Court Opinion

ID: 9682695
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:14:55.579439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:40.676259
License: Public Domain

JORDAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion which by writ of mandamus orders a recall election for Councilman Philip Kelly by the City Council of the City of Colley-ville.
I fully recognize that under Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat.Ann. art. 1735a (Vernon Supp. 1982-83), this court may compel by writ of mandamus the performance of the duties imposed upon the City Council by law in connection with the holding of recall elections. However, as noted in the Blanchard case relied upon by the majority, generally speaking, mandamus will lie only where the duty to act is clear and there is no disputed issue of fact. Blanchard v. Fulbright, 633 S.W.2d 617, 621 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1982, writ dism’d.). (Emphasis added). In the case at bar, it cannot be said that the duty of the City Council to call the recall election is clear.
The City Charter of Colleyville recites the following requirements for a petition to be sufficient to impose upon the City Council the duty to order a recall election:
The recall petition mentioned above must be addressed to the Council of the City of Colleyville, must distinctly and specifically point out the ground or grounds upon which such petition for removal is predi*735cated, and if there be more than one ground, such as for incompetency, misconduct, or malfeasance in office, shall specifically state each ground with such certainty as to give the officer sought to be removed, notice of the matters and things with which he is charged ... Charter, sec. 5.03. (Emphasis added).
The petition presented to the City Council in the case at bar is predicated on the following “grounds”:
1. Councilman Kelly has consistantly (sic) led, encouraged and participated in improper and incompetent minority opposition to the governing body of the City of Colleyville and in aiding and abetting the filing of litigation against the City of Colleyville with full knowledge of the cost to be borne by the citizens of Colleyville and contrary to the wishes of the majority of the citizens of Colleyville.
2. Councilman Kelly has repeatedly been mean, overbearing and obnoxious in forcing himself, his thoughts and verbosity upon citizens for the purpose of creating unrest and dissension within the City of Colleyville.
3. Councilman Kelly has on numerous occasions asked for the professional advice of the city attorney and city engineer regarding city ordinance interpretation and clarification and then blatantly ignored the advice he received and made decisions and voted contrary to that advice to the detriment of the city and in malfeasance of his office.
After reviewing this petition, I am forced to conclude that these so-called “grounds” for the recall of Councilman Kelly are, as a matter of law, insufficient under sec. 5.03 of the City Charter to impose a clear duty upon the City Council to order the election.
It is my opinion that these “grounds” for recall of Councilman Kelly in reality allege only general conclusions of discontent and disagreement with the Councilman’s performance in office and a dislike for him personally.
The application for Writ of Mandamus should be denied.