Joe F. Rodriguez is a San Benito resident, a local citizen watchdog, and a former San Benito City Commission candidate.
Two San Benito City Commissioners placed the following Executive Session item on the Aug. 18, 2026 Regular City Commission meeting agenda: “Executive Session Item: Pursuant to Texas Government Code Section 551.071 and Section 551.074, discussion and possible action regarding City Charter Article III, Sections 3.06 and 3.07, concerning vacancies, forfeiture of office, qualifications of elected officers, and procedures for their administration and enforcement, including standards of conduct and attendance.”
It does not take a “legal eagle” or an attorney well-versed in Texas municipal government law to know that a majority of city commissioners in Texas lacks the legal authority to unilaterally vote or force out an elected mayor in Texas simply for walking out of an executive session.
Under the San Benito City Charter, removing a mayor requires strict adherence to constitutional due process or a citizen-led recall process.
A City Commission majority does not have the explicit statutory or constitutional authority to carry out such an act without it being a political move. A City Commission cannot remove a mayor elected by the people simply because it is angry about a walkout by the mayor.
San Benito Mayor Dr. Pete Galvan holds the office of Mayor by mandate of the city’s majority of voters. The Mayor is neither an employee nor an appointee of the city.
Texas Local Government Code Chapter 21 governs the removal of the mayor when a commissioner (or a local citizen) believes the mayor’s actions constitute official misconduct or incompetence.
Under Texas law and the U.S. Constitution, any elected official has a protected property interest in their office.
Texas Local Government Code Chapter 21 specifically states that removing an elected local official requires either a formal judicial removal proceeding (a district court trial for official misconduct, incompetence, or intoxication) or a citizen-led local recall election. This is also known as “due process.”
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees due process to elected officials. The commission would have to issue formal written charges, provide ample notice, and hold a quasi-judicial public hearing at which the mayor can defend himself with legal representation and on explicit legal grounds.
Under the City Charter, a “forfeiture of office” generally applies to objective criteria, such as moving outside the city limits or failing to maintain required qualifications, rather than to political disputes or breaches of meeting etiquette.
Bottom line, the real removal power rests with the San Benito Citizens through a voter recall, as the City Charter provides.
The City Commission’s majority cannot serve as judge and jury. A valid, verified citizen-initiated recall petition would place the onus on San Benito voters to decide whether to remove Mayor Dr. Pete Galvan from office.
Mayor Galvan ran for mayor with the slogan, “Progress with Purpose.” There will obviously be roadblocks, but I have confidence in him and know Mayor Galvan will deliver.
The next major test for Mayor Galvan will be whether the City Commission majority agrees with him and grants city taxpayers a 2-cent property tax reduction.
Following the most recent clean financial audit, the city’s Total Fund Balance was $11.5 million. The total Unassigned Funds were $11.6 million.
The City of San Benito also had $4.3 million in the 120-Day Reserve Fund to meet minimum operating requirements.
The city also has over $2.6 million committed to street improvements and specific city projects, including equipment, grant payments, and CCRMA [Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority], according to the City of San Benito website.
In my opinion, plenty of funds are available to cover a two-cent reduction in property taxes.
Adelante y God Bless San Benito.