Loading...
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