Congratulations to Par and Char for getting away with Jackie Gleason Boss Hogg bullshit again thanks to a Governor who cleared everyone in Uvalde the last time to get re elected now here, great job for all.
Well, bless their little government hearts.
Apparently, we taxpayers are supposed to keep writing the checks, paying higher taxes, smiling politely, and pretending we haven’t learned how to read a public record.
Now y’all, I was raised with manners. I know when to say “please,” “thank you,” and “bless your heart.”
But there comes a point when even a Southern woman has to put down her sweet tea and ask:
WHAT IN THE GOOD-OLE-BOY HELL IS GOING ON AROUND HERE?
And before somebody trots out the tired old “those are just accusations on Facebook” routine, let’s clear something up.
THE QUESTIONS DIDN’T FALL OUT OF THE SKY. THEY CAME FROM RECORDS.
So instead of another round of political word salad, here are the questions I want answered as a taxpayer.
1. JOHN CRAWLEY, THE SHERIFF’S HOUSE & THE TIMESHEETS
The records underlying this article document John Crawley being injured while at Sheriff Parnell McNamara’s residence.
Then there are the TIMESHEETS.
Those records reportedly have Crawley on the clock at the Sheriff’s Department during time other documentation places him at the sheriff’s private residence.
Well, now.
BLESS. THEIR. HEARTS.
Unless the Sheriff’s Office quietly relocated to Parnell McNamara’s house and nobody bothered to update the address, taxpayers deserve some answers.
QUESTIONS:
— Was John Crawley being paid by McLennan County while working at Sheriff McNamara’s private residence?
— What exactly was Crawley doing there?
— How many days was he there?
— How many taxpayer-funded hours were involved?
— Why do his timesheets identify one work location while other contemporaneous records place him somewhere else?
— Who submitted and approved those timesheets?
— Were county vehicles, tools, equipment, fuel or materials used?
— Were taxpayers responsible for insurance, medical or workers’ compensation expenses associated with an injury sustained at the sheriff’s private property?
THOSE AREN’T QUESTIONS CREATED BY FACEBOOK.
THE GOVERNMENT’S OWN PAPER TRAIL RAISES THEM.
2. THE MOU THAT DIDN’T EXIST WHEN THE WORK WAS BEING DONE
According to the records being relied upon here, there was NO MOU IN PLACE authorizing this arrangement when the work occurred.
An MOU was proposed AFTER THE FACT and taken to the Commissioners Court.
And the Commissioners?
THEY DID NOT APPROVE IT.
Well, butter my biscuit.
That raises some mighty obvious questions.
QUESTIONS:
— What legal or governmental authority existed AT THE TIME Crawley was working at the sheriff’s residence?
— If authority already existed, why was an MOU proposed afterward?
— Who requested the proposed MOU?
— Who drafted it?
— When was it drafted?
— What exactly would it have authorized?
— Would it have covered activity that had already occurred?
— What explanation was given to the Commissioners Court for why an MOU was needed?
— Why did the Commissioners decline to approve it?
— After the Commissioners didn’t approve it, what authority was claimed for the prior arrangement?
Give us the statute.
Give us the county policy.
Give us the Commissioners Court authorization.
Give us whatever authority existed BEFORE THE WORK HAPPENED.
Because you can’t write yourself a permission slip after the field trip and pretend Mama signed it before you left.
3. DISTRICT ATTORNEY JOSH TETENS
Then we arrive at the District Attorney’s Office.
Again, taxpayers don’t need courthouse smoke signals.
DOCUMENTS WILL DO JUST FINE.
QUESTIONS:
— What information or complaints did the District Attorney’s Office receive concerning this matter?
— When were they received?
— Who reviewed them?
— What role, if any, did Josh Tetens personally have?
— Did Tetens recuse himself from any portion of the matter?
— If so, when and why?
— Was the matter referred to another prosecutor, law-enforcement agency or governmental entity?
— What evidence was reviewed?
— What decision was ultimately made?
— What records explain the basis for that decision?
If somebody investigated it and determined everything was proper, wonderful.
SHOW TAXPAYERS WHAT CAN LAWFULLY BE RELEASED ABOUT HOW THAT CONCLUSION WAS REACHED.
4. JUDGE WALDRIP & THE FOUR REMOVAL ACTIONS
Let’s get this part straight because Judge Waldrip’s presence wasn’t some mystery.
FOUR REMOVAL ACTIONS WERE FILED AGAINST McLENNAN COUNTY OFFICIALS, INCLUDING SHERIFF PARNELL McNAMARA, DISTRICT ATTORNEY JOSH TETENS, AND COUNTY JUDGE SCOTT FELTON.
Judge Waldrip was assigned to sit on the bench and hear the removal matters.
So the question isn’t:
“WHY WAS WALDRIP HERE?”
We know why.
The questions concern what happened AFTER HE GOT HERE.
QUESTIONS:
— What evidence was submitted in each removal action?
— What evidence did Judge Waldrip actually consider?
— Were evidentiary hearings held?
— Were witnesses permitted to testify?
— What legal standard did Judge Waldrip apply?
— What factual findings, if any, did he make?
— Did the court determine that particular allegations were factually false?
— Or did the court determine that the petitions failed to satisfy the legal requirements necessary to remove an elected official from office?
— What exactly do the written orders say?
Because, y’all:
THOSE ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
A court saying:
“THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THIS DID NOT HAPPEN”
is one thing.
A court saying:
“THIS DOES NOT MEET THE LEGAL STANDARD REQUIRED TO REMOVE AN ELECTED OFFICIAL”
is something entirely different.
So before anybody throws a parade, polishes everybody’s halo and announces that everything has been proven false:
LET’S READ THE ORDERS.
Put the petitions on the table.
Put the responses beside them.
Put the evidence beside those.
Put Judge Waldrip’s orders beside everything else.
Let’s see exactly what the court decided—and what it DID NOT decide.
Because “DENIED” tells taxpayers the outcome.
IT DOESN’T, BY ITSELF, TELL US WHY.
And here’s the funny little problem with paperwork:
A judge denying a removal petition doesn’t make a timesheet disappear.
It doesn’t erase medical documentation.
It doesn’t create an MOU that wasn’t there.
It doesn’t retroactively approve an MOU the Commissioners wouldn’t approve.
And it doesn’t change a date.
BLESS THAT PAPER TRAIL’S LITTLE HEART.
Apparently nobody told it when it was supposed to disappear.
5. SCOTT FELTON & JOHN ERWIN
Then there are the questions surrounding Scott Felton and John Erwin.
Serious claims have been made concerning Erwin’s financial success and whether county contracts, property transactions, development matters or other governmental decisions intersected with his business interests.
Fine.
Don’t ask me to believe gossip.
And don’t ask me to believe politicians.
SHOW ME THE RECORDS.
QUESTIONS:
— Were county contracts awarded to Erwin or businesses in which he had an interest?
— Were there county-related property transactions involving those interests?
— Development agreements?
— Tax abatements or incentives?
— Purchases?
— Appointments?
— Other governmental actions providing a financial benefit?
— Did Scott Felton participate in any governmental decisions involving those interests?
— Were potential conflicts disclosed?
— Were recusals made?
— What do Commissioners Court records show?
— What do campaign-finance records show?
CONTRACTS. DISCLOSURES. PROPERTY RECORDS. COMMISSIONERS COURT MINUTES. CAMPAIGN-FINANCE REPORTS. VOTES. PAYMENTS.
Put it all on the table.
6. THE PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS
And before somebody gets cute and asks:
“WELL, WHY DON’T YOU JUST REQUEST THE RECORDS?”
Oh, honey.
WE HAVE.
So here’s another set of questions.
QUESTIONS:
— When was each public-information request received?
— What records were requested?
— What was released?
— What was withheld?
— What legal exception was asserted for anything withheld?
— Which requests were sent to the Texas Attorney General for a ruling?
— What did the Attorney General determine?
— After an Attorney General decision was issued, what happened next?
— Are responsive records still being withheld?
— If so, under what authority?
Request a public record.
Wait.
Get delayed.
Wait some more.
Send it to the Attorney General.
Wait again.
Apparently, after enough time passes, we’re all supposed to develop amnesia, take up needlepoint and forget why we asked.
Bless your hearts.
WE DIDN’T FORGET.
Some of us save emails.
Some of us save public-information requests.
Some of us save responses.
Some of us save the records we actually manage to get.
Some of us compare dates.
Some of us read timesheets.
And some of us have the memory God gave a goose.
7. THE ONE QUESTION THAT TIES ALL OF THIS TOGETHER
After all the speeches, filings, rulings, requests and explanations, my question as a taxpayer is remarkably simple:
WHAT DO THE RECORDS ACTUALLY SHOW?
If the timesheets have a legitimate explanation, explain them.
If Crawley’s presence at the sheriff’s residence was authorized, show the authority that existed AT THAT TIME.
If there wasn’t an MOU when the work occurred, explain what authorized the arrangement instead.
If the proposed MOU afterward had nothing to do with prior conduct, explain exactly what it was intended to accomplish.
If an investigation cleared somebody, show taxpayers what can legally be released about the investigation and its conclusion.
If Judge Waldrip determined that particular allegations were factually untrue, point taxpayers to those findings.
And if the court instead determined that the removal petitions failed to satisfy the legal requirements for removing an elected official, then describe the ruling for what it actually was.
WORDS MATTER.
RECORDS MATTER.
TIMELINES MATTER.
And taxpayer money damn sure matters.
WHAT TAXPAYERS ARE ASKING FOR
This isn’t complicated.
DOCUMENTS.
DATES.
DOLLARS.
TIMESHEETS.
AUTHORIZATION.
COURT ORDERS.
DECISIONS.
Public office is not a family heirloom.
It isn’t a private hunting club.
And McLennan County government is not supposed to operate like the Good Ole Boys Lodge where taxpayers pay the dues, buy the building and furnish the clubhouse—but aren’t allowed inside the meeting.
We pay the salaries.
We pay for the vehicles.
We pay the bills.
We fund the courthouse.
We fund the Sheriff’s Office.
And then apparently we’re supposed to feel rude for asking what happened to our money.
WELL, BUTTER MY BISCUIT.
I’m fresh out of polite silence.
I don’t want another political speech.
I don’t want another government word salad.
And I certainly don’t want to be told to “move along” simply because a removal action was denied.
I WANT THE RECORDS.
I WANT THE TIMELINE.
I WANT THE EXPLANATION.
These offices belong to the people.
I’ll bring the sweet tea.
Y’ALL BRING THE RECEIPTS.
