AUSTIN, TX — Williamson County Sheriff Robert Chody addressed the controversy over a Facebook page created by one of his commanders — one making light of sexual assault and calling for violence against protesting NFL players — in an emailed response to questions.
The sheriff suggested disciplining the commander might violate his freedom of speech, and wouldn’t be an option given the lack of a clear departmental policy on social media use. In his lenghty response, Chody in part blamed “a few disgruntled people” for the controversy rather than the content of the page itself.
The page first came to light after a recent report by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Created by Commander Steve Deaton, the page utilizes dolls — specifically of the Elf on the Shelf and Barbie varieties — meticulously positioned to illustrate the officer’s sentiments on a variety of issues. There’s one of a dark-complexioned elf doll holding the hair of a blonde Barbie placed in a crouching position while seemingly vomiting. Noting the etiquette displayed by the hair holding, the caption reads in part: “Silently though, he wonders whether the roofie he slipped her will still be effective.”
Another post depicts violent imagery of an elf doll carrying a chainsaw with bloodied, dismembered black legs cut above the knee under the blades. “Here’s the start,” the post begins. “Our patriotic elf grew angrier all season. He finally snapped and decided to show the NFL how he goes about taking knees for not standing during our National Anthem.”
Related story: WilCo Sheriff Disavows Commander’s Controversial Facebook Page
Both Chody and Precinct 3 County Justice of the Peace Bill Gravell clicked the “like” button on some of Deaton’s Facebook offerings which have since been deleted. Chody acknowledged having “liked” the post showing the football player’s mutilation, but told Patch it was strictly rooted in his respect for the National Anthem rather than as an endorsement of violence.
Click Here: cheap sydney roosters jersey
After several attempts to secure a response to questions, Chody sent Patch an email addressing some of the concerns that have arisen after the page came to light. The sheriff noted he had visited with his legal counsel, and “He has OK’s me responding more specifically to your questions below,” he wrote to Patch.
He began by noting how difficult it has been for him personally in facing questions about the page. “It has been very hard for my family, my department, my friends and myself to sit back and watch as the agenda of a few disgruntled people plays out in the media specifically attacking me and my County Judge,” he wrote.
“Legal counsel” suggests offending page protected under Constitution
As preface to answers to questions posed to him, Chody provided the wording of the existing social media policy: “Employees may use social media in any way they choose, as long as that use does not produce adverse consequences.”
He added: “In addressing Deaton post as well as other digital content by my employees, I was advised by my legal counsel that ‘chilling’ the opinions and ideas expressed by my employees may be subject to Constitutional protections under the 1st and 14th amendment[s],” he wrote.
Chody wrote that he was surprised to learn how challenging it is to discipline a subordinate as it relates to social media use: “I had several opportunities to visit with my legal counsel to address our policy surrounding the use of social media and other digital outlets, and was surprised to learn 1) how complex this legal issue was, and 2) just how strong the protection is for governmental employees in expressing ideas or opinions.”
In short, Chody suggested his hands might be tied in terms of disciplining Deaton: “It appears that this issue is not a new one, and has been litigated on several occasions,” he wrote. “I am no lawyer, but I did read and understand from legal counsel that the opinions and ideas expressed by my employees if afforded Constitutional protection, are entitled to greater Constitutional protection.”
Chody said those Constitutional protections make it difficult for his department to craft a more specifically worded policy, he said: “The law as it relates to the employees impacted and continues to impact our ability to draft policy to limit or otherwise restrict employees’ use of social media and other outlets,” he wrote. “I was informed the policy in place was too vague to rely on for purposes of punishing Deaton for his social media posts. We could not conclude what adverse consequences actually resulted from the posts or what exactly was meant by the term ‘adverse consequences,” he wrote.
Chody noted that the posts were ultimately taken down. But not before he expressed concern over the posts to Deaton, Chody added: “I visited with Deaton and expressed my concern for the Elf on the Shelf posts, and I asked that he take the posts down. Deaton was informed that I was not happy with the posts. Deaton immediately took down the posts and has not made another post like it sense [sic].”
While Chody said he was disappointed, he personally “liked” a post depicting the mutilation of a black NFL player. In an earlier email to Patch on Aug. 6, Chody explained that away: “I will say I do not condone the posts and the one ‘like’ from me was related to standing for the U.S flag, and only that,” he wrote. As a veteran, I am very passionate about the issue of standing for our U.S. flag and completely overlooked the obvious. That was a mistake on my part.”
Williamson County residents express concerns
But deletion of the page and Chody’s scolding of his commander aren’t enough for some calling Williamson County home. Concerned residents decried the posts — and Chody’s tacit approval of some given his use of the “like” button — during the Aug. 6 meeting of the Williamson County Commissioners Court, calling for greater disciplinary action to be meted out.
Gary Richter, a 40-year resident of Georgetown, ticked off a number of the disturbing images but said he was most disturbed by the images of violence depicted against black NFL football players.
“This had a visceral effect on me; it made my stomach hurt,” Richter said. He noted there were several layers on which to be disturbed by Deaton’s posts, chiefly the mind that would create such imagery.
“This person had to imagine this in the first place, and then had to go to the trouble to purchase the supplies, and take the time to pose these images, take the pictures and post them online. I don’t think such a person should be in law enforcement at all, and certainly not in a position of leadership as this person is.”
Susan Wukasch, a 36-year resident of Williamson County, was similarly disturbed. She appealed to many of the commissioners’ expressed Christian beliefs in condemning the posts.
“In all my years in this area, I’ve always found WilCo to be proudly, loudly Christian. Not humbly, but proudly Christian. As candidates, most of you have made a point to announce your church affiliations, and some of you have alluded to missionary trips to impoverished countries that you have taken. Against that backdrop, I call on you to remember not just to remem your resp as elected officials, but as prominent members of your church communities to condemn the actions of Sherriff Chody and his apparently trusted officer, Commander Deaton.
“What the public has learned about the character of these two men in the posting and responding to vile images of torture, racism, gang rape and degradation of people Commander Deaton apparently feels are less valuable than he is has many of us appalled, frightening and sick.”
Commissioners are powerless to effect positive change
Despite the outrage, commissioners don’t have the authority to fire Chody. As the duly elected sheriff, only he has decision-making ability as it relates to disciplining officers. As for Chody, he stuck to the premise that the posts represent constitutionally protected speech.
“Although offensive and unacceptable to me and others, Deaton’s posts may be protected speech or expression,” he wrote. “Without a legal policy in place or a violation of the law, I did what I felt was the most I could do given the circumstance. I cannot retroactively go back and punish Deaton for what ever new policy is approved by legal to address these issues.”
He also said that it all happened last year: “Deaton’s issue was last year and there was no law broken or policy violation that I could rely on to punish Deaton for the posts, irrespective of my personal opinion of what he had posted. Deaton, at my request, did pull down the posts and has not posted anything like it sense [sic]. Through this, I learned that Deaton, who was an assistant chief to Chief Acevedo at APD (Austin Police Department), routinely expressed various opinions and thoughts through posts for years prior to coming to Williamson County.”
In his recap, he again blamed the controversy on others: “In summary, since the issue with Deaton was first brought up to my attention and prior to it being glorified by two disgruntled ex-employees and their legal counsel, I have been working with legal counsel to create a valid and enforceable policy to address my concerns surrounding my employees [sic} use of social media.”
Patch had hoped to interview Chody personally, reminding him on Thursday he had failed to provide a robust response to the controversy as promised the previous day. “Patty responded,” he said in a two-word text referencing his department spokeswoman who later sent the prepared response.
Patch reminded Chody that he — not the spokeswoman — was the elected official being reached for comment. At that point, he ended further contact: “Sir, I don’t appreciate your tone,” he texted. “You have my response.
“PIOs (public information officers) are a common source throughout the country for large agencies,” he wrote in a text.
“Communicate through Patty at this point. You have my cell as a matter of my willingness. You abuse it you lose it.”
The call about the Facebook page represented the first time Patch had called his personal line on any matter.
Comments are closed