Attorney General Ken Paxton and four former top deputies who said he improperly fired them after they accused him of crimes have reached a tentative agreement to end a whistleblower lawsuit.
In October 2020, the former deputies accused Paxton of using his office for political favors for one of his friends and political donors. They claimed Paxton got involved in the legal case of his friend Nate Paul, a real estate developer, while his business was under federal investigation.
The four staffers were then fired and claimed it was in retribution for speaking up. The terms of the settlement require Paxton to apologize and pay his former staff $3.3 million.
Sergio Mart铆nez-Beltr谩n, who covers state politics for the Texas Newsroom, said that despite the apology, Paxton did not admit any wrongdoing in the settlement.
鈥淚n his filing, his attorney said that he accepted that plaintiffs are getting the money that they thought was right and apologized for referring to them as 鈥榬ogue employees.鈥� That鈥檚 the term he used to refer to the whistleblowers in a news release in 2020,鈥� he said. 鈥淧axton also said that he decided to settle because he wanted to serve his third term unburdened by unnecessary distractions.鈥�
It is still unclear where the $3.3 million promised in the settlement will come from.
鈥淯sually when a government agency or entity has to pay as part of a lawsuit or a settlement, it is the government who pays for it. So the taxpayers, you and I, pay for it,鈥� Mart铆nez-Beltr谩n said. 鈥淏ut the Texas Legislature has to approve the payment, and we are starting to see some opposition there.鈥�
This opposition is coming from members of Paxton鈥檚 own Republican Party, including House Speaker Dade Phelan, who said in an interview with CBS Dallas that Paxton will have to come in front of a House panel and justify why taxpayers need to pay for the settlement.
Another key Republican lawmaker, Rep. Jeff Leach, who chairs the Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee in the House, also said he was troubled with taxpayers footing the bill for the settlement.
鈥淚f the Legislature decides not to appropriate the money, I don鈥檛 think we鈥檙e clear what would happen,鈥� Mart铆nez-Beltr谩n said. 鈥淪tate law says that in cases of retaliation, the plaintiffs can sue the state agencies or local government entities. So, again, that鈥檚 why I say we鈥檙e not completely clear. We don鈥檛 know still if the money would have to come out of the attorney general鈥檚 pockets at the end of the day.鈥�
Democrats in the Legislature have also expressed opposition to using state funds to pay the settlement. And Mart铆nez-Beltr谩n said the whistleblowers have expressed concerns about what will happen if the state does not agree to allocate funding for the settlement.
鈥淭hey are worried about the precedent this would set. They are very concerned about Dade Phelan鈥檚 decision to not support using public funds to pay for the settlement,鈥� he said. 鈥淚 think it鈥檚 important to mention that one of the things is that state employees cannot be expected to report government corruption in the future if they know the Legislature won鈥檛 back their rights. So that鈥檚 where they鈥檙e standing right now.鈥�
If you found the reporting above valuable, please consider making a donation to support it . Your gift helps pay for everything you find on and . Thanks for donating today.
Copyright 2023 KUT 90.5. To see more, visit . 9(MDAxODQzOTgwMDEyMTcyNjI4MTAxYWQyMw004))