Rusk Texas Information Portal Site

December 15, 2025
Staff Reporter
 

RUSK, TEXAS – — An attorney representing Rusk Police Chief Scott Heagney is asking city officials to immediately rescind an order requiring the chief to undergo a psychological Fitness-for-Duty Examination (FFDE), arguing the action is unjustified, retaliatory, and damaging to the chief’s professional reputation.

In a letter addressed to Mayor Ben Middlebrooks, City Manager Bob Goldsberry, and City Secretary Victoria Minton, attorney David R. Schleicher states that Chief Heagney was relieved of duty on December 11, 2025, ordered to submit to a FFDE, and stripped of his badge, service weapon, and patrol vehicle. The letter also states that Heagney’s access to city and police email systems was suspended.

Schleicher asserts that the action followed Chief Heagney’s role in ending a practice in which two Rusk Independent School District board trustees — who also serve as sheriff’s deputies — were allegedly paid by the same district for off-duty security work. According to the letter, Chief Heagney viewed the arrangement as a conflict of interest and misuse of taxpayer funds and worked to stop the practice.

The letter alleges that Cherokee County Sheriff Brent Dickson subsequently filed complaints against Chief Heagney and engaged in conduct intended to obstruct or retaliate against the chief’s investigation. Schleicher contends that rather than being commended, Chief Heagney was placed on administrative leave and subjected to a mental health evaluation without sufficient legal basis.

According to the attorney, state and federal law
— including the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Texas Labor Code, and the Rusk Police Department’s own FFDE policy — require that a fitness-for-duty exam be supported by evidence that an officer cannot safely or effectively perform essential job functions. Schleicher argues that no such evidence exists in this case.

The letter acknowledges that Chief Heagney has been open about suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from his prior work with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, including investigations related to the 2003 Station Nightclub fire. However, the attorney states that admissions of stress or PTSD alone are not legally sufficient grounds for ordering a psychological exam.

The letter also references an email Chief Heagney sent to City Manager Goldsberry on May 17, 2025, in which Heagney reportedly stated that the sheriff’s actions had caused significant job stress and a recurrence of PTSD symptoms. Schleicher argues that the seven-month gap between that email and the December FFDE order undermines any claim that the exam was prompted by immediate safety concerns.
“If these admissions were truly worrisome,” the letter states, “surely the City would have ordered a Fitness-for-Duty Exam closer in time to May 2025.”

Schleicher further alleges that Sheriff Dickson engaged in angry and agitated interactions with police department personnel related to the investigation, including a reported confrontation at the police department in October 2024 and a later phone call described as an angry rant. The letter contrasts this behavior with the city’s decision to order a psychological exam for Chief Heagney.

The attorney acknowledges that Sheriff Dickson and the two deputies deny wrongdoing and notes that no prosecutor has pursued criminal charges. The letter also states that a Texas Ranger previously concluded the matter did not constitute a crime, while maintaining that the absence of charges does not equate to a declaration of innocence.

Schleicher requests that if the FFDE is not withdrawn, the city use the same examiner involved when Chief Heagney was hired, citing the importance of baseline information. The letter also urges the city to coordinate a press release should Heagney be returned to duty, asserting that current messaging has created a misleading impression that the chief poses a safety risk.