Austin Ethics Review Commission affirms it lacks jurisdiction over two complaints, debates commission-initiated complaint process

The City of Austin Ethics Review Commission unanimously affirmed that it lacks jurisdiction over two complaints filed by resident and former city employee Andrew Rivera, the commission said during its Aug. 27 meeting. Commissioners also discussed whether the commission should be able to originate complaints and voted to discontinue a working group that maintained a calendar of commission duties.

The commission voted 8-0 to affirm the chair's initial jurisdictional determination on a complaint filed June 6, 2025, by Andrew Rivera against Lauren Elizabeth Middleton Pratt and then voted 8-0 to affirm that it lacks jurisdiction over a complaint filed Aug. 15, 2025, by Rivera against Megan Hilburn Herndon. Both motions were made and seconded during the meeting and passed unanimously among commissioners present.

Those motions formally upheld Chair Ross Pumphrey's preliminary determinations that the Ethics Review Commission does not have authority under the cited sections of city code to adjudicate the complaints. Commissioners debated how changes to city code in recent years affect the commission's scope and whether the auditor's office retains investigatory authority in parallel.

Andrew Rivera, who spoke during the public-communications portion, said he filed the complaints and alleged retaliation by city management, including removal from a liaison role and an employment termination process he characterized as retaliatory. "I feel I'm being retaliated against by city management for doing so, including my termination," Rivera said during public comment. He told commissioners he had received an email from the auditor's office and quoted the office's response: "It is our understanding that they have jurisdiction over all current and former City of Austin employees that would include department director level employees," he said, noting the message arrived at "01:49 p.m. today" from Michael Eckert in the auditor's office.

Commissioners discussed how the city code's sections interact. Commissioner McGovern (recorded in the transcript as Mcgeveren/McGivern) framed the issue as a statutory-interpretation question, saying that section 2-3-5 l2 was recodified in 2019 and "that really doesn't make any sense because l2 doesn't identify any parties," but that legislative history supports interpreting the provision to continue to carve out certain positions from the commission's jurisdiction. Caroline Webster of the Law Department told commissioners the working group preparing rules for commission-initiated complaints was properly limited to that assignment and that the commission could still separately consider other rule changes or create a new working group for them.

During the closed-session discussion the commission had consulted with counsel under Texas Government Code Sec. 551.071 on whether the chair's initial determinations were correct regarding city code sections 2-3-5 (powers and duties), 2-7-62 (standards of conduct) and 2-7-63 (prohibition on conflict of interest), as alleged in the complaints filed by Rivera against Chief Planning Department staff and an acting assistant director. After returning to open session, commissioners moved and voted to affirm the chair's lack-of-jurisdiction determinations on both matters.

On procedure, commissioners discussed a working-group proposal to allow "commission-initiated complaints" — a process where two commissioners would move and second a complaint to bring it before the commission, then follow the same timelines and deadlines as a public complaint. The working group plans to return with a flowchart and suggested language for the commission to consider. Counsel clarified that while the working group is limited to drafting rules for commission-initiated complaints, the full commission can separately vote to amend its rules and create or retask working groups as needed.

The commission also voted to discontinue a long-standing working group tasked with preparing a calendar of commission duties and responsibilities. Commissioner Figueroa moved to discontinue the calendar working group and Vice Chair Sharkey seconded; the motion passed unanimously.

The commission said it will place the commission-initiated-complaint proposal and related complaint-process items on a future agenda and consider inviting the auditor's office to brief the commission on its view of auditor versus Ethics Review Commission jurisdiction. "You can certainly request [the auditor's office attend]; you can't require them to come, but you're certainly free to make a request," Caroline Webster said about inviting auditors for a staff brief.

Votes at a glance: two jurisdictional determinations affirmed (items 4 and 5), both passed 8-0; working group on calendar duties discontinued, passed 8-0; minutes from a prior meeting approved by voice vote.

The commission adjourned at 7:48 p.m.