Ethics commission votes for public hearing

The San Marcos Ethics Commission voted to move forward with a public hearing regarding a complaint made against a city councilmember. 

The ethics commission held a special meeting Monday to discuss a complaint filed by Phil Hutchinson on Dec. 12, referring to remarks made by Dr. Joca Marquez on her personal Twitter account on Nov. 19. Her tweet read: “All the developers seeking to make big profits in SM for ‘affordable housing’ all have the same look: White, male, tall, wear blue blazers, money hungry, and emotionless…AND It feels damn good to vote against their proposed development.”

The commission discussed the complaint in executive session during Monday’s meeting and voted 6-1 in open session to schedule a public hearing on complaint 2019-2. The commission will move forward under section 2.445 of Article 5 Code of Ethics within the San Marcos City Code. According to section 2.445, “An independent outside attorney approved by the city council, who does not otherwise represent the city, shall be retained to serve as special counsel to the ethics review commission in the following situations: (1)When a complaint is filed alleging that the mayor or a member of the city council, or the city manager, city attorney, city clerk or municipal court judge violated this article or a state conflict of interest law.(2)When an advisory opinion is requested under section 2.443(d) by the mayor or a member of the city council, or by the city manager, city attorney, city clerk or municipal court judge.”

Following the commission’s decision, Marquez stated she wasn’t elected by her constituents to stay “silent, docile and complicit about injustices.” 

"My various statements on social media are often misconstrued and misunderstood because of a general lack of understanding of how systemic injustice and inequities work,” Marquez said in a statement. “On Twitter I call out systems not individuals...systemic oppression, institutionalized racism, hegemony, misogyny, patriarchy, White supremacy, assimilation, cultural appropriation, ableism, homophobia, xenophobia, political injustice, classism, displacement of people of color, housing justice, and my experience as Latinx in politics...only intended for audiences who have been educated in how this country has been built on the oppression and genocide of my Native people, the enslavement of people of African descent, and the continued institutional inequities against many other vulnerable communities such as the Muslim, LGBTQIA, people of different abilities, children, the homeless, our veterans, among others. If one of my tweets is more offensive than any of the aforementioned inequities, then it's time to re-assess our values, perspectives, and priorities.”

Hutchinson’s complaint stated that “shortly after public posting (the aforementioned tweet) the councilperson voted against a project where the applicant fit this description and did not give significant reasons for her vote, thereby introducing the prospect that the vote was on her stated bias.”

Marquez, however, stated that she voted no on the project, Lantana on Bastrop Multifamily Housing Project, which sought tax abatements or a 100% exemption from ad valorem taxes because of several concerns, including being located in a “food dessert,” lack of sidewalks and ADA accommodations and the cost of rent.

“I lived in affordable housing for five years, from 2012-2017 right here in my beloved San Marcos,” Marquez stated. “I lived in Encino Pointe Apartments on 1800 Post Road. I voted against the project because of my experiences living there … As your council woman, I understand the plight and complexities of the working class in San Marcos —I understand what it is to make less than $22,000 a year and have no other option of where to live but in these types of housing.”

No date or time has been set for a public hearing regarding this matter.