SAN MARCOS — Two weeks after the initial discussion, the Hays County Commissioners Court considered, for the second time, the creation of a committee to gather and distribute information for the 2024 transportation road bond election at its Sept. 3 meeting.
The consideration comes on the heels of a presentation made by chief of staff Alex Villalobos at the Aug. 20 meeting for the proposed committee, which also followed the commissioners court’s 5-0 vote earlier that month to bring a $440 million road bond package to the November ballot. In his presentation, Villalobos said that the idea behind the committee is to gather an appointed person from each of the commissioners’ precincts and for those individuals to help educate and provide information to the public about the bond.
Following the presentation and discussion amongst the commissioners, there was ultimately no action taken on the item, but it was brought back onto the agenda for the Sept. 3 meeting.
Commissioner Debbie Ingalsbe opened up the discussion by sharing that, while Judge Ruben Becerra was not in attendance, the item is of interest to him and that he thinks that forming the committee could be of value.
“He is hoping that we would each appoint one member, someone that would not have any kind of voting rights or any kind of authority, [but] just to provide information to the public,” Ingalsbe said. “I did speak to him briefly … [and] told him that I wasn’t sure if we would be ready to move forward on it.”
Commissioner Lon Shell did not have any issues with the formation of the committee when the item was first introduced, rather he just wanted more information on the format of the meetings or discussions of the individuals involved. This time around, he said that he already has two individuals in mind that he could appoint to the committee, as well as stating that the county needs to ensure that the information shared to the committee and then communicated to the public about the bond is factual.
“I do think it would be important that we assign someone in the county to be able to work with them and make sure that they have the information they need to be able to share that properly … It’s education-based. If there is a meeting for the public, [we need to make sure] that everyone has the information they need and is able to discuss that in a manner that keeps us [neutral], especially along the legal constraints that we have,' Shell said. 'We can’t champion that in certain ways. We need to only deliver facts and information and answer questions specific to the various projects that are on the bond.”
One of the concerns about the committee is not having an outline of the responsibilities for each of the members who are involved, Ingalsbe said.
Responding to the commissioners’ statements, Assistant General Counsel Jordan Powell said that from her perspective, the committee members would be required to remain factual when communicating information about the bond and not advocating or sharing their opinions.
“I’m not 100% sure of what Judge Becerra’s ideas were about the committee, but I think, to say it in the safest manner, it does just, in my opinion, need to be an information sharing session … The court can’t expressly advocate for something that’s on an election measure or bond-related project and my opinion is that would carry over to the committee members, should the court move forward in establishing some sort of committee to pass out information,” Powell said. “They would need to be limited to sharing the factual information and the factual information only and not advocating, or the opposite, on behalf of that road bond. If the court has confidence that the committee could do that, I think that’s fine. There would need to be very strong materials and information given to those committee members to their specific role and what they can and can not do.”
Commissioner Michelle Cohen stated in the previous meeting that the idea of the committee seemed after-thefact, since the court already voted in moving forward with the bond. She added that she does not feel comfortable with the committee because there is no outline of the job duties or meeting details for the individuals involved.
“I have some real concerns. Are they getting paid to do this? Is it completely voluntary? It sounds like it’s supposed to be just voluntary,” Cohen said. “There’s too many unknowns for me that are not being answered right now.”
Powell said that she is not aware if Judge Becerra has a specific route for the committee: “I am not aware of that. I have not had those conversations with his office. I, too, agree with those concerns, commissioner. We need to be very careful.”
There is a direct liability on the members of the court, according to commissioner Walt Smith, and by engaging an individual, the court is then engaging with their direct liability as well.
“Any of us that have sat through a meeting on one project, much less 30, there are going to be additional questions in there that we are going to struggle to answer, even if we have all of the information that is relevant to it. At the end of the day, the best answer is, ‘I don't know, but I can get back to you,’” Smith said. “I just have to have confidence in somebody that they are willing to do that or stand up in front of a group of 20 people or 200 people and do that.
I really have a concern over the legal liability of it.”
He added that he has a larger concern of the committee members being able to functionally explain some of the projects and the history and need of them. For example, Smith said that he has been in office for six years, but some of the projects have been on the books long before that and he has had to do his own research to try to understand them all.
“If we do move forward with this, I see benefit in it, but I see a lot of liability. I think the biggest thing … I received comments from our previous conversation here relative to folks who were in favor of projects or folks who were adamantly opposed to projects absolutely volunteering. ‘I want to be on this committee because I want to talk about how we can make changes to this bond and how we can add this project or how we can kill this one project because I don’t like it, it impacts me personally,’” Smith said. “The problem I have with that is the bond is the bond. We voted to go to the voters.
The voters are going to make decisions up or down, right or wrong and we live with that.
The point for advocacy for or against projects or for and against the bond is well past. I have real concern over that appointment process.”
No action was taken on the proposed road bond committee at the Sept. 3 meeting. However, the court requested for Powell’s team to contact Judge Becerra’s office to get an outline that shows a better understanding of the intent of the committee, as well as coordinating with the respective county departments for the project list details, prior to the next meeting.
The Hays County Commissioners Court will meet next on Tuesday, Sept. 17.
