Clik here to view.
Mike Anderson Republican DA Candidate assaults victim in a courtroom
1988 was not a good year for Mike Anderson at the Harris County District Attorney’s Office. Despite earlier questions, he was promoted to a felony chief position where Ned Morris supervised him.
Mike Anderson Personnel File-Ned Morris Evaluation 1
The first evaluation by Morris was written on June 30, 1988 for the evaluation period January 1 to June 30, 1988. Here are the highlights:
- “Seems hesitant to take on a fairly tough case”
- “Needs to try more cases”
- “Allowed his #3 to try his first felony case alone”
- “Knowledge of Law: Average as far as I can tell”
- “General Supervisory Ability: Below average. Spent too little time in office…”
- “Mike has shown this good judgment for the past six weeks. Before that he did not”
- “Communication poor first three months of this assignment”
- “Communication average next 6 weeks. Seemed to somewhat resent directions from Div Chief during this period”
- “Accomplish assigned tasks punctually?” Started out poorly. Seemed to resent large number of memos from Div Chief & 2nd floor.”
- “Availability poor some Spring afternoons.”
- “Don’t believe his personality & makeup is suited for routine administrative work & the related reports, memos & follow up that is required to keep things running on schedule.”
- “Needs to be more consistent in work habits & attitude.”
The second evaluation by Morris was written on December 18, 1988 for the evaluation period of 1988. More highpoints:
Mike Anderson Personnel File-Ned Morris Evaluation 2
- “Needs to continue to keep up this level of interest and intensity & put behind him the roller coaster ups & downs.”
- “Needs to be more accurate and candid in reports to supervisor.”
- “Not very willing or quick to try the “tough” case in first six months of assignment (Just one case) but now seems to want to try cases on his docket.”
- “Judgment (original solutions for unique problems?): Usually OK sometimes not so good”
- “One recent communication was not accurate when Mike withheld some information from [me] when we were discussing a case.”
- “He had failed to properly enhance a case and was seeking to shift the blame.”
- “…didn’t give me the full story.”
- “Is individual ready to be promoted to next level above his or her current position? (elaborate): No – Mike should not be a Division Chief. Mike should not be promoted to next level above current position at this time. Needs to be more accurate in communications…”
- “He needs to be more accurate in reporting to supervisor”
On August 2, 1988, Bert Graham wrote a memo to Anderson’s personnel file detailing the reasons why Anderson would not receive a merit raise. Graham gave five reasons:
- “Hasn’t tried enough 1st Chair Jury Trials – only 1 this year.”
- “Keep more regular hours – get to office by 8:30 AM & then go to Ct. Stay until 5:00 PM”
- “Don’t split all your cases w/ another prosecutor”
- “Don’t dodge different trials”
- “Help #2 & #3”
Then, Graham placed notes into Anderson’s file beginning in 1988 about his docket backlog.
Mike Anderson Personnel File-Bert Graham comments on performance
- 7-31-88: “You reduced more to misd. than any other court & Dismissed more than any other Court.”
- 2-18-89: “Looks like a pretty rough ‘Stat’ year. Try to improve in ’89. Largest backlog of all 22 Courts.”
- 8-6-89: “Mike – these stats are grotesque”
- 8-6-89: “Another bleak 6 months! Things don’t seem to have improved – 2nd largest backlog of all 22 Courts”