Mayor Paulette Guajardo’s requested preliminary injunction related to removal proceedings was turned down because records didn’t show that the city or councilmembers were “acting without legal authority or in violation of the City’s charter,” according to an opinion issued by a federal judge.
The formal document, shown as signed May 28, followed a more general order filed two days prior stating that the preliminary injunction that had been sought by Guajardo was denied, with assurance that an opinion was on the way.
In his comments, U.S. District Judge George C. Hanks Jr. had written that the mayor hadn’t “clearly shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of this claim” – concluding, in part, that she had “not established a property interest in her position as mayor that is entitled to federal due process protection.”
Hanks, responding to other statements that had been made in favor of the injunction, asserted that the record didn’t reflect “that the removal proceedings against Guajardo would not have commenced absent a retaliatory motive on the part of Defendants.”
“As previously mentioned, the removal proceedings were initiated by a petition filed by six registered voters,” the judge wrote.
The opinion did not appear to reference an argument that has been made by Guajardo’s attorneys that councilmembers who may be witnesses cannot also sit on the tribunal in a removal hearing.
Attorney Hal George, representing the city, and attorney Stephen McMains, representing five councilmembers, have disagreed with those assessments in separate filings.
The proceedings
Guajardo’s attorneys have argued that the City Council’s proceedings pose due process violations, while attorneys representing the city have maintained that the process ensures that rights are preserved.
A preliminary injunction, had it been granted, would have essentially paused the removal proceedings.
A City Council removal hearing is held similarly to a civil case, in which parties may present evidence, call witnesses and be legally represented.
The “judge and jury” determining the final outcome in the hearing are the other eight members of the council.
The process was launched when a removal petition was filed by six registered voters.
It asserts that Guajardo should be removed from her position based on alleged misconduct or malfeasance in a controversy related to the award of tax incentives – and later, in Articles of Impeachment, accuses her of perjuring herself during a deposition taken as part of a lawsuit related to the tax incentives.
Guajardo has denied any wrongdoing and stated that the efforts to oust her from office are rooted in a dispute over the proposed Inner Harbor desalination plant.
There have been two investigations – one an effort of law enforcement agencies, and another by an independent attorney – each of which did not uncover criminal wrongdoing, according to documents.
However, the removal action is based on ethical questions that had not been part of the scope of the first two investigations, supporters of a removal hearing have said.
Guajardo had initially sued the city of Corpus Christi but later named five individual councilmembers as defendants.
Each had voted to advance the removal petition toward a hearing: Carolyn Vaughn, Gil Hernandez, Eric Cantu, Sylvia Campos and Kaylynn Paxson.
The opinion
Guajardo’s attorneys – in both the federal court case and in a motion filed for the City Council pretrial hearings – have argued that it is problematic that councilmembers who would otherwise be witnesses in the removal proceedings also be judges and jurors.
Responding to the federal court filings, McMains and George have both raised “the Rule of Necessity.”
It would mean that the City Council is the only body that could oversee the removal hearing and cannot be disqualified.
Guajardo’s attorneys have argued that the Rule of Necessity is not applicable to witnesses.
Attorney John Flood, representing Guajardo, wrote in a May 28 message to the Caller-Times that Hanks’ order had “addressed the issue of whether an injunction is appropriate at this stage.”
“What it does not address is our core issue — the illegitimacy of the removal proceeding being presided over and decided by witnesses,” he wrote. “That issue remains intact and we look forward to vindicating Mayor Guajardo’s rights on that issue.”
McMains declined comment.
George could not immediately be reached for comment.
The federal case remains alive at present – both the city and McMains filed a motion to dismiss earlier this month, but it has not been taken up by the court yet.
The City Council pretrial
A pretrial hearing as part of the City Council’s removal hearing had been scheduled for May 27; however, it was canceled due to the inclement weather.
A pretrial hearing is expected June 2.
It is anticipated that among other topics it will include discussions on motions, witness lists and subpoenas.
Among the motions that will be in consideration will be one filed by Flood, asserting that sitting councilmembers who were also on the council when the tax incentives were considered in 2024 must either recuse themselves or be disqualified.
The four councilmembers are Hernandez, Campos, Roland Barrera and Everett Roy.
Barrera and Roy have recused themselves.
This article originally appeared on Corpus Christi Caller Times: Here’s why a judge denied Mayor Paulette Guajardo’s injunction request
Reporting by Kirsten Crow, Corpus Christi Caller Times / Corpus Christi Caller Times
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
