Lubbock County Commissioners have approved a resolution supporting an independent Texas Rangers investigation into nearly $70,000 in county payments made to Mark Meurer while Jason Corley was serving as Precinct 2 commissioner.
Now another taxpayer-funded expense connected to the controversy is drawing attention: Meurer’s legal bills.
An email obtained by Lubbock Lights shows attorney Kristen LaFreniere demanding payment of past-due invoices for legal work related to the fight over the Precinct 2 seat and saying she understood Lubbock County would pay those bills.
“I specifically did not request a retainer from Lubbock County because I was assured that my invoices would be paid as they came up,” LaFreniere wrote.
She also warned that she would not continue representing the county’s interests in the appeal unless the outstanding invoices were paid and future work was guaranteed payment.
“I will not be able to conduct that work for the county if I am not paid the past-due invoices and assured that my work toward that appellate argument, which has been ordered by the court and approved previously by the county, will be paid,” LaFreniere wrote.
The email raises another question in a controversy already centered on who authorized county money to be spent: Who told Meurer’s attorney that Lubbock County would pay her?
More than $10,000 in legal fees
The legal bills are not insignificant.
Local reporting previously showed Meurer submitted a request for more than $10,000 in legal fees connected to the court fight over the Precinct 2 position.
LaFreniere represented Meurer as he fought to establish that he, rather than Corley, was legally entitled to occupy the Precinct 2 seat. Her representation included an appeal to the Seventh Court of Appeals and an emergency effort before the Texas Supreme Court.
Her email, however, adds an important detail: LaFreniere says she did not simply expect Meurer to pay her and later seek reimbursement.
She says she was assured her invoices would be paid by Lubbock County as they were submitted.
The email provided to Lubbock Lights does not identify who gave LaFreniere that assurance.
Dalby questions who authorized the expense
Precinct 1 Commissioner Michael Dalby’s position is that the Commissioners Court did not collectively make such a commitment.
That distinction matters because the county has previously considered legal bills associated with the same case through a public Commissioners Court vote.
Earlier this year, commissioners considered a $12,090.25 invoice from attorney Benjamin Garcia for legal work associated with Corley v. Meurer. The official minutes show Dalby, Cary Shaw and Jordan Rackler voted to pay that bill from contingency funds. Parrish voted against it and Corley abstained.
The question surrounding LaFreniere’s invoices is therefore different: Was there a Commissioners Court vote authorizing the county to pay Meurer’s attorney, or did someone independently assure her that the county would cover the expense?
That question could become significant as commissioners sort through the financial decisions surrounding Meurer’s appointment.
It started with two salaries for one seat
Lubbock Lights first reported Sept. 13 that Meurer remained on the county payroll even though a judge had restored Corley to the Precinct 2 office in December.
Dalby told Lubbock Lights at the time he had only recently learned Meurer was still being paid.
“The fact that Mark [Meurer] has been getting paid, I think that’s wrong,” Dalby said.
Dalby also said Parrish had not signed paperwork prepared to remove Meurer from payroll after Corley returned.
“No commissioner was a part of this,” Dalby told Lubbock Lights. “This stems from a decision that Judge Parrish made.”
Meurer’s salary was subsequently stopped. Dalby said the county would seek to recover the money.
Meurer says Parrish told him to keep the money
Meurer later issued a statement saying he had repeatedly questioned why he continued receiving a paycheck after Corley returned.
Meurer said he contacted Parrish immediately after the court ruling and alerted him to the possible overpayment. According to Meurer, Parrish told him to hold onto the salary while the legal challenge continued.
Meurer said he raised the issue at least two additional times and received the same instruction.
Meurer has since said he set the money aside, will return the entire amount and will withdraw from the litigation over the Precinct 2 seat.
Parrish subsequently said Meurer’s withdrawal resolves the questions that had been headed to the Seventh Court of Appeals and that all of the salary would be returned.
Commissioners support outside investigation
The Commissioners Court has now approved a resolution supporting an independent investigation by the Texas Rangers into the apparent payroll irregularities.
The resolution does not accuse Parrish, Meurer or any other county employee or official of committing a crime.
But the investigation could provide answers to questions that have grown beyond why Meurer continued receiving a paycheck.
Investigators could potentially determine who knew both men were being paid, who had authority to stop the payments, what instructions Meurer received and whether county procedures or state law were violated.
The dispute over LaFreniere’s invoices creates an additional financial trail to examine.
Her email makes clear that she believed the county had agreed to pay for her work.
What is not clear from the email is who made that commitment, what authority that person had to make it and whether the full Commissioners Court ever approved it.
For Dalby, that question fits into the broader issue he raised when the double-payments first became public.
“In my opinion this process has worked before, why didn’t it work now?” Dalby said last week. “The process has worked before. How come it didn’t work on this one?”
With the salary being returned and Meurer abandoning his claim to the office, the fight over who occupies Precinct 2 may be ending.
The questions over who authorized the money, both the salary and the legal expenses, are not.
