Crockett Council Meeting – Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

By Greg Ritchie

Messenger Reporter

CROCKETT –  Crockett City Council met Monday, Feb. 3 for a raucous meeting with one main item on the agenda – to finally adhere to the result of the recent elections and finalize the termination of Crockett Economic and Industrial Development Corporation (CEIDC). CEIDC was officially shut down, but the second part of that arrangement – the assumption of CEIDC financial debts – was left in limbo, as council members switched their votes back and forth, throwing the city into legal chaos.

Crockett Mayor Dr. Ianthia Fisher explained the meeting would be a joint meeting between the city and CEIDC, as the same members serve on both. She explained both entities would need to cast votes for the same measures and pointed out while as mayor she could only vote in the case of a tie, she could cast a vote on any CEIDC board matters. 

The council began by officially calling for May elections for the positions of Mayor, along with precincts one and two. The city had been set to allow Houston County Elections office to handle the election for them, which had worked out well in previous elections, giving voters a one-stop option for voting. Nothing, however, would come easy in this night’s meeting. 

Crockett City Administrator John Angerstein pointed out this was the third election they would run through the county, noting at total cost of around $12,000, joining local school districts and cities in holding their elections through the county offices. 

Precinct Three Councilwoman NaTrenia Hicks asked if it would be possible for Cindy Lum with Houston County Elections office to come to the council to explain the process and the costs involved. Angerstein checked and said the city would have time to invite Lum and still be able to approve the elections in time. 

Hicks pointed out this was her first election as part of city council and requested Lum to come and explain how the process worked. Angerstein noted he had the contract and the details, but could request Lum to come, personally. 

The item was tabled until a future meeting. The county’s elections office ran the city’s elections in November of last year.

Angerstein presented a letter from Texas Workforce Commission (TWC), who occupies a space where the city’s newest business is setting up its operations. TWC noted their lease expired Dec. 31, 2004, and they were required to secure some kind of a new lease in writing. As this lease was previously handled through CEIDC (which was set to be terminated that evening) Angerstein said TWC agreed to transfer the lease to a month-by-month term, until the city could take up the matter and decided on new terms.

TWC has occupied the space for four years. Angerstein said the contract needed to be extended through CEIDC, but had a clause allowing it to be transferred to the city, once CEIDC was dissolved. 

“A month-to-month contract – I am concerned about that, being that the workforce is a good resource for our community. Did they choose the month to month?” Hicks asked. 

Angerstein pointed out the letter was sent on behalf of TWC and city attorneys. He noted the city did not want to see them leave, but since CEIDC was set to be terminated, could not offer any other terms. The month-to-month contract would allow TWC to comply with having a current lease, while allowing the city to extend or amend that lease at a later date.

“I want to say something about that,” Precinct Two Councilman Darrell Jones said. “I had a phone call from somebody from that place (TWS) and they said that’s not what they wanted. They want a five-year lease, with an option to renew. I know what you have there, but I know what they were asking, and they feel like that’s something that you came up with.”

“Now you are being ridiculous,” an angered Angerstein said, raising his voice. “Austin is the one trying to negotiate this lease agreement and you all are trying to turn me into a villain when I’m trying to protect the interests of the city. We want them (TWS) to be in there. Provalus wants them to be in there. But we cannot approve an agreement until council can agree to is. I would like to see that person, in person. I would like to talk that person because I know that’s not true. For a fact, I know it’s not true.”

Fisher attempted to calm nerves on both sides, explaining once again how this was the only legal way forward. 

“Mayor,” Jones interrupted. “No disrespect, but they feel like they are being pushed out.”

Fisher pointed out even if some with the local TWS office may feel that way, without an agreement, they will be pushed out. Angerstein pointed out TWS does not, in fact, pay any rent, and the agreement is an attempt to save the relationship. 

“I would like to make a motion that we approve five years,” Jones began, before being cut off by Angerstein, explaining once again this would not be possible, under the current situation. 

Hicks argued the city should negotiate with TWS and find a common ground. 

“You want to negotiate with someone who does not pay rent? fired back Precinct Five Councilman Mike Marsh. 

“They’re a non-profit!” declared Hicks. 

It was explained that non-profit entities must also pay bills, such as rent. 

Newly-appointed city attorney Donna Gordon Kaspar was called in to give her legal opinion and explained the situation and said the only way forward would be a month-to-month agreement, pending the dissolution of CEIDC and city council taking up the matter at a later date. 

Hicks followed up with a motion to give TWS a three-year lease to laughter from the residents at the meeting, before Fisher and Marsh again pointed out what Kaspar had already explained. 

“OK, then, let’s do a 90-day lease,” Hicks offered, to more argument. 

“You are now acting as CEIDC,” Kaspar explained again. “You’re not city council and you’re (CEIDC) about to be disbanded, so you cannot enter into long-term agreements, because you’re about to go away as an entity.”

Hicks finally made the motion as written in the meeting’s minutes and it was approved with Jones and Hicks voting “no.”

The exact same measure was then taken up by the city council, but in a surprise move, Jones and Hicks changed their vote, leaving TWS in limbo, with a month-to-month contract approved by a defunct entity, with no assurance from the city they would honor the agreement.

The exasperated council members then adjourned into a two-hour executive session, where they were set to discuss the final termination of CEIDC.

When they returned, CEIDC voted itself out of existence, but in another shock, as the city council prepared its vote to accept the termination and transfer CEIDC’s financial obligations back to the city, Jones, Hicks and Precinct Four Councilman Elbert Johnson voted “no”, leaving the city without a CEIDC, but none of its obligations taken on by the city. 

For more detail about this aspect of the meeting, please see related article in today’s edition. 

Greg Ritchie can be reached at [email protected]