After a months-long investigation into claims that Council Member Natasha Harper-Madison had broken several rules of the city’s ethics code, Austin’s Ethics Review Commission decided last week not to consider Tiffany Washington’s complaint against Harper-Madison.
Tiffany Washington submitted the two-part complaint earlier this year, accusing Harper-Madison of breaking five portions of the city’s ethics code, including using her official title improperly and advancing private interests in a way that may be construed as undermining public confidence. Unless fresh complaints are filed, the commission’s ruling essentially ends the case.
To set a final hearing, the Ethics Review Commission must vote on whether there are good reasons to suspect a violation has occurred. In Washington’s case, the complaint was automatically dismissed because no commissioner made such a request after the preliminary hearing.
Harper-Madison did not attend the meeting in person or virtually, and no attorney responded on her behalf. Chair William Pumfrey expressed gratitude to Washington for persevering through several postponed meetings and acknowledged her displeasure with the schedule, pointing out that one postponement was brought on by a scheduling difficulty with her counsel and another by bad weather.
Washington’s complaint, which was submitted in two sections this spring, charged Harper-Madison with abusing her position by encouraging collaboration with private developer Eureka Holdings and using her official status to target people personally on social media. According to Washington, these acts went beyond what is deemed appropriate for private use of city resources or power, damaged public trust, and conflate public duty with private advocacy.
When dealing with individuals or leaders in positions of authority who control their supporters by using psychological coercion to prevent them from speaking out against them, we must exercise extreme caution, she said.
She has never denied that working with Eureka was absolutely necessary, thus I believe that only someone acting on behalf of another would state something along those lines. If you’re not representing someone, you won’t tell me that you need to collaborate with them.
Washington contained more than 40 pages of content, including screen grabs of text messages, emails, and Facebook conversations. and allusions to earlier news reports. Harper-Madison addressed a constituent’s complaint of a developer-led redevelopment project in one of the exchanges that was referenced. According to Washington, this kind of wording amounted to developer lobbying.
Additionally, she charged Harper-Madison of demeaning or threatening citizens by using her position. Some of the council member’s public remarks were deemed defamatory in the complaint, which claimed that such conduct erodes public confidence in local government.
During the hearing, Washington admitted that she was unable to directly prove that Harper-Madison had formal business ties or had been compensated by Eureka Holdings. However, she maintained that a more thorough examination was necessary given the entirety of the actions, especially the developer’s constant public support.
A request for comment from Harper-Madison was not answered.
Commissioners stressed during their interrogation of Washington that their ability to assess the complaint legally was hampered by the fact that several of the terms used in the complaint are not defined in the city’s ethics code. Even while some people felt personally uneasy about some of Harper-Madison’s tone and judgment in the interactions that were highlighted, they pointed out that, according to city policy, ethical transgressions necessitate a clear demonstration of injury, advantage, or abuse of authority.
In particular, terminology like “special privilege,” which have surfaced in recent complaints without a uniform definition, ought to be clarified by a future subcommittee, Commissioner Luis Figueroa asked for.
“It is very difficult for us as a commission and for the public who wish to bring complaints to know what even evidence is necessary because we continue to receive these complaints without any definition,” he said. It is becoming more and more problematic because the code lacks a description.
Community donations enable the work of the Austin Monitors. Even though we occasionally publish on funders, we take pains to ensure transparency by keeping editorial and business activities apart. Our code of ethics is described here, and a full list of donors may be seen here.
You’re a community leader
And we are thrilled that you trust us with important, in-depth news. You are aware that local and committed watchdog reporting is essential to a healthy community. We will always be here to support you. Will you now support our nonprofit news organization and take the bold next step?
