All five journeys

Proposition I / 04 / Independent oversight

The audit clock startswhen voters say YES.

Pass Proposition I and City Hall has a duty to act: select an independent reviewer within 120 days and complete the first review within one year of engagement. Put the deadlines in the Charter. Make the duty mandatory.

Explore how it works

Passage triggers the first deadline

The first review has a mandatory timetable. Repeat reviews and the tax-election condition keep the obligation in place afterward.

Select

Within 120 days after passage.

The City Auditor would set qualifications and competitively select an independent entity with experience doing the same or similar work.

Independent contractor selection
Source: proposed Article VII §18(A)(2–5), (B) · Full ordinance (PDF)

01 / Open the audit files

The warning signs are already in the record.

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?

CITY AUDITOR · MARCH 202611 of 28 consultant contracts: needs assessments not supplied.

In a judgmental sample of 28 contracts, staff could not provide formal needs assessments for 11. Supporting evidence for deliverables was missing in six.

The finding is about documentation and oversight in the reviewed sample. The report did not establish that those contracts were unnecessary. The question is why the City could not consistently produce the records that justify the work and prove delivery.

Read the final consultant contract audit
CITY AUDITOR · JULY 2026Only six of 25 nonprofit contracts met every annual expectation.

Across the contracts assessed, 67 of 151 annual expectations were missed. The reviewed contracts represented about $30 million. The report documents performance and monitoring weaknesses; the missed-expectation count is not a dollar-loss estimate.

Read the final nonprofit contract audit

02 / Follow the whole transaction

Four questions every public dollar should answer.

01 / Approve

Why buy it?

Document the need, consider alternatives, and name the result the public is paying for.

02 / Contract

What is owed?

Set a measurable deliverable, a deadline, and responsibility for checking the work.

03 / Pay

Was it delivered?

Verify the vendor and the work before approving payment.

04 / Review

Did it work?

Compare cost and outcomes, then track corrective action.

An accountability framework illustrated by the audit findings above. The proposed charter’s actual requirements are linked below.

03 / The proposed mandate

A mandatory audit. A deadline. An ongoing duty.

Affordability, spending, and Texas peer comparisons

Benchmark City-attributable costs of living, identify spending reductions, and compare City operations and contracted programs with similar Texas peers.

Performance, contractors, and staffing

Develop workload, cost, and outcome measures; evaluate contractors and condition payment on meeting measures; examine staffing and management structure.

Financial controls and forensic accounting

Use forensic accounting to examine financial controls across the charter-defined scope. The review covers capital assets, revenues, and expenditures of City entities included in its annual financial report, excluding matters already covered by the separate independent financial audit.

A duty to act—with the first deadline after passage

The City Auditor must select an independent contractor within 120 days after passage. The first review is due within one year of engagement. City officials have a nondiscretionary duty to implement the initiative, and officials and contractors must cooperate without interfering with its independence.

Drafts and gathered information are available on request. Completed reviews repeat every five years, or sooner to satisfy the tax-election requirement.

Read the complete proposed §18 · pages 9–12

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

In their own words

Why they’re backing
Proposition I.

Hear Bill Aleshire and Susan Spataro explain their support for independent review of Austin’s City spending.

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 a full review cover?

Capital assets, revenue sources, and expenditures of City entities covered by the annual comprehensive financial report. The proposal includes performance, organizational structure, contractor outcomes, forensic accounting, affordability, and peer comparisons. It excludes matters already covered by the Charter’s separate independent financial audit.

Could the public read the work?

Drafts received by the City Auditor and information gathered by the contractor would be public information available on request. Residents could request the underlying work and examine its findings.

How is this different from the assessment underway?

The existing February 2026 ordinance requires an external efficiency assessment and reporting. Proposition I would add charter provisions with a 120-day selection deadline, one-year initial completion deadline, five-year recurrence, specific scope requirements, a contractual savings-identification requirement, and a tax-election condition.

Keep exploring

Explore another part of the record

See the complete overview

Put it on your calendar

Election Day.
November 3.

Register byOctober 5
Early votingOctober 19–30
Election Day · 7 a.m.–7 p.m.November 3, 2026
City election calendar (PDF)