Demanding Accountability

Search the web
Search the US~Observer

Subscribe to the US~Observer News Flash Alerts!

Get a subscription
to US~Observer delivered right to
your mailbox via
first-class mail!

Click Here for more information

Williamson County ruling highlights
public officials’ “free pass” for misconduct
ShareThis Article

By Lou Ann Anderson

A lawsuit seeking to remove Williamson County Judge Dan A. Gattis from office for alleged incompetence and official misconduct was dismissed Friday by Bell County District Judge Rick Morris, the Texas Supreme Court-appointed visiting judge assigned to the removal suit. Some are celebrating and rightfully so – if one is a proponent of legal technicalities that subvert laws and other measures established to assure government transparency and accountability in the fulfillment of public office duties, including expenditures of taxpayer dollars.

The suit, filed by Williamson County Attorney Jana Duty, cited five counts of the judge hiring outside legal counsel without proper authorization including failure to obtain advance approval from the County Commissioners Court as per mandated open meeting laws. Two of the counts involved hiring attorneys to deal with a situation in which now-retired County Court at Law Judge Don Higginbotham was (per multiple accounts) allegedly committing open acts of sexual harassment and verbal abuse, a situation that’s now the basis of a federal lawsuit filed against the county.

The removal lawsuit was dismissed based upon Gattis attorney Martha S. Dickie arguing a legal premise called the “forgivess doctrine.” This law states that “An officer may not be removed from office for an act the official committed before election to office.” In a written statement, Duty said “Basically, once County Judge Dan A. Gattis was re-elected, on Nov. 2, 2010, the slate was wiped clean and any alleged misdeeds committed during his prior term, are forgiven.” Duty also acknowledges having no right to appeal making “this civil case closed.”

The ruling did not consider merits of the specific allegations. Duty’s 140-page civil lawsuit detailed the specific counts where motion to dismiss only listed dates of the five counts specifying each as “during Judge Gattis’ previous term in office.” It charged that each of the grounds “contain significant misstatement of the actual facts,” but provided no support.

While comments expressed at media outlets like The Austin Bulldog and the Austin American-Statesman reflect little prior knowledge of the “forgiveness doctrine,” many weighing in see this provision as outrageous and a specific affront to Williamson County residents. This isn’t a law that public officials want to advertise, but score one for transparency. And thanks to Judge Gattis, awareness of state law that allows a “free pass” for officials adept at hiding misconduct until the next election now merits attention as a serious threat to taxpayer interests.

What’s ahead for Williamson County is anyone’s guess. Last week, Georgetown attorney Kerry E. Russell filed a complaint with Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley accusing Duty of a Class A misdemeanor offense through “intentional destruction of a local government record.” His complaint was copied to the State Bar of Texas. Prior to Friday’s ruling, the County Commissioners Court scheduled a vote for this week’s meeting on sending their own grievance against Duty to the Bar. A citizens’ group, the Williamson County Public Policy Coalition, has asked Gattis and County Commissioner Ron Morrison to recuse themselves from any vote involving the County Attorney.

In terming the “forgiveness doctrine” as voters forgiving an official for their actions, County Commissioner Lisa Birkman also describes Judge Morris’ ruling as “a huge vindication for Judge Gattis.” Duty has another lawsuit pending in Williamson County’s 368th District Court against the county claiming the Commissioners Court had no legal right to move $101,801 out of her budget so as to establish a separate legal advisor’s position under their control. In an appeal for dropping this lawsuit and to instead “work cooperatively” with the Commissioners Court, Birkman further states “As I have stated many times, I do not believe this lawsuit is in the best interest of the county.” To both these points, voters in Williamson County may see things differently.

Critics of Williamson County Attorney Jana Duty will likely continue to paint her as overzealous and politically motivated, but others are already recognizing her as deserving high marks for helping to expose misconduct and the “forgiveness doctrine” as a legal loophole that by itself is capable of thwarting countless taxpayer protections, transparency measures and other efforts toward government accountability.

The “forgiveness doctrine.” Lawmakers created it. Gattis and team knew it. And Judge Morris was unafraid to use it. As taxpayers tire of hard-earned dollars funding bad behavior over good government, how much more “forgiveness” can we afford?

Lou Ann Anderson is an advocate working to create awareness regarding the Texas probate system and its surrounding culture. She is the Online Producer at www.EstateofDenial.com and a Policy Advisor with Americans for Prosperity – Texas Foundation. Lou Ann may be contacted at info@EstateofDenial.com

Subscribe to the US~Observer News Flash Alerts!