Concerns Arise Over Lack of Professionalism and Transparency in Law Enforcement Communication
In a recent and disconcerting turn of events, Texas Ranger Malcom White has come under scrutiny for his refusal to communicate through official, taxpayer-funded state email channels, despite repeated requests from a complainant seeking to address a legal concern. The situation has raised significant concerns about transparency and adherence to standard professional practices within law enforcement.
The complainant, who is also a potential victim of judicial overreach in Jeff Davis County, has attempted multiple times to engage Ranger White in a formal dialogue via written communication. These efforts include sending a certified letter, which was returned unclaimed, and multiple outreach attempts via phone and LinkedIn. Despite these efforts, Ranger White has not only refused to provide an email address but also declined to supply contact information for his supervisory chain, leaving the complainant with no recourse for escalating the matter.
The refusal to engage in written communication is particularly troubling given the legal backdrop of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, which recognizes electronic communications as valid and binding for official matters. This act is reflected in both federal and Texas state laws, underlining the expected norm for governmental transparency and accountability.
Ranger White’s insistence on maintaining only verbal communication raises questions about the motives and professionalism within his office. Such behavior could be perceived as an attempt to avoid creating records that are subject to public and legal scrutiny, a practice that runs counter to the principles of transparency and accountability essential to public trust in law enforcement.
This situation is part of a larger narrative involving alleged judicial misconduct at the Jeff Davis County Courthouse, which the complainant was attempting to address. The sheriff of Jeff Davis County has been made aware of the situation and initially suggested Ranger White could be involved in investigating the matter. However, the lack of forthcoming cooperation from Ranger White complicates any potential investigation, leaving unresolved issues and fostering a climate of suspicion and mistrust.
The community and observers are closely watching how this scenario unfolds, with hopes that it will lead to a reaffirmation of the standards of professionalism and openness that should define all branches of law enforcement.
Following is a copy of the complaint submitted to the Texas Department of Public Safety earlier today:
I am writing to formally file a complaint against Texas Ranger Malcom White due to multiple instances of unprofessional conduct, specifically his refusal to communicate through official and documented means, providing incorrect contact information, and his overall lack of transparency and cooperation in handling an official matter.
Prior to Saturday, April 13, I made several attempts to reach Ranger White to discuss a sensitive issue involving a potential conflict of interest in Jeff Davis County. During these attempts, I was given incorrect phone numbers, which hindered timely communication. Additionally, I sent a certified letter to an address believed to be valid, which went unsigned and was ultimately returned, indicating a failure in attempting to establish contact through formal channels.
Finally, contact was made over the weekend via LinkedIn, where Ranger White initially engaged but continued to express a strong preference for verbal communication. This culminated in a conversation on Monday, April 15, when he explicitly stated, “As I’m sure you can understand, I don’t discuss official business on this medium… Contact me at my office number if you’d like to discuss anything” (LinkedIn Message, 9:33 AM). Despite providing his office number, his subsequent refusal to communicate via email was firm and unequivocal: “I’m not going to discuss matters via email” (LinkedIn Message, 1:55 PM).
Ranger White’s insistence on verbal communication, which lacks the transparency and accountability of written records, raises concerns, especially given that he contacted me twice by phone in a manner that seemed to suggest a preference for off-the-record discussions. This approach is troubling and contrary to the principles of accountability and professionalism expected in law enforcement.
Given the circumstances, including the provision of incorrect contact information and the refusal to use state-provided email facilities for official communication, I request a thorough investigation into these matters. It is crucial for law enforcement officers to adhere to high standards of professionalism and transparency, ensuring public trust and the effective administration of justice.
Thank you for your attention to this serious issue. I look forward to your prompt and decisive action in addressing this complaint.
Texas Reporter 