Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics And Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenter alleges commissioner used county resources for church project; court moves to executive session
Summary
A resident alleged that a Dimmit County commissioner used county materials to complete work at a church; the court said law enforcement must investigate and moved to executive session to consider civil-liability options while awaiting a sheriff's report.
A Dimmit County resident identified in court as Miss Means told the commissioners court on April 20, 2026, that a county commissioner allegedly used county resources — described in the comment as "six loads of material" — on a completed project at a Catholic church and asked the court to pursue accountability.
Miss Means said she spoke to a man she identified as Mr. Danny Gonzalez after a commissioners' court meeting, and that Gonzalez had told her he met with the sheriff and Commissioner Carmona and that, according to Gonzalez, the commissioner "admitted to his wrongdoings." Miss Means requested clarity from the court and cited Texas Penal Code —39.02 and a penal-code reference listed in the record as "3240," as well as Texas Constitution Article 3, Section 52, saying these authorities prohibit use of public funds or property for private or religious purposes without proper approval.
The court's presiding judge responded that criminal investigation and any potential prosecution are handled by law enforcement and the district attorney. "It is the sheriff's office's job to investigate, put the case together, turn it into the proper prosecutor," the judge said, adding that removal from office is a separate civil process filed in district court.
County counsel present advised the court that potential civil-liability issues relating to the county itself should be discussed in executive session to protect the county's legal position. After that discussion the court voted to go into executive session to address civil-liability issues related to a commissioner; the motion was seconded and carried with one recorded opposition noted before recessing to executive session at 10:31 a.m.
The judge and other commissioners advised Miss Means she may request a copy of any sheriff's report and should follow up with the sheriff's office and the district attorney's office, which has jurisdiction to pursue criminal charges if the DA determines the evidence warrants prosecution. The court did not take a public, final action on the allegation during the open session.
What happens next: Commissioners said they will await the sheriff's report and any subsequent action by the district attorney. The court moved the matter into executive session to discuss civil-liability issues and possible county-level responses; no resolution or civil action was announced in open court following that executive session.
