Save Our Springs Alliance and Austin Voters Challenge Austin’s Proposed Charter Amendments Election

Today the nonprofit water protection advocate Save Our Springs Alliance and two  Austin voters and attorneys, SOS Executive Director Bill Bunch and former Texas  Attorney General’s Office staff attorney Joe Riddell filed suit against Austin  Mayor Kirk Watson and the Austin City Council to block the City’s last-minute  placement of thirteen (13) proposed amendments to the Austin City Charter on the  November 5, 2024 ballot.  

“Most of the proposed Charter Amendments would further reduce city hall  transparency and accountability”, said SOS Executive Director Bill Bunch.  ​

​The lawsuit, filed in Travis County District Court, claims that Mayor Watson and  the City Council violated the Texas Open Meetings Act in voting at its Budget  Hearing last Wednesday, August 14th, to include the proposed Propositions C  through Proposition O on the same ballot with the required ballot for Austin Mayor  and 5 of the 10 City Council seats.  

“Most of the proposed Charter Amendments would further reduce city hall  transparency and accountability”, said SOS Executive Director Bill Bunch.  
​
“Seeking to hide this basic truth, the Mayor and Council majority called this last  minute “emergency” election without the public notice and public participation  required by state law. They are hoping uninformed voters overwhelmed by a  lengthy ballot loaded with other state, federal, and local elections will simply vote  “yes” to major City Charter changes hidden behind vague and friendly-sounding  ballot language,” Bunch added.  

“The Austin City Council is becoming lawless, and this lawsuit is another example  of their arrogant disdain for transparency. Mayor Watson and the Council majority  are undermining democracy with violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act,” said  Bill Aleshire, a former Travis County Judge and attorney for the Plaintiffs.  

Just last month and earlier this month, in a Texas Open Meetings Act lawsuit  brought by the SOS Alliance against the Austin City Council, Travis County  District Court Judge Daniella Deseta Lyttle ruled that the City Council’s public  meeting procedures violated the Texas Open Meetings Act’s “right to speak”  provisions in three separate ways. A key ruling in that case held that the City  Council may limit the time that public speakers address the Council’s meetings,  but that the limits must be “reasonable” and on an individual agenda item basis.  

In this case, Plaintiffs claim the City Council violated the statute and the court’s  order by limiting public speakers to a total of 3 minutes to address fourteen  separate proposed charter amendments. Ultimately, the Council voted to place 13  proposed amendments of the City’s constitution, known as a “city charter,” on the  November ballot.  

Plaintiffs’ suit also claims that the City Council’s public notice stating that last  week’s special Wednesday meeting was for “Budget Adoption Readings” and then,  buried further down, providing only that “charter amendments” would be  considered, was both misleading and insufficient to meet the Open Meetings Act’s  requirements for giving notice of the “subject” of the Council actions. Where  public action items are controversial or of special importance, Texas Courts have  required greater specificity of the public notice for those actions.  

Given the last-minute calling of this election, if the Plaintiffs prevail in this case,  the City Council will likely need to schedule any charter amendment elections for  either May or November of 2025. Voters would then receive proper notice, have an opportunity to speak on potential amendments to the city charter that may be  appropriate, and then to have plenty of time to educate themselves about the  proposals before casting their ballots.  
The 13 proposed charter amendments include:  

Proposition K: Would, if approved, raise the City Manager’s right to contract for  work without receiving City Council approval in a public city council meeting from the current limit of $43,000 up to $150,000. This is a huge increase in hidden  spending, inviting waste and abuse of taxpayer funds.  

Proposition L: Would, if approved, remove city civil service protection for  employees of the City Auditor’s office by making them political appointees. This  would convert a critical, internal watchdog function into a purely political one.  

Proposition G: Would reduce the power of voters to initiate charter amendments  and city ordinances by citizen petition by postponing votes on certified petitions  from the next available election date to the next November election date in even  numbered years. This delay would severely undermine the already limited right of  local direct democracy by allowing “grandfathering” and city council actions to  preempt or undermine the voter-initiated measure. Had it been in place when the  Save Our Springs citizen-initiated ordinance was petitioned on to the ballot, the  delay would have likely gutted the effectiveness of the ordinance.  
 
Proposition H: If approved, Prop. H would reduce voter power to petition a recall  election of a sitting councilmember to almost zero by raising the required number  of signatures from the current 10 percent of qualified voters in the single-member  council district to 15 percent. This recall power has not been used in decades and  the only reason to weaken it further is to shield bad officeholders from being  removed by their own constituents.  

Other proposed charter amendments would also reduce city hall accountability and  transparency.  
An initial court hearing in this case will likely be scheduled for later this week. 

—30— 
For further information, please contact:  
Bill Aleshire – 512-750-5854 
Bill Bunch – 512-784-3749 

​

Read Full Lawsuit Petition Here