James Barragãn, The Texas Tribune

Joy Alonzo, a respected opioid expert, was in a panic.

The Texas A&M University professor had just returned home from giving a routine lecture on the opioid crisis at the University of Texas Medical Branch when she learned a student had accused her of disparaging Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick during the talk.

In the few hours it took to drive from Galveston, the complaint had made its way to her supervisors, and Alonzo’s job was suddenly at risk.

“I am in a ton of trouble. Please call me!” she wrote to Chandler Self, the UTMB professor who invited her to speak.

Alonzo was right to be afraid. Not only were her supervisors involved, but so was Chancellor John Sharp, a former state comptroller who now holds the highest-ranking position in the Texas A&M University System, which includes 11 public universities and 153,000 students. And Sharp was communicating directly with the lieutenant governor’s office about the incident, promising swift action.

Less than two hours after the lecture ended, Patrick’s chief of staff had sent Sharp a link to Alonzo’s professional bio.

Shortly after, Sharp sent a text directly to the lieutenant governor: “Joy Alonzo has been placed on administrative leave pending investigation re firing her. shud [sic] be finished by end of week.”

The text message was signed “jsharp.”

For free speech advocates, health experts and students, Texas A&M’s investigation of Alonzo was a shocking demonstration of how quickly university leaders allow politicians to interfere in classroom discussions on topics in which they are not experts — and another example of increasing political involvement from state leaders in how Texas universities are managed.

The revelation comes as Texas A&M is reeling over concerns that the university allowed politically motivated outsiders to derail the hiring of Kathleen McElroy, a Black journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin, to revive the journalism school at Texas A&M. The subsequent outcry over how Texas A&M handled the situation prompted the university president to resign last week, and the interim dean of arts and sciences stepped down from that role but will remain a professor.

In an email obtained by The Texas Tribune through a public records request, Alonzo told Self the investigation had been kicked off by a student “who has ties to Texas A&M Leadership.”

The Texas A&M system confirmed the series of phone calls and text messages that led to Alonzo’s investigation was kicked off by Texas Land Commissioner Dawn Buckingham, a graduate of UTMB’s medical school. The Tribune confirmed her daughter, a first-year medical student at the time, attended Alonzo’s lecture. Buckingham served six years in the Texas Senate with Patrick, who endorsed her run for land commissioner last year, and she recently attended Sharp’s wedding in May.

Buckingham declined to comment.

A few hours after Texas A&M started looking into the complaint, course leaders at UTMB sent an email to students in the class saying Alonzo’s comments “about Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick and his role in the opioid crisis” did not represent the opinion of the university.

The email also included a “formal censure” of Alonzo, although it did not specify what she said that was offensive.

Neither UTMB nor Texas A&M would confirm what Alonzo said that prompted such a reaction, and UTMB students interviewed by the Tribune recalled a vague reference to Patrick’s office but nothing specific.

UTMB declined to comment for this story, and Alonzo declined to be interviewed.

Ultimately Texas A&M allowed Alonzo to keep her job after an internal investigation could not confirm any wrongdoing.

In a statement, Texas A&M University System spokesperson Laylan Copelin said Sharp’s text to Patrick was a “typical update,” saying it is not unusual for the chancellor to “keep elected officials informed when something at Texas A&M might interest them.”

“It is not unusual to respond to any state official who has concerns about anything occurring at the Texas A&M System,” said Copelin, who said the system followed standard procedure to look into the claim.

Patrick did not respond to a request for comment.

Adam Steinbaugh, an attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a nonprofit legal group focused on protecting free speech on college campuses, said “it would be highly inappropriate for a university to conduct an investigation if a faculty member says something critical of a state leader or a government official.”

“That is, I think, a misuse of institutional resources, and it’s one that will have a chilling effect and that has a chilling effect even if you wind up clearing the professor,” Steinbaugh said.

A day after the complaint about Alonzo’s talk, Marcia Ory, a professor at Texas A&M Health and co-chair of the university’s Opioid Task Force with Alonzo, warned about the long-term consequences.

“The incident in Galveston yesterday is probably an indicator of how sensitive and politically charged this topic is and the need to tread lightly and be aware that anything can be taken out of context,” Ory wrote in an email to Jon Mogford, vice president of Texas A&M Health.

“It’s a shame because all we want is to make people aware of harm-reduction strategies that can save lives, especially among youth and young adults who are especially vulnerable these days,” wrote Ory, who did not respond to a request for comment.

An expert with a solid reputation

Alonzo has spent more than two decades as a pharmacist in Japan, Missouri and elsewhere, and has taught college students in Texas for more than a decade. She now teaches at Texas A&M while working as an ambulatory care pharmacy director at a free health clinic in Bryan.

She has helped bring millions of federal research dollars to the university, and last year Texas A&M’s pharmacy school named her the early career researcher of the year.

One of Alonzo’s recent projects focuses on training people to use Narcan, a nasal spray that reverses opioid effects and can save lives in overdose cases. She’s also advised state leaders on other public policies that could improve the fight against opioid overdoses.

Fentanyl, a synthetic opioid often illegally manufactured by Mexican drug cartels, is a growing problem. Between 2019 and 2021, overdose deaths involving fentanyl in the state rose nearly 400%.

This year, Gov. Greg Abbott declared cracking down on fentanyl as one of his seven priority issues for the legislative session.

Lawmakers allocated $18 million over the next two years toward providing naloxone, an opioid-reversing drug, to police, schools and community organizations on the front lines of the epidemic. To improve the government’s response to overdose spikes, they also passed laws requiring police and other public entities to report overdoses to a public health agency.

But instead of backing other recommended strategies to reduce overdose deaths, such as legalizing test strips that can detect the presence of fentanyl in other drugs, lawmakers focused on a more punitive approach, approving laws that increase criminal penalties for providing fentanyl that leads to an overdose death.

Public health experts like Alonzo have largely supported harm-reduction efforts rather than increasing punishments for drug users. As the crisis intensified, Alonzo often received urgent emails from Texas school districts and law enforcement agencies eager for training and naloxone kits. In the past, she estimated she had given away more than $4.5 million worth of naloxone through her training sessions.

Statement of formal censure

Self, the professor at UTMB, scheduled Alonzo to give the lecture to the first-year medical students months in advance.

“I can’t tell you enough how much the students value this presentation,” Self wrote in October, according to emails obtained through an open records request. “I get feedback all the time from them telling me how important they view this talk. They’ll come up to me even months later to tell me.”

On March 7, the two started the day with breakfast at the laid-back Mosquito Cafe in Galveston before heading to the lecture, which was mandatory for students to attend.

The lecture was not recorded, but according to presentation slides obtained by the Tribune through an open records request, Alonzo gave students a broad overview of the opioid crisis and the science behind opioids. She walked them through how to prevent opioid deaths, how to recognize an overdose and how to administer naloxone. She even touched on what to do if a police dog was exposed to fentanyl.

The slides show that Alonzo discussed how a lack of infrastructure limits the state’s ability to respond to the crisis, noting that many Texas counties lack a medical examiner; reporting on opioid deaths by emergency rooms is infrequent; and many law enforcement agencies and local health departments don’t track opioid deaths.

This means the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention considers Texas a nonreporter when it comes to opioid data, which makes it more difficult for researchers to receive grants to tackle the issue. (Alonzo gave her presentation before the Legislature passed new reporting laws this year.)

The lecture ended around noon. Afterward, students gathered at the front of the class to grab free naloxone kits provided by Alonzo. Some stuck around to ask Alonzo questions.

The course’s instructors gave no indication anything had gone awry.

Alonzo got in her car and started her two-and-a-half-hour journey home.

At 4:22 p.m., as Alonzo was learning that a controversy was brewing, a course coordinator sent an email to the entire class distancing UTMB from comments Alonzo allegedly made about Patrick. The subject line read, “STATEMENT OF FORMAL CENSURE.”

“The statements made by the guest lecturer do not represent the opinion or position of the University of Texas Medical Branch, nor are they considered as core curriculum content for this course,” the email said.

“UTMB does not support or condone these comments. We take these matters very seriously and wish to express our disapproval of the comment and apologize for harm it may have caused for members of our community,” the email continued. “We hereby issue a formal censure of these statements and will take steps to ensure that such behavior does not happen in the future.”

The email did not specify what comments had led to the censure.

The trouble had started several hours earlier when Buckingham called Patrick to alert him that an A&M professor had made negative comments about him during a guest lecture at UTMB, said Copelin, the A&M system spokesperson. Buckingham then called Jenny Jones, the university system’s vice chancellor for governmental relations.

Copelin said a text message had alerted Buckingham of the comments, but he did not provide information on who sent the text message.

Patrick then called Sharp and Kevin Eltife, the chair of the University of Texas System’s board, Copelin said. The call between Sharp and Patrick was short. Patrick’s chief of staff, Darrell Davila, followed with the text to Sharp that linked to Alonzo’s faculty page. Eltife declined to comment.

Sharp asked then-A&M President M. Katherine Banks to investigate Alonzo’s comments.

Copelin said Sharp’s request went through the chain of command at A&M’s Health Science Center and ended up with Kevin McGinnis, the system’s vice president and chief compliance officer.

At the same time, the government relations team alerted the Health Science Center and the pharmacy school, which are affiliated with Alonzo, Copelin said.

A&M officials received a copy of UTMB’s censure statement and reached out for more information, but UTMB did not cooperate, Copelin said.

“By the close of the day, McGinnis decided to put Alonzo on paid leave and investigate to determine what really happened,” Copelin said in a statement.

As the situation developed, A&M officials updated Patrick and his team.

At 4:43 p.m., just 15 minutes after UTMB sent its official censure letter, Jones alerted Patrick’s deputy chief of staff, Marian Wallace, that the investigation was underway.

“joy alonzo placed on administrative leave pending firing investigation this week js,” read the message from Jones obtained by the Tribune through a public records request.

Copelin said the university’s handling of the complaint against Alonzo followed standard procedure and appropriately updated the relevant lawmakers on the investigation’s progress.

“The investigation into the matter was a reasonable step to take, particularly after UTMB issued a public statement ‘censuring’ one of our faculty members,” he said. “In fact, it would have been irresponsible not to look into it.”

Texas A&M would not answer questions about what specific policy Alonzo may have violated with her comments or provide documents pertaining to the investigation, citing state law that allows a university to withhold such information if a person is cleared of wrongdoing.

The timing of the complaint came as the legislative session was heating up. Universities, including Texas A&M, were making pitches to lawmakers to devote some of the state’s multibillion-dollar surplus to fund special projects.

Alonzo’s predicament also comes as Texas universities are dealing with increasing government involvement in ostensibly independent public universities, particularly at the hand of Patrick, whom Alonzo was accused of criticizing. This year, Texas lawmakers banned diversity, equity and inclusion offices on college campuses, a priority for Patrick. These offices target underrepresented groups on campus to help them succeed, but critics accused them of pushing “woke,” left-leaning ideology on students and faculty.

Patrick also prioritized a bill that would limit certain conversations about race and gender in college classrooms. When professors at UT-Austin publicly reaffirmed their academic freedom to teach critical race theory last year, Patrick pledged to ban tenure in public universities. Ultimately, that proposal was unsuccessful, but faculty say the broad attack on higher education has made Texas a less appealing and more difficult place to work.

Students scramble to understand what happened

When students at UTMB received the email hours after the lecture, several started texting each other, trying to figure out what Alonzo had said that was so offensive.

According to one student who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation from the school, some students wondered if it was when Alonzo said that the lieutenant governor’s office was one of the reasons it’s hard for drug users to access certain care for opioid addiction or overdoses.

A second student who also asked to remain anonymous for the same reason said Alonzo made a comment that the lieutenant governor’s office had opposed policies that could have prevented opioid-related deaths, and by doing so had allowed people to die.

A third student who also spoke on the condition of anonymity said Alonzo talked about how policies, like the state’s ban on fentanyl test strips, have a direct impact on the ability to prevent opioid overdoses and deaths. A push to legalize the test strips died earlier this year in the Patrick-led Senate despite support from top Republicans, including Abbott.

All of the students interviewed said they felt Alonzo’s comments were accurate and they were not offended by anything in the presentation.

In a statement provided by Copelin, the A&M system spokesperson, Alonzo said “her remarks were mischaracterized and taken out of context,” but she did not confirm exactly what the comments were.

“She added that she had no issue with how the university handled the situation,” Copelin said.

The third student at UTMB said the email from the school was frustrating because it was unclear which comments the university found problematic.

“We’ve been left wondering exactly what it was they objected to,” the student said. “That vagueness just leads to some more self-censorship, since it’s hard to tell what is and isn’t allowed.”

Steinbaugh, an attorney with the legal nonprofit FIRE, said schools have the right to criticize an employee or guest speaker for statements they make, but issuing a formal censure sends a strong and unambiguous message.

“That is a suggestion that if you repeat this language or these criticisms, then you will be subject to disciplinary consequences that go beyond formal censure,” he said. “That is a way to really put an exclamation point on the chilling effect.”

In a statement last week to faculty who were upset about the fallout over the botched hiring of McElroy to the journalism department, Sharp expressed concern about outside influences in the hiring and promotion of faculty, saying it was “never welcome, nor invited.”

Sharp said he only participates in hiring questions over the school’s president and vice chancellors for agriculture and engineering.

“Other than that, I don’t believe it is my place to be part of the hiring process for faculty,” he wrote.

Fear of a chilling effect on life-saving information

A few hours after Alonzo reached out to Self about the trouble she was in, she finally heard back. But the tone of the email was notably different from the earlier cordial exchanges.

Self said she did not record the lecture and noted that “all further correspondence will be funneled through our Office of Education.”

Self referred a request for comment by the Tribune to UTMB’s media relations department, which declined to discuss the situation.

Meanwhile, emails obtained through an open records request show that opioid experts and advocates across the state started sending Alonzo letters of support that evening.

“I’ve never seen her to be anything other than professional, knowledgeable, and compassionate,” wrote Kathy Posey, who helped start the Montgomery County Overdose Prevention Endeavor, an opioid overdose awareness group made up of people whose family members have been addicted to opioids or died from an overdose.

Lucas Hill, a clinical associate professor of pharmacy at the University of Texas at Austin, wrote in his letter that Alonzo was not a divisive educator.

“While I was not present during her guest lecture at the University of Texas Medical Branch this morning, my interactions with Dr. Alonzo gives me great confidence that she engages learners in discussions of controversial topics with the professionalism and restraint described in established principles of academic freedom,” he wrote.

The stakes are high for professors who simultaneously work in their fields and teach, many of whom, like Alonzo, do not have tenure. And it raises concerns that medical experts working on high-stakes issues like the opioid crisis might withhold important, life-saving information out of fear of reprimand or punishment.

“When we’re dealing with basic life-saving interventions, chilling effects can have much more deep consequences,” said Aaron Ferguson, an addiction treatment expert in Austin who works with researchers at public universities to combat opioid overdoses. “People don't feel emboldened to share basic science that could save people’s lives.”

“Some members of the audience” were offended

On March 21, two weeks after she was placed on paid leave, Alonzo received an email saying her leave had been lifted.

The following day, pharmacy school Dean George Udeani said in a memo to Alonzo that during the lecture she “related an anecdote and an interaction with a state official.”

“I understand that your comment did not assign blame. However, some members of the audience felt that your anecdote was offensive,” he wrote.

“While it is important to preserve and defend academic freedom and as such be able to discuss and present to students and the public the results of research observations and strategies, you should be mindful of how you present your views,” Udeani said.

Disclosure: Texas A&M University, Texas A&M University System, University of Texas at Austin, University of Texas System and Kathleen McElroy have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

At issue was Brandon Cammack, a five-year lawyer hired by the attorney general’s office in 2020 to investigate whether a Paxton friend — Austin real estate investor Nate Paul — had been mistreated in a federal investigation into Paul’s businesses.

Paxton has argued that Paul raised important questions that required investigation. But for high-ranking whistleblowers in Paxton’s office, Cammack’s hiring was one example of Paxton’s extraordinary willingness to misuse his power to help Paul.

At a February 2021 meeting of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Joan Huffman — an influential Republican from Houston — asked Paxton how Cammack had come to be hired.

The question was an important one. In fall 2020, eight executives in Paxton’s agency met with FBI agents and state investigators to accuse Paxton of misusing his official authority to help Paul by hiring Cammack and by taking other unusual actions. Cammack, they alleged, misrepresented himself as a special prosecutor to secure 39 subpoenas intended to harass law enforcement and prosecutors investigating Paul.

Paxton referred Huffman’s question to his top aide, First Assistant Attorney General Brent Webster, even though Paxton was directly involved in hiring and supervising Cammack and Webster was working elsewhere when Cammack was hired.

Standing next to Paxton, Webster replied that the Travis County district attorney’s office had asked for help investigating Paul’s claim that search warrants for his home and businesses had been improperly doctored in 2019.

Webster said Cammack was hired by the attorney general’s office as an “outside counsel” to assist the Travis County district attorney’s office with its investigation of Paul’s claims. Cammack later became a special prosecutor when he “worked with” the district attorney’s office to get the grand jury subpoenas, Webster said.

“I’ve interviewed [assistant district attorneys] from Travis County and seen documents from Travis County that prove the fact that the Travis County DA’s office made Brandon Cammack a special prosecutor,” Webster said. “We did not make Brandon Cammack a special prosecutor, that was within the purview of the Travis County DA’s office.”

Travis County prosecutors say Webster’s portrayal was not true.

Margaret Moore, the district attorney at the time of Cammack’s hiring, said her office did not ask Cammack to investigate the case or seek any subpoenas.

“We didn’t even know him,” Moore said.

Gregg Cox, who worked in high-level positions for the Travis County district attorney’s office until 2020, said Cammack obtained the subpoenas on his own.

“There was no invitation, there was no request, there was nothing that would have authorized the use of a special prosecutor or the issuance of grand jury subpoenas,” Cox said.

“They’re trying to justify something that was done inappropriately by falsely describing it,” Cox said.

As the Texas Senate prepares for Paxton’s impeachment trial in September, Webster’s comments could come under scrutiny by some of the same senators who heard his testimony in February 2021.

The Senate agreed to hold a trial on 16 of 20 articles of impeachment that were approved by the House, with four articles set aside for now.

One of the articles accused Paxton of violating state law regulating how outside attorneys are hired when he contracted with Cammack to conduct an investigation into Paul’s “baseless complaint.”

A second article accused Paxton of misusing public money by directing his office to publish a lengthy, unsigned report that concluded that Paxton had broken no laws. The report was filled with “false or misleading statements,” the article said.

The report, published in August 2021, also repeated claims that the Travis County district attorney’s office had initiated the investigation. It also claimed that two prosecutors in the office were overseeing Cammack’s work and that letters written by the office “expressed Travis County’s desire that an investigation take place.”

How Cammack was hired

According to former officials who worked for Paxton, Paul complained that federal agents had altered search warrants issued by a U.S. magistrate judge for the raids on Paul’s home and business in August 2019.

Paxton helped set up a May 2020 meeting that he attended with Travis County prosecutors, Paul and Paul’s lawyer to ask for help on the complaint.

When the district attorney’s office declined to pursue an investigation, Paxton asked prosecutors to refer the complaint back to the attorney general’s office, according to Moore. That was done in a June 10, 2020 letter to Paxton’s office.

Paxton then assigned Paul’s complaint to David Maxwell, the office’s director of law enforcement, and Mark Penley, who led the criminal justice division. Both men would later report Paxton to the FBI, be fired and file a whistleblower lawsuit that challenged their dismissals as inappropriate retaliation.

Maxwell and Penley consulted with forensic experts in the agency who found no evidence of tampering. They moved to close the investigation, but Paxton “pushed back,” unhappy with the result, their whistleblower lawsuit said.

In August 2020, Paxton asked another top deputy, Ryan Vassar, how to hire an outside counsel, according to the lawsuit. Vassar explained that the process would require authorization from at least 10 employees on the agency’s organization chart.

In early September 2020, Paxton told Vassar to draft a contract to hire Cammack as an outside counsel, the lawsuit said.

As head of the criminal justice division, Penley had to sign off on the contract under standard procedures but refused, saying there was no evidence of a crime, according to investigators for the House General Investigating Committee, which drafted the articles of impeachment. Cammack was hired anyway, investigators said.

In late September 2020, employees at the attorney general’s office learned that Cammack was claiming to represent the agency and using that power to request subpoenas against Paul’s rivals in various legal proceedings. Paul’s attorney accompanied Cammack when he served some of the subpoenas, House investigators said.

Top deputies at the attorney general’s office immediately worked to quash the subpoenas, arguing they were unlawfully executed, and a Travis County judge complied with the request.

A few days later, top employees, including Vassar, Penley and Maxwell, told authorities they believed Paxton was taking bribes for helping Paul.

In a May report to the House General Investigating Committee, investigators said Cammack had been hired at the recommendation of Paul’s lawyer.

“Under the direction of the attorney general”

Cammack’s contract was with the attorney general’s office and was signed by Paxton and Cammack. The contract identifies Cammack as an “outside counsel” and specifies that he is not to act as a prosecutor.

In a copy of one of Cammack’s requested subpoenas included in the whistleblower lawsuit, Cammack identifies himself as a special prosecutor for the attorney general’s office. He does not mention working for the Travis County district attorney’s office.

Moore, who is now out of office, said Paxton asked her office to refer Paul’s complaint to the attorney general’s office. She said she’s tried to bat down assertions that her office requested an investigation in the past.

In an October 2020 letter to Paxton, Moore said her office did not investigate the merits of Paul’s complaint before agreeing to the referral.

“The referral cannot and should not be used as any indication of a need for an investigation, a desire on the Travis County D.A.’s part for an investigation to take place, or an endorsement of your acceptance of the referral,” she wrote.

Cox said the referral letter was standard procedure and did not indicate a request by the office to investigate the claim.

In an interview with the Tribune, Moore said her office did not seek the subpoenas requested by Cammack.

“We were given to believe [it was] under the direction of the attorney general,” she said.

The attorney general’s office, which still employs Webster, did not respond to a request for comment. Neither did Paxton’s defense team or a spokesperson for the House impeachment managers. A recent gag order from Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who is acting in the role of judge in the Paxton impeachment trial, bars trial participants from discussing the case publicly.

Paxton’s trial is set to begin Sept. 5, and witness lists — which will not be made public — are due by Aug. 22.

O’Neill, who served 12 years on the state’s highest civil court before stepping down in 2010, is an accomplished attorney who also served as a state district judge and as a justice on the Houston-based 14th Court of Appeals. In 2002 and 2006, she was named the appellate justice of the year by the Texas Association of Civil Trial and Appellate Specialists.

O’Neill said she was proud to join the legal team, which also includes prominent Houston lawyers Dick DeGuerin and Rusty Hardin, assembled by House impeachment managers to present the legal case for impeachment in a trial before the Texas Senate to begin Sept. 5.

“The facts in this case are clear, compelling and decisive, and I look forward to presenting them before the members of the Texas Senate,” she said in a statement.

State Rep. Andrew Murr, R-Junction, who leads the House General Investigating Committee and the Board of Impeachment Managers, called O’Neill a “respected, conservative jurist.”

“As a longtime judge and elected official, she understands the gravity of this matter and its importance to the state of Texas,” Murr said in a statement.

O’Neill returned to private practice in 2010 and often works as an arbitrator and mediator in complex, multiparty cases, according to her Austin law firm’s website.

In a separate development in the impeachment case, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick — who presides over the Senate and is serving the role of judge in the impeachment trial — issued a discovery order Wednesday requiring House impeachment managers to share relevant information and documents with Paxton’s legal team.

The order was requested by Paxton’s lead defense lawyer, Tony Buzbee, who had accused the impeachment team of withholding information vital to the defense.

The discovery order requires impeachment lawyers to turn over documents, including business records and law enforcement reports, that are relevant to the impeachment proceedings. It also ordered impeachment lawyers to turn over physical evidence, photographs, and government and business records that will be used in the trial.

Impeachment lawyers will also have to disclose to Paxton’s defense team any known convictions of people they plan to call as witnesses and the names and addresses of expert witnesses.

After receiving Patrick’s order, House impeachment lawyers said they had already planned on submitting the information to Buzbee.

“Paxton’s lawyers ignored our efforts to cooperate, instead filing their unauthorized demands and trying to create a spectacle in the media,” DeGuerin and Hardin wrote in a statement. “The Lieutenant Governor has ordered us to produce exactly what we intended to produce from the beginning and we are happy to comply.”

Patrick Svitek contributed to this report.

Disclosure: Tony Buzbee, Dick DeGuerin and Rusty Hardin have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

Suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton will answer to 16 of 20 articles of impeachment at a trial to begin Sept. 5, the Texas Senate said Wednesday night after spending about 20 hours drafting the trial rules in private.

Paxton’s wife, Sen. Angela Paxton, R-McKinney, can attend, but she will not participate in deliberations or closed sessions when the Senate sits as a court of impeachment, according the trial rules adopted without discussion Wednesday on a 25-3 vote.

The three votes in opposition were by Sens. Sarah Eckhardt, D-Austin; Bob Hall, R-Edgewood; and Angela Paxton.

The trial, which will be held in public, will begin with opening statements. Lawyers for the House impeachment managers will present evidence first, with cross-examination of witnesses allowed. Paxton’s lawyers will be allowed to present evidence and witnesses as well.

A list of witnesses, who under the rules can be compelled to appear, must be filed by Aug. 22 and made available to the opposing side.

A separate resolution, adopted 28-0, requires Paxton to appear in person in the Senate chamber “to answer the said charges of impeachment.”

After the votes, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who presides over the Senate, told senators, their staff and others involved in the court of impeachment to refrain from discussing the merits of the case with others, including Paxton, his lawyers and lawyers for the House impeachment managers.

A separate rule prohibits senators from discussing the case with each other as well, he said.

“No member of the court, or the presiding officer of the court, shall advocate a position on the merits of the proceedings to other members of the court or the presiding officer of the court until such a time as deliberations shall begin,” Patrick said.

A major question settled by the Senate rules was the determination that Angela Paxton has a conflict of interest in her husband’s trial. She can sit in the impeachment trial because the Texas Constitution requires all members to do so, but she will not be allowed to “vote on any matter, motion, or question, or participate in closed sessions or deliberations.

In late May, the House vote 121-23 to approve 20 articles of impeachment that accused Paxton of misconduct that required his permanent removal from office, sending the matter to the Senate for a trial. Paxton, who was suspended from office upon impeachment, would be removed if two-thirds of senators agree.

In the rules adopted Wednesday, the Senate set aside four of the articles, saying they can be considered after the senators decide the first 16 or can be dismissed by a vote of a majority of senators.

Two of the set-aside articles were related to Paxton’s eight-year-old securities fraud case in which he is accused of soliciting investors in Servergy Inc. without disclosing that the McKinney tech company was paying him to tout its stock.

One of the articles accused Paxton of causing “protracted” delays, while the other accused Paxton of “thwarting justice” when one of his political donors took legal action that halted payments to the prosecutors in the case. The other two articles accused Paxton of lying on official records by failing to register as an investment adviser, as required by state law, and for not “fully and accurately” disclosing his financial interests on required disclosure forms.

Under other trial rules adopted Wednesday:

* Before the trial, Paxton’s lawyers can challenge any or all of the articles of impeachment, which can be dismissed with a majority vote by senators.

* Senators will deliberate behind closed doors, and their votes on the articles of impeachment will be made “without debate or comment.”

* After final judgment, senators may submit a written statement within 72 hours of their vote to the chamber’s clerk, which would become “a part of the official record and entered into the journal.”

* The use of cell phones on the Senate floor by members of the court and their staff, as well as both legal teams while the impeachment trial is proceeding, is banned unless the phones are necessary for hearing assistance or for reviewing documents.

* The public and the press can attend and view the impeachment trial from the Senate gallery.

Rule-making process began in secret

The rule-making process began when the Senate, on the last day of the regular legislative session in late May, voted to create a committee of seven senators, gave it permission to conduct its business in private and directed it to return Tuesday to present rules of procedure to a “caucus of the Senate” — which typically meets outside of public view.

Members of the committee did not publicly discuss their work, but that had not stopped Paxton’s allies and the House impeachment managers from lobbying for their preferred package of rules.

Paxton’s legal team, led by boisterous Houston attorney Tony Buzbee, had urged the committee to recommend rules that would allow the Senate to toss out the House-approved articles of impeachment, calling the procedure a “kangaroo court” because Paxton was not given the opportunity to defend himself.

The House managers, who have hired Texas legal giants Dick DeGuerin and Rusty Hardin to present the case against Paxton, sent the Senate committee 17 examples of rules that were used in past impeachment trials in Texas, including a recusal rule.

Patrick on Monday tamped down on talk about ending the impeachment trial before it can begin.

[State Sen. Angela Paxton will “carry out my duty” and attend her husband’s impeachment trial]

“We actually have to address the issues,” Patrick told Dallas radio host Mark Davis. “If not, they could keep Ken Paxton away from doing his job forever. … In general, we have to deal with it.”

The Senate committee’s decision on recusals will be closely watched because Sen. Angela Paxton, R-McKinney, is among the senators who could decide her husband’s fate.

Paxton’s legal team and the House managers have also quarreled about whether the trial should be public and how much discovery and preparation will be allowed.

Buzbee said in his first news conference as Paxton’s lead lawyer that the process of lining up witnesses and documents could take up to a year. And Paxton’s legal team argued in a memo to the committee that it should limit testimony to deposition statements, rather than allow live witnesses, which they said could turn the proceedings into “political theater.”

What do house managers want?

Paxton’s permanent removal from office would require a two-thirds vote in the Senate.

Paxton was impeached by a vote of 121-23 in an unprecedented vote in the House during the final days of the legislative session. He was immediately suspended from his official duties, and Gov. Greg Abbott appointed former Secretary of State John Scott as interim attorney general.

In the run-up to the House impeachment vote, Paxton supporters, including former President Donald Trump, urged lawmakers to vote no.

On Saturday, the State Republican Executive Committee, grassroots leaders who help set the Texas GOP’s platform, condemned the impeachment in a 53-11 vote. A resolution denounced the House for not allowing Paxton to defend himself against the accusations and for not putting witnesses under oath when they were questioned by investigators. It likened the impeachment process in the House to a “banana republic.”

A majority of the impeachment allegations against Paxton originated with eight of his former top deputies who, in 2020, met with law enforcement to accuse Paxton of misusing his power to benefit his friend and political donor, Austin real estate investor Nate Paul. In return, they said, Paxton apparently accepted bribes that included a $25,000 political donation and funding for remodeling Paxton’s Austin home, plus they said a woman involved in an extramarital affair with Paxton was given a job at one of Paul’s companies.

The former officials said Paxton directed agency employees to help Paul gain access to investigative records and that he drafted a legal opinion that helped Paul stall impending foreclosure sales on properties. Paxton also pushed the agency to hire an outside lawyer to harass Paul’s enemies, the officials said.

On June 6, a federal grand jury indicted Paul on eight counts of making false statements to financial institutions. He is involved in numerous other bankruptcy and legal disputes related to his real estate businesses.

Within two months, all eight of the attorney general’s office executives who reported Paxton to the FBI and other agencies were fired or resigned. Four of them filed a whistleblower lawsuit in November 2020 claiming they were improperly fired in retaliation.

Their report set off an FBI investigation that was taken over by the U.S. Justice Department this year.

Some of the articles of impeachment also dealt with Paxton’s eight-year-old securities fraud case in which he is accused of soliciting investors in Servergy Inc. without disclosing that the McKinney tech company was paying him to tout its stock.

This is a developing story.

Disclosure: Dick DeGuerin, Rusty Hardin and Tony Buzbee have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

The Texas Senate, meeting Tuesday to hear from a secretive seven-senator committee that was directed to create the rules governing the impeachment trial of suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton, took no public action on trial plans despite several lengthy meetings in private and multiple recesses.

Senators emerged from a closed-door meeting shortly after 9 p.m. and recessed until 10 a.m. Wednesday.

On the final day of the regular legislative session in late May, senators created the committee, gave it permission to conduct its business in private and directed it to return Tuesday to present rules of procedure to a “caucus of the Senate” — which typically meets outside of public view. On Monday, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who presides over the Senate, indicated that the impeachment trial rules might not be made public until later this week.

The resolution that created the committee also gave Patrick the authority to set an impeachment trial to begin no later than Aug. 28.

Members of the committee have not publicly discussed their work, but that has not stopped Paxton’s allies and the House impeachment managers from lobbying for their preferred package of rules.

Paxton’s legal team, led by boisterous Houston attorney Tony Buzbee, has urged the committee to recommend rules that would allow the Senate to toss out the House-approved articles of impeachment, calling the procedure a “kangaroo court” because Paxton was not given the opportunity to defend himself.

The House managers, who have hired Texas legal giants Dick DeGuerin and Rusty Hardin to present the case against Paxton, sent the Senate committee 17 examples of rules that were used in past impeachment trials in Texas, including a recusal rule.

Patrick on Monday tamped down on talk about ending the impeachment trial before it can begin.

[State Sen. Angela Paxton will “carry out my duty” and attend her husband’s impeachment trial]

“We actually have to address the issues,” Patrick told Dallas radio host Mark Davis. “If not, they could keep Ken Paxton away from doing his job forever. … In general, we have to deal with it.”

The Senate committee’s decision on recusals will be closely watched because Sen. Angela Paxton, R-McKinney, is among the senators who could decide her husband’s fate.

Paxton’s legal team and the House managers have also quarreled about whether the trial should be public and how much discovery and preparation will be allowed.

Buzbee said in his first news conference as Paxton’s lead lawyer that the process of lining up witnesses and documents could take up to a year. And Paxton’s legal team argued in a memo to the committee that it should limit testimony to deposition statements, rather than allow live witnesses, which they said could turn the proceedings into “political theater.”

What do house managers want?

Paxton’s permanent removal from office would require a two-thirds vote in the Senate.

Paxton was impeached by a vote of 121-23 in an unprecedented vote in the House during the final days of the legislative session. He was immediately suspended from his official duties, and Gov. Greg Abbott appointed former Secretary of State John Scott as interim attorney general.

In the run-up to the House impeachment vote, Paxton supporters, including former President Donald Trump, urged lawmakers to vote no.

On Saturday, the State Republican Executive Committee, grassroots leaders who help set the Texas GOP’s platform, condemned the impeachment in a 53-11 vote. A resolution denounced the House for not allowing Paxton to defend himself against the accusations and for not putting witnesses under oath when they were questioned by investigators. It likened the impeachment process in the House to a “banana republic.”

A majority of the impeachment allegations against Paxton originated with eight of his former top deputies who, in 2020, met with law enforcement to accuse Paxton of misusing his power to benefit his friend and political donor, Austin real estate investor Nate Paul. In return, they said, Paxton apparently accepted bribes that included a $25,000 political donation and funding for remodeling Paxton’s Austin home, plus they said a woman involved in an extramarital affair with Paxton was given a job at one of Paul’s companies.

The former officials said Paxton directed agency employees to help Paul gain access to investigative records and that he drafted a legal opinion that helped Paul stall impending foreclosure sales on properties. Paxton also pushed the agency to hire an outside lawyer to harass Paul’s enemies, the officials said.

On June 6, a federal grand jury indicted Paul on eight counts of making false statements to financial institutions. He is involved in numerous other bankruptcy and legal disputes related to his real estate businesses.

Within two months, all eight of the attorney general’s office executives who reported Paxton to the FBI and other agencies were fired or resigned. Four of them filed a whistleblower lawsuit in November 2020 claiming they were improperly fired in retaliation.

Their report set off an FBI investigation that was taken over by the U.S. Justice Department this year.

Some of the articles of impeachment also dealt with Paxton’s eight-year-old securities fraud case in which he is accused of soliciting investors in Servergy Inc. without disclosing that the McKinney tech company was paying him to tout its stock.

Once the impeachment trial rules are adopted, Patrick has until Aug. 28 to issue a proclamation setting the date for the Senate to convene as a Court of Impeachment, according to the Senate resolution adopted on May 29.

The resolution also created the rules committee, which is led by Sen. Brian Birdwell, R-Granbury, and includes Republican Sens. Brandon Creighton of Conroe, Pete Flores of Pleasanton, Joan Huffman of Houston and Phil King of Weatherford, as well as Democratic Sens. Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa of McAllen and Royce West of Dallas.

Disclosure: Dick DeGuerin, Rusty Hardin and Tony Buzbee have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

When the Texas House impeached now-suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton last month, lawmakers relied heavily on allegations made by four men who were fired from top jobs at Paxton’s agency.

The four fired executives filed a lawsuit in November 2020, arguing that the Texas Whistleblower Act protected them from retaliation after reporting to law enforcement their belief that Paxton had improperly helped his friend and political donor, Austin real estate investor Nate Paul.

The lawsuit also gave the public a first look at their allegations against Paxton, saying he improperly pressured agency employees to get involved in legal disputes to benefit Paul and his businesses.

In return, they said, Paul helped fund a renovation of Paxton’s Austin home and employed a woman who was allegedly involved in an extramarital relationship with Paxton. Paxton is married to state Sen. Angela Paxton, R-McKinney.

Here is a look at the four whistleblowers, what they did in the attorney general’s office and what they claim Paxton did that led them to report his actions to authorities.

Blake Brickman

Blake Brickman was deputy attorney general for policy and strategy initiatives under Paxton. Credit: Attorney

Paxton recruited Blake Brickman to the attorney general’s office in February 2020. After a career in Republican politics and working as a lawyer in private practice, Brickman served as Paxton’s deputy attorney general for policy and strategy initiatives.

From 2015-19, Brickman was chief of staff to Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin, considered one of the most conservative governors in the country. Earlier in his career, Brickman was chief of staff for Republican U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning and a campaign manager for U.S. Rep. Andy Barr, also a Republican.

John Hodgson, a staunchly conservative Kentucky state representative who served with Brickman in Bevin’s administration, lauded Brickman for his conservative principles.

“We worked together every day for four years fighting for ways to make government smaller and more accountable,” Hodgson said in a statement provided by Brickman’s lawyer. “Blake is a fearless defender of the rule of law and conservative values.”

A note from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to Blake Brickman, former deputy attorney general for policy and strategy initiatives. Credit: Obtained by The Texas Tribune

Brickman pushed back against Paxton’s desire to get the agency’s Charitable Trust Division involved in a legal dispute between Paul’s businesses and the Roy F. and Joann Cole Mitte Foundation, the whistleblower lawsuit said. The Austin nonprofit had sued Paul’s business for fraud, alleging that Paul failed to make financial disclosures about its investments.

At Paxton’s direction, Brickman reviewed the case and concluded that the agency should not get involved, particularly in ways helpful to Paul, because the Charitable Trust Division was intended to help nonprofits. Paxton disregarded the advice and pressured agency lawyers to intervene in the lawsuit, delaying the sale of some of Paul’s properties to pay the nonprofit, according to investigators hired by the House General Investigating Committee.

Brickman was fired on Oct. 20, 2020, for “insubordination,” just a few weeks after reporting Paxton’s alleged crimes to the FBI.

Several months earlier, Paxton praised Brickman at a monthly meeting and gave him a copy of “Scalia Speaks,” a collection of speeches by the late conservative U.S. Supreme Court justice. Inside the book, Paxton had inscribed, “Blake, I am so grateful you joined our team at the Texas AG’s office. I am confident that you will continue to make a difference for our office and all of Texas.”

Ryan Vassar

Ryan Vassar worked for Paxton for five years, rising to be the agency’s chief legal officer before he was fired in November 2020.

When Paxton personally promoted him to deputy attorney general for legal counsel at age 35, Vassar was the youngest person Paxton had appointed to the position, which involved supervising 60 lawyers and 30 professional staff across five divisions.

Prior to the attorney general’s office, Vassar had worked for other top Texas Republicans, including former Gov. Rick Perry as a fellow in the office of general counsel and former Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett as a law clerk.

In the whistleblower lawsuit, Vassar alleged that Paxton pressured him to make decisions on public records requests that would have helped Paul gain information about an FBI investigation of his businesses. Vassar argued that under decades of precedent, information about ongoing law enforcement investigations should remain confidential. He also told Paxton that ordering the information to be made public could compromise the attorney general’s ability to withhold information about its own pending investigations.

Ryan Vassar was a deputy attorney general for legal counsel under Paxton. Credit: Attorney

Even so, Paxton directed his agency to take no position on whether the documents should be released, the whistleblower lawsuit alleged.

After another request from Paul’s lawyers in May 2020, Paxton directed the agency to order the release of an unredacted FBI brief that referenced its investigation into Paul. Vassar released those records on Paxton’s order.

Vassar also opposed the hiring of Brandon Cammack, a five-year lawyer whom Paxton hired to work as a special counsel investigating Paul’s claim that warrants used to search his home and businesses in 2019 had been altered. A prior investigation by other members of the attorney general’s office found no evidence to support Paul’s complaint.

After informing the office that he had reported Paxton’s work on Paul’s behalf to the FBI, Vassar was placed on leave pending an “open-ended” investigation by the attorney general’s office. He was escorted to his office by an armed guard to collect his belongings and told to turn over his agency laptop and cellphone.

He was fired on Nov. 17, 2020, less than two months after making his report to the FBI.

Mark Penley

Mark Penley was fired in November 2020 after a little more than a year as deputy attorney general for criminal justice, supervising about 220 employees.

Penley is a former federal prosecutor in the U.S. attorney’s office for the Northern District of Texas and has almost 40 years of legal experience. A graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy, Penley served for five years, reaching the rank of captain.

Penley was directed to examine whether the FBI had violated Paul’s civil rights when investigators searched his home and businesses in August 2019. Paul’s lawyers claimed federal officials had altered a search warrant after it had been signed by a federal magistrate, but Penley and David Maxwell, the agency’s director of law enforcement, could find no evidence of that.

Mark Penley was deputy attorney general for criminal justice under Paxton. Credit: Attorney

Penley recommended that the attorney general’s office close its investigation into Paul’s complaint, but Paxton pushed back, eventually hiring Cammack as an outside lawyer over the objections of Penley, who argued that the complaint had already been investigated and disproven.

A day after informing the attorney general’s office that he had reported Paxton to the FBI, Penley was placed on leave pending an investigation, and his email account and building-access badge were disabled.

Penley asked multiple times what he was being investigated for but received no answer, according to the whistleblower complaint.

On Nov. 2, Penley and Maxwell were called into the office of Brent Webster, a Paxton loyalist who had been named first assistant attorney general when Jeff Mateer resigned from the agency’s No. 2 position after reporting Paxton to the FBI. They say they were pressured to resign but refused, and later that day were fired.

Penley is a lifelong Republican, according to his lawyer, and struggled to get another job after being fired.

“After losing his job as head of the Criminal Division of the OAG, Mark was out of work for six months before being forced to take a job in the Dallas District Attorney’s office as a low-level misdemeanor prosecutor,” his lawyer Don Tittle said in a statement.

David Maxwell

David Maxwell worked in the attorney general’s office for almost 10 years, rising to director of law enforcement, supervising 350 employees. He came to the agency under then-Attorney General Greg Abbott and stayed after Paxton took over in 2015.

Before joining the attorney general’s office, Maxwell was with the Texas Department of Public Safety for 38 years, attaining the rank of sergeant and working as a Texas Ranger for 24 years. He has nearly 50 years of law enforcement experience investigating crimes, including public corruption.

David Maxwell was deputy director and director of the law enforcement division under Paxton. Credit: Attorney

Paxton directed Maxwell and Penley to investigate Paul’s claim that law enforcement officials had improperly searched his home and businesses. But the two top deputies could find no evidence of wrongdoing and advised Paul and his attorney to file their complaints with a federal court or the U.S. Department of Justice if they wanted to proceed.

Paxton pushed back and asked his two senior officials to keep investigating.

Drawing on his career in law enforcement, Maxwell said he warned Paxton that his actions on Paul’s behalf appeared to be illegal and that he “was going to get himself indicted” for bribery, abuse of office and other crimes, the lawsuit said.

Although Maxwell was on vacation when seven other high-ranking officials reported Paxton to the FBI, he took his concerns to a former colleague, Randy Price, deputy director of law enforcement operations for the Texas Rangers. Maxwell also made reports to the FBI, the Justice Department and the Travis County district attorney’s office.

He was placed on investigative leave Oct. 2, 2020, a day after the top deputies told Paxton they had reported him to the FBI. Like Penley, Maxwell said he was not told why he was under investigation and was pressured to resign. Instead, he was fired Nov. 2.

In the time since, Maxwell has been unable to find comparable employment, his attorney said.