Oakley reprimanded for unprofessional conduct, sexual harassment

Texas’ judicial conduct commission publicly reprimanded Burnet County Judge James Oakley on Dec. 11 for unprofessional conduct, sexual harassment, and security violations. The admonishment was in response to a complaint made by Burnet County Precinct 2 Justice of the Peace Lisa Whitehead in 2023.

The State Commission on Judicial Conduct protects public trust in the judiciary by investigating allegations of judicial misconduct or incapacity and enforcing disciplinary actions when necessary. The commission previously reprimanded Oakley in 2018 for an inappropriate Facebook comment and again in 2019 for inappropriate use of a judicial position. 

The commission suspended Oakley without pay in 2023 for six months due to an indictment on a charge of misuse of government property and the proceeding legal battle. He was found not guilty in that case and returned to his job after the verdict.

Background of the complaint

Whitehead, who has worked for Burnet County for nearly 30 years and has been the Precinct 2 justice of peace for 14 years, filed a formal complaint in April 2023 after years of what she described as “inappropriate behavior” and “escalating intimidation tactics” by Oakley. In an affidavit, Whitehead recounted a series of troubling incidents that began in October 2022 and culminated in what she called “unsafe and irrational behavior” by the judge.

Whitehead detailed a timeline of events involving a small courtroom that leads to her office in the Burnet County Courthouse. Those events include Oakley removing the lock from the downstairs courtroom door, installing a combination lock to keep it open without Whitehead’s consent, and drilling holes into the floor to force the door’s permanent open position. According to Whitehead, these actions ignored her expressed concerns for personal safety and the security of her courtroom.

The breaking point for Whitehead occurred on Jan. 6, 2023, when she said she found Oakley sitting silently in the darkened courtroom outside of her office. Whitehead said she was trying to keep the room warm for a scheduled wedding, but the door was opened by someone after she had closed it three separate times in a short period. On the third time, she got up, closed the door, and turned back toward her office when she noticed Oakley sitting in the corner by the jury box. According to Whitehead, Oakley did not announce himself, leaving her unaware of how long he had been sitting in that manner. 

“It startled me,” Whitehead told DailyTrib.com. “When someone hides from you like that, it’s not normal behavior.”

A few days after the incident, Whitehead said Oakley came into the courtroom to apologize as she was finishing a wedding. 

“He said he was ‘owning it,’ and he knew he hadn’t been ‘sensitive to my sensitivities,’” Whitehead wrote in her complaint. “He then held his arms out in front of him, and he said to me, ‘I love you,’ and that he would never do anything to me or want problems with me. The ‘I love you’ was so bizarre and made me so uncomfortable that I do not remember the exact words that followed. I just remember how his words made me feel. I felt sick to my stomach, and I again felt very violated.” 

The Jan. 6 incident led to Whitehead’s complaint, which was not limited to security and safety issues. She also provided examples of sexual harassment, describing Oakley making unsolicited physical contact, such as rubbing her leg during a public event and making an inappropriate sexual joke referencing her marriage.

Commission findings

After reviewing the evidence and testimony provided by both Whitehead and Oakley, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued the public reprimand. From its findings, the commission concluded in its report:

“Oakley’s actions violated court security protocols and created an unsafe work environment.

“His behavior towards Whitehead constituted sexual harassment, including inappropriate comments and physical contact, creating a hostile work environment.

“His conduct undermined public confidence in the judiciary and reflected a pattern of unprofessional and prejudicial behavior.”

The state’s Office of Court Administration Court Security Division conducted a physical security assessment of the Burnet County Courthouse based on Whitehead’s concerns. A comprehensive report by the OCA included the following findings:

• The courtroom should be kept secured when not in use.
• The courtroom door should be closed and locked at all times unless a bailiff is present in the court.
• The eyebolt should be removed from the courtroom door.
• The courtroom door should not be locked in a manner that cannot be controlled by court security staff and/or is “stuck” in a single position, including open.

Oakley’s response

Judge Oakley denied the allegations, characterizing them as politically motivated. In an emailed statement to DailyTrib.com, he expressed disappointment in the commission’s findings, describing them as “false and misleading allegations” and accusing Whitehead of engaging in a “weaponizing … complaint process.” He argued that his actions regarding the courtroom door were driven by a desire to make public spaces accessible.

“The small downstairs original courtroom referred to in the report has historically served as a multipurpose room as needed by departments,” Oakley said in his statement. “My attempts to keep this room open were in response to complaints to me about its unavailability.”

He also rejected claims of sexual harassment, calling them “fabrications” from years prior.

“This act is yet another page from the ‘Lawfare’ playbook being used against me from within political circles,” Oakley wrote. “We as elected officials should be focusing on serving the needs of the public.”

The reprimand includes Oakley’s response to the Office of Court Administration concerning courthouse safety, stating he believed no such security measures were required in “the courthouse built in 1936” and that “Whitehead’s security concerns did not make sense.”

Moving forward

Whitehead said the reprimand is a step forward but that the effects of Oakley’s past behaviors remain.

“I appreciate the (judicial conduct) commission hearing me and taking my complaint seriously,” she said. “I am hopeful that this public reprimand will make a difference. The fact that people now know what he’s done does make me feel safer, but I still don’t want him near me.”

elizabeth@thepicayune.com