During his update to the council, HRCC Chairman Gene Martin accused Place 3 Council Member Buddy Wright of sending nine emails to City Attorney Andy Messer with the intent to dismantle the process of creating a draft charter.
To which Wright immediately asked, “How did you get those emails?”
Wright also explained that his concern was whether or not the committee is putting together a charter that is following all legal guidelines and, therefore, will avoid possible lawsuits, etc.
It was revealed that Martin received the emails from Palmer, who had gotten them from Messer. Since the city is Messer’s client, not Wright, his sharing them with her remains within attorney-client privilege.
However, when Palmer forwarded them to Martin — who is not employed by or a servant of the city — this was a violation.
When Messer was questioned about the information being forwarded to Martin, he said, “I don’t think I was aware that emails would be provided.”
After the meeting, Palmer declined to comment to The Community News about the matter, saying she is discussing it with Messer.
While it does not appear Palmer broke any laws in a criminal sense, it is an ethical violation and could harm any legal defense that might arise as that information can now be used in a court.
Wright told Martin that he made “a gross mis-characterization of my comments. Every question I asked about was whether we were following to the letter.”
Shortly after, resident Scott Caron was allowed to speak and he said to Martin, “The exposure of attorney-client privilege and that you exploit that in this meeting is unconscionable.”
Following the meeting, Wright offered further comments on the subject, saying he believes Palmer had political reasons behind her decision to forward the emails.
“There’s certainly a betrayal of trust,” he said.
Wright added that his three biggest concerns about the drafted charter — which has yet to be presented in its final form — are:
“I’m not opposed to home rule. There are plenty of charters that do it right,” he said. “And this one is certainly not all bad, but there are points that require legal clarity and good governance review.”
A resident wishing to remain anonymous contacted The Community News concerning a response from Martin after he received a formal request to consider recommendations for some adjustments in the draft charter. Martin’s opening comments in the response letter were:
“I will not be forwarding your verbose, difficult to understand, and time-consuming input to the HRCC Commissioners as submitted.”
Martin added that input was too late and that the city attorney’s review of the draft charter was already complete. However, the deadline for the final charter to come before council — what was presented this past Tuesday was a draft — to be approved for the ballot is Feb. 10, which would appear to leave ample time for adjustments.
Martin was asked that if the home rule charter is indeed for citizens, then shouldn’t any suggestions from citizens at least be considered? He was also asked about still having time to consider any and all questions from citizens who will be served by the charter.
He responded, “If it’s packaged so it’s better understood.”
Palmer and her supporters, led by Marcy Galle and her daughter Gwendolyn Galle — Palmer’s campaign manager — have been pushing for a change to home rule since Palmer upset long-time incumbent Doyle Moss last May in an election that had significantly low voter turnout.
Some of the major items the charter calls for include:
While the charter calls for the continuance of a council-city manager form of government, it would extend the powers of the mayor to include such things as being included in the quorum, the ability to call for special meetings, and calling for emergency meetings.
Under the current system in Willow Park, the mayor can only vote to break a tie — which isn’t often, given the council has five members. The mayor is a CEO and budget officer for the city.
At a home rule committee town hall meeting on Jan. 8, Martin was asked what the charter is intended to fix. He replied that he has no intention that the charter will fix anything, but is designed to give citizens the rights and tools to have better control of the city.
At Tuesday’s council meeting, resident Carol Wagner said, “This new [charter] will have an impact on all citizens for generations to come and we need to get it right.”
Martin told The Community News “I do want this to get across the finish line successfully. Are we going to make everyone happy?”
To which someone in the back of the room chimed in, “No!”
It should be noted that the latest version of the draft charter was not posted until Friday, a day after the town hall meeting. Therefore, the public did not have access to the most recent version at the time of the meeting, leading to some questions and confusion.
A pressing question connected to the draft charter concerns the small amount of citizen signatures the committee is seeking to be required for a recall. Given the low turnout in this past May’s election, the amount required would be only 226. That’s less than the number of people who voted against Palmer.
At the Jan. 8 meeting, Wagner questioned the proposed recall process and its low threshold of signatures needed to trigger an initiative, referendum or recall election. Wagner had suggested using 10% of registered voters as the benchmark.
She said if an issue is not important enough to get 10% of registered voters to sign a petition, then maybe it’s not important enough to pursue.
When Martin told her it was the second time she’s mentioned this, she replied by saying it’s probably her 10th time, but also the last time before it goes to council.
The wording in the draft charter concerning this is pursuit of a recall requires the signatures of qualified voters equal in number to the lesser of (1) 30 percent of those who voted in the most recent general election or (2) 10 percent of Willow Park registered voters.
However, Wagner and numerous others have expressed a concern of the lesser amount, which still lends itself to only a small number needed to initiate a recall.
Wagner also questioned the lack of qualifications listed for removal of an official, which brought a response from Martin that it’s a process.
Caron asked at the Jan. 8 meeting why the commission is pushing for the charter to be on the May ballot, and not on the November ballot, where there may be more voter participation.
Committee member Charles Hodges responded that it was generally thought (by the committee) that it is not in the best interest of the city to have November elections.
When Caron followed with a question about maximum voter involvement being a plus, it led to an exchange that resulted in Hodges walking out of the meeting. He later returned and apologized to the attendees.
Martin followed up by saying the November election is going to have a lot of information on it, with candidates at the county, state and federal levels. He said the home rule subject could get lost in that level of information.
Martin reiterated this point at Tuesday’s council meeting. This drew some questioning from Place 1 Council Member Eric Contreras.
“I’m confused. I thought this commission wanted citizens to decide on home rule,” Contreras said, also asking Martin, “Can you please tell everyone here how many May elections have had greater turnout than November elections?”
Martin responded, “In the last decade, I would say none.”
Actions such as Hodges’ were brought out by Contreras at Tuesday’s meeting, as well as accusations that members of the committee are doing all they can to squelch the voices of folks who might oppose the charter.
Contreras asked if all HRCC members had completed their Texas Open Meetings Act training and received certification. Martin responded, “I didn’t go to their houses, but I gave that directive back in August.”
Contreras then cited a law that states a governmental body can’t prohibit citizens seeking answers, which he said seemed to be the case.
“From watching video, it looked like the committee was trying to silent citizens asking questions,” Contreras said.
Much ballyhoo has been made about a proposed ethics commission and exactly what role it would play under a home rule. While those on the committee appear strongly in favor, many others not so much it seems.
When asked by Caron — who called the ethics committee a “Homeowners Association gone crazy” — whether such a committee would be binding or non-binding, Martin said that hasn’t been determined at this point.
Caron addressed the council Tuesday during the public comments section, further stressing his points.
“An ethics committee doesn’t bother me. I’m a rules follower,” he began. “But the ethics committee they’re trying to create with this home rule committee, they’re doing a dance on binding or not.”
Caron called the ethics committee with binding authority a “deal breaker” for him and others.
“No one will want to do business here,” he said. “You’re going to have people in here and what they’ll get is an ethics colonoscopy.”
Martin said the committee ultimately decided to allow the city council to create an ethics committee by ordinance, should the charter be approved by voters in May. Contreras further pushed Martin on this subject.
“Now you want the council to establish a key part of it?” Contreras said, asking why the HRCC won’t allow the council to add or audit any other language from the charter.
“There is no way the committee would be running people for council and hiding it,” Contreras continued. “I believe that’s called the California Bait and Switch.”
Then, he added sarcastically, “I’m so glad committee members aren’t running for council seats.”
Martin responded about anyone who would come to the ethics committee, “You really have to have a bonafide complaint.”
Contreras also called into question the ethics committee having subpoena power. Martin said the HRCC was using Liberty Hill as its example.
“It doesn’t seem like the two cities are alike. Why would we use the example of a city that doesn’t share our values,” Contreras said.
When Contreras cited Washington DC as a city that switched to home rule years ago and had subsequent problems with its mayor and more, Palmer interrupted with “Is there a question. You seem to be calling me out as a socialist again.”
Contreras quickly told her, “It’s my time, and I didn’t use that word.”
Wright asked whether an ethics committee could address attorney-client privilege. Martin indicated that yes they could.
The council voted to order the May 2 election with the following key dates:
Following a discussion of the city’s hotel occupancy tax, council approved use of such to fund the city leasing both sides of its billboard as folks are driving into and out of the city.
Since November of 2023 (eastbound) and February of 2024 (west-bound), the city council has approved the use of the city’s hotel occupancy tax for one year of advertising space on the Lamar billboard located on the southeast corner of the City Hall property.
It was determined that without renting both sides of the sign, the city would have no control over what advertisements would be sold and displayed on the other.
Renewal of the billboard is $33,111 per side. A fee of $720 is charged each time the city requests a change in artwork, which is twice a year.
Parks and Recreation Director Mandy McCarley noted the leasing of the billboard fulfills an obligation that the city must use at least 14 percent of its hotel and occupancy tax to promote Willow Park.
However, Palmer questioned the content of the billboard and its impact.
“They may be silly, but people remember where Willow Park is,” Communications Director Rose Hoffman said.
“Okay, they talked about it,” Palmer said, to which Co-Interim City Manager Toni Fisher responded, “Then it worked.”
Council voted to amend the city’s code of ordinances concerning the planning and zoning commission. The adjustment provides more clarification with the creation, advertisement, and application process.
Changes in the zoning ordinance include:
It seemed the elimination of alternate positions was the thorn in the side of some, notably Marcy Galle, who was appointed by Palmer as an alternate on the board. Galle and Palmer argued that since council has a mayor pro tem who fills in when the mayor is out, it is okay for boards and committees to have alternates.
Mayor Pro Tem Nate Crummel explained that his position is not something extra, however, as he also holds Place 5 on the council.
“It was not adding an additional member to the council. We don’t need any bench players,” he said.
Fisher said, “It’s the same on the P&Z Board, we have a chair and a vice chair.”
Palmer argued, “So if we don’t have enough, we cancel the meeting?”
Fisher replied, “We would cancel the P&Z meeting without a quorum, just as we would for council.”
When Contreras interjected with a motion to approve the agenda item, Palmer got upset. Then, after asking Messer if she could continue talking after a motion was made and waiting for an explanation, she banged her gavel angrily and declared, “Sure, let’s take a break!”
Palmer accused the council of removing the alternates because she began the process of pursuing a switch to home rule.
Fisher reminded Palmer that only one person applied to be an alternate on the P&Z Board, and that Palmer overlooked that application and instead appointed two of her own choices to the board. Fisher said one of those choices has yet to submit an application — Galle.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here