Sunday, October 16, 2011


BISD ATTORNEY ARTURO MICHEL DEFENDING BOARD MEMBER WHO HID $25,000 DONATION FROM FINANCIAL REPORTS

"Houston school board member Larry Marshall received a $25,000 check from a contractor doing business with the school district, and didn’t report it on his campaign financial disclosure forms, according to court documents filed on Tuesday.




Marshall received a $25,000 campaign donation in 2009 “a few days after Marshall went into a runoff election,” and failed to report it – which is illegal – the Houston Chronicle’s Ericka Mellon has reported.



Arturo Michel, Marshall’s lawyer and a former Houston city attorney, told Mellon that the donation “should have been reported and used for permissible purposes.”

http://www.texaswatchdog.org/2011/10/hisd-larry-marshall-received-25000-unreported/1318516652.column
 
Arturo Michel is the perfect lawyer to encourage Presas-Garcia's bad behavior.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Arturo Michel did not submit a RFQ for legal services BSID nor Rene firm. Tuesday, the board will select a new attorney.

BobbyWC said...

Michel's lawe firm was all too ready to be done with BISD - but this does not mean he did not find himself having to deal with endless corruption and ways to work against it.

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

When an interim board attorney does not applied for permanent position, it only means one thing. We do not agree with the board member leaders. Do not forget Mr. Escobedo made a motion for Reno O., law firm as the interim attorney. Remember, it is about a six figure income around $ 300,000 to $ 1,000,000 contract. It does not pass the smell test. Cadillac Caty Presas-Garcia is very hazardous for BISD. A good attorney with intelligence will not work for Mrs. Garcia.

Anonymous said...

Any word on the Joe Rodriguez Lawsuit?

Anonymous said...

Everyone should have a defense. I don't see how Michel is "the perfect lawyer" when he told the defendant that the unreported donation should be reported and used.

BobbyWC said...

yes for sure everyone gets a defense - I am not one to judge a lawyer based on the client so long as the client is legal and the defense is honest

But the problem here is, this firm showed very poor judgment in agreeing to represent an unethical board member when at the same time they represent school boards

The message is they will handle the wrongdoing of the board members - this does not send a message of confidence to the voters

The issue is not the defense - the issue is the message this firm is sending to the voters

Yes it is business - but a smart firm which represents public entities would not agree to also represent elected officials accused of wrongdoing - the image becomes that behind the scenes they are advising the elected officials on how to violate the law.

Gret post BTW - it extended the conversation - it allows for people to think it out in more than one direction

If you are a long term reader you know that is what I like

Again thanks for a great comment - challenging the BV is how we extend the conversation and get people thinking

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

If Cata failed to report a donation of that large an amount, she has something illegal that she is hiding and I ask, "What is she still doing on the board?"

BobbyWC said...

I have never mentioned the number -but I do not think there is any evidence of anything close to that number in terms of known evidence.

In most cases if we are dealing with a Texas Ethics issue and campaign finance they simply issue a $500.00 penalty which can be paid for from more campaign donations

The entire thing is a con.


Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

Step Down Cata....the community is asking now.....Later they will force you.