Council Discusses Second Letter To Governor Requesting Stricter COVID Measures
Staff Reports
On Tuesday, the San Marcos City Council had several discussions related to COVID-19 and restrictions.
City Councilmember Maxfield Baker has been urging the council to implement stronger restrictions despite the risk of a lawsuit being filed against the city by the state for going against the Governor’s orders.
During their last meeting, the council agreed to draft a second letter to the governor expressing their concerns and desire for stricter restrictions for the community.
Last night, the council considered a letter Baker drafted for state officials urging them for “more aggressive public safety and health measures related to slowing the spread of COVID-19 in Texas.”
Baker said he did not include everything he wanted to see in order to provide the council with a very “down the middle” document.
Baker noted he had requested that the letter’s recipients be expanded from just the Governor to include President Joe Biden, Senator Ted Cruz, and Senator John Cornyn and proposed amending the agenda item to include them, which passed unanimously.
Council Member Mark Gleason expressed opposition to some of the language in the letter including the enforcement of residents having a mandatory face-covering.
Gleason said he didn’t feel it was appropriate for the city to be wasting resources mandating and enforcing the community usage of face masks in public.
“We’re going to keep seeing people die unless we can come up with mandatory mask coverings and mandatory social distancing enforcement, or the option is another lockdown,” Baker said. “Or we wait until we get to herd immunity. If you want to step up and claim that is your approach to solving and dealing with a pandemic, I welcome you to do so. I don’t think an unwillingness of our police and fire and code enforcement to step up and meet these expectations is an acceptable excuse for a public health concern.”
Gleason said he could not defend the idea of arresting people for not wearing a mask or requiring they are worn within their business.
“I’m not going to support anything that says mandatory enforcement; that’s too broad,” Gleason said.
Michael Cosentino, City Attorney, said the Governor’s order did mandate that residents wear face-coverings in public and allow officers to write them citations after issuing a verbal warning if they persist.
However, Cosentino noted that the order did not allow officers to detain an individual, which meant they could walk away from the officer without penalty.
“What I understood this letter to do in the request is for the governor to modify his order number 32 to at least allow someone to have to stay there long enough to get a ticket,” Cosentino said.
The council ultimately voted to postpone the item to allow Councilmember Melissa Derrick and Baker to work with Cosentino to amend the language 6-1 with Baker voting against it.
“I don’t support postponing. Again, every week or two that we wait, people are dying, and we need our governor, president, and senators to act quickly,” Baker said.
When the letter is brought back, the council agreed to reach out to surrounding communities in Hays County and ask them to send similar letters or sign onto theirs to voice their own concerns.
So … let’s review this.
SUBJECT: Councilman Baker AKA Little Lord Fauntleroy (has an online degree in swedish massage)
OBJECTIVE: Says he will arbitrarily overrule Governor’s Order by means of city ordinance.
LAW OF CASE: City loses immunity upon engaging in local legislative fraud.
OUTCOME: Just do it, your lordship. Perfect bullseye in federal court.
Bravo Mr. Gleason for having the backbone to stand up to the council’s foolishness. I look around and see plenty of reactions to my refusal to mask. A growing number appear to be envious. More than a couple have called it ballsy. But its not about being ballsy. Its about fundamental rights. The government cannot mandate you wear a mask.
This is not an emergency. That time elapsed at least 6 months ago. We are in steady state operations in the Forever War against the Rona. Luckily, SCOTUS has already ruled on these issues.
I believe Welsh v. United States (1970) applies here. In that case, the court delivered a 6-3 ruling that Conscientious Objector status can be granted for reasons beyond strictly religious grounds. It said religious & nonreligious CO’s should both be judged by “the intensity of [their] moral conviction.”
This is a “war” that cannot be won. Our actions are doing far more damage than the Rona could have ever mustered on its own. Continuing down this path is pure foolishness. So good on Mr. Gleason for having the backbone to face reality. I challenge the rest of the council to do the same.