SAN MARCOS CITY COUNCIL
There was approximately three hours of public comment at last week’s regularly scheduled San Marcos City Council meeting; though several topics were of discussion amongst the community, the majority of that time was spent discussing the agenda item for “a possible resolution calling for the immediate and permanent ceasefire in occupied Palestine.” This item came after a year of public comment requesting such a resolution. Speakers in public comment came out both in favor of the resolution and against it. The resolution was only on the agenda for discussion so that the council could decide if they would like to see it back on the agenda for a vote. Four council members agreed to bring the resolution back for a vote, so it is expected to be on the next agenda for the May 6 meeting. Any amendments to the resolution will also be voted on at the next council meeting.
The ceasefire resolution on the agenda states that the “United Nations Security Council has declared the 57-year-long settlement and the 18-year blockade of Gaza unlawful.” It also gives statistics related to the death toll of the war.
“Israel has engaged in large-scale military assault by land, air, and sea on Gaza, home to approximately 2.3 million people, of which almost half are children,” the resolution states. “According to a study published in The Lancet in July of 2024, over 186,000 Palestinians had been killed since Israel’s invasion of the Gaza Strip, around 43% of which have been children. Over 1,000 medical workers and 173 journalists have been killed. In addition, over 100,000 Gazans are wounded, over 2,000,000 are displaced, and over 10,000 are missing under the rubble.”
The resolution also described federal tax dollars that fund the war.
“According to the United States Campaign for Palestinian Rights, $1,405,468,510 from Texans’ tax dollars went to Israel’s purchase of weapons. $4,434,675 of this came from San Marcos residents’ taxes,” the resolution states.
San Marcos Mayor Jane Hughson started the discussion by explaining how items get placed on the agenda.
“They are added in a number of ways. Staff puts things on that we’re buying, contracts, etc., plans and reports, zoning requests, and items for discussion but [items that do not require] … action may be added by the mayor or any two council members. No additional approval is needed by the mayor or anyone else,” Hughson said. “At that meeting, a discussion is held to determine if a majority of members want to move forward with that item. If there is a majority of council members that want to do that, then that item would go on the next agenda for a vote. That means there is no voting on anything tonight other than to determine if we want to go to the next step.”
San Marcos Council Member Alyssa Garza read from a statement that she wrote ahead of the meeting, as she was one of the council members that put the item up for discussion.
“This resolution is rooted in the belief that all people deserve safety, dignity and justice under both US and international law,” Garza said. “If the moral case made by so many today does not move this body then lets talk about what this resolution means for local power and public resources because both are under attack. I’ve said this several times; across the country and right here in Texas, we’re seeing a coordinated rise in preemption laws, which are power grabs by higher levels of government designed to silence local voices and override local control, and that should matter to all of us.”
She added that these laws from higher level government bodies now come with “threats to defund cities, counties and nonprofits — especially those that push back — under the guise of reducing government spending.” She also said she has received threats to her “physical safety” related to bringing forward this agenda item.
San Marcos City Council Member Amanda Rodriguez said she wanted to thank those who were in attendance and gave her reason for supporting the resolution.
“This isn’t an issue that feels political to me. This is a moral issue,” she said, adding that people invoked God as the reason for the justifiable nature of the war. “The God that I serve is not okay with that.”
Rodriguez said she has also been receiving threats.
“People … have been calling my phone, threatening me, my life, threatening deportation — even though I’m a US citizen,” she said. “Because I’m literally asking for children and civilians to stop dying, stop being killed.”
The Rohr Chabad of San Marcos Rabbi Ari Weingarten spoke in public comment against the resolution and said the resolution did not represent both sides.
“Today’s proposed resolution is … something that will bring divide to our community in a way that will be very hard to amend. It’s something that has to do with a geopolitical argument, and to take our beloved city and take one side to the next is not going to help the city of San Marcos ... Did the city make a resolution regarding Russia and Ukraine? Did the city make a resolution regarding the Kurds, regarding Syria? We didn’t,” Weingarten said. “If Israel would lay down their arms today? What would happen tomorrow? Would there be a Jewish nation living in Israel? … Hamas is holding our hostages. Let go of our hostages, and there will be no war. Let the resolution reflect something like that.”
Palestine Solidarity SMTX, the activist group in support of the ceasefire resolution, issued a press release with a statement following the meeting.
“It gives us hope to know that some councilmembers have not forgotten our shared humanity and are listening to their constituents who are advocating for an end to genocide,” Palestine Solidarity SMTX stated in the press release. “We also hope that this encourages communities in Texas to pass their own resolutions; community organizing is powerful and the opposition knows that. We are capable of change not only for ourselves but for others as well, even if they are thousands of miles away.”
San Marcos City Council Member Lorenzo Gonzalez asked if council could amend the resolution at a different time before making a decision on whether they would like to see it on the agenda for a vote.
“Currently I have 17 amendments to the current resolution,” Gonzalez said. “I don’t want to sit here the first meeting in May and debate 17 amendments on the dias, so I’m asking is there a method to bring a different resolution to vote rather than bringing this resolution and me sitting up here and introducing 17 amendments.”
San Marcos City Attorney Samuel Aguirre clarified that he could bring up the amendments at the next meeting, which would be the first meeting in May, if the council decided to put it on the agenda for a vote.
San Marcos Mayor Jane Hughson read a quote by Austin Mayor Kirk Watson that she said she agreed with. She said her concerns were that she didn’t believe a resolution by the San Marcos City Council would end the war and she said there are other wars occurring and can’t understand why that body would only focus on one and not make a resolution for worldwide peace.
“The proposed resolution of the Austin City Council will not realistically end the violence on the other side of the globe, nor will it stop federal taxes being used to implement foreign policy,” she read from the quote by Watson. “That is not within our power. The resolution, however, has the power to divide Austin and will.”
San Marcos City Council Members Garza, Rodriguez, Lorenzo Gonzalez and Saul Gonzales voted to see the ceasefire resolution come back on the agenda for a vote.
San Marcos City Council Member Matthew Mendoza and Hughson voted against the resolution.
Shane Scott said he was “stuck on the fence,” but there were already enough votes in favor of it to see it come back.
