Newton County court revokes authorization for reserve deputy appointments after missing oaths and bonds

Newton County Commissioners Court voted July 14 to revoke authorization for appointment of reserve deputy constables under Texas Local Government Code section 86.012 after the county’s legal adviser reported required oaths and bonds were not on file with the county clerk.

The action followed an executive-session review of personnel and potential litigation issues the district attorney’s office had researched. The motion to revoke was made by Commissioner White and seconded by Commissioner Hobson; the presiding officer declared the motion carried after a voice vote.

Why it matters: The revocation affects a volunteer reserve-deputy program used at local schools. Constable Matt, who addressed the court during open session, said he had notified 32 reserve deputies that their services would be discontinued and asked the court to allow 13 deputies to remain commissioned solely for school security. He described the proposal as “a unified school safety program” limited to patrolling school perimeters and performing door checks, saying, “If allowed to retain these deputies and continue with the school safety program, I’ll do so in accordance with Texas Local Government Code Chapter 86 and place each deputy’s name on an agenda for commissioner's court.”

What the district attorney told the court: The district attorney’s representative advised the court that statutory filing requirements in subsection C of the relevant Local Government Code provision had not been met and described the omission as an administrative violation. The DA told the court, “Those things are not on file,” and framed the deficiency as a legal compliance issue that needed resolution before continued appointments could be sanctioned.

Program details and disputes: Constable Matt said the deputies purchased individual bonds (some as high as $10,000) and that the program had operated for three school years with few complaints; he said the deputies helped the district save money by, for example, arranging occasional K9 searches. Court members and the DA distinguished the reserve-deputy-perimeter role from an SRO, noting that school resource officers generally operate inside schools and are guided by education-code authorities that affect searches and privacy. A commissioner stressed the court’s decision was taken to protect county liability, saying the sheriff had assured the court he would provide interim security coverage for the school.

Public comment and outside input: A visiting deputy, Chad Brooks, identified himself as a deputy constable from South Texas and offered to provide experience and information about school security and compliance with House Bill 3; the DA said the court had ample information and would request more from him if needed.

Next steps: The court’s revocation takes effect for future appointments until the legal and administrative deficiencies are resolved; the court did not specify a timetable for reinstatement of authorization. The district attorney and county clerk were identified as the offices responsible for clarifying what filings are required and verifying compliance.