Special City Council Removal Hearing for Mayor Paulette Guajardo - July 22, 2026

The Corpus Christi City Council convened a special meeting on July 22, 2026, to conduct a hearing on the removal of Mayor Paulette Guajardo. The day was dedicated to procedural motions, debate over evidence admissibility, opening statements, and the presentation of deposition testimony from four witnesses. The hearing is scheduled to resume on July 23, 2026.

Procedural Actions and Key Rulings

• Motion for Continuance: Denied. Respondent's counsel John Flood requested a continuance based on the late addition of 1,922 pages of exhibits. The motion was denied, with the recommendation to strike the late-filed exhibits rather than delay the proceedings.
• Exhibit Admission: A significant portion of the day was spent arguing over exhibits. The council admitted the vast majority of documents. A contested 4-1 vote allowed the use of deposition transcripts from the Ajeet David lawsuit over strong hearsay objections from the respondent. Councilmember Vaughn dissented, citing her opposition to the June 2nd rule changes that permitted their use.
• Due Process Objections: Mr. Flood entered a global objection that the panel members were material witnesses and could not act as impartial adjudicators. This objection was overruled. The respondent also preserved objections related to hearsay and lack of foundation.

Public Comments & Testimony

All ten public commenters who signed up spoke in strong opposition to the removal of the mayor. Several speakers highlighted that five separate law enforcement agencies found no criminal or ethical wrongdoing. Others criticized the role of attorney Douglas Allison, noting his representation of a party suing the city created a conflict of interest. A common theme among speakers was that the decision to remove an elected official should be left to the voters, especially given the proximity of the next election. The chair limited public comments to one minute per speaker, contrary to the three minutes stated in the published agenda.

Discussion Items and Evidence

• Petitioner's Opening Statement (Douglas Allison): Alleged the mayor engaged in misconduct and willful neglect by advocating for a $2 million hotel grant. Allison argued the process was tainted by an altered FEMA floodplain slide, describing it as a "scheme" hatched to tie the project to an infrastructure requirement. He maintained the mayor knew about the forgery but pushed forward anyway.
• Respondent's Opening Statement (John Flood): Argued the allegations were based on speculation and not on evidence. Flood stated the mayor supported the project for legitimate economic development reasons and relied on staff recommendations. He criticized the proceeding as politically motivated and warned of the dangerous precedent it set.
• Mayor's Statement: Mayor Guajardo made brief remarks defending the integrity of her office and the democratic process, stating the office belonged to the citizens.
• Witness Testimony (via Depositions Played into Evidence):
  • Mike Colbertson (CCREDC CEO): Testified the FEMA floodplain narrative presented to the council was false. He stated the slide was deliberately altered and that he would not have tolerated it. He agreed the reasons provided for the $2 million request were misleading and met the definition of a forgery.
  • Alan Wilson (Type B Board Member): Testified that the highest standards of integrity are required when handling public funds and that altering a federal document to solicit taxpayer money lacks integrity. He stated the board would not have voted for the grant had it known about the alteration.
  • Heather Holbert (Assistant City Manager): Testified the altered slide was "horrible". She confirmed the justification for the $2 million shifted entirely between the first reading (FEMA flood costs) and the second reading (street-level retail and dining).
  • Peter Zanoni (City Manager): Testified he did not recommend the grant and informed the mayor and other council members that the document had been forged, calling it a "scheme". He stated the mayor and other members continued to support the item despite this information. He conceded that the first and second readings of the ordinance were not the "same" under the City Charter, violating the two-reading rule.

Key Outcomes

• No Final Decision on Removal: The council did not reach a verdict. The proceedings concluded for the day following the petitioners' initial presentation of evidence.
• Resumption of Hearing: The hearing will reconvene on July 23, 2026. The respondent is expected to present its case, with August 6 and 7 reserved for this purpose.
• Evidentiary Precedent Set: The admission of depositions from a separate civil lawsuit established a contested procedural precedent for the remainder of the removal hearing.