Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appointments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Killeen council interviews nine for at-large vacancy, votes 5–1 not to appoint tonight
Summary
After closed-session interviews with nine applicants to fill an at-large vacancy created by Councilmember Segura’s resignation, the Killeen City Council voted 5–1 not to appoint a replacement and left open the possibility of a special election if multiple vacancies develop.
KILLEEN — The Killeen City Council interviewed nine applicants in closed session in February 2026 to fill the at-large council seat left vacant by Councilmember Segura’s resignation, then voted 5–1 not to appoint a replacement that night.
City Attorney (unnamed in the transcript) told the council the resignation that created the vacancy had been accepted on Jan. 20, 2026, and explained how the city charter and the Texas Election Code govern vacancies. She said the council may appoint someone to serve the unexpired term but is not required to do so; if the council declines and additional vacancies occur, a special election would be required under state law.
The council convened a closed session under Texas Gov. Code §551.074 for personnel matters to interview the nine applicants. When the meeting returned to open session, Mayor (unnamed in the transcript) said the council had the option to appoint an interim member or allow the matter to proceed toward an election if more vacancies develop.
During the public-comment period, multiple speakers urged the council to let voters decide rather than appoint a candidate after brief interviews. An unidentified commenter said, “Anyone who votes to make an appointment tonight is proving themselves to be a hypocrite,” and argued the 2022 charter amendment shows resignations become effective the day they are filed. Michael Fornino warned that selecting a particular applicant—he said that applicant had dropped out of a prior race and been recalled—would be seen as ignoring voters’ preferences. Sherry Bobacherelli told the council, “The right thing is to allow the people to decide who sits on this council.”
Mayor responded to public comments by saying the council was not breaking the law and praised the city attorney’s analysis. The mayor also thanked applicants for applying and noted the short remaining length of the unexpired term, which she described as about three months.
After discussion, Councilmember Solomon moved that the council not appoint anyone at this time; Councilmember Kendrick seconded. The motion carried 5–1, with Councilmember Alvarez recorded in opposition. The council did not set a date for any special election and did not appoint a replacement during the meeting.
City Attorney had warned earlier in the meeting that declining to appoint now could lead to a special election if additional vacancies occur, since multiple simultaneous vacancies would change the required process. The council’s vote leaves the seat vacant while the body and staff determine next procedural steps.
Votes and formal motions recorded in the meeting: approve the meeting agenda (motion carried 4–0 earlier in the session); motion to decline making an appointment to the at-large seat (motion carried 5–1). The council adjourned after the vote and noted a brief recess before continuing other business.
What happens next: The transcript records the council’s choice to decline appointment but does not provide a timetable or date for any potential special election; the city attorney explained statutory triggers for a special election but the council did not announce specific next steps on the public record.
