AUSTIN, Texas —
It happened behind closed doors.
Travis County District Attorney José Garza made an unusual request to county commissioners earlier this year.
“We have never run into such a situation,” Travis County Commissioner Margaret Gomez remembers thinking during a closed session briefing while Garza addressed the court. “It was all about needing to be safe."
Commissioner Ann Howard said the five-member commissioners court reviewed evidence showing someone posted Garza’s home address on social media.
On March 19, a nondescript item appeared on the commissioner’s agenda for executive session, stating commissioners would “receive a briefing and take appropriate action regarding Travis County security.”
After commissioners discussed Garza’s security in secret, they voted in public.
“I’d like to move to direct PBO to process a budget adjustment totaling $115,000 from the general fund allocation reserve – allocated reserve – as an automatic budget adjustment as discussed in executive session,” Howard motioned.
With no public discussion, Judge Andy Brown announced that the measure passed unanimously.
County records show $115,000 then moved to the Travis County District Attorney’s Office.
In multiple phone interviews, Howard acknowledged some of the money was earmarked for Garza’s home security. She said, “We talked a lot about it, and we are making sure what we are doing is warranted and prudent.”
Howard would not reveal what home security enhancements the county agreed to fund.
There are more questions than answers about the transaction that officials are hiding.
One reason: Paying for security measures at a district attorney’s home is an unusual benefit – one that, despite threats they receive, is not standard for state lawmakers, local or state judges, or federal prosecutors.
For weeks, the KVUE Defenders have tried to get answers about the $115,000 and what threats made it necessary.
“We are all about transparency. We say that all the time,” Commissioner Gomez said.
But Garza wouldn’t disclose that information in four phone conversations and said he would not comment on the KVUE Defenders' story.
County Judge Andy Brown, who presides over commissioners court and employs Garza’s wife as his chief of staff, cited his policy of not discussing security.
Commissioner Jeff Travillion told the Defenders he needed to refresh his memory and get back to us, but he never returned subsequent calls or texts.
Commissioner Brigid Shea said she “would not confirm or deny that the county allocated money for Garza’s home security.”
The KVUE Defenders submitted official public information requests to Travis County and the DA’s Office for records showing the specific threats to José Garza and what security expenses were necessary for him and his home. But the county refused to release those records and asked the Texas Attorney General for a ruling on whether or not the records should be released.
The lack of transparency has drawn criticism from open government advocates.
“I think they are concerned about some of their methods of security being released to the public, but that, I think, overshadows the public interest at stake. And often the government forgets about the public and what they should know and are concerned about their own interests,” said Michael Lambert, a First Amendment attorney who specializes in government transparency.
He added, “You do have taxpayer money being spent. You also have someone like the district attorney who is very public facing, so constituents should know what that person is doing and what public money is being spent for that person."
It is not unusual for judges and other officials to receive threats. Records show Travis County judges have gotten 194 since 2020 – 26 resulting in formal investigations.
Records show Garza reported two threats to the Travis County Sheriff’s Office in 2023: one, an email, was not considered a direct threat; the other, a letter, was referred to the postal inspector.
The Austin Police Department confirms it hasn’t responded to any reported threats at Garza's home.
Travis County has no policy for using taxpayer money for security enhancements to the homes of the district attorney, judges or other elected officials. But in 2021, the Texas Ethics Commission issued an opinion saying that elected officials such as Garza can spend campaign contributions on home security.
Attorney Bill Aleshire was the Travis County judge from 1987 to 1998. He disagrees with using public funds for a public official’s home security.
“I happen to know that there are other county officials who have used their own money to improve security at their home because of the nature of the position they're in,” he said. “They didn't ask for public funds.”
Aleshire said that vague security-related agenda item commissioners discussed in private – and later approved – was insufficient.
“It violated the Open Meetings Act. It was not specific enough,” Aleshire told the KVUE Defenders. “It did not alert the public that they were considering spending money on one particular public official's security, let alone the possibility that some portion – or all of – $115,000 was being used to make improvements to his personal property."
Aleshire also said whatever the county does, it should always be fair and transparent.
“Even for security, there needs to be some level of transparency so that the public knows how their money is being spent or how much money is being spent,” he said.
We followed up with the Travis Commissioners Court today requesting comment regarding the court's decision to fund Garza's security request and the lack of public transparency involved. Travis County Spokesperson, Hector Nieto replied with the following statement:
“It would not be appropriate to comment on specific security risks or the manner in which they are addressed. However, we take the safety and security of all Travis County elected officials, appointed officials, and employees very seriously and take appropriate steps as necessary.”
It will now take up to about 45 days before the Attorney General’s Office makes a decision on what records, if any, the county must release regarding the $115,000 that Garza’s office received.