WILL ANYONE STOP THE SALAZAR MADNESS AT THE BISD? CALLS FOR MASS PUBLIC PRESENCE AT NOON MONDAY MEET

By Juan Montoya
The Brownsville Independent School District – and all school districts in the State of Texas – lives under the rule that the only way you can remove a school board member is for a criminal conviction.
Now comes a legally-challenged contract attorney named Balatzar Salazar who single-handedly wants to get a vote from a four-member majority to oust two of their fellows on the board. He wants the board majority of Otis Powers, Jose Chirinos, Minerva Peña and Cesar Lopez to give him free rein to try to find enough grounds to remove trustees Catalina Presas-Garcia and Lucy Longoria from the board to which the people voted for them to hold and represent them.
Salazar had acting board president Otis Powers (who should know better) post an item on a special board meeting to be held at noon on Monday at the district main office on Pride Road that reads:
b. Discussion and consideration to authorize Board Attorney (himself) to initiate removal 
proceedings against Board Members Lucila B. Longoria and Catalina Presas-Garcia. 
Does Salazar know about BBC (Legal) under which school districts operate?

These are the rules under which all school districts operate:

INVOLUNTARY REMOVAL FROM OFFICE:

On his or her own motion, or at the request of an individual, the attorney general or the county district attorney may petition the district court for leave to file an action in quo warranto to remove a Board member.  An action in quo warranto is available if:0)

1.        A person usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or executes a public office; or

2.        A public officer does an act or allows an act that by law causes forfeiture of office.

Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 66.001–.002

REMOVAL BY PETITION OR TRIAL:

A resident of the state who has lived for at least six months in the county in which the petition is to be filed and who is not currently under indictment in the county may file a petition to remove a public officer from office for one of the reasons listed below.  A proceeding for removal is begun by filing a written petition for removal in a district court of the county in which the officer resides.  Local Gov’t Code 87.015

REASONS FOR REMOVAL:

A public officer may be removed from office for:0.

1.        “Incompetency,” which means:

a.       Gross ignorance of official duties;

b.       Gross carelessness in the discharge of those duties; or

c.       Unfitness or inability to promptly and properly discharge official duties because of a serious physical or mental defect that did not exist at the time of election.

2.        “Official misconduct,” which means intentional, unlawful behavior relating to official duties by a Board member entrusted with the administration of justice or the execution of the law.  The term includes an intentional or corrupt failure, refusal, or neglect of a Board member to perform a duty imposed on the Board member by law.

3.        Intoxication on or off duty caused by drinking an alcoholic beverage, but not if it was caused by drinking an alcoholic beverage on the direction and prescription of a licensed physician.

4.        Conviction of a Board member by a jury for any felony or for misdemeanor official misconduct.  The conviction of a public officer by a petit jury for any felony or for a misdemeanor involving official misconduct operates as an immediate removal from office of that officer."

Now, Salazar's questionable maneuver comes just a day after Longoria and Presas-Garcia filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that their First Amendment rights have been violated through retaliation by their fellow members. The defendants include Superintendent Carl Montoya and legal eagle Salazar.

Their lawsuit includes a 21-page lists of facts that includes questions about the sincerity of Salazar himself when he omitted to tell the board that his expungement of his three felony arrests for theft. The Texas Department of Public Safety objected to the expungement by a judge in the 107th District Court in Cameron County and the 13th Court of Appeals reversed the decision, in effect leaving the record of those arrests intact and on the books.

During his presentation seeking the BISD gig, Salazar recounted that he had acted as counsel for the district in the past. But he didn't elaborate. Let's do that now.
The case concerned the mold problem at Aiken and Besteiro schools and Salazar was hired to represent the district. He did a piss-poor job and the district had to shell out biog bucks to fix the problem. But don't take my word for it. Here's what federal judge Andrew Hanen had to say about this legal wiz:
"Following that discussion in which the Court practically set out for BISD the form in which its responses should be filed, pointed out the need for a better response on one motion, and pointed out the need for some kind of response on the other two, BISD filed nothing! Royal filed a supplemental summary judgment motion containing numerous affidavits which establish the competence of and/or authenticated many of the exhibits it had attached to its prior motions. Even after this was filed, BISD filed nothing. The old adage comes to mind that you can lead a horse to water, tell him to take a drink, give him extra time to drink, but you still cannot make him drink. This Court cannot make a non-movant file a complete response (or any response for that matter) to a summary judgment motion, but it can grant the motions."

Neither Longoria nor Presas-Garcia voted for Salazar's firm because his firm ranked far behind the majority of the other firms who answered the BISD's Request For Proposals for legal services.
Add the fact that Salazar also made public accusations against Presas-Garcia alleging that she had sexually accosted him in the parking lot without any witnesses present, and the term "retaliation" takes on a new meaning.
Who is watching the BISD store? Are we going to allow a shady lawyer decide who's going to represent us on the board and will the rest of the trustees make matters worse for themselves by going along with this stratagem? How can and the other board members justify disenfranchising the voters?
There are plans afoot to have a massive public presence at the meeting to dissuade this board majority from making matters worse and enriching lawyers, Salazar included. If you care about the district, its students, faculty and its staff, you will make time and be there, too.