Terry Keel’s Troubling Memo
By Vince Leibowitz on Aug 22, 2007 in 80th Legislature ![[Post to Twitter]](/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter.png){kind=icon}
Tweet This Post 
[This another piece related to these documents released by House Speaker Tom Craddick's office. Other coverage is here, here, and here.]
The more one examines Terry Keel’s memo of May 21 relating to the procedures for removal of the Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives, the more troubling it becomes.
First and foremost, the memo was written on May 21—four days before Keel became an employee of the state and an officer of the House. Keel, a former Republican state Representative from Austin and ally of House Speaker Tom Craddick (R-Midland), was named Interim Parliamentarian late on the night of May 25. His commission was faxed to the Secretary of State’s Office at 10:40 p.m. on May 25.
The first question that arises concerns how Craddick or the Speaker’s office actually obtained or came by the memorandum. Unlike a typical memorandum, there are no parties whom the information contained in the memo would concern. This was probably by design.
Did Keel offer the memorandum as without solicitation? That’s highly unlikely, given Craddick’s May 25 press release in which Press Secretary Alexis DeLee notes that Craddick, ” has canvassed a wide range of legal opinions, and in some cases has put a higher premium on that counsel” [than that of Parliamentarian Denise Davis].
So, if, in the course of Craddick’s “canvassing” project, he inquired of Terry Keel, it raises the question: did Craddick consult with Keel as an attorney or as a former legislator familiar with parliamentary procedure? According to DeLee’s statement, the Speaker sought “legal opinions,” not parliamentary opinions. And, if Craddick consulted with Keel in his capacity as licensed attorney, it causes us to venture yet again into the gray area of what is and what is not appropriate when it comes to attorneys, given that they are governed by a different set of rules than, say, a parliamentarian for the Daughters of the Republic of Texas.
If Craddick consulted with Keel as a lawyer (which he almost certainly did), then he subsequently hired someone who had acted as his personal lawyer, no matter how briefly, to be Parliamentarian knowing Keel would rule as he outlined in the memo. It appears Craddick may have done the parliamentary equivalent of “venue shopping.”
If, arguendo, Keel acted as Craddick’s own personal legal counselor (no matter how briefly) when he wrote the May 21 memo (again, it would be difficult to define the relationship as anything else), then how can someone who was Craddick’s personal lawyer able to represent the members of all 15o members of the House?
Did anyone on the floor of the House know of the May 21 memo before the issues of motions to vacate the chair were made in the following days? It’s likely they didn’t, meaning they didn’t know of its existence before Keel became parliamentarian. Even if members of the House knew or had a “gut feeling” that Keel had counseled Craddick on this matter, they still had no way—for certain—to know how he would rule without knowing about the memorandum.
The memorandum, thus, creates a significant issue for Terry Keel and, by association, Speaker Craddick. Both Keel and Craddick should have disclosed this clear conflict of interest to the House.
Keel, as a licensed attorney, was obligated to disclose that conflict of interest—no matter whose opinions you believe on the nature of the position of parliamentarian.
Documents previously released show that Craddick viewed himself as the sole clients of the parliamentarians (who, during his tenure, all happened to be lawyers) and that his communications with them were privileged. The attorney for Parliamentarian Denise Davis, however, maintains that the parliamentarians represent the entirety of the 150-member Texas House of Representatives.
Either way, Keel appears to have had something to disclose because the reality is that the Parliamentarian represents the entire House. Keel should have disclosed his previous working relationship to the entire group that comprised the body that was his “client,” and that he had advised Craddick on the same matters upon which he would advise them, i.e., the motion to vacate the chair.
Tweet This Post ![[Post to Ping.fm]](/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-ping.png){kind=icon}
Ping This Post
Comments
No Responses to “Terry Keel’s Troubling Memo”
Feel free to leave a comment...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
You must be logged in to post a comment.