Austin City Hall, Sept. 3, 2026.
Sara Diggins/Austin American-Statesman
Austin voters will decide Nov. 3 whether to make eight changes to the city charter, which sets the basic rules for how city government works. Most proposals would clarify or update city procedures. But one, Proposition I, would require recurring outside reviews of city spending and operations — a contentious proposal that has drawn sharp criticism and comparisons to Elon Musk’s DOGE initiative.
Save Austin Now, co-founded by former Travis County Republican Party Chairman Matt Mackowiak, is behind the initiative. The group gained prominence in 2021 by successfully pushing a citizen-led ordinance to reinstate a ban on public camping. It says the charter amendment would require the city to conduct reviews every five years and one year before the council calls an election to raise the property tax rate beyond the limit allowed under state law.
Article continues below this ad
The reviews called for in Proposition I would examine city spending, staffing, services and contracts; compare Austin with peer cities; assess fraud risks; and recommend ways to cut costs or improve performance. The city auditor would select an outside contractor through a competitive process. The first review would have to be completed within a year, and the contractor would have to identify savings greater than what it charges the city.
The proposal followed reporting by the American-Statesman that revealed questionable discretionary spending by top city leaders — and voters’ overwhelming rejection of Proposition Q last November. More than 60% voted against the council-backed measure, which would have raised the city’s property tax rate by 20% and added about $300 to the average homeowner’s tax bill to fund social services and quality-of-life projects.
But opponents of Proposition I, including Mayor Kirk Watson and several council members, say the measure is unnecessary because of existing rules and regulations and warn that it could lead consultants to recommend cuts to services such as libraries, parks and public health programs.
U.S. Rep. Greg Casar, left, listens during the Don’t DOGE Our Austin rally opposing Proposition I at Austin City Hall on Wednesday, Oct. 7, 2026. The political action committee launched its campaign urging voters to reject the city charter amendment in the November election.
Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman
A digital ad from the Don’t DOGE Our Austin political action committee depicts a Musk-like figure in a Godzilla suit carrying a “DOGE” chainsaw and crushing an Austin-Travis County EMS ambulance. Opponents also question the requirement that projected savings exceed the contractor’s fee.
Article continues below this ad
In an attempt to head off the charter amendment push, Watson championed an ordinance earlier this year that directs the city auditor to arrange recurring performance reviews of city departments, with at least three years between rounds. Outside consultants would conduct the reviews with help from the auditor’s staff. The ordinance also calls for employee input, department responses to recommendations and public reporting.
In a statement following City Council’s unanimous passage of the ordinance, Watson described it as “a major step in safeguarding public confidence and a commitment to effectiveness, efficiency, and innovation.”
“It’s both a back to basics and modernization of how we approach city government,” he added.
But Save Austin Now contends the ordinance does not go far enough because City Council could always vote to repeal it. Putting the review requirement in the city charter would prevent that because charter amendments require a citywide vote.
Article continues below this ad
Save Austin Now President Matt Mackowiak stamps a “00001” on the first page of validated signatures at SAN’s headquarters downtown, Feb. 6, 2026. The page contained two signatures- of Mackowiak and his wife.
Sara Diggins/Austin American-Statesman
Mackowiak framed opposition to the ordinance as fear of a thorough performance review.
“The people who oppose it the loudest are the ones who are the most afraid of transparency, accountability and efficiency finally coming to City Hall for the benefit of taxpayers,” he told the Statesman last week.
In its own television ad, Save Austin Now likens itself to a scrappy underdog football team taking on a powerful rival. The three-minute spot invokes the iconic film and TV series Friday Night Lights, with “Team Austin” mounting a second-half comeback against “Team City Hall.”
Article continues below this ad
The City Clerk certified the group’s petition signatures in June, requiring the council to put the measure on the November ballot.
Both the charter proposal and the council ordinance are performance reviews, not financial audits. The city’s annual financial statement audit checks whether revenues, spending, assets and debts are fairly reported.
Braden Williams, an associate professor of accounting at the University of Texas’ Red McCombs School of Business, said performance reviews assess how money is spent.
“The financial statement audit is about whether the numbers in the financial statements are fairly stated, not whether the spending behind them was wise,” he said.
Article continues below this ad
The city auditor’s office already conducts performance reviews under government auditing guidelines issued by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, Williams said.
The other charter amendments
(From left) Councilmember Natasha Harper-Madison, City Manager T.C. Broadnax and Mayor Kirk Watson listen to council deliberations ahead of a vote over the Dogs Head development at an Austin City Council meeting July 23.
Justin Doud/Austin American-Statesman
Most of the remaining amendments would make relatively minor changes to the city charter, like removing language that says the City Council must meet once every week. (Currently, City Council adopts a schedule each year that allows it to meet every other week.). Most were recommended by a volunteer commission that reviewed the charter in 2024.
Article continues below this ad
Proposition C: The amendment would clarify the independence and procedures of the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission that redraws Austin’s 10 council districts every 10 years. It would allow college students to serve, change how vacancies are filled and set rules for members’ communications with city staff outside public meetings. Supporters, including Council Member Ryan Alter, say the changes would bring younger people into the process and help the volunteer commission work more efficiently.
Proposition D: This would remove the charter requirement that the council meet at least weekly. It now generally meets every other week.
Proposition E: This would let the council set its own meeting rules without adopting an ordinance, giving members more control over agendas and other procedures.
Proposition F: This would clarify that campaign contribution limits apply separately to general, runoff and special elections. The limits would be set each Jan. 1 to account for inflation.
Article continues below this ad
Proposition G: A seemingly small but divisive change, this would require citizen-initiated measures, such as Proposition I, to go before voters at the next available November election in an even-numbered year, if deadlines allow. Save Our Springs Alliance and other opponents say that could delay votes and limit direct democracy. Supporters, including Council Member Paige Ellis, say higher-turnout presidential and midterm elections would make the process more democratic.
Proposition H: This would give the council authority to hire and remove the city attorney, who leads the Law Department and advises city staff and council members. The 2024 Charter Review Commission said Austin is an outlier: More than 70% of Texas cities let their councils appoint the city attorney, according to a 2010 Texas Municipal League survey.
Proposition J: This would correct technical errors and remove provisions superseded by state law or court rulings.
Article continues below this ad