Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
Texas’ government code is clear: A public employee is entitled to compensation if they face retaliation after making an accusation in good faith that their employing agency or a government official violated the law.
Reality may not be as clear.
The impeachment acquittal of Attorney General Ken Paxton last week renewed attention on a whistleblower lawsuit filed by four men who were fired from top jobs in the attorney general’s office after they told authorities that Paxton improperly used the agency to help a friend and political donor.
Earlier this year, a settlement was negotiated between the ex-employees and Paxton, which would have granted them $3.3 million and mandated an apology from the attorney general. However, state legislators objected to the financial burden and initiated a comprehensive investigation into Paxton’s management of the office. In May, Paxton was impeached by the House with a significant majority. Nevertheless, the Senate declined to convict him last week, resulting in Paxton’s reinstatement as the head of the agency.
Legal experts and political observers express concern that the impeachment proceedings and subsequent acquittal, along with threats of political retribution against lawmakers who supported Paxton’s removal, may deter state employees from reporting instances of perceived misconduct and corruption. There is apprehension that state workers will be reluctant to come forward with allegations following Paxton’s acquittal.
According to Mark Jones, a political science professor at Rice University, even in situations where whistleblowers may have a chance at success but lack the necessary political environment, the unfortunate reality is that they often face negative consequences. Jones highlights that high-ranking individuals who witness wrongdoing within their organizations usually resort to reporting to the FBI only after failing to convince their superiors of the transgressions. However, instead of receiving support, these whistleblowers often face public scrutiny and termination. Consequently, they are left questioning the futility of their efforts, leading them to ask, “What’s the point?”
Currently, there is a pending request from Paxton to the state Supreme Court for the dismissal of the whistleblowers’ lawsuit.
Paxton claimed that the settlement would result in cost savings for taxpayers.
But in closed-door meetings, the House General Investigating Committee panel began probing the whistleblowers’ claims to determine whether, in essence, the Legislature was being asked to participate in a cover-up. Ultimately, lawmakers did not earmark money to fund the agreement and the House voted to impeach Paxton upon the investigation’s conclusion.
According to legal experts, Paxton and his ex-deputies may attempt to reach a settlement once more. However, Texas political observers find it hard to envision a situation where the Legislature is willing to allocate funds for such a settlement.
University of Houston political science professor Brandon Rottinghaus stated that Ken Paxton is facing yet another legal dilemma. He explained that the impeachment proceedings are distinct from the civil lawsuits against Paxton. Rottinghaus clarified that even if Paxton is cleared of charges through impeachment, he may still be held accountable in the civil cases.
Legal quandaries have followed Paxton, a former state senator, for most of his stint as the state’s top lawyer. Months after taking office in 2015, he was indicted on state securities fraud charges. Since then, the case has been delayed by pretrial disputes.
Perhaps more serious to Paxton’s future is an ongoing federal investigation opened by the FBI in October 2020 when whistleblowers went to them with concerns their former boss had committed crimes that included bribery. No charges have been filed in relation to the alleged corruption, though the case reportedly reached a grand jury in San Antonio.
Paxton has denied any wrongdoing.
The impeachment revolved around the crucial assertions made by the whistleblowers. When Paxton faced impeachment in May, the House accused him of misusing his position by deliberately prolonging the foreclosure sales of properties owned by Austin real estate investor Nate Paul. Additionally, Paxton was accused of conducting investigations and engaging in harassment against Paul’s opponents, as well as making efforts to obtain private police records for him. It was alleged that Paul provided employment to the woman involved in Paxton’s extramarital affair and funded the renovation of Paxton’s residence.
According to Mike Golden from the University of Texas at Austin’s School of Law, the impeachment acquittal did not impact the validity of those claims. Despite potentially discouraging potential whistleblowers, Golden mentioned that the public trial presented ample evidence that could prove beneficial in other scenarios, such as a federal prosecution involving corruption or abuse of power.
According to Golden, some whistleblowers might perceive the increased attention as a positive aspect. They might think, “Hey, our message is reaching a wider audience. We had the opportunity to share our story on live television and shed light on why we believe we were unjustly terminated and why we believed our actions were in the best interest of the people of Texas and the office’s integrity.”
Despite this, the whistleblowers who filed a lawsuit against Paxton have yet to receive any compensation. The attorney general’s office has not provided any comment in response to a request for information regarding this matter.
“The question of whether they were entitled to compensation should not have influenced the independence of the impeachment proceedings,” stated Joe Knight, the lawyer representing Ryan Vassar, one of the four individuals involved.
Knight explained that the whistleblowers’ legal entitlement to receive compensation became entangled in the larger political conflict between Paxton’s supporters and those who oppose him.
According to his perspective, he stated that the Legislature enacted the statute in order to motivate individuals to report any misconduct, reassuring potential whistleblowers that they would be supported.
He added that the social contract made with public employees was to provide them with the confidence to expose corruption, even at the expense of their careers and financial stability. However, it seems that this agreement has not been honored in this case. If this promise is not respected, there is a significant danger to the future of our state government. Other employees may become reluctant to report corruption, fearing that they will be terminated without any protection or compensation.
Disclosure: Rice University, University of Texas at Austin and University of Houston have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
As The Texas Tribune’s signature event of the year, The Texas Tribune Festival brings Texans closer to politics, policy and the day’s news from Texas and beyond. Browse on-demand recordings and catch up on the biggest headlines from Festival events at the Tribune’s Festival news page.
