The City of Odessa is researching ways to avoid paying former City Manager Michael Marrero and former City Attorney Natasha Brooks money the fired pair believe is due them, according to documents recently released to the Odessa American through a Texas Public Information Act request.
The city is also researching defense tactics because the recently released documents have also revealed Brooks is considering suing the city for breach of contract and race discrimination and Marrero has signaled he, too, is considering legal remedies.
The Odessa City Council terminated Marrero and Brooks’ contracts by a 5-3 vote on Dec. 13 without explanation. After Odessa attorney Gaven Norris filed a lawsuit claiming the council violated the Texas Open Meetings Act, the council gave residents a chance to speak on the matter Jan. 9 and again voted to terminate the pair.
Since then, the Odessa American has filed several open records requests seeking non-privileged emails and other documents exchanged between Brooks, Marrero, their attorneys and the city’s legal staff and city officials.
On May 17, city staff provided the OA with thousands of documents, most of which had been disclosed earlier. Among the mundane documents were city council agendas, OA articles and emails about such things as Odessa becoming a sanctuary city, time sheets, committee meetings and cancellations, dress codes, inter-local agreements and special event scheduling.
However, the OA was able to find approximately a dozen emails that hadn’t been provided earlier pertaining to potential litigation.
On Dec. 15, Grapevine attorney Richard Hill sent the city a letter announcing he’d been hired by Marrero and reminding them about the terms of Marrero’s contract. He noted Marrero was due one year’s salary, continued health insurance benefits for one year or until he found a new job and all other salary and benefits listed in his contract. He followed up with a nearly identical letter on Jan. 11.
On Dec. 19, then Interim City Attorney Dan Jones asked Interim City Manager Agapito Bernal how much money Brooks and Marrero were due and Bernal instructed Larry Fry, the city’s now former finance director, to gather the figures.
All subsequent emails found by the OA make it clear Marrero and Brooks are still fighting with the city over money.
On March 7, Amarillo attorney Iwana Rademaekers informed Jones she now represents Marrero. She noted that while the city had paid Marrero some of what he was due, he had not yet received his annual salary of $238,000 as his contract dictated.
Rademaekers told Jones if the city did not pay her client within 30 days, he would pursue “all legal remedies available to him, including compensatory damages and the attorneys’ fees he has incurred.”
Reached Wednesday, Rademaekers said the issue has not been resolved, but declined to comment further.
As for Brooks, Jones sent an email to First Assistant Ector County District Attorney Greg Barber on Jan. 23. He asked if Brooks had broken the law two years before she was fired by allegedly ordering staff members to backdate conflict of interest documents signed by City Council member Steve Thompson.
He also asked if she had violated the law by allegedly ordering staff members to destroy the backdated documents. Jones further enquired as to whether Brooks may have committed other crimes besides destruction of government property.
Jones also asked Barber to grant “complete immunity” to Thompson, City Secretary Norma Aguilar-Grimaldo and public notary Naira Enriquez.
Also included amongst the emails were copies of City Council member Denise Swanner’s state bar complaint against Brooks, which was filed Jan. 30. She cited the backdated documents in her complaint and attached affidavits from Thompson, Aguilar-Grimaldo and Enriquez alleging she had them backdate the documents.
As of Wednesday, the bar has not imposed any disciplinary measures against Brooks, whose appointment as Iowa City, Iowa’s city attorney was also announced in city emails.
No responses from Barber were found in the records provided to the OA and Ector County District Attorney Dusty Gallivan declined to comment Wednesday.
On Feb. 10, El Paso attorney John Wenke sent the city a letter informing officials he was hired by Brooks and she intended to file a legal claim against the city for breach of contract and race discrimination. He gave city officials formal notice they should not “destroy, conceal or alter in any matter, any or all evidence, documents, information, electronically stored information and/or other tangible items that pertain or relate to Ms. Brooks’ employment, termination, allegations of misconduct and investigations related to these allegations.”
Wenke wrote that during her time with the city Brooks had consistently received favorable performance evaluations and pay raises. She’d never been disciplined and when she was terminated, she wasn’t given a termination letter or explanation, he said.
Wenke followed up with a letter to Jones on March 6, stating he had not heard back.
“I would surmise that the city and its insurer would be interested in discussing a possible resolution of legal claims brought by a city attorney with no discipline and excellent evaluations, especially in light of the recent verdict against the City of Hutto, Texas, who decided to renege on a severance agreement with their former black city manager and now has to address a $12.5 million race discrimination jury verdict,” Wenke wrote.
One of the city’s contract attorneys, Jeff Whitfield, responded on March 22 by informing Brooks she was fired for good cause, specifically the “falsified conflict of waiver documents.”
As result, Whitfield told Brooks she wasn’t entitled to what she would have received otherwise, including her final year’s salary of $185,400. He further informed her she had the right to mediation on the question of whether her termination was for “good cause.”
On May 4, Jones sent Whitfield the minutes and video of the city’s Nov. 17, 2020 meeting during which Brooks was named city attorney.
He claimed Brooks’ appointment wasn’t properly noticed and when the council came out of executive session they didn’t discuss her contract, they simply voted on it.
“What are your thoughts on how to make use of this new revelation about Brooks’ appointment not having been discussed in open session? I’ve not checked statute of limitations on open meeting act violation claim, but that’s the first thought that comes to mind,” Whitfield wrote back.
Jones told Whitfield “I’m thinking this is the first place we look,” apparently referring to the meeting minutes. He noted a four-year statute of limitations.
Ironically enough, Jones’ own appointment had to be voted on twice because his appointment on April 11 wasn’t noticed properly the first time.
Roughly two weeks later, Jones sent another letter to Whitfield, this one about Marrero.
Jones sent Whitfield a copy of the minutes of the city’s April 24, 2018 meeting during which Marrero was hired as city manager. According to those minutes, then District 5 Council member Filiberto Gonzales moved for Marrero to be elevated from interim city manager to city manager at a salary of $238,000 and the council voted unanimously to accept the motion.
Jones pointed out the council did not approve a contract for Marrero and he instructed Whitfield to “take a look, this may say the contract is invalid and (Marrero) receives nothing.”
The OA is possession of a city manager agreement signed May 9, 2018, by Marrero and then-Mayor David Turner.
Calls and emails sent to Wenke have not been returned.
City officials have repeatedly said they will not comment on Brooks and Marrero due to receiving letters from their attorneys.
