By JERRY RODRIGUEZ
Staff Writer
reporter@sbnewspaper.com
Newly-elected San Benito City Commissioners JD Penny and Joe D. Gonzalez are shown outside the City of San Benito annex building Saturday after learning of their victory. (Staff photos by Jerry Rodriguez)
A trend of change continues in the city as San Benito elected two new commissioners on Election Day Saturday.
Taking the two seats up for grabs in this year’s City of San Benito General Election are Place 3 Commissioner JD Penny and Pl. 4 Commissioner Joe D. Gonzalez. Penny and Gonzalez were sworn in Tuesday evening at a special meeting of the San Benito City Commission.
Penny, an AEP lineman, pulled off a victory against one-term incumbent Bill Elliott in the Pl. 3 election with a total of 828 to 795.
Gonzalez, a former superintendent for the San Benito and Donna school districts and current professional educator consultant for Region 13, defeated Gavino Sotelo, a former first assistant city manager in Dallas and current Laguna Madre Water District general manager, for the Pl. 4 seat vacated by longtime Commissioner Celeste Z. Sanchez. Gonzalez took 1,023 votes to Sotelo’s 624.
Penny said he is determined to help San Benito, and with his new position he has hopes to make it a better place. “It’s really exciting,” Penny said. “I decided to run to use my experience to help in improving San Benito.”
Gonzalez said, “I want to talk to the city manager about forming a team to focus on the issues. What we need to do is start working on the issues.”
Also, voters defeated just one of the 17 amendments to the city charter as recommended by the City Charter Review Committee tasked to complete as much by the San Benito City Commission.
Below is a breakdown of how many voters cast their ballots on the amendments.
1. Should Article III, Section 3.02 (b) of the existing City Charter be amended to remove from the eligibility requirements for holding the office of City Commissioner or Mayor that such person shall have paid all taxes due to the City of San Benito and be free from debt to said City?
Defeated – 765-642
2. Should Article III, Section 3.02 (b) of the existing City Charter be amended by adding to the eligibility requirements for holding the office of City Commissioner or Mayor that such person must reside in the City during his or her term of office?
Approved – 1037-321
3. Should Article III, Section 3.03 of the existing City Charter be amended by removing from the express powers of the Mayor the power to appoint with the advice and consent of the City Commission the members of the citizen advisory boards and commission?
Approved – 757-594 4. Should Article III, Section 3.03 of the existing City Charter be amended to provide that the City Commission shall elect from among its members a Mayor Pro Tem in May of each year?
Approved – 840-504
5. Should Article III, Section 3.03 of the existing City Charter be amended to provide that a vacancy in the office of the Mayor shall be filled in accordance with the provisions of this Charter for the filling of vacancies?
Approved – 942-367
6. Should Article III, Section 3.06 (b) (3) of the existing City Charter be amended to provide that one of the grounds for forfeiture of office by a member of the City Commission shall be conviction, while in office, by a trial court of a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, however, such person shall take a leave of office pending appeal?
Approved – 961-346
7. Should Article III, Section 3.06 (b) of the existing City Charter be amended by adding that forfeiture shall be declared and enforced by a majority vote of the City Commission?
Approved – 915-401
8. Should Article III, Section 3.06 (c) of the existing City Charter be amended to provide in case of a vacancy in the City Commission that the City Commission shall call a special election to fill the vacancy to be held not sooner than ninety (90) days and not later than one hundred twenty (120) days following the occurrence of the vacancy and to be otherwise governed by law?
Approved – 1008-320
9. Should Article III, Section 3.07 of the existing City Charter be amended by adding in connection with a public hearing demanded by a Commission member charged with conduct constituting grounds for forfeiture of office, that such member shall have the right to have process issued to compel the attendance of witnesses, who shall be required to give testimony, if such member so elects?
Approved – 922-383
10. Should Article III, Section 3.07 of the existing City Charter be amended by adding that a full and complete statement of the reasons for such forfeiture, if the members office be forfeited, together with the findings of facts as made by the City Commission, shall be filed by the City Commission in the public archives of the City, and shall become a matter of public record?
Approved – 1001-308
11. Should the first paragraph of Article III, Section 3.12 (b) of the existing City Charter be amended to provide that except as otherwise prescribed in this Charter, an Ordinance shall not be passed at the meeting of the City Commission at which it is first introduced, but it may then be considered and discussed, and shall be considered for adoption at a subsequent meeting of the City Commission, when it may be considered and a vote taken on the question of its adoption?
Approved – 894-354
12. Should Article III, Section 3.12 (d) of the existing City Charter, providing for the publication of the caption or title and penalties of every Ordinance within seven (7) days after passage, be amended by deleting it entirely?
Approved – 653-553
13. Should Article V, Section 5.07 of the existing City Charter be amended by adding that except where state or federal law provides to the contrary, each member of the City Commission shall be entitled to nominate a person to serve on established Boards or Commissions, subject to the approval of the City Commission?
Approved – 766-466
14. Should the second paragraph of Article VII, Section 7.09 of the existing City Charter be amended to provide that a petition filed with the City Secretary, demanding the question of removing an elective office or officers be submitted to the electors, must be signed by a minimum of thirty-five percent (35%) or five hundred (500), whichever is greater, of those voters who actually voted in the election when the elective officer was last elected to his or her current office?
Approved – 817-403
15. Should the second paragraph of Article VII, Section 7.09 of the existing City Charter be amended by adding that if an officer the subject of the recall petition was not elected into office by public election, then the recall petition must be signed by a minimum of six hundred (600) of those registered to vote at the last regular election?
Approved – 795-438
16. Should the sixth paragraph of Article VII, Section 7.09 of the existing City Charter be amended to provide that should a majority of the votes cast at such recall of the officer named on the ballot, regardless of any technical defects in the Petition, City Commission shall immediately declare his or her office vacant and such vacancy shall be filled in accordance with the provisions of, this Charter for filling of vacancies, and should a majority of the votes cast at such recall election be against the recall of the officer named on the ballot, such officer shall continue in office for the remainder of his term, subject to recall as before?
Approved – 767-458
17. Should the eighth paragraph of Article VII, Section 7.09 of the existing City Charter be amended to provide that in case the City Commission shall fail or refuse to receive the recall Petition, order such recall election, or discharge any other duties with reference to such recall, then the County Judge of Cameron County shall discharge any of such duties herein provided to be discharged by the City Commission?
Approved – 823-411
To see this story in print, pick up a copy of the May 16 edition of the San Benito News. Or view our E-Edition by clicking here.
4 comments
Skip to comment form
My, my, what a “glass-half-empty” headline. “…voters PASS 17 of 18 charter amendments” is a much more positive view of the results which are largely positive for the citizens of SB.
Author
Actually, it was supposed to read “only 1 of 17.” I’ve corrected it to reflect as much. But either way, it wasn’t mean to be perceived in any way other than merely reporting the results.
So let me get this straight. In the last few elections the voters of San Benito have voted a barber who can barely speak english and doesn’t pay his taxes and perpretrator of “Raspa-gate” as their mayor, an ex-postal employee who has son in jail for dealing with the drug cartels, a man who works playing video games with immigrants, a so-called business man who moved his fitness gym out of town, and now an ex-superintendent who was fired from Donna ISD for city commissioners? An these are the people San Benito expects to fix thier streets? My goodness, only in San Benito!
—Richard (Harlingen, Texas)
Richard,
Unfortunately, your observation is correct!
You should see the maintenance truck number 309-02 with the same two city workers cruising around town with their dark sun glasses on, windows rolled up, A/C going strong, on their cell phones. Only in San Benito!
Every time we see them, they never appear to be in a hurry to be anywhere!
Late in the afternoon, spending time at the city library.
Our tax dollars at work!