Austin residents will not see 13 proposed city charter amendments on the Nov. 5 general election ballot, the American-Statesman has confirmed.
The city's decision not to proceed with the amendment election comes a day after state District Judge Maya Guerra Gamble issued a temporary court order halting the city from placing the amendments on the ballot, saying the city violated the Texas Open Meetings Act at an Aug. 14 hearing when it called the election.
The city charter is the governing document for the city of Austin. The proposed charter amendments included raising the threshold of signatures needed for a recall election of a City Council member, giving the City Council the authority to appoint and remove the city attorney, and changing the timing of certain types of elections.
The city communications office sent a statement addressed to Austin City Council members and their staff on Friday that read: "Due to recent court decisions, the City has decided it is in the best interest of the public that the special election on charter amendments not be included in the upcoming election.
"To be clear, the City’s general election for council offices and the special election on disannexations will remain on the November ballot. Staff is responsible for notice and posting language for agendas. Staff takes full responsibility for any inconsistency with the Texas Open Meetings Act and, as such, staff will ensure that future council action items are posted to provide notice and opportunity for public comment in full compliance with the Texas Open Meetings Act."
The lawsuit was filed by attorney Bill Aleshire on behalf of the Save Our Springs Alliance, an environmental nonprofit; its executive director, Bill Bunch; and Joe Riddell, a former staff attorney in the Texas attorney general's office. Aleshire is a former Travis County judge. The suit was filed in Travis County state District Court on the last day Texas municipalities could order an election , Aug. 19.
It asserts that the city's governing body violated both the public participation requirements and the public notice requirements of the Open Meetings Act when it authorized the election at a hearing Aug. 14 because all the proposed amendments were compressed into one agenda item, rather than each one being taken up individually.
This limited the amount of time a person could speak on the amendments and did not give substantial public notice on what the amendments would change, the lawsuit claims.
Guerra Gamble agreed with the Save Our Springs Alliance during Thursday's court hearing that the City Council violated the state's Open Meetings Act, calling the council's Aug. 14 hearing "a pretty blatant violation of a well-known law."
"It is very clear to me that the Austin City Council chose to violate the Open Meetings Act with its title of the meeting, with its description in the agenda of the meeting," Guerra Gamble said during Thursday's hearing.
The meeting calling the election occurred on the same day as the annual budget adoption. The title of the meeting on the city's website reads "budget adoption reading of the Austin City Council." In the agenda, which included items other than just those related to the budget, was one item calling the general election for several City Council seats and Austin mayor as well as a special election for "proposed charter amendments."
The 2024 City Charter Review Commission held several public meetings on the amendments before they were approved by the City Council. The commission was formed to make recommendations to the City Council on what potential changes to the charter should go before voters. The City Council at its July 18 meeting approved some of the recommendations and set the ballot language. The election itself was called on Aug. 14.
When asked by the Statesman who is responsible for the final language and posting notification of City Council agenda items, city spokesperson David Ochsner provided a statement Thursday from the Law Department that read: "While the ordinance that outlines the agenda process authorizes the city manager to compile the agenda, it is a collaborative effort that involves many departments within the City. One essential step in that process includes a legal review to confirm compliance with the Texas Open Meetings Act."
Aleshire on Friday told the Statesman it is "shameful that (city leaders) are blaming that on staff."
"All of the members of City Council have to go to mandatory training on the Open Meetings Act," Aleshire said, adding that Mayor Kirk Watson, as a former state senator, had been "in the Legislature doing bills on the Open Meetings Act. It is shameful."
Prior to Thursday's temporary injunction from Guerra Gamble, state District Judge Daniella DeSeta Lyttle had issued a temporary restraining order pausing the charter amendment election after she also found the City Council had violated the Open Meetings Act. The temporary restraining order was set to last until Sept. 5 or until a ruling from Thursday's hearing.
Watson in a statement to the Statesman said it was "unfortunate" that residents will not be able to vote on the amendments this November, citing the time and community effort that went into planning and crafting the amendments.
"The Texas Open Meetings Act is a law I value and work hard to adhere to," Watson said in the statement. "So, with this court ruling, we will hold off at this point on holding an election on the charter amendments, and plan to hold the charter election at a future date so that we can be sure to dot every 'I' and cross every 'T' to have an election that is above reproach.”
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: City of Austin drops charter amendments from Nov. ballot after court rulings on lawsuit
Local News
