COMMENTARY
By JOE RODRIGUEZ
Joe Rodriguez is a San Benito resident, a local citizen watchdog, and a past San Benito Commission Candidate.
Res ipsa loquitur is Latin for “the thing speaks for itself”.
Transparency and open government are essential principles for good governance and a healthy democracy.
The principles of transparency, participation, and collaboration are often called “cornerstones” of open government, emphasizing their vital role, and they all speak for themselves.
Except for the past couple of years, and long before Dolcefino Media Consulting arrived in San Benito, I was, for lack of a better word, a watchdog over the San Benito Commission, EDC, and City Administration. Being a fiscal conservative, I was a regular presence at the City Commission & EDC meetings, budget workshops, committee meetings, and so on.
I started attending City Commission meetings in 2008, even before anyone on the current City Commission was elected. In my humble opinion, all those previous San Benito City Commissioners, City Managers, and City Attorneys were not only committed to serving the best interests of the residents of San Benito but also dedicated to the core principles of “Transparency and Open Government.”
I have worked with numerous City Commissions, City Managers, and two City Secretaries since 2008. Some citizens might disagree, but my experience with these elected officials and city employees has been characterized by professionalism, ethical integrity, transparency, openness, accountability, community engagement, and responsiveness.
During those years, the City Commission, during budget season, would hold up to three Budget workshops. Budgets were discussed by each department’s budget line item rather than a summary.
Per Texas Local Government Code Section 102.005(C), (https://tinyurl.com/TEXASLOCALGOVCODE), I would like to request a review of the City of San Benito’s new Fiscal Year detail book before it is approved. I would also follow the same process with the San Benito Economic Development Corporation (EDC).
The proposed budget must be filed with the municipal clerk (city secretary) and made available to the public at least 30 days before the public hearing on the budget.
Reviewing the proposed budget helped me become better informed and prepared before I spoke at the Budget Public Hearing before the City Commission. Sometimes they listened to my concerns, and sometimes they didn’t, but they never denied me the legal right as a citizen and taxpayer to review the proposed Budget Detail Book.
Once a proposed budget is filed with the City Secretary, submitted, and formally presented to the governing body (e.g., City Commission), it generally enters a more public phase. Texas law requires public access to proposed budget documents at this stage and mandates public hearings to gather citizen input. This indicates that, at this stage, it is less likely to be regarded solely as a “work product.”
Although not legally binding like statutes, a long-standing custom of providing pre-approval budget reviews could bolster the case for continued public access. Citizens might claim that the city’s established practice has built a reasonable expectation of transparency that shouldn’t be suddenly restricted without a compelling and legally justified reason. The budget detail book outlines where each tax dollar is allocated.
All that changed this year. Hours before I was scheduled to review the proposed Budget Detail book at City Hall, I was informed via a phone call that, on the advice of the City Attorney’s office, I would not be allowed to review the Budget detail book until it was APPROVED by the City Commission.
This was new to me because all prior City Commissioners, City Managers, and City Attorneys had never denied me the opportunity to review the proposed new Fiscal Year Budget Detail book for any reason. They encouraged it because they appreciated the citizen involvement and interest. They also supported the doctrine of “Transparency and Open Government”.
In Texas, a proposed budget, even if not yet approved, is considered public information and generally available for public inspection under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA).
Here’s why: (1) Presumption of Openness: The Texas Public Information Act operates on the principle that “all government information is presumed to be available to the public,” unless a specific exception to disclosure applies.
(2) Definition of Public Information: “Public information” under the PIA is broadly defined to include information that is “written, produced, collected, assembled, or maintained under a law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business” by or for a governmental body. A proposed budget, even if in draft form, falls within this broad definition because it’s prepared and maintained in connection with the official business of the governmental body.
(3) Drafts and Exceptions: Although some draft documents might qualify under the exception for “interagency or intra-agency memorandum or letter that would not be available by law to a party in litigation with the agency,” this exception is generally limited to parts that contain advice, opinions, or recommendations related to policymaking.
Purely factual information, like the raw data, calculations, and financial projections that would make up a proposed budget, is unlikely to be withheld under this exception.
In short, a proposed budget in Texas, even if unapproved, is generally subject to public inspection under the Texas Public Information Act because it falls under the broad definition of public information and is unlikely to be entirely exempt from disclosure.
In legal terms, the proposed city budget would not be considered a “work product.” The City has held two public budget workshops (June 24, 2025, and July 29, 2025), and no city attorneys attended those workshops. In legal terms, work product refers to documents and tangible items prepared by an attorney or their representative in anticipation of litigation. I have never seen legal action taken against a city budget.
In Texas, a city cannot suddenly prevent citizens from reviewing a proposed budget, even if they claim “work product,” if state law requires public access and has established a customary practice of allowing review.
In essence, Texas law prioritizes transparency and citizen involvement in the budget process. A city cannot arbitrarily deny access to the proposed budget, particularly if doing so goes against established legal requirements and a customary practice of public review.
Ever since the last quarter of 2023, the City of San Benito City Administration department has stopped uploading to the City’s website the ‘Check Register’ (https://tinyurl.com/APDISBURSEMENTS ), as done by almost all other cities in the RGV. After multiple requests for the City Administration to upload the city’s Check Register, the City Administration continues to refuse to upload the data.
There was nothing wrong with the Check Register as it was previously uploaded to the city’s website. Unless the City Administration wants to delete some information previously uploaded.
Recently, I asked the San Benito EDC via a Texas Public Information request for the city-issued email addresses of all current SB EDC Board of Directors. The SB EDC flatly refused and asked for an Attorney General opinion. The EDC does not use personal email addresses for EDC business communication; the EDC uses generic city-issued email addresses.
A city allowing pre-approval budget review as a customary practice faces challenges if it abruptly stops doing so and claims “work product.” Texas law promotes transparency in the budget process, and documents like the proposed budget are generally subject to disclosure requirements once formally submitted for consideration.
Providing information about good performance is key, but manipulating or hiding the information provided to the public is not the solution.
The goal is to ensure that taxpayers have a voice in how public funds are allocated. Without transparency, there is a higher risk of unchecked power and reduced accountability.
Finally, I attended the Tuesday City Commission regular meeting. My suspicions as to why I was denied my legal right to review the proposed budget detail book or the city’s Check Register were confirmed.
It was revealed that the City Management Department under City Manager Fred Sandoval had doubled. Included in the City Management budget was an increase in budget dollars from $4,800 in the current budget to $36,000 in the current proposed budget for the next fiscal year. That is $3,000 per month. Are we paying for employee commuting costs? I believe the city has a city vehicle that was purchased for use by the City Administration.
Another interesting fact is that $1.8 million is being pulled from the Reserve Fund to balance the budget. The statutory requirement for a city’s Reserve Fund is 120 days (four months) of funds to keep the city running.
The current Reserve Fund has 260 days of reserves, or twice as many.
The city pulls taxpayer dollars from the reserve fund to increase pay for employees and cover 100% of their health insurance. However, the city can’t find the money to give taxpayers relief from taxes by at least one or two cents.
By the way, the City Manager persuaded the City Commission last summer to grant employees two extra holidays and one floating paid holiday. In December 2024, the City Manager again secured approval from the City Commission to allocate $250,000 of DARPA funds as a year-end bonus for all employees. Those with the most seniority received up to a $5,000 year-end bonus (if I remember correctly).
Now, I know why the City Manager does not want me, a citizen and taxpayer, to review the budget book detail or the ‘City Check Register.’ What else is in there that is being hidden from the taxpayers?
It’s time to give taxpayers some tax relief. Forget summer concerts that bring warm fuzzy feelings to some, but at the expense of taxpayer money.
Res ipsa loquitur: “Transparency, Accountability, Open Government,” they speak for themselves!
What are they hiding?
Recent Comments