Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Atascosa County rescinds and re‑approves sheriff’s hires after budget line‑item confusion
Summary
A lengthy discussion of corrections and deputy hires led the Atascosa County Commissioners Court to rescind prior item‑12 motions, correct budget line items and then approve the sheriff’s personnel appointments while directing the sheriff and auditor to reconcile line‑item numbers off the record.
The Atascosa County Commissioners Court voted July 13 to rescind earlier motions related to item 12, correct conflicting budget line items and then approve a slate of sheriff’s office hires and promotions.
The issue began when several new deputy and corrections‑officer appointments were read with differing salary budget codes on the agenda. Sheriff Garrett told the court the hires were “filling empty spots in jail,” and the discrepancy prompted a sustained procedural discussion about whether line items for deputies and corrections officers were posted correctly.
County Attorney Molly Solis advised the court to rescind the prior motions on item 12 and start over so the auditor and sheriff could ensure the proper budget coding. “I think you just do a motion to rescind all prior motions and votes off of item number 12 and start again,” Solis said. The court voted to rescind the previous item‑12 votes and proceed line by line.
After rescinding, the court approved the revised motions to hire and promote multiple employees in the sheriff’s office — including corrections and deputy hires and promotions to tier pay levels — by a voice vote. The judge moved to accept Christopher Kaiser, Mark Serta, Albert Martinez, Carlos Munguia, Juan Morin, Anthony Cook, William Ramos, Samuel Hillman and Clarissa Mendez “as presented” and to allow the sheriff and the auditor to reconcile the exact budget line items. The motion carried.
Auditor Tracy Barrera and sheriff’s office staff discussed which last‑three digits of budget codes should apply to specific positions (for example, whether corrections officers should be assigned 562 vs. 561), and the court directed staff to correct typographical errors and ensure payroll accounting matched personnel records before implementation.
The court also approved a set of related jail promotions (including a lieutenant and sergeant) with corrected line items. No vote tallies were recorded in the meeting transcript; each motion passed after the court’s roll‑call question, “All those in favor?”
The court’s handling of item 12 underscores the operational importance of accurate budget line items when hiring from county pay plans; commissioners instructed the auditor and sheriff to finalize codes to avoid future procedural confusion.
