June 16, 2026 Seguin Council Meeting

Presentation regarding policies and practices related to lease of the Seguin Events Complex, including but not limited to the October 2026 booking by Riverside Pride, the provision of security for events and activities at the Seguin Events Complex and elsewhere within the City of Seguin, and the ability of City Councilmembers to make statements of personal religious belief in relation to items before Council. Since this agenda item will contain Attorney/Client Communications, the City Council may, by majority vote, opt to hear all or portions of this presentation in Closed Session, pursuant to Section 551.071 of the Texas Government Code (Consultation with Attorney). – Mark Kennedy, City Attorney

James Parker, Pastor of One Hope Church, spoke in opposition to the Riverside Pride event. He stated that Christians should base their beliefs and actions on what he described as the unchanging truth of God’s Word rather than cultural acceptance. He expressed concern that some churches and pastors are affirming conduct that he believes the Bible identifies as sinful, arguing that their role should instead be to preach repentance and the Gospel. Pastor Parker stated that the issue extends beyond whether individuals choose to attend the event, asserting that publicly celebrating values he believes conflict with biblical teachings has broader implications for the community. He stated that his opposition was rooted in his religious convictions that God created male and female, that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that love and truth are not enemies. He urged the City Council to base its decision on biblical principles rather than societal or cultural pressures. Joseph Brown, a member of One Hope Church, presented a petition containing approximately 100 signatures from individuals opposing the Riverside Pride event. He stated that he believes the event celebrates sexual behavior and promotes a definition of love that is based on individual preference rather than moral or religious principles. Mr. Brown discussed his interpretation of the constitutional principle of separation of church and state, stating that it was intended to prevent government interference with religion rather than remove religious principles from government. He further expressed his belief that strong families are foundational to healthy communities and voiced concerns that the event promotes values inconsistent with his religious convictions.

City Attorney Mark Kennedy stated that he was asked 3 things; why does events that are objectionable happen; how does the City address added security needs and who bares the cost of those needs; and what are the implications of a councilmember expressing their religious beliefs. He said that typically these types of explanations are done in Closed Session and are protected under Attorney-Client privilege. City Council gave consensus to continue the discussion in Open Session and to waive their Attorney-Client privilege. City Attorney Kennedy explained the difference between the Non-Public Forum, Limited Public Forum, Designated Public Form, Traditional Public Form because each one is awarded different 1st Amendment protection. He explained that any regulation should be content neutral, not based on the content of speakers words, unless it incites violence or violates he law. He also shared that assumptions being made about SB12 may not be correct. He informed that the coordinators of the event have indicated that SB12 would not be violated. Mr. Kennedy reviewed the provisions of Senate Bill 12, enacted in 2023, which amended the Texas Health and Safety Code, Penal Code, and Local Government Code. He explained that the law prohibits sexually oriented performances on public property, defining such performances as those involving nudity or sexual conduct intended to appeal to a prurient interest in sex. He stated that a drag performance is not automatically considered a sexually oriented performance under the law and provided examples of performances involving cross-dressing, such as Shakespearean productions and school pep rally skits, that would not violate the statute. He further noted that the event organizers had indicated that the event would be limited to individuals 18 years of age and older; however, regardless of the audience, any performance conducted on public property must comply with the requirements of Senate Bill 12. Addressing security, Mr. Kennedy explained that the City has historically provided law enforcement support for spontaneous First Amendment activities, such as the George Floyd protests and the No Kings rally, without charging organizers because those events did not require reservations for the use of public space. He stated that this practice is consistent with the City’s historical approach to First Amendment activities. Regarding the Riverside Pride event, he stated that organizers had indicated they would hire and pay for private security personnel. He further explained that, under normal procedures, the City would assign additional law enforcement officers as necessary to maintain public safety and separate opposing groups if protests occurred. He also discussed the concept of the “heckler’s veto,” explaining that government generally may not restrict or terminate protected speech because of the anticipated reaction of those who oppose the event. Mr. Kennedy also addressed questions concerning councilmembers expressing their religious beliefs during Council meetings. He stated that elected officials inevitably bring their personal beliefs and values into public service; however, they also take an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States and the State of Texas. He explained that comments made during Council meetings should generally be germane to the posted agenda item, while councilmembers remain free to express personal opinions in other appropriate forums, including social media. He advised that when the law clearly governs an issue, councilmembers must consider their legal obligations when voting, regardless of personal beliefs. Mr. Kennedy further explained that there was no action currently before the Council because the facility lease agreement had been executed administratively in the normal course of business and did not require City Council approval. Councilmember Carlsson stated that he appreciated hearing from the members of the public who had spoken and asked whether the lease agreement would come before the Council for a vote. Mr. Kennedy responded that the agreement had been execute Councilmember Gaytan asked whether the matter could nonetheless be brought before the City Council for consideration. Mr. Kennedy replied that the lease had already been executed and that any future Council action would involve consideration of terminating the agreement. Councilmember Gaytan then asked what legal grounds would exist to reverse the decision. Mr. Kennedy responded that if evidence demonstrated a violation of Senate Bill 12 or another applicable law, staff would notify the City Manager and the matter could be brought forward for appropriate consideration. He added that, based on the information currently available, he had not heard any facts indicating that such a violation had occurred. Councilmember Lievens thanked everyone who participated in the meeting and expressed appreciation for those who took the time to publicly share their views during a difficult and controversial discussion. Councilmember Eveld stated that statements regarding religious beliefs had been made several times during the discussion. He emphasized that while his personal religious convictions are important to him, they do not authorize him to violate the law or disregard the terms of a valid lease agreement. He referenced comments made by a member of the public describing the issue as a spiritual matter and shared his concerns regarding messages that he believes could affect young people struggling with gender identity. Councilmember Eveld stated that, while the religious issues involved are significant to him personally, he remains obligated to follow the law in carrying out his duties as an elected official.