City Council - Special Meeting

Okay, good morning everyone. As Mayor Pro Tem, I call this meeting to order. City Secretary, would you please call the role of the required charter officers?

Mayor Pro Tem Kaylin Paxson. Present. Council Members Sylvia Campos. Here. Eric Cantu. Here. Gil Hernandez. Here. Mark Scott. Here. Carolyn Vaughn. Here. And for the record, Council Members Roland Barrera and Everett Roy have recused. Assistant City Manager Ernesto De La Garza.

Here.

And Assistant City Attorney Lisa Aguilar.

Here.

Okay, we do have a quorum present to conduct the meeting.

And thank you very much. At this time, the council will go into Oh, I apologize to commence the hearing. Again, I apologize. At this time, I hope in public comment, and to stay consistent with the previous meeting, public comment will be limited to one meeting to one minute per speaker. If we can bring our first speaker forward, may respond to be heard.

Prior to the start of public comment.

Yes, sir.

Thank you. Respondent has a motion for continuance that I'd like to file with the city secretary right now, and I have a copy of that that I'm going to file with the city secretary, and I'd be happy to explain that. And I just at this point also have to state my objection. Respondent renews her continuing due process objection that members of this tribunal are material witnesses with personal knowledge of disputed adjudicated facts. AND THEREFORE CANNOT SIMULTANEOUSLY ACT AS NEUTRAL FACT FINDERS. RESPONDENT FURTHER OBJECTS ON ADMISSION OF ANY EVIDENCE ON PREVIOUSLY ASSERTED EVIDENTIARY GROUNDS. MAY I APPROACH THE CITY SECRETARY AND OPPOSING COUNCIL AND THE DIAS WITH MY MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND EXPLAIN?

YOU MAY APPROACH. Yes, Rebecca. Did each of you receive a copy of this motion?

Ma'am?

Did each of you receive a copy of this motion?

I have the motion now, yes, ma'am.

You haven't.

But prior, no. Yeah, this is the first we've seen it, but yes.

Thank you. Can I request for a copy for each of our board here?

I apologize. I brought five copies and I apologize. I probably should have brought one for everybody.

We can make copies. Yeah, we'll make copies. Thank you.

Sort of a point of order, if I may. I would think public comment should go first because it's a meeting that's already been opened. But irrespective of that, totally your discretion, there's other motions that are first filed that I think we ought to get to before this. In other words, I think we should do them in the order they've been filed because that would be appropriate to follow that order.

And just as a very brief response, from the respondent's position, there's a risk of not presenting a motion for continuance as early as possible and that it can be waived. And so I had to, under procedural rules and under due process, present this to the tribunal as soon as possible. So that's why I did it that way. It's not for any other reason.

I concur that so that we can do the motions and the order they were filed. I'll agree he's not waiving anything. I'll agree he's not waiving anything.

What we will do next, then, is while we wait for everyone to get a copy of this, I would like to still move forward with public comments to save time. So that's what we will do at this time. We'll wait for those copies. And for public commenters, if our first commenter will make their way to the front.

And with all respect, I just want to renew respondent's motion for continuance at this time. Because even with counsel's statement, I do run the risk of waiving. THE SUBSTITUTE RIGHTS THAT ARE CONTAINED WITHIN THAT MOTION. SO I DO URGE ITS RULING PRIOR TO ANY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. THANK YOU.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU. OUR FIRST PUBLIC COMMENTER THIS MORNING IS MR. MO CHAVEZ. MRS. MO CHAVEZ. NEW SPEAKER IT'S OKAY.

IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. Good morning, Mayor Pro Tem and Council Members. Mo Chavez from District 4. I've had the unique opportunity to observe our mayor over the years, not just in public, but behind scenes. Character is revealed when no one is watching, and I've watched Mayor Guajardo when there was no camera, no microphone was present, and there was no political advantage. to be gained, but I was watching. And what I saw was someone who treated every person with kindness, respect, and dignity, regardless of their position or title. Integrity is measured on how we treat people when there is nothing to gain. And that is exactly what I have witnessed. I have also watched her stand her ground in rooms filled with influential business leaders in the midst of very difficult conversations. She was never intimidated. She was prepared, informed, poised, and steadfast in advocating for what she believed was in the best interest for Corpus Christi. Public service is ultimately about people, and I've seen her put people first. Whether someone agrees with every decision she has made is not the point. Leadership is not about avoiding difficult conversations. It's about facing them with courage and professionalism. Based on what I've personally witnessed, I believe this council removing the mayor is a mistake.

Thank you, Ms. Chavez. Next, we have Jennifer Hedgedorn.

Good morning. My name is Jennifer Hagedorn. I am from District 3, and I'm here this morning. I rise today in strong opposition to this effort to remove Paulette Guajardo as mayor. This hearing stems from the same matter where five different law enforcement agencies found no criminal, ethical, or legal wrongdoing. If there was no wrongdoing, there should be no basis to remove the duty elected mayor of Corpus Christi. The removal petition also ignores key sworn testimony that city manager Peter Zanoni testified that the mayor did not know the information being alleged. And the economic development director Heather Horbert stated in writing that she placed the agenda item herself. Those facts matter. The public also deserves confidence that this process is fair. And when the attorney leading this removal effort is also involved in related litigation against the city and individuals identified as witnesses are participating in these proceedings, it raises serious questions that cannot simply be ignored. Today, the council is considering removing the mayor just months before voters have their say. And the office of mayor belongs to the people, not to the council. Thank you. Unless there are clear legal grounds, the voters, not politicians, should decide who serves this office.

Thank you, Ms. Hedge. All right, thank you. James Allman.

Hi, good morning. My name is James Alamon. I'm in District five. A little quick. Please do not remove the mayor, our duly elected mayor. This is political, petty and pathetic. We have wasted time focusing on the wrong issues. This group who is pushing this circus, you have destroyed the city's reputation. credit and economy every minute spent on this is a minute not spent on real issues mr gum you can look at me if you don't mind you're on my councilman are you an election denier because the city is about to vote i mean the city voted for the the mayor do you realize she got 46 759 votes miss pro tem you got 4 400 in a runoff Mr. Gill, who's still looking at me, who's my councilman, you got 11,000. Maybe, Ms. Vaughn, you got 33. But again, how can any of y'all remove a mayor who has more votes than y'all got? What are we doing here? So again, I respectfully ask, let the citizens of Corpus Christi make that decision, not election deniers. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Alleman. Polly Harris.

Hi, my name is Polly Harris. I live somewhere, anywhere. Anyway, good morning. I rise today in strong opposition to this effort to remove Mayor Paulette Guajardo. This hearing is about far more than one person. It's about whether the extraordinary power of removal should be used when there has been no finding of criminal wrongdoing, no finding of ethical wrongdoing, and no finding of legal wrongdoing by the agencies that investigated these allegations. The attorney leading this removal effort, Doug Allison, is also representing hotel developer Ajit David in litigation against the city of Corpus Christi. At the same time, mediation has been taking place involving the city and members of the council regarding that lawsuit. Residents deserve to ask whether those overlapping roles create a conflict that undermines the confidence in this process. Public trust requires that these proceedings be fair, impartial, and beyond question. And you know, I have friends from all over the country that are talking about U5. Thank you. And it's pathetic.

Sharon Custer Sedwick.

Good morning, Sharon Sedwick, District 3. I'm going to try not to lose my temper today. I really am today. You are considering removing the duly elected mayor approximately 90 days before voting begins. That decision belongs to the voters, not to you guys. I know there's a lot occurring for that mayor seat, but it doesn't belong to you people, the people of Corpus Christi elected their mayor, you've heard the numbers. And absent clear legal grounds, which they have found none, they should also be the ones who decide who sits in that chair. The public will draw its own conclusions about today's actions. They're not good. They will decide whether this act, this process protected the integrity of our government or weakened public confidence in it. And it's all on you guys.

Thank you, Ms. Sedgwick. Alex Harris.

Good morning, Mayor Pro Tem and council members that are here. Alex Harris, 2138 State Highway 286. I'm up here in opposition of what you are doing. Who should be on trial today is Carolyn Paxton. Carolyn Vaughn, Caitlin Paxton, y'all should be on trial, not the mayor. What about the ethics violations I filed against you? For wrongful contributions, for taking contributions and not reporting them, for taking contributions from corporations, from taking contributions from Bayfront Marina that is a corporation that's not allowed to do that. That's what all of these are. I look to the media that is here today. I have all of those on this thumb drive, if you would like a copy of them, because I think the public is entitled to see them and to hear them, because that's what this is about, Eric. You know what it's about, just like the video that's out there about you. These are things that y'all are hiding from, completely hiding from. Well, let's disclose them to the public. Let's show the public these violations. Let's open them up, so let's see what you've been doing.

Thank you, Mr. Harris. Melinda De Los Santos.

Good morning, Melinda De Los Santos, District 2. I have to listen to this. I constantly remind myself God intentionally uses flawed and broken people to carry out his divine plan. What I've learned regarding these five agencies they keep talking about, the government, the medical, the judicial, educational, law enforcement has brought not only a mistrust, but a true sickening to my core of what people are capable of doing out of greed and power. People who want to bring truth to light are suppressed through harassment, retaliation, and death threats. Our city, state, and nation has been infected with a disease called fraud. We need to be healed to flourish. I applaud Rachel for her courage to bring truth to light. Regarding the votes, Mayor won, I mean, she only won on the mail-in votes, and we have all learned that that is the most fraudulent part of the voting. She did not win in early voting and did not win on the election day. Thank you.

Mr. Todd Norton. Mr. Todd Norton. Mr. Todd Norton. Kathy Fulton.

Before I start, I'd just like to point out that it says one minute or three minutes on the agenda, not one minute, but I'm just pointing that out. My name is Kathy Fulton. I'm from Port Aransas, Texas. I'm here in support of the mayor. I think that this farce of a hearing going on is vindictive. Trying to get back at I don't know who you think something's wrong, but there's other people on this panel right now who were all a part of the vote back in 2024. Okay, so everybody was aware of everything, and that includes you, Ms. Campos, and you, Mr. Hernandez. This is being led by some people. who are the puppeteers and one of them is sitting right here next to me. And that is Mr. Allison. He is the puppeteer and you guys are the puppets. So is the public. And let's just be clear, the public is being duped by false allegations against a very reputable and a woman of integrity. The mayor is a good person and it's not the one at fault. for what's going on. Everybody should be held accountable if that's the case. Everybody that was on that boat back in 2024 should be held accountable.

Thank you, Miss Fulton. Mr. Kevin Benton. Mr. Kevin Benton. Mr. Kevin Benton. John Hanselick. John Hanselick. John Hanselick. Rachel Cabrera. Wave, thank you. Miss Sondra Meyer.

Good morning, Sondra Meyer from D4. Thank you all for what you all are doing as far as being city council people. Just as a reminder, we still have a city ethics policy that says that you are not allowed to vote if you have received campaign contributions within the last cycle. I learned about it coincidentally from Mr. David's lawsuit. That's how I even found the policy. It was in a little footnote. So with that, but the thing I want to say today is y'all are writing your legacy today. because the audit office got weaponized, evidence suggests, is what y'all are doing is going to become the topic of ethics discussions in the certified internal auditor, the association of fraud examiner groups, for any ethics class. For people that go to college and want to go become auditors, we take ethics classes. This is so far out on the conflict of interest, I promise you, because I had already talked to an accounting professor last year. Thank you, Ms. Meyer.

Ms. Rebecca Huerta, I have one signed up for WebEx. Do we have them online?

I believe so. Melody Cooper? Can you hear me? Yes, ma'am, we can.

Okay, multi Cooper district 5. I'm sorry I can't be with you in person by litigation out of town. I will be brief, which most of you will no doubt appreciate. There is no mystery that I'm firmly in support of Meryl Meryl hardo and against his repugnant and unjustifiable removal action. I've made this crystal clear. This came to the court of your being petitioner judge witness juror and executioner is beyond the pale of the. Is particularly calling in view of your simultaneously attempt to change removal provisions of the city charter to make yourselves safer for removal actions brought against you. And believe me, it will be. I did not believe anything I say today will make a difference to you. I'm not stupid, but neither are the citizens of our great city. You may very well achieve your goal of removal, but the voters will not forget this week next week next month. or next decade. This is your legacy with which you will have to live. The debacle is far from over.

Save her in your victory.

Thank you, Mr. Schubert.

Ms. Rebecca, do we have any further requests?

No, ma'am. That concludes the public comment period.

Okay. Thank you very much. At this time, I'll allow Mr. Flood to address his motion for continuance again.

Thank you. Yesterday afternoon, Today is the 22nd, yesterday afternoon the 21st. While my client, the respondent, was presiding over a council meeting, the petitioners added 19 additional exhibits to their already extensive exhibit list, and the new exhibits contain 1,922 pages of documentation, five videos and one audio recording. Uh, between that time and now it is impossible and has been impossible for me and my client to review those. Um, prior to the start of this hearing, it was impossible for me to review them prior to the start of this hearing. Um, and respondent requires additional time to review this new evidence prior to the initiation of this hearing. Um, In addition, this provision of nearly 2,000 additional pages of evidence is a further violation of my client's due process. Receipt of new evidence offered against her that she can't review and can't prepare to respond to prior to the start of the hearing violates her procedural and substantive due process rights under Texas and federal law. And in addition to the previously stated, and I will restate, and you will get used to me restating, my objection on due process grounds that members of this tribunal are material witnesses with personal knowledge of disputed adjudicated facts, and therefore cannot, under our Constitution, sit simultaneously as neutral fact finders. ON THE GROUNDS STATED IN THE MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE, MY CLIENT RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS A CONTINUANCE OF THIS HEARING IN ORDER TO PROVIDE TIME TO REVIEW THAT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE START OF THE HEARING.

THANK YOU, MR. FLOOD. COULD YOU IDENTIFY WHICH EXHIBIT YOU'RE REFERENCING?

WHAT ARE THOSE NUMBERS? I BELIEVE IT WAS EXHIBITS, I DIDN'T EVEN PRINT THEM BECAUSE IT'S LITERALLY. Well, the total number of exhibits were petitioners' exhibits 50 through 68. I kind of took your question to ask about the ones that were 1,900 pages.

Do we have those numbers?

And if you're wondering why that young man behind me looks a lot like me, it's because it's my 34-year-old son, Peter.

Well, 54 is 378. 54 is 378 pages. 53 is 951. 53 is... 951 pages. 951 pages.

Yeah. And 51 is 400... 86. And the delta between that and 1922 are just is minor, but it's just some other exhibits. And so I would just respectfully ask that the tribunal for that reason and for also my other stated reasons continue this hearing for that reason. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Flood. Mr. Allison, now if you will respond.

Thank you. First of all, with regard to the due process piece of it, he's talking in his motion about the same argument you've heard before where they complain that you can't have due process because you guys are the judges and he says witnesses. I don't think so. But let's put aside his different view of that and my different view of that That's the same argument that they made to the federal judge when they wanted a temporary restraining order and the federal judge denied it. That's the same argument they made to the federal judge in Galveston when they asked for the federal judge in Galveston to grant a preliminary injunction because of a failure of due process for the same reasons, made the same argument. That federal judge denied it. Then they asked that federal judge to give a permanent injunction so this hearing could never happen. Rather than rule on that, the federal judge elected to sign an order dismissing the federal case with prejudice. That means never come back again and make this complaint. That means you do not have the right to ever complain about that again in federal court. You're done. Your case is dead. Your argument is finished. They've appealed that, which everybody has a right of appeal. They've appealed that to the Fifth Circuit, United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. That's in New Orleans. And they asked that court, for the same reasons a panel of judges, federal judges at an appellate level, to stop these proceedings. Yesterday, they know that the federal judge, again, that panel of judges at the Fifth Circuit said, no, we're not going to stop these proceedings. There's no reason to think there's a due process violation. So it's not just Doug Allison versus John Flood. There are several judges who have looked at this very seriously and rejected those arguments. Now, with respect to the pages, could I get this? Am I on yet? Thank you. I'll remind you, and he's right, most of these, not most, all of these documents really have been produced in the litigation for Ajit David versus the city. The depositions were taken in the case of Ajit David versus the city, okay? The documents that he's complaining about, oh, I can't be ready, you just heard him, I can't be ready because I've had all these documents to read. I know you know this, but you'll recall that discovery was stopped in that case in January of 2025. OK, because they filed a mandamus to the 13th Court of Appeals. And remember, they're all happy. They call it a win. It's just a delay. They're all happy. The mayor was because we didn't get to take her deposition again. She's hiding. And so. All of these documents, these thousands of pages of documents that they're talking about were developed in a case before January of 2025 at a point in time when the mayor was a party to the litigation and always had access to all of these documents, most of which were produced by the city of Corpus Christi. And her lawyers and John Flood is one of her lawyers in that litigation. has had access to all of those documents always. He came in later, but always in that litigation. Now I extend courtesies. And so when this started getting scheduled, this matter you'll see on the screen and I'll make sure it's a part of the court's record. I say those things naturally. It's the court to me. Sorry. On the screen you will see As soon as Mr. Flood and this started getting pressed, this impeachment proceeding, on... Hold on one second there. I thought I saw May date or July. May. Pardon?

May.

Yeah. Help me out. I want to get it right.

I don't know why it's not there, but it's there.

I have it right here. I think she can work. Don't go running off. Can I help you? We're up. Thank you. On May 20th of 2006, I sent him as a courtesy all the documents. The things he's saying, oh, I got them last minute. And I'm sorry, but there is a trend here where they take too much liberty with the truth. The mayor does. And we're going to see it over and over again in these proceedings.

Sir, can you speak into your microphone? Sorry. Pardon? Can you speak into the microphone, please? Thank you. Sorry. Thank you.

This email shows that on May 20, 2026, Kim Brunkenhofer, works for my office, sent a letter to Mr. Flood, said, Dear John, Mr. Allison, per Mr. Allison's instructions, below is a dropbox link with discovery from the city and QOF, referring to the case, along with the transcript of all depositions taken in the case. Everything he's complaining about, he's had for months. When you click on it, cleverly named David, meaning Ajit David, Docs for Flood, meaning John Flood. When you click on the link, you can see four folders, depositions, discovery, exhibits, videos, and you can see when you click on the deposition link, he was provided the deposition way back in May, not yesterday, not the day before. It's okay. He was given the deposition, is that okay? He was given depositions of Allen Wilson, Everett Roy, Heather Holbert, Mike Culbertson, Paulette Guajardo, Peter Zanoni, Philip Ramirez, Roland Barrera, and Sonny Purnell. He was also, if you click on the discovery file, he was given Click on their two sub files really and sub files. You can see the production all the different documents filed Relating to the city You can see all the different documents that he's complaining. He's saying he didn't get for the mayor You can see all the different documents produced by interviewer QoF He was given a company he was also given a Because we had been ordering and numbering exhibits. He was given an exhibit file would had all of the marks, all of the exhibits that had been marked by DAA. That's me. All of the other exhibits, all of the exhibits to the official transcripts and all of the exhibits with transcripts. OK. And he was given also the videos. Factors just several sub files you can see in the video file. And the point is a very simple one. I understand that they keep asking and asking and asking for something that the federal judge has told them they're not entitled to. And they keep not telling you the truth about things like trying to make you believe that we gave them documents for the first time last night. They have had a tremendous opportunity to prepare for this. You all know that You initially tried to set this hearing within, I think, 45 days and they objected, and then you extended the date to, I think, set it about 60 days out. This is a matter that has been going on for well over a year with the mayor having been a party and having full access to all of the information. So respectfully, we would ask that the motion be denied. And I'll get that and mark it as just an exhibit to this motion for continuance hearing, what I just presented.

Mr. Flood, would you like to offer a response?

Yes, thank you. So the conflation of a lawsuit against the city brought by Mr. Allison's client, Mr. David, which seeks declaratory judgment that was filed, I believe, in 2004 and has its own separate track, the conflation of that Proceeding with this proceeding presents this council with a big problem and that is what he is suggesting is that the provision of process in that matter is sufficient for the provision of process in this matter and that is a legal concept with no basis in this matter this proceeding where my client stands to run the risk within a charter provision at the city level in this conflicted tribunal, she received 1,922 new pages of documents 20 hours ago. In this proceeding, it cannot be that due process in this proceeding is going to be based upon some sort of argument that there was a provision of materials from some other proceeding. This proceeding is presumably going to receive evidence. That evidence needs to be provided in such a manner that the respondent has an opportunity to review it and respond. Haven't even looked at those exhibits because it would have been impossible to do so I don't have the duty to go try and see if it matches up with something from another case That's a different case. It's not this case This case is different. It's not the same proceeding and so for that reason I needed to receive something like that well in advance of a proceeding like this and so that under the Constitution, we would have time to review it. This was not a choice my client made. This was a choice that the petitioners made, and that was to provide this volume of evidence on the eve of a removal proceeding. And so we would simply ask for a continuance of the proceeding on that ground.

Mr. Allison, do you have a response or any further comments?

I mean, my only additional response would be I guess he's abandoning his earlier argument that he didn't have them. I mean, it's pretty convenient.

I have no idea whether these documents, I'm hearing a representation, but without any sort of opportunity to review them, I have no idea whether they are or not. That's the whole point. They weren't provided in this preceding timeline.

OK, thank you, gentlemen. Does this panel have you received your copy of this motion?

Yes.

OK, then at this time, I see there's a comment, but I would like to recommend denial of the request for continuance because I believe a remedy is in striking the added exhibits. My apologies while we cleared that up then. With our legal recommendation, it would be a motion to deny that continuance, but I will take comments from this board first. Mr. Scott, you can go first.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I guess a question and a comment. What is our, so you're working your way through it, and I think we're all working our way through it. I didn't know if we're going to deliberate that request here or go into closed session and listen to our legal counsel. It would seem to me that what happened, so my comment is to protect the integrity of the process, if people are watching like, yeah, it makes sense, you shouldn't submit something. I'm not a lawyer, right, and I avoid court at all times, to the best of my ability. If something's submitted the day before a hearing, it's probably not a bad look. Not a good look, sorry. I think it's a bad optics and it affects the integrity of the process. But it would simply, the answer I think would be to eliminate the exhibits and move forward or provide some time for council to review said exhibits. You know, we're here for two days, so I thought the answer would be just to either provide the continuance or remove the exhibits submitted yesterday because it eliminates the the issue if we don't. So that's my position is, and I'm okay with just eliminating the exhibits, because it would seem to me if they were, that they should have been submitted all at the same time or in the same general timeframe, because I just think it's bad optics. So my position is, would be to either grant a continuance or deny the, if we can, the exhibits submitted yesterday.

Thank you, Mr. Scott. Did I hear a motion from this side? Motion to deny the continuance. Mr. Hernandez, you have a comment?

No, I think that most of this information has been out there for a long time, and we're just continuing to delay the process. And I don't think that we need to continue to delay. We were originally going to do a 30-day thing, and we extended it to 45 to allow for more time for Mr. Flood to prepare. So I think we should continue. Thank you.

OK, we have a motion on the second and a second on the floor. Do we need to take a voice vote, Mr. Areca? Okay. Then all in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay.

Nay.

Okay, thank you. Then to commence the hearing, we will have announcements from the parties, first from the legal counsel for the petitioners, and then from legal counsel for the mayor.

Douglas Allison, Your Honor, pardon, presiding, we're ready.

Thank you. John Flood, counsel for the respondent, for the reasons previously stated, not ready.

And for opposing counsel, your opportunity to respond. OK, excuse me. Apologies. Do the petitioners wish to offer exits into evidence? It's my understanding, Mr. Allison, that you have numerous.

that I have exhibits? Yes, sir. I do, and just for the record, I submitted most of my exhibits about two months ago, and I think I got their exhibits probably a few days ago, and all that's still ready. If it facilitates things, I will tell you all, the presiding and members, maybe better at that, that, you know, We're here obviously committed to transparency and full disclosure of all information. And with that in mind, we do not have any objections to any of their exhibits so that the public can have a full public hearing. And we do have a motion. We filed it way back two months ago, and then we recently supplemented it with the additional exhibits. And we do have a motion with the appropriate affidavit following the city rules of procedures that you guys adopted, I think, June 2nd, following that protocol and having an affidavit to prove up those proposed exhibits or those pieces of evidence that have been presented by us. And those are exhibit numbers 1 through 68. And we would offer those at this time because they are supported by an appropriate affidavit. And that is specifically what the city rules adopted on June 2nd ask for. So we would offer those exhibits at this time.

Thank you. Mr. Flood, are there any objections?

Yes, sure. Yes.

If you could state those at this time.

Respondent objects to admission of exhibits, and I do have to state that the repeated inference that the insistence of due process is somehow repugnant is something I need to level an objection to on behalf of the 14th Amendment and on behalf of our people. The fact that the respondent in this situation is insisting and objecting Is not something that should be weaponized and tried to use against her should be respected with all due respect. And so she does have objections to the evidence and I'm going to continue to object to the evidence because that's what she should do what I should do in this situation. And so petitioners exhibits exhibit 32. Is. an email from Mr. Ajit David, and plaintiff's objection to Exhibit 32 is a hearsay objection. This tribunal's rules strictly prohibit the admission of hearsay evidence, and this email is an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter inserted, including his own opinions regarding this project. this competing hotel project, FEMA, and the incentive application. The email also consists largely of his own personal opinions, conclusions, and speculation regarding fraud and FEMA requirements, economic development policy, developers' motives. That sort of hearsay is not reliable evidence. It's simply his out-of-court accusations, opinions, and theories about what he believed was occurring. And that is the type of hearsay evidence that is not admissible. And so we object to Exhibit 32. And request a ruling excluding, sustaining that objection.

Mr. Floyd. Yes, and I'm sorry. Thank you.

I do have one more objection that I needed to have leveled already. I didn't realize it, and Ms. Cantu, who's been with me for 25 years, handed me a note. The affidavit referenced by council a moment ago, purporting to substantiate the authentication of their exhibits, only cover numbers 1 through 45. They do not cover the numerous exhibits provided after that. Another objection that I would ask the tribunal to specifically rule on and that is any exhibits after 46 or after 45 lack foundation.

Mr. Flood if I if I'm going to request at this time if you will list your objections to all exhibits so that we can handle them at this time.

That's fine. Happy to do that. So that is that that last objection was a global objection. It's based on a lack of foundation, and those are from 46 through 68. So I just went over, and the record will reflect an objection made on Exhibit 32. The next objection will apply to Exhibits 34, 57, and 58. This is an audio recording made by Mr. Ajit Devan. And I think 57 is a redundant copy. And then I believe 58 is a transcript of that. The objection to this is also hearsay. According to this court's procedures, hearsay is not admissible. This recording is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted in it, including that there was tampering, a scheme, a narrative, and these other alleged misconduct. In Mr. Zanoni's statements, do not fall within any hearsay exclusion or exception applicable to this proceeding. And also, within the hearsay rules, and those are found in 801, 802, 803, 804, and 805, the Texas Rules of Evidence, 805 is a rule against having hearsay embedded within other hearsay. And we also object to Exhibits 34, 57, and 58 for that reason. because there is multiple hearsay embedded within the hearsay in those exhibits. For example, Mike Culbertson said, somebody told me today, references to what the applicant said. The recordings also contain lay opinion, which is also inadmissible opinions, and it contains a bunch of speculation. So for those reasons, we would ask that the objections to exhibits 34, 57, and 58 be sustained. And I am a little reticent about not asking for a specific ruling on each one of these objections at the time. I'm sure your counsel, Judge Shamsie, understands my reticence in that regard. So I am going to request it with full knowledge that I understand that you're not going to grant it at that time. So I'm going to request a ruling on the objections already made. Having heard no ruling, I'll move on. Exhibit 36. This is an exhibit that's been submitted by the petitioners. It is an email from September 2025. IT'S SIMPLY INCOMPLETE. IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE E-MAIL FROM MR. RISLEY. AND SO IT'S THEREFORE MISLEADING. AND REQUEST AN OBJECTION ON THAT. PLAINTIFFS OR I'M SORRY, RESPONDENT HAS ACTUALLY SUBMITTED THE ENTIRE E-MAIL. AND SO I WOULD SIMPLY REQUEST THAT THAT EXHIBIT, THE OBJECTION THAT EXHIBIT BE SUSTAINED. EXHIBIT 39 AND 40 ARE STATUTES OR PENAL CODE PROVISIONS. ONE IS THE FORGERY STATUTE. THE OTHER IS THE CRIMINAL PARTY LIABILITY. THEY'RE SIMPLY NOT EVIDENCE. THAT'S LAW. AND SO WE WOULD OBJECT TO THEM AS THEY STATE WHAT THE LAW IS. THEY'RE NOT RELEVANT OR ADMISSIBLE. AND REQUESTED A RULING ON THOSE exhibits. Exhibit 43, well I'll skip 43. The next one are exhibits 46 through 48. These are the Facebook posts by my client and my objection is that as evidence in this matter, those are the epitome of pure political speech. They consist of criticism of elected officials, discussion of government procedure, commentary on public affairs, explanation, and advocacy directed to constituents. Those are at the core of First Amendment protections. And they don't have anything to do with what happened in 2024, which is what the articles of impeachment have to do with. They concern what the mayor has said publicly after these removal proceedings have begun. And whether you disagree or agree with her opinions, they don't tend to prove or disprove any allegations in the articles. And so they're not relevant, and I ask that the objection to those be sustained. Exhibits 51, 53, and 54, as I've stated previously, are the incredibly voluminous exhibits. The continuance has been denied. And so I would ask that those exhibits be excluded. 51 is 486 pages, 53 is 951, and 54 is 378 pages. And it's just been impossible for me to look at them. And so I just ask that an objection to those be sustained. because I can't even under the 14th Amendment have an ability to even look at them yet. And without waiving my objection to the failure to grant a continuance based on the late filed exhibits and subject to my earlier objection that there has been no foundation laid for exhibits 46 through 68 from an authenticity standpoint, Exhibit 63 appears to be a text message between Peter Zanoni and I don't know who. It lacks foundation, and so I would object to it on that basis. Also, Exhibit 68 is a spreadsheet of phone logs. It also lacks foundation, so there's no reliability under what we call Rule 1006, which is a compilation rule. Petitioners have not established that this is a complete compilation rather than a selective one. Without that showing the exhibit risks a distorted picture of the communications. I'm going to request that each of those exhibit objections be addressed individually and ruled on specifically on the record either being granted or sustained by the presiding officer or tribunal. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Flood. If I can ask Mr. Allison for a response.

Thank you. I'm going to try to do this in a way that helps us keep organized, so bear with me. With regard to exhibit 36, I think I understand he's saying mine is incomplete and he has a complete exhibit. And if he has a complete exhibit, I don't have any problem withdrawing my current exhibit number 36 and substituting his exhibit 36 so long as no information. It's not less information is my understanding of what he's representing. So in other words, I think we can resolve that one without a ruling, but rather resolve that one by agreement. Okay. Happy to have the entire document. With regard to, I'm going to try to start, you're going to see the trend here. I'm going to try to start on things that maybe we can agree to, to make the contested issues less or fewer. With regard to Petitioners exhibits 39 and 40. I actually think he's right that the correct way to handle them is to not to put them into evidence. Those are the penal code statutes. So I'll withdraw my request to put them into evidence, which is what he's objecting to. I want to be very clear that is not me saying that I don't get to use them during the trial. The proper way to use a statute like that, I believe, is to present it to the witness at the time and you don't actually usually place it into evidence. So I think he's right that we don't put it into evidence. But I want to be very clear. That doesn't mean you're not going to hear us talk about it. You will. It doesn't mean we're not going to present it to a witness. We will. And so but at least for right now, we're agreeing not to place it into evidence on exhibits 39 and 40. So those I'm withdrawing those so we don't have to fight about them right now. I mean, withdrawing them as as exhibits to be admitted. OK. We keep scrolling down here. 46 and 47 and 48. Again, I think those are exhibits that I get to use in cross-examination with the mayor. And I will do that at the appropriate time and reserve my right to offer them as exhibits at that time. But to ease, get us moving along, right now I'll withdraw the offer of 46, 47, and 48. Again, making it very clear to you all, that doesn't mean we're not gonna see them later. I'm reserving that right. 51 and 53 and 54. Those are ones that I think we provided to him, but I'm going to double check back in May of 2026. They are voluminous. I think they're repetitive of shorter exhibits that were given to him well in advance that are the key documents. We may or may not need to fight about what's in the larger documents. I sort of put them there to make sure the record ends up being complete. But at this time, I'll withdraw the offer of 51, 53, and 54. So we don't have to fight about it right now. Again, subject to my right to bring it up later if they become something that's contested or in dispute. That leaves us with a much fewer number of exhibits that I think we need to deal with right now that I am going to continue to offer along with my original offer of all of my exhibits subject to what I've just said or explained. And so let me go through those that I want to respond to. And what I'm about to say is actually true for several of the exhibits. Several of the exhibits, like exhibit 32, that is put into the record not for the truth of the matter, but are put into the record for the purpose of Ajit David, any citizen, any resident, but it was Ajit David, giving written notice to the city, to Peter Zanoni, that I see a problem here. It's very clear at that time Ajit doesn't fully know the extent or the severity or the seriousness of the problem, so it's really not offered for what we call the truth of the matter. It is offered for the purpose of showing that Peter Zanoni and the city were given notice of what we thought was maybe at that time, I think Ajit thought it was maybe been tampered with or altered. And so that is a clear exception to the hearsay rule and 32 should be admitted. That is also true of exhibit 34. So I make the same argument with regard to 34 and it is properly admitted at this time. That is also true for exhibits 57 and 58, so those are properly admitted at this time. At this time, I'll withdraw exhibit 63, just because I don't remember what it is, but I'm going to reserve the right to offer it later. It obviously relates to Peter Zanoni. It's 63, so I'll withdraw it so we don't have to address it now. And then exhibit number 68, is admissible under Rule 1006. He referred to it. It is a summary of voluminous records. Lawyers do this all the time. And so it is ordinarily appropriate, and it is an admissible form of evidence. And just so you know, all of the underlying data, which means phone records from Devin Bokta and Philip Ramirez, those documents have been provided to them. They have the source of data and exhibit 68 is nothing more than a summary of those documents with the exception of, I think the only thing not summarized is the number of phone calls between Phillip and Devon. In other words, it shows the phone calls between either Devon and Phillip and mayor or Heather or Peter or Leo Levary and Culbertson and, Randy Augmeier. And so that is properly admissible and 68 should be admitted. So I hope I've helped in terms of narrowing the scope of what we need to do. But for those that I am standing on and have offered a reply, we think all of the exhibits except the ones that I've withdrawn right now and should be admitted.

Thank you.

Brief reply.

Mr. Allison, if you could provide a response as to not providing the affidavit to supply exhibits number 46 through 68.

We supplemented it yesterday. We'd been trying to get everything. I think he gave me his exhibits two days ago, and I supplemented mine yesterday. But there's a new affidavit. If he hadn't seen it, I know that it got filed. Yeah, it's of record. So we have followed the protocol with regard to all 68 of the proposed exhibits. Is that?

Yeah. This morning. My cell phone is off. I haven't looked at it. So I'm not aware of that.

Yeah, they were supplementing exhibits the last couple of days. I did too.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Flood, do you have any responses to that?

I'd like to get a copy of whatever that was that was just handed out. I don't have a copy of it.

You have an exit.

Oh, great. Thank you. So subject of receiving that, I can address whatever it is that's being handed out. I'm not even certain what it is. I do have some specific responses to the specific exhibits that council just referred to. I've received something called petitioner's amended motion to amend exhibits filed. It says filed July 21, 26. My objection to the amended motion and the affidavit mirror the motion for continuance filed. And so it would simply be that these are, you know, new documents. I'm reviewing, I'm receiving things for the, I'm reviewing them for the first time. I've been, was there, did I receive an email this morning?

SOME WERE SENT OUT YESTERDAY AND I THINK ONE THIS MORNING.

IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE SO MY OBJECTION TO THE PETITIONER'S AMENDED MOTION TO ADMIT EXHIBITS IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF DOUGLAS ALLISON IS SIMPLY BASED ON SURPRISE BECAUSE I HAVEN'T EVEN HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THEM. SO THAT'S MY OBJECTION. I WOULD ASK THAT IT BE ROLLED ON SPECIFICALLY. I DO WANT TO GET BACK TO THE EXHIBITS. THAT'S MY RESPONSE TO THE MATERIALS I WAS JUST HANDED, WHICH ARE PETITIONER'S AMENDED MOTION TO ADMIT EXHIBITS AND THE AFFIDAVIT OF DOUGLAS HOUSTON. SIMPLY BECAUSE I HAVEN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THOSE. SO I WOULD SIMPLY MAKE AN OBJECTION UNDER DUE PROCESS GROUNDS LACK OF OPPORTUNITY. EXHIBIT 32. This is the Ajit David email. Council suggested that it's not being offered for the truth, which is what the way around the hearsay. There is another objection, however, that was not addressed, and that is relevance. These are simply Mr. David's out-of-court accusations, opinions, theories about what he believed was occurring, and so it's just simply not relevant. And so that was another one of our... respondent's objections. The other exhibits 34, 57, and 58 are the audio recordings of the calls with David. The not offered for the truth of the matter response to a hearsay objection does not meet the objection under Rule 805, and that is that the recording contains hearsay within hearsay. And so that objection IT STANDS AND REQUEST THAT IT BE SUSTAINED. I BELIEVE THAT EXHIBIT 68 SUBJECT TO OUR MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND COMPLAINTS THEREIN, THAT IS THE SPREADSHEET. IT JUST SIMPLY DOESN'T HAVE ANY INDICIA IN AND OF ITSELF OF RELIABILITY. I understand the point of a summary under 1006, but it does have to be accompanied by testimony that creates reliability. I understand that the argument may be made that it's contained within Mr. Allison's affidavit. And all it says is that it is a spreadsheet. It does not state. that it is an accurate representation of the materials contained therein. So for that reason, I have to file an objection. Thank you. And I would request that all of those objections just made exhibits 32, 34, 57, 58. And to the summary exhibit 68, which I believe are the ones that survived the withdrawals by petitioner and that still have objections, I request that the objections to all those be sustained. Thank you.

Mayor Pro Tem, just to clarify, so Exhibit 033-2026, that was sent this morning at 9 a.m., but the other two, 011.1 and 034, were sent yesterday, just for the record.

Thank you, Ms. Rebecca.

For the record, I apologize. Am I supposed to say point of order? I'm not sure. I want to make sure the record reflects that we do have objections to the depositions. Since they were marked as exhibits, I want to make sure the record's clear. And this is something that we're going to cover. Respondent filed objections to exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7, which are all the depositions except for my client. Um, and, and so I just want to make sure the record reflects that at this point, I'm not, uh, waving those in, in, uh, specifically want to be heard. And this is something that was discussed with council, uh, your council and opposing council prior to, so I just looked down and made, I want to make sure the record's clear in that regard. Thank you.

I WAS GOING TO HELP ON NOTE TAKING, TOO, IF IT HELPS. I WAS GOING TO RUN THROUGH THE LIST WITH YOU. I'M GUESSING THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DOING TO MAKE SURE WHICH NUMBERS. THE ONES THAT I'M STILL OFFERING AND THAT I THINK SHOULD BE ADMITTED AT THIS TIME IS ONE THROUGH I THINK IT'S 35. WE'RE GOING TO SUBSTITUTE 36 BY AGREEMENT. And then I'm still offering 37 and 38 and withdrawing 39 and 40 at this time, subject to later use. And then I'm still offering at this time exhibits 41 through 45, which they've not objected to. And for this time, subject to being able to use it later, I'm withdrawing offers of 46, 47, and 48. So they don't need to be admitted. I'm not asking for that right now. And then 49 and 50, I think they're not objecting to. And then 51 and 53 and 54, those are the ones he complained were voluminous. So to facilitate things I said I'll withdraw them at this time, may use them later. 52 is still offered and not objected to. And then exhibit numbers 55 and 56 has subparts. All of those are still offered. And 57 and 58 are still offered and I've offered exception to the hearsay rule for them and then 59 through 62 are not objected to 63 of withdrawn 64 through 67 are not objected to and 68 I still stand on the offer because a a summary of voluminous records is correctly admissible so we don't all of those 62 and 63 could you repeat that list one more time we're trying to take notes go a little bit sorry you know and i'm i wanted to go through because i do know it's important to make sure the list is correct and this time i'm going to just say the ones i'm still offering okay and that would be 1 through 35 and then We're still going to offer 36 subject to it being modified by agreement. So we're still offering it. Still offering 37 and 38. Still offering 41 through 45. Still offering 49 and 50. Still offering 52. Still offering 55 and 56 and I'll say 56 has five subparts. And still offering 57 through. 62. And 64. Through 68.

Do I need to restate the numbers of my objections? It's easy.

Sure, thank you.

Thank you. The petitioner exhibits objected to, as stated previously, all of which are incorporated here into this statement, are exhibit 32, 34. Again, these are petitioner's exhibits. 32, 34, 57, 58. 36 subject to it being substituted. And 68 in a specifically request of the tribunal ruling on those objections. And I do have one additional objection to all the exhibits, which it's a global objection to the exhibits. Thank you.

Okay, I'm going to entertain a motion to accept or deny the exhibits listed through sections 1 through 49. We will discuss those first. And I have Councilmember Hernandez.

Okay, based on what's agreed upon here so far, except items 1 through 35, substitute item number 36, except number 37, 38, 41 through 45, and number 49.

May I level that objection I referred to a moment ago? Thank you. Respondent objects to the admission of all the exhibits because their relevance and significance concern disputed facts within the personal knowledge of the members of this tribunal who are acting as adjudicators despite being material witnesses. So I would object to the petitioner's documentary evidence in the form of the exhibits for that reason, in addition, and ask that that objection also be addressed. Thank you. And when I say addressed I mean ruled upon. Thank you. May I be heard? My understanding is the motion included exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and the mayor has filed objections to those specifically, separately, and a motion to exclude. And that has not been heard. I have not had an opportunity to have that heard.

Okay, we'll reserve and address that request for motion after this one that's here. There's been a motion, but before we address that motion, I would like the panel to approve or deny the request from the respondent on their list of objections. And those were?

Was the motion to admit certain ones? Is that where we are?

The motion was to admit. one through 35, substitute number 36, number 37, number 38, 41 through 45, and 49 and 50. I'm sorry, just 49. It was to admit one through 35, exhibits one through 35, substitute 36 with one provided by Mr. Flood, also admit 37, 38, 41 through 45, and number 49.

41 to 45, and then what was the last one? 49. Thank you.

Apologize. Filed with the city secretary prior to the beginning of this hearing was respondent Mayor Wahardo's Texas rule of evidence 804 objection, an objection to hearsay replete within petitioners exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and a motion to exclude those depositions. Because the motion would attempt to bypass that motion that's been previously filed before this hearing, I simply have to object to that motion on that. And I don't know if I have the right to object to that motion, but for purposes of my record, I definitely need to make sure that that motion is entertained and heard separate and apart from the discussion we just had about specific objections that I had to 32, et cetera. And so I just want to make sure we're not this isn't some attempt to frog leap over that motion that was filed. Thank you.

Okay, since we have this motion in second But on items 1 through 40 49 is there a motion to clarify on the The request for items 1 2 4 5 6 and 7 I do have a question on that And this may be that could just be answered by Mr. Shamsie Is sworn testimony considered hearsay?

Mr. Hernandez if we can get the agreements in and then we can address questions on those different motions Okay, so the ones that there he wants to remove the sworn testimony Exhibits one two Four four five six five six seven so we want to remove those from that one to 35 and listen to those separately I

If that's the will of your motion for a motion. Clarification?

If that's a recommendation from Mr. Shamsie, then I'll amend that motion to address those separately.

Thank you. So your motion stands for 1 through 49, with special exception to 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7. And we have a motion and second. I have one more discussion. All right, then we'll take a voice vote. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Okay, the motion carries.

Okay before just for the record so it's it wasn't 1 through 49 right it was 1 through 35 36 by agreement 37 through 38 41 through 45 49 and then excluding 1 2 4 5 6 and 7 right okay thank you thank you Rebecca before we return to those items in that section we'll move on to items 50 through 68 and discuss those

Mr. Flood, if you could explain for us again your objections to that section of exhibits. Again, 50 through 68.

Sure. Those were provided yesterday, and they are the topic of the motion for continuance that the tribunal has already denied. And those contained the Multiple pages my understanding is fifty one fifty three and fifty four have been withdrawn. As well as sixty three. And so the. Surviving objection. Obviously subject to my global objection which is that I object to admission of any of the exhibits because their relevance and significance concern disputed facts within the personal knowledge of members of this tribunal who are acting as adjudicators despite being material witnesses. THAT WOULD BE EXHIBIT 68, WHICH IS THE SUMMARY EXHIBIT, WHICH IS THE OBJECTION IS LACK OF FOUNDATION. THOSE HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED. WE'VE ALREADY ADDRESSED THOSE BY ARGUMENT.

THANK YOU, MR. FLUDD. Is there a motion to admit or deny?

I make a motion to admit items number 50, 52, 55 through 56, 57 through 62, and 64 through 68.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. If all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Nay.

The motion carries. Okay, there's a motion to exclude the depositions before us. Mr. Hernandez, did you have a comment?

No.

OK. On Mr. Flood's motion to exclude items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7, do we have a motion?

May I be heard?

I apologize. Thank you. Yes.

Thank you. So this is an important point. And that is that this proceeding is not the same proceeding in which depositions were taken. In fact, it was the opinion of counsel for witnesses subpoenaed for deposition in this proceeding that depositions are not part of the proceedings in this case. So there are no depositions that were taken in this proceeding. There has been no sworn testimony taken in this proceeding yet. The depositions that were taken in 2025 were taken in a lawsuit filed by a local hotel operator seeking a declaratory judgment that an ordinance in layman's terms was passed improperly and should not be enforceable. In that proceeding, pending in Texas state court, there were depositions taken. The last deposition in that case was taken in September of 2025, or August of September, one of those dates. before a petition under Article II, Section 11 of the Charter was ever filed. So there is no argument, factually or legally, that the depositions were taken in this proceeding. They are the depositions of Peter Zanoni, Exhibit 1, Heather Hurlburt, Exhibit 2, Exhibit 4, Philip Ramirez, Exhibit 5, Mike Culbertson. Exhibit 6, Alan Wilson. And Petitioner's Exhibit 7, Sonny Perrinell. Respondent objects to those exhibits and the admission of the testimony contained therein prior to the receipt of any evidence in this case. This tribunal specifically adopted the Texas Rules of Evidence regarding hearsay for good reason. Hearsay is unreliable. It's not good evidence and you shouldn't base any decision on it. Deposition testimony is addressed within the Rules of Evidence in Rule 804 regarding hearsay. And 804 applies when a declarant is unavailable. In other words, the declarant means the witness. In this case, there's been no showing that the declarants are unavailable. The witnesses are available by all accounts. Therefore, under this tribunal's own rules, when it adopted the rules regarding hearsay, these depositions became inadmissible. So we specifically object to the admission of the depositions based on Rule 805. Also, and you can see this in my motion, there's several attachments that address Rule 805, which is also a hearsay rule. And that's the rule about hearsay within hearsay, which is even worse from a probative standpoint. So rather than eliciting each witness's personal knowledge, the counsel in those depositions, which was Mr. David's counsel, not petitioner's counsel, repeatedly read from or played other witnesses' depositions, recordings, emails, text messages, letters. And so there's just tons of what we call hearsay within hearsay embedded within exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7, the depositions I just referred to. In addition, to the extent that is testimony from witnesses that's going to be attempted to be admitted in this matter, Respondent objects that that testimony is being received and evaluated by tribunal members who themselves possess firsthand knowledge of the same disputed facts and our witnesses regarding those exact same matters. That objection is based on due process, fundamental fairness, and the prohibition against a witness serving as the adjudicator of disputed facts. And so hearsay WHETHER IN A DEPOSITION OR ELSEWHERE, IS NOT RELIABLE, TRUSTWORTHY, AND OF THE TYPE COMMONLY RELIED UPON. AND THIS TRIBUNAL, KNOWING THAT, ISSUED A RULE THAT SAID HEARSAY SHALL NOT BE ADMISSIBLE, WHETHER IT'S IN A DEPOSITION OR ELSEWHERE. AND HEARSAY IS HEARSAY. what vessel it arrives to you in. I suspect the petitioner is going to argue, well, I was in a deposition, and we said by the rules we can use depositions. That doesn't fix it. It's still hearsay. And so, and by your same rules, you said depositions are permitted in this proceeding yet. NO DEPOSITIONS WERE ALLOWED TO BE TAKEN. SO BY YOUR OWN RULES, HEARSAY IS NOT ADMISSIBLE. THESE DEPOSITIONS UNDER 804 ARE HEARSAY. AND SO I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU ENFORCE YOUR OWN RULE AND SUSTAIN THAT OBJECTION TO 1, 2, OR SUSTAIN ALL OF THOSE OBJECTIONS TO 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, AND 7 AND EXCLUDE affirmatively by motion exclude those exhibits as evidence in this matter. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Flood. Mr. Allison. Yes.

The argument that he's making is a technical argument if you were in a court of law about how you treat a deposition if you're in one court of law versus another court of law. That's what that rule was written for. And if you look at the rule he cites, it says the court can do this and the court can do that and the court can do this. So it's actually not written for this circumstance in any way, shape or form, nor do your city charter rules in any way, shape or form support his argument. And I will point out and I think it's incredibly important that kind of you hear the starting point for agreement, we agree that the test for admissibility at the end of the day, what hearsay is all about when people are arguing about hearsay, is is the testimony reliable and is it trustworthy, okay? And the reason it would be admissible and thought of in any other court and this one because it's reliable and it's trustworthy it's under oath and it was taken in front of the attorneys for the city who had an opportunity to cross-examine and question it if they wanted to correct question its reliability and trustworthiness and at those same depositions there was also an attorney for the mayor who had the ability to ask any questions if they wanted to call in to question the trustworthiness or the reliability of it

Mr. Allison, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Could you put the microphone where you're hearing?

Yes, sir. We're having trouble hearing you. Sorry. And so given that it and that's really the test for whether or not you want to exclude evidence. If you were in a court of law, that's the test. And that's what the hearsay rules are designed to do is to test for trustworthiness and reliability. And I'll submit to you if it's admissible in a court of law, it should be admissible here in this front of this city council proceeding. Specifically, though, I also want to point out to you because you all passed amended and just real candidly, I offered proposed amendments to expressly allow these exact depositions to be used in front of you for this proceeding. Those were some of the revisions I proposed. They objected. You guys ruled and made specific provisions FOR ALLOWING DEPOSITIONS TO BE UTILIZED, PERIOD. AND HE'S TRYING TO CONFLATE DISCOVERY AND DEPOSITIONS. YES, THEY TRIED TO DO PREHEARING DISCOVERY AND THAT IS NOT ALLOWED BY THE RULES. THAT'S WHY WE DID NOT TAKE the depositions of several people who were noticed to have their deposition taken. That would have been discovery. That would have opened up the can of worms where we would have been here weeks or months, who knows, okay? That is not the same as whether or not, that's not the same question. Just because those depositions, that has nothing to do with the fact that you guys expressly passed rules on June 2nd that said exactly and specifically that depositions can be utilized, and everybody knew what those depositions were because you remember I gave them back to them on May 20th, okay? And so that rule, let's see if I can find it here, states that all testimony, live or by deposition, shall be presented under oath. It all goes on to say that the oath has to be administered by somebody who's qualified to administer an oath in the state of Texas. That's the trustworthy and reliability piece of it. That allows that express provision in your rules was done for the purpose of using these exact depositions and was passed by you. So you've already said you can use depositions and you can use those depositions. We've already had that pipe. What he's doing then is he's going back to a and it's listed in your rules as a general rule about hearsay. He's going back to your general rule and saying, well, I want to apply the general rule, not your specific rule that you passed for depositions. And legally, his argument is completely flawed. And let me tell you why. There's a Texas government code three eleven point oh two six. Very important. All lawyers know it. Everyone lives by it. Judges live by it. If there's a general rule that says you can't do it, and if there's a specific rule, like you guys passed a specific rule expressly saying you could use depositions testimony so long as there have been sworn by somebody qualified to administer the oath. If there's a general rule and a specific rule, Texas Government Code 311.026 specifically says If a conflict, this is a rule of what we call a rule of construction. This is how we're legally supposed to construe something when you have a general rule that says, oh, don't use hearsay. And then you have a specific rule that says you can use the depositions so long as they're sworn. Okay. When you have that situation, 311.026 says if the conflict between the general provision and the special or local provision, is irreconcilable, in other words, this kind of says that and that one says this, the special or local provision, not the general one, prevails as an exception to the general rule. In other words, Texas law tells us over and over again in case law, this is statutory law in the government code, we get told over and over and over again that if there's a specific rule it takes precedence over a general rule and it's treated as quote an exception to the general rule here you all very clearly in the rules and we argued about it back at the time because i didn't want to use depositions and we said yeah we need to be able to use the depositions and we argued about it and you guys modified the rules on june second and expressly allowed the depositions to be used I think very clearly when you look at you all's rules that you passed, when you look at Texas law, when you look at even the rules of hearsay because we know that rule is really designed from one court to another which doesn't apply here, that particular rule that he's referring to. All of those things tell us that of course you should be able to use the depositions that have been taken under oath when counsel for the mayor, counsel for the city, and counsel for Mr. David were present. All interested parties were represented. Finally, and this is probably the most important thing to be candid with you, one thing we always know as lawyers and it's common sense to you is that when we try to figure out what all these rules mean, We're supposed to consider public policy because we want to do things that are for the right reason, for the good of the public. Okay, that is essential. I've heard you several times talk about transparency, and I know you know the importance of that. This is an issue where now they're trying to, at what, the 11th hour, say you can't use the depositions that two months ago or on June 2nd, Everybody voted and said you could use, okay? And so if you want to know how to reconcile sort of this conflict of how he reads the rules and how I think you clearly meant for the depositions to be used because you put it in a specific rule, to reconcile that, one of the things you should always fall back on is public policy. Public policy says be transparent. Public policy lets us know that sworn... Judicial proceeding is normally regarded as trustworthy and reliable and public policy therefore supports the use of these depositions Obviously, it's it's critical. He's trying to just throw out the whole case is what he's trying to do and no surprise That's been we've seen a lot of objections.

So, thank you Thank You mr. Allison if I can hear if there's a final response from mr.

Flood Yeah, that public policy is exactly why it's not admissible that public policy of confrontation And we lawyers use the word confrontation. And that is that testimony that's gleaned within a proceeding where there's a certain teed up parties and confrontation. You know, you provide there's a certain amount of respect for that evidence that comes from that. My client was not being removed in those proceedings. She was a defendant in a declaratory judgment action related to an ordinance. She was represented along with the city by the same lawyer. in many of those depositions. So the whole idea that depositions from that proceeding can be admissible in another proceeding with different fact issues, very different legal concerns, very different sources of the allegations, very different consequences is why it's hearsay. That's why it's hearsay. And so it's not admissible under hearsay rules because it's deposition testimony. 804 speaks to it very specifically. And nothing counsel just said changes the equation that these are not hearsay. They remain hearsay. And so they are not admissible under your own rules. And the reality is there's nothing in the rules that say that it was these depositions. If he's right, then I can bring in depositions from divorce cases or from some other case that has nothing to do with this, if that's true. Because there is nothing in there that says that. And this is why we objected at the beginning from moving from the Mendez rules, and I'm referring to the 1987 rules, which said nothing about bringing in testimony from some other proceeding. In that proceeding, live witnesses testified. And that's what should happen. It shouldn't be deposition testimony from a different proceeding where there was all these other different motivations and different claims, different defenses than this one. And so proceeding under your own rules and enforcing your own rule regarding hearsay, I would submit to you that the only discretion you have is to exclude 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7. And I would specifically request the petitioner's objections, her general objection for that reason be granted and that her motion to exclude be granted. And I do have Obviously, conditional objections that have been made within my motion, in the event that they are admitted and they attempt to be played, I've got 805 objections that we'll have to take up along the way. But at this point, I'm asking that my client's 804 objection be sustained. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Flood.

Okay. Well, I would like to make a motion to go ahead and accept these sworn test exhibits.

We have a motion. Second. A second to accept the depositions. All in favor say aye. Aye. I'm sorry.

I just wanted to remind the body that for the record I voted against the amendments on June 2nd. And I, one of the reasons I voted against the amendments on June the second is I thought they lacked transparency. We didn't go through the list of proposed changes to our proceedings. Um, and I thought that lacked transparency. Um, and, and my sense is you can remedy the depositions by having live witnesses, but that may not be completely true, but, but I'm, I don't intend to support. allowing these to come in, and it's consistent with my position on June the 2nd, where I voted against the changes to the process. Thank you.

Thank you.

you

Okay.

I know we have a motion and a second before we preside over that. Mr. Allison, have you provided cuts from your deposition exhibits to the other council?

Yes.

Mr. Flood, have you received those cuts?

We actually had, we provided them and then I actually thought they were time stamps. And then he said, those aren't page in line. And then my legal assistant chimed in and said, no, Mr. Flood and I are both wrong. They are page in line. But we did those deposition cuts, which is typical. And I'm going to back up even. I'm the one who two months ago asked for a scheduling order and they didn't want one. Okay. Normally you do cuts maybe a week ahead of time. There was no order or scheduling order for us so they can be done anytime. We did them over the last two, two days, two and a half days, and we gave them to him yesterday. And you know, that's as soon as I got them, I flipped them to him. Cause we had to turn them over actually to a videographer who actually did the cuts. The cuts came from the videographer after we send everything into him and he does the deposition cuts. He provides us that information and we sent it immediately to him.

How many cuts did you provide?

I'm not sure quite what you're asking. I'm going to say there's four depositions that we cut. Four or five? Four.

I don't recall, but the answer is there's hundreds of cuts. I should say hundreds. There's many, many cuts. A cut being a deposition is edited, and so you're clipping page and line excerpts, so there were many. And they were provided last evening and I frankly have not had an opportunity to review them, but my staff Worked late into the night trying to see what those cuts were.

Yes, and we of course objective All of that for the reason stated And I will say I also offered Because he's entitled to do his cuts and he can put them on now or later and that would be true in a courtroom setting too and He can do his cuts whenever he wants to.

I chose to sleep last evening. Me too. The specific answer to the question was five deposition cuts at 5.06 p.m. Central Daylight Time. There you go. Thank you.

ALL RIGHT. WHOEVER AUTHORED THAT MOTION, WAS THAT SILVIA?

I THINK IT'S HER MOTION.

I'M WAITING FOR HER TO RETURN. I HAVE A QUESTION REAL QUICK. MS. SILVIA, WITH YOUR MOTION THAT YOU HAVE ON THE FLOOR, I AM REQUESTING FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TO MODIFY YOUR MOTION AND ACCEPT except the admittance subject to the defendant's right to review his objection at the time offered. I agree. You agree to the amendment?

I understand that. You mean to review the cuts and offer counter cuts?

And renew his objection at the time that they're offered.

Oh, okay. To renew his objections. Okay. Offer subject to his right to further object to it.

Thank you. And you're amenable to the amendment? Yes. So we have a motion and second on the floor.

Without amendment.

With the amendment. She's made a motion to accept the exhibits of depositions with the admittance being subject to allowing the defendant their right to renew their objection at the time it's being offered.

May I ask for clarification?

Yes, sir.

Thank you. The exhibits are one, two, sorry, I have the wrong one in front of me, as stated.

One, two, four, five, and six.

Yes, and seven. And those have been moved for admitted en masse. In other words, they're the entire depositions. And so that's the motion is to admit the entire depositions, not cuts. The cuts are the subject of what? I ANTICIPATE OR WHAT I'VE BEEN INFORMED WOULD BE SUBMITTED HERE LIVE. AND SO I THINK WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE RECORD IS CLEAR THAT THIS OBJECTION IS TO THE DEPOSITIONS IN THEIR ENTIRETY. AND I'M ASKING THAT THAT OBJECTION UNDER RULE 804 AND AS STATED IN MY OBJECTIONS AND MOTION BE RULED UPON. THE ISSUE OF WHAT IS SPECIFICALLY SUBMITTED DURING THIS HEARING Separately from the exhibits being admitted is a different issue and I think that's what that May be what is attempting to be addressed. I do have in my motion a Separate listing of objections that are that are exhibits that you saw and those are 805 objections Which are hearsay within hearsay and those objections I intend having had received the cuts I intend to interrupt unfortunately. And again, I apologize for all the objections, but it's literally my job. I will be interrupting those to object based on hearsay and other grounds during the objection. So we have those cuts. Those objections will happen. And I and I don't mean to dictate how the tribunal handles it. But I think a safer matter might be to simply address the Objection I have to all of the exhibits. That's a global objection based Which is based both on the due process grounds I stated earlier as well as that contained within my objection and motion to exclude and then as far as the cuts go Those will be addressed They're contained within my motion But those would be addressed at the time that the deposition testimony is actually offered during this proceeding.

I

Thank you, Mr. Floyd. Yes, Mr. Allison.

Yeah, and I just want to be very clear also. And the idea that he'll be interrupting and making objections is how we do it in court, so that's not a shocker to me. Okay, lawyers stand up and object, and I understand he has that right, and you're specifically giving him or making sure that the motion has been clarified so that he has that right at the time of the presentation, okay? But I still think now that that's all clarified that he gets to do that and he gets to interrupt and he's already intended to do that. I think the motion and the motion as amended now takes care of that, which is the motion is to allow it subject to allowing him to make those objections at the appropriate time. And we so we would ask that that motion be voted on.

But it and I don't.

Yes, sir.

Just for clarity, I just need to make sure that my motion to exclude them under Rule 804 is ruled upon and it's not bypassed. And so I'm going to insist, keep insisting that that motion to exclude all of them for the reasons I've already argued. Without regard to page and line cuts, that's a separate issue that assumes they're admitted at all. And so I do need to ask the tribunal to please address my motion, which is a motion to exclude all of them under Rule 804 and this Tribunals own procedural rules.

Thank you except now now what he's asking you to do is I guess not do your motions He wants you to change your motion and that's just not really quite how City Council I think works you made a motion you have a second it Addresses his motion it implicitly says his motion is denied as modified and it's sufficient so I asked that we follow the city process that you guys have already been doing and

Thank you. We have a motion and a second as amended. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed say nay.

Nay.

The motion carries. Thank you.

I would specific request then a ruling on my client's motion to exclude exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 for the reasons included in the motion exclude. Rule 804 and others, and also because these are exhibits and purported testimony, I object because their relevance and significance concern disputed facts within the personal knowledge of members of this tribunal who are acting as adjudicators despite being material witnesses. So I'm going to, just for the record, have to continue pressing my issue on my motion exclude under 804 because at the risk of that prior motion not addressing it. Thank you.

My response is simple. You've already addressed the 804 portion of it and given him a right to object when we're playing the clips so that's done and the rest of his comment there we're going back to you know federal judge has already ruled and we get to continue and you guys get to be the uh presiding and members of the council pursuant to city charter federal judges already supported your ability to do that and so i honestly don't think there's any more i think he's clarified his objection and he's made it noted for the record i think the only thing to do now probably is to note the objection but i don't think there needs to be another motion

Thank you, Mr. Allison. Mr. Flood, does the mayor wish to offer exhibits and evidence at this time?

We have filed a motion to admit, and I believe what I heard council for petitioners say is that they have no objection. Petitioner's exhibits are, petitioner, I'm sorry, petitioner, my apologies. Respondents exhibits are exhibits one through. 47 I'm sorry 1 through 47. We have filed a motion And I understand there is no opposition and we request that mayor's exhibits one Respondents exhibits 1 through 47 be admitted.

Thank you. Mr. Flood. Mr. Allison. Are there any objections?

There's no objection and I'm only gonna note that the site time savings I hope is paid back at some small point at the opening remarks. I

Thank you, sir. Then if no objections, then the exhibits are admitted into evidence. Would anyone like to make a motion on this panel to admit these exhibits into evidence? Exhibits 1 through 47?

Respondents, exhibits 1 through 47.

Thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second? We have a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Say nay. Okay, the motion's carried. We will now have opening statements. Opening statements will be limited to 30 minutes each. First, we will have opening statements from the petitioner and then from the mayor. Mr. Allison, please proceed with your opening statement.

May I proceed?

Yes, sir.

And I am in just a minute going to need access. Not quite yet. Thank you. Give you heads up there. Welcome a little bit, I guess, to our world. We move slow. Justice is slow, but it's it's a fabulous process. OK. And I do want to start by kind of highlighting something because, and I've said this a million times to judges, I don't want to do anything on the record that jeopardizes due process. I don't want to do anything that jeopardizes these proceedings. We are here in good faith, and we are here to present a case on why the mayor ought to be impeached, okay, on its absolute merit. And that process requires time. And again, it's tough because it's cumbersome. The law is cumbersome to deliver justice. And I want to kind of remind you of this, and that is we see impeachments all the time, right? We see them at the Fed, not all the time, but we see them at the federal level. We see them at the state level. We see them in other counties. We see where different people are removed from time to time. And we probably know most about it in the context of a federal or a state impeachment where the House impeaches. And then it's a two step process. And then the Senate convicts or removes the president. We had a proceeding similar to that in our Texas legislature not too long ago. And it's usually in those cases. And I think it's important for you to realize. So I bring it up at the outset. In those cases, there's two bodies. Right. There's the House and the Senate at the state level and at the federal level. We don't have two bodies here. So we actually do it a little differently. We follow your charter and it says shall and you have followed that. You all have already adopted the articles, which is the impeachment. She's been impeached. The mayor has. And then this part of it is the evidentiary proceeding to see what consequence that has in terms of removal or other consequence. OK. And it is it's a it's a slow process. But it's obviously an important one. And it's important to realize exactly what you should be in the whole purpose of an opening statement is to give you all an idea of. how to listen for evidence. And let me say it this way. If I give you a jigsaw puzzle and I put the pieces face up, it's easier for you to put it together. If I make you put that jigsaw puzzle together with the pieces face down, it's harder for you to put together. So the whole purpose of opening statement is to give you an idea of what evidence you'll hear So you'll be able to pluck the important evidence as it relates to the very issues you'll be deciding and the very issues are going to be deciding is put forth in your store in your charter and That is should the mayor be removed because of quote misconduct malfeasance incompetence Inability or willful neglect in the performance of her official duties. Did she do any one of those things can be a basis for removal. Simply put, Mayor was the city's leadership through a corrupt process that resulted in the award of $2 million. I think we all, I mean, It is, and there was some public comment talking about character, talking about integrity. And our public processes deserve more than to hand out this kind of tax, this amount of taxpayer money when there was a alteration, which is a corruption by definition, absolutely a corruption of a federal document. and misleading statements made that are by express contract terms reasons for default, which you have already found. The misleading statements made by the applicant QOF and their altering of a federal document that either from beginning to end or certainly by March of 2020 to 24, the mayor knew. All of the evidence is the mayor knew. And I'm going to detail that in just a minute in more detail. But what we need to be so careful of, and I want to say this, if I say it once, bless you, that's not what I'm going to say a thousand times. But if I say it once, I should say it a thousand times because this is really where we are as a community. And I hate to say it, we're probably there nationally and at a state level and we're wrestling with it. And all we can do is take care of it at a community level. Because what we tolerate is what I want to say over and over. What we tolerate, we become. Think about that. If we say it is OK to alter federal documents and come get taxpayer money, it is the worst signal that we are available to be corrupted. What we tolerate, we become. I want you to also, and so I want to say this, rest assured the process is a good process. The federal court denied their request for temporary restraining order. Federal court denied their request for preliminary injunction. The federal court dismissed their lawsuit, and you and I both know they're out on the radio shouting that they won. And every legal maneuver they've taken has been denied. They even went you realize the only place left for them to go is the United States Supreme Court. The Fifth Circuit, United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has already denied their request for injunctive relief. The process is good. What are we not here for? And I think this is, again, something so important. We are not here to decide whether or not there was in fact a crime. That's Peter Zanoni's word that he used beginning back in April of 2024. Not my word, not Ajit David's word. But it's not what we're here to decide. This is an impeachment proceeding that will talk about whether or not the mayor is guilty of misconduct, malfeasance, incompetence, inability, or willful neglect of her performance of official duties. I'm quoting. So when anybody stands up and says, oh, there's no crime, so what? I think there was, but that's just my opinion. Peter Zanoni called it a crime. That was his opinion. Heather Hulbert said it violates forgery statute, and Peter agrees. That's their opinion under oath. But we're not here to decide it. So let us not get sidetracked on that. We all know that OJ Simpson knows even if you don't get convicted in criminal court, it doesn't mean they won't find some responsibility, right? We are not here to decide whether or not the downtown project is a good project. I've lived here all my life. I like the project. I'm glad they're building downtown. I want it to be successful. What I'm certain of is that is a completely different question then whether or not the processes to get the two million dollars were corrupt it's not about whether or not we want the project project i think it's good to develop downtown i don't have any problem saying that but you absolutely have to separate that from the certainty that forging tampering with a federal writing is the correct word. Screenshot tampering with it can never be acceptable. And the mayor's promotion of it after she knew that has to be a violation of her official duties. If she says, quite frankly, oh, how could I have known the truth is so many people told her so she wants to really say, I didn't understand it. She's incompetent, which is grounds for removal. but I think it's more likely that it's misconduct and malfeasance and willful neglect on her part. She willfully neglected her duties, which is a basis according to the, that's the term in the charter. She willfully neglected her duties in order for her friends to get the grant. Now, we are not here to debate the issues that continually get raised by, I'll use somebody else's term now, the puppets. The puppets on social media. Don't get me wrong, there are some social media posts of the mayors that I think I put on the exhibit list because if she wants to say things inconsistent, I have a right to impeach her with her public statements. But we're not here, I mean... One could argue birds of a feather, but I mean, Tunches, we're not here to talk about the Kronika and what he says is true or not. I mean, his rap sheet is long. Distinguished. We're not. These are the mayor's defenders, Adrian Garza, Tito, Dilsofino, Susie Luna. I mean, we need to base what we do here today not on the rhetoric you're going to hear while these proceedings are going on, We know some of those are pay for play, if not all of them. We're not here to listen to that. We're here to base a decision not on what those spokespersons for the mayor say, but based upon the evidence that brought here. We're not here to attack Ajit David or any of the petitioners. And we're not here, we're not supposed to be here to attack you. So anybody that gets on the social media and starts attacking has completely missed the focus of these proceedings. And they do it to intimidate, and they do it to control, and they do it to manipulate. But we have got to stay steady and realize that the purpose of being here is to evaluate whether or not there's four articles of impeachment, any or all of those apply, the mayor's removal for the willful neglect for the malfeasance for the misconduct for the incompetence she's shown to allow this to go through the process even though it was well exposed as a altered and tampered and forged document we are here to decide Because all of those things in the charter, I think, can be summed up in one way. And again, I appreciate the public comment. Some people think she has good character and they're entitled to their opinion. And you guys get to be the judge of whether or not she is a good public service by what she did in this particular instance. Because a good public servant went ahead and Googled to see what they said. A good public servant is someone who serves the public with integrity There's no integrity in what happened. Fairness, dedication, and a continuous desire to learn and improve society. It's not about self-promotion. Never was supposed to be. And I know we've drifted too far from that in terms of how we define or what we allow in public service. And so I will tell you, so I don't forget later and I will remember later. I thank all of you for your service. I thank all of you for being here because I know they've been attacking. And it shouldn't be. You don't you're not supposed to attack the victims, and that's what what's happened is they've turned it into just a counter attack instead of can't even is in these very chambers that she called out from the dais. My client Ajit David in the back said he's the reason we're here. We're here because documents were forged and altered and tampered. And because even after the mayor found out, she insisted that the that the matter be approved. Turning a blind eye to that sort of corruption is misconduct. You can argue about whether or not it is felonious and requires criminal prosecution, but it's certainly a by definition, you're not supposed to lie to the type b board and you're not supposed to uh alter a document and when you find out about it you're not supposed to say pass it anyway that's the corruption of the process that the mayor allowed and encouraged now if i could have you switch this on Again, I know it takes a little while to go through this, but it does. It saves us time because what I now get to do is go through some exhibits again. So when they come up, you'll be familiar with them. I started with this exhibit because we all know the phrase that the buck stops here. When you are the and the mayor is as presiding. When the buck stops here, it stops with the presiding officer. And that would be true. The mayor, she would be responsible even if Peter had done it without telling her, even if Heather had done it without telling her, even if type B had done everything without telling her. If there's a corruption of process, the buck stops with the mayor because if she didn't know about it, it's her own time and it's her own incompetence. We all know she boasts being a full time mayor. That means she has full time responsibility. But of course, that's not our facts. We know that she did know about the corruption of the process and still encouraged it. In terms of that corruption, I want to certainly give you detail. I think, and these are all exhibits and I believe all have been admitted, the FEMA rules that mayor and QOF claimed were changed in new rules, quote, newly defined. They claimed newly defined in 2023 and 2024. Those rules were published in October 9, 2020. We know that because they were published by FEMA in October of 2020. We know it again because in February of 2021, and we all know FEMA moves like at a glacial pace. In February of 2021, they said you can comment on them. And then in April of 2022, we know that they publish this website page and information in order to say that they become final and in effect on October 13 of 2022. All of this happened years before the project, the QOF project was even imagined according to their own slides. The QOF project was imagined July of 2022. So the whole FEMA process had already come to conclusion before they even imagined their project. Nonetheless, QOF put it, and I want to be real clear here, this is not just a one-off where somebody misspoke, okay? There is a constant barrage of misinformation that the mayor supported. It started back with CCREDC, okay? And in that application they said, quote, newly defined FEMA AE flood zone that encompasses parts of downtown and has not added and has added substantial unexpected infrastructure costs to the project which were not expected on the onset of the project. They'd already been finally passed before the onset of the project. That is a false narrative. That is untrue. It started at the CEDC CCR EDC after Mike Culbertson told him you don't get any money unless you add an infrastructure feature to the project. So back in mid 2023 and then this application September of 2023. Applicant knew in the I think there's a hundred and twenty phone calls in the key period between either applicant and Peter or mayor or most of them are there 50 of them are with the mayor I mean There was Clear ongoing communication even early on but we know for certain later the mayor nonetheless knew about the fraud and and decided she was going to still support the project knowing that it had found its origins completely in fraud. But in September of 2023, here's the certification. Applicant certifies it. But we know that the slide that they used, and you have a red box here in the middle, Over here, we know that slide is where they removed the dates because the dates, if you look over here on the left side, this is their slide with my modifications on it. Their slide said project was reimagined in July 2022 as 126 room hotel project. And we know if you leave the April date there, it doesn't make any sense to say we're surprised because it was sent to you before you even imagined the project. So they removed the date. How did they do that? THIS IS THE ACTUAL SLIDE, OKAY? AND THIS WAS SENT BY THE APPLICANT TO CCREDC AND IT WAS USED IN THE PRESENTATION TO THE TYPE B BOARD. YOU REMEMBER A MINUTE AGO, LET ME SEE IF I CAN GET IT BACK UP HERE. HERE'S HOW IT SHOULD HAVE LOOKED. YOU SEE THE APRIL DATE, YOU SEE THE RELEASE NUMBER AND YOU SEE A SECOND TIME WHEN THE RELEASE date is printed here and again the release date does not fit their timeline that's clearly why they removed it because when you look at the actual slide here's what they did by the way this was then sent as a pdf and what you can do is then you convert it back to a powerpoint and when you do that you can see the changes that philip ramirez says he made and those changes are There's a text box right here. And behind it, you can see the release date and other information. But a text box was obviously, according to CCPD and everybody who's looked at it except for Phillip, intentionally modified to conceal the date. You'll notice that the text box, before I opened it up and moved it, fits exactly over the date and the information they wanted to conceal. And you'll see down below, there's a second text box that conceals the date being repeated a second time. Now, I'm no wizard. Maybe Philip Ramirez can do it in fewer strokes. But the way I know how to do this, and we did it in his deposition, you'll see that is that only proving to you how bad I am at this by the way whenever I go to this slide I always click don't save so that I don't mess it up in its original form okay someone don't save IT'S EXHIBIT 19 IN THE MATERIALS YOU HAVE. SECOND SLIDE. THERE IT IS. TO DO WHAT THEY DID, WHAT THE APPLICANT DID, YOU SEE WHERE YOU GO TO TEXT BOX OR THIS IS ONE WAY TO DO IT. YOU GO TO TEXT BOX, YOU CLICK IT. LOOK FOR EXAMPLE THIS SECTION UP HERE THAT'S ONE CLICK BY THE WAY. And then I have to define what I want to conceal. You see how I'm dragging the box over everything, that top bar. And then I create the box or I have to position the box over what I want to conceal. then I have to go to and fill the box with a color. I'm going to choose white because when you make it white, everything that is supposed to be on the slide now is concealed behind the white text box, and then you click and you're out of it. What that is is five strokes on the keyboard for one text box to be specifically dropped on the date and reference number And then five more intentional strokes on the section of this slide down below where the April date is concealed a second time. These two text boxes that I'm showing you right now. The only person in the world who says it was a formatting error, an accidental, of course, is Philip Ramirez, who said, I did it. And my suspicion is it's probably because he really told other people in his office to do it, so he can't expect them to say it was accidental. But what we know is that they intentionally dropped those text boxes on those pieces of information with the design to fulfilling what Mike Culbertson said was a must if you're ever going to get any recommendation out of CC or EDC. And he will testify to that. So then what you're going to see in the evidence is that the lie was perpetuated and the lie was repeatedly carried by the mayor, certainly including for a long period of time after she was told of it. That is malfeasance. That is misconduct. That is neglect, willful neglect of her duties. That is not being a public servant who is protecting the taxpayer dollar. When you trace through the information some of these I'll go through quickly but when you trace through the information you'll see that in October of 2023 it says the grant will be utilized for additional costs associated to newly defined FEMA 8e flood zone requirements. The lie got repeated by CCREDC. I've already shown you that the lie was promised or certified by Philip Ramirez. The lie then was also repeated in November 8. It's not like it was a one-off where it says the grant will be utilized for additional costs associated to newly defined FEMA flood zone requirements. Newly defined, they were three years old by this point in time. additional documents show This one is the November 9 board meeting And they presented and at this board meeting it is the mayor who self Herself who and these are important points. This is my writing here where it says violations the mayor weighed in at this meeting you can see on this document and supported a two million dollar award and How is that a neglect of our duty? One, remember, you pay CCR EDC to tell you what the award should be, and they said at most, assuming there's an infrastructure component, which there was not, at most you can give $1,043,000. But the mayor said, no, let's violate that rule. Let's neglect my duty, and we're going to award $2 million. That's one way that she interfered with the process and got outside the process, outside her official duties. Another way is we know that any award would violate the requirement for infrastructure, but she did it anyway. She used her weight of office for that. And we also know, because we have the emails from the applicant, when they say, well, if we don't give you the award, are you going to still come? What's it going to do to the project? And they get a response back that says, well, it's going to take us longer to do the rooftop bar and the finish out. The emails, they knew it wasn't even infrastructure that it was going to really be used for. And they knew that the project was already committed and already committed projects are not supposed to get incentive money. So the mayor led the charge through this meeting to try to get a million sorry two million dollars. You'll see by reading it it failed and then it got renewed in type B. So it fails there, and it actually gets a recommendation for $1,040,000. That was a Brian Gulley move. Okay? It's in the notes. And while she is attending the confidential meeting, think about this. While she's attending a meeting, she's sworn in her official duties. She's there as mayor. She's promised confidentiality. What is she doing? She's texting Devin. What's the econ... I assume she means economic impact of the hotel. In EDC meeting, talking about your $2 million ask, she tells Devin, this is Paulette, work phone. I have it. Devin responds, thanks for looking out for us. It's confidential. That is a breach of her, a neglect of her duty. So then it goes on. And we know that the slide is created in this window, and then it goes back in front of the Type B Port Corporation. And what do they say? It's a grant of $2 million to be, even though CCREDC had trimmed it back to $1 million, now it goes miraculously back to $2 million to be utilized for additional costs associated with newly defined, should have said three-year-old, We knew about them before and they were final before we even imagined the project. But it says the grant will be in for costs associated to newly defined FEMA flood zone requirements. That's how it started. Is that my 30? Oh, my gosh, how time flies. I apologize. If I may just wrap up with one minute. You will see that. As it progressed to City Council, we know that it was exposed by Ajit David. We know that Peter, in his recorded statement, which has been admitted, says it was a scheme and it was that way from the beginning. We know that Ajit David stood here and told the mayor face-to-face on April 16th, stood here and told the mayor face-to-face on April 23rd. and that her own legal department told her, and that Peter Zanoni told her, don't do it, and she pushed for it anyway. All neglect of her duty. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Allison.

Madam Chair, can we take a, can I have a five-minute break?

Yes, we'll give Mr. Flood time to set up for his opening statement while you have five. Stretch. Yes, sir, five-minute recess.

you

Thank you.

So if you're ever presiding, you're like, oh, there's somebody in there.

thank you

Okay, welcome back everyone.

Mr.

Flood, if you would please proceed with your opening statement.

Rebecca? Yes. If I may, I'd like to make some remarks prior to my attorney making his remarks this morning, opening remarks. So I'd like to address everyone. Today is a day I never believed that the people of Corpus Christi would have to witness. Disagreement is not the issue before us today. Disagreement is essential. It's an essential part of public service.

Every elected official who has served this city has disagreed with colleagues.

That is healthy. It's expected. It's democracy. What should never become routine is the use of extraordinary governmental powers in a manner that causes the public to question whether political disagreement has crossed into something far more serious. I stand before you today as the duly elected mayor of Corpus Christi chosen by the people to serve this community. This office belongs to every citizen who exercise their right to vote and place their faith in the integrity of our democratic process. It is about the precedent that we establish for every mayor who will one day serve the city, every future city council, and ultimately every citizen who expects their government to exercise its authority with absolute fairness and integrity. History, excuse me, history has a way of placing moments like this into their proper perspective. Years from now, people may not remember every ordinance we passed, every budget we adopted, or every disagreement that occurred on this dais, but they will remember whether this council strengthened the public's confidence in our institution or whether it diminished it. This hearing and the outcome will be indelibly imprinted in the history of the city. Throughout my service, I have made difficult decisions. I have taken positions that were not always popular. because I believe that they were in the best interest of the people of Corpus Christi. Reasonable people can disagree with those decisions. That is the very foundation of representative government. Ultimately, all of our decisions are judged by the people of Corpus Christi at the ballot box. There is, however, a profound difference between political disagreement and the exercise of extraordinary governmental power. This or that distinction exists to protect the integrity of public office. It exists to protect the confidence in the rights of the people we serve, and it should never become blurred. It is about whether the citizens of Corpus Christi can continue to believe that their votes matter, that our institutions are guided by principle rather than politics, and that public authority will always be exercised with fairness, impartiality and respect for the democratic process. My commitment has always been to serve this city with integrity. I have worked hard and served with great honor. I respect the trust that the people have placed in me over five straight elections. My commitment to the city of Corpus Christi remains as strong today as it was the day I first took office. The office of the mayor belongs to the people. It does not belong to politics. It belongs to the public trust and now my lawyer will give you his opening remarks.

Thank you. Thank you.

Today and through this proceeding. You all are not. Sitting in your political position, you're sitting. As judges of the evidence. That's a big task. And it's a it's it's it's different. You have to take off whatever hat you wear up there normally and you got to. Squint those eyes and look at the evidence in a different way than you would normally the way you would normally do your job up there, because this is a different job that you've been signed up for here. And what you do is. is you rely only on the evidence. That's it. And what is evidence and what isn't? You know what isn't is speculation. Speculation's not evidence. It's none. It's zero. It deserves nothing. Assuming is not evidence. That's a nothing. Presuming, not evidence. When deciding the evidence in this case, and I'm not going to make argument about what the evidence, what you should feel about the evidence right now. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to incorporate any assumptions. What I'm going to ask you to do is to understand that at the end, there must be evidence of the things that are alleged in these articles. It has to be the conclusions that you're asked to draw on have to be more than assumptions. They have to be more than speculation. It has to be evidence at the end that you have seen, okay? That's what you do when you're judges of evidence. And what the evidence is going to show is this hotel, this project, my client liked it. She liked it. I, in fact, I think everybody likes it. She always liked it, liked it. First time she heard about it, her goal was revitalization of downtown. That's a great goal. Nobody disagrees with that one. Her focus was the project, not the people involved in it. That's a huge distinction. Now you've heard all kinds of stuff about FEMA and fraud and alterations and forgery and crime. What you're going to hear is my client left all of that to the experts. And that's what you should do. And I submit that's what happened again. She felt in 2023 that it was good for downtown. And by the time This incentive arrived at this place. Actually, it was over at the RTA building on February 20th. Staff came and told her that FEMA was the reason. OK. And she and others voted in favor of it. And when I say FEMA, I'm just saying in a very general sense. I'm not getting into the details there. And then you'll learn that Leo Levary, uh, the type B board saw a channel three story saying that that was the reason. And she reached out by email on March 1st to city staff and said, Whoa, what are you doing? That, that doesn't, that's not why we approved this. How did that ever even get up here? And, uh, Ms. Campos and Mr. Hernandez remember. Everett Roy, by the time April 23rd is over here, he chastised staff for allowing that to happen. So the Type B board, the staff said February 20th, the reason was FEMA. Type B comes, Leo Olivari comes forward and says, no, no, no, that had nothing to do with it. And there's an investigation that happens, rightfully so. And it gets back to this dice on April 23rd. And the reason is revitalization, which was actually the reason why the Type B board approved it, not FEMA. And the slide issue, which we just heard a lot about, was under investigation. The EDC, like I said, supported this project. You've heard about the meeting at the EDC. The EDC REMS analysis says that this is a $1,043,000 benefit. Bart Brazelton moves to approve the $2 million. That fails. Three people voted in favor of it, six against. And then there was a motion for the full $2 million, and that passed. I'm sorry for the I apologize for the million forty three. I had it backwards. The two million was the first one. The forty one forty three passed. So the EDC supported it. My client voted in favor of that. And so in December 2023, when the application reaches the type B board, the more the the board met in executive session and decided came out and unanimously supported the incentive due to its quote catalytic nature and that would help revitalize the town. So that was December of 2023. That's when the type B board said we like this project. We want it to go forward. And specifically, Leo Olivares stated, quote, not because of the additional flood or FEMA or any of that. This board felt this would be a catalyst for downtown. So that's what the type B board said. And sitting in that type B board was city manager Peter Zanoni sitting over to the right. You'll see videos that we have submitted. Those videos are admitted. That was two and a half months before the February 20 meeting. That was two and a half months before that February 20th meeting. And then on January 22nd, a month before the first reading of the ordinance, the type B board is there meeting again and talking about the incentive and they say the reason that the board agreed this was a one worthwhile project is not because of all the fema floodplain zone requirements that were in everything but mainly we saw this as a kind of capstone project in the downtown area to spur other development we're not interested in fixing everybody's fema problem so the reason for the type b board approval The problem, it didn't make it here. It never made it here on that first reading. The RADC is who then interfaced with the city, and they provided the infamous slide, which was not created by my client, that's for sure. It had nothing to do with anything like that. It provided the council with the FEMA justification that was specifically rejected by the type B board. At the February 20 meeting, the mayor relied on staff's recommendation. She already supported the project. Staff told her it was because of FEMA stuff, which was not true. And she relied on staff and supported it. Between February 20th and April 23rd, the controversy hits. The city manager investigated. April 16th, one week before, Councilman Hernandez, Councilwoman Campos are in an executive session with Miles Risley. And he presents. And you're going to see this in the executive session is is admitted everything that his entire PowerPoint. And I honestly don't know how many times he uses the word alleged. And, you know, we're looking at this two years later, but you got to go back and kind of get into their minds back then. And the idea that people were publicly saying people committed a crime doesn't make sense from a potential liability standpoint. You just don't do that. I mean, you just don't. And that's And so that's why the executive session materials, which you probably have already seen, but you'll see again as part of this trial, specifically uses the word alleged, alleged, alleged all the time. And there was no conclusion of the city manager's investigation at that point, which is kind of why he said, well, you know what? I'm not going to recommend that they pass it. I am going to, though. I'm going to agree to put it onto the court. to the agenda, and I'm going to recommend that they discuss it. In his executive session he says, third parties alleged, they alleged, the alleged alteration, alleged, he says it again. Explained each element of this fraud scheme that's been characterized today as A conclusion they were all described as allegations no conclusions and The the suggestions been made that the mayor put this on the agenda That's not true. Mr. Zanoni's deposition makes it clear that that there were council members who wanted it on the agenda. She sure wanted it on the agenda because she liked the project. Because at that point, it had been made clear about the type B's reasoning. But you know what? Even if she had put it on the agenda, really? Conduct to put something on an agenda for public debate. That would be misconduct if she somehow got something for doing that, but you'll never hear that. Council here and lots of other people who met with the FBI and everyone to a person. No quid pro quo. There's nothing there. So putting something on the agenda. If that is misconduct, we've lost our way. There's no way that putting something up for public debate, having a public debate, engaging the political process, that's alleged to be some sort of form of misconduct. The council did what the staff asked to do it. They considered it. And it's a hearing, that April 23rd hearing, two of you were there. It's all admitted as evidence already, and I asked you to consider it. A majority of the council, including the mayor, supported it for the reasons that the Type B board originally supported it. And you know who else supported it? Peter Zanoni, sitting right over here. He said it. We staff supports it for the reasons that the type B board gave. Downtown revitalization. That's exactly what he said. You look like you're putting on those squinting eyes, which is a good idea. That's what we do with the evidence, but he did. You're going to see the video. He said, we support it for the reasons of the type B board. He just had issues with the presentation. Like councilwoman compost said. And I really appreciated your vote because it was, you know, I really liked this project. I've just got issues with the way it was presented. Good. That's a perfectly good reason to vote that way. Other people who looked at it said, you know what, it's still under investigation. I don't know. I like this project. I'm going to support it. Well, two years later, we now know, uh, based on all the investigations, that that was a perfectly legitimate way to vote and the way you voted was a perfectly legitimate way to vote too. That's called legislative discretion and you can't be held responsible for exercising that. You can't. Then legislative immunity breaks down and everything, all the independence that this body has starts to break down. The mayor supported the project because she supports economic development. Article 1 and 3 ask you to speculate that she supported it because of who was involved. That's what they want you to do. They want you to speculate. That's not evidence. It's innuendo. It was the what that she supported. Does she know the who?

Sure.

Does she like them? Sure. Are they friends or they support her? Sure. But think about that. Everything you vote for is now suspect because you know, the people involved, come on, we got to have a higher standard that she supported it because staff recommended it. And because she supports economic development now, perjury didn't hear much about that for good reason. The Corpus Christi police department, FBI, long list, did a full investigation, and that included a review of every single deposition. The conclusion that you were provided, all of you, was that the investigation included a review of all federal and state laws. And so really, in a removal proceeding under Article II, Section 11, This body is going to be the one that decides that a criminal code violation occurred. You would be the first ones to do that. And she didn't commit perjury. She consistently testified exactly what the evidence shows, which is there were no conclusions every single time she was asked. She answered honestly, and that was. I never received any sort of conclusions, which was true. Being a careful witness is good. Listening to questions carefully is good. Answering carefully and candidly is good. And I use the word carefully and, you know, if you're working off from a position of biased assumptions, You would think, oh, he said the word carefully because she needed to be careful. No, it's because she took her oath seriously. That's what perjury is about. Does the person blow off their oath or do they really, really take it seriously? It would be a giant leap for this board, sorry, for this tribunal to wade into those waters when the police district attorney, they have They looked at the deposition, of course, they already, we know that, and did not wade into those waters. Okay, and I'm gonna not take all my time. Article three relates to the breach of confidentiality of the Economic Development Corporation, and that is, I think the evidence, you've already seen it, and that is a text message from a person on the board asking an applicant what the economic impact is of their project. That's the EDC's job. So the notion that a person on the board asking an applicant what the economic impact is is somehow breach confidentiality is not It's not supported. That's not a thing. It is normal. That's healthy. That was exactly what everybody at that board was trying to figure out as well. To conclude that it's somehow a violation of something just doesn't make any sense because she's doing exactly what it is she was supposed to be doing there. The fact that the respondent says something in the fact of thank you for taking care of us That's not her words, she didn't say that. Again, don't let, you can't, because you're judges, you can't let your own bias assumptions step in and say, oh yeah, well. Many say, oh yeah, well, you've lost it. You've lost your role. I'm sorry, I shouldn't say lost it. I just mean you're starting to step out and you're starting to step into the speculation and all of that that they want you to engage in. There is a lot more I could say, but I think my client said it best up front. What I want to also reflect is that I really do appreciate all of the public service that all of you do. I can't imagine the time and energy that you all spend on this. No, I don't mean this. I just mean this being council members. And I look forward to meeting with you again in this manner at the end of this and talking about the evidence that you've heard and to see if you got to see the evidence and it wasn't just based on assumptions and that it wasn't just based on some sort of biased assumption about how you're going to take the evidence, but is it really, really, really evidence that there was some sort of desire for my client to do something other than just see this project happen? Because that's what she wanted. She liked the project. It was not about the people involved. They would have to prove that that was the reason, and they can't. And so I appreciate, again, all of you. And I'm going to sit down now, and we will move on to the evidence. And I have to, I think, once again. And let me address something. And I said it earlier. If we were in a court of law and a lawyer made a statement to the jury talking about the other lawyers' objections and how they're trying to hide the truth, the judge would shut them down immediately. And that makes a good judge. Here's the thing. My client seeking due process isn't just for her, it's for all of us. That's what you should do. That's what anybody should do. And so I I look forward to presenting the evidence in this case and seeking another time to sit down and talk to you, not sit down, stand up and talk to you about it at the end of this. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Flynn. The next portion of this hearing process would be moving into witness testimony from the petitioners. But in order to keep that slot intact, we will recess for a 30 minute lunch break at this time and then resume. Thank you. Okay, we will reconvene this hearing. We pick up where we left off at witness testimony for the petitioners. Mr. Allison, please call your first witness.

And I've asked Ms. Gonzalez to be sort of my technical help.

Thank you.

At this time, Your Honor, we call Mike Culbertson by video deposition, and I have asked Ms. Gonzalez to be sort of the technical person to help play that.

Thank you.

Hence the reason I don't try to do it.

If I may, before the testimony starts, I'm going to have to restate another objection. My apologies. Before the testimony starts, I'm going to restate an objection. Respondent objects that testimonies being received and evaluated by tribunal members who themselves possess first-hand knowledge of the same disputed facts and are potential witnesses regarding those matters The objection is based on due process, fundamental fairness, and the prohibition against a witness serving as the adjudicator of disputed facts. Thank you. I request that the objection be sustained.

I will entertain a motion to accept or deny the request. Motion to deny. Do I hear a second? Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. The motion carries.

thank you and i apologize ahead of time i didn't vote because but i know it passed but i thought he might want to register my my vote so any opposition so he's making a motion that we deny this deposition the depositions witness or in the we're going back to the

No. The objection was to the calling of a witness in this tribunal, and I'm happy to restate it. Respondent objects that testimonies being received and evaluated by tribunal members who themselves possess first-hand knowledge of the same disputed facts and are potential witnesses regarding those matters The objection is based on due process, fundamental fairness, and the prohibition against a witness serving as the adjudicator of disputed facts. Got it.

And then the motion was made to deny his motion, and I vote nay to the motion to deny his motion.

Noted, sir.

Thank you, ma'am.

Yes, sir.

Thank you, ma'am. It's hard to bother you.

Do you want to move it to my desktop?

Will you state your name, please? Paul Michael Culbertson.

And do you understand that we are here today to take your deposition in a pending case? Yes, sir. And I understand that Mr. Bell is your attorney? Yes. Okay. And before we get into any of the details of the case, I do want to get some background on you. Where did you go to, let's say, college? I went to the University of Texas. And did you graduate from there?

Yes, I did.

In what year?

1979.

And so did you graduate with an engineering degree?

Yes.

Did you, when you started, well, did you do any postgraduate work? I did not. Did you go into the workforce?

I joined the Navy.

And how long did you serve in the Navy?

Until 1993, so that'd be 14 years.

Thank you for your service. And in 1993, well, let me ask you this. What did you do for the Navy? I was a carrier pilot.

I flew the A6 Intruder.

And what does that mean you were doing?

That means I was flying off of carriers in an attack squadron.

And after you left the Navy, what did you go do?

I went and got my MBA at University of Houston.

And did you graduate from there? I did. What year? 1995. And what was it that brought you to Corpus?

My wife wanted to move back here.

Was she from here?

Yes. CC, Corpus Christi Regional Economic Development Corporation. I started in 2009.

And if we call that CCREDC, that makes sense? Yes, sir. And so you have been with CCREDC from about 2009 until recently? Correct. And I'm still there. And you're still there right now? Yes. For how many years were you Vice President of Compliance in doing that job?

Until 2015, so six years.

actually i kept that even though in 2015 i became chief operating officer 2015 correct but then you continued in your role as vp of compliance and incentives also and so how long did you continue in your role as vp of compliance and incentives um 2000 Tell me what you were doing as a practical matter.

So I was responsible for the execution of everything in the office. So people reported to me and then on to the CEO. How long were you the COO? I was made interim CEO in July of 22 and I was made permanent CEO in April of 23. And how would you describe the job of the CEO? ceo is responsible for everything to the board for the actions and execution of everything economic development in that office and in the region and we define the region as the msa which is nueces san patricio and aransas counties and in exchange for that do you have responsibilities for the city Yes, we provide staffing for type B projects that come to the city. And type B is a type of sales tax incentive. And so if somebody would like an incentive, they would come here, submit an application, and the application goes through CCREDC. We take it through our board, per guidelines, through the type B board, and present it to the city council.

And I know that you know we're here to talk eventually about the downtown hotel project, whatever we want to call that. What do you refer to that as?

Homewood Suites. Homewood Suites.

And did Homewood Suites run through this Type B process? That's correct. Is there some sort of a written document that lays out that process?

Yes, the Type B guidelines. They're done by Type B and approved by the City Council.

And do those Type B guidelines lay out the very, probably with more specificity, this procedure you're telling me about?

Yes.

I think the first thing you said is you all are responsible for, and by you I mean the RADC, that the RADC is responsible for receiving applications?

That's correct. After that, we run through to make sure the application is complete. and we start working economic impact models using a RIMS II model, R-I-M-S, and then two I's, RIMS II. There are two different ways to do economic impact. One is RIMS and one is IMPLAN, I-M-P-L-A-N. And these are accepted, used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and we go through that.

And I'm going to slow you down for a minute because you're ahead of me just on something that I don't understand there. You're being the expert on it. No, that's fine. Okay, so in order to evaluate the economic impact, it sounds like you run it through two models?

No, just one. The rim's two.

And how do you?

R-I-M-S, all caps, and in space, and in capital I, capital I.

And we call it, that looks like REMS 2 to me, but you called it?

No, REMS 2.

Okay, REMS 2. Okay, got it. Okay, and REMS 2, tell me specifically, you say you run it through that. I guess you're doing that because it is a model that probably based on whatever type of business or industry. and probably a multitude of factors, this computer software is designed to help you understand the economic impact of that coming to our community?

That is correct. It gives us how much taxes, various taxes will be collected from the project. so those taxes can obvious ones property tax sales tax but also by creating jobs those people buy things and so we collect those sales tax if it's a hotel if it's a destination hotel then we would look at hot which is hotel occupancy tax and also the building permits whatever but those are pretty much abolished

And all of those are revenue sources?

To the city. We do it by payback and investment return.

And return on investment, ROI.

So payback means that say you give $50,000 in incentives how long would it take for the taxes generated to equal $50,000? And so that's the payback period.

And is it in RIMS 2 or somewhere else that maybe there's some guidelines for an edc such as yours to rank what are more attractive types of businesses to bring to a community we have by the type a now type b we've always used a five-year payback

and greater than 12% return on investment.

Five-year payback and greater than 12% ROI? Correct. At least 12%. But on the private projects, your criteria for supporting it and recommending it is this five-year payback and greater than 12% ROI. Correct. You're really feeding data into a computer and looking for a result. Correct. And that's how it's supposed to work at EDC.

Right.

Okay, and so what I'd like to do is understand what the different data is that is inputted into RIMS. And it sounds like type of job is one? Correct. Is the pay scale for that job inputted? Yes. Is the number of jobs inputted? Yes. Is the type of industry inputted? Yes

So far, I'm just guessing good.

It's not that I know. I'm just trying to think about what things would give influence economic output.

Go ahead. So capital investment, but not only capital investment, when? So when? When? For example, if it was a $20 million or, say, a $100 million project, if you had all the spending in the first year, it would be much better than have the spending over a three-year construction period. Makes perfect sense to me.

Is CCREDC's decision to recommend or not recommend a project directed solely by its economic impact?

Yes. Now, it goes before the board, and the board can decide. But so far, it has been the impact.

Has been what?

So far, it has just been determined by the impact. Does that impact the room score? So if you were a, say, Margaritaville, which is a destination, then we would include hotel occupancy tax because it would go up because of this. If you were just another hotel, in fact, this was the discussion we had with this one. If you're just another hotel and you realize that occupancy is even higher even in good months, 72%, then we would not include HOT. You would not include the HOT tax? Right. And HOT can be huge. I mean, it's what, 9% for whatever? So 9% of your hotel bill has 9% added on. That goes to Corpus Christi.

Okay. And so you're saying that you would factor in, for example, if it's a type of hotel, that is a destination. Correct. We'll draw new people here. Then that's another positive thing in the equation. Right. Is that considered by RIMS 2 or is that something? Okay. So that is another data point.

Correct. But we intentionally did not use it for this one. Okay.

Homewood Suites is not a... Yeah, it's not a destination. It doesn't draw people, oh, I want to go stay at a Homewood Suite. Fair enough. So then you're going to get all the data points, put them into RIMS 2. You're going to get a report? Correct. What do we call that report?

Really, it's just the economic impact report.

When the application is in progress or completed, who does it get distributed to?

It goes to Randy, myself, and then once we have it, we have a requirement under the guidelines to give it to the city manager, the assistant city manager of economic development, which is now Heather, and the mayor. And we just sent them the application and said, we have received this.

So that I would assume means you present all applications to your board and to the Type B board.

Yes.

But is there a written guideline for Type B?

Yes.

What do we call that?

The Corpus Christi Type B Corporation Guidelines.

Okay, but there's no ranking of the type of industries that are historically better known for helping with economic development.

RIMS II would take care of that because, for example, if you had a, like I said, a refinery could create eight jobs while a restaurant actually will create 0.6 jobs. So it takes care of that when it comes back and spits out the payback and the return on investment. But no, we do not. While we have a preference, there is no preference in RIMS. RIMS 2 does not see that. It just takes the investment, jobs, salary, and... RIMS is running a program.

Correct. Okay, but you said we have a preference. Who's we? We, the EDC. And what is the EDC's preference?

The EDC is manufacturing.

What are the parameters that you think of in terms of hotel?

Well, we would like a more of a destination one if we can. Slitterbomb comes to mind. Margaritaville, something like that. A four or five star would be preferable to a two star or no star. Obviously, number of jobs has that impact. But if you had a two star but had a lot of jobs, You know, it's probably worth it, so.

Okay, but, okay, so kind of the, with the hotel, in your mind, you start thinking we'd rather have a destination hotel, we'd rather have a four or five star, right, so far?

Yeah, we'd rather have that, but we just put it in the rooms and see that it hits those numbers.

Robert, you've been doing this a long time, so I'm worried about the sense that you know what it has a smell test. Right. It does. When it walks in the door and you hear what they're doing, you go, oh, this is what I like about it. This is what I don't like about it. All right. Okay. What does a hotel do?

I think it's 1.3.

So it's pretty low.

Yes.

You said the preference is manufacturing. Why? What are the things that manufacturing does?

Because manufacturing actually increases the wealth of the region by bringing, by exporting goods and or services and bringing money from the outside in.

So manufacturing, for example, creates more jobs, creates higher paying jobs. Right. And brings money from the outside. Brings wealth to the community. Right. Okay. And Do you look at hotels as creating higher paying jobs or not?

No.

Do you look at hotels as bringing wealth to the area?

No.

No, not really.

Yeah.

Because most of the staff there are lower paying jobs. Right. I think I've heard a number that at a hotel like Home Suites that there is a specific number assigned or a dollar amount assigned to the average wage that it's going to bring. That's correct. And do you remember what it is for Home Suites? I do not. Does around $13 sound right per hour?

It seems low.

Okay. But historically, hotels bring low-paying jobs. Yes.

Which is taken into account by REMS, too.

And all we're doing here is kind of... cannibalizing, right? So I am sure there's a rims to report. I guess we ought to call it the economic development report for the home suite projects. That's correct. And do you remember how it scored?

It was within five year payback and at least 11 12% for For what we recommended.

In other words, for a specific dollar amount.

Correct.

And what was that dollar amount?

For our recommendation was, and I don't know the entire one, but it was $1,043,000.

$1,043,000? Yes. And so did you take that to, I guess, first, when you say the recommendation, that's staff's recommendation? Correct. And that's after the application and after it gets put through the RIMS, too?

That's correct.

The ask was $1 million?

It was $2 million. From the project, it was $2 million.

Fair enough. Who asked?

The project, it was... Philip Ramirez. Do you remember roughly the date of the application?

It was the end of September of 23. I want to say the Type B meeting was December of 2023. Does that sound right?

Yeah, that sounds right.

I think just before the break, we're sort of getting our timeline in terms of when it went in front of the REDC board. Correct. And it sounds like that would have been after September, but certainly before December of 2023. Correct. And during the presentation, the ask was $2 million? Correct. To the REDC?

Yes.

And the staff's recommendation was $1 million?

Not on that one. Not on the presentation. On the second one where we voted, it was $1 million.

Okay. And that's because the staff had completed their analysis of where it kind of, what benefit, cost benefit there was to it.

Right.

Is that a public meeting? The first meeting with the RADC, is that a public meeting?

No. We're a 501c6, so we're private.

Then the Type B board presentation, when that was made to the Type B board, that was in an open meeting? I have a video tape of it.

Yes, yes it was.

On the application, did they identify what the money that would be given to them, if any, what it would be used for?

Yes.

And what was Randy telling you he had been told by Philip and Devin?

That due to increase in construction costs plus the FEMA requirements, that's what the ask was for.

And by plus the FEMA requirements, you mean the changes they were saying had occurred at FEMA with regard to the floodplain?

Correct.

You mean the amount matters? Yes. And reasons matter?

Correct.

Did you ever have conversations with Philip Ramirez about the $2 million asked for the changes in FEMA floodplain?

Besides, that was one of the reasons. No, we didn't have anything else besides that, or we had because of that.

I'm not sure I understand your answer.

We did not have a specific conversation about the FEMA change, just that due to the FEMA change.

It's just what?

Due to the FEMA change.

Okay. Due to the FEMA floodplain change.

Right, in downtown, that. That's why the ask was where it was.

But I mean, you heard those words from Philip Ramirez. Yeah. You know I know a little about that. when you heard the words from philip that the reason for the two million dollar ask was for the change in fema floodplain do you think that was before or after the executive session meeting that likely occurred with the type b board it's probably before So it would have probably been November 2023?

Yeah, or December.

Did you have a hand in developing the presentation?

No.

The five-slide presentation I showed you a moment ago was developed by, from your perspective, Philip Ramirez?

From their side. I don't know who exactly, but we did touch it. I mean, you'll see our logo on there.

Okay. Who added your logo?

Randy would have.

Okay. Did Randy make any other modifications to it?

Not to my knowledge.

think you and i both know later in time it was pointed out that one of the slides in that five slide presentation had been falsified or altered right altered yes okay well altered in a way that it was no longer conveying the full information that was on the published federal web website right i know that a date was missing and also the reference number i think

Okay. I do not know that. I just know the date was missing.

Okay. The date of publication was missing. And you and I know that became a subject of great criticism.

Correct.

And so I'm just putting a bookend on that for you now because at some point in time, I'm sure you realized, hey, this presentation we're using has been, whether you want to call it altered or changed or falsified, whatever word you want to use, it created a commotion.

Yes, it did.

Okay. And then I'm sure naturally you sort of wanted to or did say to yourself, hey, what's the deal here? What's going on? How did this happen? How did we get into this uncomfortable spot? Fair enough? Yes. Okay. Did you have conversations to learn about why it had been altered or falsified?

I did not.

You never talked to anybody about it?

I talked to Randy about it, but that was it. Just that it had happened. What? Just that it had happened. Because once it came out of Type B, it was a different animal.

Your conversations with Randy relating to the altered or false slide, what were those conversations?

Just what are they talking about? Because I was not making the presentations, Randy was. And so when it came up in city council, that's when I asked him what it was.

And what did he tell you?

He said that a date was missing.

Did you say anything else?

No. On the presentation, but that was it.

Did you ask him, Randy, did you do it?

Yes, I did. And he said no.

It's a pretty natural question. Yeah, I understand. The next natural one is, do you know who did it?

I do not.

Did you ask him who did it?

No, I did not. I mean, I asked him if he did it, and he said no. He said I received it like that.

And I think you have had a conversation that tells me if I ask you who did it, then your deductive reasoning was it came from the applicant.

Correct.

And I think you told Ajit David that it came from the applicant.

Correct.

Okay. And that's still your belief?

Yes.

I'm going to show you the online version of the FEMA federal document. Do you understand what I'm going to show you?

Yes, I do.

And do you see, I think you're familiar with this for sure, do you see the release date of April 13, 2022? I do. Do you see the reference number of R6-009? I do. And do you see the release date of April 13, 2022?

I do.

And then if I go to the slide that was used, do you see that all three pieces of information are missing?

I do see that, that they are missing.

Okay. And so... And I wanted to show you that because you've told me that, oh, I just knew about the one date. Correct? Correct. Did you, until right now, know that there were three separate alterations or falsifications of the document?

No.

This is the first time you've heard that?

Correct. I just thought it was the date.

You told us that you were at the open meeting for the Type B board when the project was presented, right?

Yes, I believe so.

Okay. And during that presentation, we have it on video, but the applicants, I believe it was Ramirez.

Video. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. My apologies. We are, I think, what was that?

Were we at page?

Well, I need to state an objection just for the record. Pages 75, line 6 to page 76, line 11 is objection to all of that testimony under hearsay 801 and 802, even if The video is independently admitted. Each speaker's statement still requires a hearsay basis, so I need to make, just for the record, an objection on that testimony. 75.6 to 76.11.

Noted. Do we have a motion to accept or deny this objection?

Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Ellison. Yes, go ahead. You're objecting to just give me a page in line. 75.6? 75.6.

75.6 to 76.11. It's him recounting the Type B presentation. That's all. And it's a hearsay objection.

And the actual video says the same thing, which is the proper evidence, and it's already in the record. So I'll make this suggestion. I'll withdraw it from the presentation, but let's not spend too much time technically trying to make sure it doesn't play since I know. You see what I mean? I mean, just don't, let's just, because we don't have our operator here, but I don't know how they get to skip around or not. So with us withdrawing it, you don't really need to do anything.

So there's an agreement.

Pardon?

So there's an agreement to exclude that?

Yes. I'll agree to his request. So it's done by agreement. And because we know that the full video of the Type B presentation is already in evidence.

Thank you.

And however they take care of that logistically, I agree he's not waiving.

He being the respondent. Thank you. I appreciate that.

Are we able to restart the video at this time? Yes.

Phillip Ramirez. I talked about how they'd reimagine that project in July of 2022. Do you remember that?

Something like that. I do not remember.

Do you remember that they asked for two million? Yes. Do you remember that they told the Type B board that the change in FEMA rules is what they were representing, that that was one of the reasons for the ask? Yes. And that they needed the $2 million, or at least a portion of it, in order to comply with these new, what they call new FEMA requirements.

Yes.

And specifically, they told the Type B board that they had to elevate the first floor of the building four feet.

Yes.

And that they were kind of caught by surprise by the way they expressed it, by these new FEMA rules, and did not anticipate it, and therefore were making this monetary ask. Do you remember that?

I remember the gist of that, yes.

But I'm talking about it's always been in the 100-year floodplain, right?

I assume so, yes, sir.

I mean, Corpus didn't get lower or higher. So in terms of it being in a floodplain at the time they bought the property, at the time they reimagined the project, and for decades before that, that piece of property has been in the floodplain, 100-year floodplain, for decades, right?

I assume so.

But I mean, you know that the elevation hadn't changed and the floodplains are basically the same for decades.

That's correct.

And that's anything down the hill, we're up on the hill right now, anything down the hill is considered in the floodplain?

Correct.

Okay. And that's been true for a long, long, long time?

Yes.

Okay. So you would expect them to make sure the property is insurable? Correct. You would expect them before they come ask for $2 million to make sure what the floodplain was for the project?

That's correct.

You would expect them to be keeping up with FEMA rules to make sure that they know they can succeed with the project?

I would assume that.

Well, you would expect them to.

Right.

That's their job as the developer. Yes. Yes. And their job in Phillip's case is being the architect.

Yes.

Okay. And I'm sure you're familiar enough to know that architects deal with floodplain on every project.

Yes, here, yes.

Some places you maybe don't have to deal with it, but here you know it's something you've got to check on every project before you put a penny in.

Correct.

Okay. Did you ever have any conversations with Peter Zanoni about the hullabaloo?

We spoke briefly about it. I think the time we spoke about it was actually, he asked about the presentation and we told him where we got it from and that we hadn't altered it except for put our logo on it and that they were delaying the February meeting and that was it.

so you let peter zanoni know that the redc was not responsible for the change in its content that's correct in the slide presentation correct in the fema slide specifically correct okay and that is specifically what he was asking you about is hey who changed this slide basically yes the mayor is saying that the floodplain, that the FEMA rules had suddenly changed or recently changed. Do you know where she would have gotten that information?

No.

But you now know that's false information.

That they've recently changed?

I mean... Well, the changes were announced back in April and finalized in October and then it's a year plus later. That's not a recent change.

Agreed? Yeah, I agree to the dates. Okay.

If they didn't imagine it until July of 2022, then we know that they should have known it. The architect should have known.

Yes, I will say that, yes, they should have known.

Okay, the architect should have known before they even announced the changes.

Yes.

And the architect should have known when the changes were going to come into effect before he even imagined the project, apparently, right?

I would assume so, yes.

Okay. And so if you're going around acting like it's this change that we didn't anticipate, that's whether you want to call it untruthful, disingenuous or untruthful, it's really not being square.

I'll agree with that.

Okay. And whether you want to call it disingenuous or untruthful or not squared up, not honest, that's the reason that city council changes in FEMA is the reason that city council was given for the two million ask, right? At first reading.

Yes.

Okay. You know I'm going to look at the agenda item.

Right.

Okay. And the reason that the developer, Devin, Bokta, Phillip Ramirez were given to the City Council for the $2 million asked was for, quote, cost associated with FEMA flood zone requirements. Does that sound right?

Yes.

And the other reasons were that the grant request it said would be utilized for additional costs associated with newly defined Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, AE flood zone requirements that has added unexpected additional cost of $1,510,000 and change towards the project. Do you remember that being essentially on the agenda?

That's correct.

Okay. And that's really a false reason. Agreed?

It's not entirely, covers everything, no.

It's not entirely true?

It's something like that, yeah.

Okay. Remember in school when they said if it's not entirely true, then you're supposed to check false?

Yes.

Okay, so on that one, we're going to have to check false.

Agreed? Agreed.

Okay. And I assume you would agree that everything that is being put in front of the city council when you're asking for $2 million in tax money needs to be 100% true.