City Council - workshop

Good evening. We're gonna call this executive session of the City Council of New Braunfels to order on Monday, 05/11/2026. Missus Wilkinson, will you please call roll?

Yes, sir. Council member Carter? Here. Council member Capizzi?

Here.

Council member Edwards?

Here.

Mayor Pro Tem Spradley?

Here.

Council member Lebowski? Here. Council member Ryan? Here. And mayor Leonard.

Here. We have a quorum. In accordance with the open meetings act, Texas government code chapter 551.071, city council may convene in a closed session to discuss any of the items listed below. Any final action or vote on any executive session items will be taken in open session. Tonight we plan to deliberate pending or contemplated litigation, settlement offers and matters concerning privileged and unprivileged client information deemed confidential by rule 1.05 of the Texas disciplinary rules of professional conduct accordance with section 551.071 of Texas government code specifically to discuss city charter ordinances, Texas constitution, state statutes and conflicts of law related to majority and plurality voting requirements and deliberate the appointment evaluation duties, discipline removal of the city attorney in accordance with section 551.074 of Texas government code.

It is 05:04 on Monday, May 11 and we are leaving open session and retiring to closed session and any action we take will be taken in open session.

Mayor, I do wanna say that for item letter b which is the personnel item with my item, a personnel matter under my rights under five five one zero seven four is the employee. I would like for that deliberation to happen in open session when we're done with item a.

Okay.

That's it.

We are leaving open session at 05:04PM on Monday, 05/11/2026. Okay, it's 05:59. We are coming out of closed session back into open session on Monday, 05/11/2026. For those of you that are here for our regular 06:00 meeting, we apologize for the delay, but we're still working on our executive session. So now we're going to take up item B, deliberate the appointment, evaluation, duties, discipline or removal of the city attorney in accordance with section 551.074 of Texas government code.

And I think we're gonna start with Mr. Zeck giving us a little history on some of the issues we've had with the election.

Good evening, counsel, citizens of New Braunfels. I think what I'm supposed to be doing here is giving them a little history of how I found out and contacted our city attorney regarding the conflict between state law and the Texas constitution. I think I'm going to start by saying that no good deed ever goes unpunished because I have been the center of a storm and I'm not sure how that happened, but we're going to talk a little bit about how we got here and how this happened. So there's a little bit of history. In 2008, I published something called Homeworld charters in the state of Texas.

I was completing my master's degree in public administration, and for my applied research project, I selfishly, it was completely selfishly decided to review every single charter in the state of Texas and conduct my applied research project on charters, what they say, the reasons why they say it, their histories, things of that nature. It's a statistical analysis of Texas charters. I did that in 2008. The reason why I chose that as an applied research project for my master's degree is because I thought it might get me work as a lawyer who represents local governments, somebody who knows and understands charters. And so it did get me work.

It got me a lot of work. As a matter of fact, since 2008 when completed that applied research project, I have probably averaged a city a year in assisting them in maybe a city and a half a year, yes, easily a city and a half, maybe two a year, assisting them in either creating their very first Home Rule charter, amending their charter. I get hired when people file initiatives or initiative petitions or referendums to assist in determining whether or not those petitions are appropriate for amendments to the charter. I've been hired by San Antonio, Paso, Seguin not Seguin, I apologize, cities all across the state. Those the two big ones.

So on Monday, I was doing I had a few minutes to spare, last Monday. I had a few minutes to spare. The reason I had a few minutes to spare is because I finished what I was doing, and I had to leave to go to, coincidentally, a Home Rule Charter Commission meeting, where I was assisting a client in amending their Home Rule Charter. And as I want to do and my wife tells me not to do, I started doom scrolling on Facebook. This was about 03:40, I guess, 03:45. I had to leave between four and 04:30. My client meeting was 06:00. Was about an hour and a half away from my Austin office. And I came across a post from a gentleman who I shall not name because no one else needs to be dragged into this. But I'm a Facebook friend with this gentleman.

I am not an actual friend. I'm a Facebook friend. I did some business with this gentleman, so he shows up on my Facebook feed. Years ago, I did it. And on that Facebook feed, it said, I now learned something today. I learned why the mayor does not have to go to the runoff and our district council members do. And he proceeded to state that our charter says that a that the district council members have to be elected by majority vote and the mayor has to be elected by plurality. And I thought I had about two seconds where I was going reply to that and go, Well, that can't be true. That's not the law. I I know it's not the law now.

I've been doing this for eighteen years. So I thought, wait a minute, I do work for the city of New Braunfels. They're my client. I probably shouldn't be posting something like that on Facebook. Let me take a look at what's going on. So I went and I looked at the city's charter, and sure enough, that's exactly what it says. And then I looked and I went at the election results, and sure enough, the declared victor, Mr. French, had not acquired the appropriate votes under the Texas constitution to be declared the mayor of the city of New Braunfels. So I called Val at 03:54. I did not call the mayor, did not call the city manager, I did not call my councilman, Mr.

Edwards, who is my councilman in my District 3, because my work flow is through the city attorney's office. So I called Val. And I told her what I thought, and she said, Thank you very much, and can I call you back later? And I said, Sure. And I drove to my charter commission meeting, which lasted a couple of hours.

And then I left the charter commission meeting and had another conversation with Val, where she apparently called someone else and confirmed what I said. And that's what happened. That's all that happened until my phone started blowing up on Thursday. I have spent more time on Facebook over the last week and a half reading lies about me than I have spent on Facebook in the last five years where folks say things about me, but usually in fun. But here are the facts.

Am not with all due respect, I am not friends with Mary Leonard's. I read that we went to school together. I had to ask where he went to school. I found out he went to Canyon High School. I went to New Braunfels, so yes, we went to school in the same town. But I'm not sure when he graduated. I graduated in 1984. I read that we went to the same law school. I was able to find that on Google. He graduated from law school in 2012.

I graduated from law school in 1998. I never saw him in law school. I can say that I have interacted with the mayor on probably three occasions. The first two occasions was when I was hired by MBU to assist on a legal issue, and the mayor is on the Board of Directors of MBU. And we had a closed session, and I think that is the very first time I have ever interacted with Mayor Leinartz, ever.

And the only other time that I can think of that I've interacted with him was tonight in closed session. The only reason I know who Mayor Leinartz is is because he is the mayor and because I interacted with him as a client, as part of my governing board. Anybody who says otherwise is misinformed or lying because it's not true. So that's kind of how we got here. No, it's not kind of, it is exactly how we got here.

I was scrolling on Facebook, I saw a post by somebody who said something, I went to see if it was accurate, and I called the city city attorney is because, well, there's two reasons. One, New Braunfels is a client and I have an obligation to ensure my client is compliant with the law. Two, is all done I since 2001 when I was a three year lawyer is represent local governments. And so it doesn't matter if it had been New Braunfels, it doesn't matter if it had been Georgetown, Seguin, name a city in the state of Texas. If I had seen that someone had posted that on Facebook about their charter, I would have immediately said that's not right.

I would have called the city attorney to sort it out. Because the worst case outcome, if I don't make that phone call, is an individual who did not win a majority vote as required by the Texas constitution is seated as mayor of New Braunfels. And that would have been worse because if it had been determined afterwards that that individual was not properly seated because they had not acquired the number of votes as required by the Texas constitution, that would have been a bigger mess. So that's what happened, that's why I did it, and that's how I did it. I'm happy to answer any questions.

So my question is if Mr. French would have been announced, it would have been canvassed tonight, if he would have been canvassed tonight, what direction would have we gone with that?

I can't speculate as to what direction you would have gone as a result of that. I can tell you this, that the Texas constitution requires a majority vote. It's like black and white in the Texas constitution. Must, must receive a majority vote. I think I read in one of my many what are people saying about me scrolls that Mayor Leinart should resign or concede rather than go on with the runoff so that to save the city money.

I can tell you that if Mayor Leinart's conceded, you would still have to have a runoff because Mr. French still did not acquire a majority of the votes under the Texas constitution. So if Mayor Leinartz conceded, the next highest vote getter would have a runoff with Mr. French. If that person conceded, the next highest vote runner would have a runoff with Mr.

French. Because in all of those factual scenarios, Mr. French did not acquire 50% or more of the vote as required by the Texas constitution. In my opinion, if everybody conceded, Mr. Leinartz could not take office as the mayor of the city of New Braunfels because he had not acquired 50% or more of the vote as required by the Texas constitution.

More than likely, if everybody conceded except for Mr. French, you would more than likely have to hold a special election under the other provision of the statute because there's less than one year remaining and you have to fill vacancy in a city with a term of three years by majority vote by special election. That's, I think, how that would have played out.

Question for you. Your analysis does not factor in the nineteen ninety three class action lawsuits forward. Is that correct?

No, I wasn't familiar with any class

action So we don't

In this analysis we're not factoring in any provisions or settlements that occurred just to establish that for a fact. Your research is strict to the constitution?

Yeah, is correct. That is an accurate statement.

Okay, and the other question is about the complexity of the law. We discussed that earlier. Could you elaborate for the folks here your assessment of how complex the Texas constitution is in correlation with the city charters that you review?

Let me see if I can answer it, and you can tell me if I'm answering the question you've asked, all right? Okay. So the Texas constitution is the most convoluted and amended constitution in The United States, with the exception of maybe Alabama and California. The citizens of Texas have chosen to only give the Texas legislature very specific powers. There's not a provision in the Texas constitution that gives the legislature broad regulatory authority.

They only have the power as it's listed in the constitution. And so if the legislature would like to do something different that's not specifically listed or can be reasonably interpreted as a power provided to them in the constitution, they have to amend the constitution in order to achieve it. It's why we have so many constitutional amendments in the state of Texas. The Texas constitution since 1876 has been amended over 500 close to 600 times. Was that the answer to the question?

Yes, and could you also answer has this ever happened in any other city?

Yes, It it has happened. I won't name the community, but there's another community that the then city attorney assisted them in amending their charter, and they amended the charter to provide for three year terms, but they failed to amend in that same section the voting requirements and they left it as plurality, and they had my understanding, don't hold me to the specific facts because I'm not intimately familiar with the facts, it was about twelve years ago, I think. They held a couple of elections, and folks were elected by plurality, and then the city got sued because someone challenged the plurality election. And that lawsuit went on for a little while and it was very expensive, I'm assuming. Lawyers aren't unfortunately cheap.

Mr. Zek, thank you for being here tonight and I appreciate you giving that call late And on in your opinion, how did this become overlooked since 1995?

I have no idea. This has been in place in our charter since 1995. I was city attorney from 2001 to 2005. I don't recall it ever coming up, but it was twenty years ago, so I don't remember. I may have been asked, I may not have been asked, I don't know, I can't remember. I do know that we had a charter I had to go back and look, I couldn't remember. We had a charter amendment in 2005, my last year being the city attorney here. We did not touch this particular provision. I don't recall being asked to look at it. My general recollection was that they didn't want the city attorney involved in policy discussions, which a charter amendment is policy discussion.

It's why I get hired by other lawyers so that the city attorney is not involving themselves in policy discussions, because I can come in as an outside legal counsel and assist and talk about the pros and cons of particular charter amendments, how they work, what happens and those types of issues.

Thank you.

Mr. Zuck, if a city is making amendments to their charter that directly relate to election regulations, standards, provisions, whatever the case might be, particularly election related. Would it be standard practice or expected practice at that time when you're reviewing those amendments prior to sending them out to the voters to review the Texas State Constitution, state election law, as well as any other pertaining laws and statutes that apply to ensure that your amendments and your charter in general at that point in time are compliant with the state constitution?

That's a difficult question to answer. The reason why it's difficult to answer is because on this issue specifically, I know what the law is. I've known what the law is since about 2008 for a while. But I wouldn't say it's usual to go check the constitution for things, honestly.

Even when changing the charter or checking or amendments that pertain to

So there's a provision the Texas constitution that says home rule cities, that home rule cities have all the power of the Texas legislature, except basically they have all the police powers, except where otherwise preempted by state law. So lawyers generally go look to the state laws for those preemptions. And there's a lot of them, Texas Government Code, Texas local government code, the elections code, Texas civil procedures code, utilities code. I there's I think there's 15 or 20 adopted codes in the state of Texas. So that's usually where folks go look.

I mean, I'm not saying you shouldn't go look in constitution. I think after this, any lawyer that hears about that, they're absolutely going to go look at the constitution every single time. But I don't know that I honestly say that that's a reflex. Does that make sense?

When your firm is hired for a charter review, which you

I

first

I

question. That's information to review on a charter review or you've given the opportunity to look at the whole charter?

When I am hired, so when I'm hired, during my first presentation with city councils on charter reviews, before they engage me or soon thereafter they engage me, the first thing I ask my client is, how do you want to handle this? Do you want a wholesale review of your charter? Or are you going to just target specific things that you want reviewed and looked at? And so it depends on the client, it depends on the cities. More often than not though, I am asked to do a complete legal review of the charter as the very first thing I'm asked to do.

That's not always the case. Sometimes they just I literally got hired today for another city to assist with a charter review, and I was told they didn't want a legal review, they've got some targeted things that they want to accomplish, and those are the things that they want me to look at. Now, that doesn't mean if I run across something I know is wrong, I'm gonna tell them, right? But I may not I will not, obviously, spend their time, dollars and money if they haven't asked me to do a complete legal review of the charter.

Mr. Zek.

Yes, sir.

When the city secretary noticed a discrepancy between prior elections and this current one and asked for a legal opinion, your research you did in 2008 has kind of put you in a position where you're a charter expert, correct?

Well, I don't like using the word expert because as you know, Mayor, we don't have a board certification for charter law. But I do know a lot more than most other lawyers in the area, yes, sir.

And you're currently outside counsel for the city of New Braunfels, correct?

I am, yes sir.

So a phone call when that legal opinion was requested could have avoided a lot of this trouble, couldn't it?

I would have known the answer off the top of my head if that's your question.

Okay, thank you.

I didn't know that Mr. Zeck was involved when the city secretary, could you elaborate on that? City secretary noticed a discrepancy? When?

I think she's going to give a statement later. Oh.

But that didn't involve Mr. Zeck though? I'm just trying to get clarification.

Correct.

Any other questions for Mr. Zeck?

Yes. You mentioned back when you were the city attorney that you yourself did not look at

I have no recollection of doing a review of the charter on this particular issue, no. I do not have any recollection of that. If I did and I missed it, I certainly would have brought it up a long time ago. Also for whatever it's worth, and this is not a defense of me at all, I'm not trying to make it a defense. I don't know why the city of New Braunfels hired me. I was three years out of law school. I didn't know that a city attorney existed. I was just happy and proud to be able to serve a city attorney for the city of New Braunfels, my hometown. I was very excited about it, very excited.

Mr. Zecca, I have one more question. Going back and looking at the ordinances from the past mayor races, all of them said must win by majority vote with the exception of this year and this year, it says the mayor must win by polarity. So, that was changed.

Okay.

With advice I believe from our city attorney. Wouldn't that been the time to ask those questions to outside counsel or because you're changing the language something that hadn't been done in years?

I don't think I'm comfortable saying when a particular individual should have made a call or not made a call because I'm not in their position so I'm not.

But would a typical city attorney, if they change the language, would they not go back and reflect on other laws to make sure that it complies?

Again, I am not comfortable answering that question. I can't put myself in the shoes of somebody else and to know what they should or shouldn't done. It's easy for me to sit here and go, yeah, absolutely. But on the other hand, I can think of multiple times where I have not reached out for advice after I've reviewed and analyzed an issue because I felt I had the answer. So I didn't reach out to anybody else. So I know that I'm comfortable saying what another person should or shouldn't.

And my

follow-up to that is the ordinance was signed by the city attorney and was signed by the mayor. Does that make that ordinance not valid?

No, it doesn't make the ordinance not valid. We could adopt an ordinance that is blatantly unconstitutional and be signed, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still not the law.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions?

All

right, Mrs. Acevedo, did you have a statement you wanted to? I do,

but I'd like to give it my apologies for giving giving you my back. I'm not used to doing that. But I am speaking as an employee of the city of New Braunfels right now, not as the legal adviser. I have a prepared statement that I would like to go through to explain my perspective, but I I do want to comment on the last com the last thing that you brought up, council member Spradley. There there seems to be misinformation upon misinformation.

There was no request request of me, you know, before the ordinance was adopted to look into the issue of plurality. And I think later tonight at the 06:00 meeting, the city secretary was going to be providing some remarks, so I'm gonna let her say what she needs say at that time. But in my defense, I'm gonna say that I that that is not a conversation that happened at all where the word plurality came up or even a look at the charter. Just a question of, hey. Does this ordinance have to track the charter because it looks like last year they didn't do that. And that was that that's

understand that, but you did sign the ordinance. Correct?

Yes. I did. Yes. I did. Yes. I did. We all we all, several of us did. Good evening, mayor and council. I have requested tonight's executive session, item b, regarding my employment with the city of New Braunfels to be held in open session because I believe this level of transparency is necessary so that everyone can hear this discussion as it may help dispel some of the confusion created by last week and multiple statements made. It is the right thing to do, though it's not easy for me.

Additionally, it is the necessary thing to do as both my career and my professional reputation have been targeted and brutally, intentionally, and irreparably damaged this past week as well as that of the employees in the city attorney's office. I remain hopeful that everyone will do the right thing and help clear up the misinformation that has already been widely circulated in our community. Election integrity. There's one thing that I I want to address, and it's a very important point that none of last week's releases really touched upon at all, and that is the fact that every vote counted. That is the fact that the election was carried out as it has been for years on our behalf by the county, our partner, and they did an outstanding job as always.

That is not what has been in quest what is in question, and that election process is above reproach. And I'm saying this because of all the social media comments. I I tried to stay off. I couldn't, So I I was on there quite a bit last week. And and I I think it's important that people separate what happened during the election versus how we were gonna calculate the outcome of the votes cast. Again, the election integrity

is not what is in question.

It went off as it should have. Instead, the problem, as you've heard today and in the press releases made on Monday, May 4, began Monday night when mister of Zeck notified me, my office, that our charter has our city charter has an unlawful provision that's been in the charter since 1995. It is an unenforceable plurality vote provision that only applies to mayoral elections. It has never come up before in the last thirty one years because the mayor's race has either been unopposed, there were only two candidates, or if there were more than two, the winner won by a clear majority, 50% plus one vote. So this question has never come up.

The temporary confusion arose with the city charter, but not everyone knows what a city charter is. So let me just say that we are a home rule city organized under the state laws with full powers of self governance. Mister Zeck touched upon that a little bit. So we look to state laws for limits on that authority. In my review, I did look at state law.

I looked at the Texas election code when this conversation came up in March. Our home rule charter is like our very own constitution. It's our local constitution. It guides and governs many things such as how the city must adopt its laws known as ordinances, how it spends money, prepares its budget, and the terms of office for its elected officials, which our charter sets at three, three years. In New Braunfels, for the last thirty one years, the mayor has been elected under the understanding that it was plurality.

Why those ordinances have said majority? Nobody knows. That institutional knowledge doesn't exist. In March, I was asked by staff to look at this provision. I was asked to look at section four zero five and asked, does does this say what I think it says?

I'm reading plurality, but just for the mayor's race, and it's in a section called majority vote. I looked at it, never having been asked to examine that provision in my almost fifteen years with the city. And to my surprise, it did identify or define plurality vote very no uncertain terms. A plain reading of it makes it clear, but nevertheless, I told staff, let me keep looking. And so I did.

I looked at to the Texas election code. Anytime we're doing research, that's what you look at. We look at state laws to see where our restrictions are as a home rule city. There's a lot of them in the local government code and many other codes in Texas. I found the definition of pro valid pro plurality and other clauses that weren't really on point, but I never came across in my research to anything that would have raised a red flag about the Texas constitution having anything restriction on the city of New Braunfels due to our term limits being longer than two years.

Again, as stated in the May 4 press release, I learned of the conflict by that phone call, that phone call that's changed seemingly my life and the life of many other good, hardworking people. Regardless of how I learned about this conflict of laws and who informed me, the fact is we must have a mayoral runoff. We must follow the law. I am duty bound as I was then to tell you that is the law, and we must follow it. So again, this happened last Monday, first business day after the election.

I and my legal team acted quickly to run down the constitution in any cases or legal opinions by the Texas attorney general's office and to get another confirmation verbal confirmation from yet another law firm just to make sure that we weren't, you know, spinning our wheels or looking in the wrong direction. It was confirmed. As soon as I confirmed the charter plurality provision was not an enforceable one, I called the city manager. I asked him if he was sitting down. The mayor and and at that point, it's suffice it to say that I was sick.

I was I was sick. I was in shock. It was all very, very happening very quickly. We contacted the city manager. I contact contacted the mayor, had a conversation with him.

And then within an hour after preparing an email supplement email advisory to the council so I would be ready to hit send after updating mister French, I contacted mister French with the city secretary on the line. We called a second time because we didn't he didn't answer, so we we left a voice message. Gail left a voice message the second time with the intention of introducing me to him, and then I would explain. I would give him the the bad news. A voice mail was left.

We I did not hear back from him, and Gail it was some time before Gail did. But the the gist of that meeting was going to be to tell him that a runoff was necessary that's required by the Texas constitution. Thankfully, we had not yet posted the May 11 agenda for tonight, so we still had time to work with staff to edit the ordinance and make sure that we didn't prematurely declare a winner for the mayor's race. So, fortunately, because of the timing, I consider that God's hand that I learned it when I did and not today or tomorrow or next week or next month. It is an understatement to describe myself as shocked and upset by this discovery, knowing the disappointment that this was gonna cause others, especially mayoral candidates and all of their supporters.

I feel it on my heart that it's the right thing to apologize for my role in this thirty one year standing provision. First, mister French, when he learned he was headed to a runoff, And the way he found out, I really wish it he had heard it from me. I also feel responsible for the shock and frustration of his campaign workers, voters, supporters that they would naturally feel who were celebrating likely since Saturday night, probably, I assume popping corks as they say, because he received nearly 50% of the votes. So to them, I I do need to apologize for the timing of this discovery and how I wish I could have known just a few days, a few weeks sooner. Also, to the mayor, his voters, his supporters, and his campaign workers, to the city council, to city staff who I love, the people that I work with, and to my fellow citizens who have been confused, frustrated, concerned.

It is really a strange thing when I think about it that this issue of plurality vote had had not come into play for thirty one long years, and yet it turns out I am the lucky one. I'm the one chosen. It was discovered on my watch. I must point out that we immediately did prepare the runoff ordinance. Like I said, the posted agenda the following day, which would have been the legal cutoff under the Texas Open Meetings Act to post an agenda for today.

The timing of the discovery, again, a god thing to me, allowed us to work quickly before any legal damage. I say legal damage because I'm not insensitive to everything that's going on in the community, could be done to the canvassing and the official results declared prematurely. Tonight, council will order a runoff election not only for District 6, but now we have the mayoral race. We followed the law. I have been blamed 100% for this discovery and for following the law so late.

I have been blamed for my timing. Even my office has been blamed. Even though they were not involved in interpreting the charter in March, this hurts me more than what is happening to me. It is heartbreaking to witness as it is so inaccurate and undeserved, but I will address them in a minute. I wish I had learned of this unenforceable provision, I also know that I'm only one person in a string.

I can only speak for myself tonight and for my role in this. And for that, I apologize from the bottom of my heart, and I am grateful that I am able I was able to spring into action with my team so fortuitously the day before we had to post this agenda. I can rest easy in the fact that I did do the right thing once I received that bombshell, really, information that I thought, certainly, this cannot be. This cannot be the law. How could it be that my charter that has been on the books since 1995 could be wrong?

I followed the law. However, before I close, I do have to make one final point. I will not leave here before I resoundingly, flatly, and vehemently reject the intentional disregard for the well-being and the reputation of the other employees in the city attorney's office. They have been lumped into this even though they have nothing to do with any of it. They have, been ignored and hurt.

I am a witness to unfair and unwarranted blame of the city attorney's office staff. That includes lawyers and paralegal staff. These people are kind, compassionate, brilliant, dedicated, hardworking, ethical, I could go on, highly experienced. It upsets me. It hurts my heart to see how they have been maligned.

They are my work family. I will defend them. They have always supported me through good times and bad. Even now, I do not know exactly what I have done to deserve them and the fact that they are in my life and all their love and support, their dedication and loyalty, but I am grateful. Most of all, I'm grateful to God for putting them on my path.

It has been an honor and a privilege to work with them and so many other wonderful city employees that I have worked with over the past so many years, not to mention the awesome community members who I have met, some of whom I am honored to this day to call my friends. It has been my humble privilege to serve as the city attorney for the city of New Braunfels for the last fourteen and a half years. Through my work, again, I'll never forget all the many wonderful and beautiful people, and for that, I'm blessed. In closing, there have been many people who read the charter over the last thirty one years. In recent history, I'm not the sole person.

Nevertheless, I accept responsibility for my own part. I regret and I apologize that this has happened, but since it did, I'm glad. I'm glad so I could witness it and ensure the right thing was done. When armed with that information, I took the next necessary step. It wasn't even a choice.

I was able to ensure the right thing was done and that the city corrected this decades old course it has been on. At the end of the day, we own owe it to the taxpayers to always do the right thing and to follow the law. And I'd also would like to address the fact that there was a twenty twenty one election. And if I have counsel's permission, I would like to, there's been information out there about my role, my assignment, and the only way I can address it is if you all give me your consent to share what exactly the scope was was of my charge, what I was told I could do. One thing I can say that's out there is there was no charter review commission.

And where I came from, you had charter review commissions of the of the local residents. That's who sits on a charter review commission. And it takes maybe a year, two years for the citizens to meet regularly, sometimes twice a month, once a month, to go through those provisions that are most important, and they bring those recommendations to counsel. But if you go back and look at the record, that is not what happened in 2021, unfortunately. The work was done.

The heavy lifting was done in 2020, late twenty nineteen. However, COVID hit. So election that should have happened May 2020 was postponed a year. That's why their 2021 amendments, it was shelved. Essentially, everything was ready to go until that following year.

Do I have permission to discuss my role in the twenty twenty one election? Because it it has come up about what I knew or shouldn't have known.

I don't know that it's relevant to what we're doing tonight, but I

have no issue with it. I consider it relevant. I want to hear the full background.

I'd like to know your role in that process.

I would like to know.

Okay. Thank you. So in 2021, as you know, that was when it was when the voters voted on all 18 ballot props, noncontroversial stuff in there, and that was by design from the get go. When I brought up I in 2013, I did a presentation to the then mayor and council and about charter review commissions, how to put them together, what a lot I studied a lot of different Texas cities, put all that together. So I I resurfaced that, dusted it off, updated it, and that was I was told in no uncertain terms, no, ma'am, we're not doing that.

The person that's going to be leading this is going to be the mayor pro tem at the time. He had about eight months or so before he came off the council, and it was something that was very important to him. He had over his terms of office, I guess, seen things in the charter that he wanted to change. One of the things being formalizing the fact that the mayor pro tem evaluates the charter officers, myself, the city manager, and the municipal court judge. And so that, like other other changes that were made, were noncontroversial.

If we brought up anything that seemed controversial or anything like that and and it was not an a a stem to stern review. I was never tasked with looking at every single provision of that multipage document. I did hire outside counsel. They did help me review it. Some another firm that does it wasn't mister Zech's firm, but a different firm that has done a lot of charter reviews.

But again, our scope was limited. It was not to go looking at every single section and start figuring out what provisions were needed to be changed or updated. It was really multiple times. I got asked, Robert got asked, hey. Is there anything else that, you know, noncontroversial stuff, simple things, little notes, maybe even typos and things like that. There was a lot of that if you look at those ballot props and nothing controversial. Not that this would have been, but that only goes to my assignment. My assignment was not that that I reject that. My assignment was not and not and so I did not give that to the outside firm to do a stem to stern review. Turn over every rock.

Look at every single provision and help me ferret out everything in here that's illegal. Now there were some things that we had to update that were all obvious because it's in the local government code, things that I deal with pretty regularly. That's kind of my bible. You know, for city attorney. I look at that a lot among other state laws. So there were a lot of things we were able to update at that time, but I needed to make clear that that was never my charge. In fact, there were many times I told, no. Let's that's not that's not the assignment. You know, we're just trying we don't have a lot of time. We're trying to get this this to the voters in May.

And that was that I said, okay. I I, you know, I I pulled back, and I you know, we kept it. And as it was, it ended up with 18 ballot props anyway. But I I felt that that was important to say because it has been painted that I was told to do something, and I just I just didn't do it. I I blew it off. I ignored it. I I was derelict, and that's just not me. Anybody who knows me, who's ever worked with me, knows that is not who I am. That is not my work ethic. I take pride in my work. I make mistakes. I I am the first one. You can ask my staff. I am the first one to say, if you don't know, say you don't know. You look like an idiot, so what?

It's better than saying the wrong thing. But if you think you know, and I thought I knew when I was asked that question in March about, hey, Val, can you just look at this real quick? Hand it a piece of paper, just a couple of page. Can you look at that and see what does that say to you? Does am I reading that right? It looks like plurality for the mayor. Yes, ma'am. That's what it says. But no legal opinion. No you know, I I was only looking at our constitution and saying, yeah.

That's what it says. I wasn't I had no reason. And even looking at the election code, I had no reason even from there. And I think a lot of lawyers might have looked at the elect there's nothing there that would have indicated, you know, that there was a problem, a red flag, even a yellow flag. I remember mentioning it to people. I'm like, that is so shocking. That's so I didn't know that. That's interesting. This is gonna be neat. Let's see how this election goes. I'm gonna see my first plurality. Because in the past, again, unopposed mayor mayoral elections or just a couple of people, maybe three, but somebody always got 50% plus one. I thought that there's no way that's gonna happen with with four. And you know what? It almost did.

Can you say what was the piece of paper that you were given? Was it

the ordinance or was it just the section? It was for section four zero five of the charter.

Okay.

Yeah. The the ordinance, when that that was January, January 7, and I'm I'm I'm treading a little bit on missus Wilkinson's whatever she's gonna say tonight, but I may not be able to to comment on it then. But she emailed me, do you have a minute? I'm like, not right now, but come in ten minutes. I do a lot of, like, we call it fast food drive through legal advice. That's the way city government works. You don't get I don't get to sit down and research and write formal legal opinions for everything. So she peeked her head in after ten minutes and asked me, hey. So I'm working on this, our standard election ordinance that we do every year. I'm working on it.

I'm noticing last year, they used language that doesn't track the charter. And and I said, track the charter. That's what I thought. Thank you. And that was the end of that conversation. Literally, no not not even seated, and I kept I went on with my other meeting. Mhmm. I don't even remember. I had to be reminded of that conversation. It was so, in my mind, insignificant and vague and high level.

Right. And I understand I signed the ordinance. I signed, like the mayor, I to have say in his defense, lots of ordinances. Every Tuesday, all the ordinances that are in contracts, and I'm I'm chasing down people that need to sign things as well, things that got approved the night before. So I I I do accept that when I read that, I really thought under the stack of all the other ordinances, yeah, it's our standard election ordinance, but better. Two point o. Gail fixed it. Something that didn't quite track the charter now now did. Why would I think that there's something wrong with that? Mhmm.

And who was given the instruction in the group that was put together that was led by the mayor pro tem in 2021? Who who was leading? Who was giving the instruction?

It was a mayor and council. It was a mayor and council, but it it wasn't again, it wasn't gonna be a a normal what I would in my experience, would have been a thorough, like, charter review where you do Sometimes the council can give a charter review commission a scope and say, hey, we're focusing on just elections, or we're focusing on term limits, or whatever it is.

Right.

But a lot of cities may act they have the right to say, well, we want to focus on multiple issues we keep having problems with, or we don't like. We don't like just having two term limits, so we wanna just add a third term limit, you know, that kind of thing. And so it's really up to the governing body to give direction to staff, the city manager, and the city attorney on what don't you know, I don't wanna spend fifty hours on something, which I have done, and only to be told, nope. We're not gonna go that deep. You went too deep. This is all we're doing is this. You know? And so, yeah, you listen to whatever the the client tells you that they want you to do.

Okay. And just to close my record on this question, who was the mayor pro tem at the time?

It was mayor pro tem Peters, Wayne Peters.

Okay. Thank you.

I'll take any other questions.

First of all, we've had no conversation at all since this started. And so any question I have you, you weren't prepared for it, it would be just the first time you may have heard it. Several of the questions I had you answered in your presentation. So that's good. How often do we review after each session of the legislature? Do we review the charter to see if we're in compliance after amendments and changes are made to the constitution

of Texas? Whenever we have a legislative session, there's different departments are monitoring their sub own subject matter. So we all will attend multiple legislative updates updates from TML, from our Texas city attorney Hill Country Attorneys Association updates or other organizations that are giving either free or almost free legislative updates so that we'll know, hey, that we have problem. Or, you know and and usually, it's ordinance amendments and things that that staff starts working on before that state law takes effect so that we're compliant.

And generally, in those cases, that doesn't trigger a review of the entire charter against the constitution because its specificity against current legislation has been passed that could alter things for departments, whether it be planning or any other division. Is that right?

No. That's not standard. No.

By addressing the issue quickly, though sadly in timing about the issue, you saved the city from canvassing an illegal election. Is that correct? Yes, thereby sir. Creating the opportunity for it to be an illegal election confirmed, potentially installing the mayor, opening us to lawsuit, and anything passed during that time could be reversed.

I mean, think you think last week was a nightmare and what we're no. That that would have been a nightmare on steroids for for for the city of New Braunfels, for the candidates, for the voters.

Alright. Thank you.

Ma'am, you've been employed with the city fourteen and a half years you're saying, correct?

I'm sorry you have to speak up.

You're employed with the city for fourteen and a half years you say?

Yes sir.

That's correct and have you reviewed the charter against the Texas constitution anytime in that or fourteen and a

half years? Yeah. That sounds like a fun project to have time to do. No.

Did you ever

mention that that need to

be done to the current councils during those fourteen and a half years or to the city manager?

I I haven't been directed that we're going to a charter review. If we're going to a charter review to an election, then that's certainly an appropriate time where I would there's only four lawyers, and one of our lawyers is our prosecutor. So there's three lawyers for all of the city employees, departments, for all the the legal issues in

Pat even mentioned that many cities have charter review boards. Correct?

That that they'll convene when the council

saying How does that get brought up? Is it someone on city council says we should we should have a charter review board or would it be the city attorney or the

city manager? Yeah. I would ask if you want a presentation on that so we can talk about what the makeup's gonna be, how many residents are we gonna have on there. And it's a temporary commission. They only sit while they're beating to go through the charter. If council doesn't like the direction they're going or they're getting too in the weeds on certain things that's really not your current priority, then you help them course correct with direction. Direction. But that's something that I would have brought up and did bring up.

Yeah. But in in my my term on city council, I've never heard of that at all, a charter review board. I never even

knew Because we haven't amended the charter. Right? We haven't Right.

But you would one would assume, at least I would assume, being in your position for fourteen and a half years that that might be a good idea to do at some point.

We would only counsel would it is the one that would create that commission. Council is the one that would appoint the members on that commission, and that I don't make policy. Excuse me. Pardon me. I don't make policy. You know, I don't I don't tell council when to have that charter review election. They're not cheap. They're not easy, especially if people start putting things on there that are gonna like salaries for council members. You know, over the years, I've heard that off and on, but I'm that would be the tail wagging the dog. I think the reason I've had a good solid almost thirty year long career in municipal law is because I know you're the policymakers.

I am not the policymaker. I I if you want to open up the charter for review, then we do that, and it's a citizen led commission at that time. Throughout the years, do I mark stuff in the charters like this is this is screwy or this no longer is reflective of something in the purchasing statutes, you know, that kind of thing. And so the next time there's a charter review by the council or they're like, it's time for us to do that. Let's look at these other things. That's our staff's opportunity to say, have a couple of things that we need to go ahead and tweak while it's open.

I think we have learned that since this has came up that there may be other things in the charter that are in conflict with the Texas constitution. So I 100%

There was one other item.

Yeah, half well, maybe more, who knows? We got to go through it, right? When you learned about the word polarity on the current polarity? Thank you, whoever said that. Thank you, sir, Mr. Onion. Yes, so when you learned that word was in the ordinance

In the charter, yeah.

Well, it's in the charter and the ordinance, but the first time for all the other ordinances going all the way back to 1995 probably all said majority. Correct?

I read the ordinance, the language about the most number of votes. Admit I read that last week. And I I myself started looking back at all the ordinances.

Yeah. But all ordinances majority for the mayor. Majority. Majority. Majority. All the all the ordinances going right back.

Well, I didn't go that far back. I I only went back three elections, but I saw that it did have majority. I don't know who put that in there. I don't know whose advice.

Well, the point is it changed this time.

So Right.

Explain to me how that word got in there. And and

It it didn't say it does not say plurality. Again, when Gail brought that to me, the question was, I'm working on the and we have it every year, this order to call for an election, and I noticed that last year's ordinance doesn't track the charter. And I said, well, track the charter. We didn't you know, we I of course, we both wish we had had a longer conversation. It was in a doorway leaning into my office, and I'm working on other stuff, and I said, the charter.

Like, track that's our constitution. That's gonna trump any ordinance. Or we have to do ordinance can't say something contrary to what the charter says. That's just a basic premise. And that was the extent of our exchange on that. When I signed it, they put the signature pages on top of all the ordinances, and I get my stack, and I start signing all the ordinances the

next But but you found out that it had changed, right, with that word and that ordinance?

Last week is the first time I read that language. She didn't we she didn't mention plurality. She didn't realize at that time that that was something that that's what it said. She just thought it was worded a little strangely from just using the word majority, but it was words similar. And I mean, it was an honest mistake on

we had a conflict within ourselves between between the ordinance that was drafted and our own charter. Right? Would you say?

No. We'd never we never discussed

No. Wasn't in conflict because all the other ones said majority, but this one was changed to say polarity.

Doesn't say plurality. Says most Polarity. That's votes.

Whatever that word is.

Right. It says most votes. But, again, we didn't she didn't read to me the language that she said didn't track this the charter. I just said track the charter.

And okay. And you also mentioned in March, you had a conversation about it.

Do you About the charter.

Explain that.

At that time, yeah. She didn't bring up, and I didn't think about either neither one of us think about the the ordinance that had been adopted in February. Did she do That's not what she came to talk to me about.

But when you found out, did you look at the charter?

Yes. I didn't know.

She had it in her hand. Yeah. Yeah. I of course, I read the charter. I was helping her to interpret the plurality. Is is this plurality valid? Is that what you're yes. That's what I'm reading. That's what it says.

And so after you found that out, you what what research did you do after that point?

That it's plurality vote. That's what's gonna determine the winner. That's what our charter says. That's our constitution. We're gonna follow that. But then I was interested to see how that'll

You know mister Zech. Right? And he is employed by the city as a retainer. His his

He he helps us with sometimes utility districts, like municipal utility districts, you know, certain oddball questions.

But do you know his expertise in constitutional Texas constitutional constitutional law?

Yes. Oh, no. Well, in the in charters in amending charters. Sure. But I didn't read it, and on its face, it doesn't look like problematic, illegal. Who might have questioned it when it's something that's been there for thirty one years? I'm thinking, sure. Past mayors have been voted in that same way, just not while on my watch. They're on my watch. I've never had the privilege of seeing someone elected by plurality. It's either the election's canceled because there's no one running. Just there's one candidate, they're unopposed, or there's two candidates, or there's three candidates, but the winner got majority vote. And the question never came to me about plurality. Plurality.

Well, mister Zech said that he read that and within a couple of minutes of his thinking on that, he's like that ain't right. Immediately, he thought that. So you looked at that word. You never once thought that that was incorrect at all.

No. I I don't do charter amendments and charter reviews and draft charters You're like Charlie

not the constitutional expert but you are the expert for city council. Correct? Yes.

Yes.

So so

what would it take you as a city attorney to make that simple phone call to say, can you check this to make sure we're correct? Because we had an internal conflict between between our charter and our ordinance and this city secretary

There was no conflict at that time. There was no conflict. We were not looking

And how did the word get changed? Pardon? There had to be a conflict because the word in the ordinance that was signed by you was changed. Don't

know why

it got changed or any of that. I just know you signed it and we I think I made the motion to approve it going off with the fact that it it was checked by city staff and the city attorney, so everything

should be good to go. Right.

It was absolutely not good to go. So I just wonder what it would take to make that phone call.

Something that appear something novel, something complicated if we're reading it, and I would have taken it to one of my other attorneys, two of my other attorneys in the office and said, hey, guys. I can't make heads or tails. This is weird. I'm not finding anything in the election code that's telling me there's something. How I don't run and run run every question by outside counsel unless it's something that appears to be time intensive. We don't have the time. We don't have the bandwidth.

I this is just me thinking, but I believe an election's pretty important just to make sure that everything is even keel.

I've interpreted the Charter countless times though, council member Spradley. I've been asked different questions about different Charter provisions.

On his way to another meeting and thought it was important enough to make a quick phone call. He didn't have a time to have a full discussion, but he made a quick phone call and say, hey. You need to be aware of this. Is that right?

I'm sorry I didn't catch all of that.

He made a phone call to you from one meeting to another meeting thought it was that important, right?

Well last Monday afternoon.

I'm thinking I mean maybe I'm doing too much armchair quarterbacking but you know, a a simple phone call would have solved all of this. Right?

Yeah. Hindsight's twenty twenty, but I don't call outside counsel who bills me hundreds of dollars an hour for questions that it's plain English. I'm an English major. I read the the charter in plain English. Is this plurality? Yes, it is.

But those two words mean so much they're different. Right? Majority, they're so different.

So don't know why it would

have made a simple.

Yeah. Call. But that's what the charter says. I was looking at the charter. Again, if it was something in the charter that's very convoluted or complicated on its face, then a 100%, I would say we don't I don't have the bandwidth. I I have a 100 other things that I'm working on. I do civil service, labor, and employment. I handle police and fire issues and a host of other issues, not to mention council's issues. You're asking me every time I do something that has to do with, I guess, elections or the charter to always give it to outside counsel no matter what.

I'm not saying that.

That's how

I mean

You're saying yourself you're not a constitutional attorney. Right?

But how would I know there was a out,

Right to get advice from outside counsel on things that you don't obviously or an expert at.

But I believe she said that the I believe she said that the charter reads plurality.

Right but at that time that word changed from all the past ordinances that we agreed on for elections, that word changed in this one. So that should have been a flag for someone to do something.

Are other questions?

Yes. Okay. We talk about, there was a talk about charter review board. When was the last time we had a charter review board?

I couldn't tell you. Not not in the fourteen and a half years I've been here. Not for the one charter election that we had. We we were not that was not done.

Okay. So we've never had a trucker

Not since 2011.

Okay. The other question is you were you hired how many years ago?

I'm sorry?

How many years have you been with the city you said?

Yeah, fourteen and a half.

Fourteen and a half? So that's like 2012?

2011. I came on November 2 and there was an election. If people remember the disposable container ban, that's that's when I started. I walked into that.

Oh, god. Okay. Yeah. And population roughly?

56. Okay. 50,000 something Okay, like

so at that time when you were hired how many employees did you start with?

There was my self and there was a contract attorney that handled municipal court, one assistant. And I made I made the contract attorney a full time employee to be handling municipal court, open records, subpoenas, and that kind of thing. And then two months later, if there was a position I asked for through I know I guess it's a honeymoon period when you first get to a job and you know the people kind of agree to things and they gave me a position to hire my first assistant city attorney Frank Onion.

Okay. Since then how many current employees do you have now

more. More. More.

Have What one is the population now?

Over 110,000, I think, unofficially. Our last census, was 91,000 and change, our last official census in 2020. But unofficially, it is over 110,000 population, I

believe.

Okay. And you were you only have one more employee, which is a total of how many?

Yes. And over the years, I've asked. I'll ask for two. I haven't. The budget have since COVID well, shortly after COVID, it was like, don't don't ask. If you ask, it's just you're not going to get it. Budget's very tight. Sales taxes are dipping. And so being the good soldier I've always tried to be, I try to be very frugal with outside counsel. I try to be very frugal with my budget.

I know people may not think that, but that is exactly what I tried to do. And so out of respect for the direction, the struggle that that management's having, the city manager's having to balance the budget and council's gonna have, I've withheld certain requests. This year, I do have a request. I wanted an attorney and a legal assistant because we're drowning. And because of the direction we got, I thought I don't want them to say no to the legal assistant. And so I'm gonna ask for that this year and next year. We're we're gonna get I hope I'm gonna ask for a lawyer, and maybe we'll get the lawyer. Okay. But

I just wondered if you were drowning.

Okay. Okay. Thank you, mayor and councilor.

I have a couple of follow-up questions. Sorry about that. Working for elected officials is not always easy. I happen to have my real job in that arena, and I'm familiar with I take instruction from president to president as an example. Can you tell me, are you self directed or do you take instruction? Can you just arbitrarily start an initiative or do you have to take the instruction of elected officials?

No. I get feedback every year. I get evaluated by the city council. I'll I'll we'll work on goals that are in my evaluation. They'll give me feedback on things that they'd like to see me focusing on in the following year, areas of improvement, projects that they would like to see undertaken.

I get their feedback on my goals and then throughout the year, you you see how city council meetings go, needs arise, research, ordinance amendments, that's I mean, we're in the hundreds and hundreds of ordinances that they looked at. I've brought many, many items to the city council this year, repealing ordinances that are unlawful or defunct, referencing things that don't exist anymore. I I in my spare time, I do try to get the low hanging fruit to clean up our code of ordinances because that's something the council can do. But I get my direction from council. So the

instruction is top down. Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay. And the charter was handed to each one of us when we were elected. Is that correct, Robert?

Yes ma'am there is a binder that's provided to the council. We get it. When you're elected as an orientation and in that is the charter, yes ma'am.

Okay, so we all had opportunity as well. This February 9 memo, as far as I recall, you don't run elections. Is that correct?

Yes, ma'am. I'm not the election administrator for the city.

Who made the February 9 memo? Who put together the ordinance? Is that your office or

okay. Is that

Who would that be?

I believe it's city secretary's office.

Okay. So to stand sit here and ask you 20 times over who wrote the ordinance and who made the language change year over year election over election would be the wrong person to ask. Is that right?

Yes, ma'am.

Not that I'm trying to shift blame or any of that kind of stuff. I just want facts. So you did not draft the February 9 memo?

Yes, ma'am.

That's correct.

In March, you did not recall the February conversation. Are you sure that

January 7. Yeah.

Are you sure that you had a February 7 conversation? Or did somebody tell that you

It was January 7. And the reason I I know it must have happened is a, the this person is very, very trustworthy. So I told her, if you said I said that, then that's exactly what I said. I am not speaking from memory. I'm speaking from her memory. She told me this. And she said, look at your email. You emailed me and said, I'll be available in ten minutes. Because that's how and so I found the email. And I thought, oh, that's my one of my kids birthdays, you know. I it was I if I hadn't seen that email, I wouldn't have known for a fact the date. But I trust her a 100 I I trust her with my life. So if she says that's how it went down and that's how quick it was and it was high level and she was in and out, and I went on to the next thing. Then that's what happened. I believe that.

Okay. So in this high level conversation, was any else anybody else a participant of that conversation, or did they come to know about that before the election?

According to her recollection, she peeked into my office. You know?

So you were the sole person other than her that knew about this?

That's right.

So it's never brought to anybody sitting on this diocese attention.

I don't know if she had conversations with anybody else. I mean, like I said, I don't remember the conversation with me. But if she says that's what I said, that's what I said.

But from where you sit, it was kind of a touch and go conversation or, you know, where you touch the wheels down and you're off and running. Okay.

And that happens, it happens a lot with the city.

I'm not gonna be a hypocrite and tell you that that doesn't happen in my line of work. So I understand what you're saying. In the March conversation or the redirect of the question in March, do you know what the origin of how it came to be questioned a second time is? Or were you simply brought the question for clarity?

Right. It's it it was not unusual for any staff from different departments that I primarily handle to just walk in. I I have an open door policies, and I insist that my lawyers have it. So people she she popped in, made made she probably called and say, hey. Do you have a second? Can I go can I run down there? Because that's the way she is. She's always Okay. You know, checks with me first. She's very respectful of of my time. She recognizes my workload. So that's probably yeah.

But you were not told any who, what, when, where, how No. And why.

And I don't ask. I mean, I if I needed to inform my decision where I need more details, but she gave me the information that I needed. She handed me the paragraph that that said, I think I'm reading this right. It looks like plurality for the mayor. Can you can you read that and tell me what you think? And she did. And I did. I read it, and I said, this looks like plurality. I said, but you know what? I've never dealt let me go ahead and look at the the Texas election code. And there's gotta be something in there. You know, if there was nothing in the election code, then I might have turned over other rocks. But I found the definition. I'm like, yeah. No. This is plurality. That was the question. Is this is that what this says? Does this say plurality? And it did. That it was that's the definition of plurality.

Okay. Very good. Thank you.

Just got a couple of quick

comments

and possibly a question too. I believe mister Zaki said, I think there was an amendment election related to the constitution somewhere around 2013. Is that correct? And 2013, yes.

No, not not '13. In the charter?

No. Oh, the

constitution. My my apologies.

Yes. And I I believe at that time, the city of New Braunfels was still administering our own elections. Is that correct? Or Not in turned it over to the county at that time or Yes. Yes.

I was here. Yes.

Okay.

Robert was here. He so

he he would remember too.

At that time, I I believe is it true that when there's a there's a change of the constitution that affects a city directly like that or affects the city election process in particular that the state sends out some sort of a notification or a letter or something like that to does that go to the city? Does it go to the election office? Who who does that go to? And would we have received something like that?

You know, that's a good question. I I don't know. I'm certain the county elections office would have received it, possibly also municipal city secretary's offices as well. But nevertheless, when things like that happen, staff is going to legislative updates throughout

the Yeah. So I'm gonna stay focused on Yeah. The question and answers that I'm trying to get to here.

My apologies.

Quite a bit of a lot of stuff over the

past Yes.

Yes, sir. Hour.

So Yes, sir.

We would get the city would get some sort of a notification that there had been a change that affected the way we administer or regulate our election process is what I'm understanding.

I don't know. Okay.

In 2020, 2021, I believe one of the 18 amendments that was made to the city charter directly affected council terms, the back to back terms with the gap in between and the council, the three terms, Consecutive versus nonconsecutive, correct?

At

no time did you think that maybe we should possibly look at the Texas State Constitution and just ensure that we're, compliant in all aspects and all facets at all at any time whatsoever?

A 100% that was looked at. Had outside Yes, of course. When looking at the three terms of office, a 100% that would have been looked at by outside counsel, that article, but looking only at that, not necessarily looking at the issue of majority versus plurality because home rule cities can elect their officials by plurality if your terms are less than two years or less. It's it's just when you bump up to three or four years like some cities do that they can't do it anymore.

I I I would think that when we're looking at election

law Yes. A 100%.

And changing elections laws and standards inside of our charter that we would look at the Texas State Constitution and how it relates to us here in our city. And that is something that we rely on our city attorney to do because I'm not a lawyer, the rest of city staff's not a lawyer. The vast majority of it is not something we could pay to do. Of course. Pay you to do.

That's what

we expect from our city So that's happened in 2020. And then we had how many instances were the election language or I'm sorry, the ordinance language was called into question this year alone in 2026? I believe it was three. Is that correct? Something like that. It was February, March

January 7 and then sometime the first week of March.

Okay. So multiple opportunities that I feel like it should have been caught by somebody that we pay a significant amount of money to to be the city attorney to look at things from a legal standpoint for us. And I'm not trying to be rude or hateful or beat you down. I understand this is a tough, tough situation that you're in. But it is also my job, our job here on City Council to hold people accountable to the job and the job description and what they get paid to do.

And I can tell you that on the outside of these walls, if I sequentially fell in my job duties multiple times and it affected multiple people like it did here and in this city, I would be unemployed right now. I would have been unemployed a lot quicker than seven days and having a conversation to defend myself.

Well, it's due process as a government employee. It is a legal right that employees have.

I understand.

I'm just And it playing was one conversation about plurality.

I've heard the explanation. Have one

more follow-up question. Say you don't want to consult with outside counsel often, right?

Not if it's something that's apparent

it's expensive? Outside council is expensive?

They can be. It depends. But I try to be frugal with

In your opinion, and Mr. Zak is here, how much would that phone call would have cost the city?

I'd have to look at the billing. I don't know. Yeah. I mean, not a lot. Obviously, it was a very quick

phone call.

I believe it would be really insignificant.

Yeah. No. I don't dispute. Hindsight's twenty twenty, Monday morning quarterbacking and all that. I get that. I don't dispute that. And I said, I think I said multiple times, I wish I could go back. I wish I could change things, but I didn't know what I didn't know. We're not omnipotent. Lawyers don't know the law. We don't have it in our back pocket somewhere. We rely on researching, researching, and and I I did. Did. And I found nothing there that would direct me to a constitutional conflict. That's the truth. That's all I can say is the truth. Yes.

Well, it was mostly for Mr. Zak. My question is, you mentioned earlier that when cities hire you, that a lot of the times they're very specific on the item and they don't want you to go out of that item because it costs more. Is that correct?

You mean the charter?

I was talking to Mr. Zak.

Yes. Why don't we do this? If there are no more questions for Mrs. Acevedo, we will excuse her and then if there's a question, a follow-up question for Mr. Zak.

I have one more question. You mentioned this earlier and I just want to get a clear sense of where we go from here and I know you can't tell us that, but you said earlier that your department was drowning. What's the definition of drowning? What is the legal department currently facing?

What is the definition of what now? Drowning. Oh with work. Yes. With work. Yeah. We need we I mean, ideally, we'd get two more attorneys, but I'm not a fool to ask for two more attorneys and a legal assistant. I wouldn't get that in a million years.

Good. Thank you.

Okay, thank you Ms. Vazivero. And we have a follow-up question for Mr. Zek.

My question was when other cities, well when cities hire you and they ask you to review their charter, Now when they ask you to review their charter, do you review it wholly or do you I mean do they ask for specifics?

It depends. Each city has their own approach or outcome that they're looking for. And sometimes it's a holistic review. I've reviewed charters that have not been reviewed since 1950. So they want a pure holistic review in it and I usually find a lot of things wrong. Other charters they've been looked at the last few years and they just want a targeted approach. So it's dependent upon the client, what their needs are and what it is they're looking for in outcomes.

So if they say we want you to review a certain section of it, do you just review that or do you review the whole chart?

No, I only review what they've asked me to review.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you Mr. Zick. Discussion amongst counsel?

I wouldn't mind hearing from the city secretary to be honest with you, her version of events.

I think she was going give them later, but if she'd like to go ahead and give them now.

Evening, Mayor, councils, Gail Wilkinson, city secretary. I'd like to speak to the order that was called for the May second general election. I began working on the ordinance early in January as I normally do so I can get it done. I had recently read our charter referencing the elections and looked at the 2023 order. The only thing I disagree with what Val said was I didn't look to the year before.

I looked in 'twenty three because it was a mayoral election. And also, 2023 was the only year that I was responsible for a mayoral election. It's only two I've done. I recently read our charter referencing the order. I had not and noticed that I had not used what I thought was the proper language based on our charter in the 2023 order.

And that concerned me. I wanted to correct it and make sure that I saw what I saw in the charter. So I did email Val, and I did go down and talk to her and noted that the 2023 had the mayor elected with the majority of votes. And I felt like I had done not put the proper language. So I asked Val before I did this year's order, do I need to make it consistent with the charter?

And she said yes. And touching the March meeting that we had, the multiple candidates that we had I think it was before the fifth one had even dropped out, maybe not. I wanted to make sure I was on the same page with Val on what plurality meant. Just wanted to make sure that I understood it because we have to count those votes on election night. That was the purpose of me going and talking to Val, as she said, making sure we were on the same page on what the definition of plurality was.

And of course, she said yes. And as Val said, I said, am I looking at this right? Plurality. Do I have the definition correct? And she said that I did. And in her, Val reviewed the charter just briefly a little bit longer and found that noted she found no conflict with the charter with election code and that it was indeed by plurality. And that was pretty much the end of it just as Val stated.

Charter said. Correct?

I didn't change anything on the charter. I changed the the verbiage on the order ordering the election because the verbiage did not match a mayoral election as it was stated in the charter. The word plurality was not listed in the order. It was the verbiage that was in the charter.

And you made sure that verbiage was okay by the city attorney before you changed it?

Yes, sir.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Wilkinson. Thank

you.

I have a question. This is a big responsibility elections. Who oversees you, or are you the final word?

With elections? Well, I answer to Val as far as legal stuff, as we just mentioned. Uh-huh. And then my boss is mister Camarino.

Okay. So the final election roll out. Who has the signature authority on that?

I do.

Okay. Do you get any oversight from? Robert?

Not from mister Camarino. I usually deal with Val.

Okay. Just from a legal standpoint.

Yes, ma'am. And we also follow a election calendar that comes out every year. Secretary of state puts it out.

Okay.

Detailed. It's very date time sensitive. So as far as mister Cameron, you know, over the elections, he

does not. I'm just mean he is my boss.

Okay. Okay.

Yeah.

No. I just wanna make sure of what the

So I follow the the Texas the calendar that comes out every year in November for May, the election calendar, and make sure that I'm following the date and the time sensitive information such as the notice put out and ordering the election is on a date sensitive.

And everybody's hitting their numbers.

Yes ma'am. Even down drawing for the order of the names on the ballot. Everything has a date behind it and I'm responsible for that.

Okay, very good. Thank you.

Yes ma'am.

Okay, any discussion?

Is

that something we do with executive session? Okay. Okay. We'll open this item to public hearing. If anybody would like to speak to this item, please approach the podium, state your name, whether you're a resident, non resident, or live in the ETJ.

Thank you, mayor. Frank Onion, Pancho Savoyah, Frank Ziebel. I am multilingual, but in name only. Today, I stand before you and I give my, wife here, to turn give my comments to Gail to make make them part of the record. I stand before you as your now former city employee as of about two hours ago when I tendered my resignation effective immediately, ending my fourteen year period of employment.

I have done nothing wrong. We've heard that. We've heard that. What did the did the city's staff at the attorney's office did nothing wrong? My wife joins me here today in complete support of Val Acevedo.

I'm here to offer my full throated defense of Val. Simply put, Val is the finest, most ethical, talented lawyer I have ever seen in my forty two years, and I have worked with very fine attorneys. She she is is you're cutting into my time. She is the longest serving director of the city at fourteen years. She embodies the term true grit.

You saw that on display today in spades. She look what she did now. She did not want to have that back in the back room, which is perfectly legal, but it's her choice to bring this forth so everyone can listen. It's not easy, obviously. This was tough.

But you know what? She is one tough cookie and tough cookies don't crumble. She is a very fine individual and you saw that on display. I worked for her side by side for fourteen years. The mayor wants you to support his election campaign and some of you others by throwing her on the ash heap so you can say, your wife solved it and calmed the angry crowd.

This is evidenced by his, I believe, public defamatory letter of May 6, less than half a day after the issue was solved. Yes. I said that. Half a day after the conflict issue was completely resolved, brought in front of the public, and brought into compliance with all laws. By throwing Vowel out of her position as city attorney to calm the noisy crowd, it is my opinion, reminds me of the actions of one individual two thousand and twenty six years ago in Jerusalem.

What is his name? What Pontius is the cost to the city? Let's throw Val out. Out. Val has a contract. I don't have a contract. Val has a contract. She has severance. Dollars 100,000 five months severance plus Health benefits. Who pays that?

The taxpayers. Is it worth it? Is it worth it to try to find somebody else to replace Val and cost the taxpayers $100,000 And then you know what's going to happen. I'm gone with forty two years of experience. Val's gone with twenty eight years.

My math's not good, but I think that's seventy years of experience. So who are you going to get to replace that? You're going to have to, in the interim, get counsel to pay more attorneys. She has and ask let me ask you this. A citizen's vote for their candidate's choice was not disturbed.

They people don't go to elections and vote for their candidate based on whether plurality or majority. The election integrity was always intact. It still is. We solved this, and this is one of the proudest moments we found in an unbelievable short period of time. One afternoon, one evening, and with everyone's help, we solved it and made this part of the made this part of the things.

I have put my money at stake. I have lost $176,000. But you know what? I made the right decision because I'm following what my father told me, presiding judge at the court of criminal appeals. Follow the law and do the right thing. And don't use sour grapes to satisfy Frank,

I'm sorry, your time is up.

David Warmke, district five. He always gonna do this in center's communication, but I have never been more impressed in anything I've ever seen at city council than tonight. The honor and wisdom of you pulling this out and letting everybody hear this. I came down here for two reasons. One, to try to get people to stay, and two, to try to put a lid on a crowd wrapped up by misinformation, wrapped up by social media that has no concept of truth.

And you saw it here tonight. You saw truth here being spoken. And I came here to thank every one of you, y'all that had been elected. You don't get paid. Mostly, I think you've probably been talked into something you didn't really wanna do, but you did it.

And then maybe, like, wonder why did I do that? But here, we have a monumental shift that happened here. And I mainly came to talk to the people that are going to speak because this election is very clear, and it's very clear it's run immaculately, and it's very clear the two incumbents in a runoff have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. And I think it's time, honor and wisdom. Lead with honor and wisdom.

It would be incredible. And when I came here to speak to those speaking tonight, speak with honor, respect, and restraint. Don't turn a monumental victory into a moral defeat with inflammatory, provocatory rhetoric. Thanks for listening. Stay for the rest of the meeting.

Good evening. Michael Murphy, non resident. It's been a while since I spoke here and I felt compelled to come here tonight just based off of how things have have gone. It's no big surprise that this whole US population has lost faith in the election process and politicians and and all that. It's tough.

And this is a tough tough situation to be in. You know, 49.18% of the vote to me is majority. Call it plurality, whatever it is. Mistakes were made. You know, we we've seen mister Lennox. You said you don't listen to the five to 1% of people. You were caught on Hot Mike saying that, you know, there's a lot of naysayers. Well, I think this election, the naysayers spoke up. Right? They really did.

Mister Murphy, are you this item is about the employment of the city attorney, if you'd like to address that.

Oh, is that did you did you say that when we come out? That that was about her employment?

That's exactly what we've been talking about for the last two hours.

Absolutely. That's exactly what you've been talking about. And and with that being said, I've heard a you see a lot of bus drivers up here. A lot of bus driver. She got hit by a bus shortly, very shortly, after this election. Is that her fault? She gets direction. To me, it rests squarely with you up there on the diocese. You're responsible for running the city. Right?

Checks and balances. I know you don't like what I have to say when I come up here, and I get it. But that's the truth. It's a 100% the truth. Quit trying to drive the bus, take ownership, and do the right thing. In my opinion, you should concede. Mister Camarino should resign. Thank you.

Angela Allen. I'm a resident here in New Braunfels. There are a few questions that I would like to ask and a few statements I would like to make. The first thing is being a candidate in the mayoral race, I read the election order. I seem to be the only one that I know of that actually read it. And I had a question as to what I was reading. And what I read is it said the most votes. So I reached out to Gail because she's our point of contact with the city for the elections. And to my recollection, I was told majority.

Am I am I speaking?

Yes. I mean, that's appropriate.

I did not tell you majority, I said it had been on all of the other orders, majority, but that we had made it consistent with the charter. You asked me for 2020, 2023, and 2026. And you also asked me, do we just decide every year there's a mayoral race which way we want to do it? And I told you, no, we can't do that. We have to go by our charter. But you are the only one that questioned me about the language changing.

Well, to my memory, and I tried to find the first email. Obviously, it must have been verbal. I asked this, and obviously, it must have been verbal. And I to my recollection, I was told majority, and and then I dismissed it. And then later on, two weeks before the campaign, election day, then, it was being brought out on social media that it was plurality.

So I reached out to Gail again, and that's when I did find my email that I specifically asked about the language of it, and it said and that's when you clarified it. And to my recollection, the you you you apologized to me. And and so I'm here to give testimony of that, and I'm also here to ask from from sitting there and trying to understand from from the first time that was recognized that last year's election order did not state most number of votes, but it actually was written incorrectly. And since you did catch it, did you not find it important to bring it up to the the current mayor and council that that mistake had been made? Because

Missus Allen, is Mhmm. What we're taking up right now is the city attorney.

Back. You brought you brought Gail into this and so I'm addressing Gail in this to what she said. And so I would believe all of this would be

some agenda items for the election coming up. But if if you wanna address us on the city attorney specifically,

now

would be the good time to to bring that up.

You then we can talk about

brought in Gayle and I didn't.

We can bring up the the election is gonna be there's a couple other items regarding the election if you wanna make comments about the election then, but this is specifically about the city attorney.

This is a city attorney, and she's been given the scapegoat per our conversation that we had on the telephone that she was gonna be a scapegoat for this. And this does apply to right now. Because she should not be a scapegoat, because if she is gonna be a scapegoat, we have a city manager, and we have a current mayor, and we have council right now. And everyone should be accountable right now. And so I'd like to finish what I was saying.

Okay. As long as it's regarding the city

of Trent.

It does. It all ties back to that. In our conversation that we had on Monday when you called me, you you gave me a testimony of what you believe to be true about this race, and you thought it was on majority or plurality. There was a lot of confusion. A lot of confusion.

Everyone was confused. So my biggest question is is when you find that in the charter, it states one thing, and we have not been following that in our city elections prior to as far back as people can even do research on. It has never since it was changed in 1995, no election order has ever been accurate. To actually finally find it, do you not think that that was worthy of a conversation to all of us as candidates, as you as the mayor, and how you run your campaign, to all the city council, to the people.

Miss Allen, your time is up.

Hi, my name is Stacy and I'm a resident of New Braunfels. I just have a quick question

last name, Stacy?

Clifford.

Thank you.

I'm Stacy Clifford. Some of you might know who I

am. So

I just have a question during this particular portion of what's going on. I think the secretary had said that you rely on getting a calendar from the secretary of state. Is that correct? Are you aware that the secretary of state has a whole entire page on its website that addresses this issue explaining the entire situation of whether it's a majority or a plural plurality? Are you aware of that?

Do you know that if you Google that, it's the first thing that comes up? Did you know? Because in with respect to this situation and the attorney, I think everybody here is guilty. It's the first thing that I found when I googled it. And I deal with attorneys oh, I'm retired now.

But I have done a lot of this kind of stuff in my career. And the fact that not a single person anywhere thought, maybe I should Google it. Find out what the laws are, find out what people are talking about, and deal with it. So if somebody needs to lose their job, somebody needs to. Because that is incompetence at its absolute best. It's making this entire city look like a bunch of bumpkins, and it's embarrassing. Thank you.

Good evening, mayor. City council, Y'all do a hell of a job. My name is Gabriel Castro. I live in District 3.

First

off, you did a hell of a job. You're awesome. I love you, Joyce. I love our mayor and council. They'll do a great job. Charlie Zach, he educated me in the city government. I don't know if Asia's here or not. Your daughter, Mr. Edwards, but he taught us about city government. He taught us that we need to start a charter review committee, and we did that.

Sometimes we have to get kicked in the nuts to learn our lesson, and that's something we may need to do. Why wouldn't we? Charlie mentored me for years. I owe him a lot for getting me involved in city and county and state government. He's a great man.

You can learn a lot from him. I apologize for everything you are going through, but we're going through growing pains as a city. Mike, he's a good man. He come knock on my door and wish the best to him. Mary Neal's the first man to come talk to my little group of business owners, and I gave him a hug and I said, Mary, I love you.

And you know what he said? I love you too, Gabe. This is the everything to do with the city attorney. Hold on. Hold on. I'm looking at y'all. You see Charlie Zach right there? He has a lot of education. He can educate you on some things. Mister Castro. You know? And so keep your head up. It's not over. We're learning as a city. And if someone has something to say about it, they can come to me. Keep your head up. Okay, what?

Mayor, mayor, council, my fellow citizens of New Braunfels, my name is Rick Smith. I'm in April, New District 6. I too have a master's degree in public administration. I've done many a jobs through the military and the post office. I came here, yes, I do have disabilities, combat wounds.

I came here because this was I heard this was a great town. It's warm, it's great for me, and I love it and stuff. But after listening to this and what I've saw, we are an embarrassment people. I have helped Governor Abbott, Senator Cruz, Alan Schoolcraft. I've been involved with Anita and her group a little bit, but I've gone through many surgeries with more to come.

But I'll tell you what, I'm embarrassed by what I see. I have had offices where I've had others where we all have to take ownership of this. From the mayor down, someone said we had to Google something. You know what? Sometimes the final spot was on my desk, but I wanted to make sure there was a legal review.

I wanted to make sure three or four other people had the same opinions and got the same information I did before I put my signature on anything, and I held my name accountable to that. If I made a mistake, it's on me too. And I look to the others and say, how can we do better? What I've seen from this wonderful lady here in reading about, and she's even mentioned, you even mentioned to her, she swamped. I know what that's like.

Being in a combat environment and being being held accountable for something happens, I can't tell you what I did because it's classified. But I do get to go to DC this weekend for a wonderful celebration of our country on the seventeenth. I've been asked to go. But I'll say this to you council, and I'll say this to you city manager and all of this, to hang this woman out there to dry is wrong. I can't believe you haven't had a charter review in how many years.

But I'll be this to you. I'll pray for every one of you, because I'm not gonna hang you out to dry. I'm gonna help you. I'm gonna pray. And I pray that you do the right thing. To hang it on her is wrong. All of this, you each Robert and all of you could have taken something and look, Texas constitution, you know you gotta follow it. Could somebody at least took a peek yourself rather than drilling her over here like this? So let's do the right thing. Let's come together.

Let's be a city that's respected. A lot of people look at you and look at us. I've heard great things, and tonight I'm a little embarrassed. But I wanna be a little more active and stuff. So I wish you well, and I sure hope they don't let you go and stuff. And I sure hope you take do the right thing and get this city back to running. Get a charter review going. My gosh, our city's growing, and it could be a great place. Thank you.

Seeing no one else, we'll close public input. Any discussion?

I know there was I mean, at one point during the conversation that we were having, I believe I heard a reference to thirty one years, we've just always done it that way. And for me, that's just not a quality explanation or quality answer. In my line of work, what I do excuse me if I might finish. In my line of work, if we just do something because we've always done it that way for thirty one years, people die. I'm not saying it's gonna happen here, in this situation, we rely on people for their expertise and what they're hired to do for specific job.

And when that doesn't happen, these kinds of things happen right here. We end up disenfranchising an entire city during election process. And I still believe in accountability. I was raised to believe in accountability. I was raised that when you have a job, that's what you do, that is your job.

And there are certain things that are expected of you. There's a level of excellence that is expected no matter what you do and what your job is. And it doesn't have anything to do with whether you're a good person, whether you're a quality person, whether you're a great mom, a great dad, great son, daughter. It doesn't have anything to do with those things. It comes down to the fact that you when somebody has a job that they're supposed to do for a specific reason, it is literally it is literally to keep us from having this right here, legal legal counsel.

The Texas State Constitution is there for a reason. If we all have to do our own legal research and our own legal review to come up with our own determinations, then we can save a quarter million dollars and not have a city attorney. And I looked at my fellow council members up here for your opinions and your input. But, I I mean, I I can't get past the fact that from 2013 to 2020 and I say 2013, I know it goes back further than that. And the ordinance has been since 1958.

I know that there were prior city attorneys, and I know that there were prior city managers and city councils and all the things. Right? But at some point, we all, whether whatever our job description is and what we do have to take responsibility for what our job is. And sometimes it hurts.

Well, I for one have been an executive executive make make and and I've I've made made a a mistake. Mistake. I said I, for one, have been an executive, and I've made a mistake. But I had a right to defend myself, and And mistakes can happen if it's and if it's fair. I think that part of this is it sounds to me like the city attorney got glimmers of information and not not full definition of what the information was.

And you know to Gail, you know this was her second major mayoral election is what it sounds like to me with no oversight. Those things are flawed. But that's a system that is fall flawed not a person. Not everything needs to be tagged to an individual to pin blame on. That's the easy button as I call it.

I would suggest and I would ask that the city manager put on the June 15 agenda which should be after a new council is seated, the council member six as well as the mayor position whoever it is. You know, whether both Mayor Leonard's and April's Day is irrelevant or someone new is there is irrelevant to me, the charter needs to be under full review and it should be done in public. And I think that in a presentation usually reserved meeting is the appropriate time to address the apparatus itself. We can't kick the, as we call it kick the can and act like this doesn't exist. And perhaps we would need to coordinate that with somebody like mister Zach.

I don't wanna put him on the the tip of the spear, but he is has been aware and seated in this forum. He's also been looking at the city charter, the constitution, and the election code. Discussion, this is his focus of law. He indicates this is not easy. Texas constitution is not easy to follow. And I'm not gonna sit here and pass judgment on one individual. This is not a single point of failure. This is a process failure. That's my opinion.

Tonight is very unusual, difficult, but necessary in the spirit of responsibility responsible city governments. The issue before us is the impact of the legal failure that had that went out to our voters. A conflict between the city charter and the Texas constitution law governing mayoral election requirements was not identified before May second election, a core essential duty of what I consider city attorney's office. This was not a minor oversight. It is a breakdown in professional standards that we expect from our chief legal adviser.

The city attorney is directly responsible for for providing legal guidance to ensure our elections and government documents comply with Texas law. When that guidance fails, public trust is directly harmed. Given the seriousness of this error, its impact on our voters and the resulting loss of confidence in our city attorney's leadership, I move that city council terminate and remove city attorney Val Asperado effective immediately 05/11/2026 subject to all contractual obligations, personal requirements and ethical provisions of Texas State law.

I

would like to state something.

Is it, motion There's on the table so.

Well, I thought that it was open for discussion.

No, not yet.

Oh, so you're gonna only let two people speak and not the rest of us?

Well, it was open for discussion. It was open for discussion and then a motion was made. The discussion is she

didn't give us the opportunity. I want my opportunity.

The discussion is now closed if there's a motion. If the motion fails, then we'll open up discussion again.

I agree with the council member. I agree with council member five. Mayor Pro Tems Bradley began reading as if he was making a comment. That was very elusive and very deceptive.

It was a motion. We have a motion on the table. Is there a second?

I'll second.

So, we have a motion and a second. Is this require a show of hands or is this a roll call vote?

I would do a roll call.

Okay. So we have a motion and second. Mrs. Wilkinson, will you please call roll.

Council member Carter. Nay. Council member Capizzi. Aye. Council member Edwards.

Mayor Prochamps Bradley.

Aye.

Council Member Lebowski. No. Council Member Ryan?

Nay.

And Mayor Leonard.

Aye. Motion carries.

Mayor, we need a break.

Yes. So that concludes our executive session. I apologize we're two hours late. We're gonna take a ten minute break and then we'll come back and take up our regularly scheduled meeting.