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*****
7 comments:
I saw you on the recent updated journals was looking for some journal buddies. You can comment me back on either one of my journals. Hope your havign a good day take care!
Did this already get printed in the newspaper? I must have missed it.
Can you or your sister, either one, explain to me how disclosing information from the closed session is legal? Just wondering. I've always been told that discussing ANYTHING that happened in an executive session is illegal. If this article is published in the newspaper as it is on the web, I would be expecting to hear from a lawyer if I were your sister. Please help me understand your side on this. Thanks.
To Another Norwegian: I went to the Texas Attorney General Website for information on the Texas Open Meetings Act and closed session rules. According to the law: Persons who are present at a closed (executive) meeting are not prohibited afterwards from talking about the SUBJECT MATTER of the closed session, thus ensuring there is no issue of violating a person's right to free speech as quaranteed under the First Amendent of the United States Constitution. Persons attending a closed session are not prohibited from talking about their recollections of the SUBJECT MATTER of the closed session unless it is a matter of privacy laws or policy concerns. The records--the certified agenda of the closed session or the tape recording of the closed session--are confidential and available for public inspection only under a court order in a lawsuit alleging violations of the act. Disclosing the certified agenda or the tape recording of a closed session (unless under court order in a lawsuit ) WOULD be breaking the law. TALKING ABOUT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF A CLOSED SESSION WOULD NOT BE BREAKING THE LAW. See Tex. Atty Gen Op. No JM-1071 (1989) Website: http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/jm1071.pdf
FYI: When you click on the website address for the Opinion listed below, it will say File not found, but you will be on the Attorney General's Office website. Click on SEARCH, then click on OPINIONS, then type in JM1071 and you can access the Opinion JM1071 and read it in its entirety--for yourself. The Attorney Genral's Office Handbook says the same thing. Not hard to understand ---most people MISTAKENLY believe you can't talk about a closed session--- But they are wrong! You CAN talk about the subject matter of the closed session. How about that! Folks learned something new! For the record, Evan Moore published only a small portion of this statement in his newspaper a few weeks ago, though it certainly would not have been breaking the law to have published all of it. Any more questions?
Please define SUBJECT MATTER. I understand that to mean that you can say you discussed 'personnel' or 'student discipline'. That's all I would think it means. I still don't think it is legal to discuss outside of an executive session the things that you have printed. If it is, then why would any board, city council, etc... go into a closed session if members are going to go out and tell what was said? There is something illegal in the whole thing or TASB, HOTCOG, and other such organizations wouldn't spend so much time teaching about it. Can you enlighten me? Thank you.
You seem to be an educated person--unlike those stupid folks from Cranfills Gap and Clifton who are not capable of understanding that "violations" means "breaking the law". You can research it for yourself on the web. Start with the Open Meetings Act Handbook from the Office of the Attorney General. I find it ironic that I answer your questions, but you ignore mine. You are lucky I will even talk to you.
Post a Comment