COUNSEL IN JUAREZ VS. BISD CASE AT ODDS WITH TRUSTEES' VERSION OF EVENTS

By Juan Montoya
Depending on what version you choose to believe, it appears that at least two Brownsville Independent School District trustees have become at odds with Harlingen attorney Craig Vittitoe over statement he made (or didn't make) during a meeting last year where the lawsuit initiated by former district Chief Financial Officer Tony Juarez was discussed.

What was said during a Nov. 17, 2010 meeting attended by Vitittoe, Rick Navarro (another Harlingen attorney), superintendent Brett Springston and trustees has emerged as a bone of contention because according to statements by the two trustees under oath indicate that Vittito told Springtston that the "decision to not renew (Mr.) Juarez' contract was motivated by board politics," and that the former board majority (Rick Zayas, Ruben Cortez, Rolando Aguilar and Joe Colunga) had acted on political motivation in firing the former CFO.

"It was very political board," Vittitoe is said to have told those attending the meeting. "It's all political."

However, in response to a Nov. 4 Request for Information by El Rrun-Rrun to the BISD, the district issued a letter from Vittitoe dated Oct. 21, 2011, where he vehemently denies he made the statements, denies that his firm is "dragging out the suit in order to milk the insurance comnpany for legal fees," but cionfirms that, in his opinion, Juarez – a CPA and licensed auditor, "appeared incompetent regarding stop-loss insurance coverage matters."

Further, Vittitoe repeated his claims that the case "was properly defendable" and reiterated that he read  "excerpts of Mr. Juarez' deposition testimony demonstrating his lack of veracity regarding his presentations to the board and his apparent lack of competence in stop-loss insurance matters."
Juarez, as you will remember is the former Chief Financial Officer of the BISD who went to the feds after several of the defendants had previous superintendent Hector Gonzales remove him from his position after he recommended the wrong insurance company.
The defendants were expecting him to recommend the company whose local agent of record was Johnny Cavazos, their benefactor.
Instead, Juarez refused to play along with the defendants and went to the FBI with tape recordings where he was being persuaded on behalf of the four to blame Gonzales for the recommendation. In short, he was being counseled to use the district's grievance process and give the former board majority the justification to terminate the former superintendent.
After Juarez filed his federal lawsuit, the four defendants – through their counsel – sought to have the court grant them qualified immunity for their actions. The local federal court refused and the lawyers (Adams  & Graham, LLP), without consulting with the new board majority or announcing their decision in public, appealed Judge Andrew Hanen's opinion.
Then, after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans upheld Hanen's opinion that the four could be held personally liable for violating Juarez's rights, the counsel, again without getting the BISD board's approval during an open meeting, filed a motion with the appeals court to reconsider their decision.
In his letter, Vittitoe said his firm was then preparing the motion for review of the Fifth Circuit of the lost appeal he filed after the local federal court refused to issue a summary judgement granting qualified immunity for Zayas, Cortez, Colunga and Aguilar.
"Whether the suit will proceed to jury trial remains an open question," Vittitoe wrote.
Viottitoe said in his letter that in "order to preserve confidentiality," his firm's would continue to appraise the school district's legal counsel (Thompson & Horton) regarding the status of the case and former counsel Mike Saldaña, but would limit its meetings with the defendants and a quorum of the board "to avoid any misunderstandings in the future."
In the letter from Thompson and Horton local representative Arturo Michel dated Oct. 24 also released by the BISD under the Request for Information, Michel wrote BISD interim superintendent Dr. Carl Montoya that Vittitoe was denying the statements attributed to him by the two trustees and said Vittitoe said they were not credible because "they were not raised immediately," said he was "disparaged" with "an alleged suggestion" that he is trying to increase his fees (and) asserts that he has properly defended the interests of the defendants..."
"I recommend that the board move away from whether or not Mr. Vittitoe made such statements," Michel wrote Montoya. "He denies it. Two trustees have testified under oath that he did indeed made such statements. Another at the meeting (Sprinsgston) is not responding to inquiries..."
"Clearly this issue has caused a lack of trust among some trustees, perhaps a majority," Michel wrote Montoya. "These will also be an issue before the trial court over the admissibility of the alleged statements, and I expect the plaintiff's lawyer to attempt to disqualify Mr. Vittitoe."
Additionally, Michel wrote in the letter that Ace (BISD's insurance) "will have to address the issue of whether there shoud be separate defense counsel for the board and the individual defendants."