San Marcos City Council postpones Lobbying Ordinance after heated discussion

Sierra Martin | Managing Editor

SAN MARCOS — The San Marcos City Council postponed an ordinance requiring the registration of lobbyists with elected city officials.

The City Council has previously discussed the ordinance proposed by the Ethics Review Commission. The ordinance would require lobbyists to register with the city and require lobbyists and city council members, board and commission members, and city staff members to file reports with the city clerk’s office. The reports would be filed every other month regarding any contacts made by lobbyists in an attempt to influence recommendations and decisions on matters of city policy.

The ordinance was posted for consideration on the second reading at the July 6, 2021 council meeting. On that date, the council approved a motion to postpone consideration on the second reading until the November 3, 2021, regular meeting.

On November 3, San Marcos Mayor Jane Hughson stated that she had numerous proposed amendments to offer. After some discussion, the second reading was postponed until the February 15 meeting.

Councilmember Shane Scott made a motion to deny because he felt like the ordinance was “too much government” and felt like it was “overbearing.”

Councilmember Mark Gleason seconded the motion to deny the ordinance because he felt “the ordinance has severe unintended consequences” and felt like it would “turn into a weapon politically.”

“I can’t support this ordinance in its present form,” said Mayor Hughson. “It’s a sledgehammer approach that I think is not necessary. The question that I ask myself is, what is the purpose of this ordinance, or what is the problem that we’re trying to fix?”

Gleason and Scott voiced opposition to the ordinance, claiming that it will require community members to register as a lobbyist if they wish to speak to council members about an issue in the community.

Councilmember Alyssa Garza said that she wished more councilmembers would bring similar energy to foster community engagement on other issues.

“I just need the record to reflect that I keep hearing that this is going to negatively impact community participation. This is baffling coming from a body that has historically voted in favor of policy that many of our neighbors, perhaps not the ones that y’all talk to, perceived to be direct attacks to transparency and civic engagement,” said Garza. “So for those of you asserting that all your opposition is because you want to foster community conversation, reduce intimidation, and is rooted in equity I’m going to need that same effort and energy from y’all and this is looking at you Mr. Gleason.”

Scott asked City of San Marcos Attorney Michael Consentino, if someone approaches council members about a project and doesn’t respond if they supported it, it would be considered lobbying?

“So the definition of lobbying does include an attempt to influence decision making on a municipal question, so that is a component of it,” said Cosentino.

Cosentino continued to clarify the question by explaining that under the Texas Open Meetings Act, even if the person didn’t ask the council member for support on the item, it is still a discussion.

“So yes, councilmembers should stay vigilant about any citizen wanting to talk to members of council adding up to a quorum, maybe not at the same time, but sequentially,” said Cosentino.

Councilmember Scott responded to Cosentino’s answer by saying he won’t report people who speak to him as a lobbyist.

“Just for me, anybody, any citizen, any business person, whatever, wants to talk to me about anything in San Marcos, I will not report you as a lobbyist if you are a lobbyist because I don’t care,” said Scott. “I’m gonna listen to the needs of the community. That’s my job.”

Councilmember Maxfield Baker responded to this comment, saying that there are “issues with the council members’ approach to ethics and their understanding of the importance of transparent government.”

A back and forth debate broke out after Baker accused Gleason of not reading the ordinance. Gleason ensured that he had read the ordinance and didn’t appreciate the accusation.

Councilmember Baker then asked Jonathan Lollar of the Ethics Review Commission if everyone who wants to speak to city councilmembers would need to register as a lobbyist.

Lollar said that based on the definition of lobbying if an individual representing themselves or a group inquires about something in city government, they wouldn’t have to register as a lobbyist if they are not receiving economic benefit or compensation.

Gleason said he believes that the ordinance could be “weaponized,” and unless organizations that typically lobby council members on agenda items are included, he doesn’t think it is equitable.

“The biggest people who we hear from lobbying on issues, the animal rights people, the river foundation, Mano Amiga are not going to have to register…. until they are included, this is not fair and equitable,” said Gleason.

Councilmembers then voted on the motion to deny the lobbying ordinance, which failed to pass on a 4-2 vote. Councilmembers Scott and Gleason voted to deny the ordinance, while Mayor Hughson and Councilmembers Jude Prather, Baker, Garza and Saul Gonzales voted against it.

Following the vote, Baker motioned to approve the lobbying ordinance with the ERC’s recommendations and Mayor Hughson’s amendments.

“You can do that, but some of those are not definitive enough to actually be implemented as statements here. And I’ve got a couple things that I did not agree with them on,” said Hughson.

Council decided to discuss the list of amendments made by Hughson. The first amendment was that the lobbying ordinance would only apply to the city council, not other boards and commissions, which passed 4-3.

The second amendment proposed by Hughson was to include the definition of “City Official” in the ordinance definitions, which was put on hold.

The third amendment to move the San Marcos Police Officers Association (SMPOA) and San Marcos Professional Fire Fighters Association (SMPFFA) to a section under lobbying firm, into a qualifying Sec. 2.471.

Qualifying contracts, applications, and activities that can trigger lobbying registration were approved by the council with a vote of 5-2. A sentence was added to the amendment, “This does not mean that representatives of the SMPDOA and SMPFFA are permitted to contact City Council members during Meet and Confer negotiations.”

The fourth amendment, which passed 6-1, suggested that all Planning and Development (PADS) related items be placed together and swapped 2.473 and 2.473, telling the lobbyists what to do before explaining the required registration process.

The next amendment to add “any campaign contributions made for any council member for the council member’s last election or since” to the registration list of items passed 4-3.

The amendment to remove the item on registering lobbyists having to report things done before the ordinance is in effect passed 7-0. Amendments regarding a form specifying how to unregister, providing information updates on lobbying registration forms, allowing 15 days for city staff to process activity reports, and adding a lobby registration ID and other specifying information all passed 7-0.

Scott motioned to postpone and have a workshop over the lobbying ordinance to discuss the details and tailor it to the City of San Marcos.

“I really, really am concerned, even more so now that we need to go ahead and postpone this, take a real good look at it,” said Scott. “Pull out what works and then just get rid of what doesn’t work and make it right the first time and be done with it.”

Scott asked Lollar why they were discussing the lobbying item if it wasn’t “as thorough as you presented it to be.”

Lollar responded that the lobbying ordinance is something that the San Marcos City Council and staff have been working on for five years, and he finds it frustrating when people say that it has not been thought through.

“And I don’t understand how it’s being represented as we have somehow skipped over some mainstay of lobbying and considering that this has been going on – our first draft was made in 2017 that was sent to council,” said Lollar. “There has been ample time for us and city councils and City Council’s past to go over things. And it is frustrating to hear that if there is any tiny thing that hasn’t been discussed at some point in the last five years, that we now somehow are under some sort of pressure to say this hasn’t been thought through at all and we should get rid of this.”

Ultimately, the ordinance was postponed with a 4-3 vote. Councilmembers Gonzales, Baker, and Garza voted against postponement, while Mayor Hughson, Councilmembers Scott, Gleason, and Prather voted to postpone.

The lobbying ordinance was postponed for discussion at an April 5 work session and is anticipated to be on the agenda for a vote during their first meeting in May.

The full recording of the hybrid meeting can be viewed on the San Marcos City Council website.