Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Special Session on Council Consideration Request Process Enhancements - August 13, 2025

City Council — Wednesday, August 13, 2025

BodySan Antonio, Texas

SessionCity Council

DateWednesday, August 13, 2025

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 1:51:38

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

1:17

All right, good afternoon.

1:19

The time is now 2 01 p.m.

1:21

on Wednesday, August 13th, and the City of San Antonio special session is called to order.

1:26

Gavel.

1:27

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

1:28

Roll.

1:29

Councilmember Cor.

1:32

Councilmember Castillo Angiano.

1:35

Councilmember Via Gran is here virtually.

1:38

Councilmember Mungia.

1:40

Present.

1:41

Councilmember Castillo.

1:42

Here.

1:43

Councilmember Galman.

1:45

Here.

1:46

Councilmember Alderete Gavin Dominic.

1:48

Here.

1:49

Councilmember Meza Gonzalez.

1:51

Present.

1:51

Councilmember Spears.

1:53

Here.

1:54

Councilmember White.

1:55

Mayor Jones.

1:57

Mayor, we have quorum.

1:58

Great.

1:58

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

2:00

Okay.

2:01

So this meeting is to discuss the council consideration request process.

2:04

I'll provide some opening comments.

2:06

Um and then look forward to a good productive conversation.

2:10

The as always with my intent, uh, it is to make this all frankly, all that we do efficient, and as we navigate this very challenging time, we minimize risk to our community, right?

2:23

As I've shared with each of you individually, and I've outlined in in a memo uh what these enhancements are are designed to do.

2:30

Um I think uh part of the the challenge is I have uh shared with many of you is that um some of these things I've talked to you individually as I've it all is also shared um in speaking with former council members, um none of these actually enhancements are new um in practice.

2:47

Many were expectations and actually practices some of you were already doing.

2:51

Umfortunately, some of these things were not written down.

2:54

Um and so we are now in the process of writing them down to clarify expectations and again to minimize any any confusion.

3:03

Um I am also frankly not naive uh to believe that some of these things are um some of your feedback.

3:11

Um I trust comes from a of a genuine place, and I understand previously, you know, mayors have used this process to throttle ideas.

3:20

I can fully appreciate that.

3:22

Um I would ask, as I have demonstrated in in my actions and as I've explained the spirit and intent of these things, that these are all again designed for us to be efficient with our time and to minimize legal risk to our community.

3:34

Um, these are all about going faster, um, and we do that when we can all have confidence that the things people have said they did have in fact been done.

3:44

Okay.

3:45

As mentioned in both memos, our city attorney has repeatedly affirmed uh that these enhancements are not in conflict with the ordinance, um, and not a change, and a change to the ordinance is not required.

3:59

Um that all the enhancements are in accordance with the current ordinance.

4:05

Uh thank you, Mayor.

4:06

Uh yes, uh, you had asked whether uh the changes you had you had made in your memo are legal, and I have said that they are.

4:14

And if I may, I'll give the three main reasons why, or the three reasons why I'm giving that opinion.

4:20

One is the changes are not contradictory to anything in the ordinance, they are supplemental.

4:25

Uh number two is the CCR ordinance presupposes a governance committee and associated council committees, which the mayor has the authority to create, modify, or disband.

4:37

Uh so that's reason number two, but probably most importantly, when it comes to legal risk to the city, uh, there's really no external legal risk to the city.

4:48

Uh therefore, in from my view, this is a matter solely within the council's prerogative.

4:53

Okay.

4:54

Uh thank you indeed.

4:55

Let me also just lay flat.

5:00

I think there are some some misperceptions, some mistruths in the in the public sphere about what this does and what this does not do.

5:03

Okay.

5:04

So what this does do is ensure we can all trust that the current process is actually being adhered to.

5:28

Unfortunately, you know, that mistruth was then uh reshared in a public document.

5:34

It was shared through a press release.

5:36

Uh we then had to retract that press release because that mistruth was out there.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Legal Procedure███████████████████████████████████████████43%

Governance████████████████████████████████████████40%

Legislative Procedure█████5%

Public Safety████4%

Procedural███3%

Public Engagement██2%

Technology and Innovation██2%

Budget█1%

Summary of Proceedings

Special Session on Council Consideration Request Process Enhancements - August 13, 2025

The San Antonio City Council held a special session on Wednesday, August 13, 2025, from 2:01 PM to 4:25 PM, to discuss proposed enhancements to the Council Consideration Request (CCR) process. The meeting, called by the Mayor, featured extended debate over whether the proposed changes could be implemented administratively or required a formal council vote. No action was taken; the meeting concluded with an executive session and adjournment.

Discussion Items

Mayor's Opening Remarks: The Mayor outlined three enhancements to the CCR process designed to increase efficiency and reduce legal risk: (1) requiring the City Manager to initial the CCR to confirm notification, (2) obtaining an early legal review from the City Attorney within 24 hours, and (3) asking sponsors to include a one- or two-sentence statement on how the CCR relates to a core city service, especially given the upcoming difficult fiscal environment.
City Attorney's Legal Opinion: City Attorney Andy Segovia stated that the enhancements are legal, supplemental to the existing ordinance, and do not conflict with it. He emphasized that the changes are a matter of internal council prerogative and do not alter the ordinance's requirements.
Councilmember Positions:
- Councilwoman Castillo (District 5) and Councilman White (District 8) argued that any changes to the CCR process must be adopted by a full council vote, citing the 2024 ordinance that set the current process. They expressed concern that unilateral changes could set a precedent for future mayors to throttle ideas.
- Councilwoman Alderete Gavito (District 3) echoed that the CCR is a council tool and should not be modified without a vote. She cited her experience with a dangerous dog policy that initially faced legal hurdles but was resolved through the existing process.
- Councilwoman Viagran (District 3) supported formalizing the notifications but recommended that broader changes go through committee first.
- Councilwoman Core (District 7) advocated for teamwork and suggested resetting on norms rather than changing the process. She also raised the issue of CCRs left unfinished by termed-out council members, proposing a discussion on whether they should be refiled.
- Councilwoman Spears (District 2) expressed concern that future mayors could weaponize the enhancements, even though she understood the spirit of the changes. She preferred to experience the current process first.
- Councilman Galvan (District 4) questioned the need for changes and favored a council vote, noting that the legal environment is already considered in decision-making.
- Councilman Mungia (District 6) suggested that legal issues raised might warrant an executive session discussion.
- Councilwoman Meza Gonzalez (District 5) asked for clarification on the differences between the current process and the proposed enhancements, and supported a full council vote on any changes.
- Councilman McKee Rodriguez (newly elected) noted that the CCR process is opaque to residents and suggested moving to an A session for a vote. He also supported the current process.
City Manager's Role: City Manager Eric White stated he is indifferent to the notification method but emphasized that the council should decide how to proceed. He noted that early notification can help identify issues (e.g., a CCR already covered in the budget).
Refiling of Unfinished CCRs: The Mayor stated that CCRs not fully actioned in the previous term must be refiled, citing respect for new council members. Several council members, including Councilwoman Alderete Gavito and Councilman White, disagreed, arguing it wastes time and disregards prior work. Councilwoman Alderete Gavito highlighted a cluster mailbox CCR that had already gone through multiple committees.
Clarifications on No Veto Power: The Mayor and City Attorney repeatedly clarified that the enhancements do not give the City Manager or City Attorney veto power over CCRs. The early legal review does not stop a CCR from moving forward; it only provides information to council members.

Key Outcomes

No Action Taken: The meeting was a briefing and discussion only; no votes were taken.
Consensus for Council Vote: A majority of council members expressed that any formal changes to the CCR process should be decided by a full council vote in an A session, not through mayoral memo.
Next Steps: The Mayor will take the feedback under advisement. Councilman White suggested directing staff to draft an ordinance amendment requiring that future changes to the CCR process be made by council vote. The meeting moved into executive session at 3:50 PM to discuss economic development, real property, and legal issues, reconvened at 4:25 PM with no action, and adjourned.

Meeting Transcript

All right, good afternoon. The time is now 2 01 p.m. on Wednesday, August 13th, and the City of San Antonio special session is called to order. Gavel. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Roll. Councilmember Cor. Councilmember Castillo Angiano. Councilmember Via Gran is here virtually. Councilmember Mungia. Present. Councilmember Castillo. Here. Councilmember Galman. Here. Councilmember Alderete Gavin Dominic. Here. Councilmember Meza Gonzalez. Present. Councilmember Spears. Here. Councilmember White. Mayor Jones. Mayor, we have quorum. Great. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Okay. So this meeting is to discuss the council consideration request process. I'll provide some opening comments. Um and then look forward to a good productive conversation. The as always with my intent, uh, it is to make this all frankly, all that we do efficient, and as we navigate this very challenging time, we minimize risk to our community, right? As I've shared with each of you individually, and I've outlined in in a memo uh what these enhancements are are designed to do. Um I think uh part of the the challenge is I have uh shared with many of you is that um some of these things I've talked to you individually as I've it all is also shared um in speaking with former council members, um none of these actually enhancements are new um in practice. Many were expectations and actually practices some of you were already doing. Umfortunately, some of these things were not written down. Um and so we are now in the process of writing them down to clarify expectations and again to minimize any any confusion. Um I am also frankly not naive uh to believe that some of these things are um some of your feedback. Um I trust comes from a of a genuine place, and I understand previously, you know, mayors have used this process to throttle ideas. I can fully appreciate that. Um I would ask, as I have demonstrated in in my actions and as I've explained the spirit and intent of these things, that these are all again designed for us to be efficient with our time and to minimize legal risk to our community. Um, these are all about going faster, um, and we do that when we can all have confidence that the things people have said they did have in fact been done. Okay. As mentioned in both memos, our city attorney has repeatedly affirmed uh that these enhancements are not in conflict with the ordinance, um, and not a change, and a change to the ordinance is not required. Um that all the enhancements are in accordance with the current ordinance. Uh thank you, Mayor. Uh yes, uh, you had asked whether uh the changes you had you had made in your memo are legal, and I have said that they are. And if I may, I'll give the three main reasons why, or the three reasons why I'm giving that opinion. One is the changes are not contradictory to anything in the ordinance, they are supplemental. Uh number two is the CCR ordinance presupposes a governance committee and associated council committees, which the mayor has the authority to create, modify, or disband. Uh so that's reason number two, but probably most importantly, when it comes to legal risk to the city, uh, there's really no external legal risk to the city.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com