MOTION OF ADMONISHMENT AND CENSURE OF WALLACE L. HALL JR. AND RELATED FINDINGS The House Select Committee on Transparency in State Agency 1 Operations (the committee), pursuant to its investigative and 2 oversight authority and its duty to monitor the conduct of 3 individuals appointed to offices of the executive branch of 4 state government, is conducting an extensive formal 5 investigation of allegations of misconduct committed by Wallace 6 L. Hall Jr. while a nominee for and as a member of the Board of 7 Regents of The University of Texas System(the Board). 8 The investigation conducted by the committee uncovered 9 numerous wilful actions by Mr. Hall that constitute either 10 misconduct, incompetency in the performance of official duties, 11 or behavior unbefitting a nominee for and holder of a state 12 office. The committee has previously found in the affirmative 13 that grounds for impeachment exist. 14 At this time, the committee chooses to act by adopting this 15 motion for admonishment and censure while holding, for now, in 16 abeyance further proceedings, in part for our own reasons and 17 also as we continue to monitor developments of other agencies 18
e.g.
, the actions of the Travis County District Attorney’s 19 office. However, the committee retains full jurisdiction and 20 continuing oversight. The committee may impose future action, 21 including the adoption of articles of impeachment which already 22 may be before the committee. Further actions will be taken as 23 warranted. We are mindful that Mr. Hall’s actions have been 24 undeterred during this investigation. This temporary period 25 1
allows the Board, Mr. Hall, other individual regents, and Board 1 and Systememployees to alter, change, and improve their 2 conduct, and allows the committee by and through its co-chairs 3 and those appointed to monitor these proceedings to exercise 4 oversight and report these findings back to the full committee 5 and to make appropriate recommendations when necessary. 6 BACKGROUND 7 Institutions of higher education in the State of Texas are 8 a crown jewel of the state. The graduates of these schools have 9 shaped our economy and are leaders in their chosen fields, in 10 their communities and in our state and beyond. The state will 11 continue to excel and create abundant opportunities only if 12 these institutions continue to thrive. 13 Because of their importance, the operation of these 14 institutions has been overseen by two entities—the Texas 15 legislature and the board of regents for each institution. Since 16 the establishment of the first public institution of higher 17 education in 1876, both the legislature and the boards of 18 regents have shared these responsibilities. Thus, legislative 19 review of the operation of institutions of higher education in 20 this state (and of all other state agencies) is nothing new. 21 The University of Texas System(the System) is composed of 22 nine universities and six health science centers. It employs 23 over 87,000 people and educates 216,000 students a year. More 24 than one out of every 150 people in Texas either attend or work 25 for an institution within the System. The Systemis governed by 26 a board of regents, composed of nine voting members and one non-27 2
voting student regent. Only the Board, acting as a Board, is 1 statutorily charged with the oversight of the System.
The role 2 of each regent, as a board member, is analogous to membership on 3 a corporate board. No individual board member may take binding 4 actions on behalf of the entire board. Each regent is appointed 5 to the Board by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate, but 6 the regents’ duty is not to those who appointed themor 7 confirmed them, but only to the system’s institutions and the 8 state. 9 In the spring of 2013, this committee attempted to explore 10 issues related to the Board, the System, and Mr. Hall concerning 11 not only conduct undertaken by Mr. Hall but also the Board’s and 12 the System’s interactions with the Cancer Prevention and 13 Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) and the University of Texas 14 Law School Foundation. It has been suggested that the 15 legislative examination of executive branch appointees in this 16 matter is unprecedented. To be accurate, nothing could be 17 further fromthe truth. Executive branch appointees are 18 routinely examined by legislative committees. Legislative 19 committees often, by report or by strong words fromthe dais, 20 have suggested that executive branch appointees consider 21 alternative courses of action, alter their method of doing 22 business, or remove themselves either fromthe situation at hand 23 or fromstate service. Legislative disapproval of executive 24 branch appointees’ actions has resulted in restructuring or 25 dissolution of agencies and their boards, reduced agency 26 appropriations or increased budgetary review, increased 27 3
|