City Council denies recusal, sets removal hearing and authorizes subpoenas

The City Council met in a pretrial session addressing a petition to remove the mayor and, after public comment and legal argument, voted to proceed with the removal process. The council authorized the mayor pro tem to rule on pretrial motions, denied the mayor’s requests for recusal and to strike the pleadings, approved subpoenas for witnesses, and scheduled pretrial and removal hearing dates.

Public comment opened the meeting, with several speakers urging removal and alleging misconduct. “This mayor’s a fraud,” said Captain Dave Heasley, who identified himself as a long-time Corpus Christi resident. Other petition supporters told the council they had collected signatures and asked the council to follow the city charter’s removal procedures and refer ethics concerns to the appropriate body.

Councilwoman Kaelin Paxton moved to authorize the mayor pro tem to make rulings on motions and schedule dates for the pretrial process, subject to objections from the full council. Council members debated whether that procedural change would unduly centralize authority in the presiding officer or whether it would streamline hearings. After discussion, the council voted to approve Paxton’s motion.

Counsel then presented competing legal positions. John Flood, counsel for the mayor, argued the proceeding is unlawful under the Texas Supreme Court’s Bradley decision because council members who have personal knowledge of disputed facts cannot simultaneously serve as the tribunal deciding those same facts. “This proceeding … violates the Bradley decision. It is void,” Flood said, and he asked the council to recuse certain members or otherwise halt the process.

Petitioner counsel (identified in the record as Allison) urged the council to proceed, arguing the petition and articles gave the mayor adequate notice and that prior federal consideration of similar arguments favored moving forward. “Due process just requires fair notice,” Allison said, adding that the petition contains detailed allegations and footnotes the petitioners say provide specific factual allegations.

The presiding officer denied the mayor’s verified motion for recusal and later denied the mayor’s motion to strike the pleadings after limiting argument time. The council authorized attorneys for both sides to issue subpoenas as requested, with the requesting party responsible for service; the council record notes a city code that requires compliance and could carry penalties for noncompliance.

Because the parties could not agree on hearing dates, the council scheduled a full removal hearing for July 2026 at 9:00 a.m., set June 8–9 aside for pretrial matters, and identified additional potential hearing dates in July (15, 17, 22 and 23) to be used as needed. Counsel noted potential objections about notice periods for some dates and said they would attempt to resolve scheduling conflicts.

The meeting closed with the presiding officer confirming the schedule and adjourning the session. The next steps are the pretrial sessions (if needed) and the July hearing date the council set.

What this means: the council’s rulings keep the removal proceedings alive and set a calendar for subpoenas and hearings. The presiding officer’s refusals to recuse and to strike the pleadings mean the council will hear evidence and arguments on the petition during the scheduled proceedings.