By ARABELLA SERRATA
editor@sbnewspaper.com
An appellate court recently sided in favor of the City of San Benito, reversing a decision by a visiting district judge made just prior to the Nov. 2024 General Election, determining that the San Benito City Commission violated the Open Meetings Act by voting in favor of a charter amendment election as a consent agenda item.
The initial suit was filed by resident Julian Rios, who also sought $100,000 in monetary damages against the City. The case targeted the August 2, 2024 City Commission meeting, in which a charter amendment election item was placed on the regular consent agenda. The final decision from the appellate court was filed on March 28, 2025.
According to official court documents, the City placed the item for “Consideration and possible action to approve Order Number 2024- 0806-001, for the City of San Benito November 5, 2024, Charter Amendment Special Election” under the regular consent agenda. Court records note that items on this agenda are typically “considered routine.” The item was approved by the Commission, and placed amendments to the city charter on the ballot for voter consideration.
These amendments included: “Proposition A, amendments to the City of San Benito Charter for consistency with state law, Proposition B, an amendment to the City of San Benito Charter requiring all members of the City Commission to reside within the City limits during their term of office, Proposition C, an amendment to the City of San Benito Charter authorizing the City Commission to make appointments to the City Commission in the case of a vacancy where there are less than 365 days remaining in the vacant term, Proposition D, an amendment to the City of San Benito Charter to allow the City Manager to reside outside the city limits, and Proposition E, an amendment to the City of San Benito Charter to provide for process and reasons for removal of municipal judges,” according to court records.
The court records note that Rios filed a lawsuit against the City on Oct. 17, 2024. A hearing was held on Oct. 28, and it was decided that the votes cast in the Nov. 5 General Election for the amendments outlined in Order Number 2024- 0806-001 were void and that the City could not release or disclose any results from the election. The document reveals that all but Proposition D was passed by the voters.
Court records state that the City outlined seven issues with the trial court. They claimed that the Texas Open Meetings Act [TOMA] and injunctive claim under it was not ripe, that Rios failed “to establish a probable right to recovery for the TOMA claim and failed to establish irreparable harm,” that the TOMA claim was moot, the orders “improperly interfered” with an election and caused “undue hardship,” that the injunctive relief “exceeds status quo” and that the court granted affirmative relief in the “absence of a showing that the injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable injury or extreme hardship.”
Court records show that the “items at issue concern adjudicative facts that can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned,” and rejected Rios’s objection to them.
Court documents continued to show that Rios failed to provide a “probable right to recovery for his TOMA claim and further failed to establish irreparable harm,” when he claimed that the City did not provide proper notice about the vote.
The City contended that they did not violate TOMA because the notice was posted in the meeting agenda before the meeting. “We conclude that the notice adequately informed the public of the subject matter at issue. The notice advised the public that the City Commission considered and potentially approved a specifically identified order, Order Number 2024-0806-001, and provided the subject matter regarding the City’s ‘November 5, 2024 Charter Amendment Special Election.’ Any readers interested in amendments to the City Charter had more than sufficient notice that the City Commission was considering action relating to it by way of a special election,” decided the court.
The decision states that Rios claimed the City failed to abide by its charter when it “failed to contain the full text of the proposed amendment” within the agenda. The court decided that “the City Charter provides for amendment “[b]y Ordinance of the City Commission containing the full text of the proposed amendment and effective upon adoption…” Order Number 2024-0806-001, included in the appellate record, expressly includes the text of the five propositions at issue.”
Court records then discussed the order of events. The City posted the meeting agenda on Aug. 2, 2024. The item was approved on Aug. 9 during the meeting. The last day to order a special election was August 19, and the final day to mail or email ballots to federal postcard application voters was Sept. 21. Rios filed suit on Oct. 17, and the trial court filed a temporary restraining order on Oct. 18. The court filed another temporary restraining order on Oct. 22.
Early voting began on Oct. 25 and ended on Nov. 1. The court held an evidentiary hearing on Oct. 28. On Nov. 4, the trial court released a letter that voided the votes regarding the charter amendments. The trial court signed a temporary injunction on Dec. 23 to void the votes taken and set the case for trial on April 16, 2025.
The document stated that the City Commission approved the order on Aug. 6, 2024. But Rios did not seek judicial relief until Oct. 17, 2024. “By this time, ballots had been prepared, printed, and mailed,” stated the document. The court decided that Rios did not “seek judicial relief in a timely manner,” when reviewing the timeline of events. “Consequently, the trial court’s orders improperly interfered with the elective process…While it is true that the trial court’s orders did not delay the election, it cannot be said that its orders providing injunctive relief in any way facilitated the election,” stated the document.
The Court ultimately concluded that Rios lacked a “probable right to relief on the merits of his claims; therefore, the temporary injunction was improper.” And that the “trial court’s rulings improperly interfered with the election process.”
“The opinion by the court of appeals validates the actions of San Benito elected officials and San Benito voters…The will of San Benito voters prevailed,” said San Benito Mayor Ricardo Guerra in a statement posted on social media.
The jurisdiction of the lawsuit document states that Rios sought $100,000 in monetary relief. Rios clarified that the amount was the standard. “I never gave a [specific] amount, that’s just the standard they use,” he told the NEWS earlier this week.
Rios also commented on part of the election results, which cemented the need for city officials to live within San Benito while serving. Currently, there is tension on the matter of Fred Sandoval, current City Manager, not living in San Benito. “The City mentioned this was a big victory, but the citizens still won in the case of the City Manager living in San Benito,” said Rios.