Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Reserve Deputies topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Newton County court revokes authorization for reserve deputy constables over filing deficiencies
Summary
After learning required oaths and bonds for reserve deputies were not filed with the county clerk, the Newton County Commissioners Court voted to revoke authorization for appointment of reserve deputy constables; the constable had asked to keep 13 deputies for school security.
The Newton County Commissioners Court voted July 14 to revoke authorization for appointment of reserve deputy constables after county legal counsel reported required oaths and bonds were not filed with the county clerk, an administrative violation of the Local Government Code.
The action followed a closed-session review of the reserve-deputy program. Constable Matt Wonders told the court he had notified 32 reserve deputies that their commissions would be terminated and asked the court to allow 13 remaining deputies to stay commissioned solely for school security. "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," Wonders said.
County legal counsel told the court the program was lacking required documentation under subsection c of the code: deputies must take an oath and have a bond, or a blanket bond must be filed. "Those things are not on file," counsel said, noting the absence of filings with the county clerk as the administrative deficiency. Wonders replied that deputies had individual bonds (some up to $10,000) and that he had emailed oaths to county staff.
Commissioner White moved to revoke authorization for appointments of reserve deputies in Newton County, citing the statutory violations; Commissioner Hobson seconded. Court members debated the decision and discussed the difference between the constable's perimeter-style school security program and a school resource officer (SRO) employed inside schools. One commissioner emphasized that the sheriff had assured the court the schools would be covered in the interim.
The court adopted the motion; the transcript records the motion "carried," without a roll-call tally recorded in the meeting minutes. The court did not adopt an immediate replacement plan on the record; members said the sheriff's office would coordinate interim protection for schools and that the matter could be revisited if the required filings were produced.
The court's formal action revokes the local authorization that had previously allowed the constable to appoint reserve deputy constables; the county attorney advised the court on legal obligations and possible next steps following the finding that required documents were not on file. The court moved on to other business after the vote.
