Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Complaints topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Austin Ethics Review Commission dismisses two preliminary complaints after complainant fails to appear
Summary
On Feb. 6 the City of Austin Ethics Review Commission dismissed two preliminary complaints filed by Adam Haines — against Mike Siegel and Zachary John Scott Faddis — after Haines did not appear for required hearings. Both dismissals were without prejudice and approved by a 7-0 vote.
The City of Austin Ethics Review Commission dismissed two preliminary complaints filed by Adam Haines on Feb. 6, 2025, after Haines did not appear for required preliminary hearings.
The commission met at Austin City Hall in Boards and Commissions Room 1101. After returning from a closed executive session, commissioners heard that the complainant was not present and that counsel had attempted to locate him in the building. Vice Chair Lowe moved to dismiss both complaints without prejudice; the motions passed by unanimous voice/hand vote, with the commission reporting seven members in favor and no opposition.
The complaints named two respondents: Mike Siegel and Zachary John Scott Faddis. The first complaint alleged violations of City Code chapter 2-2 (including sections 2-2-13 and 2-2-21) and City Charter Article 3, Section 8. The second complaint cited several City Code sections (2-2-3, 2-2-21, 2-2-23, 2-2-26, 2-2-301, 2-2-302 and 2-2-33). The commission did not take evidence on either matter because the complainant was not present.
Alan Bojorquez, outside counsel for the commission, said he had gone into the lobby and called for Adam Haines but saw no one and that the commission had taken a roughly 12- to 13-minute recess to give Haines an opportunity to return. "I did go out and call in the lobby, and no one responded," Bojorquez said. "We took a break for about 12 or 13 minutes to try to give him a chance to come back in. Essentially, we've done what we could to make sure that his rights were protected."
Vice Chair Lowe moved to dismiss the complaint against Mike Siegel "without prejudice" on the ground that the complainant was not present as required by the Austin Code of Ordinances. Commissioner Espinosa seconded that motion. The commission then voted, with seven hands raised in favor and none opposed. The commission took the same procedural steps on the complaint against Zachary John Scott Faddis; Vice Chair Lowe moved to dismiss without prejudice and Commissioner Figueroa seconded, and the motion passed by the same unanimous vote.
The meeting included an executive session under the Texas Government Code provision referenced by the commission (Texas Government Code section 551.071) to consult with legal counsel about the complaints. The commission recessed briefly earlier in the evening to give the complainant time to return and reconvened for the preliminary hearings when the recess ended.
No members of the public had signed up for public communication. Secretary Stanton Adams was noted as expected to join later but was not present for the preliminary hearings. The commission adjourned at about 8:05 p.m.
Votes at a glance: - Motion to dismiss without prejudice the complaint filed by Adam Haines against Mike Siegel (citing Austin Code requirements for complainant presence): Moved by Vice Chair Lowe; seconded by Commissioner Espinosa; tally recorded as 7 yes, 0 no. Outcome: approved (dismissed without prejudice). - Motion to dismiss without prejudice the complaint filed by Adam Haines against Zachary John Scott Faddis: Moved by Vice Chair Lowe; seconded by Commissioner Figueroa; tally recorded as 7 yes, 0 no. Outcome: approved (dismissed without prejudice).
The commission made no evidentiary rulings and issued no findings on the merits of either complaint at the Feb. 6 meeting.
