Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Operations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Motion to reassign deputies fails as Walker County officials debate bailiff staffing after judges cancel constable contract
Summary
Commissioners discussed a July 6 letter cancelling the county's long-standing constable bailiff contract; after hours of testimony and a motion to reassign two deputy positions to the sheriff's office, the motion failed and commissioners formed a workgroup to seek alternatives ahead of the Sept. 30 contract end date.
Walker County’s commissioners court spent the longest portion of its July 13 meeting on a dispute over courthouse bailiff coverage after district judges notified the county July 6 that they would end the contract with the constables for bailiff services effective Sept. 30.
A constable described a steady rise in criminal and civil filings and said the existing contracted arrangement — which the county has used since at least 2007 — has kept courthouse business running. County officials and several commissioners said the cancellation leaves the court with few good options: create new full‑time bailiff positions, have sheriff’s deputies cover courtrooms at higher cost, or reassign existing deputies from constable precincts to the sheriff’s office.
One commissioner moved “that one deputy position be reassigned from constable Precinct 3 to the sheriff’s office, and one deputy position be reassigned from constable Precinct 4 to the sheriff’s office, effective 10/01/2026” to avoid creating net new positions. A second commissioner supported the motion. Opponents argued the reassignment would remove law‑enforcement presence from precincts, reduce patrol resources, and cut elected constables’ local coverage and stipends. Commissioners also cited earlier estimates presented during debate that constable-provided bailiff services amounted to about $8,500 per constable (roughly $34,000 a year collectively) while adding sheriff positions to cover the same duties had been estimated by some speakers to cost on the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.
After extended debate the court put the motion to a vote; the reassignment motion failed. Rather than adopt an immediate staffing change, the court asked volunteers and appointed a small workgroup of commissioners and county officials to convene with the sheriff, the four constables and the district judges to identify feasible short‑ and medium‑term solutions before the Sept. 30 contract termination.
The court’s next steps are procedural: the workgroup was asked to report back with concrete proposals — including cost estimates and whether a temporary or permanent new position is required — so that commissioners can act in a future meeting. The court recorded the failure of the reassignment motion but did not publish an itemized roll-call vote in the proceedings.
