Former at-large council member Mark Scott officially files at city hall to run for Corpus Christi mayor in the May 6 special election. Courtesy photo
Whether or not Mark Scott will be on the ballot for Corpus Christi mayor May 6 will be decided by a judge, probably on March 24, one day after this newspaper’s deadline and three days before the last day to file as a candidate.
After filing his papers in early March to run for mayor in the city’s special election, Scott was disqualified by the city council. Six of the eight council members voted during a special meeting that Scott had met his term limits and would not be able to run for either council or mayor for another six years.
One week later, Scott filed a petition with the 13th Court of Appeals challenging the council’s decision. The council answered back by filing a 218-page response March 22.
“The city secretary has no duty to place Mark Scott’s name on the May 2017 ballot for the office of mayor of the city of Corpus Christi, Texas, because he is ineligible for such office under the city charter and laws of Texas,” states the city’s response.
In the following Summary of Argument, the city states that Scott would be filing for a fifth consecutive term, which is not allowed by city charter.
“Such a result is clearly inconsistent with the will of the city’s voters as expressed by their approval of the relevant charter provisions limiting a council member to no more than four consecutive terms in office,” the Summary of Arguments states.
In a media release about his petition to the court, Scott said the court would provide “clarity on our term limits so that the community can have confidence moving forward with this and future city elections.”
He then stated that if the judge rules against him, he will not press the matter further and “will continue to be a leader in our community in a different capacity.”
In an interview with Corpus Christi Business News, Scott seemed perplexed by the council’s response to his filing, which resulted in hiring three different lawyers and a five-hour executive session during a special meeting called for that purpose. Scott called the final move “lawyer shopping.”
“I am running because the first lawyer they hired said I was eligible,” Scott said. “I don’t know what else there is for a citizen to do. You want to run, they hire a lawyer, he says you’re eligible, there you have it. I did not expect the council to lawyer shop.”
FROM THE BEGINNING
The battle between Scott and the council began in September 2016 when the almost eight-year veteran of that governing body resigned. His intent, he said, was to not finish his final term so he could run for mayor in two years. That was his interpretation of the city’s term limits charter. Led by District 1 council member Carolyn Vaughn, a majority of the council disagreed with that logic and charged Scott with circumventing the city’s ordinance.
Vaughn made a motion that was approved by the rest of the council to reprimand Scott for his actions, calling it a move to “circumvent the will of the people who voted for term limits.”
They also voted to hire an attorney to look into the matter, but he came back to a later meeting stating Scott was eligible after all. According to this attorney’s interpretation of the charter, when the council moved the 2012 election from May to November, it shortened a normally two-year term to 18 months. The city charter specifies that a full term is two years.
The issue settled down until newly elected Mayor Dan McQueen resigned his position only 37 days into the office. That set the stage for the upcoming special election.
Now acting as mayor pro-tem, Vaughn put a vague item about the special election on the council’s agenda for its regular meeting March 7. She brought in a second lawyer, someone she paid herself, to render another opinion. This attorney said Scott was not eligible to run because term of office should be interpreted by election cycles and not specific numbers of months or years.
The council drew criticism for how the agenda item was worded for that meeting, some saying the vote was a violation of the Open Meetings Act because the agenda did not mention Scott’s name. That’s when the council called a special meeting for March 10 and hired a third lawyer.
Charles Williams of Olson and Olson LLP of Houston met with the council behind closed doors for almost five hours. The council reconvened in open session, heard one public comment against Scott’s candidacy and then voted without commenting themselves on a resolution instructing city secretary Rebecca Huerta to declare him ineligible.
No explanation was given for the vote or why this third attorney said Scott was ineligible. Scott said he didn’t know either.
“I am in the same position everybody else is: I have no idea what the council said. They decided not to share that,” Scott said. “I understand they are saying they can’t release the information because of potential litigation. If they have a strong case, I’d sure loved to know it.”
The March 22 response to Scott’s petition before the 13th Court of Appeals answered all those questions with specific citations of ordinances and careful explanation of the council’s interpretation of those ordinances.
The court was expected to rule on the petition sometime March 24 as the filing deadline for candidates is Monday, March 27.
So far, seven other candidates have filed for the position: Jonathan Garison, assistant principal; Reynaldo “Ray” Madrigal, former at-large council member; Nelda Martinez, former mayor; Joe McComb, current at-large city council member; Mark A. Di Carlo, attorney; Larry White, engineer; and James Hernandez, owner of Landmark Electric Co.
