HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes City Council - 08/31/1977 (2)MINUTES OF THE CITY SECRETARY'S_PFFICE
PUBLIC HEARING •%'
(A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this public hearing is on file in
the Office of the City Secretary and is made a part hereof.)
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
AUGUST 31, 1977
9:00 A.M.
Purpose of the Public Hearing: To hear the charges brought by Mr.
Timoteo Gonzalez, represented by Attorney Michael W. Williams,
against City Manager R. Marvin Townsend and Council Member Bob
Gulley. City Manager R. Marvin Townsend was represented by Mr.
Jerry Benadum of the City Legal Department, and Council Member
Bob Gulley was represented by Mr. Richard Hatch, Attorney of the
Law Firm of Mahoney, Shaffer, Hatch & Layton.
PRESENT:
Mayor Pro Tem Eduardo E. de Ases
Council Members:
' David Diaz
*Ruth Gill
Gabe Lozano, Sr.
Edward L. Sample
Mayor Pro Tem Eduardo E. de Ases inquired of Attorneys Williams and Hatch
if they had received copies of the suggested procedures as prepared by Trial
Supervisor Jerry Benadum and if they are in agreement. Both attorneys indicated
that they were.
Mayor Pro Tem de Ases indicated that the record should show that Mayor Jason
Luby is absent from the City; Council Member Ruth Gill is absent from the hearing;
Council Member Bob Gulley is excused from the Council in view of the fact that he
is involved In the lawsuit.
Attorney Michael W. Williams stated that the plaintiff, Mr. Timoteo Gonzalez
will arrive at the hearing between 10:30 and 11:00 a.m., having been unavoidably
detained.
Mayor Pro Tem de Ases noted the fact that City Manager R. Marvin Townsend
and Council Member Bob Gulley were present for the hearing.
Attorney Richard Hatch asked that the record reflect the absence of two
Council Members, stating that he understood that Mayor Luby is out of the City
and questioned whether or not Council Member Gill will be present later.
City Manager Townsend verified that Mayor Luby's office had advised him at
4:45 p.m. August 30, 1977 that Mayor Luby was in San Antonio and would not be able
to return to the City until the afternoon of August 31, 1977. City Secretary Bill
G. Read ascertained that Council Member Gill would be present momentarily.
Mayor Pro Tem de Ases called for an opening statement on behalf of Council
Member Bob Gulley.
Minutes
Public Hearing
• August 31, 1977
Page 2
Attorney Hatch referred to his written reply of September 19, 1977, and
stated that this letter fully states the reply of Mr. Bob Gulley. Be stated also
that in regard to Counts 1 and 2, they are aware that there were installations of
gas lines on Section 2 of Gulley's Mobile Home Park by the City, operating under
a franchise with the Corpus Christi Municipal Gas Corporation, and that these
installations were made seven years ago. Mr. Hatch stated that in regard to
Count 3, Mr. Gulley is not aware of any work being performed on his property by
City employees, and Mr. Gulley would not permit anyone to perform work at the
City's expense.
*Council Member Ruth Gill arrived at the hearing at 9:25 a.m.
Mayor Pro Tem de Ases called on Trial Supervisor Jerry Benadum to present
opening remarks on behalf of City Manager Townsend.
Mr. Benadum stated that Mr. Hatch had summarized what is known about the
situation at this time. He stated that the complaint has been brought by the
plaintiff in regard to the installation of a gas line in 1970-71 and some alle—
gations that street work on Mr. Gulley's personal property was performed at City
expense. Mr. Benadum stated that the installation of gas lines was quite legal
according to City specifications. The matter of the street work has not been
made very clear in the charges, and all of the allegations need to be proven.
Attorney Michael W. Williams called as his first witness, City Manager
R. Marvin Townsend, who was sworn in by City Secretary Read.
Attorney Williams questioned City Manager Townsend at length in regard
to the installation of the gas pipeline on the Gulley Mobile Home Park during the
period from December, 1970 to June, 1971.
During the questioning, City Manager Townsend explained the operating
agreement whereby the City agreed to operate the gas distribution system of CCMGC.
City Manager Townsend cited as his authority for installing the subject gas main
the Cas Main Extension Policy adopted in 1965.
Attorney Williams questioned City Manager Townsend further in regard to
what the policy applies to. Mr. Townsend stated that the installation that it
applies to is the line that goes down the easement, the line that is in the
Minutes
Public Hearing
August 31, 1977
Page 3
easement and the line to the regulator and the meter. City Manager Townsend drew
a sketch on a blackboard to identify the lines referred to.
Attorney Williams then questioned City Manager Townsend in regard to whether
or not Mr. Gulley's Mobile Home Park had been subdivided. Mr. -Townsend stated that
Lot 2 of the Mobile Home Park was one of the lots in the subdivision, and the gas
improvements were installed on a platted lot.
Mr. Williams questioned Mr. Townsend for some time in regard to the terms
of the franchise agreement which included the policies established which authorized
the City to perform work and operate the Corpus Christi Municipal Gas Corporation,
particularly as it applies to the installation of gas extensions in Gulley's Mobile
Home Park.
In reference to the plaintiff's allegation that work was performed by City
•employees to improve the drainage, street improvement, fill work and mowing in
Gulley's Mobile Home Park, Attorney Williams questioned Mr. Townsend about the
,work that was authorized by him and performed by employees of the Street Division.
City Manager' Townsend assured Mr. Williams that the only street repair
work performed in the Park was on the public streets and not private streets
in the Park. Mr. Townsend also explained that the City is obligated to take
drainage away from property and this is done for all citizens whenever it is
possible; therefore, the fact that drainage work was performed in the Mobile Home
Park by City crews is not unusual.
Attorney Williams then questioned City Manager Townsend about the alleged
mowing performed in Mr. Gulley's Mobile Home Park by City crews. City Manager
Townsend stated that the City only mows the right-of-way of the public streets,
and if City employees mowed any other areas in the Park, he was not aware of it,
.and it was not authorized by him. -
Further questioning followed in regard to the City's installation of the
gas extensions in Mr. Gulley's Mobile Home Park. Attorney Williams referred to
the denial of a request from Mr. Otto McCloud, owner of Laguna Madre Mobile Home
Park, for gas extensions. City Manager Townsend explained that this was a differ-
ent situation in that a private gas system existed in that mobile home park.
n ' Minutes
Public Hearing
August 31, 1977
Page 4
Mr. Richard Hatch, Attorney representing Council Member Bob Gulley, ques—
tioned City Manager Townsend briefly. Mr. Hatch inquired about the request from
Nr. McCloud and asked why gas installations were made in Mr. Gulley's Park and
not in Mr. McCloud's.City Manager Townsend stated that Mr. McCloud's property
was served by another gas company, whereas, Mr. Gulley's property was served by
the Corpus Christi Municipal Gas Corporation; therefore, the City, operating for
the CCMGC, was obligated to provide gas extensions for property owners who were
served by CCMGC.
Attorney Hatch inquired if there were any other mobile home parks in the
City in 1970 and 1971 involved in a similar situation as Mr. Gulley's, and if so,
were gas installations made in those parks.
City Manager Townsend stated.that there were two other mobile home parks.
in which gas installations were made.
During redirect questioning by Attorney Williams, he inquired about a
statement by Mr. B. P. Ledbetter, Gas Division Superintendent, in 1975 which indi—
cated that there had been a change in the City policy for installation of gas mains.
City Manager Townsend stated that the memorandum from Mr. Ledbetter to which he
referred was written after the City's policy of gas main extensions was under
review.
* * * * * *
Attorney Williams called as his next witness Mr. Bob Gulley, who was sworn
in by City Secretary Read.
After establishing that Mr. Gulley is the owner of Gulley's Mobile Home
Park, Mr. Williams questioned him in regard to the gas installation in Lot No. 2
and inquired if that lot is a subdivided lot. Mr. Gulley stated that it was sub—
divided as a part of the entire property and it is, therefore, a part of the sub—
division.
Mr. Williams questioned Mr. Gulley in regard to the fact that no easements
were dedicated prior to the installation of the gas extensions, which is ordinarily
done. Mr. Gulley stated that at that time he was not member of the City Council
and, therefore, was not too familiar with the City policies. He pointed out that
Minutes
Public clearing
August 31, 1977
Page 5
•
he had employed an engineering firm to prepare the plat of his property; he assumed
that since the plat signed by City officials contained easements, that was all that
was necessary; and that obviously there was an oversight on the part of City employees
in not obtaining the dedication of the easements, but this oversight has now been
corrected.
Attorney Williams asked Mr. Gulley if it.was not improper for the City to
lay gas lines where there were no dedicated easements.
Attorney Hatch objected to this line of questioning because it called for a
legal opinion of City policy from his client, and he does not think the question
can be answered. Mr. Hatch further commented that he suspects that there are
thousands of gas meters in easements that have not been dedicated all over the
City.
Attorney Williams questioned Mr. Gulley in regard to the alleged mowing
that was performed by City crews. He asked Mr. Gulley if someone from the City
mowed his property, would he not be aware of it? Mr. Gulley replied that he was
unable to watch his property 24 hours a day, but he doubted that such mowing had
occurred because the City does not perform work on private property. He further
explained that he would certainly not want City crews to mow his property because
they are not supposed to according to City policy, and he would object to their
mowing because they might damage some of his property.
Attorney Williams inquired about the allegation that shell was placed on
Mr. Gulley's property at the expense of•the City. Mr. Gulley replied that if
shell was placed there, it was on the public streets and not on private roads in
his mobile home park.
Attorney Jerry Benadum, counsel for City Manager Townsend, questioned Mr.
Gulley and inquired as to how the private streets in his mobile home park are
maintained. Mr. Gulley replied that he employs asphalt contractors to do the
work.
Mr. Benadum then asked Mr. Gulley if he was present when the gas extension
installation was performed. Mr. Gulley stated that he was there some of the time.
Mr. Benadum then inquired of Mr. Gulley if City Manager Townsend had ever been
present when work was being done in the Mobile Home Park, and Mr. Gulley stated
1111,
Minutes
Public Hearing
August 31, 1977
Page 6
that he had never seen Mr. Townsend at his Mobile Home Park on any occasion when
any type of work was being performed there.
Attorney Hatch, in reference to the allegations by the plaintiff that mow—
ing was performed on Mr. Gulley's property by City employees, inquired of Mr. Gulley
if he had ever seen anyone mowing on his property who was a City employee. Mr. Gulley
stated that he had not and that he had never asked anyone associated with the City to
mow his private property.
Mr. Hatch stated that plaintiff seemed to be concerned about easements and
questioned Mr. Gulley briefly to clarify the fact that CCMGC was serving the Mobile
Home Park with gas prior to 1970 when the property was platted. '
Mayor Pro Tem de Ases called for a recess at 11:10 a.m.
The public hearing reconvened at 11:17 a.m.
Mayor Pro Tem de Ases summarized the proceedings that had occurred prior to
this time, stating that the Attorney for the plaintiff had charged that the City had
illegally installed gas pipelines in Gulley's Mobile Home Park for which the City
was not reimbursed and had alleged that employees of the Street Division had per—
formed drainage work, patching work, material hauling and mowing in the Mobile Home
Park. Mayor Pro Tem de Ases expressed his concern about the statement in Mr. Williams'
letter of August 15, 1977, addressed to the Mayor and Council Members in which he had
indicated that the employees who had supplied the plaintiff with information about
these charges were hesitant to testify before the Council because they felt that they
would suffer hardship in their employment with the City.
Mr. Williams indicated that -he would not call on any of these witnesses to
appear before the Council in view of the pending court case, stating that the iden—'
tity of the witnesses would be made known when depositions are taken for the court.
Mayor Pro Tem de Ases assured Mr. Williams that he did not need to be
restricted in any way and that employees would not suffer if they testify on behalf
of the plaintiff.
Mr. Williams stated that he would call witnesses if there were some official
action on the part of the Council that employees testifying would not have their
• utes
Public Hearing
August 31, 1977 '
Page 7
jobs endangered. He reminded the Council that he does not have the power to subpoena
witnesses.
Mayor Pro Tem de Ases stated that if Mr. Williams would inform the Council
as to which witnesses he wished to appear, it was his belief that the Council would
have the power to subpoena witnesses.
Mr. Williams then stated that he had been ordered by the Court not to take
depositions and he felt that included calling the witnesses to appear before the
Council.
'Attorney Hatch indicated that counsel was inaccurate in that statement, stat—
ing that Judge Hamilton prohibited the attorneys involved in this case from taking
depositions before the matter had been presented to the Council, but expressed the
opinion that there is nothing to prevent counsel from talking to and questioning
witnesses today. Mr. Hatch stated that he would hope that if there are such wit—
nesses who can testify, that the Council would hear them.
Mayor Pro Tem de Ases assured Mr. Williams that the employees referred to
would not place their jobs in jeopardy by testifying. Council Member Sample also.
gave Mr. Williams the same assurance.
Mr. 'Williams questioned the authority of the Council to subpoena City
employees and stated that some of them are hostile witnesses against the City.
Attorney Benadum assured Mr. Williams that the Council can legally call
any City employee to testify and reminded counsel that the City had sent a letter
to him suggesting that he supply the names of all witnesses involved in the case
so that arrangements could be made to allow the employees to have time off from
their jobs in order to appear before the Council.
Mr. Williams stated that he had been out of the City and did not receive
the letter in time to supply the City with a list of witnesses.
Attorney Hatch expressed his concern about the plaintiff not calling any
witnesses, pointing out that serious accusations have been made against Mr. Gulley
and City Manager Townsend, and it is the duty of the attorney to •bring forth wit—
nesses to support these charges, rather than making such allegations on hearsay
1111,
Minutes
Public Hearing
August 31, 1977
Page 8
information. Mr. Hatch reminded the Council that Mr. Williamq could call any wit-
nesses, and pointed out the seriousness of the charges.
Mr. Williams responded by stating that he had attempted to take depositions
and get the matter heard in court and that he does not want to call the witnesses
until he has had an opportunity to talk to them and until he is assured that they
will not be harassed.
Mayor Pro Tem de Ases asked Mr. Williams if he intended to call the wit-
nesses that he had already talked with, and counsel stated that he did not want to
call them at this time.
Council Member Gill inquired about the Council power of subpoena and asked
if Mr. Williams would be able to take depositions if the witnesses were questioned
-before the Council. -
Mayor Pro Tem de Ases stated that the Council is empowered to call witnesses
to give testimony, but Mr. Williams does not want to call them because he does not
know what they will say.
City Attorney Bruce Aycock expressed the opinion that no objections were
outlined in the procedure for conducting this hearing in regard to the calling of
witnesses, and he sees no reason why they cannot be called.
Attorney Hatch stated that by refusing to call witnesses, he assumes that
attorney for the plaintiff is resting his case. Mr. Hatch pointed out that Mr.
Williams had not asked that Council continue this case until he can bring witnesses,
and regardless of the assurances that Council has given him in regard to protection
of the positions of City employees who might be called to testify, he still does not
desire to bring such witnesses before the Council.
Council Member Sample asked for clarification. He stated that he did not
understand how this case ever got to the courthouse and these allegations could
have been made when there is nobody here to substantiate the charges.
Mr. Williams reiterated that he would have witnesses if he had been allowed
by the court to take depositions, select the witnesses he wanted to testify, and
then present them before the Council, but since the court would not allow him to
Wutes
Public Hearing
August 31, 1977
Page 9
take depositions, he did not want to jeopardize the court case by presenting wit-
nesses now.
Attorney Williams stated that he rests his case, and he would hope that
the Council would review the case and make a decision so that the case can be taken
back to court.
Mayor Pro Tem de Ases stated that the next item,' according to the procedure
agreed upon by counsel for all parties, was evidence for the defense and called
upon Mr. Hatch, Attorney representing Mr. Gulley.
Mr. Hatch called Mr. Timoteo Gonzalez, the plaintiff, to the stand. City Secre-
tary Read
ecre-tary'Read ascertained that Mr. Gonzalez was not present in the Council Chamber or
in the vicinity of the Council Chamber.
Attorney Hatch then called Mr. Michael W. Williams to the stand.
Mr. Williams was sworn in by City Secretary Read.
Mr. Hatch inquired of Mr. Williams as to why his client, Mr. Gonzalez, was
not present. Mr. Williams stated that he had talked to Mr. Gonzalez early this
morning and advised him to be at the public hearing, and Mr. Gonzalez had indi-
cated that he would be there at 10:50, but he apparently had not arrived-
' Attorney Hatch questioned Mr. Williams in regard to witnesses who had
claimed to see wrongdoing on the part of the City in performing certain tasks on
Mr. Gulley's property at City expense. He then asked Mr. Williams how many wit- _
nesses who claim to have expert knowledge that work was performed on Mr. Gulley's
property was he aware of.
Mr. Williams stated that he had talked to five witnesses who had seen
the work performed.
Mr. Hatch stated that he objected to Mr. Williams giving testimony with-
out the accuser being present. He again requested that the witness who had made
the charges appear.
Mr. Williams stated that he had talked to someone who claimed to have
first hand knowledge of the wrongdoings, and reiterated that there are possibly
five witnesses who have first hand knowledge of the acts.
• Wes
Public Hearing
August 31, 1977
Page 10
•
Attorney Benadum asked Mr. Williams if he would enumerate the reasons why
he believes that there will be reprisals against witnesses to these events if they
are City employees.
Attorney Williams informed him that the apprehension about testifying is
on the part of the witnesses, but indicated that he has not discussed this with
the witnesses.
Attorney Benadum asked Mr. Williams if at the time he filed the lawsuit,
he had more detailed facts available to him than were included in the petition.
Mr. Williams stated that he did, and he has excluded some of the testimony.
Mr. Benadum inquired of Mr. Williams if that information was brought to
him by the plaintiff, Mr. Gonzalez, and if so, could Mr. Gonzalez prove some of
these allegations if he were here before the Council.
Mr. Williams admitted that Mr. Gonzalez did not bring this information to
him, but it came from another source, stating that he had received phone calls
about the wrongdoing on the part of the City. Mr. Williams also admitted that '
. those phone calls were received by him after the lawsuit was filed.
. Attorney Hatch inquired of Mr. Williams why he did not discuss the possi -
bility of these people appearing before the City Council if they were aware of
illegal acts performed by City personnel.
Mr. Williams stated that he did not discuss their appearance before the
Council, and Mr. Hatch then asked him how he knew they were concerned about testi—
fying before the Council if he had not discussed this with them. Mr. Williams
stated again that they only wanted to speak in court.
Mr. Hatch stated that a considerable amount of data regarding the alleged
misdeeds had been supplied Mr. Williams by Mr. Harry Hoag and asked if he had
supplied the information for the allegations listed in Count 3, which referred
to the mowing, patching of private streets, and drainage improvements. Attorney
Williams indicated that Mr. Hoag had not supplied any information that could be
used.
Attorney Hatch requested that Mr. Williams, specify just exactly what
work was performed at Gulley's Mobile Home Park by the City at City expense..
, -Minutes
Public Hearing,
August 31, 1977
Page 11
Mr. Williams stated that he had been informed that grading was performed on
the property so that drainage would go to City streets, but admitted, under ques-
tioning that no change was made on the property by that employee but only grades
were taken. -
In regard to the alleged mowing by City crews, Mr. Hatch questioned Mr.
Williams as to whether or not he had first hand information that mowing was done
on Mr. Gulley's private property. Mr. Williams testified that he had talked to a
witness who stated that he was ordered by his supervisor to mow on the property.
Mr. Hatch inquired where the mowing was done, and Mr. Williams replied that
he was told this by a third party, and that he had not actually talked to the one
who supposedly did the mowing.
Mr. Hatch then referred to the shell that was alleged to have been placed
on Mr. Gulley's property at the expense of the City and asked Mr. Williams if this'
was placed on the right-of-way or on private property. Mr. Williams stated that he
was told this and drove through the property rather rapidly to inspect the area.
Mr. Hatch reminded him that the drainage ditches are on public property
and asked if Mr. Hoag had prepared a map of the area and questioned Mr. Williams
about his examination of the property and ascertained that a thorough investigation
had not been made of this area. Mr. Williams reiterated that he had received reports
of the placement of shell on private property.
Mr. Hatch then referred to the allegation that patch work was performed
on the private streets in the Mobile Home Park; he asked for a map of the area; and
then asked the court reporter who was recording the proceedings to mark it for iden-
tification purposes. He then entered it as evidence and requested Mr. Williams to
point to the area where he was told the patch work was performed. Mr. Williams
then placed his hand on the map and moved it over a wide area of the map. Mr. Hatch
informed Mr. Williams that the area he had pointed to included a public road where
the work was done.
Mr. Hatch summarized by saying that all of'these allegations are based on
statements made to Mr. Williams and which had not been investigated.
utes
Public Hearing
August 31, 1977
Page 12
Attorney Benadum asked Mr. Williams if, when these charges were presented
to him, he had brought this matter to the attention of anyone in the City in a
supervisory capacity, such as the City Manager, a Director of a department, a
supervisor, or a Council Member, before the lawsuit was filed.
Attorney Williams stated that he had brought it to the attention of someone
within the City other than an employee, but indicated that he did not want to develop -
that at this time.
Mr. Benadum inquired if Mr. Williams did not think it would be proper for
City crews to repair driveways on personal property if they were damaged by the
City when City work was being performed. Mr. Williams stated that the City would
have a duty to restore personal property that was damaged by the City.
Attorney Benadum asked permission to call one witness before the Council
recessed since that witness had traveled from Medina, Texas, to appear. He then
called as a witness Mr. Henry Lewis, former Street Superintendent of the City of
Corpus Christi. City Secretary Read gave the oath to Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Lewis testified that he had been employed by the City for 31 years prior
to his retirement in February, 1977. He stated that he was employed and in charge
of street work in 1975 and indicated his familiarity with Tuloso Circle, which is
one of the public streets in Gulley's Mobile Home Park.
Mr. Benadum asked Mr. Lewis about the drainage improvement project performed
in Mr. Gulley's Park in 1975 or 1976 and requested that he explain the matter.
Mr. Lewis related that a drainage complaint had been received from Mr.
Gulley and explained that he had notified the Director of his Department, Mr. James
K. Lontos. He stated that he and Mr. Lontos had investigated the complaint and he
had then followed the usual procedure that the Street Division does in correcting
drainage problems and indicated that this was just the same type of procedure that
was followed on any citizen's complaint of a drainage problem. Mr. Lewis also
assured the Council that no preference was given to the request from Council Member
Gulley, and that he had instructions from the City Manager that any request from
him or a member of the Council should be given the same treatment as any other
citizen.
Minutes
Public Hearing
. August 31, 1977
Page 13
Attorney Benadum inquired of Mr. Lewis if City Manager Townsend had person-
ally approved of this drainage work on Mr. Gulley's property, and Mr. Lewis replied
that to his knowledge, Mr. Townsend had not.
In regard to the allegations that shell was placed on Mr. Gulley's personal
property, Mr. Lewis explained that some of the driveways were possibly damaged during
the drainage work performed by City crews, and in such instances, the driveways must
be repaired when they are damaged by the City. He also stated that the only mowing
that was done in the Mobile Home Park was on the right-of-way of the public streets,
and indicated that this might have been construed to be personal property.
Mayor Pro Tem de Ases inquired if Mr. Williams had any exhibits to present
to the Council in connection with the case. Mr. Williams stated that he had none.
Mayor Pro Tem de Ases inquired about the cost of the work performed in laying the
gas lines, and it was determined that the cost was between 4 and 5 thousand dollars.
Mr. Williams waived his right to a closing statement.
Mr. Hatch gave a brief closing statement in which he stated that Attorney
Williams has urged the Council to do nothing and not intervene in the lawsuit, but
he requested,that the Council make a determination as to whether or not there has
been any wrongdoing by City employees, pointing out that no evidence to that effect
had been presented.
Mayor Pro Tem de Ases declared the hearing closed at 12:55 p.m.
* * * * * *
The Council reconvened at 1:15 p.m. to deliberate on the allegations that
had been made.
Council Member Lozano stated that anybody can say that they observed City
employees working on personal property, but nothing has been proven during the
hearing. He stated that he does not feel that City Manager Townsend nor Council.
Member Gulley have been guilty of any wrongdoing.
Council Member Diaz stated that he feels that the plaintiff has utterly
failed to prove any wrongdoing; all of the allegations were based on hearsay; and
that no wrongdoing on the part of either City official occurred.
Minutes
Public Hearing
August 31, 1977
Page 14
Council Member Gill stated that, based on what was presented today, she
cannot see that any wrongdoing was performed by anyone. She further indicated
that in regard to Counts 1 and 2 of the charges, which dealt with the installation
of gas lines, she does not have enough knowledge of the law to make a judgment.
Mayor Pro Tem de Ases expressed the opinion that the party who brought the
lawsuit had the burden to prove the charges, and he did not even appear before the
Council. He stated further that the plaintiff had an opportunity to make a full
presentation, but this was not done, and the allegations were based on hearsay.
Mr. de Ases also stated that he felt that the actions taken by the City Manager
and the City employees were in compliance with general City policy.
Motion by Sample that the Council find that there has been no wrongdoing
or malfeasance by City Manager Townsend or Council Member Bob Gulley; seconded by
Diaz, and passed by the following vote: de Ases, Diaz, Gill, Lozano and Sample
voting "Aye"; Luby, absent.
The Public Hearing was adjourned at 1:25 p.m. August 31, 1977.
0__KAAc ous 4 I e d
°-1(L CtUJQf