The Texas Attorney General’s Office tells lawmakers they must provide $3.3 million to settle the whistleblower lawsuit.

Austin (CBSDFW.COM) — On Tuesday, the Texas Attorney General’s Office defended the proposed settlement in a whistleblower lawsuit filed against the state.

Chris Hilton, head of litigation at the Attorney General’s Office, answered questions from members of the House Appropriations Subcommittee, who held hearings on the agency’s budget request for the next biennium.

Attorney General Ken Paxton spoke to lawmakers about his office’s budget request, but did not speak about the whistleblower lawsuit.

Four of Paxton’s former deputies filed suit against the state after court records showed they went to the FBI more than two years ago and filed bribery charges against the attorney general, among other things.

Paxton then fired them, calling them “fraudulent employees” in an agency press release.

Hilton told lawmakers that the case was not against Paxton. “The case is against the State of Texas, and that’s true of any whistleblower employment case.”

Joe Knight, an attorney for one of the whistleblowers, Ryan Vassar, said state law requires a government agency to be the defendant. “The only person we can sue is not Mr. Paxton, but the Attorney General’s Office. The state is legally obligated to protect the agency when a lawsuit is brought against it, and when that claim is settled either by a settlement or a decision, I think the state is obligated to pay for it.”

As part of the settlement agreement, the state will pay the four men $3.3 million.

House Speaker Dade Phelan He made headlines across the state last week when he told CBS 11 that Paxton would have to ask lawmakers to approve funding to settle the case. “He will have to sell it to 76 members of the Texas House. It’s his job, not mine.”

When asked if he personally supported it, Phelan said, “No. I don’t think that’s the right use of taxpayer dollars.”

This prompted State Representative Jarvis Johnson of Houston to ask Paxton a direct question during the hearing. “General Paxton, are you willing to pay for this from your campaign bill?”

Paxton did not respond, but Hilton said, “There is no exposure case where any person has paid anything because that person is not liable under the provisions of the law.”

Under the agreement, Paxton would also apologize to the four men and remove a press release from the agency’s website that called the men fraudsters.

Knight said, “These people lost really high stakes and prestigious careers as a result of having the guts to approach federal law enforcement officials about what they considered illegal behavior. They didn’t deserve to pay for this act. bravery and this act of loyalty to the state with some of the things they experienced both in their personal and professional lives and in the press.”

If the settlement is approved by lawmakers, it will be part of the state’s next two-year budget.

Governor Greg Abbott must sign the budget or veto it.

In an interview with the Texas Tribune on Tuesday, Abbott said he agreed with Phelan that Paxton would have to explain to lawmakers why taxpayers should pay to settle the case.

During the hearing, lawmakers asked what would happen if they rejected the $3.3 million settlement.

Hilton said the case would go to trial.

Paxton’s office said they had already spent almost $600,000 to defend the case because they had to bring in lawyers outside the agency.

Hilton said that suing lawmakers would increase the cost to the state and, obviously, taxpayers in two ways:

Spend more on defending a case, and if the state loses, the payout to the four men could be slightly higher than $3.3 million.