Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Law Enforcement Appointments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners table request to appoint four deputy constables pending legal clarification
Summary
A request from Bee County Precinct 1 to appoint four deputy constables was tabled after the court discussed statutory differences between deputy and reserve deputy constables and potential liability; commissioners asked for a uniform process and a return with clarifications.
The Bee County Commissioner's Court tabled a request to appoint four deputy constables for Precinct 1 after commissioners and the county judge raised legal and liability questions about deputy versus reserve deputy appointments.
Commissioner Lenny placed the item (agenda item 12) on the May 12 agenda; the constable submitted a letter asking the court to approve appointments for Ryan Trevino, Gilders Mindy, Jesse Garcia and Don Astari. The letter said the individuals would serve without pay and “assist current deputies and local law enforcement on their time.”
During discussion the county judge explained there are different statutory obligations and liabilities for a deputy constable—who requires a written application to the commissioner's court and a justification that a deputy is necessary—versus a reserve deputy constable, who may be appointed “at the discretion of the constable” and whose appointment the court may limit. The judge told the court he is willing to approve the appointments temporarily but requested that all county constables meet with the court within 60 days to clarify which appointments should be deputies and which should be reserves and to create a uniform policy.
Commissioner DeWitt raised concerns about liability and operational use: he said reserve officers historically have not been tracked consistently and noted some constables do the bulk of civil-service work such as serving papers while others do not. DeWitt said appointing additional commissioned officers creates potential liability for the county if an officer takes enforcement action while commissioned. The auditor's office provided a cost figure of under $100 per person per year for county expense tied to an appointment.
After several commissioners asked for more information and a uniform approach, the court voted to table the item to the May 27 meeting to allow the constable and county staff to provide clarifying documentation, to consult the sheriff’s office where appropriate and to present a recommended policy for deputy and reserve appointments.
