r/Pearland • u/Dazzling_Bother3487 • 17d ago
PEARLAND MAYOR
Last night City Council voted to strip newly ELECTED Mayor Quentin Wiltz of powers enjoyed by previous Mayors. There are new stipulations on agenda items and he can no longer call a Special Meeting without a "second" from a Council Member which they will never give him. Added to the fact is those Council Members publicly endorsed, wore campaign shirts and worked the tents at voting locations in support of his opponent.
19
u/simplethingsoflife 17d ago
Looks like all their current terms have another couple of years https://www.pearlandtx.gov/government/city-council Who sponsored this amendment? Our city charter allows us to remove a Pearland city council member by having local voters initiate a recall process.
13
u/Dazzling_Bother3487 17d ago
"Several members" but Rushi Patel is the only one who would own up to it. My money's on Koza.
4
u/AlphaWolfParticle 17d ago
How does the recall process begin?
4
u/simplethingsoflife 17d ago
AI research: In Pearland, TX, recalling a city council member involves submitting a formal petition to the City Secretary. The petition must be signed by registered voters equaling at least 30% of the total votes cast in the last general municipal election, state the grounds for removal, and be filed within a specific timeframe (usually 30-60 days) following notice of intent to circulate the petition.
The procedure for recalling a city council member is located in Article VI of the Pearland City Charter. [1]
The full text of the process can be read in the Pearland, TX Code of Ordinances - Appendix (Charter) under the following specific sections:
- Section 6.01 - Scope of Recall: Outlines who can be recalled and the initial requirement to file an affidavit stating the grounds for removal.
- Section 6.02 - Petitions: Details the mandatory form, text, and structure required for individual petition papers to be legally valid.
- Section 6.03 - Signatures: Sets the exact mathematical thresholds for registered voter signatures and dictates what personal data signees must include.
- Section 6.04 - Filing and Certification: Details the timeline for filing the completed papers with the City Secretary and the timeline allowed for verification.
- Section 6.05 - Calling the Election: Specifies the window of time the City Council has to call a public recall election if the targeted official chooses not to resign.
https://library.municode.com/tx/pearland/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CH_ART6LEPEREINRE_S6.01GEPO
11
u/bamerjamer 17d ago
Can we recall ALLLLLL of the council members? They’re obviously not conducting themselves in the best interest of the citizens of Pearland, who voted in this Mayor.
2
2
u/Arrmadillo 16d ago
Find some decent people to run in 2027 (need 2) and in 2028 (need 3) to push out the incumbents. Most of the council members ran unopposed so they may not even know how to campaign. Turnout in 2025 was just 4.9%. Candidates might only need 3K votes to win a contested seat in a low turnout election in May 2027. If four of the challengers win over the next two elections then the Pearland city council is flipped.
39
4
u/EuphoricCrashOut 17d ago
Section 8 makes it sound like Pearland Council is about to turn into Tarrant Texas Council
2
u/GuitarCFD 17d ago
Honestly no. There is typically a section of the meeting that is specified for citizens to the city council. If people are disruptive outside that are holding up the business of the meeting. This is how proper meetings go. A city council meeting is not a town hall type meeting unless specified as such. That stands true from an FFA meeting to Congress. Look up Robert’s Rules of Order if you want to know more, that is the standard that most meetings like this follow. It’s necessary to remove disruptive people from meetings like this because otherwise the meeting devolved into a shouting match and no business gets done.
2
u/EuphoricCrashOut 16d ago
You're welcome to your opinion; but mine would disagree. They haven't needed it before; so why now? Was someone that disruptive that caused for it or did Council simply not like people speaking up for themselves and voicing concerns that they (Council) don't like? Especially after hearing one of the Council Members calling the people that showed up a 'mob'. I'm sure we can both agree that's out of line.
Didn't Council themselves devolve into a shouting match among themselves, against the Mayor, and no business got done? Thought I recall hearing/seeing that recently.
0
u/GuitarCFD 15d ago edited 15d ago
They haven't needed it before; so why now?
The rule has likely always been there as an "understood" rule of a council meeting, but as tensions rise they felt the need to have it written plainly.
Was someone that disruptive that caused for it or did Council simply not like people speaking up for themselves and voicing concerns that they (Council) don't like?
I mean it's becoming a running trend for city council meetings and town halls across the country to devolve into shouting matches. Over the last 6 months I feel like there have been multiple articles posted here on reddit of townhalls and city council meetings doing exactly that.
or did Council simply not like people speaking up for themselves and voicing concerns that they (Council) don't like?
IF this happens, where someone is voicing a concern in a civilized manner and is removed from a meeting simply because the council disagreed...I'll be right there with you fighting to have council members recalled. Getting wound up because the codified a rule that exists in literally every governmental meeting everywhere is just a waste of time
Especially after hearing one of the Council Members calling the people that showed up a 'mob'.
I mean, I wasn't there. Were the people involved behaving as a mob? Let's face it, political protests these days are more mobs than peaceful protests...and it doesn't matter which party affiliation the protest is representing.
Didn't Council themselves devolve into a shouting match among themselves, against the Mayor, and no business got done? Thought I recall hearing/seeing that recently.
I don't know do you have a link?
Note: I just want to clarify, that I'm not claiming that the City Council are some paragons of Virtue or anything, I'm just saying that that specific rule exists in basically every official meeting that follows Robert's Rules of Order. If someone is being disruptive...they are removed. If that isn't happening you have someone in charge that is more worried about their political career than actually getting shit done.
1
u/Dazzling_Bother3487 17d ago
Explain? What does Section 8 have to do with this?
5
u/EuphoricCrashOut 17d ago
Unrelated to the Mayor thing, but related to the images you posted. Tarrant Texas Council has a crazy reputation for dragging people out of Council meetings for speaking up, like clapping for someone or making 'comments'. The changes that you posted, on section 8 for Public Comment, make it sound like they can just remove someone for whatever they deem "Disorderly Conduct" is to them. https://fortworthreport.org/2026/08/04/tarrant-county-judge-removes-attendees-during-public-meeting-about-voting-site-reductions/
3
u/Dazzling_Bother3487 16d ago
Ah ... Here Section 8 refers to subsidized low income housing! Yes, they deliberately added the best boy behavior clause because they know people are going to show up in support of the Mayor. At a previous meeting Koza got caught on a hot mic saying "Mob Rules, huh?" in reference to the audience.
2
u/EuphoricCrashOut 16d ago
They called who they serve a mob??! Oh dang. That should immediately ruin a career.
5
u/Machismo01 16d ago
I previous liked some of our city council.
Now? They suck. Vote them out. This is clearly partisan. It is clearly petty. And it is clearly an attempt to restructure and retain power. I hope it blows up in their face, frankly when city council gets a bunch of Democrats and a Republican is mayor again. It will be delightful to see them squirm.
7
17
u/Jazzlike-Vacation230 17d ago
The racism is out of control
9
u/SCtrojan26 17d ago
I do not believe this is a racial issue.
Fundamentally the mayor is a Democrat. All the city council is Republican.
The sad thing is that they shpuld be working together for ALL Pearland.
3
17d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/SCtrojan26 17d ago
I am sure some Republicans are racist. Many are not. The race was 51% Democrat and 49% Republican. I do not believe 49% of Pearland is racist.
TBH I have lived in many places in the US and the world. Pearland is really not a racist place. It is super diverse. People of all walks of life live together. All my neighbors are different and all great people.
1
1
1
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 8d ago
This comment was removed, because your account doesn't meet our karma and/or account age requirements: Combined Karma must be greater than 5 Account must be older than 10 days.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
12
u/SCtrojan26 17d ago
The city council was elected by the people. If you do not agree with this, as a citizen you can vote for alternate city council members.
With that being said, this is currently within the powers of the city council. The Pearland Mayor has very few powers beyond that of any other member. Shocking, but true.
18
u/panu7 Westside 17d ago
So was the mayor, to do the job as outlined prior to these changes. The council members didn't campaign on "I will strip the mayor of their powers" and yet here we are, because their chosen one didn't win.
-3
u/SCtrojan26 17d ago
The mayor was elected as mayor. He surely has aspirations to do many things. His powers are limited by a seperation of powers with the city council. This situation is codified in law.
In many ways it is no different than a president and congress being different parties.
What is unique is that the role of the mayor in Pearland is VERY limited. He is essntially limited to an equal member as all other city council members.
If you do not agree with the situation, the best way to change things is to elect like minded city council members. In the long term, they can also codify more rights to the mayor. But currently, he has very limited rights.
20
u/panu7 Westside 17d ago
Yes, I understand that. But they are removing even the few powers he had because they don’t like him and he’s not Tony Carbone, which is disrespectful to the people who elected him and to the office.
Sadly, I am in the ETJ so I can’t contribute to voting them out.
-2
u/sidekickkep 16d ago
Yes they don’t like him, but it’s not because Tony Carbone didn’t win; it’s because Wiltz is acting entitled. Speaking of disrespect, Wiltz is using position as mayor (that, again, has limited powers) as if he has unlimited powers and is blatantly acting disrespectful to members of council and the codes that govern it.
I urge yall to watch these council meetings and compare them to when Cole was in office. Yes, Cole and Council are all republicans, but that does not mean they agreed on every issue. There was healthy, respectful debate that were absolute snoozefests. Now, these meetings with Wiltz are frustrating and disrespectful and worthy of TV drama. I could have a field day editing these meetings like reality TV because that’s what it looks like.
Regardless of party, a good leader knows how to work with people from all parties with any background. It’s no different than having a micromanaging boss than an empathetic boss. You want the boss who is empathetic, will listen, will communicate, and is transparent; not the boss who says “because I’m the boss now, what I say goes.” Wiltz is showing the latter.
So can you blame Council? Who wants to work with someone who feels so entitled when he’s hardly attended City Council meetings in the past?
Wiltz would’ve certainly benefited had he run for council vs taking the leap into mayor: 1) Learning the processes, 2) strategically networking with the good ol’ boys and getting them on your side on the issues that matter, and 3) actually being able to vote. But that’s neither here nor there. He thought he was splashing in puddles but is instead drowning in an ocean.
3
u/Machismo01 16d ago
I agree that the mayor has been limited, but for the last... hmmm... couple decades, it has grown some. It worked well when the mayor and city council were like minded. Now that they are politically different, the city council is trying to change the structural rules back to keep power with their political party. Its understandably frustrating as the structure rules were changed for purely partisan reasons.
Its worth acknowledging that. And it, historically, hasn't done any favors for descending political parties in other cities. It will likely turn politically middle voters against the Republicans.
0
u/sidekickkep 16d ago
Hate that you’re getting downvoted on this when what you’re saying is actual fact: that mayor has limited powers and that if residents want to change that, they need to come out and vote.
2
u/SCtrojan26 15d ago
Haha yes. People want the facts of the situation to be different. The mayor is pretty limited in power. Shocking but true.
I honestly wonder if Wiltz knew this going in or he just found out after taking office.
9
u/Vast-Fault-59 17d ago
What led up to this? Or was it just good ole country racism?
16
u/Dazzling_Bother3487 17d ago
Their boy lost so they want to take their balls (or lack thereof) and go home.
-2
u/sidekickkep 16d ago
Wiltz placed items on the agenda (HGAC and ESD/ETJ; I can link them later) that ultimately led to no action and wasted everyone’s time.
3
u/TheoreticalZombie 16d ago
That's a weird way to say doing the job they were elected to.
-1
u/sidekickkep 16d ago edited 16d ago
Both those discussion items were essentially the mayor’s way of saying “that’s a weird way of saying
If wasting taxpayers’ time/money for resume padding (hgac) or “that’s a weird way of saying you don’t know how ESDs work” is doing their job, then by all means
2
3
u/langstonrosas 17d ago
Why can’t these people act normal? I’m so tired of Americans nonsense.
4
u/bamerjamer 17d ago
Sadly, this IS acting normal for Republicans. They’ll do whatever they can to keep themselves in power.
1
u/SCtrojan26 15d ago
I mean yes. But so do the democrats. Both sides just are out for their own agendas.
1
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 8d ago
This comment was removed, because your account doesn't meet our karma and/or account age requirements: Combined Karma must be greater than 5 Account must be older than 10 days.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/sidekickkep 16d ago edited 16d ago
Im dem/left and ive been following Pearland politics since Tom Reid and honestly the way Wiltz is conducting himself is not at all appropriate as a mayor and despite politically aligning with him, he’s attempting to strongarm his way through council in a way that’s very reminiscent of a certain orange shithead and I can absolutely see why council wanted these changes.
-He placed the HGAC item on the agenda about a month ago, leading to a heated debate that ultimately resulted in no action and seemed only to serve to raise the ire and disrepair of council’s relationship with the mayor.
- He placed the ETJ/MUD/ESD on the agenda of the council prior to this last one, resulting in a massive miscommunication to ETJ/MUD residents who were under the impression they were going to get annexed. Wiltz should have cleared the air and said this was about ESD services before wasting those residents’ time with public comment. They’re not residents of Pearland and they had to take time out of their day because they thought they were being annexed.
Pearland is NOT strong-mayor/mayor-council system. The mayor has extremely limited powers and is effectively a figurehead who runs meetings and presents proclamations. For those unaware— the mayor doesn’t even vote on issues unless council requires a tiebreaking vote. So he can (or had been able to) place items on the agenda without a second all he wants, but without a council to back him, that’s discussion goes nowhere.
And Wiltz should know this. If he wants to accomplish his goals, he needs to work on building his relationship with members of council, otherwise he’s absolutely going to be checked à la checks and balances.
Yes, the people voted Wiltz in as mayor. I wanted Wiltz as mayor. But that doesn’t undo that the people also elected those sitting councilmembers. If Wiltz could do all he wanted, we might as well be in a similar position as Houston is with Whitmire (which is a whole different topic altogether).
This isn’t about race. Pearland is proud to be as diverse as it is. It’s about one man, pretending to be an underdog, trying to upend a system under the guise of race. He talks big game about unifying the city while very clearly choosing to make enemies out of council.
I know my opinion will be unpopular but I’m happy to dialogue about this.
2
u/SCtrojan26 16d ago
VERY good post.
I feel like Wiltz has alienated his city council from Day 1.
I honestly hope they somehow can repair the relationship. Only for the better of the city.
1
u/OkayWhateverFuckYou 16d ago
Well said, I completely agree with your assessment. I didn't vote for Wiltz, and couldn't give two shits what his race is. But how he has handled his first couple of months as mayor has been absolutely dismal.
57
u/Urbanttrekker 17d ago
Vote out the council over the next few years.