Last week Comm court voted to appoint a new J.P. to fill a vacancy. The appointment was made to be effective May 17th, 2004. It was a split vote(2-1) with one commissioner being absent. Now the Comm. that voted against the appointment and the absent Comm. want to reopen the issue(a recall vote).I don't know of anything that allows this porceedure but I can't put my finger on anything that prevents it either. There are concerns on my part that the office has now been filled with the expection of the official taking office Monday and suddenly the rug is jerked out from under the appointee. I believe the appointment would stand on a new vote but reopening the issue is going to be very devisive. Any help?
Small town politics-it don't get no better than this.

MHartman,

This is discussed in section 5.11 of Brooks' County And Special District Law, Vol 35 of the Texas Practice set. At page 150 there is a discussion of the authority of the commissioners court to amend, repeal, or retract an order which it has entered. Part of the issue is whether the repeal is to be enacted in the same term as the initial order.

In the bottom paragraph of that page, there is a reference to an appeals court which held that if the order was a judicial act by the court, rather than an administrative or legislative order, then the order could not be reversed at a later term.

You might try running that case...135 S.W. 244 (Tex. Civ. App. 1911, writ ref'd).

My guess is that they cannot re-vote on appointments to office, because to do so could create a never-ending uncertainty for appointed officials.

You may want to check with WIlliamson County. They appointed a Sheriff to fill a vacancy, the appointee ran for the office, did not win. Now the Sheriff-elect cannot be appointed in the interim. My guess is that if there was a way to appoint the Sheriff-elect, and thus remove the appointee, the Commissioners would have done it. Of course there is something of a difference - in your situation, the appointee has not yet actually assumed the office. If the issue gets on the agenda, have a Commissioner make a motion to table, get a quick second, call for the question, then vote to table the item. The appointee should already be in office before the item can be reached at a subsequent meeting.

Thanks for the help!
Interestingly, the agenda for monday is already posted and the meeting is set for 10:00 am. If the newly appointed J.P. arrives at the judges office at 8:00 am and is sworn in she would aready be in office prior to any discussion assuming the agenda could be revised in time to get it on the monday meeting.
Any ideas on how to determine if the action is "judicial"? the cases did not give much guidance on that issue. Additionaly,is each month a seperate term of the court?

For what it's worth ...

Whether the act was judicial is of less significance than the fact that the commissioners court appointed the JP. The Local Government Code provides that "[t]he commissioners court shall fill a vacancy by a majority vote of the members of the court who are present and voting." Tex. Loc. Gov't Code � 87.041(b). Thus, the fact that some members of the court might want to revisit the issue doesn't translate into authority to "undo" what already is done. "The person appointed by the commissioners court to fill the vacancy shall hold office until the next general election." Id., at (c). Since the newly-appointed JP is now the officer, article 5, section 24 of the Texas Constitution dictates that it is only a district court -- not the commissioners court -- that has authority to remove the JP. Childress County v. Sachse, 310 S.W.2d 414, 420 (Tex. Civ. App.--Amarillo 1958, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Hamilton v. King, 206 S.W. 953, 954 (Tex. Civ. App.--Beaumont 1918, no writ). Unless the court wants to spoil for a losing lawsuit, and the bad publicity attending it, the issue should be considered resolved unless the newly-appointed JP does something to merit removal under chapter 87 or through the mechanism of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

I love this forum!
Those ideas where what I was thinking, just not smart enough to articulate. I am working from home today with limited resources and, of course, the brilliant commissoner that is asking needs an answer yesterday.Thanks
On a related note, does redrawing the JP precinct lines qualify as one of those activities that must be done certian months of the year? If I recall correctly April or May? Or does that merely apply to election precints for voting boxes? Would redrawing JP precincts require preclearance from DOJ? I would think it does.

A motion to reconsider, as a matter of parliamentary procedure, must be made by a person who voted with the prevailing side or it is out of order. This issue may be moot if the peson is sworn in prior to the meeting.

Just goes to show parliamentarians can be powerful, and I guess the county judge is the parliamentarian for a commissioner's court?

JP lines will have to go to Justice for preclearance. Parlimentarians are highly overrated. There are no statutes that govern reconsideration that allow only a member of the winning side to make a motion for reconsideration. However, Roberts Rules of Order are often quoted and I see those rules behind certain messages in this thread. I have read Roberts Rule because we had some folks who liked to misquote them. The bottom line so you don't have to waste two weeks reading them, if the majority wants to do something and makes enough motions they can succeed against the most determined presiding officer, County Judge. Having said that once the JP is qualified he is an officer holder and the Commissioners Court won't be able to undo it.

Thanks once again! After taking all your ideas, I was able to convince the aggrieved commissioner his motion would not stand and additionally, the Dist. Ct. is the proper avenue for removal, not Comm. Ct.