Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fema Slide Forgery topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing focuses on alleged forgery of FEMA slide used to justify $2 million incentive
Summary
At a City Council removal hearing, petitioners presented deposition excerpts and documents they say show an applicant altered a FEMA web screenshot to justify a $2,000,000 incentive; staff and witnesses told the tribunal they could not reconcile the altered slide with public FEMA records and staff withdrew its recommendation pending answers.
Petitioners urged the City Council‑acting‑as‑tribunal to evaluate whether the mayor’s support for a downtown hotel incentive amounted to misconduct after evidence that a FEMA webpage screenshot used in the project’s application had been altered.
Douglas Allison, lead counsel for petitioners, told the panel: "the mayor was the city's leadership through a corrupt process that resulted in the award of $2,000,000," arguing the altered slide and related presentations created a false, time‑sensitive justification for the funding. Allison pointed the tribunal to deposition evidence and to a city investigation that found a FEMA release date and reference number were missing from the slide used in the Type B/EDC presentation and the first council reading.
City manager Peter Zanoni and economic‑development witnesses testified they had flagged the discrepancy and sought explanations from the developer and its architect. Zanoni told the petitioner he could not "recommend anything because I'm still waiting on information" and said his conversations with the applicant did not resolve why the PowerPoint lacked the date and reference that appear on the FEMA portal. Mike Culbertson, CEO of the Corpus Christi Regional Economic Development Corporation (CCREDC), described staff’s RIMS 2 economic analysis that produced a recommended incentive of about $1,043,000 and said the project team later asked for $2,000,000 citing FEMA-related costs; Culbertson testified he considered the presentation misleading once the missing date was pointed out.
Respondent counsel John Flood said the respondent would press procedural and evidentiary objections and asked the tribunal to focus on evidence, not speculation. The panel denied a continuance requested by the respondent over late exhibits and accepted a narrowed set of exhibits while preserving specific objections. The hearing then proceeded to admit deposition excerpts from CCREDC and city staff and to take additional testimony.
The proceedings did not decide guilt or criminal liability; instead they focused on whether the evidence supports removal standards in the city charter (misconduct, malfeasance, incompetence or willful neglect). The tribunal set further dates to continue testimony and argument.
