Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Attorney Removal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Freeport residents demand explanation for city attorney’s firing; council enters executive session
Summary
At a special Freeport City Council meeting, public commenters pressed the council for answers about the removal of City Attorney Chris Duncan and urged an investigation or his rehiring to finish pending cases. The council then recessed into executive session under Texas Government Code Section 551.074 to consult with counsel on personnel and legal services.
Freeport residents used the public-comment period at a special council meeting to demand answers about the recent removal of City Attorney Chris Duncan, then the council recessed into a closed executive session to consult with counsel on personnel matters.
The first public commenter, introduced by the council as Mr. Manning Rollerson, accused the council of removing Duncan "without just cause," said he lacked confidence in the council’s actions and that he had contacted the district attorney’s office seeking an investigation. "You accused a man of committing a crime while he's an attorney," Rollerson said, arguing that removal for a statement of "confidence" alone was not sufficient grounds and could cost the city money. He also said Duncan "just got $10 million for the city of Freeport, Texas," and urged the council to explain the reason for the attorney’s dismissal.
Pam Dancey, who identified herself during public comment, urged the council to rehire Duncan to "come back and finish these cases," saying Duncan would prevail and that hiring other local firms could lead to settlements that would pay claimants. Dancey referenced a disputed $345,000 matter and suggested that settling cases now could mean immediate payouts "and everybody gets paid" from local tax dollars; she said rehiring Duncan might avoid an immediate $30,000 payment and protect the city’s legal interests.
Members of the council announced they would go into executive session at 4:10 p.m., citing Texas Government Code Section 551.074, which permits closed deliberation on personnel matters and private consultations with the city attorney. The presiding officer stated the session would address legal services and personnel-related deliberations; no votes or formal actions were taken in the open meeting before the recess.
No formal decision or vote on the attorney position was recorded in open session during the portion of the meeting on the transcript. The council’s reasons for removing the city attorney were not stated on the record in the public portion of the meeting, and the outcome of the executive session was not announced in the provided transcript.
