Council fails to oust Cibolo mayor
Cibolo Mayor Stosh Boyle will remain head of the San Antonio suburb’s government after his City Council failed to remove him during a special hearing Tuesday.
Council members voted 3-3 on a motion to remove Boyle from his office because he has a felony conviction on his record. The motion failed because the charter requires at least six votes to oust a fellow council member.
“This is the one of the hardest things I’ve ever had to do in my life,” Boyle told the council.
Councilman Brian Byrd served as complainant in the proceedings and was not allowed to vote. He sat at a table below the dais facing Boyle, who was seated at a similar table on the other side of the dais, between his two lawyers.
Boyle, 43, has been the city’s mayor since 2017. But it is Boyle’s past that brought the City Council to the point of voting whether to remove or retain him.
In 1998, when he was 21, Boyle was arrested and charged with conspiracy to manufacture Ecstasy. He pleaded guilty in federal court and received four years’ probation, which he served.
Texas law prohibits anyone convicted of a felony from running for or holding elected office unless the felony has been expunged or the person has received a pardon.
“These are verifiable and irrefutable facts. Mayor Stosh Boyle is a convicted felon … and lacks the legal qualification to hold the office of mayor,” Byrd said. “This hearing is about a single consideration — the qualifications of Stanley Stosh Boyle to hold the office of mayor of Cibolo.”
Boyle declined to answer several questions from council members during the hearing on the advice of his attorney, but he talked about what he has done for the community, including serving on the city’s Capital Improvement board and the Parks and Recreation board in addition to his service as mayor.
He acknowledged his past without going into details about the conviction.
“I’ve made mistakes early in my life, and I make them today,” he said. “Every bridge that I have crossed has made me a better per
son.”
Byrd said information was provided to him about Boyle’s criminal record anonymously in mid April, and he verified the claim through court records open to the public.
The councilman said he advised the mayor about the verified allegation and requested any documentation that would show his conviction had been nullified but nothing was provided. Boyle noted the court records show that Boyle “waived all rights to appeal,” which resulted in the conviction.
Byrd said the conviction was in federal court, and only a pardon from the president of the United States can clear such a felony conviction. As of Aug. 17, a search of presidential pardons and clemency resulted in no record being applied for, or afforded, to Boyle.
The Texas election code reads that “a candidate must not have been finally convicted of a felony from which the person has not been pardoned or otherwise released from the resulting disabilities.”
It’s the latter part of that statement — “otherwise released from the resulting disabilities” — that came into play when the council took its vote.
Councilmen Joel Hicks and Mark Allen, two of the first three council members polled, voted no, effectively ending the effort. But after Councilmen Tim Woliver, Ted Gibbs and Doug Garrett voted yes, Councilwoman Jennifer Schultes stole the spotlight.
“The gray area is still there,” she said, referring to the “released from resulting disabilities” phrase. She then asked City Attorney Frank Garza whether Boyle’s completion of probation released him from those disabilities as described in state law.
There have been arguments in the past that because felons are allowed to vote after they have fully completed their sentences, they have been “released from the resulting disabilities.”
For his part, Boyle said he has been released.
“I truly believe I have made amends and that I have been released of all my resulting disability,” he said at the hearing.
Garza told the council there is an attorney general’s opinion stating that regaining the right to vote “does not equal eliminating the resulting disabilities.” But, he added, that’s not necessarily the final word.
“Now, an attorney general opinion is simply advisory, it is not the law,” Garza said. “But there is no case law whatsoever on this issue. All we have is an advisory opinion from an attorney general.”
Schultes asked, “Are we premature in considering this issue?”
Garza said the council has jurisdiction to vote, a right listed in the City Charter.
“What if we get it wrong?” she queried.
Garza reiterated the charter provisions regarding possible removal.
When it was her turn to vote, Schultes’ strong “no” vote sparked a deafening roar of applause from the standing-room-only audience.
“I always do my best endeavor to come up to the dais with an open mind,” said Schultes, who was 1 of 5 council members who had voted to have Tuesday’s hearing. “The gray area is a gray area, and I need it clarified by a judge, not an attorney’s opinion.
“Laws aren’t made until a judge as interpreted them,” she added. “I want a judge to tell me whether I got it right or wrong.”