GANG OF $4 DENY PRESAS-GARCIA'S LEGAL FEES

By Juan Montoya

Not content to pile up huge legal fees to be picked up by taxpayers, the majority of the Brownsville Independent School District board has also voted to deny fellow board member Catalina Presas-Garcia the same courtesy.
In a chintzy, vindictive move, they voted not to pay for her deposition and legal representation after she presented the Cameron County District Attorney with reports alleging wrongdoing by former Athletic Director Joe Rodriguez.
Presas-Garcia, who presented two reports outlining alleged wrongdoing, abuse of public funds, and violations of district policy under Rodriguez, said she was merely performing her duty as a trustee of the district responsible for bringing those matters before authorities.
After DA Armando Villalobos failed to act on the matter, Rolando Aguilar, Joe Colunga, Rick Zayas and Ruben Cortez voted not to have the district pick up her legal expenses while voting to approve that the taxpayers pick up theirs.
To this day, even though those costs are said to have amounted to some $3,000, Presas-Garcia remains adamant that presenting the reports to law enforcement was the correct thing to do.
"That's the reason why the voters of the district elected me," she said. "They elected me to protect the interest of the students and of the taxpayers. If I had to I'd do it again."
As the four trustees in the majority continue to force the district to pay for their legal fees appealing an order by federal judge Andrew Hanen that said enough evidence exists that they retaliated against former Chief Financial Officer Tony Juarez in violation of his rights and denied them qualified immunity, they and BISD counsel Mike Saldaña see nothing wrong in having taxpayers foot the bill for what most likely be a futile – but time-buying – appeal.
In his18-page memorandum opinion and order, Hanen said a jury should hear the suit in federal court after denying the BISD and the majority of the board their request for a summary judgment against the former CFO's charges.
Hanen said Juarez had successfully raised issues of fact and that the defendants - individually and as BISD officials - must go before a jury to let them decide.
Hanen traced the origins of the case to the recommendation by Juarez to the board that they grant the district's Stop-Loss insurance contract to American Administration General. Evidence indicated that at least three trustees - Colunga, Aguilar, and Cortez - objected strongly to his recommendation that ultimately culminated in them ordering former superintendent Hector Gonzales to terminate his employment with the district.
Juarez had started working for the BISD as its CFO in the fall of 2008. One of his duties was to make insurance recommendations to the BISD board of trustees.
On Sept. 16, Juarez recommended that the district select AAG as its Stop-Loss carrier. At the heart of the dispute is Juarez's claim that he was demoted and ultimately terminated from employment by the BISD and the defendants personally because he recommend that the board award Health Smart (AGG) the district's Stop-Loss Insurance policy instead of to Oklahoma-based Mutual Assurance Administrators, Inc.
On Aug. 12, trustees awarded that contract for the 2009-2010 to MAA for $181,275 per month. At the time of the award, HealthSmart complained that its contract renewal efforts did not receive fair consideration by the district’s Employee Insurance Committee or the Board of Trustees. Sources also said that the four votes on the majority – Aguilar, Colunga, Cortez, and Zayas – were acting in concert to award the lucrative contract to the company brokered by local insurance mogul Johnny Cavazos, who stands to make up to $4 million on commissions.
After an unsuccessful campaign by the conspirator trustees to get Juarez to file a grievance against Gonzales, the former CFO went to the FBI instead and complained abut the bid manipulation and retaliation by the four.
Yet, even though Hanen relied on Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decisions as precedent for his order, that is exactly where the four defendant-trustees will appeal his decision.
It is a move which signals the majority's political motives, said one observer.
"Zayas and Cortez are up for reelection in November and they don't want the case hanging over their heads," said a local attorney. "They figure the court of appeals will take more than the four months to the election to reach a decision. They might be in for a surprise if the court decides sooner. Meanwhile, we will continue to pay for what the judge said might have been illegal actions by them."
In a nutshell, then, while the four continue to spend district's money to fight allegations they violated someone's constitutional rights and retaliated against him for reporting insurance bid manipulation to the FBI, they deny Cata the same courtesy when what she did was basically present law enforcement with potential wrongdoing. Does this sound like the right and decent thing to do?
As for having to reach into her family's income to pay for her legal representation and the majority's move to deny her legal fees as they rack up thousands of dollars in costs, Presas-Garcia remains defiant.
"If they think that I'm going to sign anything renouncing my actions or begging them to pay my legal fees, they have another thing coming," she said. "My parents taught me to be proud and honest. I sleep very well at night. I doubt that they can say the same thing."