Continuing our discussion of the City of Austin ballot for the November 3 election, this article will take readers through the “propositions” from the City of Austin, as put on the ballot by the City Council.
Rather than take the propositions in alphabetical order, as they are listed on the ballot, we are going to divide them into categories — in an attempt to provide further understanding of the situation, and the ballot.
For housekeeping, Props A and B are requests for citizen approval of bonds for parks and libraries respectively. We did a separate article on those which can be read here.
Also, we have an article in progress on Prop I, the citizen petition initiative for an independent and comprehensive audit of City finances. That article will be posted next and we will email a notice.
The rest of the City propositions, the ones put on the ballot by the Council with varying levels of guidance and assistance from City staff, are all discussed below. As I said, these will be arranged by category.
Category 1: Can’t Everyone Just Agree on This One?
Propostion D: “Shall the City Charter be amended to delete language providing that the City Council shall meet at least once each week?”
As is clear from the ballot language, this one would delete Charter language which requires the Council to meet once a week. Of course the Council doesn’t meet every week, but each time they don’t want to meet they have to take a vote to cancel the upcoming meeting. Or they have to take a vote at the first of the year to cancel a bunch of meetings.
In other words, whether this Charter amendment passes or not isn’t going to make one bit of difference in how many times a year the Council meets.
Instead it’s more of a referendum on how people feel about the Council. Still, it could be something where everyone agrees, regardless of their views on the Council. For instance, fans of the Council can argue that those hard working public servants deserve to take a week off now and then, and, anyway, they’re probably still working on City business even when they don’t have a meeting of the entire Council.
Critics of the Council can argue that the less the Council Members get together in an official meeting, the less damage they can do the City — official Council meetings being the only time the Council can take official action and set policy.
So this could be that rare item that brings everyone together.
But, no. The editorial board of the Austin Chronicle — my long ago employer — recommended a no vote. They asked:
“Why? So that they can do even more of their business off the dais, out of public view? And why would that be a good thing?”
To me that seems wrong-headed and a hasty conclusion. First of all if the Chronicle political staff has such a negative view of the current Council, then it seems like that should be better reflected in their Council coverage. Second, even if Council Members are off scheming somewhere — in a smoke free backroom — they still have to gather in an official meeting before they can take any action. So, if the actions Council Members are going to take will largely be negative then it makes more sense to have less meetings.
Category 2: Housekeeping or Basic Trust?
This is a category that the City describes as basic housekeeping. But, voting yes requires some level of trust. Of course this is something that individual citizens have to decide for themselves.
Prop J is a fundamental one when it comes to trust. It reads:
Proposition J: “Shall the City Charter be amended to make non-substantive corrections of typographical errors, punctuation, and sentence structure, and to change or remove language that is moot or unenforceable because it has been superseded by state law or by a final court order?”
As I said, this one is really a test of trust. If you trust the Council and Management to determine what “non-substantive corrections” etc. are, then a yes vote is in order. If not you may want to mark it no.
Both the Statesman and the Chronicle recommend a yes vote here, the Statesman calling it a “standard housekeeping measure.” (By the way we cite the Statesman and Chronicle endorsements to provide readers basic informations and a barometer to help make their own decisions. We do not, in any way, mean to imply that items with a Statesman and Chronicle endorsement should be an automatic yes.)
On the other side of this one, former Travis County Judge and Council critic Bill Aleshire posted on X that the “City Council is lying to voters on Prop J.” Specifically he is concerned that staff will make changes that allow “the Council to monkey around with ballot language to kill petitions they don’t like.” Aleshire says he is standing by ready to sue if that happens.
Proposition C: Also falling into the trust category, this one is intended to “clarify that the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (ICRC) is independent of City Council control.” The language of this proposition, however, clearly consists of housekeeping measures related to operation of ICRC, likely things learned by ICRC participants during the course of operating the Commission. The proposition doesn’t appear to consist of actions aimed at clarifying that the Commission is independent of the Council. But, I’m not sure why that needs clarifying.
If there has been a part of the switch to single member districts which worked, it has been the ICRC. And, I am not aware of any Council interference or allegations of Council interference. If there has been any, it’s not evident at all how the interference would be avoided with this proposition. Both the Statesman and the Chronicle recommend a yes on this one.
Proposition F: “Shall the City Charter be amended to clarify the meaning of the term ‘election’ and to provide that the campaign contribution and expenditure limits shall be modified each year by January 1st instead of with the adoption of the budget?
This one doesn’t seem to have raised any suspicions and it’s another where both the Statesman and Chronicle recommend yes votes. The Statesman says, “This sensible measure clarifies how candidate contribution and spending rules apply to different types of elections, such as the general election or a runoff.”
Category 3: Propositions That Definitely Reduce Citizen Power
Now we move into propositions that Council tried to put on the ballot in 2024, but were blocked after a lawsuit, from attorneys including Aleshire and Bill Bunch. The view here is that these items are brazen in the way they would dilute citizen rights and power and increase the power of the Council.
Proposition G: “Shall the City Charter be amended to provide that initiative elections and petitioned charter amendment elections must be held on the next available November election date that occurs in an even-numbered year and that allows sufficient time to comply with other requirements of law?”
The view here is that this is the most egregious item that the Council put on the City ballot and the biggest power grab. It holds that elections resulting from citizen petition drives — a long-held citizen right in Austin — “must be held on the next available November election date that occurs in an even-numbered year.”
This would delay action on untold numbers of issues in the future on which citizens collected thousands of signatures from citizens to force an election. We described in a 2024 article how this would have affected, and changed, critical historical moments in Austin, like the impact of 1992’s Save Our Springs Ordinance, for just one example.
The Statesman strongly recommended against this one:“Petitioning the government is a core right. In Austin, that includes the right to gather enough signatures to put a proposed ordinance on the ballot so voters can decide the issue directly.”
The Chronicle said they were “split on this one.”
Proposition E: This one would allow the Council “to determine its rules and order of business by ordinance?” This refers to the rules by which Council conducts its meetings; including how it accepts public input, and how much of it. Allowing them to switch away from setting their rules by ordinance would allow more rules changes on the fly, among other things.
This got a no from both the Statesman and Chronicle. The Statesman summarizes, “An ordinance provides extra clarity and predictability to the public because the rules can’t be changed on a whim.”
Category 4: Increases Council Power
“Proposition H: Shall the City Charter be amended to provide that the City Council appoints and removes the City Attorney?”
We put this one in a separate category because it definitely increases Council power, but does not necessarily dilute citizen power. Councils have put this on the ballot several times before and voters have always said no.
Both the Chronicle and the Statesman supported this one, however. The Statesman editorial board writes, somewhat breezily, “Council members create local laws; they should have access to the person who might need to defend those measures.”
That’s reasonable but we offer a few deeper factors for voters to consider. They have to do with the nature of whether the City Attorney reports to the City Manager or to the Council.
Either way there is a built in conflict between two branches of government. Something like a worst case scenario would be: There is a dispute between the Council or a member or portion of the Council and the City Attorney over some legal interpretation. The Council might think that the City Manager is requiring the City Attorney to rule in a certain way, whether that is an accurate legal interpretation or not. In the worst case that might be true. But another possibility is that the City Attorney is offering an honest, even brave, legal interpretation in the face of a Mayor, Council or Council Members who strongly wish the ruling were otherwise.
It’s worth individual voters thinking through potential situations like this and reflecting on whether they think such a situation would be handled best by a system in which the City Attorney reports to the seven member City Council or reports to the City Manager.
Another important factor to keep in mind is that the Law Department plays an important administrative function within City government. For one thing, City lawyers have to review everything that makes it onto a Council agenda. And, the Law Department — led by the City Attorney — handles cases for all City departments and their operations. In this way Prop H would give the Council even more of an administrative responsibility than perhaps is intended.
Well, that’s all folks — except the citizen petition-driven Prop I, which we will cover in a separate article shortly.
Early voting starts on Monday October 19 and ends on Friday October 30. Election Day is on November 3.
__________________________
Folks: The Austin Independent is free to everyone who wants to read it, but it still takes money to publish and to research. You will be very hard pressed to find the kind of local journalism that the Austin Independent provides anywhere else. So please chip in on our Donate page and help us keep turning out stories.
If you happen to have difficulty on the Donate page please contact us here. Thank you.
The Austin Independent, a publication of The Austin Independent, LLC
All Rights Reserved