By RAY QUIROGA
publisher@sbnewspaper.com
In a statement by San Benito City officials late last Friday afternoon, City leaders say they are “moving forward” after finding the petition for a recall election of the San Benito City Commission “insufficient.”
“A petition to recall the elected San Benito City Commission was submitted and thoroughly reviewed in accordance with the City Charter,” reads the City’s press release. “After careful examination, the petition was found insufficient as it did not meet the necessary requirements outlined in the Charter.”
The statement continued, “With this matter resolved, the City Commission will continue its work as the community’s democratically elected body serving San Benito. The City Commission remains focused on its priorities: supporting local businesses, fostering new residential development and attracting new businesses to San Benito.”
“As your elected mayor and city commission, chosen by the majority to serve this community, we’ve remained committed to progress and staying focused on the positive,” stated San Benito Mayor Rick Guerra in the release. “We will continue to serve as we were elected to do, and we invite citizens to share their ideas on how we can improve San Benito together.”
The press release concludes by referencing a community workshop slated for the following Wednesday. The statement, however, did not address the methodology used to determine the City’s conclusion. The statement, which was also posted on the City’s Facebook page, drew instant criticism.
Wayne Dolcefino, an investigative journalist and head of Dolcefino Consulting, which was hired by an unknown party to first report on the findings on the City and the San Benito EDC’s dealings of a commercial development called the Resaca Village, wrote, “Stop hiding the truth. Why were these petitions denied?”
Dolcefino assisted local citizens which included ousted former commissioner Carol Sanchez, Eddie Loa and local businessman Jesus Aguilera in initiating the petition which required 35% of the voters of the past two elections to sign in order for it to be valid as well as meet a certain deadline to be turned back into the City.
The petitioners met the deadline and the signatures were to be vetted within 20 days.
“The San Benito City Secretary must explain today why petitions to recall the controversial Mayor and City Commission were rejected in the City’s suspicious 5 p.m. press release on Friday, Nov. 8,” Dolcefino wrote in a media statement. “The top election official in Cameron County confirms the City of San Benito never even sent the recall petitions to the county office for verification before declaring the petition drive a failure.”
Bryan Rivera of Texas Hometown Solutions, a firm that also helped citizens organize the recall drive, reacted to the claim the petitions were invalid. “Even the most corrupt cities who fight recall drives at least verify the signatures of the voters as part of their review. San Benito must detail the specific reasons in writing for rejecting the petitions immediately. The voters of San Benito deserve that. I believe the law requires it,” stated Rivera.
Organizers say they obtained the required signatures to oust Mayor Guerra and several commissioners. “Under the charter, five days after the petitions with the required signatures were turned in, the mayor was required to resign, or the city would have to set a date for a special election,” said Dolcefino. “None of that happened. These people just don’t learn. This will not stand…Taxpayers should not have to pay for another unnecessary lawsuit to expose the truth.”
Dolcefino added that the City had through Tuesday, Nov. 11 to detail, in writing, to the citizens of the City the specific reasons the petitions were denied. “Because we now know it wasn’t about the number of voters who want these people out,” said Dolcefino.
On Nov. 13, in a press release entitled, The Citizens of San Benito have spoken the City offered clarification about the status of the petition, stating, “Contrary to some reports, the petition has not been denied.
However, after a comprehensive evaluation, it was determined that the petition did not meet the minimum number of signatures required by the City Charter to advance to the next stage of the recall process.”
The release went on to read, “We acknowledge and appreciate the civic engagement of all residents who participated in this process. While this particular recall effort will not move forward, it underscores the importance of community involvement in shaping the future of our City.”
The City’s initial press release regarding the petition came days after visiting judge to the 197th District Court Michael V. Garcia of Wells County issued an order on Monday, Nov. 4, “restraining” the City of San Benito from implementing the results of a Charter Amendments Election on the Nov. 5 General Election Ballot.
This came on the heels of a two-and-a-half hour hearing a week earlier where the Plaintiff’s Houston-based trial attorney, Jeffery Diamant, representing San Benito citizen and voter Julian Rios, argued that the City Commission approved the charter amendments election through a “consent agenda” — which is typically reserved for governing bodies to expedite routine business — in violation of Texas Open Meetings Act.
During that hearing, Diamant also provided the court with case precedent in which the Texas courts ruled against a Texas school district that attempted to roll the employment of its superintendent as part of a consent agenda.
At issue was whether or not the City provided ample opportunity for citizens to be aware of and have input on the proposed charter changes per state and local Open Meetings laws. Rios, a former San Benito Economic Development Corporation [EDC] Board President asked for an injunction to stop the election, but the City’s stance was that it had no authority to stop the election at that stage of early voting.
The City, represented by McAllen attorney Javier Villalobos, countersued Rios to recoup legal fees incurred during the process. Now, Garcia insists that the City not implement the voters’ will post-election.
During court testimony, Sandoval said the issues addressed by the proposed charter amendments were raised as far back as his hiring process over a year ago when commissioners asked how he’d go about organizing a charter amendment election and how he would bring the charter more in line with other communities’ charters and in line with state mandates. Sandoval has long maintained that the City’s requirement to have its city manager reside within city limits violates state law, however, detractors maintain the state law does not apply to city managers.
Sandoval also said that despite what’s alleged in Rios’ suit, the City went out of its way to keep the public informed of the initiative specifically by holding the amendment election during a presidential election year which tends to attract more voters to the polls and to suggest otherwise was an affront to him personally and professionally. “I believe in transparency. I believe in good government, and I believe in letting the citizens know what’s going on in the City, and I take personal offense to the claims being made that anything sinister or underhanded was trying to be done,” he said. However, when pressed by the plaintiff’s attorney, he also admitted that consent agenda items tend to be more for routine items.
Villalobos countered by saying that the City broke no Open Meetings laws and allowed the public ample opportunity to review the proposed amendment changes (See the Oct. 11 and Oct. 18, 2024 editions of the San Benito News for the proposed amendments in their entirety) adding that if the proposed changes were so secretive that Rios has yet to see them, as he testified at the hearing, then how could his attorney have submitted them verbatim as part of the suit?
A prepared statement distributed by Dolcefino’s firm last week read, “The City had accused Rios of attacking democracy and voter suppression. The judge clearly disagreed. The same judge had already issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to halt the city charter change election the week before voting started, but the ballot had already been printed and early voting commenced.”
After the judge’s ruling, Diamant added, “I am very pleased to see the Judge’s decision. These regulations are in place for a reason, and that reason is the protection of the interests of the citizens and voters and to ensure transparency of a governmental body’s actions, which is foundational to our society. The City of San Benito blatantly tried to skirt those laws and that should not be allowed. The Judge’s ruling is monumental in the protection of the citizens’ rights.”
On Tuesday of this week, the City issued its own statement entitled, City Commission Fights for the Voters, addressing the ballot initiative and the judge’s determination, hinting that it may appeal the judge’s ruling.
“On Nov. 4, 2024, the day before Election Day, the judge hearing the case orally ruled and declared the election void. The City disagrees with the judge’s decision to void the election and plans on taking any and all action necessary to fully protect the rights of its citizens to vote and the legitimate outcome of the votes cast by the citizens of San Benito,” the City’s press release reads.