Proposition I / 05 / Waste & fraud

Scandal after scandal.Demand a full accounting.

Fake vendors. Missing contract records. Missed performance targets. The Austin Energy fraud case is one part of a much broader record. Proposition I would require forensic accounting and scrutiny of financial controls, spending and contractor performance across its City-wide scope.

Explore the evidence What Proposition I changes

01 / A record of failures

Follow the failures across City spending.

A fraud investigation is one case. Missing contract records and missed performance targets expose other gaps. Read each finding on its own terms, then demand a review that follows the controls behind the spending.

Fraud

Vendors that were not real.

An Austin Energy scheme continued for about six years while purchasing and approval controls failed.

Open the fraud investigation

Oversight

Records the City could not supply.

Needs assessments were not supplied for 11 of 28 sampled consultant contracts. Deliverable evidence was missing in six.

Open the contract audit

Performance

Promises that were not met.

Only six of 25 reviewed nonprofit contracts met every annual expectation.

Open the performance audit

Proposition I requires forensic accounting to expose risks of fraud, conflicts of interest, waste and abuse—and scrutiny of contractor performance. Follow the system that approved the money.

Read the forensic-accounting requirement

02 / Open the payment trail

A receipt is only the beginning.

Before approval

Verify the vendor.

Who is being paid? Who independently checks that the business and the work are real?

Before payment

Prove delivery.

Match the invoice to a defined deliverable and a person responsible for accepting it.

After delivery

Measure the result.

Compare the outcome with the contract, and track what happens when an expectation is missed.

Practical control questions illustrated by the City’s published audit findings.

03 / Open the individual case files

The headlines are the beginning. Read the records.

CITY AUDITOR · DECEMBER 2025One investigation: nearly $980,000 in fraudulent transactions.

The City Auditor reported that an Austin Energy employee used fictitious vendors in a scheme involving approximately $980,000. Weak purchasing controls and supervisory approvals allowed it to run for about six years.

The accountability question is concrete: who verifies a vendor, who approves the payment, and who checks that something was actually delivered?

Read the investigation Read KUT’s reporting · Dec. 9, 2025

Consultant contracts: records that could not be produced

Staff could not provide formal needs assessments for 11 of 28 contracts in the reviewed sample. Evidence supporting deliverables was missing in six. The audit did not establish that those contracts were unnecessary; it identified gaps in the records and oversight that should justify them.

Read the consultant contract audit

Nonprofit contracts: 67 annual expectations missed

The performance review covered 25 contracts and 151 annual expectations. Providers missed 67 expectations; six contracts met every expectation. These are performance measures, not a dollar-loss estimate.

Read the nonprofit contract audit

A $1.08 million brand program

The City lists $1,077,725 across design, engagement, advertising, materials, software, staffing, and legal work. Its planned public-awareness campaign was canceled and resources repurposed. Open the breakdown and ask what outcome justified each cost.

Read the City’s cost breakdown

Research reviewed September 30, 2026. Each comparison is labeled with its reporting period.

Explore how it works

Follow the money before it disappears

The proposed review combines forensic accounting, performance measures, and independent scrutiny of City spending.

Verify

Start with the controls.

Examine how vendors are approved, how financial controls work, and where fraud or conflicts of interest could go undetected.

Forensic accounting and financial controls

Source: proposed Article VII §18(A)(1)(b–h) · Full ordinance (PDF)

The proposal, explained

What Proposition I would require

Selection, scope, and follow-through: get the details behind the proposal.

Read the full proposal (PDF)

What would forensic accounting examine?

The proposed initiative includes forensic accounting and examination of financial controls. The broader review covers the City’s capital assets, revenues, expenditures, staffing, and contracted programs within the charter-defined scope.

Would the work include outside contractors?

Yes. The proposal calls for workload, cost, and outcome measures to evaluate contractors and condition payments on meeting them. City contractors must cooperate with the independent reviewer.

What happens after a weakness is identified?

The reviewer provides analysis and recommendations. Residents can then follow the City’s corrective actions: which control changed, who owns it, and how the result is measured.

Keep exploring