On the record is brought to you by Steve and Adele Dufilho.

San Antonio is a fast growing, fast moving community with something new happening every day.

And that's why each week we go on the record with the newsmakers who are driving this change.

Then we gather at the Reporters Roundtable to talk about the latest news stories with the journalists behind those stories.

Join us now as we go on the right.

Hi, everybody, and thank you for joining us for this edition of On the Record.

I'm Randy Beamer.

We have a lot to talk about, this diva fiesta week.

A lot going on not just here in San Antonio, but up in Austin with the legislature just over a month now until they have to wrap things up.

Joining us to talk about how what's going on in Austin could affect us here in San Antonio is Dave Peterson, the interim president and CEO of the San Antonio Chamber of Commerce.

Thank you very much for coming in.

Thank you for having us.

I know there's a lot of things that you're keeping an eye on.

First of all, I want to talk about the the limits or the effort that some would say is to limit what cities, counties, municipalities can do in terms of regulating things like labor and pollution, all kinds of different things, environmental initiatives, I guess you would say.

House Bill 21, 27, Senate Bill 814.

Those are looking at keeping cities from passing or enforcing local rules on things in different critical areas, unless, quote, expressed explicitly authorized by state statute.

Now, these bills specifically, you haven't taken an official yea or nay policy on.

Why is that?

What do you think of these bills?

That's true, Randi.

So let me start with our legislative agenda that we, you know, run through our board.

It comes up through our policy council, and then the board approves it and we said that in the case of particularly labor and employment, we think regulatory consistency is very important across the states so that municipalities don't implement things like their paid sick leave, as we saw when that came through, the courts ended up stopping it.

So we believe legislation is necessary so that the courts don't have to intervene in the case of 21, 27 and a Senate companion.

They're very broad.

It basically says if the municipality hasn't been given that authority, it's prohibited from doing anything.

And so we have concern with that because there are a lot of things that the state hasn't specifically told the city it can do, but the state really doesn't want to do.

It needs the city to do it.

You know, where do heavy trucks park in the city?

How is hazardous waste disposed of in the city?

So we have concerns around that.

And also one of our big concerns is that if the legislation isn't clear and there is confusion going forward, that there will be litigation and legislation through litigation is expensive, it's difficult, it's time consuming.

It's it's really not in anybody's best interest.

So we're hopeful.

And in this case, the laws of unintended consequences are so, you know, there's such a big possibility out there because they're so broad.

What have you been talking with people in Austin about doing maybe to to change some of this, to refine some of this, even though you're not taking a yay or nay position right now?

Sure.

And we, you know, collaborate with other chambers.

So, you know, our counterparts across the state, many of them are in the same place we are.

And we're having these conversations.

We really like a bill that Senate that Senator Donna Campbell wrote, S.B.

130, which is specifically focused in on the labor and employment piece.

And we think that really gets to this main issue.

Now, certainly there are others, but we want to be very thoughtful on how this goes forward.

Like I said, if this is too broad, difficult to interpret, or if it restricts things that the city does for the businesses and the citizens of this community.

Is the state going to come in and pick it up?

I don't I don't hold great hope for that.

So I really would like to be very thoughtful because this is this is a very, very broad bill.

And this has really touched a lot of nerves in terms of different groups, chambers, of commerce, cities.

The city here is against this bill for some of the same reasons that you talked about.

Obviously, the city is in the business of regulating what it thinks is important and the state doesn't want it to do that or doesn't want.

Is it red?

Blue is as easy as that because it's Republicans in Austin trying to limit blue cities.

I don't think anything is easy.

You know, it'd be nice to be able to categorize those things that way.

But I really think it's about, you know, there's been some cities that have made some pass some ordinances, paid sick leave, for example, that, you know, the state and folks at the state level are not crazy about.

And does it divide sometimes red and blue?

Yeah, probably.

But, you know, this is, I think, bigger than that, where it's, you know, should the city be dictating those kinds of things to the business community.

And that's where it really is.

You know, for us, a business issue, particularly labor and employment, that we don't need businesses trying to figure out who's responsible when there is very clear state and federal guidance.

How about House Bill five, The economic incentives?

Tell us about that, where you are on that and where it is in Austin.

Sure.

I talked about us being part of a group and so we're part of the metro chamber.

So that's the eight largest cities, Chambers across the state.

And House Bill five has been a priority for this group going into this session.

In fact, the chair of our Metro, Wade, Bob Harvey from Houston, testified on it, as well as our public policy chair testified in Austin.

So at the end of the last session, chapter 313, which is where that incentive fell in the local government code didn't get renewed.

And it really allows school districts, by their own decision to waive their property tax payments so that we can use so the businesses could be incentivized to come in and develop.

And so it was used bringing Toyota to town, and it's been used in a lot of other places.

But this is a time when economic development is huge.

There's a lot of businesses looking for places to locate and Texas really can't afford to lose any tools out of the toolbox.

So we view this as, you know, a tool that needs to be in the toolbox so that those folks like our own greater safety acts that does the business recruitment here in our area, you know, can get out there and recruit, you know, businesses that are compatible to what we do.

What's it looking like, though, in Austin?

Because some see this as tax giveaways that they want to prevent and that is otherwise going to fall on the taxpayer, especially at the local level.

Sure.

And there's a lot of nuance and a lot of detail.

And so there's different interests in there.

And and this is kind of a rural, urban conversation as well, because the rural communities have a different view on some of it than the urban communities.

But last I saw House Bill five had almost 60 coauthors, so it was moving very well.

And so we're very, very positive on this.

We think this is going to continue on.

Is there ever perfect legislation?

Probably not.

But, you know, hopefully this is a this is good and close to it.

Anything else in the back of your mind that as we race toward May 30th, there's always, oh, my gosh, something comes out of left field that could, you know, throw a wrench in all kinds of things.

Anything else out there on your radar you're concerned about?

Well, I think everybody that's following the ledge is concerned about the budget.

And that's the one thing the legislature has to do.

And it looks to be that the House and the Senate are very far apart on their approach.

And so if that can get resolved, then that's great.

But if that can't, we've got real issues going forward and that's not red blue that is, you know, that's how Senate.

So that is the one and only, you know, task that is mandated.

All right.

Well, thank you very much.

We appreciate you coming in.

Randy, could I throw one more?

Sure thing in?

You know, so we're in the municipal election, terribly important.

People need to get out and vote.

That's our message all the time.

But we also want to say, you know, if folks are not informed on Prop eight, they really need to get informed.

This essay, Safe PAC, has great information on their website.

We and every business group that I'm aware of is telling voters to vote against the Prop eight because it is damaging to this community and not something that businesses or our citizens want.

Thanks very much.

David Petersen, interim president and CEO of the San Antonio Chamber of Commerce.

Appreciate it.

All right.

Randy, thank you.

Also up in Austin right now, there's at least some talk about gun legislation.

State Senator Roland Gutierrez of the San Antonio area represents Uvalde.

The area has been pushing for more focus on gun laws after, of course, what happened in Uvalde last year, brought it up again at a news conference and joins us now to talk about that, where they are and where he'd like them to be.

First of all, thank you for joining us, Senator.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

What is the latest on your push for some new gun legislation after what happened there in Uvalde last year?

Well, sadly, Randi, I mean, we're working hard to try to, you know, continue the movement on our bills.

It seems to be pretty much, well, dead in the Senate.

We had some hearings in the House.

Tracy King had a bill on raising the age limit that was heard last week trying to vote that on to the House floor.

It's my hope that we can move it over there.

It seems to me that the Republicans just don't have the governor, the lieutenant governor don't have any real interest in safeguarding our children from the number one cause of death of kids in this nation and in this state.

It's very clear that they don't want to have the discussion that 73% of their own constituents are saying that we need to raise the age limit, offer a AR 15, just like we have on handguns.

We need to have a three year protective order so that mentally ill people don't have access to guns.

And we need to close the gun show loophole by having universal background checks.

Those are simple things that we could do right now.

But unfortunately, the people that are controlling this state don't want to have that real discussion about safeguarding our kids.

Now, some people would say you're just tilting at windmills and you're yet still having a news conference about this to point out where you are and where Republicans are on this bill, why even bother?

Some would ask you to do that if there are so many things going on up in Austin that you might be able to change.

This is just one of them that looks like it's it's dead black wall.

Well, I would be talking about this for the rest of my life in public office, Randi.

The fact is, I've seen hundreds of hours of body cam footage I've seen with that gun as can do to these children what it did to these children.

This is a fight battle that is it's affected me.

And it was certainly an inflection point in my life.

I'll be talking about it forever.

Tell me about that.

I'm sorry.

The extreme risk protective orders now, people think guns, they're either black or white.

They want more gun laws or they don't.

Or to raise the age they don't.

Tell us about the first part of the prospective protective order issue.

Well, you've seen what Governor Bill Lee has asked his own legislature in Tennessee to look at that essentially.

In Florida, they've had 9000 of these orders executed.

If you have someone that has a mental illness and is hoarding guns or is making threats, you go in there, the police go to a judge, the judge issued an order.

They bring that person before the court.

There is a proceeding.

They take their guns for a period of time until this person can reach some form of capacity.

We should have guns in the hands of mentally ill people.

It's about safeguarding our community.

But Republicans here don't want to have that simple discussion either.

And now there's a difference between the budgets right now, the Senate and the House in terms of what they call school safety.

What is that difference and how would it be affecting some of the things that you've been pushing for?

Well, in the House just last week, they passed House Bill three.

They have about $1.6 billion in that bill in the Senate.

We have $230 million.

We put another $600 million in the supplemental.

So we're around 800 million.

They have to come to terms with that and what's called a conference committee report.

I hopefully the Senate number will come up and we'll come up with an agreement that truly is in an effort to have better facilities for our schools, whether it's fencing or windows or doors or infrastructural systems that are going to work in a better way.

Clearly, we failed on on May 24th, but all of our schools are failing.

We've got to be able to do more to protect our parents, protect our children, rather, and have parents be safeguarded in that sense.

That still doesn't go to the common denominator, which is guns.

But I'm willing to move and talk about anything.

My decision or my my request was for 2.1 billion, and that's the number that DEA suggested.

We're far from that.

What about armed security guards in schools?

There's also a difference of opinion on whether a teacher could be included as that or not.

Where are you on this whole issue?

Yeah, look, I don't want to arm teachers.

Teachers don't want to be armed.

They've made that very clear in a recent polling.

I am.

Listen, I'll look at anything.

I have a bill to put a cop in every school, but a real cop, not a volunteer cop or a weekend warrior.

I want someone that's going to be held accountable, that's going to have transparency and the current bills.

Don't look at that.

I don't think that this is an ultimate solution to the problem.

But first and foremost, we need to keep kids safe.

And if it helps, then it helps.

We've got to do everything in our power within our budget to keep kids safe.

And we have the money to do it.

We just don't have the political will.

A few minutes ago, we just talked to the man with the Chamber of Commerce here in San Antonio about the preemption bills that would kind of cut the legs off of some of the local authority city councils and sidestep to make their own rules and ordinances.

What's the latest on that?

I know you just before we talk to you, you were checking with one of your aides there about that.

What are they refining any of those provisions as to what may or may not happen in that bill?

There will be some preemption bills, some that we've decided over here that we're really more about in rural areas as far as cities that are finding farmers.

And I'm actually in favor of protecting farmers right to farm.

The fact is cities are growing out and this compliance guy says, hey, you've got to mow that field.

That's not really fair to that farmer.

But there's also a component of this.

It's looking at decisions the city council are making that affect business and commerce.

And there are cities we've seen for far too many years, Greg Abbott wanting to be the mayor of cities.

I mean, you know, I don't quite understand what the what the impetus for that is.

The fact is that, you know, Republicans are losing in our major, major metropolitan areas and they're trying to point to those some of the problems in those cities as being part of that city council.

We've seen it a lot in Austin.

We've seen some of it in San Antonio.

So we have to be very real with voters and understand where this is coming from.

We have to push back where we can.

We'll see how this how these pieces of legislation move.

They're still moving through the process Randi.

All right.

Well, thank you very much.

Sorry we're out of time, but I know you're busy as well today.

State Senator Roland Gutierrez, thanks for joining us.

Thank you, sir.

Take care.

On Reporters Roundtable this week, we are coming up on the city elections.

In fact, you may have already voted.

Our next guest has already voted.

And he's going to tell us about who he might want you to vote for.

I'll explain this.

This is Josh Brodsky, who is the editorial page editor of the San Antonio Express News.

Thank you very much for coming in.

Yeah, thanks for having me.

You have come up with the editorial team's recommendations for people to vote in San Antonio.

And first of all, you want to, I guess, make clear what the editorial team is.

Right.

Right.

Rest of the paper is.

And you're not the same.

Thing, right?

Yeah, we are separate from the newsroom.

So reporters are objective.

We're opinion writers.

You know, we we report for the board.

So the editorial board is myself, Carrie Clark, Nancy Johnson and Brandon Lingle.

We report to the publisher, Mark Medici, and together we come up with our editorials, the institution's viewpoint on various issues or topics.

And of course, we make candidate recommendations for the recommendations.

We meet with most of the candidates.

All the candidates are pretty much invited or almost all the candidates are invited to meetings.

The most serious ones, of course, show up and we have a nice conversation with them.

We talk about the issues.

We do background research.

Sometimes we reach out to other sources and then we make the recommendations of to voters or to our readers of who we think might make the best representatives and.

What stands out, I guess this time is there are a lot of incumbents running.

And you recommended almost all the incumbents.

That's right.

In the.

City council race in San Antonio.

Almost all of them.

We did not recommend the incumbent in District one, Mario Bravo.

You know, we recognize that Mario is smart on the issues.

He's he's very plugged into the community.

But obviously, there was the incident involving then District seven, City Councilwoman Honore Sandoval, where he was basically berating her about a vote.

And, you know, from our view, well, he's expressed a lot of contrition about that.

That moment.

We have a high standard for public officials in terms of behavior.

We have concerns about, you know, the dynamic that we witnessed.

And so we thought that, okay, you know, we have some very talented challengers.

So we recommended Jeremy Roberts in District one.

How did you come up with that?

Because there are a number of challengers in some of these races.

You talk with them all.

And what stood out about him.

Right.

Made you want to recommend?

Yeah, We invited all the other challengers in those races.

I think three of the challengers came to our meeting.

You know, for Jeremy, we were impressed with his background in business, which we felt would be an asset to the community.

He's very plugged in with neighborhoods.

He showed a lot of nuance on issues, particularly Proposition A He he certainly was knowledgeable on city issues and in and again, we thought that a voice for business concerns and particularly small businesses would actually benefit the community has an MBA.

He's worked in business.

He is a professor at Texas A&M University.

So we viewed him as well qualified and someone who could probably, for the most part, hit the ground running.

Another high profile District ten race because of what happened there and District ten and person deciding not to run again after some controversy.

Who did you come up with there?

Yeah, we recommended Mark White.

He's a local attorney.

You know, there are, again, a number of talented candidates in that race.

We looked at Mark and there's certainly issues that we disagree with Mark on.

But, you know, he has the recommendation of seven of the previous district, ten representatives, as well as outgoing city Councilman Clayton Perry.

He served on a number of city commissions and boards.

He certainly is knowledgeable on the issues.

And as an attorney, he's a business attorney.

Again, I think he'd bring a certain expertise.

He also, because of his board experience, actually work, has worked with a number of the council members.

So we saw someone who would bring his he's conservative and that would bring a conservative viewpoint to the discussion.

You know, we like that.

We want a diversity of viewpoints on council.

He's got good experience.

But, you know, we'll see how the election goes.

I would say that one thing that your viewers should know with our recommendations, of course, you know, we're recommending the candidate that we see think our best.

But really what we're hoping to do with the recommendations is prompt people to vote, that we want people to do their own research, to come to their own conclusions.

If they view another candidate as better or more dynamic, go for that.

But we just hope that people are engaged.

And get one of those little steps you got this morning.

Right?

Yeah, I voted this morning before coming in.

It you know, it's a short ballot.

It took 2 minutes.

So get out there and vote.

And before we move on from District ten, people might be surprised what you recommended.

A conservative, you kids down there and the editorial board.

I know what you feel.

And but you do want diversity.

You want it to represent that District ten that is more conservative than other districts.

District ten is traditionally more conservative than others.

And we felt like we had to recognize that that, you know, until we see some type of change in in voter behaviors that we understand there's a certain history with District ten.

And Mark is definitely the candidate that we viewed as best representing that history.

But again, the civic discussion is best served with diversity and diversity.

It takes many forms race, gender, orientation, age, political outlook, and so on.

There are many different ways.

And so we want to have a broad discussion and and and, you know, our hope is that if Mark is elected, that he'll see things that other councilmembers, perhaps progressive councilmembers wouldn't necessarily see, and that would lead to better policy and and the reverse, right.

That the more progressive council members might inform Mark on an issue.

You might also have surprised some people with another recommendation on Prop eight because people think, well, if the editorial board there, however they see you liberal or this or that one way or the I can see you roll your eyes, but you run into that all the time, right?

Yeah, but Prop eight you came out against.

Tell me about.

That.

Yeah.

So Prop eight, there are a lot of aspects, Prop eight, that perhaps individually we would support For those who read our pages.

Readers would know that, you know, we're in support of abortion rights.

You know, we don't really have any issue around decriminalizing marijuana, For example.

You know, we in our Unequal justice project for 2018 and 2019, we championed a number of reforms to address concerns around pretrial incarceration and inequities there.

But when you look at Proposition A, our concern first and foremost was the structure of it to take a wide variety of issues and kind of put them all together in an up and down all or nothing vote where we felt that each of these issues that Proposition eight tackles should be broken out into individual propositions because, you know, you might have one view on abortion, another view on same release, right?

So that was the first one.

And so we didn't like the idea of putting voters in an all or nothing spot.

We do have concerns the business community has raised concerns about the removal of officer discretion in in this proposition.

We do have a signed release program.

This proposition would expand it to all Class C misdemeanors and would take away officer discretion in terms of whether or not a citation is issued.

You know, we we would like to maintain that officer discretion and we hear what we don't necessarily buy into all the fears around a spike in crime and so on.

We understand the concerns are very real and and so again, that was not a concern on the proposition.

So yeah, we came out against it.

I don't know if we surprised people or not on that, but in the end, you know, we'd like to see a better design proposition that gave voters individual choices on each of these issues.

Well, thanks very much, Josh Brodsky.

You can read all of those recommendations in what's called a newspaper.

It's an all right made of paper as well as online at Express.

News dot com.

Dot com.

It was a test.

Josh, thanks.

Thank you.

And thank you for joining us for this edition of On the Record.

Before we go, I just want to take a moment to ask for some help on another project we're working on here at KLRN.

I'm putting together a program on San Antonio artist Jesse Trevino, who passed away in February, but I could use some more photos of him, especially when he was younger.

And also more images of his artwork over the years.

As I know, some of you have photos of him when he was a kid or maybe a teenager growing up on the west Side or after he came back from Vietnam.

We also know that there are many of Jesse's artworks that are out there but have not been seen by many people at all, at least not yet.

So if you have any photos or video like that, I'd like you to message me on my Facebook page.

That is at Randy Beemer, and we'll let you know when that program will air right here on KLRN You can always watch any of our on the record shows as well as download the podcast at KLRN.org.

And we'll see you next time.

On the record is brought to you by Steve and Adele Dufilho.