Major updates to the personnel policies for City Council staffers were approved twice within two weeks by a trio of council members overseeing them — both times behind closed doors, and without the staffers’ input.
Now, after pushback from the staff members affected, the council members who oversee the policies are issuing a mea culpa and inviting their aides to a town hall where they can be a part of the discussion.
“We heard from employees, and we listened,” said Councilwoman Sukh Kaur (D1), who chairs a subcommittee in charge of personnel. “Employee voice and representation are essential to getting this right, and the people most affected deserve a real seat at the table.”
Council aides have their own set of rules that are different from other city staff, because they’re employed at the will of their council member.
Two weeks ago, Kaur’s subcommittee changed that by making a host of city staff policies apply to council aides as well — then reversed course a week later at the urging of fellow council members and aides.
The original policy change was spurred by Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones, who was trying to hunt down a leak after her private police security details were shared with the press last year.
The San Antonio Police Department investigated the incident and didn’t get any answers from its officers, but in the process Jones learned that council aides don’t have to participate in internal investigations that police and other city staff are subject to, so she wrote a letter to Kaur’s subcommittee asking to change that.
The subcommittee’s meetings are not public, and are not subject to open records requests.
But a statement from the city on May 21 said that Kaur, Edward Mungia (D4) and Ric Galvan (D6) greenlit the mayor’s changes — making council aides subject to a long list of administrative directives typically reserved for city staff.
Council aides say it’s unclear whether the subcommittee had the authority to make such a sweeping change in the first place.
After backlash, the full council met for a special meeting in executive session to discuss the issue a week later.
Following the meeting, Kaur provided a statement saying policy had been reversed, and the subcommittee would be inviting staff to provide feedback on their policies before any further changes are made.
“At the end of this month, we will host a town hall where LGC employees can engage directly with the subcommittee as we review personnel policies together,” Kaur said Wednesday. “Until then, employees should continue to follow the LGC Terms and Acknowledgment, federal and state law, and guidance from their supervisors.”
Reached by phone Wednesday, Jones was unhappy about the reversal.
She said it leaves employees unclear about which policies they must follow — such as whether they need to participate in police investigations.
“I come from a very strict environment where you know exactly what applies to you, and you know the consequences of violating one of those things,” Jones said, referring to her military background. “I was disappointed that that was the action [the subcommittee] took … it’s a dangerous place to be when people don’t know what rules do and don’t apply to them.”
