Did SMTX City Council Violate The Open Meetings Act With Anti-Discrimination Policy Update?
“Government accountability is the hallmark of the American Constitutional system, and this information needs to see the light of day. With the Covid-19 pandemic highlighting the issue of governmental overreach, it is important, now more than ever, that the public business be done in public.”
Staff
The City of San Marcos may have violated the Texas Open Meetings Act regarding an update to the city’s anti-discrimination policy, according to an investigation by Texas Values.
On April 21, the San Marcos City Council held a discussion on the policy update during their executive session.
During the council’s regular meeting, Mayor Jane Hughson said the council concluded “legal considerations of an anti-discrimination ordinance and gave direction to staff.”
No formal vote was taken by the council in open court; the proposed policy was also not provided for public review and comment.
According to a press release issued by the city on May 6, a policy went into effect on Friday, May 15, which requires bids and proposals submitted to the city and all contracts entered into by the City of San Marcos acknowledge their business does not discriminate in employment or subcontracting practices.
The release stated the clause was the result of a city council decision made during the April 21 Executive Session.
During the meeting, City Attorney Michael Cosentino stated Mayor Hughson did not need to state anything further on the matter.
The Texas Open Meetings Act Handbook Section 551.007 states “that a governmental body “may not prohibit public criticism of the governmental body, including criticism of any act, omission, policy, procedure, program, or service,” except criticism otherwise prohibited by law.”
“While most of the bidding and contract documents already included a non-discrimination clause, not all contracts included this specific language,” said Purchasing Manager Lynda Williams. “These are policies that are important to our community, and therefore, they are important to reflect in City practices.”
The language which will be incorporated in all bids/proposals and contracts as of May 15 will be as follows:
“I hereby certify that our business is an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) employer and does not and will not discriminate in employment and in subcontracts based on race, color, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, sex, age, disability or economic condition. I further attest that this policy is documented in our Employee Handbook. As an EEO employer, we prohibit retaliation, discharge, or discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment or against any subcontractor or supplier.”
To view the complete Vendor Policy Manual, visit https://www.sanmarcostx.gov/426/Vendor-Policy-Procedure-Manual.
On May 14, Texas Values sent the council a letter requesting the policy be given a public hearing before its implementation.
“This policy would force private businesses and contractors with the City of San Marcos to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs on marriage and biological sex,” Texas Values said. “Additionally, because the City Council took advantage of the Coronavirus situation in a closed-door meeting, there was no opportunity for a public hearing or comment and this action could violate the Texas Open Meetings Act.”
According to Texas Values website, they are an independent 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and is the state family policy council (FPC) in Texas recognized by the Family Research Council.
Texas Values submitted a public information request on June 8, for more information on the policy, which will allegedly require “businesses and religious nonprofits to give special treatment on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment or subcontract agreements.”
“Government accountability is the hallmark of the American Constitutional system, and this information needs to see the light of day,” said Jonathan Covey, Director of Policy for Texas Values. “With the Covid-19 pandemic highlighting the issue of governmental overreach, it is important, now more than ever, that the public business be done in public.”
.
. Texas-Values-San-Marcos-Open-Records-Request
THIS IS REAL (good) NEWS, and thank you.
Some Questions for your staff:
1. What has happened to the resignation of race-baiter/hater Joca Marquez as city council member? It now appears that Marquez has backed out of her previous announcement and will not be resigning unless the council votes on a replacement, nor will she be changing residency anytime soon after saying she has accepted an out-of-town job . This council makes me want to scream RIGGED !
2. What happened to the hearing allegedly scheduled upon the ethics violation levied against Marquez by the City Council? Did the hearing occur? Why not?
3. What–besides the horribly obvious–can Marquez possibly intend to accomplish by means of her proposed resolution as will prevent the council from undertaking “ethics violations used as a political tool against council members?” As if Marquez did not use her office as a political tool for retaliating against other races, she now wants the council to re-write the ethics rule in order to continue her racial war. Never forget how Marquez is also secretary for Mano Amiga, and but for Mano Amiga’s miltant efforts to import and conceal illegal aliens within our city, police officer Justin Putnam would NOT have been murdered April 18th at the hands of Jose DeLaCruz, an illegal allien who according to SMPD had been in the United States since the late 1990. Nor would two other young police officers have also been shot and critically injured at that time. This is our representative Marquez—she advocated these known facts to their ultimate outcome. But she is not finshed with us.
4. Correct, the city council now intends to do away with the ethics rule which controls all of their acts. That’s right, they will re-write the ethics rule due to a request made by Marquez, take out its teeth, and simply police themselves. You trust that, right? Accordingly, the citizens need to incorporate the ethics rule into our city charter by proposition at the ballot box. That would mean our local wolves would be unable to eliminate rules which may “threaten” their acts taken ‘behind the curtain’. Poor little wolves. This might threaten their ability to further slice our city up into pieces and sell it to student housing investors. What our local mexican-american community does NOT understand, is that by current property tax increase history, they will not be able to afford property taxes on their own homes in another five years, much less their children. All part of the plan.
5. So why not put your staff on questions 1-3.
Thank you for the good work.
Hello Gloria,
Thank you for reading. To be honest, Corridor News’s staff has had the same questions. Here are the answers based on our investigation and city officials’ responses.
1. Council Member Marquez’s resignation still stands. However, the city of San Marcos is utilizing a state statute, which allows elected officials (primarily at the state level) to retain their positions until a successor is elected. We have inquired about whether she retains her SMTX residency or if she has already moved “out of state” for her new job. However, the city officials directed our staff to ask Marquez directly, and Marquez will not speak to any member of our staff. She has blocked us on most of her social media accounts. The city’s formal statement was that she still qualifies to retain her position under the state statute.
2. Due to her resignation, the Ethics Commission Hearing was canceled indefinitely, and the complaints will not be reviewed any further. The commission can only issue certain reprimands or consequences to a city council member for breaking the ethics code. The worst they could do was insist she resign. With Marquez no longer technically in place 5, there is no point in the commission using city resources to pursue the complaints further in their minds.
3. We cannot answer what Marquez intends to accomplish with the proposed amendment to the ethics code outside of what she has stated. However, Cosentino noted that a number of complaints without any real standing have been filed against city council members or even staff for simply showing their support for an elected official or a candidate, which has been taking up a lot of the Ethics Commission’s and staff’s time to review. Marquez said she aimed to prevent people from using complaints to damage staff and elected officials’ reputations as well as inflict a financial burden and emotional stress on them through the complaint process. Whether there is another agenda, we cannot say. But the amended section of the ethics code is a general section.
We are still looking into whether the city will in fact need to have an election earlier than November to fill place 5. But with the pandemic, things are taking a some time to get answers to. The city’s stance is obviously that Gov. Abbott made it possible to do so.
Sincerely,
Terra Rivers | Managing Editor