Two-minute impact
The meet and confer agreements with the San Marcos Police Officers’ Association and San Marcos Professional Fire Fighters Association were extended during a Nov. 5 City Council meeting.
Meet and confer agreements are agreements between municipalities and firefighter or police unions under Chapter 142 of the Texas Local Government Code. The agreements allow for fire and police unions to meet with city staff to negotiate certain terms, such as pay, disciplinary procedures and more. According to city documents, the agreements can also modify state law to fit local needs.
The two memorandums of understanding extend the agreements to Sept. 30, 2027, and increase base pay for both departments. Starting Oct. 1, 2026, the San Marcos Fire Department will see a 4.5% increase in base pay, while the San Marcos Police Department will see a 5% increase.
The two agreements make up the fifth meet and confer agreement for the city of San Marcos.
Some context
The agreement with the San Marcos Police Officers’ Association was repealed in 2023 following a petition from local activist group Mano Amiga.
During the meeting, council member Amanda Rodriguez introduced an amendment to the two extensions that would require public comment and additional measures she hoped would increase public transparency during future negotiations.
“Austin passed a resolution that required the same thing, with the exception of some parts,” Rodriguez said.
According to City Manager Stephanie Reyes, after the 2023 repeal, all meet and confer meetings are public, recorded and are viewable online. Rodriguez’s amendment sought to codify that but also required an opportunity for public input.
Rodriguez’s original amendment also required all meet and confer documents to be made public. The amendment was later changed to allow for some documents to remain private during the agreement, as allowed for ongoing legal negotiations under the Texas Public Information Act.
What else?
City staff said that had Rodriguez’s amendment passed and the associations rejected it, the council would have had to come back later to authorize further talks. Instead, the amendment was changed again to direct the city manager to ask for the desired changes during future negotiations but not to make them a codified requirement.
The final modified amendment passed 6-1, with council member Matthew Mendoza dissenting. The modified resolutions passed unanimously.
