Wednesday, February 2, 2011



When I broke the story of Escobedo cutting a million dollar deal for his brother Jaime, Montoya called it a nothing - it is to be ignored.  Now he does not get what he wants, overcrowded schools and children being forced to learn in dilapidated portables, so he accuses Escobedo of voting for the construction so that his brother can get some of the contracts.  I'm shock, I'm shocked - Escobedo working for Escobedo - hey Juan why not ask Cata for all the security contracts tied to Jaime - then you will have a real story.

If you watched you saw Escobedo move item 9 up so that it was discussed before public comment.  Why?, he needed to leave, which he did.  He wanted to make sure he was there for the vote.  He did not defend Springston because he cares about Springston - he defended Springston because he wants influence over the contracts.


The additional cost to BISD is $400,000 a year and not $650,000.  The problem was not the IFA funds not having been awarded - which they were - the problem was a change in the rules.  The problem was not a lack of funding from the 2011 budget as alleged - the money was allotted in the budget in 2009.

Cata knew the story and the facts but instead chose to destroy BISD's reputation with false accusation against Springston, and Fuller.  The new counsel Mr. Michel looked horrified the entire meeting.  Part of that may be because of a little visit from criminal investigators.   There is no doubt in my mind Thompson and Horton want out of this nightmare yesterday.

For those unwilling to read my long post from last night - here is the problem.  Hinojosa and the bond lawyer were told by TEA that BISD could apply for IFA funds without a reduction for funds paid under the federal program.  BISD applied under this rule and was awarded the IFA money in June or July. When BISD voted on December 7, 2010, the money had already been awarded.

The same man at the TEA who mislead me mislead Hinojosa and bond counsel.  Under the existing rules, unless they changed over night, BISD still gets full funding - this means no increase in costs to BISD.  The problem is, the TEA  sent to a  total of 15 schools a letter announcing its intent to change the rules after the fact.  The rules have not changed.

The TEA told BISD to amend its application based on the new rules which have yet to be written or posted.  The Board over the objections of Presas-Garcia, Longoria, and Saavedra authorized Hinojosa to submit an amended application under protest and with a notice of intent to seek an Administrative Appeal, under the APA.

So long as the original rules allowed for the original deal, BISD will win.  This is not simply a matter of the TEA - the bond holders bought the bonds based on a representation by the TEA.  Under federal law concerning bonds, the terms of the bonds cannot be changed after they are sold.  Federal law will govern this.


But not that facts matter.


Judge Cascos, the sheriff and the news media have told these turkeys that the county has nothing to do with this issue.  The county does not get the money and in fact cannot get the money.  It is all lies.

They cannot defend the lies about the county being cheated, or that they care about the inmates so the new con is the vendor is not paying its 35% owed to the sheriff.  Proof - none - they reference the total sales and then how much the sheriff is getting and say "see its not 35%"  Judge Cascos, the sheriffr and the news media have told them it is not 35% of total gross sales - it is 35% of gross sales minus sales tax, and the sales from items for which the vendor cannot take a profit.

What is that number? - the convicted con-artist and convicted drunk say - nothing -  dead silence

As was the case over the bond money, with the  commissary contract they play a numbers game.

They are also using the inmates as pawns.  Inmate services are paid for with the 35% earned by the sheriff.  If you cut the mark-up by the vendor and gross revenues drop to $400,000 after the allowed deductions for taxes and items for which no profit is allowed, the inmates will only get $140,000.  This would be less than they get now - exactly how does this help them?

 It does not - the entire story is about forcing the sheriff in 2012, to give the contract to a Pat Lehmann crony - it was never about the inmates - it is about contracts - and who controls them - which is why Montoya point blank accused Escobedo of voting for the bond money so that Escobedo's brother can get a cut. 


12/13/2010 $1,000 from ERD International -  They gave her the money after the Board voted to sell the bonds.  Why would an architectural firm give her a $1,000 after the construction was approved?  She knew Escobedo was going to vote yes, so this gave her a safe no, while keeping ERD International in the loop.  Hey Juanito - Hey Juanito are you going to denounce her if she now votes to give ERD a contract.  Are you going to denounce her for her deal with Sylvia Atkinson?

The old board and the new board were and are about the contracts.  I have been blogging this point for some 4 years - nothing changed -   This is why we need strong rules which force the Board - old and new - to go with Administration recommendations unless they can articulate a flaw or irregularity in the bidding process.


BobbyWC said...

I reader asked that I post this here instead of in last nights's post

Bobby WC

Let me get this straight. Presas-Garcia and her ilk want taxpayers to believe that spending .00013% vs. .00003% of BISD's annual budget in return for having the federal government picking up 80% of the tab for a significant improvement in District facilities is a bad thing ? Ridiculous.......I ethically achieved financial security following the simple advice of my father that goes like this. "Never take money advice from people with none of it." Presas-Garcia, Longoria, Saveedra, Quintanilla, and Montoya have no money SO.......This taxpayer says thank you to the board members that voted correctly last night. They did the right thing even in the face of impending reductions in state dollars. NOT doing so due to the impending reductions in state dollars is truly the hollow, irresponsible, and politically motivated argument.
By Anonymous on A BLOW BY BLOW COVERAGE STARTING AT 5:30 P.M. Her... at 12:53 PM

Anonymous said...

Thank god the 4 voted for it!

Anonymous said...

It appears that some board members just want to make the district look bad at any cost. So Sad!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Yes its so sad!! The BISD Board is driven by cutting deals to benefit their own pocket$$$$.

Bobby you have been reporting on Sylvia Atkinson lately but do you know how she got hired in BISD having been booted out by other Texas Districts? Why did the Superintendent Springston hire her?

What (P)owers does this lady possess?

BobbyWC said...

You are wrong about Powers - it was Escobedo - this is Thursday's atory

Anonymous said...

So what happens if the rules change before the February 11th deadline?

TEA has the upper hand. Wasn't the conditional approval the award letter you spoke of. As long as the administrative rules change before the deadline, TEA wins. Perhaps this was in the works while TEA was conversing with Bond Counsel. This little detail should have been discussed thoroughly with the Board in the December 7th meeting even though there was a remote chance of a change. After all, everything discussed was just verbal and nothing solid was in writing. That should have been a red flag especially since the State's budget crisis was probably the reason why they were making tweaks to the rules. The Bond counsel admitted last night of that vulnerability with the "rules."

Regardless of the stupidity of the Bond counsel, 80% is great for the district; however, this was not the Bond Counsel's presentation to the Board back in December. The Board had every right to be upset with the changes. After all, it's the district's fund balance and not Hinojosa's. He got his commission and he does not have to pay the bonds.

BobbyWC said...

Once teh bonds were sold the TEA was bond by the agreement - This has nothing to do with the 2011 budget - teh funds were allocated in the 2009 budget.

You will hear no complaints from me if Hinojosa and bond counsel are fired. The deal is great - but they never told the board that they were attempting to double dip.

I am working on a story which should expose Escobedo on this issue. i am just trying to verify a document.

I am also on the fence about what Springston new and when

a comment he made last night lead me to believe he had a conversation with Hinojosa which basically went like this

"you assured me we would get away with this." An they will - the federal law on bonds governs what will happen - the TEA cannot change what was in place.

Alsoe the claim nothing was in writing is simply false.

For the bonds to be sold the plan for repayment had to be part of teh packet - the TEA's commitment was in writing

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

The TEA's commitment was in writing should of course been a given; however, I'm still hung up on the "adminsitrative rules" which could have been mentioned in the packet. I don't think the "administrative rules" were specifically spelled out and that might give TEA a way out. That is my feeling since I'm not a lawyer; but we have all been accustomed to failing to read the "fine print."

Keep up the good work.