By Juan Montoya
As much as the commenter above tries to absolve Brownsville Independent School District Superintendent Esperanza Zendejas from the antics of her board and general counsel, bringing up the rings that were purchased for the Porter High School Soccer championship team is definitely not the way to do it.
In that case, the Porter team had just won their championship April 16, 2016, a year after River had won theirs. Rivera bought their championship rings from Herrf Jones, a subsidiary of Varsity Sports.
However, there was no purchase order issued to buy the rings since the school did not have a budget line item with which to do it. That was in April.The Herrf Jones' representative, after not receiving his $31,035 payment for the rings, sent the Porter principal the invoice in June. The principal then sent the invoice to the administration asking who would pay for the rings since he did not have the money in his budget.
After questions arose in the community on who had ordered the rings, it set off a flurry of activity which resulted in Lead Auditor Arvin Tucker being assigned to conduct an investigation and issue a report on the purchase.
The $31,025 transaction involved the ordering of the 28 $895 rings each for the players and $995 rings each for other non-players on April 2016. Tucker's report was issued December 12.
Among the rings for the non-players were included two extra as "volume discount," one for Zendejas and another for trustee Joe Rodriguez.
Why Rodriguez? Could it be because he is registered with the BISD as vendor for BSN Sports, the sports-equipment company that does business with the BISD? BSN is a sister company of Herrf Jones under the Varsity Sports umbrella. He should not have been discussed, much less voted on the Anillogate matter. But he did and no one uttered a word of protest.
Superintendent Zendejas didn't tell Auditor Tucker she had responded to an email by the ring maker's competitor telling them that she and the Porter principal and athletic coordinator had already chosen Herrf Jones to purchase the rings. So Tucker didn't probe too deeply into the subject and his report indicated no one knew anything about the rings.
Remember, the $31,025 transaction happened on April 2016 and the invoice was sent June 9.
After word got out of Tucker's "investigation," the Herf Jones representative said he was willing to make a $25,020 "donation" to the 28 students and Tucker said Zendejas "wasn't planning to bring it to the board." Tucker stated in his report that she had "negotiated" for Herrf Jones to donate the student rings for $25,020 and that the non-players would be required to pay for their own.
Yet, for three straight meetings in early 2017, Zandejas, Rodriguez, and the others involved in purchasing the rings denied they knew who had ordered them. The board then lowered the river instead of raising the bridge and "fixed" the problem in March 2017 by raising the cap on purchases the superintendent could make without board approval from $25,000 to $50,000.
And yet the commenter defending Zendejas for not being corrupt claims she "fixed" the situation after it "fell on her shoulders?"
The $31,025 transaction involved the ordering of the 28 $895 rings each for the players and $995 rings each for other non-players on April 2016. Tucker's report was issued December 12.
Among the rings for the non-players were included two extra as "volume discount," one for Zendejas and another for trustee Joe Rodriguez.Why Rodriguez? Could it be because he is registered with the BISD as vendor for BSN Sports, the sports-equipment company that does business with the BISD? BSN is a sister company of Herrf Jones under the Varsity Sports umbrella. He should not have been discussed, much less voted on the Anillogate matter. But he did and no one uttered a word of protest.
Superintendent Zendejas didn't tell Auditor Tucker she had responded to an email by the ring maker's competitor telling them that she and the Porter principal and athletic coordinator had already chosen Herrf Jones to purchase the rings. So Tucker didn't probe too deeply into the subject and his report indicated no one knew anything about the rings.
Remember, the $31,025 transaction happened on April 2016 and the invoice was sent June 9.
After word got out of Tucker's "investigation," the Herf Jones representative said he was willing to make a $25,020 "donation" to the 28 students and Tucker said Zendejas "wasn't planning to bring it to the board." Tucker stated in his report that she had "negotiated" for Herrf Jones to donate the student rings for $25,020 and that the non-players would be required to pay for their own.
Yet, for three straight meetings in early 2017, Zandejas, Rodriguez, and the others involved in purchasing the rings denied they knew who had ordered them. The board then lowered the river instead of raising the bridge and "fixed" the problem in March 2017 by raising the cap on purchases the superintendent could make without board approval from $25,000 to $50,000.
And yet the commenter defending Zendejas for not being corrupt claims she "fixed" the situation after it "fell on her shoulders?"
2 comments:
All in all, the only questionable item is why Coach Joe was given the ring if the rest of the board was not going to get one. I do see that wrong, but the other actions were obviously a mistake and the whole board decided to vote for a higher amount to be spent before it had to go to them So if the board saw this wrong then, why did they vote to raise the cap? Dr. Zendejas is to blame only because she is the head-huncho an should have addressed it up front and made the persons responsible fess up. Everyone hid behind her skirt.
Does the district still owe for the rings? Has the company given the rings to the students? Have the non-players returned their rings or paid for them? I bet if all the board members had received one, none of this would be a
problem. What a shame to fight about what was a great accomplishment by the students. It is the adults who fight like cats and dogs that mess things up.
This article was in response to a comment made in a previous article, so who brought it up? You seem to have it against Dr. Z for some reason as many of us have realized. I would just like to know exactly why that is? Maybe you have a reason we are not aware, but since you have inside information, maybe you do.
Post a Comment