Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Firechief topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dimmit County split over commissioner serving as fire chief; motion to open applications fails
Summary
Commissioners debated whether a sitting commissioner should simultaneously serve as county fire chief after a resignation and conflict‑of‑interest concerns; a proposed public application process failed on a 2‑for, 4‑against, 1‑abstention vote.
Dimmit County Commissioners Court spent more than an hour debating whether a sitting commissioner should continue to serve as the county fire chief, culminating in a failed motion to open a public application process for the position.
Commissioner (speaker 12), who pushed for an open, advertised hiring process with a four‑year term, said the dual role presents a conflict of interest and repeated that she had raised the concern since taking office. "I think he's got to pick between a fire chief and a commissioner," she said, arguing the county should adopt a recurring application process and clear term limits.
The commissioner who also serves as the fire chief defended his record and said he has served the county as a firefighter for decades, disputing allegations about equipment and safety. "I put my life and anything to save and to protect my citizens of Dimmit County," he said, citing 47 years of service.
The court heard consistent public support for the chief from volunteers and residents during the public‑comment period; multiple speakers praised his leadership, experience and dedication and urged the court not to replace him.
Legal and procedural questions featured in debate. County attorneys and commissioners referenced prior advice that the chief had submitted a resignation and that, legally, he might currently hold the post as a "holdover" chief pending a formal decision by the court. Commissioners also discussed pending lawsuits involving the department and the administrative risk of creating instability during an active mutual‑aid network.
Commissioner Cajamontas moved to open the position to an advertised application process with a four‑year term and set a one‑month application window; a second was recorded. After extended discussion and roll call, the motion failed with two in favor, four opposed and one abstention. The court therefore did not adopt the advertised hiring process at this meeting.
Next steps: the court did not approve an application process and left the current status of the chief as unresolved in open session; commissioners said they would seek clarity from the county attorney and from external advisory bodies before bringing a formal appointment or advertising motion back to the docket.
Votes and formal action: The motion to open the application process was recorded as failing (2‑4‑1).
