Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.
Article Image Alt Text

Members vote to strengthen ethics rules

City Council
Sunday, September 23, 2018

The San Marcos City Council approved, on the second of two readings last week, an ordinance that will amend the city Code Of Ethics setting a limit of $500 on individual contributions to candidates for mayor or city council and also discussed modifying the City Code to require any member of the city council to publicly state when they are recusing or abstaining and to state their reason.

The council received a presentation from the Ethics Review Commission at a workshop meeting on March 20 that included recommended changes to the San Marcos Code of Ethics to set limits on individual contributions to candidates for mayor and council positions and total limits on contributions to candidates during an election cycle.

On Aug. 6, the council conducted a special meeting and gave direction to city staff to bring forward an ordinance setting an individual limit of $500 on contributions to candidates for mayor and candidates for council places and setting limits on total contributions that can be accepted during an election cycle based on the number of qualified voters in the most recent general election multiplied by $0.75 for mayoral candidates and multiplied by $0.50 for council candidates.

On Sept. 4, council unanimously approved the ordinance on first reading and directed City Attorney Michael Cosentino to provide proposed wording for the second reading prohibiting a council member from voting on matters that involve persons or business entities from whom the member had received a campaign contribution of $500 or more.

“The concept was to draft some language that would restrict the council members’ ability to vote on items that would benefit them financially or have a special economic effect on a person or entity that the council member received a campaign contribution from,” Cosentino said.

The proposed wording from Cosentino would ban city officials from taking any official action that they know is likely to affect an economic interest of a person, business entity, or association from whom the official has received a campaign contribution in an amount exceeding $500.

This is in addition to rules that already prohibit city officials to take any official action that they know is likely to affect an economic interest of the official or employee; their immediate family members or a member of their household; an outside employer of the official or employee or of his or her immediate family member; a business entity in which the official or employee or his or her immediate family member holds an economic interest; a business entity for which the city official or employee serves as an officer or director or in any other policy making position; a person or business entity from whom the official or employee, or his or her immediate family member, has solicited, received and not rejected, or accepted any benefit or an offer of employment within the past 24 months.

Council member Melissa Derrick made a motion to amend the amendment by striking the word “association” from the amendment to make it less open for interpretation, calling it “too slippery of a slope.” The amendment failed 2-5.

Council member Lisa Prewitt then made a motion to amend the amendment that would reflect the state law, that this provision would not apply when four or more council members would be prohibited from voting. The amendment passed unanimously. The council also passed an amendment to the provision that would make it not apply to contributions made before Nov. 7, 2018 and therefore would not affect this election season. The main motion passed unanimously.

“I know that many other cities don’t do this.” Derrick said. “But I’m really proud of our council for doing this. I think that it’s been a long time that everyone in the United States has been joking about politicians needing to wear a jacket like race car drivers do, and although we can’t solve that on a national level, we can do something about it here at home and hope that it spreads out and up.”

Council also held a discussion regarding modifying the City Code to require any member of the San Marcos City Council to publicly state when they are recusing or abstaining and to publicly state their reason between the reading of the agenda item and a motion. This discussion stems from a conversation that took place at the council’s last meeting.

Council member Jane Hughson recommended, without making a motion, that members of the city council should, out of courtesy, notify the city manager, city clerk and city attorney if they are planning to recuse themselves ahead of time on an item. Hughson also wanted to add that the recusal should be publicly stated between the reading of the caption and the discussion or vote.

This item will come back before city council on a future agenda.

San Marcos Record

(512) 392-2458
P.O. Box 1109, San Marcos, TX 78666