Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Appointments topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Williamson County commissioners appoint Steven Snell as county judge

2804006 · March 27, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Williamson County Commissioners Court voted 3-1 during a special session to appoint Steven Snell as county judge after interviewing four candidates in executive session; the court will coordinate Snell's start date with him.

The Williamson County Commissioners Court voted 3-1 to appoint Steven Snell as county judge during a special-called session that reconvened at 6:48 p.m. after an executive session in which four candidates were interviewed.

The motion to appoint Steven Snell was made by Commissioner 3 and seconded by Commissioner 1. Commissioner 3 said, "I move that we appoint Steven Snell as our next county judge," and Commissioner 1 responded, "And I'll second." After brief remarks, the court chair called for the vote and announced, "Motion stands approved, three-one." The meeting adjourned at 6:53 p.m.

The decision followed interviews of four individuals conducted in executive session earlier in the special meeting. Commissioners thanked all who applied and those interviewed for the time they spent meeting with the court. Commissioner 4 said the choice "has gotta carry us into the future," adding, "I think Steven Snell is ready to take us there." Commissioner 3 said the selection was a "very difficult decision" because several candidates were known personally to members of the court.

Court members said they will coordinate with Snell about the timing of his transition. Commissioner 1 said the court would discuss the timing of his assuming office because Snell "has some things that he needs to wrap up so that he can come and sit here and join us in this government adventure." No public commenters were listed for this item.

The appointment was made as an action item on the special session agenda. The court noted that if it had not reached a decision, it would have continued the item at its next regular meeting on Tuesday. No statutes, ordinances, or other legal authorities were cited during the recorded portion of the session.

The court did not provide a roll-call record with individual member votes in the public portion of the meeting; only the tally (three in favor, one opposed) was announced on the record.