Petition to recall Mineral Wells Councilman Tomlin delivered to city clerk
Oct. 6—MINERAL WELLS — City Clerk Sharon McFadden has until Tuesday to verify 571 signatures on a petition delivered Oct. 3 demanding the recall of Ward 1 Councilman Jerrel Tomlin.
The move comes following concerns over recent action by the council, including a hefty water rate hike, which Tomlin and other councilmembers approved unanimously, to help fund building the Turkey Peak Reservoir.
The threshold to force a public vote on whether Tomlin stays on the council was 517 signatures, or 25 percent of registered voters in Ward 1. The single-member district is roughly south-central Mineral Wells.
Only those Ward 1 residents will cast votes in a recall of their council member.
Tomlin, whose term expires in May 2024, did not publicly comment on the drive to oust him early.
The city charter gives him five days after McFadden certifies the petition to resign. If he does not, the city council must set a date for Ward 1 to vote.
The referendum must be 30-60 days after the petition is presented to the council, according to the city charter.
The petition was organized in part through a Facebook group, We The People of Mineral Wells. The page's founder, Terri Glidewell, was at Tuesday's meeting but attempts to reach her by message and phone later were not successful.
One question that arose Tuesday was why the council discussed the city's recall policy in closed session. The meeting agenda cites "consultation with attorney" as its exception to the Open Meetings Act. It then describes one of the topics to be discussed as, "Recall Election Process in City Charter."
"You need to read the charter and you need to read the state law," City Manager Dean Sullivan said when asked how the seemingly policy discussion qualified for closed-door talks. "It should be fairly evident what is there."
The sections of the charter for recall outline the procedure in detail but do not mention executive sessions or privacy of personnel.
An attorney with the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas on Thursday said the justification on the agenda seemed a little shaky.
"There is a broad exception for discussions with an attorney, but it doesn't seem like this would fall under the parameters of that," attorney Reed Pillifant said. "We see that exception stretched quite a bit, but it doesn't seem like it should apply in this case."
Pillifant cited a December 1983 Attorney General's Opinion which concludes, "(g)eneral discussion of policy unrelated to legal matters is not permitted merely because an attorney is present."
The lawyer with the Austin-based firm, Haynes and Boone, summed up former AG Jim Mattox's conclusion.
"They're not supposed to close off discussion of a policy just because they have an attorney there," Pillifant said.
