A private attorney is challenging statements made in a letter sent by Corpus Christi Mayor Paulette Guajardo’s lawyer last week related to a citizen-submitted petition requesting her removal from the City Council.
The letter, dated April 13, is shown as signed by Doug Allison.
Allison represents hotelier Ajit David, who filed a lawsuit against the city in 2024 related to tax incentives that had been approved for development of a Homewood Suites location downtown.
The petition accuses the mayor of misconduct or malfeasance in the matter.
In the April 13 document, Allison counters several points made in the April 8 letter that had been signed by attorney John Flood and sent to the City Council last week related to the petition.
In his message, Flood had asserted that claims of wrongdoing made in the petition, as well as those outlined in separate articles of impeachment, were “based solely on speculation.”
In his response, Allison contended that Guajardo had “abandoned her Mayor’s oath, broken all public trust, and lied after having sworn to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.”
“Clearly, there is an abundance of well-corroborated evidence that shows Mayor’s misconduct and malfeasance, and thus a public hearing is warranted,” he wrote.
Guajardo has denied all allegations and has suggested that the motive of the petition is related to Inner Harbor desalination efforts.
Petitioners have said there is no relationship between the petition and desalination.
The petition
The petition stems from a controversy that started over a screenshot that had been used in a PowerPoint presentation by Homewood Suites developers when requesting the funding.
The screenshot that was included in the presentation differed from what was shown on a U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency website.
There has been disagreement over the significance of the slide and what weight the information would have had, if any, in the council’s ultimate decision-making.
Critics have labeled it as an intentional move intended to mislead decision-makers, while others have chalked it up to an inadvertent oversight.
Similar to David’s lawsuit, the petition alleges Guajardo had been aware of accusations that the slide had been altered, but placed the item on a council agenda and supported it through her vote.
Subsequent articles of impeachment, filed in March, assert that Guajardo had perjured herself during depositions taken as part of David’s lawsuit.
Guajardo has denied the allegations. As part of a statement issued last week, she wrote that “the vague allegation that I somehow committed perjury is false.”
The process
The council in March voted to move forward with the petition for a removal hearing.
The council is expected to decide on April 14 whether to continue with the process — approving rules and procedures, and scheduling pretrial and hearing dates — although it is unclear what direction the discussion will go.
That’s partially because city documents indicate the council could also opt to take other action — such as suspension or reprimand — in lieu of a hearing, or end the process entirely.
Guajardo’s attorney had in the letter to council members alluded to potential litigation against the city if the council were to move forward with any proceeding.
It also asserted that there would not be enough council members eligible to vote in a hearing because several had been on the council at the time the vote on the tax incentives was taken.
Flood contended in his letter that those circumstances would make the council members witnesses and unable to vote. Allison disputed that point, indicating in his letter that a person on the council at the time of the vote couldn’t act specifically as the presiding officer over the hearing.
Dueling letters
Some opponents to moving forward with a proceeding have pointed out that multiple law enforcement investigations, as well as an administrative investigation, did not show criminal wrongdoing or a “quid pro quo.”
Some supporters of following the removal process have said that regardless of the findings of the investigations, there remain ethical questions that must be scrutinized.
“No basis in law or in fact supports the removal of Mayor Guajardo due to the allegations in the Petition for Removal,” Flood wrote in his message.
“They have been thoroughly investigated by numerous law enforcement agencies and outside attorneys retained by the City for an independent review.”
In his letter, Allison states the investigations had led to “insufficient evidence to criminally prosecute” the developer, but that “no one has investigated Mayor’s misconduct and malfeasance that are the subject of the Articles of Impeachment pending Mayor’s removal.”
Kirsten Crow covers city government and water news. Have a story idea? Contact her at kirsten.crow@caller.com.
Consider supporting local journalism with a subscription to the Caller-Times.
This article originally appeared on Corpus Christi Caller Times: Attorney contends removal hearing for Corpus Christi mayor is warranted
Reporting by Kirsten Crow, Corpus Christi Caller Times / Corpus Christi Caller Times
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
