San Marcos Ethics Commission Delivers Decision On Complaint  Against City Council Member

Staff Reports

        San Marcos Council Member Dr. Joca Marquez | Facebook

Updated Tuesday, January 7 at 5:00 Am

The San Marcos Ethics Commission met Monday evening at 5:30 pm to discuss the complaint in executive session that had been filed against council member Dr. Joca Marquez.

At 6:45 PM the Ethics Commission reconvened in open session and voted to move forward with an investigation into the complaint.

No additional details were released on the upcoming investigation or the schedule of that investigation.

 

 

 

 

SM Ethics Review Commission To Review Complaint Against City Council Member

The San Marcos Ethics Review Commission will meet on Monday, Jan. 6, for a special meeting to review Complaint No. 2019-2 against a City Council Member.

The complaint was filed on December 11 against Dr. Joca Marquez regarding a violation of City Ethics Ordinance Section 2.421 (a).

DIVISION 1. – GENERALLY

Sec. 2.421.Policy and purposes.
(a)    General policy statement. It is the policy of the city that all city officials and employees shall conduct themselves both inside and outside the city’s service so as to give no occasion for distrust of their integrity, impartiality or devotion to the best interest of the city and the public trust which the city holds.

See the City of San Marcos Ethics Code here: https://smcorridornews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/SM-City-Ethics-Code-Updated-2018.pdf

The complaint alleges that Marquez expressed bias against applicants that fit a certain profile in a tweet she posted on November 6.

The tweet was posted at 10:58 PM while Marquez was in the city council meeting and has since been removed.

According to the time stamp on the meeting’s video, the city council voted 7 to 0 to approve a purchase and sale agreement with Pursuant Ventures Development, LLC, for 30 near Centerpoint Road.

According to the complaint, Marquez posted the messages shortly after voting “against a project where the applicant fit this description and did not give significant reasons for her vote, thereby, introducing the prospect that the vote was based on her stated bias.”

The complainant alleges the content of the tweet opens the city to a lawsuit, especially from an applicant “fitting the description in the tweet but also in the event another applicant appears to have received favorable treatment based on their ethnicity to the detriment of others.”

The San Marcos Ethics Review Commission will convene at 5:30 PM on Monday in the City Hall Conference room; the commission will enter an executive session to discuss the complaint following roll call.

Related Coverage: 

 

Other tweets Dr. Marquez has posted in the past, which have caused controversy with her constituents. 

 

 

 

 

Related Articles

10 Comments

  1. Now that Marquez is employed both by San Marcos City Council and as secretary to the local brown supremacist group Mano Amiga, maybe she can also get a job spreading hate and racial division at Texas State University.

    Oops… she already is employed by Texas State University for those purposes.

    1. I’m so glad everything is racist now. It’s so reassuring to be able to look at any person or group of people and understand how they are truly terrible and filled with hate.

  2. smug editors take note:
    =======================

    Supremacist or Supremist?

    The word “supremacist” has only two standard pronunciations, suh-PREM-a-cist or soo-PREM-a-cist, according to the 10 dictionaries we’ve checked. However, people are indeed using a shorter word, “supremist,” in writing as well as speech.

    Although you won’t find “supremist” in standard dictionaries, it’s been used in the same sense as “supremacist” since the late 1800s, according to the Oxford English Dictionary.

    (In fact, “supremist” showed up back in the 1600s with a different meaning—someone who assumes supreme authority—but the OED says that sense is now obsolete or rare.)

    It turns out that “supremacist” and “supremist” appeared in writing around the same time in phrases that referred to people who believed whites were superior to others.

    The earliest Oxford example for “supremacist” is from the April 5, 1896, issue of the Daily Picayune in New Orleans:

    “The combine are determined to register the negroes, and the white supremacists are equally determined that they shall not.”

    And the dictionary’s earliest racial citation for “supremist” is from the April 6, 1896, issue of the Daily Inter Ocean, a Chicago newspaper:

    “The ‘white supremists,’ or regular Democrats, say that the negroes shall not register.”

    The racial sense of “supremacist” and “supremist” probably showed up even earlier in speech, but the use of quotation marks around “white supremists” suggests that it may have been less common than “white supremacists.”

    The OED explains that “supremist” was formed by adding the suffix “-ist” to the adjective “supreme,” while “supremacist” was the result of adding the suffix to the noun “supremacy.”

    Both “supremacist” and “supremist” are ultimately derived from supr?mus, classical Latin for highest in position, topmost, culminating, and so on.

    Getting back to your question, “supremacist” is overwhelmingly more popular than “supremist” today, according to searches of the Corpus of Contemporary American English, the British National Corpus, and News on the Web, a huge database of articles from online newspapers and magazines.

    So “supremacist” is still supreme, despite your concerns, though people are indeed using “supremist.” Here are a few recent examples:

    “White supremist supporter James Alex Fields Jr drove his car through the anti-racist crowd, injuring 19 people and killing Heather Heyer” (from an Aug. 17, 2017, item on the Mac Observer website).

    “Antifa and white supremist rallies” (a headline in the Aug. 15, 2017, issue of the Washington Times).

    “An avowed white supremist killed six people at a Sikh Temple in 2012” (from the Aug. 3, 2017, issue of the Houston Chronicle).

    Is “supremist” legit? Well, it’s as old as “supremacist,” and the OED doesn’t describe it as nonstandard. But we wouldn’t use it. And we wouldn’t describe a word that hasn’t made it into standard dictionaries as standard.

  3. and…. TOP SECRET as posted on front door of the Greater San Marcos Partnership:

    They will on Jan 9th be placing Marquez on their board (at the request of Denise Trauth).

    1. I did not believe this until viewing that notice for myself posted on the front door of the Greater San Marcos Partnership.

      Absolutely outrageous that Texas State University President Denise Trauth, though aware of what her employee Joca Marquez is saying and doing within the City of San Marcos, nevertheless will be attending the next meeting of the “Greater San Marcos Partnership” on January 9th, for purposes of advocating that Marquez be placed upon their Board of Directors.

      Following all of the racial controversy created by Trauth by Texas State’s campus newspaper asserting that “white DNA is an abomination” and advocating death to “whiteness”, Ms. Trauth now chooses a person like Marquez to represent the university’s position in all future “business relationships”.

      This is the “higher education” your children are facing, as provided by the “leaders” of our community. Welcome to your future.

  4. We all have our own opinions and agendas.
    While you still have your own agendas, once we are given a public office your agenda should be second to the people who you represent. Not a few but all that you represent.
    While you still have your opinions, and they will be part of your thoughts in making decisions, once in public office you are charged with putting your opinions second as you listen to all parties involved and staff and come out with the best decision for the whole of the city.
    So if you can not do this in public office you should not be there for.

    1. Marquez says she serves “the city”, but her actions show she’s there for her own agenda.

      What I am FINALLY realizing is the real desire held by Texas State President Denise Trauth for creating hatred and violence which can only lead to acts of violence caused by and through powers of “education”.

      Not one peep out of Ms. Trauth, however, don’t judge her by what she doesn’t say, just look at what she’s doing in our community.

  5. Wow! Thank you, SMCN, for covering this story. The public would have never know these issues and concerns of a racist in local power, not to mention the beliefs and words spoken by an ugly, hate-filled woman. I hope the Ethics Commission does this right. Wow!

  6. Responding to the above post that says:

    “Denise Trauth, though aware of what her employee Joca Marquez is saying and doing within the City of San Marcos, nevertheless will be attending the next meeting of the “Greater San Marcos Partnership” on January 9th, for purposes of advocating that Marquez be placed upon their Board of Directors”

    I found this from 2014:

    City of San Marcos
    City Council Meeting Minutes December 2, 2014

    “Denise Trauth, addressed the Council regarding the Greater San Marcos Partnership. She explained that prior to the establishment of this Partnership that Texas State was not actively involved in Economic Development with San Marcos. She further explained that the “partnership” only acts an agent and does not do this for any other City in Hays or Caldwell Counties.

    GSMP helps market the University to outside employers, and that a recent report showed that Texas State has an economic impact of 1. 1 billion in Hays County alone. This impact has doubled since being involved with GSMP. She thanked the Council and asked that they continue to support GSMP.”

    moral:

    MAYBE WE SHOULD WAKE UP FROM THE NIGHTMARE THAT IS TEXAS STATE

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button
Close
Close