Council postpones lobbying ordinance

The San Marcos City Council voted to postpone taking action on item requiring registration of lobbyists and periodic reporting of contacts made by lobbyists with elected City officials, City Board and Commission members and City Employees. 

The item would have amended Chapter 2, Administration, Article 5, Code of Ethics and would also include the establishment of penalties for violations of this ordinance, providing certain exemptions from lobbying registration and reporting requirements and providing a savings clause. 

Previously, council discussed and provided direction regarding provisions of an ordinance proposed by the Ethics Review Commission during its July meeting, including the requirement of lobbyists to register with the city and require lobbyists along with councilmembers, board and commission members and city staff members to file reports with the city clerk’s office. 

Reporting would be required every other month regarding any contacts made by lobbyists in an attempt to influence recommendations and decisions on matters of city policy. This ordinance was postponed to the council’s Nov. 3, 2021 meeting. Mayor Jane Hughson stated during that meeting that she had numerous proposed amendments to offer. 

Following discussion, the second reading was postponed once again, until a regular meeting in February 2022.

As council began its discussion on this item once again on Tuesday, Councilmember Shane Scott made a motion to deny with Councilmember  Mark Gleason seconding the motion. 

“My motion to deny is based on experience being on city council before and being on again, I just have a problem,” Scott said.” I just have a problem with too much government and I feel like this is just very overbearing and I don’t think it’s going to meet perhaps what the original intent was. I really don’t think there’s a problem with lobbying in San Marcos and if there’s a problem with it, there’s no results from it.” 

Scott further said he has previously been told that he is “getting paid under the table” by developers. Scott added that he has never once received a check and that any allegations regarding the matter are not accurate. 

“I think that this type of nitpicking as I would call it, very micromanagement kind of crosses the boundary of reality,” Scott said. “Don’t get me wrong I think there’s value in everybody knowing what’s going on, I think there’s value in everybody on an even playing field, but I don’t find value in making decisions like this, based on inaccurate, unrealistic realities that aren’t there and aren’t happening in the community.” 

Gleason further mentioned that the concept of transparency is needed but that the ordinance could later be used as a political weapon. 

“I know there’s an exemption in here that if we’re not we’re not discussing anything but money, that we’re allowed to have those open conversations,” Gleason said. “But if I’m at Cafe on the Square having a cup of coffee and someone on a board from the Heritage Association or whatever organization sits down with me and two months later they have an agenda item on our agenda that may affect them financially, and someone has a picture of us sitting together that’s going to get turned in and used against us politically.” 

Councilmember Maxfield Baker then made comments regarding Scott’s postponement of the item, and how Scott and his association with the San Marcos Police Officers Association. Scott and Baker began bickering at each other to which Hughson urged Scott to allow Baker to speak.

“This is what I want, I want Mr. Scott to refute these kind of things because it points to exactly what the issue is, right? It’s that we have monied interest whether they’re developers, or whether they’re specific associations or you know, as it was brought up and we’ve talked about this before, even environmental organizations, Baker said. “In all of those instances, instead of actually doing something about it they say ‘This is too hard,’ ‘There’s going to be unintended consequences,’ and totally refuse to even address them.” 

Further, Baker addressed Gleason’s point of the weaponization of the ordinance. 

“If you sat down with somebody and had a discussion and then a few months later, a policy decision comes up that was related to that person, yeah that’s fair game,” Baker said. “You’re a public figure, people can take pictures of you out there anytime and make those conclusions but guess what, by documenting it, by having like, some sense as to what you talked about, you’re safe, right. The lobbying ordinance actually helps fight the weaponization of things like that.” 

Baker further questioned if Gleason read the item due to the concerns he had. Baker further stated that he felt Gleason was missing the point of the item.

To that, Gleason made it clear that councilmembers, volunteers and board members involved in the community and who have received money should register as a lobbyist and reiterated that the ordinance would be weaponized. 

“When this includes every single organization or individual that reaches out to us on any policy decision, I might support it, but as of right now, this doesn’t include the [San Marcos] River Foundation, this doesn’t include Mano Amiga, this doesn’t include all types of organizations that spend time lobbying, pursing agenda items and pushing to change policy which is their right to do, but this leaves them out,” Gleason said. 

He further explained that the lobbying ordinance should not only apply to the developers but everyone. Councilmember Jude Prather then commented on how the ordinance seemed unequal due to the calling out of specific organizations. 

“It would favor certain groups and would put other burdens on other groups and I just don’t think it meets those ideals of equality under the law,” Prather said. 

Councilmember Alyssa Garza questioned her colleagues on if they’d taken time to look at and compare lobbying ordinances at the state and national level. Garza also mentioned that councilmembers should already be careful when speaking to neighbors and members of the community and doesn’t understand the opposition. 

“Why just kind of sit here in fear of the unknown? When I just, I do not feel that my colleagues’ rationales are compelling enough or even rooted in the literature regarding lobbying ordinances,” Garza said. “I’m genuinely curious as to what extent those who are so passionately opposed to the ordinance as it stands with the amendments proposed by Mayor Hughson.” 

Councilmember Saul Gonzales expressed his support for the passing of the ordinance. 

“I think if we had this program in place or this ordinance in place years back, we wouldn’t be in the situation we’re in now,” Gonzales said. 

Hughson stated that she could not support the ordinance in its current form and wanted to remove the “gotcha aspect” of the ordinance. 

“I’d like for us to try something that meets transparency without the sledgehammer and I would like to say to everyone, I know the council knows this, that this currently applies to the council but all, every board and commission member of our almost 30 boards and commissions and some city employees,” Hughson said. 

Hughson further explained how she has worked and edited amendments to add to the ordinance. Councilmembers Baker and Gleason continued to defend their sides, Gleason emphasized how this would negatively impact neighborhood and community conversation with elected officials. 

Councilmember Garza responded, saying “I keep hearing that this is going to negatively impact community participation, this is baffling coming from a body that has historically voted in favor of policy that many of our neighbors, perhaps not the ones that y’all talk to perceived to be direct attacks to transparency and civic engagement.

“So for those of you asserting your opposition is because you want to foster community conversation, reduce intimidation and is rooted in equity, I’m going to need that same effort and energy from y’all, and this is looking at you Mr. Gleason, when it comes to reimagining ways to recruit and appoint applicants to various boards and commissions when we hear highly paid consultants say the results rate for community feedback is almost non-existent,” Garza added. 

Baker further asked for clarification regarding Gleason’s point that individuals cannot talk to councilmembers without registering.

Jonathan Loller of the Ethics Review Commission clarified the questioning saying, “The term lobby or lobbying does not include a communication or municipal question where someone’s merely requesting information or inquiring the facts or status of any municipal matter, question or procedure while not attempting to influence a city official.” 

Loller also brought clarification regarding the weaponization of the ordinance by sharing that complaints cannot be filed within the period beginning on the 60th day prior to the first day of early voting and ending on the later of the regular day or runoff election day. 

Ultimately, the motion to deny failed 5-2. Baker then made a motion to approve the ordinance as is in the meeting packet. 

The council then went down the list of amendments made by Hughson to include in the ordinance with the first being that the ordinance will only apply to the city council, passing 4-3. 

The second amendment regarding needing the definition of “City Official” in the definitions so all are clear as to who must comply was put off to give staff time to find the definition. 

An amendment to move the San Marcos Police Officers Association (SMPOA) and the San Marcos Professional Fire Fighters Association(SMPFFA) to Sec. 2.471. Qualifying contracts, applications, and activities that can trigger lobbying registration were also approved, with the addition of the sentence “This does not mean that representatives of the SMPOA or SMPFFA are permitted to contact City Council members during Meet and Confer negotiations.” The motion went on to pass 5-2. 

The next amendments suggested that all of the Planning and Development (PADS) related items should be placed together and swapped 2.472 and 2.473, telling the lobbyist what to do before explaining the required registration process. These amendments passed 6-1. 

The amendment to add to the registration list of items “Any campaign contributions made for any council member for that council member’s last election or since,” passed 4-3. The amendment to remove the item on registering lobbyists having to report things done in the last year when the lobbying ordinance was not in effect, passed 7-0. 

The amendments regarding the form such as specifying information updates, how to unregister, activity reports, adding a lobby registration ID to reports and identifying information to further specify the reason for the discussion,  all passed 7-0. 

After a lengthy conversation regarding lobbying and its exact definition and how it would be defined in the ordinance, Scott voted to postpone the ordinance and hold a workshop during the council’s work session on April 5 and it would then be placed on the agenda for the council for the first  regular meeting in May. 

As tensions rose between councilmembers on whether or not to postpone the ordinance, the council voted in favor of the postponement, 4-3. 

To view the full meeting and agenda, visit http://san-marcos-tx.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=9.