Bexar Commissioners adopt FY2026–27 change memo, keep proposed Office of General Counsel after legal debate

Bexar County Commissioners Court on Sept. 14 voted to adopt a change memorandum to the FY2026–27 operating and capital budget after a protracted debate about a newly proposed Office of General Counsel and the legal authority to reassign attorney positions.

The motion to adopt the change memo was made by Commissioner Rodriguez and seconded by Commissioner Clay Flores. The court recorded voice votes with Commissioners Rodriguez, Clay Flores, Commissioner Calvert and County Judge Sakai voting in favor and Commissioner Moody voting no; the motion carried.

The change memo, presented by Tanya Gaethon, budget and finance director, moves multiple line items and staffing recommendations across offices. Gaethon told the court the change memo would increase the proposed general-fund ending balance from roughly $234.4 million (as presented in August) to about $236.2 million after a net decrease of approximately $203,000 in FY27 estimates.

The meeting’s central controversy focused on where to place a set of attorney positions. Public comment and several commissioners questioned whether the commissioners court had the statutory authority to move those positions out of the district attorney’s civil division into a new Office of General Counsel. Dana Chapa, who identified herself in the record as the Democratic nominee for Bexar County district attorney, said the change “would disrupt county business, violate the law, and destroy this county's constitutional framework,” and urged the court to withdraw the proposal.

Commissioner Moody said he could not support the change memo, citing litigation risk and concern that the court was making significant structural changes before the incoming district attorney could weigh in: “I’m not gonna be able to support the, the change memo here,” he said.

Defenders of the change memo, including the judge and other commissioners, argued the court needs a counsel to represent the body’s interests in situations that pose conflicts for the district attorney and emphasized ethics and representation concerns. A court staff member cited Texas Government Code §44.115 and cited precedent and attorney‑general reviews of similar arrangements in other counties.

The court did not adopt the amendment proposed during debate that would have moved the general‑counsel positions back under the DA pending consultation; the amendment was declared not friendly and denied. After the voice vote the judge announced the motion carried and the court adjourned.

What happens next: the full proposed budget has a public hearing scheduled for Sept. 15, when the court will receive public input before final adoption.