ACCEPTED 01-15-00583-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 8/20/2015 3:48:18 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE CLERK No. 01-15-00583-CV In the First Court of Appeals FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS THE HONORABLE MARK HENRY,COUNTY JUDGE HOUSTON, OF TEXAS 8/20/2015 3:48:18 PM GALVESTON COUNTY, CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk Appellant v. THE HONORABLE LONNIE COX, Appellee From the 56th Judicial District Court of Galveston County, Texas, Cause No. 15CV0583 OBJECTION TO SECOND AND “FINAL” MOTION TO EXTEND TIME And RENEWED MOTION TO ENFORCE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION UNDER TRAPs 29.3 and 29.4

TO THE HONORABLE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS: Appellee and this counsel would ordinarily not bother the Court with objections to a motion for extension. However, this case and the present motion, however, are different. The most recent motion is not only a transparent attempt at tactical delay, but outright financial extortion of one or more trial judges in Galveston County. See Exhibit “G”, extract of August 19, 2015 County

Commissioners Court Meeting. The traditional principles of forbearance no longer apply to this dispute.

Background Compliance with the injunction of July 6, CR 239 ff, was initially half hearted, with the Director of Justice Administration Bonnie Quiroga only gradually given keys, computers and a promise of pay to be delivered on July 21.

Then, on July 14, 2015, Mr. Joseph Nixon of the firm of Beirne Parson & Maynard entered as counsel and declared that Appellant would ignore the injunction. See letter of Joseph Nixon, July 14, 2015, Exh. A. Thereafter, Ms. Quiroga’s pay was denied, her computer access cut off, her phone cut off, and she was ousted from her previous quarters to a subsidiary room on the third floor of the Galveston County Justice Center.

On July 30, 2015, Counsel Nixon sent a letter (Exh. D) inviting Appellee Cox to “hire” a justice administrator at the same salary –slightly over $63,000— which the trial court had found to be arbitrary and a deliberate attempt to control the hiring process. CR 329, 333, p. 4, para. 4 (“…Respondent Henry abandoned his plan to force a hand-picked candidate as the judiciary’s chief administrative officer, yet, used the ability to set the slary for the new position at a sufficiently low salary salary to continue to control the hiring process.”)

A few weeks later, County HR Director Peri Bluemer emailed Judge Cox with a similar suggestion. See Exh. E, Bluemer email of August 11, 2015. That email and its attachment from County Legal Director Robert Boehmer contain a suggestion that the County might artificially superimpose bureaucratic procedures to delay and the “reappointment” of individuals to the same jobs they presently hold but under different titles. The implicit threat is that some individuals might be without jobs and without pay, and publicly held hostage along with the administration of court functions in this dispute.

In response, this counsel sent a letter (Exh. F) to Mr. Nixon at 9:20 a.m.

August 19, 2015, advising that the proposals of Ms. Bluemer and Mr. Nixon were violative of the injunction, and suggesting that any such actions should be preceeded by application to the trial court—at which time evidence could be heard regarding all violations to date of the inujunction. The present Motion followed about an hour later, at 10:48 a.m.

No Basis for “”Extension” The August 19 Motion for a “Final” Extension does not even try to satisfy the requirements of TRAP 10.5. The Reporter’s record was filed on July 17, 2015.

Appellant’s counsel has previously indicated that he had an important briefing commitment at the end of July.

Appellee accepts for these purposes and for the sake of argument that Appellant’s counsel was “out of the office” and presumably out of commission for all of August 10. That single day is not a significant factor when one has about 20 working days to prepare a brief in an accelerated appeal.

Appellant’s counsel cites no other specific assignments or deadlines which have absorbed his time.

However, since July 31, 2015, Appellant and his counsel have attempted to delay the progress of this accelerated appeal. See, e.g., the tediously captioned “Motion to Abate, Etc.” filed on August 3, 2015.

Since July 31, Appellant has had 13 working days --arguably minus one for a dental appointment out of the office—and has nine days remaining. One can do a lot of briefing in 20 days, yet Appellant insists now on an extension taking the briefing deadline past September 1.

Why? The answers are revealing and disturbing.

Tactical Delay—SB 1913 From the email of Ms. Bluemer and the attached email of Legal Director Robert Boehmer, it is apparent that Appellant wants to delay briefing past the initial effective date of SB 1913. Senate Bill 1913 as signed codifies the constitutional authority of the trial judges to select staff personnel for the position of Justice Administrator and similar, but retains—as it must under the

constitution—funding authority with the Commissioners’ Court. It appears to be the objective of Appellant, per Ms. Bluemer’s missive, to superimpose procedures to hobble the “appointment” of people who are and have been doing the work in question for some time, i.e., to control the hiring process and further to control that process by the imposition of arbitrary and unreasonably low salaries. See Temporary Injunction, CR CR 329, 333, p. 4, Para. 6.

Lawyers’ Money An even less inspiring reason is the bonanza which this case has become for Appellant’s and numerous counsel. See Exhibit C, a reprint of the Galveston County Daily News Article of Sunday, August 8 2015. To date, the County has spent c. $177,000 in the mandamus proceeding and the case now on appeal. In a two week period, the firm of Baker & Hostetler had seven attorneys working on this case, and has been paid c. $147,000. A single attorney working at $550 per hour charged and was paid c. $73,000 for his work over a two week period-- all of which produced the Temporary Injunction of July 6.

Judges’ Money The response of Appellant to the public outcry over the fees paid to lawyers has been to violate wholesale the separation of powers clause by attempting to threaten one or perhaps all of Galveston’s trial judges with economic retaliation.

At the Commissioners’ Court meeting of Wednesday, August 19, Appellant and other Commissioners openly speculated about denying the trial judges the $18,000 per year supplement which has been paid for some years—ostensibly to defray the legal fees mentioned above. See Transcript, attached as Exhibit G hereto, and in particular pp. 5-6: COMMISSIONER GIUSTI: How Much?

COMMISSIONER DENNARD: That’s the discussion. I think one factor is the amount of attorneys fees that we’re incurring.

COMMISSIONER GIUSTI: We’re incurring more attorney’s fees because you are having for [sic] trials.

JUDGE HENRY: No. We are incurring attorney’s fees because one of them sued me. COMMISSIONER GIUSTI: Oh, those fees. This could kind of look pretty Retaliatory, huh?

COMMISSIONER DENNARD: I don’t think it’s a question of retaliatory. I think it’s a question of somebody has got to pay the bill. So where are those going to come from. Are they going to come out of general revenues or are they going to come out of the – come from the folks who are responsible for the costs?

The proceedings of August 19, Exhibit G, reveal the objective of Appellant—to turn trial judges into subservient vassals of the Commissioners Court. If one reads the transcript as favoring selective denial of a supplement to only one or a few of the trial judges, it would be a clear instance of direct and unconstitutional influence. On the other hand, if the $18,000 supplement were denied to all judges, it would simply be collective extortion against the entire judiciary of Galveston County.

Renewed Motion for Enforcement Under TRAPs 29.3 and 29.4 Until now, this Honorable Court appears to have indulged in an assumption of good faith and responsible behavior on the part of Appellant and those acting with him. That assumption is no longer warranted. It is now even more obvious that Appellant Henry and others are trying to “game” the system by administratively dismantling the Justice Administration System and superimposing administrative requirements and financial sanctions which will hold the trial courts and the justice system hostage.

Prayer The Court is urged to promptly DENY the latest Motion by Appellant, and further is re-urged to refer this case to the District Court for enforcement, or alternatively for hearings, receipt of evidence, and a report to this Court of Appeals, under TRAPs 29.3 and 29.4.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Mark W. Stevens Mark W. Stevens TBN 19184300 P. Box 8118 Galveston, Texas 77553 409.765.6306 Fax 409.765.6459 Email: [email protected] Counsel for th Lonnie Cox of the 56 Judicial District Court

Certificate of Compliance The foregoing instrument in relevant parts contains 1,334 words in Times New Roman Type, with text double spaced and extended quotes in 2.0 spacing.

/s/ Mark W. Stevens Mark W. Stevens Certificate of Service The foregoing was efiled and e-mailed PDF to Mr. Edward Friedman on August 20, 2015 at [email protected], and also to James P. Allison ([email protected]) ; J. Eric Magee ([email protected]); and Phillip Ledbetter ([email protected]) and N. Terry Adams, Jr. at the firm of Beirne Maynard Parsons LLP ([email protected]) . An additional copy of this instrument has been served via email to Mr. Joseph M. Nixon at the firm of Bierne, Maynard & Parsons ([email protected]) and to James P. Allison at [email protected]. /s/ Mark W. Stevens Mark W. Stevens Exhibits A Joseph Nixon Letter of July 14, 2015 B Mark Henry Memo to County Auditor July16, 2015 C Galveston County Daily News Article, August 8, 2015 D Joseph Nixon Letter of July 30, 2015 E Peri Bluemer email of August 11, 2015 F Mark W. Stevens Letter to Mr. Nixon of August 19, 2015 G Transcript of Commissioners Meeting of August 19, 2015

BEIRNE, MAYNARD & PARSONS. L.L.P. 1300 POST OAK BOULEVARD SUITE 2500 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77056-3000 (713) 62;3-0887 DIRECT D,AL: (71;3) 871-6609 EMAIl...: JN1XQJ/toI@BMPLLP,CON FAX (713) 960-15':7 SOARf:) CERTIFIED CiVIL TRIAL LAW TEXAS SOARO OF L.EGAL SP£CIAl..IZAT'ON

July 14, 2015

Mark W. Stevens VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL, Attorney at Law CERTIFIED MAIL, P.O. Box 8118 FACSIMILE (409) 765-6459, AND Galveston, Texas 77553 EMAIL [email protected] Re: Cause No. 15CV0583; The Honorable Lonnie Cox, Local Administrative Judge, Galveston Co. v. The Honorable Mark Henry, County Judge, Galveston County; in the 56th Judicial District Court of Galveston County, Texas Dear Mr. Stevens: I now represent the Honorable Mark Henry in the above-referenced case and have attached for your review a file-stamped copy of the Notice of Appeal which was filed on July 13, 2015. Because the appeal is based upon the court's denial of the plea to the jurisdiction and the trial court's incorrect assumption of subject matter jurisdiction, the entire proceeding, including the application of the temporary injunction, is stayed pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(aX8) and (b). You should further note that the filing of the notice of appeal suspended the temporary injunction pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 29.1 (b) and Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem Code § 6.001(b)(4).

Accordingly, Ms. Bonnie Quiroga will no longer be allowed access to Galveston County facilities, office or infrastructure other than that which is accessible to the public. She is, of course, not considered an employee of the County, has no job function or duties, and will not receive a salary or benefits from the County.

I realize it is not necessary for you to remind your client that this matter is no longer in either his jurisdiction or the jurisdiction of the trial court, if it ever was. Accordingly, any attempt to unilaterally enforce the temporary injunction by way of a new, ex parte verbal or written order will be met with the most rigorous of opposition utilizing all lawful means necessary to protect the civil rights of those who are County employees.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, ~14~[A,~ Joseph M. Nixon 2198919v.19999991114011 EXHIBIT "A" P. 1/4 A Flled: 7113/20158:13:35 PM JOHN D, KINARD - District Clerk Galveston County, Texas Envelope No. 6048080 By: Shaiija Dixit 7/14120159:35:54 AM CAUSE NO, 15-CV-0583 THE HON. LONNIE COX § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF § PLAINTIFF, § § v. § 56TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT § THE HON. MARK HENRY, COUNTY § JUDGE OF GALVESTON COUNTY, § § DEFENDANT. § GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS

NOTICE OF APPEAL Defendant, The Honorable Mark Henry, County Judge of Galveston County, files this Notice of Appeal, pursuant to section 51.014(a)(8) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and Rules 25.1 and 26.I(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and would respectfully show the Court as follows: 1. Defendant, The Honorable Mark Henry, County Judge of Galveston County desires to appeal this Court's Order, signed June 23, 2015, that denies his Plea to the Jurisdiction in the above-captioned matter.

2. Defendant appeals to the First or Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston Texas. Defendant believes this interlocutory appeal should go to the First Court of Appeals because Defendant has previously filed a related (a) original proceeding, and (b) interlocutory appeal in the First Court of Appeals- both arising from this same case: a No. 0 1-14-00820-CV; In re Galveston County Judge Mark Henry, et al.; and b. No. Ol-15-00583-CV; The Honorable Mark henry, Judge of Galveston County v. The Honorable Lonnie Cox.

EXHlBIT ttA') P. 2/4 3. A copy of this Notice of Appeal has been served on all parties to the proceeding from which this interlocutory appeal is taken. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2S.l(e), 28.1 (b).

4. This interlocutory appeal is an accelerated appeal under Rule 28.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and is not a parental termination or child protection case. TEX. R. ApP. P. 28.1, 25.1(d)(6).

5. This interlocutory appeal results in an automatic stay of all proceeding in the trial cOUli during the pendency this appeal. TEX. Crv. PRAC. & REM CODE §51.014(b), (c).

Respectfully submitted, BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP By: //s/ Edward L. Friedman Edward L. Friedman Texas Bar No. 07462950 [email protected] Main Street Suite 1100 Houston, Texas 77002~6111 Telephone: 713.751.1600 Facsimile: 713.751.1717 Attorney tor Defendant The Honorable Judge Mark Henry

Exhibit "'Nfl, 3/4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal was sent to all counsel of record by email and facsimile on this 13th day of July, 2015 as follows: /s/ Edward L. Friedman Attorney for Defendant The Honorable Judge Mark Henry

EXhibit flAil P. 4/4

MEMORANDUM

TO: Kevin Walsh, Galveston County Treasurer FROM: Mark Henry, Galveston County Judge DATE: July 16,2015 RE: Payroll for Unfunded and Unauthorized County Positions

As you are aware, the County may not payor authorize salary disbursements to individuals who are neither county employees nor hold positions for which the county has not authorized payment. I have attached for your review a copy of the certified minutes from the Commissioner's Court meeting held on June 13, 2015. As you can see from these minutes, the Commissioner's Court voted for and issued an order removing from the budget the salary and position of Director of Judicial Administration. Previously, Ms. Bonnie Quiroga had been dismissed from that position, also by vote and order passed by the Commissioner's Court.

Although ancillary orders from District Courts have issued, those orders are suspended by the application of Tex. Civ. Rem. & Prac. Code §§ 6.001(b)(4) and 51.014(a)(8) and (b) and Tex. R. App. 29.1 (b). Additionally, the Commissioner's Court has not voted to reinstate Ms. Quiroga, her salary, or the position of Director of Judicial Administration. As one member of the Commissioner'S Court may not revoke or reverse the express order of a prior decision of the Commissioner's Court, the county should not disburse any payment, salary or funds whatsoever to Ms. Quiroga until such time as the entire Court has voted and ordered to do so. To date, a vote to alter the Commissioner's Court orders ofJune 13, 2015 has not occurred.

UBJECTION TO MEDIATION~txh;b1t UB U

2199867v.J 9999991ll4()1l B C01JNTYBILL Cootim.ledfrompage A1 ,minedtheiudependence ofth.e,~iA.,·.·". ;··.· . ' .

......... }'t~aary; ":Il1e~ has.racked upa~tal~f~197,159.90 inj~.teessin~ 1ile ~g.stattOO. 'ac­ . cording to dDcuments peIlate court inHouston, ··.totaJ.ot~3,960/He·said .i(\wal obtaine<l 'by .'!he .DajIywhere an.other1a.w.,tinu ~~j •.• ·at¥>tn~ Qilird News. .' A majority ·of is now 'repr~tiri¢ ~ A~(}ile:~~.··tlje (~bUledto the~~~· ..~edj the cost' camefu>m' one county; TotallegalCQSlis. <::o\lld be·consideredun.- gqvei1 trial. Baker & Hostetler, obtained' ·.by The .·.Daily tQ.~*·;~~·];)()$i~ <::onFon3l>le .,Ill~!·,cobSti a national law finn with News do notincludefees. ipg.. .aju~ge . £oUi4 ,•.~~. .''being Houston office, billed incun-edby.· 'cQJ:m:rtiS&j~el;$'.". "",_~_....,,_,... 'tn. alaw$ilttnatthefees«We the countY $147,102.10 firm becauSe eratiol for two weeks of·wOJ:~ ~lli(); completed byasev~~<.. ,.. ' to;tfuJtliS5iiooiers 'public member legat~Jt steI~Hts·~enn~~· .ae'en<li;)4 .badly includes . , nards · •. 0Iar ~tc in court dmriril~" trialin ney . earned . •.• $73,000.

Connnission~?·:Ry.m.: Dennard and.·'.~ Clark blamed Cox . for the· co~ytrialb~ he. sued County Judge.

Mark Henry; formgthe county to hire outskle. legal counseL Cox ~ , attempting to stop com:­ missioners from dis.: ' o~his~\IIt or4et: reiJlstatiI:lg~ .;... Sup~reil'lte';(XJUr't •., ··'W;mcn·· "Does (Cox) tb.inkit's worth it.for him. to De .• suing?"· Dennard . 'said "Were spending the money because· we got; sued:' However; ~riimis-,; sioners 10st the case. A •• >;<U'L •• t u WQ~~~;;l~' Mioo~ ata rate bt ~i1:ing judge ordered . buving. per hour. . ..

Quiroga be allowed'to With the '~()nsentof work. until· a JapmUt Cox,w~o'&payiI)g forbis· 2016 trial, statingin~ ~)e(l1.,. '. own legal fees, Steve~ order that. Henry had ir.., told, ThepailyNews " reparablydamaged 'the he's logged 60 hours on judiciary. Commission­ the at a ers . appealed to an SUNDAY, AUGUST 9,2015 * THE DAILY NEWS * A9

LOCAL he "was not aware ofhow those expenses would .. rack up." He argued the spending could stop if Cox would fill court po­ sitions approved com­ IDlSSloners. However, Ken Clark Stephen Holmes .Cox insists he's simply Joe Giusti preserving and protect­ ing the constitution m, expressed disappoint­ total of $3,960. He said it was justified because against commissioners :'Ill ment that compromise "staggering" attomey Quiroga has misman­ . who are overstepping he failed. At one point, the fees billed to the county aged important parts of their authority. ,sts two sides negotiated a could be considered un­ government and serious "If I have to file a law­ lily plan to create two posi­ conscionable - mean­ constitutional issues are suit against a county ees tions, one reporting to ing a judge could rule being disputed. judge who's violating the ;;ont commissioners and the in a lawsuit that the fees "We cant allow op­ constitution, I will and I yet other to judges. The· is­ arent reasonable and re­ erations worth many did!' Cox said. the sue of salary and a belief fund the money. millions of dollars and County Judge Mark that each side had over.;. Some commissioners public safety issues to be Henry did not respond eu- stepped its governmental defended the $200,000 badly managed;' Den­ to a request for com­ m- authority contributed to price tag. Dennard said nard said ment. net a failure. paying expensive attor­ Clark said irs neces­ at- "I'll sit down anytim~ neys fees -with taxpayer sary to hire the best legal Contact reporter Chacour Of- -with any member of the money was not an ideal representation for the Koop at 409-683-5241 or >gao court or the judiciary to use of funds, but argued taxpayers, but conceded chacour.koop@galvnews. a get this thing resolved!' of Stephen Holmes said "I ges, mean, who's benefiting the here? The lawyers. vyhy )ID- can't we sit down and re­ ked solve our differences:' Iges Joe Giusti shared a :>ri1, similar opinion. rled "No matter who wins or- the court case, the tax:­ rail- payers lose because ;til1, they're the one's footing i to the bill:' Giusti said. •tate The remaining BEIRNE, MAYNARD & PARSONS, L.L.P. 1300 POST OAK BOULEVARD SUITE 2500 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77056-3000 ,JOSEPH M. NIXON (713) 623-0887 DIRECT D,AL: (713) 871-6809 EMAIL: [email protected] FAX (713) 960-1527 BOARD CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL LAW TF"A5 BOARD Of' LEGAL SPECIALIZATION

July 30,2015

Mark W. Stevens VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL, Attorney at Law CERTIFIED MAIL, AND P.O. Box 8118 EMAIL [email protected] Galveston, Texas 77553 Re: Cause No. 15CV0583; The Honorable Lonnie Cox, Local Administrative Judge, Galveston Co. v. The Honorable Mark Henry, County Judge, Galveston County; in the 56 th Judicial District Court of Galveston County, Texas Dear Mr. Stevens: I am writing so that you might remind your client in this case that he has the opportunity to appoint a candidate of his choice, without approval or consideration of the Galveston County Commissioner's Court, to the following positions: Court Manager Annual salary: 22(E) $63,695 Administrative Specialist Annual salary: 18(A) $42,907 Administrative Coordinator Annual salary: 15(A) $36,998 Administrative Assistant Annual salary: 14(A) $35,215 Administrative Officer Annual salary: 19(A) $45,079.

On June 13,2015, the Commissioner's Court created positions at your client's request.

This is at least the second request of your client to fill these positions.

Please take note of your client's sworn testimony as to whether there was a critical current need for filling the position of Director of Justice Administration (annual salary up to $120,000) which the County tenninated in July, 2014: Q: (By Mr. Friedman) The District Judges have not had or at least - the District Judges have not had anyone in the position of the Director of Justice Administration since July 24 of2014; is that right?

A: [By Judge Cox] We've been operating without that person, yes.

o Mr. Mark Stevens July 30, 2015 Page 2

Q: And the Court Systems didn't shut down, didn't collapse. The Court Systems continued to operate and maintain efficiently, correct?

A. The Court Systems continued to operate, yes.

Hearing transcript Vol. 2, p. 118, line 20 to p. 117, line 4 (June 23,2015).

As Ms. Bonnie Quiroga remains without a position with Galveston County, your client may appoint Ms. Quiroga to any of the above-referenced positions.

Very truly yours,

~~7

2206151v.1005032/108027 From: Bluemer, Peri Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 10:36 AM To: Cox, Lonnie; Sullivan, Kim; Roberts, Barbara; Grady, Patricia; Grady, John; Slaughter, Michelle; Ellisor, John; Neves, Kerry; Darring, Anne; Ewing, Jack Cc: Boemer, Bob Subject: FW: Court administrator system background

Hello: Based on the information I received from the Legal department (attached and below), I wanted to reach out to all of you.

The hiring process takes some time. Therefore, in order to ensure your ability to place employees into the pOSitions effective September 1st, I encourage you to begin the interview and hiring process now.

The court administrator system goes into effect in just three weeks.

I want to be very clear that The Human Resources Department is available to assist your efforts. We offer resume screening, pre-interviews and full interview packets as well as reference checking.

And, if you would like to consider any existing employees for these positions, we have a great INTERNAL Candidate interview tool as well. This tool is optional, but I wanted you to know it is available for you.

Internal candidates can interview during work hours.

Please let me know if there is anything we can do to assist with this process. ~Peri

Peri A. Bluemer thief Human Resources Officer t;alveston County, Texas

----....... ---------~--~------.

[ [email protected] Moody, Galveston, Texas 77550 I if 409-770-5350 I Fax: 409-766-4599ICell: 409-692-5273

Galveston County Human Resources Core Purpose We Want "fa Be llle Bl!st We GII'I Be fn Making: PQ.opi es' livel> E~s,ier, Strategies o Follow Thro!.leh To The Resohrtiol1 EveoyTime o Consistently Rc"'C<vafuate Ourselves And Make Course Correrlions. o Provide 0 J'le 0" One, Penon",1 Comrrn,mi(:;;ition.j o Jum I' TI'Ir~ugh Hoops-- Philosophy o Be Open Mind:edToChanse, Training And Feedbac:k o Ask Qu.estions About Our Work Q Be Willin,g To Embrace Chan~ Core Values Servi-ce lnte,grity Engagement

From: Boemer, Bob Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 5:39 PM To: Bluemer, Peri Subject: Court administrator system background Peri: What follows is the background for the creation of five positions that will, effective September 1, 2015, report to the district and statutory county court judges as court administrator system allowed under section 75.401 ofthe Texas Government Code. On June 13, 2015 the Commissioners Court of Galveston County, Texas approved an order authorizing the creation offive full-time positions titled Court Manager, Administrative Specialist, Administrative Coordinator, Administrative Assistant, and Administrative Officer. These positions were intended to provide administrative support to the county's judicial officeholders. To comply with existing state law, the June 13 order created these positions under th the office ofthe 56 Judicial District Court, whose officeholder, the Honorable Lonnie Cox, is the current Administrative Judge ofthe District Courts of Galveston County.

Commissioners Court took this action in response to a May 12,2015 application signed by the Honorable Lonnie Cox, the Honorable Barbara E. Roberts and the Honorable Kimberly Sullivan requesting establishment of a court administrator system to serve the statutory county and district courts of Galveston County.

As of June 13, 2015, the Texas Government Code authorized the county courts at law of Galveston County, but not the district courts, to request and maintain a court administrator system. In recognition of this statutory obstacle to the request by the Honorable Cox on behalf of the Galveston County district judges, the June 13 order created requested positions in the office of the 56th Judicial District Court with the power of appointment vested in the holder of that office. However, as ofthe date of this letter, the Honorable Cox has not made any appointments to the positions created by Commissioners Court.

The June 13 order also provided that, in the event SB 1913 was enacted into law and to be effective on September 1, 2015, then a court administrator system would be created for the Galveston County district, county and probate courts, the aforementioned positions would report to the district and statutory county judges collectively, and the position of "Court Manager" would be changed to "Court Administrator." As you know, SB 1913 was signed into law and takes effect on September 1, 2015. Attached to this email are copies of S8 1913, as well as an excerpt of the minutes of the June 13, 2015 meeting of Commissioners Court authorizing the creation of a court administrator system and the aforementioned five positions under the collective supervision and control of the district and statutory county court judges effective September 1. While this is a new statutory provision, legal authority about other statutory positions reporting collectively to multiple judges have consistently held that such appointments are made by majority vote of the officeholders.

Please call me if you have any questions.

Bob Boemer Robert B. Boerner Galveston County Legal Department Director County Courthouse Moody, 5th Floor Galveston, Texas 77550-2317 (409) 770-5567 (direct) (409) 770-5562 (main) (409) 770-5560 (fax) The information contained in this transmission and any attachments hereto is confidential information intended solely for the use of the individual(s) named above and may be protected from disclosure by privileges recognized in the law. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or use of this communication in any way is strictly prohibited.

, Mark Stevens From: Mark Stevens [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 9:20 AM To: '[email protected]' Attachments: coxnixon081915.pdf

Mr. Nixon: See the attached letter.

Mark W. Stevens

F MARK W. STEVENS ATTOR.t1\ffiY AT LAW P.O. BOX 8118 GALVESTON, TEXAS 77553 409.765.6306 Fax 409.765.646 Email: [email protected]

August 19,2015

Joseph Nixon Via EmaillPDF Beirne Parsons & Maynard LLP Houston, Texas th Re: No. 15CV0583; The Hon. Lonnie Cox v. The Hon. Mark A. Henry; In the 56 District Court of Galveston County, Texas Dear Sir: This is in response to your letter of July 30, 2015, and Ms. Peri Bluemer's recent email to Judge Cox regarding "interviews", etc. Paragraph 6 at Page 9 of that Temporary Injunction forbids the County Judge and all others acting in concert with him from "Reassigning or relocating any employee who was an employee ofJustice Administration on July 23, 2014, including but not limited to Bonnie Quiroga, Monica Gracia and Deputy Clint PurcelL" Your proposal and Ms. Bluemer's are clearly intended to violate the above provision, on top of other many violations which have already occurred.

At this time, Judge Cox has no authority to act under SB 1913-and neither does County Judge Henry, Peri Bluemer or anybody else.

If at any time County Judge Henry or others feel it is necessary to act in contravention ofthe Temporary Injunction ofJuly 6, the appropriate route is not to engage in selfhelp, but to seekjudicial authority, i.e., from the trial court, which may receive evidence as to your proposed action, and also as previous violations ofthe July 6, 2015 Order of Temporary Injunction.

ve~ ~ ­ .

Mark W. Stevens cc: Judge Lonnie Cox

1 REPORTER'S RECORD

5 EXCERPT OF

9 GALVESTON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT WORKSHOP

14 On the 19th day of August, 2015, the following excerpt from a video of Commissioners Court workshop occu rred :

2 COMMISSIONER CLARK: All right. So what about the Judges?

4 JUDGE HENRY: You have my thought.

5 MR. CLARK: So you are saying just that one position, or are you saying all the positions?

7 JUDGE HENRY: Give them all. I don't think you can do just one.

9 COMMISSIONER CLARK: You think they ought to be paid all the same?

11 JUDGE HENRY: That would seem reasonable, maybe not.

13 COMMISSIONER CLARK: So are you suggesting do away with the entire stipend or a portion of it, taken back to where they were before they got this stipend increase a couple years back?

17 COMMISSIONER DENNARD: Do you know what that the dollar amount was, the stipend was?

19 JUDGE HENRY: Yeah, it was 15. It was 15 the last year.

21 COMMISSIONER CLARK: It was -- it was 15, but I think the Court was also paying 9300. That's why I suggested we go back and look at that.

24 MR. DELAC: That's going to require some research, though .. I am not ready for that yet.

1 COMMISSIONER DENNARD: It went up significantly.

3 COMMISSIONER CLARK: Do you have one of these from 2010?

5 MR. DELAC: It's goi ng to be in the budget book. Yeah. It's going to take a little time bit of time to go find and verify it. I just want to make sure I give you correct numbers. I don't want to tell you something off the top of my head and -­ 10 JUDGE HENRY: I don't remember 9300 from anything, so I am guessing about (inaudible).

12 COMMISSIONER CLARK: I only remember raising it once form 92- or 9300 up to the 18,000.

14 JUDGE HENRY: No, we went from 15 to 18.

15 The legislature authorized an increase up to 18.

16 COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yeah, but I thought we weren't paying the full 15.

18 JUDGE HENRY: I thought we were.

19 COMMISSIONER CLARK: I'm checking, just veri fy that.

21 COMMISSIONER HOLMES: 2013 the State paid 125, total compensation of 140.

23 JUDGE HENRY: Yes, we paid 15. Is that what yours is at?

25 COMMISSIONER HOLMES: That's 2013.

1 JUDGE HENRY: I dont' think it's changed since 2011.

3 COMMISSIONER CLARK: Can you go back to see what it was prior to that, like 2009?

5 COMMISSIONER HOLMES: Sure. 2009 the State paid 125, total compensation 140.

7 JUDGE HENRY: Say that again.

8 COMMISSIONER HOLMES: The same thing, 125.

9 JUDGE HENRY: What year?

10 COMMISSIONER HOLMES: 2009.

11 JUDGE HENRY: Yeah, see.

12 MR. DELAC: It looks 1 ike in 2008 and 2009 it was both 15,000.

14 COMMISSIONER CLARK: Okay.

15 JUDGE HENRY: .That's my misunderstanding .

16 MR. DELAC: '09 and '10 are the same. '09 and '10 are 140,000 and they paid 125, so it's 15.

18 COMMISSIONER DENNARD: Yes. So what happened, I guess, what happened with that is even though the supplement increased a little bit, by continuing to pay the full supplement rather than drawing it back down in response to the State's increase of the base, we were then hit with additional -­ significant additional costs on the County Court side because the statute says you have got to pay the County

1 Courts in line with the District Courts.

2 MR. DELAC: You can't pay less than a thousand dollars less.

4 COMMISSIONER DENNARD: So -- so it wasn't the delta between the supplements. It was a combination. It was basically the total increase in salary which sucked everything up, which cost us some on the District side but a ton on the County side as they were pulled up.

10 COMMISSIONER GIUSTI: So what exactly are you talking about doing with it?

12 COMMISSIONER DENNARD: Reducing the amount of salaries that we are paying toward our District and County Judges in order to save significant money.

15 CO~IMISSIONER GIUSTI: How much?

16 COMMISSIONER DENNARD: That's the discussion. I think one factor is the amount of attorneys' fees that we're i ncurr-j ng.

COMMISSIONER GIUSTI: We're incurring more I attorney's fees because you are having for trials.

I 21 JUDGE HENRY: No. We are incurring attorneys' fees because one of them sued me. 23 COMMISSIONER GIUSTI: Oh, those -- those fees_ This could kind of look pretty retaliatory, huh?

25 COMMISSIONER DENNARD: I don't think it's a

1 question of retaliatory. I think it's a question of somebody has got to pay the bill. So where are those going to come from? Are they going to come out of general revenues or are they going to come out of the come from the folks who are responsible for the costs?

6 That is the issue.

7 COMMISSIONER GIUSTI: They will argue who is responsible for the costs.

9 COMMISSIONER DENNARD: They will. And if they were, I guess, County Commissioners, they could make that judgment.

12 COMMISSIONER GIUSTI: The Courts (inaudible) make that judgment.

14 COMMISSIONER DENNARD: I think from a budget perspective, I suspect this Court will make that judgment.

17 COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yeah. (Inaudible).

18 So that would be if we did away with the supplement, that would be a savings of 180,000?

20 JUDGE HENRY: It would be more than that.

21 It would affect my portion, too.

22 MR. DELAC: I have already got it figured out.

24 JUDGE HENRY: What?

25 MR. DELAC: The 200, I assume your whole -­

1 the whole 25 would come out, right?

2 JUDGE HENRY: No. It's towards the 90 percent. Pl us it's not take whatever their total is.

4 MR. DELAC: It would be 140. So by (inaudible) 126.

6 JUDGE HENRY: Ri ght .

7 COMMISSIONER CLARK: As opposed to 165.

8 MR. DELAC: 115.

9 MR. CLARK: They changed the percentage.

10 JUDGE HENRY: That was just the supplement, not the salary. The salary already was the percentage.

12 COMMISSIONER CLARK: Correct. So you are saying your salary would be 126,000?

14 JUDGE HENRY: Yes. No, no, plus the new supplement of 25 too. So it would an additional 16,000.

16 MR. DELAC: (Inaudible).

17 COMMISSIONER DENNARD: So (inaudible) I wasn't listening.

19 JUDGE HENRY: It would come out to 151 20 MR. DELAC: The difference is 16,200.

21 JUDGE HENRY: So 180 plus (inaudible).

22 MR. DELAC: I can -- I can tell you what it is. All rig ht .

24 COMMISSIONER DENNARD: (Inaudible) benefits?

1 MR. DELAC: 238,000. That's the benefits.

2 JUDGE HENRY: (Inaudible).

3 MR. DELAC: Yes, sir.

4 COMMISSIONER DENNARD: 232. And that's based upon what?

6 MR. DELAC: Say that again? It's 238,000.

7 JUDGE HENRY: That's based on not paying 196,000 (inaudible).

9 COMMISSIONER DENNARD: Is that like zero supplements?

11 MR. DELAC: Yes.

12 COMMISSIONER DENNARD: Well, I know that I heard I know at least one -- I think more -- other elected officials had been pressing during the legislative session to try to reduce your salary. I know has been a push to reduce your salary judgment and that there's a feeling that the County Judge is making too much money. You know, and if we are going to, I guess, do what some (inaudible) to reduce your salary, that would necessitate legal and statutory (inaudible) reductions corresponding with that. And it's a function of the statute. It's really not anything that we are doing from that front.

24 JUDGE HENRY: .True. I would think i t ' s safe to say that (inaudible). That seems to be the

1 answer to everything we do. I guess what I would like to do is think about it for a little bit. I am going over 11 :30 meeting Jo go T. I. S. consortium, so I was going to go ahead and probably head out now. And so do you want break up for lunch?

6 COMMISSIONER HOLMES: Whenever you are ready.

8 * * *

1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

4 THE STATE OF TEXAS ) COUNTY OF GALVESTON ) 8 I, Dale W. Lee, Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of Texas, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing contains a true and correct transcription of the excerpt of the Commissioners Court workshop, to the best of my ability.

15 WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this the 20th day of August, 2015.

19 IslDale W. Lee, CSR Dale W. Lee, Texas CSR 2561 20 Expiration Date: 12/31/16 Official Court Reporter 21 56th District Court Galveston County, Texas 22 600 59th St., Ste 3203 Galveston, Texas 77551