Note to Austin open meetings watchdogs: Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it. Under criticism that the Austin City Council may have violated the Open Meetings Act by working out the details of the upcoming bond issue behind closed doors, the council vowed to fix that possible infraction. To avoid even the proverbial appearance of impropriety, the council revisited the issue – and took a brand new vote on the bond ballot – at its Wednesday, August 12, work session. But whatever happened at that long, strange meeting, it wasn’t a clarification of how the council came to agree upon the bond package they ultimately passed. Instead, the newly formed Daryl Slusher/Bill Spelman axis simply repeated their bond package song and dance, reading from the same list of proposed bond projects that has become painfully familiar to council watchers. That list of proposed projects was informally approved by the council to, according to Mayor Kirk Watson, “send a message to the public that this is the ballot we’re asking staff to prepare.”
Councilmembers also debated – in public – changing the election date from Sept. 26 to November 3, but ultimately tabled a vote on the matter until 9am Monday, Aug. 17. Though our friends at the Texas Legislature don’t normally traffic in nuances of democratic theory, some members are quick studies in the area of election and voting reform. While several major reforms considered by the House Elections Committee failed last session, one gem made it out alive: A provision designed to combat “voter fatigue,” which allows cities to hold bond elections concurrent with November general elections.
Austin American-Statesman reporters, who have been earning their keep this week, pointed out this option to our council, and the idea caught on fast. The Slusher/Spelman/Watson trio moved for the change, but couldn’t muster the extra two votes needed to make the change from among Goodman, Griffith, Lewis, or the absent Garcia. Conventional wisdom on the election date has gone something like this: Supporters of the November date argue that the change would bring potential savings in election cost overhead, as well as an increased voter turnout. Combining the bond with the general election would also provide relief for Austin voters wearied from what sometimes feels like the Chinese water torture of constant city elections. Opponents fear that the votes of a larger, less informed group of voters could endanger the hard-fought, widely-supported-among-those-who-understand-these-things bond package.
What this means is that the great bond debate of 1998 is not over yet. Stay tuned until Monday, when the council again tries to put the bond package debate out of its misery. – J.S.
This article appears in August 14 • 1998 and August 14 • 1998 (Cover).