9 thoughts on “Ethics commission pings P&Z vice chair for ‘minor’ violation [PRO]”

1. If the Ethics Commission finds him guilty, Morris will just turn around and sue the city for character defamation, slander, and libel. There are general protections to prevent people from suing judges and juries that convict them of crimes, but they don’t apply here.

   I couldn’t begin to guess the outcome of the resulting legal battle, but it would cost the city a substantial sum in legal fees even if they do win.

   And, because everybody knows this, the Ethics Commission is all but certain to rule in Morris’s favor, regardless of the evidence.

2. The problem here is not in the end whether Mr. Morris violated the ethics law, but it has to do with city commissions and city council members who make their living from items that regularly come before the city for review. Mr. Morris was right to recuse himself from the vote, but in earning his living and doing what he needs to do to serve his business clients, he puts himself and the city in an awkward position. Same is true for Ryan Thomason of the City Council and his business partner who is a Planning and Zoning Commissioner. It doesn’t look right even when those involved conduct themselves very carefully within the rules.

3. Ryan Thomason of the City Council and his business partner who is a Planning and Zoning Commissioner should not serve on either. Both vote to try and fill their pockets. Watch the last council meeting where Mr. Thomason tried to open up 2 acer lots for multi family and unrestricted bedrooms. Mr. Morris is part of this group as well. San Marcos needs to remove the good old boy out of politics, it only hurts the city.

4. Given that the current rules prevent non-homeowners (who constitute the majority of citizens) from serving on the Planning and Zoning Commission, surely it would be possible to restrict those with Real Estate licenses from serving on P&Z. It would certainly be in the city and citizen’s best interest when “[i]t doesn’t look right even when those involved conduct themselves very carefully within the rules.”

5. One of the arguments made by Fulkerson was that, while almost every city commission is purely advisory in nature, P&Z Commissioners are “public officials” in the same way members of the City Council are, because the P&Z Commission has non-advisory functions under state law. As such, they must follow the higher standard of the Texas Open Meetings Act, not just the city’s code of conduct.

6. The Ethics commission just interpreted the questionable actions like the Texas codes dictated. Not a new interpretation. Read the following:

   Texas Statutes Local Government Code
   Sec. 171.004. AFFIDAVIT AND ABSTENTION FROM VOTING REQUIRED. (a) If a local public official has a substantial interest in a business entity or in real property, the official shall file, before a vote or decision on any matter involving the business entity or the real property, an affidavit stating the nature and extent of the interest and shall abstain from further participation in the matter if:
   (1) in the case of a substantial interest in a business entity the action on the matter will have a special economic effect on the business entity that is distinguishable from the effect on the public

7. From the competition: “Multiple current and former Planning and Zoning Commissioners have confirmed that in 2011 Commissioner Carter Morris held individual meetings with each commissioner to discuss the North Campus Project which is the first iteration of what became the controversial Sessom Creek Multifamily Project proposed by developer Darren Casey.”

   The rest is behind a paywall (which I don’t pay for).

   Maybe there will be a follow-up here?

8. Multiple current and former
   Planning and Zoning Commissioners
   have confirmed that in
   2011 Commissioner Carter Morris
   held individual meetings with
   each commissioner to discuss the
   North Campus Project which is
   the first iteration of what became
   the controversial Sessom Creek
   Multifamily Project proposed by
   developer Darren Casey.
   The Daily Record obtained an
   email, stemming from an open
   records request by local resident
   Forrest Fulkerson, that shows
   Carter Morris attempting to
   schedule eight back-to-back
   meetings with each Planning and
   Zoning Commissioner, individually,
   to discuss the North Campus
   Project at the Randall Morris and
   Associates office.

   “Just wanted to remind
   you of the meetings
   scheduled for tomorrow
   with myself and the developers
   of the North
   Campus Project,” the email
   says.
   The three commissioners
   who were successfully
   contacted by the
   Daily Record by the time
   of press said that each
   attended a meeting.
   According to the email,
   the meetings were scheduled
   for Nov. 17, 2011,
   five days before Morris
   recused himself from a
   Planning and Zoning
   Commission meeting
   when the project was to
   be discussed. The
   planned meetings were
   scheduled each hour
   from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m.,
   excluding noon, with a
   different commissioner.
   Initially, Morris recused
   himself to “avoid
   the appearance of impropriety”
   and later recused
   himself because of
   “funds received by me
   from the business entity
   exceed 10 percent of my
   gross income for the future
   year.”
   In a prepared statement,
   Morris said, “The
   Ethics Review Commission
   provided their new
   interpretation of the
   rules last week in a split
   vote. I’m abiding by their
   new rules, even though
   we have a difference of
   opinion. Based on last
   week’s hearing for events
   that occurred 18 months
   ago, I consider this matter
   done and there’s no
   story here.”
   Morris was issued a
   letter of notification last
   week from the Ethics Review
   Commission for two
   instances involving the
   North Campus Project,
   but those two incidents
   did not involve any meetings
   with the Planning
   and Zoning Commissioners.
   The Texas Attorney
   General has issued opinions
   on consecutive
   meetings with public officials
   often called a “daisy
   chain” or “walking quorum.”
   Opinion number GA-
   0326 says, “Members of
   a governmental body
   who knowingly conspire
   to gather in numbers
   that do not physically
   constitute a quorum at
   any one time but who
   through successive gatherings
   secretly discuss a
   public matter with a quorum
   of that body violate
   section 551.143 of the
   Open Meetings Act.”
   The Texas Open Meetings
   Act also states that
   “a meeting of less than a
   quorum is not subject to
   the Act ‘when there is no
   intent to avoid the Act’s
   requirements.’”
   City of San Marcos Attorney
   Michael Cosentino
   did not discuss the particular
   instance but said
   that city staff advises
   against the practice as
   well.
   “We do advise against
   it. Our advice has consistently
   been: ‘Wait until
   the meeting to have the
   meeting.’ Really the public’s
   business should be
   transacted in public
   where the public can see
   it.”
   Cosentino also stated,
   “It’s well known in Texas
   the idea of a walking
   quorum. It should be
   well known by every
   commission member…
   We very consistently (advise
   against it) on a regular
   basis. Most of the
   time the staff is asked if
   they can set up a meeting
   of that type, and the
   answer is consistently
   ‘No.’”
   If any further action
   were to be taken, it
   would be up to the Hays
   County District Attorney
   to determine if an open
   meetings violation occurred

9. The Texas statutes point toward to having a conflict of interest, which Carter does in the business entity Randall Morris and Associates and that conflict of interest exists to this day, with regard to the properties on Sessoms Creek. Carter’s conflict didn’t end when the P&Z voted in which he also abstained from voting.

   To further my explanation, I will reference the Conflict of Interest Made Easy 2012 by the Texas Attorney General’s office:

   Question
   15. May a local official deliberate about an issue with which the official has a conflict of interest if the official abstains from voting on the issue?

   No, a local official may not discuss an issue with which he or she has a conflict of interest even if he or she abstains from voting on the item.41 The statute prohibits “further participation” in a matter if a conflict exists.42 If a conflict of interest exists, the official must file the required affidavit and abstain from both discussing and voting on the item.43 The attorney general has opined that a member of a governmental body does not “participate in a matter” for purposes of the conflict of interest laws by merely attending an executive session on the matter and remaining silent during the deliberations.44 However, it may be wise, the opinion noted, for the interested public officer to refrain from attending open or closed meetings that address the matter in which he or she is interested.

   36 TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 171.004 (West 2008).
   37 Id. § 171.004(a)-(b).
   38 Id. § 171.004(a).
   39 Id.
   40 Id.
   41 Id.
   42 Id.
   43 Id. § 171.004(a)-(b).
   44 Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. GA-334 (2005).

   Carter Morris claimed to know the rules by his earlier admission to the Mercury by serving on the Ethics Commission, but obviously he didn’t know the rules.
   Coupled with the new email from Carter to each of the P&Z Commissioners before the vote at P&Z that I got access to via open record request, I would guess that he doesn’t care about the rules. Is this the kind of Vice Chair for our Planning & Zoning Commission that we want to represent the City of San Marcos interests? The letter referenced prearranged sequential meetings with himself, Ed Theriot, the developer, and each the P&Z commissioners at the Randall Morris Realty office on Cheatum Street.