AT THE HERALD, NO NEWS IS GOOD NEWS

By Juan Montoya

I rarely buy the daily Brownsville newspaper now because the HEB insert often has more pages.

The content is predictable with more school lunch and parent teacher association announcements than real news.

In fact, if not for the ads from the Brownsville Independent School District, the Texas Southmost College-University of Texas, the PUB and the city, the paper would be leaner than a skinny chicken.

On Sunday, there is some some room for more incentive pieces, though the opportunity is often wasted by the city newsroom honchos.

This week, for example, between the Labor Day fluff story and the coverage of the rapidly-developing tropical storm, little, if anything of consequence was reported.

Those of us who have some knowledge of the business look back upon the last two weeks and see the many opportunities the paper had to publish relevant pieces that would inform the people about the goings-on in the community.

Through the diligence of some local residents, we came to know that city contract attorney Mark E. Sossi had created an industry of his legal services to the city, and that payments made by the city to his firm may have been much more than what was called for in the five-paragraph contract he inked with the municipality.

We also learned that he had hired a local law firm – Willette & Guerra – to represent him and the city in the dispute with eight local citizens who are questioning his wisdom on the issuance of certificates of obligation without going to the voters for their approval.

The public knows through the work of blogs like this one and independent researchers, that this was the same firm that sued Sossi and reached a settlement with him that would require him to pay the partners back more than $167,000 for taking money that did not belong to him.

Is the city work Sossi is giving the firm a payback for the settlement he owed them?

This is a legitimate question.

Last time Sossi represented the city in a courtroom it was to defend commissioners who were receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits that were not specified in the city charter. How did Mark perform there – at a price tag rumored to be between $30,000 to $40,000? He lost.

We have some first hand knowledge that the administration at the daily was made aware of these facts but chose not to let the people know about these pertinent facts in the story. If you are a reporter on a daily that chooses not to cover certain facts or players, you can't be faulted for not writing about them.

But the people should know what's happening. We have a right to know and it's a right that has been held up as a shield by the local paper to defend its practices.

The recent hire by the BISD of Sylvia Atkinson also went unnoticed by the daily's education reporter. It's not that he didn't know about it. It's just that it is not the kind of story that his bosses want to grace their newsprint.

Many local residents were aware that Atkinson had already gone as far as to have her campaign push cards designed and had shown them to some of her supporters who were urging her to run to replace Ruben Cortez. Less than two weeks before she was offered the job, her supporters were gearing up for the race.

Then suddenly, we learn that Atkinson, a former superintendent, had taken the job of grants administrator at around $90,000. Did someone offer her the job so that she wouldn't run against Cortez? When some board members asked to hear from the assistant superintendent for Human Resources on her recommendation, she wasn't around.

When they persisted and demanded to know why there was no background on the pool of applicants for the position, they were rebuffed by the majority and the vote was forced on them without the benefit of backup material on which to make an intelligent decision. In other words, the majority felt comfortable with the hasty choice thrust upon them.

Was the fix in?

We know this information was available to the education reporter of the local daily, but again, the powers that be have decided that this kind of pertinent information is not news and should not appear on the pages.

This Sunday the banner headline was of the BISD suing the HealthSmart insurance provider that was not chosen by the district in the last frenzy at the feeding trough.

The story, unusually long by Herald standards, was basically a one-sided version of the choice in insurance companies. There was precious little on the people involved in providing the auditors with the information they used to reach their conclusions.

The audit was embraced by the majority of the board, even though the awarding of that contract forms the basis for a civil lawsuit that alleges the manipulation of the bids to award the contract to local insurance broker Johnny Cavazos.

In fact, a local federal judge has said that the plaintiff, former Chief Financial Officer Tony Juarez has presented enough evidence to make credible the allegation that the majority was engaged in a conspiracy to manipulate the bids and to conspire to subvert the district's grievance process to terminate the former superintendent.

None of this information regarding the HealthSmart contract was in the story.

We, however, are looking into the audit ourselves and the players that provided the information to the auditors. Perhaps we may convince the readers of the Herald that information that did not appear in the article may just prove that manipulation of information continues on the past of the majority of the board and is reflected in local newspaper coverage.

Stay tuned.