The other two most-important items are Items 14 and 34.
Item 14: Interlocal Agreement with SMCISD on School Resource Officers
Commissioner Baker has a list of concerns about SROs.
- They are reassigned to different schools for failure to do their job, instead of being removed as SROs all together
- While training is required to be an SRO, officers get placed on campuses that are not trained as SROs
- There is language about how SROs will “promote the concept of punishment for criminal acts”. How is this useful in our schools? Some people extend this concept to undocumented community members. This is destructive.
- “Increase students’ knowledge and respect of the law” – what about when officers aren’t due that respect?
- May we identify the funding sources of this study?
- Why are we putting protection of property above protection of students?
- Why aren’t we surveying students to see how the officers are doing and if they feel safer?
- We put a pro-SRO video on YouTube featuring an officer whose actions have raised concerns.
Commissioner Derrick weighs in with points about SROs needing mental health training. She’s had particularly negative eperienc
Broadly, I agree with all of Baker’s points. However: Chief Dandridge is consistently great when he talks to City Council. I don’t know what he’s like on the job, and I know that there are community members who are frustrated with our police. All I am saying is that Dandridge’s performance at council meetings is very good. So far, this is what I’ve seen:
- He generally does not respond adversarily to aggressive questions from Baker.
- He often agrees partially or completely.
- He backs up his statements with information and data,
- He admits when he doesn’t know something, and offers to find the information.
- He does not offer pat solutions and does not reduce the complexity of issues.
Again, maybe he’s a jerk on the force! I don’t know! But he’s good at council meetings.
Chief Dandridge responds to all of these points, one by one. On the questions about statistics and data, he pledges to write a memorandum compiling his data and that he will send it out to council. He lists the classes that the SROs are trained in. It includes restorative justice, mental health, developmental psychology, suicide prevention, and many more. He doesn’t try to dispute Baker’s points per se, but provides context for how these things play out in San Marcos. And he’s supportive of ideas like surveying students.
In the end, they vote to postpone and have work session. So nothing is resolved here, but I’m glad to see these issues discussed.
Item 34: Greater San Marcos Partnership, GSMP
GSMP is a pro-business organization that works across the entire county to bring business in and support existing businesses. San Marcos kicks in $400k/year. Several issues are raised:
Does GSMP make life better for San Marcos residents? Commissioner Baker wants GSMP to conduct a survey to quantify the impact of GSMP on San Marcos residents.
Mayor Hughson seems rather obtuse on this one, repeating several times that San Marcos already conducts a detailed quality of life survey and there is no need for GSMP to duplicate this. The difference is that the city survey is attempting to ascertain the benefits brought by the city, and the GSMP survey would attempt to measure benefits brought by GSMP. One does not substitute for the other.
Amendment for a mandatory survey passes, 4-3.
In favor: Derrick, Gonzalez, Garza, and Baker
Opposed: Hughson, Scott, Gleason
Next issue up is the Environmental Social Grievance reports, or ESG. These are third party reports compiled on the externalities that a business imposes on the community. City Council has asked for information from GSMP on wages, environmental impact, and other externalities. GSMP says that for $10K, they’ll buy an ESG from a third party company.
Baker would like to read one before agreeing that this suffices. But there isn’t one to read, because they cost money and they’re proprietary. It’s a very frustrating business-y solution. “We’ve contracted out with a niche business, and obviously they aren’t motivated by the public good. What’s the problem?” It’s not exactly corrupt, but it’s annoying and full of middlemen.
Baker moves to postpone until they can see a sample ESG report and see if it is satisfactory, but the motion fails.
In favor: Derrick, Garza, Baker
Opposed: Hughson, Scott, Gleason, Gonzalez
Councilmember Derrick makes an amendment to add mental health providers as a targeted industry. This passes 6-1, with Scott voting no, like a dillweed.
A representative speaks up about how intractable the problem of attracting mental health providers is. He promises that they’ll target, but not that they’ll be successful.
This last part is the BEST. Now, Councilmember Baker has been furious since he was at the GSMP Summit last spring, and nobody was wearing masks. Baker makes an amendment to the agreement that the GSMP will have to follow CDC guidelines on safety.
This passes 5-2:
For: Mayor Hughson, Derrick, Garza, Gonzalez, and Baker
Opposed: Just Gleason and Scott.
The whole discussion takes FOREVER, but the poetic justice of Max getting to force GSMP to wear masks is so sweet and worth every last bit.
(Finally, the actual agreement with GSMP passes unanimously.)
The San Marxist 