Attorney: Court's Griffin ruling could have wider implications

Attorney: Court's Griffin ruling could have wider implications

By Robert Bell Friday, 20 February 2009

The Texas Constitution, which gives county commissioners courts executive and legislative powers, also spells out both the scope and limitations of the court’s authority. In addition, the Constitution details the specific duties of each elected county official.

A county commissioners court in Texas has authority not only to set a budget for the coming year, but also to alter that budget in certain ways at any point, at its discretion. One power it does not have, though, is to dictate to elected officials how to perform constitutionally specified, or “core,” duties.

However, some county offices perform tasks that are not outlined in the state constitution. And unlike “core” duties, these discretionary responsibilities — and the money that funds them — can be shifted from one department to another at the will of the court.

The Texas Supreme Court recently affirmed this authority when it upheld lower court decisions in the suit former Williamson County Precinct 1 Constable Gary Griffin filed against the Williamson County Commissioners Court for altering his budget mid-year.

This court ruling could result in commissioners courts using budget-altering power to dictate how elected officials do their jobs, said Bill Aleshire, Griffin’s attorney and a former Travis County judge and tax collector.

“This is going to have great potential to upset the balance of power in county government and all commissioners courts to interfere, in a way, in the operation of independent elected offices by using the power of the purse strings,” he said.

Not so, said Jana Duty, attorney for Williamson County, citing a prior case that upheld the right of commissioners courts to shift discretionary responsibilities from one office to another.

“I don’t think this case changed the law in any way,” she said.

Background

In 2005, Lisa Birkman, commissioner for Precinct 1, criticized Griffin during commissioners court meetings for not serving more warrants.

Several of Griffin’s deputies were trained in handling mental health-related calls, and they responded to these calls in addition to performing core duties, which include serving warrants and issuing civil papers.

Birkman proposed moving mental health deputies and resources from Griffin’s office to that of the Williamson County Sheriff’s office, which also had several deputies trained to answer mental health calls.

The court voted 3-2 against moving them at that time, but decided to form a committee to consider a move. Griffin was not on the committee.

On the night of Oct. 19, 2005, Griffin called area emergency dispatchers and informed them that his deputies would no longer answer all the mental health calls, instead addressing them on a case-by-case basis.

“In a decision that I know Gary would not make if he had it to do over, he threw his hands up and said, ‘Fine. If that’s what Birkman wants, then I’m going to take my deputies off mental health calls and get the sheriff’s department to handle them and I’ll go get caught up on our criminal warrants,’” Aleshire said.

The commissioners court considered Griffin’s action to be retaliation for not being appointed to the mental health committee, Duty said.

It also viewed the move as causing a potentially harmful lapse in county emergency services, and thus called an emergency meeting Oct. 20, 2005. The court decided to transfer deputies and resources from Griffin’s office to the sheriff’s office.

Soon after this meeting, Griffin told the media and county officials that his deputies would resume answering all mental health calls, but the deputies — and the funds supporting them — were transferred to the sheriff’s department anyway, Aleshire said.

Griffin filed suit against the county in December 2005. He alleged, among other claims, that the county commissioners court did not have authority to make changes to his budget in the middle of the year.

The 368th District Court of Williamson County did not agree with Griffin. Chief Justice W. Kenneth Law of the Third Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s judgment.

On Jan. 9, the Texas Supreme Court denied Griffin’s petition for review, and the case was settled.

Precedent

Aleshire believes the decision in the Griffin case conflicts with opinions written by state attorneys general about both the ability a commissioners court has to amend budgets and the “sphere of authority” elected officials have under state law, he said. He also said the commissioners court did not specify how much of Griffin’s budget was dedicated for the discretionary mental health calls and how much was allotted to core duties.

The commissioners court believed that it left Griffin with enough deputies to perform his core responsibilities, Duty said.

“If the resources are given to you to perform your core duties, the commissioners court cannot then meddle in how you use those resources,” Duty said. “Here’s the difficulty: If an elected official is doing a discretionary duty — one they are not required to do — and then they stop performing that duty, I, as the county attorney, cannot force them to do it.”

Because the county could not legally force Griffin to perform discretionary duties, the commissioners court decided to exercise the authority it did have — moving the mental health deputies.

Though he believes this court decision could set an alarming precedent for county officials, Aleshire said he thinks most commissioners courts will not resort to the measures used in this case.

Duty believes the case, although it represents a rare occurrence, falls in line with prior legal precedent in the state. But the results of this case could still prove a cautionary tale.

“If you are an elected official and you are performing a discretionary duty and you decide in the middle of a budget year to stop performing that duty — then elected official beware,” she said.

Case closed

Griffin is now a sergeant major deputy with the Travis County Precinct 3 Constable’s office. Birkman was re-elected in 2008.

“I believe today, as I did in 2005, that [the commissioners court] violated the Texas Constitution,” he said. “They overstepped their authority.”

Birkman is glad the case is over, she said.

“I don’t ever think it’s good when we have elected officials that sue the county. It costs the taxpayers money and takes away the other duties that we needed to take care of,” she said.

The job of Williamson County Constables

County constables have all of the power of Texas peace officers, including the power to make arrests, but also have specific duties detailed in the state constitution. Constable’s offices work alongside other law enforcement agencies on a variety of cases.

Some constables offices perform other tasks not outlined in the Texas Constitution. For example, Precinct 3 in Williamson County has an environmental crime unit, which enforces and investigates activities such as illegal dumping, burn-code violations and situations involving hazardous materials.

Sources: Texas Association of Counties; Williamson County

Constable Dale Vannoy, Precinct 2

Constable Bobby Gutierrez, Precinct 3, Courtesy Williamson County

Constable Marty Ruble, Precinct 4, Courtesy Williamson County

Constable Robert Chody, Precinct 1, Courtesy Robert Chody

Griffin vs. WilCo

1996

• Gary Griffin elected constable for Precinct 1

2004

• Lisa Birkman elected commissioner for Precinct 1

2005

• Birkman criticizes Griffin’s handling of mental health calls

Aug. 2005

• Birkman proposes the commissioner’s court transfer mental health duties from Griffin’s office
• Motion fails in 3-2 vote
• Commissioners court adopts 2005/2006 budget

Oct. 2005

• Commissioners court approves motion to form a committee to determine where the mental health unit should be
• Griffin’s office notifies county responders his deputies will take mental health calls on a case-by-case basis
• First meeting of mental health committee
• Commissioners court holds emergency meeting and decides to move mental health deputies and resources from Griffin’s office to that of the Williamson County Sheriff

Dec. 2005

• Griffin files suit against the commissioners court

2006

• Trial court rules in favor of commissioners court, which Griffin appeals

2007

• Appeals court rules in favor of commissioners court

2008

• Griffin requests a petition for review of the case from Texas Supreme Court
• Robert Chody elected constable of Precinct 1
• Griffin joins Travis County Precinct 3 Constable’s office

2009

• Texas Supreme Court denies Griffin’s petition for review

Williamson County Sheriff’s Department

• Offices are divided into headquarters in Georgetown, east substation in Taylor and west substation in Cedar Park
• Top officer is Sheriff James Wilson
• Law enforcement officers: 158
• 2009 budget: $17,782,182
• Major responsibilities and divisions include criminal investigations, patrol, traffic, school resource officers, narcotics unit, crime prevention, DARE, county jail

Williamson County Constables Department

• Offices are divided into four precinct offices in Round Rock, Cedar Park, Georgetown and Taylor
• Top officers are constables Robert Chody, Dale Vannoy, Bobby Gutierrez and Marty Ruble
• Law enforcement officers: 36
• 2009 budget: $4,018,220
• Major responsibilities and divisions include serving as bailiff in the justice of the peace courts, serving warrants and civil papers, subpoenaing witnesses, handling evictions, patrol, criminal investigations and environmental crime unit

Source: Williamson County