City, police agreement repealed, negotiations begin

The San Marcos City Council voted 4-3 to repeal the Meet and Confer agreement with the San Marcos Police Officers’ Association giving the two organizations until June 7 to try and come to a new agreement.

The Meet and Confer agreement outlines wages and working conditions of the San Marcos Police Department. This includes things like how long the statute of limitations is for an officer to be disciplined as well as the power given to the chief of police to discipline versus a neutral arbitrator. It also covers many day-to-day interworking of the department such as hiring and promotion standards.

“Meet and confer was adopted in 2006 but our first agreement was effective Oct. 1 2009,” Linda Spacek, director of Human Resources and Civil Service for the city of San Marcos, said. “Our most recent agreement was adopted this last year. As we work through these agreements, there are a lot of things we talk about that affect hiring, promotions, discipline, every aspect of how the police department works. It is kind of layered. The first year you do some things, and then both sides come together and say, ‘Hey, there are some things we can do to enhance those.’ Every year builds on itself, and we have built some really neat things over the years that are serving our community very well.”

The agreement, which would have been effective for the next three years, already included many versions of disciplinary procedures; however, those trying to repeal the ordinance said those procedures were not adequate.

Mano Amiga, an organization that advocates for criminal justice reform in Hays County, as well as Pamela Watts, began making the push to repeal the approved Meet and Confer contract after the city and SMPOA didn’t include what the group called the “Hartman Reforms” in the agreement last year.

The reforms are named after former San Marcos Police Department Sergeant Ryan Hartman, who caused a vehicle collision in 2020 that killed Watts’ life partner Jennifer Miller. In addition to calling for an end to the 180-day statute of limitations for investigating wrongdoing by officers, the reforms also call for an end of delaying interviews for misconduct, officers are allowed more than 48 hours to before giving an official statement; public transparency for personnel files; an end to third-party arbitration; and end vacation forfeiture as a substitute to suspension.

A petition calling for the repeal of the agreement received enough signatures to force the city council to consider either repealing the agreement to begin negotiations or to send the decision to an election so voters could decide if the agreement needed to be repealed.

City staff discussed the difficulties that could result from repealing the agreement; however, the majority of the city council was still in favor. On Tuesday, February 7, the city council narrowly voted to repeal the agreement and begin negotiations though no council member explicitly disagreed with any of the reforms requested.

Councilmember Alyssa Garza made the motion to approve the repeal of the current agreement, which was seconded by Councilmember Saul Gonzales.

“Sometimes we really do have to knock everything down and recreate something as a community until we see change,” Garza said.

Gonzales said he thought this presented an opportunity.

“I’d rather negotiate before we give up on anything,” he said. “And I think going back and renegotiating would be the way to come up with a win-win for everyone.”

Councilmember Jude Prather and Councilmember Shane Scott also voted in favor of the repeal with Prather saying the “right to petition grievances to your government” was enshrined in the constitution.

Mayor Jane Hughson, Councilmember Matthew Mendoza and Councilmember Mark Gleason voted against the repeal, which would have sent the decision to the voters.

“I think it is unfortunate that the voters are not going to have a chance to have a say at this,” Gleason said. “When we discussed Prop A, we discussed how important it was for us to find out where the public stood on this. Not just us as a body or a handful of 1% or 5% of petitioners of the city. This was an opportunity to send this to the community and let the community decide and find out where the community stood on this and still have the opportunity for reforms. I am disappointed that the voters will not have an opportunity to have a say in this.”

The city will now have 120 days to negotiate with the SMPOA to try and adopt the reforms, which Interim City Manager Stephanie Reyes said may be difficult.

“I don’t think (SMPOA) would do this for nothing,” Reyes said of the potential negotiations. “It is going to be for something. Even if we draw the line in the sand (and say,) ‘You either agree to the five Hartman Reforms or you don’t and you have no agreement.’ Nobody really wins with that, because you go back to Civil Service, and it creates less accountability than what we have today. I hear you. I understand that this is a very emotional issue on so many different levels because of what you’ve experienced or what you have seen loved ones experience. The fact of the matter of where we are is it is different to what the interest is. The interest is more accountability… There is a disconnect, and we need to figure out how to bridge that to create more public transparency and trust so there is an understanding of these things that are happening. Obviously we are not doing a good enough job.”

The SMPOA did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

dsweat @sanmarcosrecord.com