Proposed change would take some city ethics complaints out of public view

Some of City Hall’s highest level executives will see future accusations of ethics violations against them handled out of public view, if Austin City Council members pass a proposal offered by Mayor Steve Adler.

The changes, outlined in an ordinance after Adler first proposed them in a message board post last week, would remove city employees from the Ethics Review Commission process unless they are the staff member of an elected official. Council members and their board or commission appointees would still go through the process.

Under the proposed new process, city employees who are neither represented by a union nor on the staff of a council member would have any ethics investigations performed by the city auditor go directly to the city manager. A final report on the investigation would be available publicly only after the city manager had taken action, or not, against the employee.

BACKGROUND: Adler proposes relaxing city’s ethics rules after complaint against HR director

The draft ordinance — to be considered by the City Council on Thursday — would represent a marked change in the ability of the public to follow ethics charges against city executives. It would make the process for high-ranking officials similar to that for most rank-and-file city employees covered by civil service, so that their alleged misconduct would be handled by their supervisor and likely would become public only after it had been handled.

“The intent of this is to preserve a process that encourages significant public engagement in the event of an ethics charge against a member of council or their staffs or people appointed by City Council,” Adler said. “But (for) employees that report to and under the manager, to give him the responsibility for acting on allegations of ethics violations.”

The effort comes after city auditors filed an ethics complaint against Human Resources Director Joya Hayes, saying she violated city gift and city resource policies with several instances of having subordinate employees watch over her son while she was working. Hayes said she accepted help voluntarily offered during unusual situations, such as late-night City Council meetings. The Ethics Review Commission dismissed the complaint.

Some transparency advocates have reacted with dismay to Adler’s proposal. Two members of the League of Women Voters, Dixie Davis and Frances McIntyre, authored an op-ed last month opposing the changes.

“The city manager’s internal investigation and decision would be made behind closed doors,” they wrote. “In contrast, the Ethics Review Commission must investigate claims and make decisions at meetings that are open to the public with records made easily accessible online. The mayor’s proposal would mean less transparency and openness in city government.”

The American-Statesman’s editorial board also has opposed the changes, writing “Adler’s cure is worse than the disease.”

RELATED: Editorial: Ethics complaint process must be public to be credible

City Auditor Corrie Stokes said she’s fine with the proposed ordinance.

“I like the idea that if you have a boss in this city, the boss is responsible for your discipline,” Stokes said.

Adler recognized the concerns regarding transparency, and said there are valid arguments on both sides, but he said having a public report on ethics complaints and investigations after-the-fact should provide transparency.

“The level of public engagement has to be appropriate to the circumstances,” he said. “I don’t think every personnel matter concerning someone who reports to the city manager rises to the level of public engagement … But if the manager abuses his discretion, then the council can hold him accountable and the public can hold the council accountable.”

The Ethics Review Commission has considered complaints against only a couple of city executives in recent years. In addition to the complaint against Hayes, the commission dismissed a complaint against former police monitor Margo Frasier for using her work computer for private consulting work.

A perhaps unintended consequence of the current system is that it sends low-level employees without union representation through the public commission process for ethics issues. Commissioners heard a complaint this month against a temporary worker accused of keeping files on his work computer related to his second job owning food trucks.

Ordinary employees who are fired or demoted for ethics violations — or anything else — can appeal to their respective civil service commissions, which evaluate those appeals in a setting open to the public. The proposed process for non-union employees would not include a process for appeals. Adler said those employees could always reach out to City Council members.

Along with Adler, council members Natasha Harper-Madison, Delia Garza and Ann Kitchen are co-sponsoring the ordinance changes.