FERRIS: Mayor files objections

FERRIS – On Aug. 27, Ferris Mayor Jim Swafford filed several objections to the recently passed ordinance allowing three council members to fire the director of pubic safety without cause. Below are his objections.

In the matter of the Notice of the Return of Ordinance NO. 01-19-899 of the City of Ferris, Texas, with OBJECTIONS, the objections are described as follows:

On Aug. 26, 2019, I had this proposed ordinance reviewed by a TML (Texas Municipal League) senior claims specialist and a TML appointed attorney. Their advice is to council: It is advisable to hold off on passing this ordinance with amendment because if it is designed to dismiss the chief, it would be very liable on the city’s behalf. TML claims specialist would like to address council and inform and educate council on best practices regarding our liability issues and the mismanagement of EEOC complaints and claims. This meeting with council is tentatively set for Sept. 9, 2019.

Enacting the ordinance would create broad powers to remove a law enforcement official/director of public safety for virtually no reason or cause, thus allowing anyone serving in government to perpetrate abuses of the law enforcement and public safety apparatus designed to protect the public. Broad powers such as these would create the ability for certain officials to operate personal agendas in halting any investigation, creating a readily available means of coercion and punishment of any law enforcement official who may be engaged in the process of the exercising of any official and lawful act of law enforcement or related duty. The mayor suspects and believes such conditions would immediately create a severe compromise of the safety of the citizens of the City of Ferris for the most obvious reasons.

Criminal enterprises could easily be created and engaged in, protected from law enforcement under such an ordinance. The mayor again suspects and believes such conditions would immediately create a severe compromise of the safety of the citizens of the City of Ferris for the most obvious reasons.

The ordinance provides the means for personal attacks on law enforcement officials by politicians for virtually any reason. On the occasion of the passage of this particular ordinance, we have clearly observed a conflict occurring involving certain elected officials and a city attorney who have demonstrated an open dislike for the chief of police on personal lines, some of which have contained racial overtones directed at the chief of police, retaliatory negative acts associated with enforcement actions the chief of police has had to undertake, retaliatory negative acts associated with the chief having to undertake an internal review and investigation of the court clerk which has overtone and indication of complicity of at least ONE of the aldermen.

The ordinance has the appearance it was created solely to be used to create a personal attack on the chief of police and has no benefit to the City of Ferris; would not serve the City of Ferris well. The ordinance would create hazards and risks for the citizenry – especially if a criminal element were to be elected to an alderman position or higher. Such conditions have occurred in Ferris within the past ten years and there are indications it may well be occurring at the present.

The drafting and creating of the said ordinance in this particular occasion is surrounded by controversy, conflict, unethical acts, cronyism, personal agendas and interests, sordid acts, corrupt practices, policy violations; myriads of disappointing behaviors inclusive of defamation and other slanderous activities, all of which have been engaged in by certain public officials [both present and former] and their personal associates, the city attorney and others, during which acts and incidents, the director of public safety/ chief of police performed his duties in an exemplary fashion with refusals to engage in any of the negative acts. This ordinance [or amendment thereof] is so poorly designed; it needs reviewed by legal professionals outside of the City of Ferris.

Alderman Chapman would need to recuse herself from engaging in any vote on the ordinance [or in any item on the agenda associated with police and/ or law enforcement matters] as there is an indication Alderman Chapman is biased and prejudiced against the police chief, recently stating to others either Chief Salazar leaves his employment or she will resign from office; it is noted Alderman Chapman is mentioned in a recent internal review and investigation involving a court clerk’s conduct. This matter has been delivered to the Ellis County District Attorney’s Office.

The city secretary intentionally concealed facts and information from the mayor in matters associated with the creation of this ordinance in an effort to be of service to the personal and sordid tactics of at least TWO of the aldermen and the city attorney in attacking the chief of police. In doing so, the city secretary can be regarded as insubordinate and her conduct may be quite unethical.

The creating of this ordinance and the method by which it was presented and all of the conflicts, acts and controversy surrounding it would tend to support the beliefs expressed by a myriad of people from a myriad of concerns and agencies that the governing body in Ferris is close to conditions of DYSFUNCTIONAL if not already DYSFUNCTIONAL. This is an embarrassing situation for the residents/citizens.

It is recommended this ordinance be abolished and the performance of the city attorney and city secretary and at least TWO of the aldermen be called into question and reviewed over this and other matters in an effort to restore proper government in the City of Ferris. There is quite a bit of information [recent acts and historical] that would need to be forwarded to the State Bar of Texas in the form of complaints for further review. It is clear to me this matter in general is wrought with retaliatory intent on the part of more than one official of the City of Ferris. Consideration of certain laws and statutes must be given. There is the whistleblower act and there is also the consideration that certain officials are attacking the police chief and police department in an effort to prevent further investigation from occurring. I have had to direct the chief of police to deliver the case information to the Ellis County and District Attorney’s Office for further review; it has already been delivered.

Section 551.143 of the Government Code may have been violated by more than one city official in the creating of this situation; the maximum penalty is six months in a county jail. This matter was created in a most egregious fashion in a shocking manner that is both a disappointment and a violation of the public trust. I am about to contact officials of the State of Texas to arrange for a criminal investigation into this violation. Misleading information and inaccurate legal advice has been provided to city officials on more than one occasion and this matter is no exception; further review of these problems will be undertaken. Creating this matter under such circumstances does not merit the adoption of the ordinance.

**My objections are inclusive of the foregoing and not limited to the foregoing**

– Mayor Jim Swafford

As a follow up to the mayor’s above stated objections to the ordinance, it is reported when Mayor Swafford alleged at the Aug. 26 council meeting that Alderman Chapman was under investigation by the Ellis County District Attorney’s Office – because she had been “implicated” in the court clerk’s investigation – she became incensed at the accusation.

She spoke the next day to Bryan Norris, lead investigator with the Ellis County District Attorney’s Office.

Norris assured Chapman, “she had nothing to fear from the DA’s office, because he had never heard her name until the moment she called him.”

Another potentially slanderous comment uttered by the mayor was Chapman had publicly stated, “Either the Chief resign – or I will.”

It is reported Mayor Swafford flipped the statement around, with multiple sources confirming it was actually Chief Salazar who had an item placed on the agenda for the Aug. 26 meeting to present a letter of protest to council with the ultimatum, “If Alderman Chapman didn’t resign – he would.”

Alderman Chapman planned to publicly respond to his letter of protest, and had it placed it on the agenda. But Salazar had the item removed and replaced with “Council Meeting Decourm and Civility” before the agenda deadline.