Save Austin Now is the largest independent, organized group of Austin residents in the city's history. Over 300,000 votes & 3 ballot wins.
Austin, TX
Joined July 2019
- Tweets1.8K
- Following320
- Followers5.5K
- Likes3.3K
Pinned Tweet
Must watch new video about what's next for Austin.
Like + share to make something amazing happen.
Save Austin Now retweeted
AFSCME and its allies just dumped tens of thousands into the “Don’t DOGE My Austin” PAC to kill the independent audit.
Translation: “We want unlimited raises. And we want you to pay for them whether you think we deserve it or not.”
Vote YES on Prop I.
BREAKING: NATIONAL LABOR UNION (AFSCME) INVESTS $60K TO DEFEAT OUTSIDE AUDIT CHARTER AMENDMENT
Overnight the 8 day campaign finance filing with the City confirmed four contributors to the ORWELLIAN ‘Don’t DOGE My Austin’ PAC:
Just four.
Conclusions on these Donors
> Extreme concentration from two organizational sources
AFSCME + Austinites for Equity = ~89% of the money. There is only one individual household contributor. This is not a broad grassroots effort; it is a small number of large institutional checks.
> City employees’ union is the dominant funder and organizer
AFSCME (the national public-sector union) provided the single largest gift. Local AFSCME Local 1624 (City of Austin and Travis County employees) has been the public face of the “Don’t DOGE Our Austin” rallies, with union officers speaking and signs prominently displayed. Reporting indicates the Don’t DOGE PAC shares the same treasurer (Carol Guthrie, AFSCME Local 1624 business manager) and office ties as Austinites for Equity and the local union. Austinites for Equity itself previously received large AFSCME contributions (reported around $50,000). This creates a tightly interconnected funding and control structure centered on the union whose members’ departments would be audited.
> Out-of-state money is the largest single source
The majority of funds came from AFSCME headquarters in Washington, D.C., rather than from Austin residents or local small donors.
> Other donors fit the pattern of allied institutional and progressive civic interests
1. Austinites for Equity: The primary local anti-Prop I PAC, itself heavily union-funded.
2. Greg Wooldridge & Lynne Dobson: Local philanthropists and former journalists known for large gifts to KUT, parks, and civic causes.
3. KPW PAC: Kirk P. Watson’s PAC (current Austin mayor). Watson and EVERY SINGLE council member (except Marc Duchen) have publicly opposed the Outside Audit Charter Amendment (Prop I - for Integrity).
> Narrow donor base in this early window
Four contributions total in roughly one week. No evidence here of significant small-dollar or widespread individual giving.
Hmm, a national group in DC is interested in a local charter amendment?
AFSCME (and its local chapter representing City of Austin and Travis County employees) is spending on this for straightforward institutional reasons. The roughly $100k figure combines the $59,000 direct contribution to “Don’t DOGE Our Austin” with the earlier ~$50,000 it gave to Austinites for Equity, the main anti-Prop I PAC.
Core incentives
1. Job and work-rule protection.
Prop I would put a recurring, independent outside audit into the city charter. The auditor would have to identify savings that exceed the cost of the audit itself, and the results would be public. Public-sector unions exist to protect members’ employment, pay, benefits, staffing levels, and work rules. An external review focused on efficiency and affordability creates a risk of findings that lead to consolidation, outsourcing, reduced headcount, or tighter controls—exactly the outcomes unions routinely oppose.
2. Preference for an audit process they influence.
Austin already has an (internal and non-transparent) efficiency-review process. Reporting indicates the local AFSCME chapter sought input on what that process would examine and secured a formal labor-consultation agreement with the city. Opponents of Prop I argue the existing effort is sufficient; supporters argue it is insufficiently independent. From the union’s perspective, a process shaped with labor involvement is preferable to a voter-mandated outside audit that they do not control.
3. Political and messaging alignment.
AFSCME Local 1624 has been the most visible organizer of the “Don’t DOGE Our Austin” rallies, with its officers speaking and its members providing the bulk of the visible presence. Their dishonest public case has three arguments
4. (They say) Prop I threatens services (parks, libraries, social programs, public safety)
(They say) It amounts to a corporate giveaway to consultants (it isn’t — the City’s fake internal audit costs $5.3M, 10x the cost of Houston’s which cost $500k 18 months ago and Houston is 4x bigger than Austin!)
It’s a right-wing effort modeled on federal DOGE (DOGE instituted cuts, this doesn’t, and 40% of our petition signers are Democratic primary voters).
That framing fits both the union’s institutional interests and its broader political alignment with progressive council members and figures such as Comrade Greg Casar.
5. Scale and capacity.
$100k is not a large sum for a national public-sector union. AFSCME routinely funds local and state fights that affect public-employee interests. A high-profile Austin ballot measure that could set a precedent for outside audits is a rational place to spend that money, especially when local allies (Austinites for Equity, certain council members, and progressive civic donors) are already engaged.
Bottom Line
The spending is consistent with the normal behavior of a public-employee union: it is trying to block a measure that would impose recurring, independent external scrutiny on the departments and workforces its members staff. The interconnected treasurer and office ties between the local union, Austinites for Equity, and the “Don’t DOGE” PAC simply make that interest more visible and concentrated.
Who are the donors to Austinites for Equity?
(8th Day Before Election Report)
Filed: 10/26/2026
Period covered: 09/25/2026 – 10/24/2026
Total contributions: $0.00
Cash on hand (end of period): $4,377.68
Major expenditures in this period included a $27,000 transfer to Don’t DOGE Our Austin (10/07/2026) and payments to Hernandez Wick Campaigns (consulting).
Conclusions
Conclusions:
1. Near-total reliance on organized labor
Of the $61,250 raised in the 30-day window, 100% came from unions or union-affiliated entities. AFSCME Local 1624 alone supplied 82%. There were no individual donors and no non-labor organizational donors in these reports.
Tight structural ties to the city employees’ union
The PAC shares the same treasurer (Carol Guthrie, AFSCME Local 1624 business manager) and office address as the local AFSCME chapter. It later moved $27,000 of this money to Don’t DOGE Our Austin, which has the same treasurer and office connections. This is a closed loop of funding and control centered on the union whose members’ departments would be subject to the independent audits required by Prop I.
2. No broad grassroots base visible
The funding is entirely institutional. There is no evidence in these filings of small-dollar individual giving or community-level support. The pattern is large checks from labor organizations, followed by transfers and consulting expenditures to related anti-Prop I efforts.
3. Consistency with Don’t DOGE analysis
Combined with the earlier Don’t DOGE Our Austin filing (where AFSCME national contributed $59,000 and Austinites for Equity itself contributed $27,000), the picture is one of concentrated public-sector union money opposing a voter-initiated independent audit requirement. The entities most directly affected by external scrutiny of city operations are providing the bulk of the opposition funding.
Overall: Austinites for Equity’s reported contributions for the Prop I campaign are overwhelmingly (and in the key 30-day window, exclusively) from organized labor, led by the City of Austin employees’ own union.
- - - -
HELP US PASS THE OUTSIDE AUDIT!
> 1. Visit ATXaudit.com
> 2. Share our socials
> 3. Share this X post
> 4. GO VOTE FOR PROP I (I FOR INTEGRITY)
>> Find your nearest voting location: SaveAustinNow.com
> Financially support our efforts: secure.anedot.com/save-austi…
@Jason_A_Scharf @Jason @bp22 @bgurley @_TeddyBrosevelt @data_atx @PoliticoBurner @ATXVideos @_AustinAdvocate @SaveAustinNow @AustinJustice @LoewyLawFirm
Save Austin Now retweeted
Austin City Council borrowed $566 million without asking voters.
That’s more than 60% of all the bonds the city has issued in the last decade — mostly to buy and fix buildings.
Every $100 million adds about $14 to the average property tax bill, plus tens of millions in interest.
They even used this method to revive projects cut from this November’s bond package.
Council Member Chito Vela: “I don’t know if it’s necessary, for example, to go back to the voters to get $10 million in sidewalk money.”
Voters rejected higher taxes last year. Council borrowed anyway.
austincurrent.org/2026/10/14…
Save Austin Now retweeted
Zero transparency required in the city’s audit. It can be revoked by six votes in six weeks.
AFSCME guarantee not to reduce headcount. Performed by a mom and pop shop in Pennsylvania that lost their right to do business in Texas.
And it’s 10x the cost of what Houston did for a city 1/4th Houston’s size.
#PassTheAudit #VoteAyeForPropEye
Regardless of Prop I result next week, an existing citywide audit will move ahead next year w/ initial third-party findings on Austin's public services spending
Plus, internal audits on police training, homeless response, parks access, AI oversight & more communityimpact.com/central-…
Save Austin Now retweeted
AMAZING TIMING ALERT: THE CITY OF AUSTIN NOW WANTS TO MEASURE OUTCOMES FOR SOCIAL SERVICES NONPROFITS
In news that tells you EXACTLY what’s really going on, a story in last Thursday’s Austin American-Statesman by Chaya Tong revealed that the City of Austin is FINALLY making a MINIMAL effort to track the outcomes for social services they fund in the $75-$100M range annually.
I’m sure it’s a TOTAL COINCIDENCE this is being announced EIGHT DAYS before the Outside Audit charter amendment will be decided by voters.
Just how much has the City of Austin spent on social services nonprofits since 2020?
Here’s what Grok tells us:
> The City of Austin has spent approximately $330–358 million in human/family & social services nonprofit funding from FY2020 through mid-FY2025, with recent annual social services portfolios in the $74–101 million range.
> Data comes primarily from the City of Austin Office of the City Auditor’s July 2025 Special Report on Nonprofit Funding (covering October 2019/FY2020 through June 2025), plus later budget and audit figures.
> Cumulative Spending (FY2020–June 2025)
> The auditor’s analysis of Financial Services Department data identified $358.3 million in the “human services” category (homeless prevention, social/mental health, employment/training, community services, etc.). Within that:
> Family and Social Services: $330.1 million
> Homelessness Prevention Services: ~$11.7 million
> Training and Instruction: ~$9.9 million
> Community Service Campaigns: ~$2.1 million
> These figures cover funding to nonprofits via contracts and grants. The broader total to all nonprofits in the period was ~$1.87 billion (to 555 organizations), but ~60% went to three large entities (Austin Transit Partnership ~$799 million, Austin Firefighters Relief and Retirement Fund ~$227 million, and LCRA Transmission Services ~$102 million). Human services is the relevant category for typical social services nonprofits.
> Caveats: The auditors noted the data “appears to be incomplete” due to inconsistent grant tracking across systems, vendor classification issues (some nonprofits misidentified), and departmental variations. Actual spending is likely somewhat higher.
> Year-by-Year Human Services Funding
>> Fiscal Year — Amount
>> FY2020 — $26.2 million
>> FY2021 — $64.0 million
>> FY2022 — $44.0 million
>> FY2023 — $65.9 million
>> FY2024 — $90.1 million
>> FY2025 (through June) — $68.1 million
>> Total — $358.3 million
> Funding rose substantially after FY2020, peaking in FY2024. Top recipients in the human services category (over 60% of the total) include Integral Care (~$54 million cumulative), Front Steps, Central Texas Community Health Centers, and others.
> Recent Annual Social Services Contract Portfolio Figures
> These align with the auditor data and reflect the city’s main social services contracts (largely with nonprofits for homelessness, public health, housing-related services, etc.):
> FY2025: About $100 million spent with ~95 nonprofit organizations providing family and social services (per the 2026 Nonprofit Contract Performance Management audit).
> FY2026: General Fund social services contract portfolio of ~$74.2 million. After Prop Q’s failure, ~$5.3 million was reduced/reallocated (mainly 10% cuts in Public Health, Economic Development, and courts, plus a 4% shift in Homeless Strategies & Operations).
> FY2027: Overall social services portfolio of ~$101.4 million (mix of city grants ~$47 million, operations funding, and one-time funding). Roughly half (~$54 million) is under Homelessness Strategy and Operations; other large portions go through Austin Public Health (~$25 million) and Housing (~$9.5 million). Staff reviews later recommended maintaining most funding levels amid a broader “social services reset.”
> The portfolio has grown significantly over the period examined, with heavy reliance on the General Fund (unlike many peer cities that lean more on grants, county funds, or other sources). Recent audits have also flagged performance shortfalls on a sample of contracts (e.g., nonprofits missed targets on a high share of reviewed metrics while still receiving full payment).
> For the most granular or updated figures, the primary sources are the July 2025 Nonprofit Funding Special Request report (available via the City Auditor’s site or Legistar) and the city’s annual budgets/ACFRs. The auditor data is the best single multi-year cumulative source currently available.
Here is the Statesman story:
---
Austin social services overhaul moves forward with new data request
City Council directed staff to report on social service contract outcomes and where people served by the programs live.
October 22, 2026
By Chaya Tong
Austin American-Statesman
The Austin City Council unanimously directed city staff Thursday to provide data on the outcomes and geographical distribution of clients served through nonprofit contracts with the city.
The resolution was referred by the council’s public health committee, which has been examining how the city measures the performance and reach of its social services contracts.
“The intent is to better understand the geographical distribution of social services and what populations are being served,” Council Member Vanessa Fuentes, who serves as the chair of the public health committee, said.
The direction will be incorporated into a broader overhaul of social service contracts set in motion last year after Austin voters rejected a property tax hike that would have raised revenue for social services amid a budget deficit.
Last summer, staff proposed cutting $16.8 million from the social services budget over the next two years, including about $5 million in direct cuts to nonprofit contracts.
In July, as council prepared to begin its budget discussions, city staff presented the results of an internal audit showing that 19 of the 25 nonprofit contractors reviewed had missed at least one performance target but still received full funding from the city.
City Council approved $4.75 million in one-time funding to restore most of the direct cuts to nonprofit contracts when it finalized the fiscal year 2027 budget in August. At that time, the council also decided to hold the funding while it evaluated contractor performance and ordered the broader overhaul.
Staff will present its recommendations for the reset to the council in January 2027 and begin implementation in fiscal year 2028.
---
QUESTION: Did the City measure outcomes during this five year period? Was there a fully independent performance audit during this time?
Grok, again:
> Summary answer: Yes, the City of Austin measured some outcomes from social services nonprofits during the FY2020–mid-2025 period, but measurement was inconsistent, enforcement was weak, and there was no routine independent third-party performance auditing of the nonprofits themselves.
> Performance Measurement by the City
> Contracts generally included performance expectations that mixed outputs (e.g., number of unduplicated clients served) and outcomes (e.g., individuals reporting improved mental health, progress on plan goals, or improvements in physical/mental/emotional/social functioning).
> From the July 2025 City Auditor special request on nonprofit funding (covering the multi-year period):
> A review of a sample of 22 contracts found that 100% had performance measures.
> Of those measures, 91% were relevant to the contract purpose and 86% were specific and measurable.
> City contract managers tracked performance, and staff could report on results for nearly all organizations in a related 20-contract sample.
> However, the same review noted gaps: some contracts required reporting (e.g., on housing placements, transitions, or demographics for homelessness services) without clear goals or minimum expectations attached to those metrics.
> The deeper July 2026 City Auditor report on Nonprofit Contract Performance Management (focused on family and social services contracts, sampling activity especially around FY2025) found significant shortfalls in actual results:
> Of 25 contracts (~$30 million of the ~$100 million spent with ~95 nonprofits in FY2025), 19 (76%) missed at least one performance expectation.
> Across 151 annual output and outcome expectations reviewed, nonprofits missed 67 (44%)—including 45% of output measures and 42% of outcome measures.
> For more than half of the unmet expectations, actual delivery was more than 40% below the target (deviations ranging from 3% to 100%).
> Examples included shortfalls in unduplicated clients served and individuals making progress on plan goals.
> The city had processes in place (performance reports, site visits, requirements to explain misses above 10%, and contract closeout checklists), but the audit concluded these did not ensure nonprofits consistently met expectations. Payment typically followed a cost-reimbursement model (covering salaries, operating costs, etc.) regardless of whether targets were hit. There were no consistent corrective actions, penalties, or consequences for shortfalls. Explanations for misses were not always documented or required. Post-contract performance evaluations were also inconsistently done or documented.
> Independent Auditing on a Performance Basis
> The City Auditor’s Office (an independent city office) conducted the 2025 special request and the 2026 performance audit. These examined the city’s contracting, monitoring, and payment processes—not independent performance audits of the individual nonprofits by external third parties.
> Auditors explicitly did not verify the accuracy of the nonprofits’ self-reported data submitted to the city.
> There is no evidence of routine independent (third-party) performance audits of these social services nonprofits during the period. Oversight relied on city department monitoring of contractor-provided reports and data.
> A 2019 city audit had previously recommended a citywide social service procurement policy and related improvements; some of those recommendations were not fully implemented in the intervening years.
> In short, the city set and tracked performance measures (outputs and some outcomes) during this period, and its own auditors later documented widespread shortfalls and weak accountability. But the nonprofits were not subject to independent external performance audits; the city largely accepted self-reported results and paid in full under cost-reimbursement terms even when targets were missed by large margins.
---
Remember: The Mayor and every Council Member (except Marc Duchen) OPPOSES THE OUTSIDE PERFORMANCE AUDIT (Prop I — for Integrity).
More fake concern about taxpayers.
TAKE ACTION: VOTE FOR PROP EYE LIKE YOUR WALLET DEPENDS ON IT.
Save Austin Now retweeted
Amy and I will host a fundraiser in Northwest Hills on Monday and we ask every single support of the outside Audit campaign to support the event and attend if they can.
You can give at the event link below.
Details / RSVP: secure.anedot.com/save-austi…
Learn more: ATXaudit.com
Please share!
🤖 Made with AI
Save Austin Now retweeted
I want an Austin that works.
I pay for a city. Deliver one.
I like my music loud. And City Hall accountable.
I want every consultant to show the work.
Vote YES on Prop I.
saveaustinnow.com/
Save Austin Now retweeted
Ordinance + Prop I.
The Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup of financial accountability.
Austin doesn’t have to choose. We need both.
Save Austin Now retweeted
Status Quo Selina bought her campaign domain before she even moved to District 8.
Then she relocated with a clear plan: expand City Council’s reign of low public safety, high taxes, and overspending — backed by Mayor Watson (and his wife), big unions, and $26,395 in out-of-state money.
Jeff Bowen has $5 from out of state.
That’s not grassroots. That’s premeditated.
Save Austin Now retweeted
The latest email update from @saveaustinnow:
> The Personal Cost of This Work
> Day 6 of Early Voting
> Go Vote Today Until 7pm
> 36 Yard Signs Left
> 9 Days Left Until Election Day
Read the email here: saveaustinnow.substack.com/p…
Join 262k+ email subscribers here: saveaustinnow.substack.com
Support our efforts to pass the Outside Audit -- secure.anedot.com/save-austi…
Save Austin Now retweeted
Strong substack post from @Bowen4Austin on the real difference between the City’s ordinance and Prop I.
Selena Xie is on the side of the rewriteable audit ordinance.
She opposes locking the audit into the charter.
Mayor Watson and his wife both maxed out to her on the same day.
I want an Austin that works.
I pay for a city. Deliver one.
I like my music loud. And City Hall accountable.
I want every consultant to show the work.
Vote YES on Prop I.
saveaustinnow.com/
Save Austin Now retweeted
ENRAGING: The City of Austin used taxpayer funds to design, approve and post a deliberately misleading 'fact sheet' about their fake audit (which has no transparency requirement and AFSCME as a direct partner) and out OUTSIDE AUDIT.
So, @AleshireLaw took the time to correct their fact sheet.
Had enough of these games?
Why does the city not want to be independently audited on a performance basis with maximum transparency?
Join us: ATXaudit.com.
VOTE FOR PROP I -- I FOR INTEGRITY
