Keeping public informed in Bertram case not easy

Chief David Caudle was told this week he can keep his job after a councilman wanted a “no confidence” vote. The other council members disagreed, and their 4-1 decision told Caudle he could remain on the city payroll.

The embattled officer became a lightning rod for controversy during the last few months after he shot a dog he said threatened him. The owners of the canine claimed the pit-bull terrier was harmless.

While this may seem a tempest in a teapot to some, Caudle’s work methods have also come under fire, with some residents said he used “strong-arm” or “John Wayne” tactics to enforce the law.

The mayor, however, says Caudle is a credit to the city.

“Chief Caudle has acted within the law while performing his duties, and I have every confidence in him,” Mayor JoAnn Stephens said after the vote. 

Not everyone was satisfied, though, including Mayor Pro-tem L.O. Pogue, the dissenting vote and a vocal critic of both Caudle and the mayor.

The Caudle issue has been the focus of some very heated council sessions the last few months. Many community members are sharply divided.

While this week’s vote to retain the chief should go a long way to healing the city after so much acrimony, it does not mean the episode has been settled to the satisfaction of all concerned.

The Daily Tribune and an Austin television station recently submitted an open records request to view any records of complaint against Caudle during the past several months. 

The mayor has finished her own internal investigation and said she is satisfied with her findings, but in a matter such as this, the people’s business should be conducted out in the open.

The media’s request for any reports or other documentation has been forwarded from City Hall to the state Attorney General’s Office. 

The Daily Tribune has been told an opinion is pending from Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.

This newspaper has nothing personally against Caudle. In fact, he has treated The Daily Tribune in the most professional manner and responded to all requests for stories. He has plenty of friends in Bertram, too.

But there are also many who pay his salary who have questions about his performance. He must answer to them, and they deserve reassurances that a thorough review has been undertaken. In the same vein, full disclosure could also buttress the city’s argument that Caudle has performed ably.

But no one will know if the records aren’t made public. 

Caudle is a public servant, a government employee and is paid by tax dollars — the people’s money.

Government should be open and transparent, whether it’s Congress or a small city council. Caudle is a part of that government. Stephens and the other council members need to accept that realization.

Because so much controversy has been generated by the Caudle issue, it is only fair  the public has access to any complaints lodged against him, and the conclusions to any city investigation, to judge for themselves whether the review was complete and fair.

On the surface we feel Caudle is doing his job well, but full disclosure is called for in this instance. 

If the mayor and four members of the council believe so strongly he is doing a good job, they really shouldn’t have any compunction against releasing those records.

But they have opted to hold those records and allow the Attorney General’s Office to render a decision. This does not serve their constituents and creates a perception they are hiding something.

There is no guarantee, either, that Abott will rule in favor of the public.

But this newspaper realizes the public has a right to know and will continue to press for disclosure so that all facets of the case are laid out and the people remain informed.