KISD TRUSTEES AWARD CONTRACT TO LINEBARGER--IGNORE ETHICAL ISSUES:

Split Vote: Katy ISD Board of Trustees Awards Delinquent Tax Contract to Linebarger Firm

INSTANT NEWS KATY

COMPILED FROM NEWS REPORTS · JULY 24, 2012 · 49 COMMENTS

SCHOOLS NEWS · TAGGED: FEATURED After literally months of controversy and often-contentious debate, the Katy ISD Board of Trustees voted to award the district’s delinquent tax contract to the Linebarger, Goggan, Blair & Sampson law firm.

The vote came during Monday night’s school board meeting with the two newest trustees making and seconding the motion to award the contract to Linebarger.

Immediately after Board President Rebecca Fox announced the item was open for discussion, Trustee Charles Griffin made a motion to award the contract to Linebarger. The motion was seconded by Trustee Bryan Michalsky.

Both Griffin and Michalsky were elected to the board in May, capping a hard-fought election during which the delinquent tax contract was a hotly-debated issue.

The two competing proposals – that from the Linebarger firm and one from the firm of Perdue, Fielder, Collins & Mott – have been among the most controversial and contentious issues the school board has faced in recent years.

For months there had been an ongoing controversy over whether the district should accept Superintendent Alton Frailey’s recommendation of the Linebarger firm or instead contract with the Perdue firm.

Following the motion, only one trustee, Dr. Bill Proctor, commented on the motion, urging board members to consider the numerous ethical concerns that had been raised about Linebarger.

“I have serious reservations about awarding (the contract) to this firm,” Proctor said.

He went on to cite various lawsuits filed against the firm, telling other trustees the “13 cases settled give me a lot of concern.” He also expressed concern about Linebarger’s numerous reported ethical lapses, including several cases in which criminal charges were filed against former firm partners.

Proctor asked trustees to consider what they would do if they were considering two applicants for superintendent with backgrounds similar to the two law firms.

“Would you hire Superintendent Linebarger over Superintendent Perdue?” Proctor said. “I do not believe (Linebarger’s) behavior meets our standards of ethical conduct.”

No other trustee commented on the proposal.

Following Proctor’s comments, the board voted 5-2 to award the contract to the Linebarger firm.

Proctor and Trustee Terry Huckaby cast the two “no” votes.

49 Comments

  1. AstrosFan

    JULY 24, 2012 AT 8:50 AM

    Well, so much for the “reform-minded” new trustees. Only question is, did they get “corrupted” in record time, or were they just full of it when they said they wanting reform.

  2. babytiger

    JULY 24, 2012 AT 9:09 AM

    Neither.

  3. babytiger

    JULY 24, 2012 AT 9:26 AM

    My take (my take) is that it was the best choice for the district… That is what their job is, do what’s best for the district and the taxpayers…

  4. ledettm

    JULY 24, 2012 AT 10:06 AM

    babytiger – Good to see you and the boys showing your true colors i.e. supporting the status quo.

  5. westsidebill

    JULY 24, 2012 AT 10:16 AM

    Status quo. Business as usual.

    And look who took the lead!

    There is absolutely NO OTHER WAY to interpret the actions of the board last night, especially its two new members. For all the generalities and bluster that was spread throughout the campaign about being “open-minded” and non-puppets, it’s pretty clear right now exactly where the newbies stand in terms of mindsets. There is no amount of “email communication” from them that would ever be able to justify their actions last night – after muddling back and forth to to this point on issues, they stepped front and center last night on their first true “hot-button” issue. Let there be no doubt exactly who’s back in charge 100% of the BOT – and it ain’t the president!

  6. Whats up

    JULY 24, 2012 AT 10:30 AM

    BT, you may be right about this being the best choice for the district, but in what way?

    Given the baggage of this firm and the no questions about it ability of both firms to do collection, what would have tipped the vote to favor the firm with so many violations?

    This is one of those moments when we have to ask what in the world is going on?

    Surely there is something that works in favor of this firm to the point of our overlooking the points Bill brought up and all the material contained in the attachment Mr. Fraily released to the public listing so many violations of the public trust, more than 60 pages!!

    What does this firm do for us that is so overwhelming as to overlook such unethical behavior?

    We must have gotten something out of the deal besides just collecting taxes. What was it?

    I am disappointed to say the least. I hope someone can let me in on the secret so that I can feel better about this action. Given your comments during the election about character and even now your concerns about PACs, how can you not want a better explanation?

    The voters deserve better than this and I hope Bryan and Charles will tell us. As they promised transparency why did they chose to be the apparent leaders of this action; moving and seconding the proposal without any comment on their part???

    If this is the transparency they promised, what comes next? This vote exemplifies exactly what we have come to expect. If they don’t share their thoughts I suspect soon we will be calling them “Duhon and Shaw 2.0.”

    However I am willing to withhold judgment until they have sometime to respond. I suspect someone close to them reads these comments and reports back.

    Does someone still have the district link to the letter and attachment Mr. Frailey posted on the district home page concerning this matter? If so, please share it with us again. We must have overlooked something otherwise there is NO way this happened short of a backroom deal.

  7. AstrosFan

    JULY 24, 2012 AT 10:43 AM

    What should have happened, months ago, is that all of the proposals were thrown out and a new proposal round ordered. Considering the problems with both firms, maybe it would have allowed for some additional participants.

  8. babytiger

    JULY 24, 2012 AT 11:01 AM

    Tell me about the known issues with Perdue…

  9. Whats up

    JULY 24, 2012 AT 1:07 PM

    Bryan and Charles, how about taking BT’s question and giving us an answer. What was worse about Perdue? Was their list of shortcoming longer than the winning bidder?

    If so, they should have BOTH been tossed, that’s for sure.

    Your vote signals to venders our standards are low. So low we will deal with a criminal enterprise of sorts. I hope this is not a statement to the type of “team building” you propose for our district going forward.

    Two questions

    1. How is it that the two of you were selected to put this into play vs any of the players who were in the room when this ugly mess first showed up? Why you? Did you think of this yourselves or did the boys in the backroom cook up the plan that the new guys should get dirty fast?

    2. Is this an example of the kind of judgment you expect of the superintendent who was pushing so hard for this firm which by the way has very close ties to ex superintendents? You should look at the list of venders we have who fill up their payroll with ex superintendents to ensure the dollars keep flowing. In this case, one with a proven criminal past. Check out the list of key employees now serving hard time and the retired supers working for them.

    Facts please there is no need to let BT hang in the wind with guess work when either of you can just tell us. There is no conflict of interest, and no expectation of privacy in discussing your vote on this topic. Try being transparent on this one and if you got the goods you will be praised for your behavior. Come on take a bow and explain it to us.

    Why this firm with all its baggage and please don’t say the other guy was worse as there are way more than two law firms interested in our account. Or did Joe and Alton tell you differently?

  10. Bill Proctor

    JULY 24, 2012 AT 1:09 PM

    I objected to the Linebarger contract based on reviewing each proposal a number of times. Please remember that the Board and Superintendent objected to me reading the proposals the first time I asked.

    The following can be found in each proposal. I would suggest that everyone fill out a PIR for the proposals. They are the same except for the fact that Linebarger states that they will charge a fee of 20% to delinquent tax payers while Perdue stated that they would charge a fee to be negotiated by the Board within the 15 -20% range under Texas law.

    A major difference is in the section that asked for law suits filed against each firm. A summary can be found below.

    Law suits filed against law firms in the last three years as listed in their proposals.
    Perdue (Listed on the Qualifications Page) One law suit was listed which was dismissed. Linebarger (Listed on Exhibit G)
    Thirty-one law suits were listed.
    1. Thirteen were settled then dismissed
    2. Two were dismissed with prejudice
    3. Ten were dismissed
    4. Two ruled in favor of defendant
    5. Two are active
    6. One was withdrawn
    7. One is inactive

    Mr. Craven handed out information which the Superintendent and the Board has seen before about Linebarger which had the following timeline:

    April 18, 2003 sued for violations of racketeer influenced and corruption act – Linebarger made a confidential settlement.
    September 2004 Linebarger Partner, Juan Pena convicted and incarcerated for bribing officials to obtain tax collection contract.
    February 2010 Houston Office employee indicted for stealing taxpayers funds.
    May 2010 Linebarger Partner, Mario Parez, caught up in Ft. Worth School Board election scandal.
    June 2011 FBI investigation relating to over $800.000 in missing funds involving Linebarger employee.
    July 8th, 2011 FBE Investigation into corruption probe of Dallas Commissioner, senior partner named as a key player by Dallas Morning News.
    April 2012 Mario Perez, see entry of May 2010, indicted on charges that he falsified campaign contributions to Arlington School Board Trustee Aaron Reich.

    All members of the KISD community need to decide if the Board took the ethical high road on awarding this contract. I have my own opinion but once you read all the facts you can decide for yourself.

  11. Whats up

    JULY 24, 2012 AT 1:28 PM

    Thank you Dr. Proctor. We know why you and Terry did NOT vote for this company.

    I would like to know why the other five DID vote for them. We need to save the video from this meeting for future reference especially at election time.

  12. kellyg

    JULY 25, 2012 AT 3:15 PM

    As we all know, this issue has been discussed many times. Before jumping to the conclusion that the new guys are keeping the status quo, I would like to hear from them, or any of the other 3, why they voted the way they did. If it’s just because that is what Alton Frailey recommended, I would be disappointed. If it’s because they did their due diligence and decided that this was the best way to go, it would be okay. However, without stating the reasons, they knew that many people would jump to conclusions. Perhaps when Dr. Proctor stated his opinion, any of the others should have voted their opinion. At least it would be on the record. So new guys, now it’s time to tell us the whys behind the vote.

  13. TexasTeacher

    JULY 25, 2012 AT 3:32 PM

    While you’re discussing the board. One of the KISD teachers emailed me stating that all teachers would be receiving a 3% pay raise for the 2012-2013 school year. He sent me a copy of the PDF file on the district’s website. Today, this PDF file is not there. What happened to the 3% pay raise??? Was this another district mistake????

  14. babytiger

    JULY 25, 2012 AT 4:16 PM

    Oops… Kellyg, I am sure you will get your answer as to the details behind their decisions… Why one offered the motion and the other seconded it and what their thoughts were between one provider over the other…

    I agree that there was a missed opportunity to speak at the time of the vote… That point was recognized by one of the two and in hindsight he stated to me that he had wished he had made a statement at the time… A teaching/learning moment… Something many of us experience something like this and then realize the lost opportunity but recognize it will be there in the future to help convey ones reasoning…

    Money: The embarrassment to me came in the public comment section of the meeting… Review the tape when available and ask yourself, does that represent me, my thoughts, my actions, my community… If your answer is yes, then I’m afraid hope is lost… That is a perfect example of what’s wrong, intelligence aside… Personally, I admit, I laughed and sighed at the same time…

  15. Ross Raymond

    JULY 25, 2012 AT 4:34 PM

    BT you are correct about the 15-20% item. The district gets the same money either way. This is a surcharge levied on the homeowner above the interest and penalties.

    This spread is what the collection company takes to their bank, not our’s.

    While it has nothing directly to do with the district there are some people who feel anyone having trouble (there are of course some deadbeats) paying the taxes on their home should not have to pay so much above the tax statement amount sent to them earlier in the year (it could be more than one year overdue).

    If you believe the last asset anyone wants to lose is their home and realizing full well the taxes must be paid, persons in this condition are probably not all that well off from a financial standpoint.

    One thing to know about a bill collector going after homeowners is that they really do have teeth as the district can foreclose on the property to force payment. The firm will get paid, the question is how much.

    I am sure Bryan and Charles did not support this firm because they felt a higher penalty on homeowners was a good thing. There must be something else at work here. Maybe we will find out?

  16. money

    JULY 25, 2012 AT 7:36 PM

    BT I am frustrated beyond words and have the following questions:

    Why aren’t you outraged with the Linebarger partner’s indictment in connection with the school board election? You have not even touched on this criminal activity in your response. This conduct in and of itself should have been sufficient to disqualify Linebarger and that is why I went “over the top” with my intellect comment (which I apologized for). I simply don’t know how anyone can explain this away. It is not the first indictment for the Linebarger firm;

    You also stated “ I wouldn’t hold either of these firms up too high as they both have their issues, both public and private “. Could you please expand? We have heard a lot about Linebarger. If Purdue has these same criminal issues it is only fair to Linebarger that we be informed about them. What do you know? What are the Purdue issues?

    You also made reference to friends and family helping delinquent taxpayers. What if you have no family and happen to be too proud to tell your friends you have lost your job and need charity. People like that do exist and could use a break of two or three percent off their tax bill.

    Finally, I admire you faith in Mr. Griffin. If he comes forward with a reasonable explanation he has my vote. My fear is that this will go silent and no one on the board will explain their vote. I hope I am wrong.

  17. ledettm

    JULY 26, 2012 AT 10:19 AM

    bt – Stop apologizing for the new two BOT members and accept they are part of old guard and will do as the Super tells them to do. The sooner you accept that you were deceived then the sooner you can help change the district for the better.

  18. babytiger

    JULY 26, 2012 AT 10:23 AM

    Blah, blah, blah…

  19. James Yaklin

    JULY 26, 2012 AT 10:29 AM

    For monts I have endured this ridiculous pattern of dialog from somebody that wants me to take him seriously but goes by the handle “Babytiger”.

    Here’s the pattern as I have witnessed it:

    1. His candidates (or favored trustees as the case may be now) do something outrageous and fail to make a public statement concerning their decision paths.

    2. Their action gets publically questioned.

    3. The apologist, Babytiger, comes forward and states that they will make a public statement when they are darn well good and ready to do so. Furthermore, Babytiger alludes that he knows more about the issues than the rest of the populice and he is willing to give said people a pass on their unpopular position or their gaffe of the time.

    4. When pressed for more information the advocate, Babytiger, states that if you have questions the public should contact the said person or people.

    5. The said people or persons (now elected officials that are supposed to be representing the people) NEVER make a public statement concerning their decisions or positions.

    Babytiger, if you are assigned (either by yourself or by them) to be their spokesperson you are lousy at the job. Jay Carney does a better job than you and he is a moron assigned to speak for a moron.

    I should not HAVE to contact my elected representative to get an explanation for their position. That representative should be contacting me and explaining their position to me and getting my feedback. That’s how a Republican government operates. Republican government in Katy ISD is a farce.

    Face it, Katy, you allowed yourself to be duped and Katy ISD is continuing to operate in the same manner as it always as, with no tranceparancy or accountability — albeit with a loudmouth, apologist, tiger that is incapable of explaining much of anything.

  20. ledettm

    JULY 26, 2012 AT 11:25 AM

    James Yaklin – This is the best post I have read in a long time.

  21. katyisdinsider

    JULY 26, 2012 AT 5:27 PM

    Just wait until the Katy taxpayers get a taste of how these bottom-feeding scumbags operate. These inhuman degenerates masquerading as a law-firm routinely threaten to foreclose at the drop of a hat, many times without proper due diligence. They will find a delinquent property, find a matching name, and fire off a demand letter without bothering to verify that the person actually owns the property. Way to go BOT. Great decision for the Katy community.