Duncanville councilmember’s discovery proceedings coming to a close

by Angel Morris of Duncanville TODAY

Discovery proceedings initiated by Duncanville City Councilmember Dorothy Burton against former Councilmember Judy Richards may be nearing a close.

Richards was initially served a cease and desist letter March 16 from Burton’s attorney Terry Goltz Greenberg. Richards appeared in district court April 18 for a hearing regarding the matter with Burton’s new counsel, Mark Johnson.

On Burton’s behalf, Greenberg sent Richards a letter demanding she “immediately cease and desist distributing confidential, private and personnel records of Dallas Area Rapid Transit, which pertain to (his) client, Dorothy Burton.”

The court agreed to allow Johnson to send questions to Richards regarding how she came to be in possession of portions of Burton’s personnel file from her former employer, DART.

Richards, formerly the District 2 representative, said she received copies of Burton’s personnel file from former District 5 Councilman Arnold DeWeerd. DeWeerd confirmed the claim.

“I had heard that Dorothy Burton had been fired from DART for (harassment) and I wanted to know the truth,” DeWeerd said.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, DeWeerd said he requested and received Burton’s 651-page personnel file for a $65.10 fee. He said he picked up the papers March 8.

“After reading it I decided to share it with Judy and Judy’s the only one I gave it to,” DeWeerd said.

Duncanville Today contacted a representative of the DART community information division, who reported that anyone could request personnel files from the company. She said that only a legal attorney general ruling might keep a file from being released to the public.

Nothing seems to have impeded DeWeerd’s request, as DeWeerd produced a receipt for the 651-page personnel file, which cost him $65.10.

Richards said she read the file and, in turn, gave a copy to Mayor David Green.

“I just felt like the mayor should know what was in the file,” Richards said. “The mayor is the only person I gave copies to, and I had no intention of doing anything else with the information. Then I found out I was being sued.”

Burton’s attorney said in spite of the citation received by Richards, the proceedings were not a lawsuit, just an investigation to determine if there might be reason for a suit.

“This is not necessarily even a precursor to a lawsuit. Ms. Burton has the right to question her accuser and I think she’s gone about it the right way, through the courts rather than the public forum,” Johnson said in an interview for the May 3 story on the subject.

Richards said that questions given to her led her to believe that Burton thought Richards had obtained the personnel file illegally. Richards responded to the questions and is now seeking legal recourse of her own.

“Right now this being over depends on whether or not the safety measures that I’m asking for are in place,” Richards said.

Richards is asking for reimbursement of her attorney fees and, “a little bit of credibility back.”

“I’d like to know that (Dorothy Burton) is not going to come back on me later down the road and try and make this an issue again,” Richards said.

Johnson said the need to pursue the matter was perpetuated by Richards’ unwillingness to name who gave her the report.

“It kind of put us in a difficult position,” he said.

Richards’ counsel, attorney Mark Stradley, said he was confident his client’s deposition responses proved her innocence.

“The things they are directly or indirectly accusing Ms. Richards of she didn’t do. They are under the impression that she’s the one that went and got the records and that she’s the one that disseminated them,” Stradley said. “The truth is she did not and she just ended up with a copy of them. Yes, she gave some of those records to the mayor, but statements about these records or dissemination of their information is protected under the First Amendment freedom of speech.

“I think when they see the answers to the questions they will realize Judy is not the one who obtained them from DART nor disseminated them to all the people Ms. Burton evidently believes.”

Apparently, Stradley was right.

“Ms. Richards has answered our questions, which was all we were asking for. It’s unfortunate that she was unwilling to do this voluntarily, but we’re pleased with the results,” Johnson said. “We were seeking the truth and believe we have received it. As a result, we believe there are no further issues.”

Johnson did not respond to inquiries about whether or not Burton intended to reimburse Richards attorney fees or if any safeguard was in place to deter a future suit.

Burton addressed the issue in a May 3 letter to the editor, saying her actions were a result of Richards’ attempt to disparage her with “distasteful and untrue comments.”

Burton did not deny allegations made against her in the personnel file, including threatening and retaliatory behavior against her colleagues, some of which was construed as harassment. Her attorney, however, said Burton was not in agreement with everything in the file.

“There was an investigation by DART and some conclusion by DART with which she disagrees,” he said. “She doesn’t believe every statement in her personnel file is accurate.”

Johnson also noted that only certain portions of the file seem to have been distributed in the community, failing to give a complete story on Burton’s DART history. None of a number of positive files were circulated, he said.

Richards’ attorney said in his opinion if Burton has legal recourse in this matter, it is with DART, not his client.

“Ms. Burton definitely believes these are protected personnel records that should not have been put in the public domain, but our position is that DART released them under the Open Records Act,” Stradley said. “If a mistake was made, her recourse would be to pursue DART.”

Johnson said just because an open records request was made does not mean it was proper. He noted that DART can ask for an attorney general’s opinion before releasing files, even though DART is a publicly-held entity.

Johnson nor Burton responded to an inquiry about whether a suit might be filed against DART. Stradley said it was unfortunate any legal proceedings had ever occurred in this matter.

“I am confident this case is without merit and they will choose not to pursue it,” he said. “Ms. Richards has not violated the law.”