By ARABELLA SERRATA
Special to the PRESS
A legal battle between San Benito resident and former San Benito Economic Development Corporation [EDC] Chair Julian Rios and the City of San Benito—along with Mayor Ricardo Guerra—appears to be nearing its conclusion. On May 16, 2025, the Texas Court of Appeals denied Rios’s request for a rehearing, offering no explanation for the decision.
The case stems from controversy surrounding an August 9, 2024, City Commission meeting, where officials approved placing a charter amendments on the November ballot. One measure would have allowed the City Manager to reside outside city limits, a move widely interpreted as an effort to accommodate current City Manager Fred Sandoval, who has yet to relocate to San Benito more than a year into his tenure.
Rios filed a lawsuit against the City on Oct. 17, 2024. A hearing was later held just as early voting commenced. At the initial hearing, a visiting judge sided with Rios and decided that the votes for the election were void. The legal document outlining the lawsuit stated that all but proposition D were approved by the voters during the election.
In his lawsuit, Rios claimed that the City violated the Texas Open Meeting Act [TOMA] by placing the call for the charter amendment election on the regular consent agenda. Consent items are ‘considered to be routine’ and passed at mass while Rios maintained that a charter amendment election is anything but routine, thus the City was attempting to hide the effort from the community.
Eventually, an appellate court decided that Rios, who was also seeking to recover $100,000 in damages, failed to establish a probable right to recovery for his TOMA claim and further failed to establish irreparable harm.
According to the document, TOMA works to “enable public access to and to increase public knowledge of government decision making,” and “to provide openness at every stage of [a governmental body’s] deliberations.”
The City contended that it did not violate TOMA because the notice was posted in the meeting agenda before the meeting. “We conclude that the notice adequately informed the public of the subject matter at issue. The notice advised the public that the City Commission considered and potentially approved a specifically identified order, Order Number 2024-0806-001, and provided the subject matter regarding the City’s November 5, 2024, Charter Amendment Special Election.
Any readers interested in amendments to the City Charter had more than sufficient notice that the City Commission was considering action relating to it by way of a special election,” decided the court.
After this decision, the city released a statement online. “The opinion by the court of appeals validates the actions of San Benito elected officials and San Benito voters…The will of San Benito voters prevailed,” said San Benito Mayor Ricardo Guerra in a statement posted on social media.
Rios went on to apply for a rehearing on the case. He also mentioned that the city had yet to touch on Sandoval’s noncompliance with the city charter. “The City mentioned this was a big victory, but the citizens still won in the case of the City Manager living in San Benito,” said Rios.
Specifically, Rios filed an “Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Rehearing” to bring the matter before the full court of appeals. “I’m pursuing the rehearing because I believe the court should hold the City accountable to the charter,” Rios said.
The courts decided to deny Rios’ request. Rios was unavailable for questioning. Christina Garcia, the city’s spokesperson, gave the following statement on the city’s actions within the charter. “The City of San Benito’s actions align with the City Charter and our legal obligations. Public reactions, including supportive and critical, are part of healthy civic dialogue,” said Garcia.
In a previous response, Rios addressed criticism he’s received for seeking monetary damages against the city, to which he said that the $100,000 amount was his attorney’s default amount he automatically assigns to such cases, stressing he had nothing to do with that aspect of the suit.
Recent Comments