Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Jurisdiction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Austin ethics panel upholds chair's no-jurisdiction finding on complaint alleging state transportation and penal-code violations
Summary
The Ethics Review Commission affirmed the chair's determination that a complaint alleging violations of Texas transportation and penal statutes and an Austin Charter provision fell outside the commission's jurisdiction, effectively closing the matter unless the complainant files a revised complaint.
The City of Austin Ethics Review Commission on Jan. 22, 2025 voted to uphold the chair's jurisdictional finding that it lacked authority to proceed on a complaint filed Dec. 9, 2024 by Jeb Boit against Gary Bledsoe. The complaint alleged violations of chapters 392 and 393 of the Texas Transportation Code, Texas Penal Code section 39.02, and Section 4 of the Austin City Charter.
Assistant City Attorney Caroline Webster summarized the chair's reasoning and the commission's procedural options: the chair concluded the allegations, as pled, did not implicate sections of city code or charter within the Ethics Review Commission's jurisdiction. The chair's initial determination is automatically before the full commission for review, and commissioners may either uphold or overturn that finding.
Following a motion to affirm the chair's decision, commissioners said the complaint as framed did not identify a specific city-code provision under the commission's authority. Commissioner Ross Pumphrey recommended that the complainant may refile if he can identify applicable provisions; Commissioner Brian McGivern characterized the vote as a dismissal without prejudice when pleadings lack specificity.
The motion to uphold the chair's finding passed by unanimous vote of the commissioners present (Chair Michael Lubbins was not present). The commission noted that the complainant may refile a complaint that alleges a violation within the commission's enumerated jurisdiction, but the current filing is closed by the upheld determination.
Commission counsel advised that no further action by the commission is required unless the complainant files a new complaint that adequately identifies city-code sections giving the commission jurisdiction.
