Board's Intervention Problem - September 22, 2021

The Board's Intervention problem

A little background: Jenny Morace, a concerned SBISD mom, hired a superstar lawyer named Andy Taylor (not the sheriff!) to intervene in the lawsuit filed by Virginia Elizondo (intervention: the entry into a lawsuit by a third party who was not named as an original party but has a personal stake in the outcome). Taylor, an election law attorney whose clients include the State of Texas, filed Morace's motion to intervene on September 3. My guess is that Morace (rightly) believed that 6 of the 7 current board members would make only a public show of fighting this lawsuit. If allowed, the intervention is like having a second defense to the lawsuit. I've read the motion multiple times- it's the real deal.

I’m going to jump right into what happened last night. There was a SBISD regular board meeting. The Board considered, in closed executive session (meaning we don’t get to hear), their position on whether to agree or object to the Intervention filed by Morace. (Spoiler alert: the Board doesn't want Morace in this lawsuit.) While Judge Hoyt will ultimately make the final decision about whether or not the intervention will be granted, the Board's position on her Intervention tells us where their collective head is in fighting this lawsuit. The fact that a response in opposition was ready to be filed last night by SBISD lawyers at Thompson & Horton (affectionately referred to as T&H) tells me all I need to know.

Let’s dive into this and really examine the sequence of events: the Board had a deadline of September 20 to give Judge Hoyt a response about whether they had an opposition to the Intervention. T&H waited until September 20’s evening executive session to discuss this important decision with their client, the Board. As late as 9 p.m., the Board was meeting in executive session to presumably confer with their attorneys about the law and the pros and cons of the intervention. Then, the trustees had a decision to make. At 11:12 p.m., T&H filed their motion to OPPOSE Morace's intervention (I called Judge Hoyt’s clerk today to find out the time it was filed). Their legal response was (already?) written and filed in a very short amount of time which raises more questions than answers. Good lawyers don't wait a few hours before a response motion is due to a federal judge to confer with their client. Given this sequence of events, does the Board really wonder why the voters/parents/taxpayers don't trust them to defend this lawsuit?

Concerned parents, including me, showed up last night to speak during the public comment section of the meeting and tell the Board how we felt. We urged the Board to allow the Intervention, but once again, they listened stone-faced and then disregarded our wishes behind closed doors. As I argued in my whopping 2 minute comment (Prez Chris Gonzalez's time limit), there is no legal or strategic reason to oppose this intervention. The logical conclusion is that the majority of the trustees don't want Morace to have a voice in this lawsuit because they aren't going to vigorously defend it.

At multiple board meetings, I have urged the Board to go on the record with their position on whether or not they believe our current system is worth defending or whether they want to pander to Elizondo and Abrams and force SMDs down our throats. To date, only Chris Earnest is willing to say what he thinks- that he is strongly opposed to SMDs. The Board's refusal to tell the voters their position on the most consequential lawsuit in decades coupled with the majority vote last night to oppose Morace’s Intervention tells me that this Board has turned their backs on us.

"When someone shows you who they are, believe them." -- Maya Angelou

LA

#lawyermom #4SBISD #collectivegreatness

Posted on 22 Sep 2021, 15:41 - Category: Facebook Blog