Office of the Attorney General, 062320 TXAGO, AGO RQ-0359-KP

• Case Date: June 23, 2020
• Court: Texas

Office of the Attorney General AGO RQ-0359-KP No. RQ-0359-KP Texas Attorney General Opinion June 23, 2020          Office of the Attorney General          Attention Opinion Committee          P.O. Box 12548          Austin, Texas 78711-2548          RE: In response to complaints of harassment and intimidation by a Chambers County employee against the County Auditor - whether (1) the appointing district judges (the "Judicial Board") may consider the County's independent investigation report as evidence supporting any decision to remove the auditor for official misconduct under Section 84.009(1)(as opposed to conducting its own investigation); (2) whether the removal of the County Auditor is within the sole discretion of the Judicial Board; (3) whether the County Auditor is entitled to any form of due process (public hearing or otherwise) in connection with any review of the Auditor's performance and consideration of removal; and (4) whether the undefined standard for "official misconduct" under Chapter 84 is the same as the definition of official misconduct under Chapter 87 of the Local Government Code (Removal of County Officers From Office).          Dear General Paxton:          A Chambers County employee complained to County Human Resources and the County Judge that he was being harassed and intimidated by the County Auditor, based on an alleged personal vendetta (unrelated to work) by the Auditor against the employee.          The County retained a third-party investigator (an employment attorney, Board Certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization) to conduct an independent investigation into the employee's complaints. Multiple County employees and elected officials were interviewed. The investigator then prepared a report summarizing the facts discovered during the investigation.          A county auditor is appointed by a board of district judges, in accordance with Texas Local Government Code Chapter 84. That same chapter provides for the removal of an auditor after "due investigation by the district judges who appointed the auditor" if it is "proven that...