Letter to the Editor
January 5, 2021
(Press Release) CONCERNS ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S PRESS RELEASE REGARDING RETAINING THE HON. JAIME IRACHETA ON HIS STAFF
TO THE PEOPLE OF MAVERICK COUNTY, TEXAS
AND OF THE 293RD JUDICIAL AND 365TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT WITH CONCURRENT JURISDICTION IN DIMMIT, ZAVALA AND MAVERICK COUNTIES, TEXAS:
Just yesterday, I read in the Eagle Pass Business Journal the Press Release issued by the Office of the District Attorney, 293rd Judicial District, under the administration of the Hon. Roberto “Bobby” Serna concerning his decision to “… keep Mr. Iracheta on our staff ….” Mr. Jaime Iracheta, of course, is the duly elected Maverick County Attorney and has constitutional and statutory duties that are created specifically for that public office. The same, of course, applies to the Office of the District Attorney no matter who is the current or future office-holder.
A fact very few citizens know about is that when the District Attorney refuses or has a conflict in acting against another office-holder in the county and/or district comprising the three aforementioned counties, the County Attorney in his jurisdictional county with the concurrence of the District Attorney has the authority to take a case before the Grand Jury of any of said three counties. While that is not likely to happen, it has occurred before when the undersigned was holding the office of County Attorney and the Hon. Amado J. Abascal, III, was the holder of the Office of District Attorney.
Furthermore, the Office of County Attorney has direct responsibilities with respect to the administration of the county where he serves and that may include matters unforeseen today where the purse strings of the county may place the county attorney in a position of having to render an opinion and/or consider taking some legal steps regarding the Office of the District Attorney which is funded if not in part often wholly by the County Commissioners Court which is presided by the County Judge. The County Judge may foreseeably have to hear a misdemeanor case against the District Attorney and in turn the District Attorney may have to consider a felony matter involving the County Attorney. While we hope this never happens, the appearance of potential improprieties is there and will always be there no matter who is serving in those two and distinct public offices, more particularly so when it concerns matters involving not just Commissioners Court, but any other public official.
Another concern is that the Office of County Attorney is a full-time position requiring the full attention of the office-holder; and if he or she has duties with another public office, even as an employee, he or she can or will become more beholden to one office’s activities than the other. It is best for the People of the three counties and the judicial districts to have two independent and full-time office-holders especially when both were elected to serve in one office. While not likely to happen, would it be proper for the District Attorney to accept a salaried position with the County Attorney? Perhaps Mr. Serna would say there is no conflict here, as well. He will have an opportunity to respond if he so desires, but as a citizen, as an officer of the court, and as a practicing attorney and counselor at law, I cannot refrain from challenging this situation even when the politics of each county were always rational and fair. It is best to have two independent office-holders fully dedicated to their respective elected offices.
In the end, it may have to be up to the People to decide whether they will or will not tolerate the plan our Honorable District Attorney is proposing to execute.
Cordially yours,
Alberto M. Ramon
Citizen and Attorney at Law
