Texas Open Meetings Act Violations???
Texas Open Meetings Act Violations???
Several weeks ago a former council person (Griffith) was on social media stating, in my opinion [I do not wish to put words in his mouth, but in my opinion], trying to imply the city manager must be doing a good job, why else would the council give him a pay raise and extend his contract. I didn't remember any such actions being on the agendas, so I began investigating. I e-mailed Mr. Michels, the only person on the council the whole time that the city manager has been the city manager, with a copy of the post. [no response, just crickets]. So I went looking for more.
I requested a copy of the city manager's first contract that was approved at the July 2022 city council meeting. Neither the city secretary's office nor legal had a copy (???). There was a "Conditional Employment Terms" from June 2022 which paid the city manager a salary of $145,000 annually and was for a five-year term.
The contract from the September 2023 city council meeting paid the city manager $170,000 annually retroactive to June 1, 2023 and is good for five years from October 1, 2023. This appears to be both a salary increase and an extension.
I called the open government hotline in Austin. Well, as it turned out there appears to have been at least three Texas Open Meetings Act violations at the September 2023 City Council Meeting.
#1. The agenda [ https://kennedaletx.portal.civicclerk.com/event/3022/files/agenda/9027 ] called for "City Manager Evaluation" during the executive session. The Austin hotline person agreed that if it was as I stated, no, that is not the proper posting to give a pay raise and an extension.
#2. When they came out of executive session they first voted upon a bunch of appointments to boards and commissions (and some boards were advisory boards and could not be discussed in executive session). "Attorney General Opinion DM-149 (1992) concluded that members of an advisory committee are not public officers or employees within section 551.074 of the Government Code, authorizing executive session deliberations about certain personnel matters. Appointments to advisory boards are not allowed to use the personnel exception to be discussed in executive session." [This came from the Open Meetings Handbook 2024, from the Office of the Attorney General of Texas, page 54, https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/files/divisions/open-government/openmeetings_hb.pdf , .pdf page 61]. [Texas Municipal League (TML) also put out a 56-page document called Texas Open Meetings Act Made Easy, https://www.tml.org/DocumentCenter/View/3979/The-Texas-Open-Meetings-Act-Made-Easy-Updated-October-2023-X , where on page 26, .pdf page 36, it states, "Neither the appointment of advisory committee members156 nor the hiring of independent contractors157 is a proper subject for closed meetings under the personnel exception." (156 makes reference to the AG opinion referenced in the Open Meetings Handbook, 157 references a 1980 court case.)]
#3. When they voted on the contract, it was never stated as such. We the public had NO idea [and neither did the city secretary]. In the official minutes [ https://kennedaletx.portal.civicclerk.com/event/3022/files/agenda/9178 ] it shows (in a different font), "They stated they will continue with Darrell Hull as City Manager." without a separate vote, but "?included?" in the appointments vote, which is different than the video, which shows its own vote. The meeting video can be viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk2OK4e2AOw . They reconvene from executive session about 4:53:21. In the recording (about 4:58:10), after Mayor Joplin brings up the subject, Mr. Nevarez made the motion to approve saying "as discussed", Mr. Griffith seconded, with Mr. Horton and Mr. Michels rounding out the 4-0 vote [again, not in the minutes that way, but on the recording]. Again, the Austin hotline person said that if it was as I stated, that was a violation. They have to tell the public what they are voting on.
This appears to be a pay raise and contract extension that they have successfully hidden for 18 months. And it was only exposed because a former council person, in my opinion, was trying to throw his former colleagues “under the bus". [He was NOT trying to expose a wrong.]