Susan Bohn, who handles all of my TPIA request with the district, neglected to redact the social security number of a former district employee.

I suppose that Susan Bohn’s “expertise” in the Texas Public Information Act come at the expense of knowing about confidentiality matters?

Unfortunately this was the first time that Susan Bohn or the district (remember Susan Tolles violation?) did something so careless.

Makes you wonder how someone so incompetent can continue to receive such lavish pay raises and promotions. Promotions to positions in which they are so unqualified. Just what was Rocky Kirk thinking?

Both Susan Bohn and Rocky Kirk will keep dancing their way to the bank at our expense.

This is yet another law firm that the district is going to “engage” even though the district has it’s own General Counsel. Remember how the Board said that they were going to use Susan Bohn to save money on their self inflicted legal costs? So much for that.

Well, come to find out, Ron Eudy, husband of ex-board member Kim Eudy is an attorney who works at Sneed, Vine & Perry, P.C.

Coincidence?

Have you ever wondered if Ron and Kim Eudy’s political campaign contributions to Board members campaigns and public political endorsements  have had any influence on this decision? Doesn’t this smack of an ethical issue? Makes you wonder …

Ron and Kim Eudy

Next thing you know, the district will be hiring Mayo Davidson as another legal counsel. You laugh, but as we can see from Susan Bohn’s recent promotion, anything is possible!

Mayo Davidson has some experience with the Texas Bar regarding ethics. Perhaps Mayo Davidson could advise Ron Eudy on ethics? Experience is the best teacher, right Mayo?

Talk about crazy! Just what are Susan Bohn’s qualifications and experience to be the Deputy Superintendent? Something isn’t right here and eventually we’ll find out.

It was an act of Rocky Kirk, so I guess that would explain it? Good management and personnel decisions always elude Rocky.

Did Rocky Kirk do this out of desperation or necessity?

You can read the rest of the press release in Lake Travis View’s article announcing this wacky promotion. It is pretty much a carbon copy of the district’s press release. Surprisingly the district’s press release seems to have disappeared from their web site. Never fear, I have archived a copy.

With the departure of Diane Frost, attorney Susan Bohn has been promoted to deputy superintendent of the Lake Travis Independent School District.

That’s the word from Dr. Rocky Kirk, who said the decision was part of a restructuring at LTISD. Last week, Frost designated by the Corsicana ISD Board of Trustees as their lone superintendent finalist.

“The deputy superintendent position and all of the responsibilities it holds is critically important to the successful operation of the District,” said Kirk. “Fortunately, we are able to re-direct these duties internally among staff already in place, rather than searching District for this position. In doing so, we get the dual benefit of lowering administrative costs while taking advantage of the skills, abilities and competencies of talented staff within our own ranks.”

Susan Bohn, currently LTISD General Counsel, will assume the title of Deputy Superintendent and General Counsel. In this role, Bohn will provide leadership to campus principals as well as to numerous administrative functions of the District including communications, community programs, extracurricular programs, and human resources.

-Lake Travis View, May 8, 2010

I like the comments that were made in response to the Lake Travis View article, it seems I am not the only one who ponders this imponderable act:

May 9, 2010 at 9:33 am
What qualifies a social studies teacher who becomes a lawyer and then accepts a job at an ISD to basically handle David Lovelace (and even botches that up requiring 3rd party outside legal counsel) to become the second in command? Those that keep up with the ISD know this is true. Those of you that don’t, take a closer look.

May 13, 2010 at 8:47 am

Oh yeah, lets get some more lawyers in the school district. I am sure they will play an important role in improving education. Why not hire someone to promote better teacher websites, maybe a better math and science program, and better communication. Looks like we are in for more years of poor performance.

May 15, 2010 at 12:02 pm

It is an exciting time for the district? Seriously? It terrifies me. I would love to see the actual financial numbers that show they are saving administrative costs. It looks to me like they are merely adding administrative costs with every administrator they add to the ivory tower. It’s ridiculous. ConcernedParent is right about outside legal counsel. Those bills are already way high and now they will be even worse. Is the board of trustees paying any attention at all to what is happening? Why would a superintendent ever think that a lawyer who taught briefly was qualified to lead principals. What administrative experience does she have? It’s not unconventional it’s laughable. Someone should take a look at how dramatically her salary has increased since she started in Lake Travis. Is ANYONE wondering about this expense?

May 30, 2010 at 8:04 am

They were able to save so much on administrate cost, after the restructuring they gave pay raises to the already over paid administrative staff. Tell me how that is saving the tax payers of LTISD money?

June 1, 2010 at 10:59 am

Disgusted Taxpayer is on the right path. They aren’t saving us a dime of OUR money but rather “redistributing it” and the problem is that the Top 10% of the food chain (admin) gets it all. Whats needed is a taxpayer revolt at the polls the next time they try to paint a bleak and gloomy picture of their financial shape and force them to make do with what the rest of us have to live with. Please don’t let them sing that “Its for the Kids” jargon either….Its for overpaid and under worked Administrators, period! Go check their salaries out

-Lake Travis View, 6/6/2010

Let’s look at some of Susan Bohn’s qualifications for the job as Deputy Superintendent. According to State Board for Educator Certification records, Susan K. Bohn¹ holds the following educator certifications:

¹Verification of Susan’s name required more research. Susan K. Bohn’s (DOB: 5/2/1973) maiden name was Susan Melanie Kolar until her marriage in 2002 (File Number: 164161, 11/23/2002, Harris County). She goes by the name of Susan Kolar Bohn.

Note that Susan Bohn does not hold any administrative certifications. But I am more than certain that Susan’s certification in “Secondary Dance” will more than make up for her lack of administrative experience. Why didn’t the district’s press release mention that?

We are informed all about Susan Bohn’s educational background related to her law degree, but we don’t know anything about her background related to teaching?

Just what educational management experience does Susan Bohn have?

How long did Susan Bohn teach Secondary Dance and/or Secondary Social Studies before embarking on her legal career?

So many questions, so few answers.

I wonder how all of the principals and staff feel about being subordinate to an unqualified and inexperienced Deputy Superintendent?

Let’s look at Susan Bohn’s history with the district. The following pictorial view will aid us.

It would appear on the surface that Susan Bohn has done VERY well with a pay raise of $43,873 (+46%) between November 2006 through at least April 2010 (less than 4 years), but it looks like the job is getting to her.

How about the robot phone call from Alex? Wonder if Alex used the Lake Hills phone directory for that too?

Wouldn’t this be a violation of the law regarding Charities, Churches and Politics and their tax exempt status?

Just who’s agenda is being advanced here? Alex Alexander’s? Rocky Kirk’s? The Lake Hills church?

What would the IRS think about this?

You can read more about tax exempt organizations and the restrictions that apply to their involvement in political activities at the IRS web site.

“The Internal Revenue Service gives serious consideration to complaints made alleging the abuse of the tax exempt status granted to certain organizations.”

See the IRS web page: IRS Complaint Process For Tax Exempt Organizations to learn how to go about filing a complaint.

Documents obtained from the Texas Secretary of State show that the Lake Hills Church is registered as a Texas Non-Profit corporation and the Lake Hills church claims to be incorporated as a 501(c)(3) entity:

By the way, we now know from their own statements and/or various documents that the following LTISD board members as well as the Superintendent, Rocky Kirk, are associated with the Lake Hills church:

Guy Clayton
Jason Buddin
Alan Williams
Rocky Kirk

Interesting!

Looks like it took Alex Alexander to openly use the resources of the Lake Hills church to help bring this all to light.

Let’s see how Alex might have violated the restrictions imposed by 501(c)(3):

Emails authored by Alex (sent out to 51 addresses) soliciting support for his campaign as late as April 24, 2010:

From: Alex Alexander <aalexander@lhc.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 13:49:16
Subject: Alex Alexander Campaign

Dear Friend,

You may, or may not, be aware that I am running for LTISD School Board Place 3.  I am really excited about the opportunity to serve our community in this capacity, but can’t do it without you. I would love to have your vote.

I have attached a flier that includes information about me and my campaign. You can also find more info at my website – www.AlexForLTISD.com <http://www.alexforltisd.com/>

Early voting begins this Monday, April 26th at the Randall’s located on 620 and continues through May 4th. Election Day is May 8th.

Thanks for your consideration,

Alex

–
Alex Alexander
Pastor of Family Life
www.lhc.org <http://www.lhc.org>
twitter.com/pastoralex <http://twitter.com/pastoralex>
alexalexander.wordpress.com <http://alexalexander.wordpress.com>

Alex’s Facebook campaign web site, current as of April 28, 2010:

Update:

I guess that Alex reads my web site as well. Today (April 28, 2010) he decided to no longer use the resources of a 501(c)(3) tax exempt nonprofit corporation to advance a political agenda and changed his contact email address on his campaign Facebook page.

Apparently all of the discussion about Alex’s use of a supposedly tax exempt organization’s resources to actively campaign caused him to change his campaign web page on April 27, 2010:

Sure looks like active political campaigning on the part of an organization that is supposed to stay away from such activities so as to enjoy a tax exempt status?

“Fordham Law’s Center on Law and Information Privacy released a study that found state educational databases across the country ignore key privacy protections for the nation’s K – 12 children.”

We already know that the LTISD violates the privacy of students.

Unfortunately it all starts at the top of the LTISD. Susan Tolles, the President of the LTISD Board of Trustees was blamed by Rocky in a letter responding to a TEA finding that the LTISD violated student privacy.

You can read about a just a few of them for yourself:

1. Did the LTISD violate confidentiality again?

2. Did you know that the TEA found that the LTISD violated student confidentiality? Yet Again!

3. Did you know what a recent LTISD purchased report says about the district?

4. Did you know that the LTISD violated confidentiality AGAIN?

5. Did you know that the LTISD violated student confidentiality on a GRAND scale?

6. Did she or didn’t she? She did! Did you know that Susan Tolles is the ONLY Board member to take confidentiality training and sign an oath of confidentiality?

7. Did she or didn’t she? She did! Did you know that Susan Tolles is the ONLY Board member to take confidentiality training and sign an oath of confidentiality?

8. Did you know that the attorneys for the LTISD sent out unredacted information, again?

9. Did you know that the district is supposed to remove any offensive, confidential, or proprietary information from computers before assigning them to students?

10. Did you know that the LTISD cannot maintain custody of confidential records?

11. Did you know that the LTISD was found to have violated student confidentiality?

How can you maintain privacy of educational records when you loose them?!

Just ask Susan Bohn, the district’s spectacular lawyer (she received a $10,000 pay raise this last year) once again deferred to an outside law firm to do her job. Susan wasted our tax dollars to have an outside law firm tell me why the district was not able to come up educational records in their custody and control.

The reason that the district was unable to provide a copy of my son’s educational records was: “… was not provided for the simple reason that the District cannot find his form.” Yes, you read it right, they lost it!

Oh how typical. Just look at the postings listed above.

Another question would be: Why couldn’t Susan Bohn do her job (she gets paid $140,000/year) rather than pay to have an outside law firm do it for her? Just what does Susan Bohn do for $140,000/year? Not much it seems.

Bottom line is that the district has a documented record of confidentiality and privacy screw ups.

State Propositions 2, 3 and 5 Protect Texas Homeowners Against Property Tax Appraisal Abuse

AUSTIN – Americans for Prosperity is encouraging Texas voters to support State Constitution Amendment Propositions 2, 3 and 5 on Election Day, Nov. 3.

“Texas taxpayers need protection against property tax appraisal abuses,” said AFP State Director Peggy Venable. “The property tax appraisal process is confusing. Anyone who protested the value of their home knows the deck is stacked against the property taxpayer.”

AFP pushed for State Propositions 2, 3 and 5 during the 81st Texas Legislature. These three reforms resulted from legislative interim studies of property tax appraisal reform.

“We participated in hearings held across the state and, along with residential and business property owners alike, asked for these needed reforms,” Venable said. “Propositions 2, 3 and 5 will benefit property taxpayers. These three propositions will protect against runaway residential appraisals, ensure appraisal equity statewide, and streamline appraisal district appeal operations.”

AFP recently uncovered an e-mail chain letter spreading misinformation about what these amendments will actually do. The e-mail claims that the propositions will create a state property tax. But the Texas Constitution states in Article 8, Section 1-e that “no State ad valorem taxes shall be levied upon any property within this State.”

Facts about the proposed Constitutional amendments:

Proposition 2 requires the property tax of a residence homestead be solely based on the property’s value as a residence homestead ‐ regardless of what it might be worth if purchased for a different use, such as an office or business. This proposal is a response to residence homesteads being appraised based on what a person’s homestead would be worth if it were converted to commercial property. It applies only to residential homesteads and not to second homes or investment properties.

Proposition 3 provides for uniform property tax appraisal standards and procedures to be used by County Appraisal Districts. Currently, property tax appraisal practices and procedures vary widely across the state. This proposition will provide for the equitable treatment of all property owners by ensuring that taxable property is appraised in the same manner no matter where it is located in the state.

Proposition 5 makes it easier to form appraisal review boards for protest hearings. This proposition will allow two or more adjoining county property tax appraisal districts, if they so choose, to consolidate appraisal review board functions. The voluntary ability to consolidate smaller county appraisal review boards will help resolve property tax appraisal protests more quickly and make protesting appraisals more convenient for property owners, especially in lesser-populated areas of Texas.

“As taxpayer advocate for 15 years, I believe these are the most significant reforms for property taxpayers in 30 years. Texans need these new protections against property tax appraisal abuse,” Venable said. “we want taxpayers to know the facts, and we support Propositions 2, 3 and 5.”

-American’s for Posperity

While your at it, remember to vote for Proposition 11 which will add some degree of protection to property owners from the government’s abuse of Eminent Domain:

Proposition 11
(HJR 14 – #1)

HJR 14 would amend the constitution to provide that the taking of private property for public use (“eminent domain”) is authorized only if it is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, its political subdivisions, the public at large, or by entities granted the power of eminent domain, or for the removal of urban blight. The amendment would prohibit the taking of private property for transfer to a private entity for the purpose of economic development or to increase tax revenues. The amendment would also limit the legislature’s authority to grant the power of eminent domain in the future unless it is approved by a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to each house.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment to prohibit the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, a political subdivision of the State, the public at large, or entities granted the power of eminent domain under law or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property, but not for certain economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes, and to limit the legislature ’s authority to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity.”

It won’t help those who are fighting against the LTISD in instances such as the Grumbel’s Eminent Domain fiasco, but it will be a step in the right direction.

Wasn’t Susan Bohn so helpful to the district in the district’s last Eminent Domain fiasco?

How does the Board justify giving (charity that is) Susan Bohn such an outrageous pay raise, especially after all that she had done for the district?

Let’s see, Susan Bohn started working for the district for $96,124/year in November 2006 which was quickly bumped up to $125,000/year by July 2007!

Wow, $30,000 in just a few months! Why?

Now that Susan Bohn is getting paid $140,000/year she has seen a pay raise of 45.6% since she was hired in November 2006!

And the Board has the audacity to ask us to give them more of our hard earned money to throw down the toilet!

Don’t even get me started on Rocky Kirk’s pay increases. Rocky Kirk started working for the LTISD in 2003 at $154,600/year and now Rocky is making $252,799/year. That is a pay raise of 63.5% in just 6 years!

All this and yet Susan Bohn looks so unhappy!

“Engagement of Spivey & Grigg, L.L.P.”

Come to find out, Spivey & Grigg, L.L.P. is another law firm!

Just how many lawyers does the LTISD need to hire?!

What happened to Susan Bohn? She is a lawyer isn’t she? Granted not very good, but she has supposedly passed the bar exam, hasn’t she?

Just what has Susan done for the district, in a positive sense that is?

Susan Bohn does get paid $140,000/year (she is the third highest paid employee of the district) and for what, more outside lawyers to help bail her out?

Yet the district needs to hire MORE lawyers?

Why?

And the district has the audacity to ask us for more tax dollars?!

Perhaps the Board would be better served by better skilled and discerning administrators who would better manage the district?

I read from the Spivey & Grigg, L.L.P. web page that they specialize in “legal malpractice.”

Does this mean that the Board has some issues with some attorneys who work for the district? Perhaps Susan Bohn? I wouldn’t be surprised.

Spivey & Grigg, L.L.P. also say on their web site that they specialize in “contract disputes.”

Does this mean that the Board thinks that Rocky Kirk is getting paid too much ($252,799/year) in return for “Academically Acceptable,” again among other things?

“Any written document in which the signer swears under oath before a notary public or someone authorized to take oaths (like a county clerk) that the statements in the document are true. In many states, a declaration under penalty of perjury, which does not require taking an oath, is the equivalent of an affidavit.”

Interesting. It would seem that the LTISD has some affidavits which are shaky at best.

Let’s also note that affidavits are NOT supposed to be based on “hearsay.“

“Hearsay” is defined as:

“Testimony given by a witness who is not telling what he or she knows personally, but what others have said.”

How can you attest to alleged facts in an affidavit if they are based on hearsay?

Just ask Lisa McBride of the Thompson & Horton law firm. Apparently Lisa McBride doesn’t seem to know about “hearsay,” but then again, let’s not ask Lisa about the truth either.

Let’s delve into some recent affidavits made by employees of the LTISD in the recent Meadows v. Lake Travis Independent School District case.

Here we have an excerpt from an affidavit signed by Allison Cobb, Principal of Serene Hills Elementary School:

“I have spoken with Serene Hills receptionist, Ms. Patty Noble, and have learned that she asked Mr. Lovelace for his driver’s license, and he refused to give it to her. She then asked him to show it to her. He again refused. Finally, he let her see the license. Ms. Noble asked to see his license because he was asking to take a student from campus.”

Seems that Allison’s statement is based on “hearsay.” Would Patty Noble have given a different story? Why wasn’t Patty Noble asked to provide an affidavit?

I would hope that Allison was confused about what Patty Noble told her, because it was not true, but that is not what Allison swore in her affidavit. That’s the problem with “hearsay.”

Why did Lisa McBride submit Allison Cobb’s affidavit when it attests to events in which she did not have first hand knowledge?

Another affidavit comes from Debra Aceves, Principal of Hudson Bend Middle School who swears that:

“On April 3, 2009, David Lovelace came to HBMS to attend an event in one of his son’s classes. On that clay, the class was presenting math games that they had created, and had invited parents, While he was in the front office, Mr. Lovelace did not provide his driver’s license to Ms. Margarita Plymire, the HBMS Receptionist. Ms. Plymire entered Mr. Lovelace’s name into the Raptor System, and the system printed a sticker name tag for Mr. Lovelace, Because Mr. Lovelace’s driver’s license had been scanned into the Raptor System before, the information was stored, so the name tag generated by the system contained a scanned version of his driver’s license photo and his name.”

(Note: My driver’s license has only been scanned at the Lake Pointe Elementary School some years earlier and it has not been scanned since, nor has it been scanned at any other district campus.)

Debra Aceves goes on to say (as does Allison Cobb and Heidi Gudelman) that:

“For parents whose driver’s licenses have already been scanned into the Raptor System. I do not require that their licenses be scanned again, because their information is stored in the system. Instead, the parent’s name is manually typed into the Raptor System, and the system generated a sticker name tag that displays the person’s name and photograph. The parent is required to wear the name tag while on campus.”

Was Debra Aceves confused about what was printed on my badge?

Funny thing, I kept my badge that was issued to me on April 3, 2009 and low and behold I have a copy of it here:

Interesting, but my driver’s license picture was NOT on the badge issued to me on April 3, 2009!

What does this mean that Debra Aceves affidavit was not true? Sure would seem so, but then again, Debra’s affidavit statements were based on “hearsay.”

I would hope that Debra Aceves got Margarita Plymire’s story confused, but nonetheless, she swore to the truthfulness of the story. Is it possible that if Margarita Plymire had signed a sworn affidavit, she would have sworn to something different, something along the lines of what really happened?

Again, why didn’t Lisa McBride have Margarita Plymire swear to an affidavit about events that Margarita allegedly took part?

Why did Lisa McBride submit Debra Aceves’ affidavit when it attests to events in which she did not have first hand knowledge?

Hey, this gets even better.

I visited Hudson Bend Middle School on October 13, 2009 and see my visitor badge:

Look! I now have a picture! How did that happen?!

Why didn’t my April 3, 2009 badge have a picture like Debra Aceves says it did, but now my badge includes a picture?

Unfortunately for the district, I kept my April 3, 2009 visitor badge which makes it look like someone went back and changed things after the fact. How else could this have happened?

Now if that weren’t interesting enough, you need to know about my visit to Serene Hills, two days after my visit to Hudson Bend.

I went to Serene Hills to have lunch with my son on October 15th. I even tried to enter my name into the Raptor System and guess what? My name was not in the district’s Raptor system?!

So much for Allison Cobb’s sworn affidavit stating “For parents whose driver’s licenses have already been scanned into the Raptor System. I do not require that their licenses be scanned again …”

So much for anyone at the district really knowing anything about Raptor and how it works, but that doesn’t seem to stop them from swearing to things that aren’t playing out like they swear they do. Perhaps the stories they told “weren’t true in reality?”

The best affidavit of the lot has to be from Heidi “it was not true in reality” Gudelman, Principal of the Lake Pointe Elementary School:

“On a day after he had had his licensed scanned and had gone through the Raptor System sign-in process, Mr. Lovelace came to the campus for a meeting with campus staff, which he attended. He did not enter the building through the front door, and he did not sign-in through the Raptor system. Each and every outside door to the building other than the front doors were locked that day.”

Just one question Heidi, did I walk through a wall to get in?

Was I just a figment of Heidi’s imagination that day?

Perhaps Heidi Gudelman’s sworn affidavit was “not true in reality?”

Did Rocky appoint Heidi Gudelman to be principal of an elementary school?

Let’s face it, Allison and Debra were swearing to hearsay and got their stories wrong, but Heidi’s sworn affidavit is really out there, way out there.

Remember it was Heidi Gudelman who left her Las Vegas vacation pictures on the computer that the district assigned to my son.

By the way, Heidi Gudelman did say in sworn testimony during a due process hearing: “it was not true in reality.”

So, what does Lisa McBride say about all this?

Do you think Lisa McBride would quibble about what “what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is?“

No, but Lisa does say:

“Much of your clients’ concern with the affidavits of Cobb, Aceves, and Gudelman appears to derive from conclusions your clients have reached concerning the intent and/or meaning behind the witnesses’ statements, not the content of the statements themselves.”

What?!

I would like to ask Lisa McBride: Aren’t affidavits supposed to contain TRUE statements or in the case of Heidi Gudelman’s affidavit, a plausible story?

Note the affidavits of Allison Cobb, Debra Aceves and Heidi Gudelman that Lisa McBride filed with the court all contain this sentence:

“I have personal knowledge or every statement made in this affidavit, all of which are true and correct”

Having read the affidavits and the definition of “hearsay” wouldn’t you say that the sworn statement of Allison Cobb and Debra Aceves: “I have personal knowledge or every statement made in this affidavit” is not true?

“What is truth?”

-Pontius Pilate

Isn’t it considered “perjury” when an affidavit contains false information?

Nevertheless Lisa McBride says:

“The District stands behind the veracity of the affidavit testimony of Allison Cobb, Debra Aceves, and Heidi Gudelman, as well as the affidavit testimony of the District’s other witnesses.”

And they say that the captain of the Titanic went down with the ship!

For all that it’s worth, Lisa McBride does have a great sense of humor, just read the motions she filed with the court in case of Meadows v. Lake Travis Independent School District.

Has anyone seen this email?

If so, please forward a copy to me.

I do not know of anyone of the original recipients who have received the second email from Susan Bohn regarding this issue.

Could it be that Susan Bohn has not sent this second letter/email out? Wouldn’t suprise me.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram prints an interesting article about how school districts may charge students a fine for using or in some cases, even possessing a cell phone on campus.

The article even describes the recent cell phone assault incident at the Lake Travis High School:

“Consider the case of the Lake Travis High School junior who, according to www.txcn.com, was charged with felony assault on a public servant for squeezing the hand of a teacher who took his cellphone because he wasn’t supposed to have it in class.”

They go on to report that cell phone fines can be a lucrative source of cash for some school districts:

“KBTX-TV in Bryan-College Station reported in July that the Klein school district near Houston took in more than $100,000 over two years in cellphone fines.”

Wow! Since the LTISD won’t go after the $5.7 million in unpaid taxes owed them, they might want to consider the use of cell phone fines to shore up their inept use of our tax dollars.

The LTISD is probably the best example of wasted time and money. They have brought a lot of their costs and then some of their “imagined” costs upon themselves.  Perhaps someone can point out the really bad way that the LTISD handles their requests.

Example: Rocky hires Susan Bohn. Another bad choice. A decision worse than making “Loosey Goosey” the Director of Special Education. At least  “Loosey Goosey” is now exiled to the Community Programs Department.

Rocky, just how has Susan been working out for you?

Example: Why does the LTISD now require that public information be reviewed at the EDC building rather than the Administration Building?

t certainly is much less convenient for them with the additional costs in personnel and the transportation of documents, and …

Why have they started doing this?

Was there a connection between my public comments about the needless tax increases?

Why do they want to increase their costs which they already claim to be so burdensome?

Can they prove their claims?

Oh, did I mention, the district has gone to the additional expense of hiring Chris Gilbert to deal with Susan’s most recent blunder?

Rather than return phone calls and emails, as I would assume her job requires, the district went outside to pay another lawyer to clean up yet another one of “Bohn’s Blunders.”

Did you ever get the feeling that Susan Bohn doesn’t like me?

First, it was never my intent to have any student photographs.

Second, Susan Bohn wouldn’t have had to waste our time and our money on the letter if she had only contacted  me for clarification as she has done so many times in the past.

Was there a reason Susan Bohn didn’t contact me for clarification?

Perhaps Susan thought she would retaliate against me for telling the truth with real and verifiable facts? Did someone else put her up to it?

Or could it be that two weeks ago I used my right of free speech to point out that LTISD numbers don’t justify a rollback election and someone desperately seeks to discredit me?

Coincidence? I don’t think so.

Shortly after I received a copy of Susan Bohn’s letter, I contacted our own attorneys. (Susan never sent me a copy of this letter and I never knew about what she did until I was contacted by several parents. Needless to say, I was shocked and outraged.)

Again I am paying taxes to the district only to see Susan Bohn perpetuate their incompetence.

Again, I am spending out of my pocket, to have our competent attorneys educate Susan Bohn about the law.

You can read my attorney’s response to  Susan Bohn’s blunder. It explains matters far better than I could communicate.

Notice that Susan refused to return the calls from  our attorney.

Is she intimidated by a  competent lawyer? Probably.

It makes me wonder if this is her course of action for everything.

I guess that Susan believes that if she ignores something, it will just go away. Not this time Susan!

Let’s look at some of Susan Bohn’s accomplishments for the LTISD:

The LTISD is currently paying Susan Bohn an annual salary of $130,000 of our tax payer dollars.

What are we getting for that money?

Was it Susan Bohn’s advice to a school board member that resulted in LTISD being found of violating student record  confidentiality?

In Rocky’s October 12, 2006 letter to the TEA regarding:

“The Agency has determined that the disclosure of a letter to the Lake Travis ISD community by Board President Susan Tolles through the district’s website disclosed confidential information protected by the Family Education Rights to Privacy (FERPA).”

Rocky writes:

“Prior to Ms. Tolles’ communication, she received legal counsel therefore, she believed …”

Was it Susan Bohn who wrote the letter to the Grumbles threatening to use eminent domain their inherited land?

Now is this the same Susan Bohn who’s starting salary with the LTISD was $95,000/year and within 6 months became $125,000/year?

Not even our overpaid Superintendent, Rocky Kirk, can pull off something like this, or was Rocky responsible?

Just who made the recommendation and decision to hire Susan Bohn? Rocky Kirk? Probably.

Hey Rocky, how’s Susan Bohn working out for you?

Great decision Rocky, almost as good as Rocky’s decision to make “Loosey Goosey” the Director of Special Education. Thank goodness “Loosey Goosey” has been exiled to the Community Programs department.

Not very smart Rocky.

Obviously there is no correlation between pay and competence with either Rocky Kirk or Susan Bohn, yet the Board keeps flushing our tax dollars down the toilet.

I already reported about this happening in June 2009.

Just what are they trying to squeeze past us?

Are they trying to cover up paying our tax dollars out to lobbyists with $4,000 a month? Why just $4,000 per month?

Let’s see now, that makes for a total of $8,000 so far:

How many more months of “Legislative Services” does the LTISD owe Thompson and Horton?

Just how much of our tax dollars is going to be squandered by the district as they dilly dally in politics rather than do their real job which is to wisely spend our tax dollars to educate our children.

Just look, at least $8,000 in “legislative services” later and yet the best the district could do is “academically acceptable.” Again!

It’s true: “Stupid is as stupid does!”

This really smells and not only that, how does all this sit with the Texas Ethics Commission? I guess “legislative services” isn’t considered lobbying? Then just what is it?

The district’s legal bill says it was for “Legislative services rendered in July 2009,”^TPIA but according to the Texas Ethics Commission lobbyist list, there is no record of anyone from Thompson and Horton representing the district. Interesting …

Note that the district’s General Counsel, Susan Bohn initialed the bill. I guess her initials make it “okey dokey.” Remember Susan Bohn came from the law firm which spawned Thompson and Horton. Amazing coincidence, or is it?!

PACER is a resource that for a small cost, you can access court filings such as the current legal proceedings against the LTISD.

I thought it might be helpful to let you see some more of the documents filed by the district in their lawsuit against the Meadows regarding the violation of parental rights. The district is trying to twist the truth into a story about student safety and the district’s erroneous and questionable reliance on the Raptor system. Remember Raptor, that money sink that has questionable value?

The district’s lawyers have filed a proposed “Voir Dire.” A “Voire Dire” is “the process by which prospective jurors are questioned about their backgrounds and potential biases before being chosen to sit on a jury.”

Let’s see, the district’s lawyers want to ask potential jurors 67 questions. Here are a few choice questions:

6.d. Would your experience with Mr. Gilbert, Ms. McBride, and/or the law firm of Thompson & Horton LLP prevent you from being a fair and impartial juror in this case?

• If you were unfortunate enough to have experienced any of this cast of characters you would not be favorably inclined to them or anyone they represented.

15. Are you familiar with Lake Travis ISD through the media? What have you heard? Would this information prevent you from being a fair and impartial juror in this case?

• Well, I hope no one ever heard of the district’s outrageous lawsuit against my family or they could be excused.
  

16. Do you hold any college degrees? How many? In what areas? What about postgraduate degrees? How many? In what areas?

• What? What could this question possibly have to do with this case?

19. Have any of you or has any member of your immediate family felt so strongly about a decision at work or school that you considered consulting a lawyer? Please explain.

• So much for any juror ever exercising his/her constitutional rights.

  By the way, they screwed up the numbering of their questions, 19 is listed twice. In fact they use the number scheme 18, 19, 16, 17, 19, …

16. Have you or has any member of your immediate family been asked to be a witness in a lawsuit alleging constitutional violations? Please explain.

• What exactly is a constitutional violation? Is it  a constitutional violation when the government sues a citizen, tax payer and parent for exercising their rights? Hmm …

24. Have any of you observed constitutional violations in the workplace or at school?

• What if I have observed constitutional violations? Don’t they do it all the time?
  

35. Does anyone believe that individuals should not take responsibility for their own actions?

• What a concept. I guess that applies to anyone excepting school districts?
• What about school districts taking responsibility for things such as “academically acceptable” rather than blaming someone else? Just who is responsible then?
• Wouldn’t it have been good for the district and more importantly Rocky, the districts “chief executive officer” to ask such a question about “taking responsibility?”

41. What is your employment status?
42. What is the principal activity of the company where you work?
43. What is your title or position?
44. What other occupations have you worked in?
45. Have you ever owned your own business?
46. What civic, social, or other organizations are you affiliated with?
47. What type of volunteer work have you done?

• What do these questions have to do with anything? Mind you they have already asked if anyone has worked for the district, Raptor, etc.
  

51. In your opinion, should a school district be able restrict access to certain parts of the school campus to visitors who fail to comply with school rules? What about parents who fail to comply with school rules? Why? Why not?
52. Have you ever had your driver’s licensed scanned for registered sex-offender status upon entering a school building? If so, how did you feel about that?

• Aren’t these the questions to be answered in the trial? So much for fair.
  

The district has even submitted a preliminary witness list.

I was wondering why the district wouldn’t be calling Ms. Margarita Plymire and Ms. Patty Noble? They were named in affidavits as having witnessed certain events harmful to the districts cause. Could  it be that these affidavits contain false claims? Wouldn’t it be funny if Heidi Gudelman were to tell the jury “it was not true in reality?”

Here are the people listed in the district’s preliminary witness list:

I. WITNESSES WHO WILL BE CALLED

(1) Janie Braxdale, Principal Bee Cave Elementary School 14300 Hamilton Pool Rd Austin, Texas 78738 Phone: (512) 533-6250

(2) Dr. D. Rockwell Kirk, Superintendent Lake Travis ISD 3322 Ranch Road 620 South Austin, Texas 78738 Phone: (512) 533-6000

(3) Dr. Diane Frost, Deputy Superintendent Lake Travis ISD 3322 Ranch Road 620 South Austin, Texas 78738 Phone: (512) 533-6000

(4) Sean Casey, Assistant Superintendent Technology & Information Systems Services Lake Travis ISD 3322 Ranch Road 620 South Austin, Texas 78738 Phone: (512) 533-6000

(5) Jim Ratcliff, Senior Director Facilities, Construction & Support Services Lake Travis ISD 3322 Ranch Road 620 South Austin, Texas 78738 Phone: (512) 533-6000

(6) Sam Hicks, Principal Lakeway Elementary School 1701 Lohmans Crossing Rd Austin, Texas 78734 Phone:(512) 533-6360

(7) Marilyn Souther Registrar Bee Cave Elementary School 14300 Hamilton Pool Rd Austin, Texas 78738 Phone: (512) 533-6250

(8) Susan Hart Administrative Assistant Bee Cave Elementary School 14300 Hamilton Pool Rd Austin, TX 78738 Phone: (512) 533-6250

(9) Sherry Gardner Former Receptionist Bee Cave Elementary School 14300 Hamilton Pool Rd Austin, Texas 78738 Phone: (512) 533-6250

(10) Trisha Braddock Receptionist Bee Cave Elementary School 14300 Hamilton Pool Rd Austin, Texas 78738 Phone: (512) 533-6250

(11) Allan Measom, President and CEO Raptor Technologies, Inc. 631 West 22nd Street Houston, Texas 77008 Phone: (713) 880-8902

II. WITNESSES CALLED AT TRIAL IF THE NEED ARISES (OR BASED ON PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE)

(1) Robert (“Bob”) Hart, Assistant Superintendent Former Business & Financial Services Lake Travis ISD 3322 Ranch Road 620 South Austin, Texas 78738 Phone: (512) 533-6000

(2) Dan Hoffman, Chairman Bond Advisory Committee c/o Lake Travis ISD 3322 Ranch Road 620 South Austin, Texas 78738 Phone: (512) 533-6000

(3) Allison Cobb, Principal Serene Hills Elementary School Lake Travis ISD 3301 Serene Hills Drive Austin, Texas 78738 Phone: (512) 533-7411

(4) Karen Miller-Kopp, Principal Lake Travis Elementary School Lake Travis ISD 15303 Kollmeyer Drive Austin, Texas 78734 Phone: (512) 533-6311

(5) Heidi Gudelman, Principal Lake Pointe Elementary School Lake Travis ISD 11801 Sonoma Drive Austin, Texas 78738 Phone: (512) 533-6511

(6) Russell Maedgen, Principal Lake Travis Middle School Lake Travis ISD 3328 620 South Austin, Texas 78738 Phone: (512) 533-6211

(7) Debra Lilly, Principal Hudson Bend Middle School Lake Travis ISD 15600 Lariat Trail Austin, Texas 78734 Phone: (512) 533-6411

(8) Kim Brents, Principal Lake Travis High School Lake Travis ISD 3324 RR 620 South Austin, Texas 78738 Phone: (512) 533-6117

(9) Kristi Nordstrom, Teacher Bee Cave Elementary School 14300 Hamilton Pool Rd Austin, Texas 78738 Phone: (512) 533-6250

(10) Gina Freeman, Teacher Bee Cave Elementary School 14300 Hamilton Pool Rd Austin, Texas 78738 Phone: (512) 533-6250

(11) Aileen Winzer, Teacher Bee Cave Elementary School 14300 Hamilton Pool Rd Austin, Texas 78738 Phone: (512) 533-6250

(12) Becky Preslar, Teacher Bee Cave Elementary School 14300 Hamilton Pool Rd Austin, Texas 78738 Phone: (512) 533-6250

(13) JaneEllen Higbee, Teacher Bee Cave Elementary School 14300 Hamilton Pool Rd Austin, Texas 78738 Phone: (512) 533-6250

(14) Gail Garza Nurse Bee Cave Elementary School 14300 Hamilton Pool Rd Austin, Texas 78738 Phone: (512) 533-6250

Perhaps the district’s lawyers would be better off practicing law in China?

China’s Andy Rooney Has Some Funny Opinions About How Great The Chinese Government Is

PACER is a resource that for a small cost, you can access court filings such as the current legal proceedings against the LTISD.

I thought it might be helpful to let you see some of the documents filed by the district in their lawsuit against the Meadows regarding the violation of parental rights. The district is trying to twist the truth into a story about student safety and the district’s erroneous and questionable reliance on the Raptor system. Remember Raptor, that money sink that has questionable value other than to enrich the vendor and some lobbyists?

Oh, the district’s lawyers and part time lobbyists are a real interesting bunch. By the way, Chris Gilbert is going to be represent the district in court again. By the way, I wonder if Chris is aware of what a 501(c)(3) is?

The district’s lawyers filed a “Motion in Limine” on August 11. A “Motion in Limine” is “a motion made before the start of a trial requesting that the judge rule that certain evidence may, or may not, be introduced to the jury in a trial.“

After reading the district’s Motion in Limine, they don’t want anyone to mention almost anything related to the case! Let’s take a look at some of the 52 items they think may prejudice the jury:

… The following matters should not be raised, mentioned or discussed in the presence of the jury for any purpose:

1. RESOURCES OF DEFENDANT The financial condition or net worth of Defendant, the fact that the Defendant may have access to substantial financial resources or the fact that Defendant derives its funds from public dollars.  This evidence is not probative of any fact that is of consequence to this lawsuit. Mention of the financial condition or status of Lake Travis ISD would only serve to inflame and unfairly prejudice the jury in favor of awarding money to the Plaintiffs.  See FED. R. EVID. 402, 403.
2. DEFENDANT’S NET WORTH Any references, testimony or argument comparing the size of Plaintiffs’ claims to Lake Travis ISD’s net worth.  Evidence of or comments regarding net worth in any context is unduly prejudicial and will undoubtedly influence the jury’s deliberations on claims where this evidence is not relevant. FED. R. EVID. 402 and 403.

• We wouldn’t want anyone to know that the school district has infinitely more resources and the parents and tax payers suing them for alleged wrongful acts.

4. CLIENTS SERVED BY LAW FIRM REPRESENTING DEFENDANTS The Plaintiffs also should be prohibited from mentioning or suggesting that the law firm of Thompson & Horton LLP: (1) specializes in representing the management of companies or large companies, (2) specializes in the defense of lawsuits involving school districts or colleges, or (3)  has used numerous attorneys or any specific number of attorneys or received any amount of fees in handling this case.  Such comments are inherently prejudicial against the Defendant. See FED. R. EVID. 403; see also Bufford v. Rowan Companies, Inc., 994 F.2d 155, 157-58 (5th Cir. 1993) (when a party makes unsupported, irresponsible attack on integrity of opposing counsel, it is the duty of the trial court to suppress it, quickly and unqualifiedly); Fineman v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 980 F.2d 171, 206-209 (3d Cir. 1992) (trial counsel exceeded the bounds of propriety in suggesting that defense counsel had a motive to misrepresent the evidence because it was paid $1.1 million in legal fees).

• We wouldn’t want anyone to know that Thompson & Horton are lobbyists. When they are not being paid by school districts to persecute parents and tax payers, they are taking your school tax dollars to lobby your government!

8. OTHER LAWSUITS AND CLAIMS AGAINST THE DEFENDANT Any and all references to any other allegations, claims or lawsuits against Lake Travis ISD which have been filed in the past or which are currently pending, including any adverse verdicts or findings against the District. Such matters would be wholly irrelevant to any issue in this case and would be mentioned to the jury solely for the purpose of prejudicing the jury by the existence of collateral matters, the merits of which should not be litigated in this lawsuit.  The existence of any such suits, claims or accusations would be meaningless, irrelevant, immaterial to any issue in this case, and the allegations of claimants in such suits would be hearsay.  Such matters are irrelevant and immaterial to any of the issues in this case; the probative value, if any, is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, and misleading the jury.  FED. R. EVID. 402 and 403.

• We wouldn’t want anyone to know about how the district spends your tax dollars in their many wasted legal proceedings.
  

12. COSTS OF DEFENSE The amount of attorney’s fees paid by Defendant to counsel in connection with this lawsuit or for any other purpose.  These facts are not probative and are wholly irrelevant to any issue of consequence to this lawsuit, and only would serve to inflame or unfairly prejudice the jury against the Defendant and its attorneys. See FED. R. EVID. 402, 403.

• We wouldn’t want anyone to know about how easy it would have been to fix the problem causing this law suit. But that would result in the district actually doing something about their screw ups.

22. MOTION IN LIMINE Any reference to the filing of this Motion, the presentation of this Motion, or the determination by the Court of this Motion, or any other motion the purpose of which was to seek the exclusion of matters from evidence.  In this connection, the Defendant moves that the Plaintiffs be instructed not to suggest to the jury by argument or otherwise that Defendant has sought to exclude from proof any matter bearing on the issues in this case or the rights of the parties to this suit. Such matters are inherently prejudicial in that they suggest or infer that the Defendant has sought to exclude proof of matters damaging to the Defendant’s case.  See FED. R. EVID. 403.

• Let’s not remind anyone that this Motion in Limine has been filed and these outrageous requests have been made!

31. USE OF INFLAMMATORY LANGUAGE TO APPEAL TO THE JURY’S EMOTIONS AND APPEALS TO THE “GOLDEN RULE” Any suggestion or argument that the jury should “send a message,” that the jury should put themselves in the Plaintiffs’ place or “walk a mile in the Plaintiffs’ shoes,” that the jury should “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” or invoke the “Golden Rule” or other such inflammatory and prejudicial suggestions.

• Oh, this one is a good one. Let’s not have the jury consider anyone’s position other than the district’s.

32, “DAVID VS. GOLIATH” COMMENTS Any reference that Plaintiffs are merely individuals up against a powerful educational institution. Such argument or inference is wholly irrelevant to any issue of consequence in this lawsuit and could only serve to inflame or unfairly prejudice the jury against Defendant and its attorneys.  See FED. R. EVID. 402 and 403.

• Again, we wouldn’t want the jury to consider the fact that the district is Goliath and the defendant is “David.” I wonder if the bunch at Thompson & Horton know that not only did David kill Goliath, but David cut off Goliath’s head!

  ⁴⁵ David said to the Philistine, “You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the LORD Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. ⁴⁶ This day the LORD will hand you over to me, and I’ll strike you down and cut off your head. Today I will give the carcasses of the Philistine army to the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth, and the whole world will know that there is a God in Israel. ⁴⁷ All those gathered here will know that it is not by sword or spear that the LORD saves; for the battle is the LORD’s, and he will give all of you into our hands.”

  ⁴⁸ As the Philistine moved closer to attack him, David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet him. ⁴⁹ Reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell facedown on the ground.

  ⁵⁰ So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him.

  ⁵¹ David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine’s sword and drew it from the scabbard. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword.
  -1 Samuel 17:45-51 (New International Version)

37. LIABILITY INSURANCE Any reference or argument that Lake Travis ISD has an insurance agreement that would cover its payment of part or all of the judgment in this case.  Evidence that an individual was or was not insured is not admissible to prove that the individual acted negligently or wrongfully.   Such reference would be wholly irrelevant to any issue of consequence in this lawsuit and could only serve to inflame or unfairly prejudice the jury against the Defendant.  FED. R. EVID. 402, 403, 411.

38. EMPLOYMENT BY AN INSURANCE COMPANY Any questions of the jury panel as to whether they, or any members of their family, friends, or associates are employed by an insurance company.  Lake Travis ISD objects to any emphasis upon insurance companies as employers for the reason that it would suggest to the jury panel that the District is insured, reveal information made confidential by law, and would unduly prejudice the jury. FED. R. EVID. 402, 403, 411.

• Ah, the reason that the district has no problem with this wasted pursuit!? Will it cost them? Or will it not cost them? When does the insurance company tell the district that they have spent more money than necessary and should seek alternative means to settle their dispute? Doesn’t the Texas Association of School Boards (TASB) provide the district’s legal liability insurance?

43. HEARSAY Any reference to any out-of-court statements made by any present or former employee or student of Lake Travis ISD or any other person or any testimony concerning any ex parte statement or report of any person not then and there present in court to testify and to be cross-examined.  Such matters consist totally of hearsay.  See FED. R. EVID. 402.

• Oh, now this is grand. We should ask the district’s lawyers if they used hearsay in the affidavits sworn by school employees? (Stay tuned for more on this later)  I’m sorry, I guess that they don’t want the other side to use hearsay, but it is o.k. for them?

44. DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Any reference to this Court’s prior rulings on the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.  This evidence should be excluded pursuant to FED. R. EVID. 402, 403.

• We wouldn’t want the jury to know that the district sought a summary judgment to circumvent common law which grants citizens a jury of peers? Even J. David Thompson III who made numerous claims of “common law” should understand this, or does he?

  “English common law and the United States Constitution recognize the right to a jury trial to be a fundamental civil liberty or civil right that allows the accused to choose whether to be judged by judges or a jury of peers.”

52. SENATE BILL 9 AND SECTION 38.022 OF THE TEXAS EDUCATION CODE Any testimony or commentary from Plaintiffs or their counsel concerning their “theories” related to the alleged involvement of Raptor Technologies, Inc. in the passage of Senate Bill 9. Plaintiffs’ theories are purely speculative, are not based on personal knowledge, and are not relevant to, or probative of, any claim asserted by Plaintiffs in their lawsuit.  See FED. R. EVID. 402, 403.

• What else should we exclude from the jury, the United States Constitution?

Words of encouragement for the Meadows:

[See post to watch Flash video] ]]> http://www.ltisd.info/blog/2009/08/16/did-you-know-about-pacer/feed/ 0 http://www.ltisd.info/blog/2009/08/05/did-you-know-about-the-security-breach-at-leander-school-web-site/ http://www.ltisd.info/blog/2009/08/05/did-you-know-about-the-security-breach-at-leander-school-web-site/#comments Wed, 05 Aug 2009 23:58:32 +0000 LTISD Parent and Tax Payer http://www.ltisd.info/blog/?p=1041 The Hill Country News published “LISD confidential records may have been accessed by public” on July 7, 2009 followed by “Security breach at Leander school Web site” (link no longer available) published by the Austin American-Statesman July 16, 2009.

Our school districts play fast and loose with confidential data as I have found out on numerous occasions. And from the looks of these articles about the Leander ISD and even a report paid for by the LTISD, there is more documented evidence.

The LTISD doesn’t just discriminate against students and parents when violating confidentiality, they even violate the confidentiality of their employees as well!

The LTISD doesn’t need a web site to breach confidentiality, they just let Susan Tolles, the LTISD school Board President do it for them!

And we wonder why the district is embroiled in a law suit over confidentiality?

How many law firms does the district need to employ for real estate matters? I guess at least one more.

Susan Tolles, the LTISD Board President, signed an agreement with Munsch Hardt Kopf and Harr for “Legal Representation in Connection with Real Estate Matters (the “Matter”).”^TPIA

What is “the ‘Matter’” about anyway?

You can read more details about the subject in the “Truth in Taxation Manual (PDF)” or the “Handbook for Texas Public School Districts Property Tax Collection and Administration (PDF)” (HTML) published by the Texas Comptroller. The text of the legal code allowing the LTISD to fleece the tax payers is found in Texas Tax Code – § 26.08 Election To Ratify School Taxes.

The Texas Comptroller also has an excellent web page regarding “adopt the correct tax rate” and school districts which says among other things:

“The tax rate is important only in that it reflects the relationship between a school district’s ability to tax (the tax base) and the school board’s financial decisions and policies.”

Our spendthrift school board discussed the “potential tax rollback election” during their June 9, 2009 Board Workshop and the topic is on the agenda again, for the June 18, 2009 Board Meeting and in the June 18, 2009 copy of BoardBook.

• Why does the district need more money?
• Why can’t the district cut back like everyone else?
• Why is everyone else feeling the effects of the economic down turn  and taking action, except the district and Rocky?

Remember, Rocky graciously took only 2% of the 4% pay raise he was entitled to take. Rocky makes $247,840 per year, not to mention his other contract “perks” and outside consulting.

• How many of the district’s tax payers took a pay cut or even suffered a job loss recently?

The June 18, 2009 BoardBook says:

“The current budget projects a $1.6 shortfall with a widening deficit in future years. The District has two more pennies of tax rate that are not subject to recapture (Robin Hood), providing for all the revenue generated to stay within the District. A rollback election is required to access these pennies.”

(I would assume that BoardBook contains a typo and that the “$1.6″ should be “$1.6 million” …)

When did we ever see anything about “budget cuts” in a Board agenda?

Note that being a property or business owner is not a pre-requisite to voting for increasing taxation.

Doesn’t this smack of “taxation without representation?”

“Our landholders, too, like theirs, retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must wander, like theirs, in foreign countries, and be contented with penury, obscurity, exile, and the glory of the nation. This example reads to us the salutary lesson, that private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance.”

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Samuel Kercheval, June 12, 1816

The Austin American-Statesman writes all about it in “Lake Travis school board raises public information law questions.”

I really like the comment by the districts Minister of Disinformation:

“District spokesman Marco Alvarado said that the district’s lawyers believe that the posting complies with state law. “

-Austin American Statesman

If the district was relying on the opinion of Susan Bohn, they had better watch out! Can we say Grumbels fiasco?

It must be so since the LTISD says so and they say “Lake Travis ISD lauds community support for use of Raptor visitor management system.” So it must be true?! Yeah, right!

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’”

-George Orwell, 1984

If we look more into the question:

“Was this a problem in need of a solution, or was it a ’solution’ in search of a problem?”

If this solved a “real” problem, why then did Raptor Technologies, Inc. need to employ a lobbyist, Bradford T. Shields in order to get the state officially sanction, through legislation, the use of Raptorware?

(You can read more about Bradford T. Shields in “Connecting the Dots – Education … Attorneys … Lobbyists“)

The Texas Ethics Commission web site lists Bradford T. Shields as a lobbyist for Raptor Technologies, Inc. during the following years, they also include his reported “remuneration” for “services rendered:”

2005:

RaptorWare
P.O. Box 162925  Austin, TX 78716-2925

Shields, Bradford T. (00012135)
P.O. Box 162925  Austin, TX 78716-2925
Type of Compensation: Prospective
Amount: Less Than $10,000.00
Client – Start: 04/20/2005    Term Date: 12/31/2005

2006:

RaptorWare
P.O. Box 162925  Austin, TX 78716-2925

Shields, Bradford T. (00012135)
P.O. Box 162925  Austin, TX 78716-2925
Type of Compensation: Prospective
Amount: Less Than $10,000.00
Client – Start: 01/18/2006    Term Date: 12/31/2006

2007:

RaptorWare
P.O. Box 162925  Austin, TX 78716-2925

Shields, Bradford T. (00012135)
P.O. Box 162925  Austin, TX 78716-2925
Type of Compensation: Prospective
$25,000 – $49.999.99
Client – Start: 01/05/2007    Term Date: 12/31/2007

2008:

RaptorWare
P.O. Box 162925  Austin, TX 78716-2925

Shields, Bradford T. (00012135)
P.O. Box 162925  Austin, TX 78716-2925
Type of Compensation: Prospective
$25,000 – $49.999.99
Client – Start: 01/24/2008    Term Date: 12/31/2008

2009:

RaptorWare
P.O. Box 162925  Austin, TX 78716

Shields, Brad II   (00056074)
208 West 14th St  Austin, TX 78701
Type of Compensation: Prospective
Less Than $10,000.00
Client – Start: 01/15/2009    Term Date: 12/31/2009

Shields, Bradford T. (00012135)
P.O. Box 162925  Austin, TX 78716-2925
Type of Compensation: Prospective
$25,000 – $49.999.99
Client – Start: 01/15/2009    Term Date: 12/31/2009

Let’s see, using the numbers that were submitted to the Texas Ethics Commission, Bradford T. Shields made $75,000 – $170,000 to lobby the Texas Legislature on behalf of RaptorWare, aka Raptor Technologies, Inc.

Why does Raptor Technologies, Inc. use the name RaptorWare and an Austin address?

RaptorWare, P.O. Box 162925,  Austin, TX 78716

Isn’t Raptor Technologies, Inc. a Houston based company? Their own web site gives the following contact address:

631 West 22nd Street, Houston, Texas 77008

Also very interesting is the way in which Raptor Technologies, Inc. has registered themselves on the Internet. Here is a result of a “whois” query of “raptorware.com:”

I remember making a Texas Public Information Act Request asking the following:

“Any contracts, invoices, and payments between the LTISD and Raptor Technologies, Inc.“

Interesting, but the documents “responsive” to my request^TPIA do not include an actual “contract” between the LTISD and Raptor Technologies, Inc. Why not?

Does the district have a contract with Raptor Technologies, Inc?

You would think that the terms of:

Privacy, just who is responsible for the protecting the privacy of the information collected by Raptor Technologies, Inc? Don’t count on the LTISD for this!

Data use, just who will use the data and what will they be doing with it? Also, specifically, what data is collected and what justifies the use of each item collected?

Data ownership, just who “owns” the data that is collected?

Liability, just who is liable if and when the data is compromised? Raptor Technologies, Inc? LTISD?

Don’t you want to know the answers to these and other questions before you blindly turn your personal data over to a stranger?

Shouldn’t the district be required to spell out the terms of the data use, like every other government agency that holds your personal data?

I would be very interested to hear from anyone who has not seen the terms of the contract before they let their personal information be harvested.

Just because “the school district says it’s ok” is reason enough to be suspicious, especially the LTISD with their checkered history.

Next we will look more into the Texas Legislature’s sanction of Raptor Technologies, Inc. with SB9 and the relationship of Bradford T. Shields, Raptor Technologies’ lobbyist.

Perhaps we should “follow the money” on this … straight from your tax payments.

We ultimately have to ask ourselves: “Was this a problem in need of a solution, or was it a ‘solution’ in search of a problem?”

Finally, look at Texas Education Code § 38.002 and read what it really says:

“Sec. 38.022.  SCHOOL VISITORS.  (a)  A school district may require a person who enters a district campus to display the person’s driver’s license or another form of identification containing the person’s photograph issued by a governmental entity.

(b)  A school district may establish an electronic database for the purpose of storing information concerning visitors to district campuses.  Information stored in the electronic database may be used only for the purpose of school district security and may not be sold or otherwise disseminated to a third party for any purpose.

(c)  A school district may verify whether a visitor to a district campus is a sex offender registered with the computerized central database maintained by the Department of Public Safety as provided by Article 62.005, Code of Criminal Procedure, or any other database accessible by the district.

(d)  The board of trustees of a school district shall adopt a policy regarding the action to be taken by the administration of a school campus when a visitor is identified as a sex offender.

Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1372, Sec. 12, eff. June 15, 2007.”

Ask yourself the following questions:

1. The law says that the district may require a visitor to DISPLAY their driver’s license. Note that no requirement to scan or archive their driver’s license information is mentioned.
2. The school district may establish an electronic database or the purpose of storing information concerning visitors to district campuses but § 38.002(b) neither specifies the storage of “driver’s license” data nor the storage of personal data.
3. § 38.002(c) says that the district may access the sex offender registered with the computerized central database maintained by the Department of Public Safety. Why don’t they? Why do the need to pay Raptor Technologies, Inc. for the privilege?

This request brings up many questions regarding our district’s use of Raptor’s V-SOFT.

Just what can the company, Raptorware, do with the data? Seems like they can do a lot if you read Texas Transportation Code 730.007.

Just how much of your personal information are you allowing Raptorware to use?

Doesn’t the district owe us all a copy of the terms of just what is being disclosed and how the data is being used BEFORE you give out your personal information?

Just who is responsible for the collected data? The LTISD or Raptorware? We already know that the LTISD has a history of incompetence with regard to confidentiality.

Let’s also look at some issues raised by this “Request for Attorney General Opinion:”

“TEX. TRANS. C ODE § 730.013(b) states that ”[a]n authorized recipient of personal information may resell or redisclose the information only for a use-permitted under Section 730.007″¹
Furthermore, TEX. TRANS. CODE § 730.013(b) states that “[a]ny authorized recipient who resells or rediscloses personal information obtained from an agency” must maintain for a period of not less than five years records as to any person or entity receiving that information and the permitted use for which it was obtained.” Similar language can be found in Title 18 U.S.C. § 2721(c) which states “[a]n authorized recipient of personal information…may resell or redisclose the information only for a use permitted under subsection (b).”² Title 18 U.S.C. § 2721(c) also requires an authorized recipient to maintain a record of “the permitted use for which [personal information] was obtained.” These provisions appear to limit redisclosure of a driver license photograph to a person who is permitted to obtain the information under TEX. TRANS. CODE § 730.007 and Title 18 U.S.C. § 2721.”

-RQ-0799-GA

Aren’t we entitled to review the terms, in simple English, regarding just what happens to the data used by Raptorware when your driver’s license is scanned and just who is responsible for the retention and security of the data?

Perhaps we should ask the district for a copy. Stay tuned …

Just ask for some emails from the district. Seems no one (especially Rocky) seems to keep emails. BTW: don’t ask for Rocky’s emails, ask for Linnea’s emails. All of Rocky’s emails apparently go through her.

The article “Email Archiving Requirements For Schools and Local Governments” (the entire text in Adobe Acrobat format may be requested at the bottom of this link’s page)  says:

“The newly revised Federal Rules of Civil Procedure define how email must be handled in federal court cases. Businesses tend to think that the FRCP focus is on interstate lawsuits. Schools and governments, however, also need to be concerned with emails relating to federally funded activities or any activity governed by federal legislation.”

“Unfortunately, the courts are taking a dim view of organizations that cite lack of resources as a reason for not meeting tight deadline requirements.”

“The newly revised Federal Rules of Civil Procedure call for an exhaustive search for all electronically stored information (ESI), including email, which is “in the possession, custody, or control of the party.” It must be disclosed “without awaiting a discovery request” (Rule 26(a)(1)). Privileged information, such as attorney-client communications, may be excluded.
Most legal experts believe that this provisions means that if even one member of the faculty, staff, administration, or Board has a copy of a relevant email on a laptop or home PC, then it is “in the possession, custody, or control of the party.” The email must be found quickly and disclosed.”

“However, the organization must put in place provisions to prevent the deletion of any document that could be relevant as evidence in the case. For example, companies must place a “litigation hold” on documents and email to prevent any evidence from being destroyed if litigation is “reasonably foreseeable.” Some good indicators that a litigation hold is required are as follows:

• A formal complaint, subpoena, or notification of a lawsuit is received.
• Somebody threatens litigation, even verbally by saying, “I am going to sue.”
• A regulatory or governmental body starts an investigation.
• An attorney or third-party investigator requests facts related to an incident or dispute.
• An incident takes place that results in injury.
• An employee makes a formal complaint to management, especially when related to personnel issues.”

I wonder if our district’s super duper General Counsel, Susan Bohn, is aware of all this? Somehow I doubt it.

See this map for the location from “The Canyons of Sweetwater” web site:

and here is a more detailed map obtained from an interesting web site: Neighbors in Paradise

Why do I mention this development?

No, I do not have any financial connection, but I did find something very interesting on their web site.

An earlier version of “The Canyons of Sweetwater” web site (which has since been removed), the developers said:

“On-Ground Schools

At The Canyons, you don’t have to go far to learn about the beauty of nature. And soon, you’ll be able to learn just about anything else. Our master plan includes the construction of an elementary school and high school. Your kids will be just a short walk, drive or pedal away from all their classes.”

They even had a link to the LTISD’s web site which also has since been removed. You can click on the text above and it will take you to an image of their earlier web page someone has uploaded.

Just how did these developers have such access to the LTISD’s plans or to boldly speak for the district in saying: “Our master plan includes the construction of an elementary school and high school?”

An elementary school? Possibly, but aren’t they jumping the gun a little bit?

How about the “fantasy” of a high school? Just when was this going to happen?

What I want to know is just how did they know about some land purchases by the district before the rest of us knew? Of course, they could have made it up, but why?

I now know more about the district’s legal expenses involving the Lazy9 MUD and now I see the connection between the “The Canyons of Sweetwater” and the Lazy9 MUD.

I have posted just one of many of the LTISD’s legal bills regarding the Lazy9 MUD. This one happens to be from September 2008.

I thought I would take the time to show that the LTISD, or should I say, the lawyers for the district,  made 113 requests. It was best to show reality before Susan Bohn goes out and blows that number up to 113,000 or more!

By the way, not all of those requests for an Attorney General’s opinion are related to my TPIA requests! Also, you should see just how many times the Attorney General ruled that the district may withhold all documents, hmm …

I have also gone to the trouble of providing the direct links to each of the Attorney General opinions issued to the districts requests (see below).

You can go to the AG’s web site directly and browse for others if you wish.

The Attorney General’s web site is a great resource for people who want to research and verify facts rather than believe some outrageous fiction.

	Attorney General’s Opinion Number
1	OR2005-01140
2	OR2005-08408
3	OR2005-09655
4	OR2005-10360
5	OR2005-10471
6	OR2005-10910
7	OR2005-11535
8	OR2006-00194
9	OR2006-00473
10	OR2006-00711
11	OR2006-00965
12	OR2006-01212
13	OR2006-01546
14	OR2006-01915
15	OR2006-02674
16	OR2006-02748
17	OR2006-03660
18	OR2006-03869
19	OR2006-03935
20	OR2006-04797
21	OR2006-05068
22	OR2006-06024
23	OR2006-06054
24	OR2006-06098
25	OR2006-06746
26	OR2006-08109
27	OR2006-09202
28	OR2006-09268
29	OR2006-10089
30	OR2006-10099
31	OR2006-10205
32	OR2006-10519
33	OR2006-10904
34	OR2006-11076
35	OR2006-11301
36	OR2006-11507
37	OR2006-11695
38	OR2006-11968
39	OR2006-12207
40	OR2006-12493
41	OR2006-12700
42	OR2006-13540
43	OR2006-13872
44	OR2006-13917
45	OR2006-14124
46	OR2006-14341
47	OR2006-14471
48	OR2006-14584
49	OR2006-14844
50	OR2006-15063
51	OR2006-15106
52	OR2007-00060
53	OR2007-00356
54	OR2007-00463
55	OR2007-00611
56	OR2007-00738
57	OR2007-01168
58	OR2007-01857
59	OR2007-02590
60	OR2007-03023
61	OR2007-03314
62	OR2007-05348
63	OR2007-05688
64	OR2007-07083
65	OR2007-07971
66	OR2007-08599
67	OR2007-08692
68	OR2007-08692A
69	OR2007-10280
70	OR2007-10828
71	OR2007-11741
72	OR2007-11858
73	OR2007-12294
74	OR2007-12398
75	OR2007-12441
76	OR2007-13034
77	OR2007-13356
78	OR2007-13477
79	OR2007-13677
80	OR2007-13679
81	OR2007-13813
82	OR2007-13889
83	OR2007-13951
84	OR2007-15037
85	OR2007-15630
86	OR2007-16796
87	OR2008-01173
88	OR2008-01280
89	OR2008-02144
90	OR2008-02305
91	OR2008-02341
92	OR2008-02423
93	OR2008-02446
94	OR2008-03888
95	OR2008-04478
96	OR2008-05590
97	OR2008-06260
98	OR2008-07547
99	OR2008-09975
100	OR2008-13303
101	OR2008-14449
102	OR2008-15960
103	OR2008-16150
104	OR2008-17398
105	OR2009-00212
106	OR2009-00304
107	OR2009-00346
108	OR2009-00577
109	OR2009-00590
110	OR2009-00914
111	OR2009-01049
112	OR2009-01194
113	OR2009-01443

]]> http://www.ltisd.info/blog/2009/05/19/did-you-know-results-of-the-districts-public-information-opinion-requests-to-the-attorney-general/feed/ 0 http://www.ltisd.info/blog/2009/05/19/did-you-know-that-susan-bohn-presented-a-seminar-on-practical-pointers-for-handling-public-information-act-requests/ http://www.ltisd.info/blog/2009/05/19/did-you-know-that-susan-bohn-presented-a-seminar-on-practical-pointers-for-handling-public-information-act-requests/#comments Tue, 19 May 2009 12:37:32 +0000 LTISD Parent and Tax Payer http://www.ltisd.info/blog/?p=646 Perhaps the title of Susan’s presentation should have been “What not to do when handling Public Information Act Requests.”

Susan Bohn and Stephanie Rosenberg (Humble ISD) conducted a seminar called “Practical Pointers for Handling Public Information Act Requests” at the 24th Annual School Law Conference on February 27, 2009.

Seems like I am not the only concerned citizen and tax payer. Susan and Stephanie mention that someone made 200 TPIA requests in one day!^TPIA Wow, is that real or is that school lawyer reality?

They even mention that someone in the Dallas ISD requested 3000 pieces of information!^TPIA

Remember Susan claims that the LTISD made over 100,000 copies of documents for me, and that was only 2007! 100,000 or a “gazillion,” its perception, not reality that matters, don’t worry about actually proving the claims.

In fact their propensity for exaggeration continues. In an email exchange, the seminar coordinator asks Susan and Stephanie:

“I just have a quick question about your description. Did you mean to say 15,000 PIA requests or is it really 1500?”^TPIA

I guess that I am not the only one who doesn’t believe their exaggerations either.

Perhaps Susan should have talked about all of the superfluous opinion requests that she makes to the Attorney General?

What about all of the times the Attorney General has to tell her to rely on previous requests?

How about requests that Susan tries to have “re-considered” only to be told that is not possible?

On March 8, 2009, I emailed Mr. Wooton requesting a copy of RFP # 9-03-102 Office Supplies Proposals, RFP # 9-03-103 Art Supplies Proposals and RFP # 9-02-100 HVAC Replacement/LTMS RFP. These proposals were published by the district in the Austin American Statesman. Since I did not receive a reply from Mr. Wooton, I made another request on March 23.

Finally since I did not receive a reply to either requests (which I now believe to have been marked as “spam” and never reached Mr. Wooton), I made a TPIA request for a copy of these supposedly public documents^1,2.

Well not according to Susan Bohn who made a request to the Attorney General seeking an opinion regarding their release!

Aren’t these documents available to anyone who asks for a copy?

Someone might think that since the LTISD publicly solicited them in the paper they would be publicly available?

I guess these are public documents for everyone except me? Would this be discrimination or stupidity on the part of Susan Bohn?

Guess what? Susan came to her senses (is that possible) on May 1 and asks to withdraw her frivolous opinion request to the Attorney General.

Just why did she ask for an opinion request in the first place? Can it be that she was hoping to use it later in some pathetic attempt to obtain sympathy? Or did she want to avoid being embarrassed at the Attorney General’s office again? Either way it doesn’t look too good for our district General Counsel.

For those who want to know, I am providing a copy of the RFPs for your review^{1,2, TPIA}

On a positive note, I recently went to see Mr. Wooton and requested copies of the district’s most recent RFPs. He was most accommodating and even pointed out that the RFPs are now listed on the districts web site on this page for everyone to obtain:

http://www.ltisdschools.org/123310818203036460/blank/browse.asp?a=383&BMDRN=2000&BCOB=0&c=55084&123310818203036460Nav=|195|&NodeID=199

Here are excerpts from LTISD written policy FFF (REGULATION) STUDENT WELFARE: STUDENT SAFETY, Raptor Visitor Management System Procedures.^TPIA

Don’t try to find this on-line, it’s not there.  Of course you won’t find this on the district’s worthless web site. But you can get it here.^TPIA

Some interesting items to note:

“All campus staff will receive training on visitor check-in procedures to ensure that all persons who are not assigned to the campus have a visitor’s badge or LTISD photo ID card visible. Any person who does not have a campus visitor badge with the current date displayed or a LTISD ID badge should be immediately escorted to the office.”

Do you think that the LTISD follows this policy consistently and/or without discrimination? I for one have certainly not witnessed this policy being actively let alone evenly enforced.

“There may be situations where certain visitors can be flagged as posing a danger to students or staff. One of the features of the Raptor is the ability to program customized alerts, specific to the students and faculty at the campus. These alerts seek to help school personnel identify and avoid dangerous situations.

Examples of persons that can be entered into a Private Alert are:

• Non-custodial parents or family members
• Parents or other family members with restraining orders banning contact with a student or staff member
• Parents with very limited visitation of students
• Expelled students
• Students from rival campuses
• Persons who have threatened students or faculty members
• Persons who have committed crime on or near a campus”

Just who enters this data and what are the parameters for this data and its updates?

Here is the really interesting one:

“District administrators will have the ability to add private alerts. If a private alert is added, please ensure the following:

1. File a copy of the court order, restraining order, legal document or communication from law enforcement/administrators which supports the alert. Send a copy to the Assistant Superintendent for Administrative Services who will communicate the alert to all other appropriate administrators and the Director of Technology.
2. Review the campus emergency procedures that address hostile persons on campus.”
   

Which administrators have this authority and what are the exact criteria for these “private alerts?”

Do we trust a school district who does not even know what privacy means, let alone when a member of the Board violates confidentiality, the district’s general counsel, Susan Bohn, doesn’t even have a grasp of the basic tenants of Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), a fundamental Federal law regarding student and family privacy and worst of all, the district doesn’t know where all of its records are located and they don’t even when to know if they still have custody of private records (more on this later)!

Just who is in charge of this ship?

“WAR IS PEACE.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.”

- George Orwell, 1984

Why does the district refer to them yet not put them out for you to easily view them?

I have gone to the trouble of obtaining a copy of all of these “regulation” policies and they are available here for you to view without having to use the TPIA to ask for something that should be readily available to the public.^TPIA

I wonder what the policies mean by the terms “legal,” “local,” and “regulation?” Here is a description that I have found to help you understand just what these terms mean relative to written district policies:

Legally referenced policies are statements of law, are recommended for inclusion in the manual, but are not adopted by the board. Legally referenced policies recite state or federal laws or regulations and other sources of legal authority. These policies can be identified by the “(LEGAL)” in the upper right corner and lower left corner of each page.

Local policies reflect the decisions of the board regarding the education needs of students and priorities and values of the community. Only the local policies are adopted by the board. These policies can be identified by the “(LOCAL)” in the upper right corner and lower left corner of each page.

Administrative Regulations: The district uses a process or plan to implement district policy. This is defined as an administrative regulation. The development and implementation of these regulations and procedures are coordinated through the district’s administrators according to each person’s area of responsibility. Local regulations guide implementation of policy, define standard operating procedures, and allow room for professional discretion and judgment, as appropriate. Administrative regulations are reviewed and revised by administrators as policy changes or circumstances warrant, in addition to an annual review. Regulations are not adopted by the board. These policies can be identified by the “(REGULATION)” in the upper right corner and lower left corner of each page.