Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes City Council - 02/03/1983 - SpecialMINUTES SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS FEBRUARY 3, 1983 6:30 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Luther Jones Council Members: Jack K. Dumphy City Manager Edward Martin Herbert Hawkins, Jr. City Attorney J. Bruce Aycock Dr. Charles W. Kennedy, Jr. City Secretary Bill G. Read Cliff Zarsky ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Betty N. Turner Council Member Bob Gulley Mayor Luther Jones called the meeting to order in the Council Chamber of City Hall and stated that the purpose of the Special Called Meeting was to receive the report on the Federal Court Ruling of Judge Kazen on the recent lawsuit challenging the City's method of election. City Secretary Bill G. Read called the roll of required Charter Officers and verified that the necessary quorum was present to conduct a legally constituted meeting. Mayor Jones stated that he had communicated with Mr. Bob Gulley who is in the Texas arrive Dallas area and with Mayor Pro Tem Betty Turner who is in Harlingen, and informed the Council Members that neither of them will be able to in Corpus Christi in time for this meeting. Mayor Jones noted that all of the Council Members had been provided with copies of Judge Kazen's decision and expressed the opinion that possibly the Council should discuss which items could which should be confined to a closed conversation with Council Member Gulley, be considered in open session and meeting. He stated that in his Mr. Gulley had requested that the Council not convene in closed session until all seven Council Members can be present. Council Member Kennedy suggested that the City Attorney and the City's legal representative in the lawsuit, Mr. Richard Hall, provide comments in MICROFILMED SP 191994 .utes Special Council Meeting February 3, 1983 Page 2 regard to the decision and advise them as to what the meaning of the decision is and what alternatives they might have. Dr. Kennedy stated that he was interested in ascertaining whether or not the City's election method is unconstitutional and not just whether or not there is a better election method for this City. He stated that he felt that it would be appropriate for the Council to go into closed session to discuss this matter since the voters of Corpus Christi had voted to adopt in the existing method of election and a determination needs to be made as to whether or not the method should be changed. Dr. Kennedy noted that according to the ruling, the City Council has 30 days to devise a plan that would be agreeable to the plaintiffs that could be approved by the presiding judge of the court. Mayor Jones stated that although he had not had time to study the ruling completely, it was his impression that although the judge did not find that the City's present method of election was unconstitutional, he did find that according to the latest revision of 1982 to the Voting Rights Act, our present method of election was not devised to dilute the minority vote, but that it could have resulted in doing so. He then asked for an interpretation of the ruling by the City's Attorney, Mr. Richard Hall. Mr. Hall briefly explained the ruling by stating that the first section refers to the finding of facts and goes into the history of the election system in Corpus Christ and that starting on page 21 of the "brief", Judge Kazen has determined that the method of election, because of provisions of the Voting Rights Act, the City cannot continue to conduct elections under the present method. Mr. Hall continued describing the document by stating that the Judge has instructed the Council that within 30 days a new system of election must be submitted to the Court for approval and that it would be in the best interest of all concerned if the plaintiffs concurred with the method submitted. He also pointed out that even if the judge concurs with the plan submitted, it must be submitted for approval to the Attorney General. Mr. Hall reminded the Council that it would probably be appropriate for the plan to be submitted to the Justice Department before it is submitted to the Court, however, the Justice Department does have 60 days in which to respond to the submission. He further explained that the submission to the Justice Department and to the judge would necessarily have to include the entire plan, including the single -member districts, their boundaries, ethnic breakdown, whether or not ,nutes Special Council Meeting February 3, 1983 Page 3 there are any at -large places, etc., or in other words, the entire plan must be submitted. He stated, also, that Judge Kazen has precedence over the Justice Department in his decision. Council Member Hawkins expressed the concern that in spite of the Court's Ruling, the Council has not indicated that they intend to work with the Hispanics in setting up a fair election method. Council Member Zarsky inquired about the status of the election previously scheduled for April 3rd and asked for Mr. Hall's opinion in regard to whether or not citizens should be allowed to continue to file or if they should wait until a decision has been reached. Mr. Hall stated that he saw no purpose that could be served by continuing to accept applications by candidates under the circumstances because obviously the election cannot be held in April and the date at this time for the next election is unknown. Mayor Jones then asked Mr. Hall about the alternatives that the Council has. Mr. Hall stated that the following three alternatives were possible: (1) contact the plaintiffs and their representatives to discuss with them the formulation of a different method of election as the Court suggests would be in the best interest of all citizens; (2) appeal the decision and attempt to overturn the Court's ruling; and (3) go ahead and formulate the Council's own plan and submit it to the judge for approval. Council Member Hawkins reiterated that he felt that the Council should consider the fact that 50% of the population are Hispanics who are under represented, and the Council should attempt to work out a plan with them. Mr. Hawkins urged that the Council be fair and work with the Hispanics and stated that he did not intend to participate in any closed sessions with the idea of pursuing this lawsuit any further. Mayor Jones informed Mr. Hawkins that he felt that his remarks were very unfair to the other six members of the City Council. He reminded Mr. Hawkins that this Council was very concerned at the time of the election when no Hispanics were elected and in an attempt to rectify that situation, they had formed the Committee of 16 to study, among other things, the City's election method and this was done because of their concern. He recalled that the Committee of 16 had reported that they had not been able to agree, by 2/3 ...inutes Special Council Meeting February 3, 1983 Page 4 majority as had been specified in their charge, on a method of election, but the majority had favored the present method. The Council agreed at that time that they would discuss this issue in the early part of 1982, but prior to that, they were confronted with the lawsuit. Council Member Zarsky also made a statement to the effect that Mr. Hawkins was wrong in stating that the Council is not concerned about the Hispanics because they certainly were and pointed out to Mr. Hawkins that he was the one who had suggested that some type of single -member district be considered. He did say, however, that he felt that the citizens of this community had the right to vote to change the Charter if they desired, because he felt very strongly that it was up to the citizens to change the method of election. Council Member Hawkins again urged that the Council be equitable and work with the plaintiffs to devise an election plan that would be fair to all, including the Hispanics and the Angios. Council Member Kennedy took exception to some of Mr. Hawkins' remarks and pointed out to him that the Council was prohibited from attempting to change the method of election through a Charter Amendment Election in August of 1982 because of the filing of the lawsuit. He stated that he had no objections to trying to work with the plaintiffs to formulate a plan that would be a fair election method. Mayor Jones assured Mr. Hawkins and the other Council Members that he for one intended to comply with Judge Kazen's ruling. He suggested that a second meeting be set for further discussion of this matter and mentioned, in particular, Monday evening. Council Member Dumphy agreed and stated that he felt that it was important that the entire Council meet to discuss this ruling, whether in closed or open session, and he saw no reason for a closed meeting. A motion was made by Council Member Dumphy that the Council meet on Monday, February 7, 1983; seconded by Council Member Zarsky. After a short discussion, the time of 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers was established. The motion passed unanimously by those present and voting. .nutes Special Council Meeting February 3, 1983 Page 5 There being no further business to come before the Council, on motion by Council Member Zarsky, seconded by Council Member Dumphy and passed unanimously, the Special Called Council Meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m., February 3, 1983. dz/rr