|
|
263
(2 votes, average 5.00 out of 5)
|
Bulldog Open Records Lawsuit Continues
Key issue is whether it is permissible to
redact officials’ private e-mail addresses
by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2013
Posted Friday June 7, 2013 11:25am
How could you find out if Austin City Council members participated in an illegal quorum discussion about city business using their private e-mail accounts—a violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act?
The short answer is: you can’t.
Under the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA) you may request copies of e-mails exchanged by public officials about public business and you would be entitled to get them—including e-mails sent or received on private accounts (although in the past, the private-accounts issue has been a matter of legal contention).
But the e-mails you get from the public officials’ private e-mail accounts would not include their private e-mail addresses. Those addresses would be blacked out, redacted—to the point you would not be able to determine who sent or received a given e-mail, or whether a quorum of the governing board had illegally participated.
That was what The Austin Bulldog encountered in 2011, in response to a public information request for the e-mails about government business exchanged by the mayor and council members.
The Austin Bulldog eventually obtained copies of e-mails about government business exchanged by these elected officials using their private e-mail accounts—but only after filing a lawsuit to get them.
|
262
(4 votes, average 5.00 out of 5)
|
Austin Governed By the Well-to-Do
November 2014 elections may deliver
economic diversity in next city council
by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2013
Posted Friday May 17, 2013 1:46pm
 Lee LeffingwellMayor Lee Leffingwell has investments in stocks and mutual funds with an estimated value of anywhere from $159,000 to $643,000 (since shares are reported in ranges a more specific estimate is not possible).
He enjoys an annual income of $150,000 from all sources, roughly half of which comes from his mayoral salary of $77,688.
 Sheryl ColeMayor Pro Tem Sheryl Cole and husband Kevin Cole have a real estate portfolio valued on the tax rolls at $1.3 million and combined salaries of more than $100,000.
 Mike MartinezCouncil Member Mike Martinez and wife Lara Wendler have combined salaries of $186,000.
They own a couple of houses that are on the tax rolls for a total of more than $1.1 million; have 38 stocks that have a bare minimum value of $170,000 (and likely far more); and their other investments are conservatively estimated at more than $250,000.
 Laura MorrisonCouncil Member Laura Morrison with her husband Philip Morrison reported owning 27 stocks, six bonds and shares in 31 mutual funds.
They live in a West Austin home valued at $1.9 million. The Morrisons drew dividends of more than $35,000 and rental income of more than $35,000, and their combined salaries are $173,803.
 Chris RileyCouncil Member Chris Riley owns a downtown home with domestic partner Denise Brady.
The home, valued at $807,077, also serves as a four-plex and produces rental income of more than $20,000.
 Bill SpelmanCouncil Member Bill Spelman reported owning stock in 26 companies and shares in 29 mutual funds.
With wife Niyanta Spelman he owns a Hyde Park home and two other rental properties in Austin, as well as an interest in undeveloped West Texas rangeland.
 Kathie TovoCouncil Member Kathie Tovo and husband Tom Hurt own or have interest in more than a dozen businesses; possess an extensive investment portfolio; and own approximately 26,000 acres of ranch land spread over four Texas counties that produced income of more than $500,000 last year from oil, gas, and land sales.
As it stands now, all seven of the city’s elected officials are comfortably well off. Just how wealthy they are is an open question. The sworn financial statements provide clues but the lack of required specificity prevents accurately quantifying the value of reported assets.
The good news is that these affluent and concerned citizens enjoy a level of financial security that allows them to use their intelligence and skills in service to the community. If they are rich it’s not because they capitalized on their elected positions.
Will geographic diversity spawn economic diversity?
|
261
(1 vote, average 5.00 out of 5)
|
Hotze a Persistent Political Voice
Houston physician’s lawsuit challenges Obamacare,
continuing a lifelong pursuit of conservative causes
by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2013
Posted Wednesday May 8, 2013 3:56pm
 Steven Hotze at an Austin anti-gay rally 1981Steven F. Hotze, M.D., has made conservative causes his life’s work and his latest endeavor is filing a federal lawsuit in an effort to overturn the Affordable Care Act.
The Austin American-Statesman reported yesterday that Hotze, “founder of the Conservative Republicans of Texas and a leading donor to GOP candidates, said Tuesday he had filed a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn the Affordable Care Act.”
The Statesman reported that Hotze’s lawsuit “raises different issues than were considered when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld most aspects of the Affordable Care Act last summer.”
While it means nothing in a court of law and certainly will not affect the outcome of Hotze’s lawsuit, it seems worthwhile to let the public know a bit more about Hotze. And, as it happens, I wrote an in-depth feature story about him and his politics more than 30 years ago.
Austin Citizens for Decency
Hotze was front and center in my first big political story. The piece I wrote for Third Coast magazine was published in January 1982. “Decency Ordained: Austin’s Anti-Gay Crusade,” focused on an initiative that was on the ballot that month as a result of a successful citizens petition drive. (Click on the title to access the story and a lengthy sidebar, “Conscience of a Conservative,” that provides deep insight into his origins and motivation.)
|
260
(4 votes, average 4.75 out of 5)
|
What Can Austin Learn From California?
Panel discussion focuses on how Golden State
experiences inform city’s move to 10-1 council
by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2013
Posted Monday, May 6, 2013 2:00am
Updated with video link Tuesday May 7, 2013 10:50am
 Emcee Bickerstaff and panelists Ancheta, Lewis, Hadavi, Limaye, FishkinCalifornia’s official nickname, The Golden State, adopted in 1968, harkens back to the discovery of gold in 1848. Now the left-coast state’s experiences with using an independent citizens commission to draw maps for 177 seats in four different governing bodies offers a golden opportunity for learning how best to implement the City of Austin’s 10-1 plan.
The 10-1 plan for electing council members from geographic districts was approved by 60 percent of Austin voters last November 6 who voted for Proposition 3. Work is well underway to establish an Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (ICRC) that will draw council districts to be implemented in the November 2014 election. The ICRC’s duties are specified in Article II, Section 3 of the Austin City Charter.
Close to a hundred people attended the panel discussion held the evening of Thursday, May 2, at the Bass Lecture Hall on the University of Texas campus. Upwards of half of those raised their hands when asked who had applied to serve on the ICRC.
The event was jointly hosted by UT’s School of Law, the LBJ School’s Center for Politics and Governance, and Austinites for Geographic Representation.
|
259
(3 votes, average 5.00 out of 5)
|
Redistricting Veteran Shares His Wisdom
Member of California Redistricting Commission
describes what to watch out for in Austin redistricting
by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2013
Posted Thursday May 2, 2013 3:55pm
One of the 14 members of the California Redistricting Commission was the featured speaker at today’s luncheon hosted by Austinites for Geographic Representation and sponsored by the Austin Area Research Organization and League of Woman Voters Austin Area.
 Angelo AnchetaAttorney Angelo Ancheta is director of the Katherine and George Alexander Community Law Center and an associate clinical professor at Santa Clara University, where he teaches on subjects including election law, voting rights, and immigration. He came to Austin at his own expense and with no other business here to help educate the community about what to expect going forward.
From an applicants’ pool of 30,000 people, Ancheta won a slot on the California Redistricting Commission, the group that drew the maps for four different political jurisdictions, which included 80 seats in the California State Assembly, 40 seats in the California State Senate, 53 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, and four seats on the California State Board of Equalization.
Ancheta’s experience in drawing maps for California, a state with 38 million people, offers good insights into what lies ahead for the City of Austin and its 845,000 people.
|
258
(5 votes, average 4.20 out of 5)
|
Why Bother? Austin After 10-1
KLRU-TV taping draws more than 200 people
for multifaceted discussion of what future holds
by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2013
Posted Monday, April 29, 2013 4:01pm
 Moderator Foster and panelists Robinson, Greenberg and LeeIt’s been six months since 60 percent of voters approved a change to the Austin City Charter that will result in creation of 10 geographic districts from which residents will be elected to the Austin City Council in November 2014.
At present we’re in a quiet period during the slow work of creating an Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission to actually draw the maps for council districts, but some are thinking ahead to how this city may be governed after that historic election ends the at-large system of electing council members that started 60 years ago this month, on April 4, 1953.
To keep the public focused on this fundamentally important change, a live taping of the fourth in a series of “Why Bother?” programs packed Studio 6-A at the KLRU-TV station the evening of April 23.These programs are designed to create an ongoing dialogue about civic engagement.
|
257
(3 votes, average 5.00 out of 5)
|
Litigation Challenges Open Government Laws
Attorneys criticize criminal penalties and public
access to elected officials’ private e-mail accounts
Part 3 of a 3-Part Series
by Ken Martin
© 2013 The Austin Bulldog
Posted Wednesday, April 24, 2013 2:00am
The audience was indeed sparse but two lawyers were nonetheless passionate in addressing what they perceived to be improper actions by the Texas Attorney General in how his office enforces the Texas Public Information Act and how prosecutors enforce the Texas Open Meetings Act. Both attorneys have fought what so far have been losing battles in court over these issues.
A third attorney on the panel titled “Open Government: Litigation Developments” (click the link to watch the video) provided an analysis of the inconsistencies in decisions rendered by Texas courts with respect to how the Texas Public Information Act applies to the ability of requestors to obtain records involving public-private partnerships.
 Jacqueline CullomAfter being introduced by Assistant City Attorney Jacqueline Cullom at the City of Austin’s Open Government Symposium held April 17 at City Hall, these attorneys individually provided their interpretations of how the Act plays out in actual practice.
Criminal penalties unnecessary, McKamie argues
 Mick McKamieAttorney Mick McKamie of the San Antonio-based firm McKamie Krueger LLP (with offices in Austin, Dallas, and Laredo) led off the discussion. He was co-lead counsel in the plaintiff’s appeal in Asgeirsson el at v. Abbott (No. 11-50441) that was recently denied a hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court.
That case involved 15 elected officials who contend the Texas Open Meetings Act’s criminal penalties established in Government Code Section 551.144 (for knowingly participating in a closed meeting that is not permitted) violate the officials’ First Amendment rights. The possible punishment includes a fine of $100 to $500, confinement in the county jail for not less than one month or more than six months, or both the fine and confinement.
|
256
(3 votes, average 4.67 out of 5)
|
Social Media’s Impact on Open Government
Few government organizations have dealt with
how Facebook, Twitter use affects compliance
Part 2 of a 3-Part Series
by Ken Martin
© 2013 The Austin Bulldog
Posted Tuesday, April 23, 2013 2:00am
“A popular Government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”
— James Madison (1751-1836), Bill of Rights author and fourth president of the United States
By far the most lively panel discussion covered by The Austin Bulldog during the City of Austin’s Open Government Symposium held March 17 dealt with how social media and trends are affecting governmental organizations and how those organizations comply with open government laws. A standing room crowd witnessed the discussion in the Board and Commission meeting room at City Hall.
 Jason KingA panel moderated by Jason King, senior attorney and deputy ethics advisor in The University of Texas System’s Office of General Counsel, included the government official in charge of the Texas Attorney General’s Open Records Division and an attorney whose firm represents and advises numerous small Texas cities on matters of open government.
 Alan BojorquezAttorney Alan Bojorquez of the Austin-based Bojorquez Law Firm PLLC serves as attorney for 22 general law and home-rule municipalities across the state. He is the author of the Texas Municipal Law and Procedure Manual (5th Edition).
Bojorquez said, “Social media technology is always changing and the law can’t keep up with technology.”
“Public officials are trying to conduct business but don’t know how to do it. The answer should be simple, but it’s not. It’s gray, and has been for many years.”
|
255
(4 votes, average 5.00 out of 5)
|
City Hosts Open Government Symposium
Lawyers attending for education credits abound,
much of day has little to do with city practices
Part 1 of a 3-Part Series
by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2013
Posted Monday April 22, 2013 8:40am
“Under the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of representative government that adheres to the principle that government is the servant and not the master of the people, it is the policy of this state that each person is entitled, unless otherwise expressly provided by law, at all times to complete information about the affairs of government and the official acts of public officials and employees. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”
— Texas Public Information Act, Government Code Section 552.001(a).
Last week, the City of Austin demonstrated its renewed commitment to let citizens in on the process of governing. The City hosted a groundbreaking effort to focus public attention on the issues related to open government.
Hosting the symposium was a big step into the sunshine for a government agency that has gone through some traumatic experiences over the last couple of years.
Those experiences included a criminal investigation for violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act, which resulted in deferred prosecution agreements signed by the mayor and council members (except Kathie Tovo, who was elected after violations occurred), and a lawsuit filed by The Austin Bulldog that triggered major reforms in the city’s handling of electronic communications during the county attorney’s investigation. (More about that later.)
Lee LeffingwellMayor Lee Leffingwell read opening remarks Wednesday morning to a nearly empty City Council chamber. (Click link for video.)
“We believe that transparency fosters the public trust and it's very important to us,” Leffingwell said. The symposium offers “an opportunity to talk about the law and the process of open government and to learn from each other....”
|
254
(9 votes, average 5.00 out of 5)
|
City Spent $157,636 to Defend Council Violations
Payments for private lawyers for mayor,
council members in criminal investigation
Investigative Report by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2013
Posted Monday April 8, 2013 3:33pm
 On the eve of the City of Austin’s Open Government Symposium slated for April 17, The Austin Bulldog’s investigation found that the City of Austin quietly paid $157,636 for attorneys to defend six elected city officials (not including Council Member Kathie Tovo) and former Council Member Randi Shade during County Attorney David Escamilla’s 21-month criminal investigation of the City Council’s violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act.
These expenses—plus $444,000 the Austin American-Statesman reported June 17, 2012, that the city had authorized to spend with three law firms for advice on matters related to complying with the Texas Open Meetings Act—means taxpayers have shelled out more than $600,000 since The Austin Bulldog broke the story of these violations January 25, 2011.
|
|
253
(5 votes, average 5.00 out of 5)
|
Dafoe Offers to Settle for $40,000
Settlement invitation for Mayor Leffingwell would avoid
lawsuit, depositions, and trial for Election Code violations
by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2013
Posted Thursday March 21, 2013 1:26pm
 Clay DafoeClay Dafoe—who along with former Council Member Brigid Shea ran unsuccessfully against Mayor Lee Leffingwell in his 2012 reelection bid—has invited the mayor to settle without litigation Dafoe’s claim for damages by paying him $40,000.
This in lieu of the potential for more than $65,000 in statutory damages that could be awarded if Dafoe were to prevail in a lawsuit over Leffingwell’s failure to timely file accurate campaign finance reports as required by the state Election Code.
Lee LeffingwellMayor Leffingwell did not respond to an e-mailed request for comment about the settlement offer or to a voice message left with his chief of staff, Andy Mormon.
Election Code Section 254.231 makes a candidate who fails to report campaign contributions or campaign expenditures that are required to be reported liable for damages to opposing candidates in twice the amount that was unreported and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in the suit. (If judgment should be rendered in the defendant’s favor the defendant is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees.)
The Austin Bulldog’s investigative report, published March 5, showed that Leffingwell’s 2012 mayoral campaign did not account for $32,716.54 in funds. In addition, his 2009 campaign left more than $40,000 unaccounted for. (See Lee Leffingwell 2009 and 2012 Campaign Finance Reports Analysis .)
|
252
(3 votes, average 5.00 out of 5)
|
City Hosting Open Government Symposium
Follows county attorney’s investigation
of City Council open meetings violations
by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog
Posted Tuesday March 19, 2012 2:59pm
Updated Tuesday, March 19, 2013 at 3:27pm
The City of Austin is taking a giant step into the sunshine by hosting its first-ever Open Government Symposium April 17, an all-day event featuring six panel discussions.
The symposium comes six months after the county attorney concluded a 21-month investigation of the mayor and council members, in which he “found probable cause to believe that multiple violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act had occurred,” according to the Travis County Attorney David Esamilla’s Press Release of October 24, 2012.
That investigation—triggered by The Austin Bulldog’s investigative report of January 25, 2011 and a formal complaint filed by civic activist Brian Rodgers—resulted in these elected officials (excluding Kathie Tovo, who was not on the council at the time of the violations) signing deferred prosecution agreements, also called compliance agreements.
 David EscamillaIn a Monday interview, Escamilla said of the symposium, “I’m happy to see the city move forward in this direction. I think it's a needed initiative given that during our investigation we identified a lack of understanding and education in this area.”
The open government symposium comes two years after The Austin Bulldog sued the City of Austin over its refusal to release e-mails about city business that the mayor and council members exchanged on private accounts.
That lawsuit, The Austin Bulldog v. Lee Leffingwell, mayor, et al filed March 1, 2011—five weeks after the county attorney launched his investigation—not only triggered release of those e-mails about city business exchanged on private accounts but led to new policies for how the City Council, city employees, and board and commission members handle electronic communication in accordance with the Texas Public Information Act.
City’s efforts aim to boost openness
|
251
(5 votes, average 5.00 out of 5)
|
Dafoe Hires Law Firm Over Mayor’s Misreporting
Clay Dafoe, third-place finisher in
2012 mayoral election, first to act
by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2013
Posted Thursday, March 14, 2013 9:12pm
Corrected Thursday, March 14, 2013 at 9:45pm
Clay DafoeClay Dafoe has followed through on his previously stated intent to take legal action against Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell.
 Bill AleshireThis afternoon, Austin attorney Bill Aleshire of Riggs Aleshire and Ray PC told The Austin Bulldog, “Our law firm has been retained by Clay Dafoe to hold Lee Leffingwell accountable for violating the state campaign finance laws in the mayoral campaign of 2012.”
In a phone interview this evening Aleshire added, “We will let the facts take us where they go and we will not take any action that’s not in good faith.”
“That’s all we have to say at this point,” Aleshire said, “but there will be more later.”
(Disclosure: Aleshire is The Austin Bulldog’s attorney in a Texas Public Information Act lawsuit that is still pending.)
Lee LeffingwellAttempts to reach Mayor Leffingwell this evening for a comment were unsuccessful. A listed home number has been disconnected. A phone call to his chief of staff, Andy Mormon, was not answered. A text message sent to Mormon’s cell phone requesting a comment from the mayor was not promptly answered.
Two phone messages left for Dafoe were not returned. Aleshire later informed The Austin Bulldog that, “Mr. Dafoe will not be commenting directly.”
Grounds for lawsuit
|
250
(4 votes, average 5.00 out of 5)
|
Mayor Responds to Red Flags Report
Leffingwell’s amended reports address
his unaccounted for campaign funding
by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog
Posted Tuesday, March 12, 2013 1:06pm
The Austin Bulldog’s investigative report exposed the fact that more than $72,000 in campaign funds were not properly accounted for in Leffingwell’s two mayoral campaigns and the true source of a $30,000 loan the mayor reported making to his 2012 campaign may have been concealed.
Lee LeffingwellIn response to that investigative report Mayor Lee Leffingwell filed two Correction/Amendment Affidavits March 6.
More than $40,000 in campaign funds were unaccounted for by offsetting reported expenditures at the end of Leffingwell’s 2009 mayoral campaign. The Lee Leffingwell 2010 Correction/Amendment Affidavit addresses that defect by reporting that he reimbursed part of the $100,000 he had loaned his 2009 campaign with $39,039.07 in unspent funds. Schedule F included with the Affidavit shows that payment was made July 29, 2009.
More than $32,000 was unaccounted for after the mayor’s 2012 reelection campaign. The Lee Leffingwell 2012 Correction/Amendment Affidavit addresses that defect by reporting $32,675.83 in expenditures that were not properly included in the mayor’s final 2012 Campaign Finance Report due to a bookkeeping error. Five expenditures that total that amount are included in the revised Schedule F (see details at the end of this article.).
The Lee Leffingwell 2012 Correction/Amendment Affidavit also included a change in the lender’s address in Schedule E for the $30,000 loan to his campaign. The revised Schedule E reflects the mayor’s own home address, in lieu of the address of Thomas Coopwood, M.D., who Leffingwell personally nominated for reappointment to the Central Health Board of Managers.
The filing of these Affidavits do not alter the fact that Leffingwell’s mayoral opponents who ran against him in 2009 and 2012 can still sue him for damages. (More about that later.)
Mayor’s consultant responds
|
249
(4 votes, average 5.00 out of 5)
|
Mayor’s Campaign Reports Raise Red Flags
Problems could subject mayor to double damages
in civil lawsuits and triple damages payable to the state
Odd address entry on one report also
raises possibility of a criminal violation
Investigative report by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog
Posted Tuesday, March 5, 2013 12:27pm
Lee LeffingwellA total of more than $72,000 in campaign funds were not properly accounted for in Lee Leffingwell’s two mayoral campaigns and the true source of a $30,000 loan the mayor reported making to his 2012 campaign may have been concealed.
These defects were discovered in The Austin Bulldog’s analysis of more than a thousand pages of Campaign Finance Reports filed by Leffingwell during his first run for mayor in 2009 and in his 2012 reelection bid, along with related public records.
The Austin Bulldog’s written request for an interview with the mayor outlined the general nature of our findings and the possible legal implications. The mayor, through his chief of staff, Andy Mormon, declined to be interviewed.
The defects in Leffingwell’s reports may make him legally responsible for hundreds of thousands of dollars in civil damages and attorney’s fees if his 2009 and 2012 mayoral campaign opponents choose to file lawsuits authorized by state law.
These defects could also result in a substantial damages payable to the Texas Ethics Commission.
Further, if the source of the $30,000 loan to his 2012 reelection campaign is not Leffingwell—as he attested in a sworn statement—then he and the actual lender could be vulnerable to criminal charges as well.
|
248
(4 votes, average 5.00 out of 5)
|
Light Turnout for City Auditor’s Meetings
Five scheduled meetings drew fewer than ninety
people, but keen interest shown among attendees
by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2012
Posted Tuesday January 29, 2013 3:47pm
Correction posted 4:29pm Tuesday, January 29, 2013
 Ken MoryCity Auditor Ken Mory and his staff are doing their utmost to reach out to the public and provide information that would encourage Austin voters to apply to serve on one of the two bodies that will shape Austin’s future for decades to come.
The action is a result of voter approval November 6 of Proposition 3, which orders the implementation of 10 geographic council districts from which Austin City Council members will be elected in November 2014. Another charter amendment approved by voters dictates that council elections will be held in November of even-numbered years, council members will serve four-year terms (instead of three years), and will be limited to two terms (instead of three). Incumbents can run in spite of term limits if they gather signatures of 5 percent of registered voters to gain access to the ballot.
The auditor hosted five application public information meetings over an eight-day period starting Saturday January 19 and ending Saturday January 26. A total of about 87 people attended those meetings. About 14 of those were Bowie High School students who attended the January 24 meeting at Gorzycki Middle School as part of a government class. So at most the meetings drew about 73 people who might have been eligible to serve.
|
247
(2 votes, average 5.00 out of 5)
|
City Auditor Kicks Off Info Sessions
Drawing maps for 10 City Council districts
attracts citizens who want to get involved
by Ken Martin
© 2012 The Austin Bulldog
Posted January 22, 2013 2:33pm
The historic opportunity to draw districts from which 10 Austin City Council members will be elected in November 2014 was enough to draw a Saturday morning crowd to the Carver Branch Library. The end result will be to change the election of council members from and all-at-large system that has existed since 1953 to elect council members from geographic districts.
Ken MorySome 30 people interested in learning more about opportunities to serve on the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (ICRC) or Applicant Review Panel attended City Auditor Ken Mory’s first public application information session. Four more such meetings are scheduled for this week (see schedule below).
Information supplied by Opinion Analysts Inc. indicates that 35,418 people meet the minimum requirements to serve on the ICRC by having been registered to vote for five years and having voted in three of the last five May elections. (That number will be reduced somewhat once conflicts of interest that bar service are taken into account.) The City Auditor’s office will mail two invitations to apply to serve on the ICRC to each of these.
|
246
(3 votes, average 5.00 out of 5)
|
Bumpy Road to Implementing 10-1
Council refuses to pay for child care, mileage.
Applications to serve taken Jan. 19 to Feb. 22
by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2013
Posted Thursday January 17, 2013 4:30pm
The citizens group that got Proposition 3’s 10-1 plan for electing council members approved by voters is feeling betrayed by the City Council's decision to deny reimbursement of virtually all out-of-pocket expenses for people who serve on the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (ICRC).
The City Council passed a Resolution this morning that applies existing policies for city employees to govern reimbursement of members of the ICRC and the Applicant Review Panel.
 Fred LewisAttorney Fred Lewis, who drafted the final version of the Proposition 3 Ordinance that voters approved said, “The Charter amendment passed by voters said we would have citizen commissioners and personal expenses would be reimbursed. At the time the petition was underway it was made clear that we would pay for child care and mileage. And now the City Council has decided to jack with us.”
The provision for reimbursement was included in the Proposition 3 Ordinance approved by voters November 6. (The Ordinance is now incorporated in the City Charter, Article II, Section 3 titled “Redistricting.”)
|
245
(5 votes, average 4.20 out of 5)
|
Mayor Hosts ‘Opulent’ Formula 1 Reception
City spent more than $20,000 for a
two-hour party leading up to track events
by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2012
Posted Thursday, December 20, 2012 5:46pm
 Austin’s first Formula 1 event November 16-18, 2012, drew more than 100,000 people to attend the grand finale. By all accounts the race itself was a major success, though news reports indicated some downtown businesses suffered from the impact.
Lee LeffingwellTwo days before the race events started Mayor Lee Leffingwell hosted a lavish reception at City Hall in honor of this county’s first Formula 1 race in many years.
The city spent more than $20,000 for two-hour event billed as the Mayor’s Formula 1 Reception that started 5pm Wednesday, November 14, according to records obtained by The Austin Bulldog through a public information request.
An F1 race car was brought in and displayed and a photographer was hired to take pictures of guests by the exotic vehicle. Food and bar drinks were free for the taking. Three bands provided entertainment.
When a billionaire’s coming to your party you probably want to serve something a cut above the fare you would normally lay out for a few friends and neighbors.
The City of Austin certainly did that.
Although attendees said that crab was among the “custom hors d’oeuvres” served for the reception, the specific kinds of food included in the menu are not specified in the invoices. The Austin Bulldog has submitted an additional public information request to obtain more details.
|
244
(3 votes, average 5.00 out of 5)
- Massive Interest in Redistricting
-
- City auditor’s forum draws standing-room
- crowd to brainstorm how to attract applicants
-
- by Ken Martin
- © The Austin Bulldog 2012
- Posted Wednesday December 5, 2012 9:38pm
 The city auditor’s forum drew some 120 peopleAny doubts about the public’s interest in establishing the 10 council districts to take effect in the November 2014 City Council elections were put to rest Tuesday night as some 120 people attended a jam-packed program at One Texas Center.
Proposition 3’s 10-1 plan for council elections was put on the November 6 ballot through a petition drive led by Austinites for Geographic Representation and approved by 145,910 votes (60.15 percent).
Now comes implementation.
 Larry Schooler“We’re at the beginning of what for some is too long a process,” said Larry Schooler, a community engagement consultant in the city’s Public Information Office. “Tonight is the beginning of that process.”
“How do we attract applicants with the qualifications the charter amendment sets out: relevant analytical skills, ability to be impartial, and appreciation of the city of Austin’s diverse demographics and diversity?
“This is the beginning of a journey. It has many parts. This is the first of those parts, “Schooler said.
|
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 1 of 9 |
|
