After a 1-hour-and-15-minute hearing Wednesday, the Edinburg City Council unanimously found that Council Member Homer Jasso willfully violated the City of Edinburg charter.
During the hearing, Mayor Richard Molina asked each council member whether they found Jasso guilty of willfully violating the city charter and whether he was an officer or person of ownership with stock in any corporation with a contract with the city.
Council Members Gilbert Enriquez, Jorge Salinas and David Torres replied, “I do.”
A violation results in the forfeiture of office, according to Article XVII, Section 2 of the City of Edinburg Charter.
The document also states “no member of the city council or any officer or employee of the city shall have a financial interest, direct or indirect, or by reason of ownership of stock in any corporation, in any contract or in the sale to the city or to a contractor supplying the city of any land or rights or interest in any land, material, supplies, or services, or in any matter in which he/she acts for the city.”
In Fiscal Year 2016-2017, the city paid Santa Anita Recycling LLC, which was bought by Santa Anita Reclamation Project LLC, for tire disposal services.
During the hearing, Rick Gonzales, the city’s attorney, asked Jasso if he had a 15 percent stake in the company. Jasso replied yes, but said he withdrew it after he knew he was in violation.
Later in the hearing, David Flores, who was representing Jasso, asked him if he had received any financial compensation.
Jasso replied no.
Ramiro Gomez, director of Solid Waste, testified under oath that he believes Jasso was not trying to conceal his connection with Santa Anita.
“I do not recall any specific instance showing an interest in tire disposal, or concealing that interest,” Gomez said.
Ascencion Alonzo, director of Finance, testified that Jasso never requested any checks to be issued to him.
However, Gonzales said Jasso’s signature was written on the back of a $7,808.85 check issued for Santa Anita. Jasso did not deny it was his signature.
The next person to take the stand was City Manager Ricardo Hinojosa.
In March 2017, Hinojosa said he did not believe Jasso was violating any rules in the charter when he was informed by Jasso that he had a financial interest in Santa Anita Recycling LLC.
“I just told him that he needed to sign a disclosure form,” Hinojosa said.
Jasso was the last person to take the stand, stating he first learned that he was in violation of the city charter in a March 2017 meeting.
“After that meeting, I made it a priority to end all transactions between the city and Santa Anita [Recycling LLC] until we knew what was going on,” he said.
However, Gonzales said today in a phone interview with The Rider, “Even after [Jasso] was informed that he was violating the charter, [the company] still billed the city two more times.”
After Molina read the decision of the council, Jasso, who was visibly upset, did not take questions from the news media.
“It’s ridiculous,” Jasso said as he walked out of city hall.
Jasso’s attorney, Flores, said Jasso is still a member of the council due to a request for a temporary injunction that he filed last month.
The city is restrained from removing Jasso from the council until a full judicial review is carried out, Flores said.
“It’s a technicality, but there is a difference between removing him, and declaring it forfeited,” Flores told The Rider earlier today.
He said the council’s decision will be reviewed by the 332nd District Court.
“[The time frame for the ruling] depends on the standards the court wants to use, are we entitled to a jury trial,” Flores said. “There’s a lot of issues we need to seek court guidance from, and so we will begin that process immediately.”
He said the issues needing guidance include a thorough definition of “willful violation” and what standards apply for the court’s review.
Gonzales, the city attorney, said the court will look over all of the documents and evidence presented in Wednesday’s hearing to determine whether Jasso received a fair trial and whether the evidence is consistent with the findings of the hearing.
Asked Wednesday about the final determining factor in the ruling, Molina replied it was the black-and-white nature of the law.
“I’m very familiar with this because I think, what the big picture, and what was missed here through all of this was … [the law is] always black and white,” he said. “Was a violation committed? Yes or no? … Mistake of law is not a defense of prosecution. It’s a zero-tolerance policy. Council members are not allowed to do business with the city. That’s it.”
+ There are no comments
Add yours