Hays County Can’t Afford a Biased District Attorney

In road investigation public information requests, Tibbe provided 79 documents, many of which are irrelevant

Email your comments and news tips to online.editor@valleyspringcomm.net
or codell@austin.rr.com

By Charles O'Dell, Ph.D.

I am greatly disappointed by the incomplete and sloppy investigation by our Hays County District Attorney, Sherri Tibbe, of two citizen complaints. Both complaints dealt with the use of county equipment, materials and personnel on private roads.

Based on Tibbe’s shallow investigation and flimsy legal conclusions published in two letters to Judge Sumter dated Sept.15, 2008, HaysCAN made a Public Information request asking for “All documents and correspondence that you relied on to reach the conclusions contained in your two letters responding to Judge Sumter’s requests referenced above.” Tibbe provided 79 pages of documents, many of which are irrelevant.

HaysCAN asked several attorneys to review Tibbe’s two legal opinions.

The complaint against Precinct 1 Commissioner Debbie Ingalsbe involves a two-mile-long private road on a development tract that earlier this year was annexed into the City of San Marcos limits at the request of Loomis Partners, formerly Loomis Austin.

A private property sign is clearly visible on the entry gate to a road in Precinct 1 that was recently upgraded and repaired by county road crews.


Following her investigation, Tibbe wrote
in her response to Judge Sumter that
work being performed at 2801 CR 621 in Hays County “ involved a county road crew performing maintenance on a road that leads to an historical cemetery.

Tibbe bases her legal opinion on Section 713.028, Texas Health and Safety Code that says, “…the county can use public funds, county employees,…and county equipment to maintain a cemetery that has a grave marker more than 50 years old.”

There is nothing explicit or implied in this statute about maintaining a private road. This private road is not a road to the cemetery, and all the attorneys I contacted gave the same opinion that this statute does not authorize work on a private road.

Tibbe failed to produce a copy of Commissioners’ Court minutes showing the Court authorized the work on either the road or the cemetery. Nor did she produce any official documents to verify her claim that the county has maintained both the cemetery and the road for many years.

Instead, Tibbe included an e-mail in which Lila Knight claims, “The road that County Commissioner Ingalsbe is accused of paving was done so at the request of the Hays County Historical Commission some years ago.” The Hays County Historical Commission has no authority to order any County road work. Only County Commissioners’ Court can lawfully authorize special work by the County road department.

Pct. 3 road leads to a gate with a no trespassing sign

The Precinct 3 complaint also concerns County equipment, materials and labor being used on Little Ranches Road, a private road section otherwise known to locals as 'Old Bumpy'.

Tibbe cites Texas Transportation Code Section 251.012 for justifying Commissioner Conley’s use of county equipment, materials and manpower to work on the road. This statute requires three official actions:

– A finding by Commissioners’ Court that work on a city road benefits the county.
– A Commissioners’ Court action to use county resources on a city road.
– Approval by the Wimberley City Council that the county should do the work.

Tibbe said she relied on minutes from Commissioners’ Court dated August 31, 1984, and a telephone conversation with former Pct. 3 Commissioner Craig Payne to determine that the 1400-foot road section in question had been approved for County maintenance. She did not provide us with the Court minutes or the notes of her telephone conversation with Payne.

If the road was authorized for County maintenance, why does it currently have a gate and a No Trespassing sign, and why has the County not maintained it since 1984?

Has Tibbe fallen in with the good ol' boys?

The Texas Transportation Code also requires approval by the Wimberley City Council to make the road improvements, but the Council never has taken that action. In fact, the City is requesting assurances about who owns the property. Is it a County road, a City road or a private road?

Based on our review of documents provided to us and on attorney review of Tibbe’s two opinion letters, the investigation appears to have included a few phone calls, a trip to the cemetery, hearsay testimony and reliance on irrelevant statutes. Some official documents that Tibbe claimed she relied on to form her conclusions were not included in her response to our open record request.

Tibbe is free to pick and choose which complaints she investigates as District Attorney, but she is bound by law and by her professional code of ethics to fully and rightfully research those complaints that she chooses to investigate. Tibbe is also required to obey the Public Information Act.

Tibbe seems to have turned a blind eye to two County Commissioners providing favors in an election year by using public resources on private roads. She seems to go out of her way to protect the two.

No one is above the law, and for the District Attorney to engage in such a slip-shod investigation is a dereliction of duty. It also leaves an impression that our DA is in cahoots with the good old boys. That would be a disaster for justice in Hays County.

As co-founder of Hays Community Action Network (HaysCAN) in 2003, Mr. O’Dell strives to carry out the mission of ensuring open, accessible and accountable government. He is a long time and close observer of the workings of the Hays County Commissioners Court. He earned a degree in Agricultural Education and a Masters in Ag Economics at Texas Tech, and, later, a Ph.D. at The University of Maryland while employed as a Research Economist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in Washington, D.C. Texas born and raised on a family farm, O’Dell is a Hays County Master Naturalist and a board member of the Ethical Society of Austin.