HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes City Council - 11/24/1987 - SpecialMINUTES
City of Corpus Christi, Texas
Special Council Meeting
Bayfront Plaza Convention Center, Room 224
1901 North Shoreline
November 24, 19887
3:00 p.m.
Present
Mayor Betty Turner
Mayor Pro Tem Mary Rhodes
Council Members
David Berlanga, Sr.
Leo Guerrero
Clif Moss
Bill Pruet
Mary Pat Slavik
Linda Strong
City Manager Craig McDowell
City Attorney Hal George
City Secretary Armando Chapa
Council Member Frank Mendez was present with his attorney, Mr. Larry
Adams
Mayor Turner called the meeting to order at the Bayfront Plaza
Convention Center and stated that the purpose of the meeting is to consider
pre -hearing motions regarding the hearing on the petition to remove Council
Member Frank Mendez.
City Attorney Hal George explained that Mr. Richard Stone, the Special
Attorney appointed to advise the Mayor and Council, should arrive
momentarily.
Mr. George continued by stating that Mr. Larry Adams, attorney for
Council Member Mendez, has filed a motion to dismiss or motion in limine
and he has filed a motion to limit the participation of the City Attorney.
Mr. George stated that in response to the second motion, he has filed a
pre -hearing motion for the purpose of clarifying the role to be played by
the City Attorney in the proceedings.
City Attorney George then presented to the Council copies of the
amended Articles of Impeachment which were prepared by Mr. Jon Kelly,
representing the petitioners, Steve Morales, et al.
Mayor Turner informed the Council that she will be invoking the rule
and asked that the witnesses depart the hearing room during testimony by
other witnesses.
Mr. George continued by stating that he has several items of
information to present to the members of the City Council, to the attorney
MICROFILMED
Minutes
Special Council Meeting
November 24, 1987
Page 2
for the petitioners, and the attorney for Council Member Mendez, including
the following items: portion of the Corpus Christi City Charter pertaining
to removal of a Council Member, copy of Article 5 Code of Ethics from the
City's Code of Ordinances; Article 988b. actions in which local public
official has interest, from the State Statutes; a copy of the Articles of
Impeachment, a copy of the first amended Articles of Impeachment, both of
which were prepared by Mr. Jon J. Kelly, attorney for the petitioners, and
other documents of information which were provided the City Attorney's
office.
At Mayor Turner's direction, Mr. George presented copies of the
information to all affected parties.
Mayor Turner called for a ten-minute recess at 3:05 p.m. until Mr.
Stone arrived.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Turner reconvened the Special Council Meeting at 3:15 p.m.
City Attorney Hal George reviewed the various motions to be considered
by the City Council.
Mr. Larry Adams, Attorney for Council Member Mendez, referred to the
statement that the rule will be invoked and inquired when that decision was
made.
Mayor Turner explained that it was her understanding that it could be
invoked and this was discussed informally by the City Council at their last
Council meeting.
A motion was made by Council Member Strong that the rule be invoked,
seconded by Council Member Guerrero and passed unanimously.
Mr. Adams continued by explaining the reasons for his motions. 1.
Motion to Dismiss or Motion in Limine. He explained the reason for this
motion was because of section 988b. of the Texas Civil Statutes on the
State's Conflict of Interest law. He stated that he did not believe in view
of all the threats made by the petitioners that this City Council should
place itself in the position of judging criminal statutes. He stated
instead that they would ask that Council Member Mendez be judged by the
City Charter rules, rather than prosecution under 988b. Mr. Adams
explained that the reason that they need to know is because the only way
that Mr. Mendez can safely testify is that he is not being adjudged by
988b.
Mr. Adams continued by stating that they are requesting that this
hearing be dismissed right now because of the pre-trial publicity and the
manipulation of the press that has occurred in the past 4 - 6 weeks. He
objected particularly to the release of the information the preceding week
after the City Council had specifically determined that the
Minutes
Special Council Meeting
November 24, 1987
Page 3
evidence was to be submitted to the City Attorney's office only, and the
release of information by the petitioners has resulted in suffering by
Frank Mendez. He continued by stating that Mr. Mendez has faith in the
City Council and feels that he can obtain a fair hearing from the Council
in normal circumstances, but because there has been so much manipulation of
the press, he did not know how the Council could do justice in their
decision.
Mr. Adams continued by quoting from Section 11 of the City Charter
which states that the City Council has the right to have this matter taken
to the State and, in his opinion, that the only way Frank Mendez can
receive a fair hearing was to have a trial with venue to be decided by the
court on publicity grounds. He urged that the case be dismissed at this
level.
Mr. Kelly, representing the petitioners, responded by stating that the
City Charter provides guidance for the Council on the Code of Ethics. He
referred to Section 17 of Article 2 which states "refusal to attend and
testify or to produce books, papers, and other evidence material to the
inquiry, shall result in forfeiture of any office, employment, emolument,
or contract then occurring to the person so refusing." Mr. Kelly then
referred to the statement in regard to the releasing of information, and
pointed out that the story on Mr. Mendez' apparent conflict of interest was
not broken by a representative of the Police Department, a Council Member
or a staff member but was the result of a news story. He pointed out that
on that date, interviews were given by Mr. Berney Seal, Council Member
Frank Mendez, City Manager Craig McDowell and Mr. Joe Galan, Jr., and that
side was solely Mr. Mendez' side.
Mr. Kelly referred to the fact that a statement had been made that the
evidence in connection with the Steel Workers building sale was not
relevant, but they were of the opinion that it was relevant. He explained
that that was the reason pertinent information was attached to their
amended Articles of Impeachment because they did not think that the
important evidence would be admitted during the hearing. He pointed out
that to exclude evidence that is a part of this case is improper. He also
questioned Mr. Adams' contention that Council Member Mendez might not
testify even though he has been subpoenaed. Mr. Adams responded by stating
that the evidence requested was presented to the City Attorney's office the
preceding week; City Attorney George examined all of the evidence; copies
were made of the two checks from Mr. Berney Seal; and Mr. Kelly did not
appear at the pre -arranged meeting.
Mayor Turner stated that she believed that the City Council is charged
to proceed with this hearing and she is confident that this Council has an
open mind. She stated that she agreed that information should not have
been given to the media but she was still of the opinion that the Council
can hear this fairly and make the proper decision.
Further discussion followed, and City Attorney George stated that
possibly the case could be dismissed if the Council decides to do so, but
he did not advise this.
Minutes
Special Council Meeting
November 24, 1987
Page 4
Mayor Pro Tem Rhodes pointed out that the motion under discussion
involved two things, 1. motion to dismiss or 2. motion in limine and asked
for an explanation.
Mr. Adams explained that if the case is not dismissed, the second
portion of the motion asked that the documents that were previously
released to the press not be allowed as evidence. He pointed out that some
decision needs to be made as to whether Mr. Mendez should be tried by the
City Council or according to State Statute.
Mr. Adams related the incidents that had occurred in connection with
the amended Articles of Impeachment to which were attached various pieces
of evidence. He stated that he previously had no objection to the
admission of evidence but he did at this time since it had already been
released by the media.
Attorney Richard Stone stated that what Mr. Adams is asking to do is
pass on the admissibility of evidence prior to the trial, and he did not
believe that the City Council should exclude evidence at a pre—trial
hearing until it is offered during the hearing. He suggested to Mr. Adams
that he make objections at the time the evidence is presented and at that
time the City Council can make that decision.
Mr. Adams stated that he would have to question Mr. Kelly and/or Mr.
Morales as to just what they released to the media, and Mr. Stone suggested
that Mr. Kelly and Mr. Morales be sworn in prior to giving testimony.
Mayor Turner then administered the oath to Mr. Morales and Mr. Kelly. With
the objection of Mr. Kelly, the Council authorized Mr. Adams to question
the witnesses. Mr. Kelly, in response to a question by Mr. Adams, stated
that when the amended Articles of Impeachment were delivered to the City
Attorney's office, they were delivered by Mr. Steve Morales and at the time
they were delivered, there were several items attached to the copies of the
amended Articles. He described the items released. Mr. Kelly stated that
he was not aware of any other documents that were released; Mr. Morales
released the documents at the time he presented them to the City Attorney's
office after he attempted to present them to the City Secretary's office.
Council Member Pruet inquired of Mr. Kelly if these documents were
released to any parties other than the City Attorney, and Mr. Kelly stated
that no personal documents belonging to Mr. Mendez were released.
Mr. Adams then questioned Mr. Morales about the documents released to
the three T.V. stations, and Mr. Morales stated that he released the
documents to the T.V. stations in confidence so that if they were not
allowed to be entered as evidence during the hearing, someone would be
aware of their existence.
The motion to dismiss or motion in limine was overruled.
Mayor Turner also stated that the City Charter will govern rather than
State law.
Minutes
Special Council Meeting
November 24, 1987
Page 5
City Attorney George stated that his office' interpretation is that
you can encompass any ordinance on the charges and they would advise that
the Council should listen and decide on the preponderance of the evidence.
He stated that all three laws apply, including local, state and federal,
but expressed the opinion that the Council did not need to make a
determination during this pre—hearing. He pointed out that the Council is
not sitting as a criminal judge but are actually at the hearing to consider
the violation of any code of ethics whether it be state, city or federal,
and the Council's role is just to look at the evidence and decide whether
or not to remove Council Member Mendez, not remove Council Member Mendez,
or to reprimand him.
Mr. Adams inquired if the Council is going to admit evidence and
expressed concern that since all of this evidence is being recorded the
petitioners might use this in a court of law.
Mr. Stone expressed the opinion that if there is evidence of some
violation of the City's Code of Ethics, that would be admissible under the
Charter hearing. He stated that his advice to the chair would be that
evidence under any code of ethics of the State Statute, City Code or
Federal level would be admissible.
Mr. Kelly then inquired of Mayor Turner if it would be possible to
invoke the 5th Amendment and if this were done, what would be the
consequences.
Mr. Stone stated that he did not believe that you can give a blanket
decision at this time because each item must be considered at the time it
is presented, and whether or not the 5th Amendment is invoked must be in
response to each inquiry.
Mr. Adams then referred to limitations placed on the City Attorney's
office in participation in this hearing and stated that he did not think
that the City Attorney should be allowed to interrogate witnesses.
Mr. George explained the responsibilities of the City Attorney and
expressed the opinion that in order to perform his duties as City Attorney,
there should not be any limitation on his involvement in the proceedings.
Mr. Kelly noted that Mr. Adams objected to Mr. George's offering
advice, but stated that he agrees with Mr. George that the City Charter
requires certain duties of the City Attorney.
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Rhodes that the City Attorney be
allowed to participate in the hearing; the motion was seconded by Council
Member Strong and passed.
Mayor Turner then referred to Mr. Kelly's motion to require that the
hearing officer be required to abstain from voting on motions made by the
Council that are in opposition to the hearing officer's rulings.
Minutes
Special Council Meeting
November 24, 1987
Page 6
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Rhodes that the Mayor be allowed to
participate fully in the hearing and in the voting on motions; the motion
was seconded by Council Member Pruet and passed.
Mr. George stated that there are two other parts to his motion and
referred to paragraph IV in which it states that the City Attorney would
further show that with regard to the advice to the Mayor and City Council
on procedural matters, admissibility of evidence, and rulings on
objections, such advice should be given by the Special Counsel (Mr. Stone)
in order to assure all parties that such rulings are fair, impartial and
unbiased.
Mayor Turner agreed that Mr. Stone should provide that type of ruling.
Mr. George then referred to paragraph V which states that "the City
Attorney would further show that the decision on the ultimate issue in this
proceding properly lies with the City Council." Mr. George explained that
he did not think that he should tell the Council whether a particular
action should be taken at the conclusion of the hearing because the Council
needs to make that ultimate decision. After a short discussion, the
Council concurred.
Mayor Turner stated that she would like to have the petitioners
available for questioning.
Mr. Kelly objected to the questioning and harassment of the
petitioners and asked that they not be questioned except for their name,
address and voter registration number.
Mayor Turner continued by stating that she felt that it should be very
clear that signing that petition is a very serious matter and the
petitioners should be aware of that fact.
Mayor Pro Tem Rhodes stated that she saw no reason for asking anything
except their names, addresses and certificate numbers.
Council Member Strong disagreed, stating that she felt that they
needed to reserve the right to question them.
A motion was made by Council Member Strong that the petitioners be
asked to stay for questioning as possible testifiers; the motion was
seconded by Council Member Pruet and failed to pass by the following vote:
Turner, Pruet and Strong voting "Aye"; Rhodes, Berlanga, Guerrero, Moss and
Slavik voting "No."
There being no further business to come before the Council, on motion
by Council Member Pruet, seconded by Council Member Strong and passed
unanimously, the Special Council Meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.,
November 24, 1987.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the
Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of the City of Corpus Christi of November
24, 1987, which were approved by the City Council on December 22, 1987.
-4 ,�
WITNESSETH MY HAND AND SEAL, this the ' — day of 2 / iG
kt
Armando Chapa, City Secretary
City of Corpus Christi
etty Turn r, MAYOR