Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Recusal Meet And Confer topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident asks San Marcos council to seek legal guidance and recusal before police meet‑and‑confer vote
Summary
A resident told the council an ethics commission decision cited a past council member for violating the San Marcos code of ethics and urged current members who received union campaign contributions to consider recusal; the matter relates to a meet‑and‑confer extension scheduled for a later council meeting.
Max Fieldbaker, speaking remotely at the Nov. 5 work session, asked the council to consult city legal counsel and consider recusals before a scheduled 6:00 p.m. meeting on a meet‑and‑confer agreement extension with the San Marcos Police Fire Association.
Fieldbaker cited an ethics commission decision dated Nov. 1, 2023 that, he said, found a violation of "section 2.423 a 1 of the San Marcos code of ethics" by a then‑council member (the letter named Mark Gleeson) for voting on the meet‑and‑confer agreement after receiving contributions above a stated threshold. "I would posit to counsel, that many of you, have received contributions...from not only the firefighters association, but also from the police officers association," Fieldbaker said, urging members who received contributions to consider recusal.
He asked the council to ask City Legal Counsel Sam Aguirre to identify the legal requirements for recusal, including how political action committees and appearance‑of‑impropriety forms are treated, and whether councilmembers could lawfully participate in discussion and vote without additional disclosures. Fieldbaker also said he believed the 2022 meet‑and‑confer agreement required good‑faith meetings and urged the council to explain why staff or the union had not met in good faith before seeking an extension.
The concerns were raised as citizen comment; the work session record shows no subsequent council action or motion on the meet‑and‑confer extension during the Nov. 5 session. The item was noted as scheduled for consideration at the council’s 6:00 p.m. meeting.
