SAN ANTONIO – As Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones doubled down on changing the process for submitting council member proposals, a majority of the city council pushed back on her attempt to unilaterally make that decision.
The Wednesday discussion on the process for “council consideration requests,” or CCRs, was forced by a trio of council members — District 5 Councilwoman Teri Castillo, District 7 Councilwoman Marina Alderete Gavito, and District 10 Councilman Marc Whyte — who used a relatively rare maneuver to bypass the mayor and set the meeting.
The group, which spans the council’s political spectrum, argued Jones had improperly inserted hurdles into one of the primary ways for council members to start official policy discussions.
“I would say, mayor, respectfully, perhaps watch how the system plays out for six months. Be a part of it before you want to make a change to a system that you’ve never been a part of,” Whyte said.
“See how it works, and then perhaps you can make the recommendations, because it’s worked pretty well, I think everybody around this table would tell you."
Though the former Air Force officer made two unsuccessful congressional runs and served as undersecretary of the Air Force in the Biden administration, the San Antonio mayor’s office is Jones’ first elected position.
A heavy majority of the council members appeared to agree that what Jones described as “enhancements” should be discussed by the full council, with many members specifically saying they believed it needed a vote.
‘So many unforced errors’
Wednesday’s discussion indicated Jones’ changes likely wouldn’t have a major effect on council members’ abilities to push policy.
But the clash highlighted early cracks and friction between the mayor and council members, who are just a few months into their four-year term and face looming issues like the city budget and ongoing Project Marvel discussions in the near future.
Professor Jon Taylor, the chairman of UTSA’s Department of Political Science and Geography, said the following in a text message to KSAT:
“It’s troubling that the Mayor doesn’t seem to understand the need to be thick skinned (while also not appearing aloof), fails to anticipate and defuse contentiousness on an issue that has spun out of control, and doesn’t seem to grasp that calling people liars is a big mistake (irrespective of whether it’s true or not).
“So many unforced errors. She needs to hire people who have experience in City Hall and can convey her vision for the city while also knowing how to deal with self-entitled council members who think that they would make a better Mayor that her.”
Five signatures to file
Council members who want to propose an idea can file a CCR with the city clerk to prompt staff to look into the issue — as long as four other council members sign on, too.
Issues like the city’s horse carriage ban and making it easier to restrict semi-truck parking started out as CCRs.
But the CCR process was previously known for how long it could drag on, and council members passed an ordinance in March 2024 to help move their requests through more quickly.
However, in a July 14 memo, Jones outlined what she called “CCR Process Efficiencies,” which she told council members “will apply.”
Those included requiring the city manager’s signature on a CCR and an initial legal screening by the city attorney’s office before members could begin collecting signatures of supporting council members.
The 2024 ordinance includes a requirement to notify the city manager before submitting a CCR so any pertinent city plans or programs could be identified.
A possible legal review isn’t specifically mentioned until a proposal gets to the council’s Governance Committee.
While the mayor argued she’s trying to make the process more efficient and minimize legal risk for the city, opponents focused on whether Jones should be making those changes on her own.
“The CCR process is a council tool, and only the council should decide on how it is” Alderete Gavito said. “It is not...for one person to do.”
‘Very simple enhancements’
After opening the meeting, Jones repeatedly chimed back in during other council members’ comments to argue her case and respond to opponents.
“I am struggling to understand how this benefits the community — your pushback on those very simple enhancements," Jones told Whyte.
She argued the legal environment is “more charged,” making an earlier legal review helpful, and that requiring the city manager’ signature on the CCR was necessary to ensure the existing requirement to notify him is actually followed.
Jones pointed to a CCR Alderete Gavito had filed in June as an example.
“They said they notified the city manager. That was a lie. That was put on a public document,” Jones said of the proposal, which, the city had later announced would be removed from its tracking system.
Alderete Gavito and City Manager Erik Walsh both confirmed the councilwoman had not notified Walsh before she submitted her CCR on expanded transportation access to senior centers.
When KSAT asked Alderete Gavito about it, she said the proposal “was not contentious.”
Jones insisted neither getting Walsh’s signature nor the legal review were early “veto” opportunities for CCRs, which she said would still move forward.
City Attorney Andy Segovia told council members he had no power to stop a CCR, even if he believed it was preempted by law.
He also confirmed he believed the changes in Jones’ memo were legal because they didn’t contradict anything in the 2024 ordinance, the mayor has power to create or change committees that are presupposed by that ordinance, and the lack of outside legal risk made the matter “solely within the council’s prerogative.”
However, Segovia and Walsh both appeared eager to stay out of the argument.
“It’s a family matter, and the family is the elected officials,” Segovia said of the council’s ability to change its procedures, “and neither Erik (Walsh), nor I, nor the clerk belong to the family.”
Next steps
It was not immediately clear if there would be another discussion or vote.
Whyte told reporters after the meeting “as far as I’m concerned, and it sounds like the majority of my colleagues are concerned, we are still operating under the process as set forth (in) the CCR ordinance that was fully adopted by council last year."
Jones told council members she would take comments about sticking with the current process or wanting further discussion “under advisement, as well as take it under advisement what our city attorney has said, which is that these are all in line with the current ordinance.”
After the meeting, the mayor avoiding directly answering KSAT’s question about what she would do if a council member tried to file a CCR under the old process in the coming days.
“Well, again, I appreciated the feedback today, and we’ll move forward. Thanks,” she said.
Jones has also said CCRs that “did not get across the finish line” under the previous council would have to be refiled.
She described that as keeping in line with “every other legislative body, state, federal, et cetera” and giving “due respect” to the newly elected council members and their constituents to ensure there’s still support.
Jones said there were more than 30 such proposals that had “died on the vine,” though only 12 were listed as “expired” on the city’s website Wednesday night.
Just one, a proposal by District 2 Councilman Jalen McKee-Rodriguez to rename part of a street after the Tuskegee Airmen, had been refiled.
No other proposals are listed as having been filed since the new council was fully sworn-in.
More recent Project Marvel coverage on KSAT: