WILL NEW BISD TRUSTEES TAKE COUNSEL BULL BY THE HORNS? OR WILL THEY CONTINUE THEIR DOUBLE STANDARDS?

By Juan Montoya

When the three new members of the Brownsville Independent School District board take their oath of office on Wednesday, they wil be asked if they agree to uphold the U.S. Constitution, state law and district policies so help them God.

As far as a we know, Cesar Lopez, Joe Rodriguez and Carlos Elizondo will pledge to uphold the law, so help them God.

I know of a person who has been trying for months, if not more than a year, to get employment with the BISD. After his initial application was approved and he was told he had a job, district personnel called him back to rescind the offer because of a pending DWI. It's not that he had not included the information in his application. He had. But the personnel staff told him that the fact that he had been charged was enough to disqualify him. Up to this day, the case has not been resolved. He explained that the case arose as a result of a divorce and the traumatic effect on his life. Nonetheless, he remains unemployed.

Now, looking through the district's own employment polices regarding "Employment Requirements and Restrictions: Criminal History and Credit Reports," it states that "No one convicted of a felony or and misdemeanor involving moral turpitude may be considered for employment in the district. Moral turpitude is an act of baseness, or depravity in the private or social duties outside the accepted standards of decency and that shocks the conscience of an ordinary person."

Among some of those crimes are included, of course, public lewdness, prostitution, theft or theft of service (in excess of $500 in value) and fraud.

This is apart from non-reviewable offenses such as criminal homicide, capital murder, injury to a child, aggravated sexual assault, indecency with a child, sale or purchase of a child, kidnapping, prohibited sexual conduct, murder, rape, arson, robbery, and sexual assault.

If the offense was a felony, the applicant is automatically excluded form employment with the district.

Some misdemeanor convictions do not automatically disqualify an applicant form BISD employment. "Examples, but not by way of limitation, of offenses that do not involve moral turpitude are: misdemeanor possession of marijuana, disturbing the peace, DWI, drunkenness in a public place, gambling, and simple assault."

Since the person in question hasn't even gone to trial for the DWI, it would seem that he would qualify for BISD employment. A conviction of a first DWI is a misdemeanor, after all, and we know of several people working for the district with one or two DWIs.

So why was this person not hired?

Let's take another case.

The same personnel policy requires all applicants for employment with the BISD to submit their criminal history records and the district to complete "a national search on a person the district intends to employ."

A conviction is defined as "a finding of guilt or acceptance by the courts of a plea of guilty or nolo contendre."

At the Superintendent's discretion, the district shall not employ an applicant who:

1. Is a convicted felon.

2. Is convicted of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude.

3. Is charged with a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude until there is a final disposition of the charge.

4. Is on probation for any offense (including deferred adjudication probation) that would otherwise restrict employment."

On April 2013, a majority of the board acted upon the recommendations of the BISD administration to hire Baltazar Salazar as board legal counsel. Then, on December of 2013, the board voted to extend his contract for another year, change his job description to general counsel, and to give a 10 percent increase to his $240,000 annual retainer.

When Salazar applied to the BISD, he was in the process of trying to expunge his record of three felony arrests for felony theft. In at least one case (83-CR-416-A) that happened on January 15, 1983, Salazar was found guilty of felony theft of $5,700 and sentenced to three years imprisonment suspended to seven years probation. He appealed the sentence to the 13th Court of Appeals in Corpus Christi and the appeals court upheld the conviction (13-85-181-CR) in May 1986.

The other two arrests (83-CR-23-A and 85-CR-450-A) happened on April 26, 1984. 

In the course of the petition for expunction, Salazar told the courts that as far as the January 15, 1983 offense and one of the April 26, 1984 offense, "he had 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..."

As far as the remaining April 26, 1984 offense (85--CR-23-A), Salazar told the court that prosecution "is no longer possible because the limitations period has expired."

The 13th Court of Appeals did not buy Salazar's argument and reversed the expunction order he obtained in the 107th District Court in Cameron County. 

Yet, when he filled out his application with the BISD, Salazar answered that "in 1984, in Cameron County Cause #84-CR-A-4113, theft by check, I was placed on deferred probation and the case was dismissed. In 1985, Cameron County Cause #85-CR-23-A, theft by check, I was placed on probation and the case was dismissed and conviction set aside."
That would probably be news to the 13th Court of Appeals which reversed the expunction order.
But more to the point, we looked up the first case he mentioned (Cause #84-CR-A-4113, theft by check), and the case, a misdemeanor, does not relate to Salazar in any way. In other words, it was not a true statement. The other case he mentioned (Cause #85-CR-23-A), was the case he appealed to the 13th Court of Appeals and lost.
He never listed the other two cases he tried to get expunged 83-CR-416-A (January 15, 1983, theft by check), 85-CR-450-A (theft by check, April 26, 1984) and failed after the DPS objected. On the very day that he made his pitch to the BISD board of trustees (April 1, 2013), he was awaiting the appeals court decision on the DPS objection and never said anything about it.
Now, we have a proven convicted felon and one who lied on his application getting hired and given an extension and a raise. And we have a person who has only been charged (and never convicted) not getting a job with the district.
Two of the new members who will be getting sworn in on Wednesday will have the opportunity to review the general counsel's performance, including his fraudulent application. Lopez got $4,000 in reported campaign contributions from Salazar. Elizondo only got $1,000.
Salazar also recommended that the defense of the district to the Luci Longoria-Catalina Presas-Garcia First Amendment federal lawsuit be assigned to the  Colvin, Chaney, Saenz & Rodriguez, L.L.P. law firm in Brownsville. The "Rodriguez" in the firm refers to Tony Rodriguez, the son of incoming new trustee Joe "Coach" Rodriguez. So far, the district has paid the firm almost $200,000 to defend it,
For months, trustee Presas-Garcia and Longoria have tried to get a third trustee to sign on to place a review on Salazar's employment without success.
Will two of our new members – either Rodriguez, Lopez, or Elizondo – fulfill their promise to uphold the law and district policies? Or will they choose instead to continue this farce?'S