David Rogers told the council he had contacted the lobbying firm. When a colleague questioned the $90,000 contract David Rogers interrupted until the chair stopped him by name — and two weeks later no member would second his motion to hire them.

On January 14, 2025 the Council took up a $90,000 professional services agreement with Searle Strategies LLC for legislative support during the 89th Legislative Session. The minutes record no sponsor for the item; they record that David Rogers said he had contacted Searle. When a colleague said the spending was a gross misrepresentation of taxpayer funds to go after the emergency services district, and that maybe he and Councilmember Ryan had a thing against first responders, David Rogers cut in and the chair had to stop him by name. Two residents spoke against the contract. No action was taken. On January 28 he moved to approve the Searle agreement and the motion died for lack of a second. Mayor Gonzales then moved to hire HillCo instead; that carried 6-1, with David Rogers the only vote against.

Item
2025-0040 — Searle Strategies LLC, legislative support
Amount, per the agenda caption
$90,000 — item 6G, file 2025-0040
First heard
2025-01-14, item 6G — no action taken
Moved by Rogers
2025-01-28 — died for lack of a second
Council hired instead
HillCo, 6-1
Rogers' vote on HillCo
No — only member against

The contract, and his part in it

The agreement was for legislative support through the 89th Legislative Session. The minutes for January 14 record that Holiday discussed getting quotes from other firms, that Metayer said it did not look like the session would go anywhere and raised concern about doing this while trying to repair relationships, that Ruiz asked how the firm was selected, and that Rogers discussed the existing lobbyist's scope of service and stated he had contacted Searle. The minutes name no councilmember as having requested the item.

What happened when a colleague questioned it

The exchange below is fifty seconds from the city's recording. A colleague sets out the objection — that the item is a misrepresentation of taxpayer funds aimed at the emergency services district — and Rogers interrupts before the sentence is finished. The chair stops him by name. The site does not identify which member is speaking at any point, because the recording carries no captions naming them; what the tape establishes is who had to be called down.

Two residents asked the council to drop it

Chris Wolff, a resident and firefighter, told the council it had gotten personal and that he did not want tax dollars going to it, raising the money already spent on litigation and saying the voters had already spoken. Mack Harrison told the council the voters had spoken two months earlier, that taxpayer dollars did not need to be spent on this, and that it was time to build bridges. The minutes record that no action was taken.

Two weeks later, nobody would second it

On January 28 the item came back. The minutes are one sentence: “Mr. Rogers moved to approve the agreement with Searle Strategies. The motion died for lack of a second.” A second is not agreement — it only means a colleague is willing to have the motion discussed. Mayor Gonzales then moved to hire HillCo, Ruiz seconded, and it carried with Rogers the only member against.

What cuts the other way

The colleague's charge — that this was taxpayer money aimed at the emergency services district — is an accusation, not a finding, and it was made in the middle of a contested argument. Interrupting a colleague in a heated exchange is common in council meetings and is not by itself a measure of temperament; the clip is fifty seconds of a meeting that ran past four hours. On the substance, the council did hire a lobbying firm two weeks later, so the disagreement was about which firm and at what scope, not about whether to engage one at all. A motion dying for lack of a second can also reflect a council that had already settled on another vendor.

Sources