City council votes down lobbying ordinance

A vote to amend reporting requirements for lobbyists was defeated by city council Tuesday night after councilmembers argued the proposed changes were too “convoluted” to adopt.

The motion failed 2-5, with councilmembers Alyssa Garza and Maxfield Baker acting as the two dissenting votes.

“I think this is complicated,” said Councilmember Mark Gleason, who voted against the proposed ordinance. “I don't think the average citizen is going to be able to understand it ... I think this is a 15 page law that I think is going to be extremely hard to implement, and to enforce and to follow for just about everybody.”

“It’s overreaching, and I’m not going to support it,” Councilmember Shane Scott said.

Ordinance 2022-72 would have amended the city’s Code of Ethics by adding a new division to “require registration of lobbyists and periodic reporting of contacts made by lobbyists with elected city officials, establish penalties for violations of this ordinance, and provide certain exemptions for from lobbying registration and reporting.”

According to the ordinance, city councilmembers who have had reportable conversations with a registered lobbyist would be required to file reports with the City Clerk’s Office on or before the 15th day of every other month beginning in December of each year.

Among those listed as exempt, according to Section 2.474 of the ordinance, were government entities, members of the media, social service organizations generally, and the Greater San Marcos Partnership (GSMP).

The ordinance as written would also require staff present during a meeting between city councilmembers and lobbyists to report or “action trigger.”

Gleason pointed out during the meeting that the proposed registration requirements would exclude the most common types of lobbyists.

“All of the organizations that don't receive funding but receive outside funding to support their lobbying efforts for us on policy decisions, until those organizations have to be included in this too, I'm not going to support it,” Gleason said. “The majority of the lobbying we get is on policy, but that affects the budget; it affects staff time; it affects how the city is run, and to me that's lobbying. And so in this current form, I still think this is a sledgehammer approach.”

When Baker was given the opportunity to speak, he took a departure from his colleagues, arguing the proposed changes “don’t go far enough.”

“What we’re talking about is there a need for this, I’ve been lobbied by developers. I’ve had people offer to buy me lunch, take me out, right? The reality is people want our attention.” Baker said. “We’ve talked about grassroots organizing. We’ve explained all this before to you, Mr. Gleason, and Mr. Scott, about what this is very finely tuned to do. To act like you can’t explain that to somebody I think is pedantic.”

“Where are your amendments?” Baker added, directing his comments towards Gleason. “At least the mayor is showing up with something to change.”

In her final remarks, Hughson said the proposal was flawed.

“There are still too many glitches and opportunities for innocent mistakes,” she said. “And for somebody to file a complaint that stops that person's process, or their application through the process, I have a problem with because that can be used by people who just don't want the project.”