RESPONSE TO OPPONENT’S ATTACKS:

Recently Jana’s opponent has resorted to spreading false information about Jana’s record in a desperate attempt to bring attention to his campaign. He has even gone so far as to alter official government documents in an attempt to mislead the public. Most of his charges are so baseless that it makes one wonder if they were done maliciously or if it is simply a complete lack of understand as to the role of the county attorney and the functions of the office. 

The fact is that Jana’s opponent has never practiced law in 95%-97% of the areas of law the office handles. He has never represented abused or neglected children. He has never worked in the juvenile justice system. He has never represented victims of family violence, and he has never prosecuted a single criminal case in his career. 

Jana’s opponent wants to talk about “the issues,” so let’s talk about THE ISSUES:

I. ABUSED AND NEGLECTED CHILDREN:

The County Attorney’s Office handles all of the minors that end up in the justice system as a result of committing a crime or because they are removed from their homes due to abuse or neglect. Jana’s opponent has never worked on behalf of the children of Williamson County. He has never represented Child Protective Services, he has never worked as an ad-litem representing the abused and/or neglected children and he has never represented the parents or caregivers being accused of the abuse and/or neglect. This is the most important function of the county attorney’s office and he simply does not know what he is doing. 

II. JUVENILE MISDEMEANOR AND FELONY CRIME:

Jana’s opponent has never prosecuted or defended a child accused of a crime. He has never worked in the juvenile justice system. This area of law is one of the most complicated areas to practice and should not be trusted to someone with zero experience.

III. PROTECTIVE ORDERS:

Jana’s opponent has never represented victims of family violence for protective orders. The County Attorney’s Office helps roughly 80 victims a year who are fleeing a violent relationship. 

IV. PROSECUTING ADULT CRIME:

Jana’s opponent has never prosecuted a crime in his legal career. He has never tried a criminal jury trial, yet he calls himself, “a trial lawyer”. The County Attorney’s Office prosecutes roughly 10,000 Class A and B Misdemeanors a year, but he has no experience in this area.

V. REPRESENTING A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY:

Jana’s opponent has never represented or defended a governmental entity in lawsuits against the government. He has never handled public information requests for elected officials, bond forfeitures, expunctions, non-disclosures or even drafted one search or arrest warrant in his entire career. 

The following items are direct responses to specific charges Jana’s opponent has leveled against her on his website and in his campaign literature.

Issue One: “T. Don Hutto”

Jana’s opponent is accusing her of ignoring allegations of rape and child abuse at the detention facility. This issue clearly demonstrates his lack of understanding as to how the legal justice system works in Williamson County.

The county attorney’s office has no jurisdiction over matters concerning adults who commit felony crimes in Williamson County. Federal, state and local law enforcement agencies all have jurisdiction to investigate the allegations, and, if there is probable cause that a crime has occurred, an adult felony falls to the District Attorney. In the case of an abused child, Child Protective Services (CPS) is generally called out. A joint investigation is conducted. If serious abuse and/or neglect is found, CPS has the power to remove the children immediately, without a court order. CPS then comes to the county attorney’s office within 24 hours of the removal and the county attorney files the pleadings to present to the judge.

The truth is Jana’s opponent cannot name one case where her office ignored a serious crime and/or abuse or neglect of a child in the detention facility. 

Issue Two: “Tax Money Wasted”

Jana’s opponent has never practiced criminal law, so he doesn’t understand how the criminal justice system works. However, he has blamed her office when a prisoner stays in jail for any given period of time. Once again, this is not necessarily within the control of county attorney’s office. This is up to the magistrate, jail staff, the judges staff (their court coordinators) and the defendant or his lawyer. In an effort to make the issue clear, and to help Jana’s opponent better understand the basic structure of the criminal justice system, let’s go through the steps involved:

#1: a person is arrested. 
#2: he or she is brought into the jail. 
#3: he or she is magistrated (told of his rights). 
#4: his or her bail is set by the magistrate. 
#5: he or she bonds out and goes home with a piece of paper telling him when to show up for their first court date. Or, if they have no money to bond out, they fill out paperwork requesting a court appointed attorney. 
#6: The paperwork is reviewed and the information is verified by the Indigent Defense Coordinator who then presents a recommendation to a judge and the judge makes the decision if the inmate qualifies for a court appointed lawyer. If yes, the lawyer is notified and then it is up to the appointed attorney to get a court date setting to bring his client over to court on the “jail call” docket. If the defendant does not qualify, the court is notified and the defendant is automatically brought over on one of the “jail call” dockets to determine if he is going to hire a lawyer or if he wants to work his case out “pro se” meaning representing himself.

NOTE: In an effort to try and justify the numbers on his website, Jana’s opponent actually altered official government documents kept by the jails and the clerks of the courts. On four documents, he took white out and altered the words “ADDED” and “DISPOSED,” which indicates how many cases Jana’s office files and then disposes of through plea bargain, jury trial, bench trial, etc., and changed the word “DISPOSED” to “DISMISSED” which misleads the public into believing that rather than punishing the offenders in all of these cases, the County Attorney’s Office is simply dismissing them and letting them walk away without punishment.

One would hope that Jana’s opponent did not purposefully alter these government documents to mislead the people of Williamson County (as altering government documents is a Class A Misdemeanor). It is possible that since he has no experience in the criminal justice system, he just does not know the difference between disposed and dismissed, but even still, your County Attorney should uphold the law, not break it.

Issue Three: “Private Law Firms Doing County Attorney’s Job”

Jana’s opponent has accused her of hiring outside counsel to do the work of the county attorney’s office. This is simply false. When she ran for office in 2004, she made a promise to the people of Williamson County to bring civil litigation and county contracts in house, and she has fulfilled that promise. With the support of the Commissioners Court she hired two highly qualified attorneys and one paralegal that constitute the new “civil section” of the county attorney’s office.

Before taking this work on, the county was outsourcing all of its litigation, the DRB’s (disciplinary review board cases in Sheriff’s Dept.) and the county’s contracts to outside lawyers at a very high price to the taxpayers! In 2005, before Jana’s civil section existed, the county paid out roughly $500,000.00 in civil litigation alone. This does not include the cost for the handling of the county contracts. The estimated cost for handling county contracts by outside counsel would be roughly $350,000.00. So, for one year, the taxpayers paid out roughly $850,000.00. Jana’s new civil section costs roughly $250,000.00 a year. THAT IS A SAVINGS OF $600,000.00 a year. 


Since taking on both the civil litigation, DRB’s and contracts; Jana’s office has handled roughly 37 lawsuits, 30-35 DRB’s and over 1,000 contracts. If this work were still being done by outside firms, it would have cost the county millions of dollars.

On occasion, the County Attorney Office, like all County and District Attorney’s across the state, will have a conflict of interest, or a lawsuit that will need expertise not offered in the offices, so the hiring of outside counsel is necessary. Jana’s office has only been conflicted out of two cases so far, so her opponent’s charges are completely fabricated.

Issue Four: “Lack of Faith Evident Among Williamson County Judges”

Fifteen of the nineteen lawyers who practice law in Jana’s office practice law before the County Court at law Judges. Six of her lawyers practice before the District Courts. None of the County Court or District Court Judges has expressed dissatisfaction with the attorneys prosecuting adult criminal cases, handling CPS and protective orders cases, prosecuting juvenile criminal cases, handling expunctions, bond forfeitures, non-disclosures, and mental health cases. 

Prior to withdrawing from one case, due to a conflict of interest, her civil chief represented two County Court at Law Judges in another civil suit. Her civil chief had the suit dismissed in four months and had the Plaintiff’s (who sued the judges) sanctioned $150,000.00. This is only one example of the way Jana’s office has handled the county’s business. Her office also prosecuted a serious environmental crime case and received one of the highest damage awards in central Texas ($350,000.00).

Issue Five: “The Hutto Landfill”

The role of the county attorney is to advise the commissioners court on their legal options to resolve any given issue. Once the advice is given, it is the role of the commissioner’s court to make the policy decision of how to resolve the given issue. The county attorney does not have a vote on the court, nor can the County Attorney compel the court to act. 
The current landfill contract that the county is operating under was drafted by Jana’s predecessor and was adopted by the former court (none of which remain in office today).

Jana has consistently advised the court of the county’s best legal position, and they have worked toward that resolution. Once the landfill issue is resolved, the county and the county taxpayers will be in a much better position.

Issue Six: “The Landfill Permit”

The County Attorney’s Office did not handle any portion of the landfill permit application process or litigation, as that case was assigned to another attorney two years before Jana took office. 

Issue Seven: “The Budget Officer”

This issue is form over substance. Our budget has been adopted the same way for the past 15-20 years. The budget analyst prepares the initial draft of the budget after interviewing all of the elected officials and department heads where she requires documentation and statistics justifying the need for their requests. She then makes recommendations to the County Judge. He reviews the proposed budget and then passes it on to the rest of the Court where all the members of the court make adjustments. There are several budget hearings held, where elected officials and department heads are given the opportunity to make requests. Then the budget is voted on by the members of the court. The final adopted budget is certified by the County Judge and the County Auditor. 

All of the members of the court voted to name the County Judge as the County Budget Officer. This was a policy decision made at the discretion of the court since the statute is vague about who can be named. Unless the naming of the County Judge as Budget Officer clearly violates the law (here there is no case law and the statute is vague) or if it clearly divests another elected official of his/her power, then it is not a case that warrants a lawsuit against the county.

Issue Eight: “Open Government and Open Bidding Laws”

Since taking office Jana has worked closely with the purchasing department and the auditor’s office to institute policies and procedures that ensure each and every county project is handled in a fair, equitable manner. 

Jana’s opponent cannot name a single county project that was not legally bid under the County Purchasing Act under Jana’s administration. His attempt to imply that her office has not followed the law when it comes to the open bidding laws is simply false.