Corpus Christi Mayor Paulette Guajardo’s ongoing removal proceedings have entered another critical phase, with new legal motions emerging ahead of a scheduled pretrial hearing. The latest development centers on concerns about impartiality among City Council members who may ultimately decide the case’s outcome.
Attorneys representing Guajardo have filed a motion seeking the recusal of four City Council members, arguing that their prior involvement in matters related to the case could create bias.
Legal Motion Questions Council Impartiality
The motion focuses on Council members Roland Barrera, Gil Hernandez, Sylvia Campos, and Everett Roy. According to legal filings, these council members previously participated in discussions and votes regarding approximately $2 million in tax incentives awarded to developers of a downtown Homewood Suites project in 2024.
The hotel incentive issue has become central to the petition and articles of impeachment seeking Guajardo’s removal from office.
Petitioners allege that Guajardo knew of accusations involving one of the developers before moving forward with the funding agenda item. In addition, the petition alleges that she gave false testimony during a deposition in litigation related to the project.
However, Guajardo has consistently denied all allegations and maintains that she committed no wrongdoing.
Because the mayor cannot participate in the tribunal that decides the removal case, the City Council will serve in that role. Guajardo’s legal team argues that nearly half of the tribunal has direct connections to the issues under review in the proceedings.
Attorney John Flood stated in the filing that council members involved in the original tax incentive discussions could potentially act as witnesses and may have personal interests or preconceived views regarding the outcome of the proceedings.
Previous Votes Become Part of Current Debate
Voting records surrounding the hotel incentive package have become part of the legal argument.
During the first reading of the incentive proposal, Sylvia Campos abstained while Hernandez, Roy, and Barrera voted in support. Later, during the second reading, Roy and Barrera again supported the measure, while Campos voted against it and Hernandez abstained.
Guajardo’s attorneys are examining these voting histories as they question whether prior involvement could compromise neutrality.
While some council members declined to comment publicly on the motion, Roland Barrera addressed concerns and acknowledged that perceptions of bias may exist.
Barrera stated that he had already questioned the decision to proceed with the removal process and acknowledged that others could interpret his views as biased.
He also argued that some council members frequently oppose the mayor’s positions and noted that alternatives existed, including dismissing the case or referring it to an ethics review process.
City Attorneys Cite “Rule of Necessity”
Meanwhile, city attorneys have pushed back against arguments seeking to disqualify council members.
Their legal response relies on the “Rule of Necessity,” a principle that allows decision-makers to continue serving when no practical alternative exists.
City filings argue that the City Council remains the only body authorized under the City Charter to conduct the removal process. Therefore, excluding members could potentially leave no forum available to resolve the matter.
The legal filing further argues that council members can still participate in deliberations even if they become witnesses.
Attorneys supporting council members have also made similar arguments in federal court filings, arguing that merely participating in prior votes should not disqualify elected officials from carrying out their charter responsibilities.
Critics of the recusal request argue that allowing broad disqualifications could weaken the city’s impeachment process and create a precedent that disrupts future proceedings.
Pretrial Hearing Scheduled
Attention now turns to the upcoming pretrial hearing scheduled during the May 19 City Council meeting.
The hearing will address multiple procedural matters, including:
Key Issues Expected at the Hearing
- Consideration of pending motions
- Review of witness lists
- Potential issuance of subpoenas
- Scheduling of the formal removal hearing
As of the filing deadline period, Guajardo’s motion remained the only motion publicly listed in city records.
The removal process itself began in March when the City Council voted to advance a petition seeking Guajardo’s removal from office.
Supporters of the removal effort argue that ethical concerns still deserve examination despite previous investigations that reportedly found no criminal wrongdoing.
On the other hand, Guajardo and her supporters have questioned the motivations behind the proceedings and suggested political disagreements may be influencing the effort.
Federal Court Case Adds Another Layer
Separate from city proceedings, the dispute has also moved into federal court.
Guajardo’s legal team has argued that the city’s removal process may violate constitutional due process protections. City attorneys, however, contend that such claims remain speculative because the actual hearing has not yet occurred.
A federal hearing originally scheduled for earlier was moved to May 18 — one day before the city’s scheduled pretrial session.
Legal challenges continue to develop, but officials have not yet officially scheduled the removal hearing. Records indicate that June may be the earliest possible timeline.
Potential outcomes could include removal from office, suspension, reprimand, or no action.