Loading...
1982 01 12 CC Minutes, Special0112 -1 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN January 12, 1982 The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas, met in special session on Tuesday, January 12, 1982, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber of the Baytown City Hall with the following attendance: Fred T. Philips Jimmy Johnson Perry M. Simmons *Mary E. Wilbanks Roy L. Fuller Allen Cannon Emmett 0. Hutto Fritz Lanham Larry Patterson Daniel R. Jackson Eileen P. Hall Councilman Councilman Councilman Councilwoman Councilman Councilman Mayor City Manager Assistant City Manager Assistant City Attorney City Clerk The meeting was called to order with a quorum present and the following business was transacted: Consider Appeal of Manuel Pease from Decision of Auto Wrecker Committee Regarding Suspension of Permit Mayor Hutto explained that City Council had assembled to hear the appeal by Manuel R. Pease, owner of Manuel R. Pease Enterprises, a local wrecker company, from the decision of the Auto Wrecker Committee. A complaint was filed against Mr. Pease by Camille Deason which complaint was received by the City Manager and brought before the wrecker committee. After hearing all the evidence presented, the Auto Wrecker Committee suspended Mr. Pease's Auto Wrecker Permit for a period of thirty (30) days. The complaint filed by Mrs. Deason against Mr. Pease was for two violations of Section 6 -13 of the Code of Ordinances "Revocation or suspension of auto wrecker or towing permits." The first violation was a violation of the State of Texas, namely that 11r. Pease intentionally or knowingly used abusive, indecent, profane or vulgar language in a public place and the very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Further it is alleged that he violated Section 6 -13 of the Code of Ordinances by failing to provide satisfactory, general service or conduct his business in a reasonable manner. A copy of Mrs. Deason's complaint was provided to each Council member prior to the meeting. Mayor Hutto stated that if any Council member so desired he would be happy to read the complaint. Mayor Hutto explained that the task of Council at this meeting would be to rehear all the evidence in this matter and determine whether the suspension that was imposed by the Auto Wrecker Committee should or should not be upheld. He also explained that Council had the right to make and deliberate an entirely different result. Council was also furnished e with a copy of Rules for Committee Review which rules would be the procedure for this hearing. Council members would be allowed to ask questions only after each party completed his /her statements. Prior to asking any questions, each Council member was asked to identify themselves. Mayor 20112 -2 Minutes of the Special Meeting - January 12, 1982 Hutto mentioned that he would be acting as presiding officer and would make rulings on all objections and motions to be presented. He emphasized that Council would endeavor to conduct the hearing in as fair a manner as possible and for that reason no questions or remarks from the audience would be tolerated. Mayor Hutto requested that the Assistant City Attorney state the charges afterwhich Mrs. Deason would present her evidence and witnesses. After completion of Mrs. Deason's presentation, Council would be allowed to pose questions. Mr. Pease would then have an opportunity to present his evidence and witnesses. Council would then have an opportunity to question Mr. Pease. After that, each party would be afforded the opportuntiy to make final arguments. Mayor Hutto mentioned that the proceeding was a civil one and the deliberation and findings of Council would be based on proponderance of the evidence which is the standard for all civil procedures. Prior to the Assistant City Attorney's reading of the charges, Steve Hebert, Attorney for Mr. Pease, requested a moment to voice an objection which Alayor Hutto granted. Mr. Hebert stated that Mr. Pease was before Council because supposedly he had violated the laws of Texas. Pir. Hebert stated that from his understanding of the Penal Code of Texas, no one has jurisdiction of penal affairs or the Penal Code except courts of qualified jurisdiction -- Municipal Courts, County Courts and District Courts. There is no agency or group which may pass judgement on a criminal offense in Texas except a court of competent jurisdiction. The Council or Auto Wrecker Committee can address itself to violations of practice - -the manner in which he conducts his business, the manner in which he keeps records and there would be no objection there. To inform Mr. Pease that he is present because he violated an offense when he has not been found guilty of anything would be starting backward. To begin with, if Mr. Pease is guilty of violating a city ordinance (criminal, penal in nature) or any law of the State of Texas (if it is penal) then that charge should be filed against him in a court of competent jurisdiction, namely the Municipal Court, JP Court or County Court. Once he has been found guilty, then Council could act to revoke, suspend or punish Mr. Pease. Mr. Hebert stated that for this body to take jurisdiction of a criminal offense is improper and unconstitutional. However, Council would still have jurisdiction of the manner in which Mr. Pease conducts himself, the manner in which he keeps records and the manner in which he conducts himself when picking up cars. Mr. Hebert stated that he would object to the proceeding on anything that is penal in nature. After consulting with the Assistant City Attorney, Mayor Hutto overruled Cdr. Hebert's objection and stated that Council was not attempting to enforce any penalty since the proceeding was civil in nature. Mayor Hutto requested that the Assistant City Attorney read the charge, but Mr. Hebert stated that he would waive reading of the charge in the interest of time. However, the charge should be included as part of the record. The charges against Mr. Pease follow: That he violated Section 6 -13, entitled, Revocation or suspension of auto wrecker or towing vehicle permits, in that he allegedly violated a law of this state, namely, that he intentionally or knowingly used abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Further, he violated Section 6 -13 of the Code by failing to provide satisfactory, general service or to 20112 -3 Minutes of the Special Meeting - January 12, 1982 conduct his business in a reasonable manner. Mayor Hutto called upon Mrs. Deason to state her case. He explained that Council did have a copy of the complaint and it would be up to Mrs. Deason whether to read the complaint. Mrs. Deason stated that she felt that the complaint had been adequately presented in the letter. She did have her husband, Edward D. Deason and her son, Philip Cox, as witnesses. Mayor Hutto at this point requested that all persons desiring to be witnesses to stand to be sworn. Mrs. Deason called Mr. Deason as a witness. Edward D. Deason testified that he is employed for Brown and Root, Exxon BOP, and that his wife had called him on the day that she and Philip had gone to pick up the car. Mrs. Deason was very upset at the time and during their conversation, the phone was suddenly disconnected. At that point, Mr. Deason called the Baytown Police Department to lend assistance to Mrs. Deason. Mr. Deason went on about his work. Later, Mrs. Deason called him from a place near Mr. Pease's business. Mrs. Deason was extremely upset at this point; therefore, the police department was contacted again to lend assistance. As far as any knowledge of what actually transpired at Mr. Pease's business, Mr. Deason could not verify. Mrs. Deason added that the first time the police department was contacted by her husband that an officer was dispatched, but Mrs. Pease told the officer that everything was under control and all was fine. In the meantime, Mr. Deason had called back. Mrs. Pease told him that everything was fine that there had been a small misunderstanding. Mrs. Deason was on the phone and was unaware that the police department had responded the first time. 1 1,hen the officers were called out the second time, Mrs. Deason and her son were able to get the car. In response to an inquiry from Mayor Hutto, ;ors. Deason stated that she had gone to the Pease place of business to get the car and had been there close to two hours from the time of arrival until finally getting the car. Mr. Deason in response to cross - examination from Mr. Hebert stated that while he was speaking with Mrs. Deason the phone was disconnected. Prior to the phone being discon- nected, his wife was telling him that she was having difficulty and requested that he come to the wrecking yard. Mrs. Deason had told Mr. Deason that there was a problem with the insurance check. In response to Mr. Hebert's inquiry whether tars. Deason had used the term "S.O.B." during her conversation with him, Mr. Deason stated that he was uncertain, but as a general rule his wife did not use that kind of language. Philip Cox, Mrs. Deason's son, explained that he asked Mr. Pease what happened to his tire and that when he asked that question, Mr. Pease called him a M.F. and started calling him a dope -head and pill -head. When Mr. Cox and his mom went to pay to have the car released, Mr. Pease began to grab him by the neck and acted as though he was going to hit . him. Mrs. Deason interjected that when they went to Mr. Pease's place of business, they had both been to the insurance company. Each thought that the other had the insurance 20112 -4 Minutes of the Special Meeting - January 12, 1982 check. When they arrived at the wrecking yard, neither had the check. This is when all the problems really began with Mr. Pease. Mrs. Deason explained that she had never picked a car up before and was not aware that cash was required. Mrs. Deason stated that she told Mr. Pease that she had forgotten the check and that she would go ahead and issue a personal check for the entire amount and go back by the insurance agency to pick up the insurance check. That is when Mr. Pease called her a "dumb dam bitch" and told her that she should know better than to come pick a car up without money. That is when her son inquired as to what had happened to the tire. *Councilwoman Wilbanks absent. Mr. Cox further testified that after all of this, Mr. Pease had pulled a car in front of Mr. Cox's car and left the business, which resulted in the Cox car being blocked. That is when the officers arrived and helped to move the other vehicle from the path of the Cox car. Mrs. Deason added that after Mr. Pease and her son had had the altercation, she requested that her son change the tire. She then went to pick up the insurance check and have a check cashed for the balance. As Mrs. Deason was preparing to leave, Mrs. Pease walked up, flipped the papers over and stated that Mrs. Deason was the lady with all the martial problems. Mr. Martin, Mrs. Deason's insurance representative, cashed a personal check for the difference between the insurance check and the amount owed. When Mrs. Deason came back to the Peases' business, her son was still out near the car because he did not have a lug wrench which he got from Mrs. Deason's car. Mrs. Deason went in to pay Mr. Pease, Mrs. Pease was present. Mr. Pease was hooked to a brown car at that time which he had pulled in front of tor. Cox's car. Mrs. Deason had pulled into the driveway to the left. There was a gentleman standing talking to Mr. Pease and when Pars. Deason walked by Mr. Pease made a remark. Mrs. Deason turned and asked Mr. Pease what he had said and both men laughed at her. When Mrs. Deason went up to pay Mrs. Pease she told Airs. Deason that she would not accept the insurance check. Mrs. Deason told Mrs. Pease that Mr. Martin had assured her that the Peases' would accept the insurance check. Mrs. Pease insisted that Mrs. Deason call 11r. Martin which she did, but Mr. Martin was out; therefore, Mrs. Pease talked to Mr. Martin's secretary. During the time that Mrs. Pease was conversing with the secretary she discussed how Mrs. Deason had tried to call someone on the phone who she was living with, she didn't know if it was Mrs. Deason's husband or not. The secretary cut Mrs. Pease very short and instructed her to accept the insurance check. At which time, Mrs. Pease insisted that Mrs. Deason present her driver's license. Mrs. Deason paid the charges and by that time, her son had changed the tire. When Mrs. Deason ventured outside, Mr. Pease had unhooked from the brown car and had her son's car blocked. Mr. Cox verified that he had asked Mrs. Pease to move the brown car, but Mrs. Pease refused to allow the car to be moved because there was a battery hooked to the car which might become dislodged. Mrs. Deason and her son sat in her blazer from 45 minutes to one hour when she walked next door `' 4 to traffic control to call Mr. Deason for a second time. When the officer asked what the problem was, Mrs. Pease 20112 -5 Minutes of the Special Meeting - January 12, 1982 responded that she did not know. She said that there was a hysterical woman there with marital problems. The officer inquired if Mrs. Deason had paid her debt and Mrs. Pease responded that she had. The officers asked if they could move the car. The car was moved. Mrs. Deason and her son left. Mr. Cox verified that while his mother was speaking to her husband, Mrs. Pease did reach over and disconnect the phone. Mrs. Deason stated that after this happened, Mrs. Pease refused to allow her to use the phone again, because Pairs. Pease stated that the phone was a business phone and that they were on city contract. In response to direct questioning by Mr. Hebert, Mr. Cox stated that his mother was trying to get the car from Mr. Pease because she was responsible for the car and did not want the car released to her ex- husband. Mr. Cox stated that he had asked Mr. Pease what happened to the tire because he could not remember what had happened. He was intoxicated at the time the incident occurred. Mr. Cox emphasized that he had simply inquired of Mr. Pease what happened to the tire and that he had not accused Mr. Pease of damaging the tire. He reiterated that that is when Mr. Pease used profanity toward him. He verified that if someone had been walking down the street, they would have been able to hear Mr. Pease. Mr. Cox stated that while his mother was talking with her husband, ribs. Pease had reached over and cut the phone off. He verified that his mother had never used the term "S.O.B." during that conversation with her husband. Mrs. Deason had no further witnesses and Air. Hebert had no further questions; therefore, Mayor Hutto stated that he would consider any questions by Council. In response to an inquiry from Councilman Simmons, Mrs. Deason verified that after she had paid in full to get the car, there was no effort made to allow her and her son to get the car. In response to an inquiry from Councilman Johnson, Mrs. Deason verified that after she had paid the charges assessed for towing, that she and her son had to wait anywhere from 45 minutes to one hour to take possession of the car. Mrs. Deason verified that she had no problem with the charges assessed by Mr. Pease when that inquiry was made by Councilman Philips. Upon cross - examination by Air. Hebert, Mrs. Deason verified that she had first contacted Mr. Pease between 4 a.m. and 5 a.m. Sunday morning. She never mentioned the fact that she was a divorcee. She was told that she could pick up the car on Monday. She and her husband left to travel to Lufkin and began to discuss the possibility of her ex- husband attempting to retrieve the automobile. Between 8:45 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., Mrs. Deason stopped at a pay phone and called Mr. Pease to request that Mr. Pease please not release the car to anyone else because the boy's father and she were divorced and she was legally responsible for the car. The only individual that Mrs. Deason could recall being present during any of the incident was a man that Mrs. Pease referred to as Mr. Strickland. The only thing that this man could verify would be what Mr. Pease stated while the wrecker was 20112 -6 Minutes of the Special Meeting - January 12, 1982 hooked to the brown car. Airs. Deason verified that she had not used any profanity during the entire incident. 'ors. Deason stated that the car had sustained a blown out right front tire and a cracked plastic grill. Mrs. Deason also verified that her son had inquired what had happened to the tire and that she turned and told him that the tire was blown out before being towed in. Mr. Hebert passed the witness. In response to an inquiry from the Mayor, Mrs. Deason stated that there was ample space for Mr. Pease to park the brown car other than to park direclty in front of her son's car. Manuel R. Pease, owner /operator of Manuel H. Pease Enterprises Wrecker Service, 401 S. Main, Baytown, Texas, stated that he desired that justice be done and for that reason he had gone to a great amount of expense and time to appear before City Council. Mr. Pease stated that in 1951 he came to Baytown. Since that time he had built a reputable business. Mr. Pease stated that he did not feel that a person could build a reputable business by treating customers in the manner which he had been accused. He stated that he had been called out Sunday morning by the Baytown Police Department to pick up a car. Early Sunday morning he received a call from a woman who said she was Mrs. Deason. She said she was a divorcee and that she was trying to locate the car. Mr. Pease informed Mrs. Deason that the car had a flat tire, that it had been wrecked and that he felt the car was not driveable. Mrs. Deason was told that she could get the car Monday morning. Mr. Pease went back to sleep and later in the morning he received another call from Mrs. Deason who stated that she had been told by her husband that he was a "S.O.B." She also stated that she had signed papers on the car and that she would rather that he not release the car to her son unless she was present. Mr. Pease informed Airs. Deason that he would tell her son what she said, but if he wanted the car there would be no way that he could keep him from taking the car. Air. Pease stated that on weekends he usually goes to his shop to work on things that he enjoys when there are no interruptions from the public. That particular Sunday morning two men drove up. Mr. Pease stated that he was still distrubed by a woman calling to say that her ex- husband knew him and said that he was a "S.O.B." Therefore, he requested that the ex- husband not come into the place of business, but allowed the boy to come in to look at the car. The boy did not realize the tire was flat. He wanted to pick up the car, but Mr. Pease told him about the call from his mother. The man who had introduced himself as the boy's father advised the boy to leave. Later in the day, the boy called to request that the car be released when Airs. Pease informed him that the car would be released if his mother would come in with him. The boy said he would get his mother and come down to pick the car up. Mrs. Pease waited for four hours but no one showed up. Around 7:30 p.m. Sunday night, Mr. Pease received a call from Francis Porter,. Assistant Principal of Cedar Bayou Jr. School, to pick up his car (a brown chevrolet). Mr. Pease picked up the car and dropped the car in front of the Cox car with the thought he could work on the car next morning. This was the most convenient place to drop the car. In the morning Air. Pease was working on the automobile and decided to put an extra battery on the car with cables. Mr. Pease was at his desk when Mrs. Deason and her son 20112 -7 Minutes of the Special Meeting - January 12, 1982 walked in. After his conversation with Pars. Deason on Sunday morning, Mr. Pease did not wish to be in the shop with Mrs. Deason alone; therefore, while Mrs. Deason was walking up, Mr. Pease called Mrs. Pease to come to the shop. Mrs. Pease came to the shop and stood in the background. Mrs. Deason said she would like to pick up the car. Mr. Pease said that would be fine, the charge would be $53.00. Mrs. Deason indicated that she had no money. Mr. Pease responded that any dummy would know to have money in order to pick up an automobile. Mr. Pease emphasized that he did not say anything other than that to airs. Deason and the reason he did was due to his being perturbed by their earlier conversation. Mr. Pease stated that Mr. Cox jumped from a chair and wanted to know why Nor. Pease had punched a hole in his tire. Mr. Pease indicated that he had informed Mr. Cox that if he would look at the tire, he could see that that was not the case. In the meanwhile, Mr. Pease received a police dispatch to remove a traffic hazard. When Mr. Pease started to leave, Mrs. Deason's car was pulled into the gate which obstructed Mr. Pease's departure. Mr. Pease explained that Mrs. Deason would need to move her automobile in order that he could get out to go on the dispatch. Mr. Cox volunteered to move the car and did. However, Mrs. Deason indicated that she didn't see any reason that she needed to move the car. Mr. Pease went to the dispatched location (Garth Road) and on his way back, he stopped at Jim Ball International to pick up parts for a dozier he was working on. On his monitor, Mr. Pease learned of a disturbance at his business on South Main. Therefore, he called his business and inquired of Mrs. Pease what was happening. Mrs. Pease responded that she really didn't know. She and Mr. Strickland were standing there talking when the police arrived. Mr. Pease called the police department to determine the problem and was informed that a disturbance call had been received. When Mr. Pease got back to his place of business, the police had been there and moved the brown car. The brown car which had been referred to belongs to fir. Portis. That car was pulled in Sunday night and dropped. It had not been moved until the policemen moved it. Mr. Pease stated that by treating the public in a satisfactory manner, he was able to earn enough money to establish his own business. He has been in business on South Main since 1962 and during that period, he and his wife have been mainly responsible for servicing customers. In those years, he and his wife have encountered many different circumstances and have learned that it is best to conduct business on a cash basis. Also, in many cases, the wrecker owner /operator must deal with individuals who are not the registered owner of the wrecked vehicle which causes problems. Mr. Pease stated that he felt as though he had been very badly wronged and this was the reason for his appearance before Council. He stated that he has never taken vacation in the thirty (30) years that he has been in Baytown and the four times that he has been absent from his business were times when he was hospitalized. Mr. Pease ended his statements 20112 -8 Minutes of the Special Meeting - January 12, 1982 by emphasizing that the citizens of Baytown come first and foremost. Mr. Pease's attorney had no questions, but Mrs. Deason did have some rebuttable questions. She inquired of Pair. Pease what had given him the idea that she might not pay the bill? Mr. Pease responded because she had said that she didn't have any money. Mrs. Deason stated that she had not stated that she had no money. She had stated that she had no "cash" money with her. Mayor Hutto instructed Mrs. Deason to only ask questions of Mr. Pease at this point. She would be allowed time to rebut any statements later. Councilman Fuller inquired of Mr. Pease if he had used any of the derogatory remarks of which he had been accused? Mr. Pease responded that he had referred to Mr. Cox by using the work "mother," and this was the extent of the derogatory remarks which he had made. Councilman Johnson inquired if Mr. Pease ever accepts checks for payment of charges. Mr. Pease stated that he has regular customers and he will accept checks from those customers. Councilman Johnson explained that he really wanted to know if Per. Pease ever accepted checks from individuals who he had not conducted business with, but whose vehicle had been towed by Mr. Pease for the very first time. Pair. Pease stated that there have been times when he did accept checks from first -time customers. The reason he refused to accept a check in this case was due to the derogatory remarks which were made on the telephone. In response to another inquiry from Councilman Johnson Mr. Pease stated that he has a telephone beeper which notifies him to call the shop. Councilman Johnson explained that the reason he was inquiring was due to the fact that he too would be upset if he had to wait 45 minutes to an hour in order to get his vehicle once charges had been paid. Councilman Johnson stated that everyone needed to bear in mind that persons who are picking up these vehicles have been through a pretty traumatic experience whether any of the other had actually taken place. After the charges were paid the customer had the right to expect the vehicle to be delivered. Councilman Johnson indicated that it would have been very simple for Mrs. Pease to call the beeper number and have Air. Pease call her to move the car blocking the Cox vehicle. Mr. Pease responded that the lady and her son came down after the auto without money. She had left her son to change the tire. The son when he was in the day before had locked the car keys in the automobile. Therefore, he had no keys to the car when he went to change the tire. Mr. Pease furnished Mr. Cox a coat hanger to unlock the car. After that, Mr. Pease received a call from police dispatch. Pair. Pease left the premises to pick up the vehicle that he had been dispatched to move but prior to that he had been working on the brown Chevrolet. The reason firs. Pease would not allow the car to be moved was fear that that vehicle would be damaged. 20112 -9 Minutes of the Special Meeting - January 12, 1982 Mr. Pease stated that if the boy had had the money on Sunday and if Mrs. Deason had not insisted that she be present when the car was released, or if Mrs. Deason would have had the money to pay charges when she first arrived, there would have been no problem. Councilman Philips inquired if Mr. Pease had indicated to Mrs. Deason that she would have to have cash to pick the vehicle up or what the bill would be. Mr. Pease responded that he had been awakened very early Sunday morning and had not informed Mrs. Deason of the amount of the bill or that she would need cash to retrieve the vehicle. At this point due to a reference by Mr. Pease that the term "divorcee" had been used by Mrs. Deason, Mayor Hutto ruled that the fact that Mrs. Deason may have said she was a divorcee would not be considered germain to the case. Councilman Philips explained to Mr. Pease that what he was attempting to establish by his question was what is Mr. Pease normal business practice? What does Mr. Pease tell people? Mr. Pease responded that in the wrecker business there are various types of individuals that one must deal with and it was difficult to determine which ones would write bad checks. He also mentioned that when one operates a business with the aid of one's wife, there is little time, not to mention expense, to go to court to collect on bad checks. In response to an inquiry from Councilman Philips, Per. Pease explained that there are three copies of the wrecker ticket. The owner or operator of the vehicle receives a copy, one copy goes to the police officer for the police department's records and one copy goes to the wrecker owner /operator. Councilman Johnson pointed out that as part of Per. Pease's business, he should expect to receive calls at various times due to the fact that he is dispatched at odd hours to haul. This should be the norm rather than the unusual. Mr. Pease stated that he was not unduly disturbed by Mrs. Deason calling between 4 and 5 a.m. on Sunday. In fact, Mrs. Deason had so testified. Mr. Pease became upset when Mrs. Deason called again at 8:00 a.m. Councilman Johnson stated that surely Mr. Pease could understand why Mrs. Deason would be concerned enough to call again since the car was in her name. Mr. Pease responded that the car was not in Mrs. Deason's name. The note for the car had been signed by Mrs. Deason. Mayor Hutto did not dispute Mr. Pease's right to establish a policy that he would not accept checks or to accept checks from certain parties and refuse to accept from others, but Mayor Hutto did question whether Mr. Pease had referred to Mrs. Deason in the manner indicated by the complaint. Mr. Pease stated that that statement was not an accurate statement. Mr. Pease also stated in response to a direct question from mayor Hutto that he had not called Mr. Cox a sorry "M.F." He had begun to use that term, but checked himself and apologized. 20112 -10 Minutes of the Special Meeting - January 12, 1982 In response to an inquiry from Councilman Fuller regarding ?fir. Pease's policy on the release of autos on Sunday, ter. Pease stated that from time to time he had released cars on Sunday. Mrs. Deason had not requested that the car be released Sunday. She had inquired if the car was driveable and Mr. Pease had informed her that it was not driveable. Mr. Pease explained that he had to be very careful what he allowed people to do at his place of business as far as repair work is concerned because he has no employees and carries no insurance to cover that circumstance. Mr. Pease pointed out that it was only as a matter of courtesy that he had held the car for Mrs. Deason to pick up on Monday. He could have released the car to the boy and his father on Sunday. Councilman Simmons inquired if it was Mr. Pease's standard operating procedure to be always mindful that operating under a wrecker license, granted by a wrecker committee duly constituted by City Council, that Mr. Pease is a quasi or semi - public employee and that Mr. Pease's actions represent the city's government with its citizens. He inquired if Mr. Pease was aware that he not only represented Manuel Pease Enterprises, but that he represented the City of Baytown. Councilman Simmons inquired if Mr. Pease took all this into account when dealing with customers. Mr. Pease responded that he knew of no one who from time to time did not become upset in their dealings with others and if he had made a mistake, it was a human mistake and nothing that was done on purpose. Councilman Simmons inquired if perhaps Mr. Pease had one policy or manner of treating the white collar citizens versus someone who may not meet that particular image. Mr. Pease stated that he always attempted to take care of the public. He stated that the public and the City of Baytown come first with him. He admitted that there are times perhaps when he feels out of sorts and might cut someone short. However, he pointed out that his business was built on being nice to his customers. In fact, he mentioned that he has developed generations of customers. Mr. Jim Strickland testified that he had been at the Peases' place of business on the day in question but he had not seen Mrs. Deason. He also stated that he owned a pickup not a brown automobile. Steve Hebert, Mr. Pease's attorney, reviewed the point made at the beginning of the proceedings concerning the charge of disorderly conduct. The wording of the charge tracks the 108 of the penal code gives only the State of Texas the right to proceed against any offense described in the penal code. If Mr. Pease is guilty of a criminal offense, it would be proper to resolve such in a court of competent jurisdiction. This is not to say that Council does not have other areas of jurisdiction. Mr. Hebert requested that if Council intended to proceed with the disorderly conduct charge, he would like for the burden of proof to be beyond a reasonable doubt since this is what would be required in a court of competent jurisdiction. This is based on the fact that Mr. Pease has been charged with a criminal offense not a civil offense. 20112 -11 Minutes of the Special Meeting - January 12, 1982 �4r. Hebert also pointed out that apparently there was a lot of short temperedness and Council would have to make a decision as to whom to believe. If Council believes that Mr. Pease is guilty of what he has been accused then Council would have to act accordingly. However, Council should bear in mind that in dealing with people on occasion one can be short tempered. Mr. Pease depends on the license for his livelihood which is his only livelihood. Mr. Hebert requested that Council bear in mind that in law there is such a thing as justification. Whether or not Mr. Pease was justified for any of his actions should be considered. If Mr. Cox accused Mr. Pease of damaging his car intentionally, the normal response would be one of indignation, but since Mr. Pease represents the city, he is probably held to a higher accounting. Mr. Hebert pointed out Mr. Pease's long years of service to the City of Baytown and indicated that for Tyr. Pease to conduct himself as has been indicated to jeopardize his livelihood is difficult to understand. Councilman Cannon stated that one thing that was not covered is that Mrs. Pease reached over and disconnected the telephone while Mrs. Deason was using the phone. Mrs. Pease is an intricate part of the business and that is not conduct becoming a license holder. Mayor Hutto informed Council again that the findings of Council would be based on those of a civil proceeding which is a preponderance of the evidence. Mayor Hutto explained that everyone present desiring to present evidence had had an opportunity to do so. From that evidence it would be up to Council to determine whether the suspension imposed by the wrecker committee should or should not be upheld. Council also has the right to make and deliberate an entirely different result. Council could believe as much or as little of the testimony that was given as they wished. Mayor Hutto stated that if there were no further questions, he would ask Council to deliberate and make a finding in the case. Councilman Fuller moved that the suspension dictated or indicated by the wrecker committee be upheld; Councilman Johnson seconded the motion. Councilman Philips stated that the licensing procedure provides protection for the license holder, as well as the citizen and should operate to provide reliable, satisfactory service to the public. He felt that Council's decision should so reflect. Councilman Johnson concurred with Councilman Philips in that he stated that one must earn the right to be a license holder for the city and continue to earn that right. He also mentioned that Council had a duty to take into account the deliberation made by the Auto Wrecker Committee. Councilman Cannon stated that he would vote in favor of the motion based on business practices. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None 20112 -12 Minutes of the Special Meeting - January 12, 1982 Recess Council recessed into executive session to consider contemplated litigation. When the open meeting reconvened, Mayor Hutto announced that no business had been transacted. Ad j ourn There being no further business to be transacted, the meeting was adjourned. Eileen P. Hall, City Clerk