The vote happened after the swearing-in of one new and two returning council members. New council member Jeff McGlothin abstained from the vote on the city attorney, causing a tie that prompted Mayor Mark Allen to vote and changed the balance of the decision.
What they’re saying
At the Dec. 2 meeting, Katie Cunningham, who motioned to fire the city attorney at a previous meeting, claimed that the city attorney was not following through with the promises to update city documents such as the Unified Development Code.
Additionally, Cunningham claimed that using a different firm would be able to reduce expenses related to attorney services.
“If you are voting for this, you are voting for $200,000 [to] $400,000 to be going to an attorney firm that we could be utilizing,” Cunningham said to fellow council members.
Randy Roberts, who initiated the motion to reinstate the city attorney Dec. 2, stated that the agreement between the city and the law firm was approved by the entire council, and questioned whether the costs from another firm would be cheaper if that firm put in similar hours as Hyde Kelley LLP.
According to the ordinance passed during the Jan. 9 meeting, the city agreed to pay $427,500 per year as a flat rate for the obligations and services provided by the law firm alongside any additional expenses outside of the flat rate.
This ordinance was unanimously approved by the City Council, according to the minutes from the Jan. 9 meeting.
“It looks to me that Hyde Kelley put in more than 2,100 hours, which through November comes to an hourly rate of $128.97,” Roberts said.
City staff told Community Impact that in 2024, Hyde-Kelley has performed services equaling 3,414 hours from Jan. 9 to Nov. 12 at no additional cost to the city. The city has only paid the flat fee, alongside agreed-upon admin fees leading to a combined total of $440,325.
Through November 2024, the city’s payments to Hyde Kelley LLP. for litigation and special projects, is less than $110,000. For the Fiscal Year 2024-25 budget, $440,325 was budgeted for city attorney services and $240,000 for litigation and other special assignments, city staff said.
While City Council discussions Dec. 2 were held in an open meeting, council had conversations regarding the attorney’s employment in executive session, meaning it was not recorded or available for the public, since it was a discussion based on an evaluation of a city employee.
The entire meeting can be viewed here.
The background
During an executive session Nov. 18, council met on an agenda item for the “city attorney's appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, dismissal, or to discuss a complaint or charge against the city attorney and/or address a RFP for legal services and/or appointment of an interim or new city attorney.”
Following this discussion, council voted in open session to provide a 30-day notice to end the contract with the city attorney.
This action was approved by council members Cunningham, T.G. Benson, Norma Sanchez-Stephens and Joel Hicks, according to the unofficial meeting minutes.
At that meeting, council also canvassed the Nov. 5 election results, which meant under the city charter the new council members would have to be sworn in at the next meeting. Because the city manager was unavailable at the Nov. 18 meeting for his annual review, council called another special meeting for Dec. 2.
What happened?
On Dec. 2, council began with a closed session focused on the performance review of the city manager.
The initiation of that executive session prior to the swearing in of a new council member caused conflict between the sitting council.
Hyde said the city charter states that each newly-elected person to the council shall be inducted into office at the earlier of either any specially-called City Council meeting or the first regular council meeting following the canvass of the election.
Cunningham stated that her reason for calling the closed session first was to close out old business prior to the transition of a City Council seat.
“With a new member coming on within five minutes, having them evaluate the city manager does not seem reasonable,” Cunningham said.
While the council was in executive session, Mayor Allen entered the council chambers to swear in McGlothin. Following the swearing in, McGlothin entered executive session with the rest of council, and Benson exited shortly after, leaving the building after being asked by the Chief of Police.
Benson told Community Impact that closing out old business prior to the swearing in of a new official was not abnormal in Cibolo, referencing the swearing in of candidates in 2022 where council had several agenda items prior to the swearing in ceremony.
According to the minutes from swearing in ceremonies from the last two years, on Nov. 21, 2022 and Jan. 17, 2023, the swearing in was held on the same days as the canvassing of votes.
“You vote on old business, you take care of old business, you close the door on old business, and then hold the swearing in,” he said. “So this was not abnormal.”
Following a second executive session, City Council approved the reinstatement of the city attorney. It came down to a a 3-3 between the council members with new member McGlothin abstaining. Mayor Allen, who only votes in the case of tied votes, voted for reinstatement.
