Sunday, February 1, 2009

No one is going to convince me that any of the past or current BISD Board Members care one bit about the children of Brownsville. It is sad that while the Board could have cited valid reasons for dismissing Gonzales, they did not, thereby leaving people to believe his suspension is politically oriented. While my online poll is not scientific, I nonetheless find it interesting that the Board is coming across as the bad apples, while Gonzales is doing significantly better than the Board.

We heard a lot of bru ha ha over the City Commission’s decision to approve a liquor license for a bar next door to a BISD teaching facility. What we have not heard from the same people complaining about the new bar where the old World gym was is the fact the BISD Board allowed for the construction of a new elementary school next door to an establish bar. Raquel PeƱa Elementary, located at 4975 Salida de Luna Road, is expected to open in August 2009. It is right smack next door to a bar. It is all a game - a very, very sad game.

Once this new bar opens, I hope people will keep an eye on who gets hired as a DJ. Shorty Dick Longoria not only voted for the bar, he tried to claim there is no instruction going on at the Aquatic Center. There is a shocker, a BISD teacher does not know the meaning of instruction.
We cannot begin to consider hiring a new superintendent until we have a new Board. Since a new Board is not an option, politics will remain the basis of every decision forthcoming from any BISD Board.

Sorry Charlie Atkinson, and Leo (the cowardly) Garza have put on Monday’s agenda an item which merely says, contemplated litigation. I have never bothered to research the issue of what can and cannot be discussed in Executive Session. Based on a reading of the statute and an AG Opinion, the announcement complies 100% with the law. However, the announcement would also comply 100% with the law if it said "contemplated litigation regarding removal of mayor." So my question is why the secrecy? Why not be transparent about the "contemplated litigation?" Why be so secret?
While I understand the legal advice the Commissioners might be seeking from counsel needs to be kept confidential, the reason for seeking the advice does not need to be kept secret. There will be no secret if a lawsuit if filed, so why not just be transparent up front and tell the people the reason for the contemplated litigation? Answer - the people are a mere inconvenience to the process and must be dismissed as a nuisance.
Given the fact the item was placed on the agenda by Sorry Charlie Atkinson, it's anyone's guess who he wants to sue and why?


MsGibby said...

I spoke to the mayor about this and he urges everyone not to speculate because it only creates confusion and in most instances creates a perception that is totally false. The Mayor said that there are no ongoing negotiations to remove him from office because there are no grounds for his removal and that the litigation to be discussed in executive session has nothing to do with the mayor. The Mayor feels confident that the judicial process will work to exonerate him of any wrongdoing and simply asks that everyone let the process be followed.

BobbyWC said...

"Given the fact the item was placed on the agenda by Sorry Charlie Atkinson, it's anyone's guess who he wants to sue and why?"

I just want to be clear - I have no idea why Sorry Charlie put this on the agenda -

Also I would be the first to agree we need to allow the judicial process to play out -

efforts at removal of the mayor before the judicial process plays out are just plain dirty politics and I think anyone who chooses to get in bed with those wanting to force the mayor's removal before the judicial process is complete will find themselves in even less favor than the are currently.