Thread by @efindell

At Austin Ethics Review Commission, @MayorAdler is testifying regarding his ex aide Frank Rodriguez. Adler says he had no idea Rodriguez was getting paid by Latino HealthCare Forum while on his staff. #atxcouncil
Background: statesman.com/news/20180810/…

@MayorAdler Tonight's hearing comes almost 2 years after @ndhapple's investigation into Rodriguez's conflicts of interest.
statesman.com/news/20171030/…
statesman.com/news/20171030/…
Auditors followed up with a probe that found Rodriguez was getting paid a percentage of city contracts.

@MayorAdler @ndhapple Adler says Rodriguez advocated for policies while on his staff, but did not advocate for particular vendors and did not push to give contracts to Latino HealthCare Forum.

@MayorAdler @ndhapple Fred Lewis (Rodriguez's attorney) asks Adler if Frank did anything illegal. Adler: "Not to my knowledge. I don't know the particulars of the payments he received, so I can't speak to those."

@MayorAdler @ndhapple "I don't know whether Frank received money associated with any city contract, but the advocacy he was doing in my office involved assuring children & families were insured," Adler says. If he had known about payments, "I would have asked questions"

@MayorAdler @ndhapple Adler is asked if he's read the 700+ independent investigation into Rodriguez. He says he's familiar with it "at a really, really, really high level."

@MayorAdler @ndhapple ERC members are in exec sesh, but I've never seen this many people at an ethics meeting. Lots of interest among city staffers. Line of people sitting on the counter next to the coffee maker.

@MayorAdler @ndhapple Back now, an independent lawyer for auditors is presenting. He says:
-LHCF, which Rodriguez founded, got most of its $$ from the city
-Rodriguez used his job on Adler's staff to get contract extensions
-Rodriguez wrote himself checks from LHCF that denoted a % of city contracts

@MayorAdler @ndhapple He says emails show Rodriguez advocated for contract extensions when LHCF was in danger of losing its contract, bc another nonprofit with 1/2 the contract amt enrolled way more ppl in ACA.
These "were all reasons the Forum needed a friend inside City Hall"

@MayorAdler @ndhapple Lewis responds: "There's a lot of smoke, a lot of allegations... You will find it's much ado about nothing"

@MayorAdler @ndhapple He says city investigated and cleared Frank in 2017. I dunno what he's referring to.
Lewis is arguing these payments fall outside the statute of limitations.

@MayorAdler @ndhapple Lewis says small nonprofits don't pay well and %s designated on checks were from prior LHCF lobbying and "an attempt to work out what they actually owed (Frank)"

@MayorAdler @ndhapple Independent investigators have narrowed the 58 exhibits in their report to 14 to present.

Lewis is objecting to auditors referencing Rodriguez's time recommending contracts as chairman of the Hispanic Quality of Life Commish.

@MayorAdler @ndhapple Investigators are showing copies of LHCF checks that Rodriguez signed to himself, with memo lines showing they were 10% of particular city contracts. Plus he got flat monthly payments. Payments totaled $17,235 in 2015 and $19,875 in 2016.

@MayorAdler @ndhapple Now on emails showing Rodriguez helped draft city contracts w/ LHCF--including one where he took a cut.

Also showing bid proposal Rodriguez drafted (on city computer) w/ input of LHCF staff. AND email to Adler saying LHCF should have contract extension bc a competitor did

@MayorAdler @ndhapple There's also an email from Rodriguez to Austin Public Health, instructing them that "the amount discussed" for a contract was $200k for LHCF & half that to competitor Foundation Communities

@MayorAdler @ndhapple Investigator says after @statesman stories began coming out, Adler's staff started reviewing Rodriguez's conflicts of interest, but STILL did not find out he was getting paid by LHCF. Everyone knew his wife worked there.

@MayorAdler @ndhapple @statesman Rodriguez deleted "key emails" before the independent investigation... but investigators know the emails existed because @ndhapple had already gotten them via a PIR

@MayorAdler @ndhapple @statesman Fred Lewis is now trying to argue that investigators shouldn't be allowed to refer to their entire investigation, only the specific exhibits they included in this PowerPoint.

@MayorAdler @ndhapple @statesman Lewis is arguing $$ to Rodriguez was "residual compensation" for previous work w/ LHCF. Investigator responds that tax documents show it was for "consulting" & he wasn't a LHCF consultant before working for Adler, he was a FT employee w/ separate income

@MayorAdler @ndhapple @statesman Lewis notes that one email cited from Rodriguez specifically says "I'm staying out of this"--asks how that can be considered advocacy.
Investigator says ya, but second paragraph is complaining that LHCF was getting "disparate treatment" compared to competitors

@MayorAdler @ndhapple @statesman Lewis says email to Austin Public Health was in response to a question asking what happened in a meeting. Investigator says it still shows Rodriguez was deeply involved in process on every side. Lewis argues it only shows he "relayed his notes"

@MayorAdler @ndhapple @statesman Adler Chief of Staff Lesley Varghese now testifying. Says it was common knowledge Rodriguez's wife worked for LHCF, but didn't know he was getting $$-- even after meeting with him after Statesman stories. Even not knowing, stories were "bad optics"

@MayorAdler @ndhapple @statesman Frank Rod himself his now up. Asks that the PowerPoint of allegations behind him plz be minimized.

He says payments were reimbursements from when he started LHCF and it wasn't viable yet.

@MayorAdler @ndhapple @statesman Rodriguez says he never had any authority over contract w/ LHCF, didn't consider his emails advocacy. His job was to be liaison to LHCF & other groups, so passed their concerns along

@MayorAdler @ndhapple @statesman Rodriguez says the proposal attached to LHCF Rundberg contract wasn't a proposal, was a "presentation" for Adler before Adler toured Rundberg.

Investigator notes that city defines conflict as having more than $5,000 stake in organization w/ city contracts.

Rodriguez says that's not legal advice he received. Investigator: "But you didn't seek that advice until your supervisors asked you, after the Statesman came asking"

Investigator asks what Rodriguez would consider his payments. He says "a consulting fee."
Invest: "And what were you doing to earn that?"
Rodriguez says consulting agreement was to "create a paper trail, if you will" to cover payments for prior work.

Commish Robin Lerner says even if $$ was for past work, it depended on on LHCF making money. Adds that Rodriguez emails look biased in favor of LHCF vs. competitors.
Rodriguez says it was culture of mayor's office to help orgs. "If someone made a request, u became an advocate"

In closing, investigator says not to get hung up on "advocacy" question: Point is he was using his position to argue for a LHCF contract extension, nobody knew he was on their payroll and if people had known he would have been reassigned.

Lewis says Rodriguez met with an asst city attny in spring 2017 (around the time @ndhapple started filing PIRs?) & was told he was OK. Says that most payments are outside statute of limitations

Lewis: “What contract did he secure?... All you have are emails to the mayor where he says ‘They’re having a fight & I’m staying out of it’”

Qs about the Law Dept memo re Rodriguez conflicts. Investigator points out that even lawyer who wrote memo didn’t know he was being paid by LHCF

Rodriguez says Adler’s office should have had better ethics training. Says he took a pay cut to work there- “It’s kind of an emotional thing for someone to suggest I was selling myself for $17,000 in consulting fees”

Commish Tray Gober to Rodriguez: “When you sat down & immediately asked that the document behind you be taken down bc you didn’t like what it looked like— you understand the appearance of impropriety”

Commissioners vote 6-1 to find Rodriguez violated 4 sections of city code.

Now debating whether to issue notice of violation (if unintentional) or letter of admonition (if intentional or through disregard).

Worth noting Austin ethics rules are completely toothless. When a Seattle employee failed to recuse himself on his former business, even though it was unintentional & he didn’t benefit financially, he was fined $10,000 seattletimes.com/seattle-news/p…

They settled on a letter of admonition... which is worse than a notice of violation but not as bad as a letter of reprimand. 7-0 vote. The end