The Statesman ... Files a Motion

In the latest twist to the battle over the dismissal of former APD officer Timothy Enlow, on Tuesday morning Enlow's hearing was abruptly halted -- just after the city concluded its case against the officer and Enlow's attorneys were ready to present his defense. On late Monday afternoon, District Judge Paul Davis had granted a temporary restraining order in response to a petition filed by attorneys for the Austin American-Statesman one hour before court recessed on Friday. Critics charged that the belated interruption will benefit the APD administration and the city in fortifying their case against Enlow.

At issue is a Sept. 3 decision by Moore to disallow cameras in the arbitration hearing room. Statesman lawyers Bill Aleshire and Jennifer Riggs argued that arbitrator Harold Moore is conducting the hearing in violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act. They say that since the arbitration is authorized under the Civil Service Commission, a governmental body required to hold open meetings, the hearing -- insofar as it possesses "quasi-judicial power" -- is also required to conform to the provisions of the Act.

Moore granted a pre-hearing motion by Assistant City Attorney Mike Cronig to ban cameras from the courtroom because, Cronig argued, several of the city's witnesses felt intimidated by Enlow and needed to protect their identity -- even though Enlow would be present throughout the witnesses' testimony. Whatever its merits, that argument became moot late last week, once all the city's civilian witnesses had testified, leaving only several APD officers and administrators -- including Chief Stan Knee. Knee testified for nearly three hours Monday -- the day before the Statesman's restraining order was granted.

City sources told the Chronicle they believed the real reason the city wanted cameras banned from the hearing was to keep Knee's testimony from being filmed. Immediately following the chief's testimony on Monday, the city rested its case.

Enlow's attorney Mike Rickman was scheduled to present his client's case beginning Tuesday morning -- but that will now be put on hold until the Statesman claims are adjudicated, in a hearing scheduled for Oct. 4. The arbitration is tentatively scheduled to resume -- with or without cameras -- on Nov. 18.

Enlow's supporters were angered by the interruption. "This will create a hardship for Enlow," said Austin Police Assoc. President Mike Sheffield. "I think we have the same desire to see some sort of closure to this [as Enlow does], so that the officers on the street will have some idea of what all of this means." Sheffield says that the initial impetus for the city's request to ban cameras was in fact the police union's intention to record the proceedings. He noted that Moore granted the city's motion, three weeks ago, yet the newspaper did not act until after the hearing was well under way. "I think that the reason for [the Statesman's court filing] was to get Chief Knee on camera, which didn't happen," said Rickman, a former Mesquite police officer, now a lawyer for the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas. "So now [the order is] taken at Tim Enlow's expense. I think it's a little sad this couldn't have been hashed out sooner."

Neither Rickman nor Sheffield argue that the potential Open Meetings Act violations should be taken lightly, but they question the Statesman's belated timing. On Sept. 18, Aleshire attempted to present Moore with a motion (which the arbitrator rejected) requesting that he open the hearing to cameras. Aleshire and Riggs waited two additional days before filing their petition Friday in district court.

Asked Tuesday morning about the timing, Riggs said the motion was a simple press access issue, but she and Aleshire refused repeated requests for further comment about the three-week delay in filing for the order. Yet the delay effectively abetted the city's desire to keep cameras away from the hearing and Chief Knee, while delaying any resolution for Enlow. "We've been saying for several weeks that [press access] is an issue," said Sheffield. "What we have here now is that the city has presented their case and now -- boom -- Enlow's got to wait. Now the city has plenty of time to engage in damage control and can prepare for the lines of questioning they know will be an issue. This didn't benefit anybody but the city, and that's a shame."