On Feb. 6, Williamson County commissioners approved a settlement of the 2005 lawsuit by former Williamson County Sheriff’s Office lieutenants Barry Simmons and Ralph Fisher against Sheriff James Wilson and the county for demoting them to deputies in 2004. (See “WilCo Sheriff’s Office Lawsuit,” Nov. 10, 2006.) The defendants admitted no liability, and the official county line is that under the settlement, rather than go to trial, Simmons and Fisher resignedly rode off into the sunset with nothing. To hear County Judge Dan Gattis (father of Georgetown state Rep. Dan Gattis) tell it, everyone embraced the net-zero settlement, and only the plaintiffs’ lawyers were paid – and to suggest otherwise would be “chasing a rabbit.”
“I shook [the plaintiffs’] hands as I left the building,” Gattis insisted.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Derek Howard told reporters that his clients were pleased with the settlement, but he had no further comment. County officials ardently claim that all of the announced $75,000 went directly to the plaintiffs’ attorneys, according to a motion approved by Commissioners Court on Feb. 6 (despite a confidentiality agreement under the settlement). “We had to disclose the amount because we are bound by the Public Information Act,” explained Assistant County Attorney Dale Rye, but he added that plaintiffs had to keep quiet because the act does not apply to “private citizens.” In other words, county taxpayers must believe the county officials, because the other side – too bad – is barred from comment.
But the official pronouncement is highly suspect on its face. Since Simmons’ and Fisher’s lawyers accepted the lawsuit on a contingency-fee basis – and standard civil-contingency fees range from 30 to 45% – it’s reasonable to speculate that the county’s public version of the settlement is a good deal less than meets the pocketbook.
The Simmons-Fisher lawsuit alleged that Sheriff James Wilson rubber-stamped the demotions of the two for their support of his election-primary rival, former Sheriff Jim Wilson (no relation), as well for their whistle-blower reports of alleged illegal activity by Capt. Shawn Newsom. As recorded in the case depositions, Newsom, along with Assistant Chief Robert Chapman, fashioned an organizational chart for James Wilson before he took office, with Newsom and Chapman back on top (Jim Wilson had fired Newsom, and Chapman had quit). The two, upon rehire by James Wilson, recommended demoting Simmons and Fisher – with Chapman allegedly informing Simmons that “stuff rolls downhill” – prompting the lawsuit. (The two men are currently employed as deputy constables.)
The plaintiffs’ case would have called more public attention to a scandalous and scatological campaign Web site, NotJimWilson.org, to which former and current county staff contributed, mostly anonymously. The plaintiffs charged that the Web site postings illustrated “retaliatory animus,” and several posts certainly suggested a desire for vengeance against supporters of Jim Wilson. Posters mocked Simmons’ childhood burn scars and depicted him turning into a monkey; another taunted that maybe Jim Wilson’s son would die in Iraq. In his own name, Newsom promised the “calvary” [sic] was just over the hill, suggesting that after the sheriff’s election, supporters of incumbent Jim Wilson could face retaliation. Faces of hated officials, including Wilson, were pasted in a Dumpster. Arguing that the posts demonstrated malice against the demoted officers, and that Wilson was ultimately responsible for the actions of his subordinates, the plaintiffs fended off two motions by the county to have the suit dismissed outright.
Earlier this year, prior to the settlement discussions, the county introduced “new defenses,” which the plaintiffs argued were post-discovery and thus irrelevant. One of those defenses concerned a “promotional board exam” administered in early January to Simmons, Fisher, and two other candidates by their current employer, Precinct 3 Constable Bobby Gutierrez. Promising confidentiality, examiners had pressured candidates to bad-mouth one another, as well as to comment on Newsom – then provided the supposedly confidential results to the county defense team as well as to Gattis and James Wilson.
Why had Precinct 3 been brought into the mix? “Why not? They were suing us,” Gattis told the Chronicle, but he denied he’d considered the results until settlement. The county also threatened in pleadings, if the case went to trial, to exhume Simmons’ messy and long-resolved 1990s divorce proceedings – of questionable relevance at best.
And why would the plaintiffs happily settle for nothing? “Maybe they didn’t want to end up with an empty suitcase,” Rye said, and perhaps have to pay the county’s attorney fees after losing at trial.
In addition to the contingency-fee question, the county also provided 1099 tax forms to the plaintiffs – although why there might be tax consequences on “nothing” is unclear. Gattis, for his part, was adamant that the plaintiffs walked away empty-handed, saying, “I don’t see how there could have been any misunderstanding.”
On Feb. 22, Judge Lee Yeakel signed an order deeming the settlement final. But one detail remains. Howard was previously quoted in the Chronicle as saying that “when the dust settles,” the case would be seen as “a waste of taxpayers’ money.” Indeed, all that’s left is for the county – in a spirit of open government – to report, over and above the $75,000 settlement, its own legal bill to the taxpayers.
This article appears in March 2 • 2007.