Open Editorials

Critics of Proposition I have asked a fair question: "How many more audits does Austin need?" [1] The answer is not zero. Both the ordinance and charter amendment aim to deliver recurring, independent review of city spending. And on that narrow point, Austinites seems to agree.

But the critics miss the real issue - which is durability. An audit that exists because a council majority passed an ordinance exists only as long as that majority holds. An audit written into the charter exists until voters take it out. 

History Shows Why Durability Matters

To understand why this distinction matters, we must look at a crucial moment in American history. In 1866, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act to establish federal protections for freedpeople and put the pieces of a fractured country back together. But Congress wanted its core principles to have a firmer foundation, so it sent the 14th Amendment to the states in June 1866. After two years of debate, enough states ratified it in 1868, and with it came established birthright citizenship and required states to provide due process and equal protection.

Why didn’t Congress simply stop at the statute? Because they understood a fundamental truth about legislation. In May 1866, Thaddeus Stevens - the leader of the Radical Republicans in Congress - stood before the House to introduce the 14th Amendment, addressing the argument that the Civil Rights Act already protected freedpeople. He said it plainly: "Some answer, your civil rights bill secures the same things. That is partly true, but a law is repealable by a majority. And I need hardly say that the first time that the South with their copperhead allies obtain the command of Congress it will be repealed." [2]

Across the aisle, Representative Andrew Rogers of New Jersey (D) understood exactly what Stevens meant. He called the 14th Amendment's first section "no more nor less than an attempt to embody in the Constitution that outrageous and miserable civil rights bill." [3] He wasn't confused. He understood that a Constitutional Amendment would carry more weight than a statute - and that's precisely why he opposed it.

Stevens's warning was not theoretical. A statute lives at the mercy of whoever holds the office. A constitutional amendment doesn't. 

The Tools and Why They're Different

A city charter is to a city what a constitution is to a nation: the supreme document that defines powers, limits them, and can only be changed by the people themselves. An ordinance is to a charter what a statute is to a constitution: a law passed by the governing body, binding until that body repeals or amends it. One can be undone by a majority of the council. The other can only be changed by the voters.

As government transparency lawyer Bill Aleshire has said: "if voters want to require the City Council to do something, it must be in the Charter. Otherwise, the Council can ignore or repeal an ordinance anytime they want." [4]

Why We Know Durability Is Necessary

The opposition to Proposition I likes to claim we don't need a charter amendment because we already have an ordinance. This argument ignores evidence that Austin City Council disregards its own legislative guardrails.

This year, the City Council voted for a bond election in defiance of the decision tree framework - Resolution No. 20260226-055. A resolution lacks the teeth of an ordinance and an ordinance lacks the permanence of a charter amendment. That resolution was effectively thrown out by the majority, against staff advice, against the Mayor's urging, because it was no longer convenient and didn't support their goals. [5] This is the empirical proof of Stevens's warning. A statute doesn’t fail in theory. It fails in practice.

This also follows logically from Austin's recent history. When Proposition Q lost overwhelmingly last year, it revealed a lack of trust in the City's government and showed that City Hall would need to work hard to rebuild public trust. Yet when an ordinance was introduced to assuage those concerns, the same City Council is now calling a charter amendment a "political move." [6]

As District 8 candidate Jeff Bowen said in a KVUE interview: nine council members can override the audit ordinance, and "we've already had ordinances on the books that are not being done, not being accomplished, being ignored." [7] The people being asked to trust the City are the people the Council has already shown it won't protect.

Addressing the Opposition - and What It Really Reveals

City Council members and employee union members are the loudest opponents. They have raised various arguments, but listen closely to what they're actually saying. Some claim it's "wasteful, redundant, and harmful." [6] Others call it a partisan "DOGE" move or a "right-wing agenda." [8]

Yet they know the audit exists in ordinance form. They know the Council passed it. So why fight so hard against putting it in the charter? Because - like opponents of the 14th amendment in 1866 - they understand that a charter amendment has teeth an ordinance doesn't. They're not confused about the difference, but they’re hoping that voters will be.

The city's own fact sheet contains glaring errors [9], which raises yet another question: how committed is the government to informing the people versus keeping control and protecting the status quo?

As for the charge that this is partisan: the reality is that over 20,000 Austin voters signed the petition. Many of us in Austin do not view an independent audit as a partisan issue. Fiscal oversight and accountability are not partisan values - they're the foundation of trust. It is how we ensure that scarce resources achieve the greatest good for our community.

The division doesn’t come from wanting an audit. It comes from whether those in power want to make it permanent or keep the option to dismantle it.

How They Work Together

The charter amendment does not tell the City Council or the City Manager how to interpret audit data or what actions to take based on the results. That's what the ordinance directs, as it should. The charter amendment is not an argument against the ordinance. It is an argument that audits should happen before the City Council asks voters to approve a tax rate increase. It is an argument that all the auditor’s data should be public. It is an argument for putting the ordinance beyond the reach of a simple majority repeal at City Hall.

The ordinance provides the guardrails that City Council can place to protect the present interests of the city. The charter amendment guarantees that future councils will honor the will of the people. Together, they answer what voters are asking: Austin needs audits that survive. The charter provides precisely the accountability that the ordinance lacks.

Stevens knew what would happen if the opposition returned to power before the protections were locked in. Austin voters should be equally skeptical of what will happen during the next administration at City Hall if we accept the premise that an ordinance is good enough. When City Council is intent on collecting and spending as much tax dollars as it can get away with, how can we trust them to make decisions in the best interest of average residents?

The answer is simple: we can't. Not unless we hold future City Councils accountable. That's what Proposition I does - vote aye on Prop I.