Monday, November 18, 2013


UPDATE:  This morning I received the following from a commissioner who is not Ernie Hernandez "I checked the agenda request form…it was Juan Gonzalez that placed it on. I can tell you that there was & is no intent or initiative to lower anyone’s compensation." 

I am hoping for a rapid turn around on my open records request.  To put an item on the agenda forms must be completed.  I have reqested all of those items.  I have been told over and over again - this reorganization was planned for sometime ever since Commissioners Court authorized the new hire in HR.

If I get the documents today I will post them.  But staff for the commissioners are telling me, that there was no conspiracy to lower wages and the entire thing is one big made up story.


Item N page 8, of the Cameron County Agenda for Thursday  shows that Commission Counsel Juan Gonzales put the item on the agenda and not Ernie Hernandez as was alleged in the trial of Raul Salazar.

This is significant because an investigation has  begun as to how Guz Garza got access to a draft agenda item.  Various sources within the Dancy building have told me the how, but because they will not let me quote them I will not use the allegation.  If they will not commit, I will not submit.

But this I do know, if a witness called by Guz Garza committed perjury, Gus Garza has a legal duty to inform Justice Hinojosa.  If he fails to inform Justice Hinojosa and the matter is brought to Justice Hinojosa by and through counsel for Raul Salazar, then Gus Garza could find himself in a heap of trouble.

I cannot remember if on this question Victor Ramirez objected based on hearsay and this is when Justice Hinojosa allowed David Garcia to testify about the agenda item if he had personal knowledge.  The objection and ruling did happen, I just do not remember if it was on this issue.  If this is the question, then we have a problem, because the agenda item clearly shows that Juan Gonzales is the one who put it on the agenda and not Ernie Hernandez as alleged.

What I am trying to find out is whether or not with Juan Gonzales' request was attached the following form.

Without this form then the issue of lowering wages was never an issue.

I have confirmed through the staff of several commissioners that for well over a month  Commissioners Court approved a new position for HR.  It was the intent of Commissioners Court to reorganize HR to accommodate the new hire and his/her duties.  But there was never an issue of lowering wages.  If you read the item, there is no reference to wages.  But then if it shows the above form was filed as part of the Agenda Item including a lowering of wages, then there is documented proof.

I have confirmed that there is an investigation as to how Gus Garza came into possession of a draft document without serving the proper subpoena on the county.  This issue and what legal action if any will be discussed in Executive Session during Item D.  Now, they may have to call a special meeting to actually take legal action - but first they have to get through item D in Executive Session first.  For an ADA to secure a county document through back door means and not through a subpoena is never smart.  But if it happened the impact on Guz Garza will smart.

Here is  the fundamental problem.  If David Garcia mislead the jury and it can be proven he lied, Guz Garza has a legal duty to inform Justice Hinojosa.  Gus Garza spent his 15 minutes of closing hammering the jury with the argument that the HR personnel were being retaliated against as the trial was happening. 

It is my understanding Juan Gonzales if called as a witness will make it clear that David Garcia's claims were without merit and that he either did not have any personal knowledge of what was happening and lied when he said he did, or he had the document and intentionally misrepresented the contents of the documents to the jury.  At least one allegation includes a claim, Guz Garza had a copy of the draft agenda item and allowed David Garcia to mislead the jury. 

Only a hearing will tell the truth.  The ineffective assistance of counsel is, the Best Evidence Rule.  Victor Ramirez simply had to demand they produce the written copy of the Agenda Item and it would have shown it was Juan Gonzales who put the item on the agenda and not Ernie Hernandez.  It is possible that Juan Gonzales will testify that Ernie Hernandez urged commissioners court to get this done.  But I have been assured by several staff members that this issue has been on the table for at least 30 days.

But the bottom line is, if Guz Garza sits back and does nothing, and Justice Hinojosa finds wrongdoing, Guz Garza's career is over at the DA's office.

I am working on getting the above document.  If it shows a reduction in wages for HR personnel - then who ever made the decision to put this item on the agenda at this time is not very smart.  This process is document driven and an Open Records Request will get to the truth.  But Judge Casco can also be called to testify that this reorganization of HR has been on the table for some time and it had nothing whatsoever to do with the trial, and David Garcia knew this to be true.


Anonymous said...

David Garza instructs David Garcia on what to do. Garza does not like the new HR guy. Dig,...dig

BobbyWC said...

I published your comment because several people in the Dancy bldg told me the same thing.

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

Guess who makes copies of draft agendas, clerks. Yes, those that get paid the least and are resentful of the high wage administrators. That is how documents "leaked" at my old job.

BobbyWC said...

The problem with your comment is, the document itself proves Ernie Hernandez is not the one who did it - what is about to do significant damage to Guz Garza is the testimony was not in agreement with the document.

If David Garcia testifies he gave the draft to Guz Garza then Guz Garza knew at the testimoney was happening that it was not accurate.

BObby WC