Mayor Javier Joven held a special meeting Monday morning with a parks and recreation committee concerning the conditions at Ratliff Ranch Golf Links and four council members attended, possibly violating Texas’ Open Meetings Act.
According to the act, governmental bodies must give the public notice of the date, time, place and subject of upcoming meetings.
Attorney Jim Hemphill of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas said the fact a quorum of city council members and the mayor met together without proper notice “raises serious concerns.”
“The posting of meetings is a requirement because it informs members of the public who have an interest in the matter an opportunity to hear it discussed, deliberated and possibly acted upon,” Hemphill said. “It allows people to observe and have input on the matter.”
District 3 Councilmember Detra White, District Four Councilmember Tom Sprawls, District 5 Councilmember Mari Willis and Councilmember At-Large Denise Swanner attended the meeting.
Willis, Swanner, Joven, City Attorney Natasha Brooks, City Parks and Recreation Director Steve Patton and City Manager Michael Marrero did not respond to texts, voice mails and messages with city staff.
White texted she was at a doctor’s office and couldn’t talk.
Deputy City Manager Phillip Urrutia confirmed the meeting and asked permission to call back after “gathering materials” from the meeting, but failed to do so.
According to the city’s website, the Citizens Golf Advisory Committee hears complaints and other business matters related to the golf course. It identifies needs and develops solutions for recommendations to the council. It “meets at least six times a year” and committee members serve three-year terms.
However, Sprawls said the advisory board has been unable to meet for a long time due to COVID-19 restrictions and problems getting a quorum. The mayor opted to call a meeting with the board to discuss ongoing concerns about the golf course, he said.
“Apparently the course is in pretty rough shape and people are unhappy about it,” Sprawls said.
When asked if the council violated the Open Meeting Act, Sprawls responded, “I hope not, but we didn’t have the city attorney there.”
Sprawls said he attended the meeting because he believed it was like any other event in which a quorum of council members attend separately, but don’t take action. He noted no one from the council spoke besides Joven.
However, the Open Meetings Act defines “meeting” in part as a “deliberation between a quorum of a governmental body” where business “over which the governmental body has supervision or control is discussed or considered or during which the governmental body takes formal action.”
When asked if Monday’s meeting violated the Open Meetings Act, City Secretary Norma Aguilar-Grimaldo gave a variety of responses. She said notice of the meeting wasn’t sent out to city council members, it wasn’t a “called” city council meeting and it wasn’t a city council meeting.
She said she didn’t know about the meeting prior to its start, but confirmed it was held at the behest of Joven.
When asked again if the meeting violated the law, Aguilar-Grimaldo asked if she could return the call.
She never did even though another message was left for her.
Hemphill, the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas attorney, said it is unclear if the Citizens Golf Advisory Committee also should’ve posted notice of its meeting. It is not listed on the city’s Agenda Center website page. The Capital Improvements Advisory Committee is the only committee whose agendas are.
Sprawls said Ratliff Ranch currently doesn’t have a superintendent and only has an interim golf pro. From what he understands, the golf course has had a fair amount of turnover, he said.
District 2 Council Member Steve Thompson, who was out of town Monday, said he had heard Joven was upset about the golf course conditions and was calling for a meeting. After seeing some recent pictures, he too, is concerned.
However, he is disturbed the council met apparently without posting appropriate notice, which the law states is at least 72 hours before the meeting “in a place readily accessible to the general public at all times.”
“I sure would think” it’s an issue, Thompson said.
He is always careful not to meet with more than one council member at a time and he did the same when he was on the hospital board, Thompson said.
District 1 Council Member Mark Matta, who did not attend the meeting, also did not return a message left for him.
This is not the first time the city has been accused of violating the Open Meetings Act. The OA successfully sued the City of Odessa for open meeting violations in 2017 that resulted in the city paying legal fees as well as agreeing to record all executive sessions held by the city in the future. No other municipality in Texas is required to record executive sessions.
The OA remains embroiled in another lawsuit against the city in an effort to force the municipality to comply with state freedom of information laws.
The OA filed its lawsuit against the city more than two years ago, alleging the municipality was violating the Texas Freedom of Information Act by requiring the newspaper to file formal freedom of information requests in order to obtain police reports and probable cause affidavits, records that have always been readily and promptly available to any member of the public. The process resulted in delays in the release of the public records, which oftentimes contained information that was redacted.
