Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Law Enforcement Staffing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Midland County approves two deputy constable positions after heated debate over staffing and budget
Summary
After extended debate over conflicts of interest, county budget timing and public‑safety needs, the commissioners approved funding for a deputy constable for Precinct 3 (not to exceed $124,520) and approved equipment funding for reinstating a deputy for Precinct 4 (about $6,059.80), with salary adjustments to come from salary contingency.
Midland County Commissioners Court debated and then approved actions to create or reinstate deputy constable positions after a lengthy discussion about legal ethics, operational need and budget timing.
The court approved creation and funding for one deputy constable for Precinct 3 with salary and benefits funded from salary contingency and equipment/uniform needs funded from county contingency. The motion as presented capped the immediate funding package at an amount not to exceed $124,520. Commissioners also approved equipment and immediate support for Constable Precinct 4: the constable requested $6,059.80 for equipment, decals, a bulletproof vest and communications gear and asked that the deputy salary be funded from salary contingency as well.
The discussion included legal questions about whether an elected official may participate in a decision that increases funding or authority for a close family member’s department; the county attorney said prior research had not found a legal prohibition in the circumstances presented and advised the court it could proceed but offered to re‑review relevant advisory opinions if the court wanted to delay action. The sheriff urged uniform standards for approving law‑enforcement requests and asked that staffing be evaluated on county‑wide impacts rather than limited jurisdictions.
Constable Hall described operational and safety concerns for Precinct 4 — including civil process work, writs of possession, and traffic enforcement demands — and said additional personnel would reduce officer risk and improve response. The constable also cited an asserted increase in traffic fatalities: “In 2025 alone, Midland County recorded 45 traffic‑related fatalities,” a figure the constable offered in support of the staffing request.
Multiple public commenters spoke during the hearing. Lance Bridal urged decisions based on verified facts, legal authority and long‑term consequences. Stacy Gonzales, a local broker, urged the court to consider public‑safety needs tied to growth and development in western Midland. Jerry Cook (Constable Precinct 3) and Eddie Subia (JP) described field experience and waiting times for backup from other agencies.
After debate, the court voted to proceed immediately with the funding actions as presented. Several commissioners urged that, as a default, large staffing changes be handled in the regular budget process; others argued the operational need justified immediate action. The transcript shows motions seconded and carried; the court recorded the approvals during the meeting and moved on to subsequent agenda items.
The decisions create immediate obligations from contingency funds; commissioners directed staff to document details for salary and grading steps and to return with any required paperwork during the budget process.
