Vidal Rodriguez will continue to disgrace the City Council dais and the public trust

There’s a way City Council meetings feel when reason is about to jump the order of its sprockets.

This was palpable at the October 16 meeting in the punched-up atmosphere of Laredoans pushing, sometimes emotionally, for diverse agenda items.

permalink

permalink

There was the swarm of yellow-shirted Vidal Rodriguez supporters at the back of Council chambers, some who did not get the memo to turn off their cell phones, others who talked aloud during proceedings, some who jeered, and some who lobbed ad hominem attacks at the mayor and anyone else who did not venerate their indicted, convicted District II City Council representative.

There was the enthusiastic and dignified contingent of Korean and Vietnam era veterans in Council chambers to honor one of their own in a simple, heartfelt ceremony and to discuss the site of a proposed museum, and there were citizens who opposed that site.

Present, too, were the members of Our Laredo who regularly, pointedly encourage Council members to call up conscience and good judgment before they act.

It was, however, the two empty seats at the Council dais — those of District IV member Albert Torres and District V member Nelly Vielma — that portended the unfortuitous outcome of Council action to determine if the convicted City Council member had committed acts of moral turpitude and should forfeit his position. Council member Vielma reportedly had a longstanding appointment set to take an immigration specialization exam. It isn’t known why Torres was not present.

The meeting’s second half would tame down to a less fevered pitch.

PERP-N-TURP: THE FIRST HALF OF THE MEETING

It is the drama of the first half’s sideshow and public comments that zigged and zagged pro and con over whether or not Vidal Rodriguez’s conviction for illegally obtaining and distributing the protected juvenile criminal record of Annette Ugalde Bonugli constituted moral turpitude, and if so, would City Council call for the forfeiture of his office?

Ugalde-Bonugli was one of Rodriguez’s opponents in the 2016 race for the District II Council seat. Rodriguez gained access to her confidential juvenile record in December 2015 while employed as a court coordinator for Webb County Precinct 2 Place 2 Justice of the Peace. Rodriguez was arrested in March 2016. He pleaded no contest last August and was sentenced on October 10, 2017 by County Court at Law Judge Hugo Martinez. Rodriguez was given deferred adjudication on the count of accessing the information and was found guilty of disclosing Ugalde-Bonugli’s records.

According to an August 7, 2017 Memorandum in Opposition to Deferred Adjudication from District Attorney Isidro Alaniz, Rodriguez “shared a screenshot” of Ugalde-Bonugli’s record with multiple people, and it eventually made its way to Facebook. The memorandum referred to the “egregiousness” of Rodriguez’s actions and called for consequences to the “underhanded and illegal tactics” that undermined an election. It also stated unequivocally that Rodriguez’s actions were a crime of moral turpitude that abused Ugalde-Bonugli’s privacy and dignity.

Lengthy discussions in legalese ensued as three of the four attorneys on Council — Roberto Balli, George Altgelt, and Mayor Pete Saenz — parsed the instructions of outside legal counsel Ryan Henry and heard from Ugalde-Bonugli’s attorney Marcel Notzon III and Assistant DA Albrecht C. Riepen of the Webb County District Attorney’s office.

With the exception of a soliloquy by Council member Charlie San Miguel, the rest of the Council —Perez, Gonzalez, and Rodriguez himself — remained silent.

Henry, a San Antonio attorney who has represented the City in other matters, discussed the guiding principles that defined moral turpitude, auto forfeiture of office, and the void of case law for Rodriguez’s specific crime. He advised that it would take a majority vote — five — of the full Council body to make a determination.

Addressing himself to the Council, Balli said that the vote would come down to doing “what we think is right because there was no case law for these offenses.”

He continued, “Us as a council, we sometimes have our differences.” He added, “I have a lot of respect for each and every one of you as a person, but I also have respect for the fact that each and every one of you was elected by a group of people.”

Balli acknowledged Rodriguez’s supporters and referred to Rodriguez’s “mistake,” lauding him “for doing a great job for the citizens of District II.” He said he would leave it to the voters in a future election to decide if Rodriguez should remain in office.

Directing himself to Rodriguez, he said, “I make a motion that this not a crime of moral turpitude and you are not forfeiting your office.”

Over the din of applause of the Rodriguez supporters, Council member San Miguel seconded Balli’s motion.

Notzon addressed the Council. “I don’t think this is a decision you have to make. The law is clear. He was convicted of two crimes. One was obtaining in an unauthorized manner. He worked for Webb County for a judge, and he had possession of every juvenile’s criminal record. That’s an awesome position to hold, and it’s a violation of law to distribute that. But what’s more telling — well, not he was curious and looked it up. That was violation number one. He went and distributed it and published it to his brother and it ended up on Facebook. He not only did it for personal financial gain to win his post….Are you going to say to the community, “It’s OK to lie, steal, and cheat  and break the law to win the office. The ends justify the means. Is that what you all are going to say, this conduct is tolerable?”

Mayor Saenz’s comments embodied the collective outrage in the room about Rodriguez’s violation of the law. “In good conscience can each one of us face those veterans? Is this a game? For me it’s very easy. These are my colleagues. These are people I work with. We need to work with each other, but it comes a time that we have to adhere to principles, principles that those veterans fought for, principles that the voter elected each one of us for. It’s difficult being a public servant. We’ve got to live, we’ve got to act on our principles. I’ve said it many times, we are not perfect. We all have weaknesses. We’re all human beings, but we’re called to a higher standard.”

Turning to Rodriguez, Saenz said, I feel for you, Vidal. I truly feel for you. People make mistakes. There are consequences for errors, so we have got to be mindful of that. For me this is moral turpitude. There was a confidence there that was breached. A judge ruled on it. How simple does it get?”

Council member Altgelt also spoke directly to Rodriguez. “I’m not here to judge you. I want to tell you directly without judging you, the actor, just the action, I feel compelled as a Council that we’re obligated to not set a bad precedent. I’m sharing my legal analysis with you, not them.” He gestured in the direction of the seated public and continued, “I’m not perfect. I’m full of sin. I’ve made bad decisions. I’m not here to judge you. I’m here just to make sure that the precedent we do set, that it’s a good precedent. I wanted to tell you that directly.”

NO MAS LE FALTABA MOM Y APPLE PIE

Council member San Miguel appeared to speak out of both sides of his political ideology. “I’d like to just articulate my reasoning for my position regarding this issue. In my almost 50 years of life, I’ve gained a great appreciation of our freedoms, freedoms and the democratic process that our veterans here have risked their lives for, have lost good friends on the battlefield so we can have our freedoms and so we can have a democratic process that has made this country great. And I think at the heart of that is respecting the voters,” he began.

He likened Rodriguez’s predicament to “a situation a couple of years ago” in which Council members and others had called for his resignation over the allegation of nepotism.

If memory serves this writer, the allegation stemmed from the hiring of his sons as City firefighters.

San Miguel said, “Let me tell you, my phone blew up” with constituent calls urging him not to step down. He said that this defined his respect for the voter.

“I don’t agree with what happened. I don’t,” he alluded to Rodriguez’s conviction. “But I have great respect for the voters.” Like Balli before, he gave a nod to Rodriguez supporters by calling for a show of hands of voters who supported him.

The Council member from District VI continued. “When I weigh these two things right now, I think my respect for the voter has to take precedent. In a year there will be another election. If the people want different representation, then it’s up to the people. Let the people decide. And I don’t think that any of us would like it if after an electorate made a decision and voted somebody in, that a group of eight or nine people would decide, would say, ‘forget all the people that came out to vote, we’re going to decide.’ I also believe that’s a slippery slope.”

San Miguel inferred that his past work on the ethics ordinance had contributed to the effort to oust him from the City Council.

“I see that if in the future that if eight or nine of us (the Council) can decide the fate of a Council member and disrespect all the voters that came out for them, shame on us,” he asserted.

He called for a look at the City charter to implement an impeachment process and

concluded that the crimes for which Rodriguez was convicted were not crimes of moral turpitude.

“I just wanted to give you my logic and reasoning,” he reiterated, in case you thought he’d gone down a slippery slope, bumped his head, and lost his true North.

THE LAST NOTES OF MORAL OUTRAGE

Humberto Treviño of VIDA, Voices in Democratic Action, reminded the Council that Rodriguez’s conviction continued to be a divisive issue across the community.

“Now that this has been settled in a court of law, it becomes pretty obvious you have a clear and accurate blueprint and an obligation to honor the oath of office that you all swore to protect and abide by. The actions of Mr. Rodriguez are contrary to his promise to the citizens of Laredo, the State of Texas, and and in particular to the City charter of Laredo,” Treviño continued.

Turning his focus to Rodriguez, he said, “In short, Council member Rodriguez, you broke the law, and it’s incumbent upon you to do the right thing and resign. Not once throughout this whole process have you demonstrated remorse for what you did. It reinforces your total disregard for decency and respect sorely missing from your guiding principles, whatever they may be. It is also contrary to the hopes and aspirations of people that have voted for honesty and transparency from our City government. You, sir, represent the worst from what is expected from a city leader. In closing, how can our youth have any respect for the law? How can companies wishing to do business with the City of Laredo have any confidence in setting policy and how our tax dollars are spent? Mr. Rodriguez, now is the time to man up and resign and quit being an embarrassment to yourself and the citizens of Laredo who voted for you.”

Citizen Polly Stabile, who often speaks with her Our Laredo counterparts, said, “What I understand is first of all that Councilman Balli said that what Mr. Vidal did was an accident and a mistake. You cannot go in and try to find information on a person’s records and it be an accident. You have to intentionally be looking for the information. And yes, it was a mistake. The best I can tell, he’s never ever admitted it, that it was a mistake, or that he’s sorry for it or an apology. Mr. Councilman San Miguel just gave a very nice campaign speech. I don’t know what he’s running for, but when he was agreeing with all the voters, I thought it was nice, Charlie.”

She continued, “The bottom line that I find for all this is that if you’re just a little bit dishonest and a little bit not trustworthy, then it’s OK. I don’t know if that’s how you feel, but that’s how you’re coming across. If you’re just a little dishonest, it’s not that important. But for those of us that are taxpayers, it’s very important if you’re just a tiny, tiny bit dishonest or if you’re not trustworthy.”

Stabile closed by saying she believes that the Council makes its decisions in advance and that speaking up is often futile.

“I’m going to talk from the heart,” said veteran Ricardo Quijano. “I didn’t bring no speech, I didn’t bring no slides. Not prepared, I just came here to listen. But after hearing all this, come on, Mr. Rodriguez, you were given a position of trust. You broke that trust, sir. What makes us think you’re going to have that trust right here right now doing biddings or whatever.”

Turning his attention to Council member San Miguel, Quijano said, “I wasn’t going to go after you, Mr. San Miguel. You used the veterans, and you used shame. These guys right here, I’m a fellow vet, disabled vet. Afghanistan. I see Korean war vets and Vietnam. These guys sweat, lost blood, and lost brothers. And for you to say ‘shame.’ Negative. No way, sir. “

Quijano continued, “Mr. Rodriguez represents Laredo. When you go to Washington, DC, sir, you represent the whole of Laredo. When you’re there you represent them (pointing to the three rows of veterans), you represent me. Mr. Balli, I know you are an attorney, sir, but at the same time, you know what? The laws, all this, put them down. What’s right? Moral values. Growing up, we are taught moral values, what is right, what is wrong. What he did was wrong. It’s that simple. I’m not going to change your minds. I’m going to say my piece right now, you three, and that’s all.”

VETERAN EXTENDS OLIVE BRANCH

Ernesto Sanchez, president of the Korean War Veterans, told the Council, “This man did this thing and he deserves a second chance.”

VIDAL RODRIGUEZ SMOKES THE OLIVE BRANCH

In comments after the Council vote that found his crimes void of moral turpitude, Rodriguez apologized to his family (not for the crime he had committed, but for the ensuing borlote), never taking responsibility for the criminal actions that brought him to public disgrace, never uttering an apology to Ugalde-Bonugli, and then accusing Mayor Saenz of moral turpitude in a civil case that is in the courts.

Though Rodriguez likely saw redemption in four of his peers finding no moral turpitude in the criminal acts for which he was convicted, the two-hour Public Access broadcast and its archive (Item XV 32) of the October 16 saga have now informed many of who he is, what he did, and what the legal consequences were. The supporting documents for arrest, indictment, and conviction exist for perpetuity.

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S TAKE ON THE MATTER

“From our point of view, it’s a pretty simple conclusion that the crime of which Vidal Rodriguez was convicted was a crime of moral turpitude,” said Webb County District Attorney Isidro Alaniz after the October 16 Council meeting.

Regarding his August 7, 2017 Memorandum in Opposition to Deferred Adjudication, he said, “This was a case of first impression. It is our first position, and not one filed as an advocate. It was to state our position up front that it was a crime of moral turpitude. The facts and evidence support this.”

He concluded, “The decision should have been a very simple one, from any angle. It was within City Council’s purview; this is why they were elected. They represent us, and we trust them to make the right decision. In the real world anybody that would commit that kind of crime would be fired. In my world, you’d be fired,” he concluded.

CIVICS 101 IN THE LAND OF UNHINGED POLITICS

What’s to be learned from this exercise in First Amendment expression voiced from citizens from every sector of the City to those they elected to represent them and to act on their behalf? What’s the takeaway?

In the end, I think it’s, “Your will be damned, in three parts.”

1. Balli, San Miguel, Perez, and Gonzalez voted to establish a bad precedent, despite the public’s input.
2. This Council voted to condone that if you are in a position of trust, you can access the protected records of juveniles, violate the rights of those who are protected, and flagrantly distribute those records for your own gain or to harm others.
3. This Council did not have the moral fortitude to call moral turpitude by its name.

WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?

They weren’t thinking of you, despite their avowed love and respect for voters (who aren’t you).

Three of them were probably thinking of the political expediency of not compromising the support of Vidal Rodriguez and South Laredo voters when they run again for City Council, Mayor, or County Commissioner.

Note to Roberto Balli and Charlie San Miguel: You get an “E” for the effort to sanitize the stench of Council member Rodriguez’s criminal acts. It didn’t work.

Thanks to you and others, Mr. Rodriguez will continue to disgrace the City Council dais and the public trust.