Residents and advocacy speakers press Cibolo council over proposed retirement payout and transparency

Several residents urged the Cibolo City Council on March 10 to reject or more fully document a proposed post‑retirement payment to a former city employee, citing Texas law and demanding public transparency.

Jessica Donahoe, a 15‑year Cibolo resident, said the council’s public packet lacked backup materials that would allow citizens to evaluate agenda item 11a and invoked Texas Local Government Code §180.007, which requires a public hearing for certain employee payments. “This payout was nearly six figures and likely the highest in Cibolo history,” Donahoe said, urging the council not to approve extra hours or a bonus without a clear audit trail. Maggie Patterson echoed the concern, calling the proposal “a favor” that fails the “smell test” and urging denial absent supporting documentation.

Emails read into the record amplified those concerns. An email from Pete Thompson questioned the absence of supporting documents and asked whether an independent audit has been ordered; another correspondent, Travis Najjar, wrote that the city negotiated a specific exit payout and that renegotiating the amount after contract extension would be irregular. Carol Smith’s emailed statement raised a separate public‑safety concern about a firefighter who reportedly drove a city vehicle with a suspended license and asked whether an independent investigation had been opened.

Mayor Latimer said he had asked the city manager’s office for a factual response on the firefighter allegation and read back the city’s statement that the firefighter in question “is no longer an employee of the city of Cibolo” and that the person submitted a resignation in January after an internal investigation was opened.

The mayor opened the formal public hearing tied to §180.007 at 7:38 p.m. and closed it immediately, saying no one present wished to speak during the hearing. Council did not take final action on item 11a during the meeting; members discussed the need for clearer documentation and transparency before approving any expenditure that could look like a gift of public funds.

The episode drew repeated calls from speakers and emailed residents for the council to make available the contract details, the basis for any supplemental payout, and any audit or investigative findings that would justify additional public spending. Council directed staff to follow up on policy clarifications and acknowledged the public’s request for more complete paperwork before any approval.