Statement by Sue Lee

NOTE:     The following is the original statement sent by Sue Lee to the Bosque County News for publication--all or part---concerning the investigation of former Cranfills Gap School Superintendent Carla Sigler and Cranfills Gap School Board members Kenny Wiese, Jeff Rose, Kathie Witte, Shelly Stuart, Virgil Tindall, and Ray Sorrels by the Texas Attorney General's Office. Only a portion of this statement was published by the Bosque County News.

Charges that violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act had occurred on May 25th, 2007, in the handling of the case of banned valedictorian Kaitlan Head were brought by her aunt Sue Lee, also a Cranfills Gap School Board member, against Sigler and other Cranfills Gap School Board members. These charges had been investigated by the Bosque County District Attorney, who subsequently found the charges to have merit and turned the investigation over to the Attorney General's Office.

The following are the words of Sue Lee:    

"In January 2008, Assistant Attorney General Harry White, of the Criminal Prosecutions Divisions of the Office of the Texas Attorney General, and Investigator Lance Idol, of the Criminal Law Enforcement Division of the Texas Attorney General's Office, came to Cranfills Gap  to talk to school board members concerning violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act that occurred at a May 25th, 2007, school board meeting. Mr. White and Mr. Idol met individually with Cranfills Gap School Board members Kenny Wiese, Jeff Rose, Shelly Stuart, Virgil Tindall, Ray Sorrels, and Sue Lee. Board member Kathie Witte was unavailable.

The Assistant Attorney General and the Investigator spoke to the other board members before they spoke to me. Mr. White and Mr. Idol told me--and with their permission, I wrote it down---that while there were serious violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act to warrant this investigation, there was not enough evidence to sustain a CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, that the Attorney General's Office could not prove intent to violate the open meetings act, as the other board members said they had tried to call the school attorney in the second closed session, but could not get hold of him.

I asked Mr. White what was he talking about, as we had never tried to call our attorney in the second closed session.  Again, Mr. White said that the board members had said they had tried to call their attorney but could not get hold of him.

 It is not true that the board tried to call our attorney and could not get hold of him in that second closed session. At no time did we make any attempt to call our attorney--EVER--in that last closed session, and the attorney was not present. That was the violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act!

You can't legally go into closed session for Consultation with Attorney and not talk to your attorney! We had talked to the school attorney on the phone not twenty minutes earlier, to see if the board could close this meeting to the public. We could not! Our attorney said it had to be held in open session if so requested by the Head family.

Now the other board members are saying we tried to call our attorney during that second closed session, but we could not get hold of him?  He is now suddenly unavailable? I don't think so!

We NEVER tried to call the attorney, and he was not present! What we did do in the second closed session was illegally discuss the Head case and what we would do about it!  New evidence that the Heads never got to see was presented illegally. Board President Kenny Wiese actually asked me, "What is it that your brother (Kaitlan's father) wants?"  I told Kenny that  Kaitlan's father wanted Kaitlan to get her diploma, her valedictorian status, no DAEP as punishment--- as it was not deserved, as three days suspension was all that the law allowed as punishment for fighting---- and to participate in graduation.

Under the Texas Open Meetings Act, you cannot deliberate or discuss in closed session a case that has been called for open session. BUT WE DID!  Many people are not aware that Kaitlan was not going to be allowed to graduate if she did not go to DAEP,  as ordered by then-Superintendent Carla Sigler.

 It took a letter from the Head family stating that Kaitlan's rights would be violated if she did not receive a hearing before graduation to even get the May 25th hearing. Carla Sigler told Kaitlan she could have a hearing on June 1st,   SIX   DAYS   AFTER   GRADUATION!   What's the point of a June 1st hearing---Graduation is already over!?!

Carla Sigler illegally refused to put Kaitlan's case on the May meeting agenda, even when asked to do so by then-School Board President Jerry Jennings and two other board members. School Board policy states that any board member can put anything on the agenda. Sigler instead posted a May meeting that would only canvas the school board votes and install new officers. At that time, I told Carla Sigler, "It looks like you are trying to run the clock out on Kaitlan."  Sigler replied, "That's a possibility!".

The Bosque County District Attorney and the Texas Attorney General's Office spent a lot of time on this investigation. I am sure they did a thorough investigation. The Gap school now has a really good superintendent, Mr. James Scott. He has already implemented plans to help enrollment and community forums to help relations with the community through open communications."

*****END OF STATEMENT BY SUE LEE*****

FED-UP!!!!

My last entry was the article printed in the newspaper Bosque County News that stated the Attorney General's Office had found Texas Open Meetings Act laws were violated by former Cranfills Gap School Superintendent Carla Sigler and Cranfills Gap School Board members Kenny Wiese, Jeff Rose, Kathie Witte, Shelly Stuart, Virgil Tindall, and Ray Sorrels in the May 25th, 2007 special board meeting. 

Sigler had attempted to expel valedictorian Kaitlan Head, strip her of her valedictorian status, not allow her to participate in her graduation ceremony, and not allow her to even graduate from high school for a fight Kaitlan had been involved in with salutatorian Sarah Sellers on May 9th, 2007.

Even though Sarah admitted starting the fight by escalating it from a verbal altercation by striking the first blow, she was not even sent to the office and received no punishment at all. Kaitlan was the only one punished, and she was punished excessively and beyond what state law and Gap school policy called for.

 Sigler refused to grant Kaitlan an appeal of the decision before June 1st----SIX DAYS AFTER GRADUATION!!!  Kaitlan's father then hired  attorney John Cullar, who forced a special meeting on May 25th, 2007. Kaitlan's family desired the meeting be held in open session, which is their right under the open meetings act.

 At this meeting, Sigler and the school board violated the law by going into closed session TWICE--- even though told by Kaitlan's attorney John Cullar and Evan Moore of the Bosque County News that it was illegal ---each time, supposedly to call the school attorney, who was not present.  

In the first closed session, the school attorney was called. He advised the board they were breaking the law by going into closed session if the Head family wanted it held in open session. 

In the second closed session--twenty minutes later-- the school attorney was NEVER CALLED----NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO CALL HIM, though it was stated that was the purpose, another violation of the law. Instead of attempting to call the attorney, more violations then occurred in closed session when the board discussed the Head case and Sigler presented illegal, irrelevant, and inadmissable "new evidence" against Kaitlan.

I believe Sigler wanted only school board members --and no one else--to see it. If  presented in open session, this "new evidence" would have been disproved and disallowed, and Sigler couldn't let that happen. Sigler and Gap school board President Kenny Wiese insisted on having the second illegal closed session ---where no attempt was made to call the attorney, who would have most likely told them that legally the "new evidence" was inadmissable, irrelevant, had been disproved, and could not be used against Kaitlan. 

That supposedly "new evidence" had been illegally withheld from Kaitlan and her attorney by Carla Sigler and the Gap school board. This "new evidence"  was never seen by the Head family until they obtained it in the fall of 2007 from new School Superintendent James Scott.

 The school attorney could have told them that this "new evidence" legally could and should have been presented in the open session.  The school attorney knows the law and is paid big bucks to advise the school board, so that laws are not broken, unintentionally or on purpose. But I don't think Sigler and the school board cared whether they broke the law or not.

 Sigler and the school board knew that Kaitlan Head had retained an attorney who had threatened a lawsuit if Kaitlan was denied due process under the law and had forced a special meeting. It is incomprehensible and just not credible that the school attorney would not be present at that meeting. But he was in fact not there.

The school attorney would have advised Sigler and the school board on the legality of all their actions, if he had been there in person. But he was not present. Why wasn't he there, in person? I believe he was told his presence was not required, so laws could purposely be broken, and Kaitlan Head's case could be handled any way Sigler and the school board chose to handle it---- whether legal or not--- and then they could later plead they didn't know their actions were illegal. 

 I don't think Sigler or the school board cared whether Kaitlan Head, child and student in their care, was treated fairly under the law. I also think Sigler and the school board had illegally discussed the case without board member Sue Lee present, had illegally "premeditated" the case, and had illegally reached a decision before the meeting.

 I also think the school board had decided previously to vote as one---against Sue Lee--- that whatever they decided beforehand would be the outcome, no matter what occurred at the meeting or who objected. (Proof of this is Virgil Tindall being heard on the tape recording of the meeting----in open session----asking Jeff Rose to tell him how the school board is supposed to vote on this one--asking are we for it or against it?)

 It is my opinion that Sigler and the school board thought they could do whatever they wished to Kaitlan Head and to Sue Lee--whether it broke the law or not---that there was nothing anyone could do to stop them-- and that there would be no consequences for their actions.  

 To my dying day, I will believe the malicious, illegal actions that Carla Sigler and Cranfills Gap School Board members Kenny Wiese, Jeff Rose, Kathie Witte, Shelly Stuart, Virgil Tindall, and Ray Sorrels took against child and student Kaitlan Head were done purposely in vindictive retaliation against her aunt, Sue Lee. Sadly, many of the facts of the matter support my belief.

In a recent meeting, Assistant Attorney General Harry White told board member Sue Lee there were serious violations of the law that did warrant an investigation. He also told Sue that board members had told him they had attempted to call the attorney in the second closed session, but could not get hold of him, so there was no proof of intent which is necessary for a criminal prosecution. 

 Board member Sue Lee was present at the second closed session and  knew that NO attempt had been made to call the attorney. Sue Lee knew that stating there was an attempt to call the school attorney was a LIE. Gap school board members lied to effectively remove the intent necessary for a criminal prosecution. Thus, the case against the Cranfills Gap school board ends with serious violations of the law, but no criminal prosecutions.

A comment was left under my entry of the newspaper article by someone calling themselves ""Fed-up". An answering comment was then left by Sue Lee. Here are both comments.

Comment by Fed-Up:   

       "It should also be noted that the Bosque County News doesn't always report the facts. They report the story the way it's going to sell papers. Evan Moore has admitted to that and people other than CGISD have had problems with him over it.  

  I think the Attorney General's Office knows what they're doing. If someone tried to cover something up, they're likely to find out, don't you think? That is their job after all.   

 How do you know laws were broken? Were you personally in that closed session? If you weren't there, this is just second-hand information, and that's only worth a hill of beans."

Answering Comment from Sue Lee:        

    "This is Sue Lee!  I was there! They did break the law! The assistant attorney general told me the other board members said we tried to call our lawyer but could not get hold of him. THAT IS A LIE! 

 I was there, we never tried to call the lawyer at all--NEVER--in that second closed session. Looks to me like the other board members covered their butts!  COWARDS!  

I'm pretty fed-up too --with everybody! Why don't you try to find out some facts before you get so fed-up!"

FOOTNOTE    from ALittleRanchGal:      

  How do I know laws were broken?  Well, for one thing the Attorney General's Office said so. If the Attorney General's Office says laws were broken, then laws were broken.

 For those uneducated, idiotic ignoramuses who don't know, "violations" means  "breaking the law."   "Violations" does not mean "vindicated" or "cleared of wrongdoing."  There was plenty of wrongdoing and plenty of serious violations, and the Attorney General's Office said so. 

 Either Fed-up is pretty darn  stupid not to understand that, or Fed-Up refuses to acknowledge that laws were broken, or  Fed-up is calling  the Attorney General's Office a liar.    Which is it?