Statute of limitations will expire in May, attorney investigating alleged offense had health issues
A court hearing scheduled last Thursday on the criminal complaint against Travis County Precinct 3 Commissioner Gerald Daugherty was not held.
The doors of the designated 390th Judicial District Court were locked. A judicial aide said the attorney investigating the complaint and assigned judge had agreed not to proceed with the criminal case until a related civil lawsuit filed against Daugherty was resolved.
Leslie B. Vance of Marble Falls was appointed “county attorney pro tem” to investigate the complaint filed 11 months ago by William G. “Bill” Bunch of the Save Our Springs Alliance. Travis County Attorney David Escamilla was recused because the Travis County Commissioners Court controls his budget. Judge James E. Morgan, retired from the 220th Judicial District Court with jurisdiction over Bosque, Comanche, and Hamilton counties, was assigned to hear the case.
The complaint, supported by Daugherty’s testimony in a deposition in a related civil case filed November 12, 2013, claimed that Daugherty had violated the Texas Public Information Act by not turning over his correspondence related to the proposed controversial State Highway 45 Southwest.
At the time the complaint was filed, Daugherty told The Austin Bulldog it was “nothing more than a rehash of the allegations they brought in the civil suit. I don’t put anything past Bill Bunch or the SOS organization to thwart the will of the people,” he said, referring to efforts to halt construction of SH45 SW.
Bunch, executive director of the Save Our Springs Alliance, was also at the 390th Judicial District Court for the Thursday hearing and was disappointed to learn it would not be held.
Bunch said, “The Texas Public Information Act has distinct civil and criminal remedies. The (civil and criminal) cases are separate. My understanding is that Judge (Billy Ray) Stubblefield (who assigned Vance Judge Morgan to the case) referred our complaint for prosecution. The documents we provided in our complaint, including Commissioner Daugherty’s sworn testimony, were sufficient to file charges and take to a jury. We did most of the work upfront. So I don’t understand the lack of action.
“Now, we are told, second hand, that prosecution won’t happen, by an agreement between the judge and the prosecutor, until the civil case has been resolved. That may mean until after the statute of limitations have run. As complainant and victim of Commissioner Daugherty’s blatant and severe violations of the Public Information Act, SOS Alliance will research our options on these new circumstances.”
Daugherty’s defense attorney, Randy Leavitt, did not return a Friday afternoon call seeking comment.
Vance had health problems
In a telephone interview Friday afternoon, Vance, who has previously served as a district attorney in two different districts, said his investigation of the complaint had been delayed. “Unfortunately, about the time I was ready to make a decision, I had a stroke in December.” He said that left him temporarily unable to use his left leg. “I had another episode in January.”
“I haven’t decided what I’m going to do. I asked the judge if it would be all right to deal with this after the civil lawsuit was resolved.”
Vance said he would use information from the civil suit to decide if the alleged offense rises to the level of criminal conduct.
The alleged criminal offense was pegged to the SOS public information request of May 10, 2013. Asked if potential prosecution might be hampered by the statute of limitations that expire in May 2015, Vance said, “That’s not a problem” and added that “deferred prosecution could be considered” if necessary.
“I don’t want this to be a political case and want to be sure everything is like it needs to be before filing anything,” Vance said.
Vance said that because he is getting information from both sides of the civil case he is saving Travis County money by not having to hire an investigator or obtaining search warrants. “I want this to be based on the facts of the case and not anything else.”
Bunch said he had given Vance information from the civil suit early on, including depositions and early discovery responses, but since then Vance had not responded to his e-mails or phone calls.
The criminal complaint
The criminal complaint states that Daugherty admitted in the deposition that he uses his personal cell phone account for county business, that he used a laptop computer for county business and donated the computer without saving messages on it, that he deleted messages from his Travis County e-mail address relevant to SH45, and that he deleted text messages referencing county business.
The deletion of messages required to be kept is permissible only if copies are stored elsewhere and made available in response to a public information request, subject to the exceptions provided for in the Texas Public Information Act.
The Local Government Records Act establishes a retention schedule for such records. The SOS Alliance claims Daugherty, who is the official records custodian for his office, has not retained the records for the required two years.
Section 552.351 of the Texas Public Information Act states, “a person commits an offense if the person willfully destroys, mutilates, removes without permission as provided by this chapter, or alters public information. An offense under this section is a misdemeanor publishable by: a fine of not less than $25 or more than $4,000; confinement in the county jail for not less than three days or more than three months; or both the fine and confinement.”
In 2013 the Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 1368 and the governor signed it into law in June.
The bill requires that in responding to public information requests public officials must provide e-mails about government business that are sent or received on private devices unless the subject matter otherwise qualifies to be withheld. In other words, electronic communications relating to official business will be accessible by law to the public, even if sent from or received on a private e-mail account or mobile device.
Daugherty was elected county commissioner in November 2012 and took office in January 2013. He previously served as Precinct 3 commissioner 2002-2008.
This report was made possible by contributions to The Austin Bulldog, which operates as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit to provide investigative reporting in the public interest. You can help sustain The Austin Bulldog’s reporting by making a tax-deductible contribution.
SOS Alliance Criminal Complaint re: Travis County Commissioner Gerald Daugherty
Related Bulldog coverage: This is the 44th story covering local government agencies’ problems and progress in dealing with open government issues.
Criminal Complaint Hits Commissioner Daugherty: Save Our Springs Alliance files complaint a day before vote to fund State Highway 45 project, March 17, 2014
Bulldog Open Records Lawsuit Continues: Key issue is whether it is permissible to redact officials’ private e-mail addresses, June 7, 2013
Litigation Challenges Open Government Laws: Attorneys criticize criminal penalties and public access to elected officials private e-mail accounts, April 24, 2013
Social Media’s Impact on Open Government: Few government organizations have dealt with how Facebook, Twitter use affects compliance, April 23, 2013
City Hosts Open Government Symposium: Lawyers attending for education credits abound, much of the day had little to do with city practices, April 22, 2013
City Spent $157,636 to Defend Council Violations: Payments for private lawyers for mayor, council members in criminal investigation, April 8, 2013
City Hosting Open Government Symposium: Follows county attorney’s investigation of City Council open meetings violations, March 19, 2013
Deferred Prosecution Ends Open Meetings Investigation: Mayor and five current council members sign agreements waiving the statute of limitations and requiring major reforms, October 24, 2012
Austin Board and Commissions Get E-mail Policy: Fifteen months after City Council ordered changes, board and commission members to be assigned city e-mail accounts, August 23, 2012
Open Meetings Investigation a Year Old Today: County attorney says investigation of whether City Council violated Open Meetings Act is still ongoing, January 25, 2012
City of Austin Moving, Slowly, Toward Greater Transparency in Electronic Communication: New system for board and commission members targeted for first quarter 2012, October 27, 2011
Employee E-Communication Policy Drafts Show Each Revision Weakened Rules: Policy that was near fully compliant on first draft crippled by changes, September 13, 2011
The Austin Bulldog Files Second Lawsuit Against City of Austin for Withholding Records: City not responsive to open records request concerning water treatment plant construction, September 1, 2011
City Manager Establishes Policy for Employees’ Electronic Communications: Open government legal experts say policy is seriously flawed, but it’s an important start, August 10, 2011
City of Austin Dragging Its Feet on Implementing Lawful E-mail Practices: City employees, board and commission members still not covered by city policies, July 13, 2011
E-mails Exchanged by Council Members Expose Private Deliberations and Political Maneuvering: More than 2,400 pages of e-mails published here in searchable format, July 6, 2011
Taxpayers Footing Big Bills to Correct City of Austin’s Open Government Issues: $200,000 spent on attorneys so far and no end in sight, June 24, 2011
Treasure Trove of Public Documents Made Available in Searchable Format: E-mails, text messages, meeting notes obtained through open records, lawsuit, May 12, 2011
County Attorney’s Office ‘Cannot Determine’ City of Office Committed Alleged Violations: Bulldog’s complaint was the first presented for violation of the Texas Public Information Act, April 22, 2011
Council Staff Training Lapsed from 2007 Until Lawsuit Filed: Only one current staff member had taken training, city records show, April 20, 2011
Austin City Council Adopts Policy to Improve Compliance with Texas Public Information Act: Policy does not cover all city employees or all city board and commission members, April 15, 2011
City of Austin and Council Members File Answer to The Austin Bulldog’s Lawsuit: Answer challenges standing and claims requests for open records fulfilled, mostly, April 11, 2011
Call for Public Help in Analyzing City Council Members Private E-mails, Text Messages: Volunteers needed to review correspondence and provide feedback on any irregularities, April 9, 2011
City of Austin’s Records Retention Undermined by Lack of Controls Over Deletion of E-mails: Missing records likely more important than gossipy tidbits, April 6, 2011
Council Member Laura Morrison Releases E-mail on City Business from Gmail Account: Morrison second council member to turn over more e-mails responsive to The Austin Bulldog’s requests, March 30, 2011
Private E-mails About City Business May Be Pulled Into City of Austin Records Retention: City Council votes to consider policy draft at council meeting of April 7, March 29, 2011
The Austin Bulldog Files Civil Complaint Against City of Austin and Council Members: Travis County Attorney David Escamilla has legal authority to force compliance, March 23, 2011
Expired: The Austin Bulldog’s Offer to Settle Its Lawsuit with City, Mayor and Council Members: Does this mean these elected officials want to continue to violate state laws?, March 18, 2011
Council Member Spelman’s City E-mails on UT Account Will Not Be Provided: University of Texas will seek opinion from Texas attorney general to withhold, March 18, 2011
The Austin Bulldog Files Lawsuit to Compel Compliance with the Law: Mayor and city council members not in compliance with statutes for public information, records retention, March 2, 2011
Smoking Gun E-mail Shows Council Aide Advocated Evasion of Open Meetings Act: Provided detailed guide to allow chats with council members on dais but leave no trace, March 1, 2011
Council Member Bill Spelman Goes On the Record About Private Meetings, Fifth in a series of recorded question and answer interviews, February 20, 2011
Council Work Sessions Stir Concern Over Tying Up Staff for Two Meetings: City manager presents summary of options for council consideration, February 15, 2011
Mayor Claims Lawyers Okayed Private Meetings But City Won’t Release Proof: City pledges cooperation with county attorney’s inquiry but is withholding these key documents, February 13, 2011
County Attorney Asks City of Austin for Records Related to Open Meetings Complaint: Former Mayor Wynn and Former Council Member McCracken included, February 9, 2011
Council Member Randi Shade Goes On the Record About Private Meetings: Fourth in a Series of recorded question-and-answer interviews, February 9, 2011
City of Austin Commits $159,000 for Advice in County Attorney’s Open Meetings Act Inquiry: Three attorneys hired for $53,000 each, February 7, 2011
Council Member Chris Riley Goes On the Record About Private Meetings: Third in a Series of recorded question-and-answer interviews, February 6, 2011
Council Member Sheryl Cole Goes On the Record About Private Meetings: Second in a Series of recorded question-and-answer interviews, February 3, 2011
Mayor Pro Tem Mike Martinez Goes On the Record About Private Meetings: First in a series of recorded question-and-answer interviews, February 2, 2011
Will I Said Come On Over Baby, Whole Lot of Meetin’ Goin’ On: Council Member Chris Riley tops the chart with 256 private meetings, January 30, 2011
County Attorney Reviewing Complaint, Brian Rodgers Will Not Run for Council, January 25, 2011
Open Meetings, Closed Minds: Private meetings to discuss public business shows Austin City Council may be violating Open Meetings Act, January 25, 2011