San Marcos Ethics Review Commission Issues Letter Of Reprimand To Parks Board Member

Staff Reports

On Tuesday, the San Marcos Ethics Review Commission voted to find a Parks and Recreation Board member had violated a section of the city’s ethics ordinance.

The complaint alleged Jordan Buckley falsely accused City Marshal, and Park Ranger Loy Locke, of being racist during a parks board public meeting on Feb. 11.

The hearing began at 5:30 PM and continued until at least midnight before the commission reached a decision.

Buckley received a letter of reprimand for violating Section(s) Article 5 of the Ethics Code Section 2.424 – Standard of Conduct, subsection (b)(4): “Make a false statement of material fact at a public meeting.”

During the hearing, Locke and Buckley were allowed to present their evidence, which included documents related to the complaints filed against Park Rangers between 2015 and the PIR date.

According to Locke, he didn’t attend the Sept. 17 Parks Board Meeting but was later notified about what had occurred.

During Locke’s testimony, his supervisor, Rusty Grice, Sergeant City Marshall, said only one of the three complaints he provided to the city clerk’s office was a formal complaint; the other two had been received through an online form, such as messaging or comments.

Grice, who investigated and reviewed body cam footage for each of the incidents identified in the complaints, said they had all been determined to be unfounded.

According to Grice and their supervisor Chief Marshal Jamie Lee Jade Huffman, one of the complaints occurred on a date in which Locke was not on duty due to being hospitalized.

A complaint by Travis County Commissioner Margaret Gomez, who filed the complaint on behalf of her grandson, was deemed to be unfounded.

According to Huffman, while Locke had been present at the time of the incident, body-camera footage showed he had minimal interaction with Gomez’s grandson. 

The third complaint, which alleged several individuals were escorted from the park unfairly, was determined to be unfounded; the individuals in question had been cited and asked to leave for smoking marijuana with at least 8 children in the vicinity. 

Huffman said each complaint was reviewed by Grice and himself before passing it up to the Director of Parks and Recreation’s office and ultimately to the City Manager.

At a previous meeting, commissioners requested a copy of everything provided to Buckley in response to his Public Information Request.

However, Buckley noted the difference between the documents the commission received compared to what he had submitted as evidence.

Buckley admitted he had originally intended to submit a PIR specifically asking for complaints against Locke and did not realize he had broadened his request to include all Park Rangers.

“I assumed I had requested information specific to Mr. Locke, and I was wrong in that,” Buckley said. “And that’s why at city council last week; I acknowledged that.” 

During his presentation, Buckley argued Locke’s testimony was irrelevant as he hadn’t been provided all of the information that the marshal had submitted as evidence.

However, Michael Cosentino, City Attorney, noted Buckley did not request anything other than copies of the complaints that had been filed against park rangers between 2015 and the time of his request.

Locke had received copies of the original complaints and copies of the communication between the administration regarding the investigation results.

When Buckley noted the commission had not received the same documents he did, ERC Chair Lee Garcia observed Buckley had experienced a technical issue and could not access the city’s records center to open the documents.

Garcia continued that the city had attempted to provide him with what the commission had received but was forced to convert it into another format to allow him to open.

Buckley said if he had realized his information request included all rangers, he wouldn’t have assumed all three complaints were against Locke.

Commissioner Anne Teehan noted that all three of the documents Buckley provided stated that the complaint had been investigated and determined to be unfounded.

“The only assumption I made was where the officer wasn’t made, and I thought I had asked for documents specific to Loy Locke,” Buckley told the commission. “If I would have received all the documents I saw now, I would have even been…it would have been totally different.”

Buckley also told commissioners had requested the body camera footage to review it for himself and compare it with the complaint; however, he had not been given it.

Buckley argued that the commissioners didn’t allow him to provide testimony from people to provide a full picture of where his statements at the meeting had come from.

Commissioner Tammy Walden apologized to Buckley and explained that the commission could only focus on the three complaints and not allow his witnesses.

“The complaint says that intentionally and knowingly made false statements,” Buckley said, “And I guess what I’m trying to clarify is that with the information I had, I did not intentionally or knowingly make those false statements.”

Commissioners were in executive session for over an hour discussing the evidence presented by both parties.

The commissioners did not go into detail on the contents of the letter of reprimand before adjourning.