City Council - Special Meeting

Thank you.

Miss, hold on just one moment, ma'am. We're still not on live. Just give me one.

Good morning. At this time, I can hear by call the meeting to order. Ms. Huerta, would you please call the roll? Mayor Pro Tem Carolyn Vaughn.

Here. Council Members Roland Barrera is absent. Sylvia Campos. Here. Eric Cantu. Here. Gail Hernandez. Here. Kaylin Paxson. She's going to be late, but she will be here. Everett Roy is absent. Mark Scott. Here. City Manager Peter Zanoni.

Present.

Assistant City Attorney Lisa Aguilar.

Present. Okay, we do have a quorum present to conduct the meeting. Okay, thank you. At this time, I'm going to open public comment and it'll be limited to one minute because we have a restraint on time. Captain Dave. Morning.

Good morning. I'm Captain Dave Heasley, Corpus Christi, District 3. 55 years of living here, pretty much been to Bug Days Parade every time. Never in my life have I seen a mayor be booed as much as this mayor has by the people of this city. I don't know if any of y'all did what I did, but I kind of followed the parade around just to see what the citizens reactions were. And this woman is continually booed throughout the whole parade. And I'm trying to figure out with that much dissatisfaction from her constituents, Why is she still here? Why are we still putting up with all this? Why are we still putting up with this desal fraud? And we know this is a fraud. Why are we putting up with kangaroo crew surveys for far-field models of our bays when everybody already knew it was a fraud?

Thank you, Captain Day.

This mayor's a fraud.

Thank you. Rachel Caballero.

Rachel Caballero, D1. Good morning and thank you for being here and following our city charter. All I am asking as the originator and filer of this petition is that we follow the city charter that are being put forth in the petition and the impeachment. Willful violation of any code of ethics or conflicts of interest provision, willful violation of any express prohibit prohibition of this charter, my goodness, misconduct, malfeasance, incompetence, inability, or willful neglect in any performance of official duties. So I thank you for your time and also for following the city charter and doing right by this community. If we want honest politics, then we have to hold people accountable. Thank you. Thank you. Susie Saldana.

I'm asking you to do something today. You wanna follow the city charter, follow the city charter and do what's right and that is refer this to the ethics committee as you should have done in the first place. It is a circus. Everybody in town believes this is a circus. That's what everybody's calling it. It's time that you wake up, do the right thing, and stop acting as judge and jury and witnesses in this case. It is time that you wake up to what is important. Look who's sitting here. Look who started it. Look who's costing thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars to the city. Open your eyes and see what the citizens of Corpus Christi say. Not the ones up here, but the ones that look at you every single day. They're asking you to refrain from doing this thing and open up your eyes and do the right thing for the right reasons. Don't be political. It's time for you to stop.

Thank you. Sandy Fernandez.

Good morning, mayor and council members. I stand before you today deeply concerned, not only about the attempt to remove our mayor, but about this process is becoming and the president and set for our city. Many residents are looking whether this effort is truly about serving the public or whether it has been driven by political pressure, personal grievances and influence of individuals with their own agendas. We have watched a disgruntled citizen who has repeatedly opposed this council and a hotelier with business interests in our city become central figures. Regardless of where you stand politically, the appearance of the outside influence should concern every citizen. Most importantly, city council should not be acting as judge, jury, and executioner. That is not the role of this body. The people elected the mayor and the people should have the final say regarding their future in office. If there's a serious concern, they deserve a fair and transparent process, but that process must be free from bias and conflict of interest. Thank you. Thank you.

Jared Suarez, I may have killed your name.

Jarrett Suarez, District 2. We the people, Corpus Christi, Texas, have had enough of corruption from the top. I sit here today to tell the City Council that we need to set a precedent on impeaching the mayor so that future mayors may know that if they break laws, give way to corruption, take kickbacks, become highly unethical, or fail us as an elected city servant, you will be impeached. Gone shall be the days of just waiting to our next election. We demand action and we demand action time now. The mayor has failed us and allegedly has paid others to harass those who are leading the charge in the petition to impeach her. Thuggery cannot become local governance. It will only consume itself. Ask yourself, City Council, will you stand by and support we the people or cave in? to end moral and ethical corruption? Do you want to be known in our city's history for doing what is justified or going to roll over on your backs taking belly scratches by closed door thuggery? Let us pray for the conversion of such politicians. Thank you.

Thank you. Alberto Sertuche. Did I kill your name?

That's all right. I joined the Marine Corps, so they checked it up pretty much every day.

Thanks.

My name is Albert Sartucci, District 3 Veteran-Owned of Hard Life's Bait and Tackle and Team Hard Life. I'd like to thank Sylvia Campos for her many years of service and wish you blessings on your future. We are extremely happy to see our city council members following our charter to remove our mayor, who has been shown numerous times to be incompetent and a habitual liar. which has cost us taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue, which will be billions if we don't stop it now. We are always looking for transparency and that has always been hidden from us by the Mayor and her friends. Time to stop the corruption and we the people have been woken up and more waking up to the corruption in our city every single day. I spoke to just 50 of them yesterday coming through my shop that had no idea how deep this is and they are paying attention to y'all's votes guys. The chart is there for a reason. These are the rules y'all follow and we the taxpayers are paying attention. We're waking up and we'll be making sure our mark is left when it comes November. Thank you.

Thank you. Julian Hernandez.

Julian Hernandez, D3. I can barely get my thoughts together for one minute. As Forrest Gump would say, I'm not a smart man. When I started coming here just to see the things that unfolded and things that I've seen go on and whatnot, but mainly for the citizens that are here that don't know about it having to put up with it. Hopefully later on you'll see a lot more of my family, but what's right is right and what's wrong is wrong. Thank you.

Thank you. Manuel Seghetti. Are you here? Okay. Victoria Hernandez. Okay. Mike. Sylvia, what is that? Gerslop. Sorry guys, they're just really hard names. Not here. Darcy Leeton. Darcy Letson. Alejandro Benavides.

Hello, Alejandro Benavides, District 3. I am here to say that I'm hoping the council makes the right decision today because this is bigger than just one little thing. This is a nonpartisan issue. This is saying whether or not we're okay with corruption taking over our local governments and our governments beyond that. Like they said, this will set a precedent and that's what got so many people scared because now we're going to hold people accountable. And when you're serving on this council, you should be above reproach. You shouldn't do things that create a conflict of interest or appear to have a conflict of interest. Attorneys put up with more vigorous regulations than our council members. You shouldn't have conflicts of interest where you give yourself insurance deals for your business or contracts for your people. But if we're letting even a mayor get away with doing things that are corrupt, then why else would any other council member stop? Let's change that today.

Thank you. Mark Munster?

Mark Minster, Corpus Christi. The city charter is here, and from the deposition tapes that were released to the public as a concerned citizen, it seemed like there was a situation where there was malfeasance, and it was pretty clear that the council knew ahead of time that there was something that had been done to the documents. And the ones that have cost thousands and thousands of taxpayers' dollars, millions, the ones who voted to approve a project when they knew that there was fraud. They could have avoided this if they had voted on the other side along with other council members. And to deflect blame to the process of what's going on instead of what actually happened, the charter's pretty clear that five or more residents can bring something forward. And we're not the ones making the decision to remove the mayor. It's just bringing it forward to the trial. And the petition, there was not just five people, there was a lot of electronic signatures and the petition had very clearly what was being signed. Five people was just the fastest way to file it and start the process, it makes sense.

Thank you. Amanda Guerra. Sandra Sanchez. Melinda De Los Santos.

Good morning, Melinda De Los Santos, District 2. Public trust in government refers to the confidence citizens have in their government institutions to act in their best interest. There does appear to be a perception of corruption in listening to many public comments and watching the clips of videos that have been presented. This has led to a lack of public trust. How can we proceed with the issues, namely water at hand if there is mistrust? It is very apparent your duties and responsibilities are challenging and I for one would not want those responsibilities. So I applaud your contribution to our community. However, societal instability has erupted due to some nefarious activities which have been presented. How do we move forward with these decisions that will significantly impact our community and future generations if we lack trust? Truth and transparency are essential for trust. I ask you to uphold the ethical standards of your position to guide your decision-making to act in the best interest of the citizens of Corpus Christi. Thank you.

Thank you. That concludes public comment. Councilman Paxson, you have a motion?

Yes, Mayor Fritton.

I'd like to make a motion for the efficiency of the pretrial hearings.

to authorize the Mayor Pro Tem to rule on motions and schedule dates subject to objections of the City Council.

Do I have a second? Second. All in favor say aye.

Aye. Is there a discussion?

If you want to. Yeah, I'd like to. Yeah, go ahead.

Yes, please. So what are we doing and why are we doing this?

I think that it would create an efficient structure for the hearing process if the mayor pro tem who is our presiding officer over the hearing to be able to rule on the decisions. And then of course, any objections from the council could be taken into consideration.

So is this the way, is this a change in our policies and procedures for this proceeding? Are you, I guess it came in with the idea that we all vote and we have to, we have, takes a... And there will always be a chance for you to have discussion.

I think that reviewing...

So you rule...

I rule and make the motion. Y'all can, up or down. I'm sorry.

I'm sorry. No, I still understand. I'm sorry. So...

so the the way we thought it was going to happen is if there's a question we vote on it and what you're saying is she rules and then if we oppose it we just make them i don't talk to me walk me through i think that would be the structure reading some of the um reading the material and the requests from both parties that have come in over the course of this event i think what that does is it streamlines the process and it gives one presiding officer um a little more order between the proceedings. Then, of course, with my motion, it says any objections from other council members would be heard and considered. It's not a huge difference to the process.

It's a huge difference. You rule and if I oppose it, well, then it's just an opposition. No.

You have the opportunity to make a motion. Absolutely. If you oppose it, you can just say no. If you all oppose it, we'll take a vote. I'm just making a motion to streamline it to make it go quicker.

And I didn't see, I might ask both parties. I didn't see, I saw the request from the Protestants Law Group, which is fine. You said both parties. I didn't see anything from the other party with a recommendation or a suggestion. So that my point is, I wanna be careful that it doesn't look like, were not being fair and equitable to both parties.

I completely sympathize. I completely understand, Mr. Scott. I believe some of the documents sent over by Attorney Mr. Flood had voiced some concerns. You know, the mayor is seeking for the individuals that are leading the meeting to, she would like them to feel completely impartial and unbiased. And I know that we have some members up here that were part of the process two years ago. And I don't think that assumes.

I don't think we need to go into that right now. We just have a motion and you have an objection.

Well, I have a strong objection because I think the recommendation came from one of the sides without the ability of the other side to address said recommendation. I don't know if he...

This was discussed with our legal.

Yes, ma'am.

All of this was discussed with our legal. No, no, no, no, no, no. No talk from the audience. We're not going to go there.

So it was presented by one party without the ability, and I don't know what a normal law judge would do. I would think that both parties would allow, I'm going to lose, but my point is I think this is a bad optics.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else want to comment?

May I be heard?

We have a motion. Oh, yes, sir.

I'm unclear as to whether or not this is a motion to modify the existing rules that have already been adopted by this body which was proposed by motion which I'm prepared to argue. I don't know if this is a motion to modify the existing rules or whether or not this is a motion to create some new rule which I would then request some sort of opportunity to review and provide objections to if any. So I'm just very unclear as to whether or not this is a motion to grant a motion that's already been filed by Mr. David? Or is this a new motion? I'm just unclear as to what it is I'm faced with.

Mr. Allison? Yes.

Thank you.

Do you want to respond?

Yeah. First of all, the way I heard it was that it's limited to defining the role of the presiding officer, okay? And that's not the same as what I proposed are many different procedural changes. And I proposed those, quite frankly, to address some of the mayor's concerns about due process. I think we improved the rules from a due process standpoint. I submitted those early so that counsel for the city could also look at those. I hate to say it this way, but remember, the city's lawyers are protecting due process. I'm protecting due process. It is the mayor's attorneys who have sued the city who are trying to stop these proceedings by finding something wrong with these proceedings. So I'm wanting to make sure we don't do that. Okay. So I think the motion that I heard is very different than my procedural motion. In fact, it, it is different and that's okay. There's a lot of different things in the procedural motion that I think is still pending. And what I heard in terms of the motion being made by councilman Paxton was a very limited motion. that is designed, quite frankly, it aids due process and streamlines the process. Yes.

Thank you.

Yes, sir. Then I'd respectfully request to be heard on that. Yeah. So, first of all, because two witnesses remain on the tribunal, this proceeding violates Texas law and it is void right now. This proposed amendment does not get the council out of the Bradley box that it is in. This adoption would violate your own charter actually modifying this rule. And Article 2, Section 16P of this city's charter adopts Robert's Rules of Order and it would violate core principles of that charter provision by removing authority from the deliberative body the City Council and consolidating it into a presiding officer. Under the rules originally adopted by resolution, the ones used in the 1987 impeachment, those pay due respect to Robert's Rules of Order and Article 2, Section 16P of the City Charter. The Council collectively retains supervisory authority over major procedural matters including evidentiary rulings, witness participation, deliberations. This proposed change would fundamentally alter that structure by creating a new power giving the Mayor Pro Tem responsibility over things that are properly the deliberative body's decision. For that reason, I'd be happy to be heard further but for purposes of time, that is the essence of the problem that this proposed motion brings to this organization in addition to the Bradley problem that will always remain with this council as long as witnesses are on the dice.

OK. Thank you, Mr. Allison. I'll not further comment on Bradley. That will come up I think when probably we get to the recusal issue.

OK. Thank you. Councilman Paxson, would you read the motion again?

Yes. For the efficiency of the pretrial hearings, I make a motion to authorize the mayor pro tem to rule on motions and schedule dates subject to objections of the City Council.

Thank you. Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

No.

Okay, motion carries. Thank you. We're going to commence the pretrial hearing. We'll start by asking the parties to announce. Legal counsel of petitioners and legal counsel of the mayor should respond.

John Flood, Mayor Paulette Guajardo's counsel. You asked me to proceed?

Yes, sir.

As I stated a moment ago, this proceeding violates Texas law because it violates the Bradley decision. And let me formally restart. Good morning, Mayor Pro Tem, city council members. I proudly represent Paulette Guajardo, the mayor of the city of Corpus Christi. And if I was in this exact same position representing any one of you five, I would equally be proud. For the record, I am I do not have a financial interest in, nor am I a manager in any respect of any sort of desalination company. This proceeding, as I stated, violates Texas law because it violates the Bradley decision. It is void. For the reasons stated in the plaintiff's, or I'm sorry, in Mayor Guajardo's motion to recuse, This motion is a lawful and honorable off ramp for this council. Council member Roy has recused himself in this removal proceeding for the stated reason that he is a witness. Council member Rera has recused himself in this removal proceeding for the stated reason that he is a witness. Councilwoman Campos is a witness for the same reasons they are the fact that they weren't deposed in a civil matter does not make any difference doesn't change the fact councilman hernandez is also a witness in this proceeding for the reasons that council members roy and barretta have recused themselves is the same reason why Mayor Pro Tem, apparently under this motion that was just passed, this will be your decision apparently on this motion to recuse, which seems to violate the Robert's Rules of Order in my opinion. Be that as it may, I would also ask the individual council members the subject of the motion to recuse themselves individually without regard to the motion that you would decide this motion. The Texas Supreme Court's 1999 decision in Bradley v. State held that individuals with personal knowledge of disputed facts cannot simultaneously serve as adjudicators in a removal proceeding. Simply put, fundamental fairness requires that witnesses to disputed facts underlying the impeachment cannot also serve as the tribunal deciding those same facts it is a simple concept and it renders this proceeding unlawful the council members who participated in the february 20th 2024 and april 23 2024 council meetings and also participated in executive sessions related there to are witnesses. Among other things, the articles of impeachment allege that the agenda items considered during those meetings were fraudulent and that Mayor Guajardo induced council members to rely upon fraudulent information in approving the Homewood Suites Incentive Ordinance. Because those allegations necessarily place at issue, what was presented to each council member, what discussions occurred in the executive, and otherwise, what each member understood, why each member voted the way he or she did. The council members who participated in those proceedings possess personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts that are central to this impeachment proceeding. As such, they cannot serve simultaneously as witnesses interested participants and adjudicators in the proceeding. You have heard about the rule of necessity. The rule of necessity has never in 250 years of American jurisprudence been once applied to a witness, ever. You have excellent counsel on this case. Judge Shamsie understands the law. I'm confident in the advice you're getting from him that this is not going to be the case where someone decides that somehow witnesses can become judges or jurors because you're both. By the language in your own agenda item, you are each today serving in a judicial capacity. It states it. It states this is a quasi-judicial proceeding. It tells you that you are serving as a judge and juror. The council members who voted on the challenged agenda items have already staked out official and personal positions concerning the propriety of those actions and therefore possess a direct interest in the outcome of this impeachment proceeding. If the impeachment succeeds, it validates the position that the underlying ordinance was fraudulent or improper. If it fails, it vindicates those prior votes and decisions. Due process does not permit decision makers to sit in judgment over proceedings in which they are also material witnesses and interested participants. That is why this proceeding today is void. I respectfully request in response to this motion that those members on the council in 2024 by roll call indicate whether they recuse themselves in this proceeding or that the honorable Mayor Pro Tem grant this motion to recuse such members. Thank you.

Thank you.

May I respond?

Yes, sir.

You know, what he's asking you to do, what Mayor's Council is asking you to do is to not follow your charter to not do that which your charter says you have a duty to do, and he's asking you to ignore that a federal judge has already considered this exact same argument and refused it. What he's asking you to do is don't even get to the corruption issues, don't even get to the malfeasance issues, don't even get to the issues of incompetence or improper or misconduct. Stop now before you hear any evidence is what he's asking you to do. And that's the exact opposite of what the Charter asks you to do. The Charter says in Section 12, Article 2, a removal action by the Council may be instituted on its own initiative. So if you guys had initiated it, you may go forward. And then it goes on to say, or shall be instituted upon petition by five or more registered voters. Shall means you must. Then it goes on, and any final decision to remove a member shall be by the majority vote of all council members holding office with the exception of the challenged member. In that sentence it tells you who doesn't get to vote and it tells you who under the charter votes. You have a duty to vote and we've seen this flushed out I mean, in a way, they did you a favor by going to a federal judge and making these same arguments. They went to the federal judge and, I mean, you can cite cases like Bradley, which he consistently refers to. The judge has rejected that, the federal judge. Citing cases like, and I know all of these cases, when you read them closely, tell us you should move forward and that the motion to recuse should be granted, really must be granted. Excuse me. The motion to recuse must not be granted. When you look at Bradley, it cannot be granted. When you look at Commonwealth Codings Corp., it cannot be granted. When you look at the Toomey case, it cannot be granted. When you look at the Calista case versus Cantrell, it cannot be granted. All of those cases indicated to the federal judge that the motion to recuse must be denied and that the proceedings shall not be stopped. That is exactly what the federal judge ruled. So you have the benefit of a federal judge having already considered these arguments. They made the same arguments, oh, you can't be a member of counsel and also, you know, a judge or act as a juror and you must recuse. They made all of those arguments in the federal court setting. The counterargument was quite frankly made by the person representing the city at that time, which was Hal George, and to some extent representing five of you all was Steve McMains in those same proceedings, and argued Hal George for the city, argued that The case, these proceedings must go forward and you should not be required to recuse. That is consistent with your city charter and it's the right decision. Therefore, to shine light, and that's at the end of the day what government is about is transparency. To shine light, we respectfully ask that the motion to recuse be denied.

Thank you, Mr. Flutt. You have something else?

Brief response.

Okay.

So to the extent Section 11 requires that the action shall be instituted, it has. It has been instituted. We are in it right now. So it has been instituted. What you do with it now depends upon what you, the respect given to the Constitution and to the Texas Supreme Court. The federal judge has not ruled in fact on Bradley and whether or not this court or I'm sorry, whether this judicial proceeding can go forward for that reason. Specifically did not address it, was not part of a decision has not been decided. Our response to the city's motion to dismiss under Rule 12B is due today, which we will be filing at the end of the day. So the federal case has not decided this issue. Thank you.

Mr. Allison, anything else?

Nothing further.

Thank you, Mr. Flood and Mr. Allison. At this time, are there any recusals by any of the city council members?

Ms. Huerta, do we have any recusals? The only ones recusals we've received are the ones stated by Mr. Flood from Mr. Barrera and Mr. Roy. Okay, thank you.

At this time, we will entertain Mayor Guajardo's verified motion for recusal and disqualification. I hereby find that Rule 18 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 605 of the Texas Rules of Evidence do not apply. Motion denied. Any objections from the City Council to this ruling? Okay, seeing none, we're going to move forward. On Mayor Wahardo's motion to strike pleading, I'm going to limit arguments to two minutes per side, and we'll entertain arguments from the mayor.

I'm sorry, if Mr. Scott objects, are we going to vote on that?

Yeah, we can do that. Okay. Okay, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay, motion carries. Okay, let's move on. On Mayor Wahardo's motion to strike pleading, I'm going to limit arguments to two minutes per side. We'll entertain arguments from the mayor.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. City Council, I will say it again. Now that the motioner accused has been denied, this proceeding violates Texas law and it is void. We have moved to strike the articles of impeachment because they do not provide the basic notice and procedural fairness required by either the United States Constitution or Texas law. Before an elected official can be removed from office, due process requires that the accused receive clear notice of the specific factual allegations against her and a meaningful opportunity to defend them. That's the Matthews versus Eldridge US Supreme Court case. The articles fail to meet that standard. Rather than clearly identifying the precise conduct alleged to constitute fraud, misconduct, perjury, or malfeasance, the articles rely on vague accusations, conclusory labels, and scattered references to outside materials and exhibits that are not actually incorporated into the pleading itself. Under Texas law, even ordinary civil proceedings must provide fair notice sufficient to allow the opposing party to understand the nature of the claims and prepare a defense. And fraud allegations are scrutinized even more closely because of their seriousness. Yet the articles repeatedly accuse the mayor of fraud and criminal conduct without identifying the statements, acts, legal duties, or facts that supposedly establish those offenses instead. The pleading attempts to bootstrap broad accusations through a maze of footnotes and unattached exhibits. Without knowing exactly what factual allegations are truly being asserted, I cannot meaningfully prepare witnesses, gather responsive evidence, or defend the mayor against a removal proceeding. This is not due process, and the articles should therefore be struck as legally insufficient. And I would note for the record, that the appearance of counsel in this matter has been through Mr. David and Mr. David has been labeled and called a petitioner. Mr. David is not a petitioner, did not sign the petition under the charter.

Thank you. We will now entertain arguments from the petitioners.

I want to make sure I'm kind of frame this correctly because it's a very simple concept, but one that's been beat up in our court systems for decades. Due process just requires fair notice. You've got to give somebody notice of what they're charged with or why, in this instance, they would be removed or disciplined. And under Texas, just as an example, in Texas law, you look to whether the opposing party can ascertain from, in this instance, the articles of impeachment and the petition, the nature and the basic issues that are in controversy. I would easily submit to you that you would have to be deaf, dumb, and blind to not understand what this is about. I mean, you're kidding me, okay? And I would be remiss if I did not say that the federal judge, the complaint in front of him is about due process and so it is again his prerogative and he could have stopped the proceedings and did not do so had he thought there was inadequate notice. The petition, the actual articles of petition are not scant. It's not like they're hiding the ball or that there's, you know, some sort of double agenda in them. They're very straight up, very clear. There's four specific allegations. It's 25 footnotes. It cites the evidence. It gives details of how it is that the petitioners have alleged that there is incompetence, malfeasance, corruption, breach of trust, fraud, aiding and abetting fraud. All of those things are put in there, not just in a, oh, I just said the words like I did right now, but 15 pages of detailed information and reference to specific evidence. to not just give adequate notice, but give an incredible quantum of information to give detail so that mayor has full notice of what these proceedings are about. Respectfully, the issue is do the articles of impeachment and the petition give sufficient information in order for the mayor to know? The answer is yes, and the motion should be denied. Thank you.

Any other comments? Okay. Based on the arguments presented, I move to deny the Mayor's motion to strike the pleadings. Any objections from the City Council on this ruling? Can I have a motion and a second? Motion. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Say. Motion passes. At this time, we will entertain the petitioner's motion to modify amend city's rules of procedure for city council hearing for removal action under the city charter. We will entertain arguments from the petitioner.

Yeah, at this time, just know that what I did is I went through rules that were, you know what, many years old. I looked at him because in the context of, quite frankly, previously it was not the mayor that was the subject of the impeachment. And so that created a situation where, like you did on the first motion, you got to make sure who your presiding officer is. So I put some provisions in like that. They made complaints pursuant to Bradley, and so I made some changes in the proposed rules that I thought would address the Bradley issue. I made some changes to try to suggest that, quite frankly, where the city legal department had withdrawn from the civil lawsuit claiming a conflict of interest, it made sense to me that maybe they shouldn't be the ones so advising, especially since Mr. Shamsie's here now. So I made some tweaks in the rules to make address that issue i was trying to improve it um you know to the extent there are any issues that are remain where you know due process concerns can be addressed and and it'd be a better working document i'm all in favor of it the purpose of what i did was to protect due process to make sure that our time is not wasted here thank you mr flatt

I want to make sure I understand which motion it is we're referring to. Are we talking about the first amended motion to modify the rules of procedure? Is that what we're talking about? That's what I was arguing, yes. Thank you. I will say it again. This proceeding violates Texas law. It is void. The proposed amendments do not get the council out of the Bradley box that it is in. Their adoption would violate your own charter and simply make this void proceeding. even worse. Article 2, Section 16P of the city charter adopts Robert's Rules of Order. The proposed amendments violate core principles of the charter provision because they systematically remove authority from the deliberative body, the city council, and consolidate that with the presiding officer. Under the rules originally adopted by the resolution, the council collectively retained supervisory authority over major procedural matters, including evidentiary rulings, witness participation, deliberations. The proposed changes would fundamentally alter that structure by creating a new Section 2, giving the Mayor Pro Tem sole responsibility for all pretrial matters, admissibility of evidence, how the proceedings are conducted. But Robert's Rules of Order is built on the opposite premise. The assembly itself governs the proceeding, while the chair merely facilitates the will of the body. By investing unilateral procedural authority in the chair, the amendments improperly convert the presiding officer from a neutral moderator into a dominant procedural authority over the hearing. The amendments further violate Robert's rules by undermining the neutrality of the chair. The original rules contemplated that the neutral city attorney's office would advise the council, but now the proposed changes would authorize the presiding officer to confer with legal counsel of his or her own choosing, which gives the presiding officer sole discretion to determine whether legal advice and deliberations occur publicly or in executive session. The amendments improperly transfer witness control authority from the council to the presiding officer alone. I have several more problems with them. The amendments improperly weaken the informational and deliberative rights of council members. The original rules expressly allowed council members to question witnesses and call witnesses through the chair. The proposed amendments would delete that. under article 2 section 16 members of a deliberative body must be able to gather and test information necessary for informed deliberation before voting which is why having two witnesses make those decisions under the city charter is such a big problem the Also, the problem of importing formal judicial procedures like sworn deposition testimony, attorney objections, references to the rules of evidence and civil procedure, documentary sworn testimony, and certified reporter's records while simultaneously removing the procedural safeguards that are ordinarily associated with those things is a problem for a parliamentary body. From a Robert's Rules standpoint, the result becomes structurally unsound. A quasi-judicial hearing without meaningful judicial safeguards and a parliamentary proceeding without meaningful assembly control. Taken together, the amendments fundamentally invert the relationship between the chair and the assembly that lies at the heart of Robert's Rules of Order and your own charter, Article 2, Section 16P. Thank you.

Mr. Allison. Yeah, just Madam Presiding Officer, I would just make one revision in light of what was voted on at the very beginning, Ms. Paxton's motion and the second and what passed. I would just, since it's my motion, I would amend it to conform to what was voted on a moment ago in terms of how you do the procedure you've been doing so far, and that would only therefore amend it portion of section 2 okay in other words I'm just I don't want what I wrote a week ago or two weeks ago to contradict what you did today and so I'm saying I can work with city staff and city legal and mr. Shams young sure to tweak that language but as tweaked I'm amending it and asking that it be approved I don't know if there was any other specific provisions that the council thought were should be removed or or

limited but Well, we're not going to prove all the ones that you gave sir ma'am if that helps you We're not going to prove all the ones that you gave.

Okay. Okay. That's what I mean Whatever so you want us to go forward with what we've got before you make that decision The only revision that I'm making is to section 2 so it complies with what you've already done. I And I don't need to do anything more than that. When you vote on it, I think it's with that amendment. I've stated that on the record.

Okay. All right. Mayor Pro Tem, I just wanted to make a comment about Robert's Rules. So Mr. Flood cited that the provision on Robert's Rules is in the city charter. It's actually in the city code. It's under council policies in the city code. And what it states is, the most current edition of Robert's Rules of Order shall govern council proceedings unless in conflict with these rules or other law. Provided, however, council's failure to comply with Robert's Rules of Order shall not invalidate any council action. So it is a framework for making decisions, but it doesn't have legal effect to this and it wouldn't apply to quasi-judicial proceedings. Mr. Scott did object. So to deal with that, the council did take a vote to make sure that the majority of the council, there was discussion allowed as well. So that does follow Robert's rules. So I believe that we are following the rules. I just wanted to make that clear.

Thank you for that clarification.

Ma'am, your mic is on. I'm sorry.

Sorry. I hereby approve the requested changes to the rules of procedure except for proposed changes to Sections 1, 4D, 6D, and 7 with the amendment previously made by Mr. Allison. Any objections from the City Council on the ruling? I object. Okay. Any discussion? Just object?

Just quickly, ma'am. won't take up too much of the body's time i just think these the current rules that we have provide a framework there to protect us i think changing these at at the dais during the proceedings preside provides a a question of what error of uh propriety um and i think that do it's there to protect our due process i didn't write the rules but i think changing the rules at this juncture in the proceedings gives rise to people that may oppose where this is going to say, well, there's something more afoot. I think you all are voting your conscience. I just think it provides a perceived preference to the proceedings.

Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Any other discussion?

Madam Mayor Pro Tem, may I be heard just for a clarification?

Yes, sir.

There were two motions filed. And so when reference is made to section changes to the sections, I'm not sure if that's a proposed changes that were made in the first motion filed by Mr. David or the second motion filed by Mr. David. I'm not sure which one it is that we're making the changes to.

And the way you called it and the way I heard it and you asked that earlier and I said it was the amended one which were the ones which have the date May 27 on it. That's what I think we're working from.

And to the Secretary's point that regarding Robert's Rules of Order, the 1987 rules that were followed in the Mendez removal paid due respect to Robert's Rules of Order and preserved the tribunal's role. And so that's why the objection was made in that regard and why I believe Robert's Rules of Order should be followed again, consistent with what happened in 1987 and shouldn't be changed for purposes of this proceeding. Thank you. Thank you for the time.

I think, well, I agree with the Secretary as far as I think there's been full compliance with Robert's Rules and with due process. I think the point you are now is that there was an objection noted and so you have to vote in order to.

Okay. Anyone else? Okay, I have a motion and a second. Can I get a motion and a second? Did we already get it? Okay, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nay. Okay, motion carries. Both parties have filed witnesses list and requested subpoenas. I move to authorize the attorneys for the petitioners and the mayor to issue subpoenas as requested in their motions. The requesting party will be responsible for service of subpoenas. Any objection from the city council to this ruling? Mr. Cantu.

Quick question, so.

Well, it's not me.

I wanna find out about that. Is it our own judges like Judge Chapa would do it or how does that work?

There's a city code that requires compliance. So if there's non-compliance, potentially could be a Class C misdemeanor.

So it's on there that they have to show up, correct? Okay. There's a city code that applies, yes. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. We need a motion and a second for that one. Can I get a motion and a second?

So moved. Second.

All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Same. Motion carries. For the scheduling of the removal action hearing, have Petitioner's Council and Mayor's Council agreed to some potential dates?

We have not been able to agree to dates. Okay. We have conferred, but we have not been able to agree.

Mr. Flood?

That's true. There are no dates that I have agreed to. That's true.

Okay. As the parties have failed to agree to dates for the hearing, I hereby schedule a removal hearing for July the 15th, 17th, 22nd, and 23rd of 2026 at 9 o'clock a.m. To address any additional pretrial matters, I hereby schedule June the 8th and June the 9th for pretrials. Meetings may be canceled if not needed. Yes. July the 15th. 17th, 22nd, and 23rd at 9 o'clock a.m. 15, 17, 27, 23rd. 23rd, yes.

You jumped, you didn't do it in order. 22 and 23? No, July the 15th, 17th, 22nd, and 23rd. Got it. Boy, we're slow today, aren't we?

Now, these are the dates that we think are available.

May I be briefly heard?

Yes, sir.

Thank you. When the articles of impeachment were distributed to the city council members in August of 2025, it received correct advice from the city attorney's office that less than 45 days notice would not be adequate due process under Texas Rules of Procedure 245 and other cases interpreting that. To the extent any of those dates, and I don't know, I'm not looking at a calendar, are less than 45 days, I would object for that purposes. And so, and I... maybe i know the 7 22nd 23rd probably aren't but uh july 15 16 17 could be i just don't know and so for that reason i have to level that objection in this proceeding thank you

Mr. Allison.

Sure. The rule of procedure, first of all, that he's talking about obviously doesn't apply. But even aside from that, that rule of procedure doesn't cite to or say that it's a due process issue per se at all. And whether you had 45 days or 42 days or 43 days, I don't think I think clearly there's been more than sufficient notice. And I think those are reasonable times to proceed with.

To accommodate you, Mr. Flood, we're gonna schedule the first hearing the 22nd and the 23rd, and then we will reschedule and add others as we go.

And I would just, and I'm not, I don't mean to quibble. It's not to accommodate me, but rather the 14th Amendment. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Allison, anything?

No further comment. The only thing I will say, kind of shifting gears, I may have, I will try to juggle it, reschedule it if I can, but I may have a hearing on June 8th, so I may be just, I think I'd let opposing counsel know I may have a conflict on that date, but we'll try to address that informally. Okay.

Okay, a motion and a second to approve those dates?

Was that at 9 a.m., Mayor Pro Tem?

9 o'clock, yes. At 9 o'clock. Yes. Mr. Scott?

just uh so we don't know that we're gonna need to meet on the eighth and ninth that's just there or do we know that we need to meet on the eighth and ninth and the only reason i bring that up is i beg the pardon of the body i'm out of town on the eighth and ninth for work purposes that i do not think i can reschedule so i just but i'm hopeful that we don't need to meet because i'm missing i don't want to miss all the fun

well we're hoping we don't need to okay all right anyhow so just once you know madam thank you all in favor say aye any opposed motion carries just to clarify so the motion included june 8th and 9th as well as july 22nd and 23rd okay but the eighth and ninth are set aside for quote pre-trial end quote yes that's right thank you yes

Okay, seeing there is nothing further, this meeting is adjourned. Thank y'all.

Thank you.