Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Specialty Staffing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge requests reassignment of mental‑health court staff; court directs investigation and follow‑up
Summary
Judge Yolanda Huff asked the court to reassign the support staff for her misdemeanor mental‑health court to County Court Administration, saying the team had been staffing a second, felony docket and that the split supervision had created unsustainable workloads.
A dispute over staffing and supervision of specialty‑court personnel surfaced in Commissioners Court March 11 when Judge Yolanda Huff asked the court to reassign support staff for her county misdemeanor mental‑health court from the Office of Criminal Justice to County Court Administration.
Judge Huff said the same specialist staff have worked both her misdemeanor mental‑health docket and a felony post‑trial diversion mental‑health docket for several years and that team members are “tired, overwhelmed” and sometimes pulled in conflicting directions by two different supervisory chains. She told the court she had repeatedly requested relief and asked the commissioners to “move my court laterally” from the criminal‑justice department to court administration so the judge could exercise direct supervision of the court team.
County officials disputed parts of the account. Thomas Guevara in the county manager’s office said the county had previously authorized ARPA funds and a budget transfer to address treatment dollars and that the county had applied for a grant to support the felony mental‑health court. Office of Criminal Justice Director Norma Greenfield Aborti said staff had not filed formal complaints of imminent resignation and that the office had provided temporary staffing adjustments (loaning a pretrial officer) when issues were raised.
County Judge Peter Sakai and commissioners recommended a non‑adversarial path forward. The court did not reassign staff during the meeting. Instead the court directed the county manager and relevant staff to:
• Ask Human Resources and the county ombudsman to review job descriptions, workforce assignments and any employment complaints; • Produce a financial analysis of the staffing and any additional budget needs, including whether grant funds or ARPA funding remain available; and • Return to the commissioners with options, including whether a lateral reassignment or additional FTEs are needed.
Ending — No personnel reassignments were made March 11; the court directed an administrative review and asked staff to return with recommendations that address workload, supervision and the county budget implications.
