Renewed efforts to expand Edinburg municipal court fail again

EDINBURG — A renewed push to expand the number of judges able to serve the Edinburg Municipal Court has once again failed here.

On Tuesday, Sept. 3, the Edinburg City Council was set to discuss the possibility of creating an ordinance that would empower them to appoint associate municipal judges; however, the effort proved fruitless after the council took the discussion behind closed doors.

Tuesday marked the second time in recent months that a portion of the city council has pushed to expand the court, which is currently presided over by Municipal Judge Hector Bustos, whom voters elected last November over challenger, Armando Guerra.

Initially, the council had hoped to put the matter in the hands of Edinburg voters as part of an expansive charter amendment election this November. But that effort failed when a split council voted to remove the proposition, then known as “Proposition K,” from the final version of the charter amendment ballot.

Edinburg may amend its city charter via one of two methods — by asking voters to approve a proposition, or by a majority of the city council passing an ordinance.

With Prop K dead before it had a chance to reach voters, the city turned to the latter method.

When the subject of associate judges returned to the council’s deliberations this week, it was again met with a mixed response from the five men sitting atop the dais.

As soon as Edinburg Mayor Ramiro Garza Jr. called for a motion on the issue, Place 2 Councilman Jason De Leon motioned to table the discussion.

Place 3 Councilman David Salazar Jr. — the city’s newest elected official — instantly seconded De Leon’s motion.

But the mayor noted the issue nonetheless involved outstanding legal questions that he had hoped to discuss with his colleagues.

“I had spoken to our city attorney. I think there was some — I mean, if that’s your wishes, that’s fine — but, I understand there were some legal issues that we need to discuss regarding this item,” Garza said.

Councilmen Dan Diaz and David White echoed the mayor’s concerns, saying they, too, wanted to have their questions answered.

“That’s what I would rather do,” Diaz said about moving the discussion to the executive session portion of Tuesday’s meeting.

“Do you guys mind if we just move it to the back?” White added.

But several hours later, when the council emerged from their closed-door talks, they neither took action on, nor again mentioned, the proposal to create an associate judges ordinance.

Edinburg City Hall on Monday, Jan. 13, 2020, in Edinburg. (Joel Martinez | jmartinez@themonitor.com)

According to supporting documentation included as part of the meeting agenda packet, Edinburg currently only has the authority to appoint “temporary judges” who may only serve “when the elected municipal court judge is not available.”

Further, it is the municipal judge’s responsibility to appoint those backup judges. But there are currently “no temporary judges for the municipal court,” the agenda packet reads, in part.

An associate judge differs from a temporary judge in that they can be appointed or removed by the city council itself, rather than by the elected judge. Associate judges can also serve day or night, regardless of whether or not the elected municipal judge is on duty at the same time.

A draft copy of the failed associate judge ordinance further explains that associate judges would have all the same authorities and powers as the elected municipal judge, but clarifies that the elected judge would serve as “presiding judge” over them.

This summer’s discussions aren’t the only time that Edinburg has tried to change how the municipal court is run.

In 2018, the city held a charter amendment election that, in part, asked Edinburg voters to make the municipal judge position an appointed office, rather than an elected office. But the effort failed by a vanishingly narrow margin.

Of the 17,705 people who voted for 2018’s Proposition A, some 9,032 people, or 51.01% of the electorate, voted against making the judge an appointed position, while 8,673 people voted for the measure.

During discussions earlier this summer, White, the Place 4 councilman, said he had been against changing the judge’s position to an appointed one back in 2018, but since then, his opinion has changed — largely due to the current judge’s unreliable schedule.

“Right now, you’re paying a guy $90,000 a year and we’ve appointed a bunch of visiting judges to come do the work,” an audibly frustrated White said during a council meeting in July.

The councilman added that Bustos’ sporadic office hours have begun to negatively impact not just residents seeking to address traffic citations, but the Edinburg Police Department, as well.

“The PD is not being serviced, our community is not being serviced, our citizens are not being serviced,” White said in July.

The Monitor filed a public information request seeking timecards or other records that reflect when Bustos has served on duty since he was appointed in December 2021 until this summer.

The newspaper also requested records regarding temporary judges who have served in Bustos’ absence, as well as any complaints that may have been filed against the municipal judge.

However, the court denied the requests, saying any such records are not subject to public disclosure.

“It is my opinion that your request seeks records that are exempted by the Public Access to Judicial Records Rule 12.2 and 12.3 and thus, by definition, are not ‘judicial records,’” Senior Court Clerk Cecilia Jimenez stated in a July 29 correspondence with the newspaper.

The post Renewed efforts to expand Edinburg municipal court fail again appeared first on MyRGV.com.