Rule interpretion stalls Dukes case
A House official gives conflicting statements on per diem pay rules.
After announcing last week that they are holding off on the most serious charges in the corruption case against state Rep. Dawnna Dukes, Travis County prosecutors revealed the reason in a court filing Tuesday: A House official has given conflicting statements about rules on state travel reimbursements that are at the heart of the 13-count felony indictment against the Austin Democrat.
Prosecutors say they learned Sept. 6 that Steven Adrian, executive director of the House Business Office, informed Dukes’ attorneys in January that his office does not require a House member to travel to the Capitol building in order to receive per diem payments when the Legislature is not in session. But, according to prosecutors, Adrian said the opposite in 2016 when he told an investigator with the state auditor’s office that Dukes had to travel to the Capitol to earn the reimbursement, $61.50 per day.
The revelation of the conflict-
ing statements came about one month before the start of trial on Oct. 13 and has caused prosecutors to alter their strategy.
District Attorney Margaret Moore told the American-Statesman last week that her office is holding off for now on proceeding on the felony charges because of new information it received about the travel vouchers. She did not elaborate, and she declined to comment on Tuesday.
Prosecutors filed a motion for continuance in state District Court on Tuesday, saying Adrian’s latest statement “necessitates further investigation” that cannot be completed in time for trial. Dukes’ lead attorney, Dane Ball, told the Statesman he soon will respond to the motion, but otherwise declined comment. Travis County state Judge Brad Urrutia will then decide whether to grant the DA’s request for a delay or stand firm with the October trial date.
As she ponders what to do next with Dukes’ felony charges, Moore said her office will proceed with two misdemeanor charges and will take one of them to trial in October that alleges Dukes used her legislative staff for personal purposes by giving a taxpayer-funded raise to an aide to cover gas money for driving Dukes’ daughter to and from school.
The misdemeanors each carry a maximum penalty of one year in jail, while the felony counts each carried up to two years, meaning Dukes had been facing a possible maximum possible sentence of 28 years.
Dukes has pleaded not guilty to all charges and twice has declined offers from the DA’s office to resign in exchange for the charges being dropped. A stipulation in the DA’s offer that she consent to an assessment for possible drug or alcohol abuse irritated Dukes and prompted a Facebook post in which she defended her parenting skills.
Prosecutors said they learned about Adrian’s contradictory statement when they visited with him two weeks ago to prepare for trial. In a sworn affidavit, he had told Dukes’ legal team that she did not need to be at the Capitol to qualify for reimbursement because House District 46, which she represents, is within 50 miles of the building.
Adrian said the House personnel manual did not expressly require a representative to travel to the Capitol building to receive payments. The implication is Dukes would have been eligible for reimbursement if she was performing legislative duties elsewhere in Austin.
Yet Dukes reported on reimbursement forms, which the Statesman obtained with an open records request, that she indeed traveled to the Capitol in the interim before the 2015 legislative session. The forms stated that, on the dates in question, Dukes “traveled by personal car to the Capitol” to attend to legislative duties.
Adrian, who has served in his position since 1996, declined an interview request Tuesday.
A former Dukes staffer told the Statesman last year that the lawmaker did not travel to the Capitol for all of the days that she claimed but directed her staff to prepare the forms as if she did.
Dukes, according to the grand jury indictment, did make “a false entry in a government record, and present and use said government record with knowledge of its falsity, by instructing her staff to add a false entry to her State of Texas Travel Voucher Form.”
Adrian said the House personnel manual did not expressly require a representative to travel to the Capitol building to receive payments.