SAN ANTONIO – A months-long probe by KSAT Investigates found a wide disparity in how often Bexar County civil district court judges are available to assist the presiding court.
The records raise questions about whether some judges have been forced to take on additional workload in a court system designed to farm out hearings each morning.
Court status sheets covering mid-January through the end of July — 133 days that the courts were in session — show that several judges were listed as available to assist in presiding just over 70% of the time.
A source provided the records to KSAT on the condition of anonymity after the Office of Civil District Courts Administration denied a similar public records request from KSAT late this summer.
In written statements, multiple judges pushed back on KSAT’s reporting and praised the presiding system, claiming that the status sheets are not a detailed record of judicial attendance or effort and that they do not account for the judges’ other work duties.
Conversely, one of the 14 civil district court judges told KSAT in a written statement the county’s presiding system is “very inefficient” and “frustrating” and suggested that it “should be significantly modified or done away with completely.”
‘Spinning the wheel of fortune’
San Antonio attorney Leslie Sachanowicz advised the county on regulatory and statutory interpretations while working for the civil section of the Bexar County District Attorney’s Office for a decade and a half.
He now represents clients in civil disputes, telling KSAT in an interview outside the presiding court, “So, I’ve actually grown up in this courthouse.”
“I call it spinning the wheel of fortune because you don’t know which judge you’re going to get,” Sachanowicz said, describing the county’s unique system for handling civil cases.
Instead of a divorce, lawsuit or any other civil matter being assigned to a single court when it’s filed and staying with that court for the duration of the case, plaintiffs, defendants, and attorneys meet at the presiding court, either in person or via Zoom video on large monitors placed throughout the court.
The judge overseeing the presiding court calls out the cause number and then farms out the case to one of the other civil district courts throughout the courthouse complex, based on which judge is currently available and how long the hearing could take.
Some cases will have gone in front of multiple civil judges by the time they are resolved.
Some hearings take place in person, and some occur via Zoom.
The county’s civil district judges take turns overseeing the presiding court, often for several weeks at a time, records show.
The presiding judge can also hear several matters in the presiding court itself at the end of the docket call. That was the case when KSAT observed the presiding court in person earlier this year.
Officials declined to allow the presiding court proceedings to be recorded by a KSAT camera.
Parties in civil dispute can request that their case be designated as “complex.” If this request is granted by a judge, it is assigned to one judge for the duration of it.
“There really is no most appropriate way. I’ll just be candid with you. Every system you have, people are going to be critical of,” Sachanowicz said.
What the court status sheets show
The daily court status sheets show the presiding judge at the top and include a list of which judges are available along with their respective Zoom meeting IDs, what hours they are open to assist presiding as well as any cases already assigned to them for the day.
On most days, at least one visiting judge was listed on the sheet to provide short-term assistance to the presiding court.
From mid-January through the end of July, the records listed Judge Toni Arteaga and Judge David Canales as available to assist presiding 71% of the time.
Judge Mary Lou Alvarez had an availability rate of 74%, the records show.
Nine of the 14 judges had an availability rate of between 83% and 88%. In this group, Judge Monique Diaz’s availability rate of 85% was calculated starting on the date she returned from maternity leave in early March.
Judges Nadine Nieto and Christine Hortick, each in their first year of elected office, had availability rates of 91% and 98%, respectively.
Judge Nieto and Judge Hortick were the only two judges to allow KSAT to record footage inside their courtrooms for this story.
Though there are no local rules for how many days a judge is required to be available, even judges holding trials in their courtroom are supposed to assist the presiding court from 8:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.
Additionally, Ryan Anderson, general counsel for the Bexar County Civil District Courts, told KSAT that each judge has committed to assisting the presiding court for at least an hour each morning.
Anderson declined to be interviewed on camera for this story but answered a range of questions off-camera about the presiding court system.
After public record request blocked, KSAT obtained records through source
On Aug. 2, KSAT Investigates requested court status sheets for each county business day between January 1 and July 31.
In an Aug. 16 letter, Anderson informed KSAT that administrative records held by courts and judicial branch agencies are not covered by the Texas Public Information Act, meaning they are not required by law to be turned over in response to public records requests.
In a formal rejection letter sent by Anderson on Aug. 23, he informed KSAT that the records were exempt from being released.
Pressed by KSAT weeks later about the request being denied, Anderson conceded that a substantial majority of the judges voted on a course of action that included not releasing the status sheets to KSAT.
Anderson told KSAT the discussion was more substantive than simply a straight-up vote from judges on whether to release the sheets.
Several days in March showed as few as five judges, including visiting judges, on the presiding status sheets.
Anderson attributed the small list to a reduced caseload heard by the presiding court during spring break.
On multiple days this summer, only between 8-10 judges — including visiting judges — were listed on the sheets, the records show.
What the judges told KSAT
KSAT Investigates sent all 14 civil district court judges requests for interviews for this story.
None agreed to sit down with KSAT for an interview.
Judge Canales provided KSAT with a detailed written response regarding his 71% availability rate.
“While status sheets offer a glimpse, they do not always provide a full picture of the duties and challenges inherent in my role as a district judge,” Judge Canales wrote.
He provided the following breakdown of why he was not listed on the sheets on certain days:
- Missed six days at different times because of illness
- 14 days preparing for and attending continuing legal education seminars
- Two days fulfilling obligations to boards, committees and workgroups, including chairing the Bexar County Juvenile Board
- Six days overseeing Bexar County Esteem, Achievement, Grit, Learning & Leadership, Empowerment, and Strength Court, the county’s court for teenage boys in foster care
- 10 days of personal and vacation time
Judge Canales’ 38 total absences match the figure KSAT calculated for him.
After reaching out to Judge Arteaga for an interview, KSAT received a message back that she was out of the office.
After KSAT followed up days later, Judge Arteaga responded via email that she had been away due to a death in her family.
“I understand you will be (sic) Presiding Court next week. I would be happy to schedule time for an interview if you have any additional questions about the process,” Judge Arteaga wrote on Oct. 6.
Judge Arteaga did not respond to a second follow-up email from KSAT asking what day and time she would be available for an interview.
‘It is not... an accurate record of judicial attendance or effort’
Judge Rosie Alvarado, local administrative judge for the Bexar County civil district courts, provided KSAT with the most detailed response on judicial attendance and the court status sheets.
“The centralized Presiding Court docketing system is a point of pride for the overwhelming majority of our local judiciary. During the many decades since its inception, it has proven efficient and capable of providing litigants quick access to our courts,” wrote Judge Alvarado, who, along with Judge Angélica Jiménez, presides over the Preparation, Esteem, Achievement, Resiliency, Learning, Strength & Stamina restorative care court.
Both judges had 83% availability to assist with the presiding court, according to the status sheets.
Judge Alvarado, in her written response, pushed back on KSAT examining court status sheets to analyze judge availability.
“Please understand that our Court Status sheet is an internal tool used to assist the Presiding Judge. It is just one means of sharing information with him or her. It is not a time sheet. Nor is it an accurate record of judicial attendance or effort. More importantly, it is a fluid and ever-changing document. It is a rare day on which the initial sheet is not revised multiple times before the day’s docket is wrapped up. Additionally, each judge reports his or her status as they see fit. It is not standardized,” Judge Alvarado wrote.
Many of the sheets obtained by KSAT included handwritten notes and revisions.
Judge Alvarado also told KSAT in her written response that the sheets do not account for the judges’ other judicial responsibilities, “which only grow as a judge becomes more established.”
“It is usually the more experienced judges who are tasked with overseeing court programming, operations, providing legislative advocacy for the judiciary, or the administrative work required to run the judiciary. These are all vital judicial functions, but they are not necessarily reflected on the Court Status sheets,” Judge Alvarado wrote.
Judge Jimenez and Judge Marisa Flores, both with 86% availability, did not respond to multiple emails from KSAT seeking an interview for this story.
All of the below judges and well as Judge Diaz suggested KSAT instead contact Anderson about our inquiries.
- Judges Nieto, Alvarez, Tina Torres (83% availability)
- Judge Laura Salinas (84% availability)
- Judge Norma Gonzales (88% availability)
- Judge Cynthia Chapa (87% availability)
Judge Nicole Garza, who had 83% availability according to the status sheets, told KSAT that a lengthy illness contributed to her absences.
The status sheets did not list Judge Garza as being available 22 times between mid-January and the end of July.
“Thankfully, I am slowly but consistently improving, but it has been a painful and frustrating road. My opinion of presiding reflects my experience with the above issue. More specifically, had my sisters and brother ‘in-the-law’ not agreed to help cover those days where I was in debilitating pain, my individual docket may have suffered. Better or worse, we pull together and are one of the few counties where a hearing can be obtained as quickly as it can here. I practiced in several other counties before I came to be on the bench and know this to be true,” Judge Garza wrote on Oct. 11.
‘System should be significantly modified or done away with completely’
Judge Hortick, however, was pointed in her criticism of the presiding system.
After declining a request for an interview, Judge Hortick told KSAT in an Oct. 6 email, “I’m very proud of the work I do at the courthouse. When I campaigned, I promised I would work hard for Bexar County. I’m doing my best to honor that commitment. The Presiding system, as it currently exists, works well for short hearings but can be very inefficient, frustrating, and costly for parties seeking to be heard on longer matters. In my opinion, the current Presiding system should be significantly modified or done away with completely.”
Asked in a follow-up email from KSAT what would possibly replace the presiding system, Judge Hortick responded:
“The simplest, cleanest way would be for each court to maintain their own dockets as do our local criminal courts and most other jurisdictions. The other way it could work is if we had some sort of hybrid system in which we kept Presiding to assist for the first hour to handle quick matters, and then each of us maintain our own dockets. This would provide for more efficient scheduling but would not address the issue of the lack of consistency in cases. Lack of consistency in cases is one of the biggest problems I have with the Presiding system. Litigants show up for a hearing and have no idea which of the 14 judges they will get that day. Each judge has their own level of experience and temperament. If litigants had one judge, they would not have to rehash the same facts over and over with each new judge. That is very inefficient and, depending on the situation, causes those individuals to relive their drama each and every time they come to court because it’s a different judge, and they need to be brought up to speed. That’s why in childrens’ court, cases are assigned to the same judge. That judge knows the case from start to finish. It puts the best position to keep the case moving along and keep all the players honest. I’ve had a few attorneys try and pull a fast one because I didn’t have certain information because I was not one who heard the case previously.”
Anderson, in an Oct. 5 email, told KSAT that past evaluations from the Texas Office of Court Administration have consistently shown that Bexar County’s presiding system is far more efficient at resolving cases than single court docket systems used in other counties like Harris and Tarrant.
Like many of the judges, Anderson pushed back on KSAT utilizing the court status sheets to calculate judge availability.
Anderson said the percentages calculated by KSAT did not match his own observations at the courthouse.
“Additionally, the revisions regarding a particular judge’s availability do not always make it onto the sheet. Oftentimes, the Presiding Court judge simply makes a handwritten note or commits the change to memory upon receipt of information as to another judge’s availability. In short, the status sheet for each day is a living, changing document that is meant to be used to assist the Presiding Judge and supporting elements (court reporters, bailiffs and clerks) in resolving the cases set for hearing each day,” Anderson wrote.
‘There’s a legislative solution to this’
“The only people that can hold the judges accountable are their bosses or supervisors. Those bosses or supervisors are the electorate,” said Sachanowicz.
Sachanowicz pointed to the state of Florida, which uses retention elections for some of its judges.
The state’s supreme court justices and appeals court judges are appointed by the governor. Voters then vote “yes” or “no” on whether to keep them in office in a process called a merit retention election.
“There’s a legislative solution to this,” said Sachanowicz.