After more than ten hours of testimony, day three of the hearing is still underway, focusing on removal proceedings tied to the city’s Homewood Suites investment.
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas — The Corpus Christi City Council resumed a hearing today centered around a petition seeking to remove Mayor Paulette Guajardo from office.
The third day of Corpus Christi Mayor Paulette Guajardo’s removal hearing resumed Thursday after a two-week break, with the mayor’s legal team beginning its defense as City Council members continued hearing evidence in the case.
This story continues below.
The hearing stretched beyond 10 hours of testimony as defense witnesses took the stand while both sides argued whether Guajardo should remain in office.
The removal petition centers on allegations that an altered Federal Emergency Management Agency document was used during the approval process for the downtown Homewood Suites hotel development, which received a $2 million dollar tax incentive.
Much of Thursday’s testimony focused on how the project moved through the city’s approval process before reaching City Council.
During the first two days of the hearing on July 22 and 23, attorney Doug Allison, representing the petitioners, presented evidence supporting the removal effort. Those proceedings included about four hours of testimony from Guajardo.
On Thursday, Guajardo’s attorney, John Flood, began presenting the defense’s case, calling former Type B Board President Leah Olivarri as the first witness.
The Type B Board is responsible for promoting economic development projects in Corpus Christi and received the initial proposal on the Homewood Suites project. During her testimony, Olivarri said she was not aware of any altered slide that had allegedly been included in a presentation about the development. Allison later cross-examined her.
Later in the hearing, Flood called Councilman Everett Roy to testify about the project and the process surrounding the City Council’s 2024 vote. Roy was serving on the council when the Homewood Suites proposal was presented and has recused himself from the removal proceedings.
Allison objected to Roy being called as a witness, arguing that despite his recusal, Roy remains a sitting council member and that information about his involvement in the project was already available through records of previous council meetings.
Flood argued Roy was being called as a fact witness with relevant firsthand knowledge. He also pointed to Roy’s involvement as part of a broader objection the defense has raised about council members serving in a quasi-judicial role while potentially having firsthand knowledge of events at issue in the hearing.
Roy ultimately testified, telling council members that he continued asking the city manager to investigate the situation as questions emerged about the project.
“I do believe if there was something done that was intentional to deceive or do anything of that nature, then that needs to be addressed,” Roy said.
Looking back on the vote and the process surrounding it, Roy described the situation as difficult for the council.
“It put us in a situation as a council member or as a group that there was not going to be any good outcome of this vote, and we’re here right now because of this,” Roy said.
He later added, “It was messy and some things went wrong.”
As testimony continued, City Council members acknowledged the significance of the decision they will ultimately have to make.
“It’s a burden. And I think you need to have a high bar. Nobody is above the law, right? So you’re looking for that. But it is a burden. And it’s really an interesting exercise considering within 100 days we’re going to have an election where the citizens normally get to decide,” Councilman Mark Scott said.
Councilwoman Carolyn Vaughn said the remaining testimony will be key before the council reaches any conclusions.
“It’s a huge decision, and you know I’m dreading it, but it is a huge decision, and we may come out with nothing and we may come out with something. We don’t know until we hear all the evidence and we’ve got two days of it,” Vaughn said.
Mayor Pro Tem Kaylynn Paxson has presided over the hearing with guidance from legal counsel Terry Shamsie as council members review the evidence presented by the mayor’s attorneys.
Petitioners argue Guajardo violated the City Charter during the approval process and allege key documents presented to the City Council were altered before the vote. Guajardo has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.
The hearing began on July 22, with much of the first day devoted to legal arguments over which evidence could be admitted before opening statements and witness testimony.
Guajardo also addressed the council, defending her record and telling members she had made difficult decisions that she believed were in the best interest of Corpus Christi residents.
The first day also included deposition testimony, including from City Manager Peter Zanoni. Petitioners argued the mayor failed in her duties during the approval process, while Guajardo’s legal team disputed those claims.
The hearing continued on July 23, when Guajardo spent more than four hours answering questions from the attorney representing the petitioners. Public comments were also heard before testimony resumed, with some residents expressing concerns about the process.
The proceedings are not a criminal trial. Instead, City Council members are serving in a quasi-judicial role to determine whether Guajardo’s actions meet the City Charter’s standard for removal from office. Authorities have previously investigated the matter and found no criminal wrongdoing.
The hearing is scheduled to continue Friday with a fourth day of defense testimony as council members move closer to deciding whether Guajardo should be removed from office.