DOES STATING DOCUMENTED FACTS ABOUT BISD COUNSEL BALTAZAR SALAZAR CONSTITUTE AN "ATTACK?"

"When are you going to stop attacking people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!: Reader comment on BISD'S COUNSEL SALAZAR FLIES UNDER FED'S RADAR."

By Juan Montoya
The above commenter (anonymous, of course) would have us ignore some facts about our current Brownsville Independent School District board counsel Baltazar Salazar who is getting paid a $240,000 annual salary by our district taxpayers.
Here are the facts. Do you consider publishing them an attack? La verdad no duele, pero incomoda.
1. That the first time he was hired as outside counsel by the BISD, Salazar faltered so badly that he failed to file any responses to the motions for summary judgement buy the  insurance companies who did not want to pay for the mold problem at Aiken and Besteiro elementaries. It got to the point where an exasperated federal judge (Andrew Hanen) after three times of trying to get Salalzar to respond finally gave up trying to get him to defend the BISD and said: "...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 representation, or lack thereof, resulted in the BISD paying for the repairs at the schools instead. Salazar got paid for doing as Hanen said, nothing, rolling over for the insurance companies, and getting his check.
2. Of the eight law firms which submitted a reply for the Request For Qualifications to the district, Salazar and his firm firm failed to provide their qualifications for 17 of the 51 categories of basic legal services listed by the district. For example, they "Did Not Disclose" their qualifications on:

1. Competitive bidding
2. Copyright Issues
3. Election Law advice
4. Employee Health Insurance Matters
5. Federal Voters Right Advice
6. Fiber Optic Communications System
7. Freedom of Religion Issues
8. Governmental Tort Claims
9. Intergovernmental Agreements
10. Intergovernmental Relations
11. Liability for Asbestos
12. Preventive Law
13. Public Utility Commission
14. State Whistle Blower Act Compliance
15. Texas Teacher Retirement System
16. University Interscholastic League
17. Utility Law Regulation
Only three other firms "Did Not Disclose" more categories than Salazar.
Could it have been some other factor that led Otis Powers, the late Enrique Escobedo, Minerva Peña and Jose Chirinos to opt for the mediocre firm which is lacking in such important qualifications?
Of the eight firms, Salazar came in sixth in terms of years of public education experience.
Other firms such as O'Hanlon, McCullom and Demerath listed 75 years, Thornton, Biechlin, Segrato, Reynolds and Guerra listed 40 years, Gustavo Acevedo listed 45 years, Rogers, Morris and Grover listed 20 years, etc...
But the kicker here is that in the category of school districts represented by the differing firms, Salazar ranked seventh of the eight with only three district.
At the top of the list was O'Hanlon, McCollum and Demerath with 102 districts, Thompson and Horton with 90 school districts, Rogers, Morris and Grover with 51 school districts, Thornton, Biechlin, Segrato, Reynolds and Guerra with 15 school districts, etc...
3. Salazar omitted (lied) about his criminal record when he applied to BISD:
He never admitted he had been arrested and charged with three felony offenses of theft by check.
According to court records, on at least one – 85-CR-23 (April 26, 1984) – he was tried and convicted in a non-jury trial and sentenced to three years in the state penitentiary, probated to seven years.
And as if that wasn't bad enough, he asked the 107th District court on April 24, 2012 – a year before he applied to be the BISD counsel – to expunge his criminal record to include not only that case, but also two the two other theft by check charges, 83-CR-416 (January 15, 1983) and 85-CR-450 (April 26, 1984).
Represented by his attorney Noe Garza, Salazar swore and signed under oath that he had never been convicted because the statute of limitations had expired and that he had been released, that the charge had not resulted in a final conviction, and that there was no court-ordered community supervision (probation).
4. On December 20, 2012, almost six months after 107th District Judge Ben Euresti agreed to the expunction agreement between Garza and the Cameron County District Attorney's Office (then under Armando Villalobos), the Texas Department of Public Safety filed an appeal with the 13th Court of Appeals challenging Euresti's expunction order on the grounds that the trial court's order was not supported by legally sufficient evidence.
At the core of the DPS challenge was the fact that they had never been given notice of the motion for expungement and that the record did not agree with Salazar's contentions, and the Court of Appeals reversed the order and negated it.
However, between the time that the 107th District Court issued the order and the time DPS appealed it, all records relating to the two arrests and the conviction were erased from court files. Computer checks indicate they have not been returned to the files accessible to the public as of today.
In its decision, the Court of Appeals issued on August 2013 noted that while Salazar claimed that he "has been released, that the charge has not resulted in a final conviction and is no longer pending, and that there was no court-ordered community supervision...."and that prosecution "is no longer possible because the limitations period has expired," the record reflected differently. In other words, he lied.
5. It's bad enough that he didn't answer truthfully to the expungement challenged by the DPS, but when he applied with the BISD, he also omitted information about his record.
According to the BISD's local policies, the applicant is required to affirm that "all information provided on this form is true and accurate. I also understand that an employment contract based upon information contained in this application which later proves to be false or incomplete shall result in the contract becoming null and void or terminated."
Local policies also state that "at the Superintendent's discretion, the district shall not employ an applicant who:
1. is a convicted felon
2. in convicted of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude
3. is charged with a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, until there is a disposition of the charge
4. is on probation for any offense (including deferred adjudication probation) that would otherwise restrict employment.
The BISD's employment policies get even more explicit. They state that: "Persons charged with a criminal offense that was dismissed through deferred adjudication may be considered for employment after five years except when the charge was capital murder; murder; voluntary or involuntary manslaughter; any felony theft offense...
"No one convicted of a felony or any misdemeanor involving moral turpitude will be considered for employment in the district...Moral turpitude is "an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private or social duties outside the accepted standards of decency and that shock the conscience of an ordinary person, Examples, but not by way of limitation, of offenses that involve moral turpitude are:
1. Public lewdness
2. Prostitution
3. Theft or theft of services (in excess of $500 in value).
4. Fraud.
Unlike Mr. Salazar, we are not attorneys here or even claim to be well-versed in the law, but the matter seems to be fairly clear. Salazar was not completely honest when he filled out the district's application for certified employment on his criminal record history and omitted at least two offenses and lied about the one he did disclose. He might have even listed a bogus misdemeanor offense on his application.
Clearly, his conviction involved a case of moral turpitude as defined by BISD policies and should have made him immediately ineligible for employment.
In fact, a memorandum prepared by a  HR administrator who reviewed his application Dec. 2, 2011 stated that "the basis of his case revolved around the act of felony theft which falls under moral turpitude."
6. Just last month it ewas learned that the BISD isn't the only got who has gotten the short end of the stick from Salazar. A local resident says Salazar took his money and failed to represent him in acquiring an expungement of his grandson's criminal record. His complaint to the Texas State Bar says:
"I gave him a check (#1210, copy attached) on April 30, 2012 for $3,500 as a partial payment with the understanding that the rest would follow upon completion of the expungement. We have since written him seven letters and placed between 30 to 40 phone calls which he has failed to answer. Since then, I have learned that he has been convicted of several felonies which he has tried to have expunged through the local 107th District Court (cases attached). The court did grant him the expungement but the Department of Public Safety objected and the expungement was nullified. (Case attached).
At the time he applied with the Brownsville Independent School District he did not disclose all his felony convictions and he has now been named in a case in federal court for neglecting to do so.
I am now attempting to get my money returned. I would deeply appreciate if you would instruct me on the appropriate way to do this."
7. Even after all these blatant examples of malpractice, we have found out that Salazar was one of about 140 select attorneys who were admitted to the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, the Houston-Galveston Division's Criminal Justice Act Panel to defend indigent clients. Did hre disclose his felony convictions – as is required – when he applied? That, to us, is highly doubtful.
Now, dear commenter, we have a lawyer who rolled over for the insurance companies as outside counsel for BISD to the district's detriment, someone who lied to the courts about at least three felony convictions for theft, who lied to the district on those same convictions on his application, and who continues to advice the board on how to manage its $514 million budget and deal with its 40,000 students and 7,000 employees at $240,000 a year.
Is mentioning these documented facts an "attack," and are you satisfied with the state of affairs relating to this individual getting paid handsomely from public funds for his fibbing? We are not.