Citing 'blatant violation' of meetings law, judge pauses Austin charter amendment election

The Austin City Council violated the Texas Open Meetings Act when it placed 13 city charter amendments on the Nov. 5 general election ballot, state District Judge Maya Guerra Gamble ruled on Thursday.

Guerra Gamble temporarily blocked the placement of those charter amendments on Austin ballots, but it remains to be seen whether voters will still see those propositions when they go to the polls this fall.

The city could agree with the judge's temporary injunction, leaving the amendments off the ballot until a trial on the Open Meetings Act violations can be held in January, or the city could appeal Guerra Gamble's decision. As of 4:30 p.m. Thursday, online county records showed no appeal had been filed. A city spokesperson said the city could not provide comment on the ruling Thursday afternoon.

The city charter is the governing document for the city of Austin. The proposed charter amendments include 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.

At the heart of the case is the Texas Open Meetings Act — a set of rules and regulations governing bodies must follow to keep meetings and official government business open to the public in the interest of transparency. The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed against the Austin City Council by the Save Our Springs Alliance, an environmental nonprofit.

The lawsuit asserts that the city's governing body violated both the public participation requirements and the public notice requirements of the act when it authorized the election at a hearing Aug. 14 because all of 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.

Attorney Bill Aleshire filed the lawsuit on behalf of the alliance; 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 District Court on the last day Texas municipalities could order an election , Aug. 19.

Guerra Gamble agreed with the alliance during Thursday's court hearing that the City Council violated the state's Open Meetings Act, calling the Aug. 14 hearing in which the City Council called the election "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 City Council is expected to discuss the matter in executive session Thursday, according to the City Council agenda .

When asked by the Statesman who is responsible for the final language and posting notification of Austin City Council agenda items, city spokesperson David Ochsner provided a statement Thursday from the law department that said: "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."

Dan Richards, attorney for the city of Austin, said Thursday that the city did not violate the state's Open Meetings Act because the propositions were on the city website, and the council held several public meetings discussing the amendments.

Citing several Texas Supreme Court decisions, Richards also argued that courts do not have the authority under state law to preemptively keep a question off the ballot. If someone questions the legality of a ballot item, he said, that person should file a lawsuit after voters have spoken.

The temporary injunction comes a week after state District Judge Daniella DeSeta Lyttle 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.

Given the impending voting deadlines to finalize ballots in Travis, Williamson and Hays counties, prior to Thursday's hearing Aleshire asked the Texas Supreme Court for an order prohibiting the city from moving forward with placing the charter amendments on the November ballot.

The state's highest court did not issue an opinion on the matter but on Thursday denied Aleshire's request, meaning the case could go through the appeals process.

This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Citing 'blatant violation' of meetings law, judge pauses Austin charter amendment election