1. Incompetency defined in the local government code as (A) "gross ignorance of officials duties; (B) gross carelessness in the discharge of those duties; or (C) unfitness or inability to promptly or properly discharge official duties because of a serious physical or mental defect that did not exist at the time of the officer's election."
2. Official Misconduct as defined in the local government code as " intentional, unlawful behavior relating to official duties by an officer entrusted with the administration of justice or the execution of the law. The term includes an intentional or corrupt failure, refusal, or neglect of an officer to perform a duty imposed on the officer by law."
3. Misconduct as defined by the local government code as "intentionally or knowingly: (A) violating a law relating to the office of director; or (B) misapplying any thing of value belonging to a special district that has come into the custody or possession of a director by virtue of the director's office."
The reasons given by the the commissioners for not supporting this is that once the ESD board members are appointed they should be able to do their job without worrying that they could be removed by the court if they disagree with a vote or for personality differences. I didn't read those as options under the law, did you? And is that seriously the best argument to be made? We don't want that pesky accountability being held over their heads! At least one of the three opposing the power thinks that simply not reappointing a board member after their two-year term is up is sufficient. So if a board member had a year left and was found to have "gross carelessness" in discharging his duties would you be ok with him finishing up his term on the board? How about if he demonstrated misconduct by "misapplying any thing of value belonging to a special district"? Would you be ok with that? All the concerns they had for not doing this were not valid under the law. The legal reasons that an ESD board member could be removed under this statute would benefit the taxpayers by getting rid of the worst of individuals that nobody would want handling their tax money or making decisions regarding public safety. The majority of commissioners in Johnson County apparently prefer to have their hands tied so that should they appoint someone who turns out to be a bad decision they can legally say they can't do anything about it. The fact is they don't want the power because with power comes responsibility and accountability. They washed their hands of both today so cronyism can continue to run rampant in Johnson County.
A.J.
For more information about my campaign for Johnson County Commissioner visit www.VoteforAJ.com and "like" me on Facebook at www.facebook.com/VoteforAJ
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING
THE POWER TO REMOVE AN APPOINTED MEMBER OF AN EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Commissioners Court of Johnson County, Texas
understands the limitations in power over an Emergency Services District; and
WHEREAS, the 82nd Legislature of the State of
Texas in 2011 passed SB917 amending Chapter 775 of the Texas Health and Safety
Code to provide additional powers; and
WHEREAS, the Governor signed it into law on June 17, 2011,
effective immediately; and
WHEREAS, the new powers enumerated to the Commissioners
Court over an Emergency Services District are only available after adoption by
resolution;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commissioners Court of
Johnson County, Texas that the powers granted in Chapter 775.0422 of the Texas
Health and Safety code are hereby accepted.
No comments:
Post a Comment