Grand Jury Recommends UT Regent's Removal

_{*Editor's note: This story has been updated throughout.}

In an unusual, strongly worded report, a Travis County grand jury recommended this week that University of Texas System Regent Wallace Hall be removed from office.

It didn’t, however, indict him or accuse him of any criminal wrongdoing. Instead, it called Hall’s behavior “unaccountable and abusive.”

"Transparency and accountability are key elements in maintaining citizens' trust in their government," the report said. "Regent Hall demonstrated neither accountability nor transparency in his actions."

Hall faced allegations that he broke the law when he shared private student information with his lawyers while he was investigating the University of Texas at Austin's admissions process. The public integrity unit in the Travis County district attorney's office began investigating him in 2014, as a state House panel was digging into his tenure.

On Tuesday, Hall released a short statement that didn’t directly address the grand jury’s report. In the past, he has denied breaking the law and vigorously defended himself.

In his statement, he again defended his investigation. Last month, an outside investigator found that UT-Austin President Bill Powers overruled the school’s admissions office to get some potential students into the university. Hall's statement referenced that investigation and criticized state leaders' attempts to punish him. 

"The campaign by [House] Speaker [Joe] Straus, Representative [Dan] Flynn and Senator [Kel] Seliger to criminalize my service as a Regent constitutes abuse of office," he said. "Their use of the levers of political power to cover up wrongdoing by legislators should now be investigated, and those exposed for their abuses should be driven from office."

In an interview, Flynn, a co-chair of the House subcommittee that investigated Hall, said the grand jury’s actions vindicated his work and the work of his colleagues.

“We said that was a call that needed to be made by the DA,” Flynn said. “He made the call, but he also recognized the same that we did – that there was some behavior that needed to be addressed.”

Flynn added that he doesn’t think the report requires further legislative action.

“I feel like the Legislature does not need to be micro-managing the universities, and I am going to move on to other things,” he said.

The grand jury was investigating whether to indict Hall on charges of abuse of official capacity, misuse of official information and official oppression. Members reviewed the final report of the House Select Committee on Transparency in State Operations that investigated Hall. They also spoke with witnesses involved in the case. 

Gregg Cox, director of the county’s public integrity unit that handled the investigation, said that it isn't rare for grand juries to issue reports. Members sometimes become vested in a certain case. When they cannot find enough evidence to support an indictment, they say something, Cox said.

"We presented facts and law to the grand jury, and this is what the grand jury chose to do," he said.

Cox stressed that the option to put out a report is not something the public integrity unit or the district attorney's office instructs them to do.

"There have been Travis County grand juries in the past who have issued reports in cases which did not result in an indictment," Cox said. "They're a body that can issue reports, issue indictments, do what they want. It's not our deal. They are impaneled by the court, they operate under the purview of the court and they are a judicial body that we do not control."

The report says that Hall made open records requests for more than 800,000 pages of documents, costing the university more than $1 million to respond. Some requests were made twice, the report says, meaning the university had to duplicate its efforts.

“Hall never divulged what purpose or goal he had padlocked in his mind before launching this immense barrage of records requests, rapid firing them in a fashion seemingly intended to deteriorate the systems in place,” the report said. “Furthermore, it does not appear that he discussed his intent with the other regents to gain consensus on this level of use of university resources.”

The report notes that some of the documents given to Hall didn’t have confidential student information redacted. Hall then gave those records to his lawyer and the state attorney general’s office. 

In a letter to legislators last May, Hall's lawyer Allan Van Fleet said that his client's requests were "reasonable and necessary."

The report also criticized Hall for a perceived “lack of transparency.” It noted that Hall declined to speak with the grand jury and the legislative committee that investigated him.

“Hall used his positional power to the point of abuse,” the report said. “The over leveraging of his power resulted in lost talent, lowered morale, exposure of confidential student information, and unreasonable expenses.”

Hall has said that he would have testified before the House panel if he had been subpoenaed, but that didn't happen. He has said the committee's criticisms were based on "untruths" and "distortions."

In addition to recommending Hall’s removal, the grand jury also suggested multiple changes in UT System Board of Regents policies. Those include limitations on how much regents can spend on investigations and requests without full board approval. The report also suggests that regents be required to state their intentions for all open records requests.

UT System Chancellor William McRaven and board Chairman Paul Foster declined to comment through a system spokeswoman. 

Bobby Blanchard contributed to this report.

Disclosure: The University of Texas at Austin is a corporate sponsor of The Texas Tribune. Paul Foster is a major donor to the Tribune. A complete list of Tribune donors and sponsors can be viewed here.