Thursday, October 8, 2009


(Correction - sort of - The Herald in fact has done a story on the issue of Rodriguez. I think their failure to discuss the content of the reports is based on what I say herein. As to other sources claiming to summarize the reports - I do not use sources which I know in the past have been less then honest or accurate. I would love nothing more than to be given the opportunity to post the reports in their entirety at the BV. The bulk of my readers are capable of reading the reports and forming their own opinion. The bulk of my readers do not need my interpretation of the reports to understand same.

Here is the Herald article - well the cut and paste is not working again - ug! just go to the Herald you will see it.)

I am going to go backwards from the headline. I do not know if Accion America ever released the Rodriguez report. I would certainly have no problem posting it in its entirety. While I know of no case law providing bloggers the same protection as journalists, I would be willing to fight that battle. Under the "Pentagon Papers" case, a journalist can publish documents which were illegally disclosed or released.

If the reports were released by Accion America, my view is the Herald's lawyers are currently reviewing the law on the issue for purposes of liability, or they have already told the Herald nogo with publishing or discussion of the reports. Here is why.

If we all remember Peter Zavaletta got the Herald sued over a similar situation. This is the sole reason they will not print any add currently being offered by Zavaletta. The rule of thumb in the industry is, once someone gets you sued, you never do business with them again. Any journalist with minimal knowledge of the industry would know this.

The problem with the Zavaletta ad was not it content per se, but how the ad implied that the people listed in the document were in fact guilty. This is an important difference in understanding how the Herald covers the Rodriguez report. The Herald is free to report what the report states so long as they are merely reporting it as the content in the report. The Herald has already spent money fighting to get the report. They have no interest in covering it up.

I am curious that BISD and or Rodriguez did not seek a TRO against disclosure. With the pending litigation over the issue, the judge certainly would have issued a properly requested TRO. Maybe one has issued, and that is why no story has appeared. I will attempt to investigate today.

My point being, given the potential for the Herald being sued over publishing the report, and the potential criminal charges which can be initiated against anyone disclosing the report or reporting on the report, for now I can understand why the Herald would be waiting approval from their attorneys.


I want to say this in clear terms - if Springston fails to remove Kathleen Jimenez as the interim director over Special Services then the Board needs to remove Springston as the interim superintendent. I have never denied that the decision to remove Gonzales and Rendon was political and not because of their failures within Special Services. The latter, under the law, justified their removal. Where the law fails the people is the truth coming out about how it was in fact 100% political and not about the children.

It is my view Kathleen Jimenez retaliated against an innocent child because of my post the other day. Her office called for a mediated settlement over a TEA complaint. The father and I appeared. Kathleen Jimenez, and Gary Wilhite failed to appear, although they stated they would be there. Part of the problem is Dr. Montoya who oversees the Hanna cluster. I do not want to repost the e-mails, but it was Dr. Montoya who Hector Gonzales sent the e-mail stating that he, Montoya, had in fact taken care of the problem with this child. Well as we now know he did not, which is why the TEA certified the complaint and ordered BISD to respond.

Dr. Montoya, failed this child, Gary Wilhite, (in charge of special services for the Hanna cluster)failed this child, and in fact BISD has failed this child. And no one will be fired - why?

The father learned yesterday from Kathleen Jimenez's supervisor that she did not show at the meeting because she reviewed the child's performance at school and determined the child did not need any special help. I will take her at her word. Her word tells me she is not qualified to wipe asses.

This child takes two different medications for ADHD for a total of 4 pills a day. The school nurse administers one dosage at noon. The TEA complaint is about BISD's refusal to test the child for ADHD or help the parent get testing. The child is treated by a pediatric psychiatrist in San Antonio. The SA doctor diagnosed the ADHD, in addition to a very serious biologically based mental health disorder which has resulted in the child being hospitalized 3 times in less than a year. The child was diagnosed with 2 additional disorders which interfere with his ability to learn.

According to Kathleen Jimenez, who reviewed the child's record, this child has no need for special assistance. The pediatric psychiatrist in writing requested BISD put this child into a structured classroom, which in effect was the negotiated settlement reached by the father and the two people who did attend the meeting.

Last year the child was release from school an entire month early because he could not be maintained in a regular classroom. This was BISD's decision to release the child a month early while moving the child up to the next grade. Now comes Kathleen Jimenez and says everything is fine with the 8th grade student who maybe reads and writes and does math at a 5th or 6th grade level. The other night it took the child several minutes to subtract 5 from 13. It was a baking of brownies thing. I make everything into a learning experience.

It is my view and my view only that Kathleen Jimenez rejected the settlement proposal as retaliation for my post about her failure to attend the meeting. I hope Presas-Garcia is willing to speak up on the issue as the attorney's fees go up. The TEA recommended that part of the complaint be handled as a due process violation. The parent will now move forward on that front. The parent has also asked that I ask a lawyer within the Civil Rights Enforcement Section of the Department of Education to advise on the issue of BISD creating a hostile environment for this child, thereby making a meaningful education impossible.

In hopes of finding a meaningful solution I have held in my approach to this matter. The other day I was excited over the settlement because it meant helping a lot of kids, and not just this one child. It is not a money issue, because the money is already in the budget. It is simply Kathleen Jimenez, in my opinion, being petty and vindictive over my post about her failure to attend the meeting. Maybe had she attended the meeting she would have learned all of the facts, or maybe we would not be in the situation wherein she rejected the mediated settlement.

I also believe her boss, a Mr. Garcia, should be fired for allowing her to reject the mediated settlement agreement. Until this Board gets serious about meaningful accountability by the directors, assistant superintendents, and superintendent nothing will change. The Board completely dropped the ball on replacing Art Rendon. The children of BISD are now stuck without a qualified director for maybe another 4-6 months as this process plays out and a search for a new director is completed.


I did not make the connection until yesterday. It was Springston's office which generated the so called damaging report against Rodriguez. I am not sure what to make of it. Why would the Board promote to the position of interim-superintended the man who generated the Rodriguez report? The promotion was clearly a reward and vote of confidence - political? - never. Why would the Board promote a man who generated a report which the same Board seeks to keep secret? Got me.


I am tired beyond comprehension over the endless game playing and corruption at every level in Brownsville. I thought Dallas was bad, but Brownsville makes corruption a way of life expected of everyone.

Eileen Leeds of Willette and Guerra has been hired to do the hatchet job on Art Rendon. Her report will form the basis of his discharge. I can say with 100% certainty Eileen Leeds is an unethical lawyer prepared to lie to the court. She lies to the court because she is one of the State Bar whores protected from accountability.

I made a request in writing to Ms. Leeds to provide dates when Pat Ahumada, Charles Atkinson, and Mark Sossi would be available for depositions. I gave her more than a week to respond. When she failed to respond I set the depositions. In what was the first of two attempts to poison the well with the judge she point blank lied to the court and stated I never tried to cooperate in the setting of the depositions. Kathleen Leeds will be taken to the State Bar. I am forwarding the complaint to the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court asking that he forward same to the State Bar. I am doing the same as to Mark Sossi. He has breached his duties as a lawyer by refusing to forward to his client the settlement reached between myself and Ms. Leeds.

So there is your bone Rendon - If Eileen Leeds is prepared to lie to a judge, she will certainly lie about and/or spin what she puts in the report back to the BISD Board.

Ms. Leeds and the City of Brownsville are about to learn what happens when the only defense you have is lying to the court, and intentionally trying to mislead the court. This is about to cost Willette and Guerra money. Funny thing - this is the second time Mark Sossi's unethical conduct is costing Willette and Guerra money. Some people never learn.

1 comment:

BobbyWC said...

This just came through under my computer post.

I think it needs to be posted here because it is a defense of Kathleen Jimenez - fair is fair - I would like this person to give me a take on today's post.

"Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "COMPUTER PROBLEMS PERSIST Does anyone know if the...":

Although many of have friends that fact alone does not constitute an inappropriate relationship. As an advocate for special education children in Brownsville for the last 10 years, I can say that Kathleen Jimenez ia breath of fresh air after the trauma of Rendon. I personally am willing to give her a chance and I can say that she is a better person than I in having the courage to take on such an enormous task. The problems that Rendon left are not fixable in a few months and she does not deserve that nasty insinuations. The commuity should give her a chance to make changes and the superintendent needs to give her the authority to overrule individual principals when their campus is at fault. "