Espinoza withdraws from council race, Plum Creek resident enters

Jesse Espinoza, the former Kyle police sergeant fired for insubordination who then sued the city in attempt to get his job back, has dropped his bid for a spot on the city council after “speaking with my attorney.” In a separate action, Ashlee Bradshaw, active in the Plum Creek neighborhood, has filed to oppose Planning & Zoning Commissioner Tim McHutchion in the District 4 race.

With the deadline for filing just four days away, that leaves five persons running in three races. Mayor Travis Mitchell and District 2 council member Tracy Scheel are seeking re-elections to second terms. Scheel is opposed by Yvonne Flores-Cale, who failed to unseat council member Dex Elllison in last year’s council election. McHutchion, the manager of a local self storage location and a member of the city’s Planning & Zoning Commission, and Bradshaw, active in the Plum Creek Homeowners Association and the Negley Elementary School PTA, are opposing each other for the seat being vacated by Alex Villalobos who defeated McHutchion three years ago, right around the time Bradshaw moved to Kyle.

Espinoza sent an e-mail to City Secretary Jennifer Holm yesterday saying “After reviewing the City of Kyle City Charter and speaking with my attorney I would like to withdraw my name from the District 2 Council seat.” 

Disgraced former police officer joins city council race

Jesse Espinoza, indefinitely suspended from the Kyle Police Department for “insubordination, untruthfulness, violating the city’s Code of Ethics, conduct prejudicial to good order, conduct bringing discredit to the department or profession” and several other offenses, has filed to run against incumbent Tracy Scheel in the District 2 city council election.

Yvonne Flores-Cale, who failed to unseat council member Dex Ellison in last year’s election, has also filed papers to oppose Scheel in the November elections.

Espinoza was indefinitely suspended from the Kyle Police Department on May 15, 2015 on charges he lied to investigators concerning allegations he conspired with Louisiana anesthesiologist Dr. Glen Hurlston to have Kyle Police Chief Jeff Barnett fired. Espinoza appealed the suspension but it was upheld March 2, 2018, by Civil Service hearing examiner Paula Ann Hughes who wrote: “The City has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Espinoza violated numerous rules, orders, codes and policies of the City of Kyle. There is no mitigating circumstance that causes this to be an exception to proper police procedures and behavior. Having Espinoza reinstated to the department would impact the morale and efficiency of the department in a negative manner.”

In a somewhat ironic touch, Hughes also wrote in her decision: "Espinoza stated he was the third most important person in Kyle and he acted like the rules, procedures and processes did not apply to him. The City Council runs the city, not one policeman."

Now Espinoza is seeking to trade in that role of one policeman for a spot on the city council.

 

Hearing examiner upholds Espinoza suspension

In a ruling in which she "sustained" almost every charge the city brought against former Kyle Police Sgt. Jesse Espinoza, hearing examiner Paula Ann Hughes, in a ruling released late today, upheld Espinoza’s suspension from the force, writing "Espinoza violated numerous rules, orders, codes and policies" of the city and reinstating him would negatively "impact the morale and efficiency of the (police) department."

Espinoza has 10 days to appeal the ruling, which is unequivocal in its condemnation of Espinoza’s actions and the reasons for his dismissal.

Jesse Espinoza

The judge sustained the charges against Espinoza of insubordination, untruthfulness, violating the city’s Code of Ethics, conduct prejudicial to good order, conduct bringing discredit to the department or profession and many others.

"The City has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Espinoza violated numerous rules, orders, codes and policies of the City of Kyle," Hughes wrote. "There is no mitigating circumstance that causes this to be an exception to proper police procedures and behavior. Having Espinoza reinstated to the department would impact the morale and efficiency of the department in a negative manner. The indefinite suspension is upheld."

Hughes’ ruling came in a case in which Espinoza appealed his May 15, 2015 indefinite suspension by acting Kyle Police Chief Charles Edge. Espinoza was seeking reinstatement to the Police Department along with back pay and benefits.

Kyle city spokesperson Kim Hilsenbeck, the person who made Hughes’ ruling public today, said "the city will not be making any comments/statements about the ruling at this time."

The ruling claimed Espinoza essentially conspired with Louisiana anesthesiologist Dr. Glen Hurlston to have Police Chief Jeff Barnett fired. According to the examiner’s report, Hurlston was angered because Barnett fathered a child Hurlston originally believed was his and Espinoza was hoping his long-time friend, Joe Munoz, would be named chief in May 2011 when Barnett was named to that position..

De. Glen Hurlston

"Caught in a web of Hurlston’s anger and desire to bring down Barnett, Espinoza made some poor choices and decisions," Hughes wrote. "For some reason Espinoza felt he had rights and privileges he did not have."

"Espinoza stated he was the third most important person in Kyle and he acted like the rules, procedures and processes did not apply to him," Hughes wrote. "The City Council runs the city, not one policeman."

On the charge of ethics violations, the judge wrote: "By spreading rumors with a private citizen while on duty, damaging Barnett in a public way about a private matter that occurred in another city, aligning with Hurlston who was suing the city, all constitute violations of the Code of Ethics.

Espinoza tried to claim that he should be reinstated because many of the charges against him occurred beyond Civil Service’s 180-day statute of limitations. The hearing examiner did not buy that argument. "The questions asked by Chief Edge (that led to Edge’s suspension of Espinoza) were to be answered truthfully," Hughes maintained. "He was not being suspended because of events prior to the 180-day rule but he was being suspended because he did not answer questions completely and truthfully in the investigation."

City paints portrait of corrupt cop

City attorneys presented testimony today that described fired Kyle police sergeant Jesse Espinoza as insubordinate, physically and verbally abusive and intimidating to elected city officials, and an officer who neglected his responsibilities to uphold the law.

The testimony, from the mayor, the city’s two most senior council members, an assistant city manager and a member of the Citizen Police Academy’s alumni association, came during the opening day of an arbitration hearing demanded by Espinoza as part of his attempt to reverse his indefinite suspension two years ago. Espinoza’s side has yet to present any witnesses of its own. Although Espinoza’s attorney, Grant Goodwin, has not publically outlined his case, it appears he will attempt to argue Espinoza’s dismissal was not for cause, but in retaliation for his ongoing campaign against Kyle Police Chief Jeff Barnett, which Espinoza engaged in, according to Goodwin, to protect the department from Barnett.

Barnett has yet to testify and neither has the person likely to be the city’s most important witness, Ellis County Sheriff Charles "Chuck" Edge, who, as acting Kyle police chief in May 2015, signed the order indefinitely suspending Espinoza, presumably for insubordination.

Assistant City Manager James Earp dealt directly with that insubordination claim during today’s hearing, testifying Espinoza refused in 2014 to turn over documents Earp demanded Espinoza surrender.

"He never delivered the documents that I directed him to submit," Earp said.

"Did you consider his non-responsiveness to constitute a violation of a city or departmental directive," the city’s attorney, Bettye Lynn, asked Earp.

"I consider that to be insubordination," Earp replied. "If I direct someone to do something and they refuse to do so, that’s insubordination."

Mayor Todd Webster testified he was "upset" when he awoke one morning to find a uniformed Espinoza standing in his living room and didn’t believe the reason Espinoza gave for entering his home unannounced. The incident occurred in 2007 when Webster was the District 6 city council representative and was basically commuting between Kyle and Ohio, where his father was on his deathbed.

"I had come home from one of my trips to Ohio and I had gotten in late," Webster testified. "I pulled my car into the garage and had laid down on the couch in our front living room, turned on the TV and I guess fell asleep. I awoke the next morning. It was light outside. I can’t say exactly what time it was, but I would guess it was around 8-ish, around the time most people would normally be going to work. And I awoke to a noise and I found Mr. Espinoza standing in my house.

"I was startled, I got up pretty quickly and asked him what he was doing in my house. His answer was that he had noticed that my car was not in the driveway and when he checked my doorknob and the door was unlocked, he felt that was suspicious enough to give him the authorization to come in my home.

"I was upset about it, of course and I certainly didn’t accept the explanation and asked him to leave. And he did."

When Lynn asked Webster whether he had an opinion on whether Espinoza "should be returned to the police department," the mayor replied:

"I do. He shouldn’t be returned to the police department. Based on my personal interactions with Mr. Espinoza, if that’s indicative of how he conducts himself and the way he interacts with other people on a day-to-day basis, it would serve to undermine the public’s confidence in the police department. I also think there’s a potential for morale issues in the department if he returned at a time when the department, at least from my view, has made great strides in getting to a place where the community can be really proud of it."

Earlier in the day council member Becky Selbera testified Espinoza almost ran her over in his Tahoe police vehicle as she emerged from a council meeting in which the council made a decision over Espinoza’s objections to hire a police lieutenant, who would have direct supervision over Espinoza on the night shift. Her council colleague, David Wilson, testified that Espinoza was so verbally abusive to him following a council meeting, another police officer, Sam Valverde, had to pull Espinoza away from Wilson. Selbera said she witnessed that altercation and supported Wilson’s version of the encounter.

Bill Sinor testified when he was on a neighborhood watch patrol in December 2014 he was on a cul-de-sac road when "Espinoza drove in, on duty, and we were sitting driver’s window to drive’s window and a vehicle pulled into the subdivision with its headlights on, but obviously no rear lighting at all." He said he brought this to Espinoza’s attention and that Espinoza turned his head, saw the vehicle in question, and then turned back to Sinor and said "Maybe I’ll get him later."

"Were you aware that in the termination notice he was charged among other things with neglect of duty?" Lynn asked Sinor.

"I have heard that," the witness replied.

"Did that appear to you to be him neglecting his duty?" the attorney asked.

"I would say it was, yes," Sinor answered.

Earlier Sinor testified that Espinoza told him that when Kyle was looking for a new police chief, Espinoza wanted Joe Munoz hired over Barnett because Munoz had promised Espinoza he would promote him to captain.

Hurlston wrongfully accuses Espinoza's lawyer of lying to hearing examiner

Dr. Glen Hurlston, the Louisiana anesthesiologist implicated in the legal case of former Kyle Police officer Jesse Espinoza, is claiming Espinoza’s attorney lied when he told a federal examiner hearing Espinoza’s appeal that a gag order prevented Espinoza from getting a fair hearing.

Attorney Grant Goodwin sought and won a continuance in Espinoza’s hearing earlier this month by convincing hearing examiner Dr. Paula Ann Hughes that a gag order issued in connection with a lawsuit Hurlston has filed against the City of Kyle, Kyle Police Chief Jeff Barnett and others prevented Goodwin from eliciting the testimony he needed from Barnett.

"Let me enlighten you their (sic) is no gag order because it was issued by a lower court which dismissed the case so it no longer is in effect," Hurlston, using his favorite alias "Law Abiding Citizen," said Saturday in an e-mail. "The case is in a higher court so Barnett Attorney (sic) are hiding behind a gag order they know isn't inforceable (sic) or even applicable anymore."

However, an independent verification I conducted today with legal officials involved in the suit argues that Hurlston’s claims are simply not true. It is true the gag order was issued in a lower court case which was decided then appealed to a higher court. However, the legal sources in Fort Worth and Dallas I talked to today said the gag order accompanied that appeal and, thus, is still in effect.

It’s also strange that Hurlston would, in effect, call the attorney of someone representing the person alleged to be his co-conspirator in a plot to discredit Barnett a liar. However, in all fairness, I must add that Hurlston added language in his e-mail to suggest he was actually calling me a liar for writing a story suggesting Hurlston was defying the gag order by threatening to sue the City of Kyle until "I will bankrupt them into submission." The last sentence of Hurlston’s e-mail to me, in response to that story, said "So everything you said is just simply a lie an (sic) I am a Law Abiding Citizen and a (sic) stand by everything I said with proof unlike the author of this post who made many misleading statements."

Regardless of his motivations, his apparent misstatement that "their (sic) is no gag order" directly contradicts what Goodwin told Dr. Hughes and others at the opening day of the re-hearing on the appeal of Espinoza’s indefinite suspension and later dismissal from the Kyle Police force on grounds of insubordination. And one of the attorneys I spoke with today told me I was absolutely correct to interpret Hurlston's comments as ones calling Goodwin a liar. One of the allegations against Espinoza is that he accepted cash and family vacations among other things from Hurlston in return for providing the doctor inside information that could be damaging to Barnett in the lawsuit Hurlston filed against Barnett, Kyle and others.

Doctor, defying gag order, threatens to “bankrupt” Kyle “into submission”

Louisiana anesthesiologist Dr. Glen Hurlston, writing under the nom de plume "Law Abiding Citizen" to draw further attention to the fact he isn’t one, has sent this blog a note that not only defies a court-sanctioned gag order, but basically admits that all the legal action he and his cohort in intimidation, former Kyle police officer Jesse Espinoza, have filed are without merit and designed solely to outlast the City and coerce it into giving them a huge financial settlement.

This latest letter, which I interpreted as a direct threat, is one of many Hurlston has sent me using both his real name and his favorite masquerade all of which seem to be in direct violation of a gag order imposed on all parties involved a lawsuit Hurlston filed in December 2013 against the City of Kyle, the City of Princeton, Kyle Police Chief Jeff Barnett, Princeton Police Lieutenant Robert Mtchnik and others alleging a string of "unlawful police actions" resulting in "significant and severe emotional distress; physical pain and suffering; emotion pain and distress; loss of income; and other damages."

Espinoza was suspended from the Kyle police force on charges he supplied Hurlston with inside information on Barnett and in return for family vacations with Hurlston in San Antonio and Florida as well as a $5,000 contribution to Espinoza’s on-line fund-raising campaign to help pay for his son’s cancer treatments. Espinoza’s appeal of that suspension was delayed indefinitely last week, ironically because the hearing administrator believed a full and "clean" hearing on the matter would be impossible because the gag order that Hurlston continues to violate would limit full and complete testimony from Chief Barnett. What’s even more ironic is that the motion for the continuation, until after Hurlston’s suit is settled, was made by Espinoza’s attorney, lending further credence to the idea that Hurlston’s and Espinoza’s legal strategy is simply stretch out the legal actions so long the city will give up and cry "mercy" because of the expenses involved.

Hurlston’s latest letter to me was in response to an item I wrote for this blog about Kyle’s November sales tax revenues. The letter stated:

"Ask them how much they spent in lawyers defenses with Barnett and three more lawsuits yet to be filed all supported by myself. I will bankrupt them into submission. You see it cost me about ten dollars for every thousand they spend in legal cost. The reason is they use a corrupt law firm no one else will be their lawyer and play their corrupt game. I will force the city into the tens of millions."

Hurlston revealed himself to be "Law Abiding Citizen" in an earlier e-mail he sent me Nov. 14 using the phony moniker: "…my name is Glen Hurlston and I have no fear of the bogus gag order they are hiding behind because Barnett unlike myself is afraid to testify because he is guilty and would be caught in his lies and trying to explain his actiomd (sic) while he had nr (sic) falsely arrested. Glen Hurlston M. D."

To avoid appearances of conflict of interest, Kyle officials convinced former Waxahachie Police Chief Charles Edge to oversee KPD’s investigation of Espinoza. On Nov. 6, Hurlston wrote this e-mail to me concerning Edge, whom Hurlston called (the misspelling is Hurlston’s) "a well knoe idiot.":

"Has (sic) I recalled you wrote an article on what Chief Edge said that Jessie ESPINOZA lied about. Edge asked him if he spoke to me the night of city council meeting and he rrsponded (sic) he probably did. That's because it was a year earlier and Jessie being the officer he is he would have to check his phone records to make sure but said he probably did contact me. At that point Yge (sic) acting Chief Edge which by the way was brought in by the same law firm to prosecute Jessie and was a hired gun claimed he lied because he should have said yes. Absolutely absurd reasoning but chief Edge is a well knoe (sic) idiot in his town. He also said he can tell Jessie was lying because he would look to his left. Well he didn't realize Jessie is left handed and if you believe in that nonsense in the first place than being left handed makes a different (sic). Chief Edge what can you say about this guy the evidence and his testimony speak for itself."

In an e-mail dated March 17, meant, he wrote, for "City of Kyle Council members and others," Hurlston wrote this about Edge: "Chief Edge was by no means an impartial neutral party but yet a hired gun to eliminate Jessie Espinoza from the police force."

In another letter, dated Oct. 31, which I personally found particularly disgusting and offensive on Hurlston’s part because of disparaging comments he made about my son, an outstanding man of the highest character Hurlston has never even met, the doctor wrote the following in response to my story on Espinoza’s latest lawsuit: "I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt because you are probably drinking the city koolaid. But if you had a copy of the arbitration hearing that the city has refused to release even though ordered to do so by the Texas attorney General you would no (sic) that Mr. ESPINOZA Never lied and neither did I when I testified in federal depositions or in the arbitration that I had gifted him 5000 dollars for his child ridden with cancer. Your son who is a chiropractor doesn't understand true illness and the cost of real medical therapy and apparently you don't either. But what I find more disgusting is the use of this child cancer and the donation I made to rid of it is being used by the likes of people like you and Barnett to hide the real truth. This city lies and the police lie to cover their criminal activity and now you have lied."

Hurlston’s words speak for themselves.

Continuance granted in Espinoza hearing

Saying her "interest is in a clean hearing," examiner Dr. Paula Ann Hughes granted former Kyle Police Sgt. Jesse Espinoza’s request for a continuance today in the arbitration hearing stemming from his suspension from the force because, she said, a gag order issued in a related lawsuit could prohibit Espinoza’s attorneys from obtaining complete  testimony from Kyle Police Chief Jeff Barnett. Dr. Hughes did, however, stop the clock on back pay that might be awarded to Espinoza should he win his appeal.

The decision leaves the case somewhat in limbo, although Bettye Lynn, the attorney representing the city in the arbitration hearing, indicated the city might want to press forward with a hearing on a related issue. Lynne told me after the hearing it is her policy not to talk on the record with the media and attempts to reach officials at City Hall have so far proved unsuccessful, but I’m guessing even if they could be reached their answers would be something along the lines of "We really can’t comment on any of this until we consult with our attorneys." I’ve been involved in enough matters of this sort to know how the game is played.

Dr. Hughes’s decision was predicated around a gag order imposed in connection with a federal lawsuit filed in December 2013 by Louisiana anesthesiologist Dr. Glen Hurlston against Chief Barnett, the cities of Kyle and Princeton, Texas, and other police officers in Princeton, a town of about 6,800 located just east of McKinney in North Central Texas. Barnett was the chief of police in Princeton before assuming his current position here.

Without getting into details about the suit and all the allegations surrounding it, Espinoza’s attorney Grant Goodwin argued today Espinoza would be denied a fair hearing because the gag order instituted against all the parties in that suit would prohibit him from eliciting the testimony he needed from Barnett. Goodwin’s original motion asked for a continuance until all legal matters had been decided — including a federal lawsuit Espinoza recently field against the City of Kyle — but Dr. Hughes stressed "the issue is the gag order" and that she was granting the continuance only until such time as the Hurlston lawsuit is decided.

"My objective is to provide a just hearing," she said in her ruling, "If I can’t get the whole story, I can’t make a fair decision."

Espinoza is seeking to receive all back pay lost because of his suspension. Dr. Hughes ruled back pay would not be counted between today and when the court makes its decision in the Hurlston suit.

This hearing was necessitated because the hearing examiner who heard Espinoza’s original appeal died before he could render a decision. Goodwin maintained he was denied the opportunity to properly cross-examine Barnett during that first hearing because the chief was accompanied by attorneys who objected to testimony that could conflict with the gag order.

Lynn tried to argue the gag order in the Hurlston suit was not applicable to the proceedings in Kyle because that lawsuit involved Barnett’s actions before he came to Kyle. Dr. Hughes said, however, she wasn’t sure the two could be separated that easily.

"I operate on the fact that I would like as clean a hearing as possible and that’s what I want to happen," Dr. Hughes said. "We don’t even know what Chief Barnett would testify to today if a gag order wasn’t in place and those attorneys weren’t there. We just don’t know. If we knew, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. And that’s where I see the limitations. He was limited before and he may say exactly the same thing or he may not. I don’t know that. That is the dilemma here."

"I must have the opportunity to make sure my client receives a fair hearing at a later date," Goodwin told the examiner. "We know from the last time we could not get a fair hearing. We know the limitations from what happened at the earlier hearing. We know we’re not going to be presented with our fair day in court if we proceed."

"You make some very good points," Dr. Hughes told Lynn, "but my interest is in a clean and fair hearing, and I don’t feel we can ignore the fact that Mr. Goodwin feels that he didn’t have as fair and clean access to Chief Barnett as he should have for the benefit of his client."

Although Lynn would not make a public statement after the ruling, Goodwin told me "I know eventually we will breach the issues, but today this was the correct decision based upon the playing field and wanting to make it fair for my client."

Today’s hearing was an appeal of Barnett’s decision in February 2015 to place Espinoza’ on administrative leave. He was later dismissed from the force by a police chief temporarily assigned to head the Kyle Police Department who said Espinoza was guilty of insubordination. Lynne hinted during the hearing the city might decide to press forward with the appeal of that dismissal decision because, she indicated, that would make any testimony concerning the Hurlston lawsuit and its gag order irrelevant.

Espinoza’s suit claims city violated his freedoms of speech, assembly, privacy, due process

Former Kyle Police Sergeant Jesse Espinoza, indefinitely suspended from the force in May 2015 for insubordination, filed a suit against the City of Kyle last week in federal district court claiming the city violated his freedoms of speech, assembly, privacy and due process and asks for money from the city "in an amount sufficient to do substantial justice," the exact amount to be determined by the jury he is seeking to decide the case.

The suit argues these actions by the city are contrary to the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which grants the U.S. District Court of Western District of Texas jurisdiction in the case.

The suit claims the city violated Espinoza’s freedom of speech by "discriminating against" him "based on the content and viewpoint of his speech," specifically by not sufficiently listening to Espinoza’s claims against Kyle Police Chief Jeff Barnett.

He is claiming the city violated his rights of privacy by issuing subpoenas to obtain cell phone records from both his and wife’s cell phones. In addition , the suit claims the city "fraudulently signed the name of the Hearing Examiner" to one of those subpoenas. "Kyle took advantage of the Hearing Examiner's failing health to its benefit and Plaintiff's detriment and harm," the suit claims..

The suit claims Espinoza was denied due process because the city dismissed him for actions that took place more than 180 days from the date on which he was suspended and that city never seriously looked at material Espinoza gave the city regarding Chief Barnett, information the suit describes as "a matter of importance and public concern." The city has argued that Espinoza was not dismissed because of incidents that occurred more than six months before his dismissal but because he lied immediately prior to his dismissal when he was questioned about those incidents.

The suit fails to describe how the city violated his right of assembly.

Espinoza appealed his suspension and an arbitration hearing, presided over by Examiner Michael McReynolds, began Sept. 29, 2015 and ended a year ago tomorrow. However, McReynolds died of cancer Feb. 29, before he could render a decision on the case.

Although the city has yet to post any official confirmation of this, I have heard a second arbitration hearing on Espinoza’s appeal is scheduled to begin next week. There is also no word on whether Espinoza’s federal lawsuit will have any impact on the arbitration re-hearing. The Kyle City Council did spend almost an hour discussing the lawsuit in executive session Tuesday evening during its regularly scheduled meeting.

The entire episode reads like the plot of a Grace Metalious novel. A few, but definitely not all, of its more lurid details can be found in this story that appeared a week ago in the Austin American-Statesman along with this one published in May, and especially this one that appeared last May in the Austin Chronicle. Happy reading.

I would have asked the City for its response to the lawsuit but having dealt with these matters of this kind for many more years than I dare to count, I know in advance the city's response would be it doesn't comment on matters in litigation.

Why Kyle has an acting police chief

I have seen questions as well as suggested answers to those questions floating around social media concerning the reasons the City Council felt it was necessary to temporarily appoint Kyle police Capt. Pedro Hernandez as its chief. These questions and mostly erroneous answers were in response to a newspaper headline that screamed "Kyle Police chief placed on leave." The automatic reaction of many who saw that headline was "What did Chief Jeff Barnett do that was so wrong?". The simple answer is "absolutely nothing."

I have written before about how, especially when it comes to the public’s view on government, perception reshapes reality. The explanation for why this action was taken was because the city did not want an action that’s about to take place viewed as petty retaliation and so city leaders took steps to shape the public’s perception of what is about to take place so that it more closely conforms to reality.

Let me explain by briefly going back to near the beginning of this drama — a drama featuring two lead characters, Chief Barnett and former Kyle Police Sgt. Jesse Espinoza. There are supporting characters involved, but right at the start, let’s concentrate on the dynamics between Chief Barnett and Sgt. Espinoza. I first met Sgt. Espinoza, who was then head of Kyle’s police association, early Saturday morning, Nov. 15, 2014, when the City Council was meeting in executive session to interview the finalists for the then-open position of city manager. Espinoza was actively seeking to talk to then acting city manager James Earp as well as anyone else he felt might give him a receptive ear claiming he held in his hand documents that so incriminated Barnett the city would have no other choice but to fire the chief. At the time, I had lived in Kyle only 31 days. I had just moved here from Dallas where for many years I held a rather prominent position with the City, a position that offered more opportunities than I would have wished for to interact with the internal politics of a police department, not only the Dallas PD but that of many of the nearby cities and towns as well. One of my takeaways from that interaction was the realization that, while certainly not a part of the written job description, it was the ultimate goal of the head of every police association known to mankind to get the police chief fired. The poor Dallas police chief had to deal with seven — count ‘em — seven different police associations within his department, most if not all of whom were hunting for his scalp. Nothing personal, mind you. It’s just what they did. On that particular Saturday morning I simply waved off Espinoza’s actions as nothing more than "That’s just what police association heads do."

I subsequently learned, however, there was more to it than that here in Kyle. Espinoza had actively campaigned against Barnett even being hired by the City of Kyle, for reasons I won’t go into now but you might get a better picture of by reading this.

As time went on, it came to the attention of certain individuals that Espinoza may have acted in a way that warranted disciplinary action being taken against him. The rule is, however, that kind of disciplinary action in connection with any police officer in just about any municipal police department must be meted out by the police chief. That’s where the perception problem came into play. The city was concerned, and justly so, the perception of Barnett disciplining Espinoza could be framed as retaliation. So to avoid that perception, the city placed Barnett on administrative leave (in other words, suggested he take a couple of weeks off) and brought in a former police chief from Waxahachie, Charles Edge, to conduct the investigation the city hoped would provide the necessary evidence to kick Espinoza off the force.

And Edge provided just that. Espinoza, however, appealed that suspension and that appeal was heard by an independent labor and employment administrator named Michael B. McReynolds of Fort Worth. Testimony in those appeal hearings ended last November and McReynolds said he hoped to have his written ruling on the matter prepared sometime during the first quarter of this year.

McReynolds, however, was in failing health and he died last month before he could officially announce his decision. That left the city with two options: It could either shell out of big chunk of (taxpayers’) money to make the situation disappear or it could start over from scratch. The city decided to pursue the second option.

Now here’s where I enter the realm of conjecture, which I must do because all parties involved in this case are obligated by things like attorney-client privilege, prohibitions against ex-parte communications, the sanctity of executive sessions, etc, so they can’t discuss any of this with me or any other outside parties. But this conjecture has, I believe, a solid foundation. The only logical conclusion one can reach from all this is that to "start over from scratch" doesn’t simply mean beginning the appeal process hearings again, it means going all the way back to the original disciplinary action Edge took against Espinoza. What’s different this time, however, is that Edge’s findings are part of the public record and while the truthfulness of those findings might be in question (hence the appeal hearing) their mere existence is not. So this time, the city can avoid the perception of "a chief personally retaliating against a officer with a personal grudge against that chief" without having to bring in an outside investigator, but simply by having a respected officer within the department to review Edge’s findings and to determine if they still warrant Espinoza’s suspension. As soon as that decision is made, one way or the other, Barnett will be reinstated, probably with thanks from many of those involved for being such a good sport about all this and a team player. I have the feeling, however, that if Edge’s findings are reversed by Hernandez, which I do not predict will happen, Barnett will not remain in town for long. But that’s just my feeling.

I hope this narrative clears things up and erases some of the wrong perceptions that came about because of the aforementioned newspaper headline. However, if you’re still confused by all this, my advice is simply forget about it, round up the family and take them to Evo to see the movie Zootopia. Trust me, by the time Shakira belts out her song at the end of the film, your head will be cleared and you’ll feel a whole lot better.

Random thoughts involving the appeal hearing of Jesse Espinoza

Back before he became the high-sheriff of our fair city, Jeff Barnett was the police chief in Princeton, a town of 7,700 folks about eight or so miles east of McKinney, Texas, in Collin County, which is on the northern border of Dallas County. It’s main claim to fame is its relatively low tax rate, the result of it being a General Law city, not a home Rule one. While serving as police chief there, Barnett had a sexual affair with Suzanne Hurlston, who was then the wife of local anesthesiologist Glen Hurlston. On March 15, 2011, Suzanne gave birth to a boy fathered by Barnett but assumed at the time by Dr. Hurlston to be his child. In fact, they named the child Gerard Jeffrey Blake Hurlston. Dr. Hurlston said during testimony Monday at the appeal hearing of Kyle Police Sgt. Jesse Espinoza that he had absolutely no clue the child wasn’t his until he was tipped off 10 months later by Suzanne’s former fiancee, who has also fathered two children with Suzanne, that Barnett was showing up at Dr. Hurlston’s house when the doctor wasn’t there.

Needless to say, Dr. Hurlston was none too happy about any of this.

All of the above is indisputable. Chief Barnett has acknowledged paternity of the child and the infant’s name has since been changed to Jeffrey Blake Barnett. A lot of what follows has been disputed. What’s not in dispute is that on New Year’s Day 2012 Hurlston was arrested on a charge of felony domestic abuse after Suzanne claimed he attempted to strangle her. That charge was reduced to a Class A misdemeanor and Hurlston pled no contest. Subsequently Hurlston claimed his wife contacted Barnett in Kyle, telling him about the incident, and Barnett subsequently called in some favors from his former associates on the Princeton police force and that’s what led to Hurlston’s arrest. Hurlston testified Monday he wanted to know more about this Barnett person and learned he was being considered, along with Kyle resident and Austin Police Department supervisor Joseph Muñoz, for Kyle’s chief of police. At the time Espinoza was head of the Kyle police association and was actively promoting Muñoz over Barnett. Hurlston decided Espinoza might be someone who could provide him with information concerning Barnett. Eventually, in December 2013, Hurlston filed a lawsuit against a number of parties including Barnett and the City of Kyle. The city seems to believe Espinoza illegally supplied Hurlston with information that provided grist for the lawsuit. As a result Barnett in February placed Espinoza on administrative leave pending an internal investigation into Espinoza’s activities that related to Hurlston.

There were a number of problems with this action, however. First, Barnett’s actions could be viewed as nothing more than retaliation against an officer who did not support his quest for chief and who had aligned himself with someone who was not only pursuing legal actions against the chief, but had a personal grudge against him. To counter that perception, the city placed Barnett on administrative leave and brought in a former police chief from Waxahachie, Charles Edge, to conduct the investigation the city hoped would provide the necessary evidence to kick Espinoza off the force.

But there was a second, bigger, problem. According to the Civil Service regulations the City has agreed to in regards to its police department, the department can only discipline officers for actions committed within 180 days of when charges are brought against that officer. If Espinoza did anything the city believes he did in regards to Hurlston — and whether he did or not is still open to question — they were all done outside this 180-day "statute of limitations."

So the City concocted a new plan. They submitted Espinoza to (as close as I can tell) about seven intensive question-and-answer sessions, including one seven-hour session that apparently was videotaped, and at least one session with Edge. The man from Waxahachie testified Monday the answers Espinoza provided during these sessions were "non-responsive," and that non-responsiveness amounted to insubordination and that insubordination was the reason Edge suspended Espinoza from the force indefinitely.

The hearings I attended Monday and Tuesday were the last in a series of hearings Espinoza sought to have that suspension overturned. I obviously missed at least four previous days of testimony which were the real juicy, salacious parts of the hearing during which, from I have been told by a number of sources, testimony was presented on, among other things, the drinking and sleeping habits as well as the "illicit" sex lives of some of this city’s elected officials. I am not going to get into any of this because, for the life of me, who, other than the parties I have already named, was having sex and/or drinking with whom does not seem to have any relevance whatsoever to the issue to be decided, which is whether Espinoza’s suspension should be reversed.

What I do believe was relevant, however, was the testimony I heard myself, especially that from Edge who was the first person to testify Monday and the last of the witnesses called by the city’s hired gun attorney, Bettye Lynn, a labor law specialist. Edge cited the following exchange he had with Espinoza concerning a trip Hurlston was making to Kyle to attend a City Council meeting:

Edge: Did you call Dr. Hurlston?
Espinoza: I probably did.
Edge: Why?
Espinoza: I wanted to see if he made it.

Edge said that exchange constituted insubordination on Espinoza’s part because his second answer proves his first response was "non-responsive." Edge argued that since Espinoza talked to Hurlston to determine "if he made it," the answer to his first question should have simply been "yes."

ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?

Hey, I am not a police officer and I have never been involved in the interrogation of a subject in a criminal investigation. But I’m betting most police officers who have will support me on this. If they are interrogating a potential suspect and they ask the subject "Did you commit this crime?" and the subject responds "I probably did," that suspect is going to be handcuffed, read his rights (if Miranda hasn’t already been applied) and dispatched to the lockup. If I asked anyone a question on any subject and that someone answers "I probably did," I’m going to interpret that to mean "yes," and I’m going to go way out on a limb here and argue that 99.9 percent of the English speaking world would interpret it exactly the same way.

Second: I will argue Edge proved to be one of those persons who would interpret it exactly the same way. If he had interpreted it any other way in his examination of Espinoza, then why did he ask the followup question?

Here is another problem I have with this. The first witness called for the defense on Monday was Dr. Hurlston and at one point he was asked when he met Espinoza. He replied: "Probably in 2013 or 2014." And you know what? Not a single person in that hearing room jumped up and claimed that answer was non-responsive.

Like I said earlier, I only saw the final two days of this hearing, but if the city is relying on Espinoza saying "I probably did" as the reason for suspending him, I am convinced Espinoza is being railroaded here.

What happens now is that each side, Lynn and defense attorney Grant Goodwin, will make their final arguments in the form of written statements that will be sent to hearing examiner Michael B. McReynolds, presumably at his home office in Fort Worth. Those statements are due around the end of the year and McReynolds said he would make his final determination, or "award," within 30 days of acknowledging receipt of the statements. So it’s probably going to be late January or early February before we know the outcome. How he’s going to rule is anyone’s guess, but I do know the only times he seemed to lose his temper during the two days of testimony I witnessed was when he told Hurlston "I am having real problems with some of your answers and some of your reactions" and when he put Espinoza down by telling him sternly "You don’t make the rules in this hearing."

So there’s that.