[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6461747,"mediaKeyId","5822997-26b72f79cd5666e7573174149be57718","parentId",5822997,"title","Austin law department proposes code cleanup to clarify Ethics Review Commission jurisdiction","audioSeconds",1619,"startMs",286000,"endMs",1905000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5822997-26b72f79cd5666e7573174149be57718&start=286&end=1905","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5822997-26b72f79cd5666e7573174149be57718/thumbnail_286000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6461747/Austin/Travis-County/Texas/Austin-law-department-proposes-code-cleanup-to-clarify-Ethics-Review-Commission-jurisdiction","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6461747-586b1b8c528b2a56714240bfda3fa866/orig.mp4?Expires=1770633760&Signature=OFfEO7V8G9LtwwHbLVeVmCSQ3yG83dlZn0QvbrY2hSe0CkVbagmk2aLA~bBugVSirSg8w4FWEhsoENdieJ6GnssetY6yn554pMDQ3EKrzV9XiXiUadg7v3dh8z0x-xJcGt7Jl-JJjvc01f8Lt4j-rb2ypbqO2CyD3CXTfXc3pesQdM82i9uHPvYjvdRQpPLeUdmTme~vv4kPPOlJCRZ8bgJKf8cnthxj55BeCoqhOwzkAG5ejhSyC71Pn~7tVxb1YBtUzsResAIgFCmFT5jsVeuGKKsbrWVUucbquakgz~1HmmjjkoBg95or4Ydaz~Y6R~yCElfgArPgpdujwti1zg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Austin","date","2025-09-24T00:00:00Z","article","The City of Austin Law Department presented a draft ordinance on Sept. 24 to clarify references in city code about who the Ethics Review Commission may investigate, and commission members discussed the change and asked staff questions but did not record a formal vote.

The ordinance would revise City Code section 2-7-27 to state directly which officials the ERC may hear sworn complaints about instead of pointing readers to another section of code. The law department said the change is intended only to clarify jurisdiction after a 2019 amendment and a separate 2024 amendment to a related section left a cross-reference that is now outdated.

Caroline Webster, executive liaison for the City of Austin Law Department, said the proposed language would read, in part, that “the ethics review commission may only hear or initiate a sworn complaint alleging a violation of Article 4, the code of ethics, against a member of the city council or their direct staff, a person appointed by the city council pursuant to the city charter, or a person appointed by the city council to a city board, task force, or similar body.” Webster said the change restates existing limits on jurisdiction in a single place so readers need not flip to other sections of code.

Webster told commissioners the ambiguous cross-reference originated because section 2-3-5 was amended again in 2024 and a corresponding update was not made to 2-7-27. She described the proposed fix as a clarification, not an expansion of the ERC’s authority.

Jason Adavi, deputy city auditor, and Brian Lloyd, chief of investigations in the Office of the City Auditor, were present to answer questions. Lloyd said the auditor’s office does not anticipate changing how it investigates or which matters it refers; he told commissioners, “I don't anticipate any changes in how we operate, who we would investigate, and then whether we would follow our normal process.”

Commissioners asked how the change affects who must file statements of financial interest; Webster said the draft also changes section 2-7-71 to allow the city manager to identify affected positions through an administrative bulletin (rather than listing every title in code) and to add some designated positions such as members of the Community Police Review Commission and purchasing agents. Webster said that approach is intended to make the filing rules easier to read and maintain as job titles change across departments.

Commissioner Andrea Lowe asked whether the auditor’s office would conduct different kinds of investigations under the revision; Lloyd answered no and said the change merely clarifies who is covered in code. Commissioner McGovern said the clarification “is a huge improvement” for people administering the law and the public.

No formal motion or recorded vote on the draft ordinance appears in the transcript. Webster said the law department will move forward with the change in some form regardless of whether the commission adopts a formal recommendation; commissioners were invited to ask follow-up questions and provide feedback.

If adopted by City Council through the city’s formal ordinance process, the change would primarily affect where Austin residents and officials look in city code to determine whether an individual falls under ERC jurisdiction. The proposal does not, according to staff, alter the practical allocation of investigative responsibility between the auditor’s office and other city officials.

Details the commission discussed include that the small set of officials specifically listed in the proposed text would include the auditor, city clerk, municipal court judge (or their designee), municipal court clerk, members of the municipal civil service commission, planning commission members, and the city manager. Webster emphasized that department heads are not covered by ERC jurisdiction for Article 4 complaints as a result of prior code changes; those matters are handled by the auditor’s office and then routed according to 2-3-5 procedures.

The law department and auditor were available for follow-up questions; the item was not formally voted on at the meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Austin - Ethics Review Commission","oneSentenceSummary","City law staff presented a draft ordinance to clarify which officials the Ethics Review Commission (ERC) may investigate, updating cross-references in city code after earlier amendments in 2019 and 2024; the commission discussed but did not record a formal vote.","taxTitle","Austin, Travis County, Texas","taxId",2819,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6461737,"Votes at a glance: Austin Ethics Review Commission — Sept. 24, 2025",1608,82000,1690000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5822997-26b72f79cd5666e7573174149be57718&start=82&end=1690","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5822997-26b72f79cd5666e7573174149be57718/thumbnail_82000.jpg","/articles/6461737/Austin/Travis-County/Texas/Votes-at-a-glance-Austin-Ethics-Review-Commission-Sept-24-2025","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6461737-1fda624fb7619f2f46999d0e6b16c05b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770633760&Signature=YnU7qPZ7SyudYZfwJABHSD2efUhVK9nabeC4bIzBYCwwXxKf4AcQRVY6HtqRTTrQUn-a454zIDHcHN8iTyQJOd2So1J4ZfH601suJ1w9-P11QzFnWOimqeZSMmz8Rb9f2cUHwleQuF40ssLZ-CYE1RdSR6x-NSEgX8oGJ-8iflXNpGmXGGRbrGDOGfslCIvS4PzoBfdYFlv3dOV0klhd17A4RJUPucx3eyejJiH2Pde7USsRkGCkpHyX0oeHVScPFqWDPuvCU1TD-5JzowDaByFPfKYAYTjMYAuMDNyYodf1pPtiTkeoktQYOypwakCjcFCK1jQdTkY0wa46D0tvMA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At its Sept. 24 meeting the Ethics Review Commission recorded three formal, brief votes on procedural items: approval of amended minutes from the June 25, 2025 meeting, approval of the regular minutes from the August 2025 meeting, and adoption of the ERC’s regular meeting calendar for 2026.

The commission unanimously approved the June 25, 2025 minutes after a reported small edit to correct a vote count on page 4. The motion to approve the revised minutes was moved by “Commissioner Freddie” and seconded by Commissioner Kiel; the chair called for hands and the minutes were approved unanimously.

The August minutes were approved after small editing changes noted by the chair. Commissioner Prady moved to approve and Commissioner Luis Figueroa seconded. Commissioner Lowe initially expressed she would abstain; after clarification she registered an abstention. The chair recorded the motion as passed (unanimous of present members aside from the abstention).

The commission voted to adopt its 2026 regular meeting calendar. Commissioner Kiel moved approval and Commissioner Figueroa seconded; the chair called the vote, and the calendar was approved unanimously. Staff noted that room reservations are first-come, first-served and some months (including July, November and December) may be held elsewhere due to City Council scheduling.

No other formal votes were recorded in the meeting transcript. Several substantive agenda items (notably a draft code amendment clarifying ERC jurisdiction) were discussed but a formal commission vote on that draft ordinance was not recorded.","The Ethics Review Commission approved amended minutes from June and the regular minutes from August, and adopted the 2026 meeting calendar; no controversies or dissent beyond an abstention on the August minutes were recorded.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6461742,"Austin Ethics Review Commission debates scope and membership of working groups, focuses on complaint-process overhaul",1672,1322000,2994000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5822997-26b72f79cd5666e7573174149be57718&start=1322&end=2994","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5822997-26b72f79cd5666e7573174149be57718/thumbnail_1322000.jpg","/articles/6461742/Austin/Travis-County/Texas/Austin-Ethics-Review-Commission-debates-scope-and-membership-of-working-groups-focuses-on-complaint-process-overhaul","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6461742-26a72f8aaded6e84a0ce900d475d4961/orig.mp4?Expires=1770633760&Signature=lx0dVHrjD19AdK6V9LsytTjObP9qSTFMebYCbP0cEHhUXUXaR7l5QyMYnXitGxrLGcwQP4OZi~bRzJFuWMQAbT2MaYirL1CHQAN7sQD4el49GQfJ6coIVjadx~F0LFe0tGpBm5BUPmyNyqLfKIXigVhGRsmGbu4BGHld4P6w5yOBZUHdfqPuMQQWlRXJHBK98Jchh2Mto9E--EIVsGAg4SSZrjID6Yn7i8HkOS3dfOTsxaAoA63XCO47Kl0bAoac-lwBJC8eQGwd9GNCCybcl6iflIwAdMwhHqysJhCIKYRADj0kwSEUF~MCCxPyUhfpc5IHsHUWlO2lz2fEUExIHg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Ethics Review Commission reviewed the status of its working groups on Sept. 24 and debated whether the working group that reviews the commission-initiated complaint process should be broadened to conduct a comprehensive review of ERC rules and the complaint procedures.

Lizette Menditez, staff liaison, presented a list of inactive and active working groups and described which groups had been disbanded because members left or terms ended. The commission reviewed three active groups: one to review the ERC complaint process (created August 2022), one to review and revise ERC bylaws (created August 2024), and one to review and revise ERC rules and regulations (created July 2025).

Commissioner Andrea Lowe, who said she has served since March 2023 and is the longest-serving commissioner, described the complaint-process working group’s original intent as a global review of the entire complaint process. Lowe said commission-initiated complaints must be considered in the context of how all complaints are processed so that respondents are treated equitably whether a complaint is commission-initiated, filed by a citizen, or comes from the auditor’s office. Lowe said the group’s work includes thinking about mechanisms needed to process complaints more efficiently and fairly, particularly when many complaints arrive around election times.

Commissioners asked how this mandate differs from the separate rules-and-regulations working group. Chair Ross Pumphrey and others said the apparent overlap may be a drafting issue in the agenda language and that the complaint-process working group is intended to focus on rules that affect complaints specifically, including prehearing procedures, filing requirements, and possible waivers or procedural additions not currently in the ERC rules.

Legal counsel reminded commissioners they must set formal membership for working groups and ensure membership stays below a quorum to avoid Open Meetings Act issues. Caroline Webster of the law department advised that working-group membership and outside consultants must be handled so that the commission does not inadvertently hold a meeting of a quorum outside public notice: “You do have to set the membership of the working group,” she said, and cautioned about the quorum rule because working groups are not subject to the Open Meetings Act.

Commissioners discussed whether to invite former commissioners to consult informally; staff advised that outside consultants or former members may speak to the working group or commission, but formal membership needs to be set at a public meeting and the membership size must be managed to avoid a quorum of the commission participating off the record.

Secretary Matern (absent from this meeting) had previously prepared materials and a flowchart that commissioners expect to see at the October meeting. Commissioners also reported that the bylaws working group has drafted proposals and will circulate them to the law department for review before another commission discussion.

Chair Pumphrey asked whether formal changes in membership or scope would be acted on under the agenda item; staff confirmed such changes can be taken under the item but are not required at this meeting. Menditez said inactive working groups will remain inactive unless commissioners request future agenda items to reconstitute or change them.

The commission did not record formal membership changes at this meeting; commissioners agreed to defer some updates and to continue the complaint-process discussion at the October meeting, when additional materials are expected.","Commissioners reviewed active and inactive working groups, discussed widening the complaint-process working group to a comprehensive review of complaint rules and procedures, and asked staff about membership rules and Open Meetings Act constraints.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Austin law department proposes code cleanup to clarify Ethics Review Commission jurisdiction

Votes at a glance: Austin Ethics Review Commission — Sept. 24, 2025

Austin Ethics Review Commission debates scope and membership of working groups, focuses on complaint-process overhaul