Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Information Act Ag Order topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Aransas County declines to authorize legal challenge after Texas Attorney General orders release of courthouse-project records
Summary
The county attorney told commissioners the Texas Attorney General ordered the release of records related to the courthouse construction project and related communications; commissioners voted not to authorize a court challenge to that order.
Aransas County commissioners on Thursday declined to authorize the county attorney to file a court challenge after the Texas Attorney General ordered the county to release records tied to the Aransas County courthouse construction project and a public-information request from WINT Services.
County Attorney Adela told commissioners the Attorney General’s office issued Order OR2025-003486 directing the county to produce a broad set of documents and communications, including records held by private contractors hired for the courthouse project. She said third-party contractors initially refused production and the attorney general repeatedly instructed the county to produce the requested materials for review.
The county attorney summarized the attorney general’s position during a presentation: the Public Information Act’s definitions cover “any type of communication” and do not exclude communications on personal devices when those communications concern county business. Adela said the attorney general told county staff “you will produce the information that is requested,” and warned that noncompliance could expose the county to lawsuits or require the county to implead non‑county parties that hold responsive records.
The court discussed options, including seeking a judicial review in Travis County to contest the attorney general’s ruling. Commissioners asked questions about what the county has already submitted (the county attorney reported Broadus had delivered a flash drive and that selected materials had been produced for the AG’s review) and whether contractors would ultimately produce additional documents. Adela said contractor-produced material is the largest outstanding chunk of responsive records and that further legal steps to compel production by contractors may be necessary if the contractors do not comply.
A motion to authorize the county attorney to file a challenge in Travis County failed on a 0–5 vote (Commissioner Cheney, Commissioner Castorlein, Commissioner Russo, Commissioner Dupek and County Judge Sam Garza all voted no). After the vote the court recessed to closed session to consult counsel on related litigation and the WINT Services Public Information Act matter.
Why it matters: the attorney general ruling, if enforced, could require the county and its contractors to disclose emails, text messages and other records related to the courthouse project. County staff warned the order covers broad categories of communications and that production could require collecting records held by multiple outside firms.
The county attorney identified the primary outside parties named in the request as PGAL (architect), Teal Construction Company (contractor) and Prime Stone Group (consultant). The attorney general’s order, Adela said, treats documents held by those contractors as public information because the county funded the project and the documents relate to official business.
What’s next: Commissioners chose not to direct a legal challenge. The county attorney said she will continue pressing contractors for the material and may pursue legal remedies to compel production if necessary.
