Wichita Falls — The Wichita County Commissioners Court approved a contested budget reallocation on Tuesday aimed at addressing a shortfall in prosecutors in the district attorney's office.

District Attorney John Gillespie told the court his office is down five prosecutors and has seen no applicants since March 2025, leaving about "38% of our prosecution positions" unfilled. Gillespie said he was proposing to eliminate three budgeted positions (returning the associated benefit packages to the county) and reallocate those already-budgeted salary funds to raise pay for other prosecutor lines. "I'm not asking for additional funds. I'm asking for y'all to reallocate money that's budgeted for us," he told the court.

Gillespie said the change is "budget positive" when fringe and benefits are considered and that the reallocation would allow him to offer higher starting salaries and small retention increases intended to attract qualified candidates. County staff later identified a roughly $24,356.45 reduction in budgeted salaries with fringe adjustments that the county estimated would translate to roughly $60,000 in net savings in the adopted worksheet, though commissioners said they needed to reconcile the spreadsheets before voting.

Commissioners pressed Gillespie about causes of turnover, sustainability and whether nonattorney investigator pay was being prioritized over prosecutors. Several commissioners said they were sympathetic to the DA's staffing challenge but worried midyear salary changes could create a new baseline for future budgets. "I'm worried about the long term ramifications of the budget," the presiding Judge said during deliberations, noting that the court's role includes weighing countywide ripple effects.

After a brief recess to reconcile worksheet figures, Commissioner Mahler moved to approve the change to Department 429 max salaries — eliminating positions 8 through 12 and 37 and reallocating those salaries across remaining positions, with a $250 reduction to one proposed pay line — and Commissioner Watts seconded the motion. The measure carried 4-1. The court did not record a roll-call of individual votes in the transcript; the clerk announced the outcome as "4 ayes, 1 nay." Gillespie thanked the court for its support and left after the vote.

Why it matters: County leaders framed the decision as an attempt to prevent a widening backlog in prosecutions that could increase jail population and public-safety risk. Commissioners also flagged longer-term budget consequences and said they may expect further discussion when the full 2026 budget is considered.

What happens next: The approved reallocation takes effect through internal payroll actions and will be monitored by the court and county finance staff; commissioners asked the DA to return with updates if candidate pipelines change or if additional adjustments are needed.

Actions at a glance: The court approved the DA's reallocation proposal (motion: Commissioner Mahler; second: Commissioner Watts) with a recorded outcome of 4 ayes, 1 nay.