Speak up; don’t let Austin City Council gut important ethics law
The Austin City Council votes Thursday on whether to eviscerate one of Austin’s most important ethics and conflicts-of-interest laws. This law requires that at least two-thirds of the Planning Commission members, who are appointed by the mayor and council, to be “lay members not connected directly or indirectly to real estate and land development.” It was approved as an amendment to the City Charter by more than two-thirds of Austin’s voters in 1994 — and it is intended to ensure special interests don’t dominate the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission is important because it reviews and make recommendations to the City Council on all zoning changes and development projects. These recommendations have a huge influence on development decisions that impact every Austinite, such as whether a bar is allowed in a neighborhood; a large project is required to reduce its traffic impact; or a project is modified to decrease the risk of flooding to surrounding businesses and residences.
The Charter Amendment’s purpose is clear: to ensure a supermajority of Planning Commissioners that are free of potential development special interest conflicts and industry bias. It serves as a preventive ethics law: It protects against conflicts of interest by limiting developer-connected commissioners to no more than one-third of the commission. It does not require Austin residents to show, which is difficult, that individual commissioners have a conflict or bias on a particular regulation or project.
The City Council, however, initially ignored the charter amendment — and now it seeks to change its meaning without voter approval. Since the fall of 2015, the council has known that most of the 13-member Planning Commission — and all four of the commission’s officers — have been connected directly or indirectly to development. Today, four commissioners are architects; two are development engineers; and one is a homebuilder. The law only allows four such commissioners. For 2½ years, the council has failed to remedy this charter violation.
The City Council and staff have had several different rationalizations. First, they maintained that council members could decide for themselves what the charter provision meant. But allowing each council member to decide what a law means undermines the purpose of a law: a constant, standardized rule.
Then, they argued that the current commission is legal because architects are lay people — nonprofessionals — not connected directly or indirectly to land development. Architects, though, are licensed professionals and, at a minimum, are indirectly connected to development. Architects are an integral part of land development, from designing, permitting, planning and construction oversight of projects. There would be no land development without architects.
Now, this week some council members seek by resolution to reinterpret the charter provision, so that there can continue to be a commission dominated by development-connected members. The resolution essentially eliminates the charter provision’s words “lay members” and “indirectly connected,” allowing architects and engineers to serve on the commission. Most commissioners would be able to serve with potential development-industry bias and special-interest conflicts — contrary to the voter-approved charter amendment’s purpose.
Please call the mayor and City Council and tell them to vote against the resolutions — and not to allow development conflicts and bias to continue to dominate the Planning Commission. If council members want to change this charter provision, they are required by law to submit a charter amendment to the voters for their approval — not rewrite it by resolution. I suspect Austin voters are no keener today than in 1994 on allowing the Planning Commission to be dominated by special interests with conflicts of interests.
Just watched “War for the Planet of the Apes.” Must say I was rooting for the apes. They offered peace. Of course, the humans declined. It was a Hollywood movie, but so much like true life.
How many species will we wipe out until there are none
Re: April 21 commentary, “Make strangers have value in your world.”
Simone Talma Flowers asks, “What is a life worth?” and “How do we extend our love to others so that we care and value their lives?”
More than 5 million children younger than 5 die each year mostly from treatable causes like pneumonia and diarrhea, according to the U.N. Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality. We can show that we value these children’s lives by urging our members of Congress to co-sponsor the Reach Every Mother and Child Act of 2017.
Eleven Texas representatives — including Michael McCaul and Lamar Smith — have already signed the bill. The other representatives from Texas and our senators need to show that they value these children’s lives and the lives of the 303,000 women dying each year of pregnancy-related causes, as estimated by the World Health Organization in 2015.
We can end unnecessary deaths of mothers and children globally. Please e-mail your member and our senators.