City Charter Commission Hearing – April 25th – Denise’s Transcript

Good evening.  My name is Denise Gutierrez Homer.  I am the Vice President of InfuseSA.  I would like to thank you for taking the time tonight to listen to the citizens’ concerns regarding the city charter.

InfuseSA has attended every public meeting and has taken many notes.  It’s come to our attention that we have some issues regarding some of our city policies, procedures, and the lack of full disclosure and administrative duties which should be addressed.

The city charter, and future issues regarding our Ethics Commission, is of vital importance regarding proper representation on these boards and commissions. The proper vetting of board applicants must be completed as stated in Section 166 Part B of the charter.

Quote “Members of the Board shall have good moral character and shall be RESIDENTS (emphasis ours) of the city.”

It also mentions “provision of the ethics ordinance; or a conviction of a felony or crime of moral turpitude.”  Why has our city ignored such rules and requirements?

Our review indicates the failure to fully review such applicants.  For some boards and directors of city departments, media has revealed such failed background checks with the city not taking appropriate action.

Case in point: the omission by current Director of Ready To Work, Michael Ramsey, of a previous arrest for solicitation of prostitution was made known, but no action was taken by our City Manager.

The citizens of San Antonio expect those sitting in such authority to have a personal investment as a city taxpayer or voter in their role as a board member or a paid employee leading a multimillion-dollar department.

Currently, it is failing.  Here is another example.

Our controversial Animal Control Services is headed by a non-San Antonio, non-Bexar County resident.  Taxpayers would expect such employes or directors to have a personal financial investment in the city that employees them.

The ACS Board and Commission is also one of many city boards that have current members serving terms past their expiration of tenure, some serving over three decades.  One started back in 1988.

We are sharing that this City Charter Commission has several individuals who do not meet San Antonio residency, and therefore its role in updating our City Charter is in question.

Your role to update the City Charter, and the Ethics Commission, when current rules are not being followed, is priceless.  Now consider that City Council salary increases are subject to more scrutiny when board members don’t even live in San Antonio.

When it comes to language and descriptions in our charter, it is important that it state that San Antonio is not a sanctuary city.  As a city of the State of Texas, we must follow the non-sanctuary laws, and city government must abide by state laws.

InfuseSA would say no to increasing City Council Salaries.

City Council should not have their salaries increased since they have the additional staffing and support of paid employees to serve the district in several satellite offices.

City Council members serve the same population as do our State Representatives.  My State Rep, in D120, serves a population of over two-hundred thousand, has a salary of $ 7,200 per year, with a per diem of $221.  When the State is in session in Austin, the total of $ 38,140 is adjusted.

These representatives serve 2-year terms as well, and are just as capable of completing their tasks as should our councilpersons.

I personally attended the quarterly Eastside Police Substation meeting last night as I have done for many years.  Sadly, I have yet to see my councilperson attend any of those public meetings in person, to listen and hear from their constituents.

City staff might attend, but often not it’s left to neighborhood leaders to bring information to their neighbors.

My Council district often works just Mon-Thursday.  Currently, Fiesta activities will shorten their workdays.

We would also like to note the current council use of senior center facilities during a campaign season. The council person has full access to voters while their opponents are not allowed to enter such a city facility.

This is an unfair advantage for the incumbent.  All candidates should have full access to potential voters.

These are just a few recommendations for your consideration.  Thank you for your time.