"I WAS TOLD A STORY..." CONTROVERSY DOGS SBCISD

Special to El Rrun-Rrun

Prior to reading my OP-ED, I urge you to read the “Prepared Statement read by Superintendent Dr.
Carman” at the most recent Board Meeting. (https://i-hate-onions.blogspot.com/ ).

Let me preface my OP-ED by stating that I don’t object to Dr. Carman’s request for a “Termination without Cause” clause included in his term contract. An employee should not be terminated “without cause”, especially by a taxpayer funded governmental unit.

Notwithstanding, I object to the terms requested and approved by the Board majority that are above and beyond what the Texas Education Code allows and will fund or pay.

Unfortunately, the triggering of this contract clause will be a huge financial impact on the Local taxpayers. How much of an impact is dependent on when the contract clause is triggered.

Dr. Carman asserts that the contract language goes hand in hand with Chapter 21 of the Texas Education Code. My understanding of Chapter 21 in regards to the Superintendent is that it only states that a School District Superintendent is entitled to a term contract not to exceed five (5) years.

In that same regard, Texas Education Code Section 11.201 states that any amount in a severance package that exceeds one year’s salary and benefits under the superintendent’s terminated contract is a violation of the Texas Education Code.

Therefore, the amount exceeding the severance amount approved by the Texas Education Code “shall be reduced” from the school districts’ state Foundation School Program funds by the Commissioner of Education.

Principally, that means that local taxpayer dollars will be used to pay one big lump sum
(more on that later) within 30 days of the termination date or pay 5% interest “per month” on any amount due. The total lump-sum dollar amount payout will depend on when the contract clause is triggered.

At the September 24, 2019 SB Special Board of trustees Meeting Superintendent Dr. Carman resolved to justify his potentially sweet “Golden Parachute” by reciting a prepared public statement during open session before the vote to approve an amended four year contract.

I don’t know if the prepared statement was vetted by the Board or Board Attorney prior to being
read in public. I, as a citizen/taxpayer, was offended by Dr. Carman’s ad hominem diatribe.

Although clearly a violation of The Open Meetings Act (TOMA), Board President Michael Vargas
allowed the Superintendent to continue with his public statement. “Notice of a meeting subject to
the Open Meetings Act must be sufficiently specific to inform the general public of the subjects to be considered during the meeting, with more specificity for a subject that is of special interest to the public.” (GA0511)

The notice should have publicly stated that Dr. Carman would be giving a “prepared statement.” That in itself is of “special interest to the general public” who are now allowed by Texas HB2840 to comment about a specific (open meeting) agenda item prior to a vote.

The posted agenda for said meeting specifically states after “RECONVENE IN OPEN MEETING” 1. “Action On Items Discussed in Closed Session, if Necessary.” There is no TOMA notice that a reading of a prepared statement by the Superintendent would be made in Open Session.

There was no “question or open inquiry” made at the time by the public or a member of the
governmental body. The agenda notice at issue does not sufficiently notify a reader of the posted agenda, as a member of the interested public, of the subjects to be addressed at a meeting subject to the Open Meetings Act, Government Code chapter 551.

Board President Michael Vargas has consistently moved on after “Closed Session” straight to action/voting without discussion. Remember when Board member M.L. Garcia wanted to make a
statement before voting on an action item but was denied a voice by the Board President and Board
Attorney present.

“If the notices posted for a governmental body’s meetings consistently distinguish between subjects for public deliberation and subjects for executive session deliberation, an abrupt departure from this practice may raise a question as to the adequacy of a notice to inform the public.” (JC-0057)

Whether the subject is of special interest to the public is a factor that may impact the adequacy of a notice under TOMA. The notice as posted was for ACTION (voting) by the Board.

The Superintendent claimed that he was responding to Board Member Mendez. However, Texas Government Code Section 551.042 only authorizes a statement of “factual information or a recitation of existing policy in response to the inquiry”, even where the subject was not included in the meeting
notice.

The prepared statement read by Dr. Carman was not based on first-hand knowledge and void of any
evidence or factual information to support his allegations. It was all innuendo, hearsay and, as my dear-sainted mother would say, it was all “Puro Chisme”.
Every story he tells begins with “I was told” or “I have been told” and allegedly. Dr. Carman was
very careful in using the world “alleged”. This way he is merely stating someone else’s accusation (without evidence) without stating his own opinion.

Even with such meticulous wording, Dr. Carman may very well open himself up for a defamation
lawsuit (libel/slander) because even though he may know or not know if the allegations are true, he made the statements in writing and orally in an open public meeting being videotaped.

Intent is an important element in a defamation case. “The statement must have been made with knowledge that it was untrue or with reckless disregard for the truth (meaning the person who said it questioned the truthfulness but said it anyhow)”.

Dr. Carman stated he had invoices proving that the district purchased charging stations and electronic tablets but offered “not even an iota of evidence” of illegality or fraud other than the seller was related to a board member at the time of the transaction.

Dr. Carman also states “he was told” a story of former board members doing a favor for a local
news media individual by getting a family member a job. Again, where is the evidence of illegality?
This is nothing more than pure speculation.

During the 2018 School District election, Board President Mr. Michael Vargas ran unopposed and
received political contributions from the Law Office of Flores & Torres ($3,000) and Ortegon Insurance Co, LLC. ($2,000). Both of these organizations have a contract with the SB School District.

Does that imply that Board President Michael Vargas did them a favor or there was some form of
“quid pro quo”? Of course not, that would be ludicrous. Without providing any evidence it
would be pure speculation and defamatory.

Besides, making political contributions is legal. For the record, The Law Firm of Flores &Torres LLP was board-approved back in March of 2013 and Ortegon Insurance Agency was board-approved back
on August of 2017.

Dr. Carman’s prepared statement was nothing more than a self-serving statement intended to establish the narrative implying that he is saving us from ourselves. This gratuitous action by the Board majority is definitely an omen of what is to come. Board unwarranted actions involving taxpayers dollars always have consequences.

Dr. Carman stated that he was merely protecting himself from an unjust termination. The Board
majority voted to grant Dr. Nate Carman everything he requested; apparently only one Board member was willing to protect the taxpayers and voted NO to the motion to approve Dr. Carman’s request for a “Golden Parachute.”

As the “church lady” would say, “Well, isn’t that Special?” My main point is that the presiding officer, Board President Michael Vargas, should not have allowed Dr. Carman to read his prepared statement as it was not on the agenda and violated The Texas Open Meetings Act.

To reiterate, remember Board Trustee M.L. Garcia’s denial by Board President Vargas and Board Attorney present at that time to make a statement prior to voting. All Board of Trustee members have completed the required Texas Open Meetings Act training.

However, not one of them spoke up to object to the prepared statement. Personally, I think Dr. Carman is plays an important role in the education of our kids. Withal, as far as “Transparency and Open Government”, that is a topic for a future OP-ED.

(P.S. I don’t work for the SB News or any other print media and I am solely responsible for my
“Citizen View” content. Up next, “Transparency or Lack Thereof!”)