My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05.19.20 Regular Meeting
San-Marcos
>
City Clerk
>
01 City Council Minutes
>
2020's
>
2020
>
05.19.20 Regular Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/1/2020 8:48:32 AM
Creation date
7/1/2020 8:41:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
City Clerk - Document
Minutes
City Clerk - Type
Regular Meeting
Date
5/19/2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City Council Meeting Minutes May 19, 2020 <br />The language of Section 2.421, regarding the policy and purpose of the Code <br />of Ethics, is so broad that almost ANYTHING an officer or employee does, <br />even in his or her private life, could somehow be interpreted as a violation of <br />that section. There are specific provisions in other sections of the code that <br />addresses conduct of officers and employees in the performance of their <br />official duties and only those provisions should be the basis of an ethics <br />complaint. <br />Although the three complaints have been dropped during this time I resigned <br />and the pandemic, I cannot begin to describe the incredible amount of stress <br />these complaints have caused for myself and of course for my family. As a <br />consequence of those complaints filed against me, there have been other <br />unintended consequences such as the City of San Marcos having to pay a total <br />of $1,804 in attorney's fees to advise the Ethics Commission on one of my <br />cases that moved forward to public hearing. <br />In addition, the media blowing constant stories on TV and print, social media <br />backlash, and thousands of harassing comments that have escalated to threats <br />of violence have affected me tremendously. Many of my close friends advised <br />me to hire an attorney for the hearing that was scheduled for April 8th, 2020. I <br />soon became discouraged when one attorney was asking for $500 an hour to <br />review my case. I was blessed enough when a very prolific attorney in Austin <br />kindly reached out to take my case pro bono. <br />Recently, the Ethics Review Commission met on May 13, 2020 and adopted the <br />following motion: <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Rice, seconded by Commissioner Lollar, <br />to recommend an amendment to Section 2.421 - Policy and purpose - by <br />adding item (e) to read as follows: (e) This Section 2.421 shall not be used, <br />cited, or considered by a citizen or by the Ethics Review Commission as the <br />basis of an ethics complaint. The motion passed by the following vote, 6 in <br />favor, 0 against, and 1 absent. <br />There have been other complaints filed in 2020 citing this section of the Code <br />as a violation. At this time, I would like the Council to consider an ordinance <br />amendment to the Ethics Code to prevent misuse of Ethics Complaints and to <br />prevent the Code of Ethics to be utilized as a political weapon or to intimidate <br />or embarrass city employees and/or council members." <br />Michael Cosentino, stated bringing forward an amendment and will read as <br />City of San Marcos Page 21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.