Gillespie County Judge Daniel Jones Faces Removal Lawsuit

Oct 19, 2026 | Local Government | 0 comments

Texas legal documents illustrating the lawsuit seeking removal of Gillespie County Judge Daniel Jones

ORIGINAL ARTICLE AND ATTRIBUTION

Original title: Hill Country lawsuit seeks to remove county judge from office 

Author: Ricardo Delgado

Publication: MSN – San Antonio Express-News 

Published: October 15, 2026

Read the original article at the San Antonio Express-News

Short Neutral Summary

Two Gillespie County residents have filed a lawsuit seeking the removal of County Judge Daniel Jones, alleging incompetence and official misconduct related to the county’s ongoing financial reporting problems.

Bruce Neitzke and Esther Schneider filed the petition on October 14, 2026, in the 216th Judicial District Court. The lawsuit alleges that Jones failed to fulfill statutory responsibilities involving the examination, approval, and documentation of county financial reports.

The legal action follows years of delayed financial reconciliations, the withdrawal of the county’s AA bond rating, approximately $190,000 in outside accounting expenses, and the September resignation of County Treasurer Vicki Schmidt.

Jones has previously stated that the financial problems do not involve evidence of fraud or missing taxpayer funds. However, the lawsuit raises a separate question: whether the County Judge fulfilled his own legally required oversight duties.

The plaintiffs are requesting a jury trial and removal from office. The allegations remain unproven, and the court has not determined that Jones engaged in misconduct.

Full Neutral Summary & Context

Gillespie County Residents Seek Removal of County Judge Daniel Jones Amid Financial Reporting Controversy

A lawsuit filed in Gillespie County is seeking the removal of County Judge Daniel Jones, expanding an ongoing controversy over years of delayed county financial reporting and the responsibilities of elected officials to oversee public finances.

On October 14, 2026, Gillespie County residents Bruce Neitzke and Esther Schneider filed a petition in the 216th Judicial District Court alleging incompetence and official misconduct by Judge Jones. The plaintiffs contend that Jones failed to carry out financial oversight duties required by Texas law and are requesting a jury trial and his removal from office.

Some residents claim that this is a legal move due to resentment from Mrs. Schneider losing in the Gillespie Republican Primary for Judge in March. Others claim that the significance of county financial mismanagement and lack of oversight, make the lawsuit justified on behalf of all Gillespie citizens.

The lawsuit comes after substantial financial reporting delays, the withdrawal of the county’s bond rating, expenditures on outside accounting assistance, and the resignation of County Treasurer Vicki Schmidt.

Allegations of Failed Financial Oversight

At the center of the lawsuit are the responsibilities assigned to county judges and commissioners under the Texas Local Government Code.

The plaintiffs allege that Jones failed to ensure that the Gillespie County Commissioners Court properly examined and approved required financial reports, recorded related actions in official meeting minutes, and completed necessary certifications and affidavits.

Specifically, the lawsuit references provisions of Texas Local Government Code Chapters 114 and 115, which establish requirements for reviewing treasurer reports, examining accounts, and documenting the commissioners court’s financial oversight activities.

According to reporting on the petition, Neitzke and Schneider reviewed publicly available commissioners court minutes from 2025 and 2026 and contend that they found no evidence of compliance with several statutory requirements. Their allegations include missing approvals, absent affidavits, and gaps in publicly posted meeting records.

These claims have not yet been established in court. The absence of documentation in an online records review does not necessarily establish that an official action never occurred.

Years of Financial Reporting Delays

The lawsuit follows a prolonged financial reporting backlog within the Gillespie County Treasurer’s Office.

The county has fallen as much as three years behind on certain financial reconciliation and reporting obligations, creating concerns about financial transparency, compliance, and the availability of accurate financial information.

The problems developed during a period of transition in the Treasurer’s Office. Vicki Schmidt was appointed County Treasurer in November 2023 following the resignation of her predecessor.

County officials have described difficulties involving inadequate office procedures, insufficient institutional knowledge, and the challenges of bringing financial records into compliance.

However, the continuing delays have generated questions about whether county leadership responded adequately and whether the Commissioners Court fulfilled its independent oversight obligations.

Financial Consequences for Gillespie County

The county’s reporting problems have produced measurable financial and administrative consequences.

S&P Global withdrew Gillespie County’s AA bond rating amid the prolonged reporting delays. Although the withdrawal does not automatically mean the county has incurred higher borrowing costs, it can complicate future borrowing and potentially increase financing expenses.

The county has also spent approximately $190,000 on outside accounting assistance to reconcile financial records and address the backlog.

Those expenses represent additional public expenditures associated with restoring the county’s financial reporting processes.

The situation also raises broader concerns about the county’s ability to demonstrate fiscal accountability, maintain accurate financial records, and satisfy financial disclosure requirements associated with borrowing and certain funding programs.

Treasurer’s Resignation and Earlier Legal Action

Before the lawsuit against Judge Jones, Neitzke and Schneider pursued a separate legal action seeking the removal of County Treasurer Vicki Schmidt, alleging incompetence and official misconduct related to the overdue financial reporting.

Schmidt subsequently submitted her resignation in September 2026, citing continuing medical issues and the need to prioritize her health.

Her departure did not resolve the broader legal questions surrounding the Commissioners Court’s responsibilities.

The subsequent lawsuit against Jones focuses on whether the county judge independently satisfied the oversight obligations assigned to his office, regardless of the Treasurer’s responsibilities for maintaining and reconciling financial records.

Judge Jones’s Previous Explanation

Judge Jones has previously addressed the financial reporting backlog in public statements.

In a January 22, 2026, letter, Jones outlined steps the county had taken to obtain accounting assistance, including the approval of outside professional services in May 2024 and additional accounting support in February 2025.

He attributed portions of the backlog to operational and transitional problems within the Treasurer’s Office and emphasized that the County Treasurer is an independently elected official.

Jones also stated that the county had found no evidence of fraud, misappropriation, or missing funds.

That distinction is significant because the removal lawsuit does not depend on proving that public money was stolen. Instead, it alleges that Jones failed to perform statutory duties associated with financial oversight.

The January statement predates the lawsuit and should not be interpreted as Jones’s legal response to its specific allegations.

What Texas Law Requires

Texas Local Government Code Section 114.026 establishes duties involving the examination and approval of county treasurer reports.

Among its requirements, the Commissioners Court must examine the Treasurer’s report and determine whether it is correct before approving it. The statute also provides for sworn certifications by the county judge and commissioners concerning the examination and the county’s financial assets.

Chapter 115 establishes additional duties involving the examination, auditing, and settlement of county accounts and related financial matters.

The plaintiffs contend that these statutory obligations were not properly fulfilled.

Whether the allegations constitute legal grounds for removal will depend on the evidence presented, the statutory standards applicable to removal proceedings, and the court’s findings.

What Happens Next?

Neitzke and Schneider are seeking a jury trial and the removal of Judge Jones from office.

A removal petition initiates a legal proceeding; it does not itself establish wrongdoing or remove an elected official.

The litigation will require examination of the alleged failures, the actual actions and records of the Commissioners Court, and whether the evidence satisfies the legal requirements for removal.

As the proceedings develop, the case may provide additional clarity about the division of financial oversight responsibilities among the County Treasurer, County Auditor, Commissioners Court, and County Judge.

For Gillespie County residents, the central questions extend beyond the existence of overdue financial reports to how financial oversight responsibilities were carried out, what corrective measures were taken, and how county officials documented compliance with Texas law.

Original reporting and supporting sources

The summaries are original editorial rewrites incorporating the original article and relevant additional reporting. The following sources are suitable for attribution and supporting links at the bottom of the GillespieGOP.org post.