Houston recall fails test

HOUSTON — One effort to recall Houston Mayor Roger Purcell died Tuesday when it didn’t meet the legal requirements to oust the mayor.

A ruling from the city clerk says the application for a petition to recall the mayor was rejected due to the legal insufficiency of the grounds for recall.

The application for a recall petition submitted Feb. 9 alleged Mayor Roger Purcell violated the city’s travel policy on three occasions. It claims the mayor had the city file a complaint to the Alaska Public Offices Commission knowing it contained a false statement, used unauthorized flashing blue lights during a traffic stop and participated in executive sessions without stating the specific topic to be discussed.

“I have done nothing wrong,” Purcell said Tuesday after the ruling by city clerk Steven Cunningham.

The application met the technical sufficiency required, but the clerk — after consulting the city’s contracted attorney — ruled the 200-word statement reasoning why the mayor should be recalled did not meet the necessary level of legal sufficiency.

First, the ruling says, Purcell is authorized to “negotiate and execute” all documents associated with grant applications on behalf of the city. Additionally, the mayor was allowed to carry out any amendments to the grant “within the scope of services or tasks, based upon the needs of the grant.” This means Purcell had the authority to use a police vehicle to hand deliver a grant application to Fairbanks.

The application for the recall petition also alleges Purcell purchased a plane ticket without prior council approval. However, the clerk writes the purchase did go through the public process with the fiscal year 2010 budget, which was approved by city council before the purchase of the ticket.

In regards to the mayor spending an unauthorized amount to pick up a rescue truck, the decision says the council approved $65,000 to purchase the truck. When the mayor found a different truck at a lower price, the plane ticket needed to get to the new location was more expensive. However, because of the cost savings on the truck, the total amount spent did not exceed the council’s original appropriation. Additionally, the council approved the new travel plans, meaning Purcell’s actions were lawful.

The recall application did not define the false statement it alleges the mayor authorized the city to make to APOC, the clerk’s decision says. Therefore, the mayor cannot respond to the accusation.

Houston municipal code, based on state law, says the mayor is the chief law enforcement officer, the decision says. Thus, he has the authority to “issue citations and take actions necessary to maintain the public peace.”

Also, the lights on Purcell’s car were both red and blue, the clerk said in an interview after he made his decision, so the statute the application cites is not applicable.

“I have to assume their statements are correct, and they gave me the wrong reference,” Cunningham said. “I can’t change anything as the clerk. I know what they wanted to say, but I couldn’t change it.”

When city council enters into an executive session, it must do so by majority vote on a motion. On both of the occasions the recall application cites to allege that the mayor violated the open meetings act, the council approved the motion based on the description written in the agenda, the clerk’s ruling found. This means the mayor legally exercised the discretion granted him by the council. Also, the decision says, “it can be argued whether or not the subject given was adequate.”

“On many of the issues, we have a difference of opinion,” said Wayne Oliver, the Houston resident who submitted the application to seek a recall of Purcell.

Executing a grant should not supersede the code requiring the mayor to seek permission from the council for travel expenses, Oliver said.

The mayor read the motion to enter into executive session; therefore, Purcell is responsible for the motion, he said.

However, Oliver said, “They clearly didn’t want to respond to the APOC complaint. I saw that as a definite opening to which I could pursue.”

Oliver can seek judicial review of the clerk’s decision and there is no waiting period if he wants to submit another petition. Oliver said he likely won’t seek the judicial review, but he may file another recall petition.

The day after Cunningham issued his decision on Oliver’s application, another application for a recall petition on Purcell was submitted to the city. This one, filed by Kathleen Baken-Barney, alleges Purcell misused emergency lights on the police vehicle when he was delivering the grant application to Fairbanks.

Cunningham said he has already given the application to the city’s attorney for review.

“They are just harassing me now,” Purcell said.

Contact Todd L. Disher at todd.disher@frontiersman.com or 352-2252.