Quorum court amends ordinance language after debate over naming JP in lawsuit award appropriation

The Washington County Quorum Court debated an ordinance to appropriate funds related to a court award arising from a lawsuit alleging a violation of public‑records law. A contested amendment to remove a justice’s name from the ordinance passed after extended discussion.

The ordinance would appropriate funds into the court’s budget so the county could satisfy a court order and related legal costs. During the discussion JP Koger said, "I sued in my individual capacity," and asked that her individual status be recognized. Other justices questioned why the ordinance used a Justice of the Peace title in some paragraphs but not uniformly across the document.

JP Washington moved to amend the ordinance to remove the named reference and replace it with wording that described the county as the defendant and an employee acting without supervisory approval or county attorney counsel who violated FOIA; JP Hyer seconded the amendment. Washington said, "just because we can does not mean that we have to," explaining that the amendment was intended to preserve decorum and avoid perceived unnecessary naming of individuals in the ordinance language.

Following debate, the court voted to approve the amendment to the ordinance language. The meeting record shows multiple rounds of discussion and a public‑comment period before the amendment was adopted. Committee members clarified that the award being paid was court‑ordered and that certain legal costs would be covered out of the county’s budget; debate also touched on whether insurance or risk‑management funding applied (staff said it did not).

Why it matters: the change affects how the county documents its legal liabilities in ordinances and reflects members’ concerns about naming county officials or elected officials in appropriations tied to litigation.

Ending: The court adopted the textual amendment removing the named JP reference; the record shows the county will appropriate funds to satisfy the court order and cover related legal expenses, with implementation through the county attorney’s budget.