"The holdover provision in the Texas Constitution where a board member remains on the school board until he is replaced by appointment or election is what they teach you in Education 101."Former school board member and attorney
Despite that basic fact, Brownsville Independent School District board counsel Baltazar Salazar and his handpicked contract lawyer Kevin O'Hanlon convinced the BISD board members that they could vote out trustee Erasmo Castro at their last meeting.
Among the board members is Phil Cowen, an attorney who had been a board member and president in the past and knew better claims he said so but was shot down.
But others say it was Cowen who asked Castro to leave.
![]()
But others say it was Cowen who asked Castro to leave.
But what does this say about Salazar and O'Hanlon's advice to the board members?
"They lied to them," said the former board member. "They could be sued for malpractice."
![]()
In fact, Cameron County District Attorney Luis V. Saenz, who is handling the removal action against Castro in state court wrote Baltazar and O'Hanlon schooling them on the "holdover" clause and bluntly told them that they were wrong and that - until they appointed his replacement or there was an election - he was legally entitled to sit on the BISD board despite his resignation.
In fact, Cameron County District Attorney Luis V. Saenz, who is handling the removal action against Castro in state court wrote Baltazar and O'Hanlon schooling them on the "holdover" clause and bluntly told them that they were wrong and that - until they appointed his replacement or there was an election - he was legally entitled to sit on the BISD board despite his resignation.But the board members and the public should have seen this coming.
Way back in 2005 a majority of the Brownsville Independent School District chose Salazar to be the district's legal counsel in its lawsuit against Royal Supplies Lines Inc.Co. in United States District Court in Brownsville to pay for the damages after several hundred students and teachers claimed they had been injured by the presence of mold at Besteiro Middle School and Aiken Elementary School.
The agent of record for the insurance company was none other than the late Johnny Cavazos, who somehow worked himself to be an agent of record for the district's insurance coverage.
In the case ( No. CIV.A. B-03-109), to put it bluntly, Salazar's performance in defending the district in the mold case – in the opinion of the court – was dismal, "feeble," and totally incompetent.
In fact, Salazar – despite repeated efforts from the court to give him more time and directing the manner of responding – failed to file any response to two of the motions for summary judgment from Royal Supplies Line and the one he did file was not "competent," according to the court order. He lost all three judgments.
Federal Judge Andrew Hanen stated this exchange in his summary of the decision:
HANEN, District Judge;
Before this Court are three motions for summary judgment filed by the plaintiff, Royal Surplus Lines Insurance Company ("Royal" or "Plaintiff"). Each will be discussed in greater detail below but, suffice it to say, each seeks a judgment that Royal is not liable to the defendant, Brownsville Independent School District ("BISD"), for damages suffered by BISD due to the presence of mold at two of its schools: Bruce Aiken Elementary School ("Aiken") and Raul Besteiro Middle School ("Besteiro").
HANEN, District Judge;
Before this Court are three motions for summary judgment filed by the plaintiff, Royal Surplus Lines Insurance Company ("Royal" or "Plaintiff"). Each will be discussed in greater detail below but, suffice it to say, each seeks a judgment that Royal is not liable to the defendant, Brownsville Independent School District ("BISD"), for damages suffered by BISD due to the presence of mold at two of its schools: Bruce Aiken Elementary School ("Aiken") and Raul Besteiro Middle School ("Besteiro").
Despite warnings by the Court and a direct order setting a deadline, BISD has not filed a response to two of the three motions. Also, despite warnings from the Court, including an admonition to supplement its sole response, and the issuance of a firm deadline, the one response filed was not supplemented to provide the Court with any competent summary judgment evidence that raises an issue of material fact. That being the case, the Court hereby GRANTS all three of Royal's summary judgment motions....BISD filed nothing.
"The old adage comes to mind that you can lead a horse to water, tell him to take a drink, give him extra time to drink, but you still cannot make him drink," Hanen wrote about Salazar's abject performance.
This representation, or lack thereof, resulted in the BISD paying for the repairs at the schools instead. Salazar got paid for doing as Hanen said, nothing, rolling over for the insurance companies, and getting his check.
On April 2, 2013, then-trustees Otis Powers, the late Enrique Escobedo, current board president and Minerva Peña and former trustee Jose Chirinos chose him over hugely more experienced and able law firms. Seven years later, he is drawing $283,000 a year from the BISD.
The board majority chose him from the eight law firms which submitted a reply for the Request For Qualifications to the district. The only ones not voting for him to represent the district were trustees Catalina Presas-Garcia and Lucy Longoria who earned a censure from the board and who Salazar tried to have censured and removed.
Along the way, he accused Presas-Garcia of sexual harassment and of inviting him to spend "two nights together" so he could really get to know her.
Salazar and his firm firm failed to provide their qualifications for 17 of the 51 categories of basic legal services listed by the district. For example, they "Did Not Disclose" their qualifications on:
1. Competitive bidding
2. Copyright Issues
3. Election Law advice
4. Employee Health Insurance Matters
5. Federal Voters Right Advice
6. Fiber Optic Communications System
7. Freedom of Religion Issues
8. Governmental Tort Claims
9. Intergovernmental Agreements
10. Intergovernmental Relations
11. Liability for Asbestos. (No kidding?)
12. Preventive Law
13. Public Utility Commission
14. State Whistle Blower Act Compliance
15. Texas Teacher Retirement System
16. University Interscholastic League
17. Utility Law Regulation
Only three other firms "Did Not Disclose" more categories than Salazar.
Firms such as O'Hanlon, McCullom and Demerath listed 75 years, Thornton, Biechlin, Segrato, Reynolds and Guerra listed 40 years, Gustavo Acevedo listed 45 years, Rogers, Morris and Grover listed 20 years, compared to less than a decade for Salazar.
But the kicker here is that in the category of school districts represented by the differing firms, Salazar ranked seventh of the eight with only three districts.
At the top of the list was O'Hanlon, McCollum and Demerath with 102 districts, Thompson and Horton with 90 school districts, Rogers, Morris and Grover with 51 school districts, Thornton, Biechlin, Segrato, Reynolds and Guerra with 15 school districts, etc...
When he applied, Salazar omitted (lied) about his criminal record.
He never admitted he had been arrested and charged with three felony offenses of theft by check.
According to court records, on at least one – 85-CR-23 (April 26, 1984) – he was tried and convicted in a non-jury trial and sentenced to three years in the state penitentiary, probated to seven years.
And as if that wasn't bad enough, he asked the 107th District court on April 24, 2012 – a year before he applied to be the BISD counsel – to expunge his criminal record to include not only that case, but also two the two other theft by check charges, 83-CR-416 (January 15, 1983) and 85-CR-450 (April 26, 1984).
Represented by his attorney Noe Garza, Salazar swore and signed under oath that he had never been convicted because the statute of limitations had expired and that he had been released, that the charge had not resulted in a final conviction, and that there was no court-ordered community supervision (probation).
![Image result for conviction by court]()
4. On December 20, 2012, almost six months after 107th District Judge Ben Euresti agreed to the expunction agreement between Garza and the Cameron County District Attorney's Office (then under Armando Villalobos), the Texas Department of Public Safety filed an appeal with the 13th Court of Appeals challenging Euresti's expunction order on the grounds that the trial court's order was not supported by legally sufficient evidence.
At the core of the DPS challenge was the fact that they had never been given notice of the motion for expungement and that the record did not agree with Salazar's contentions, and the Court of Appeals reversed the order and negated it.
However, between the time that the 107th District Court issued the order and the time DPS appealed it, all records relating to the two arrests and the conviction were erased from court files. Computer checks indicate that after Cameron County District Clerk Eric Garza was informed of the appeals decision, he returned the files and they are accessible to the public today.
In its decision, the Court of Appeals issued on August 2013 noted that while Salazar claimed that he "has been released, that the charge has not resulted in a final conviction and is no longer pending, and that there was no court-ordered community supervision...."and that prosecution "is no longer possible because the limitations period has expired," the record reflected differently. In other words, he lied.
It's bad enough that he didn't answer truthfully to the expungement challenged by the DPS, but when he applied with the BISD, he also omitted information about his record.
According to the BISD's local policies, the applicant is required to affirm that "all information provided on this form is true and accurate. I also understand that an employment contract based upon information contained in this application which later proves to be false or incomplete shall result in the contract becoming null and void or terminated."
Local policies also state that "at the Superintendent's discretion, the district shall not employ an applicant who:
1. is a convicted felon
2. in convicted of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude
3. is charged with a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, until there is a disposition of the charge
4. is on probation for any offense (including deferred adjudication probation) that would otherwise restrict employment.
The BISD's employment policies get even more explicit. They state that: "Persons charged with a criminal offense that was dismissed through deferred adjudication may be considered for employment after five years except when the charge was capital murder; murder; voluntary or involuntary manslaughter; any felony theft offense...
"No one convicted of a felony or any misdemeanor involving moral turpitude will be considered for employment in the district...Moral turpitude is "an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private or social duties outside the accepted standards of decency and that shock the conscience of an ordinary person.
Examples, but not by way of limitation, of offenses that involve moral turpitude are:
1. Public lewdness
2. Prostitution
3. Theft or theft of services (in excess of $500 in value).
4. Fraud.
Unlike Mr. Salazar, we are not attorneys , but the matter seems to be fairly clear. Salazar was not completely honest when he filled out the district's application for certified employment on his criminal record history and omitted at least two offenses and lied about the one he did disclose. He might have even listed a bogus misdemeanor offense on his application.
In fact, a memorandum prepared by a HR administrator who reviewed his application Dec. 2, 2011 stated that "the basis of his case revolved around the act of felony theft which falls under moral turpitude."
Now, in telling the board members that in Castro's case the "holdover" provision of the Texas Constitution does not apply, Baltzar and his hired gun O'Hanlon clearly lied to them. Why is he still representing the district?
The board majority chose him from the eight law firms which submitted a reply for the Request For Qualifications to the district. The only ones not voting for him to represent the district were trustees Catalina Presas-Garcia and Lucy Longoria who earned a censure from the board and who Salazar tried to have censured and removed.
Along the way, he accused Presas-Garcia of sexual harassment and of inviting him to spend "two nights together" so he could really get to know her.
Salazar and his firm firm failed to provide their qualifications for 17 of the 51 categories of basic legal services listed by the district. For example, they "Did Not Disclose" their qualifications on:
1. Competitive bidding
2. Copyright Issues
3. Election Law advice
4. Employee Health Insurance Matters
5. Federal Voters Right Advice
6. Fiber Optic Communications System
7. Freedom of Religion Issues
8. Governmental Tort Claims
9. Intergovernmental Agreements
10. Intergovernmental Relations
11. Liability for Asbestos. (No kidding?)
12. Preventive Law
13. Public Utility Commission
14. State Whistle Blower Act Compliance
15. Texas Teacher Retirement System
16. University Interscholastic League
17. Utility Law Regulation
Only three other firms "Did Not Disclose" more categories than Salazar.
Firms such as O'Hanlon, McCullom and Demerath listed 75 years, Thornton, Biechlin, Segrato, Reynolds and Guerra listed 40 years, Gustavo Acevedo listed 45 years, Rogers, Morris and Grover listed 20 years, compared to less than a decade for Salazar.
But the kicker here is that in the category of school districts represented by the differing firms, Salazar ranked seventh of the eight with only three districts.
At the top of the list was O'Hanlon, McCollum and Demerath with 102 districts, Thompson and Horton with 90 school districts, Rogers, Morris and Grover with 51 school districts, Thornton, Biechlin, Segrato, Reynolds and Guerra with 15 school districts, etc...
When he applied, Salazar omitted (lied) about his criminal record.
He never admitted he had been arrested and charged with three felony offenses of theft by check.
According to court records, on at least one – 85-CR-23 (April 26, 1984) – he was tried and convicted in a non-jury trial and sentenced to three years in the state penitentiary, probated to seven years.
And as if that wasn't bad enough, he asked the 107th District court on April 24, 2012 – a year before he applied to be the BISD counsel – to expunge his criminal record to include not only that case, but also two the two other theft by check charges, 83-CR-416 (January 15, 1983) and 85-CR-450 (April 26, 1984).
Represented by his attorney Noe Garza, Salazar swore and signed under oath that he had never been convicted because the statute of limitations had expired and that he had been released, that the charge had not resulted in a final conviction, and that there was no court-ordered community supervision (probation).
4. On December 20, 2012, almost six months after 107th District Judge Ben Euresti agreed to the expunction agreement between Garza and the Cameron County District Attorney's Office (then under Armando Villalobos), the Texas Department of Public Safety filed an appeal with the 13th Court of Appeals challenging Euresti's expunction order on the grounds that the trial court's order was not supported by legally sufficient evidence.
At the core of the DPS challenge was the fact that they had never been given notice of the motion for expungement and that the record did not agree with Salazar's contentions, and the Court of Appeals reversed the order and negated it.
However, between the time that the 107th District Court issued the order and the time DPS appealed it, all records relating to the two arrests and the conviction were erased from court files. Computer checks indicate that after Cameron County District Clerk Eric Garza was informed of the appeals decision, he returned the files and they are accessible to the public today.
In its decision, the Court of Appeals issued on August 2013 noted that while Salazar claimed that he "has been released, that the charge has not resulted in a final conviction and is no longer pending, and that there was no court-ordered community supervision...."and that prosecution "is no longer possible because the limitations period has expired," the record reflected differently. In other words, he lied.
It's bad enough that he didn't answer truthfully to the expungement challenged by the DPS, but when he applied with the BISD, he also omitted information about his record.
According to the BISD's local policies, the applicant is required to affirm that "all information provided on this form is true and accurate. I also understand that an employment contract based upon information contained in this application which later proves to be false or incomplete shall result in the contract becoming null and void or terminated."
Local policies also state that "at the Superintendent's discretion, the district shall not employ an applicant who:
1. is a convicted felon
2. in convicted of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude
3. is charged with a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, until there is a disposition of the charge
4. is on probation for any offense (including deferred adjudication probation) that would otherwise restrict employment.
The BISD's employment policies get even more explicit. They state that: "Persons charged with a criminal offense that was dismissed through deferred adjudication may be considered for employment after five years except when the charge was capital murder; murder; voluntary or involuntary manslaughter; any felony theft offense...
"No one convicted of a felony or any misdemeanor involving moral turpitude will be considered for employment in the district...Moral turpitude is "an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private or social duties outside the accepted standards of decency and that shock the conscience of an ordinary person.
Examples, but not by way of limitation, of offenses that involve moral turpitude are:
1. Public lewdness
2. Prostitution
3. Theft or theft of services (in excess of $500 in value).
4. Fraud.
Unlike Mr. Salazar, we are not attorneys , but the matter seems to be fairly clear. Salazar was not completely honest when he filled out the district's application for certified employment on his criminal record history and omitted at least two offenses and lied about the one he did disclose. He might have even listed a bogus misdemeanor offense on his application.
In fact, a memorandum prepared by a HR administrator who reviewed his application Dec. 2, 2011 stated that "the basis of his case revolved around the act of felony theft which falls under moral turpitude."
Now, in telling the board members that in Castro's case the "holdover" provision of the Texas Constitution does not apply, Baltzar and his hired gun O'Hanlon clearly lied to them. Why is he still representing the district?