DISD Kiddie Kops, Lawyers and Tyrone Hughes Cell Phone
Submitted by Allen Gwinn on Sun, 12/23/2007 - 16:57.
Employee's personal cell phone seized, searched, pictures copied by DISD Police. Why?
Many DISD parents and others read the story in the Dallas Morning News regarding former DISD hall monitor Tyrone Hughes. But things aren't always what they seem on the surface.
As we dug a little deeper, here's what we found.
It all started when Hughes, an ex-NFL superstar, accidentally dropped his personal (non-DISD-issued) cellular phone in a hallway at South Oak Cliff High School and it was picked up by a student.
According to Hughes, he and a supervisor later watched as a campus security camera captured student Clarence Winkfield picking the phone up right after Hughes dropped it.
Winkfield pocketed the phone, took a few pictures with it (photo, video [video requires free Apple Quicktime player]), made a few phone calls on it and then sold it to a fly-by-night cellular phone "broker" for $20 [just to clarify earlier reports: the phone wasn't pawned--it is illegal for pawnbrokers to accept merchandise from minors].
Hughes searched his cellular phone's call records and found that Winkfield called his grandmother, Virginia Johnson, and eventually his mother Hazel Ann Winkfield--a woman who, according to Dallas County, has a criminal history that includes convictions for theft, drugs and multiple acts of prostitution.
The mother would claim, according to an investigation [may have to click on the picture to zoom in] conducted by Robert Walters--an investigator with DISD's new Office of Public Responsibility (created after the procurement card scandal), that Hughes threatened the life of her son on May 4 if the phone wasn't returned.
Hughes would claim that he threatened to call the police and press charges if his cellular phone was not returned.
Walters chose to believe the mother. "[The] evidence suggests that Mr. Hughes had the motive and opportunity to place the threatening calls to the student's mother and grandmother about his well being," wrote Walters.
Hughes would also claim, in a subsequent administrative hearing, that Winkfield's grandmother (Virginia Johnson) threatened to tell the District about "certain pictures" Hughes had on his phone--if Hughes kept threatening to press charges.
The pictures, of course, were of the now-famous private parts of Hughes and a girlfriend that each had taken and emailed to each other's cellular phones.
DISD Police Officer Bruce Weaver and Lieutenant Calvin Howard retrieved Hughes' cellular phone from the Winkfield family.
Neither Weaver nor Howard returned the phone to Hughes.
Instead, according to an email from Weaver, Hughes' personal pictures were "copied" from the phone and sent to South Oak Cliff High School Principal Regina Jones.
None of the pictures, referenced by Jones in her email to Weaver, were inappropriate or even questionable in the least.
Even then, Hughes wouldn't get his phone back.
DISD police, as a matter of fact, would keep Hughes' phone for almost a month. When they finally returned the phone to Hughes, it was missing his "SIM" card (the card containing Hughes' phone numbers and other important information).
Hughes also claimed that pictures were erased from the phone.
Hughes subsequently received a termination letter that accused him of:
- Possession of obscene and/or pornographic material while on campus
- Threats made to students and/or parents
- Insubordination
The crux of the issue, however, remained the pictures of Hughes' (and his girlfriend's) private parts on Hughes' personal cellular phone.
Hughes appealed the firing.
In a tape made at Hughes' "level two" appeal, DISD Attorney Valerie Carrillo defended Winkfield and how he came by Hughes' phone. The phone was not stolen, according to Carrillo, but had been "lost" by Hughes.
"Mr. Hughes talked about it, he dropped his phone and just for the record, that really means an item is lost, not stolen per se," Carrillo said (listen to Carrillo's remarks here).
Hughes was subsequently criticized by Carrillo and Principal Jones for watching the surveillance video that identified Winkfield as the culprit who picked up the "lost" phone.
"So he shouldn't have even been viewing these videos," Carrillo asked Jones? "No, [neither Hughes nor a co-worker] have the authority," replied Jones (listen to the exchange regarding the security cameras).
The surveillance video in question was subsequently erased.
As to why the District chose to believe Winkfield's mother over Hughes, Carrillo said "the grandmother and the parent, really I wouldn't think, would have any reason to lie" (listen to Carrillo's statement).
The District did not, at the time of Hughes' hearing (when the recordings were made), have any statement directly from Winkfield.
"We call that 'hearsay'," said one attorney we interviewed for this article.
Perhaps the most interesting statement made at the hearing regarded the charge of "possession of obscene and/or pornographic material while on campus." Carrillo acknowledged that there is no DISD policy specifically addressing this issue.
Carrillo explained that technology changes so fast that policies can't keep up, and seemed to suggest that District policies might need to be adapted on the fly.
"Technology's so advanced every day that sometimes our laws, especially our laws and policies don't always keep up with every single detail of your own personal cell phone," Carrillo explained, "but I think it could be argued and applied that not just the district's tech equipment but your own equipment [...] I would make that argument that [the policy] would be applicable to your own personal property [...] or equipment" (listen to Carrillo's remarks).
Hughes still has one more level to go in the grievance process: the Board of Trustees. Hughes' appeal was scheduled for December. It has been moved to January.
Commentary:
I have to say that in my years investigating and reporting on DISD, this has to be the most disappointing example of senior-level behavior, and decision-making I've seen.
Worse yet, it involves the very people who are supposed to protect the District from abuse: the Office of Public Accountability and the DISD Police Department.
By the way, if you haven't read Kent Fischer's "DISD response team armed to the teeth" in the Dallas Morning News, it's worth a read.
According to Fischer's investigation, the department spent $50,000 on the elite team including purchasing assault rifles and body armor to deal with "active shooter" situations.
But back to Hughes.
Hughes is convicted on "opportunity and motive" yet "guilt or innocence" seems to have fallen by the wayside.
Translation: did he do it?
It should concern every employee that the District might consider "opportunity and motive" to mean "guilty as charged."
DISD attorney Valerie Carrillo who, as a lawyer, represents and speaks for the District, seemed to defend Winkfield and Winkfield's family at every turn.
We'll freely acknowledge that, just because a person has a criminal record, doesn't mean she is lying.
But to claim that the family of a son who "found a lost phone," used it (more on this in a moment), and hocked it for $20 had no motive for lying might be called a "stretch" by a reasonable person. No?
And calling it a "lost" phone? Let's put this in perspective again.
Tyrone Hughes accidentally dropped his personal cellular phone. A student, Clarence Winkfield, picked it up. Instead of taking it to the lost and found, he used it and sold it. For a dumb guy like me, that sure sounds like theft.
But an attorney pointed us at another interesting section of the Texas Penal Code:
§ 33A.04. THEFT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE. (a) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly obtains or attempts to obtain telecommunications service to avoid or cause another person to avoid a lawful charge for that service by using:
(1) a telecommunications access device without the authority or consent of the subscriber or lawful holder of the device or pursuant to an agreement for an exchange of value with the subscriber or lawful holder of the device to allow another person to use the device;
(b) An offense under this section is:
(1) a Class B misdemeanor if the value of the telecommunications service obtained or attempted to be obtained is less than $500;
How can the DISD Police Department--an organization sworn to uphold the laws of the State of Texas--justify not prosecuting Winkfield for theft of Hughes' service?
Further, we keep asking ourselves why Officer Weaver and the DISD Police department searched Hughes' personal cellular phone in the first place? Why did Weaver share the pictures with a DISD principal, and then keep the phone for almost a month?
There are also questions as to whether DISD's search and seizure of Hughes' phone violated State or federal law.
"This probably is a violation of Title 18 [federal law as it relates to electronic communication], as well as state law dealing with search warrants, seizure without a warrant, etc.," our attorneys told us.
We offered DISD Police Chief John Blackburn a chance to answer several questions. He declined through a DISD spokesman claiming "the investigation" is ongoing (though he did not clarify what "the investigation" was about).
So there we have it: more questions than answers.
Will there be an investigation into DISD's handling of the Hughes affair? Will there be an investigation into other employees' conduct and will another employee be found to have a legacy of questionable behavior in his or her past?
Another question centers around Carrillo's position of apparently making up policies on-the-fly. This (listen to Carrillo again) should have every teacher, staff member, student and parent extremely concerned.
Tyrone Hughes needs to hire a good attorney.
District taxpayers need to get ready to shell out another hefty sum of money to pay for this latest debacle.
Instead of sounding like Christmas, it's sure beginning to sound more like Halloween.
Collective Bargaining Not the Answer
Although as tax-supported employees teachers do have due-process rights not guaranteed other employees in Texas, the grievance process, entirely orchestrated by DISD, does not in any way guarantee those due-process rights. Teachers in DISD who presume their union can protect them in a grievance process are naive. AFT can provide an attorney, but DISD will not play the game fairly, nor will DISD allow a grievance to reach the school board if it is going to question the corrupt practices of any administrator. AFT can take the grievance to the state board, but TEA has historically provided a safe haven for administrators who may re-enter DISD as superintendents. They are not going to ruin their future career possibilities by stepping on the toes of their brothers and sisters in crime. Mike Moses was a prime example of the good old boy system of revolving doors.
Would collective bargaining help this disasterous situation? No. AFT provides the "rights" a teacher has to the grievance process. The flaw is not in the process; the flaw is trying to obtain any justice in a corrupt system that will run teachers around in a squirrel cage as they try to play by the rules while behind the scenes DISD engages in any nefarious behavior it wishes. Until a teacher or other employee winds up in this no-win situation, they may believe they have rights. As far as that employment contract is concerned, DISD may engage in layoffs as it wishes. The contract is intended to hold the employee in place; the employee has no rights with that contract.
DISD is a banana republic based on class bias. Children and teachers are expendable, and the lower the income level served by a school, the lower the level of services. DISD attorneys know teachers do not have the economic means to fight a case beyond the grievance process, and administrators know they can assure any outcome they wish in that grievance process.
So what price does the effective teacher pay in this system when he/she runs, inadvertently maybe, across the daily graft or incompetence of administrators? Quit, leaving the kids to this system, or stay silent about participating in it. Both choices are a big price to pay to grease the wheels of corruption.
Unions COULD work
I couldn't disgree with you more on the effectiveness of collective bargaining, if done honestly and with integrity--and why we will never see it here:
Imagine all DISD teachers out sick for two weeks as a protest. Imagine what that would do to the city, as suddenly, many thousands of poor parents had to find alternative care for their kids as schools were shut down. (That was the excuse for staying open in the ice last year, remember? ONLY DISD stayed open, while all other districts shut down that day. Reason: Parents had to go to work.)
And AFT is not the only union. They pretend to be, but they are one of four. In fact, when the combined efforts of the unions were starting to make progress about 10 years ago, suddenly, they had to have ONE representative. ONE voice. Hmmm, sounds like the DISD didn't like hearing from too many people. So, to LIMIT access to change, they created the Coordinating Teacher Orgnaization, or CTO.
Oh, it sounded might fair at the time, but it was a setup. Let's see, tell the teachers they can have only one rep from the unions speak for them. Have them vote. Simple math tells you that the largest union--even if they are not the best--will win the popularity contest. That guaranteed that jealousy or competition would take the unions' attention away from DISD matters to one of competition BETWEEN unions. Brilliant move by DISD!
Surprise, it is ALLIANCE-AFT! Yippee for them. Except for one little, tiny hiccup of a thing called the Constitution of the United States.
You see, ANY person can address grievances, speak in public or join together with others in protest. Gosh darn that First amendment!
So, when DISD thought they had silenced four groups, they didn't. Oh, AFT now uses that "CTO" moniker like it actually means something, but IT DOES NOT, and man, they fight like you know what to not let people know it! No other union goes to the CTO meetings, because unless AFT also agrees, they will NOT speak for your group. If they do agree, then they speak as if it is only them doing it. So CTD (now, NEA Dallas) ATPE and TCTA told them to shove off. They will deal with DISD on their own.
And boy, have they.
Go to any board meeting, and you will see ATPE or NEA people there. NEA and ATPE also get "seats at the table" when the DISD wants to include teachers in any big change--or NEA yells loud enough!
You see, we have the choice of being in a union or not. Because of local personalities, the unions do not always get along and work together. But when they do, it is great. They could do it more, but one union wants to be the ONLY union, like their AFL-CIO brothers up North.
Other unions want the CTO abolished. Board trustees play dumb when asked if they were told they HAD to support the CTO farce.
Perfect recent example: CEI's! AFT and NEA were at the table together with DISD. At the end, NEA just could not, in good faith, support a system based on a flawed evaluation formula. It was a matter of principle over money. AFT said they oppose the CEI's, and yet, they supported the scheme of bonuses so much, they were thanked BY NAME from one board trustee. Now, they have the embarrassing task of emailing all DISD people and telling them how THAT happened!
If you don't believe me, ask Aimee and Maureen why they love to email the DISD people on every little speech they make---except the one that supported the Bonus Pay plan. Only when NEA Dallas made an issue about it, did they admit they had, in fact, supported it.
Like I said, brilliant, just brilliant!
[Ed Note: ...and you have received copies of these emails to substantiate your last paragraph? It's nice to support your union, but "philosophy" is why there are choices.]
DISD, Parents, etc.
"According to them, if a child says it, it must be true. "
I know a lot of kids that will disagree with that statement. Because if kids witness a staff member doing something to a student. Those students can't be a witness in any hearings or at all.
The District uses "keeping your name out of the media" as a scare tactic to coerce your resignation."
I don't think Village Fair's former principal wanted his name in the newspaper when he got removed from Village Fair. His removal never should have been made public. Somebody did that on purpose.
I just wonder if this was done to get rid of Hughes since he was being paid through the school and not the district. Schools have to budget hall monitors into their budgets at many schools. So if he was making 19,000 a year, what program lost out on funds to pay him? Or is this a reaction to the cheating scandal the basketball team had? Make people forget that by firing someone? Ms. Jones can get rid of Hughes all she likes, but her head is on the chopping block since Soc is low performing.
And yes-Dr. Hinojosa is not a dummy. He has to undo a lot of damage that the folks that don't care about our kids. And plenty of them WORK in the schools more than they are downtown.
And if any DISD employee has disdain for a student, try looking at the PARENTS. They get it from somewhere.
Paid by DISD
Well, hold on now. Schools have a budget for every staff member, so hiring a hall monitor doesn't keep them from having a sports program or something else. If the principal wants to hire MORE than the allotted positions, that is different.
Also, are you really sure there is a connection between the basketball scandal and this episode? I am not sure I see a thread there.
The crux of this matter has several layers. How the situation was handled from the beginning, how the DISD uses lawyers to coerce and intimidate and ---how stupid it is for a grown man to have pornographic images on his phone that he carries at school. Yes, he has a right to privacy, but if he had a gym bag with Playboys in it, and they accidentally fell out, isn't that a problem, too?
Also, why shouldn't the Village Fair incident be in the public eye? Yea, he has feelings, but he is also paid with tax dollars. Lack of transparency in DISD IS the problem. If he was let go, fair and square, then so be it. If not, then THAT should also be in the public eye.
Hence, all the blogging on this website. If the DISD bigwigs want all this to blogging to stop, then THEY need to start thinking ahead: "Hmmmm, Tom, sounds like a good diea, but if this hit the press, what would we say?" Maybe THEN, they will take a different route of behavior.
Trouble is... Legal
Yes, we would love to tell you much more. Maybe some can be convinced to talk to you about their cases. But as was mentioned by someone above, they play with people's lives--and livelihooods.
If you were to mention any little fact about a "closed' case, I would promise you that they would go after the person again. NO joke here, you still keep thinking they play fair--in a legal arena sense. THEY DO NOT PLAY FAIR.
Even worse, whistle-blowers should be protected, right? Maybe so with Dr. Hinojosa--this time. In previous administrations, whistle-blowers were the ones sent packing, or transferred, or given the "worst" kids to teach, until you say, "Uncle!"
People have gone to the higher ups about missing athletic funds, cheating on tests, whatever. However, when you blow the whistle on the school secretary, could her brother be a big wonk on Ross Avenue? Could that pilfering coach be drinking buddies with an ex-coach who is now a deputy superintendent, etc...? In DISD the web of friendships, family and all that, golly.
Oh, and let's not forget the church connections! Ha! If they belong to a certain select few black churches in South Dallas or a lilly white church in North Dallas, it is amazing how they protect a fellow member of their flock!
You see, teachers are not dumb. They are college educated. But, by sheer coincidence, they are also usually squeaky clean in their backgrounds. They have never been questioned by police, been involved in a legal proceeding, etc... They do not know their rights in a public school matter,readily submit to authority and panic easily when threatened, and so on. It is almost ironic, you see, so many of our students may not know a lot about the world we know, but by golly, they know when they are being railroaded, what rights they have and so on. Our teachers could learn from them.
And as for all these lawyers you seem to know about who want to take on the DISD legal eagles, where are they? Teachers never seem to know who they are. Is there a reason they would be so keen to challenge them? Is there something they know that should be taken to the Bar Association?
[Ed Note: See, and therein lies the problem. In order to "fight back," you must do what Hughes did--go public. Most just want to "take their lumps" and move on.
In order for this website to help, folks must go public. When you do, there are plenty of lawyers who will want a piece of the action. But one has to fight back.]
Taking Lumps, Moving On
No one wants to just "take their lumps and move one." Many of these teachers have families that include children. Who knows what impact "going public" would have on the teacher's family.
Why should that teacher's children or spouse have to suffer any more than they already are? Some fights are best fought quietly.
Someone hit the nail on the head when they said that these teachers have squeaky clean backgrounds.
There is a reason that they have squeaky clean backgrounds; they aren't criminally inclined. They are human, but they aren't criminals.
They happen to have jobs in which they work with children, and today working with children is almost a deadly business. Partner that with working for DISD who absolutely does not support it's teachers.
Please, if you have names of said attorneys that are ready to take on DISD please provide. I have a very close friend in need.
[Ed Note: And therein lies the problem. If you decide to fight, your only alternative is going to court. Once you do that, the matter is public.
DISD's attorneys/human-resources know this.
So your friend's choices are, in essence, (a) take what they dish out, or (b) take it public. Just having an attorney around to argue one's case before a "kangaroo court" solves nothing (as evidenced by Tyrone Hughes' level 2 hearing).]
A friend in need...
If your friend does not belong to a teacher union, any of them, then they are screwed, sorry to say. Legal bills add up quickly. If Allen's friends will do the work pro bono, then he needs to tell you who they are. It is easy to tell them to "fight," but if you made $19,000 a year as a security guard, exactly what do you fight with?
Tell your lawyer friends to contact the local union presidents. Ask them to help, but don't forget, DISD lawyers are connected politically. PLEASE hurry up and list who they are--consulting included. People might be surprised.
And Allen, you are starting to get through the fog here.... The level 2 hearing you talk about. Helloooo? THAT is the way things go in DISD. Under TEA rules, there is no "court." --Unless it is a criminal matter. Employees of DISD are basically at-will employees. No other professionally licensed adults are treated with such disrespect and have so few employment rights.
If you don't still yet understand, call the state level of teacher unions: TFT, TSTA, TCTA, ATPE-- they will all tell you the same thing: DISD costs them more money in legal bills than most of the rest of Texas' districts COMBINED!
The part people in Dallas refuse to see is that the business and backroom deal makers of this city really do not want to see the DISD succeed. Think about it. I know it doesn't make sense. Business people should want the local ISD to work, but you see, they don't send their kids to the neighborhood school. Trammell Crow's family, the Perot's offspring, Hick's kids, etc... Did they go to DISD schools? Nope. Do they use Dallas tax dollars to make themselves rich? Yep. Their lawyers, accountants and tech support people don't live in Dallas, they live in Plano, Rockwall, and all that.
The new mayor says he wants to help. Okay, not legally he can, since DISD is out of his domain, but let's see him put pressure on Dr Hinojosa to get off the backs of teachers. Let them teach. Back them when little thugs and their criminal mommas make "bad decisions." Demand that there is an open window to 3700 Ross.
A person very familiar with both the internal workings of the City of Dallas and DISD was asked to compare the two. The person said, "Same clowns, different circus."
So, notice how this city looks to outsiders. Look at your own website. Why does Dallas have the ownership of dysfunction? DART, DPD, The CITY of Dallas, Sherriff's Dept, DISD.Is it all an accident? Is this the best we can all get?
[Ed Note: Things take a while to change. Pro bono depends on the case. Very few lawyers will take a job straight pro bono because they want a commitment from their client. I never go into business with anyone who doesn't have some of their own money in the business. Same with most lawyers.]
Lawyers, Retainers, Money
Well, then, nothing changes.
You see, teachers are very simple folk. They teach, they have families, they have outside lives. Once they get caught in the DISD Legal Department's web, it is too late. They are escorted off campus, not allowed contact with anyone else, nobody else is told what is going on--to prevent them from helping--and so on.
Your comment about "having money in the business." Eh, again, not sure what you mean by that. If a 25 year old, married teacher with a baby is suddenly caught in the web--and doesn't belong to a union, how much money does she really have? How much ability does she have to find those lawyers who are famiilar with the DISD and TEA? How will she know anything?
Again, Allen, you accidentally cut through the fog some more. Teaching is NOT a business. The "investment" made by a DISD teacher is the amount of money lost from not working in the private sector, from not teaching in the suburban kids.
So, the "poor kid" who harrasses a teacher with a false charge always seems to find a lawyer to represent him in a lawsuit, but the teacher? HA!
[Ed Note: You're completely missing the point. I know lawyers who would be glad to take good cases on a contingency--but who don't want to get half-way through it only to find out that his or her client isn't committed to a follow-through.
That is why most attorneys ask for a retainer--even on a contingency. It puts some of their client's money on the line too.
Going to court--and especially doing battle with a large, publicly-funded agency is an expensive proposition. There are attorneys that will, for the $5,000 retainer he or she asks for, fork out $50,000 to see the case through.
"But what if I can't afford the retainer?"
Then talk to your lawyer about it. Get an understanding. Work out some terms. But talk to them!]
Lawyers and Contingencies
I have talked to employees of the District who have been hurt, and they said they have contacted numerous lawyers to represent them and after 6-8 said no, they asked one why. The reply is that DISD has immunity from lawsuits and it isn't worth their time to sue. DISD has unlimited money and lawyers and think nothing of spending a million dollars to save a thousand if they so desire.
[Ed Note: I think an attorney is going to reply with an explanation of sovereign immunity and what an individual's options are.
DISD does have access to tremendous fiscal resources. However, we're going to try and start keeping track of how much they are spending on legal matters.
Especially with a bond election coming up--this will be useful information for the public.]
Be afraid, be very afraid
Why not see how much they are spending now in 2007? You did it for the P-card scandal, right?
And yes, DISD personnel BETTER be afraid of the legal dept.
You have no idea who they are connected to here in Dallas.
Deadly serious here. They can make it impossible for someone to get another job. They take forever in making a final decision---sometimes, if a teacher is actually CLEARED of any allegation, the legal dept NEVER tells them! You are too afraid to call and ask, too, as that might stir them up something more.
And "go to court"? Ha, don't make me laugh. This stuff never goes to court. They just ruin you and move on. Remember, they are lawyers. They know what to do. Courts can exonerate you, but rarely do DISD episodes ever "go to court." Mostly, the DISD Board is the final deciding factor on a case. And they usually listen to the lawyers, and they are constantly given a load of crud.
Watch them at meetings... how many times do they have to stop what they are doing and ask the lawyers what they should do? That is because most of the Board members---and yes, they are unpaid elected officials who give their time---are woefully ignorant of the law. The couple who are lawyers, why do you think they show such a "just under the surface" disregard for the teachers?
You see, they need to be careful who THEY talk to at Christmas parties and public events. Not all DISD teachers are bumpkins.
Many have connections of their own, through family, business or a husband's (or wife's) employer. You would not believe the arrogant and insulting comments made by a previous Superintendent, or a current board member or two. The pure disdain they have for the kids as well would shock you. A few of them really want the students to do well, others are marking time until they move on to another political office--or they can finish getting their buddies contracts with DISD.
So, never assume they are for the side of justice. They are hired guns, meant to protect the DISD or the men up top.
The irony of all this is what if the DISD had backed Tyrone? Wonder what the criminal momma would have done then? Ahhh, THAT is why they went after the security guard. Is that kid an athlete? Were they afraid of a lawsuit? If DISD would show the backbone against the families of students the way suburban districts do, half of this stuff would go away.
Ask AFT how they plan to appeal his firing. Ask them if they are willing to go to court for him. They should be, and they should win this.
[Ed Note: Ahh, conspiracy theories. "All-powerful" legal departments. There are lawyers in town that can eat these guys for lunch.
DISD's lawyers are no more special than anyone else when a case goes to trial. They're no better connected or respected (and in some cases, they're respected less) than other lawyers in town. I have a family full of lawyers! One's been president of the bar!
Something tells me that Tyrone will just happen to find one that won't back down.
The bottom line is that DISD just needs to quit making stupid mistakes as a unit. Dr. Hinojosa needs to clamp down on some of his subordinates and demand accountability and responsibility. If I, for instance, had a staff attorney who made some of the comments like I heard on the Hughes tape, I'd be asking some tough questions after the break.
At the risk of peeving some: Dr. Hinojosa is no idiot. He's in an extremely tough situation and is trying his best to clean up an organization after years of neglect. He may not always make the right call--but why don't you try second-guessing him before he makes decisions for a couple of months and see how you do!
I'll also reiterate that Hinojosa is no fan of mine (come on, would you be if you were him?). He's openly expressed disdain for this website and for what we do here. So I have no personal motive for defending him. That said: I'll tell you that his dedication to this District exceeds the two who have preceded him. He makes mistakes as do all of us; and he's in a no-win situation given his circumstances.
Remember: these things are not his fault. They are his responsibility. We need to recognize the difference.]
Going To The State
There might be one last form of defense for people like Mr. Hughes.
File a complaint with the state?
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/Complaints/index_AllComplaints.html
You can file one on a district employee that has violated the Code of Ethics.
http://www.sbec.state.tx.us/SBECOnline/investdisc/faq.asp?width=1280&hei...
http://www.sbec.state.tx.us/SBECOnline/coe/filecomp.asp
Don't know if this helps, but hey looking bad in front of Dallas School board is nothing hen you're looking at the state board.
[Ed Note: Mr. Hughes needs to seek advice of counsel.]
Complaints
Oh, he has counsel, alright. However, complaints take forever. And hmmm, the State? Let's see, who oh, who appoints them?
His best course is the public domain. It is amazing that when the press and the people keep asking about something, it happens. Plus, he is not the only one that has been worked over here. Previous postings have told how DISD operates.
If anything, maybe another call to the FBI--with a complaint of a violation of his civil rights--might help.
And again, folks, will you get off your butts and go vote next time? Will you help get accountable board trustees elected?
[Ed Note: It has been my experience that a violation of one's civil rights are usually best handled by a lawyer in a courtroom--unless it is an unusually high-profile case.
The FBI has more pressing things to attend to--like putting former CIOs and District officials in jail :) ]