San Marcos City Council Moves Forward With Ethics Code Amendment
Staff Reports
Tuesday night, the San Marcos City Council held a discussion regarding a code amendment to require disclosure of an interest in real property by a city official or a family member as a residence.
The discussion was brought to the council via a recommendation from the San Marcos Ethics Commission.
According to the resolution, the Ethics Review Commission is required by Section 2.443 of the city code to review the Code of Ethics once per year and make recommendations to the city council regarding amendments.
Michael Cosentino, City Attorney, said the city’s code currently requires city officials to disclose information on whether they own or rent, however, some people do neither.
“Some people live there with permission…and are not being charged rent,” Cosentino said.
Ethics Review Commission Chair, Lee Garcia, said the commission was closing an administrative loophole that they did not foresee.
“We essentially just want to make sure we’re being a little more transparent about this exact situation, this exact occupancy without any renting or buying being considered,” Garcia said.
Garcia said the amendment would greater promote transparency and confidence in City Government.
The council directed staff to remove the words “Or a family member” and move the recommendation forward for the code amendment.
“Thank you to the Ethics Commission for hearing my citizen comments and taking action by crafting this item,” Lisa Marie Coppoletta said during public comment.
According to Coppoletta, City Manager Bert Lumbreras is a resident of Kissing Tree and has not had to disclose the information despite placing several Kissing Tree items on the agenda.
The current City Council got Crushed in the election. One position vacated (finally), two out, and the mayor to be going to a runoff.
Yet, now, they are trying to mandate disclosure of a person’s housing costs. Seems odd considering one of the Council members moved out of the area, but they chose to keep her on the Council despite a clear residency issue. I don’t care how someone resides here so long as they actually do.
Tuesday was a direct result of this Council’s misguided priorities. Maybe the new Council will take this as a lesson and focus on residents instead of agendas.
Holeman, without knowing who they are, does his usual rocket rant
“Yet, now, they are trying to mandate disclosure of a person’s housing costs”
At hand, “they” is a citizen who complained that city manager Bert Lumbreras resides at Kissing Tree and has not had to disclose that information despite placing several Kissing Tree items on the agenda.
City attorney Mike Cosentino without naming names describes the facts as simply “Some people live there with permission…and are not being charged rent”. He does not identify Lumbreras as the person getting the free ride, however, the story does.
Would a rational person believe that Lumbreras is living there merely “at sufferance” –which is legal speak for saying the landlord allows Lumbreras to reside there without any “consideration” provided in return. Things of value come in all different forms and considerations. Is poor Bert being considerate of his free ride? Oh heavens no, he’s just living there at sufferance. No reasonable jury would find any consideration implied… [sounds of muffled laughter].
… and how would making someone disclose how they reside fix that?
Let’s assume that is the case for a second. Don’t you think the City Council would already know that? Don’t you think they might override Mr. Lumbreras? He could put on the agenda that every resident of Kissing Tree should get free ice cream every morning, but that doesn’t mean its gonna happen or that the Council will even consider it.
Moreover, I’d fully expect Mr. Lumbreras to put Kissing Tree items on the agenda. It might be the single largest development in San Marcos. It certainly is bringing people into the area. That means dollars are flowing into our community. As such, if we want this town to thrive, it deserves time and attention.
Finally, I’m not convinced Mr. Lumbreras is actually what is triggering this move. We are over 3 years into his tenure as City Manger of San Marcos. And now, suddenly, this is a concern? I don’t know or really care how long he’s lived there. I’ve already proven he doesn’t have the final say. But that timeline makes me wonder if they are targeting other, younger candidates.
the dude hollman doesn’t want to “get” cause it doesn’t fit his “rocket” narrative. lumbreras holds real power, can place items before the city council for a vote. lumbreras is the man, a gate-keeper, holds power on whether or not a deal gets before the council, e.g. house and senate majority leaders
oh, and boo hoo, some low life is now complaining that lumbreras has never told anyone that he lives in a real nice house at absolutely no cost to him and that lumbreras has repeatedly set up deals before the council on behalf of that community because they are so full of love and free stuff.
why it is anyone allows homan near a keyboard or anything other than a Waffle House counter is beyond me.
sobriety sucks
“… for a vote.” — Just wanted to ensure you actually reflect on what you wrote.
Thanks for admitting I’m correct.
———————————
And since you’re so intent on insisting this was directed at Lumbreras, Does anyone know Zach Sambrano’s living situation? His website says he is saving up to buy a house. He’s pretty young. Many his age are moving back in with mom & dad. Its actually a good way to save up money to…. buy a house.
Publisher? News@SMCorridorNews.com Anybody home? Why is this person all over your pub, and relevance please?
Hello Jesse,
Can you be more specific? Who are you asking about?
Sincerely,
Staff