Public commenter cites ethics finding, urges recusal on police meet-and-confer extension

A public commenter told the San Marcos City Council on Nov. 5 that an ethics commission decision raises recusal questions about a scheduled discussion of a police meet-and-confer agreement extension.

Max Filbaker, a member of the public, said he received an ethics commission letter sent Nov. 1, 2023 to Mark Gleason that concluded in part, “You violated section 2.423A1 of the San Marcos code of ethics in that you voted to approve the meet and confer agreement with the San Marcus Police Fire Association when in November of 2020 … contributions to you that exceeded $300.” Filbaker quoted the letter and said council members who received campaign contributions from police or firefighter associations should consider recusal before discussing or voting on an extension of the meet-and-confer agreement.

Filbaker asked council to request legal guidance on the requirements for recusal and whether appearance-of-impropriety forms or other disclosures are necessary when contributions come from political action committees. “I would ask that you all before considering this item in the 6 pm meeting that you ask [city] legal counsel … to identify what are the requirements for recusal,” Filbaker said.

He also told the council that the meet-and-confer agreement passed in 2022 had anticipated good-faith meetings between staff and the police association and that he believes an extension is now being proposed despite there having been no good-faith meetings. Filbaker urged the council to ask staff or the association to explain why good-faith meetings did not occur.

The council did not take public action on the ethics concern at the work session; the transcript shows the meet-and-confer extension was listed on the later 6 p.m. agenda. Filbaker’s remarks referenced a city ethics code provision (section 2.423A1) and requested formal legal clarification prior to the scheduled 6 p.m. consideration.