[7:30] >> Paxson: good morning,
[7:32] everyone.
[7:34] As mayor pro tem, I call this
[7:36] meeting to order.
[7:38] MS. Rebecca, if you can take
[7:39] roll, please?
[7:55] [Roll call]
[7:56] >> Huerta: mayor pro tem and
[7:58] council, a quorum of the council
[7:59] and the required charter
[8:00] officers are present to conduct
[8:01] the meeting.
[8:02] >> Paxson: thank you.
[8:05] At this time, I would like to go
[8:07] to our next item, which is
[8:08] public comment.
[8:09] Public comment will be limited
[8:11] to one minute per speaker this
[8:12] morning.
[8:19] And first we have samuel friar.
[8:22] >> good morning.
[8:24] Samuel andre friar.
[8:26] I just wanted to say I'm neither
[8:28] here to support the mayor nor am
[8:30] I here to support those who have
[8:31] filed the petition.
[8:37] I'm actually here for one thing,
[8:43] and that's to encourage the
[8:46] tribunal to be forthright,
[8:47] truthful, unbiased, and carry
[8:48] those procedures in a way
[8:54] without any ulterior motives.
[8:55] The good thing is we're doing
[8:57] this so we can possibly get
[8:58] things on record.
[8:59] That's the good thing.
[9:00] Regardless of the outcome, that
[9:01] is a very good thing.
[9:03] I wanted to say one thing, in
[9:06] the bible, in proverbs 18:17 it
[9:08] says the first one to plead his
[9:12] cause seems right until his
[9:14] neighbor comes and examines
[9:14] him.
[9:16] Keep that in mind and I pray we
[9:18] will do the right thing when it
[9:20] comes to this.
[9:20] Thank you.
[9:24] >> Paxson: thank you.
[9:27] Melinda de la santos.
[9:29] >> good morning.
[9:31] Melinda de la santos, district
[9:31] 2.
[9:33] I was determined to keep an open
[9:34] mind until I heard the evidence
[9:35] on both sides.
[9:37] However, I didn't think I was
[9:38] going to hear much evidence
[9:39] yesterday.
[9:41] No disrespect, from flood, but
[9:44] you pulled a DR. Fauci on me.
[9:45] However, after hearing the
[9:47] evidence, I was wondering is
[9:49] there such a thing as a rico
[9:53] ruling for malfeasance,
[9:54] incompetence, and willful
[9:54] neglect?
[9:55] Throughout this whole process,
[9:56] from the beginning of this
[9:58] application all the way to the
[9:59] signed contract, this appears to
[10:01] be red flags everywhere.
[10:03] Just to name a few, you know,
[10:07] requesting for funds for new
[10:07] fema requirements.
[10:12] Disappearance of dates from
[10:12] screenshots.
[10:13] Significant disparities of money
[10:16] granted between agencies.
[10:16] Fema requirements versus
[10:18] street-level activation.
[10:20] Contracts signed before the
[10:23] second reading of city council.
[10:24] The four turned into a one.
[10:26] And the verbiage of the second
[10:28] reading differing from the
[10:29] first.
[10:31] All I'm asking is for truth and
[10:32] transparency.
[10:32] Thank you.
[10:34] >> Paxson: thank you.
[10:46] Kathy fulton.
[10:51] >> hi.
[10:55] My name is kathy fulton.
[10:56] I'm from port aransas, texas.
[10:58] I want to say one thing, port
[10:59] aransas and all the surrounding
[11:00] communities are affected by what
[11:02] happens in the city of corpus
[11:03] christi.
[11:06] and this matters to us too.
[11:06] Okay?
[11:09] It really does.
[11:12] Because your actions impact your
[11:14] surrounding communities.
[11:16] And I just want to say that the
[11:20] poll that was online with kris
[11:23] news says 70 -- I think it's 72
[11:24] or 74% of the people aren't
[11:25] supporting this.
[11:26] Don't want this.
[11:29] Only 14% are supporting or say
[11:30] that this should finish
[11:30] happening.
[11:32] I want you to think about that.
[11:34] Those are your voters.
[11:37] You know, 74% of your voters are
[11:39] saying don't do this.
[11:40] And I think you need to be
[11:42] paying attention.
[11:42] Thank you.
[11:53] >> Paxson: thank you.
[11:53] Sean merritt.
[11:55] >> I'm a little sad.
[11:59] I brought a gift for the hitman
[11:59] journalist.
[12:00] So he needs it.
[12:05] We'll leave that there for him.
[12:06] Just as soap cleans the body,
[12:07] tribunal, it is your job to
[12:08] clean the politics.
[12:14] This is not corrupt us christi.
[12:16] If you take the head of the
[12:18] snake, the body will follow.
[12:21] Don't let MR. Flood use his 50
[12:23] days to call 50 more witnesses
[12:25] and keep us here until the
[12:26] election.
[12:27] She'll steal it just like she
[12:28] did with michael hunter.
[12:30] Now, that's all I got to say.
[12:31] I wanted to finish from
[12:32] yesterday.
[12:33] Please make sure your minion
[12:34] gets that.
[12:35] He smells very bad.
[12:38] Have a good day.
[12:39] >> Paxson: thank you.
[12:42] MS. Rebecca, do we have any
[12:44] other commenters?
[12:46] >> Huerta: no, ma'am.
[12:47] >> Paxson: that would conclude
[12:48] our public comment.
[12:49] We will have announcements from
[12:50] the parties.
[12:51] First from the legal counsel for
[12:53] the petitioners and then the
[12:54] legal counsel for the mayor.
[12:57] MR. Allison, are you ready to
[12:58] proceed?
[12:59] >> Allison: ready.
[13:01] >> Paxson: MR. Flood?
[13:02] >> Flood: yes, ready.
[13:04] >> Paxson: MR. Flood, you can
[13:06] call your next witness.
[13:08] >> Flood: respondent calls
[13:10] council member sylvia campos.
[13:11] >> Allison: we have an
[13:13] objection to that, when it's
[13:18] timely.
[13:21] At this time, we would object
[13:23] to calling any councilperson
[13:26] that is actively serving as a
[13:27] judge.
[13:28] Judges -- I mean, quite frankly
[13:32] if you were in a real courtroom
[13:33] over in nueces county court or
[13:34] anywhere in the state of texas,
[13:36] if you tried to call a judge
[13:38] from the bench, which is
[13:39] essentially what they're trying
[13:44] to do, then that would just be
[13:45] immediately denied.
[13:46] There's actually texas case law
[13:49] out there that says that if a
[13:53] judge gets on a witness stand
[13:55] and testifies, just by doing so,
[13:57] by acting what MAY be perceived
[13:59] as their own interests, they
[14:00] automatically disqualify
[14:01] themselves.
[14:03] So just the act of getting on
[14:05] the stand and testifying and
[14:06] saying anything that might be
[14:08] perceived as being in your
[14:10] interest as opposed to the
[14:13] interest of the person asking
[14:15] the questions can be construed
[14:17] under texas law as a reason for
[14:19] an automatic disqualification.
[14:20] that's the law in the state of
[14:22] texas and that's the law in the
[14:24] state of texas because we don't
[14:28] let judges step off the bench
[14:30] and testify.
[14:32] Specifically, that's also under
[14:34] rules -- I think 605 in the
[14:35] federal rules.
[14:38] It is expressly disallowed and
[14:39] this tribunal has not adopted
[14:41] that rule.
[14:43] But it still offers good
[14:45] guidance to us in that it very
[14:47] clearly articulates that a judge
[14:51] cannot be called as a witness.
[14:53] Period.
[14:55] Furthermore, it should not be
[14:57] allowed because even if you are
[15:00] witnesses -- and by that I just
[15:01] mean if you have facts back to
[15:04] the date and time when some of
[15:07] these incidents made the subject
[15:08] of the impeachment occurred,
[15:10] even if you have some of those
[15:12] facts, the best evidence of
[15:15] those facts is actually looking
[15:17] at the video of what you did.
[15:18] It's all recorded.
[15:20] Looking at the video of what you
[15:20] said.
[15:22] Looking at the video of your
[15:24] reasons for whatever you
[15:27] reasoned or articulated, a lot
[15:28] of which has already been
[15:29] played.
[15:30] So the best evidence of what you
[15:33] did and why you did it at the
[15:35] time is recorded.
[15:37] Finally, the reason to do it is
[15:39] that there is not any showing
[15:43] whatsoever that any of you have
[15:45] unique knowledge, including
[15:46] MS. Campos, the one he just
[15:47] called, have any unique
[15:49] knowledge of any of the facts of
[15:54] the case that are not either
[15:55] already in evidence or can be
[15:57] spoken to by a different witness
[16:00] who is not sitting as a judge.
[16:01] In other words, why would you
[16:03] put a sitting judge on the stand
[16:05] when you can get the testimony
[16:07] from other witnesses?
[16:09] And they've not met their burden
[16:11] to show that there are no other
[16:12] witnesses that can be called in
[16:14] order to address the issues.
[16:15] For example, if they want to
[16:16] talk to you about your
[16:17] discussions with somebody else,
[16:20] they can call that somebody
[16:22] else, unless of course it's a
[16:23] sitting judge.
[16:25] That's another reason is because
[16:26] there's a lot of judicial
[16:28] authority out there that says
[16:30] when you can go get the
[16:32] testimony from another witness,
[16:33] you should go that route.
[16:35] Here you can do that, whether
[16:36] it's calling peter zanoni,
[16:37] whether it's looking at the
[16:39] video, whether it's looking at
[16:40] what you said at other
[16:40] meetings.
[16:42] All of that's been put in the
[16:42] record.
[16:45] It's already there.
[16:47] That really leads me to my last
[16:48] point, which is because there's
[16:49] no need to call you as a
[16:55] witness, any of you, and because
[16:57] there is available information
[17:00] from other sources, what it
[17:02] really boils down to -- and we
[17:05] know this -- they've been
[17:07] stressing it, mayor's counsel
[17:08] has been stressing it from the
[17:08] beginning.
[17:09] What they're really trying to do
[17:11] is force a square peg in a
[17:12] wooden hole.
[17:14] They're trying to pound it in
[17:15] there.
[17:17] Because they want to take the
[17:19] position that somehow you're
[17:21] witnesses so you can't be fair.
[17:24] That's an issue that's gone
[17:25] before the federal judge and the
[17:26] federal judge already denied
[17:27] that request for a temporary
[17:29] restraining order, based on that
[17:29] ground.
[17:31] Then they tried again with the
[17:32] federal judge asking for what we
[17:34] call a preliminary injunction.
[17:36] And the federal court denied
[17:38] that request for preliminary
[17:39] injunction.
[17:40] And then they tried to get what
[17:42] they call a permanent
[17:44] injunction.
[17:46] And the federal judge dismissed
[17:47] their lawsuit.
[17:48] And then they appealed it to the
[17:52] federal court, the united states
[17:53] fifth district court of
[17:53] appeals.
[17:58] They appealed it to the U.S.
[17:58] Fifth district court of appeals
[17:59] and asked on the same reason,
[18:00] the same basis that we're
[18:01] talking about now, they said,
[18:03] well, you all, this group cannot
[18:09] be the judges.
[18:12] And therefore, stopped these
[18:13] proceedings as
[18:13] unconstitutional.
[18:16] But instead the fifth circuit
[18:18] court of appeals said, no.
[18:20] Thereby clearly giving their
[18:21] blessing that these proceedings
[18:22] are constitutional and that we
[18:24] should follow accordingly.
[18:28] So, this argument that they're
[18:30] making is one that has been
[18:33] rejected over and over and over
[18:33] again.
[18:37] And you might recall, last time
[18:39] when they called COUNCILMAN Roy,
[18:41] they said that -- and I don't
[18:43] know if this is true or not
[18:44] under the case law.
[18:47] They said they had an obligation
[18:49] to -- their words -- try.
[18:51] They said they had an obligation
[18:53] to make an attempt.
[18:55] And that they're doing that,
[18:59] calling you as witnesses to try
[19:01] or attempt having you be
[19:05] witnesses as a means to, what
[19:08] they think is, preserving error
[19:09] for some subsequent lawsuit they
[19:11] want to file in order to, again,
[19:13] just like they did in federal
[19:13] court.
[19:16] They're going to again try to
[19:18] find these proceedings
[19:20] unconstitutional.
[19:25] So it's really just, in that
[19:27] sense, they're really just more
[19:28] of a ruse to -- and this goes
[19:31] back to all of the arguments.
[19:33] The reason, under the federal
[19:34] rules and the reason under the
[19:36] other case law that we don't
[19:38] allow judges to be called as
[19:39] witnesses is because it really
[19:45] is a way to -- if you allowed
[19:47] that, every criminal defendant
[19:48] would stand up during a trial
[19:50] and say I want to call you,
[19:51] judge, as a witness.
[19:53] It would just destroy the
[19:55] decorum of the court if you let
[19:58] the judge step off the bench and
[20:00] step on to the witness stand.
[20:03] It would destroy the integrity
[20:05] of the process if you let the
[20:06] judges move from the bench to
[20:08] the witness stand.
[20:10] Because, again, the minute the
[20:11] judge says something that
[20:12] upholds the integrity of the
[20:15] process or talks about facts
[20:20] known in the background or the
[20:21] history of the process, all of a
[20:22] sudden -- you know how we
[20:23] lawyers are.
[20:24] They're going to start asking
[20:25] pointed questions.
[20:26] They're going to infer things.
[20:31] They're going to say things.
[20:33] They're going to attack the
[20:34] judge's credibility and the
[20:36] judge says something honest in
[20:38] defense of their credibility and
[20:39] their stance is committed to
[20:40] unbiased rulings.
[20:44] It is just a way to destroy the
[20:45] integrity of the process.
[20:46] And that's what they're trying
[20:47] to do, okay?
[20:51] So there are multiple reasons
[20:52] really supported by federal
[20:56] rules, by texas case law, by
[20:59] also the history of the case.
[21:00] The judge has already made
[21:02] rulings that you MAY be the
[21:03] judges and you MAY proceed.
[21:04] And once that ruling is made, we
[21:06] have to protect the integrity of
[21:09] the process and not allow it to
[21:10] be the ruse they want it to be,
[21:16] which is a witch hunt on you
[21:16] guys.
[21:19] Rather than focus on the
[21:20] impeachment and the issues
[21:21] relating to the impeachment of
[21:21] the mayor.
[21:24] For all of those reasons, we
[21:26] would respectfully request that
[21:28] the objection I'm now making be
[21:30] sustained and that if needed
[21:32] that there be a motion to
[21:33] sustain the objection and that
[21:36] it be granted.
[21:36] Thank you.
[21:37] >> Paxson: MR. Flood.
[21:38] >> Flood: a judge who is a
[21:40] fact witness or has a bias is
[21:42] required under texas and federal
[21:46] law to recuse and disqualify
[21:46] themselves.
[21:49] So without motion.
[21:50] COUNCILMAN Barrera and
[21:52] COUNCILMAN Roy recused
[21:53] themselves for that very
[21:54] reason.
[21:56] That being they are fact
[21:58] witnesses.
[22:03] A material fact witness, I'm
[22:04] calling COUNCILWOMAN Campos
[22:06] because she is a material fact
[22:07] witness.
[22:10] I'm also calling her to elicit
[22:12] bias testimony.
[22:13] The questions I would ask her
[22:16] about the facts that she brought
[22:18] with her into this proceeding
[22:20] are those that are unique to
[22:20] her.
[22:23] And so I would have to ask her
[22:27] about any sort of receipt of
[22:28] confidential edc information
[22:30] that she might have received
[22:31] prior to this proceeding.
[22:34] And the reasoning and knowledge
[22:36] that she had outside of the
[22:37] FEBRUARY 20 meeting.
[22:40] The reasoning and knowledge that
[22:42] she had outside of the APRIL 23
[22:43] meeting.
[22:49] Her reasoning and knowledge
[22:50] outside of the meetings on the
[22:53] first reading and the second
[22:56] reading.
[22:58] For any reasons outside of what
[23:01] was stated within the meetings.
[23:03] I would ask her about her
[23:04] communication with petitioners
[23:08] and their counsel.
[23:09] About the allegations in the
[23:10] articles.
[23:11] There is testimony already in
[23:14] the record that she privately
[23:15] met with philip ramirez in a
[23:16] phone call.
[23:19] He testified about that.
[23:23] And that was before the APRIL 23
[23:23] vote.
[23:24] I could go on.
[23:26] I'm willing to make a proffer --
[23:28] or I will make a proffer, if I'm
[23:31] not able to ask the witness.
[23:33] But I could -- there's much more
[23:35] that I will make as part of my
[23:37] proffer that the fact is that
[23:42] she is a fact witness, just like
[23:45] MR. Barrera and MR. Roy.
[23:51] Both of whom were deposed by
[23:53] MR. David's counsel in the
[23:54] parallel david litigation that
[23:56] contains the same allegations.
[23:58] They were both listed as
[23:58] witnesses.
[24:03] The fact that MS. Campos was
[24:05] chosen not to be deposed doesn't
[24:06] mean she was not a fact witness
[24:07] in that case and in this case.
[24:09] for the same reasons MR. Barrera
[24:12] and MR. Roy were.
[24:14] I am entitled to ask her her
[24:17] state of mind when she voted to
[24:19] retain outside counsel, daniel
[24:19] rey.
[24:22] When she voted to investigate
[24:23] the allegations.
[24:30] Any bias or prejudgment she had
[24:31] formed at those stages.
[24:32] Any -- the authorization of
[24:35] public funds for the
[24:38] investigation, which we have
[24:44] heard were -- from council
[24:48] member cantu and councilmember
[24:48] vaughn in the JANUARY meeting
[24:49] were for investigation of the
[24:52] mayor and other council members
[24:53] , according to statements by
[24:55] council members in that
[24:59] meeting.
[25:01] I would offer evidence regarding
[25:02] her private conversations with
[25:05] the mayor regarding this
[25:07] proceeding, which are obviously
[25:09] relevant facts.
[25:14] There was a MARCH 24 meeting in
[25:17] this chamber about advancing the
[25:21] articles of impeachment where
[25:27] MS. Campos made statements
[25:28] indicating that she sees this
[25:30] proceeding as the only way to
[25:33] address conduct by MR. Ramirez.
[25:36] And so I would intend to ask her
[25:38] questions about those beliefs
[25:40] that she brought with her to
[25:41] this trial.
[25:44] That started on JULY 22nd.
[25:47] And then I would also ask her
[25:52] about beliefs that she stated on
[25:55] MARCH 24th that pre-judge the
[25:58] mayor where she states that she
[26:01] believes the mayor, quote,
[26:03] should be sanctioned, end quote,
[26:05] which is a statement made prior
[26:08] to the beginning of this
[26:09] proceeding.
[26:15] So I would disagree with the
[26:17] argument that she is not a
[26:18] material fact witness in this
[26:18] case.
[26:20] And I would disagree that I'm
[26:21] not entitled to ask her
[26:22] questions about her bias.
[26:29] The fact that the -- two federal
[26:31] courts elected to allow this
[26:33] proceeding to go forward does
[26:37] not mean that the record is not
[26:40] allowed to be made in this
[26:48] proceeding regarding the very
[26:49] graviman.
[26:50] It's still there and I'm
[26:52] entitled to make my record in
[26:53] that regard.
[26:55] And that is what I intend to do
[26:58] and I ask COUNCILWOMAN Campos to
[27:03] take the stand.
[27:04] >> Paxson: thank you,
[27:05] MR. Flood.
[27:06] I'm going to call for a motion
[27:08] to either disallow the testimony
[27:10] or grant the objection.
[27:12] >> Allison: that would be the
[27:13] same thing, just so we're
[27:14] careful on wording.
[27:19] >> Paxson: thank you.
[27:20] Motion to sustain the objection
[27:22] and a second.
[27:22] All in favor say aye.
[27:23] >> [Chorus of ayes]
[27:27] >> Paxson: any opposed say
[27:27] nay.
[27:29] >> Scott: nay.
[27:31] >> Paxson: it's sustained.
[27:31] MS. Campos, for the record, did
[27:34] you place a vote on this item?
[27:39] Abstain.
[27:39] Thank you.
[27:42] >> Flood: the last vote just
[27:42] now?
[27:45] Was that a reference to a prior
[27:46] vote or the vote just now?
[27:47] >> Paxson: just now.
[27:49] >> Flood: I was just making
[27:49] sure.
[27:50] >> Allison: that is, I
[27:51] believe, the correct thing to
[27:53] do.
[27:53] Thank you.
[28:00] >> Flood: can I make my
[28:01] proffer now?
[28:04] Were MS. Campos on the stand, I
[28:07] would ask her questions about
[28:10] her receipt of any sort of
[28:11] information outside of the
[28:15] record in this case prior to
[28:15] this proceeding.
[28:19] Including any information
[28:23] regarding edc -- I'm sorry.
[28:24] Regarding type b e session
[28:25] discussions.
[28:31] Any sort of edc discussions.
[28:32] Her -- and communication with --
[28:35] I would also ask her questions
[28:36] about her communication with any
[28:40] of the petitioners, including
[28:45] MR. David.
[28:46] Any communication with counsel
[28:48] for MR. David.
[28:50] Communications and relationships
[28:52] regarding whether or not she has
[28:55] ever been represented by
[28:56] MR. David's counsel.
[29:00] I would ask her questions about
[29:01] the allegations in the articles
[29:04] and whether or not she's had any
[29:04] communications with the
[29:06] petitioners or their counsel
[29:08] about any of the allegations or
[29:11] the facts underlying the
[29:14] allegations in the articles of
[29:15] impeachment.
[29:17] I would ask her about her
[29:20] reasoning behind and knowledge
[29:23] outside of the the record -- the
[29:24] public record regarding her
[29:26] votes on the FEBRUARY 20
[29:26] meeting.
[29:29] I would ask her the reasoning
[29:31] and knowledge outside of the
[29:36] public record regarding her
[29:38] comments, both at the
[29:40] FEBRUARY 20 meeting and the
[29:42] APRIL 23 meeting.
[29:44] And the reasoning and knowledge
[29:47] of information outside of the
[29:48] record regarding her decisions
[29:53] at both of those meetings.
[29:58] Her reasons for voting -- or
[29:59] facts in this proceeding, based
[30:04] upon both the facts and the
[30:04] implications and inferences
[30:06] raised by the articles of
[30:06] impeachment.
[30:09] As I stated earlier, MR. Ramirez
[30:10] has already testified.
[30:11] It's already in the record that
[30:16] he had a conversation, a phone
[30:20] call with MS. Campos before the
[30:20] APRIL 23 vote.
[30:25] This is a private conversation.
[30:28] And after the controversy had
[30:28] arisen.
[30:30] I would ask her questions about
[30:31] how long it was.
[30:32] Whether or not she recorded it.
[30:34] Do you know if he did?
[30:37] I would ask her the
[30:38] communication that she received
[30:42] from him and her receipt of it
[30:46] and her evaluation of his
[30:46] credibility.
[30:47] Whether or not he explained to
[30:48] her that the alteration of the
[30:50] slide was a mistake.
[30:52] That has been suggested by him
[30:54] in other context.
[30:56] Whether he denied that the
[30:57] alteration was done
[30:58] intentionally.
[30:59] Whether she believed him.
[31:01] Whether she asked him any
[31:02] questions.
[31:04] Her evaluation of whether or not
[31:06] his explanations were
[31:07] believable.
[31:10] I would confirm that there's no
[31:11] recording, no transcript, and
[31:12] today that only she can provide
[31:15] us with her impressions that she
[31:18] brought with us to this
[31:18] proceeding based upon that
[31:19] private conversation with
[31:20] MR. Ramirez.
[31:22] I would also ask her questions
[31:24] about becoming part of the
[31:25] investigation and her state of
[31:27] mind when she voted to retain
[31:30] outside counsel, daniel rey.
[31:31] And much of these I'm about to
[31:34] go over are also reflected in a
[31:35] later public statement.
[31:37] And her state of mind in regards
[31:38] to these issues would be
[31:40] something I would ask her
[31:40] about.
[31:44] You voted to investigate the
[31:45] allegations against home suites,
[31:46] participating in executive
[31:46] sessions, authorized
[31:47] expenditure.
[31:48] Those were based in part on her
[31:50] own understanding of the
[31:53] underlying facts, which were
[31:55] uniquely gathered by her in her
[31:58] private conversation with
[32:01] MR. Ramirez.
[32:02] And potentially other
[32:03] conversations that are not part
[32:07] of the record with MR. David,
[32:08] MR. David's counsel
[32:10] counsel,
[32:11] petitioners and other persons.
[32:14] I would ask her questions about
[32:18] why she made certain comments to
[32:20] mayor guajardo.
[32:20] What motivated her to make
[32:27] certain statements to mayor
[32:27] guajardo.
[32:32] And her beliefs that she shared
[32:33] with mayor guajardo and why she
[32:34] formulated such beliefs.
[32:36] That she stated to the mayor
[32:40] that she wanted an apology from
[32:43] her prior to JULY 22, 2026,
[32:45] before this trial started.
[32:48] I would ask her questions about
[32:50] what was in her state of mind in
[32:52] that regard.
[32:52] Whether or not she believes she
[32:52] received it.
[32:54] Whether or not that is a bias
[32:56] that she brought with her to the
[32:57] proceeding.
[32:59] In MARCH of this year,
[33:02] MARCH 24th, there was a
[33:03] council meeting held four months
[33:05] before this trial started where
[33:07] she started publicly certain
[33:08] beliefs.
[33:11] she stated -- she used the word
[33:12] %
[33:12] "beliefs."
[33:15] she stated that she believed
[33:17] that the steps taken by
[33:19] MR. Ramirez to mislead the
[33:21] council should be considered
[33:22] illegal.
[33:25] She stated the belief that his
[33:27] steps were intentional.
[33:30] She spoke to MR. Ramirez.
[33:36] Again, she spoke on her own,
[33:36] individually.
[33:38] And that, without a doubt, would
[33:40] be part of her state of mind in
[33:44] formulating that opinion.
[33:46] She references in her public
[33:48] statement on MARCH 24th that
[33:50] MR. Ramirez had contributed to
[33:53] the mayor's campaign, which is a
[33:55] state of mind for her that is
[33:57] some sort of -- apparently some
[33:59] evidence that helps her
[34:03] formulate the beliefs that she
[34:05] shared about the facts
[34:07] underlying the articles of
[34:07] impeachment.
[34:10] Again, she expressed the quote,
[34:12] belief, end quote, that the only
[34:14] way to stop these kind of
[34:15] dealings and business as usual
[34:18] is to address it directly.
[34:19] And she believes this proceeding
[34:22] is the only way to directly deal
[34:23] with it.
[34:25] And that for that reason that is
[34:27] her belief as to why she's
[34:28] moving forward with the
[34:29] hearing.
[34:31] Those beliefs were brought into
[34:35] this trial on JULY 22nd.
[34:41] Again, the only wrongdoing
[34:43] addressed in her statements is
[34:45] that of MR. Ramirez.
[34:47] Another belief that she had on
[34:48] MARCH 24th and that she
[34:49] brought with her under this
[34:56] trial is that the mayor should
[34:57] be sanctioned.
[35:00] I have a text message that she
[35:03] sent while sitting on the dais
[35:14] on MARCH 24th at -- well, no.
[35:15] The text string begins while
[35:16] sitting on the dais.
[35:21] And then that evening at
[35:22] 6:38 she states, I do not
[35:23] believe in removal.
[35:25] I do believe in a sanction.
[35:28] It can't happen unless we move
[35:28] forward.
[35:31] And I'm going to mark that as
[35:33] respondent's exhibit 65.
[35:36] That is a belief she had on
[35:37] MARCH 24th that she brought
[35:39] with her into this trial.
[35:41] And that is that --
[35:42] >> Paxson: MR. Flood, could
[35:43] you provide that date?
[35:45] >> Flood: yes, I will.
[35:46] I was going to finish that
[35:51] sentence.
[35:51] Is that the sanction that the
[35:55] mayor deserved, that she
[35:56] deserved on MARCH 24th of this
[35:58] year, can only happen if the
[36:00] council moves forward with this
[36:04] removal hearing.
[36:07] >> [Off mic]
[36:10] >> Allison: and I assume that
[36:12] the offer is not into evidence
[36:16] but for purposes of the offer.
[36:17] Thank you.
[36:44] >> [Off mic]
[36:46] >> Flood: my next witness
[36:47] would be MR. Hernandez.
[36:49] >> Allison: yes.
[36:51] >> Paxson: MR. Flood, can you
[36:53] give us two minutes with this
[36:53] new information?
[36:55] >> Flood: sure.
[37:00] Sure.
[38:27] >> Paxson: thank you,
[38:28] MR. Flood.
[38:28] If you'll proceed.
[38:32] >> Flood: I'll call my next
[38:36] witness, council member --
[38:37] MR. Hernandez, please.
[38:38] >> Allison: MAY I be heard on
[38:39] my objection?
[38:41] With the tribunal's
[38:43] permission -- I gave a lot of
[38:44] objections last time and it's
[38:46] long to explain it all.
[38:47] MAY I adopt those by reference?
[38:48] >> Paxson: yes.
[38:50] >> Allison: I make the same
[38:56] objections to calling MR. Gil
[38:59] hernandez as we made a moment
[39:02] ago when I was making objections
[39:03] against calling MS. Sylvia
[39:04] campos.
[39:04] >> Paxson: MR. Flood.
[39:06] >> Flood: MR. Hernandez is
[39:08] called for the same purposes.
[39:11] And that is to establish that he
[39:12] is a material fact witness and
[39:16] also to establish his bias in
[39:22] regards as a fact finder and
[39:22] judge in these proceedings.
[39:23] He'll be asked questions about
[39:27] the bias and the facts that he
[39:28] understood that brought him --
[39:32] that he brought with him into
[39:32] this proceeding.
[39:34] A judge is required under texas
[39:37] and federal law to recuse and
[39:39] disqualify themselves, much as
[39:41] MR. Barrera and roy did recuse
[39:42] themselves because they are fact
[39:43] witnesses.
[39:45] I would establish that
[39:47] MR. Ramirez -- I'm sorry.
[39:50] MR. Hernandez, my apologies.
[39:52] Likewise, is a fact witness and
[39:55] brought with him certain
[39:55] biases.
[39:58] I would ask him, like I would
[40:00] ask MS. Campos, about his
[40:02] receipt of confidential edc
[40:05] information that he received
[40:07] prior to this proceeding.
[40:08] His reasoning and knowledge and
[40:14] state of mind outside of the
[40:16] record, which are obvious --
[40:18] that are clear from the
[40:19] FEBRUARY 20 meeting, which I
[40:22] will get into in a minute.
[40:27] I'm happy to make my proffer,
[40:28] have the objection sustained and
[40:29] then make my proffer, if that's
[40:31] okay.
[40:31] >> Paxson: at this time I'll
[40:33] call for a motion to grant the
[40:38] objection.
[40:39] Motion?
[40:40] >> [Off mic]
[40:41] >> Paxson: there's a motion
[40:42] and a second.
[40:43] All in favor say aye.
[40:44] >> [Chorus of ayes]
[40:46] >> Paxson: any opposed say
[40:46] nay.
[40:53] >> Scott: nay.
[40:55] >> Paxson: thank you.
[40:55] MR. Flood.
[40:58] >> Flood: as I would have with
[40:59] MS. Campos, I would ask
[41:00] MR. Hernandez questions about
[41:04] his receipt of confidential edc
[41:07] information prior to this
[41:07] proceeding.
[41:09] The knowledge he brought with
[41:11] him to the FEBRUARY 20 meeting.
[41:12] His reasoning and knowledge he
[41:14] obtained outside of this chamber
[41:17] and meetings prior to the
[41:19] APRIL 23 meeting.
[41:20] His reasoning and knowledge that
[41:22] he received outside of the
[41:26] record for his decision on the
[41:27] second reading.
[41:28] And his reasons for those votes
[41:30] and the reasoning and knowledge
[41:32] that he brought with him outside
[41:34] of the record currently.
[41:38] Or facts he brought with him
[41:39] into this proceeding.
[41:41] On the -- specific to the
[41:43] FEBRUARY 20 meeting, he pulled
[41:44] the item from the consent
[41:44] agenda.
[41:46] I would ask him reasons why he
[41:47] did that.
[41:49] And I would ask him questions
[41:51] about the preparation that he
[41:55] made prior to the meeting.
[41:57] All discussions, his personal
[42:00] knowledge that he received from
[42:03] conversations from anyone
[42:05] outside of the proceeding on
[42:07] that day that are public.
[42:10] And I would ask him about his --
[42:12] that he researched the item
[42:13] beyond simply reviewing the
[42:19] agenda packet that contained the
[42:21] altered slide.
[42:22] And if you can go to the --
[42:24] >> [Off mic]
[42:27] >> Flood: I will play a
[42:29] portion of exhibit -- what is
[42:29] it?
[42:34] What's our number?
[42:35] Our petitioner's exhibit of the
[42:35] video that's already been
[42:36] played.
[42:39] Can you play that real quick?
[42:43] Part of exhibit 6.
[42:43] [Video]
[42:45] >> by hilton at the corner of
[42:46] chaparral street.
[42:49] Who pulled this one?
[42:50] COUNCILMAN Hernandez.
[42:50] Your question or comment.
[42:53] >> Hernandez: yes.
[42:53] Question.
[42:55] I'm familiar with this.
[42:59] I've had a couple of discussions
[43:00] about it.
[43:02] We're well aware of the
[43:03] disparity between what the edc
[43:06] had recommended and what the
[43:06] type b had.
[43:09] My concern is not so much --
[43:10] [End of video]
[43:11] >> Flood: I would ask him
[43:13] questions about how he became
[43:14] aware of the discrepancy.
[43:16] I would ask him questions about
[43:17] the research he had done, simply
[43:19] beyond reviewing the agenda
[43:19] packet.
[43:23] He said he had a couple -- it
[43:24] sounded like he was about to say
[43:26] he had a couple of calls about
[43:27] it.
[43:28] However he changed that word to
[43:30] discussions about it.
[43:31] I would ask whether he had any
[43:34] phone calls with anybody outside
[43:38] of city staff about the item and
[43:41] his knowledge outside of the
[43:42] public record.
[43:45] I would ask him how he -- his
[43:48] awareness of the disparity.
[43:50] Whether it became knowledge that
[43:53] he had outside of the public
[43:54] record that was included within
[43:56] the agenda memo for the
[44:01] FEBRUARY 20 meeting.
[44:02] I would ask him questions about
[44:04] his knowledge regarding the
[44:05] mayor on the edc board.
[44:08] I would ask him any questions --
[44:10] I would ask him questions about
[44:13] his contacts with MR. Hunter or
[44:16] anyone else that sits on the edc
[44:18] board prior to the FEBRUARY 20
[44:18] meeting.
[44:23] I would ask him if he was aware
[44:27] of any of the discussions within
[44:28] the edc meeting.
[44:31] Again, this is not evidence
[44:32] that's being admitted right now,
[44:34] this is just part of my
[44:35] proffer.
[44:36] And those conversations he had,
[44:40] I would ask him what he learned
[44:43] about anything that happened,
[44:45] both in the edc meetings and in
[44:47] the type b meetings, whether
[44:49] those were -- the latter, the
[44:50] type b meetings being whether he
[44:52] learned anything that came from
[44:53] closed session or whether he
[44:54] learned anything that came from
[44:58] the public meetings.
[45:00] What he learned about what was
[45:02] described as a spirited
[45:05] discussion within the edc
[45:05] meeting.
[45:07] Whether the timing, the fema
[45:09] timing narrative was addressed
[45:10] at the edc meeting and whether
[45:13] he learned anything that
[45:14] suggested whether the mayor
[45:16] learned anything prior to
[45:20] FEBRUARY 20th related to the
[45:20] fema narrative.
[45:22] Or the slide itself and whether
[45:24] he learned anything that
[45:25] suggested whether the mayor was
[45:28] informed that someone at the edc
[45:31] meeting MAY have expressed
[45:31] skepticism about the fema
[45:31] narrative.
[45:33] I would ask him questions about
[45:34] that.
[45:35] Since he is not allowed to
[45:36] testimony, that is not going to
[45:38] be part of the record.
[45:41] And then I would ask him about
[45:43] his conversations with MR. David
[45:45] or MR. Gulley or MR. Hunter or
[45:49] the mayor or anyone else on the
[45:50] edc board.
[45:52] And ask him all about the
[45:53] concerns that he had about the
[45:55] item before the first reading
[45:59] because he stated that he had
[46:00] concerns.
[46:01] And one was why the type b went
[46:04] with the requested number and
[46:05] doubled the edc.
[46:06] I would ask him why it didn't
[46:08] sit right with him.
[46:10] Why it gave him a concern.
[46:13] Even though he understood that
[46:14] the type b board does not have
[46:16] to give a reason.
[46:20] And I would ask him the
[46:21] lingering thoughts he had and
[46:23] why he pulled the item to try
[46:24] and understand.
[46:26] And that he was doing more than
[46:27] the other members in regards to
[46:27] this.
[46:29] I would ask him about why he
[46:35] spoke to alyssa about the public
[46:36] investment and the statements he
[46:37] made about that.
[46:42] I would ask him his concerns or
[46:44] goal, whatever it was in regards
[46:46] to being -- that he stated,
[46:47] quote, we should be fair and
[46:48] have funding come from type b
[46:51] for those other hotels as well,
[46:52] end quote.
[46:56] If we set a standard, make sure
[46:57] we adhere to that standard for
[46:58] everybody.
[46:59] i would ask him about that
[47:01] because we know that MR. David
[47:04] and rgb had received tirz in the
[47:06] past and we know they have
[47:07] requested type b since.
[47:10] And I would ask him questions
[47:12] about whether he was looking out
[47:13] for those particular donors of
[47:13] his.
[47:16] I would ask him whether or not
[47:18] MR. Hunter ever expressed
[47:21] skepticism to him, prior to the
[47:25] FEBRUARY 20 meeting about either
[47:28] the fema narrative or perhaps
[47:29] the altered slide.
[47:34] I would ask him about the
[47:38] apparent repeat of the narrative
[47:40] by members suckley, roy, the
[47:44] mayor, and also MR. Culbertson
[47:51] and whether his reaction to
[47:51] those repeats of the apparent
[47:52] narrative.
[47:57] I would ask him about that he
[47:59] knew, prior to the FEBRUARY 20
[48:02] meeting, that the type b
[48:04] rejected general fema compliance
[48:06] and was not actually -- and that
[48:07] the actual reasoning of the type
[48:11] b board was not presented to the
[48:11] council.
[48:13] Because it wasn't presented to
[48:17] the council on FEBRUARY 20th.
[48:19] But the record indicates -- and
[48:20] I would ask MR. Hernandez about
[48:22] it -- that he already knew
[48:23] that.
[48:29] Because after MR. Hunter brought
[48:31] up the incredibility of the fema
[48:32] narrative, MR. Hernandez
[48:38] stated -- can you put the next
[48:38] clip up?
[48:38] [Video]
[48:40] >> Mayor Guajardo:
[48:41] councilmember hernandez.
[48:42] >> Hernandez: so every project
[48:43] that would be downtown would be
[48:45] in a flood zone, right?
[48:46] Are we going to give the benefit
[48:47] to everybody that's downtown
[48:49] that's in a flood zone?
[48:51] that's almost incentivizing you
[48:53] to build in a flood zone.
[48:55] So I don't want to tie it to
[48:56] this flood zone thing.
[49:01] It's not, and it shouldn't be.
[49:01] [End of video]
[49:05] ]
[49:07] >> Flood: it's not were the
[49:07] words.
[49:10] Where the agenda memo said that
[49:11] it was.
[49:13] And so COUNCILMAN Hernandez's
[49:15] statement makes him a unique
[49:17] fact witness because it appears
[49:19] that before FEBRUARY 20th he
[49:22] knew that the type b board's
[49:27] reasoning was not related to
[49:27] general fema compliance.
[49:32] And that makes him a unique fact
[49:33] witness.
[49:34] The slide that was displayed,
[49:37] the comments from the mayor,
[49:38] they didn't reflect what the
[49:41] type b based its decision on but
[49:43] MR. Hernandez apparently did.
[49:46] And that was based on the
[49:48] discussions that he had prior to
[49:53] the meeting.
[49:53] Apparently, it was personal
[49:54] knowledge he developed and
[49:55] brought with him to that meeting
[49:57] that he still has to this day
[49:59] that will not be revealed
[50:00] through questioning.
[50:03] He voted in favor that day
[50:05] because he knew the fema
[50:06] narrative was not material to
[50:07] the type b board's decision.
[50:13] I would ask that question
[50:13] directly.
[50:17] And he voted in favor that the
[50:20] council did not disagree with
[50:23] his notion to have funding.
[50:25] We have to make sure we adhere
[50:27] to that standard for everybody.
[50:29] I would ask him questions about
[50:30] his interactions with MR. David
[50:30] .
[50:33] I would ask him questions about
[50:35] whether he reviewed the type b
[50:38] meeting materials, whether he
[50:40] met with MS. Hurlbert, whether
[50:42] he met with MS. Olivarri, which
[50:43] I believe is true.
[50:44] I would ask him questions about
[50:47] whether he met with miles
[50:48] risley.
[50:51] Whether he met with peter zanoni
[50:51] .
[50:53] There is also in the record
[50:55] already, from MR. Ramirez's
[50:58] deposition, the question/answer
[50:59] where he said -- which was
[51:02] played earlier that he was in a
[51:03] meeting.
[51:06] Gil, everett, and MR. Ramirez
[51:10] where MR. Ramirez explained to
[51:14] them that it was an inadvertent,
[51:15] accidental, not intentional
[51:19] done -- whatever word -- well,
[51:20] whatever words you used to
[51:21] describe it.
[51:21] Yes.
[51:22] That would be accurate.
[51:23] Yes.
[51:25] And you made it clear in your
[51:26] explanation to all of those.
[51:30] I would ask MR. Hernandez
[51:32] questions about his assessment
[51:36] of MR. Ramirez's credibility.
[51:37] That he formulated at the time
[51:38] and brought with him into this
[51:38] proceeding.
[51:40] I would ask him about whether or
[51:43] not he took any notes.
[51:47] If he has any notes related to
[51:49] that meeting that he could
[51:51] share.
[51:53] And so one of the allegations in
[51:54] the proceeding -- in this
[51:57] proceeding is that mayor
[51:57] guajardo somehow improperly
[51:58] favored MR. Ramirez.
[52:00] I would ask him about that and
[52:01] whether or not he had formed
[52:04] some opinions about that prior
[52:05] to this.
[52:07] He got to have a firsthand
[52:09] assessment of whether
[52:10] MR. Ramirez was telling the
[52:11] truth about the slide.
[52:13] It wasn't on a phone call or
[52:13] anything.
[52:15] I would ask him about the
[52:16] questions he asked MR. Ramirez.
[52:22] Why he asked those questions.
[52:25] And that he formulated
[52:26] impressions about his
[52:27] credibility prior to this
[52:28] proceeding.
[52:30] And I'd ask him whether or not
[52:31] at that time he had seen the
[52:33] actual powerpoint at any time
[52:34] prior to this proceeding.
[52:39] When and in what context.
[52:41] I would ask him about the
[52:43] impressions that he left with
[52:48] the meeting with MR. Ramirez.
[52:52] I would ask him if he -- it says
[52:56] the articles of impeachment
[52:57] assert the mayor was advocating
[52:58] for the person and not the
[52:58] project.
[53:00] I would ask him if he has any
[53:03] understanding of what
[53:04] MR. Ramirez had said to the
[53:06] mayor at any point along the
[53:07] way, if he has any knowledge
[53:10] about that.
[53:13] All fact gathering he engaged in
[53:15] that caused him to want to
[53:18] postpone the APRIL 23 meeting.
[53:20] It revealed the record indicates
[53:21] that he said he had two reasons
[53:24] to get the unresolved issue
[53:27] about how they arrived at the
[53:29] $2 million.
[53:32] But also for MR. Zanoni to
[53:32] complete his investigation.
[53:34] I would ask him questions about
[53:36] his state of mind at the time in
[53:37] regards to both of those
[53:37] issues.
[53:40] I would ask him questions about
[53:43] why he had the type b board
[53:47] present on APRIL 23 and he did
[53:48] not inquire of that person
[53:50] regarding the unresolved issues
[53:51] he had about how it is that the
[53:53] type b board arrived at the
[53:58] $2 million as opposed to the
[53:58] $1,043,000.
[54:01] And his state of mind and that
[54:04] regard and the reasonable
[54:04] inferences drawn.
[54:05] I would ask him about the
[54:07] executive session on APRIL 16
[54:09] and whether or not his
[54:11] recollection is that of the same
[54:15] of other witnesses and the
[54:17] presentation that neither peter
[54:20] zanoni nor MR. Risley ever --
[54:21] whether or not his impressions
[54:23] after the meeting are that
[54:24] neither -- that he never heard
[54:27] in the meeting that -- kind of
[54:30] interesting -- to not violate
[54:32] the executive session rules in a
[54:33] proffer.
[54:36] So whether or not he also shared
[54:38] other witnesses' formulation
[54:39] that they did not leave that
[54:40] meeting with the impression that
[54:43] any crime had occurred but that
[54:44] there were only allegations,
[54:48] which is a central fact to the
[54:52] articles of impeachment.
[54:55] I would also ask him questions
[54:58] whether he understood what the
[54:59] recommendation was from staff
[55:02] and when he entered the APRIL 23
[55:03] meeting.
[55:05] Whether he understood that it
[55:06] was recommended to be
[55:07] considered.
[55:09] Or whether it was not
[55:10] recommended.
[55:13] And that is an important fact
[55:15] issue regarding one of the
[55:15] articles.
[55:16] Your understanding about the
[55:18] time about why it was being put
[55:20] on, I would ask him questions
[55:21] about why -- his understanding
[55:25] why it was on the agenda and why
[55:27] it was not not allowed to be on
[55:31] the agenda.
[55:35] That -- I would ask him about
[55:39] the APRIL 23 -- going back to
[55:40] the FEBRUARY 20.
[55:43] and he stated on APRIL 23rd
[55:45] it's a very long agenda memo
[55:47] that talked about all the issues
[55:48] that came about.
[55:50] You know, unfortunately various
[55:53] reasons the presentation didn't
[55:54] always match up with what was
[55:55] happening, end quote.
[55:56] That was a quote of
[55:59] MR. Hernandez at the meeting.
[56:01] And so I would ask him questions
[56:05] about the various reasons and
[56:06] whether edc and staff simply
[56:07] pulled the edc presentation to
[56:09] the council, bypassing the
[56:12] actual reason that the type b
[56:14] gave, which he called editing of
[56:15] the slide.
[56:19] And he referenced that
[56:20] MR. Ramirez and bhakta hadn't
[56:23] responded to the city manager's
[56:25] inquiries.
[56:26] And because of the -- quote, now
[56:27] because of some of the issues
[56:30] with the presentation, which
[56:32] COUNCILWOMAN Campos had pointed
[56:34] out, there was some editing, so
[56:35] to speak, and we're waiting on a
[56:36] response.
[56:38] And he claimed there were muddy
[56:40] waters but they were not muddy
[56:40] for MR. Hernandez.
[56:44] Because he knew, before
[56:46] FEBRUARY 20th, that the type b
[56:52] board's reasoning was not based
[56:53] on general fema compliance
[56:56] because his statement was "it
[56:57] isn't."
[57:00] he made the motion that it was
[57:04] for everyone's protection.
[57:10] And the motion that he made, the
[57:11] second was withdrawn, was for
[57:11] everyone's protection.
[57:13] I would ask him questions about
[57:15] what he meant by that and what
[57:17] it is that he was trying to
[57:24] protect the public from.
[57:27] Let's see...
[57:31] And I would ask him about his
[57:36] belief at that time, because he
[57:38] had -- he stated, quote --
[57:39] that's okay.
[57:41] I will clarify that in the sense
[57:43] the request initially was for
[57:46] funding or for flooding
[57:47] mitigation, right, which was
[57:48] discounted.
[57:49] But it's the exact same dollar
[57:51] amount as to what was actually
[57:53] provided by type b, which is the
[57:55] narrative that the petitioners
[57:57] in this case have actually put
[57:58] on.
[58:00] It's the same factual
[58:01] narrative.
[58:03] It matches the petitioner, so I
[58:05] would ask about coordination
[58:08] with petitioner, petitioner's
[58:09] counsel, any communications
[58:13] between himself and council.
[58:16] And really any lawyer that is
[58:17] associated with petitioner's
[58:18] counsel.
[58:20] I would ask him questions about
[58:21] that.
[58:22] Going back to it.
[58:27] I will clarify in the sense
[58:29] that -- this is MR. Hernandez on
[58:29] APRIL 23.
[58:31] Was for funding or flooding
[58:32] mitigation.
[58:34] It's the exact same dollar
[58:36] amount as was actually provided
[58:36] by type b.
[58:39] Just make sure there's no
[58:39] confusion, I want some
[58:41] documentation as to how they
[58:42] arrived at their number for the
[58:43] $2 million, just to make sure
[58:45] that everybody's protected.
[58:47] So that's my motion, even though
[58:48] the type b board was present
[58:49] right there.
[58:51] When she said, quote, I would be
[58:55] happy to answer any questions.
[58:57] MR. Hernandez later on said, I
[58:58] don't need to say anything
[58:58] more.
[59:02] Rather than asking her questions
[59:05] on the record on the very issue
[59:09] he espoused was important to
[59:09] him.
[59:11] He made a motion for the type b
[59:12] to state its reasons.
[59:14] I'm looking at this to protect
[59:15] us as an organization, as a
[59:17] city.
[59:18] Again, I'm quoting
[59:18] MR. Hernandez.
[59:19] I'm looking at this to protect
[59:21] us as an organization, as a city
[59:23] so we don't have any, you know,
[59:25] lingering thoughts of
[59:25] malfeasance.
[59:29] I would ask him his preparation
[59:30] for that meeting.
[59:32] That he had sit down with
[59:33] MR. Ramirez, studied the issue
[59:35] for two months, and he had the
[59:38] chair of the board there and he
[59:39] didn't ask her any questions
[59:41] about how it is that the number
[59:43] was arrived at.
[59:46] The $2 million, the basis for
[59:48] it.
[59:51] In AUGUST of 2025,
[59:53] AUGUST 29th, 2025, I would ask
[59:54] MR. Hernandez about an e-mail
[59:56] that he received that contained
[59:58] the petition for removal that
[59:59] had been filed with the city
[59:59] secretary.
[1:00:04] I would ask him about the news
[1:00:07] breaking the following day that
[1:00:09] the petition alleged that mayor
[1:00:11] was guilty of, quote,
[1:00:12] malfeasance, end quote.
[1:00:14] The word he used at the APRIL 23
[1:00:14] meeting.
[1:00:19] I would ask him questions about
[1:00:20] how five months later, in
[1:00:21] JANUARY, when the corpus christi
[1:00:22] police department was on the
[1:00:24] agenda to publicly discuss its
[1:00:27] findings and the project elevate
[1:00:28] investigation.
[1:00:30] Chief markle was there,
[1:00:31] investigator garcia was there.
[1:00:32] Breedlove was there.
[1:00:34] And there was a presentation for
[1:00:36] public consumption for the
[1:00:37] investigation details.
[1:00:39] And I would ask MR. Hernandez
[1:00:42] about the fact that he had read
[1:00:46] the report and he knew that the
[1:00:49] police were there to answer
[1:00:50] questions.
[1:00:52] But something happened at that
[1:00:53] meeting.
[1:00:55] MR. Hernandez made a motion to
[1:00:59] postpone the police department's
[1:00:59] presentation.
[1:01:01] Even though the police
[1:01:02] department had completed its
[1:01:05] investigation.
[1:01:07] And the report had been
[1:01:08] delivered and he understood the
[1:01:09] investigation had been closed.
[1:01:14] And that he understood that the
[1:01:15] presentation concerned the
[1:01:16] police department's findings.
[1:01:20] But he also, at the same time,
[1:01:21] understood that the council
[1:01:23] hired outside counsel to conduct
[1:01:24] a separate investigation.
[1:01:25] He stated he expected that to be
[1:01:26] delivered in FEBRUARY and he
[1:01:30] moved to delay it, which was a
[1:01:33] successful motion to delay the
[1:01:33] police presentation.
[1:01:35] He explained that he didn't want
[1:01:37] to put the police department in
[1:01:38] a bad position.
[1:01:40] And that he didn't want the
[1:01:42] police department report to be
[1:01:45] utilized for public purposes,
[1:01:46] which were his words.
[1:01:49] I don't want the police
[1:01:51] department and the law
[1:01:52] enforcement investigation to be
[1:01:54] used, quote, for political
[1:01:54] purposes.
[1:01:57] And I would ask him questions
[1:01:59] about the political purposes he
[1:02:01] was referring to.
[1:02:03] And those were asking questions
[1:02:07] about whether they referred to
[1:02:08] the controversy involving the
[1:02:10] articles of impeachment that are
[1:02:11] before this proceeding right now
[1:02:14] in which he is sitting on the
[1:02:15] dais as a juror in.
[1:02:18] He, at that time, knew that the
[1:02:19] removal petition had been filed
[1:02:20] against the mayor.
[1:02:22] He knew that the police
[1:02:23] department investigation had
[1:02:25] become part of the public
[1:02:26] discussion surrounding this
[1:02:27] proceeding.
[1:02:28] And he was concerned -- I was
[1:02:29] ask him questions about the fact
[1:02:31] that whether he was concerned
[1:02:32] about how the police
[1:02:33] department's findings might
[1:02:37] affect those discussions
[1:02:37] regarding this proceeding.
[1:02:40] I would ask him questions about
[1:02:42] whether he wanted to wait,
[1:02:45] because the attorney's report,
[1:02:46] quote, might be contradictory,
[1:02:47] end quote, to the police
[1:02:48] department's report.
[1:02:49] And those were his words.
[1:02:52] So before either presentation
[1:02:53] occurred, he anticipated that
[1:02:56] the lawyer's conclusions could
[1:02:57] differ from the police
[1:02:58] department's and believed that
[1:03:00] the lawyer might reach findings
[1:03:00] that the police department had
[1:03:02] not and that that expectation
[1:03:04] was the reason he wanted to
[1:03:06] postpone the police department
[1:03:06] presentation.
[1:03:10] Even though it was ready to be
[1:03:10] presented.
[1:03:12] Because it would counter the
[1:03:15] narrative that had begun after
[1:03:17] the articles of impeachment --
[1:03:17] I'm sorry.
[1:03:19] After the petition for removal
[1:03:20] had been filed months later.
[1:03:23] I would ask him questions about
[1:03:25] whether the police department,
[1:03:27] he understood were ready to
[1:03:28] present.
[1:03:29] I would ask him to confirm that
[1:03:30] the police department did not
[1:03:32] ask for a postponement.
[1:03:33] instead, that he did.
[1:03:35] And that the only -- and I would
[1:03:36] ask him questions about the fact
[1:03:38] that what he wanted to do was
[1:03:39] change the timing of when the
[1:03:41] public would hear the police
[1:03:46] department's conclusions to fit
[1:03:47] the impeachment narrative that
[1:03:49] was initiated in the petition
[1:03:50] for removal.
[1:03:51] I would ask him questions about
[1:03:54] that he knew the removal
[1:03:56] proceeding against the mayor was
[1:03:58] pending at that time,
[1:03:58] obviously.
[1:04:00] I would ask him that he
[1:04:03] understood, prior to that
[1:04:04] meeting, that there had been no
[1:04:06] finding of criminal conduct by
[1:04:09] anybody involved, by the police
[1:04:09] department.
[1:04:10] And that he expected the
[1:04:13] lawyer's report to address
[1:04:15] alleged misconduct by elected
[1:04:15] officials.
[1:04:19] And that was the reason to delay
[1:04:24] to try and manipulate the
[1:04:26] narrative regarding the pretrial
[1:04:29] proceedings in this matter.
[1:04:32] I would ask him to confirm his
[1:04:34] state of mind, that the
[1:04:36] investigations involved many of
[1:04:38] the same underlying events.
[1:04:41] And I would ask him questions
[1:04:43] regarding whether his intent was
[1:04:45] to have them released together
[1:04:47] rather than allowing the police
[1:04:48] department conclusions to stand
[1:04:50] on their own in order to match
[1:04:53] the narrative surrounding the
[1:04:54] articles of impeachment.
[1:04:55] And they were done all in an
[1:04:57] effort to try and shape the
[1:05:00] narrative, leading up to this
[1:05:01] trial.
[1:05:02] I would ask him to confirm that
[1:05:04] his concern was not whether the
[1:05:06] police department had actually
[1:05:09] completed its work but that his
[1:05:11] concern was how its conclusions
[1:05:12] would be received before the
[1:05:13] lawyer's report was released.
[1:05:16] And that is why he sought the
[1:05:17] delay.
[1:05:18] He stated, quote, I don't want
[1:05:21] to put you in a bad spot or have
[1:05:22] you utilize for political
[1:05:23] purpose, so I want to make sure
[1:05:24] we have all the information at
[1:05:25] the same time.
[1:05:27] And one of the justifications
[1:05:28] was that the police findings
[1:05:30] would be used for political
[1:05:31] purposes.
[1:05:33] And MR. Hernandez has publicly
[1:05:36] confirmed that this removal
[1:05:36] proceeding is a political
[1:05:40] process and not a legal
[1:05:41] process.
[1:05:43] I would ask him to confirm that
[1:05:45] a policy is something that
[1:05:47] focuses on written rules and
[1:05:49] guidelines and goals and it
[1:05:50] answers what actions will be
[1:05:54] taken to fix an issue.
[1:05:55] And politics focuses on power,
[1:05:57] campaigns, elections.
[1:05:58] It involves conflict, debate,
[1:06:00] and compromise between people.
[1:06:02] It answers who gets to rule and
[1:06:05] how they win support.
[1:06:10] And I would then return to the
[1:06:11] facts of the petition -- the
[1:06:12] timing of the petition for
[1:06:14] removal.
[1:06:16] The postponement, the corpus
[1:06:18] christi police department,
[1:06:18] daniel rey presentation in
[1:06:19] FEBRUARY.
[1:06:25] And that less than a month later
[1:06:27] I would ask him about his state
[1:06:30] of mind about signing the
[1:06:31] three-signature memo,
[1:06:32] adopting -- I'm sorry.
[1:06:36] The three-signature memo dated
[1:06:37] MARCH 11, 2026.
[1:06:39] And I would ask him questions
[1:06:41] about his public expressions of
[1:06:46] a willingness to run for mayor.
[1:06:48] I would ask him questions about
[1:06:50] his decision and state of mind
[1:06:52] to sign the three-signature memo
[1:06:54] and to put this removal
[1:06:55] proceeding on the agenda to
[1:06:57] start the process.
[1:07:00] And that it was a political
[1:07:02] decision to sign the
[1:07:03] three-signature memo.
[1:07:08] And I would ask him -- do you
[1:07:09] have the clip?
[1:07:12] Ask him about a --
[1:07:13] [Video]
[1:07:14] >> Hernandez: the city
[1:07:15] secretary has the authority to
[1:07:18] put stuff on the agenda.
[1:07:19] [End of video]
[1:07:20] >> Flood: I'm going to ask him
[1:07:22] questions about his state of
[1:07:24] mind on -- do you know the
[1:07:24] date?
[1:07:26] That's okay.
[1:07:31] On APRIL 29th, just six weeks
[1:07:32] after signing the
[1:07:35] three-signature memo.
[1:07:38] And his state of mind in signing
[1:07:42] the signature memo was not
[1:07:45] founded on policy and it was not
[1:07:48] founded on anything other than
[1:07:49] politics.
[1:07:51] I would confront him with this
[1:07:52] public statement he made.
[1:07:52] [Video]
[1:07:54] >> Hernandez: the city
[1:07:55] secretary has some authority to
[1:07:59] put stuff on the agenda, but she
[1:08:00] just wasn't going to.
[1:08:02] [End of video]
[1:08:04] >> Flood: I would confirm with
[1:08:04] MR. Hernandez that that is his
[1:08:09] voice that we hear in that
[1:08:09] clip.
[1:08:09] [Video]
[1:08:13] >> Hernandez: it really is a
[1:08:13] political process.
[1:08:14] >> not a legal process?
[1:08:16] >> Hernandez: well, the
[1:08:19] charter is an ordinance, right?
[1:08:21] Or it's voted on by the
[1:08:22] citizens, right?
[1:08:24] So we're following that
[1:08:27] process.
[1:08:29] But any kind of -- to put stuff
[1:08:31] on the agenda is by the policies
[1:08:33] that we have in place.
[1:08:34] [End of video]
[1:08:36] >> Flood: I would ask him to
[1:08:37] confirm that the memo itself is
[1:08:40] the policy but the decision that
[1:08:43] he made and his state of mind
[1:08:45] when signing it was as he
[1:08:47] stated, publicly, political.
[1:08:52] I would ask him questions
[1:08:58] about -- in NOVEMBER, the
[1:08:59] NOVEMBER 7, 2023, proposition a,
[1:09:00] that voters in corpus christi
[1:09:01] considered proposition a.
[1:09:04] I'll ask him questions about
[1:09:06] proposition a would have
[1:09:09] supported the renewing of a
[1:09:10] 25-cent sales tax and dedicated
[1:09:13] the revenue to constructing and
[1:09:14] renovating parks, convention
[1:09:14] center complex.
[1:09:19] I would ask him to confirm that
[1:09:23] MR. Ajit david, a petitioner,
[1:09:24] person in this case, who has
[1:09:27] identified himself as a
[1:09:29] petitioner, who is sitting right
[1:09:33] now next to petitioner's
[1:09:34] counsel.
[1:09:39] Who is a -- who has been at
[1:09:40] these proceedings, as far as I
[1:09:41] can tell, every single day.
[1:09:46] And I would ask him to confirm
[1:09:50] that MR. David and MR. Bhakta
[1:09:52] were opposed to proposition a
[1:09:53] back in 2023.
[1:09:56] I would ask him to confirm that
[1:09:58] in 2024 he was the chair of the
[1:09:59] audit committee.
[1:10:02] And I would ask him to confirm
[1:10:06] that on AUGUST 28, 2024 the
[1:10:09] auditor's office received an
[1:10:10] allegation regarding a
[1:10:12] $2 million incentive to the
[1:10:13] homewood suites by hilton at the
[1:10:18] corner of north chaparral and
[1:10:19] lomax street in corpus christi.
[1:10:22] And a government document was
[1:10:23] altered to obtain tax dollars
[1:10:24] from the type b corporation.
[1:10:29] I would ask him to confirm,
[1:10:30] based on his personal knowledge
[1:10:32] and in his capacity as chair of
[1:10:33] the audit committee, that
[1:10:35] MR. David is who made that
[1:10:36] allegation.
[1:10:37] And MR. David -- I would ask him
[1:10:40] to confirm his personal
[1:10:41] knowledge that MR. David is a
[1:10:45] partner in or affiliated with
[1:10:46] bayfront marina investments,
[1:10:46] lp.
[1:10:48] And that he was chair of the
[1:10:50] audit committee, as I stated.
[1:10:54] And that the following day, the
[1:10:57] day after AUGUST 28, 2024.
[1:11:05] On AUGUST 29, 2024, bayfront
[1:11:07] marina investments donated $1500
[1:11:08] to MR. Hernandez.
[1:11:16] And then a month later they
[1:11:17] donated -- one month later.
[1:11:22] I would ask him questions
[1:11:25] regarding his statement that he
[1:11:27] made and that has been
[1:11:28] published.
[1:11:31] That regarding that payment he
[1:11:32] denied.
[1:11:34] I would ask him to confirm that
[1:11:38] he has denied that the money
[1:11:41] related to the audit complaint,
[1:11:44] even though it was paid the day
[1:11:45] after.
[1:11:46] MR. David made the complaint.
[1:11:48] That the other payment was made
[1:11:49] only a month later.
[1:11:54] And ask him to confirm that he
[1:11:56] affirmatively -- that it was his
[1:11:58] state of mind, prior to this
[1:11:59] proceeding where MR. David is a
[1:12:01] petitioner and has been sitting
[1:12:05] here as a party in this
[1:12:05] proceeding.
[1:12:07] Ask him to confirm that the
[1:12:12] money was paid to MR. Hernandez,
[1:12:14] quote, for, end quote, his
[1:12:17] opposition to proposition a,
[1:12:19] which had been voted down over
[1:12:24] nine months earlier.
[1:12:24] And the incredibility of the
[1:12:31] timing of a payment of $1500 on
[1:12:31] AUGUST 29th.
[1:12:32] And its relation to something
[1:12:35] that happened on AUGUST 28th.
[1:12:39] And his statement that it was
[1:12:40] for opposition to proposition
[1:12:40] a.
[1:12:45] Can you play that clip, please?
[1:12:45] [Audio clip]
[1:12:47] >> was that timing just a
[1:12:47] coincidence?
[1:12:49] >> Hernandez: just
[1:12:50] retaliation.
[1:12:52] >> I'm talking about the
[1:12:53] contribution.
[1:12:53] >> Hernandez: no.
[1:12:55] It was for something different.
[1:12:57] >> had nothing to do with what
[1:12:57] was going on?
[1:12:59] >> Hernandez: no.
[1:13:06] We didn't support proposition a
[1:13:13] in 2023, which was funding for a
[1:13:16] hotel, a convention center
[1:13:16] hotel.
[1:13:17] It was funding for a convention
[1:13:19] center hotel that we are didn't
[1:13:19] support.
[1:13:22] >> Flood: and I would ask him
[1:13:26] to confirm that the person -- or
[1:13:28] the entity that paid the money
[1:13:32] on AUGUST 29th and a month
[1:13:35] later on SEPTEMBER 30th, I
[1:13:36] believe, something like that,
[1:13:37] approximately.
[1:13:39] Is an entity -- was number one,
[1:13:40] an entity.
[1:13:43] And, number two, bayfront
[1:13:44] investments lp.
[1:13:47] And a principal of that entity,
[1:13:52] MR. David, signed the articles
[1:13:53] of impeachment in this case.
[1:13:57] Finally, I would ask
[1:13:59] MR. Hernandez questions about
[1:14:02] very recent statements made
[1:14:05] after the initiation of this
[1:14:08] trial, specifically last
[1:14:12] thursday, the 30th at the del
[1:14:14] mar small business center on
[1:14:14] kostoryz.
[1:14:15] I would ask him to confirm
[1:14:19] whether or not he made the
[1:14:20] public statement that when asked
[1:14:23] if he's going to run for mayor,
[1:14:24] whether or not he said, quote,
[1:14:27] first we have to get rid of
[1:14:28] paulette, end quote.
[1:14:31] And that ends my proffer of
[1:14:37] MR. Hernandez's testimony.
[1:14:39] And with that -- I want to make
[1:14:40] sure that the affidavit of
[1:14:44] compliance, which was marked as
[1:14:46] exhibit 64?
[1:14:55] I think that was 64.
[1:14:55] Yeah.
[1:14:56] That's what I mean.
[1:14:58] The affidavit of compliance is
[1:14:59] exhibit 64.
[1:15:01] I'm going to go ahead and offer
[1:15:02] exhibit 64.
[1:15:05] >> Allison: no objection.
[1:15:06] The only housekeeping item I
[1:15:09] have with that is -- go ahead.
[1:15:10] >> [Off mic]
[1:15:14] >> Flood: I ask that 64 be
[1:15:14] admitted.
[1:15:16] >> Paxson: sorry about that.
[1:15:21] >> Flood: with that,
[1:15:21] respondent rests.
[1:15:23] >> Paxson: thank you.
[1:15:23] Rebuttal?
[1:15:25] >> Allison: yes.
[1:15:27] At this time we call brian
[1:15:27] gulley.
[1:15:28] >> Flood: I have an objection
[1:15:33] to the rebuttal that needs to be
[1:15:35] heard before MR. Gulley is
[1:15:36] brought in.
[1:15:37] Okay?
[1:15:37] Let me grab that.
[1:15:45] >> Paxson: okay.
[1:15:47] While we allow him to prepare,
[1:15:48] we'll take a five-minute
[1:15:49] recess.
[1:16:11] >> I turned off his sound,
[1:16:14] his sound, and the video --
[1:16:16] >> Paxson: there we go.
[1:16:18] Everything is in order now.
[1:16:19] So we will call this meeting
[1:16:20] resumed.
[1:16:21] thank you.
[1:16:23] Yes, MR. Flood
[1:16:27] >> Flood: respondent
[1:16:29] having rested, it has been
[1:16:30] indicated that there is
[1:16:32] rebuttal evidence that is
[1:16:35] going to be at least
[1:16:36] offered.
[1:16:38] The rebuttal evidence that
[1:16:40] I've received notice of is
[1:16:42] not rebuttal evidence, so
[1:16:44] respondent objects to this
[1:16:46] improper rebuttal.
[1:16:47] The concern is that there
[1:16:51] are two areas that MR.
[1:16:53] MR. Gulley would be asked
[1:16:56] about, both of which are
[1:16:59] part of petitioner's burden,
[1:17:01] that they've had to carry
[1:17:05] all along, and neither of
[1:17:07] which arose for the first
[1:17:09] time in the mayor -- in the
[1:17:11] mayor's case.
[1:17:12] First of all, first one
[1:17:14] being any evidence related
[1:17:18] to the article iii
[1:17:18] confidentiality violation.
[1:17:20] And any evidence regarding
[1:17:22] what the mayor knew or did
[1:17:25] not know about the fema
[1:17:27] narrative, or any sort of
[1:17:29] slide alteration before
[1:17:30] FEBRUARY 20th.
[1:17:32] That one is -- that issue is
[1:17:34] central to petitioner's
[1:17:37] article I charge.
[1:17:38] Petitioners new both
[1:17:38] issues.
[1:17:41] They bore the burden on both
[1:17:42] issues, put on their
[1:17:45] evidence and rested.
[1:17:47] The mayor's denial of
[1:17:48] allegations does not convert
[1:17:51] evidence they failed to
[1:17:53] offer in -- does not -- I'm
[1:17:55] sorry, does not convert
[1:17:56] evidence that petitioner's
[1:17:58] failed to offer in their
[1:17:59] case in chief into
[1:17:59] rebuttal.
[1:18:01] they cannot wait until the
[1:18:03] mayor rests and then fill
[1:18:04] holes in their affirmative
[1:18:04] case.
[1:18:07] The order of proof matters
[1:18:08] and the rules of procedure
[1:18:10] in this court, in this case
[1:18:12] that were adopted by this
[1:18:14] tribunal specifically
[1:18:16] reference rebuttal.
[1:18:19] So rebuttal means rebuttal.
[1:18:22] First, they MAY intend to
[1:18:23] elicit something occurred
[1:18:28] during the NOVEMBER 9,
[1:18:29] ccredc meeting that
[1:18:30] supposedly put the mayor on
[1:18:32] notice that the fema
[1:18:33] narrative was false or that
[1:18:34] there was an altered slide
[1:18:36] or both.
[1:18:39] That would not be rebuttal.
[1:18:40] That goes directly to the
[1:18:42] knowledge element of
[1:18:43] petitioner's article I
[1:18:45] theory, and petitioners
[1:18:47] can't reopen their case to
[1:18:48] put on evidence regarding
[1:18:51] that issue.
[1:18:52] Second, petitioners MAY
[1:18:54] intend to ask this witness
[1:18:56] irrelevant opinion testimony
[1:18:58] about confidentiality and
[1:19:00] whether the mayor breached
[1:19:01] confidentiality provision,
[1:19:02] that's not rebuttal either.
[1:19:04] That is the alleged act
[1:19:05] constituting article iii
[1:19:07] itself, and petitioners
[1:19:09] cannot reopen their case in
[1:19:10] that regard.
[1:19:14] Neither issue was created by
[1:19:15] the defense case.
[1:19:17] Both existed before this
[1:19:18] proceeding began, both were
[1:19:20] known to petitioners, both
[1:19:22] were part of the allegations
[1:19:23] they chose to bring and both
[1:19:25] belonged in their case in
[1:19:26] chief, in fact I would state
[1:19:27] on the record I believe that
[1:19:28] the indication that there
[1:19:30] would be a rebuttal witness
[1:19:31] was actually projected prior
[1:19:33] to the resting to have
[1:19:33] petitioner's case.
[1:19:35] So to the extent this
[1:19:36] witness provides any
[1:19:38] evidence that relates to any
[1:19:41] of those issues I just
[1:19:43] described, it is by
[1:19:44] definition not rebuttal.
[1:19:47] A rebuttal permit as party
[1:19:49] to answer new material
[1:19:50] raised by the opposing
[1:19:51] party.
[1:19:53] It doesn't permit the party
[1:19:54] with the burden of proof to
[1:19:56] wait until the defense has
[1:19:57] rested and then fill holes
[1:20:00] in its affirmative case.
[1:20:03] That -- this body adopted
[1:20:04] rebuttal as part of the
[1:20:05] procedure, it was adopting
[1:20:06] that particular part of
[1:20:08] texas law.
[1:20:09] We object to the witness in
[1:20:11] its entirety as improper
[1:20:14] rebuttal and an improper
[1:20:15] reopening of petitioner's
[1:20:17] case in chief after the
[1:20:20] respondent has rested.
[1:20:25] And if this objection is not
[1:20:26] sustained, and before the
[1:20:28] witness testifies, we would
[1:20:31] ask petitioners to identify
[1:20:32] the particular evidence that
[1:20:34] was introduced for the first
[1:20:36] time during the mayor's case
[1:20:38] that the proposed area of
[1:20:39] testimony is offered to
[1:20:44] rebut.
[1:20:46] I ask that that objection be
[1:20:48] sustained and that this
[1:20:50] rebuttal witness not be
[1:20:51] allowed to testify.
[1:20:53] >> Paxson: MR. Allison, do
[1:20:54] you have a response?
[1:21:00] >> Allison: yes.
[1:21:03] We heard hours and hours of
[1:21:07] testimony from leah olivarri
[1:21:10] that promoted this idea and
[1:21:12] talked over and over and
[1:21:15] over again that the reason
[1:21:19] for this was the retail and
[1:21:21] public spaces, and that that
[1:21:24] is the reason behind the
[1:21:25] ordinance.
[1:21:27] That calls into question,
[1:21:29] again, and it is primary to
[1:21:32] their defense, that calls
[1:21:33] into question the -- and it
[1:21:35] actually was spoken about
[1:21:40] also with the -- with leah
[1:21:42] olivarri and also their
[1:21:43] other witness who was
[1:21:44] COUNCILMAN Roy barrera.
[1:21:47] All of that led to further
[1:21:48] testimony about what
[1:21:51] happened at crredc which was
[1:21:52] specifically discussed in
[1:21:53] all of the testimony, and
[1:21:54] there was this debate and
[1:21:56] dispute about that.
[1:21:59] Those disputes that were
[1:22:00] raised, this different
[1:22:02] narrative that they have
[1:22:04] raised throughout their
[1:22:06] defense is I believe will be
[1:22:07] specifically rebutted by the
[1:22:09] testimony of DR. Gulley.
[1:22:13] The rules expressly allow
[1:22:15] for rebuttal testimony.
[1:22:16] And therefore we think that
[1:22:18] this witness does have
[1:22:20] evidence of value for this
[1:22:21] tribunal, and in the
[1:22:25] interest of transparency,
[1:22:26] and pursuant to the express
[1:22:29] rules of this tribunal, we
[1:22:31] ask that their motion be
[1:22:32] denied or that their
[1:22:34] objection be denied.
[1:22:36] >> Paxson: MR. Flood.
[1:22:38] >> Flood: there was no
[1:22:41] evidence offered through
[1:22:44] leah olivarri or every roy
[1:22:46] about what happened at the
[1:22:47] ccredc.
[1:22:49] There is a transcript at
[1:22:50] yesterday's hearing and that
[1:22:50] evidence will not be found.
[1:22:52] So this is improper
[1:22:53] rebuttal.
[1:22:55] This is evidence that
[1:22:57] clearly could have been
[1:22:57] presented during
[1:23:00] petitioner's case in chief,
[1:23:02] and we would again reurge
[1:23:05] our objection that it is
[1:23:08] simply not true that the
[1:23:11] evidence yesterday included
[1:23:13] evidence about -- from
[1:23:14] witnesses about what
[1:23:16] happened.
[1:23:18] MR. Roy was not at the
[1:23:19] meeting.
[1:23:20] MS. Olivarri was not at the
[1:23:21] meeting.
[1:23:23] And that was not evidence
[1:23:25] offered -- none of that was
[1:23:26] offered by the mayor.
[1:23:27] So this is improper
[1:23:35] rebuttal.
[1:23:36] >> Paxson: do we have
[1:23:38] yesterday's transcript?
[1:23:41] >> Flood: I received a
[1:23:42] rough draft from the court
[1:23:43] reporter last night, I'm
[1:23:46] happy to forward it for
[1:23:46] review --
[1:23:47] >> Allison: I don't have
[1:23:47] it.
[1:23:49] I will tell you that I know
[1:23:53] we went specifically over
[1:23:55] the crredc meeting, that we
[1:23:57] have the meetings from
[1:23:59] executive session on, and we
[1:24:00] went specifically over
[1:24:02] those, so it has absolutely
[1:24:03] been a part of their case
[1:24:06] that we are now rebutting.
[1:24:09] >> Flood: in the record
[1:24:11] there will not by (B)
[1:24:13] Be
[1:24:14] found any offer.
[1:24:16] That is not true, to the
[1:24:17] extent council wanted to
[1:24:19] inject part of its case into
[1:24:20] the mayor's case, that's
[1:24:21] fine, that's different,
[1:24:23] that's not the same thing as
[1:24:24] something new and different
[1:24:26] offered by the mayor in her
[1:24:30] defense, so it -- that is a
[1:24:31] mischaracterization of the
[1:24:31] testimony yesterday I
[1:24:33] believe.
[1:24:36] And that there has not been
[1:24:38] grounds laid for this
[1:24:39] rebuttal witness, simply --
[1:24:42] I did not lay that.
[1:24:43] >> Allison: to the extent
[1:24:45] he brings up an issue, which
[1:24:46] he did, which is this second
[1:24:47] narrative they want
[1:24:48] everybody to believe now, to
[1:24:49] the extent they bring up
[1:24:51] that issue and we tried to
[1:24:52] refute it by going into the
[1:24:55] actual meeting minutes of
[1:24:58] the crredc meeting, that was
[1:25:00] not even objected to by then
[1:25:02] at the time because it tends
[1:25:04] to rebut what that witness
[1:25:05] was testifying to, they know
[1:25:07] that, and that opens the
[1:25:08] door and absolutely allows
[1:25:11] me to bring a witness to
[1:25:12] fortify that information
[1:25:15] which is the same rebuttal
[1:25:16] to what leah olivarri said.
[1:25:18] So we would ask that the
[1:25:19] motion to overrule their
[1:25:21] objection be made and that
[1:25:23] the objection be overruled.
[1:25:25] >> Flood: what I just
[1:25:27] heard is that it was an
[1:25:29] attempt to inject by the
[1:25:31] petitioner, and so, again,
[1:25:34] that is not the way rebuttal
[1:25:34] works.
[1:25:36] It is to deny -- it is to
[1:25:38] respond to new evidence
[1:25:40] provided by the defendant or
[1:25:41] respondent, and that that
[1:25:42] did not occur.
[1:25:45] And there was no testimony
[1:25:49] at all about internal edc
[1:25:51] meetings offered by the
[1:25:52] mayor.
[1:25:57] it was new evidence.
[1:25:59] >> was the specific evidence
[1:26:00] brought up that nested to be
[1:26:00] rebutted?
[1:26:03] Because I thought the two
[1:26:05] witness, one was what
[1:26:06] happened at council and the
[1:26:07] other is what happened at
[1:26:09] the type b board, that is
[1:26:11] her particular scope of
[1:26:12] knowledge.
[1:26:13] >> Allison: right, her --
[1:26:15] but she had a narrative so
[1:26:17] to speak that talked about
[1:26:19] why she voted for it, and
[1:26:20] she tried to say that's why
[1:26:22] other people voted for it,
[1:26:23] and I'll remind you that
[1:26:25] we've never deposed her.
[1:26:27] First time we've ever heard
[1:26:27] from that witness.
[1:26:29] There was a tremendous
[1:26:30] amount of new information
[1:26:33] about that, that tended to
[1:26:35] discredit or undermine what
[1:26:37] happened at the ccredc.
[1:26:39] Because of that, I went into
[1:26:41] the notes we have, or the
[1:26:43] meeting minutes that we have
[1:26:45] from ccredc with her to
[1:26:48] refute what she said, but
[1:26:50] I'm entitled then, when that
[1:26:52] is the first time I've ever
[1:26:54] heard that evidence, I'm
[1:26:54] entitled then to have a
[1:26:55] witness come and support
[1:26:57] what I think is in those
[1:26:59] notes from ccredc as
[1:27:02] additional evidence to rebut
[1:27:03] what see said for the first
[1:27:05] time, never heard it
[1:27:05] before.
[1:27:07] >> what did she say
[1:27:07] specifically?
[1:27:11] What did she say
[1:27:12] specifically, because her
[1:27:15] knowledge was limited to, my
[1:27:17] understanding, how they
[1:27:19] voted --
[1:27:20] >>
[1:27:22] >> Allison: actually goes
[1:27:23] back to the same staff
[1:27:25] people if you'll recall.
[1:27:26] The ccredc prepares what
[1:27:28] goes in front of ccredc, and
[1:27:30] the ccredc staff prepares
[1:27:32] what goes in front of type
[1:27:35] b, and the ccredc staff
[1:27:37] prepares what goes in front
[1:27:38] of the city here.
[1:27:40] So there is a common thread
[1:27:41] there throughout that that I
[1:27:44] think needs to be rebut and
[1:27:44] clarified.
[1:27:45] >> Flood: all that
[1:27:46] evidence was included in the
[1:27:48] petitioner's case in chief,
[1:27:48] what I just heard.
[1:27:51] All of that -- every single
[1:27:53] one of those facts he just
[1:27:55] stated was contained in
[1:28:02] petitioner's case in chief.
[1:28:04] >> wouldn't that --
[1:28:07] >> Allison: I can't hear
[1:28:07] you.
[1:28:09] >> push the button.
[1:28:12] Push it.
[1:28:15] >> I didn't hear anything
[1:28:18] what you testified to that
[1:28:20] contradicted the position of
[1:28:22] the prior testimony of what
[1:28:26] might have happened at edc.
[1:28:28] That only that when it came
[1:28:32] to them it was a
[1:28:35] presentation asking for
[1:28:37] money form infrastructure
[1:28:41] and then the street issue
[1:28:44] and they only voted on the
[1:28:47] street issue and disregarded
[1:28:51] the element or consideration
[1:28:52] of infrastructure.
[1:28:55] So she had no personal
[1:28:56] knowledge, and didn't really
[1:29:00] tie back into the previous
[1:29:02] edc meetings.
[1:29:03] That's my recollection of
[1:29:08] her testimony.
[1:29:09] >> Allison: I think her
[1:29:10] testimony brings into
[1:29:13] question all of that with
[1:29:14] this same staff members that
[1:29:15] worked on exactly that piece
[1:29:16] of it.
[1:29:19] She repeatedly took the
[1:29:21] position that she was very
[1:29:22] clear and everybody else was
[1:29:24] very confused.
[1:29:26] And that is the first time
[1:29:27] we've ever heard that and I
[1:29:29] think we're entitled to
[1:29:33] rebut it.
[1:29:35] >> Flood: not evidence
[1:29:37] offered by the mayor in her
[1:29:39] case in chief, that is
[1:29:39] simply inaccurate.
[1:29:41] The fact of the matter
[1:29:46] remains that the attempt to
[1:29:48] elicit testimony about what
[1:29:50] happened during the
[1:29:52] NOVEMBER 9edc meeting and is
[1:29:54] not in rebuttal to anything
[1:29:57] that the mayor placed into
[1:29:59] evidence during her case in
[1:30:01] chief, it only relates to an
[1:30:04] issue that was raised and
[1:30:06] was attempted to be
[1:30:09] addressed in petitioner's
[1:30:10] case in chief.
[1:30:12] Rebuttal is not available to
[1:30:15] fill a hole that is
[1:30:16] contained within
[1:30:17] petitioner's case, and
[1:30:18] that's what they're
[1:30:19] attempting to do, and we
[1:30:23] object for that reason.
[1:30:26] >> Allison: did roy
[1:30:29] everett ever express any
[1:30:30] personal knowledge about
[1:30:34] what happened at edc serve.
[1:30:38] >> Allison: he definitely
[1:30:39] testified what happened at
[1:30:40] ccredc, he was not
[1:30:40] personally there.
[1:30:42] >> Flood: the answer to
[1:30:50] that question was no.
[1:30:51] >> I don't see rebuttal.
[1:30:52] That is y'all's decision.
[1:30:55] I don't see it.
[1:30:55] >> Paxson: is there a
[1:30:58] sentiment from this board
[1:31:02] whether to sustain or to
[1:31:03] allow the rebuttal?
[1:31:05] It's been presented, both
[1:31:07] arguments, and we've heard
[1:31:10] from our counsel.
[1:31:12] And for clarification, this
[1:31:14] is to -- to allow the
[1:31:17] rebuttal so there's a motion
[1:31:19] and a second to allow the
[1:31:21] rebuttal to continue, all in
[1:31:22] favor say aye.
[1:31:23] (Chorus of ayes.)
[1:31:26] All opposed say nay.
[1:31:27] >> nay.
[1:31:28] >> Paxson: yes, sir.
[1:31:29] >> Allison: I'm going to
[1:31:31] do a quick sound check and
[1:31:33] see if I can also do video,
[1:31:37] hold on one second.
[1:31:38] DR. Gulley, we are in
[1:31:40] session, can you hear me?
[1:31:42] We are in session.
[1:31:48] >> yeah, I hear you well.
[1:31:49] >> Allison: can you
[1:31:51] hear -- DR. Gulley, can you
[1:31:51] hear me okay.
[1:31:53] >> Gulley: I can hear you
[1:31:53] perfectly.
[1:31:54] >> Paxson: MR. Allison, if
[1:31:57] we can allow MS. Rebecca to
[1:31:58] swear in the witness.
[1:31:59] >> Flood: I'm going to
[1:32:00] simply object to the
[1:32:02] witness's remote swearing
[1:32:02] in.
[1:32:04] It's improper under the
[1:32:07] ordinance, under the city
[1:32:09] ordinances and the city
[1:32:11] charter, and it's also --
[1:32:13] there's no precedent for it
[1:32:15] under the city charter, and
[1:32:17] it's also improper under
[1:32:19] texas law.
[1:32:21] >> Paxson: okay, I don't
[1:32:22] know of anything under the
[1:32:23] city charter.
[1:32:26] We allow for remote
[1:32:28] participation in our regular
[1:32:28] meetings.
[1:32:30] >> but there's no vote, so i
[1:32:31] can double check with our
[1:32:34] city attorney, if you would
[1:32:34] like --
[1:32:36] >> Paxson: do we have our
[1:32:36] city attorney present?
[1:32:38] >> we have assistant city
[1:32:39] attorney present.
[1:32:41] >> Paxson: okay.
[1:32:43] Our city manager is bringing
[1:32:59] her out.
[1:33:01] >> Allison: DR. Gulley, if
[1:33:02] you will hold on one moment,
[1:33:02] please.
[1:33:04] We are still in open
[1:33:06] session.
[1:33:09] >> Paxson: hi, MS. Lisa.
[1:33:11] >> I was checking.
[1:33:13] I didn't find anything that
[1:33:13] would prohibit it.
[1:33:15] >> Flood: objection.
[1:33:16] There's nothing that permits
[1:33:18] it, and so this is a --
[1:33:23] there is -- there are
[1:33:25] definitely -- under the
[1:33:25] articles I'm sorry, under
[1:33:27] the rules of procedure,
[1:33:29] allowed for the calling or
[1:33:31] witnesses, subpoenaing
[1:33:33] witnesses, and MR. Gulley,
[1:33:34] DR. Gulley is not here in
[1:33:36] the chambers, so there's
[1:33:37] nothing in the rules of
[1:33:39] procedure that afford a
[1:33:40] remote swearing in of a
[1:33:43] witness, and there is
[1:33:45] nothing in the city charter
[1:33:46] that allows the swearing in
[1:33:49] of a remote witness, and
[1:33:51] there is nothing under texas
[1:33:54] law that allows the witness
[1:33:56] in this situation to be
[1:33:58] sworn in remotely, and so
[1:34:01] respondent objects for that
[1:34:01] reason.
[1:34:02] >> Allison: and I would
[1:34:03] respond to that by saying
[1:34:05] that the rules adopted here
[1:34:06] are
[1:34:09] expressly allowed to
[1:34:12] witnesses who can be called
[1:34:15] to be sworn to identify an
[1:34:16] oath, we can do that here,
[1:34:17] nothing allowing it in texas
[1:34:17] law.
[1:34:19] We do it all the time at the
[1:34:21] courthouse.
[1:34:24] >> Paxson: MS. City
[1:34:25] attorney, do you have --
[1:34:28] >> no further comments
[1:34:28] so --
[1:34:29] >> Paxson: based on
[1:34:30] interpretation of the
[1:34:33] adopted rules, can you
[1:34:33] advise?
[1:34:36] >> I'm -- I think it's fine
[1:34:36] to proceed.
[1:34:38] >> Paxson: fine to proceed
[1:34:39] to allow remote.
[1:34:40] >> yes, ma'am, yes, yes.
[1:34:41] >> Paxson: should we allow
[1:34:45] the remote, in addition to
[1:34:46] certifying location, I
[1:34:50] believe it was said that
[1:34:53] MS. Rebecca huerta, who is
[1:34:54] administering oaths through
[1:34:56] these proceedings can do
[1:34:57] that remotely.
[1:34:57] Is there any other
[1:34:59] information she should
[1:35:01] obtain?
[1:35:04] >> I don't believe so, no.
[1:35:06] >> Paxson: MS. Rebecca.
[1:35:08] >> I'm a notary public.
[1:35:09] >> Flood: and I renew my
[1:35:09] objection.
[1:35:13] There is -- there is simply
[1:35:16] no empowering ordinance.
[1:35:18] There's no empowering code
[1:35:19] provision.
[1:35:21] There's no empowering
[1:35:22] provision of the city
[1:35:25] charter that allows for this
[1:35:27] particular form of
[1:35:28] testimony, and so I would
[1:35:30] object to it on that basis
[1:35:31] and also it does not meet
[1:35:33] the requirements under texas
[1:35:37] law for a remote swearing.
[1:35:39] And I'm asking for a ruling,
[1:35:41] please, yes.
[1:35:43] >> do we have a ruling from
[1:35:44] the board?
[1:35:46] I'm sorry? Motion and
[1:35:47] second to overrule.
[1:35:50] All in favor say aye.
[1:35:50] (Chorus of ayes.)
[1:35:53] Any opposed say nay.
[1:35:54] >> nay.
[1:35:56] >> Paxson: motion carries,
[1:35:58] thank you, MS. Rebecca.
[1:35:59] >> Flood: I do have one
[1:36:00] more objection, I'm sorry,
[1:36:02] my apologies, quickly, I
[1:36:04] object because it violates
[1:36:05] my client's fundamental
[1:36:07] right of confrontation to
[1:36:10] not have MR. -- to have --
[1:36:12] not have DR. Gulley in
[1:36:14] chambers for an examination,
[1:36:16] and for that reason I
[1:36:17] also -- and that is more of
[1:36:18] a constitutional violation,
[1:36:20] and that is separate and
[1:36:23] apart from the code and
[1:36:25] statutory provisions I
[1:36:27] object to earlier.
[1:36:28] This would be inability to
[1:36:29] confront the witness and so
[1:36:31] that is a separate
[1:36:33] objection, I ask it be ruled
[1:36:37] upon.
[1:36:39] >>
[1:36:40] >> do you have a response?
[1:36:40] >> sure.
[1:36:41] Hatches
[1:36:43] happens all the time.
[1:36:45] You can confront people over a
[1:36:46] video conference.
[1:36:48] You can examine them.
[1:36:48] You can cross-examine them.
[1:36:50] We do it all the time in civil
[1:36:50] cases.
[1:36:52] They do it all the time in
[1:36:53] criminal cases.
[1:36:54] It is something that occurs
[1:36:56] frequently and is a courtesy
[1:36:58] extended to witnesses.
[1:37:00] And I think we need all of those
[1:37:02] program -- meet all of those
[1:37:03] parameters, and as such, there's
[1:37:09] no fundamental defamation of any
[1:37:11] constitutional right.
[1:37:12] >> Flood: without the ability
[1:37:14] to tender exhibits to him or
[1:37:16] anything like that.
[1:37:17] >> Allison: we have the
[1:37:19] ability to tender exhibits by
[1:37:20] zoom.
[1:37:21] >> Flood: I stand in my
[1:37:22] objection.
[1:37:26] Ask that it be ruled upon.
[1:37:27] >> Paxson: we have a motion to
[1:37:29] overrule and a second.
[1:37:31] All in favor say aye.
[1:37:36] Any opposed say nay.
[1:37:38] >> Paxson: MAY I proceed?
[1:37:40] >> I think so.
[1:37:41] >> Allison: I think she needs
[1:37:46] to swear him in.
[1:37:48] >> DR. Bryan gulley, do you
[1:37:50] solemnly swear or affirm that
[1:37:51] the testimony you are about to
[1:37:52] give is the truth, the whole
[1:37:55] truth, and nothing but the
[1:37:56] truth?
[1:37:58] >> Gulley: I do.
[1:38:01] >> thank you.
[1:38:03] >> Allison: can you hear us
[1:38:03] okay?
[1:38:04] >> I can.
[1:38:06] >> Allison: we can hear you
[1:38:06] fine.
[1:38:07] This is doug ail
[1:38:08] allison.
[1:38:10] I'm going to ask you to state
[1:38:11] your name of
[1:38:16] name.
[1:38:16] >> Gulley: DR. Gulley.
[1:38:18] >> Allison: where do you
[1:38:24] reside?
[1:38:25] >> Gulley: corpus christi.
[1:38:26] >> Allison: how long have you
[1:38:27] been a resident of this
[1:38:30] community?
[1:38:31] >> Gulley: 73 years.
[1:38:32] >> Allison: okay.
[1:38:34] And go ahead and tell us what
[1:38:37] your background is
[1:38:37] professionally.
[1:38:39] >> Gulley: my training and
[1:38:41] occupation, oral and facial
[1:38:45] surgeon, and a businessman.
[1:38:45] >> Allison: and specifically,
[1:38:49] have you been active in some of
[1:38:52] the local community boards, and
[1:38:57] maybe even city or port boards?
[1:38:59] >> Gulley: two terms as port
[1:39:01] commissioner, and serving on the
[1:39:08] edc, the type a board, isac
[1:39:10] board, chamber of commerce,
[1:39:12] multiple boards.
[1:39:14] >> Allison: yeah.
[1:39:15] >> Gulley: the aquarium
[1:39:18] executive board, and I'm on the
[1:39:20] advisory board of the university
[1:39:22] of texas marine science
[1:39:23] institute currently.
[1:39:24] >> Allison: going to get right
[1:39:25] to the point.
[1:39:28] Did you serve on what we call
[1:39:32] the ccredc board in 2023?
[1:39:34] >> Gulley: yes, I did.
[1:39:35] >> Allison: and were you
[1:39:40] serving on that board when the
[1:39:40] homewood suites project -- if I
[1:39:42] call it that, do you know what
[1:39:44] I'm referring to?
[1:39:45] >> Gulley: yes.
[1:39:46] I was.
[1:39:47] >> Allison: when the homewood
[1:39:49] suites project made their
[1:39:52] application for $2 million
[1:40:00] through the edc, or regional
[1:40:01] economic development
[1:40:01] corporation.
[1:40:02] Were you on that ccredc board
[1:40:07] when they made the application?
[1:40:08] >> Gulley: yes.
[1:40:12] I was vice chair, I think.
[1:40:13] >> Allison: was mayor guajardo
[1:40:13] serving on that
[1:40:16] at that time?
[1:40:16] >> Gulley: yes.
[1:40:18] >> Allison: I will tell you
[1:40:21] that this tribunal, the city
[1:40:22] council members before us right
[1:40:26] now, this tribunal has already
[1:40:28] received into evidence the
[1:40:31] meeting minutes from the
[1:40:32] confidential meeting that
[1:40:35] occurred when a vote happened on
[1:40:37] that project.
[1:40:39] Do you understand what I'm
[1:40:40] referring to?
[1:40:41] >> Gulley: yes.
[1:40:42] >> Allison: usually there is
[1:40:44] some sort of a confidentiality
[1:40:45] privilege, but those documents
[1:40:47] have already been produced to us
[1:40:50] about what happened inside that
[1:40:52] confidential meeting, and
[1:40:53] admitted into evidence.
[1:40:55] There's no longer, I think, a
[1:40:55] confidentiality issue.
[1:40:56] Do you understand what I'm
[1:40:59] saying?
[1:41:00] >> Flood: objection.
[1:41:00] >> Gulley: yes.
[1:41:02] >> Allison: let me just ask
[1:41:06] you --
[1:41:07] >> MR. Flood.
[1:41:07] >> pardon?
[1:41:09] >> a little bit of time to make
[1:41:11] an objection before you answer.
[1:41:12] >> Flood: my objection was
[1:41:13] that the premise that he
[1:41:17] presented the witness with was a
[1:41:18] mis-characterization of the
[1:41:20] prior testimony.
[1:41:25] So that specifically, that the
[1:41:30] confidentiality related to the
[1:41:33] information received as opposed
[1:41:36] to the actual meeting itself.
[1:41:39] And so -- and the only premise
[1:41:47] for that was a question of
[1:41:51] MR. Culberson that counsel asked
[1:41:51] MR. Culberson, are those
[1:41:53] meetings public.
[1:41:55] And MR. Culberson said, no, we
[1:42:00] are a private 501c6.
[1:42:02] So that is not testimony that
[1:42:04] establishes that the meeting was
[1:42:05] confidential.
[1:42:07] And so I'm objecting to it on
[1:42:10] that basis.
[1:42:10] >> Allison: I've asked it,
[1:42:11] he's answered it.
[1:42:14] I'll go to the next question.
[1:42:15] >> Flood: I ask that the
[1:42:16] objection be sustained, because
[1:42:17] it was a false premise presented
[1:42:18] to the witness.
[1:42:21] So I ask that the question
[1:42:22] itself, that the objection be
[1:42:23] sustained and a different
[1:42:24] question be asked.
[1:42:25] >> Allison: I think the
[1:42:26] correct response to that
[1:42:29] probably is that the tribunal
[1:42:36] will recall the evidence.
[1:42:37] >> Paxson: okay.
[1:42:38] We'll sustain the objection.
[1:42:41] Thank you.
[1:42:42] >> Allison: DR. Gulley, were
[1:42:45] you at that meeting when there
[1:42:46] was discussion about whether or
[1:42:49] not to approve an incentive
[1:42:51] award for the homewood suites
[1:42:51] project?
[1:42:55] And by that meeting, I mean at
[1:42:56] ccredc.
[1:42:58] >> Gulley: yes.
[1:43:00] >> Allison: was mayor paulette
[1:43:01] guajardo at that meeting?
[1:43:02] >> Gulley: yes.
[1:43:03] >> Allison: who else, if you
[1:43:07] recall, would have been at that
[1:43:09] meeting?
[1:43:10] >> Gulley: there's about more
[1:43:14] than a dozen people at that
[1:43:18] meeting.
[1:43:23] Barb, sarah, who was presiding
[1:43:26] as head staff member, because
[1:43:29] mike culberson wasn't at that
[1:43:29] meeting.
[1:43:31] And there would have been -- I
[1:43:32] don't remember which meeting
[1:43:33] people were there, but there was
[1:43:35] quite a few of the regular
[1:43:36] members.
[1:43:42] I think dennis black was... I
[1:43:43] don't remember everybody that
[1:43:44] was there.
[1:43:45] I didn't pay that much attention
[1:43:45] to it.
[1:43:47] But there was a pretty full
[1:43:47] meeting.
[1:43:49] We had a quorum.
[1:43:51] >> Allison: would you rely on
[1:43:52] the meeting minutes to identify
[1:43:53] who was actually there?
[1:43:55] >> Gulley: I would have to,
[1:43:56] yes.
[1:43:57] >> Allison: okay.
[1:44:00] And so, do you recall there
[1:44:03] being a debate about whether or
[1:44:05] not to give any incentive award
[1:44:08] to the homewood suites?
[1:44:09] >> Gulley: we had a strong
[1:44:12] discussion.
[1:44:13] >> Allison: and was the mayor
[1:44:17] advocating for any position?
[1:44:21] >> Gulley: she was advocating
[1:44:23] for the $2 million for the
[1:44:24] project.
[1:44:26] I think she had seconded the
[1:44:26] motion.
[1:44:28] There was a motion made and she
[1:44:31] seconded it.
[1:44:31] >> Allison: okay.
[1:44:35] And did you support that or
[1:44:36] oppose it?
[1:44:37] >> Gulley: I opposed it.
[1:44:39] >> Allison: and why did you
[1:44:41] oppose it?
[1:44:43] >> Gulley: for numerous
[1:44:43] reasons.
[1:44:48] You know, although the two
[1:44:50] people, philip and his partner,
[1:44:51] deven, I consider friends of
[1:44:53] mine, I didn't like the project
[1:44:56] for multiple reasons.
[1:44:58] I don't think it was a good look
[1:44:59] that philip had just come off
[1:45:02] our board a few months ago.
[1:45:06] I thought that if you look at
[1:45:13] economic development programs,
[1:45:15] it starts -- the best projects
[1:45:18] all the way down to the worst
[1:45:19] projects for economic
[1:45:20] development.
[1:45:22] And these hotels are considered
[1:45:25] down towards the bottom as the
[1:45:26] least-desirable projects.
[1:45:29] That was the main reason.
[1:45:32] I felt like it was way too much
[1:45:36] money for one project like that,
[1:45:41] because I'm not in favor of
[1:45:44] projects that aren't somewhat
[1:45:45] unique, in other words, using
[1:45:48] taxpayer money to incentivize
[1:45:49] one project that competes with
[1:45:51] other projects, like the other
[1:45:55] hotels in the area.
[1:45:56] And they had already received
[1:46:01] quite a bit of taxpayer money in
[1:46:03] the tirs fund.
[1:46:05] And I gave several reasons.
[1:46:08] But really, because the low
[1:46:11] wages that hotels generate, and
[1:46:13] the fact that they don't bring
[1:46:14] any new business to town, they
[1:46:15] just accommodate business that's
[1:46:19] already coming to town.
[1:46:20] So I had several reasons.
[1:46:21] I thought it was way too much
[1:46:22] money.
[1:46:23] And I thought there were much
[1:46:25] better projects to use the money
[1:46:26] on.
[1:46:29] And I disagreed with the reasons
[1:46:32] they gave why they needed that
[1:46:33] much money.
[1:46:34] >> Flood: I'm going to level
[1:46:35] an objection.
[1:46:37] The testimony is not in rebuttal
[1:46:38] to anything that was in the
[1:46:40] mayor's case.
[1:46:41] This examination proves the
[1:46:42] point as to why this witness
[1:46:43] should not be allowed to
[1:46:46] continue testifying in rebuttal.
[1:46:48] There is no attempt to rebut
[1:46:49] anything, because they can't.
[1:46:51] Everything they're offering
[1:46:54] relates to the burden that they
[1:46:56] assumed in their own case.
[1:46:58] So I would object to any further
[1:47:02] testimony from this rebuttal
[1:47:03] witness.
[1:47:04] >> you're renewing your
[1:47:05] objection?
[1:47:06] >> Flood: I'm renewing my
[1:47:07] objection based upon the
[1:47:09] testimony that's been elicited.
[1:47:13] Once again, it is not in
[1:47:13] rebuttal.
[1:47:15] Not one thing has been in
[1:47:16] rebuttal to anything in the
[1:47:17] mayor's case.
[1:47:21] i object to it going forward.
[1:47:22] >> Allison: my response is
[1:47:23] very simple.
[1:47:25] And that is at this point, I'm
[1:47:25] just laying predicate.
[1:47:27] I'm trying to get to the point
[1:47:28] that we're trying to make here
[1:47:33] that I've articulated already.
[1:47:34] >> Paxson: I'll go ahead and
[1:47:36] call the motion.
[1:47:38] I have a motion and a second to
[1:47:39] overrule the objection.
[1:47:41] All in favor say aye.
[1:47:46] Any opposed, say nay.
[1:47:46] >> Allison: DR. Gulley, the
[1:47:49] things you articulated, did you
[1:47:50] voice those concerns during the
[1:47:51] meeting?
[1:47:52] >> Gulley: yes.
[1:47:52] >> Allison: one of the things
[1:47:54] you just said, and now said you
[1:47:55] voiced that concern during the
[1:47:58] meeting was the reason that they
[1:47:58] were asking.
[1:47:59] Did you understand during the
[1:48:02] meeting that the reason the
[1:48:04] applicant was asking for the
[1:48:06] $2 million was for what was
[1:48:08] characterized as newly defined
[1:48:10] and recent changes to fema
[1:48:11] rules?
[1:48:12] >> Gulley: yes.
[1:48:13] >> Allison: was that very
[1:48:14] clear to the meeting that that
[1:48:16] was the reason for the ask for
[1:48:18] the 2 million?
[1:48:18] >> Flood: objection.
[1:48:19] The question is vague.
[1:48:20] He simply said it
[1:48:22] was it clear to
[1:48:23] the meeting.
[1:48:24] That is clearly asking for
[1:48:25] hearsay.
[1:48:26] He's asking for other people's
[1:48:27] state of mind.
[1:48:28] There's no --
[1:48:30] >> Paxson: restate your
[1:48:31] question.
[1:48:32] >> Allison: was there debate
[1:48:35] about that issue, about whether
[1:48:40] or not the fema rules were, or
[1:48:42] had been newly defined and were
[1:48:44] recent changes?
[1:48:47] >> Flood: objection, hearsay.
[1:48:47] >> Allison: yes.
[1:48:49] >> I'm going to ask the witness
[1:48:50] be instructed to not answer
[1:48:52] questions until after objections
[1:48:53] are ruled upon.
[1:48:55] The witness was asked a hearsay
[1:48:58] question and I'm objecting under
[1:49:00] this procedure's rules against
[1:49:01] hearsay.
[1:49:02] Objection, hearsay.
[1:49:03] >> Gulley: understood.
[1:49:05] >> Allison: he heard you.
[1:49:06] >> Flood: I ask my objection
[1:49:08] to be sustained.
[1:49:09] My hearsay objection be
[1:49:13] sustained and the answer by the
[1:49:15] witness that was rushed --
[1:49:21] >> Allison: the only
[1:49:21] question --
[1:49:23] [Crosstalk]
[1:49:26] >> Paxson: I have a motion to
[1:49:26] sustain.
[1:49:27] We have a second.
[1:49:29] All in favor say aye.
[1:49:33] Any opposed, nay.
[1:49:33] Sustained.
[1:49:35] Thank you.
[1:49:36] >> Allison: DR. Gulley, what
[1:49:38] was your personal experience
[1:49:41] with regard to how long or any
[1:49:45] of your knowledge during that
[1:49:46] meeting about when or whether or
[1:49:53] not there were new fema rules?
[1:49:54] >> Gulley: when the comments
[1:49:56] were made that this project was
[1:49:57] going to cost more money because
[1:50:00] of the recent changes in the
[1:50:02] fema rules, and it was related
[1:50:03] to the base flood elevation.
[1:50:06] I made a comment that I knew
[1:50:09] personally for a fact that
[1:50:12] MR. Ramirez was aware of that
[1:50:14] quite some time ago, because I
[1:50:16] had personally made him aware of
[1:50:18] that, because I had sole him -- sold
[1:50:21] him some of that property.
[1:50:22] >> Allison: did you sell him
[1:50:25] some of the property the project
[1:50:28] is located on?
[1:50:29] >> Gulley: yes.
[1:50:29] >> Allison: back at that time,
[1:50:33] which was I guess 2021-ish, does
[1:50:34] that sound right?
[1:50:35] >> Gulley: yeah somewhere back
[1:50:36] then.
[1:50:37] >> Allison: back at that time,
[1:50:41] did you make it very clear to
[1:50:43] MR. Ramirez that the new fema
[1:50:46] rules were in effect in 2021?
[1:50:49] >> Gulley: yes, I did, because
[1:50:50] at the discussion, he was
[1:50:51] talking about tearing the
[1:50:52] buildings down.
[1:50:55] And I was asking for a little
[1:50:56] more money, because one of the
[1:50:58] buildings had been renovated.
[1:51:01] And he said we're just going to
[1:51:03] tear -- and I said if you tear
[1:51:04] them down, you're going to have
[1:51:07] to raise the base flood
[1:51:07] elevation.
[1:51:10] And he acknowledged he was aware
[1:51:12] of that.
[1:51:14] >> Allison: now, did you share
[1:51:16] that discussion that you had
[1:51:17] with philip ramirez back at the
[1:51:20] time of his purchase, did you
[1:51:20] share that discussion with the
[1:51:23] people at the ccredc meeting
[1:51:24] when this was being debated,
[1:51:28] including the mayor?
[1:51:28] >> Gulley: yeah.
[1:51:31] Everyone at the meeting, I made
[1:51:35] it clear that he knew that that
[1:51:38] was going to be a issue, a
[1:51:40] problem back when I sold him the
[1:51:41] property.
[1:51:42] Because at the time I sold him
[1:51:44] the property, he said he was
[1:51:46] going to build a building for
[1:51:47] the university.
[1:51:49] And at that time, I told him,
[1:51:51] you know, you need to -- you are
[1:51:53] aware that you're going to have
[1:51:56] to raise the base flood
[1:51:56] elevation.
[1:51:57] he's a friend of mine.
[1:51:58] I did not want to sell him a
[1:52:01] piece of property that he didn't
[1:52:04] understand, or had an issue
[1:52:04] with.
[1:52:05] >> Allison: okay.
[1:52:07] When you were in the ccredc
[1:52:09] meeting, within earshot of the
[1:52:11] mayor, did you make it clear to
[1:52:14] the mayor, at least from your
[1:52:15] intention in making speech or
[1:52:17] providing information, did you
[1:52:22] make it clear that philip had
[1:52:26] long known about the fema rules?
[1:52:27] >> Allison: yes,
[1:52:32] >> Gulley: I did.
[1:52:33] >> Allison: was the mayor
[1:52:35] within earshot of you explaining
[1:52:36] that to the group?
[1:52:38] >> Gulley: I think I made
[1:52:40] everyone career
[1:52:42] -- clear about that
[1:52:44] when I said it.
[1:52:46] I thought it was important.
[1:52:46] >> Allison: do you think you
[1:52:48] made it clear that the changes
[1:52:51] in fema rules were not new, so
[1:52:52] to speak?
[1:52:53] >> Flood: objection.
[1:52:54] There's been no predicate laid
[1:52:58] for the question about changes,
[1:52:58] zero.
[1:53:00] >> Allison: I'll rephrase.
[1:53:01] We're talking about -- do you
[1:53:03] understand that we're talking
[1:53:05] about fema rules that the
[1:53:08] changes had been initiated in
[1:53:09] 2020, does that sound right to
[1:53:10] you?
[1:53:11] >> Gulley: yes.
[1:53:11] >> Allison: and did you make
[1:53:14] it clear to the group that there
[1:53:17] were no new changes, that the
[1:53:18] changes had been around for
[1:53:24] years during the ccredc meeting?
[1:53:26] >> Gulley: yes.
[1:53:28] >> Allison: did the mayor then
[1:53:30] back down from wanting
[1:53:32] $2 million for the project?
[1:53:32] >> Flood: objection.
[1:53:33] there's been -- the predicate
[1:53:37] laid for the timing of his
[1:53:39] statement that was argument by
[1:53:42] counsel, so I object to facts
[1:53:44] not in evidence and I object to
[1:53:47] the argument.
[1:53:48] >> Allison: I'll rephrase.
[1:53:51] During the meeting, who made the
[1:53:58] motion to award $2 million?
[1:53:59] >> Gulley: bart.
[1:54:00] >> Allison: are you familiar
[1:54:02] that the highest recommendation
[1:54:04] for a dollar amount from ccredc
[1:54:10] staff was about 1,043,000?
[1:54:10] >> Flood: objection.
[1:54:13] The word recommendation is a
[1:54:14] mis-characterization.
[1:54:15] That was the model.
[1:54:19] That was a product of the rims
[1:54:19] ii model.
[1:54:21] >> Allison: are you aware the
[1:54:25] model recommended at most
[1:54:26] 1,043,000?
[1:54:27] >> Gulley: yes.
[1:54:28] >> Allison: and who seconded
[1:54:32] the motion for 2 million?
[1:54:34] >> Gulley: mayor guajardo.
[1:54:36] >> Allison: did your providing
[1:54:38] the information about hey, these
[1:54:39] are not new rules, they've been
[1:54:43] around for a while, did that
[1:54:45] dissuade the mayor at all from
[1:54:47] the vote?
[1:54:49] >> Flood: objection.
[1:54:49] >> Gulley: no.
[1:54:50] >> Flood: objection.
[1:54:52] There's not evidence that he
[1:54:55] stated those words in the
[1:54:55] meeting.
[1:55:01] So, that's a
[1:55:01] mis-characterization.
[1:55:03] >> Allison: if I MISS
[1:55:04] Mis-characterize your testimony,
[1:55:05] let me know.
[1:55:07] Did any of the things that you
[1:55:08] told them during the executive
[1:55:10] session, that you told to the
[1:55:13] mayor, dissuade her from pushing
[1:55:15] for $2 million?
[1:55:18] >> Gulley: no. Apparently.
[1:55:19] >> Allison: was there a
[1:55:20] discussion about hey, maybe you
[1:55:23] should pull down your motion?
[1:55:24] >> Gulley: yeah.
[1:55:26] And I'm not sure if I said it or
[1:55:31] one of the other meetings, but,
[1:55:32] yeah.
[1:55:33] The mutual decision was to let
[1:55:36] it go to a vote.
[1:55:36] >> Allison: okay.
[1:55:38] And did that vote for 2 million
[1:55:41] fail or succeed?
[1:55:45] >> Gulley: it failed.
[1:55:47] >> Allison: do you have any
[1:55:48] doubt in your mind, and you can
[1:55:50] only speak for what you perceive
[1:55:51] during the meeting.
[1:55:53] Do you have any doubt you made
[1:55:55] it very clear to the mayor that
[1:55:58] the idea that this was new rules
[1:56:00] by fema was untrue, or did you
[1:56:02] make that clear?
[1:56:03] >> Gulley: I feel like I made
[1:56:05] it clear to everyone.
[1:56:06] >> Allison: okay.
[1:56:06] Thank you.
[1:56:14] No further questions.
[1:56:15] >> MR. Gulley, you feel like you
[1:56:19] did, but you can't say for sure?
[1:56:20] >> Gulley: from the vote and
[1:56:21] comments that other members
[1:56:26] made, you get a feel for the
[1:56:26] room.
[1:56:28] And, of course, the vote tells
[1:56:31] you exactly what they feel.
[1:56:34] >> it would be your testimony
[1:56:39] that if MR. Ramirez -- if his
[1:56:42] presentation to the edc board
[1:56:43] was -- contained a narrative
[1:56:50] that he was surprised by -- in
[1:56:51] 2022 to alleged changes, what
[1:56:53] you're saying is that would
[1:56:56] be -- it was discussed according
[1:56:59] to your testimony that that
[1:57:00] particular issue was discussed.
[1:57:02] Is that what you're saying?
[1:57:03] >> Allison: I'm going to
[1:57:05] object to the question.
[1:57:06] It's confusing.
[1:57:10] >> Gulley: it is confusing.
[1:57:10] >> Flood: DR. Gulley, at that
[1:57:11] meeting, is it your testimony
[1:57:16] that the narrative, that in 2022
[1:57:20] there had been -- that
[1:57:22] MR. Ramirez was surprised in
[1:57:23] 2022.
[1:57:29] Was that exact narrative
[1:57:31] discussed?
[1:57:32] >> Gulley: it's kind of
[1:57:37] confusing, but at the time...
[1:57:39] >> Flood: I'm sorry.
[1:57:40] >> Gulley: MR. Ramirez about
[1:57:41] the fema rules, then at that
[1:57:44] time he did not seem surprised.
[1:57:46] >> Flood: is it -- I'm sorry.
[1:57:48] Is it your testimony that
[1:57:51] MR. Ramirez was at the
[1:57:52] NOVEMBER 9 meeting?
[1:57:53] >> Gulley: excuse me again?
[1:57:54] >> Flood: is it your testimony
[1:57:58] that MR. Ramirez was at the
[1:57:59] NOVEMBER 9 meeting that you were
[1:58:02] just talking about?
[1:58:02] >> Gulley: no.
[1:58:03] He was not at that meeting.
[1:58:07] He was not at the edc meetings.
[1:58:08] >> Flood: right.
[1:58:09] I want to make sure the record
[1:58:09] was clear.
[1:58:14] So my question to you is, is
[1:58:18] it -- are you telling this
[1:58:20] tribunal that the issue of
[1:58:20] surprise -- do you understand
[1:58:22] when I say that?
[1:58:23] >> Gulley: the issue of
[1:58:25] surprise about what?
[1:58:28] >> Flood: about changes in a
[1:58:31] fema floodplain maps.
[1:58:32] Does that narrative ring a bell
[1:58:39] in your mind at all?
[1:58:40] >> Gulley: I don't... I'm
[1:58:42] not sure I completely understand
[1:58:44] what you said.
[1:58:46] You mean in that meeting, was
[1:58:48] anyone surprised about that?
[1:58:48] >> Flood: no.
[1:58:50] I'm asking, in that meeting
[1:58:53] where you say this issue of --
[1:58:56] where fema maps was discussed in
[1:58:59] an edc meeting on NOVEMBER 9th,
[1:59:02] right, NOVEMBER 9, 2023?
[1:59:03] >> Gulley: that was the
[1:59:05] meeting we voted on it.
[1:59:06] >> Flood: exactly.
[1:59:09] In that meeting, it is -- would
[1:59:11] it be your testimony that there
[1:59:14] is some sort of discussion about
[1:59:17] whether or not it would be
[1:59:21] credible that MR. Ramirez was
[1:59:25] surprised in 2022 about alleged
[1:59:27] changes in the fema map?
[1:59:32] Was that particular issue
[1:59:32] discussed?
[1:59:36] It's a yes or no question.
[1:59:38] >> Gulley: no, I don't believe
[1:59:41] that detail, was he surprised.
[1:59:42] I don't think we discussed that
[1:59:44] particular part of it.
[1:59:44] >> Flood: okay.
[1:59:48] And at the NOVEMBER 9 edc
[1:59:50] meeting, there was absolutely no
[1:59:51] discussion regarding any sort of
[1:59:54] altered slide or anything like
[1:59:56] that, right?
[1:59:56] >> Gulley: no.
[1:59:59] Not to my knowledge, no.
[1:59:59] >> Flood: no.
[2:00:04] And so what we know is that on
[2:00:08] NOVEMBER 9th, 2023, at an edc
[2:00:11] meeting that convened at
[2:00:12] 8:00 A.M., there was a
[2:00:16] discussion, a spirited
[2:00:19] discussion about whether or not
[2:00:25] the edc board would recommend
[2:00:28] 1,043,000, which was the model,
[2:00:30] or $2 million, which was the
[2:00:31] request, or some other number.
[2:00:36] Is that fair to say?
[2:00:37] >> Gulley: yes.
[2:00:38] But it went in an order.
[2:00:42] First the motion was made and
[2:00:45] voted on.
[2:00:46] >> Flood: okay.
[2:00:47] Object, nonresponse to
[2:00:48] everything after yes.
[2:00:50] So we know -- and that was the
[2:00:53] spirited discussion, correct?
[2:00:55] >> Gulley: it was a spirited
[2:00:57] discussion I would say, yes.
[2:01:00] >> Flood: and MR. Brasleton,
[2:01:04] fair to say, was kind of
[2:01:07] espousing the approval of the
[2:01:09] 2 million, and was advocating
[2:01:10] that we need to support projects
[2:01:11] like that.
[2:01:16] Is that fair to say?
[2:01:17] >> Gulley: probably, yes.
[2:01:18] >> Flood: and it is also true
[2:01:21] that you do not have any
[2:01:23] specific recollection of the
[2:01:25] mayor and her words advocating
[2:01:26] one way or another.
[2:01:30] She simply seconded and voted in
[2:01:32] favor of the one that failed
[2:01:33] 3-6?
[2:01:34] >> Gulley: no, they both
[2:01:37] seemed to be supporting the
[2:01:37] project.
[2:01:39] >> Flood: who was the third
[2:01:40] person that voted?
[2:01:41] The minutes don't reflect it.
[2:01:44] Based on your recollection, who
[2:01:46] was the other member that voted?
[2:01:48] >> Gulley: you know, I don't
[2:01:48] remember.
[2:01:53] But it was on my side of the
[2:01:53] row.
[2:01:55] And therefore, I might not have
[2:01:56] been able to see them, because
[2:01:57] other people between me and
[2:01:58] them.
[2:01:59] But it was someone on my side of
[2:02:02] the row.
[2:02:02] >> Flood: okay.
[2:02:05] And so most definitely when
[2:02:10] y'all voted to support that
[2:02:13] 1,043,000, you absolutely, under
[2:02:14] no circumstances, were
[2:02:16] supporting any sort of false
[2:02:18] narrative regarding fema flood
[2:02:21] maps, fair to say?
[2:02:23] In
[2:02:26] >> Gulley: I was not aware of
[2:02:28] anyone mentioning any date, or
[2:02:29] maps, or anything at that
[2:02:32] meeting.
[2:02:33] >> Flood: okay.
[2:02:38] And was MR. Almaguer at that
[2:02:39] meeting?
[2:02:41] >> Gulley: I believe so.
[2:02:44] i believe he was there.
[2:02:46] He would have been at the far
[2:02:53] end of the row that I was on.
[2:03:07] >> Flood: okay.
[2:03:09] As the petitioner's counsel
[2:03:13] asked you questions, has he ever
[2:03:14] represented you?
[2:03:17] Has MR. Allison ever been your
[2:03:18] lawyer?
[2:03:19] >> Gulley: yes, he has.
[2:03:21] >> Flood: is he currently your
[2:03:22] lawyer?
[2:03:22] >> Gulley: no.
[2:03:25] That was a case some time ago.
[2:03:26] >> Flood: okay.
[2:03:28] Are y'all in any -- are y'all
[2:03:30] business partners?
[2:03:33] >> Gulley: in no way.
[2:03:33] >> Flood: okay.
[2:03:37] This past MAY, MR. Allison was
[2:03:40] married in italy, correct?
[2:03:41] >> Gulley: yes, he was.
[2:03:42] >> Flood: and you went to that
[2:03:44] wedding, didn't you?
[2:03:45] >> Gulley: yes, I did.
[2:03:50] >> Flood: and where was it?
[2:03:54] >> Gulley: in italy.
[2:03:55] Someplace in italy.
[2:03:57] I've never been to italy before.
[2:03:59] >> Flood: it was an
[2:04:00] extraordinarily beautiful place,
[2:04:00] right?
[2:04:02] >> Gulley: it was a beautiful
[2:04:03] place.
[2:04:03] >> Flood: all right.
[2:04:06] And at that wedding that you
[2:04:08] attended, it was a small group
[2:04:11] from corpus christi that went?
[2:04:13] >> Gulley: yeah, pretty
[2:04:14] good-sized group.
[2:04:15] >> Flood: and at that wedding
[2:04:21] that you attended a few months
[2:04:24] ago in MAY --
[2:04:25] >> Gulley: yes.
[2:04:26] >> Flood: at that wedding --
[2:04:27] >> Allison: I'll interpose an
[2:04:28] objection.
[2:04:30] At some point it gets too
[2:04:31] off-track.
[2:04:32] He's made the point in terms of
[2:04:33] we definitely know each other
[2:04:35] and have a relationship.
[2:04:36] >> Flood: a couple more
[2:04:39] followups on that.
[2:04:43] And at that wedding, the
[2:04:45] officiant at that wedding, who
[2:04:49] was the officiant at the
[2:04:51] wedding, who married MR. Allison
[2:04:56] and his new bride, was tammy
[2:04:58] watts, correct?
[2:04:59] >> Gulley: yes.
[2:05:00] >> Flood: and tammy watts is
[2:05:05] the wife of local lawyer michael
[2:05:06] watts, correct?
[2:05:08] >> Gulley: yes.
[2:05:11] >> Flood: and MR. And
[2:05:13] MRS. Watts were there, right?
[2:05:16] >> Gulley: michael and tammy,
[2:05:20] yes.
[2:05:22] >> Flood: and -- I have one
[2:05:26] more question for MR. Gulley.
[2:05:28] MR. Watts' mother is judge
[2:05:31] sander watts, correct?
[2:05:32] >> Gulley: yes.
[2:05:37] >> Flood: all right.
[2:05:44] Now,
[2:05:46] -- can I have a minute to
[2:05:47] confer?
[2:05:49] Just one second.
[2:05:55] >> Paxson: a quick second.
[2:05:56] >> Flood: I pass.
[2:05:57] >> Allison: you pass?
[2:06:00] >> Flood: yes.
[2:06:00] >> Allison: okay.
[2:06:01] >> Flood: I was going to show
[2:06:03] pictures of the wedding, because
[2:06:03] it was fantastic.
[2:06:05] It was beautiful.
[2:06:07] >> Allison: thank you.
[2:06:08] And you are out of the country
[2:06:11] right now, correct?
[2:06:12] >> Gulley: yes.
[2:06:13] >> Allison: why are you out of
[2:06:15] the country?
[2:06:19] >> Gulley: my son -- it's his
[2:06:20] birthday also, but he's
[2:06:22] proposing to his girlfriend of
[2:06:22] eight years.
[2:06:24] They've been together since 10th
[2:06:24] grade.
[2:06:26] >> Allison: I hope she found
[2:06:28] out before we just found out.
[2:06:30] [Laughing]
[2:06:31] >> Gulley: yes.
[2:06:32] >> Allison: okay.
[2:06:32] >> Gulley: it was very nice.
[2:06:35] >> Allison: all of those
[2:06:36] relationships being considered,
[2:06:38] I think the implication is that
[2:06:41] somehow you would maybe be
[2:06:43] untruthful because you and I are
[2:06:45] friends, and I have represented
[2:06:46] you in that case years ago.
[2:06:47] Have you done -- said anything
[2:06:50] in your testimony that is
[2:06:51] untruthful?
[2:06:52] >> Gulley: no.
[2:06:55] >> Allison: thank you, sir.
[2:06:57] >> where are you right now?
[2:07:02] >> Allison: I pass.
[2:07:02] >> Gulley: st. Lucia.
[2:07:03] >> you're not in the united
[2:07:04] states.
[2:07:05] >> Gulley: no.
[2:07:12] >> Flood: when did you go?
[2:07:13] >> Gulley: friday?
[2:07:13] >> Flood: all right.
[2:07:15] >> Gulley: I'm coming back
[2:07:15] tomorrow.
[2:07:16] >> Flood: okay.
[2:07:19] And today is friday the 7th.
[2:07:22] This trial started back on
[2:07:23] JULY 22nd, which is two weeks
[2:07:24] ago.
[2:07:26] Were you in corpus christi on
[2:07:33] JULY 22 and 23?
[2:07:36] >> Gulley: I might have been.
[2:07:38] I was in south texas.
[2:07:44] I was not in corpus.
[2:07:46] >> Flood: you were on a ranch?
[2:07:46] >> Gulley: yeah.
[2:07:48] >> Flood: where is that?
[2:07:52] >> Gulley: it's west of
[2:07:53] fremont.
[2:07:54] >> Flood: not too far.
[2:07:56] Less than 150 miles from corpus
[2:07:58] christi?
[2:07:58] >> Gulley: yes.
[2:07:59] >> Flood: all right.
[2:08:03] So that's where you were on JULY 22nd and 23rd.
[2:08:04] >> Gulley: yes.
[2:08:05] >> Flood: okay.
[2:08:07] I pass.
[2:08:08] >> Allison: nothing further.
[2:08:11] MAY this witness be excused?
[2:08:16] >> Flood: go to the beach.
[2:08:17] >> Paxson: yes.
[2:08:18] >> Allison: I'm going to sign
[2:08:18] off.
[2:08:19] Thank you very much.
[2:08:24] >> Gulley: thank you.
[2:08:24] >> Paxson: MR. Allison, you
[2:08:29] have any more witnesses?
[2:08:30] >> Allison: close.
[2:08:33] I would request a break to
[2:08:34] assess whether or not I need to
[2:08:37] call a rebuttal to a rebuttal.
[2:08:37] >> Paxson: okay.
[2:08:40] I think we're all back.
[2:08:40] All right.
[2:08:45] Then we will reconvene this
[2:08:45] meeting.
[2:08:46] MR. Flood --
[2:08:48] >> Flood: respond.
[2:08:50] >> Paxson: MR. Allison -- on
[2:08:51] your microphone.
[2:08:52] >> Allison: nothing further
[2:08:54] from petitioners.
[2:08:55] >> Paxson: do you rest?
[2:08:57] >> Allison: we rest and close.
[2:08:57] >> Paxson: MR. Flood?
[2:08:59] >> Flood: rest and close.
[2:08:59] >> Paxson: okay.
[2:09:01] At this time, I would like to
[2:09:04] recess until 3:00 P.M.
[2:09:06] We'll call this meeting back in
[2:09:07] session.
[2:09:08] And at this time, I would like
[2:09:10] to recess for 45 minutes to
[2:09:13] allow the attorneys to confer
[2:09:16] >> Paxson: okay.
[2:09:18] We'll call this meeting back
[2:09:19] to session and at this time
[2:09:20] we will go into closing
[2:09:21] statements.
[2:09:33] Gentlemen -- gentlemen, have
[2:09:34] you both reached and
[2:09:36] agreement on the charge?
[2:09:41] >> yes.
[2:09:43] >> yes, there's not a need
[2:09:45] for formal charge conference
[2:09:45] conference.
[2:09:46] >> Paxson: thank you.
[2:09:47] And how much time?
[2:09:48] Would 30 minutes work for
[2:09:50] closing statements for both?
[2:09:51] >> I believe so.
[2:09:55] >> yes.
[2:10:00] Then at this time>> Paxson: then at this
[2:10:06] time -- do either parties
[2:10:07] have anything further before
[2:10:11] we go to closing?
[2:10:13] >> Flood: no.
[2:10:15] >> Allison: no.
[2:10:15] >> Paxson: then MR.
[2:10:19] MR. Allison.
[2:10:21] >> Allison: MAY I proceed?
[2:10:23] >> Paxson: yes.
[2:10:25] >> Allison: first of all,
[2:10:26] thank you for your time and
[2:10:26] your attention.
[2:10:29] To say that this has been
[2:10:32] acrimonious at times, not
[2:10:33] the proceedings, per se, but
[2:10:36] in the community is a
[2:10:38] massive understatement.
[2:10:41] It takes real fortitude so I
[2:10:42] thank each of you for your
[2:10:46] fortitude in staying the
[2:10:48] course, following what's
[2:10:49] required according to the
[2:10:51] city's charter and being
[2:10:53] willing to hear some hard
[2:10:54] truths.
[2:10:58] And it leads us to a moment
[2:11:00] where there is a very
[2:11:01] serious matter that has
[2:11:03] really been a cancer in this
[2:11:06] community for a long time.
[2:11:12] That's the truth.
[2:11:15] We have -- we have
[2:11:15] corruption.
[2:11:17] And it does not -- it's not
[2:11:20] words I like to say.
[2:11:22] It's not something I'm proud
[2:11:23] of.
[2:11:24] It's not something I wish we
[2:11:27] had to deal with.
[2:11:29] It has been so much easier
[2:11:33] for years to go along, get
[2:11:36] along, scratch a back, keep
[2:11:39] the ball moving, and this
[2:11:41] group, though, has had the
[2:11:44] courage to say we have to
[2:11:47] face it.
[2:11:49] I have zero personally -- I
[2:11:51] cannot be more candid than
[2:11:52] to just be blunt.
[2:11:59] I have zero desire to do
[2:12:01] anything but enrich and
[2:12:05] improve my community, and it
[2:12:08] is painful, it hurts to have
[2:12:10] to face these issues and be
[2:12:13] the ones to say that's wrong
[2:12:16] and we can't do that anymore
[2:12:17] anymore.
[2:12:19] In a criminal case -- again,
[2:12:21] we've said a thousand times,
[2:12:24] this is not a criminal case.
[2:12:27] No one wants for there to be
[2:12:29] a verdict that sends
[2:12:30] somebody to jail.
[2:12:31] That's just putting a life
[2:12:33] in jail is a hard thing to
[2:12:33] do.
[2:12:35] Of course, we're not doing
[2:12:35] that here.
[2:12:38] In a civil case no one wants
[2:12:41] to -- they really don't.
[2:12:43] Large verdicts or sending
[2:12:44] the aggrieved family members
[2:12:47] in a death case home is
[2:12:49] painful for a jury.
[2:12:51] No one wants to do that.
[2:12:53] Just like here, no one wants
[2:12:58] to really have to deal with
[2:13:01] the underbelly of this city,
[2:13:03] which has been the breeding
[2:13:06] ground for the mayor for too
[2:13:10] long.
[2:13:12] It is serious, and it
[2:13:15] requires serious people, and
[2:13:17] you have and are stepping up
[2:13:18] to that task.
[2:13:20] I mean, no one wants to do
[2:13:20] it.
[2:13:22] No one wants to have to deal
[2:13:24] with the cancer, but we have
[2:13:25] to.
[2:13:29] In this case it is very
[2:13:30] straightforward.
[2:13:33] I mean, look at all the
[2:13:35] things, the fights that have
[2:13:37] happened in connection with
[2:13:43] what happened here.
[2:13:46] It is manifestly evident
[2:13:48] that bad things, wrong
[2:13:51] things, any inappropriate
[2:13:53] things, unlawful things,
[2:13:55] altering of documents,
[2:13:57] intentional changing of
[2:13:59] documents that are from a
[2:14:01] federal website.
[2:14:02] They don't like the word
[2:14:04] documents sometimes, federal
[2:14:05] writing is the way it is
[2:14:08] under the statute.
[2:14:11] That is horrific.
[2:14:16] And the idea that somebody
[2:14:18] would go to you all and run
[2:14:21] through a process and be
[2:14:22] arrogant enough that they
[2:14:24] can do that, I can walk
[2:14:26] through this process, I get
[2:14:29] to lie to ccrecd, they said,
[2:14:32] and lie to type b and send
[2:14:33] the lie to the city council
[2:14:37] so I can get $2 million.
[2:14:40] That is in the most horrific
[2:14:42] way the greatest offense
[2:14:44] when you all have such a
[2:14:46] huge responsibility to
[2:14:49] protect taxpayer money.
[2:14:58] And they tricked you 90
[2:14:59] shame on them.
[2:15:00] Let them not trick you again
[2:15:03] again, which is what we're
[2:15:05] here for now because everett
[2:15:07] roy is correct, it's never
[2:15:08] too wrong to make the right
[2:15:12] decision, and we have to,
[2:15:14] because what we tolerate we
[2:15:18] become.
[2:15:21] If we don't act -- and I say
[2:15:23] we because it's we.
[2:15:26] You've seen me, I don't move
[2:15:26] move.
[2:15:28] I move one direction slowly
[2:15:31] and steady, and you have too
[2:15:32] too.
[2:15:36] if we do not act, we become
[2:15:46] the problem.
[2:15:47] I want to make sure I don't
[2:15:49] take too much time.
[2:15:51] And I'm going to avoid some
[2:15:52] of my slides here for a
[2:15:54] minute because it is so
[2:15:56] important to just be honest
[2:15:57] about it.
[2:16:00] If we do not act, we become
[2:16:03] the problem.
[2:16:05] And we cannot do that.
[2:16:09] It has hurt this community
[2:16:12] too hard for too long.
[2:16:14] And what do we know?
[2:16:17] We know that -- we know
[2:16:18] phillip knew.
[2:16:20] Of course he knew.
[2:16:22] He lies to you and he says I
[2:16:24] had no -- I'm an architect,
[2:16:26] I've been here all my life,
[2:16:27] I do all this work for the
[2:16:30] city and I had no idea about
[2:16:30] floodplains.
[2:16:41] You are killing me.
[2:16:43] Golly, that man could not
[2:16:44] take a risk for litigation
[2:16:47] if his life depended on it.
[2:16:48] It's in a floodplain, you
[2:16:49] know it's in a flood, you
[2:16:51] will have to raise base
[2:16:52] elevation.
[2:16:54] He told them, of course he
[2:16:54] did.
[2:16:58] And I went to the ccrecd
[2:16:59] meeting and of course he
[2:17:00] told the mayor.
[2:17:02] So of course she knew from
[2:17:03] the beginning.
[2:17:04] Even if you give her the
[2:17:06] benefit of the doubt of all
[2:17:07] the phone calls in the
[2:17:08] record, I think there was
[2:17:10] about 100 of them, we just
[2:17:11] focused on the ones that are
[2:17:12] closer in time to certain
[2:17:14] critical dates, even if you
[2:17:18] say that phillip and devin
[2:17:19] bhakta didn't tell her, we
[2:17:22] know beginning from the
[2:17:22] ccrecd process when they
[2:17:25] voted on it, she knew.
[2:17:28] She knew about the lie.
[2:17:30] She knew when it says in the
[2:17:34] application, quote, newly
[2:17:35] defined.
[2:17:36] That's a lie.
[2:17:37] We know when you look at the
[2:17:40] slide, it was intentionally
[2:17:40] offered.
[2:17:43] Not according to doug, but
[2:17:45] according to police,
[2:17:47] according to the independent
[2:17:49] evaluation, according to
[2:17:51] every one of your common
[2:17:51] sense.
[2:17:53] I know you know it was
[2:17:56] intentionally altered and
[2:17:59] they removed dates
[2:18:01] specifically to give it the
[2:18:02] appearance that it was not
[2:18:03] published in advance of
[2:18:05] their project being
[2:18:07] conceived.
[2:18:09] That is certain, and she,
[2:18:11] the mayor, knew about it.
[2:18:15] She was told about it.
[2:18:16] And we know that they
[2:18:18] persisted in the lie that
[2:18:21] she aided the fraud that she
[2:18:24] aided through the ccrecd
[2:18:25] process.
[2:18:28] We know they perpetuateed it
[2:18:31] because we have it on video
[2:18:31] tape.
[2:18:33] Phillip says fema, fema,
[2:18:33] fema.
[2:18:36] And we know that he used a
[2:18:39] slide, at ted slide, forged
[2:18:40] slide, because he
[2:18:42] intentionally altered it.
[2:18:44] We know that he did that
[2:18:44] fraud.
[2:18:46] It's certainly -- we're not
[2:18:47] here on the criminal part of
[2:18:49] it, but it is certainly
[2:18:50] civil fraud, which is
[2:18:51] defined in the paperwork you
[2:18:53] have, an intentional
[2:18:55] misrepresentation.
[2:18:56] you've already found that it
[2:18:58] is essentially fraud by your
[2:19:00] finding that they were in
[2:19:02] default of the agreement
[2:19:06] with type b board.
[2:19:10] That fraud got perpetuateed
[2:19:11] through ccrecd, through type
[2:19:14] b, and then came here on a
[2:19:16] first reading and was
[2:19:16] continued.
[2:19:18] You all -- not you all, but
[2:19:19] that council was lied to at
[2:19:23] the time, relied upon that
[2:19:25] false representation, relied
[2:19:26] upon the false slide, which
[2:19:28] is the definition of fraud
[2:19:31] in the paperwork before you.
[2:19:33] And you voted to approve it
[2:19:35] in reading one.
[2:19:38] Then they got caught and
[2:19:40] then everything changed.
[2:19:42] Before that let me make sure
[2:19:44] I say this on reading one
[2:19:46] because what we know
[2:19:48] happened is that the mayor
[2:19:49] mayor -- it's on video and
[2:19:51] you've seen it.
[2:19:54] She is the only person who
[2:19:57] took that $2 million for her
[2:19:58] friends by the hand
[2:20:00] 6ing
[2:20:02] 6,
[2:20:04] starting at ccrecd, came
[2:20:05] here and sat here in that
[2:20:09] chair at council on FEBRUARY 20, 2024, and said
[2:20:11] to michael hunter, it
[2:20:11] changed.
[2:20:13] Fema changed.
[2:20:16] It changed, it changed.
[2:20:19] Even though gulley had told
[2:20:23] her the exact opposite in
[2:20:26] NOVEMBER of 2023 to her face
[2:20:27] face.
[2:20:29] She came in and she advocate
[2:20:31] advocated for that which she
[2:20:33] had specifically been told
[2:20:36] was false.
[2:20:40] And then when ajit david
[2:20:43] brought it to light, what do
[2:20:44] we see?
[2:20:46] 14 phone calls in one day
[2:20:47] before they withdraw it on
[2:20:50] FEBRUARY 27th because they
[2:20:52] realized, peter realizes
[2:20:55] there's a fraud.
[2:20:57] And he sums it up this way.
[2:21:01] Let me see if I can play.
[2:21:02] >> the request of
[2:21:02] information from the
[2:21:04] applicant, I don't have that
[2:21:04] that.
[2:21:06] They haven't given it to me.
[2:21:08] I'm not giving any
[2:21:08] recommendation.
[2:21:09] I'm putting it on the agenda
[2:21:10] agenda, I was asked to.
[2:21:12] So you consider it.
[2:21:14] You have to make your
[2:21:15] recommendation.
[2:21:18] >> but you did let the city
[2:21:21] council know that there were
[2:21:22] some -- you know, some
[2:21:24] improper information, some
[2:21:25] tampering and all that
[2:21:26] involved.
[2:21:27] You let them know?
[2:21:28] >> I let them know.
[2:21:29] We're going to let them know
[2:21:30] again tomorrow in executive
[2:21:30] session.
[2:21:31] I already have an executive
[2:21:32] session posted.
[2:21:33] >> okay.
[2:21:34] Peter, when does executive
[2:21:35] session happen?
[2:21:36] Does it happen towards the
[2:21:37] end?
[2:21:39] >> you know, no.
[2:21:41] When we break for lunch most
[2:21:43] likely.
[2:21:44] I can't remember how many
[2:21:44] items are on there.
[2:21:46] Probably on the first break,
[2:21:49] the lunch break.
[2:21:50] So 2:30.
[2:21:51] >> is it after public
[2:21:52] comment or before?
[2:21:53] >> no, it's after public
[2:21:54] comment.
[2:21:55] >> okay, no problem.
[2:21:57] >> yeah, after public
[2:21:59] comment.
[2:22:01] >> I was just surprised that
[2:22:05] council is still willing to
[2:22:06] consider this after they
[2:22:07] know what was done?
[2:22:10] And on that website, on the
[2:22:12] fema website, it seven says
[2:22:14] this is a united states
[2:22:15] government portal.
[2:22:16] >> yeah.
[2:22:17] >> on the very top.
[2:22:19] >> right, it was -- and when
[2:22:22] you read the entire
[2:22:23] powerpoint, it's so obvious
[2:22:25] that the reader or the
[2:22:26] writer wanted one to be led
[2:22:28] to believe that the fema was
[2:22:30] just recent, even words like
[2:22:31] recently released and this
[2:22:32] and that.
[2:22:33] And part of it goes back to
[2:22:34] the narrative, mike
[2:22:36] culberson said hey, this has
[2:22:38] to be tied to infrastructure
[2:22:40] infrastructure, and so then
[2:22:42] they catch the scheme that
[2:22:43] okay, fema floodplain,
[2:22:48] that's infrastructure.
[2:22:50] [Indiscernible].
[2:22:52] And they stuck with it.
[2:22:54] And then they developed a
[2:22:56] narrative to fit it, but
[2:22:58] they just found -- people
[2:23:00] would say, shit they should
[2:23:01] have known about this a long
[2:23:03] time ago, like councilmember
[2:23:10] hunter.
[2:23:12] >> Allison: here's where
[2:23:12] you need to be praised
[2:23:14] because it's so difficult.
[2:23:15] It was learned.
[2:23:17] It was figured out what
[2:23:21] happened a long time ago,
[2:23:23] okay, but this community
[2:23:33] toll rates and we become.
[2:23:35] -- tolerates and we become.
[2:23:37] If we continue to tolerate,
[2:23:44] all we do -- next time we
[2:23:46] might as well say hey, you
[2:23:47] forged the document, I know
[2:23:48] you forged it, I know it's a
[2:23:49] crime.
[2:23:50] I know it's wrong even if
[2:23:51] it's not a criminal act.
[2:23:52] I know that it's fraud.
[2:23:54] I know that you want your
[2:23:54] $2 million.
[2:23:59] I know you're my friend.
[2:24:00] And I'm going to give it to
[2:24:04] you.
[2:24:08] We cannot be that.
[2:24:13] And the mayor was told by
[2:24:15] zanoni in no uncertain terms
[2:24:16] terms, said it several times
[2:24:18] in his testimony, and the
[2:24:20] mayor was told by ajit in
[2:24:21] public comment, and the
[2:24:23] mayor was told in executive
[2:24:28] session and the mayor was
[2:24:30] told again by ajit and the
[2:24:33] mayor was told again by ajit
[2:24:36] ajit's email to her, and it
[2:24:37] was spelled out in another
[2:24:40] email, all of this is in
[2:24:42] evidence by ajit to peter
[2:24:47] zanoni on MAY 7th.
[2:24:49] And what does she do?
[2:24:50] She gets in her deposition
[2:24:52] and she says two things,
[2:24:53] both of which were a lie,
[2:24:56] either one of which is
[2:24:57] perjury.
[2:24:58] She says I wasn't kept in
[2:24:59] the loop.
[2:25:00] I don't know how much more
[2:25:01] you can be in the loop.
[2:25:05] And she said, I had no idea
[2:25:08] there was anything illegal.
[2:25:10] I guess what the definition
[2:25:15] of "is" is.
[2:25:17] No one said the word illegal
[2:25:18] illegal.
[2:25:20] Just because I got told,
[2:25:22] from the mayor's perspective
[2:25:23] perspective, just because I
[2:25:26] got told at ccrecd that it
[2:25:28] was false, just because I
[2:25:30] knew they were getting
[2:25:31] $2 million based on a false
[2:25:32] statement, just because now
[2:25:35] it's getting revealed that
[2:25:36] they altered a slide.
[2:25:38] No one said there was
[2:25:39] anything bad about it or
[2:25:39] illegal.
[2:25:40] Shucks.
[2:25:42] She has two choices, both of
[2:25:43] which qualify for removal.
[2:25:46] She's either just grossly
[2:25:47] incompetent, really just
[2:25:49] have to be incompetent to be
[2:25:50] removed, or what's more
[2:25:52] likely is she participated
[2:25:56] clearly in the malfeasance.
[2:25:57] She participated by advocate
[2:25:59] advocating at ccrecd, she
[2:26:01] participated by seconding
[2:26:04] the motion, she participated
[2:26:05] while she was violating her
[2:26:08] oath of confidentiality by
[2:26:12] texting did he veteran
[2:26:14] texting deven bhakta when
[2:26:15] there was a closed meeting
[2:26:16] and on the phone with him
[2:26:17] for 14 minutes.
[2:26:18] And you are absolutely and
[2:26:20] should infer that she of
[2:26:21] course talked to him about
[2:26:22] what happened at the meeting
[2:26:23] meeting.
[2:26:25] That is your prerogative as
[2:26:28] the judges is to infer.
[2:26:30] There's a definition of
[2:26:30] circumstantial evidence in
[2:26:31] the documents in front of
[2:26:33] you, and you are free to
[2:26:34] make the inference that she
[2:26:36] talked about what happened
[2:26:38] at that meeting on NOVEMBER
[2:26:39] NOVEMBER 9th after she left
[2:26:41] it and probably told deven
[2:26:43] we didn't get a vote for a
[2:26:44] million, but don't worry,
[2:26:45] we're going to carry it on.
[2:26:47] Of course she talked about
[2:26:48] confidential information.
[2:26:55] Aiding, promoting the fraud.
[2:26:56] And then she came in front
[2:26:59] and sat in that chair and
[2:27:00] said to michael hunter and
[2:27:02] everybody, knowing it to be
[2:27:04] unclue, she said, it changed
[2:27:06] changed, it changed, it
[2:27:07] changed.
[2:27:08] And then when peter said we
[2:27:10] have a problem, what did she
[2:27:11] do?
[2:27:13] She said I want it on the
[2:27:13] agenda anyway.
[2:27:15] We're going to give my
[2:27:18] friends $2 million.
[2:27:21] I want this project that can
[2:27:26] balance
[2:27:27] cannibalizes, doesn't
[2:27:30] qualify, that would get
[2:27:33] twice as much as the model
[2:27:34] on ccrecd.
[2:27:35] Doesn't qualify.
[2:27:36] I want this project, she
[2:27:37] said, that has low-paying
[2:27:39] jobs compared to what we
[2:27:41] normally give projects --
[2:27:41] give awards to.
[2:27:43] I want this project that
[2:27:44] even though it's already
[2:27:46] coming in the words of
[2:27:48] everett roy, it's already
[2:27:48] coming.
[2:27:49] And if you look at the
[2:27:51] emails, they say yeah, we're
[2:27:52] still coming.
[2:27:54] We MAY have to finish out
[2:27:56] the shell on the rooftop bar
[2:27:56] later.
[2:27:57] It's coming.
[2:27:59] She wants this project that
[2:28:01] does not qualify for any of
[2:28:02] the reasons that you are
[2:28:05] supposed to award an
[2:28:06] incentive award.
[2:28:09] And she kept promoteing it.
[2:28:10] And when she was told don't
[2:28:12] put it on the agenda, and I
[2:28:14] don't recommend it by peter,
[2:28:16] she said, I want it on the
[2:28:18] agenda anyway and she got
[2:28:19] her way because that is the
[2:28:21] power of the office of pair
[2:28:24] mayor office of mayor
[2:28:25] and that is abused by this
[2:28:34] repetitive conduct.
[2:28:35] I think I've spoke to all
[2:28:38] three of the articles.
[2:28:41] She was aiding a fraud, and
[2:28:43] that is incompetence, it is
[2:28:45] neglect of -- it's a willful
[2:28:47] neglect of her duties.
[2:28:50] It is malfeasance.
[2:28:53] It is misconduct to aid
[2:28:55] somebody getting $2 million
[2:28:56] in taxpayer money knowing
[2:28:58] there's a false narrative
[2:29:01] and a false document.
[2:29:04] That's article number 1.
[2:29:06] She's committed perjury by
[2:29:09] lying, acting like she
[2:29:11] doesn't know when of course
[2:29:13] she knew what the results of
[2:29:15] the investigation were.
[2:29:16] And of course she knew there
[2:29:18] was illegal or wrongful or
[2:29:20] inappropriate conduct, and
[2:29:23] don't let them parse words.
[2:29:25] And of course she knows when
[2:29:26] she's at the ccrecd meeting
[2:29:27] she's not supposed to leave
[2:29:29] there and call her buddy and
[2:29:32] give them an update.
[2:29:34] On those articles,
[2:29:36] respectfully, follow the
[2:29:37] evidence.
[2:29:39] Make the hard findings.
[2:29:40] And she should be removed
[2:29:43] because if we don't, she
[2:29:49] laughs her way to the next.
[2:29:50] And what we tolerate we
[2:29:51] become.
[2:29:52] I'm going to reserve some
[2:29:54] time, thank you.
[2:29:54] >> Paxson: thank you, MR.
[2:30:03] MR. Allison.
[2:30:05] >> Flood: MAY I proceed?
[2:30:06] I'll wait until my clock
[2:30:07] gets up.
[2:30:08] >> Paxson: yes, thank you.
[2:30:15] >> Flood: thank you.
[2:30:18] We have spent days hearing
[2:30:19] evidence about events that
[2:30:20] happened more than two years
[2:30:22] ago and now all that
[2:30:23] evidence comes down to
[2:30:24] something very simple.
[2:30:26] And there were four articles
[2:30:26] articles.
[2:30:28] Now there are three.
[2:30:29] Petitioners brought them.
[2:30:30] They have the burden to
[2:30:30] prove them.
[2:30:31] And after all this evidence
[2:30:32] you're going to ask yourself
[2:30:34] one question on each one,
[2:30:35] did they prove it?
[2:30:36] And when you do that, what
[2:30:38] you do is you use the jury
[2:30:38] charge.
[2:30:39] And that is the document
[2:30:42] that's been handed to you.
[2:30:43] After all of this evidence
[2:30:45] you're going to ask yourself
[2:30:46] that one question, it all
[2:30:49] started with that altered
[2:30:52] screenshot of the fema
[2:30:53] document that was turned
[2:30:54] into a powerpoint slide and
[2:30:55] the narrative it supported.
[2:30:57] The mayor did not create
[2:30:58] that slide.
[2:30:59] She didn't create the
[2:31:01] narrative around it, she
[2:31:02] didn't prepare the
[2:31:04] presentation, she didn't
[2:31:08] write the agenda memorandum.
[2:31:09] And most importantly, where
[2:31:10] is the evidence that on
[2:31:12] FEBRUARY 20th she knew the
[2:31:16] false narrative that is the
[2:31:17] key to the case?
[2:31:19] I want you to go straight to
[2:31:20] question number 1 because
[2:31:22] there's a reason why the
[2:31:25] petitioner's brought DR. Gul
[2:31:26] DR. Gulley to you in
[2:31:27] rebuttal because they didn't
[2:31:29] meet this in their case and
[2:31:33] chief and that is did she
[2:31:34] aid a fraud because of the
[2:31:37] the -- if you read the last
[2:31:38] sentence on question number
[2:31:40] 1 on that last part of it,
[2:31:41] it says alleged need for
[2:31:44] complying with newly-defined
[2:31:46] fema flood maps and/or alter
[2:31:47] altered fema screenshot.
[2:31:48] That was the narrative.
[2:31:50] And the narrative was
[2:31:51] informed by this altered
[2:31:51] screenshot.
[2:31:54] And there's no doubt that
[2:31:59] screenshot was altered for
[2:32:00] sure.
[2:32:01] DR. Gulley declined to
[2:32:02] testify that that narrative
[2:32:03] was discussed.
[2:32:06] That's the fraud.
[2:32:07] You just saw him this
[2:32:08] morning.
[2:32:10] He said no, the narrative
[2:32:11] wasn't discussed.
[2:32:13] What he discussed was that
[2:32:16] fema maps had changed in
[2:32:16] 2020.
[2:32:19] And also you heard counsel a
[2:32:21] few minutes ago say that on
[2:32:22] FEBRUARY 20th they tricked
[2:32:23] the council.
[2:32:27] Well, yeah, they sure did.
[2:32:29] You heard and you have it in
[2:32:33] your record what MR. Pusley
[2:32:34] said about it, MR. Roy said
[2:32:35] about it.
[2:32:36] Obviously we know what the
[2:32:37] mayor said, but also
[2:32:39] remember you know that MR.
[2:32:40] MR. Culberson was standing
[2:32:42] right here and when the
[2:32:44] mayor espouseed this false
[2:32:46] narrative that she had been
[2:32:48] sold in the agenda memo and
[2:32:50] said it changed, it changed.
[2:32:52] Well, we weren't here, we
[2:32:55] were at the rta building.
[2:32:57] MR. Culberson said yeah, it
[2:32:58] changed, it changed.
[2:32:59] So the idea that she was
[2:33:00] promoteing a false narrative
[2:33:02] on FEBRUARY 20th would
[2:33:04] require you to have a
[2:33:06] witness who comes and says
[2:33:07] that she was informed of it
[2:33:12] before that, and DR. Gulley
[2:33:13] couldn't do that.
[2:33:14] He was incapable of agreeing
[2:33:15] that she was told about the
[2:33:16] false narrative.
[2:33:18] So on question number one,
[2:33:20] the answer, because it's
[2:33:21] dependent on that, it's
[2:33:22] dependent on that.
[2:33:25] The answer is no on question
[2:33:28] number one.
[2:33:31] And think about it.
[2:33:33] If a false narrative was
[2:33:35] really actually discussed at
[2:33:39] the edc meeting, really,
[2:33:40] they approved a false
[2:33:42] narrative for a million
[2:33:44] dollars 43,000, what are we
[2:33:45] doing here?
[2:33:47] We've got a whole board over
[2:33:47] there we have to talk about.
[2:33:49] So we know that cannot be,
[2:33:51] that cannot be the basis of
[2:33:54] this aiding the false
[2:33:54] narrative.
[2:33:56] It really was a swing and a
[2:33:56] MISS.
[2:33:58] There's a reason they
[2:33:59] brought them.
[2:33:59] They don't meet.
[2:34:02] And the reason I bring that
[2:34:04] up is that, again, I
[2:34:06] suggested it a minute ago.
[2:34:07] What you have to do is
[2:34:08] you've got to look at each
[2:34:10] one and you've got to think
[2:34:10] about all the evidence that
[2:34:11] you've gotten.
[2:34:12] You've gotten a lot of
[2:34:14] evidence and you've got to
[2:34:15] say where is it?
[2:34:16] You've got to be able to
[2:34:17] point to the thing that
[2:34:19] proves by a preponderance of
[2:34:21] the evidence that she can be
[2:34:22] removed from office or
[2:34:24] suspended or disqualified or
[2:34:28] censureed for promoteing
[2:34:31] something that council even
[2:34:32] agrees and admits that the
[2:34:33] council got tricked on.
[2:34:35] And MR. Culberson agreed, no
[2:34:37] no, it changed, it changed,
[2:34:39] yeah.
[2:34:44] So that is -- plus there's
[2:34:46] also a very important part
[2:34:47] and the definition of fraud
[2:34:48] is included in your jury
[2:34:48] charge.
[2:34:49] I'm going to recommend to
[2:34:50] you when you go back, go
[2:34:52] back, get the jury charge
[2:34:54] out, read it all through.
[2:34:56] What usually happens is you
[2:34:58] you -- in regular cases we
[2:35:00] get -- I can't see my clock.
[2:35:01] Thank you.
[2:35:03] Sorry, I apologize, thank
[2:35:04] you.
[2:35:05] You just read the whole
[2:35:06] thing through.
[2:35:08] So one of the important
[2:35:10] parts about fraud is that
[2:35:11] there has to be reliance.
[2:35:13] And I know this that you've
[2:35:15] already heard about that,
[2:35:16] you've heard about that from
[2:35:17] daniel ray and I just will
[2:35:19] say I empathize with the
[2:35:20] issue of there's got to be
[2:35:21] be -- we've got to be able
[2:35:24] to do something about this.
[2:35:26] I know COUNCILMAN Campos
[2:35:28] said something about that in
[2:35:29] her statements I brought up
[2:35:30] earlier and I understand
[2:35:30] that.
[2:35:31] But fraud is fraud and
[2:35:33] you're working with a legal
[2:35:33] definition.
[2:35:36] And the definition requires
[2:35:37] reliance.
[2:35:39] And we know there was no
[2:35:41] reliance because the type b
[2:35:43] board did not recommend the
[2:35:46] incentive based on the
[2:35:46] narrative.
[2:35:47] We know that.
[2:35:49] She came and testified.
[2:35:51] MR. Roy agreed that was not
[2:35:52] the reason for it.
[2:35:56] So the causeal connection
[2:35:59] between the false narrative
[2:36:01] that existed, there's a
[2:36:04] break in the causation
[2:36:05] between that, what we
[2:36:07] lawyers call causation.
[2:36:09] There's not a connection
[2:36:11] between that and the
[2:36:12] incentive.
[2:36:15] And so a bad slide and the
[2:36:19] narrative it supported, not
[2:36:21] done by the mayor, not
[2:36:23] promoteed by her.
[2:36:27] Once it's found out there's
[2:36:28] an investigation, an
[2:36:30] investigation that by all
[2:36:31] accounts everybody agrees
[2:36:33] that it was not completed by
[2:36:35] APRIL 23rd, we know that.
[2:36:37] In fact, there were motions
[2:36:38] made here to complete it
[2:36:41] before there was ever a vote
[2:36:41] vote.
[2:36:43] Which takes us to question
[2:36:45] number 2 -- which takes us
[2:36:47] to question number 2, and
[2:36:48] again, when counsel just now
[2:36:51] argued the [Indiscernible]
[2:36:54] Thing, he went didn't bring
[2:36:55] up the jury charge.
[2:36:57] Let's look at it.
[2:36:58] Did pallet guajardo, when
[2:37:00] testifying at mayor, perjure
[2:37:02] herself on AUGUST 6th, the
[2:37:03] date of the deposition, by
[2:37:06] stating, so I think what
[2:37:08] you're telling me is during
[2:37:09] that time frame, which is
[2:37:10] not defined, so you are
[2:37:12] being asked to guess, I
[2:37:15] guess, what that question is
[2:37:17] is, you were not in the loop
[2:37:21] as to what the findings were
[2:37:24] for the investigation.
[2:37:27] I do invite you to read that
[2:37:27] deposition.
[2:37:29] Officer garcia, corpus
[2:37:30] christi police department,
[2:37:32] if you look at the police
[2:37:32] department records that you
[2:37:36] have, he spent AUGUST 8th,
[2:37:39] 9th and 11th -- or maybe it
[2:37:40] was OCTOBER 8th, 9th and
[2:37:42] and -- sorry, I'm getting my
[2:37:48] dates mixed up.
[2:37:49] OCTOBER taking that
[2:37:49] deposition.
[2:37:50] What you find out when you
[2:37:51] read the entire deposition
[2:37:53] is that the word findings
[2:37:56] was entirely consistent with
[2:37:56] the term conclusions that
[2:37:58] was used by the witness over
[2:38:00] and over and over again.
[2:38:05] And so the question, so what
[2:38:07] you're telling me is that
[2:38:09] during that time frame
[2:38:10] you're not in loop for what
[2:38:13] the conclusions were for the
[2:38:14] investigation, that's a
[2:38:14] completely different
[2:38:14] question.
[2:38:15] It's not a completely
[2:38:16] different question.
[2:38:20] The word findings was
[2:38:21] absolutely, it's an easy
[2:38:23] inference to take from the
[2:38:24] testimony that obviously
[2:38:25] what she was referring to is
[2:38:26] is, well, no, there were no
[2:38:28] conclusions, we all know
[2:38:29] that.
[2:38:31] That was said by MR. Zanoni
[2:38:33] and by council members on
[2:38:34] APRIL 23rd.
[2:38:36] Also, we know that on APRIL
[2:38:37] APRIL 16th it wasn't
[2:38:38] complete.
[2:38:39] It was -- in fact, that was
[2:38:41] the whole point of maybe we
[2:38:42] should delay this thing so
[2:38:43] they can complete the
[2:38:44] investigation.
[2:38:45] So whether or not there were
[2:38:49] findings on APRIL 23rd
[2:38:51] when that vote took place or
[2:38:54] before, we know that there
[2:38:55] weren't.
[2:38:56] Were there facts?
[2:38:58] yes.
[2:38:59] Were there things that they
[2:39:00] were learning?
[2:39:00] Yes.
[2:39:01] But were there findings or
[2:39:03] conclusions?
[2:39:03] Absolutely not.
[2:39:05] There's no evidence that
[2:39:05] there was.
[2:39:06] There's zero.
[2:39:08] So next question.
[2:39:10] And again, I'm on page 6 of
[2:39:12] the jury charge, question
[2:39:13] number two.
[2:39:14] So therefore you had no
[2:39:15] knowledge that it was
[2:39:16] something illegal in the
[2:39:18] process that you were voting
[2:39:18] on.
[2:39:20] Again, I invite you to read
[2:39:21] that deposition because in
[2:39:23] the context illegal was a
[2:39:26] finding or a conclusion of
[2:39:28] illegality, and there wasn't
[2:39:29] wasn't.
[2:39:32] There simply was not.
[2:39:34] The idea behind the petition
[2:39:37] petitioner's theory is that
[2:39:39] when she denied knowledge of
[2:39:41] this criminal wrongdoing
[2:39:41] that was discussed in
[2:39:44] depositions in 2025 that
[2:39:46] they tried to put their own
[2:39:49] conclusions about criminal
[2:39:50] findings, they tried to
[2:39:52] shove that in her mouth.
[2:39:54] And she simply refused to do
[2:39:55] that.
[2:39:58] So that is not percentage.
[2:39:59] And I talked about that in
[2:40:00] my opening.
[2:40:02] That's a witness using the
[2:40:06] correct language that, no, I
[2:40:07] had not received any
[2:40:09] findings and I had not
[2:40:11] received any conclusions.
[2:40:16] So the answer on number 2 is
[2:40:17] that no, she did not commit
[2:40:19] perjury by answering those
[2:40:20] questions that way.
[2:40:22] the facts date that she
[2:40:25] didn't.
[2:40:31] Three is an interesting
[2:40:31] question.
[2:40:33] So what it is is we're now
[2:40:38] down to the -- a phone call
[2:40:41] and a text message.
[2:40:44] And the proposal is that a
[2:40:45] sitting mayor elected,
[2:40:47] properly elected, is removed
[2:40:49] from office for that text
[2:40:53] message and a phone call.
[2:40:54] And that is something that I
[2:40:57] hope this body takes very,
[2:40:59] very seriously and strongly
[2:41:05] considers what that means.
[2:41:06] And what you have to do is
[2:41:10] you have to understand that
[2:41:10] the confidentiality
[2:41:16] agreement was not broken
[2:41:17] they want you to believe
[2:41:18] that there's something
[2:41:20] sinister about a text
[2:41:22] message by by an he could
[2:41:28] member by by an edc member
[2:41:32] what is the item number?
[2:41:33] He was not a member and the
[2:41:36] edc is a membership board,
[2:41:37] every member gets an agenda
[2:41:39] that tells them what's on
[2:41:39] there.
[2:41:43] So what you have to do --
[2:41:46] and the text messages were
[2:41:47] what is the economic impact
[2:41:51] of your project?
[2:41:52] So it wasn't, hey, the board
[2:41:55] is leaning this way.
[2:41:56] This is what's happening in
[2:41:56] our meeting.
[2:41:57] Here's what everyone said.
[2:41:58] This is what people are
[2:41:59] saying.
[2:42:01] What is the economic impact
[2:42:02] of your project?
[2:42:03] That question does not
[2:42:04] reveal confidential
[2:42:05] information.
[2:42:07] He didn't respond.
[2:42:08] It seeks information from
[2:42:09] the person who already
[2:42:11] possesses it.
[2:42:13] And then they point to a
[2:42:15] telephone call and they ask
[2:42:19] you to assume, they ask you
[2:42:23] to assume.
[2:42:24] You can't.
[2:42:26] When there is evidence you
[2:42:29] can't assume.
[2:42:30] Our system doesn't decide
[2:42:32] cases on assumptions, it
[2:42:33] decides them on evidence.
[2:42:37] So ask yourself what is the
[2:42:37] evidence?
[2:42:43] There is exactly one witness
[2:42:45] who testified about the
[2:42:46] content of that conversation
[2:42:51] and that was mayor paulette
[2:42:51] guajardo.
[2:42:53] And she was asked directly
[2:42:54] what happened during the edc
[2:42:55] meeting, I mean what
[2:42:57] happened -- she was asked
[2:42:58] directly whether she
[2:43:01] revealed to MR. Bhakta what
[2:43:02] happened during the edc
[2:43:04] meeting, and her answer was
[2:43:07] a very simple one, she said
[2:43:09] I would not have done that,
[2:43:11] no.
[2:43:13] That's evidence.
[2:43:15] In fact, it's the only
[2:43:18] evidence you have.
[2:43:19] They could have subpoenaed
[2:43:21] MR. Bhakta to come in here
[2:43:23] and ask him a bunch of
[2:43:24] questions about that.
[2:43:25] They chose not to.
[2:43:27] There is no inference
[2:43:28] available -- and you are
[2:43:29] allowed reasonable inference
[2:43:31] inferences, however when
[2:43:36] there's direct evidence of
[2:43:37] something you candidate.
[2:43:38] So there is direct evidence
[2:43:39] in this record about what
[2:43:43] was said and it was not
[2:43:45] whether she discussed what
[2:43:45] happened.
[2:43:46] That's the only evidence
[2:43:48] before you about what was
[2:43:49] actually said, that's it.
[2:43:51] There is no other evidence.
[2:43:52] There's no witness who
[2:43:54] testified that she disclosed
[2:43:55] confidential deliberations.
[2:43:57] There's no documents showing
[2:43:59] it, there's no text message
[2:43:59] revealing it, there's no
[2:44:01] recording, no email, no
[2:44:02] admission.
[2:44:03] And what's interesting,
[2:44:05] there's no evidence that the
[2:44:06] applicant did anything
[2:44:12] differently after that.
[2:44:14] So that is a pillar of their
[2:44:17] case, and we don't -- you
[2:44:19] don't have any additional
[2:44:20] evidence than what the
[2:44:22] petitioner's put on in their
[2:44:23] own case.
[2:44:24] They could have presented
[2:44:25] some other evidence about it
[2:44:27] it, like I mentioned earlier
[2:44:28] earlier, and they chose not
[2:44:28] to.
[2:44:29] Instead they're asking you
[2:44:32] to replace evidence with
[2:44:33] suspicion.
[2:44:38] And that is not how justice
[2:44:38] works.
[2:44:40] The confidentiality
[2:44:41] agreement does not prohibit
[2:44:43] her from asking an applicant
[2:44:46] a question, it doesn't.
[2:44:49] It doesn't -- it prohibits
[2:44:51] disclosing confidential
[2:44:53] information obtained as a
[2:44:54] director.
[2:44:56] And they have shown you the
[2:44:57] communication occurred, but
[2:45:00] they have not shown you that
[2:45:01] it included any protected
[2:45:03] confidential information.
[2:45:04] They haven't.
[2:45:06] The only evidence is, again,
[2:45:08] I would not have done that,
[2:45:08] no.
[2:45:10] And so they're asking you to
[2:45:12] reject sworn testimony, not
[2:45:14] because they proveed it's
[2:45:15] false, but because they want
[2:45:16] you to speculate.
[2:45:22] And speculation is not proof
[2:45:24] in a law, under the law.
[2:45:25] It's not.
[2:45:26] Suspicion is not proof.
[2:45:28] Speculation's not proof.
[2:45:30] When you strip around the
[2:45:31] rhetoric and you look only
[2:45:33] at the evidence, this
[2:45:35] accusation has no foundation
[2:45:37] whatsoever.
[2:45:39] So the answer on question
[2:45:45] number 3 is no.
[2:45:45] Answer of whether or not the
[2:45:47] text message and phone call
[2:45:52] on NOVEMBER 9th with the
[2:45:56] [Indiscernible], whether it
[2:45:59] was disclosed edc
[2:46:00] confidential information,
[2:46:02] there's no evidence to
[2:46:10] answer yes.
[2:46:12] The easiest thing in the
[2:46:16] world is to punish someone
[2:46:19] that you've already judged.
[2:46:23] The hardest thing to do and
[2:46:25] a brave thing to do is to
[2:46:29] lay down that judgment long
[2:46:32] enough to listen, and really
[2:46:33] listen.
[2:46:35] And that is what due process
[2:46:39] requires you to do.
[2:46:45] It is humility made into law
[2:46:45] law.
[2:46:48] And it asks only one thing:
[2:46:52] do not decide first and then
[2:46:57] listen later.
[2:46:57] Because this is that
[2:46:58] situation the hearing is
[2:47:00] over before the first
[2:47:03] witness ever even takes the
[2:47:03] stand.
[2:47:07] And if that happens, we
[2:47:10] haven't removed a mayor, we
[2:47:14] have removed the promise
[2:47:15] that justice belongs to
[2:47:18] everyone, all of us, every
[2:47:19] one of us.
[2:47:21] So before you cast your vote
[2:47:23] votes, I want to ask you to
[2:47:25] think about something larger
[2:47:29] than paulette guajardo, I
[2:47:32] want you to ask yourself how
[2:47:33] much evidence is it going to
[2:47:34] take for a handful of
[2:47:36] elected officials to remove
[2:47:37] another elected official
[2:47:38] from office?
[2:47:39] Because whatever rule you
[2:47:42] create this evening does not
[2:47:44] belong only to paulette
[2:47:45] guajardo, it belongs to the
[2:47:46] next mayor and the mayor
[2:47:48] after that and it belongs to
[2:47:50] every person who ever
[2:47:52] accepts the responsibility
[2:47:55] of public office in this
[2:47:55] city ever.
[2:47:58] And ultimately it belongs to
[2:48:01] the people who elected them.
[2:48:03] And you have heard words in
[2:48:04] this proceeding that would
[2:48:08] frighten any public official
[2:48:09] official: fraud, crime,
[2:48:11] perjury, malfeasance.
[2:48:14] Those are powerful words and
[2:48:19] powerful words require power
[2:48:21] powerful proof, not
[2:48:24] suspicion, not biased
[2:48:29] assumptions, not -- when we
[2:48:31] finally get past the words
[2:48:34] and ask a simple question,
[2:48:36] what did she know, what
[2:48:37] confidential information did
[2:48:42] she disclose, the answers
[2:48:42] aren't there.
[2:48:44] There is a temptation in a
[2:48:45] case like this to say, well,
[2:48:47] you know, something went
[2:48:50] wrong and there's no doubt
[2:48:53] that things went wrong in
[2:48:54] this.
[2:48:56] There was an altered fema
[2:48:58] press release, there was a
[2:49:00] false narrative.
[2:49:01] There was confusion.
[2:49:03] And there were questions
[2:49:05] that should have been asked
[2:49:08] sooner and resolved sooner.
[2:49:09] There were people who could
[2:49:10] have handled things
[2:49:14] differently.
[2:49:16] A lot of people who could
[2:49:17] have handled things
[2:49:18] differently.
[2:49:20] But government is run by
[2:49:23] human beings.
[2:49:24] But that's not the question
[2:49:26] you promised to answer when
[2:49:27] you took your seats as
[2:49:29] judges in this proceeding.
[2:49:31] The question is whether the
[2:49:33] evidence, the evidence in
[2:49:34] this case, proves that the
[2:49:36] mayor committed the acts in
[2:49:38] this jury charge.
[2:49:40] And you're limited to those
[2:49:42] that are in in that jury charge
[2:49:43] charge.
[2:49:44] And there's a difference, a
[2:49:46] profound, profound
[2:49:47] difference, between saying
[2:49:48] something went wrong and
[2:49:50] saying she did wrong.
[2:49:53] That distance can only be
[2:49:55] crossed by evidence.
[2:49:57] That's the only way you get
[2:49:59] from something went wrong to
[2:50:01] she did wrong, and it's not
[2:50:03] suspicion, it's not
[2:50:04] association, because that's
[2:50:06] what a big part of the
[2:50:07] petitioner's case is, it's
[2:50:09] just association.
[2:50:11] It's not hindsight.
[2:50:12] It's not because she knew
[2:50:14] somebody or because she
[2:50:17] voted for something and it's
[2:50:18] not because someone donated
[2:50:19] to her campaign.
[2:50:21] What you have to do to make
[2:50:22] that bridge, to bridge that,
[2:50:23] is evidence.
[2:50:25] And if the evidence does not
[2:50:27] carry you across that
[2:50:30] distance, your duty is not
[2:50:32] to finish the journey for
[2:50:35] the petitioners, your duty
[2:50:39] is to stop right there.
[2:50:40] because that's what the
[2:50:41] situation is.
[2:50:43] There is no shame in saying
[2:50:45] an accuse accusation was not proved
[2:50:46] proved.
[2:50:47] There's no shame in that.
[2:50:49] There is honor in it.
[2:50:51] Because the hardest exercise
[2:50:52] of governmental power and
[2:50:54] one of the things that is
[2:50:57] remarkable about this is
[2:51:00] that -- is this is an
[2:51:01] incredible potential
[2:51:04] exercise of governmental
[2:51:06] power, an amazeing exercise
[2:51:08] of power that you have in
[2:51:08] your hands.
[2:51:11] The hardest exercise of
[2:51:12] governmental power is
[2:51:14] sometimes refuseing to use it
[2:51:17] it.
[2:51:20] You were not elected to
[2:51:23] protect paulette guajardo
[2:51:26] and you were not elected to
[2:51:27] punish paulette guajardo.
[2:51:30] You were elected to protect
[2:51:31] something much more
[2:51:35] important: the integrity of
[2:51:37] the office you yourselves
[2:51:39] hold and the right of the
[2:51:40] people of corpus christi to
[2:51:42] choose who holds it.
[2:51:48] The voters gave mayor
[2:51:50] guajardo the office.
[2:51:52] You have been asked to take
[2:51:52] it away.
[2:51:54] If you're going to do that,
[2:51:57] then when you leave this
[2:51:59] chamber tonight, you must be
[2:52:01] able to say something much,
[2:52:06] much more than, I suspected.
[2:52:07] I wondered.
[2:52:10] I had a feeling.
[2:52:13] I thought, you know, maybe.
[2:52:14] You have to be able to say I
[2:52:16] know exactly what she did
[2:52:18] and I can point to the
[2:52:19] evidence.
[2:52:20] In my opening I said you
[2:52:21] will need to be able to look
[2:52:23] at it and point at it and
[2:52:24] show it.
[2:52:26] If you cannot say these
[2:52:28] things, and you cannot based
[2:52:29] on the record, that the
[2:52:32] petitioners have tried to --
[2:52:34] have attempted to get into
[2:52:35] this record, then the answer
[2:52:39] to the questions is not a
[2:52:41] difficult one.
[2:52:43] It is no on every single one
[2:52:43] of them.
[2:52:45] And it's a no on every
[2:52:47] single one of them not as a
[2:52:50] favor to paulette guajardo,
[2:52:52] not because you agree with
[2:52:54] her, not because you approve
[2:52:55] of every decision she's ever
[2:52:57] made or any decision she's
[2:52:59] ever made for that matter,
[2:53:03] but because that is what the
[2:53:03] evidence requires.
[2:53:05] That's what you're limited
[2:53:06] to, the evidence.
[2:53:08] And you were told -- you
[2:53:12] were told the instructions,
[2:53:14] do not let bias play a part
[2:53:16] in your deliberations, non-,
[2:53:17] zero.
[2:53:18] It cannot play a part.
[2:53:19] And because when the
[2:53:21] evidence ends, accusations
[2:53:23] end with it.
[2:53:25] And you have to go by
[2:53:26] evidence.
[2:53:28] Question number 1 is no.
[2:53:30] Question number 2 is no.
[2:53:35] And question number 3 is no.
[2:53:36] I want to make sure because
[2:53:38] we did some renumbering and
[2:53:40] I want to make sure I've got
[2:53:41] my numbers all right there
[2:53:43] when we worked on this
[2:53:51] earlier.
[2:53:53] After you retire and you go
[2:53:54] through this charge and
[2:53:55] council's going to get up
[2:53:59] and make -- and counsel's going
[2:54:00] to get up and make another
[2:54:02] argument, I will invite you
[2:54:06] to leave the final judgment
[2:54:08] about paulette guajardo
[2:54:13] where it has always belonged
[2:54:17] belonged, with voters.
[2:54:22] And I'm going to take a
[2:54:23] personal privilege here for
[2:54:26] a minute and I'm going to
[2:54:28] read -- these are cards that
[2:54:30] I keep in my pocket that I
[2:54:34] give out sometimes.
[2:54:36] And it's one of my favorite
[2:54:37] quotes.
[2:54:41] It is, if we have no peace,
[2:54:42] it is because we have
[2:54:46] forgotten we belong to each
[2:54:46] other.
[2:54:48] Mother theresa said that.
[2:54:51] And when you go back and you
[2:54:54] assess this evidence, I
[2:54:56] invite you to remember those
[2:54:57] words.
[2:54:59] And I'm saying this kind of
[2:55:03] as a citizen myself too.
[2:55:05] Peace, if we have no peace,
[2:55:06] it's because we have
[2:55:09] forgotten we belong to each
[2:55:13] other.
[2:55:15] My opposing counsel thanked
[2:55:16] you at the beginning and I
[2:55:18] want to thank you too.
[2:55:20] And I also at the beginning
[2:55:21] of this you might remember,
[2:55:24] I said if any of you were
[2:55:26] sitting over here, I would
[2:55:29] proudly represent you.
[2:55:30] I think I'm kind of
[2:55:31] reconsidering that now.
[2:55:33] And it's not you, it's me.
[2:55:35] [Laughter].
[2:55:36] I'm just kidding.
[2:55:39] It has been an honor, it has
[2:55:41] been an honor, to be part of
[2:55:42] this proceeding, and I do
[2:55:44] want to thank all of you for
[2:55:49] your service to this city,
[2:55:51] and I hope that you have
[2:55:55] understood my job throughout
[2:55:57] this project and what it is
[2:56:00] that justice required of me.
[2:56:01] I'm actually going to give
[2:56:03] some of my time back, but,
[2:56:04] again, if you look at the
[2:56:07] evidence and you don't use
[2:56:10] suspicion and you don't try
[2:56:12] to use, you know, maybes,
[2:56:14] but you actually look at
[2:56:16] what was proven through the
[2:56:17] evidence, the answer to
[2:56:19] every single one of the
[2:56:20] questions is no.
[2:56:50] Thank you.
[2:56:56] >> Paxson: there should be
[2:56:58] 10:minutes and 30 seconds
[2:57:00] remaining for the petitioner
[2:57:08] petitioners.
[2:57:10] >> probably 60 seconds I
[2:57:12] will go into this, thank you
[2:57:12] you.
[2:57:14] I'll wait for her to get set
[2:57:24] set.
[2:57:25] Thank you.
[2:57:26] >> Allison: you were just
[2:57:27] told that you're not here to
[2:57:31] basically judge or to punish
[2:57:35] or to protect mayor guajardo
[2:57:36] guajardo.
[2:57:36] Like somehow it's not your
[2:57:37] job and he refers to the
[2:57:39] voters, let the voters.
[2:57:40] You've heard that theme at
[2:57:42] different times, let the
[2:57:43] voters decide.
[2:57:45] Let me be very, very clear.
[2:57:49] The answer to that is
[2:57:51] there's supposition when we
[2:57:52] say this is absolutely wrong
[2:57:53] and let me tell you what I
[2:57:54] mean by that.
[2:57:55] You were voted to your
[2:57:59] office and each of you took
[2:58:02] an oath to enforce the city
[2:58:07] charter and the city charter
[2:58:09] requires the removal of the
[2:58:11] mayor for malfeasance,
[2:58:14] misconduct, for willful
[2:58:19] neglect or for improper
[2:58:20] conduct.
[2:58:21] You were elected.
[2:58:23] The voters put you here.
[2:58:24] You are the voice of the
[2:58:25] voters.
[2:58:27] And this is exactly what you
[2:58:29] are required to do under the
[2:58:34] charter, period.
[2:58:35] Then he said, and I think
[2:58:37] it's so important, he said
[2:58:40] how much -- and I'm quoting.
[2:58:40] How much evidence is it
[2:58:43] going to take to remove
[2:58:46] paulette guajardo?
[2:58:47] He used throughout his time
[2:58:48] with you words like
[2:58:50] speculation, association,
[2:58:52] suspicion, assume, like
[2:58:54] there's no evidence.
[2:58:55] The answer to your question
[2:58:56] is in the document in front
[2:58:58] of you.
[2:58:59] How much evidence does it
[2:58:59] take?
[2:59:01] It says it takes a
[2:59:02] preponderance of the
[2:59:04] evidence, which means the
[2:59:05] greater way of credible
[2:59:06] evidence presented in the
[2:59:06] case.
[2:59:07] And then it says in the
[2:59:09] document in front of you,
[2:59:11] you must find that the fact
[2:59:13] is more likely true than not
[2:59:13] not.
[2:59:15] If the evidence in the
[2:59:17] record is that it's more
[2:59:21] likely, not certain, not
[2:59:22] beyond a reasonable doubt,
[2:59:23] this is not a criminal case.
[2:59:25] If you think it's more
[2:59:28] likely than not, that's a
[2:59:28] preponderance of the
[2:59:29] evidence.
[2:59:30] And it is way more likely
[2:59:33] than not that she aided the
[2:59:33] fraud.
[2:59:35] It is way more likely than
[2:59:36] not that she was not being
[2:59:38] candid and truthful when she
[2:59:39] gave her testimony, and it
[2:59:42] is way more likely than not
[2:59:45] that she violated her
[2:59:48] confidentiality pledge to
[2:59:48] erc.
[2:59:50] And then he wants to use
[2:59:51] words like assume like
[2:59:52] there's no evidence on the
[2:59:56] violation with the erc, and
[2:59:57] the very document in front
[2:59:59] of you, the charge, says a
[3:00:01] fact MAY be established by
[3:00:03] direct or circumstantial
[3:00:04] evidence.
[3:00:04] It's not assumption.
[3:00:07] It says, quote, a fact, a
[3:00:08] fact is established.
[3:00:12] I'm reading, by
[3:00:13] circumstantial evidence when
[3:00:14] it MAY be fairly and
[3:00:15] reasonably inferred from the
[3:00:16] other facts.
[3:00:21] When you have her texting texting de
[3:00:23] deven bhakta during a closed
[3:00:24] confidential meeting,
[3:00:26] leaving there after having
[3:00:27] suffered the defeat of
[3:00:29] wanting a 2-million-dollar
[3:00:35] vote and only getting brian
[3:00:38] gulley's 1-million-dollar
[3:00:42] vote and calling and talking
[3:00:44] to deven bhakta for 14
[3:00:45] minutes, it is correct for
[3:00:48] you to infer that she likely
[3:00:49] talked to him about what
[3:00:49] happened at the meeting.
[3:00:51] Again, quote, a fact is
[3:00:54] established by
[3:00:55] circumstantial evidence when
[3:00:56] it MAY be fairly and
[3:00:58] reasonably inferred from the
[3:01:00] other facts proved.
[3:01:01] And we have absolutely proof
[3:01:03] of the text messages and the
[3:01:04] phone calls, and we know
[3:01:06] what the mayor is capable of
[3:01:08] when you look at her phone
[3:01:11] call records from FEBRUARY
[3:01:14] FEBRUARY 25 and 26 when
[3:01:16] there's 14 calls before the
[3:01:19] ordinance is withdrawn by
[3:01:20] the city, only to be pushed
[3:01:22] back on by the mayor.
[3:01:24] We know she is absolutely
[3:01:26] capable of not remembering
[3:01:27] anything that would every be
[3:01:29] harmful to her, and you MAY
[3:01:31] make the right inference
[3:01:33] that she likely spoke to him
[3:01:35] him, that is a preponderance
[3:01:36] of the evidence.
[3:01:37] So there is evidence on
[3:01:38] every one of the three
[3:01:39] counts, and the answers to
[3:01:41] those three questions is yes
[3:01:42] yes, yes and yes, and each
[3:01:45] one of them support removal.
[3:01:46] You want to talk about the
[3:01:46] evidence?
[3:01:50] I'm going to go ahead --
[3:01:51] ma'am.
[3:01:53] I'm going to go ahead and
[3:01:54] play -- he didn't put in any
[3:01:55] evidence.
[3:01:56] They didn't even hardly call
[3:01:57] any witness.
[3:01:59] They didn't even call the
[3:02:00] mayor.
[3:02:01] They would have loved an
[3:02:03] impeachment trial where she
[3:02:05] didn't answer any questions,
[3:02:06] okay?
[3:02:08] >> Allison:
[3:02:09] >> Flood: it's improper
[3:02:10] argument.
[3:02:11] No burden of proof.
[3:02:14] >> if I give you that
[3:02:15] information about forge,
[3:02:18] forged document, that forge
[3:02:23] means to alter, make
[3:02:24] complete, execute or
[3:02:29] authenticate any writing,
[3:02:31] that happened, right, so far
[3:02:31] far?
[3:02:33] >> yes.
[3:02:36] >> that it purports to be
[3:02:38] the act of another, that
[3:02:39] happened to be fema, right,
[3:02:40] in this case.
[3:02:40] >> yes.
[3:02:41] >> who did not authorize it.
[3:02:43] We talked about fema did not
[3:02:44] authorize it, right?
[3:02:44] >> yes.
[3:02:46] >> that happened in this
[3:02:46] case.
[3:02:54] >> yes.
[3:03:02] >>
[3:03:05] >> if that's a definition of
[3:03:07] forge, then the facts of
[3:03:09] this case meet that
[3:03:11] definition.
[3:03:12] >> yes.
[3:03:15] Yes.
[3:03:17] >> Allison: and you know
[3:03:18] that exact clip was played
[3:03:20] for peter zanoni and he
[3:03:21] agreed with it.
[3:03:22] And what they asked you to
[3:03:25] do is to do nothing, knowing
[3:03:27] that there was this forgery
[3:03:30] or at least a fraud.
[3:03:31] There was this wrongful,
[3:03:33] inappropriate conduct, and
[3:03:34] they want you to do nothing
[3:03:36] about it, even though the
[3:03:38] mayor knew about it from
[3:03:41] start to finish, they want
[3:03:46] her to get a free ride.
[3:03:52] >> I think one of the
[3:03:52] comments from
[3:03:53] [Indiscernible] So my client
[3:03:55] was even that you had told
[3:04:00] some members of council, hey
[3:04:02] hey, don't touch this,
[3:04:04] something along those lines.
[3:04:05] Did you do that?
[3:04:06] >> I can't recall if I said
[3:04:12] that exactly, but I would --
[3:04:13] let me think of how I can
[3:04:14] say this.
[3:04:17] Given the -- given what we
[3:04:18] knew at the time, given the
[3:04:21] fact that it appeared a law,
[3:04:25] federal law, had been broken
[3:04:27] broken, I wouldn't consider
[3:04:27] it yet.
[3:04:29] I would not put it on the
[3:04:32] agenda.
[3:04:33] >> Allison: we know the
[3:04:34] mayor is the one that wanted
[3:04:39] it on the agenda.
[3:04:40] >> after I interviewed
[3:04:42] phillip, I did that same
[3:04:43] evening I believe have a
[3:04:44] conversation with the mayor
[3:04:46] on the phone and COUNCILMAN
[3:04:47] Pusley was there either in
[3:04:50] the room or a three-way call
[3:04:52] call, I'm not 100% sure, but
[3:04:53] that was after the meeting
[3:04:54] with phillip.
[3:04:55] So I explained to the mayor
[3:04:56] that phillip, who would be
[3:04:58] the only one that could
[3:04:59] explain what happened to
[3:05:00] this document, could not
[3:05:01] explain it.
[3:05:02] So there was an obvious
[3:05:04] change in the document from
[3:05:06] the website to the
[3:05:06] powerpoint.
[3:05:08] And the only person --
[3:05:09] probably two people that
[3:05:11] could have explained it.
[3:05:17] One was mike huckleson and
[3:05:18] his team and the other is
[3:05:20] phillip ramirez and his team
[3:05:20] team.
[3:05:22] We had a conversation with
[3:05:23] mike culberson to rule him
[3:05:26] out and asked for a copy of
[3:05:27] his powerpoint presentation
[3:05:28] and who created it, did he
[3:05:30] create it or did phillip
[3:05:31] ramirez create it?
[3:05:32] And culberson said that the
[3:05:34] powerpoint was created by
[3:05:36] phillip ramirez, sent to
[3:05:38] mike culberson who did
[3:05:39] nothing to change it and
[3:05:40] just placed it into a
[3:05:42] template that had edc
[3:05:43] heading on it.
[3:05:45] That's why we ruled out
[3:05:46] culberson as somebody that
[3:05:48] MAY be aware of or MAY have
[3:05:50] changed the document, and
[3:05:51] then started working with
[3:05:53] phillip ramirez as the sole
[3:05:54] person that would know,
[3:05:55] should know what happened to
[3:05:56] the document.
[3:05:57] >> and what you just told me
[3:05:59] is what you told the mayor.
[3:06:02] >> correct.
[3:06:04] >> Allison: of course they
[3:06:08] knew, of course she knew, of
[3:06:09] course they figured it out.
[3:06:13] The same thing that gulley
[3:06:15] told them back at the ccrecd
[3:06:17] ccrecd, ajit david revealed
[3:06:18] the falsity of it.
[3:06:20] Ajit david revealed the
[3:06:22] forgery of a written
[3:06:24] document.
[3:06:26] And of course they told her.
[3:06:29] And they told her again in
[3:06:30] special -- in executive
[3:06:30] session.
[3:06:32] That's in the evidence.
[3:06:33] And ajit david stood in
[3:06:36] front of you again and told
[3:06:38] her and gave her picture of
[3:06:40] it, and ajit david stood in
[3:06:43] front of her again on APRIL
[3:06:44] APRIL 23rd and told her
[3:06:45] and again there were
[3:07:03] pictures of it.
[3:07:03] >> correct.
[3:07:06] >> and so therefore you had
[3:07:08] had -- what you're telling
[3:07:10] me is during that time frame
[3:07:11] you were not in the loop as
[3:07:13] to what the findings were
[3:07:13] for the investigation?
[3:07:14] >> correct.
[3:07:17] >> and so therefore you had
[3:07:18] no knowledge that it was
[3:07:20] something illegal in the
[3:07:23] process that you were voting
[3:07:24] on.
[3:07:25] >> right, there was --
[3:07:26] >> okay.
[3:07:26] >> right.
[3:07:36] >> okay.
[3:07:38] >> Allison: she winks at
[3:07:39] her lawyer, it's on the
[3:07:45] video, right?
[3:07:46] It is exactly what peter
[3:07:49] zanoni called it early on,
[3:07:51] it is a scheme.
[3:07:53] She participated in it, she
[3:07:57] promoteed, she advocateed, she
[3:07:58] lied about it.
[3:07:59] [Buzzer].
[3:08:01] She did betrayal of ccrecd
[3:08:02] confidentiality.
[3:08:07] And it's got to stop.
[3:08:08] What we tolerate we become.
[3:08:17] Thank you.
[3:08:28] >> Paxson:thank you, gentlemen.
[3:08:28] At this time the council
[3:08:30] will now go into executive
[3:08:32] session on agenda item 1,
[3:08:33] pursuant to texas government
[3:08:41] code sections 551.071 and
[3:08:46] section 551.074.
[3:08:50] Were so that we can mark our
[3:08:52] documents and be clear on
[3:08:54] what's meant when you do
[3:08:55] what you do.
[3:08:56] >> Paxson: absolutely.
[3:08:57] >> if that makes sense.
[3:08:59] >> Paxson: on the cover
[3:09:02] page, the first section
[3:09:03] relating to number of votes,
[3:09:05] this is requiring that five
[3:09:07] members vote affirmatively
[3:09:08] according to the city
[3:09:11] charter the policy would be
[3:09:13] a majority, where five would
[3:09:16] only be require ford a
[3:09:19] required for a removal
[3:09:20] action, so we would be
[3:09:22] acting ton policy set in the
[3:09:24] charter, so outside of a
[3:09:26] removal action, we'll let a
[3:09:29] majority of the voting body
[3:09:29] pre-rail.
[3:09:31] >> if I'm hearing you
[3:09:32] correctly, so it's clear on
[3:09:34] the record, go there to be a
[3:09:36] removal, it would have
[3:09:37] required five votes is that
[3:09:37] right so far.
[3:09:38] >> Paxson: yes.
[3:09:42] >> and in b, a suspension
[3:09:45] for no more than 30 days
[3:09:47] that would require four
[3:09:47] votes.
[3:09:48] >> Paxson: yes.
[3:09:51] >> for c, that would be
[3:09:52] disqualification for holding
[3:09:54] further office with the city
[3:09:56] for two years, that will be
[3:09:57] two votes.
[3:09:59] >> Paxson: I will let the
[3:10:00] record show that was our
[3:10:02] second item, where it says
[3:10:05] ab and c, on charge one, c,
[3:10:08] we interpret as actually
[3:10:11] being a provision under a,
[3:10:13] and so we would strike c,
[3:10:16] and it would be a, b, and
[3:10:18] then the final option.
[3:10:20] >> okay, because c, as I
[3:10:21] understood it, would have
[3:10:25] been a reprimand option to
[3:10:28] say you can't run for
[3:10:28] further office.
[3:10:30] In other words, you would be
[3:10:32] ineligible from running next
[3:10:33] cycle as a reprimand.
[3:10:36] Not that it's the same -- I
[3:10:37] don't think it's the same as
[3:10:38] removed from office.
[3:10:40] >> Paxson: we interpreted
[3:10:41] through the charter that
[3:10:43] that language was one of the
[3:10:45] options was a removal from
[3:10:47] office, which would result
[3:10:49] in a time frame of
[3:10:51] ineligibility to run.
[3:10:52] Another option would be
[3:10:55] suspension, up to 30 days.
[3:10:57] Another option would be a
[3:10:57] reprimand.
[3:11:00] >> and did you get advice
[3:11:00] from the city attorney on
[3:11:01] whether or not there was an
[3:11:03] option for a reprimand?
[3:11:06] >> Paxson: we did.
[3:11:08] MS. Lisa, could you advise
[3:11:09] on that distinction?
[3:11:12] >> the charter provides for
[3:11:19] the -- the council has the
[3:11:21] authority to reprimand or
[3:11:21] suspend a member for a
[3:11:23] period of not more than 30
[3:11:26] days if removal is not
[3:11:26] warranted.
[3:11:28] >> under that charter, would
[3:11:31] an available remedy be a
[3:11:32] reprimand where you were not
[3:11:33] eligible in the next cycle?
[3:11:34] >> no.
[3:11:36] >> okay, that's what I
[3:11:37] wanted --
[3:11:39] >> that section is sub
[3:11:41] section e, which says a
[3:11:42] member who is removed from
[3:11:44] office, whether pursuant to
[3:11:45] this section by recall or
[3:11:47] other legal proceeding or
[3:11:50] who resigns after any such
[3:11:52] proceeding has been
[3:11:53] initiated not be eligible to
[3:11:55] be appointed to or run as a
[3:11:57] daintd for city office for
[3:11:59] two years from the date of
[3:12:00] removal, recall or
[3:12:00] resignation.
[3:12:03] >> when I was trying to
[3:12:04] clarify, could you not
[3:12:06] remove but still make them
[3:12:08] ineligible as a reprimand.
[3:12:09] >> Paxson: no.
[3:12:11] >> okay, that's what I
[3:12:13] wanted to clarify.
[3:12:14] >> Paxson: okay, then
[3:12:16] last, the options for the
[3:12:17] three different charges, use
[3:12:20] the word censured, we would
[3:12:21] revert back to the charter
[3:12:23] that says reprimand.
[3:12:32] >> ah, okay.
[3:12:35] >> Paxson: okay, thank
[3:12:38] you.
[3:12:41] Any other questions on
[3:12:42] that?
[3:12:45] >> none.
[3:12:45] Okay.
[3:12:47] >> Paxson: we will again
[3:12:48] as I stated earlier, we'll
[3:12:50] go over each of the charges
[3:12:51] and determine whether or not
[3:12:53] those are determined or will
[3:12:56] stand, and then we will do
[3:13:02] vote on the remedy for each
[3:13:04] of those in sequence
[3:13:08] afterwards.
[3:13:09] Mayor and council, on
[3:13:12] question one, did paulette
[3:13:14] guajardo engage in any
[3:13:15] misconduct, malfeasance or
[3:13:16] willful neglect in
[3:13:17] performance of her official
[3:13:18] duties by aiding a fraud
[3:13:20] upon the taxpayers of the
[3:13:22] city of corpus christi,
[3:13:24] related to the alleged need
[3:13:27] for complies with newly
[3:13:29] defined fema flood maps
[3:13:32] and/or altered fema screen
[3:13:32] shot?
[3:13:33] And if you would please
[3:13:49] submit your vote on that.
[3:13:50] Okay.
[3:13:54] So that's five to one.
[3:13:55] Okay.
[3:13:57] The second question, we're
[3:13:59] ready.
[3:14:01] Did paulette guajardo while
[3:14:02] testifying in her official
[3:14:06] capacity as mayor per
[3:14:10] perjure herself on
[3:14:11] AUGUST 26, 2025.
[3:14:12] What you're telling me is
[3:14:13] during that time frame you
[3:14:15] were not in the loop as to
[3:14:17] what findings were for that
[3:14:17] investigation.
[3:14:18] Answer correct.
[3:14:19] Question, so therefore had
[3:14:21] you no knowledge it was
[3:14:22] something inlegal in the
[3:14:24] process you were voting on.
[3:14:25] Answer, right.
[3:14:26] And thereby commit
[3:14:29] misconduct, malfeasance,
[3:14:30] incompetence, inability or
[3:14:31] willful neglect of
[3:14:32] performance of her official
[3:14:34] duties.
[3:14:34] Councilmembers, please
[3:14:52] vote.
[3:14:55] Okay, so that is five-one in
[3:14:57] favor.
[3:15:00] The last question, question
[3:15:02] three is the paulette
[3:15:05] guajardo commit misconduct,
[3:15:06] malfeasance, incompetence,
[3:15:08] or inability or willful
[3:15:09] neglect of performance of
[3:15:10] her official duties by
[3:15:11] failing to hold all
[3:15:15] information received from
[3:15:18] ccredc activities strictly
[3:15:19] confidential.
[3:15:20] And you vote on that,
[3:15:35] please.
[3:15:45] Okay, so that's 4-2.
[3:15:46] Okay.
[3:15:50] So mayor pro tem, at this
[3:15:51] point we're going to go
[3:15:52] to -- back to question one
[3:15:54] and determine the penalty
[3:15:57] for that -- for that
[3:16:00] question.
[3:16:03] >> Paxson: and so do we
[3:16:04] all understand how that
[3:16:05] voting will take place
[3:16:07] according to the sequence
[3:16:09] listed we'll vote each item
[3:16:10] in order.
[3:16:11] So question one.
[3:16:15] >> question one is one a is
[3:16:16] paulette guajardo is hereby
[3:16:24] removed from office.
[3:16:27] Yes, question one, the first
[3:16:29] penalty, could vote on that,
[3:16:39] please.
[3:16:40] Okay.
[3:16:42] So that would require five
[3:16:45] votes to pass, so that one
[3:16:46] fails.
[3:16:48] Next is paulette guajardo is
[3:16:53] hereby suspended from office
[3:16:53] four, and stipulate the
[3:16:55] number of days if you were
[3:17:01] interested in that option.
[3:17:02] >> I'm sorry.
[3:17:03] Should we make a motion to
[3:17:05] determine the days before
[3:17:06] voting, I would imagine.
[3:17:09] >> yes, I would, so that's
[3:17:10] there and we'll vote on it.
[3:17:12] >> Paxson: do we have a
[3:17:14] motion to suggest?
[3:17:15] >> 30 days.
[3:17:16] >> Paxson: we have a
[3:17:18] motion and a second for 30
[3:17:20] days.
[3:17:24] i think that's what she's
[3:17:24] queuing up.
[3:17:26] >> okay, I think she can --
[3:17:27] okay, it's ready.
[3:17:30] If you would like to do 30
[3:17:31] days, it will reflect that
[3:17:49] on your screens.
[3:17:53] Okay, so that is 5-1.
[3:17:54] So that one passes.
[3:17:58] So that makes d, c moot, so
[3:17:59] we'll move on to the next
[3:18:01] one.
[3:18:06] And that's question two.
[3:18:09] And the first one is removal
[3:18:10] from office on question
[3:18:40] two.
[3:18:42] Okay, so that is 4-2, so
[3:18:44] that requires five votes, so
[3:18:46] that fails.
[3:18:46] Okay.
[3:18:48] Next is paulette guajardo is
[3:18:51] hereby suspended from office
[3:18:53] for, and if you're
[3:18:54] interested in that option,
[3:18:55] we would need the number of
[3:18:55] days.
[3:18:59] >> I think since the first
[3:19:00] one -- con kurt.
[3:19:02] >> yeah, we can move to the
[3:19:04] next options under that
[3:19:05] one.
[3:19:06] I'm sorry?
[3:19:07] [Indistinct chatter]
[3:19:07] Okay.
[3:19:08] We can --
[3:19:10] >> you want to vote on
[3:19:12] suspension for this charge?
[3:19:13] All right. And the number
[3:19:19] of days?
[3:19:21] >> Paxson: motion for 30
[3:19:23] days, do I have a second,
[3:19:24] all in favor -- I'm sorry,
[3:19:26] you're going to pull the
[3:19:45] vote off...
[3:19:46] Okay.
[3:19:48] So no.
[3:19:52] That fails 4-2.
[3:19:55] And then we would go --
[3:19:55] yes.
[3:19:57] >> okay, the last one is
[3:19:59] paulette guajardo is hereby
[3:20:00] reprimanded for conduct
[3:20:01] beneath the office of
[3:20:20] mayor.
[3:20:26] Okay, so that passes 5-1.
[3:20:27] Okay.
[3:20:33] And then on question 3,
[3:20:36] question 3 (A), or e, it
[3:20:37] says on here, paulette
[3:20:39] guajardo is hereby removed
[3:20:40] from office.
[3:20:42] >> it's my understanding
[3:20:46] that one has already been a
[3:20:50] 4-2 so --
[3:20:52] >> Paxson: I'm sorry.
[3:20:56] Could you review the vote on
[3:20:57] 3.
[3:21:00] It was 4-2 so the charge
[3:21:00] prevailed.
[3:21:02] >> yes, the question is four
[3:21:02] votes.
[3:21:04] >> Paxson: now we'll go
[3:21:05] over each.
[3:21:06] Is there further question on
[3:21:07] that.
[3:21:08] >> yes, does that make
[3:21:08] sense.
[3:21:11] >> I would object to the
[3:21:13] removal portion under e,
[3:21:14] because that would require
[3:21:15] five on the yes, so that's
[3:21:18] the only reason --
[3:21:20] >> well, the question, we
[3:21:22] didn't vote on removal for
[3:21:23] this particular charge.
[3:21:26] Am I not understanding so
[3:21:27] ...
[3:21:31] >> the predicate question
[3:21:34] which would be for -- if
[3:21:37] ewas selected under this
[3:21:39] predicate question, the
[3:21:40] predicate question would
[3:21:41] also have to have five votes
[3:21:42] because it would be a vote
[3:21:44] for removal under question
[3:21:46] three, so under the charter,
[3:21:49] you couldn't have a
[3:21:55] predicate question of -- on
[3:21:56] question 3 being four votes
[3:21:57] and removal five votes,
[3:21:58] because the underlying
[3:22:00] conduct is not decided to be
[3:22:03] subject to removal,
[3:22:03] simply --
[3:22:06] >> we're going off what our
[3:22:07] city attorney add is
[3:22:11] advised
[3:22:12] for that, the actual removal
[3:22:14] when we vote on that
[3:22:15] penalty, that penalty
[3:22:16] requires five votes, that's
[3:22:18] what we were advised.
[3:22:18] >> Allison: I think we
[3:22:20] kind of see what probably is
[3:22:22] going on there, but I think
[3:22:23] the vote is appropriate.
[3:22:25] >> Paxson: okay.
[3:22:27] Is that all right with
[3:22:28] everyone?
[3:22:30] So it's MR. Flood.
[3:22:33] >> Flood: I'm not sure the
[3:22:34] proper procedure here, with
[3:22:37] but I think my issue was
[3:22:39] addressed, I wanted to point
[3:22:39] that out.
[3:22:41] >> Paxson: yes, sir, we
[3:22:42] did check with the city
[3:22:43] attorney on these, in room
[3:22:44] city attorney.
[3:22:51] So on question 3 (E),
[3:22:52] removal of the mayor on that
[3:23:07] charge.
[3:23:09] Okay.
[3:23:12] So that fails.
[3:23:14] Okay.
[3:23:16] Next is paulette guajardo is
[3:23:17] hereby suspended from
[3:23:19] office, and looks like 30
[3:23:25] days is what would be
[3:23:26] working with.
[3:23:28] >> I'm so sorry to
[3:23:29] interrupt, but could I
[3:23:31] just -- I just realized,
[3:23:33] could I ask media to be in
[3:23:35] media box, I'm so sorry.
[3:23:38] Thank you.
[3:23:38] Proceed.
[3:23:45] Thank you.
[3:23:48] >> we've been doing 30 days,
[3:23:50] is 30 days by affirmation,
[3:23:54] is that acclamation, is that
[3:24:10] okay?
[3:24:14] Okay, so that fails.
[3:24:16] So the last option is
[3:24:17] paulette guajardo is hereby
[3:24:19] reprimanded for conduct
[3:24:21] beneath the office of
[3:24:58] mayor.
[3:24:58] Okay.
[3:25:02] So that is tied, so that
[3:25:05] fails.
[3:25:07] Okay, and was that all
[3:25:07] three?
[3:25:08] That was all three.
[3:25:10] >> yes, ma'am, there are
[3:25:12] just three, yes, ma'am.
[3:25:18] >> Paxson: okay.
[3:25:20] Then -- MR. Shamsie, is
[3:25:22] there -- seeing no further
[3:25:24] business, this meeting is