HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes City Council - 02/07/1983 - Special Reconvened (3)MINUTES
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
RECONVENED SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
OF FEBRUARY 7, 1983
ROOM 224 - CONVENTION CENTER
FEBRUARY 11, 1983
4:00 P.M.
PRESENT:
Mayor Luther Jones
Mayor Pro Tem Betty N. Turner
Council Members:
Jack K. Dumphy
Bob Gulley
Herbert L. Hawkins
Dr. Charles W. Kennedy
Cliff Zarsky
City Manager Edward A. Martin
City Attorney J. Bruce Aycock
City Secretary Bill G. Read
L/cLt./ \
Mayor Luther Jones called the meeting to order in Room 224 of the
Convention Center and stated that the purpose of the meeting was for
consideration of the Federal Court Ruling on the election method lawsuit and
that it had been posted to convene in closed session on this subject under the
authority granted by Article 6252-17, the Open Meeting Law, if necessary.
City Secretary Read called the roll of required Charter Officers and noted
a quorum was present to conduct a legally constituted meeting.
Mayor Jones then reminded the Council that at the meeting of February 7,
1983, a motion had been made by Mr. Gulley that consideration be given for
submission of a 4-4-1 Plan.
City Manager Martin explained the motion indicated the direction was to
prepare maps and figures representing a 4 -District Plan as well as any other
variations or alternatives that could be prepared; the City Council had been
provided a packet consisting of district summaries and maps on the 4 -District
Plan with four versions, including the existing Councilmanic plan and two
variations on the 5 -District Plan; mentioned that Assistant City Manager Utter,
Willie Pulido, Planner with the City Planning Department, and Administrative
Assistant Sarah Cole had spent a number of hours preparing these plans. Mr.
Martin then stated that Assistant City Manager Ernest Briones would explain the
plans.
MICROFILM)
SEP 191984
.lutes
Special Council Meeting
February 11, 1983
Page 2
Mr. Briones reviewed the existing councilmanic plan pointing to a map and
stating that Districts 1 and 2 had the largest percentage of Hispanic showing
53.9% and 63.2%, respectively.
Council Member Gulley inquired of Mr. Richard Hall, Attorney representing
the City in the lawsuit, whether it should be assumed that other minorities not
be considered in the plan, and Mr. Hall replied that the Council is to come up
with a plan to consider remedying what the Court has found to be deficient;
some disparity was found in the number of registered voters and also
discrepancies in age so that an increase in the percentage of Mexican -Americans
in some districts would insure that a candidate of the choice of
Mexican -American population will be elected.
Council Member Zarsky inquired if in fact the City is not obligated to
other minorities. He mentioned the possibility of another lawsuit question if
other minorities are not adequately represented.
Mr. Hall replied by stating that this could be possible but the alternative
to that with a Black population of 5% would be to have a hybrid system to
permit Blacks to be represented also.
Mayor Jones commented that the thought of ignoring the 5% Blacks is not
possible and agreed with Mr. Hall that a hybrid system is that system most
likely to give the Blacks a fighting chance to be elected.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner expressed her concern that the Council needs to
insure that there is a district where the Blacks will be represented.
Assistant City Manager Briones proceeded to explain the proposed
alternatives under the 4 -District Plans and referred to:
Plan A - pointing out that this plan has two districts, Districts 2 and 3, which
give a heavy Mexican/American representation. He mentioned also that this
plan gives heavy representation for the Blacks.
Plan B - takes a slightly similar approach to the existing plan. Districts #1
and #2 which show a majority of hispanic population with the voting age
population 51.9% and 55.2%, respectively.
Plan C - Again, District #1 gives Hispanic a 53.6% of population with a 47% of
the voting age population and District #2 with a 66% population representing a
58.6% of the voting age.
Assistant City Manager Briones also explained the 5 -District Plan as
follows:
Plan A - gives one strong Hispanic district, District #1, which has 70.3%
Hispanic population with 64.6% of voting age population; District #2 with 56.3%
Hispanic representing 49.4% of the voting age; and District #5, 56.3% Hispanic
representing 49.3% of the voting age. District #1 gives the Blacks 11.1%
representing 64.6% of the voting age.
anutes
Special Council Meeting
February 11, 1983
Page 3
Plan B - District #2 showing 78.7% Hispanic and District #1, 69.4% Hispanic.
Both have a 10% Black population but is greatly diminished to a .02% voting age
in District #1.
Mayor Jones called for comments from the Council regarding these
alternatives.
Council Member Gulley indicated his preference to a 4-4-1 Plan because he
is of the opinion that the majority of the Council should be elected at -large to
assure the entire City is properly represented.
Council Member Zarsky agreed with Council Member Gulley and stated that
he felt this is a more equitable and favorable plan which would serve the public
and provide the necessary representation by the minorities.
Council Member Hawkins stated that the Council could have settled by
agreeing to the 4-4-1 Plan prior to the lawsuit and that it is his belief that the
plaintiffs will not accept this plan; therefore, the Council should try and vote
on something that will be approved.
Attorney Richard Hall explained to the Council that Judge Kazen's primary
interest was for better representation in the west side; that he felt that when
the Judge prepares himself to review what the Council has decided upon, he
will be primarily interested in what the plan affords the west side; the plan
agreed upon will have to be submitted to the Justice Department before Judge
Kazen does anything with it; and that in regard to the mechanics on clearance
from the Justice Department, the Justice Department will undoubtedly seek
comments from the plaintiffs.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner inquired of Mr. Hall if the plaintiffs had met and if
so, what their plan was.
Mr. Hall replied that it was his understanding that the plaintiffs had
agreed on a 10-1 Plan and suggested that the Council adopt a plan to submit to
the plaintiffs simply for critique and to be used as a starting point.
Council Member Kennedy indicated he would like to obtain some comments
from the plaintiffs on the possibility of considering a 4-4-1 Plan, a 5-3-1 or
even a 2 -2 -Swing Plan; also on the position of staggered 4 -year terms; the
position on residential requirements; and would also like to hear what
discussions arose from the plaintiffs after the meeting on Wednesday, February
9.
.nutes
Special Council Meeting
February 11, 1983
Page 4
Mayor Jones inquired of Members of the City Council if they had any
objection to opening the meeting to the public for comments and 'everyone
concurred.
Juan Gonzales, Attorney representing the plaintiffs, spoke at this time
stating that the plaintiffs would prefer a 10-1 Plan but are willing to see if
negotiations are possible from that position. He stated that they would not
accept a 4-3-1 Plan nor a 4-4-1 Plan because it is their opinion that the 4-3-1
plan is not sufficient and that the 4-4-1 Plan would simply carry over another
method of the present system.
Mayor Jones inquired of Mr. Gonzales why the 5-3-1 Plan submitted by
MALDEF would not be acceptable by them now.
Mr. Gonzales replied that the 5-3-1 submitted by MALDEF was a remedy
submitted for the purpose of avoiding the lawsuit, but it is their belief that the
10-1 Plan by the Coastal Bend Legal Services will be submitted also.
Council Member Gulley inquired as to whether Mr. Gonzales and the
plaintiffs would not consider any plans that would include at -large places, and
Mr. Gonzales replied that he is just saying that the 4-4-1 Plan is not acceptable
to them.
Council fvlember Gulley expressed concern about the possibility of
negotiating if the plaintiffs have decided to submit their recommendation to the
Judge on what they feel the plan should be.
Attorney Richard Hall explained that the plaintiffs have the right to submit
any plan of their choice; that if the Court elects to put into effect something
other than what the Council has proposed, the likelihood is that it will be a
single member district plan; that if the Court will not accept the Council's plan,
any hybrid plan can for all practical purposes be ruled out.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner inquired of Mr. Gonzales if the plaintiffs are willing
to negotiate with the Council.
Attorney Juan Gonzales replied that the plaintiffs are willing to listen to
the Council.
Mayor Jones inquired of Mr. Gonzales if he felt that a "closed" meeting
between parties would be advisable.
Mr. Gonzales stated that in his opinion, a closed meeting for the purpose
of working out a solution to this matter is almost a necessity.
.inutes
Special Council Meeting
February 11, 1983
Page 5
Mr. David Salinas, President of LULAC Council #1 , stated that he agreed
with Mr. Gonzales that any further "public" meetings would be detriniental and
that both parties and their attorneys should meet in "closed" session and work
a possible solution for a better government.
Dr. Bob Bezdek, Government Professor at CCSU, addressed the Council
by stating that in reading the Judge's decision, he felt that that the City has
no other alternative but to negotiate with the 5-3-1 plan since the plaintiffs
have made it very clear that they would not accept the 4-4-1 plan. Dr. Bezdek
also stated that he would like to offer the school's computer services to
establish districts by precincts.
Dr. Fred Cervantes, also a professor at CCSU, strongly urged the
Council's consideration of meeting in closed session to allow a possible solution
to the problem.
Mrs. Pauline Clarke, Member of the League of Women Voters, addressed
the Council and stated that the League did their study and they support the
5-3-1 Plan. Mrs. Clarke expressed the opinion that this is a good plan and
although she would like to take credit for it, Dr. Cervantes actually prepared
the plan and should be given the credit. Mrs. Clarke proceeded to say that
the League supports this plan and feels it is time for a change.
Council Member Kennedy stated that it was his understanding that under
the City Charter, the City had only four dates on which to conduct an election
but inquired of Attorney Richard Hall if Judge Kazen could set the date for the
upcoming election and also if the Judge could rule that the at -large places in a
City of this size should require a 2/3 vote.
Mr. Hall replied that the Court had the authority to set a date in this case
and that one of the things that will be required by the Justice Department is
that the at -large districts be conducted on a plurality basis. Mr. Hall further
stated that he is of the opinion that any plan that is proposed to the plaintiffs
and presented to the Justice Department should include that kind of provision
because he does not feel it will be approved by the Justice Department because
of the possibility of polarized voting.
Mr. Bruce Aycock, City Attorney, disagreed with Mr. Hall by stating that
this needs to be pursued further because of a recent case in Washington where
there was a residence requirement approved for the place system.
..,1nutes
Special Council Meeting
February 11, 1983
Page 6
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Turner that the Council adopt the
5-3-1 Plan and move forward, seconded by Council Member Kennedy.
Council Member Zarsky stated that he was not in total disagreement with
the motion but is of the opinion that they are approving a plan too quickly and
that he felt that the will of the people is being ignored. Mr. Zarsky further
stated that the Council should hear from the attorneys as to options; he
strongly objected to moving forward with a plan without first insuring that it
will even accomplish anything; and suggested that this motion be defeated so
that he can at least hear from the attorneys to see if there is any potential at
all for an appeal. Mr. Zarsky summarized by stating that he felt he has not
received the full information and would hate to make a decision at this time;
that he has no hesitation whatsoever in supporting a modified plan; and again
urged the motion be defeated.
Council Member Kennedy inquired of Attorney Richard Hall whether he had
any question in his mind about moving forward at this time.
Mr. Hall explained that the case is not appealable until a remedy has been
issued. He stated, however, that there was one exception by which a party
can request an appeal from an interlocutory decision and if the Court were to
give the City permission; the Court is not required to give the City permission
and even if it did, the 5th Circuit Court is not required to accept it.
Council Member Zarsky then asked for Mr. Hall's opinion from a legal point
of view on whether or not an appeal is merited.
Mr. Hall summarized his opinion by stating that if the Council could not
reach an agreement with the plaintiffs, an appeal would be worthwhile.
Council Member Hawkins took exception to the statement made by Mr. Hall
and explained that he did not think that an appeal would be worthwhile when it
can only cause divisiveness in the community.
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tern Turner that the meeting be recessed
at 5:30 p.m., seconded by Council Member Gulley and passed unanimously.
o*o*o*o*o*o*o*o*o*o*o*o*o*o*o*o*
Mayor Jones reconvened the Special Council Meeting at 5:41 p.m.
Mayor Jones then called on Council Member Hawkins to speak at this time.
,.i nutes
Special Council Meeting
February 11, 1983
Page 7
Council Member Hawkins stated that it would not be a worthwhile effort to
appeal this lawsuit, and in his opinion, not in the best interest of `the City;
that the City has already spent a large amount of money on attorney fees and
probably will spend more; the appeal would only divide the Community and
create resentment; and that this is more important to him than just to try to
work out the legal ramifications of a lawsuit. Mr. Hawkins contended that he
had submitted several plans and suggested they go into closed session but no
consideration was given to his suggestion. He urged that the Council try to
negotiate in good faith and move forward at this time.
Mayor Jones commented that the Council should try to look at what is best
for Corpus Christi and enter into negotiations in good faith, adding that if an
agreement is not reached, there will be ample time to appeal.
Council Member Kennedy stated that he agrees with Council Member
Hawkins and would like to move forward in good faith. Dr. Kennedy stated
that in his opinion, there is nothing more to be gained and he would encourage
a favorable vote on the motion.
Council Member Gulley commented that he would vote to move forward at
this time since he is concerned about the community, but that if a decision is
not right he would not hesitate to appeal.
Council Member Zarsky indicated he is interested in all options being
considered and would favor a position that guarantees minority representation
but has some reservation or problem with the new interpretation.
City Attorney Bruce Aycock pointed out to the Council that time is of the
essence to comply with the Court order and that he would like to urge them to
resolve the matter.
Council Member Dumphy expressed his opinion by stating that he felt the
Council should vote to go ahead with the negotiations.
Mayor Jones restated the motion previously made by Mayor Pro Tem Turner
and seconded by Council Member Kennedy that the Council adopt the 5-3-1 Plan
and move forward with negotiations.
The motion passed by the following vote: Jones, Turner, Dumphy,
Hawkins and Kennedy voting, "Aye"; Gulley and Zarsky, "no".
,nutes
Special Council Meeting
February 11, 1983
Page 8
A motion was made by Council Member Kennedy that a closed meeting be
held at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 15, 1983, at the Convention Center
between the plaintiffs and their representatives, the City Council and their
representatives and any additional invited guests or staff members who could
contribute to the discussion.
Mayor Jones asked for clarification on the word, "plaintiffs" used by Dr.
Kennedy in his motion, and Dr. Kennedy said people who had actually signed
the document initiating the lawsuit.
City Manager Martin stated that we need to insure that the plaintiffs
receive an invitation to the meeting.
Juan Gonzales, Attorney for the Plaintiffs, assured the Council that he
would carry the invitation to the plaintiffs but would suggest that the time be
chanced to 6:30 p.m. since most of the plaintiffs would still be at work at 5:00
p.m.
The motion was seconded with the amended time of 6:30 p.m. by Council
Member Gulley and passed unanimously.
There being no further business to come before the Council, on motion by
Council Member Kennedy, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Turner, the Reconvened
Special Council was recessed at 6:15 p.m.
RR/rr