The Scurry County Commissioners’ Court voted in favor of transitioning back to a precinct-based road and bridge system and agreed to pay Road and Bridge Superintendent Paz Elizondo nearly a full year’s salary and provide benefits as part of a settlement package during today’s meeting.
Elizondo has 21 days to accept the offer, which would pay his full salary and benefits through March 31, 2017 — or what was described as the end of his term.
County Judge Ricky Fritz said he and the commissioners had a lengthy discussion with Scurry County Attorney Mike Hartman in a closed session on March 8 about the future of the road and bridge department. Pct. 1 Commissioner Terry Williams said he believed the results of the March 1 election spoke to how Scurry County residents felt about the road superintendent system, which was put into effect on Jan. 29, 2013.
“Both men (Howard Limmer and Shawn McCowen) running for Mr. (David) Harrell’s position have said they are in favor of dissolution of the unitized system,” Williams said.
Williams made a motion to go back to the road commissioner system, in which individual commissioners would take care of the roads in their own precincts. Pct. 4 Commissioner Jim Robinson gave a second in favor of Williams’ motion. Pct. 1 Commissioner Marianne Randals and Pct. 3 Commissioner David Harrell both opposed the change.
Fritz was left to decide the tie.
“Well I was prepared for this because we have had split opinions for three years,” Fritz said. “Everybody knows what my opinion has been, but this time, despite what I think and despite what I feel is most efficient, we ultimately do work for the voters. I think they have spoken so I am going to break the tie to start a transition to the other system.”
The court then voted on allocating the personnel, choosing which of the current road and bridge department employees they wanted working for their precinct. Four were left over.
The court voted in favor of keeping all those not given a specific precinct on the payroll at least until May 6, which is the
end of the next pay period. When it came to the road and bridge assets, or equipment and materials, the court voted to hold a budget workshop before its May 3 meeting.
The focus of the meeting then shifted toward Elizondo, who has been the road superintendent for three years and who was present at the meeting.
Williams said he felt Elizondo had been ill-suited for the job and believed the county did not owe him anything more.
“I have blasted Paz for his inability to supervise, his gross negligence and waste of money,” Williams said. “I really think there has been enough evidence presented for cause to not pay anything. I don’t think we ought to even pay a settlement.”
According to Section 252.211 of the state’s Transportation Code, “the commissioners court may suspend the salary of a road superintendent whose services are no longer needed.”
Williams then made a motion to dismiss Elizondo without payment. Robinson seconded. Randals expressed her frustration with the situation, saying she believed the motion to dismiss Elizondo was based on what she called frivolous reasons and said she didn’t believe any cause for firing him would hold up in any court of law.
“I think this is just abhorrent,” Randals said. “I think it is shameful. I’m embarrassed we’re handling it this way.”
Randals and Harrell voted against the motion, and this time, Fritz voted with them and the motion failed 3-2.
Fritz said he believed a decision to dismiss Elizondo would have had to have been made based on a proper cause, and did not find one.
Elizondo then spoke, presenting documents he said showed he was not responsible for some of the road failures in the county.
In 2014 he said he told a crew and two foremen at what rate to apply asphalt for a 14.2-mile stretch of road.
“I specified what rate, and it was supposed to be 283 tons of asphalt,” Elizondo said. “What they did, instead, was coat 18 miles and only used 218 tons of asphalt. That’s why it failed.” Elizondo said he had asked Jim Robinson, one of his foremen at that time, how the road was looking, and said Robin son replied it was finished and “looked great.”
Elizondo claimed that project, for which the materials cost $170,000, was purposely failed because someone had been promised a foreman’s job by Robinson if it failed.
“You could say there was some waste, but show me a department that doesn’t have some waste,” Elizondo said. “But as far as me being accused of wasting money, there’s your waste.”
Once termination was not an option, Williams said he had talked to people in his precinct who said they would be willing to pay the salary of the superintendent.
“They are so tired of the way their roads have been maintained, or not maintained, they
are willing to pay the salary of this superintendent to get him out of this county,” Williams said. “I am for doing that because they are. Whenever something comes up on the agenda, I ask my people what they want because I serve them. Some people serve themselves, I serve the people.”
Williams made a motion to pay Elizondo the remainder of his term. Hartman said until the documentation is complete, Elizondo will remain on the payroll. Elizondo said he would be willing to meet with the county attorney and county auditor to discuss the settlement.
Once again, the vote was split, with Williams and Robinson in favor and Harrell and Randals opposed.
Fritz broke the tie, voting in favor of paying Elizondo the rest of his current term’s compensation package, which is $77,874 plus benefits. Road Superintendent Timeline
Here is a partial timeline of the Scurry County Road and Bridge Department:
• Jan. 29, 2013: The Scurry County Commissioners’ Court approves the adoption of the road superintendent system.
• Feb. 26, 2013: Five finalists are named for the road superintendent position — Vernon Clay, Paz Elizondo, Howard Limmer, Stanley Mireles and Jim Robinson.
• March 6, 2013: Paz Elizondo is named the road superintendent after county commissioners interview five candidates. His annual salary was set at $68,000.
• April 1, 2013: Elizondo officially begins his duties.
• Nov. 26, 2013: Commissioners accept the 2012 road and bridge report after it was tabled the week before to give Elizondo more time to make a complete assessment of which roads need to be fixed.
• Jan. 13, 2014: County road and bridge foreman and future county commissioner Jim Robinson is placed on six months probation by Elizondo for “insubordination and using county equipment on private property.” Robinson performed work at Western Texas College at the request of Pct. 1 Commissioner Terry Williams.
• Feb. 18, 2014: Commissioners take no action follow- ing Elizondo’s annual review.
• Sept. 30, 2014: Commissioners vote to allow land- owner John Hamlett to move a section of CR 1116 and rebuild it at his own expense, to the specifications set by Scurry County.
• Dec. 8, 2014: Hamlett informs Elizondo the road is finished. Elizondo inspected the road and approved the work as having met county standards. Scurry County Judge Ricky Fritz would later say Elizondo and Hamlett both believed the new road was county property at that point and county crews began doing work on the road. However, the new road was still owned by Hamlett until legal paperwork was filed and the donation was accepted by the commissioners’ court. The road specifications provided to Hamlett were not in written form. Fritz said Elizondo would not face disciplinary action for accepting the road.
• Feb. 17, 2015: Commissioners reappoint Elizondo as county road and bridge superintendent for two years, with an annual salary of $74,479.
• March 17, 2015: Four Scurry County residents voice their concerns at a commissioners’ court meeting regard- ing the new CR 1116, saying it is more dangerous than before. Fritz said he was made aware of county crews working on the private road on March 10, following an accident involving county resident Bob May.
• April 21, 2015: Five Scurry County residents speak out at commissioners’ court about the quality of county roads. Resident Edwin Parks said the county should be investigated.
• May 5, 2015: Commissioners vote 3-1 to accept the new CR1116 in front of large crowd. David Harrell, Marianne Randals and Fritz voted in favor of accepting it, Jim Robinson voted against it and Terry Williams abstained, citing a business relationship with Hamlett. Harrell made the motion, saying he was not 100 percent happy in do- ing so.
• May 9, 2015: A report from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) indicated a March in spection found two violations during the construction of CR 1116.
• July 21, 2015: During a commissioners’ court meet- ing, Williams expressed concerns about Elizondo and the superintendent system while the commissioners discussed a $1,000 bond for Elizondo, which was scheduled for a vote. The bond passed 3-2 with Williams and Robin- son voting against it.
• March 1, 2016: Williams and Elizondo exchange words during a commissioners’ meeting about the chip- sealing product used on county roads and Fritz sided with Elizondo, citing his own discussions with road engineers.
• April 5, 2016: Commissioners take no action follow- ing a 62-minute closed session for the annual review of Elizondo.
• April 19, 2016: Commissioners vote to disband the Road and Bridge Department and return to a precinct system.