State panel suspends Montgomery judge
A state panel suspended Montgomery County Judge Craig Doyal without pay Tuesday after he was charged with violating Texas’ open meetings law while developing a bond measure for new and improved roads.
The move by the State Commission on Judicial Review came four days after a grand jury indicted Doyal, two county commissioners and an adviser, alleging that they circumvented the Texas Open Meetings Act by talking in private about the potential structure of a $280 million proposal before placing it on last November’s ballot.
The commission’s order strips Doyal of the ability to perform official duties while the misdemeanor case is pending. He has requested a hearing within 30 days to ask for suspension to be lifted.
“I understand the open meetings laws,” Doyal
said at a news conference at his attorney’s office. “I did not violate the open meetings laws, nor did I conspire to violate the open meetings laws.”
The indictment accuses Doyal “of meeting in a number less than a quorum for the purpose of secret deliberations” in violation of the law to put together the bond proposal. Violating the open meetings law is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $500 or a jail term of up to six months.
Doyal, who is in his first term as judge, earns $170,705 annually to lead the fast-growing county, one of the largest in the state with roughly 540,000 residents. The Republican was previously a county commissioner for more than a decade.
The state commission has authority to discipline county judges under the Texas Constitution. Many of them, particularly in small, rural counties, have judicial duties as well as serving as chief executive.
Although Montgomery County’s judge no longer has any judicial role, the position remains under the oversight of the state commission.
Seana Willing, the state commission’s executive director, said suspensions of county judges are rare, but that Doyal is the second one this month. Smith County Judge Joel Baker also was suspended after allegedly holding private meetings in violation of state law.
Willing said a county judge may be suspended immediately following an indictment under state law. She signed the order Tuesday, at about the same time that Doyal was convening the county commissioners’ bimonthly meeting.
Doyal learned of the suspension after nearly completing the agenda. He left the dais for a scheduled closed-door briefing with legal counsel and didn’t return.
The longest-serving commissioner, Mike Meador, took the gavel to finish the meeting. Later, he described the judge’s suspension as shocking but said the county will function properly.
“It’s muddy water,” he said, “but we’ll work through it for sure.”
Interim pick unlikely
County Attorney J.D. Lambright said that the commissioners are not likely to pick an interim judge, considering Doyal’s appeal will be heard before July ends. But the state commission might not rule in time for him to be a part of the budget hearings for the fiscal year that begins in October.
“The court still has four commissioners, so I really expect it will be business as usual,” Lambright said.
Even before news of the suspension, the indictment of Doyal and Commissioners Jim Clark and Charlie Riley shocked the county’s political world. Grand jurors also charged Marc Davenport, an adviser who helped to broker a deal on the bond proposal. He is married to the county’s treasurer, Stephanne Davenport.
Tuesday, Justice of the Peace James Metts told Doyal and the others that they were “being persecuted for doing something good. We needed that road bond.”
But Houston attorney Chris Downey, the special prosecutor, said it was important to make sure that the open meetings law is being followed.
“It’s a very good and very valuable rule because it encourages faith in the political system, and that is what we are trying to uphold,” said Downey, who presented the case to grand jurors over six months.
The case centers on the days before Doyal and the commissioners agreed to place the bond measure on the November 2015 ballot. Voters had rejected a $350 million plan in May, and county officials were scrambling to meet the deadline for submitting items for the fall ballot.
They did so after Doyal and Riley reached a last-minute agreement with the Texas Patriots PAC on a bond proposal.
The tea party group, which had opposed the bond in May, then campaigned for the trimmed-down improvement plan and focused on winning over voters in The Woodlands, where the previous bond failed by a nearly 9-to-1 margin amid strong opposition to one road project.
In the end, traffic-weary voters approved the bond with a 26-point cushion.
Private meetings reported
The criminal investigation began last year after a local newspaper reported about private meetings and emails between the Texas Patriots PAC and some commissioners. While at least three members of the five-person court never met to discuss the bond proposal, communications could have created what officials called a “walking” quorum.
Doyal said last fall that he and Riley had merely reached out to the group because it was among the most vocal opponents of the failed bond measure.
John Choate, Doyal’s lawyer, said there is no evidence showing the judge conspired to get around the law. Doyal only agreed with Riley to put the bond measure on the commissioners’ agenda before submitting it for the ballot, Choate said.
“The discussion didn’t produce legislation,” he said. “It was put back on the agenda. Everybody had input, and then it was put to the public.”
Clark referred questions to his attorney, who could not be reached Tuesday. Riley hasn’t responded to messages, while Davenport’s attorney has denied wrongdoing by his client.
While prosecutions for violating the state’s open meetings law are rare, complaints about it are not. As recently as 2012, elected officials tried to weaken the law in court, arguing that it violates free-speech rights and prevents them from communicating with one another outside public meetings.
A federal appeals court disagreed, saying that closed meetings prevent transparency, encourage fraud and foster mistrust in government.
“It’s hard for some to understand what counts as business that can’t be talked about in the hallway or in a conference call or by email,” said Matthew Festa, a professor at the Houston College of Law.
“But the point is that the public is entitled to know the basis of government decisions.”