Propositions 3 and 4 Proponents Rev Campaigns
Raising money, organizing troops, and pushing plans
for geographic representation on Austin City Council
by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2012
Posted Friday, September 28, 2012 2:39pm
The proponents of Proposition 3—Austinites for Geographic Representation (AGR)—got a huge head start in a grassroots campaign to win voter approval for geographic representation on the Austin City Council. They started meeting in February last year, waged a successful petition drive to get on the ballot, and have built a broad coalition of supporters, including 29 organizations and numerous community leaders. (For a list of endorsements, click here.)
The advocates for Proposition 4—Austin Community for Change (AC4C)—are pushing a different plan for geographic representation. They are running from behind and hoping to raise enough money to convince voters they have the best plan. They have rapidly built a list of 19 community organizations supporting their plan as well as individual community supporters. (For a list of endorsements, click here.)
Both AGR and AC4C have websites loaded with information touting their respective plans but there's a striking visual difference.
The banner atop the AGR pages contains a montage of nine photos taken at various Austin events.
The AC4C page headers show a photo purchased from iStockphoto.com titled “Diverse group casually dressed people looking up.”
AGR, which is campaigning under the name “Trust Austin,” has what it hopes will be a huge rally planned for Saturday, October 6, 3-5pm, at Park Pavilion, 5908 Manor Road. (For details, click here.) At a meeting of some 30 volunteers Tuesday evening, organizers said they had purchased 100,000 door hangars that will be placed on door knobs all over town. (See both sides in the accompanying graphic.) They also have paper yard signs and fliers printed. All of these materials will be distributed at the rally and circulated by volunteers.
Aside from participating in debates on the two propositions, Austin Community for Change has nothing on its schedule right now, said the three key spokesman who have been participating in the debates: Attorney Richard Jung of Jung Ko PLLC (the website has not been updated to reflect the company’s new name); Julio Gonzales Altamirano, an Austin-based data-science and software consultant for UPD Consulting; and archaeologist Fred McGhee, PhD, of Fred L. McGhee and Associates Inc.
Show me the money
AGR has been raising money since August of last year. The group has held fundraising events in the homes of volunteers and solicited funding from major donors. Contributions reported in AGR’s January and July finance reports totaled $29,131. The major donors were commercial real estate investor Brian Rodgers of Rodgers & Reichle Inc. and Peoples Pharmacy, owned by Bill Swail, RPh. Rodgers co-founded ChangeAustin.org with Linda Curtis, who is AGR’s campaign coordinator.
AC4C didn’t appoint a campaign treasurer until June 1 and in July reported it had raised $1,907, all but $100 of which was donated by Richard Jung.
Peck YoungAt AGR's Tuesday night meeting, retired political consultant Peck Young, who is a volunteer advisor to the AGR campaign, announced that Proposition 4 supporters that have not been publicly announced are ready to put up big money and are offering high fees for a campaign manager.
Young named Attorney David Armbrust of Armbrust & Brown PLLC as someone likely to help round up significant funds for the Proposition 4 campaign.
David ArmbrustContacted by The Austin Bulldog, Armbrust said neither he nor his firm had any plans to raise money for the campaign. He said his firm had contributed money to help pass the bond propositions, “but neither the firm nor myself are involved in single-member districts.”
“I know Peck has a good imagination but that goes beyond imagination,” Armbrust said. “What he said about me is totally false.”
Young, informed of what Armbrust said, said that a political operative had contacted a professional consultant and wanted to hire him to run a campaign for Proposition 4.
“The point is, the 8-2-1 guys are offering positions and salaries for whatever it takes to hire them,” he said.
Young previously accused the Real Estate Council of Austin of planning to put $100,000 into the campaign for Proposition 4. But as The Austin Bulldog reported September 12, RECA denies that and said the organization has no plans to get involved.
Nancy McDonald“Our resolution (in support of the hybrid 8-2-1 Proposition 4 plan) was the beginning and end of our concern,” said Nancy McDonald, RECA’s director of regional outreach.
David ButtsLongtime political consultant David Butts has been a strong advocate for the 8-2-1 plan offered by Proposition 4, both as a member of the council-appointed 2012 Charter Revision Committee and in speaking publicly to the City Council.
Butts said he talked to Armbrust last week and the subject of the Proposition 4 campaign never came up. Currently Butts is consulting for the Proposition 4 campaign as a “labor of love,” he told The Austin Bulldog. “I’m not being paid.”
“If someone’s planning to pour money into his campaign,” Butts said, “I wish they’d show up.”
Butts said, “I'm hoping we can raise $20,000 to $30,000. I would probably try to communicate as much as I'm allowed to why Proposition 4 is better than Proposition 3 without throwing up a ‘hail storm,’” by saying anything negative about Proposition 3.
“I expect to have some money coming in but how much and who’s going to give it (I don’t know) ... but $100,000? I don’t think we’ll get anywhere near that.”
Peck Young responded by noting that the Austin City Council put 8-2-1 on the ballot shortly after RECA endorsed that plan, the same plan voters soundly defeated a decade ago. Proposition 3 on the May 4, 2002, ballot lost by a margin of 58-42 percent.
“The light on the road to November 6 is not Jesus, it’s RECA,” Young said. “Do you think after RECA shows them the light they won’t show them the money?”
The public will know a lot more about who’s pouring money into these campaigns when the respective political action committees file reports due 30 days before the election on October 9.
The last financial reports before the election are due October 29, eight days out, and no further financial reporting will be required until January 15, said Ann Franklin of the Austin City Clerk’s office. So it will be more than two months after the election before a full accounting of campaign expenditures will be made public.
Natalia Luna Ashley, special counsel to the Texas Ethics Commission, confirmed that financial reporting schedule. A new Specific Purpose Political Action Committee could form at any time to support or oppose one of the propositions on the November 6 ballot, Ashley said.
But it’s too late for a General Purpose PAC to form and spend money on the November 6 election, as there’s a 60-day waiting period that does not apply to Specific Purpose PACs. (For a complete list of pertinent rules, click here, and scroll down to “General Purpose and Specific-Purpose Political Committees.”)
How do the plans differ?
Voters have nixed various geographic representation plans six times between 1973 and 2002.
Proposition 3 would have the mayor elected at-large by all voters and 10 council members elected from geographic districts. A nonpartisan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission would draw the council districts and the City Council would have no choice but to adopt them. The method of selecting commission members and how it would operate are set forth in the ordinance putting the measure on the ballot.
Proposition 4 would have the mayor and two council members elected at-large and eight council members elected from geographic districts. Districts would be drawn as directed by a city ordinance with final approval at the council’s discretion.
To change from the current at-large system that's been in place since 1953 will require majority voter approval. If both propositions net 50 percent plus one vote and pass, the one that garners the most votes would be implemented, subject to the U.S. Department of Justice approval under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
This report was made possible by contributions to The Austin Bulldog, which operates as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit to provide investigative reporting in the public interest. You can help to sustain The Austin Bulldog’s coverage by making a tax-deductible contribution.
Related Bulldog coverage:
Redistricting Need Not Be a Quintessentially Political Process: Independent redistricting commissions for U.S. states and cities, September 24, 2012
Barrientos Lampoons Prop 4 With a Fable: Other proponents of alternative plans for geographic representation push their points, September 14, 2012
Proposition 3 Advocates Falsely8 Accuse RECA: Group alleges ‘rumor’ of $100,000 pledge by Real Estate Council to defeat Proposition 3, but RECA says not so, September 12, 2012
No-Change Option Surfaces in Ballot Debate: Former Council Member Bob Binder opposes both options on the ballot for geographic representation, September 11, 2012
The Election Wars Have Begun: Interest in how council members elected running high, as face-off debates abound, September 9, 2012
Your Guide to Proposed City Charter Amendments: What’s on the ballot, what it will cost taxpayers, and details provided in the ordinances for each proposition, August 30, 2012
Loud Rally Follows Final Council Vote for 8-2-1: AGR’s Cries Foul Over Work Session Vote for Hybrid; Mayor Leffingwell Said Votes Driven by Ballot Deadline, August 7, 2012
Council Backers of 8-2-1 Plan Accused of Self-Interest: But Facts Don’t Seem to Substantiate Such a Claim, as Related Actions May Bar Most Incumbents From Reelection, August 6, 2012
8-2-1 Near Certain to Go on Ballot: City Council Votes on Second Reading to Put Competition Election Plan on Ballot, July 31, 2012
10-1 Plan Qualifies for November Ballot: Consultant Estimates That 22,435 Signatures Are Valid; Austinites for Geographic Representation Readies for Battle, July 26, 2012
Petition Completed for 10-1 Council Districts: Austinites for Geographic Representation Claims 33,000 Signatures, of Which About 22,800 Are Considered Valid, July 16, 2012
Council Puts 10-1 Election Plan on November Ballot: Votes 5-2 on Three Readings to Adopt Petition Language, Votes 4-2 on First Reading to Also Put 8-2-1 on Ballot, June 29, 2012
Citizens Group to Make Final Petition Push: Austinites for Geographic Representation Claims to Have 17,000 Signatures, and Shoots for 13,000 More, June 4, 2012
City Council Tackles Charter Amendments: Redistricting Expert, Charter Revision Committee Members, and Grass-roots Group Critical of Task Force Plan, April 26, 2012
Council District Backers Want Quick Ballot Decision: Big Press Conference, Big Pressure Promised, to Get Council Decision Before Council Elections, March 8, 2012
Hard Fought, Heartfelt Charter Decision: Charter Revision Committee Votes 8-7 to Back 10-1 Plan for Council Elections, February 3, 2012
New Restrictions Proposed for Lobbyist Fundraising: Lobbyists Can Only Give Candidates $25 But Can Collect Unlimited Contributions For Them, January 22, 2012
Committee Debates How to Elect Council: Charter Revision Committee Divided Over Pure Districts vs. Hybrid System, January 9, 2012
Thirteen Charter Changes and Counting: Charter Revision Committee’s Next Job: Tackle Plan for Geographic Representation, December 14, 2011
Council Confirms November 2012 Election Date for Charter Amendments: Resolution Ensures Citizens Initiative Won’t Force May 2012 Charter Election, November 3, 2011
Coalition Launching Petition Drive to Get on the Ballot for May 2012 Election, October 18, 2011
Broad Community Interest Focusing on How Mayor and Council Members Elected, October 4, 2011
Coalition Nearing Petition Launch for Grass-roots Council District Plan, August 24, 2011
Maps Prove Select Few Govern Austin: Forty Years of Election History Expose Extent of Disparity, August 4, 2011
City Council to Consider Proposal to Create Geographic Representation: Election Dates, Term Lengths, Redistricting and Other Charter Changes in Council Resolution, April 27, 2011
Petition Launch Imminent to Force Election for Geographic Representation in City Elections, March 7, 2011