PRESIDIO — In August of 2022, former City Administrator Brad Newton filed a wrongful termination claim against the City of Presidio. A settlement has since been reached, according to the mayor and city secretary — but officials say they are not privy to the terms of the settlement.
Officials maintain that documentation and details of the settlement were never communicated with the city — they only learned of its existence when rumors began circulating — and that their legal counsel would not disclose those details to them when asked. The law firm representing the city, Bojorquez Law Firm, PC, did not return repeated requests for comment. When reached by phone Wednesday morning in a final attempt to request comment, a representative of the law firm hung up on The Presidio International mid-inquiry; when The International called back, the person who answered the phone abruptly stated, “We’re not going to be making any comments at this time,” before hanging up again.
Neither Newton nor his attorney, John A. Wenke, returned repeated requests for comment.
Newton’s notice of legal claims, obtained by The Presidio International through a public records request, accuses the city of firing him without “good cause,” in breach of his contract, and in retaliation for taking protected family and medical leave.
Newton was fired by the city council on April 4, 2022. Council members declined to comment to The Presidio International about the reasoning behind Newton’s termination, though all present voted in support after an extended discussion in closed session.
Mayor John Ferguson was the sole dissenting voice. At the same meeting, he expressed appreciation for Newton’s service to the city in various capacities for nearly 13 years. “Over the past year, you’ve led Presidio out of some of our darkest times,” he said.
Texas is an at-will employment state, meaning that employees can be terminated at any time for any reason. But jobs under contract — including the position of Presidio city administrator — are subject to different rules. The letter sent to Mayor John Ferguson by Newton’s legal counsel argued that Council’s decision was a breach of contract.
Per Newton’s contract, he could only be terminated with good cause in the case of “any willful … disregard or habitual neglect” of his duties as city administrator, “misconduct … involving a crime of moral turpitude or criminal legality” or misuse of taxpayer money. Newton’s lawyer argued that an explanation of “good cause” under these stipulations was never provided by the city.
“No explanation of what constituted ‘good cause’ was provided to Mr. Newton, and no written termination notice was provided,” wrote Wenke.
Wenke did not believe that Newton had violated his contract, instead he was the victim of discriminatory and potentially illegal conduct. He argued that Newton had not been given adequate notice of performance issues by Council and that he was not present in the closed session where his performance was discussed.
Wenke claimed that a vote was taken in executive session and Newton did not discover the results of the vote until open session. (State law does not require the subject of a personnel issue in closed session to be present during that session — additionally, official votes cannot be taken during closed session.)
Furthermore, Wenke argued that Newton was discriminated against for taking protected leave for a “serious medical issue” — Newton had given notice that he would be out of office until around March 29. He was fired on April 4 — Wenke said that the short period of time between Newton’s medical leave and his termination was enough to prove a “causal relationship” between the two.
Wenke also claimed that differing reasons for Newton’s departure were given to Newton himself and to the Texas Workforce Commission — the city had told the commission that Newton was laid off, which Newton discovered when he applied for unemployment benefits.
The notice stated that Newton would seek “back pay, reinstatement and/or front pay, liquidated damages (doubling of the back and front pay amount), and attorney fees.” Wenke argued that the remaining time on Newton’s contract would entitle him to approximately $125,000 in back pay.
Should the claim become a lawsuit, each individual council member who voted for Newton’s termination would be named as a defendant.
The question of the claim’s resolution has, bizarrely, emerged as a mystery for city officials. Both Mayor Ferguson and City Secretary Brenda Lee Ornelas-Acuña maintain that Wenke’s letter is the only documentation of a complaint against the city by Brad Newton.
Through the rumor mill, they discovered that the claim had allegedly been settled by the city — though no documentation of the payout was provided through city budget line-items or fluctuations in the city’s insurance premiums.
At Ferguson’s request, Ornelas-Acuña reached out to both Wenke’s office and the city’s official counsel. She was able to confirm that a settlement was reached — but that the details were confidential and the city wouldn’t be footing the bill. “I have no idea how on earth word got out,” Ferguson said. “But [our legal counsel] indicated that we wouldn’t be getting anything in writing.”
Officials remain baffled about how the affair was handled. “You just have to wonder,” Ferguson said. “Evidently somebody had to pay somebody — where does that lead back to?”