Lots of judge nominations up in committee Thursday

On Thursday, the Texas Senate Nominations committee will consider a long slate of judicial appointments and four new proposed members to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. Check out the list. Obviously, Texas elects judges but the governor appoints replacements when vacancies arise mid-term.

Grits likely won't have time to Google all these folks before then, but let me know in the comments if any names jump out as problematic.

Tulia-sting litigator nominated to run DOJ Civil Rights Division

Wow, do I have mixed feelings about the Obama Administration nominating Vanita Gupta to head DOJ's Civil Rights division! I first met Vanita when she and Jeff Blackburn litigated the wrongful conviction cases arising out of the infamous Tulia drug sting and there aren't many lawyers I hold in higher esteem. So it's not that I question the quality of the pick.

More, it's that Vanita has done such a good job at national ACLU's Campaign to End Mass Incarceration that I hate to see a successful advocate's work neutered by DOJ bureaucracy, particularly given the uncertainty surrounding Eric Holder's departure and the fact that his successor will serve at most two years. Her work at ACLU bridged liberal-conservative divides, as evidenced by Grover Norquist and Marc Levin's quotes in Time magazine endorsing her nomination. And Grits lacks confidence that whomever is appointed from the farm team at ACLU will share her wisdom regarding the pitfalls of ideological rigidity and partisanship.

On the flip side, Gupta's selection indicates an appreciation by the Administration of the link between civil rights and the justice system that isn't always obvious from the DOJ's day-to-day stances and court pleadings. Perhaps, if the fates are on her side, she'll be given enough leash at DOJ to actually accomplish something in what, for litigators, is really a short span of time. And who knows? I suppose if Hillary is elected in 2016 she might be invited to keep the gig.

Certainly I wish Vanita luck and endorse her unequivocally as far as her qualifications for the job, even if part of me wishes the Senate would shoot her nomination down just so she can continue her current good work.

Rough sledding for TDCJ board nominees

The Texas Senate Nominations Committee delayed another Rick Perry nomination to the Texas Board of Criminal Justice after rookie Sen. Sylvia Garcia uncovered during questioning that San Antonio businessman Terrell McCombs had not listed all the businesses he owned on his application, reported the Statesman's Mike Ward.

The episode follows the recent Annette Raggette ignominy, in which a nominee declared on her application she wasn't related to a state official though her brother in law and long-time business associate Oliver Bell is the board chair. Bell now says he "should have been paying more attention" when he recommended her for the board, which strikes me as not a particularly credible reaction. Grits must admit a small measure of pride that a short post on this blog started the ball rolling on the committee's investigation of Raggette and Bell's relationship.

In response to the Raggette and McCombs embarrassments, the Nominations Committee created a new rule this week "to require for the first time that all nominees provide up-to-date information on their applications and personal financial statements, and certify in writing that all the information is correct, before they will be considered for approval by the Senate," wrote Ward, who continued, "In investigating the Raggette nomination, senators said they were disturbed to find out that her application and others submitted by nominees had not been fully filled out, that some information was more than a year old and that many nominees’ backgrounds had not been verified or only undergone a cursory check."

It really does seem these nominees aren't being vetted well.

Withdrawn TDCJ board nominee is sister-in-law of chair

Crikey! Annette Raggette was not just TDCJ board chair Oliver Bell's business associate, a story this blog broke last week, it turns out she is his sister-in-law, though she allegedly didn't reveal it on her application for the TDCJ board job. Confirmed the Statesman's Mike Ward:

The union that represents prison guards in Texas on Friday called for the chairman of the prison system’s governing board to resign for trying to get his sister-in-law selected for a spot on the nine-member board.

Lance Lowry, president of the Huntsville-based Texas Correctional Employees Local of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said Gov. Rick Perry — who nominated Annette Raggette to the prison board, then withdrew her name Wednesday amid the controversy — should ask for Bell’s resignation.

Lowry also asked for Travis County prosecutors to investigate whether any state laws were broken — whether nepotism laws cover board appointments and whether Raggette may have falsified a government document when she answered a question on the application form, and specified she was not related to any state official.

Bell is married to Raggette’s sister.

Grits thought the business relationship looked a little hinky, but I didn't see that coming. Not only did Raggette allegedly conceal her family relationship with the board chair on her application, an earlier story by Ward mentioned that "Bell was listed by Raggette as a reference on her application form." Did anyone check her references? At first blush, I thought Lowry's call for Bell's resignation was overkill. But upon reflection, perhaps it was just premature. It really depends on what Chairman Bell said when he was called by TDCJ or the governor's office as Raggette's  reference. Did he reveal the family relationship? Did he disclose that she was a long-time employee? And if TDCJ knew, why wasn't that on her public bio? If the chairman misrepresented anything to the people vetting Ms. Raggette - and I have no idea if that's the case - then that would justify calling for his resignation. At the moment, Grits doesn't feel like we've got enough information in the public realm to join Mr. Lowry in making that call. It's not inconceivable, though, my opinion could change depending on the answers to those questions.

The episode also raises questions about the quality of the vetting process for governor's nominees. Does any of this ever come out if this blog hadn't published a three-sentence post last Thursday before the Monday hearing about the business relationship and emailed it to members of the Nominations Committee, encouraging them to ask further questions? The information came up on the first page of a Google search on her name, for heaven's sake. How much vetting could really have been done? By TDCJ? By the governor's staff? By committee members' offices? The whole, tawdry near-miss deserves fuller investigation by either the Nominations Committee or perhaps the House or Senate Committees charged with TDCJ oversight. Either the family and business relationships should have been caught sooner or perhaps people knew and let it go with a wink.

See related Grits posts:

• Perry withdraws TDCJ board nomination
  
• Whitmire: Appointment of chairman's business associate to TDCJ board 'not smart'
• Employee of TDCJ board chair nominated to join him on board

Perry withdraws TDCJ board nomination

Governor Rick Perry has withdrawn the nomination of Annette Raggette to the Texas Board of Criminal Justice which oversees the state prison system after this blog broke the news, followed up by a story in the Austin Statesman, that she has close business ties and worked for years for an eponymous company run by TDCJ board chairman Oliver Bell. The story in the Texas Tribune announcing the nomination's withdrawal included this jab from rookie senator Sylvia Garcia:

“I’m not surprised because I think there are a lot of concerns. It surprises me that the governor’s office doesn’t do a fuller review,” said Sen. Sylvia Garcia, D-Houston, a member of the Senate Nominations Committee. “It appears to us there was a business relationship and we have reason to believe there was a family relationship. We thought brother-in-law deals were a thing of the past.”

Hadn't heard about the possible "family relationship." But it's true there seems to have been little review of the nomination. Grits discovered the potential conflicts of interest with a simple Google search of the nominees' names that led to Raggette's (since altered) LinkedIn Profile.

Whitmire: Appointment of chairman's business associate to TDCJ board 'not smart'

Grits last week raised questions about the appointment to the Texas Board of Criminal Justice of Annette Raggette, a woman whose LinkedIn profile listed her as an employee of board chairman Oliver Bell. Raggette has now altered her profile to say she quit working for Bell in 2010 (it had previously said she'd worked for him for more than nine years, now it says seven, ending in 2010). Also, the website for Oliver Bell, Inc., has removed the page that listed her as a vice president of the company as of last week. (Grits' lesson: Always get a screen shot.) The changes appear to have been made after Mike Ward at the Austin Statesman's story yesterday in which Senate Criminal Justice Chairman John Whitmire said the appointment was "not smart" and "Without knowing anything else, the perception is certainly bad." The article ("Prison board appointee's business connection questioned," April 21) opened:

Questions are being raised about Gov. Rick Perry’s newest appointment to the Texas prison system’s governing board because she is a longtime business associate of the current chairman.

Officials confirmed that Annette Raggette, who owns a management consulting firm, worked for years for Oliver Bell, chairman of the Texas Board of Criminal Justice — a business tie that would be a rarity for two members of the nine-member prison board.

Though business ties between members of state boards used to be common in decades past, it has become rare in recent years, partly to avoid criticism about cronyism and to avoid the perception of voting blocks on agency boards — or that one might be beholden to another on important votes — that might compromise members’ independence in operating huge state operations such as the prison agency, the nation’s largest state corrections system with a $4 billion budget.

Raggette’s LinkedIn profile indicates she is vice president of Bell’s company, but prison officials said the online résumé is out of date. The online profile and prison officials say she worked for another Bell firm from 2003-2009.

Neither Raggette nor Bell returned phone calls seeking comment.

The Senate Nominations Committee is scheduled to consider her appointment today.

MORE: Nominations to the TDCJ board have been delayed while the Governor's office decides whether to withdraw her nomination. See an update from the Austin Statesman. Wrote Mike Ward:

Senate Nominations Committee Chairman Glenn Hegar, R-Katy, said a vote on Annette Raggette to the Texas Board of Criminal Justice was delayed indefinitely, along with two other reappointments to the nine-member board that oversees Texas’ corrections system, the largest in the United States.

“The (Raggette) nomination has not been withdrawn, it’s just on hold right now,” Hegar said, noting he expects a decision from Perry’s office this week on whether it will move forward with Raggette.

There has been speculation among senators that Raggette’s appointment may be withdrawn, after questions surfaced Friday about whether she should serve on the board since she was as business associate for several years with board chairman Oliver Bell.

FWIW, these questions actually arose Thursday, not Friday, when this blog broke the story of Raggette's employment links to the TDCJ board chairman.

Employee of TDCJ chair nominated to join him on board

One of the nominees up Monday to the Texas Board of Criminal Justice overseeing the state prison system is actually an employee of its current chairman Oliver Bell, according to her LinkedIn page, which informs us that Annette Raggette has been Vice President of Oliver Bell, Inc. from June 2003 to the present. Her bio on the TDCJ board page does not list the affiliation, focusing on a more recent, concurrent post as President and CEO of something called The Crescent Group, Inc., about which not much information is available online. Small world, huh?

'Emergency' or not, federal judge slots remain unfilled

Though Texas belatedly has had its four US Attorneys slots approved, the Texas Tribune reported earlier this week that we still can't get most of the vacant federal judges slots filled, even where vacancies have been declared "judicial emergencies" because of overwhelming caseloads. The Oct. 3 story opened:

A nonpartisan group of Texas lawyers, law professors and other legal advocates today called on the U.S. Senate to quickly fill judicial vacancies that are slowing down the justice system in Texas and nationwide.

While applauding the Oct. 3 confirmation of U.S. District Judge Marina Garcia Marmolejo to the Southern District Court in Houston, the group said at a press conference today that the Senate has much more work to do.

In Texas, there are seven federal judicial vacancies — one on the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and six on U.S. district trial courts. The legal advocates said that unfilled judicial positions lead to unmanageable workloads for presiding judges, lengthy delays and, ultimately, in some districts, judicial emergencies, as defined by Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The national picture looks even grimmer, with 89 judicial vacancies. Some 32 of those vacancies have led to judicial emergencies, said Margaret Justus, spokeswoman for the legal group.

The high rate of vacancies across the country is particularly frustrating, the group said, because 52 judicial nominations  — four of those in Texas — are pending in the Senate.

I'd hoped earlier this year when Chief Justice John Roberts highlighted the issue in his State of the Judiciary speech that GOP senators - especially Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who's a key leader among judicial obstructionists - would ease up and allow more nominees through, particularly in Texas' Southern and Western Districts which have been so overwhelmed with immigration cases that they barely prosecute other types of offenses anymore. But at this point I'd be surprised if Texas sees any more federal judges approved before the 2012 election.

Forensic science chair appointment should allow FSC work to move forward

Governor Perry made a safe and laudable pick to replace Williamson County DA John Bradley as chairman of the Forensic Science Commission - Dr. Nizam Peerwani, medical examiner for Tarrant, Denton, Johnson and Parker counties, reports the Texas Tribune. After the drama surrounding the commission over the last two years, this will be a welcome change. I've been impressed with Peerwani since he joined the FSC. Unlike his predecessor as chair, he seems willing to confront failures in forensic science head on instead of obfuscating the issues or attempting to cover up for sloppy or erroneous procedures.

Of course, the FSC has only examined a couple of cases so far because Mr. Bradley slowed down the commission's work virtually to a halt in order to delay the final report on the Todd Willingham investigation. Thus Peerwani's first task should be to re-focus commission efforts on processing cases instead of delaying them, and to identify more cases which merit examination. The Willingham/Willis case has dominated the FSC's docket for several years now, but outdated arson investigations by a longshot aren't the only problems in forensic science. It's time for the commission to move forward and Peerwani IMO is the right appointment to allow that to happen, just as Bradley's was the right appointment when the Governor wanted to delay their work.

Nominations Chair: Bradley appointment as forensic chair looks doomed as Rs join opposition

Peggy Fikac at the Houston Chronicle quotes Texas Senate Nominations Chairman Bob Deuell on the waning prospects for Williamson County DA John Bradley's confirmation by the Senate as Forensic Science Commission Chairman.

"The Democrats are not going to vote for him, and there are two Republicans that are not," said Senate Nominations Committee Chairman Bob Deuell, R-Greenville. It takes a two-thirds vote of the Senate to confirm the governor's appointees. There are 19 Senate Republicans and 11 Democrats.

"He probably thought he could talk a couple of Democrats into voting for him. I don't think he can talk four" into it, Deuell said.

Bada Bing, Bada Boom. That should just about do it. Cue the exit music, maestro. Coming back from that deficit would require Lazarus-like qualities. Especially since, from what I've heard via the rumor mill, if push came to shove, more than two Republicans might end up voting against the FSC chairman. There are several R swing votes who'd probably appreciate not being forced to make a public decision. Now, it seems unlikely they'll be required to do so.

What I think did in the nomination was a) Bradley's bellicose performance at the Nominations Committee where he openly insulted Sen. Rodney Ellis, and b) his arrogance, duplicity and manipulation of fellow Republican appointees to the Forensic Science Commission. In his latest column, Rick Casey at the Houston Chronicle recounts an episode exemplifying the latter behavior:

In July, he presented the commission with an unsigned memorandum finding that it didn't have jurisdiction over the Willingham case and claimed it was "drafted, reviewed and edited through the combined efforts of the two members of the FSC who are lawyers, counsel for the Attorney General's Office."

When that was exposed as untrue, Bradley, who couldn't quite admit that he wrote the memo, joined in an 8-0 vote rejecting its conclusions.

Casey's right, that was a truly surreal moment. He also describes another example predating Bradley's ascendancy to the FSC chairmanship which was the subject of questioning from Sen. Ellis to me during testimony at last week's Senate Criminal Justice Committee: Destroying DNA evidence as part of plea agreements to preclude future testing.

Bradley's attitude toward the use of science was demonstrated back in 2002 when, on an Internet bulletin board for Texas prosecutors, he responded to a prosecutor who wanted a suspect to waive any further DNA testing as a condition of a plea bargain.

"A better approach might be to get a written agreement that all the evidence can be destroyed after the conviction and sentencing. Then, there is nothing left to retest."

The reason it should be destroyed is that if the defendant later shows evidence he is innocent, he might get his earlier agreement set aside.

"Innocence, though, has proven to trump most anything," Bradley wrote, as if this is a problem.

I asked him what interest the state has in destroying evidence, especially when scores of Texas convicts have been found innocent based on DNA testing after serving years in prison. 

He said we need finality and painted a picture of thousands of inmates filing endless appeals.

When you go look at the comment string on that topic now, the portions quoted by Casey have been excised from the bulletin board of the Texas District and County Attorneys Association (and for the record, the comment string in question happened in 2007, not 2002, which is the date JB signed onto the User Forum, not the date of the posts in question.). However, when at last Tuesday's hearing, Sen. Ellis asked me what I knew about the practice of securing destruction orders for DNA evidence, I testified that most of what I knew on the subject came from this TDCAA User Forum string and discussions that grew out of it in these two Grits posts. I told Ellis I'd kept a copy of the string in case it had been deleted before we were finished talking, and have uploaded it here (Bradley is commenter "JB") for posterity. :)

So, although his original posts have been deleted at TDCAA, Mr. Bradley can't deny supporting destruction of DNA evidence in order to forestall future innocence claims. Nor can he deny his aggressive, bullying behavior on the commission, nor his belligerence to lawmakers - too many witnesses and cameras were there for that. At this point, the case against him is clear and his own defense isn't credible. As a prosecutor, he would no doubt advise someone in his position to take a plea bargain and resign themselves to their fate. In this forum, he should instead just walk away and save the taxpayer the time and resources required for further deliberation. The Texas Senate has bigger fish to fry this session.

My hope is that either a) the Governor names one of the remaining commissioners as chair and selects a new prosecutor rep who's less opposed to the core mission of the agency, or b) the Legislature amends the FSC authorizing legislation to allow the commission members to pick their own chair. Mr. Bradley played a key role in diverting the commission's focus from scientific issues and shutting down its activities, attempting (for the most part successfully) to make the public debate about capital punishment instead of flawed arson science. This unexpected development presents an opportunity for the FSC to renew its focus and gain traction on investigative and public education projects that were all shut down from the moment John Bradley became their leader.

Like The Terminator, he'll be back. But at least there may be a happy ending (for everybody but JB) to this particular episode.

Bradley nomination for forensic chairman dead?

The Austin Statesman and other news outlets today reported that the Senate has severed Williamson County DA John Bradley's nomination from other members of the Forensic Science Commission because Democrats have enough votes to block him from being considered on the floor under the Texas Senate's 2/3 rule and have told the chair of the Nominations Committee they intend to do so.

It's not over, though, because the Lieutenant Governor intends to have Bradley back in for some personal lobbying: "Dewhurst said that after he talks with senators who are blocking Bradley’s nomination, 'it may be that we’ll want him to come in and talk with some of them one on one.' After that, he said, “we’ll see where we are on the votes,” when asked when Bradley’s name may come up for a vote,"  reported the Statesman's Mike Ward.

Still, Bradley's nomination is on life support and will die if Democrats stick together. Quite extraordinary. Though Grits editorialized against his nomination before the committee hearing, I can't say I expected him to go down.

MORE: From Paul Burka: "Bust him."

Ellis: DA used forensic chairmanship to 'seize power,' 'thwart the will' of the commission, 'hide' its work from the public, increase 'bureaucratic bloat,' and 'slow its impressive progress to a crawl.' Otherwise he's doing great

State Sen. Rodney Ellis sent out a press release yesterday asking his fellow senators to reject Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley's nomination as chair of the Forensic Science Commission. 

Failure of leadership at Texas Forensic Science Commission Raises Concerns
 
(Austin, Texas)//Senator Rodney Ellis (D-Houston) today urged the Texas Senate to reject the nomination of Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley for the remainder of his term as Chair of the Texas Forensic Science Commission.  The Senate Nominations committee voted 4-2 to send Mr. Bradley's nomination for consideration by the full Senate.
 
"The Legislature created the Forensic Science Commission to ensure we have forensic evidence we can trust in our courtrooms --in order to increase public safety and the public faith in justice system," said Senator Ellis.  "Unfortunately, since Mr. Bradley has taken the reins, rather than move the commission forward to look into allegations, find the truth, and repair problems in our broken justice system; the Commission has invested most of its time and energy finding ways to avoid looking into problems and looking for loopholes to block the commission from doing what it was created to do."
 
In 2005, the Legislature created the Texas Forensic Science Commission to restore public faith in forensic evidence following the discovery that a series of serious errors called into question evidence in hundreds of cases across the state.  The commission is yet to complete a single investigation.  In 2009, just as the Commission was poised to begin completing its first investigation -- a review of the evidence used to convict and sentence to death Todd Willingham -- Mr. Bradley was appointed Chair of the Commission. 
 
The Commission is still yet to complete any investigation.
 
After boasting that he knew nothing about the Commission, Mr. Bradley's first move was to unilaterally cancel that meeting, stunning the public and policymakers, as well as his fellow Commission members.  According to press reports, Mr. Bradley then ordered all Commissioners to delete their Commission-related emails, and declared that he wouldn’t let the Commission meet until he had time to learn more about it.  Mr. Bradley displayed a shocking lack of objectivity in his work by declaring to the press that “Willingham is a guilty monster,”  a clearly inappropriate statement  from the Chair of a state Commission tasked to provide independent, expert investigations of allegations of forensic negligence or misconduct.
 
"We wanted independent experts to form a lean, efficient, and non-paid publicly review allegations of problems, investigate them, and report to the public about what it had found so that the public and thus all jurors could regain faith in forensic evidence – and thus convict the guilty and not convict the innocent," Ellis said.  "Sadly, Mr. Bradley has used his position to seize power over and thwart the will of the expert Commission, hide the Commission’s work from public view, greatly increase the Commission’s bureaucratic bloat, slow its previously impressive progress to a crawl, and otherwise prevent the Commission from accomplishing the legislature’s intent."

That pretty much sums it up.

Mr. Bradley may have a problem. If the Democrats all stick together, they theoretically have enough votes to sever his nomination and block it from coming to the Senate floor because of the 2/3 rule. And it wouldn't surprise me if some Senate Republicans agreed that Mr. Bradley's agenda-driven approach and bellicose comportment, on full display at the Nominations Committee, was a poor fit for a panel full of scientists charged with objectively evaluating forensic questions. (Last session, one of Governor Perry's appointees to the Board of Pardons and Paroles, Shanda Perkins, was scuttled on a bipartisan 27-4 vote, with some senators who'd voted for her in committee voting against her on the floor.)

I'd like to see Bradley's nomination rejected outright, but even if he stays on the Commission, the Lege should change the law to let commissioners select their own chair. There's an opportunity this session, either way, for the Forensic Science Commission to be reinvigorated with leadership that actually cares about accomplishing the agency's mission instead of thwarting it. Rejecting John Bradley's nomination would be a terrific first step toward that goal.

RELATED: See Grits arguments against Bradley's nomination and coverage of the hearing.

Questioning John Bradley: Forensic Science Commissioners up in Senate Nominations Monday

(UPDATED BELOW WITH DETAILS FROM THE HEARING) 

Governor Rick Perry's appointees to the Texas Forensic Science Commission are up in the Senate Nominations Committee tomorrow. Senators should use the forum to force Commission Chairman John Bradley to answer all the questions he's dodged in the past - especially about the ways in which he's delayed or shut down all the Commission's activities after his appointment in 2009. The other commissioners who are up IMO have done a good job; even if I haven't always agreed with them on every jot and tittle, I've never once thought they were acting in bad faith. That hasn't always been true of the chair.

There are lots of unanswered questions for the committee to ask Mr. Bradley. He only talks to friendly media and limits his comments to tightly constructed political barbs instead of honest answers to legitimate questions, so there's a lot of untrod ground to cover. The Dallas News published a list of written questions he repeatedly refused to answer, for example, on the grounds that they sounded like they came from a "New York lawyer." I supplied satirical responses on Bradley's behalf.

They could also check with members of the House Public Safety Committee, who asked Bradley to appear to answer questions but were snubbed with a no-show. There are plenty of unanswered questions out there if they start looking, and the nominations process would be a good place, finally, to get responses.

Regular readers will recall Bradley's first official act as chairman was to unilaterally shut down a long-scheduled hearing to evaluate arson science used in the Todd Willingham and Ernest Willis cases, a move which was widely interpreted as an effort by Bradley and the Governor to improperly delay an inquiry into faulty forensics used to justify putting Mr. Willingham to death until after the November 2010 elections. After Bradley made the rounds in the media calling Willingham a "guilty monster,"  he was scolded by other commissioners at an FSC meeting, where "six of the seven other commission members present at the meeting voiced disapproval or discomfort" with Bradley's statements. (When commissioners finally heard the expert testimony earlier this year, it was brutally damning.)

Having shut down not just commission investigations but a series of planned educational events, Bradley proceeded to railroad through a set of policies and rules at the next commission meeting, leaving all pending business off their agenda and giving commissioners only a single day after receiving a draft to vote on them. After wasting a full meeting securing votes for these policies, he pointed out that the AG advised the FSC has no rulemaking authority and that the rules and policies they'd just approved were only nonbinding guidelines that did not in any way restrain the commission. So in effect, Mr. Bradley stopped all the agency's productive activities to waste time debating and voting on policies he knew the agency had no authority to enact. In a post evaluating the Chairman's performance at that meeting, Grits accused Bradley of "Usurping power from commissioners," "Hijacking the meeting agenda," "Concealing key activities from commissioners," Wasting commissioners time," "Ignoring 'process'," and "Dissembling." I doubt any neutral observer who watched his bullying performance would disagree.

The only case the Commission has voted to accept since Mr. Bradley came onboard involved allegations against the Austin PD crime lab that several outside entities have already looked into and determined to be unfounded. I attended the screening committee meeting involving the case, where Dr. Nizam Peerwani, a medical examiner from Fort Worth who will also face the Nominating committee tomorrow, strongly argued that the case had no merit and the FSC shouldn't waste its time. But, as Grits then reported, "Bradley said the Commission needn't only be the bearer of 'bad news,' and that it would be worthwhile to 'deliver a positive message' to accredited labs that affirmed the value of their work." He also made a very legalistic argument: That the screening committee should only determine whether the elements of the complaint met the minimal threshold for consideration by the committee, but insisted they should not evaluate the merits. Peerwani's opinion that the complaint was meritless, said Bradley, was appropriate for discussion with the full board, but shouldn't be a consideration at the level of the Complaint Screening Committee (one of several committees created under the chairman's above-described policies and rules). Peerwani demurred, declaring his intention to recommend against investigating the case, and gave an "Aye" vote to allow consideration by the full Commisssion.

At the meeting where the FSC took up the case, though, Dr. Peerwani could not attend because he was required to testify in court back in Fort Worth. Bradlley promoted taking up the Austin case for the same reasons suggested at the Complaint Screening Committee, sending a positive message, etc., but did not tell his fellow commissioners about Dr. Peerwani's objections! As Grits reported, "Peerwani's rather strong objections to spending resources on the Austin case weren't voiced in absentia when it was discussed on Friday. Instead, his Aye vote at the screening committee was portrayed as an endorsement that the FSC investigate, which was the opposite of my impression from my memory and notes. Be that as it may, the case has been delegated to an investigative committee whose first meeting date has not been announced." I think the committee should ask Dr. Peerwani about his opinions on the Austin case and then compare it to the record from the January FSC meeting where Bradley laid out the Screening Committee's recommendation. (If they need it, the national Innocence Project recorded video of the meetings.). The episode was an example in microcosm of how the chairman has run the committee: Saying whatever he needs to to get his way, even to the point of transparently misrepresenting facts or the opinions of others.

Besides questioning Bradley on efforts to deflect and distract the Commissioners from productive consideration of forensics (their mission), his politicized budget and hiring decisions deserve close review. Bradley has insisted on pushing through the creation of a General Counsel position from the Commission's limited budget, despite the fact that the Attorney General was already providing those services for free. The problem: The AG was giving advice that would allow investigations to go forward that Bradley wanted to shut down. The AG lawyer advising the FSC has always said they have authority to investigate cases like Willingham, Brandon Moon, and others dating from before when accreditation was required, but Bradley has requested a formal AG opinion seeking to overrule that advice. That's the context in which I view the creation of this unneeded General Counsel slot at the FSC: The chairman seems to be shopping for a lawyer who will give him the advice he wants for political reasons instead of a legal interpretation that's correct, and if he can't get that from an AG lawyer he'll seek to replace her with an attorney who reports directly to him. Plus, the tactic has the added benefit of bleeding scarce funds available for investigations, which he clearly wants to stymie, anyway.

Otherwise, hiring an attorney as the main staffer at the FSC would be an odd choice since a lawyer gives the commission no expertise at its main task of evaluating forensics and the salary diverts money that otherwise would have been used for functions that get more directly at the Commission's core mission. The General Counsel slot was created in January using monies that remain unspent mostly because the chairman shut down all the FSC educational events and investigations during calendar year 2010. But there's no money in their budget for the position, and in fact both HB 1 and SB 1 - the House and Senate budgets - would reduce the FSC's budget by roughly the amount of the new General Counsel's salary. Leaving ideology aside, that's just poor management.

Finally, there's the chairman's assiduous penchant for secrecy, violating the open meetings act at his first meeting as chair and seeking to close FSC deliberations and records to the public at every possible turn, a tactic which was rebuffed by his fellow commissioners.

Speaking of whom, I think the other commissioners should be asked their opinion of Mr. Bradley's performance, his proposals for conducting business in secret, his insistence on revisiting past AG advice and commission decisions on jurisdiction, the propriety of conclusory statements on the Willingham case, etc.. Perhaps most importantly: Ask Bradley's fellow FSC commissioners if they should be allowed to select their own chair from among their number instead of having the Governor pick? I guarantee the FSC would run a lot less contentiously and get a lot more accomplished if the majority on the commission were allowed to select their own chair. Bradley's shenanigans have alienated just about everybody who's witnessed them.

UPDATE (2/28): The Houston Chronicle editorialized today that the Senate should reject John Bradley's nomination. They say the Williamson County DA has "obstructed real debate and instead proceeded to perpetuate the governor's political agenda. He has delayed hearings unnecessarily. He has shown disdain for members of the commission and witnesses. He has proven himself to be an enemy of science, refusing to ask that arson be subject to state-of-the-art scientific analysis." They conclude, "We believe John Bradley has shown himself unwilling to engage in true scientific inquiry. He does not merit reappointment and the Senate should reject him." The Chronicle's Peggy Fikac reports that, though he's not on the committee, state Sen. Rodney Ellis plans to participate in the questioning.

MORE: Kuff chimes in.

FROM THE HEARING (2/28): Bradley feels free to just openly insult Sen. Ellis, accusing him of a conflict of interest because he chairs the national Innocence Project. Ellis retorted that if that was the case, Bradley had a similar bias as a hyper-aggressive, know-it-all prosecutor. Bradley's comments were laced with sneers and insults aimed at Ellis about "your bias," causing Chairman Deuell to bang his gavel and insist on civility. I'm not sure he's doing his nomination chances any favors with this performance. The senate is a small club and they don't take kindly to their members being openly disrespected.

Sen. Jose Rodriguez also raised serious concerns, particularly regarding the appearance of bias from Bradley's public statements. Rodriguez also asked about whether the TFSC should hold its subcommittee meetings in public, but he appeared not to know that Bradley's fellow commissioners explicitly overruled the chairman and insisted those committee meetings be open. In December, Grits attended the very first public meeting of the Complaints Screening Committee, which under Mr. Bradley's original rules previously had been closed to the public. MORE: Sen. Ellis got Bradley to clarify that the meetings were previously closed and that the change to make them public was recent.

Here's a fun exchange:

Bradley to Sen. Ellis: "You watch my back, I'll watch yours."
Ellis (to much laughter): "I'm glad I've got my bulletproof suit on."

Public testimony was pretty darn good, including exoneree Anthony Robinson and Bill Allison from UT's innocence clinic, the latter particularly critical of JB's chairmanship on the FSC. Regrettably, though, the video kept going out during the final twenty minutes or so of the hearing (I was watching online), so it was difficult to take down details from what was said. 

All the other nominations on today's agenda were approved unanimously but Bradley's, and the Committee had to wait for Sen. Jane Nelson to come back to approve his, a sure sign the vote was particularly close. When Sen. Nelson returned, Bradley's nomination was approved on a 4-2 party line vote.

Video of this morning's hearing has been posted here (click on "February 28, 2011); the FSC portion began roughly fifteen minutes in.

AND MORE: See initial coverage of the hearing from the SA Express-News' Texas Politics Blog, the Austin Statesman, the Texas Observer, and the Lone Star Report. Statesman columnist Ken Herman has additional commentary and video highlights.

Spriggs won't take OJJDP gig

Vicki Spriggs of the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission has withdrawn her name from consideration for Director of the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). Here's the relevant portion of an email she sent out to TJPC staff earlier this week:

In recent weeks I have shared with audiences at various conferences I've addressed and with TJPC staff that I was approached by the White House Office of Personnel to determine my level of interest in appointment to the position of Director of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). I was honored to be considered for this appointment and to have the opportunity to serve the nation - so my name was vetted as a nominee.

I have recently withdrawn my name from consideration due to circumstances (budget issues and Sunset review) and timing (the approaching legislative session).

Since the creation of TJPC in 1981 we (TJPC and the field) have worked to professionalize juvenile probation. Our focus expanded in 1995 when the Texas Legislature overhauled the juvenile justice system, funded the increase in local and regionally operated secure post-adjudication beds, and invested other funding for juvenile probation services.

We/the field, focused on assuring an appropriate level of system response to juvenile offenders and developing and expanding community based services. Juvenile probation has achieved all of the goals established by the state's leadership between 1995 - 2007 and, in many cases, exceeded expectations.

2007 bought unexpected information forward; abuses were occurring in the state's institutions. As a result of this information the state's leadership began to rely on juvenile probation departments to divert even more youth from commitment to the state's institutions. Funding was increased and again juvenile probation departments exceeded expectations.

All of the success of the past will be part of the record considered as we enter the next legislative session; the looming budget shortfall, state agency budget reductions, the number of youth successfully diverted from commitment and the completion of the TJPC and TYC Sunset review are just a few of the issues that will be addressed.

I look forward to being HERE to address those challenges. My roots are Texas roots and my interests are Texas children and families and Texas juvenile justice.

Working together we can continue to keep justice and children first and foremost in our thoughts and planning and find a way to create wins during the next legislative session.

To say it succinctly, I am here for a long time to come.

Vicki

Still no Texas US Attorneys

A year and a quarter into the Obama administration, Texas still has no nominees for US Attorney. We had a nominee in the Eastern District who withdrew his name from consideration after months of delay, and now there's no telling when we may see these appointments, if they ever come at all. Morgan Smith at the Texas Tribune this morning sums up where we're at:

So what are the chances of the state getting a new nominee any time soon? The next best chance is the Western District’s Michael McCrum. According to a Senate staffer familiar with the process, his nomination is “forthcoming.” Along with Stevens, McCrum (who was also recommended by the Democratic House delegation) was on the list of nominees the Senators sent to the White House in early October. And, along with Stevens, he was the only candidate on the list who was also approved by the Democrats.

Once he secures the nomination, McCrum will have to endure the Senate confirmation process, which could last several months and could still result in his losing the nomination. The Senators and the House delegation have been unable to reach consensus on candidates in either the Northern and Southern districts, and now, with Steven’s withdrawal, the Eastern, meaning both factions may have to go back to the drawing board.

As time goes by, however, a U.S. attorney post becomes less attractive to possible candidates. "The deeper you go into an administration, the harder it is to get people to disrupt their lives, shut down their practices for maybe a year or two as U.S. attorneys, and say the Dems don't win” the next presidential election, says Coggins. “Then the person who has accepted the job for a year or two is back out on the streets — but they've got a one-year ban on lobbying their office and a lifetime ban on handling anything that was in the office, so it's a disruption to the practice for people to take the position."

After the hoopla in the Bush Administration over politicized US Attorney appointments, I've been surprised (bordering on appalled) at the delays. To me these are questions that should have been decided by Obama's transition team before he ever took office. Of course, it doesn't help that Texas' congressional delegation can't agree on any of the contenders, but partisan bickering is no excuse. The delay at this point begins to bespeak either incompetence or disregard.

An odd appointment to the Juvenile Probation Commission

Just before the holiday, Governor Rick Perry appointed three new members to the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission. Two of them seem routine enough: A lawyer who serves on a county juvenile board and a county commissioner with connections to CASA. But this description of the third appointee caught my eye:

Scott O’Grady of Dallas is a self-employed motivational speaker. He is a life member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. He served as a fighter pilot in the U.S. Air Force and was commissioned through the US Air Force Reserve Officers Training Corps program. O’Grady received a bachelor’s degree from Embry Riddle Aeronautical University and a master’s degree from Dallas Theological Seminary.

A "motivational speaker" for the Juvenile Probation Commission? Really? So I wondered, "Who is this guy?," and as usual Google is our friend. According to O'Grady's web page on a speakers' bureau site:

Shot down in war-torn Bosnia, Scott O’Grady shares the six-day, life-or-death ordeal that made headlines, inspired millions and taught us about preparation, teamwork and leadership.

An Air Force fighter pilot, Captain Scott O’Grady was shot down over Bosnia while helping to enforce the NATO no-fly zone in an F-16. Alone -- facing death, capture and the elements -- he discovered within himself the spirit to go on and relied on the skills learned during a lifetime of preparing for the unthinkable. From O’Grady’s compelling life-and-death story, audiences learn how to adapt, change and succeed even under the most daunting and trying of circumstances. Even while isolated behind enemy lines, Captain O’Grady remained a member of a carefully drilled team. He details the preparation, teamwork and leadership responsible for his survival and for his dramatic rescue by the U.S. Marines — qualities that are crucial to success in every facet of business and life. The ingenuity and fortitude that kept him alive in hostile territory for six days now inspires audiences to their own groundbreaking achievements.

Quite humorously, though, news accounts of his story don't quite jibe with the idea that "Even while isolated behind enemy lines, Captain O’Grady remained a member of a carefully drilled team." A story from the UK Independent published in 1995 about the episode was titled "All-American hero's errors bring NATO down to earth." Their description paints O'Grady's level of professionalism and preparedness in a different light:

The way he was shot down, and his inability to communicate with aircraft searching for him, have revealed many shortcomings, and the US Air Force will have to take a hard look at its pilots' training. ...

Capt O'Grady's first mistake was a matter of discipline - he took off dressed only in a flying suit and a T-shirt , not properly clad to eject and survive in a hostile environment.

The Bosnian Serbs apparently locked radar on to his F-16 fighter several times, but he continued circling when he should have known he had been picked up. Eventually, the Serbs launched an SA-6 missile ,guiding it towards his plane visually. A quick transmission from the radar was then enough to guide the missile to the plane in its final moments, blowing it in two.

Capt O'Grady did not, apparently, know how to use his survival radio or the Global positioning system. Eventually, he seems to have worked out how to use the aids by trial and error: had he been well versed in the drills, he could have been picked up days earlier, sources said. He also headed towards a reference point quite needlessly, showing a misunderstanding of basic procedures.

Pretty striking differences in those two accounts, huh?

Most recently, Mr. O'Grady obtained his seminary degree in 2007, has been giving speeches at "Tea Parties" and he wants to run for office, though he can't decide which one. He's got a very odd campaign website that promotes him as a leader for Texas, asks for contributions and volunteers, but strangely declines to say what office he's seeking. On his contributions page, it declares, "Scott needs your financial support to explore the opportunities to serve Texas at the State or National Level." I wonder if this was the opportunity he was exploring, and if so what he'll do with his contributors' money?

There's nothing on O'Grady's "Issues" page that would make you think he's ever given a second thought to juvenile justice. This seems like an appointment motivated by political patronage instead of experience and merits. It'll be more than a year before the Senate gets around to confirmation hearings on these appointees, but when they do, O'Grady's selection to the Juvenile Probation Commission probably deserves a second look.

UPDATE: Though the press release didn't say so, this was actually a reappointment, according to TJPC's website. O'Grady was already on the board, though according to meeting minutes he missed two of the last three board meetings. So it's not a new appointment, but it's still a strange one.

Forensic Science commissioner resigns to avoid revealing public info

Somehow I'd missed that one of Governor Perry's recent appointees to the Texas Forensic Science Commission - Bexar County Medical Examiner Randall Frost - had resigned in October just weeks after his appointment because he wouldn't reveal immediate family members' names or assets required on state ethics disclosures.

There's got to be more to this than was reported. Frost wrote in his resignation letter to Perry, "I am unwilling to disclose the names of my family members or the addresses of our residence, my spouse's business and our other properties, knowing that the information would then become public record." But that's a really strange claim. His home address and other property ownership is already a public record in real property records held by the county. If his wife owns a business, it is registered either with an assumed name certificate at the county or as a corporation with the Secretary of State. All the information he's afraid to disclose is public record already if anyone wanted to look. Of course, nobody had a reason to before now.

One also imagines part of the backstory may be that, when initially approached for the job, Dr. Frost didn't sign on for the kind of political fiasco initiated by new chairman John Bradley when he took over and immediately shut down all the agency's activities and ordered commissioners to delete all their email. Before then, the Forensic Science Commission was a sleepy little entity barely noticed by the press. All of a sudden, Frost found himself in one of the most high-profile appointments in state government, with reporters not just from Texas but both coasts focused intently on the commission's activities. The game had changed, and under the new rules he wanted out. That's how it looks, anyway.

In his place, Perry has appointed Tarrant County Medical Examiner Dr. Nizam Peerwani.

Rumor of the Day: Shanda Perkins for TYC Ombudsman?

This is probably idle speculation and I ignored it as highly unlikely when I first heard the rumor (which is all it is right now), but no fewer than three normally knowledgeable sources on juvie justice topics have suggested to me in the last week that the Governor's office is considering Shanda Perkins - the anti-sex toy activist who was rejected 27-4 by the Texas state Senate for a slot on the adult parole board - to replace the indicted ex-judge who was recently forced out of the Texas Youth Commission Ombudsman's slot.

I jokingly suggested this possibility back in May, but if these rumors are accurate there's somebody in the Governor's office who doesn't think it's a joke.

In some ways, I guess, it makes a certain sort of twisted sense. After Sen. John Whitmire shot down Perkins' nomination for the parole board on the Senate floor this spring, which was one of the Governor's more embarrassing moments of the 81st Texas Legislature, I suppose it wouldn't surprise me that much if Rick Perry returned the favor by depositing Ms. Perkins back squarely in the center of the Senate Dean's political wheelhouse. It'd certainly make for some interesting committee hearings.

If such a bizarre thing were to come to pass, here's my thinking on how it might play out. Basically, one of three things could happen: 1) Perkins might turn out to be better than her critics give her credit for and a conscientious religious person may be just what the position needs. 2) She could abuse the slot to proselytize to the kids in ways that would draw down litigation and send her packing just like her predecessor. Or, 3) perhaps most likely, as somebody with no relevant personal or professional background or clear sense of how to do the job, she could find herself in over her head and become a cipher, doing little good but probably little harm as well. At least she probably wouldn't smuggle weapons or drugs onto the units, which would be a plus.

The policy wonk in me says "Please, Governor, find somebody else." But another darker, less constructive part of me can't resist the urge to say, purely for the entertainment value, "Go for it, Governor! That'd be a hoot!" If nothing else it would probably boost my blog traffic. ;)

• Can't take a hint: Shanda Perkins back for Round Two
• Perkins nomination scuttled
• Parole board vacancy: Insert dildo joke here
• More disapprobation for Shanda Perkins nomination
• Senate should reject sex toy activist for parole board
  
• Nomination of anti-sex toy activist to parole board draws more criticism
• Governor appoints anti-sex toy crusader to parole board

Perry names Lubbock Sheriff to parole board

After Governor Perry's last nominee to the parole board was shot down by the Texas Senate, he's made an interim appointment likely to gain easy confirmation in 2011: Lubbock County Sheriff David Gutierrez resigned his post today to take a seat on the parole board. (Thanks to a reader from Lubbock for a heads up over the weekend that this was coming.)

Can't take a hint: Shanda Perkins back for Round Two

I'd seen this article in her hometown paper declaring Shanda Perkins, who the Texas Senate recently rejected by a 27-4 margin for a $95K per year slot on the Board of Pardons and Parole, thought there was still a chance for her nomination to get through this session, but it seemed like piling on to make too much of it. Yesterday, though, the Austin Statesman's Mike Ward reported that Ms. Perkins was meeting with senators in the capitol seeking to switch enough votes (she's 17 short) to resurrect her nomination in the 81st Legislature's waning days.

Asked about the chances of reviving her candidacy, Nominations Chair Mike Jackson told Ward, “What was the vote, 24-7? [Ed note: 27-4, actually.] She’s got a lot of work to do, I’d say.” Indeed she does, and not a lot of time left to do it in.

Photo via the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.