Dear Union members, 

Prior to this matter, I must confess my knowledge of the union was limited to the annual fish fry. I have since learned about the multitude of ways they advocate for members and city employees overall. 

As I approach retirement, I never imagined I would find myself at the center of a Human Resources investigation. I was completely shocked when HRD informed me I was the respondent in a complaint. My surprise grew when I learned, through a public information request, that the complainant was my Director, Ms. Lauren Middleton-Pratt. She had been in her position for less than six months, and we had only one face-to-face meeting about my roles and responsibilities. During that meeting, she expressed her support for my work, saying, “I support all the work you do; I support the substantive work you do.” It was also during this meeting that she was informed of a memo outlining my expanded responsibilities to the Planning Commission and Zoning and Platting Commission. A memo I requested be available for context and discussion of the meeting. By the end of the meeting Director Middleton-Pratt stated she understood my role was unique as it had added responsibilities to the commissions.  

This is particularly concerning because I later learned that Director Middleton-Pratt had made the complaint to HRD just a week earlier. In her interview, she identified her primary concern, besides an “innocent Facebook post,” as my advocacy for the Planning Commission, a role clearly defined in the memo.  

As we know, former Interim City Manager Jesus Garza refused to meet with the union on the telework policy, even derogatorily referring to City employees as, “You people,” in a media interview. When the office of the City Manager declined to provide information and present to the Planning Commission, I posted on my personal Facebook page: “CMO refusing to present at the Planning Commission, what are you scared of, brah, public discussion?” 

Director Middleton-Pratt and Assistant City Manager Veronica Briseno colluded in retaliation for the Facebook post and prompted HRD to investigate the false assertion that the post contained confidential information. Firstly, the non-appearance of the Office of the City Manager at the Planning Commission is not information considered as confidential. Secondly, as a union member, and considering the impact of teleworking on my employment conditions, such information constitutes protected speech. Contrary to Director Middleton-Pratt’s claims, it is false that the public lacked prior knowledge, as evidenced by her own emails confirming the fact weeks beforehand. These emails were deliberately withheld by Director Middleton-Pratt and were critical material in analyzing the preponderance of evidence. 

The way the investigation was handled raised serious concerns as Mr. Gary Ignal, the lead investigator, showed a lack of understanding of the city and state code, showed bias and failed to verify the information provided. At one point admitting he was “learning on the fly.” His lack of fact-checking and understanding was evident when he incorrectly told Assistant City Manager Veronica Briseno, based on misinformation from Ms. Joi Harden, that the Texas Open Meetings Act requires documents, including the memo in question, to be published online 72 hours before a meeting; otherwise, the information is confidential and not a public document. Note, only agendas are required to be posted 72 hours in advance of a meeting. Mr. Ignal conveyed the incorrect information to Assistant City Manager Veronica Briseno who errantly stated, “Yes, that is correct.” In a staff meeting, Ms. Joi Harden would later contradict her own statements stating, “There are no rules” in relation to posting backup information.  

While Mr. Ignal was expected to act as a neutral factfinder according to HRD Investigation Guidelines, which mandate gathering and reviewing relevant documentation outlined in the investigation plan before conducting interviews, and maintaining impartiality throughout, the transcripts and audio exposed him sharing personal theories and prematurely forming conclusions with interviewees. Concerned by Mr. Ignal’s conduct, I requested an impartial investigator and approached Ms. Susana Carabajal for assistance. 

My request was rejected by Ms. Susana Carabajal, and I was in fact outright denied a respondent interview and the opportunity to proffer evidence. 

At the initial closeout meeting, Ms. Teena Gray-Hale and Mr. Nathan Brown refused to proceed because my chosen representative, who was a member of the media, was present, even though this was permitted under the MCS Rules. When I attempted to reply to a false statement made by Mr. Brown, Ms. Gray-Hale and Mr. Brown abruptly ended the meeting, as Mr. Brown directed his staff to call security, resulting in me leaving under the threat of arrest.  

The second closeout meeting proved equally unproductive. Despite presenting evidence, including emails from Director Middleton-Pratt that contradicted the final report, Ms. Gray-Hale and Mr. Brown remained adamant, refusing to reconsider, and insisting that the erroneous report stand unchanged. 

I am still awaiting the outcome of this matter and am currently on administrative leave for alleged 'Conduct at the Planning Commission meeting.' During this session, in my capacity as ex officio, an official role recognized by Director Middleton-Pratt and the City of Austin Law Department, I questioned the presenter about the purported 'confidential' memo during a briefing on the Public Information Act. I firmly believe that this is further retaliation by Director Middleton-Pratt and Assistant City Manager Briseno in response to my actions exposing their false statements. 

This ordeal has been a nightmare, affecting my mental and physical health. Drawing from my own experience I hope it provides useful insights, and with your support and our strong Union, we can push for changes to the MCS Rules to prevent such situations in the future. 

More to come soon! 

In solidarity, 

Andrew Rivera