fbpx

Top Stories

Austin City Manager: Dallas discard vs Austin retread

Council members make policy. The city manager’s job is to implement those policies. A great city manager can get that done and keep the ship of state sailing smoothly. A good city manager can get most assignments done and avoid...

Will lawsuit blow up Project Connect train tracks?

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit Dirty Martin’s et al v. Mayor Kirk Watson et al claim they’re victims of a bait-and-switch scheme because Project Connect will deliver improvements vastly inferior to what voters were promised when they approved Proposition A...

Latest articles

Lawsuit Seeks to Remove Williamson County Judge

Posted Wednesday December 29, 2010 10:00pm
Lawsuit Seeks to Remove Williamson
County Judge Dan A. Gattis from Office

County Attorney Jana Duty Alleges Unlawful Hiring
and Payments, Incompetence, Official Misconduct


by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2010

Jana DutyDan GattisWilliamson County Attorney Jana Duty previously stated she had obtained a commitment for a special prosecutor who would pursue criminal charges against Williamson County Judge Dan A. Gattis and Round Rock Attorney Mike Davis if an independent investigation provided evidence that the law had been broken.

Duty instead used an entirely different tactic and filed a 140-page civil lawsuit on December 22 (Cause Number 10-1428-C26). The lawsuit, obtained today by The Austin Bulldog, asks the court to suspend Gattis and appoint another person to perform the duties of county judge until final judgment and, upon trial by jury and a final judgment, to remove Gattis from his position as county judge.

Duty was on out of town today and did not immediately respond to an e-mail and voice mail requesting comment.

A lawyer to defend Gattis against Duty’s lawsuit has not yet been retained, Connie Watson, public information officer for Williamson County, said today. Authorization to hire an attorney to represent Gattis may be placed on the agenda for next week’s Commissioners Court meeting, she said.

Gattis issued a statement this afternoon, which says, in part, “The overwhelming majority of the allegations now being made by Ms. Duty have been examined by the Texas Attorney General’s Office, the Texas Rangers, the Williamson County District Attorney’s Office, and the Public Integrity Unit of the Travis County District Attorney’s Office ... and the result has continuously been that there has been no misconduct or violations of the law of any kind.”

However, the only matter addressed in Duty’s lawsuit that actually may have been investigated, according to press reports, was the inappropriate payments made to Mike Davis for representing Judge Don Higginbotham of Williamson County Court at Law No. 3 for alleged sexual harassment.

The Austin Bulldog reported November 30 that both the Texas Rangers and the Public Integrity Unit of the Travis County District Attorney’s Office said they had discussed the matter with Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley, but both said they did not participate in any investigation. The Attorney General’s Office would not comment.

Attorney Jason Nassour of the Austin law firm of Keel and Nassour L.L.P. assisted Duty in preparing the lawsuit to remove Judge Gattis.

Nassour says, “What agency comes out and does an investigation and doesn’t issue a statement? All we have is the word of John Bradley, who says he did an investigation and found no wrongdoing.”

County Attorney Steps Up Payments Investigation

Posted Tuesday November 30, 2010 10:45pm
Williamson County Attorney Steps Up
Investigation of Improper Payments

District Attorney’s Claimed Investigation
Not Confirmed by Agencies He Named

Investigative Report by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2010

Dan GattisMike DavisFor a while it looked like Williamson County Judge Dan Gattis and Round Rock attorney Mike Davis were out of the line of fire and would not be prosecuted for county payments to Davis for representing Judge Don Higginbotham of Williamson County Court at Law No. 3 against claims of sexual harassment.

Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley said his office had conducted an investigation and found no criminal conduct in Davis inappropriately billing the county to represent Higginbotham.

Nor did Bradley find reason to prosecute Judge Gattis for possibly encouraging Davis to represent Higginbotham at county expense without getting authorization of the others on the commissioners court.

But Williamson County Attorney Jana Duty isn’t dropping the matter. She is seeking an independent investigation into whether the law was broken when Gattis allegedly arranged for attorney Mike Davis to defend Higginbotham.`

Duty has raised the ante by lining up an investigation by getting a commitment for a special prosecutor who would pursue criminal charges if the independent investigation provides evidence that the law has been broken. 

“Bradley and Gattis may think I’m dropping it,” Duty told The Austin Bulldog. “They should know better. I’m not sweeping this under the carpet.”

Abuse, Sexual Harassment, Retaliation Alleged

Posted Tuesday November 23, 2010 10:34pm

Federal Lawsuit Alleges Verbal Abuse,
Sexual Harassment, and Retaliation

Former County Court at Law No. 3
Judge Don Higginbotham Accused

Investigative Report by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2010

Don HigginbothamWhat started out as a sexual harassment complaint against Williamson County Court at Law No. 3 Judge Donald Higginbotham has turned into a full-blown federal lawsuit that adds retaliation to the allegations.

Gregg RosenbergAttorney Gregg Rosenberg of the Houston firm of Rosenberg and Sprovach filed the lawsuit, Kimberly Lee and Sharon McGuyer v. Williamson County, in federal court November 23.

The lawsuit lists more than a dozen instances in which Judge Higginbotham allegedly made comments that were insulting, demeaning, and abusive. Several of the alleged comments involved vulgarity or sexual references.

For example, in “November 2009,” the lawsuit alleges, “Plaintiff Lee was walking in the hallway when Judge Higginbotham turned to her and said, ‘I hate to tell you this, but in those pants you are wearing, you have the ass of a Ni**er.’”

“Also in November 2009, when Plaintiff Lee asked for a peppermint, the Judge said he had something for Plaintiff Lee to suck on,” the lawsuit alleges.

When he found court coordinator Amanda Vega’s vehicle in his parking space, according to the lawsuit, Higginbotham, neck veins bulging, hands clamped into fists, said, “You are nothing but a bunch of fu**ing pukes, nothing but a bunch of go**amn fu**ing pukes! Get out of here and move your car, move it, move it, move it!”

Higginbotham could not be reached for comment.

 

Council Member Berryman Expenses Detailed

Posted Tuesday November 9, 2010 4:36pm

Berryman Expenses Finally Detailed
in Response to Request and Complaint

After the Fact Compilation
Now Open to Public Scrutiny

Investigative Report by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2010

Pat BerrymanGeorgetown Council Member Pat Berryman has at last provided a report of the expenses she claims to have incurred, and for which she was retroactively issued a payment of $13,600 by the City of Georgetown.

The 20-page report comes 10 months after Berryman was paid, a result of The Austin Bulldog’s open records request and subsequent complaints filed with several law enforcement agencies.

“The attached expense report is accurate to my recollection and has been verified by the research I have done with city staff, and my own records,” Berryman states in an October 15 cover letter.

“It was a difficult task because so much time has elapsed from this time period. I think it should be noted that the Georgetown City Council was not required by the city resolution to provide documentation of any kind. Therefore, it was not anticipated this would occur.

“None of the other council members have been or are being required to provide this in depth information regarding the reimbursement for expenses. I must say that it is unfair to be singled out in this manner.”

Berryman only state employee on council

The Austin Bulldog targeted Berryman because she was the only state employee serving on the council during the period covered by her $13,600 payment, July 2008 through December 2009. As a state employee, she was prohibited by Section 40(b) of the Texas Constitution from drawing a salary for service as an elected official. Berryman should prove her expenses are legitimate and not a means to circumvent the salary prohibition, according to opinions issued by the Texas Attorney General.

Bulldog in Investigative News Network

We’re Unique, But The 'Bulldog' is Not Alone Even before launching this new venture in local nonpartisan nonprofit investigative journalism in the public interest, The...

Investigative Reports

For more than a decade the Bulldog has published hard-hitting, in-depth investigative reports that have shaped civic discourse and public policy, resulted in criminal prosecutions, and enlightened voters about candidates' records. Here are a few samples of our work:

About us

The Austin Bulldog is the premiere investigative journalism outfit in Central Texas. Established in 2009, the Bulldog has become a trusted independent voice for government accountability, known for its incisive, in-depth coverage of local elections and local governments.

Newsletter

What's really going on in government?

Keep up with the best investigative reporting in Austin.

Follow us

Bulldog Team

Ken Martin

Founder and Editor

Our critical accountability journalism wouldn't be possible without the generous donations of hundreds of Austinites. Join them and become a supporter today!

Areas of Coverage

Austin City Manager: Dallas discard vs Austin retread

Council members make policy. The city manager’s job is...

They’re off and running for council

As in horse racing, the bugler has sounded, “Call...

Are tax subsidies for luxury development legal?

In a lawsuit filed last April plaintiffs sought a...

Lame duck council set to vote on 20-year sweetheart tax deal for developer

With just weeks to go in his term, Mayor...

Environmentalists assail plan for lakeside high rises

New development to reshape South Central Waterfront When former First Lady...

Urbanists vie to replace council member Kathie Tovo

Updated 2:30pm August 20, 2022, to correct the misattribution...

First-ever opportunity to elect appraisal board members

Right now local voters are of course focused on...

They’re off and running for council

As in horse racing, the bugler has sounded, “Call...

District 10 Council candidates jump in early

With 2024 being a presidential election year—maybe a rerun...

Trust, but verify

We would like to think people in our nation’s...

Announcing the Government Accountability Project

Local officials manage government organizations that spend billions of...

Central Health launches search for new CEO

Central Health, the local government agency that levies a...

First-ever opportunity to elect appraisal board members

Right now local voters are of course focused on...

Trust, but verify

We would like to think people in our nation’s...

Announcing the Government Accountability Project

Local officials manage government organizations that spend billions of...

Project Connect

Lawmakers weigh axing Project Connect’s ‘blank check’ loophole

At a hearing at the legislature, critics and supporters of Project Connect clashed over a proposal to rein in the newly created transit agency.

Project Connect scope drastically scaled back

Two factors have sparked renewed debate around the cost...

Austin Transit Partnership gears up for key decisions on light rail design

Billions of dollars to be spent on mass transit...

Become a Bulldog supporter

The Bulldog is funded by its readers. We're not affiliated with any political party or interest group. We're not paid by corporate sponsors. Support us today so we can continue to be a trusted voice for government accountability.