Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Government topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Crockett council hires outside counsel, delays CEIDC director contract amid allegations and corrective‑action work
Summary
After public commenters accused CEIDC director James Gentry of wrongdoing, the Crockett City Council approved hiring outside counsel to implement a corrective action plan and moved to withhold consideration of any new executive‑director contract until corrective actions, bylaw changes and policy updates are completed.
The Crockett City Council voted to engage outside special counsel to carry out a corrective action plan and moved to delay any new employment agreement for the Crockett Economic & Industrial Development Corporation (CEIDC) executive director until outstanding corrective steps are finished.
The council approved a motion to retain the law firm identified in the meeting as Denton Navarro Rodriguez Bernal Santee & Zac P.C. to implement a corrective action plan the council approved on 07/01/2024. The engagement was described to the council as intended to interpret and implement findings from a forensic audit and related internal‑affairs work.
The decision came after a lengthy public‑comment period in which multiple residents raised allegations about CEIDC leadership and the proposed contract for CEIDC executive director James Gentry. "Your days of stealing from Crockett taxpayers are coming to an end," Lawrence Minner told the council, accusing the director of taking "18 plus million dollars" and urging prosecution if wrongdoing is confirmed. Another commenter, Bobby Kenneth Townsend, warned council members that Texas law limits the authority to extend such contracts and said he would file criminal complaints if council members voted to approve an unlawful agreement.
Several speakers outlined specific concerns about the employment agreement offered to the CEIDC director. "95,000 dollars annual salary, an SUV, 3 percent increase every year," Diane Roan said, adding that the director has been paid while on administrative leave and that council members with potential conflicts should recuse themselves. Kat Krause and Dr. John Garner urged the council to treat the city as a business and to avoid long, automatic contract extensions that could bind future elected officials.
During council discussion, members repeatedly said the corrective action plan and a clearly reorganized job description should be completed and understood before moving to a multi‑year contract. The presiding official said those steps are standard management practice: an evaluation tied to specific job responsibilities should precede a binding long‑term contract so that expectations and accountability are clear.
Councilmember (identified on the record as the mover) then introduced a motion "to reject this employment agreement and direct that no agreement will be considered until the corrective action plan is finished, the bylaws [are] changed, the needed policies [are] put in place, and the EDC director lawsuit be dismissed or dropped." A second was recorded and the motion was put to a vote in open session. The transcript documents the motion, a second, and the question; the meeting record includes procedural counting and an indicated majority in support of the direction to postpone consideration of a new agreement pending completion of the specified steps. The council also approved engaging the special counsel to carry out the corrective plan.
Councilmembers asked staff to consult the city attorney on procedural and legal questions raised during public comment — including whether members should recuse themselves and whether the proposed contract terms are lawful under Texas statutes and municipal guidance. In public comment, speakers referenced the Texas Penal Code and the Texas Municipal League Economic Development Handbook in arguing legal limits on board and contract authority.
Looking ahead, councilmembers requested agenda items for the next meeting to consider hiring a public‑relations person to improve transparency, and to discuss possible reappointment or removal of CEIDC board members and changes related to registered agents and officers due to the perceived conflicts of interest raised at the meeting.
The council did not adopt any new employment agreement at this meeting; the actions were limited to engaging outside counsel for corrective‑action implementation and directing that consideration of a new CEIDC executive‑director contract be suspended until the specified corrective steps and legal clarifications are completed.
