT, IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE YOU WERE TRYING TO KEEP THIS SECRET.
AM I CORRECT? NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT.
SO LET ME GO BACK TO WHY, WHY DO IT THROUGH PFM? WHY, WHY DID YOU DO THAT? WERE YOU TRYING TO GO AROUND THE CITY COUNCIL? WHAT WAS YOUR, WHY DID YOU MAKE THE DECISION TO DO IT AS A SUBCONTRACT WITH PFM TO, TO BRING ON THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS? BECAUSE OF THEIR UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES? I COULDN'T BRING 'EM ON AS EMPLOYEES.
THOSE WERE THE INDIVIDUALS I WANTED AND NEEDED.
THEY WERE, IT WAS A PERSONNEL DECISION AS FAR AS I WAS CONCERNED.
THE PFM CONTRACT ALLOWS FOR, UH, FOR SUBCONTRACTORS.
AND THE CITY HAS USED IT FOR SUBCONTRACTOR, FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, FOR RATE ANALYSIS, UH, FOR, UH, TO SIT DOWN AND NEGOTIATE ON, ON EMPLOYEE ISSUES, BENEFIT PACKAGES, ET CETERA.
AND SO, UH, AND THE DEPARTMENTS HAVE USED THAT PROVISION SINCE 2017.
AND PROBABLY BEFORE THAT, UH, THIS IS AN AUTHORIZED CITY CONTRACT.
WE HAD THE AUTHORIZATION FROM A DOLLAR VALUE, AND THE COUNCIL HAD APPROVE THE CONTRACT AND THEY KNEW THAT THAT PROVISION SAT IN THERE TO
[03:50:01]
HIRE CONSULTANTS.SO I ASKED, CAN WE DO IT? AND THE ANSWER WAS, IT CAN BE DONE.
PFM EVEN REVIEWED IT ITSELF AND SAID IT CAN BE DONE.
SO THAT WAS A VEHICLE TO BRING THEM ON QUICKLY AND GET THEM TO GO TO WORK THAT NEEDED TO GET DONE.
WE, I KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AT THE CITY IN FEBRUARY OF 2023.
WE'RE SITTING HERE TWO AND A HALF YEARS LATER.
AND I DON'T THINK WE CAN FULLY APPRECIATE THE FRUSTRATION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL AT THE RESPONSE OF THIS ORGANIZATION DURING THAT WINTER STORM ERA.
'CAUSE IT WAS A DUPLICATION OF THE, THE PROBLEMS WE HAD TWO YEARS EARLIER.
AND SO WE NEEDED TO GET PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTOOD THE SYSTEM AND COULD GO TO WORK IMMEDIATELY AND DO, MAKE THE CHANGES THAT WERE NECESSARY AND TO MOVE FAST WITH THE BIAS BRACKET.
AND, AND JUDGE KEEL, JUST SO YOU KNOW, ON MARCH 1ST, 2023, THE CITY ACTUALLY ANNOUNCED THE HIRING OF CANALS.
AND HOFFMAN, IT, THE, THE CITY RELEASED INFORMATION THAT IT HAD HIRED, I'M SORRY.
I THINK THAT THAT IS OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF THE QUESTION OF WHY PFM WAS USED.
I THINK IF, IF I, I JUST FEEL LIKE THAT I, I ASKED EARLIER IF HE WAS TRYING TO KEEP IT SECRET.
I THINK IT'S GERMANE TO MY EARLIER QUESTION.
DID, DID MS. HUFFMAN AND MR. CANALES DO A GOOD JOB? THEY DID AN OUTSTANDING JOB.
I MEAN, I, UH, THE, THE, THE FIXING OF THE 9 1 1 SYSTEM THAT THE AUDIT DEPARTMENT ITSELF HAD SAID WE'RE BIG PROBLEMS, UH, SEVERAL, A COUPLE YEARS EARLIER, WE WERE ABLE TO DO THAT WITHIN THE YEAR 14 MONTHS THAT WE WERE THERE.
WE TOOK IT FROM A 50% VACANCY RATE TO FULL STAFFING THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER.
WE CREATED THE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM FOR THE PUBLIC THAT NEEDED TO.
LAURA AND JOE WERE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL THAT.
WE MADE PERSONNEL CHANGES BECAUSE THEY NEEDED TO GET MAIDS.
WE ORGANIZED THE ORGAN, THE SYSTEM AT THE CITY WITH ALL THE DEPARTMENTS, KNOWING THAT WHEN WE CALL AN EMERGENCY, THIS IS HOW WE WERE GONNA RESPOND.
MS. HUFFMAN TOOK LEAD IN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE WERE GONNA SOLVE THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
AND WE WERE ABLE TO MAKE GREAT PROGRESS ON IT.
UH, THE, THE BUDGET PROCESS, I HAVE TO KIND OF, BECAUSE I REALLY DO THINK THE BUDGET PROCESS, IT'S A $5.5 BILLION BUDGET.
WE GET A LOT OF AMENDMENTS FROM THE COUNCIL MEMBERS.
LAURA DEVISED THE SYSTEM BY WHICH THE COUNCIL COULD DELIBERATE ALL THOSE AMENDMENTS AGAINST THEIR POLICY SO THEY COULD MAKE DECISIONS.
AND WE HAD ABOUT RATE SETTING.
WE HAD CAPITAL BUDGET, ET CETERA.
SO I REALLY DO THINK EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY NOT HAVE WRITTEN A, A KIND OF WHAT, WHAT BOND ANALYSTS DO, IT WAS CLEARLY IN THE INTEREST OF THE FINANCIAL HEALTH OF THE CITY, INCLUDING, UH, RECOMMENDING AND APPROVE AND HAVING THE COUNCIL APPROVE, MOVING THE RESERVE, UH, UH, THE RESERVE RATES THAT WE HAD IN THE CITY FROM 14% TO 70%.
JOE AND LAURA WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL THAT LONG WITH ED AND HIS STAFF.
ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION, SIR? OKAY.
I HAVE A, A COUPLE MORE, UH, FOR THE COMPLAINANT, UM, I THINK THAT WE'VE SEEN NUMBERS THAT SAY IN EXCESS OF $76,000 IS THE, IS THE COST OF THIS SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.
BUT WE'VE ALSO SEEN A, A STATEMENT THAT I THINK SAYS THAT IT SEEMS LIKE THE RATE PAID TO THESE INDIVIDUALS SEEMS TO BE A PRORATION OF THE A CM SALARY.
CAN, CAN, AM I MISSTATING THOSE THINGS OR CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW THOSE TWO THINGS WORK TOGETHER? UH, SURE.
SO THE, THE TOTAL PAYMENTS TO, UH, CANALS AND HUFFMAN COMBINED IS ABOUT 550,000.
THOSE, UH, HOURLY RATES WERE DERIVED BY TAKING THE, UH, THE SALARY THAT WAS, UH, FOR A POSTING FOR THE DEPUTY CITY MANAGER POSITION, WHICH RANGED FROM 310,000 TO 325,000, DIVIDED THAT BY 2080 HOURS, WHICH GETS TO BE AROUND $150 AN HOUR.
AND THEN, UH, GROSSING IT UP BY ABOUT 20% TO ACCOUNT FOR THE BENEFITS THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE NOT BEING PAID BY THE CITY.
THE BENEFITS ARE NOT COVERED BY THE CITY, UH, SINCE THEY'RE NOT COMING ON AS EMPLOYEES.
AND THAT GETS TO THE, THE ONE 90 AND $200, UM, THE, THE 76,000 IS THE THRESHOLD FOR, YOU KNOW, THE CITY MANAGER AUTHORIZATION, WHERE ANYTHING ABOVE THAT WOULD REQUIRE APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL.
THAT'S THE, SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE SEPARATE.
THERE'S THE, WHAT THEY WERE PAID GOES TOWARD, IN YOUR OPINION, GOES TOWARDS WHETHER THEY WERE PERFORMING THE JOB OF AN A CM.
'CAUSE IT APPEARS THAT THE SCOPE AND THE THE PAY WAS COMMENSURATE WITH AN A CM.
AND THEN THERE'S A QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT A INTERIM CITY MANAGER HAS THE ABILITY TO APPROVE THAT AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE FOR SHORT TERM CONTRACTS.
UH, IS, OR, OR WHAT IS THE, WHAT IS THE, UH, RESTRICTION, UH, THAT PROHIBITS SPENDING 500 AND SOMETHING THOUSAND?
[03:55:01]
SO WHAT, WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT THE, UH, THE CITY CODE REQUIRES, OR THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO AUTHORIZE THE CONTRACT IS UP TO 76,000.AND SO THE SUBCONTRACT AMOUNTS, UH, TO CANALS AND HUFFMAN COMBINED EXCEEDED THAT AUTHORIZATION.
76,000 IS THE NUMBER, IS THE LIMIT, AND THEN 500,000 IS WHAT WAS ULTIMATELY SPENT ON THESE, OR, OR SOMEWHERE IN THAT BALLPARK IS WHAT WAS ULTIMATELY SPENT.
UM, AND THEN, UH, QUESTION FOR THE RESPONDENT.
UM, I THINK THAT I'VE HEARD THAT, UH, THE MISMATCH IN SCOPES MAY BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE FACT THAT ALL SENIOR EMPLOYEES WORK ON FINANCIAL ITEMS. IS, AM I, AM I STATING THAT CORRECT IN IN THE, JUST YEAH.
IN THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE, ALMOST ALL THE ISSUES THAT COME THERE FOR US TO HELP RESOLVE, BRING, BRING POLICY MATTERS TO COUNCIL, DEAL WITH FINANCIAL MATTERS, I MEAN, OF NECESSITY AND, UH, SOME MUCH MORE DETAILED THAN OTHERS.
SO WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH THE UTILITIES, FOR INSTANCE, WHICH WE DID DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS, WE NEEDED TO MAKE AN EVALUATION OF WHAT THE RATE SYSTEM WOULD HAVE TO BE FOR THE WATER SYSTEM.
WE NEEDED TO EVALUATE THE RATES THAT WE WOULD BE GOING FORWARD WITH THE ELECTRIC UTILITY.
MR. CANALES AND, AND MS. HUFFMAN WERE INVOLVED IN ALL OF THAT, UH, MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS AND, AND PARTICIPATING IN THE DISCUSSION TO, TO REALLY CLARIFY ABOUT THE SE THE 76,000 IS THE MANAGER'S AUTHORITY, UH, WITHOUT GOING TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.
BUT IT'S NOT AN APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON.
WHEN YOU HAVE A SUBCONTRACTOR, AND WE HAVE LOTS OF SUBCONTRACTORS IN THE CITY, YOU HAVE THEM TODAY.
THE COUNCIL DOESN'T APPROVE THOSE SUBCONTRACTORS.
WHAT THEY DO IS APPROVE A GLOBAL AMOUNT, AND YOUR JOB IS TO KEEP THE EXPENDITURE WITHIN THAT GLOBAL AMOUNT.
SO IF THEY HIRE A SUBCONTRACTOR FOR A QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS, THE COUNCIL DOESN'T APPROVE THAT.
'CAUSE IT'S A SUBCONTRACT TO AN EXISTING CONTRACT, WHICH IS PART OF THE, PART OF THE APPROVAL PROCESS WHEN THE COUNCIL APPROVES THAT CONTRACT.
SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS.
THAT'S HOW THE CITY HAS USED THAT CONTRACT.
AND, UH, IN FACT, IF, IF, IF IN FACT THAT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE, WE, WE HAVE PAID A LOT OF CONTRACTORS MORE THAN THE 76,000 THAT THE COUNCIL NEVER APPROVED BECAUSE THEY'D BEEN HIRED UNDER THAT, THAT PROVISION.
WE, THAT, THAT, BY THE WAY, THAT CONTRACT WAS EXTENDED, WAS EXTENDED WITH THAT VERY SAME PROVISION.
THERE WAS NO, AT LEAST FROM MY QUICK RESEARCH, WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO DETERMINE THAT WHETHER THE LAW DEPARTMENT OR THE AUDIT DEPARTMENT SENT A NOTE TO FINANCE, FINANCE MANAGES THE CONTRACT AND SAID, HEY, WE GOT A PROBLEM WITH THIS BECAUSE THAT CONTRACT SURVIVED, THAT PROVISION SURVIVED THE EXTENSION.
AND SO IF WE REALLY HAD A CONCERN ABOUT THAT PROVISION AND THE WAY IT'S USED, THAT WOULD'VE BEEN THE TIME TO SEND A NOTE TO THE, TO THAT APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENT TO SAY, BEFORE YOU EXTEND, WE HAVE SOME COMMENTS ON THIS.
AND, UH, AND THAT'S WHAT REALLY IS THE DISCONNECT FOR ME.
AND PART OF IT IS THAT I THINK THERE'S A BASIC MISUNDERSTANDING OF HOW WE WORK.
I OFFERED TO THE INVESTIGATOR, COME SEE ME WHEN YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS.
AND WHAT I GOT BASICALLY TOLD IS, WE DON'T DO THAT IN THIS KIND OF, THIS IS NOT AN AUDIT, THIS IS AN INVESTIGATION.
BUT IF THEY HAD COME TALK TO ME, I WOULD'VE BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN TO THEM HOW ALL THIS WORKS AND HOW THIS IS PART OF OUR STANDARD PROCESS.
BUT I WOULDN'T HAVE AFFORDED THAT OPPORTUNITY.
I DO HAVE A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS, AND I RECOGNIZE THAT WE'RE GETTING TOWARDS THE MIDNIGHT, UH, NUMBER, WHICH IS KILLER.
UH, BUT I, I WOULD LIKE TO GET THESE OUTTA THE WAY SO WE DON'T HAVE TO CALL PEOPLE BACK FOR ANOTHER, UH, HEARING.
SO LET ME JUST, UH, TICK THROUGH THESE.
UM, IF THE SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE PFM CONTRACT WAS CORRECT, WHY DID IT NEED TO CHANGE FOR THE SUBCONTRACTS? IT DIDN'T THEN.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SUBCONTRACT? WELL, I THINK, I THINK IT'S THE, IN ESSENCE, THE, UH, THE, THE QUESTIONS WERE, DID THE WORK THEY DID FIT UNDER THAT SUBCONTRACT PROVISION? THIS IS WHAT THEY, SORRY, I, I DO WANNA BE CLEAR.
I APPRECIATE THAT DISTINCTION, BUT THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION I'M ASKING.
I'M ASKING IF THE PFM CONTRACT THAT DESCRIBED FINANCIAL SERVICES FROM A SUBCONTRACTOR WAS SUFFICIENT TO COVER THEIR DUTIES AS YOU ENVISIONED THEM, WHY WAS THERE A SECOND SET OF SCOPE OF WORK THAT DID NOT DESCRIBE FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES? IT DESCRIBED LEADERSHIP ACTIVITIES BECAUSE THERE'S OTHER TASKS IS ASSIGNED AND YOU HAVE TO, IT IT, THE CONTRACT HAS OTHER TASKS AS ASSIGNED.
AND WE HAD TO DEFINE WAS THERE, WAS THERE ANY OTHER RATIONALE, UH, FOR WHY THOSE TWO SCOPES OF WORK NEEDED TO BE SO DIFFERENT? THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT SO DIFFERENT.
WELL, SO I MEAN, YOUR CONTENTION THAT IT'S EIGHT ITEMS THAT ALL MENTIONED FINANCIALS ARE THE SAME AS EIGHT ITEMS THAT MENTIONED LEADERSHIP ACTIVITIES.
IT, THE, THE, THE OTHER TASK IS AS ASSIGNED UNDER THAT PROVISION COVERS A WHOLE HOST OF DUTIES, COLLECTIVE
[04:00:01]
BARGAINING, COMPENSATION STUDIES, UH, RATE ANALYSIS, IT CO ALL OF THESE THINGS WERE THINGS THAT JOE AND LAURA WERE INVOLVED IN.AND IT FITS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CONTRACT.
IN FACT, THE MANAGER OF THAT CONTRACT ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS TO THE AUSTIN CHRONICLE.
THE WORK THAT WE, THAT THE WORK THAT MR. HUFFMAN OR MS. HUFFMAN AND MR. CANALES WERE DOING WAS CONSISTENT WITH THAT PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT.
AND, AND CAN I SAY ONE OTHER THING? I THINK, UM, I THINK IN THE END OF ALL OF THIS, IN MY JUDGMENT, I I I, I WAS ASTOUNDED THAT THIS, THAT THIS ROSE TO AN ETHICS ISSUE.
THIS IS A PROCESS ISSUE AND I RESPECT QUESTIONINGS ABOUT OUR PROCESS.
I WOULD'VE WELCOMED A, A, A ROOT, A KIND OF A ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS OF THIS PROCESS WAS WRONG.
THAT'S HOW, THAT'S HOW WE LEARN AS MANAGERS.
AND SO IF THE PROCESS WAS USED INCORRECTLY, THEN PLEASE TELL ME WHAT WE DID INCORRECT SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT IN THE FUTURE, FUTURE MANAGERS OR FUTURE EXECUTIVES DO THE CORRECT PROCESS GOING FORWARD.
IN THE END, THIS IS A PROCESS ISSUE, NOT AN ETHICS ISSUE.
AND THEN MY FINAL QUESTION IS, UH, WHAT DID PFM GET OUT OF THIS, UH, BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP? WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THEY, THEY'VE HAD THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CITY FOR A LONG TIME.
IT, IT, THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR? IN PARTICULAR, IT WAS PASSED THROUGH, BUT OKAY.
BUT, BUT OTHER CONSULTING CONTRACTS ARE DONE EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.
THEY'RE PASSED THROUGH CERTAINLY.
BUT I, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, THERE ARE THREE PARTIES TO THIS CONTRACT.
THERE'S THE CONTRACTOR, THE, THE CONTRACTEE, THE CONTRACTOR, AND THEN A SUBCONTRACTOR.
WHAT BENEFIT DID PFM GAIN? IT WAS A PASSWORD FOR THEM.
THEY DIDN'T RECOGNIZE ANYTHING, BUT THEIR GENERAL COUNSEL ISSUED AN OPINION LETTER THAT SAID THE TRANSACTION TRANSACTION WAS APPROPRIATE UNDER ITS CONTRACT WITH THE CITY.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I HAVE A MOTION.
I THINK THAT, UH, IF THERE'S NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, THEN WE HAVE TIME FOR A MOTION.
I MOVE THAT WE FIND THAT MR. GARZA DID NOT VIOLATE SECTION TWO DASH SEVEN DASH 62 I OF THE CITY CODE.
AND SO, OR IS THAT AN SORRY FOR A QUESTION FOR STAFF? UH, A FINDING THAT THEY, THAT THERE IS NO VIOLATION.
IS THAT THE, IS THAT A QUESTION THAT WE'RE ANSWERING RIGHT NOW? I THINK, UH, CAROLINE WEBSTER LAW DEPARTMENT, I THINK YOU GET TO THE SAME RESULT.
I WOULD, I WOULD PREFER A MOTION TO HAVE A FINDING THAT THERE IS NOT REASONABLE GROUNDS TO, SO THAT IT'S, YES.
ONE IS A DEFINITIVE ONE IS A, I THINK, I THINK, BUT, BUT THAT'S OKAY.
THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR AND IT'S APPROPRIATE.
UH, OR DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'M SORRY.
UH, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE ITEM? YES.
UH, I UNDERSTAND THE POINT MR. SHAUGHNESSY IS MAKING ABOUT SPECIAL PRIVILEGE NOT BEING DEFINED AND THE DUE PROCESS ARGUMENT.
UM, IF I READ THIS PLAIN LANGUAGE, NOT JUST SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, BUT THE WHOLE PROVISION, IF THIS WERE A SITUATION WHERE A CITY EMPLOYEE WERE, WAS THROWING A CONTRACT TO BUDDIES TO CIRCUMVENT THE CITY COUNCIL TO DO SOMETHING UNDERHANDED TO GO GIVE A CONTRACT TO SOMEBODY WHO WAS GONNA SIT IN AN OFFICE AND TWIDDLE HER THUMBS OR HIS THUMBS, THAT WOULD BE WHAT THIS GOES AFTER.
THAT'S CLEARLY, UH, NOT WHAT HAPPENED HERE.
UM, I HAVE DISCUSSION IF, IF NOBODY ELSE WANTS TO, I HAVE DISCUSSION TOO.
I, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU, BUT I DON'T KNOW, WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT I KIND OF VIEW A PRELIMINARY HEARING AS KINDA LIKE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND THAT WE KIND OF GOTTA ASSUME THE FACTS AS ALLEGED BEFORE.
'CAUSE WE'RE GONNA HAVE A FULLER EVIDENTIARY HEARING FOLLOWING THIS.
RIGHT? IT BE, THIS IS, THAT'S CORRECT.
THIS IS A PRELIMINARY HEARING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH MORE EVIDENCE.
SO YES, THE FINAL HEARING IS THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE.
EVIDENCE IS THE PRESENTATION EVIDENCE.
WE HAVE NOT HEARD EVIDENCE YET.
SO I'M, I'M INCLINED TO TRY TO MOVE THIS FORWARD SO WE CAN HEAR THE FULL EVIDENCE.
EVEN THOUGH I AM INCLINED THAT BASED ON WHAT WE'VE HEARD SO FAR, IT MAY NOT MEET THAT, THAT STANDARD.
UM, SO, UM, I GUESS I'M SAYING I'M PARTIALLY AGREE WITH YOU, BUT I'M NOT SURE I'M, I'M THERE YET.
UM, SO THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S, I JUST WANNA GET THAT ON THE RECORD.
I THINK THAT I, I TAKE A LITTLE EXCEPTION TO THE IDEA THAT A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE MUST BE A PERSON WHO'S PAID FOR NOTHING.
UM, I THINK THAT THE, THE PLAIN LANGUAGE READING OF THAT AS A PERSON, PLEASE, IF I'VE MISCHARACTERIZED THAT YOU'RE YOU'RE TAKING ME LITERALLY, I'M, I'M, I'M, I'M, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE GIST OF WHAT THIS IS DIRECTED AT.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT ELSE IT'S DIRECTED AT.
BUT I THINK IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, IF, IF, IF THE EVIDENCE, IF, IF, IF THE CHARGE AND THE EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE HEARD SO FAR, THE PRESENTATIONS WE'VE HEARD SO FAR INDICATED THAT THAT WAS
[04:05:01]
THE KIND OF THING THAT WAS GOING ON.I WOULD BE APPALLED AS A TAXPAYER AND AS A CITIZEN.
AND I, I THINK THAT I WOULD STILL OBJECT.
I THINK THAT I, AS A TAXPAYER, AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF CONSTITUENTS IN MY DISTRICT, UH, I THINK THAT IT IS STILL APPROPRIATE TO SAY THAT A PLAIN LANGUAGE READING OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE CAN ALSO BE SUSTAINED WHEN IT'S JUST THE IDEA THAT THERE WAS NO COMPETITIVE BIDDING FOR THIS SUBCONTRACT IF IT NEEDED TO BE A SUBCONTRACT.
THERE ARE COMPETITIVE BIDDING RULES.
THERE ARE COMPETITIVE BIDDING RULES THAT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRE YOU TO USE AND UTILIZE AND CONSIDER SMALL AND MINORITY BUSINESS, UH, BUSINESSES.
AND SO THE IDEA THAT YOU CAN JUST SAY, I KNOW WHO I WANT TO DO THIS.
I CAN AVOID MY STATUTORY CA OR MY, MY CAP IN THE RULES FOR HOW MUCH I CAN SPEND ON IT.
I CAN PICK THE PEOPLE I WANT AND I CAN PUT THEM IN PLACE WITH NO REVIEW.
AND I CAN EVEN GIVE THEM JOBS THAT DON'T SOUND THE SAME ON PAPER AS THE JOBS THAT I'M CLAIMING.
I'M PAYING THE, THE SUBCONTRACT OR THE CONTRACTOR FOR, UH, AND WE ARE HITTING 1159, UH,
SO, UH, LET ME FINISH MY THOUGHT REALLY QUICK AND THEN WE'LL, WE'LL TABLE THIS MOTION FOR A RECESS.
UH, BUT I, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE, OR AT LEAST I WOULD ARGUE THAT WE SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS, WE HAVE ENOUGH, WE HAVE ENOUGH DETAILS RIGHT NOW TO KNOW THAT OUR CONSTITUENTS WOULD WANT TO HEAR MORE.
WE HAVE NOT HEARD ANY OF THE EVIDENCE, AND IT'S ENOUGH THAT IT'S WEIRD
NOW, UH, I'M GOING TO OPEN THE FLOOR BACK UP TO MORE DISCUSSION WHEN WE COME BACK, BUT IT IS 12:00 AM IT IS A NEW BUSINESS DAY.
THE TIME IS 12:00 AM ON THE, UH, THE 26TH OF JUNE.
SINCE THE COMMISSION WANTS THE COMMISSIONERS WANT TO COMPLETE THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, WE'LL RECESS THIS MEETING MOMENTARILY AND RECONVENE AT 12:00 AM ON.
WELL, WE WILL RECONVENE AT 1201 ON JUNE 26TH, 2025 IN THIS BOARD AND COMMISSION ROOM.
NOTE THAT THE, THAT A RECESS DOES NOT CLOSE A MEETING.
IT JUST PAUSES AND ALLOWS THE COUNCIL TO CONTINUE THE MEETING AT A LATER TIME.
THAT MEANS SHOULD, IT SHOULD BE COMMISSION.
UH, THAT MEANS THAT WHEN WE RECONVENE AFTER MIDNIGHT, IT WILL BE A RESUMPTION OF THE SAME MEETING AND THERE WILL BE NO NEW SIGNUPS FOR NEW SPEAKERS.
THE TIME IS NOW 12:00 AM AS PREVIOUSLY PREVIOUSLY STATED, WE WILL RECONVENE THIS MEETING AT 1201, WHICH IT IS NOW 1201.
AND ARE THERE OTHER DISCUSSIONS ON THIS CALL? THE QUESTION I HAVE, I HAVE ONE QUESTION.
THE, I'M LOOKING AT THE, AT THE REPORT, UH, FROM, UM, MR. MALLOY AND ON, THERE'S A PAGE HERE ABOUT THE USE OF SUBCONTRACTORS, UH, THAT, THAT THE, AND ABOUT THE CONTRACT THAT, THAT THE CITY HAD WITH PFM AND IT, AND IT SAYS, WILL SUBCONTRACTORS BE USED TO PERFORM PORTIONS OF THIS? AND THAT BOX CHECK SAYS NO.
SO, UM, WAS THAT ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE? UM, IT'S, IT'S ON, IT WOULD BE PAGE 11 OF SECTION BLAH, BLAH.
THE FIRST, UNDER THE CONTENTS OF THE REPORT, THERE'S A, AND THEN IT GOES IMMEDIATELY INTO THE, I BELIEVE IT'S SIX PAGE SEVEN OF THE REPORT AT PAGE SEVEN OF THE REPORT.
UH, THERE'S A, THE TOP OF THE, THE, THE PAGE SAYS USE OF SUBCONTRACTORS, UM,
SO IS THAT SOMETHING THAT, THAT THE CITY STAFF SHOULD NOT BE AWARE OF WITH THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT? OR, OR ARE THEY ALLOWED TO CHANGE THAT WITHOUT GOING BACK TO THE CON THE COUNCIL, IF THEY'RE AMENDING THE CONTRACT WITH THE, WITH THE PROVIDER WITH PFM? WELL, UH, THE, IS IT, THIS IS HOW YEAH, WELL, I JUST DON'T, I DON'T WANNA STEP ON HIS TOES.
I THINK WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A MOTION, AND SO I DO THINK WE'RE PAST QUESTIONS.
BUT IF YOU HAVE, I'M JUST POINTING IT OUT TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, THAT, THAT THAT SEEMS TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S IN THE MATERIALS, AT LEAST IN THE, THE PROBABLE CAUSE OR THE YES, THE, UH, UH, COMMISSIONER PATIE, OH, I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THE, THE, UH, PARAGRAPH ABOVE THAT KIND OF EXPLAINS THAT.
IT'S LIKE IF THERE, IF THE NEED DOES ARISE,
[04:10:01]
THEN THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THAT, BUT THEY DON'T ANTICIPATE IT.BUT THERE IS A PROVISION IN THERE THAT SAYS IF THE NEED ARISES, THEN WE WILL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS.
THANK YOU COMMERS KING AND PRE FOR
IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO FIND, UH, THAT THERE IS NOT A, THAT THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODE THAT IS NOT MOTION CARD.
THIS IS, UH, REQUIRES THE SAME MAJORITY AS THE OTHER PREVIOUS VOTE.
SO WE NEED MAJORITY OF THE ENTIRE COMMISSION, NOT JUST THE MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS PRESENT.
I BELIEVE THE VOTE TO PASS IS SIX.
IS THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR DIFFERENT FROM A MOTION TO DISMISS? I BELIEVE THAT IT IS EFFECTIVELY THE SAME.
IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE WE COULD HAVE EITHER DONE A MOTION TO FIND THAT THERE IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO PROCEED, WHICH WOULD BE AN EFFECTIVE DISMISSAL, OR WE COULDN'T FIND THAT THERE IS NO VIOLATION, WHICH WOULD ALSO CONSTRUCTIVELY BE A DISMISSAL.
I WORDED IT, I WORDED IT STRONGER ON PURPOSE.
UM, IS THERE ANY REMAINING, UM, CON LIKE DISCUSSION? OKAY.
UH, I THINK THAT WE CAN DO A VOTE BY HAND.
YOU NEED TO RESTATE THE MOTION, PLEASE.
COULD WE PLEASE RESTATE THE MOTION
CAN WE DO A SHOW OF HANDS FOR THE MOTION? JUST TO CLARIFY IF I VOTE YES ON THIS MOTION? I AM SAYING THAT HE DID NOT VIOLATE YES, MA'AM.
AND IF I VOTE NO, I AM SAYING THAT I DON'T KNOW THAT ANSWER.
UH, I'VE HAD A REQUEST TO DO A ROLL CALL AND SO I WILL DO SO.
WE DO NOT HAVE A PAST MOTION AND SO I WILL ASK AGAIN, DO WE HAVE ANY MOTIONS ON THIS ITEM? UH, COMMISSIONER PRETI, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE FIND AS A COMMITTEE THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO PROCEED TO A FINAL HEARING ON THIS COMPLAINT.
COMMISSIONER FIGUEROA HAS SECONDED.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? SEEING NONE, I WILL PROCEED TO A VOTE.
UM, WE'RE NOT GONNA REACH SIX EITHER WAY.
UH, SO WE DO NOT HAVE, UH, A ENOUGH, WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH VOTES FOR THE MOTION TO PASS.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER MOTIONS? COMMISSIONER, LOVE, MOVE TO DISMISS.
UH, IS THERE A SECOND? WAIT, WE JUST, WE DON'T NEED TO, BUT THERE IS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
I DON'T THINK IT'S AGAINST THE RULES TO, TO, TO RE-VOTE ON THE SAME.
WE, I, SO I WOULD, I CAROLINE YOU WOULD ARGUE THAT THE LAST VOTE WAS YEAH.
YOU ALL, ALL THE, THE MOTION TO FIND REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR A VIOLATION FAILED.
UH, SO, UH, IN THE CASE OF ITEM EIGHT, UH, THE PRELIMINARY HEARING FILED BY BRIAN MALLOY, UH, AGAINST JESUS GARZA, UH, THIS COMMISSION HAS DETERMINED THAT, UH, IT IS, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH, UH, INFORMATION TO PROCEED.
UH, I'LL CALL COMMISSIONER PUMPHREY BACK INTO THE ROOM IF HE'S STILL PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY HAS LEFT THE DAAS.
UM, I WOULD STRONGLY SUGGEST WE TABLE THE MINUTES AND GO HOME.
OH, WE ALREADY DID THE MINUTES.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO DO A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
OH, UH, COMMISSIONER, MID TURN.
I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM I DIDN'T CATCH FOR, UM, COMMISSIONER KIEHL'S MOTION.
WHO SECONDED? UH, THAT WAS COMMISSIONER LONG.
UH, BEING INFORMED BY STAFF THAT WE DO NOT NEED A MOTION TO, UH, LEAVE.