Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones called her memo-outlined changes “enhancements.” Some council members assert the issue needs to be voted on.
SAN ANTONIO — For the past month, a trio of City Council members have pushed back against changes that Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones said she was implementing to the policy proposal process, calling it a “unilateral” move that should be voted on by council in public.
The state of the Council Consideration Request (CCR) process was openly debated Wednesday afternoon after Councilmembers Marc Whyte, Teri Castillo and Marina Alderete Gavito united to force the special meeting—where a stalemate between council and Jones concretized, with a reference to the Spurs’ breakup with Kawhi Leonard thrown in for good measure.
CCRs are effectively the first steps for council members pursuing policy or ordinance changes; they must first get the green light by the Governance Committee before heading to full council for further deliberation.
Jones initially notified City Council members in a mid-July memo that she was adding steps to the CCR submission process, mandating initials from the city manager and city attorney while requiring sponsoring council members to coordinate with her chief of staff before it’s submitted to the city clerk. Previously, a council sponsor would only have to notify the city manager and collect supporting signatures from council colleagues before submission.
Whyte, who spearheaded efforts to streamline the CCR process through an ordinance passed last year – when Mayor Ron Nirenberg was at the helm – pushed back right away.
“What we want to make sure happens is that the process in place continues and is respected because it ensures transparency,” Whyte said earlier this month.
Whyte said that, at minimum, the issue deserved a public conversation. He, Castillo and Alderete Gavito got their wish at the Wednesday meeting, where Jones repeatedly characterized the CCR changes as “enhancements” to ensure the proper steps are being followed. She cited a recent instance where City Manager Erik Walsh didn’t know about a newly submitted CCR from Alderete Gavito’s office.
“My understanding is that was happening 60% of the time, ish,” Jones said at Wednesday’s meeting. “There were many things that were supposed to be happening that weren’t happening. This is just codifying, helping folks have some comfort that what’s said was done was in fact done.”
At issue for Whyte is whether Jones’ changes violated the 2024 ordinance he helped create. Jones at multiple points over the last month said she has received City Attorney Andy Segovia’s assurance that they don’t, but Whyte asserted his stance that they require a full council discussion and vote—saying it was about keeping procedures clear for present and future council members.
“The mayor’s proposed changes very definitely conflict with the current ordinance,” Whyte said. “To change this ordinance – to change the rules that we have all agreed to live by – we must go to an A session and we must have a vote.”
Jones, in explaining her reasoning behind sending draft CCRs to the city attorney earlier than usual, referred to a “changed” legal environment and her desire to “minimize the legal risk to our community.”
Walsh attended the meeting but didn’t endorse a CCR procedure either way regarding how he would be notified—or whether his initials should be required right off the bat.
“This is a process that governs y’all’s consideration requests,” the city manger said. “It’s really up to you. In either situation, it is the initiating of a concept, an idea, a proposal. I’m indifferent.”
In a meeting dotted with interruptions by Jones as she worked to clarify where she was coming from, District 1 Councilwoman Sukh Kaur referenced the Spurs when discussing the importance of working as a team.
“We had a significant leader on the Spurs team a few years ago… but he wasn’t a good fit for our team because he wasn’t about teamwork,” Kaur said. “I think what or community wants from us is to work together as a team to figure out what our policymaking process is, as a team.”
‘There’s no veto’
Much of the conversation was spent clearing up misconceptions about Jones’ procedural changes even as battle lines were drawn over whether or not it should have been voted on.
“We do not report to the mayor, we report to the residents of our districts and the city,” said Alderete Gavito, who represents District 7. “To me, a unilateral decision to allow unelected city staff to potentially veto some of our ideas as representatives of the community, I am gonna take issue with that.”
The mayor pushed back, saying neither the city attorney nor the city manager are empowered to dismiss CCRs before they reach the Governance Committee.
“There is no unilateral veto in that process,” Jones responded. “When it’s submitted to Erik, they don’t veto. There’s no veto in this entire process.”
In a new memo sent last Friday, Jones pulled back on her new requirement that a sponsoring council member’s office needs to coordinate with her chief of staff, saying it was now merely “encouraged.”
Ample support
Still, Whyte, Castillo and Alderete Gavito discovered Wednesday that they weren’t alone in wanting a vote on the changes—or in interrogating the new rules to ensure any CCRs they submit wouldn’t hit roadblocks.
Alderete Gavito mentioned how a successful CCR she submitted to enact stiffer penalties for owners of dangerous dogs was met with city staff pointing out that the issue she was confronting was a state one. The councilwoman said her office instead pressed on, and Jones assured her she would be able to do the same under her administration.
Edward Mungia, the new City Council representative for District 4, described a hypothetical scenario in which he proposed that Metro Health run an abortion clinic.
“I would initial it, but I would give the written (legal) advice on it,” Segovia said about how he would react to receiving such a CCR draft. “I have no ability to stop it.”
Neither, he went on to say, would the mayor.
Nonetheless, Whyte and seven other council members, including Misty Spears and Ric Galvan, indicated they would want the CCR process to remain as is or else put Jones’ changes up to a vote. That didn’t sway Jones from her position, but she tried to draw a distinction between herself and her predecessor when council members mentioned how CCRs could be stalled for months before the ordinance enacted last year.
“I am not Ron Nirenberg. I am not slow-rolling these things; that is not the intent,” she said. “These, I think, are simple asks and totally in line with the current ordinance.”
Whyte laid his cards out on the table, receiving Segovia’s assurance that it’s within City Council’s ability to schedule a vote potentially codifying that “changes or supplements” to the existing CCR ordinance must be approved by full council first.
That vote could be scheduled through Walsh or a three-signature memo from council members.
“Very clearly today, council said to the mayor that we want to keep doing things the way we have been,” Whyte said after the meeting. “And if we’re gonna make any changes, it requires a vote.”