San Marcos City Council’s changes to free speech, transparency, accountability to the charter: Why not let the people decide?

The Bait and Switch of a Red Herring

Below is the actual ballot language proposed by the CRC to ensure transparency at City Council “Regular Meetings” and “Special Meetings” and “Work Session Meetings.”

Executive Summary: City Charter Amendments – 2021

On May 18, 2021, in “Regular Session” where public comment is allowed, City Attorney Michael Constantino explicitly explained the ballot initiative. “I think the intent of this particular recommendation was simply anytime at the City Council is posting a meeting as a quorum of the entire Council, whether it’s a work session, or what have you. It could even be in a joint meeting with say the planning and zoning commission but if the quorum of the council is close to having a meeting, I think their recommendation is to include citizen comments and questions from pressing public on those and to put that on charter as a before the voters as possible requirement.”

The vote was unanimously in favor of open government per the CRC recommendations.

Hughson, “So I’m going to go around the table, I will be first. And that is to put in a charter that will always have citizen comment and person on the agenda. And, yes,” said Mayor Jane Hughson.

“Yeah I’m good on that,” said Councilmember Shane Scott.

“Yeah, I think this is fine Mayor, I don’t have any problems with it,” said Councilmember MarkGleason.

“Yes,” said Councilmember Maxfield Baker.

“Yes,” said Councilmember Melissa Derrick.

“Yes,” said Councilmember Saul Gonzales.

“Yes, I wish they would have included committees, but that wasn’t part of the conversation, but I’m a Yes, for sure,“ said Councilmember Alyissa Garza.

.

And then in “Work Session” on July 06, 2021, in which no public comment is allowed, the ballot language was changed to:

1. 4. Amending Section 3.09 – Meetings of the City Council – to add a provision requiring that all city council agendas contain an item listed as: “Citizen Comment Period” and “Question and Answer Session with Press and Public.”

Purpose: To promote transparency in city government by allowing citizens and the media to ask questions and comment on city practices and proposed policies or programs at all council meetings.

The ballot language was changed to:

PROPOSITION – D 

FOR/AGAINST: The amendment of Section 3.09 (Meetings of the City Council) to require all regular city council meeting agendas to include “Citizen Comment Period” and “Question and Answer Session with Press and Public” as agenda items. 

Hughson took issue with the CRC’s recommendations, which were a result of citizen involvement making those suggestions to ensure transparency that had been lost from the shift from “Packet Meetings” to “Work Sessions”:

“I’m going to jump to proposition D real quickly. And uh, I’m going to suggest that we insert a word. This says is the “amendment of Section 309, meetings of the city council to require all city council meeting agendas to include citizen comment period in question and answer session with press and public as agenda items.” I’m going to suggest that we insert the word “regular” all regular city council meetings. 

Then, the Mayor provided a completely irrelevant example, committing the fallacy of red herring, which ultimately stalled any debate or conversation.

“For example, last week, we had um our evaluations of their appointees, and that was uh we went straight to executive session did what we needed to do came out, and we were we were done. I’m not sure that citizen comment and question and answer with press and public is what we needed on those particular agenda items,” said Hughson.

And, then, the Mayor committed the fallacy again, “So we’ve done it all regular media agendas for I don’t know how long I except for during the pandemic. And we plan to go back to that. So my suggestion is to insert the word regular.”

Derrick succumbs to the fallacy of red herring, “I would support that, especially with our work sessions when we’re just trying to wrap our mind around something and getting information from staff. I think it’s fantastic that we record them and people can watch them and in preparation if they wish to for our regular meetings and that all citizen comments and questions can be, you know, had at the regular meeting and not of the work session was going we’re still trying to figure out what is actually being proposed. So I would support that.”

I wonder if the changes made to the CRC’s recommendations are an example of what Derrick considers, “we’re still trying to figure out what is actually being proposed.” Because they sure have already figured out what they want to propose.

My response as a taxpayer and voter to Derrick’s claim, the truth is that the City Council is consistently giving direction to city staff in “Work Sessions.” They are not just “wrapping their minds” around agenda items. And, they are doing it with no public comment periods.

In fact, any discussion on the City Charter has always occurred in “Regular Meetings” with public comments. In that same meeting, ballot measures were changed without public comment.

This is precisely why the “Citizen Comment Period” and “Question and Answer Session with the Press and Public” should be required on “all city council agendas.” 

In “Work Sessions” when elected officials direct staff, they are making decisions with tax dollars.

This means that public comment should be included in those meetings. Below are some examples which dispute Derrick’s claim they are just “wrapping their minds” in “Work Sessions.”

• Hold discussion on the proposed amendments to the San Marcos City Charter, and provide direction to staff
• Receive a Staff presentation on the City of San Marcos Economic Development Policy, and provide direction to staff
• Receive a Staff presentation and hold discussion regarding the Hays Central Appraisal District’s appraisal process, Tax Ceilings and Exemptions; and provide direction to the City Manager
• Receive a Staff update on the proposed Interlocal Local Agreement / Memorandum of Understanding with Hays County regarding Cape’s Dam, and provide direction to the City Manager
• Receive a Staff presentation and hold discussion on the Scooter Pilot Program, and provide direction to staff
• Receive a Staff presentation and hold discussion regarding the renewal of the San Marcos Parks Premises lease between the City of San Marcos and the San Marcos Lions Club, and provide direction to staff
• Receive a Staff Presentation regarding Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF)/General Fund Criteria and Process, and provide direction to staff
• Receive a staff presentation on CARES Act reimbursements and use of potentially available City funds, and provide direction to staff
• Receive a Staff update presentation and hold discussion regarding the City’s RFP for garbage services, and provide direction to staff. 

This Tuesday’s “Work Session” “Receive a presentation and hold discussion on the contract with the Greater San Marcos Partnership, and provide direction to Staff” has always been a “Regular Session” item before Bert Lumbreras was hired. It should have public comment periods. 

Gleason was easily persuaded by Hughson’s red herring using a closed-door session of city staff evaluations as justification to nix the public comment portion proposed by the Charter Review Commission. “Yeah, Mayor, I think I’m fine with adding that in there. I think the example of the evaluations is a great point,” said Gleason.

However, Baker advocated for transparency. “Yeah, I think anytime tax dollars are pending for us to get together and meet as a quorum that those two agenda items should be available to the public. I, again, I don’t want to be the arbiter of whether or not somebody is interested in something that I feel like if I do the public and a return is more transparent, which is better for government,” said Baker.

Garza also supported open government and concurred with Baker. “I’m a No, for the reasons Councilman Baker stated,” said Garza. 

Hughson was adamant about no citizen involvement using her standard ploy the red herring, “Okay, I’m not necessarily trying to persuade you, but I guess this will if we had citizen comment at our work sessions, where we are limited to basically two and a half hours as it is, that would take up 30 minutes of that work session when it’s followed by council meeting where we have citizen comment,” said Hughson.

“I just rather see it at our regular meetings,” said Gonzales.

“Mayor, I’m confused; how does the addition of regular not apply that to our work sessions as a regular as part of our meeting?” asked Baker.

“But my point is the first and third six o’clock meetings that we hold. That’s my thought of my regular council meeting,” Hughson replied. “So I just wanted to make sure it’s clear that we’re talking about the regular meetings first and 36 apart, Mr. Constantino? Can you help me with a different word here? Perhaps? I think what? I think we figured that out. And we went fine. That it would be regular meetings. Is there a different word we need to use here? Mr. Constantino? Miss Cook?”

“I’m looking at section 3.09 of the charter meetings at the City Council. And it says the city council shall hold 22 regular meetings at a minimum each year. So anything in addition to that would be something other than a regular meeting,” said San Marcos Interim City Clerk Tammy Cook.

“I don’t have anything different to suggest in terms of the wording. I think that is our standard practice right now to have both of those items on regular meeting agendas. So I think that the Charter Review Commission was obviously recommending something different, which is fine to also require those same things on work session items or workshops that we used to have. But um, I think I think adding the word regular will just, you know, it’s clear. And then if it’s on the ballot, and if it passes, it’ll, it’ll institutionalize as a charter requirement, something that we’re doing already as a practice, so, but I don’t have any different wording to suggest at this time,” said Michael Constantino, City Attorney.

Abracadabra, poof transparency is gone and proof public comment should be required

.

Eliminating the CRC’s recommendations of a “Citizen Comment Period” and “Question and Answer Session with the Press and Public” has implications on transparency, accountability, and public interaction.

If a citizen has an innovative idea, the City Council can provide direction to city staff.

What is the harm in letting people speak? What is the cause for concern for journalists and taxpayers asking questions?

“Citizen Comment Period” and “Question and Answer Session from the Press and Public” is the only instance in which journalists and the engaged public can speak to all the elected officials in a room together.

Now stakeholders must contact the City Council individually via phone or wait outside city hall and grab four city councils and ask a question or provide a suggestion. Or, take the time to email in the hope they will receive a response.

The Mayor and some members of the City Council perceive there is no time during regular meetings.

If so many topics are being covered or one topic extensively, all the more reason for “Citizen Comment Period” and “Question and Answer Session with the Press and Public.” 

Mayor Hughson’s amendment codifies what is already required of City Council “Regular Meetings,” which she has failed to uphold during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In other words, we have always had “Citizen Comment Period” and “Question and Answer Session with the Press and Public” at “Regular Meetings.”

Hughson’s amendment makes substantive changes to the recommendation by taking out “Special Meetings” and “Work Sessions.”

First, if Mayor Hughson and City Council valued transparency, accountability, and public interaction, they would uphold the CRC’s recommendations for all meetings to include “Special Meetings” and “Work Sessions.” 

Second, if the Mayor and City Council valued transparency, accountability, and public interaction, they would have taken the CRC recommendations a step further to require a “Citizen Comment Period” and “Question and Answer Session with the Press and Public” on all boards and commissions. 

Third, is it ethical to change the recommendations from an independent oversight committee in a “Work Session” with no public comment when the item is regarding the lack of public comment?

The citizens have witnessed in 2021 a grave injustice of the Charter ballot language being devised outside of a “Regular Meeting” where citizens have a voice.

In sum, let the voters decide not the personal interests of politicians.

Considering that this Tuesday night, the City Council is voting on the Ethics Ordinance, it makes one wonder if The Ethics Review Commission should add language to the ordinance to have a repeat performance for what has transpired with the City Charter Review process this year.

Third, is it ethical to change the recommendations from an independent oversight committee in a “Work Session” with no public comment when the item is regarding the lack of public comment? No other council has cast “re-do” votes regarding amendments to the City Charter ballot language to be taken directly to the voters in a “Work Session” with no public comment.

The City Council originally voted unanimously for free speech and transparency in their “Regular Meeting.” Did certain members of the City Council have conversations with the Mayor prior to the work session?

The City Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, August 03, 2021, at 3:00 p.m. To review the full agenda, click here. You can email city council at CouncilMembers@SanMarcosTX.gov or submit a public comment for Tuesday’s meeting at CitizenComment@SanMarcosTX.gov.

Additionally, you can watch the City Council meeting live or in-person at San Marcos City Hall, 630 E. Hopkins.

TEXAS OPEN MEETING AND PUBLIC INFORMATION ACTS

Members of all Council-appointed boards/commissions are required by state law to receive training in Texas open government laws.

The Office of the Attorney General offers training courses and course completion certificates in the Open Meetings Act and Public Information Act and can be accessed at the Attorney General’s website.

*Note: Not all local or county governments are required to give prior notice of certain types of meetings, or provide agendas, agenda packets, meeting minutes, or audio, video, or live streaming services on all sessions.