Council gives final approval for defense fees
Print- •
- •
-
26 Comments
- •
Favorite- •
-
Report error
-
Thank you for your submission.Error report or correction
- Close
-
- •
Taxpayers in Victoria will be responsible for paying up to $200,000 in legal fees for the defense of three city officials and the former city attorney.
The city council gave its final approval Tuesday to a budget amendment making the money available for legal fees for Mayor Will Armstrong, Police Chief Bruce Ure, police Lt. Ralph Buentello and former City Attorney David Smith.
They were indicted and arrested in May after being accused of interfering with the investigation of former Sheriff Mike Ratcliff, who was working for the district attorney.
All four have pleaded not guilty.
Only Council member David Hagan opposed the budget amendment. Council member Paul Polasek was absent and Armstrong excused himself from the discussion and vote.
Mayor Pro Tem Lewis Neitsch successfully proposed adding language to the budget amendment – again with Hagan opposed.
It states that the council finds that release of details of the investigation was for municipal purposes to warn citizens about a suspected sex offender working for the district attorney.
Count 1 of the indictments states that the defendants released information intended to harm another by disclosing information to Advocate reporter Gabe Semenza for a nongovernmental purpose.
City Attorney Miles Risley said he proposed the additional wording.
“The only purpose of this is to eliminate the need for a trial,” he said, adding that would reduce the legal expenses for the taxpayers and defendants.
The additional wording quickly drew a response from Hagan.
“It appears to me that this ordinance’s purpose is nothing more than an attempt to interfere with and subvert the justice system,” he said.
Hagan also said the language doesn’t correspond with the statements made by individuals during the council’s executive session to discuss paying the legal fees of the indicted city officials.
The amendment also drew flak from Jack A. Mullins, a retired military attorney in the audience.
“I am shocked an amendment like this was made, particularly without talking to the prosecutor’s office,” he said. “This whole thing just smells.”
David Tewes is a reporter for the Advocate. Contact him at 361-580-6515 or dtewes@vicad.com, or comment on this story at www.VictoriaAdvocate.com.
Print- •
- •
-
26 Comments
- •
Favorite- •
-
Report error
-
Thank you for your submission.Error report or correction
- Close
-
- •


Comments
Do all of you actually believe that the DPS would not be involved in a cover-up? One thing you must keep in mind is that Former Police Chief Braaten is the Executive Director of TCLEOSE. This river runs very deep indeed.
July 18, 2008 at 8:09 a.m.CourtJester: Where are you? Big enough to call some poster out, but no balls to answer your charges.
Poser vs. Poster-=Loser.
Cite your facts, or keep your pie hole shut
July 18, 2008 at 3:29 a.m.Jester: Learn to read, sir, ma'm or it! My whole post was opened with " I believe". That would indicate it was MY OPINION.
July 17, 2008 at 8:38 p.m.You see, unlike many other posters here, I will state what is a BELIEF (OPINION) and what is a FACT!
I really lover the neo-psycho-dumbos whom correct posters when I fact, they are morons!
TAKE A READING LESSON, COURT LECHER
Does anyone care at this point just how all of this went down? What matters is there was enough information to have a grand jury indict the mayor, the chief of police, a high-ranking police officer and some other guy for meddling in an investigation and then someone decided that the people indicted needed a defense fund and then someone decided that the citizens of Victoria should pay for the defense and then someone drew up some legal papers saying that the indicted are entitled to fleece the citizens of Victoria. End of story!
July 17, 2008 at 6:50 p.m.enlighten us then CourtJester....what are the facts as you understand them?
July 17, 2008 at 6:30 p.m.BH and LTT, Boy have you guys got this story all mucked up. Your memory isn't what it should be. You are putting out your OPINION and not FACTS. Sorry, you are wrong, wrong, wrong.....
July 17, 2008 at 6:18 p.m.Well if DPS brought the charges to Tyler then Tyler can't be accused of being vindictive & indicting these hams as payback for Ratcliff.. He was just accepting another case from DPS.
July 17, 2008 at 6:03 p.m.Left: I believe that is sort of what happened. I recall that DPS brought the charges to the DA regarding the city yokels telling the accusor "not to talk" to the DPS because they were going to bury the charges against Ratcliff. I believe they are staying "above the fray" but are highly pissed that these maroons stuck their incompent noses in the states business.
July 17, 2008 at 5:54 p.m.I'm sure the DPS would have smelled a cover up & would have continued investigating. If Tyler were involved in a cover up/stall tactic wouldn't it have been better for those individuals to let DPS handle him instead of them (indicted 4) sticking their fingers in the pie? If they'd have stayed out of it & let DPS do its thing, Tyler could already be gone with charges pending on him instead. Geez....doesn't say much for the intelligence of our LE & city leaders if they couldn't figure that one out.
July 17, 2008 at 5:40 p.m.Ok...now the charge is out from "inside" sources. Ratcliff is Tylers "buddy" and the DPS was trying to stymie the investigation to allow the statutes to expire of pedophilia charges.
Do you folks realize how asinine that sounds?
The DA in a conspiracy with the state police conspired to allow the former sheriff to escape charges of rape of a minor.
Like the sound of that better?
Read your own posts.....what joke!
Just because you have close friends/family in the local PD, does not change facts. The alleged leadership of this community lied about their role in a state and federal investigation. Alleged to have, sorry.
VPD, the City Attorney's Office, and a Moving and Storage guy are more creditable than the Texas DPS and the FBI?
If anyone can, or has read my earlier posts, you will realize I'm no Tyler fan. But your rumors and BS are way too much guys..
And the taxpayer is getting stuck with the bill....
July 17, 2008 at 5:01 p.m.PoDump, What makes you so sure TYLER isn't posting? We all use pseudonyms... under which pseudo, do you miss his posts? IMO, Stupidity Should Be Illegal, Dump.
July 17, 2008 at 4:27 p.m.Podunk..What name does Tyler use? Almost every poster on here who says something that is positive about Tyler is accused of being him. I've been accused of being Tyler, of working for Tyler, and I have never even met the man and only seen pictures of him in the newspaper.
July 17, 2008 at 3:55 p.m.For those of you wondering about the meeting at Chili's, please email me at: toni_marek@yahoo.com
Some of you don't have a clickable link, so I can't email you :)
July 17, 2008 at 3:02 p.m.Tonianne, I would of loved to come to the meeting but couldn't. Would like to know more about your group as well. P.S. Love the pic.
July 17, 2008 at 8:41 a.m.sailor, that was quite a sad attempt to continue in your tradition of blowing smoke. Clearly a Straw Man argument if I've ever seen one. Be a good boy, accept your defeat, and sail off into the distance.
July 16, 2008 at 7:05 p.m.I see, Sailor, you are still running with that notorious "cover-up" torch handed off to you by David Smith. Your "cover-up" accusations against Tyler (not so clever how you didn't mention his name) are still garbage and will be as unsubstantiated when this is all over as the day they were when Smith falsely made them to the media.
July 16, 2008 at 6:13 p.m.Okay, for anyone interested (and surely there are people in this town in both parties who are), here is the proper way to petition for a recall. Now, if I understand this correctly, there would have to be one petition for each person (which is probably everyone but David Hagan). Or, are all the comments on this forum just a bunch of BS behind the mask of anonymity? I would strongly suggest that before anyone plops down any money to file the petition, you go to the County Clerk or District Clerk and see what the proper procedure is. I'm not sure what the filing fees would be, but I'll bet there are dozens if not hundreds of people that would be glad to donate. I think you should also go to see the person in charge of voter registration to make sure you have adequate signatures from registered voters or the petition will just be denied. I believe there is some sort of Republican gathering tonight at Chili's. Maybe we Democrats should plan one soon, too.
"PETITION CALLING FOR REMOVAL OF MAYOR BY RECALL ELECTION
We the undersigned qualified voters of the City of Freeport, Texas, acting under authority of Article 6 of the House Rule Charter of the City of Freeport, Texas, hereby petition you to call an election on the question of whether Larry McDonald Sr. should be removed from the office of Mayor of the City of Freeport, Texas, by recall. This petition is predicated on the following grounds of incompetency, misconduct or malfeasance:
1. Larry McDonald Sr. has refused to enforce ordinances duly adopted by a majority of the City Council; by openly stating that he would not enforce the codes of ordinance of the city of Freeport.
2. Larry McDonald Sr. has placed his personal interests above the interests of the City by refusing to support the enforcement of laws requiring the repair or demolition of substandard structures; by refusing to sign the letter to the District Attorneys Office requesting a search warrant for environmental violations.
3. Larry McDonald Sr. has willfully failed and refused to enforce the rules of procedure adopted by the City Council so as to allow for the orderly and efficient conduct of City business at City Council meetings; during the City Council Meeting on August 20, 2007.
This petition has been duly and properly executed in multiple counterparts, but together constituting one instrument. Wherefore, the undersigned respectfully petition and request that this petition be duly and timely verified and considered; and the requests herein contained be granted in all respects; and that the initiative be acted upon as herein requested and as provided by law.
Respectfully Submitted, 328 signatories "
July 16, 2008 at 5:56 p.m.I would like to hear someone explain why they think the DPS would "stall" this investigation. What possible benefit does the state police have in stalling this or any other investigation. Does anybody really believe the local DA, Sherrif or Police Chief are going to intimidate the DPS by becoming involved in their investigations without just cause. How many other times has the local PD or the SD intentionally (alleged) interferred with a DPS investigation? What do you think Ure's reaction would be if the Sheriff interferred in a PD investigation or vice-versa. I can see no other reason behind this position then intentional interference, if indeed that is what the facts show. Also, I thought I understood that the indicted individuals actually meet with the alleged victim in the Ratcliff situation. How often would a law enforcement person meet with the accuser in a case they WERE NOT actively involved in? Smokescreen, yes I believe that is what we are seeing. An after-the-fact attempt to fabricate "justification" for actions, again if indeed that is what the evidence shows.
July 16, 2008 at 4:51 p.m.The arguement that the investigation was "stalled" is put forth by the men (two of them VPD officers) who were indicted. Did the Department of Public Safety believe the investigation was stalled?
July 16, 2008 at 3:41 p.m.Is the VPD in a habit of getting involved in DPS investigations that they think are "stalled"? If so, what were those cases? What was the outcome? If not, why did they choose to become involved this time?
Why is the Mayor the city of Victoria getting himself involved in a "stalled" DPS investigation? What legal authority does to have to do so?
I do not believe the investigation was stalled. That's a smokescreen that the indicted officials are putting up. And the VPD's unofficial mouthpiece is blowing smoke when he repeats that garbage.
Who is organizing the meeting for tonight at Chilli's? I have to work late and cannot attend but am interested in working toward new leadership in this city. Any additional information is appreciated.
July 16, 2008 at 2:40 p.m.Bravo David Hagan! Thank you for standing your ground on what is right & ethical (on "our" behalf). Why would these city employees want to protect or "cover up" an accused sex offender? Why would I want to put my tax dollars to use in this way? I also agree "if it walks like a duck..." David, I'm behind you 100%!
July 16, 2008 at 10:19 a.m.Can you believe this garbage? The public opinion is so totally against this action, and goodness knows City Council has been made aware, and they just make an obscene gesture with their middle finger to the voters and public and say....."Screw you.....we will do what we want to anyway....and we are going to come up with a ridiculous rationalization why it is appropriate."
It is time every one of them except Hagan is voted out of office.
Additionally I am in support of a total and intensive investigation into why this council is so irraationally supportive of the indicted individuals? Could it be there is dirt and graft and other illegal activities hidden, perhaps some involving City Council members? If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck, more than likely it is a duck.
These guys are acting like they owe the involved parties something....or perhaps are fearful of the involved parties. Hagan undoubtedly has nothing to hide, but the rest of them are guilty by association, irrational behavior, and disregard for the voting public. This is literally insane.
July 16, 2008 at 10:08 a.m.Usually when people are absent from voting it is because they don't want to go on record as taking a side on an issue.
Elected officials are there to do what the people elected them to do. Serve the needs of the city, the people, and not be absent for meetings that don't happen every day.
Lastly, there is a meeting tonight at Chili's at 7pm for this very reason. The people of Victoria need to start looking for people to run for office and replace the elected officials in our area that aren't doing what is best for the people in their county.
July 16, 2008 at 9:51 a.m.I think that possibly there is at least one other council member that is beginning to question the city's ethics. Paul Polasek was absent and I think he has hardly ever missed a meeting. I hope that all of our council members come to their senses soon and I hope that they do it before it is too late. I wish that more people like Mr. Mullins would go talk to their council member and let them know that they don't approve of this monetary support of indicted city workers.
July 16, 2008 at 8:52 a.m.Well, this city council either thinks Victorians are so ignorant that they can put this over on them or they are just so powerful in this city that they don't care what the citizens think. There only seems to be one council member who has best interests of Victorians at heart. I've lived in a lot of cities and seen a lot of poor city councils, but I believe this is the most corrupt that I've ever witnessed. The really sad part is that things never change here.
July 16, 2008 at 6:41 a.m.