The Austin Special Ethics Review Commission faced a procedural hiccup during its February 6, 2025 meeting when the complainant, Adam Haines, failed to appear for a preliminary hearing regarding his complaint against Mike Siegel. The absence of Haines raised questions about how to proceed, as his presence was mandated under city rules.

After a brief recess to allow time for Haines to return, it became clear he was not in attendance. Commission members discussed the implications of his absence, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural requirements to ensure fairness. Vice Chair Low ultimately moved to dismiss the complaint without prejudice, allowing Haines the option to refile in the future. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Espinosa, and the commission proceeded to vote on the matter.

This incident highlights the procedural challenges that can arise in ethics hearings and underscores the necessity for complainants to be present to support their claims. The commission's decision to dismiss the complaint without prejudice ensures that Haines retains the opportunity to pursue his allegations at a later date, should he choose to do so.