City Council once again postpones Lobbying Ordinance

Sierra Martin | Managing Editor

SAN MARCOS — During a heated meeting, the San Marcos City Council voted to postpone changes to the lobbying ordinance until Nov. 3, 2021.

According to City Council documents, the purpose of the lobbying ordinance update is to improve transparency regarding city business and services to the public and requires certain individuals to register and report exchanges with city officials and city employees.

The proposed amendments to the ordinance would also establish up to $500 penalties for each violation, with each day the violation occurs counting as a separate offense.

Mayor Jane Hughson said that she does not support the ordinance in its current form, and there are a lot of flaws that the council needs to address before voting on it.

Councilmember Maxfield Baker, who voted against the postponement, voiced his frustrations and questioned Councilmember Shane Scott’s motivation behind motioning to postpone.

“It’s really frustrating for our community to hear from one of our colleagues to postpone this again because we debated this in our last meeting,” said Baker. “We talked about postponement and the merits of that; we barely eked it by where it could be postponed. And to hear this motion come from somebody who has openly flaunted that-“

Baker was cut-off by Hughson, who said she was done with his “derogatory comments.”

“This is not a derogatory comment, this as a matter of fact,” said Baker. “He (Scott) said it from the dais that he will not respond to ethics complaints, that he will brush them off. And I’m sure any second now he’s going to interrupt me again and say, ‘yeah, of course I’m going to do that Max.’ (The postponement) has to do with the tactic by which this council member has tried to avoid ethics issues, and continue to benefit, potentially from the lobbying that them and one of their buddies who also receive lobbying from the San Marcos Police Officers Association.”

Hughson interrupted Baker, telling him, “you can’t say bad things about your colleagues.”

“You don’t know why he wanted to postpone it,” said Hughson. “Quit imposing motives on your colleagues.”

Councilmember Mellissa Derrick said she did not support the postponement because it would move the vote on the Lobbying Ordinance to after the November elections when some of the council members will not know as much about the ordinance as the current council.

Many members of the community spoke against the lobbying ordinance during citizen comments. San Marcos local Bucky Couch voiced his opposition and thought the Ethics Review Commission, which helped write the proposed changes, placed itself in a position of authority.

“Some of the concerns I have are the ordinance specifically calls out the police and the fire department as organizations that would be required to register as lobbyists…” said Couch. “This ordinance is quite lengthy and contains language that is both contradictory and quite hard to comprehend. The reporting requirements are onerous, and the penalties for not complying with the rules are crazy.”

An example Hughson gave would be to create an amendment that would allow a lobbyist to unregister.

“This ordinance, in my opinion, is a sledgehammer approach,” said Hughson. “It’s not necessary. I’d like to try something that has the transparency without the sledgehammer.”

Hughson proposed council members report conversations with registered lobbyists and consider what changes should be made.

Following the heated debate, the council voted on the motion to postpone, with Councilmembers Baker and Derrick voting against the postponement.