Tom Green County Suspends Licenses of Two Local Bail Bondsmen

The bail bonding licenses of two San Angelo bondsmen have been suspended following a hearing on complaints filed by the Tom Green County Bail Bond Board. David Jenkins, accused of failing to keep records and issue receipts, and Ray Zapata, accused of selling off a property pledged to the county as collateral for his bonding company, were both handed temporary suspensions on Tuesday afternoon.

The board held a hearing on Jenkins first, calling witnesses to put forth evidence on the allegations against him as discovered through two audits conducted in April and July this year. 

The first attempt to audit Jenkins was on April 14 and was meant to be a routine audit of a random sampling of bonds, including those for large, medium and small amounts. When County Treasurer Dianna Spieker and Chief Deputy Dale Pearce arrived at Jenkins Bail Bonds, however, the owner’s brother, Ron Jenkins, was unable to produce receipts and full records on defendants.

Met with a lack of required documentation, Spieker opted to return and complete a full audit of all of the company’s files from February 2012 to the present. David Jenkins, the owner of the company, was given 10 days to get his files in order, but due to staffing issues it wasn’t until mid-July when Spieker was able to return with an employee, Beverly Baity, and carry out the audit.

Reviewing notes left on sheets listing all of Jenkins’ bonds from the beginning of April to the end of June, Roger Moore, the attorney hired by the county to handle the matter, pointed out a quote from Ron Jenkins that Baity had jotted down, which read, “took three people two months to put SO #’s on paperwork”.

The quote referenced a previous audit conducted by Spieker in April, during which Jenkins’ files were found to be incomplete and missing required documentation such as inmate’s sheriff’s office numbers, case numbers and receipts. During her audit, Baity again found that 15 of 225 files were missing, and another 33 files did not have attached receipts, which is required by law.

“We don’t give customer receipts unless they ask for them,” she quoted Ron Jenkins on another line.

The receipts that Baity did find were out of order and began with different numbers, she said. Looking at the files sequentially, she noted differences such as a bond posted on Nov. 10, 2014 with a receipt numbered 098432, followed by a Nov. 11, 2014 receipt numbered 413225.

“I couldn’t find a rhythm in the receipts,” Baity said. All of the receipts were the same kind: carbon copy slips with perforations along the edge where they had been torn out of a book. “I would expect them to be numerically close together,” Baity said.

The randomized sequencing aroused suspicion, Baity said, who remembered thinking, “something doesn’t feel right” as she looked through the records.

“It suggested to me that it may be possible that they went back to fill in some receipts,” Baity said.

She also said she had considered that perhaps the receipts were being written out of several different books, but that the numbers were just too far off for that to be true. The audit took place over two days, and Baity admitted that she couldn’t prove that the receipts had been added after day one, but said the odd sequencing caused her to believe that records had been falsified.

A licensee is required to keep their records for four years after the conclusion of a case.

After Baity testified to her findings, David Jenkins approached a podium to answer questions of the board comprised of judges, lawyers, jail personnel and clerks.

Jenkins said he was aware of the statutes that dictate he must issue receipts, but couldn’t give a straight answer on any of the questions asked about his office procedures and reached for stories on personal issues as justification for his non-compliance.

“There’s been a lot going on lately,” he said in a heavy West Texas drawl. “I apologize for being here. A receipt should be issued; I know that. I don’t really have a whole lot of answers to these questions, but I’m glad to hear them.”

Jenkins said he “can” and “should” put rules in ink requiring receipts to be issued and sheriff’s office numbers to be included in his paperwork, then added that his brother, Ron, has reading issues and his father asked him to hire him.

“I don’t know if you’ve ever worked family,” he referenced his brother. “He’s not doing too well. I should fire him on the spot except of the turmoil; we don’t need it in our family."

As Moore asked questions about his record keeping, Jenkins responded with evasive answers, saying things like, “we should” in place of “yes” or “no” and “I don’t even like to ask myself that question,” when asked about his receipt keeping.

“One of the concerns that I have as an outsider looking in is that when there’s not a good audit trail that shows what’s been paid and what’s still owed, how does a client ever prove that they’ve either made all their payments to your company and have no further obligations?" Moore enquired. "Or how do you know what is still owed and out there and ought to be collected?” 

“I’ll be right up front with you, honestly—and this is a crazy policy—but I would say, ‘you know what you owe me, and I know what you owe me,’” Jenkins responded. "I don’t do forced collections because of one reason: I prefer them to show up in court when I’m calling them instead of calling them about the money they know they owe me and cannot pay.”

Jenkins said it was likely that the files missing receipt numbers were unpaid, but said he tries to be fair to his clients and not harass them about money so they continue to show up to court.

Jenkins has been writing bonds in Tom Green County for 35 years, a fact that rested heavy on the members of the board, who, according to case law, would be required to either revoke or suspend his license if they found that the allegations against Jenkins were true. Before the issue was handed over to the board for a decision, Moore explained the board's choices and their repercussions with regard to punishment in the event of an affirmative finding.

“Are you basically saying to the board that you either have to suspend or revoke anytime that board finds that there has been an offense?” board member Judge Penny Roberts asked.

Moore answered in the affirmative, stating that would be the strictest interpretation of the case law.

“So the board doesn’t really have any latitude,” Roberts responded.

Moore said that the board has the latitude to determine how long the suspension would last, or could probate the term of suspension, but that both could apply only to the current license. Jenkins only has three more weeks on his license before he must apply to renew.

Suspensions, however come with collateral consequences, Moore explained, rolling the value of all property pledged as collateral back to a ratio of five to one indefinitely.

As years go by, property and cash put up as collateral gain in value if the bondsman has no complaints, beginning at five times the appraisal value on property and gradually progressing. Currently, Jenkins’ property is valued at six times the appraised value to the county.

“It seems like it would have a pretty chilling effect that anytime somebody brought a complaint before the bail bond board, the outcome is either going to be your license is suspended—your livelihood is going to be suspended for some period of time—or your livelihood is over,” Judge Roberts said.

There have never been any complaints brought before the local Bail Bond Board, and not all issues progress to complaints and formal hearings. Further, complaints can be dismissed by the board members if determined to be unfounded.

Jenkins had files missing in each of the months from February 2012 to June 2012, a fact he did not dispute. His brother, he said, has been working for him for roughly a year, year and a half.

The complaint alleged three violations: that receipts were missing and had not been issued, that files were missing, and that Jenkins had falsified receipts. Despite the evidence presented in the hearing, making a determination on whether or not he actually had failed to write receipts and keep files proved problematic for the board and took roughly 15 minutes.

Taking each allegation individually, the board began with the record keeping, digressing into a hesitant discussion on what a positive finding would mean for Jenkins.

County commissioner Bill Ford wanted to know if the board had ever held a hearing on the matters with regard to Jenkins before and was apprehensive about making a ruling that could harm business.

“I’m real cautious about this, I’m telling you,” Ford said. “That really bothers me that we’ve never stepped on this ground before.”

“That’s because our bondsmen are normally pretty excellent at taking care of stuff,” Spieker retorted. Dianna Spieker is the chair of the Bail Bond Board.

Criminal defense attorney Stephanie Goodman, also a board member, expressed additional concern: “I’m uncomfortable with it because when we accepted these complaints, we didn’t know that this would be the effect, that we have to rule one way or the other.”

Ford picked up where Goodman left off, stating “we’ve got a man who has served this county for 35 years and he’s got a hiccup and we’ve got an opportunity here to end it.”

The conversation continued for several minutes, each considering heavily that once a finding of fact was made, they would be forced to punish. County attorney Chris Taylor joined in, suggesting that the board make a decision on whether or not Jenkins had violated, but to recess before assessing punishment.

“What we have been presented is a sworn statement from someone who performed an audit, which is part of our requirement as a bail bond board,” District Clerk Sheri Woodfin said. “In my opinion, by this sworn statement, I don’t believe that Beverly was improper in writing what she did; David (Jenkins) doesn’t believe Beverly is improper in what she did. So what we’re deciding is whether or not there were infractions, and I believe there were. We can sit here and say whether or not we want to say it, but David said it so that’s where we’re at.”

Shortly thereafter a vote was called for, with Woodfin, Roberts, 119^th District Attorney George McCrea, County Clerk Elizabeth McGill, Spieker, Jail Commander Lt. Todd Allen, Judge Kay Longest and Judge Allen Gilbert all voting that Jenkins had failed to maintain records. Goodman and Ford opposed.

On the matter of the receipts, only Woodfin, McCrea and Spieker found that there had been sufficient evidence to show that Jenkins had not issued receipts. No one found that he had falsified records.

Moving on to assess punishment for the record keeping, Judge Gilbert questioned whether they would be able to determine the punishment at the next meeting, set for September. Then, Jenkins’ license would have expired and therefore could not be suspended because the board may only suspend the license held at the time the complaints were brought to a hearing. He would then be able to apply for a new license without having to worry about his collateral being reduced because the board would no longer have the authority to suspend his expired license.

“I personally think that…we need to suspend through the ending of his license to allow him to have time to get his written procedures in place and to make sure that are all of his records and receipts are in the way they need to be,” Spieker said.

While assistant county attorney Ginger Treadwell agreed and pointed out that the allegations are serious and deal with members of the community who may not have much money, the board was still hesitant. Talk of probating the sentence came up, which would essentially nullify the repercussions with the exception of rolling back the property value ratio.

“You can suspend it and then probated it for the three weeks,” Judge Roberts said. “I probate people all the time for a heck of a lot worse things than this.”

Roberts’ suggestion was put into a motion that agreed upon by all except Goodman. Jenkins can still write bonds and is required to get his files and receipts in order before applying for a new license. He must also pass an audit.

Zapata

The board was not so lenient on the second bondsman before them on Tuesday.

Ray Zapata had three complaints against him at the hearing, the first alleging that he had moved his offices from 1911 S. Bryant without notifying the board; the second asserting that he had sold the Mejor Que Nada parking lot before it was released from collateral; and the third alleging that Zapata had continued to write bonds using the former address on documentation.

Having sat through the hour of discussion on David Jenkins’ hearing, Zapata, represented by defense attorney Kirk Hawkins, offered the board the equivalent of a plea deal: he would agree that the second allegation was true in exchange for a 30-day suspension. The other two complaints would then be disregarded.

Hawkins addressed the board, insisting that Zapata had only sold the property because the buyer insisted on closing very quickly—much faster than normal—and he didn’t want to miss the opportunity.

“Wasn’t that property up for sale for quite some time?” Judge Roberts asked. Someone answered in the affirmative. “So he was aware that he had it for sale; he was aware that it was part of the collateral, whether or not they closed quickly—correct me if I’m wrong—it was not a situation where somebody came along and said, ‘hey I want to buy your property’…that property has been for sale, so he was aware…that before he could sell he would have to change the property designation with his company, which is his livelihood.”

Spieker added on to the judge’s statements, noting that Zapata had requested to release property in the past and was well acquainted with the procedures.The same is true of moving office locations, she said.

Ultimately, the board opted to extend the suspension to 34 days, which would be when Zapata’s current license expires, and to abandon the other two allegations until the end of his current license.

After Hawkins explained to his client that the agreement would not protect him from the two other complaints being considered upon application for license renewal at the end of the 34 days, Zapata shook his head to indicate his acceptance. The board then unanimously voted to suspend the license for the remainder of the term. The other two allegations will likely be considered in the September meeting, when Zapata is scheduled for renewal.