[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6553127,"mediaKeyId","5075299-463d25118fbdd6fbd8f0dd755a9dcfc8","parentId",5075299,"title","Commission declines to find violation in complaint alleging ORA/Aura coordinated unreported campaign activity","audioSeconds",2893,"startMs",6805000,"endMs",3912000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5075299-463d25118fbdd6fbd8f0dd755a9dcfc8&start=6805&end=3912","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5075299-463d25118fbdd6fbd8f0dd755a9dcfc8/thumbnail_6805000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6553127/Austin/Travis-County/Texas/Commission-declines-to-find-violation-in-complaint-alleging-ORAAura-coordinated-unreported-campaign-activity","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6553127-68a038ad838cd9ee4a75d3b239c6fcf5/orig.mp4?Expires=1770870113&Signature=YUN2RRwqpAPOwWD58ENXG~k2a0awmWUbFKpL6avooKHzqwiStgItqy71TzuwJ8cOkwwde9Sp6v~RGmAfQRVSdrlzHUVDmlMWb1uCHB84kK7WeQ5usa9TKFQkoqQrglwBnZFBtsUYO9wm80WYGKGwBQ0-1hkM1ai99jXS8uq1~8Y1IAXImMBch1Zu98tduRrCznxSIAOkAgqYbU997HpTOqOrAgHUDy8BocEZzsJDVo8wTupOoJs4F3PXXC1D3gWpaU7T4QStUFzTvM-3saeK06O-uDtRh1e61URUhqqzoMfBwENQqgzPk3rT-xXYhCcSXfDwpM-UMK3zBwyLrvj5Pw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Austin","date","2025-06-25T00:00:00Z","article","The Austin Ethics Review Commission took testimony on a complaint filed by Adam Haines alleging that ORA (known publicly as Aura or Aura for Austin) engaged in reportable campaign activity and failed to file required campaign finance disclosures. The commission heard testimony from the complainant, counsel for the group, and reviewed documentary evidence before voting on motions to find violations.

Haines told the commission Aura organized emails, in‑person events, volunteer canvasses, and distributed a voter guide that he said constituted strategic communications and in‑kind contributions. He said the organization’s activities “delivered campaign value” during both the general election and the December 2024 runoff and that the group had not filed the campaign treasurer appointments or direct‑expenditure reports required when an organization crosses the reportable threshold.

Donna Davidson, counsel representing Zachary Faddis and Aura, told the commission ORA is a civic organization that educates and mobilizes members and that multiple legal provisions exclude volunteer personal services and internal member communications from being reportable contributions. Davidson cited Austin City Code definitions (including the chapter’s in‑kind labor definition) and Texas election code provisions for member communications; she asserted there was no evidence ORA paid for advertising or otherwise transferred money requiring a campaign treasurer appointment.

The commission debated whether ORA’s member outreach and events produced reportable value; commissioners asked about how ORA’s mailing list is formed, whether recipients are formal members, and whether costs of printed materials or food for volunteers should be treated as organizational expenditures. Counsel for Aura said the organization’s email service and social media were low‑cost or free, some materials were paid for by individual members and those individuals were reported where applicable, and that the group did not make independent expenditures above reporting thresholds.

Commissioner Materne moved that the commission find ORA conferred a thing of value to candidates and did not report those contributions; that motion was seconded but failed to achieve a majority. The motion’s supporters argued the record showed coordinated activity and material benefit to multiple campaigns; opponents said the evidence did not meet the commission’s burden and raised doubts about whether the group’s activities reached statutory reporting thresholds.

The commission did not adopt a finding of violation during the June 25 meeting and closed the item without imposing sanctions. Commissioners discussed that rules governing what must be reported for volunteer activity and organization‑member communications can be ambiguous and that clearer guidance from the law department or city council might reduce future disputes.

No final finding or referral was made at the hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Austin - Ethics Review Commission - Jun 25, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Austin Ethics Review Commission on June 25, 2025 considered a complaint alleging ORA/Aura provided unreported campaign value to candidates through member communications, canvasses and events.","taxTitle","Austin, Travis County, Texas","taxId",2819,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6553131,"Austin ethics commission declines to find violation in Mike Siegel campaign finance complaint",6102,833000,6935000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5075299-463d25118fbdd6fbd8f0dd755a9dcfc8&start=833&end=6935","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5075299-463d25118fbdd6fbd8f0dd755a9dcfc8/thumbnail_833000.jpg","/articles/6553131/Austin/Travis-County/Texas/Austin-ethics-commission-declines-to-find-violation-in-Mike-Siegel-campaign-finance-complaint","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6553131-d6ff33ec79e90e0a25c3c65a01358445/orig.mp4?Expires=1770870113&Signature=LZMCvF1dsPAPHh3OvWJBEHPplJ7DWwkV8MrKgAZobfwk6GN7PwxO4R~c1fne-kseU0cDHReO6G-QG8Fc1BWF~OdjXeN35nC5DmfFiylH0aLH784x-AarqRmfpcsTPUrmkbgTXzNXxzOyKgqWrGDGYI8ODifuv2W2Iz8tdIJsTv64CsLaxV3mU0xpu6NeAItM83YI2-kokkS4k0PG27UPpZznOdc4NYOXW9VO7uvBPKsrCFRcOrLQ5DyGsk11MidX1~OcwAPw9BnlZSKatSFGCNHymdz8jFZYgqMNVLmXRlu63x1VfnrrKVpvlAbg4pmNoPcFf1SUzIQPjPQrEayIxQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Austin Ethics Review Commission on June 25, 2025 heard a final hearing on a complaint by Adam Haines alleging campaign finance violations by Councilman Mike Siegel, including unreported contributions and coordination with the group ORA/Aura. Complainant Adam Haines said his review found misreporting on Siegel’s pre-election filings and unreported campaign value provided by outside organizing and canvassing activity.

Haines opened by saying he identified “13 instances” of suspected misreporting and alleged that the campaign’s December pre‑election filing misattributed at least one $900 contribution that should have been split into two $450 entries. Haines said his supplemental filing argued that volunteers and coordinated outreach organized by ORA delivered “a thing of value” to the Siegel campaign and should have been reported as in‑kind contributions under City Code Chapter 2‑2.

Political scientist Natalie Frensley testified for the complainant that volunteer recruitment, coordinated canvassing, and in‑person events produce measurable campaign value and cited social‑science research showing door‑to‑door contact increases turnout. Frensley said such activity, if coordinated with a campaign, may meet the code’s definition of a contribution.

Respondent Mike Siegel and counsel argued the activity described was common volunteer recruitment by a civic group and that donated personal services are not reportable under the city code. Siegel told commissioners, “There is no evidence that there was any contribution of value, monetary value from Aura to my city council campaign,” and said his campaign properly used amendments to clarify initial clerical errors on filings.

Commissioners debated two separate motions. A motion by Commissioner Materne to find a violation limited to ORA/Aura activity was amended to narrow the allegations and then put to a vote; the commission recorded five votes in favor (Pretti, Lundgren, Kiel, Figueroa, Materne) and multiple votes against, short of the six‑member majority required, so the motion failed. Commissioner Lowe then moved that the commission find a reporting violation in Siegel’s 8‑day pre‑election report filed Dec. 4, 2024 (the alleged misreporting of $900 contributions and subsequent amendments); that motion received three affirmative votes and failed as well.

After debate and two failed motions, the commission recorded no formal finding of a violation and closed the item without sanctions. Assistant City Attorney Carolyn Webster advised the commission on hearing procedure and time limits throughout the hearing.

The hearing included documentary exhibits submitted by both parties (amendments, campaign filings, and communications referenced by the complainant) and testimony about common campaign practices. Commissioners who voted against finding a violation said they were not persuaded that the record met the commission’s burden for a formal finding or that the evidence reached the legal threshold for reporting violations after the campaign’s subsequent corrected filings.

The commission’s decision closes this particular ethics complaint without a finding. Because the commission is a complaint‑driven body, staff and commissioners discussed the limits of the commission’s jurisdiction, the difference between volunteer activity and reportable in‑kind contributions, and whether legislative or rule clarifications would be appropriate to reduce future disputes.

Outcome and next steps: the commission closed the final hearing with no finding of a violation. The complaint record will remain part of commission files; no sanction or referral was issued at the June 25 meeting.","The Austin Ethics Review Commission heard a final hearing on a complaint alleging unreported contributions and coordination between Councilman Mike Siegel's campaign and ORA/Aura. After witness testimony and extended debate, commissioners did not reach the votes needed to find a code violation and closed the case without sanctions.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6553123,"Preliminary hearing on Garza complaint dismissed after commission declines to find reasonable grounds",913,6985000,7898000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5075299-463d25118fbdd6fbd8f0dd755a9dcfc8&start=6985&end=7898","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5075299-463d25118fbdd6fbd8f0dd755a9dcfc8/thumbnail_6985000.jpg","/articles/6553123/Austin/Travis-County/Texas/Preliminary-hearing-on-Garza-complaint-dismissed-after-commission-declines-to-find-reasonable-grounds","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6553123-275bc9d6a92042a74c40ed2913d24d22/orig.mp4?Expires=1770870113&Signature=MxXi6qFLl025vCy1AfbyHfN6nip5iMn26XYBJZGX34w4aKCqxExqPZqeycjLJLnedJzBgmZM~jFzB6WaZ8aISL9qKcChzLtBH4qkQPqLYWJZSeIoSV19nyFEG~NosUhvL6M-trQROpS~1590Oitm4P8xMB9tZ8-Vl1aKX35t91LN0WKN-R6FbshKr2uFWqh7MAneKilFwrnzncg7n1sxVQfCD6FW1l3JiLvRXBp8R7weaGLW~MoUtRpdqnEba6W9s8~kH3uQjAHX0Bh7ve0O4OgJuER4yFlVjRX-KMt-7j2hHq7SWjdb08AHtXWokIxKK1AbJaohQbrzOJJxmVocsQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Ethics Review Commission on June 25, 2025 held a preliminary hearing on a complaint filed by Brian Malloy (City Auditor’s Office) alleging that then‑interim City Manager Jesus Garza used his official position to secure special privileges for two consultants (Joe Canales and Laura Huffman) by arranging subcontract agreements through a City contractor, PFM Financial Advisors.

Complainant counsel Ross Fisher and investigator Travis Kasner summarized the audit‑team inquiry and said the pass‑through subcontract approach circumvented the city manager’s $76,000 signature authority and avoided city council approval for higher‑value appointments. The auditor’s materials presented a timeline: Garza’s appointment as interim city manager in February 2023, a March 2023 letter agreement proposing subcontracting through PFM, and subsequent invoices paid through the PFM contract. Malloy’s presentation listed roughly $268,375 paid to Canales and $285,800 to Huffman for the period cited; the complainant argued those roles and pay were comparable to assistant city manager duties and therefore required different procedures.

Respondent Jesus Garza and counsel Mike Shaughnessy argued the hires were emergency‑style, temporary “rentals” brought in to stabilize city operations after a severe winter storm and other service failures. Garza told the commission he selected experienced problem‑solvers to “hit the ground running” and that the PFM contract expressly permits subcontractors in urgent situations; he said the hires were transparent in that staff and council were informed and the work began immediately to address critical operational failures.

Garza’s counsel and the respondent raised a procedural objection: the complaint relies on a statutory term — “special privilege” — that the defense contended is undefined in the city code and in state law, raising concerns about notice and substantive due process. Counsel also argued the auditor’s investigators did not provide Garza an adequate opportunity to respond before the material circulated publicly.

The commission first considered a motion that would have found no violation; that motion did not carry. Commissioners then considered a motion to find reasonable grounds to proceed to a final hearing (the standard at a preliminary stage). The motion to proceed did not receive the required six affirmative votes and therefore failed.

Because the commission did not find reasonable grounds to proceed, the preliminary complaint was dismissed and no final hearing will be scheduled. Commissioners noted unresolved policy and process questions — including whether subcontracting under a long‑standing contract was an appropriate management choice and whether clearer procurement or disclosure rules are needed — but declined to convert those policy questions into an ethics finding in this case.

Outcome: preliminary hearing dismissed for lack of reasonable grounds to proceed to a final hearing; no ethics determination made.","A preliminary complaint alleging Interim City Manager Jesus Garza used his office to secure ‘special privileges’ for two consultants via PFM subcontracts was heard. Commissioners debated scope, definitions and process; the commission failed to find reasonable grounds for a final hearing and dismissed the complaint.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission declines to find violation in complaint alleging ORA/Aura coordinated unreported campaign activity

Austin ethics commission declines to find violation in Mike Siegel campaign finance complaint

Preliminary hearing on Garza complaint dismissed after commission declines to find reasonable grounds