Mayor and City Councilmembers:

This letter was sent to the Austin City Council via email on December 4.

The City Manager presented his two proposed finalists for the first Austin Police Monitor to the public on Monday December 3: Chris Whitmayer and Iris Jones. We consider both these candidates unacceptable and would ask you to do what you can to ensure the hiring process for the Police Monitor position is re-opened.

Mr. Whitmayer is currently an Assistant City Attorney in Dallas. He graduated from West Point and had a long military career, then to Dallas. We do not believe that the City Manager is seriously considering him for the job.

Ms. Jones presented herself very professionally, she is composed and seemed very nice. However, she is severely biased toward the APD on the main questions that would confront her as Police Monitor. The City Manager has demonstrated overt bad faith by selecting the only applicant who has a legal duty of loyalty to the Austin Police Department, and a legal obligation to maintain all police information in confidence. Iris Jones:

"vigorously", in her words, defended the Austin Police Department while she was as assistant City Attorney, and then as City Attorney for the City of Austin.
had most of the authority granted to the Austin Police Monitor during her three years as the Austin City Attorney, but could point to nothing that she did during that time to improve police services in Austin while she had the authority.
concluded while she was the Austin City Attorney: "I don't think there is a problem with police brutality" (reported in the Austin American Statesman on March 26, 1991).
stated that she had no recollection whatsoever of the Travis County District Attorney's investigtion into the Austin Police Department's conduct during the time she was their lead attorney. (The investigation of over 90 homicide and other serious cases concluded that citizens were wrongfully arrested and convicted due to police misconduct, due to a "leadership vacuum" and a severe lack of training and supervision during the time she was top legal advisor to the police department.)
said that she had absolutely no recollection of the United States Department of Justice's execution of its search warrant on APD headquarters during the time she was APD's chief legal advisor, or of the federal indictments that were handed down to Austin police officers.
has no criminal defense trial experience.
stated that the case she is most proud of handling in private practice is a civil rights case which she lost.
dedicated three years of her private practice exclusively to defending employers against employees.
is currently City Attorney defending the actions of the City of Prairie View police department.
was personally invited by city staff to apply for the job, after not applying during the six months the job was posted.

Ms. Jones simply has no balance in her background. There is no reason to believe she will ever take a position adverse to the Austin Police Department or any Austin police officer. Indeed, she may be bound by oath not to do so.

The Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, the rules which govern attorneys' conduct with the force of law, strictly guard the principles of loyalty and confidentiality. An attorney's loyalty continues after representation is concluded, meaning that Iris Jones may not be able, legally, to represent any interest adverse to the Austin Police Department. Ms. Jones is under a continuing legal duty to be loyal to her client, the Austin Police Department, which is why the original POFG reccomendations -- before the city manager's Spring bait-and-switch maneuver -- required that the candidate never have represented APD. Here's the specific rule governing these matters:

"[A] lawyer having information that the lawyer knows or should know is confidential government information about a person or other legal entity acquired when the lawyer was a public employee may not represent a private client whose interests are adverse to that person or legal entity."

Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.10(c).

Mr. Garza says the process will probably be complete in two weeks, so the City Council still has time to ask the city manager to prevent such a one-sided candidate from getting this important job. Please do whatever you can to ensure that a candidate fills the Police Monitor slot who brings to the table a reputation for balance and fairness, not partisanship toward city management, which has demonstrated zero concern for effective police oversight.

Thanks in advance for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Ann del Llano

Scott Henson

ACLU of Texas Police Accountability Project