Press Release
There is a power play happening behind closed doors.
Pulling Back the Curtain
In 2024, voters across the nation, including a resounding majority in Smith County, elected President Trump because he stood firm on transparency and accountability—principles that reject the corrupt status quo that drains taxpayers’ wallets. As your Precinct 1 Commissioner, I made the same promise: transparency, no matter the cost. It’s time to call out the cronyism and hidden agendas that have eroded trust in our government. I’m not here to protect the broken system—I’m here to fight for you, the taxpayer.
Today, I’m facing a significant challenge in fulfilling that promise. On February 14, 2025, Sheriff Larry Smith issued Directive LRS2-14-25, a sweeping order that prohibits his 400+ employees from communicating with me about anything related to the Sheriff’s Office. This retaliatory action, launched after I simply asked questions in Commissioners Court, strips me of the ability to do my job effectively. Worse, it threatens the rights of the very employees who serve us all, further lowering morale and poisoning the atmosphere in the Sheriff’s Office.
Timeline of Events
February 6, 2025: Sheriff Smith discussed his personal immigration policies at a town hall in North Tyler, raising concerns about alignment with Department of Homeland Security Policy.
February 11, 2025: In Commissioners Court, I questioned Sheriff Smith about a grant from the Office of the Governor that he wanted to apply for to obtain funds to purchase body armor. Grants come with strings and consequences for non-compliance. This grant required that the Sheriff’s Office comply with the Department of Homeland Security Policy or the grant would need to be refunded by the county to the Office of the Governor. The amount was over $100,000. I have a fiduciary duty to our constituents to protect their tax dollars from waste, fraud, and abuse. As a County Commissioner, I have a responsibility to oversee the county finances. Commissioners Court is made public for open discussions between court members and elected officials, department heads, and employees. The public has the right to know how and why their tax dollars are being spent. I was well within my rights to ask questions of the Sheriff. Failure to comply with the grant terms could result in an unbudgeted expense of taxpayer funds. His demeanor was agitated as I tried to clarify the conflict between the two policies. At one point he stacked his papers as if he was leaving the podium and stated, “I think I’ve answered the questions.”
February 12, 2025: Wanting to clear the air, I requested a meeting with Sheriff Smith. He canceled our scheduled meeting just before the appointment.
February 14, 2025: Sheriff Smith issued Directive LRS2-14-25 to all Sheriff’s Office employees, prohibiting his entire staff from communicating with me, with threats of termination for non-compliance.
February 16, 2025: I filed a Public Information Request (PIR) for the Sheriff’s emails that included my name.
February 19, 2025: I received the response to the PIR, which included the Directive, confirming its contents.
February 24, 2025: I met with Sheriff Smith to ask about the Directive. Chief Pinkerton came to fetch me from the Sheriff’s Office lobby. (Previously, they allowed me to escort myself to the 2nd floor but since I took office, they send someone to walk me up.) We discussed the Commissioners Court meeting and the Directive. In the end, I asked Sheriff Smith if he would reconsider the Directive or if it is permanent for my entire term. He said, “No, no, no.” I then asked, “So, how long is my punishment?” and Sheriff Smith said, “You’re going to have to behave.” He told me I needed to ‘behave’—as if I’d missed the county training video titled ‘How to Sit Quietly and Rubber Stamp Things.’ Spoiler alert: I didn’t sign up for that.
I left the meeting without any clarity as to what “behave” meant. Behave, how? By not asking questions that he doesn’t want to answer? By just voting yes to approve his budget requests on the agenda? What is it that he wants me to do to “behave” exactly? Is he trying to obtain a benefit for the Sheriff’s Office by threatening my ability to do my job? He didn’t define “behave” so I have no way of knowing how I will meet his expectations. I asked him for steps I could take to “behave” by his definition in a follow-up email but did not get any further clarification.
March 3, 2025: I tried to get an Attorney General’s Opinion on the Directive. There are 10 Authorized Requestors that can submit an AG’s Opinion request and the District Attorney was the only viable option in this case. District Attorney Jacob Putman declined to request an Attorney General’s Opinion for me. In our meeting, DA Putman explained that his office does not file AG Opinion requests regarding a question of fact. He added that even if they did submit the request, the AG’s Office would likely send it back. He offered his own opinion and said: “I don’t see any law that he broke by ordering people not to talk to you about Sheriff’s Office operations. There are lots of things that are not “good ideas”. Some of those “not good ideas” are against the law, and some of them are just not “good ideas”. So, I don’t think he broke any laws.” I’m not an attorney but I believe the question concerns the law. The Attorney General Opinion question is seeking clarification on the Sheriff’s legal authority under Texas Local Government Code and the scope of my constitutional duties as a Commissioner. Additionally, I suspect it would address the question of whether the directive restricts First Amendment rights of the employees. With District Attorney Putman’s denial of submitting the request, I am out of options to take that action.
April 2025: It has been over 60 days since the Sheriff’s gag order—Directive LRS2-14-25—was issued, and it still stands. I gave it time, hoping cooler heads would prevail, hoping Sheriff Smith might reconsider once the emotion of the moment passed. I also wanted to test the weight of this directive—would it truly hinder my ability to serve the people who elected me? The answer is now painfully clear: yes, it has.
This blockade hasn’t just limited my access to information—it has directly interfered with my constitutional and fiduciary responsibilities. I represent you—not just the citizens in Precinct 1, but all taxpayers in Smith County when it comes to budget oversight. I’ve attempted to ask fair, necessary questions about agenda items related to the Sheriff’s Office. I’ve been able to contact Sheriff Smith directly and get some satisfactory information to make an informed vote in Commissioners Court. On one occasion, I had to seek his permission to speak with staff, a hurdle no other department places in front of an elected Commissioner. In one case, I contacted a staff member, had one constructive conversation—and then silence. No response to follow-up questions. In other cases, emails copied to the Sheriff or his leadership team—particularly those unrelated to agenda items—have simply gone unanswered. This isn’t accidental—it’s deliberate and punitive. The message is clear: comply or be cut off. That’s not the standard of conduct we should expect from someone sworn to serve the public. It’s how political strongmen operate—and the taxpayers of Smith County deserve better. By blocking me, he’s not just silencing a Commissioner—he’s cutting off your right to know.
Silenced Heroes: Why It Matters
The Sheriff’s Office employs nearly half of Smith County’s workforce, including all personnel in the Jail, CID, Patrol, Courthouse Security, and the Administrative Staff. With budget season approaching, I had planned to engage with employees and staff to gather performance data, expenditures, and other necessary information. Over the past few months, I’ve been working closely with Sheriff’s Office employees to address the law enforcement concerns I’ve heard from my constituents. I’ve even participated in ride-alongs to better understand the challenges our officers face in the field and the obstacles preventing them from doing their best work.
This is what doing my job looks like: connecting with employees about their challenges, reviewing data and reports, and asking questions about their budget. However, under the current situation, all my information requests must go through Sheriff Larry Smith, who decides what I am allowed to know. Turns out, getting info from the Sheriff’s Office is like ordering from a menu where the chef decides what you’re allowed to eat.
Since last summer, I’ve built relationships with many employees within the Sheriff’s Office, but they are now afraid of losing their jobs just for speaking with me. These dedicated men and women risk their lives to protect the public. They stand between your family and dangerous criminals. Yet, under the leadership of our Republican Sheriff, their free speech is restricted, and their job security is threatened. When the Sheriff’s Office starts feeling more like a secret society than a public department, we’ve got a problem.
No one in law enforcement should ever feel more threatened by those within their own “brotherhood”. Sheriff Smith’s tactics are poisoning that brotherhood, using fear and intimidation to force these dedicated men and women into a political conflict they never asked for. They are simply trying to do their jobs and serve the public, while also providing for their families in these harsh economic times.
Three Major Issues
- Bullying Employees: Sheriff Smith threatens employees’ livelihoods, silencing those who protect our community. This undermines their free speech and creates a toxic work environment.
- Wasting Tax Dollars: Low morale and high turnover under Sheriff Smith’s leadership wastes taxpayer funds on rehiring and retraining.
- Undermining Governance: As equally elected officials, Sheriff Smith and I serve you. His Directive obstructs my oversight of the Sheriff’s budget and operations, harming all taxpayers.
Key Legal Questions
Is this Directive a violation of Texas Open Meetings Act Chapter 551?
The TOMA requires that the Commissioners Court conduct their business in a transparent manner. This Directive, prohibiting employee communications with me, interferes with my ability to perform my official duties overseeing county business and participation in discussions about the Sheriff’s Office. It is preventing me from accessing information necessary for public deliberation and could be seen as an attempt to circumvent the transparency and accountability mandated in the Texas Open Meetings Act. Obstructing a member of the court’s access to information could indirectly violate the spirit of the law.
Does the Directive interfere with the Commissioner’s Authority?
Under Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 81, the Commissioners Court is the governing body of the county with authority over budgetary and administrative matters, including oversight of the Sheriff’s Office. The Sheriff, as an elected official, operates with significant independence in law enforcement duties but the Commissioners Court retains control over the Sheriff’s budget and certain operational policies. Through my budgetary duties, I hold the Sheriff accountable to ensure responsible use of county resources. This Directive could be interpreted as an attempt to undermine my lawful oversight role, potentially violating the separation of powers within county government.
Does the Directive infringe on the Sheriff’s employee’s free speech rights and is it retaliatory?
Both the Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, and the U.S. Constitution, First Amendment, protect our inalienable right to free speech. The Sheriff’s employees are public employees, they retain limited free speech rights regarding matters of public concern, including Sheriff’s Office business. Prohibiting them from speaking to a Commissioner, a public official, about the Sheriff’s Office business might be seen as an unconstitutional restriction on their speech, especially if the Directive is retaliatory. If my “behavior” refers to me exercising my right to free speech – questioning the Sheriff in court, the Directive could constitute retaliation by the Sheriff towards me, further complicating its legality.
By issuing this Directive in retaliation for asking questions in court, is it an Abuse of Official Capacity?
Texas Penal Code, Section 39.02 defines abuse of official capacity as a public servant intentionally or knowingly misusing their position or authority. Issuing a directive to punish or silence me as a Commissioner based on the Sheriff’s definition of “behave” could be construed as an abuse of his authority. This might not only violate ethical standards but could also expose Sheriff Smith to criminal liability if the action is deemed to harm my ability to fulfill my duties or if his action misuses county resources (employee time) for a personal vendetta rather than a legitimate public purpose.
Has Sheriff Larry Smith violated his statutory duties?
The Sheriff’s duties under Texas Local Government Code, Section 85.001 et seq. include executing legal processes, maintaining peace, and managing the county jail but do not extend to controlling or obstructing the lawful functions of other elected officials. By targeting a Commissioner and adding the condition on removing the Directive on my “behavior”, the Sheriff might have exceeded his statutory authority, potentially violating the legal boundaries of his office. This overreach could also conflict with the principle that elected officials must work collaboratively within the county government structure.
Is this action by the Sheriff a potential civil rights violation?
If the Directive disrupts my ability to represent my constituents or participate in county governance, the directive might infringe on my rights as an elected official, potentially giving rise to a civil rights claim under state or federal law (e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Does it deprive me of a protected right, such as equal participation in governance, without due process?
Now, I’m not a lawyer—but I do know when something smells more like political payback than public policy.
My Commitment to You
I’ve exhausted all avenues that could remedy this issue—meeting with the Sheriff, consulting with the District Attorney, and informing other officials of the situation. Even our County Judge Neal Franklin is aware of this document. Yet the Directive remains in full force.
Sheriff Smith has a pattern of reacting impulsively when other elected officials or appointed officers try to hold him accountable. I’ve been told he used similar tactics in the past—targeting both a former County Judge and a former County Auditor.
The repeated use of such heavy-handed tactics risks setting a dangerous precedent for Texas, threatening liberty, transparency, and accountability. Is Smith County alone in having a sheriff who wields this degree of control over another elected official, or are similar power plays unfolding behind closed doors in other counties?
My message has always been that I stand for transparency and accountability in our government, no matter the cost. When I took the Oath of Office, on the Bible of the Revolution, I knew what I was swearing to do for my constituents and the citizens of Smith County. There wasn’t a doubt in my mind that my integrity and principles would be tested in this job.
I am committed to bringing the truth to light with courage and openness, engaging directly with you, the voters, rather than keeping these challenges in private. I have a fiduciary duty to protect our taxpayers. And in that effort, taking a stand for our valuable employees working in this toxic environment is imperative.
When our law enforcement officers are supported and empowered—not silenced—they serve you better, and your tax dollars go further. But right now, good people are caught in the middle of a political dispute they didn’t ask for.
This isn’t just about one Directive. It’s about whether elected officials answer to the public—or to their own egos. It’s time for Sheriff Smith to withdraw the Directive and allow me to fulfill my responsibilities to you, the taxpayers of Smith County.
If transparency matters, if accountability matters—speak up. Call Sheriff Smith, Judge Franklin, and District Attorney Putman. Remind them they don’t work for each other. They work for you.
The Texas Constitution says:
“All political power is inherent in the people.”
You are the people. And you still hold the power to demand better from your government.
Sheriff Smith: 903-590-2661
Judge Franklin: 903-590-4625
District Attorney Putman: 903-590-4605
Please be respectful and kind to the receptionists when you call.
Onward for His Glory,
