Corpus Christi Ethics Commission

International Ethics Festival should address why CCISD does not inform parents of their rights and their children's rights????????????

2008-04-14T02:26:00.000-07:00

Practice Areas

TEXAS JUVENILE LAW

In Texas, juveniles are defined as minors, older than 10 years of age and under the age of 17. Juveniles are treated differently than adult offenders and the general goal of the juvenile system is rehabilitation as opposed to punishment. However, the penalties in the juvenile system can still be severe. Some offenses, such as truancy and breaking curfew, are unique to juveniles, and would not be illegal if the accused were an adult. The juvenile justice system generally moves much more quickly than does the adult criminal justice system. Don't wait to hire a good juvenile defense lawyer to represent your child. Call Attorney David Finn at: 214-651-1121.

There are separate courts and rules that govern the juvenile process. The juvenile court system will generally make every effort to rehabilitate the child rather than simply incarcerate him. Only in extreme cases, such as serious felonies, usually involving allegations of violence or the use of a deadly weapon, will a juvenile be tried as an adult. The juvenile courts may hold a hearing to determine whether to transfer the juvenile to the adult court system. This is called a "transfer hearing." The court will base its decision to transfer on the following factors:

1. The seriousness of the offense
2. The child's criminal sophistication
3. Previous criminal record
4. Previous attempts to rehabilitate the juvenile offender
5. The court's belief that future attempts at rehabilitation will be unsuccessful

While many of the laws governing juveniles may differ from the adult system, the rights that juveniles enjoy are virtually identical to those enjoyed by adults.

1. A juvenile must be read his Miranda rights if placed under arrest.
2. A juvenile has the right to have an attorney present during interrogation.
3. A juvenile has the right to know the specific charges being brought by the State.
4. A juvenile has rights against self-incrimination.
5. A juvenile has the right to confront his accuser and examine witnesses.
6. A juvenile has the right to appeal the court's decision.
7. A juvenile does have the right to a jury trial during the adjudication phase

If a juvenile finds herself in a situation involving the police or other law enforcement, please remember the following information:

1. You do not have to submit to a search unless you have been placed under arrest.

If you are asked to give permission to search you should politely but firmly decline. If the police say they have a search warrant, ask to see it.

2. Do not resist arrest.
3. Do not volunteer information or answer questions without your attorney present.
4. Provide only your name, address, and phone number.
5. Call your parents as soon as possible.
6. Insist that your parents and an attorney be present during questioning.
7. Do not discuss your case with anyone other than your attorney.

Do not discuss your case with your friends or classmates.

Finally, do not attempt to represent yourself in court. Hire an experienced criminal defense attorney, preferably one who is board-certified in criminal law.

Texas Juvenile Justice: Overview

Taking Into Custody; Issuance of Warning Notice: Texas Family Code Section 52.01

A child may be taken into custody: pursuant to an order of the juvenile court; pursuant to the Texas laws for arrest; by a law enforcement officer if there is probable cause to believe that the child has engaged in conduct that violates the penal laws of Texas or any political subdivision or delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision. It is the duty of the law enforcement officer who has taken a child into custody to transport the child to the appropriate detention facility if the child is not released to the parent, guardian, or custodian of the child. If the juvenile detention facility is located outside the county in which the child is taken into custody, it shall be the duty of the law enforcement officer who has taken the child into custody or, if authorized by the commissioners court of the county, the sheriff of that county, to transport the child to the appropriate juvenile detention facility unless the child is released to the parent, guardian, or custodian of the child.

Delinquent Conduct: Conduct Indicating a Need for Supervision:

Texas Family Code Section 51.03

(a) Delinquent conduct is defined as:

1. conduct, other than a traffic offense, that violates a penal law of Texas or of the United States punishable by imprisonment or by confinement in jail;
2. conduct that violates a lawful order of a municipal court or justice court under circumstances that would constitute contempt of that court;
3. conduct that constitutes: Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), Flying While Intoxicated, Boating While Intoxicated, Intoxication Assault, Intoxication Manslaughter, and Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol by a minor (DUI).

(b) Conduct indicating a need for supervision includes:

1. conduct, other than a traffic offense, that violates the penal laws of Texas of the grade of misdemeanor that are punishable by a fine only (class c-misdemeanors); the penal ordinances of any political subdivision of Texas; the absence of a child on 10 or more days or parts of days within a 6 month period in the same school year or on 3 or more days or parts of days within a 4 week period from school; the voluntary absence of a child from the child's home without the consent of the child's parents or guardian for a substantial length of time or without intent to return; conduct prohibited by city ordinance or by state law involving the inhalation of the fumes or vapors of paint; or an act that violates a school district's previously communicated written standards of student conduct for which the child has been expelled under Section 37.007(c), Texas Education Code.

Release from Detention: Texas Family Code Section 53.02

(a) If a child is brought before the court or delivered to a detention facility, the intake or other authorized officer of the court shall immediately make an investigation and shall release the child unless it appears that his detention is warranted under subsection (b), below.

The release may be conditioned upon requirements reasonably necessary to insure the child's appearance at later proceedings, but the conditions of the release must be in writing and filed with the office or official designated by the court and a copy furnished to the child.

(b) A child taken into custody may be detained prior to hearing on the petition only if:

1. the child is likely to abscond or be removed from the court's jurisdiction;
2. suitable supervision, care, or protection for the child is not being provided by a parent, guardian, custodian, or other person;
3. the child has no parent, guardian, custodian, or other person able to return the child to the court when required;
4. the child may be dangerous to himself or herself or the child may threaten the safety of the public if released;
5. the child has previously been found to be a delinquent child or has previously been convicted of a penal offense punishable by a term in jail or prison and is likely to commit an offense if released; or
6. the child's detention is required under subsection (f), below.

(c) If the child is not released, a request for detention hearing shall be made and promptly presented to the court, and an informal detention hearing shall be held promptly, but not later than the second working day after the child is taken into custody. If the child is taken into custody on a Friday or Saturday, then the detention hearing shall be held on the first working day after the child is taken into custody.

(d) A release of a child to an adult must be conditioned on the agreement of the adult to be subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and to an order of contempt by the court if the adult, after notification, is unable to produce the child at later proceedings.

(e) If a child being released under this section is expelled from school in a county with a population greater than 125,000, the release shall be conditioned on the child's attending a juvenile justice alternative education program pending a deferred prosecution or formal court disposition of the child's case.

(f) A child who is alleged to have engaged in delinquent conduct and to have used, possessed, or exhibited a firearm in the commission of the offense shall be detained until the child is released at the direction of the judge of the juvenile court, a substitute judge, or a referee appointed, including an oral direction by telephone, or until a detention hearing is held.

Detention Hearing: Texas Family Code Section 54.01

(a) Generally speaking, a detention hearing without a jury shall be held promptly, but not later than the second working day after the child is taken into custody; provided, however, that when a child is detained on a Friday or Saturday, then such detention hearing shall be held on the first working day after the child is taken into custody.

(b) Reasonable notice of the detention hearing, either oral or written, shall be given, stating the time, place, and purpose of the hearing. Notice shall be given to the child and, if they can be found, to his parents, guardian, or custodian. Prior to the beginning of the hearing, the court shall inform the parties of the child's right to counsel and to appointed counsel if they are indigent and of the child's right to remain silent with respect to any allegations of delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision.

(c) At the detention hearing, the court may consider written reports from probation officers, professional court employees, or by professional consultants in addition to the testimony of witnesses. Prior to the detention hearing, the court shall provide the attorney for the child with access to all written matter to be considered by the court in making the detention decision. The court may order counsel not to reveal items to the child or his parents if such disclosure would materially harm the treatment and rehabilitation of the child or would substantially decrease the likelihood of receiving information from the same or similar sources in the future.

(d) A detention hearing may be held without the presence of the child's parents if the court has been unable to locate them. If no parent or guardian is present, the court shall appoint counsel or a guardian ad litem for the child.

(e) At the conclusion of the hearing the court shall order the child released from detention unless it appears that he is likely to abscond, suitable supervision is not being provided to the child, he has no parent or guardian able to return the child to court when required, he may be dangerous to himself or others, or he has previously been found to be a delinquent child or has been previously convicted of a penal offense higher than a Class C misdemeanor and is likely to commit an offense if released. If the judge concludes that the child should be detained, the detention order extends for no more than 10 working days. Further detention orders may be made following subsequent detention hearings. The initial detention hearing may not be waived, but subsequent detention hearing may be waived.

Note: No statement made by the child at the detention hearing shall be admissible against the child at any other hearing.

Preliminary Investigation & Determinations; Notice to Parents:

Texas Family Code Section 53.01

On referral of a child, the intake officer, probation officer, or other person authorized by the court shall conduct a preliminary investigation to determine whether the person referred is a child and whether there is probable cause to believe that the child engaged in delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision. If it is determined that the person is not a child or there is no probable cause, the person shall immediately be released. The child's parents are to promptly receive notice of the whereabouts of the child and also a statement explaining why the child was taken into custody. If the child is alleged to have engaged in delinquent conduct of the grade of felony, or conduct constituting a misdemeanor offense involving violence to a person or the use or possession of a firearm, illegal knife, or club, then the case is immediately forwarded to the office of the prosecuting attorney.

Summons: Texas Family Code Section 53.06

The juvenile court shall direct issuance of a summons to the child named in the petition, the child's parents, guardian, or custodian, the child's guardian ad litem, and any other person who appears to the court to be a proper or necessary party to the proceeding. A party, other than the child, may waive service of summons by written stipulation or by voluntary appearance at the hearing.

Service of Summons: Texas Family Code Section 53.07

If a person to be served with a summons is in Texas and can be found, the summons shall be served upon him personally at least 2 days before the adjudication hearing. If he is in Texas but cannot be found, but his address is known or can be ascertained, the summons may be served on him by mailing a copy by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, at least 5 days before the day of the hearing. If he is outside Texas but can be found or his address is known, service of the summons may be made either by delivering a copy to him personally or mailing a copy to him by registered mail, return receipt requested, at least 5 days before the day of the adjudication hearing.

Attendance at Hearing: Parent or Other Guardian: Texas Family Code Section 51.115

Parents or guardians of a child are required by law to attend each court hearing affecting a child held under: possible transfer to criminal district/adult court; adjudication hearing; disposition hearing; hearing to modify disposition; release or transfer hearing. If a parent or guardian receives notice of any of these proceedings and is a resident of Texas, failure to appear could result in a fine for contempt of court.

Photographs & Fingerprints of Children: Texas Family Code Sections 58.002-0021

With limited exceptions, a child may not be photographed or fingerprinted without the consent of the juvenile court unless the child is taken into custody or referred to the juvenile court for conduct that constitutes a felony or a misdemeanor punishable by confinement in jail (which means a Class A or Class B misdemeanor). However, this prohibition does not prohibit law enforcement from photographing or fingerprinting a child who is not in custody if the child's parent or guardian voluntarily consents in writing. Furthermore, this prohibition does not apply to fingerprints that are required or authorized to be submitted or obtained for an application for a driver's license or personal identification card.

Note/Exception to General Rule stated above: Law enforcement may take temporary custody of a child to take the child's fingerprints if the officer: has probable cause to believe that the child has engaged in delinquent conduct; the officer has investigated that conduct and found other fingerprints during the investigation; and the officer has probable cause to believe that the child's fingerprints will match the other fingerprints. Law enforcement may take temporary custody of a child to take the child's photograph if the officer: has probable cause to believe that the child has engaged in delinquent conduct; and the officer has probable cause to believe that the child's photograph will be of material assistance in the investigation of the conduct. However, in either instance, unless the child then placed under arrest, the child must be released from temporary custody as soon as the fingerprints or photographs are obtained.

Waiver of Rights: Texas Family Code Section 51.09

Unless a contrary intent clearly appears elsewhere in the Family Code, any right granted to a child by this Section or by the constitution or laws of Texas or the United States may be waived in proceedings under this section if:

1. the waiver is made by the child and the attorney for the child;
2. the child and the attorney waiving the right are informed of and understand the right and the possible consequences of waiving it;
3. the waiver is voluntary; and
4. the waiver is made in writing or in court proceedings that are recorded.

Polygraph Examination: Texas Family Code Section 51.151

If a child is taken into custody pursuant to an order of the juvenile court or pursuant to the laws of arrest by a law enforcement officer, a person may not administer a polygraph examination to the child without the consent of the child's attorney or the juvenile court unless the child is transferred to a criminal district court for prosecution in the adult system. Bottom line: Do not consent to a polygraph examination without consulting with your lawyer.

Physical or Mental Examination: Texas Family Code Section 51.20

(a) At any stage of the proceedings the juvenile court may order a child who is referred to the juvenile court or who is alleged by a petition or found to have engaged in delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision to be examined by the local mental health or mental retardation authority or another appropriate expert, including a physician, psychiatrist, or psychologist.

(b) If, after conducting an examination of a child and reviewing any other relevant information, there is reason to believe that the child has a mental illness or mental retardation, the probation department shall refer the child to the local mental health or mental retardation authority for evaluation and services, unless the prosecutor has filed a court petition against the child alleging delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision.

Election Between Juvenile Court & Alternate Juvenile Court:

Texas Family Code Section 51.18

(a) This section applies only to a child who has a right to a trial before a juvenile court the judge of which is not an attorney licensed to practice in Texas.

(b) On any matter that may lead to an order appealable under Section 56.01 of the Family Code, a child may be tried before either the juvenile court or the alternate juvenile court.

(c) The child may elect to be tried before the alternate juvenile court only if the child files a written notice with that court not later than 10 days before the date of the trial. After the notice is filed, the child may be tried only in the alternate juvenile court. If the child does not file a notice as provided by this section, the child may be tried only in the juvenile court.

(d) If the child is tried before the juvenile court, the child is not entitled to a trial de novo before the alternate juvenile court.

Transfer/Waiver: Texas Family Code Section 54.02

The juvenile court may waive its exclusive original jurisdiction and transfer a child to the appropriate criminal district court to be tried as an adult if the child is alleged to have violated a penal law of the grade of felony if the child was 14 years of age or older at the time he is alleged to have committed the offense, if the offense is a capital felony, an aggravated controlled substance felony, or a felony of the first degree; or 15 years of age or older at the time the child is alleged to have committed the offense, if the offense is a felony of the second or third degree or a state jail felony.

The juvenile court judge is not required to certify a child to stand trial as an adult. It's a judgment call. The juvenile court judge will investigate the matter and hold a hearing on the transfer request. The judge orders a complete diagnostic study, social evaluation, and a full investigation of the child, his circumstances, and the circumstances of the alleged offense. At the transfer hearing the court may consider written reports from probation officers, professional court employees, or professional consultants in addition to the testimony of witnesses. In making her decision whether to transfer the case to the adult court, the judge considers: (1) whether the alleged offense was against person or property, with greater weight in favor of transfer given to offenses against a person; (2) the sophistication and maturity of the child; (3) the record and previous history of the child; and (4) the prospects of adequate protection of the public and the likelihood of the rehabilitation of the child by use or procedures, services, and facilities currently available to the juvenile court.

Determinate Sentencing: Texas Family Code Section 53.045

If a child is accused of a very serious criminal violation, or habitual felony conduct (see section below), the prosecutor can pursue what is called determinate sentencing. In order to pursue determinate sentencing the prosecutor files a petition with the grand jury, basically asking the grand jury to grant the prosecutor's request to pursue determinate sentencing if the child is convicted. If 9 members of the grand jury approve the petition, then determinate sentencing becomes a viable sentencing option for the judge/jury if the child is convicted of the offense. Determinate sentencing doesn't mean that the child will be tried as an adult in a criminal district court. The case remains in the juvenile court even if the grand jury grants the request for determinate sentencing. but the stakes for the child are raised dramatically if the grand jury grants the prosecutor's petition for determinate sentencing.

Eligibility: The prosecutor can pursue determinate sentencing if the child is charged with habitual felony conduct, or if the child is charged with any of the following offenses:

capital murder, murder, manslaughter, aggravated kidnapping, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, aggravated assault, aggravated robbery, injury to a child, elderly, or disabled individual if punishable as a felony other than a state jail felony, felony deadly conduct involving the discharge of a firearm, aggravated controlled substance felony, criminal solicitation of a minor, indecency with a child, arson, if bodily injury or death is suffered by any person by reason of the commission of the arson, intoxication manslaughter, or attempted murder or attempted capital murder. If your child is charged with one of the offenses listed above, she is eligible for determinate sentencing even if this is her first offense.

Impact: If the grand jury grants the prosecutor's request to impose determinate sentencing, and the child is convicted of habitual felony conduct or any of the offenses listed above, then the court or jury may sentence the child to commitment in the Texas Youth Commission with a possible transfer to the institutional division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (adult prison system) for a term of: up to 40 years if the conduct constitutes a capital felony, first-degree felony, or an aggravated controlled substance felony; up to 20 years if the conduct constitutes a second-degree felony; and up to 10 years if the conduct constitutes a third-degree felony. So instead of being sent to the Texas Youth Commission until the child turns 18, determinate sentencing would allow the child to be sentenced to up to 40 years in the adult prison system by a judge or jury.

Habitual Felony Conduct: Texas Family Code Section 51.031

(a) Habitual felony conduct is conduct violating a penal law of the grade of felony, other than a state jail felony, if:

1. the child who engaged in the conduct has at least 2 previous final adjudications as having engaged in delinquent conduct violating a penal law of the grade of felony; and,
2. the second previous final adjudication is for conduct that occurred after the date the first previous adjudication became final; and,
3. all appeals relating to the previous adjudications have been exhausted.

Review by Prosecutor: Texas Family Code Section 53.012

The prosecuting attorney shall promptly review the circumstances and allegations of a referral made to her for legal sufficiency and the desirability of prosecution and may file a petition without regard to whether probable cause was found during the court's preliminary investigation.

If the prosecutor does not file a petition requesting the adjudication of the child referred to the prosecutor, the prosecutor must terminate all proceedings, if the reason is for the lack of probable cause; or return the referral to the juvenile probation department for further proceedings.

The prosecutors have considerable discretion and control over your child's case.

Deferred Prosecution: Texas Family Code Section 53.03

(a) Subject to subsections (e) and (g) below, if the preliminary investigation results in a determination that further proceedings in the case are authorized, the probation officer or other designated officer of the court, subject to the direction of the juvenile court, may advise the parties for a reasonable period of time not to exceed 6 months concerning deferred prosecution and rehabilitation of a child if:

1. deferred prosecution would be in the best interest of the public and child;
2. the child and her parent, guardian, or custodian consent with knowledge that consent is not obligatory; and
3. the child and his parent, guardian, or custodian are informed that they may terminate the deferred prosecution at any point and petition the court for a court hearing in the case.

(b) Except as otherwise permitted, the child may not be detained during or as a result of the deferred prosecution process.

(c) An incriminating statement made by a participant to the person giving advice and in the discussion or conferences incident thereto may not be used against the declarant in any court hearing.

(d) The court may adopt a fee schedule for deferred prosecution services. The maximum fee is $15 per month.

(e) The prosecuting attorney may defer prosecution for any child. A probation officer or other designated officer of the court may defer prosecution for a child who has previously been adjudicated for conduct that constitutes a felony only if the prosecuting attorney consents in writing.

(f) The probation officer or other officer supervising a program of deferred prosecution for a child shall report to the juvenile court any violation by the child of the program.

(g) Prosecution may not be deferred for a child alleged to have engaged in conduct that constitutes: driving/flying/boating while intoxicated, intoxication assault, intoxication manslaughter, or that constitutes a third or subsequent offense of consumption of alcohol by a minor or driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) of a minor.

First Offender Program: Texas Family Code Section 52.031

A juvenile board may establish a first offender program for the referral and disposition of children taken into custody for: (1) conduct indicating a need for supervision; or (2) delinquent conduct other than conduct that constitutes a felony of the first, second, or third degree, an aggravated controlled substance felony, or a capital felony; or a state jail felony or misdemeanor involving violence to a person or the use or possession of a firearm, illegal knife, or club, or a prohibited weapon, as described by Section 46.05, Texas Penal Code. If the child has previously been adjudicated as having engaged in delinquent conduct he may be ineligible for the First Offender Program. Also, the child's parents or guardian must receive notice that the child has been referred for disposition under the First Offender Program.

Teen Court Program: Texas Family Code Section 54.032

A juvenile court may defer adjudication proceedings during an adjudication hearing for not more than 180 days if the child:

(1) is alleged to have engaged in conduct indicating a need for supervision that violated a penal law of Texas of the grade of misdemeanor that is punishable by a fine only or a penal ordinance of a political subdivision of Texas;

(2) waives the privilege against self-incrimination and testifies under oath that the allegations are true;

(3) presents to the court an oral or written request to attend a teen court program; and

(4) has not successfully completed a teen court program for the violation of the same penal law or ordinance in the two years preceding the date that the alleged conduct occurred.

Note: The teen court program must be approved by the court.

Adjudication Hearing: Texas Family Code Section 54.03

This is what is commonly referred to as the "guilty-not guilty" phase of a trial. A child may be found to have engaged in delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision only after an adjudication hearing. The child is presumed innocent unless and until the prosecution proves that the child is guilty of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is on the state. The verdict must be unanimous.

At the beginning of an adjudication hearing the juvenile court judge shall explain to the child and his parent, guardian, or guardian ad litem: the allegations made against the child; the nature and possible consequences of the proceedings; the child's privilege against self-incrimination; the child's right to trial and to confront witnesses; the child's right to representation by an attorney if he is not already represented; and the child's right to a trial by jury.

Only material, relevant, and competent evidence in accordance with the Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence may be considered in an adjudication hearing. Hearsay testimony is generally not admissible. A statement made by the child out of court is insufficient to support a finding of delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision unless it is corroborated in whole or in part by other evidence. An adjudication of delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision cannot be had upon testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the child with the alleged delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the alleged conduct. Finally, evidence illegally seized or obtained is inadmissible in an adjudication hearing.

A child may be found guilty of committing a lesser-included offense of the offense charged.

If the judge or jury finds that the child did engage in delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision, then the court or jury shall state which of the allegations in the petition were found to be established by the evidence. The court will then set a date and time for the disposition hearing.

If the judge or jury finds that the child did not engage in delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision, the court shall dismiss the case with prejudice.

Disposition Hearing: Texas Family Code Section 54.04

This term can be confusing. What we're talking about here is the "sentencing" phase of the proceedings. The disposition hearing only comes into play if the child has been found guilty of the delinquent conduct or criminal activity alleged in the petition. If the child is found not guilty of all allegations during the adjudication hearing then there is no disposition hearing.

The disposition hearing is separate, distinct, and subsequent to the adjudication hearing. There is no right to a jury at the disposition hearing unless the child is in jeopardy of a determinate sentence as approved by the grand jury. If the child is eligible for determinate sentencing, then the child is entitled to a jury of 12 persons to determine the sentence.

At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court may consider written reports from probation officers, professional court employees, or professional consultants in addition to the testimony of witnesses. Prior to the disposition hearing, the child's lawyer is to have received all written matter to be considered in disposition. No disposition may be made unless the child is in need of rehabilitation or the protection of the public or the child requires that disposition be made. No disposition placing the child on probation outside the child's home may be made under this section unless the court or jury finds that the child, in the child's home, cannot be provided the quality of care and level of support and supervision that the child needs to meet the conditions of probation. If the judge or jury grant probation, the court will attach various conditions of the probation. Depending on the nature of the charges and the child's criminal history, if probation is not granted, the child could be sentenced to a term of confinement in the Texas Youth Commission.

Payment of Probation Fees: Texas Family Code Section 54.061

If a child is placed on probation, the juvenile court, after giving the child, parent, or other person responsible for the child's support, a reasonable opportunity to be heard, shall order the child, parent, or other person, if financially able to do so, to pay to the court a fee of not more than $15 a month during the period that the child continues on probation. If the court finds that a child, parent, or other person responsible for the child's support is financially unable to pay the probation fee, the court shall enter into the records of the child's case a statement of that finding.

Monitoring School Attendance: Texas Family Code Section 54.043

If the court places a child on probation and requires as a condition of probation that the child attend school, the probation officer shall monitor the child's school attendance and report to the court if the child is voluntarily absent from school.

Restitution: Texas Family Code Section 54.048

A juvenile court, in a disposition hearing, may order restitution to be made by the child and the child's parents. This applies regardless of whether the petition in the case contains a plea for restitution.

Admission of Unadjudicated Conduct: Section 54.045

During a disposition hearing, a child may admit having engaged in delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision for which the child has not been adjudicated and request the court to take the admitted conduct into account in the disposition of the child's pending case. If the prosecutor agrees in writing, then the court may take the admitted conduct into account in the disposition of the child. However, a court may take into account admitted conduct over with exclusive venue lies in another county only if the court obtains the written permission of the prosecuting attorney for that county. A child may not be adjudicated by any court for having engaged in conduct taken into account under this section unless the conduct taken into account included conduct that took place in another county and the written permission of the prosecuting attorney of that county was not obtained.

Community Service: Texas Family Code Section 54.044

If the court places a child on probation, the court shall require as a condition of probation that the child work a specified number of hours at a community service project approved by the court and designated by the juvenile probation department. This requirement may be waived if the court finds that the child is physically or mentally incapable of participating in the project or that participating in the project will be a hardship on the child or his family or that the child has shown good cause that community service should not be required.

Note: The court may also order that the child's parent perform community service with the child.

Child Placed on Probation for Conduct Involving a Handgun:

Texas Family Code Section 54.0406

(a) If a court or jury places a child on probation for conduct that violates a penal law that includes as an element of the offense the possession, carrying, using, or exhibiting of a handgun, and if at the adjudication hearing the court or the jury affirmatively finds that the child personally possessed, carried, used, or exhibited a handgun, the court must require as a condition of probation that the child, not later than the 30th day after the date the court places the child on probation, notify the juvenile probation officer who is supervising the child of the manner in which the child acquired the handgun, including the date and place of any person involved in the acquisition. The juvenile probation officer is then to relay any relevant information regarding the handgun to the police. Your lawyer should be with you when this takes place.

Note: Information provided by the child to the juvenile probation officer regarding the acquisition of the handgun and any other information derived from that information may not be used as evidence against the child in any juvenile or criminal proceeding.

Rights of Appeal: Warning: Texas Family Code Section 54.034

Before the court may accept a child's plea or stipulation of evidence in a proceeding under this title, the court must inform the child that if the court accepts the plea or stipulation and the court makes a disposition in accordance with the agreement between the state and the child regarding the disposition of the case, the child may not appeal an order of the court pursuant to an adjudication hearing, a disposition hearing, or a hearing to modify disposition, unless the court gives the child permission to appeal; or the appeal is based on a matter raised by written motion filed before the proceeding in which the child entered the plea or agreed to the stipulation of evidence. An appeal from an order of a juvenile court is to the court of appeals and the case may be carried to the Texas Supreme Court by writ of error or upon certificate, as in civil cases generally. The requirements governing a juvenile appeal are as in civil cases generally.

Note: An appeal does not suspend the order of the juvenile court, nor does it release the child from the custody of that court or of the person, institution, or agency to whose care the child is committed, unless the juvenile court so orders. However, the appellate court may provide for a personal bond pending the appeal.

Sealing Juvenile Records: Texas Family Code Section 58.003

One of the most important things that can be done for a juvenile is to get the juvenile records sealed as soon as allowed by law.

The benefits of sealing a child's juvenile records are immense. Once the records are sealed, information relating to the arrest, detention, prosecution, and conviction, are physically sealed and/or destroyed. This means that the child can start adulthood with a "clean" slate. And it also means that the child is authorized by law to say that he has never been convicted.

Section 58.003 of the Texas Family Code provides that, except for juveniles who received a determinate sentence for engaging in delinquent conduct that violated a penal law such as murder, capital murder, manslaughter, aggravated kidnapping, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, aggravated assault, injury to a child/elderly/disabled person, arson, indecency with a child, etc., or engaged in habitual felony conduct, the juvenile records may be sealed if the court finds that 2 years have elapsed since final discharge of the person or since the last official action in the person's case if there was no adjudication; and if since that time the person has not been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude or found to have engaged in delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision and no proceeding is pending seeking conviction or adjudication.

A court may also order the sealing of records concerning a juvenile adjudicated as having engaged in delinquent conduct that violated a penal law of the grade of felony (not including many determinate sentences) if: the person is 21 years of age or older; the person was not transferred by a juvenile court to an adult criminal court for prosecution; the records have not been used as evidence in the punishment phase of a criminal proceeding under Article 37.07, Code of Texas Criminal Procedure; and if the person has not been convicted of a penal law of the grade of felony after becoming age 17.

If a child is referred to the juvenile court for conduct constituting any offense and at the adjudication hearing (guilt/innocence) the child is found to be not guilty of each offense alleged, the court shall immediately order the sealing of all files and records relating to the case.

David Finn is board certified in criminal law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. Call today for a free initial consultation.

School officials will not require students to write statements that can be used to prosecute them in juvenile or criminal court;

2008-03-28T04:04:00.000-07:00

School officials will not require students to write statements that can be used to prosecute them in juvenile or criminal court;

D1: What? You would think "School officials will require students to write statements that can't or be used to prosecute them in juvenile or criminal court;

So much for educating "the Law", "the truth" or any integral derivative there of.

The Texas Legislature has "Crabs at their Dicks" AKA Special Interests that are in constantly itching.

Good the Wives are finally getting them now, so they must be sleeping around the special interests say to the legislature........then "better watch out"!

Under the settlement agreement reached by the parties, the district will enact policies and practices to ensure that the rights of Native American students are not violated and to enrich the educational experience of all students. Among the key terms of the settlement are the following:

* School officials will not require students to write statements that can be used to prosecute them in juvenile or criminal court;
* The district will hire a full-time ombudsperson, nominated by the collective Native American community, to serve as a liaison between Native American families and school officials, especially on disciplinary issues;
* An educational expert will work with school officials and Native American families to set benchmarks on improving Native American graduation rates, reducing levels of suspension and school-based arrests, and improving the overall climate for Native American students, among other goals; the expert will also conduct periodic on-site visits to ensure compliance with the agreement and monitor progress toward the goals;
* A committee of Native American parents and school officials will review all disciplinary incidents every quarter for racial disparities and, if disparities are found and cannot be explained, recommend policy changes to reduce such disparities;
* The Interwest Equity Assistance Center, funded by the U.S. Department of Education, will provide trainings for Winner students on conflict resolution and trainings for teachers on unconscious racial bias and educational equity;
* The schools will include Native American themes in the mainstream curriculum, in-school activities, and after-school activities. Additionally, the district will offer Native American Culture, History and Language class every year in the high school, taught by a Native American instructor.

Participants in the mediation included Native American families named in the class action lawsuit, members of the Winner School Board, the superintendent, and two school principals. The families were represented by the national ACLU and the ACLU of the Dakotas, and Dana L. Hanna, an attorney based in Rapid City. Additionally, the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council and the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Education Department provided assistance and facilitation. The Winner School District was represented by Gunderson, Palmer, Goodsell & Nelson, LLP, in Rapid City.

The settlement agreement will remain in effect until the district substantially complies with its terms for four consecutive years. The federal district court will have jurisdiction over the agreement during this period. The parties will be submitting a proposed consent decree to finalize the settlement, and the court will next consider any objections and decide whether to approve it.

Sec. 36.08. Gift to Public Servant by Person Subject to his Jurisdiction.

2008-01-25T00:56:00.000-08:00

TITLE 8. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
CHAPTER 36. BRIBERY AND CORRUPT INFLUENCE
FastLaws™ Home
Penal Code Table of Contents
Chapter 36 Table of Contents
prior provision
next provision
Sec. 36.08. Gift to Public Servant by Person Subject to his Jurisdiction.
(a) A public servant in an agency performing regulatory functions or conducting inspections or investigations commits an offense if he solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept any benefit from a person the public servant knows to be subject to regulation, inspection, or investigation by the public servant or his agency.
(b) A public servant in an agency having custody of prisoners commits an offense if he solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept any benefit from a person the public servant knows to be in his custody or the custody of his agency.
(c) A public servant in an agency carrying on civil or criminal litigation on behalf of government commits an offense if he solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept any benefit from a person against whom the public servant knows litigation is pending or contemplated by the public servant or his agency.
(d) A public servant who exercises discretion in connection with contracts, purchases, payments, claims, or other pecuniary transactions of government commits an offense if he solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept any benefit from a person the public servant knows is interested in or likely to become interested in any contract, purchase, payment, claim, or transaction involving the exercise of his discretion.
(e) A public servant who has judicial or administrative authority, who is employed by or in a tribunal having judicial or administrative authority, or who participates in the enforcement of the tribunal's decision, commits an offense if he solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept any benefit from a person the public servant knows is interested in or likely to become interested in any matter before the public servant or tribunal.
(f) A member of the legislature, the governor, the lieutenant governor, or a person employed by a member of the legislature, the governor, the lieutenant governor, or an agency of the legislature commits an offense if he solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept any benefit from any person.
(g) A public servant who is a hearing examiner employed by an agency performing regulatory functions and who conducts hearings in contested cases commits an offense if the public servant solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept any benefit from any person who is appearing before the agency in a contested case, who is doing business with the agency, or who the public servant knows is interested in any matter before the public servant. The exception provided by Sec. 36.10(b) does not apply to a benefit under this subsection.
(h) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(i) A public servant who receives an unsolicited benefit that the public servant is prohibited from accepting under this section may donate the benefit to a governmental entity that has the authority to accept the gift or may donate the benefit to a recognized tax-exempt charitable organization formed for educational, religious, or scientific purposes.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 915, ch. 342, Sec. 11, eff. Sept. 1, 1975; Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 3238, ch. 558, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 304, Sec. 4.04, eff. Jan. 1, 1992; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Chapter 174. INDIGENT DEFENSE POLICIES AND STANDARDS

2007-12-30T02:11:00.000-08:00

TITLE 1.ADMINISTRATION

Part 1. OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

Chapter 5. BUDGET AND PLANNING OFFICE

Subchapter B. STATE AND LOCAL REVIEW OF FEDERAL AND STATE ASSISTANCE APPLICATIONS

1. INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL PROVISIONS OF TEXAS REVIEW AND COMMENT SYSTEM

1 TAC §5.195

The Office of the Governor proposes amendments to 1 TAC §5.195, concerning the Texas Review and Comment System. The proposed changes add 25 new programs for review and delete 20 programs that no longer exist or are no longer of widespread interest and conform program numbers to current listings in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. The programs proposed to be added and deleted are based on responses received from all state agencies with Texas Review and Comment System coordinators.

Denise S. Francis, State Single Point of Contact, has determined that for the first five-year period the amendments are in effect there will be no fiscal implications for state or local governments as a result of enforcing or administering the amended section.

Ms. Francis has also determined that for each year of the first five years the amendments are in effect the public benefits anticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the amended section will be a more effective use of public and financial resources and increased information sharing and coordination among affected governmental entities. There will be no effect on small businesses. There is no anticipated economic costs to persons who are required to comply with the amendments as proposed.

Comments on the proposal may be submitted to Denise S. Francis, State Single Point of Contact, Office of the Governor, Budget, Planning and Policy Division, P.O. Box 12428, Austin, Texas 78711, (512) 463-8465, dfrancis@governor.state.tx.us for a period of 30 days following publication.

The amendments are proposed under Government Code, Title 7, §772.004 and §772.005, and the Local Government Code, Chapter 391 (§391.008), which authorizes the Office of the Governor to provide for review of state and local applications for grant and loan assistance and to establish policies and guidelines for review and comment. Chapter 391 of the Local Government Code requires certain applicants for state or federal assistance to submit their applications for review to the appropriate regional planning commissions and directs the governor to issue guidelines for carrying out such reviews.

No statutes are affected by these amendments

§5.195.Program Coverage.

(a) - (b) (No change.)

(c) Federal programs included for review under TRACS pursuant to these laws, plus selected other activities, including all direct federal and state development not specifically excluded by law, are shown, respectively, in Tables I and II. Copies of these tables may be obtained from Ms. Denise S. Francis, State Single Point of Contact, Office of the Governor, Budget, Planning and Policy Division, Post Office Box 12428, Austin, Texas 78711-2428 or dfrancis@governor.state.tx.us. As required by state law (Government Code, §772.005), all state agencies must notify the Office of the Governor when applying for federal funds.

Figure: 1 TAC §5.195(c)

This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's legal authority to adopt.

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on June 1, 2006.

TRD-200602998

Katherine Knight

Assistant General Counsel

Office of the Governor

Earliest possible date of adoption: July 16, 2006

For further information, please call: (512) 463-3471

Part 8. TEXAS JUDICIAL COUNCIL

Chapter 174. INDIGENT DEFENSE POLICIES AND STANDARDS

Subchapter B. CONTRACT DEFENDER PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

The Task Force on Indigent Defense (Task Force) is a permanent Standing Committee of the Texas Judicial Council. The Task Force proposes new §§174.10 - 174.25, concerning the establishment of contract defender program requirements. The new sections are proposed to establish minimum requirements for the use of contract defender programs to provide indigent defense services. The rules provide for an open attorney application and selection process by the judges or juvenile board in whose court the attorney will serve. The rules also require that certain specific items be included in a contract for indigent defense services and the contract be approved by the county.

Glenna Rhea Bowman, Chief Financial Officer of the Office of Court Administration, has determined that for each year of the first five years the proposed sections are in effect, enforcing or administering the sections could have a minimal fiscal impact on local governments that choose to implement or modify procedures to align with the proposed rules. The sections do not have any foreseeable implications relating to cost or revenues of state government.

Ms. Bowman has determined that there will be no material economic costs to persons who are required to comply with the new sections, nor do the proposed sections have any anticipated adverse effect on small or micro-businesses.

Jim Bethke, Director of the Task Force, has also determined that for each of the first five-year period the rules are in effect the public benefit will be an improvement in the quality of indigent defense services because a broader range of qualified attorneys will have the opportunity to apply to provide indigent defense services under a contract.

Comments on the proposed new sections may be submitted in writing to Wesley Shackelford, Special Counsel, Task Force on Indigent Defense, P.O. Box 12066, Austin, Texas 78711-2066, or by fax to (512) 475-3450 no later than 30 days from the date that the proposal is published in the Texas Register .

1. DEFINITIONS

1 TAC §174.10

The new section is proposed under the Texas Government Code §71.060(a)(7). The Task Force interprets §71.060(a)(7) as authorizing the Task Force to develop policies and standards for providing legal representation to indigent defendants under a contract defender program.

No other statutes, articles, or codes are affected by the proposed section.

§174.10.Subchapter Definitions.

The following words and terms when used in this subchapter shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.

(1) Appointing Authority. The appointing authority is the:

(A) Judge or judges who have authority to establish an indigent defense plan and approve attorneys to represent indigent defendants in criminal cases under Article 26.04, Code of Criminal Procedure; and/or

(B) Juvenile board that has authority to establish an indigent defense plan and approve attorneys to represent indigent respondents in juvenile cases under §51.102, Family Code.

(2) Contract Defender Program. Contract defender program means a system under which private attorneys, acting as independent contractors and compensated with public funds, are engaged to provide legal representation and services to a group of unspecified indigent defendants who appear before a particular court or group of courts.

(3) Contracting Authority. The contracting authority is the county or counties that have the authority to conclude a contract and to obligate funds for the provision of indigent defense services.

(4) Contractor. The contractor is an attorney, law firm, professional association, lawyer's association, law school, bar association, non-profit organization or other entity that can be bound by contract.

(5) Itemized Fee Voucher. An itemized fee voucher is any instrument, such as an invoice, that details services provided by a contractor providing indigent defense services. The itemized fee voucher may be in paper or electronic form. It shall include at a minimum all the information necessary for the county auditor or other designated official to complete the expenditure report required to be submitted to the Office of Court Administration by §71.0351, Government Code.

This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's legal authority to adopt.

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on May 31, 2006.

TRD-200602984

Wesley Shackelford

Special Counsel

Texas Judicial Council

Earliest possible date of adoption: July 16, 2006

For further information, please call: (512) 936-6994

2. APPLICATION OF STANDARDS AND CONTRACTING PROCEDURES

1 TAC §§174.11 - 174.14

The new sections are proposed under the Texas Government Code §71.060(a)(7). The Task Force interprets §71.060(a)(7) as authorizing the Task Force to develop policies and standards for providing legal representation to indigent defendants under a contract defender program.

No other statutes, articles, or codes are affected by the proposed sections.

§174.11.Application of Subchapter.

This subchapter applies to all contract defender programs. This subchapter does not apply to public defender programs established and governed by Chapter 26, Code of Criminal Procedure.

§174.12.Application Process.

The appointing authority shall solicit and select contractors in accordance with the procedure governing alternative appointment programs contained in Article 26.04, Code of Criminal Procedure.

(1) Notification. The notification of the opportunity to apply (NOA) to be a contractor shall be distributed in a manner that reasonably covers all practicing members of the bar within the county or other region designated by the appointing authority. The notification shall inform attorneys of all requirements for submitting applications.

(2) Opportunity to Respond. All potential contractors shall have the same opportunity to respond to the NOA and be considered for the award of a contract.

(3) Application. All applications must be submitted in writing and shall be maintained by the appointing authority or contracting authority in accordance with the Texas State Library and Archives Commission Retention Schedule for Local Records- Local Schedule GR.

§174.13.Application Review Process.

Following the review of all applications the appointing authority shall by a majority vote select contractor(s), specify the types of cases each contractor is qualified to handle, and authorize the contracting authority to enter into a contract. The attorneys associated with the selected contractor(s) must meet the attorney qualification requirements contained in the indigent defense procedures adopted pursuant to Article 26.04, Code of Criminal Procedure. If the contract does not exclude capital cases in which the death penalty is sought, the attorneys associated with the selected contractor(s) must also meet the attorney qualifications set by the regional selection committee and be approved by the regional selection committee to represent clients in capital cases. The appointing authority shall consider at least the following factors when evaluating applications:

(1) Experience and qualifications of the applicant;

(2) Applicant's past performance in representing defendants in criminal cases;

(3) Applicant's disciplinary history with the state bar;

(4) Applicant's ability to comply with the terms of the contract; and

(5) Cost of the services under the contract.

§174.14.Awarding the Contract.

In accordance with Article 26.04(h), Code of Criminal Procedure, the contracting authority may approve the recommended contractor(s) and enter into a contract for services. The contracting authority shall enter into a contract only if it complies with these standards and all applicable law governing professional services contracts entered into by counties. A contract shall not be awarded solely on the basis of cost.

This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's legal authority to adopt.

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on May 31, 2006.

TRD-200602985

Wesley Shackelford

Special Counsel

Texas Judicial Council

Earliest possible date of adoption: July 16, 2006

For further information, please call: (512) 936-6994

3. REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF A CONTRACT FOR INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES (EACH COMPONENT BELOW SHALL BE INCLUDED IN A CONTRACT FOR INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES AND SHALL SERVE AS THE BASIS FOR THE NOA)

1 TAC §§174.15 - 174.25

The new sections are proposed under the Texas Government Code §71.060(a)(7). The Task Force interprets §71.060(a)(7) as authorizing the Task Force to develop policies and standards for providing legal representation to indigent defendants under a contract defender program.

No other statutes, articles, or codes are affected by the proposed sections.

§174.15.Parties.

Identify the appointing authority, contracting authority, and contractor.

§174.16.Term of Contract.

The contract shall specify the term of the contract, including any provision for extensions, and a provision for terminating the contract by either party.

§174.17.Scope of Contract.

The contract shall specify the categories of cases in which the contractor is to provide services.

§174.18.Minimum Attorney Qualifications.

The contract shall specify minimum qualifications for attorneys covered by the contract and require such attorneys to maintain the qualifications during the term of the contract. The qualifications shall equal or exceed the qualifications provided in the indigent defense procedures adopted pursuant to Article 26.04, Code of Criminal Procedure. If the contract does not exclude capital cases in which the death penalty is sought, the qualifications shall equal or exceed the minimum attorney qualifications set by the regional selection committee and the attorneys covered by the contract shall be required to be on the list of attorneys approved by the regional selection committee to represent clients in capital cases. If a contract covers services provided by more than one attorney, qualifications may be graduated according to the seriousness of offense and each attorney shall be required to meet and maintain only those qualifications established for the offense level(s) for which the attorney is approved to provide defense services.

§174.19.Duration of Representation.

The contract shall specify that the contractor has the responsibility to complete all cases once representation is commenced during the term of the contract, unless an attorney covered by the contract is relieved or replaced in accordance with Article 26.04(j)(2), Code of Criminal Procedure.

§174.20.Substitution of Attorneys.

The contract shall identify the attorney(s) who will perform legal representation in each category of case covered by the contract and prohibit the substitution of other attorneys without prior approval by a majority of the appointing authority. Nothing in the contract shall prohibit an attorney covered by the contract from being relieved or replaced in accordance with Article 26.04(j)(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

§174.21.Caseload Limitations.

The contract shall set the maximum number of cases or workload each attorney may be required to handle pursuant to the contract.

§174.22.Standards of Representation.

The contract shall require that the contractor provide zealous legal representation to all clients in a professional, skilled manner consistent with all applicable laws and the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.

§174.23.Conflicts of Interest.

The contract shall state a policy to assure that the contractor and its attorneys do not provide representation to defendants when doing so would involve a conflict of interest.

§174.24.Investigators and Experts.

The contract shall specify how investigation services and experts that are necessary to provide competent representation will be made available in a manner consistent with Article 26.05(d), Code of Criminal Procedure.

§174.25.Compensation and Payment Processes.

The contract shall set the amount of compensation to be paid to the contractor and the designated method and timing of payment. The contract shall state that the contractor shall be required to submit an itemized fee voucher. The voucher must be approved by a member of the appointing authority prior to being forwarded to the county financial officer for approval and payment. The contract shall also specify how a contractor is to be compensated for cases assigned but not disposed within the term of the contract as provided in §174.19 of this subchapter.

This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's legal authority to adopt.

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on May 31, 2006.

TRD-200602987

Wesley Shackelford

Special Counsel

Texas Judicial Council

Earliest possible date of adoption: July 16, 2006

For further information, please call: (512) 936-6994

The alignment of AKS with standardized assessments, such as ITBS, SAT I and ACT, ensures that GCPS students are well prepared for these measurements..

2007-08-02T05:45:00.000-07:00

Academic Knowledge & Skills

Home

About Us

Schools

Students

Parents

Staff

Community

Search GCPS:

* AKS Home
* Kindergarten
* First Grade
* Second Grade
* Third Grade
* Fourth Grade
* Fifth Grade
* Sixth Grade
* Seventh Grade
* Eighth Grade
* High School
* Instructional Programs

GCPS
437 Old Peachtree Road NW
Suwanee, GA
30024-2978

(678) 301-6000

Copyright 2007 GCPS
All Rights Reserved

Academic Knowledge & Skills (AKS)

What are the Academic Knowledge and Skills?
Gwinnett’s curriculum for grades K-12 is called the Academic Knowledge and Skills (AKS). The AKS for each grade level (or subject area at the high school level) spell out the essential things students are expected to know and be able to do in that particular grade or subject. They offer a solid base on which teachers build rich curricular experiences. Teachers use curriculum guides, textbooks, technology, and other materials to teach the AKS and to make sure every student is learning to his or her potential. Because the AKS detail exactly what a child is expected to learn, teachers can tailor the classroom experience to meet a child’s individual needs.

Why are the Academic Knowledge and Skills important for our students?
The Academic Knowledge and Skills (AKS) were developed in response to Gwinnett County Public Schools' mission statement:

The mission of Gwinnett County Public Schools is to pursue excellence in academic knowledge, skills, and behavior for each student resulting in measured improvement against local, national, and world-class standards.

How are the Academic Knowledge and Skills developed?
The AKS are developed by our teachers, with input from our parents and community. Beginning in 1995, teams of teachers have met each year to review the AKS for their grade level and/or subject area. The first teams reviewed the existing curriculum to propose what was essential knowledge and skills for each grade level—kindergarten through 12th grade—and every course. These knowledge and skills were also reviewed for correlations with state-required curriculum and assessments as well as local, national, and world-class educational standards. Teachers, parents, and community members throughout the district then evaluated the proposed AKS, providing feedback on what they believed to be the essential curriculum for all students. The final proposed versions of the AKS were presented to the Gwinnett Educational Management System (GEMS) Oversight Committee, comprised of representatives from the community and school system, for validation. This process is repeated each year to address any revisions or enhancements that teachers and/or the community believe are needed to improve our curriculum. The GEMS Committee then recommends the validated revisions to the superintendent, who presents recommendations to the Board of Education for adoption and implementation in the subsequent school year. With this process for curriculum development and improvement in place, parents can be assured that the curriculum their child is learning in a Gwinnett County classroom will be essential to his or her learning and sanctioned by our educators, parents, and the community.

How are the Academic Knowledge and Skills used in the classroom?
The AKS are the standards for academic excellence for all students in Gwinnett County Public Schools. They are what teachers are to teach and students are to learn. In every GCPS classroom, instruction and assessment are tailored so that all students learn the AKS. The alignment of AKS with standardized assessments, such as ITBS, SAT I and ACT, ensures that GCPS students are well prepared for these measurements of achievement. The AKS are also aligned with the state-mandated Georgia Performance Standards (GPS) and Quality Core Curriculum (QCC), assuring that students are prepared for state tests, such as the Georgia High School Graduation Test (GHSGT) and the Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests (CRCT).

How do the Academic Knowledge and Skills support Character Education?
Gwinnett County Public Schools supports a mandate from the Georgia General Assembly requiring all schools to teach character education. The school system believes that society and culture are tied together through common threads that guide the way we live, work, and learn. These common beliefs are taught at home and reinforced by the community, schools, religious institutions, and youth service groups. These basic tenets guide the way Gwinnett County teachers teach and the way the school system conducts the business of teaching and learning. Character education values are thoroughly embedded in the AKS and are correlated to the AKS in the grade level AKS books. The state mandated law is Section 20-2-145 of the Georgia State Code as amended in 1999 by actions of the Georgia General Assembly. The character education traits are courage, self-control, school pride, patriotism, courtesy, respect for the environment, citizenship, compassion, respect for the creator, honesty, tolerance, patience, fairness, diligence, creativity, respect for others, generosity, sportsmanship, cooperation, punctuality, loyalty, kindness, cleanliness, perseverance, self-respect, cheerfulness, and virtue.

why not pay for villa's law school

2007-05-19T02:53:00.000-07:00

County SID No. : 10072966
Name : VILLA, RICARDO
Cause No. : 96001746 - B Age : 67
Date of Birth : 12/24/1940
Degree of Off. F1
Offense Desc. AGG SEXUAL ASSLT CHILD
Arrest Date
Complaint No. 000000
Bond Req. $ 20000.00
Court Date
Fine $ 0.00
Court Cost $ 0.00
Sentencing Time
Probation Time
Sentence Date
Disposition CHANGE INDICT/INFOR.
Degree of Off. F1
Offense Desc. AGG SEXUAL ASSLT CHILD
Arrest Date 06/14/1996
Complaint No. 000000
Bond Req. $ 20000.00
Court Date
Fine $ 0.00
Court Cost $ 0.00
Sentencing Time
Probation Time
Sentence Date
Disposition ACQUITTAL
Degree of Off. F1
Offense Desc. AGG SEXUAL ASSLT CHILD
Arrest Date 06/14/1996
Complaint No. 000000
Bond Req. $ 0.00
Court Date
Fine $ 0.00
Court Cost $ 0.00
Sentencing Time
Probation Time
Sentence Date
Disposition ACQUITTAL
Entry No. Comments Entry Date
0001 s:COURT B computer assigned 06/06/1996
0002 REINDICTED 06/06/1996
0003 s:CAPIAS ISSUED 06/11/1996
0004 s:PRECEPT/INDICTMENT ISSUED 06/11/1996
0005 PRECEPT FILED RETURNED NOT IN JAIL 06/13/1996
0006 CAPIAS AND PRECEPT FILED IN JAIL 06/18/1996
0007 APPEARANCE BAIL BOND FILED $20.000 KEN BOTARY ATTY 06/19/1996
0008 PSI FILED 07/01/1996
0009 MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION 07/23/1996
0010 ORDER ON DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR DISCOVERY & INSPECTION 27/486 07/23/1996
0011 MOTION TO QUASH INDICTMENT 07/25/1996
0012 MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE 07/25/1996
0013 DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR NOTICE UNDER RULE 404B 07/25/1996
0014 MOTION TO QUASH INDICTMENT 07/25/1996
0015 DEFENDANTS APPLICATION FOR SUBPOENA 07/29/1996
0016 CASE CALLED, TO BE RESET 07/31/1996
0017 KEN BOTARY RETAINED 08/07/1996
0018 MOTION FOR INSPECTION OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS 08/26/1996
0019 MOTION FOR FORENSIC TESTING 08/26/1996
0020 DEFENDANTS MOTION TO SUPPRESS GRAND JURY TESTIMONY 09/13/1996
0021 SECOND MOTION FOR DISCOVERY & INSPECTION 09/13/1996
0022 APPLICATION FOR SUBPONEAS STATE 10/03/1996
0023 APPLICATION FOR SUBPONEAS STATE 10/03/1996
0024 APPLICATION FOR SUBPONEAS STATE O/C 10/04/1996
0025 DEFENDANTS APPLICATION FOR SUBPOENA 10/08/1996
0026 APPLICATION FOR SUBPONEAS DEFT 10/09/1996
0027 DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1 COPY LETTER TO MR. VALDEZ FROM YOLANDA 10/10/1996
0028 ***F. GONZALEZ 10/10/1996
0029 DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 2 COPY LETTER TO MS. GONZALEZ FROM 10/10/1996
0030 ***MR. VALDEZ 10/10/1996
0031 ORDER TO SURRENDER MEDICAL RECORDS CM28/87 10/28/1996
0032 STATE'S NOTICE OF POSSIBLE "EXTRANEOUS" OFFENSES WHICH MAY 11/15/1996
0033 ***OR MAY NOT BE OFFERED AT TRIAL 11/15/1996
0034 ORDER TO SURRENDER MDICAL RECORDS 27/1020 10/11/1996
0035 APPLICATION FOR SUBPONEAS DEFT 03/31/1997
0036 NOTICE OF RESETTING ON JULY 14, 1997 AT 9:30 AM 03/02/1997
0037 THIRD MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION 05/22/1997
0038 -------------------------------------------- 05/22/1997
0039 NOTICE OF RESETTING ON JULY 14, 1997 AT 9:30 AM 29/245 03/02/1997
0040 ORDER ON MOTION FOR DISCOVERY & INSPECTION CM29/669 05/28/1997
0041 APPLICATION FOR SUBPOENA STATE 2 07/08/1997
0042 MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENT & ORDER (SIGNED 7-14-97) CM30/859 07/11/1997
0043 HAND WRITTEN ORDER FOR ATTACHMENT 07/18/1997
0044 WITNESS ATTACHMENT ISSUED (JANET PEREZ) INSTANTER 07/18/1997
0045 RECALLED WITNESS ATTACHMENT WITH LAURA FROM WARRANTS & MERU 07/18/1997
0046 ***AT 5:10 PM 07/18/1997
0047 APPLICATION FOR SUBPOENA STATE 07/24/1997
0048 TRIAL PACK: AFFIDAVIT ON DEFENDANTS COMPREHENSION OF THE 07/14/1997
0049 ***ENGLISH LANGUAGE FILED 07/14/1997
0050 APPLICATION FOR PROBATION FILED 07/14/1997
0051 ELECTION FOR PUNISHMENT FILED 07/14/1997
0052 JURY STRIKES & JURY CHOSEN 07/15/1997
0053 JURY INFORMATION SHEETS SEALED IN TWO (2) ENVELOPES 07/15/1997
0054 CHARGE READ AT 12:38 PM 07/25/1997
0055 JURY DELIBERATING AT 2:17 PM 07/25/1997
0056 9 NOTES FROM JURY 07/25/1997
0057 JURY RECESSED UNTIL MONDAY MORNING 7-28-97 AT 9:00 AM 07/25/1997
0058 4 JURY NOTES 07/28/1997
0059 VERDICT ON COUNT I: NOT GUILTY 07/28/1997
0060 VERDICT ON COUNT II: DEADLOCK 07/28/1997
0061 (JURY DISCHARGED AFTER RECEIVING VERDICT ON COUNT I) 07/28/1997
0062 SX1 BLACK JEANS 07/29/1997
0063 SX2 WHITE UNDERWEAR WITH FECES 07/29/1997
0064 SX3 BLACKM LONG-SLEEVED SHIRT 07/29/1997
0065 SX4 WHITE T-SHIRT 07/29/1997
0066 SX5 SEXUAL ASSAULT KIT 07/29/1997
0067 SX6 VIAL WITH BLOOD 07/29/1997
0068 SX7 ENVELOPE WITH PUBIC HAIR 07/29/1997
0069 SX8 ENVELOPE WHT BLOODSTAINS, PUBIC HAIRS 07/29/1997
0070 SX9 LARGE PHOTOGRAPH 07/29/1997
0071 SX10 LARGE PHOTOGRAPH 07/29/1997
0072 SX11 LARGE PHOTOGRAPH 07/29/1997
0073 SX12 LARGE PHOTOGRAPH 07/29/1997
0074 SX13 LARGE PHOTOGRAPH 07/29/1997
0075 SX15 YELLOW ENVELOPE WITH SAMPLES 07/29/1997
0076 DX1 HANDWRITTEN NOTE 07/29/1997
0077 DX2 LARGE DEAGRAM 07/29/1997
0078 DX3 VIDEOTAPE OF AUDITORIUM 07/29/1997
0079 DX4 - DX6 PHOTOGRAPHS 07/29/1997
0080 DX7 NOCHE DE GALA BROCHURE 07/29/1997
0081 DX8 LARGE DIAGRAM - STUDIO 07/29/1997
0082 DX9 & DX10 POSTER WITH 4 PHOTOGRAPHS 07/29/1997
0083 DX11 POSTER WITH 2 PHOTOGRAPHS 07/29/1997
0084 DX12 - DX13 POSTERS WITH 3 PHOTOGRAPHS EACH 07/29/1997
0085 DX14 TELEPHONE STATEMENT 07/29/1997
0086 DX15 NOTICE TO DANCERS 07/29/1997
0087 DX16 LETTER FROM MARIACHIES 07/29/1997
0088 DX17 DEPOSIT SLIP 07/29/1997
0089 DX19 & DX20 LARGE TIME LINE POSTERS 07/29/1997
0090 DX21 PROGRAM 07/29/1997
0091 (ALL EXHIBITS TAKEN TO 5TH FLOOR TO CAGE) 07/30/1997
0092 WITNESS ATTACHMENT FILED RETURNED RECALLED AUTH ESTELLA 08/06/1997
0093 MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE 09/18/1997
0094 STATE'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE 09/19/1997
0095 ORDER ON MTN FOR CONTINUANCE 30/879 09/22/1997
0096 DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION FOR INSPECTION OF CHEMICAL ANALYSI 01/08/1998
0097 ORD SETTING HEARING DATE ON JAN. 30, 1998 31/653 01/22/1998
0098 ORDER ON DFTS MTN FOR INSPECTION OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS 31/654 01/30/1998
0099 MOTION TO W/DRW EXHIBITS 04/28/1998
0100 JURY STRIKES & JURY CHOOSEN 05/04/1998
0101 TRIAL PACK FILED 05/04/1998
0102 DEFENDANT PLED NOT GUILTY 05/04/1998
0103 CHARGE OF THE COURT READ AT 1:08 PM 05/11/1998
0104 2 NOTES FILED 05/11/1998
0105 VERDICT AT 5:43 PM: NOT GUILTY 05/11/1998
0106 PX1 BLACK JEANS 05/12/1998
0107 PX2 WHITE UNDERWEAR W/FECES & TOILET PAPER 05/12/1998
0108 PX3 BLACK LONG SLEEVED SHIRT 05/12/1998
0109 PX4 WHITE T SHIRT 05/12/1998
0110 PX5 SEXUAL ASSAULT KIT 05/12/1998
0111 PX6 VIAL WITH BLOOD 05/12/1998
0112 PX7 ENVELOPE WITH PUBIC HAIR 05/12/1998
0113 PX8 TIME SHEET 05/12/1998
0114 PX9 LARGE PHOTOGRAPH 05/12/1998
0115 PX10 LARGE PHOTOGRAPH 05/12/1998
0116 PX11 LARGE PHOTOGRAPH 05/12/1998
0117 PX12 LARGE PHOTOGRAPH 05/12/1998
0118 DC1 LARGE PHOTO 05/12/1998
0119 DX3 NOTE (HANDWRITTEN) 05/12/1998
0120 DX4 SMALL PHOTOGRAPH 05/12/1998
0121 DX5 POSTER BOARD WITH PHOTOS 05/12/1998
0122 DX6 POSTER BOARD W/PHOTOS 05/12/1998
0123 DX7 INSTRUCTION PAMPHLET 05/12/1998
0124 DX8 NOCHE DE GALA PAMPLET 05/12/1998
0125 DX9 BUSINESS CARDS (2) 05/12/1998
0126 DX10 TELEPHONE BILL 05/12/1998
0127 DX11 CV GINSLOG 05/12/1998
0128 DX12 DX1 NEWSPAPER ARTICLE (ADMITTED 5-4-98) 05/12/1998
0129 ALL EXHIBITS TAKEN TO 5TH FLOOR CAGE DISPD 05/12/1998
0130 JUDGMENT CM33/861-862 11/20/1998
0131 DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW EXHIBITS-WALKED BY K BOTARY 03/19/2007
0132 **TO CT SH 03/19/2007
0133 ORD TO W/DRAW EXHIBITS (IMAGED) 03/19/2007
0134 AMENDED ORD TO W/DRAW EXHIBITS (IMAGED) 04/02/2007

County SID No. : 10041930

2007-05-19T02:13:00.000-07:00

Nueces County Seal Nueces County Courthouse 901 Leopard Corpus Christi, TX 78401 361.888.0111

Log Out
CR0095003578H 10041930
County SID No. : 10041930
Name : PLAISTED, JAMES REGINALD
Cause No. : 95003578 - H Age : 58
Date of Birth : 01/18/1949
Degree of Off. F2
Offense Desc. INDECENCY WITH A CHILD SEXUAL CONTACT
Arrest Date
Complaint No. 000000
Bond Req. $ 75000.00
Court Date
Fine $ 0.00
Court Cost $ 0.00
Sentencing Time 40 Years
Probation Time
Sentence Date 12/07/1995
Disposition TDC
Entry No. Comments Entry Date
0001 s:COURT H selected from pending case 95000325 10/19/1995
0002 s:CAPIAS ISSUED 10/25/1995
0003 s:PRECEPT/INDICTMENT ISSUED 10/25/1995
0004 CAPIAS/PRECEPT RTN FILED SCVD IN JAIL 11/03/1995
0005 WAIVER OF ARRAIGNMENT 11/08/1995
0006 APPLICATION FOR SUBPONEAS STATE 11/20/1995
0007 APPLICATION FOR SUBPONEAS STATE 11/20/1995
0008 APPLICATION FOR SUBPONEAS STATE (2) 11/20/1995
0009 NOTICE 11/21/1995
0010 TEX R. CRIM.EVID. 902(10) NOTICE 11/21/1995
0011 APPLICATION FOR SUBPOENA STATE 11/28/1995
0012 APPLICATION FOR SUBPOENA STATE (2) 11/30/1995
0013 APPLICATION FOR SUBPONEAS STATE 12/01/1995
0014 ST APPL FOR SUBP 12/01/1995
0015 MTN TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD 12/01/1995
0016 40YRS.TDCJ C/C 92CR1926,92CR1927,92CR1928,95CR325 12/07/1995
0017 PLEA PAK,SX1&SX2 WAIVER OF APPEAL 12/07/1995
0018 PSI FILED 12/14/1995
0019 WALKED TDC PEN PAK TO JAIL 12/14/1995
0020 NOTICE OF APPEAL 12/29/1995
0021 NOTICE TAKEN TO COURT OF APPEALS 01/03/1996
0022 ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO APPEAL 38/819 01/08/1996
0023 MOTION TO BE RELEASED AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD 01/17/1996
0024 TRANSCRIPT AND SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSC TAKEN TO COURT OF APPEALS 01/22/1996
0025 A. AGUILO FROM DA'S CHECK OUT TRANSCRIPT & SUPP. TRANSCRIPT 01/23/1996
0026 A. AGUILO RETURNED TRANSCRIPT & SUPP TRANSCRIPT 01/24/1996
0027 ORDER ABATING APPEAL 02/13/1996
0028 ORDER APPOINTING ATTORNEY FOR APPEAL RICK HOLSTEIN 39/39 02/13/1996
0029 C/COPY OF ORDER APPOINTING ATTY. TAKEN TO COURT OF APPEALS 02/16/1996
0030 V 02/16/1996
0031 FILE CHECKED OUT BY A. AGUILO 02/23/1996
0032 STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED 03/07/1996
0033 CHECKED OUT BY ADOLF DA 06/21/1996
0034 MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD 07/03/1996
0035 FILE BROUGHT BACK 07/05/1996
0036 SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPT TAKEN TO COURT OF APPEALS 07/08/1996
0037 COPY OF STATEMENT OF FACTS MAILED TO DEFENDANT 07/18/1996
0038 COPY OF FILE MAILED TO DEFENDANT 08/12/1996
0039 OPINION FILED 10/17/1996
0040 MANDATE FILED (APPEAL DISMISSED) 01/10/1997
0041 C/C OF JUDGMENT MAILED TO TDC 01/23/1997
0042 TRANSCRIPT PUT IN BOX/CAGE 5TH FLOOR 01/27/1997
0043 LETTER FROM ADVANATGE RCDS REQUESTING COPIES C/C COPIES 04/16/1997
0044 ----- MAILED TO THEM (JASSO) 04/16/1997
0045 STATEMENT OF FACTS PLACED IN BOX/2ND FLOOR 09/29/2000
0046 REQUEST FROM AMY NIEMANN FOR COPIES/COPIES MAILED - JASSO 04/26/2001

who answers.......while....kNoWee ~coyote plots to dance the skip with the LOOt

2007-04-16T11:49:00.000-07:00

yeah mr. noe answer that or will you live up to your name and "SKIP" the d'bate?

hey now your an all star get your game on lets play.....

remember......winners never cheat and cheaters never win.... and if you doubt what i say... wiley coyote thought the same thing...... so do you got the balls to do the right thing?

do ya?

sea sea & CC i. s.d. sittin a tree

k i ss i n g.......first comes

GOD then the TRUTH

The trustees' refusal to lay out the cards is beyond irritating; it borders on the outrageous.

2007-04-07T01:05:00.000-07:00

Bring CCISD selection process into light of day

The secrecy surrounding the current search for a new superintendent is indefensible. Did we learn nothing from the previous fiasco?

April 6, 2007

The selection process that will ultimately produce a finalist for superintendent of the Corpus Christi Independent School District is up and running.

On Wednesday the trustees interviewed four candidates for the post - including Scott Elliff, interim superintendent since the resignation of Jesus Chavez in February 2006.

That much we know of a certainty. It also seems safe to assume that the four individuals in question could fairly be considered the finalists from the field of 25 applicants who were being considered for the position.

However, should we at this late date be dealing in "seems" and "assume" when it comes to the process that will determine who is to lead the city's largest school district?

The question arises: Why has the Board of Trustees gone to such lengths to keep the public from getting anything more than a fleeting glimpse of the action? After all, the previous superinten-dent hunt, which saw Shoney Bria first accept, then decline the post, was grievously marred by the secrecy that surrounded it.

But - again - the board apparently believes that the releasing of names could prove ruinous for the applicants back in their home districts.

That, however, looks more and more like a smoke screen. School districts throughout the length and breadth of the nation are seeking leaders, and up-and-coming administrators are looking to move into superintendencies in larger districts.

The curtain of confidentiality is, at long last, nonsensical. More to the point, it does a disservice to the community. Consider: As matters now stand, we do not even know how many of the contenders will find favor with the trustees and be presented to the public. It could be one. Then again, it could be two, perhaps even three.

Concern for confidentiality is, or should be, trumped by another, vastly more important consideration: the public's right to know, and its right to have at least some role to play in the process.

The trustees' refusal to lay out the cards is beyond irritating; it borders on the outrageous.

Particularly disturbing is the fact that three new trustees elected last year - Carol Scott, John Longoria and Dwayne Hargis, all of whom emphasized their intent to bring new openness to the board - appear to have bought into the mum's-the-word ethos that has dominated this exercise.

To be sure, they (and their colleagues) could, and should, reverse their field - but the time remaining in which to keep this selection process from being grievously tainted is rapidly running out.

Commissioner Peggy Banales voted against the resolution~ looks like Loyd's agenda is billed retroactive to cover past projects and plain to see.......

2007-03-22T05:32:00.000-07:00

Officials support new bid process

Commissioners approve dropping bid-reading rule

By Beth Wilson Caller-Times
March 22, 2007

Nueces County commissioners passed a resolution Wednesday to support state legislation removing requirements to read construction bid costs at the beginning of the selection process and allowing alternative construction methods for projects funded by certificates of obligation.

The resolution supports an amended version of legislation filed by Rep. Solomon Ortiz Jr. on March 9 that stemmed from the legal issues surrounding the Richard M. Borchard Regional Fairgrounds. The original bill would have removed the requirement that governments read aloud fees and pricing when opening construction bids and would have applied to all contracts approved since September 2003.

Commissioners voted 4-1 to support an amended bill that removes the retroactive wording and makes it optional to read the fees on opening, but requires them to be read when the selection process concludes.

County Judge Loyd Neal said he supported the resolution because of the modifications.

"I simply could not support that," he said of the retroactive feature included in the bill's first draft.

Commissioner Peggy Banales voted against the resolution, saying she was in favor of the legislation but wanted to keep the retroactive wording to cover existing projects.

After reports last week revealed not all the commissioners had seen the legislation, Ortiz said he would not move forward on the legislation until he had 100 percent support from the court. Ortiz has said he assumed the bill had the entire court's support when his uncle, Commissioner Oscar Ortiz, hand-delivered it to him in Austin.

In a statement Wednesday, Rep. Ortiz said he now will ask for a hearing on the bill as soon as it is referred to a committee.

"When and whether the bill is set for a hearing is left to the discretion of the committee chairman," the statement said. "When and if it is set for a hearing, I will submit a substitute bill with the wording the county supported in its resolution."

Ortiz said he considers support of the legislation to be unanimous because Banales indicated she approved of its intent.

Both versions of the legislation were written by the Nueces County Attorney's Office. The legislation was drafted to clarify when prices must be read and to clear up conflicting statutes about whether governments may use the construction manager-at-risk method for projects, said County Attorney Laura Garza Jimenez.

Garza Jimenez said Oscar Ortiz requested her office draft a bill that would clarify some of the issues raised in a lawsuit filed last month by philanthropist and businessman William "Dusty" Durrill regarding the county fairgrounds project. The retroactive wording was added to protect ongoing construction manager-at-risk projects across the state, including the county's fairgrounds project, she said.

The manager-at-risk method selects a contractor before detailing plans. Competitive bidding requires details be presented before a contractor is selected so all contractors have equal opportunity to evaluate projects before submitting a bid.

Durrill's lawsuit claimed the county violated state law requiring competitive bidding when it used the construction manager-at-risk method for the fairgrounds. A settlement agreement was signed by both parties Wednesday.

"The intent was not to do away with the Durrill lawsuit," Garza Jimenez said.

The county voided two fairgrounds contracts in January after Fulton Coastcon Construction filed suit. In reviewing the contracts for that suit, the county determined it failed to read the bid pricing aloud when opening the bids, and voted to re-do the bids and contracts.

Former County Commissioner Joe McComb, who lost the House race to Rep. Ortiz, attended Wednesday's meeting and told commissioners he supported the legislation and understands the need for clarification based on his time on the court.

"Nueces County should take the lead to clarify the issue," McComb said.

Contact Beth Wilson at 886-3748 or HYPERLINK mailto:wilsonb@caller.com wilsonb@caller.com.

taxpayers:notice he intends 2 bring suit Y $$$ 4 ABC is validity of the claim, he may recover it back, if the assessment was erroneous or illegal, $$

2007-02-09T23:57:00.000-08:00

skip to content
Cornell University (Insignia)Cornell Law School
Search Cornell
LII / Legal Information Institute

* home
* search
* sitemap
* donate

Supreme Court collection

* main page
* about
* search
* subscribe

Illustration: U.S. Supreme Court building

United States v. California (91-2003), 507 U.S. 746 (1993).
Syllabus
Opinion
[ O'Connor ]
HTML version
WordPerfect version HTML version
WordPerfect version

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash ington, D.C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 91-2003

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. CALIFORNIA and CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

[April 26, 1993]

Justice O'Connor delivered the opinion of the Court.

The United States has established three Naval Petroleum Reserves in California and Wyoming, one ofwhich is Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1, located in Kern County, California. 10 U.S.C. § 7420. First through the Department of the Navy and later through the Department of Energy, the United States contracted with Williams Brothers Engineering Company (WBEC) to manage oil drilling operations at Reserve No. 1 from 1975 to 1985. Under the contract, WBEC received an annual fixed fee plus reimbursement for costs, which the contract defined to include state sales and use taxes.

California assessed approximately $14 million in sales and use taxes, pursuant to Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Ann.

§ 6384 (West 1987), against WBEC for the years 1975 through 1981. The State informed WBEC of the tax deficiencies through two notices, one issued in July 1978 and the other in December 1982. WBEC, at the direction of the United States, applied to the California Board of Equalization for administrative redetermination of the assessments, see Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Ann. § 6932 (West 1987). WBEC argued that the State had misapplied its own law, taxing property that was outside the scope of § 6384. The Board of Equalization denied each claim, with minor exceptions. Thereafter, WBEC paid the assessments under protest, using funds the Federal Government provided. It then filed timely actions in state court. In January 1988, the State and WBEC stipulated to a $3 million refund, for erroneous assessments on property that WBEC had purchased and that Government personnel had installed, and to dismissal of both actions without prejudice. The remaining $11 million resulted from assessments on property that WBEC had purchased and that private subcontractors, managed by WBEC, had installed.

In May 1988, the United States filed suit in the Eastern District of California, seeking a declaratory judgment that California had classified and taxed WBEC erroneously under California law and that the taxed property actually was exempt. It sought a refund of the $11 million plus interest. In the course of the suit, the United States argued it was entitled to recovery based on the federal common law cause of action for money had and received. The District Court rejected both grounds for recovery and granted summary judgment for the State.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 932 F. 2d 1346 (1991). The court began by noting that the Government did not claim that either it or WBEC was constitutionally immune from the tax, an argument this Court rejected in United States v. New Mexico, 455 U.S. 720 (1982). 932 F. 2d, at 1347-1348. Because the UnitedStates lacked "a colorable constitutional challenge," id., at 1349, the Court of Appeals looked to whether federal common law might provide a cause of action. It declined to accept the Government's argument that the simple act of disbursing federal funds was a "constitutional function" that created a federal interest in conflict with state law. The Government had done no more than pay state taxes pursuant to state law; this did not rise to the level of a federal interest requiring the application of federal law. Ibid. The Court of Appeals then held that the Government could not maintain a quasi contract cause of action because the facts did not support a claim of unjust enrichment. Among other things, "WBEC, backed throughout by the United States, had a fair chance to argue against the validity of the assessments in the administrative and state court proceedings." Id., at 1350. Finally, the Court of Appeals relied on the fact that the Government's quasi contract argument was "posited upon the interpretation of a state created exemption from a state[ ]created sales tax." Ibid. The court found that the State's claim filing requirements, including that a court action be filed within 90 days of an administrative denial, were conditions precedent to a cause of action for a tax refund. Id., at 1350-1351. The Government had failed to satisfy the conditions; therefore, the Court of Appeals held, the Government had no state cause of action and no quasi contract action. "Since federal statutes of limitations become determinative only after the government acquires a cause of action, and since the United States never acquired a cause of action," the court reasoned, the six year statute of limitations of "28 U.S.C. § 2415 does not apply." Id., at 1351.

The Court of Appeals acknowledged that the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in a factually similar case, recently had reached the opposite conclusion. Id., at 1351-1352. In United States v. Broward County, 901 F. 2d 1005 (1990), the Eleventh Circuit rejected theargument on which the Ninth Circuit relied and held that the Government had a "federal common law cause of action in quasi contract for money had and received." Id., at 1008-1009. We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict. 506 U. S. ___ (1992).

The Government concedes that it could have intervened in WBEC's administrative and state court proceedings. Tr. of Oral Arg. 17. But it argues that whether it complied with state procedural requirements or whether it could have intervened is irrelevant, because it has a federal right to recover the taxes under the federal common law cause of action for money had and received (also known as indebitatus assumpsit). Prior to the creation of federal administrative and statutory remedies for the recovery of federal taxes, this Court held that a taxpayer could bring an action for money had and received to recover erroneously or illegally assessed taxes. In City of Philadelphia v. The Collector, 5 Wall. 720 (1867), the Court stated:

"[The] [a]ppropriate remedy to recover back money paid [to federal tax collectors] under protest on account of duties or taxes erroneously or illegally assessed, is an action of assumpsit for money had and received. Where the party voluntarily pays the money, he is without remedy; but if he pays it by compulsion of law, or under protest, or with notice that he intends to bring suit to test the validity of the claim, he may recover it back, if the assessment was erroneous or illegal, in an action of assumpsit for money had and received." Id., at 731-732 (citing Elliott v. Swartout, 10 Pet. 137, 150 (1836)).

The Government reasons that it paid WBEC's taxes, that the taxes were wrongfully assessed, and that therefore it may recover the funds used to pay those taxes. Since an action for money had and received is based on a contractimplied in law, see Bayne v. United States, 93 U.S. 642, 643 (1876), the Government further reasons that its claims are governed by the 6 year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2415(a), and not the 90-day limitation period in the California Code.

The taxpayers in both City of Philadelphia and the case on which it relies, Elliott v. Swartout, were attempting to recover money they had paid under protest to the federal tax collector in settlement of tax assessments erroneously made against them. In this case, by contrast, the taxpayer--WBEC--has had its day in court and gone home. The Government attempts to recover money it paid in reimbursement for state tax assessments against the contractor, even though the contractor already has challenged the assessment and accepted a resolution of its claims. The Government contends that, because its contract with WBEC involved an advanced funding arrangement, the Government was the one that actually paid the state taxes. Because the disbursement of federal funds is involved, the Government asserts, the federal action for money had and received is appropriate. Even assuming that federal courts may entertain a federal common law action for the recovery of state taxes paid by the Government, we conclude that a federal action is inappropriate here because the Government is in no better position than as a subrogee of its contractor WBEC.

The management contract between the Government and WBEC is in all relevant respects identical to the contracts we discussed in United States v. New Mexico, 455 U.S. 720 (1982). There, as here, the State had imposed sales and use taxes on private contractors managing Department of Energy sites. Like WBEC, two of the contractors received costs plus a fixed fee. Id., at 723-724. Like WBEC's contracts, the contracts provided that title to all tangible personal property passed directly from the vendor to the Government. Id., at 724. "Finally, and most importantly, the contracts use[d] a so called `advancedfunding' procedure to meet contractor costs." Id., at 725. The contractors paid creditors and employees with drafts drawn on a special bank account in which the Government deposited funds, so that only federal funds were expended when the contractors made purchases. Id., at 726. Compare App. 142-143 (Declaration of Kenneth Meeks in Support of United States' Motion for Summary Judgment, describing similar funding operations with WBEC).

In New Mexico, the Government brought an action arguing that the contractors' expenditures, other than those made out of the fixed fees, were constitutionally immune from taxation. We noted that the doctrine of federal immunity from state taxation is "one that has been marked from the beginning by inconsistent decisions and excessively delicate distinctions." 455 U. S., at 730. After surveying our "confusing" precedents, we concluded it was time to return to the underlying constitutional principle of tax immunity: A State may not lay a tax " `directly upon the United States.' " Id., at 733 (quoting Mayo v. United States, 319 U.S. 441, 447 (1943)). But whereas the Government is absolutely immune from direct taxes, it is not immune from taxes merely because they have an "effect" on it, or "even because the Federal Government shoulders the entire economic burden of the levy." 455 U. S., at 734. In fact, it is "constitutionally irrelevant that the United States reimburse[s] all the contractor's expenditures, including those going to meet the tax." Ibid. (citing Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 U.S. 1 (1941)). Tax immunity is "appropriate in only one circumstance: when the levy falls on the United States itself, or on an agency or instrumentality so closely connected to the Government that the two cannot realistically be viewed as separate entities." 455 U. S., at 735.

It is beyond peradventure that California did not tax--indeed, could not have taxed--the Federal Government in this case. California taxed WBEC. And theGovernment's voluntary agreement to reimburse (or even fund in advance) WBEC for those taxes does not make the Government's payments direct disbursements of federal funds to the State. We addressed an analogous indemnification relationship in Brady v. Roosevelt Steamship Co., 317 U.S. 575 (1943). The United States had contracted with a private corporation to operate a Maritime Commission vessel. A Customs Inspector suffered injuries on the vessel that led to his death, and his widow brought a maritime tort action against the private corporation. In defense, respondent contended "that if the judgment against [it] stands, the United States ultimately will have to pay it by reason of provisions of the contract between respondent and the [Maritime] Commission. It is therefore urged that the United States is the real party in interest." Id., at 582. We rejected respondent's argument that petitioner could be deprived of her cause of action by reason of the contract. "Immunity from suit on a cause of action which the law creates cannot be so readily obtained." Id., at 583. Absent congressional action, we would not allow "concessions made by contracting officers of the government" to make such a "basic alteration" in the law. Id., at 584.

We conclude from Brady and New Mexico that the Government cannot use the existence of an obligation to indemnify WBEC to create a federal cause of action for money had and received to recover state taxes paid by WBEC any more than the Roosevelt Steamship Company could use the existence of a right to indemnity from the Government to defeat a claim for recovery. See Brady, supra, at 584. Cf. Farid v. Smith, 850 F. 2d 917, 923 (CA2 1988) (a State's decision to indemnify its public servants does not confer Eleventh Amendment immunity on state officials sued in their personal capacity).

Although the Government does not cite Brady, it does cite two other cases that suggest the lesson of Brady might not apply in an action for money had and received. According to the Government, Bayne v. United States, 93 U.S. 642 (1877), and Gaines v. Miller, 111 U.S. 395 (1884), stand for the proposition that an action for money had and received may "be employed by the United States to recover money from a third party who received federal funds that had been misappropriated by a government agent." Brief for United States 14. We find these cases inapposite. In Bayne, an Army paymaster withdrew money from the paymaster's account, endorsed the checks in blank, and sent them to Merchant's Bank with instructions to credit the account of Bayne & Co. The Court affirmed the Government's judgment against Bayne & Co. under an action for money had and received. 93 U. S., at 643. In Gaines, the agent of an estate's executors sold estate property and illegally kept a portion of the money. 111 U. S., at 396. Many years later, the agent had died, but Gaines, the legatee of the first estate, brought an action in equity against the administrator of the agent's estate. The Court affirmed the lower court's judgment against Gaines because, among other reasons, she had an adequate remedy at law: an action for money had and received. Id., at 397-398.

Bayne and Gaines share two features this case lacks. The first is that, in each, the rightful owner of the money lost it by way of theft. That is, the money passed from the first party to the second party unlawfully. See Bayne, supra, at 643; Gaines, supra, at 396. The second feature is that in both cases the rightful owner of the money sued a third party who had a relationship that, at least for our purposes, made that party legally responsible for the actions of the one who unlawfully took the money. The Court was satisfied in Bayne that the transactions between the paymaster, the banks, and Bayne & Co. were "the result of a fraudulent purpose to secure the use of the public money to Bayne & Co., who received it with full knowledge that it belonged to the United States, and had been applied in manifest violation of the act ofCongress." 93 U. S., at 643. In other words, Bayne & Co. and the paymaster were accomplices, each liable for the acts of the other. Cf. 18 U.S.C. § 2. In Gaines, petitioner sued the administrator of the agent's estate, who was legally responsible for paying the agent's debts out of the estate. See, e. g., 2 J. Perkins, Williams on Executors and Administrators 988-990 (6th Am. ed. 1877).

The Government does not contend that WBEC stole the money at issue in this case or otherwise took money from the Government unlawfully. WBEC did not. Nor does the Government contend that California and WBEC had a relationship that would make California liable for WBEC's actions. They did not. In fact, California and WBEC had an adverse relationship: that of creditor and debtor. California's demand that WBEC pay what California believed to be a lawful debt does not make California legally responsible for the Government's indemnification of WBEC. In these circumstances, we do not imply a contract in law between California and the Government. Without an implied contract, an action for money had and received will not lie against the State.

Although the Government cannot proceed in an action for money had and received, our discussion of indemnification suggests the Government may not be without recourse: Because it indemnified the contractor, the Government has a right to be subrogated to the contractor's claims against the State. See 10 W. Jaeger, Williston on Contracts § 1265 (3d ed. 1967); Brief for Respondents 13 (conceding the same). When proceeding by subrogation, the subrogee "stands in the place of one whose claim he has paid." United States v. Munsey Trust Co., 332 U.S. 234, 242 (1947). Here WBEC's rights have lapsed and its claims are barred. Under traditional subrogation principles then, the claims of the United States also would be barred. The subrogee, who has all the rights of the subrogor, usually "cannot acquire by subrogation what another whose rights he claims did not have." Ibid. Although WBEC filed actions in state court within 90 days of the Board of Equalization's administrative decisions, WBEC later dismissed those cases without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice terminates the action and "concludes the rights of the parties in that particular action." Gagnon Co. v. Nevada Desert Inn, 45 Cal. 2d 448, 455, 289 P. 2d 466, 472 (1955). A subrogee could have proceeded only if WBEC could have filed a new state court action at that time, which it could not do.

The traditional rules of subrogation, however, do not necessarily apply to the Government. But cf. United States v. Standard Oil Co. of California, 332 U.S. 301, 309 (1947) (suggesting that state law controls "where the Government has simply substituted itself for others as successor to rights governed by state law"). The Government argues strenuously that, at the very least, state statutes of limitations do not bind it. It cites three cases to support this position. See United States v. Summerlin, 310 U.S. 414, 416 (1940); Board of Jackson County Commrs. v. United States, 308 U.S. 343, 351 (1939); United States v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 364 U.S. 301, 308 (1960). In the cases the Government cites, however, either the right at issue was obtained by the Government through, or created by, a federal statute, see Summerlin, supra, at 416 (United States suing under claim received by assignment pursuant to Act of June 27, 1934, 48 Stat. 1246); Board of Commrs., supra, at 349-350 (United States suing as Indian trustee pursuant to congressional statute); or a federal statute provided the statute of limitations, see John Hancock, supra, at 301 (United States redeeming mortgage foreclosure pursuant to statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2410(c)). Moreover, in each case, the Government was proceeding in its sovereign capacity. As the Government rightly notes,

"When the United States becomes entitled to a claim, acting in its governmental capacity, and asserts its claim in that right, it cannot be deemed to haveabdicated its governmental authority so as to become subject to a state statute putting a time limit upon enforcement." Summerlin, supra, at 417.

In contrast, the Government here became entitled to its claim by indemnifying a private contractor's state law debt. It can assert its claim only by way of subrogation, an equitable action created by the courts. Summerlin is clearly distinguishable.

Whether in general a state law action brought by the United States is subject to a federal or state statute of limitations is a difficult question. We need not resolve it today, however, because Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U.S. 126 (1938), provides guidance in this case. There the United States was proceeding as the assignee of the Soviet Government and sought to collect under state law. The petitioner argued that the statute of limitations had run, and the United States asserted, among other defenses, that it was not bound by state statutes of limitations. We found that the circumstances of the case "admit[ted] of no appeal to such a policy." Id., at 141. Even if the United States had a right to be free from the statute of limitations, it was deprived of no right on those facts. "[F]or the proof demonstrate[d] that the United States never acquired a right free of a pre-existing infirmity, the running of limitations against its assignor, which public policy does not forbid." Id., at 142.

Here, although the Government acquired a right to subrogation to WBEC's claims upon payment of the taxes, the Government did not assert that right until it filed the federal judicial proceeding. As the California Supreme Court has held, " `[A] surety by payment does not become ipso facto subrogated to the rights of the creditor, but only acquires a right to such subrogation, and . . . before the substitution or equitable assignment can actually take place he must actively assert his equitable right thereto. It is not a substantive tangible right of such nature and character that it can be seized and held and enjoyedindependently of a judicial proceeding.' " Offer v. Superior Court of San Francisco, 194 Cal. 114, 117, 228 P. 11, 12 (1924) (quoting 25 Ruling Case Law 1391 (1929)). Accord, 10 W. Jaeger, Williston on Contracts § 1265, at 848, and n. 9 (citing cases). Because the Government waited until after the state statute of limitations had run against WBEC to bring suit, the Government was not subrogated to "a right free of a pre-existing infirmity." Guaranty Trust, supra, at 142. That the doctrine of subrogation is one of equity only strengthens our conclusion that the Government may not proceed: The Government waitedten years after the first notice of deficiency was issued, eight years after the second notice was issued, and almost six years after the state statute of limitations ran to bring this suit.

The Government argues that affirming the Court of Appeals often will leave it "without an effective remedy to contest a tax improperly exacted from a federal contractor" and subject it to the "vagaries" of 50 state tax law procedures. Brief for United States 26-27. But federal contractors already are subject to the substantive tax laws of the 50 States. Nothing in our decision prevents the Government from including in its contracts a requirement that its contractors be responsible for all taxes the Government believes are wrongfully assessed, a contract term that likely would remove any disinterest a contractor may have toward litigating in state court. If our decision today results in an intolerable drain on the public fisc, Congress, which can take into account the concerns of the States as well as the Federal Government, is free to address the situation. See New Mexico, 455 U. S., at 737-738.

In United States v. New Mexico, we held that the Federal Government is immune only from state taxes imposed on it directly. Id., at 734. In so holding, we hoped to "forestall, at least to a degree, some of themanipulation and wooden formalism that occasionally have marked tax litigation--and that have no proper place in determining the allocation of power between coexisting sovereignties." Id., at 737. Today we hold that shouldering the "entire economic burden of the levy," id., at 734, through indemnification does not give the Federal Government a federal common law cause of action for money had and received to challenge a state tax on state law grounds simply because it is the Government. To do otherwise would be to return to the "manipulation and wooden formalism" we put aside in New Mexico.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Affirmed.

* about us
* help
* © copyright

2007 Anno Domini: which is it ~The timeline they decided on was to select a consultant by Jan. 12? The search committee won't be using a consultant ..

2007-01-01T21:29:00.000-08:00

2007 Anno Domini: which is it ~The timeline they decided on was to select a consultant by Jan. 12? The search committee won't be using a consultant ....???

The utilities have administrative roadblocks as well as lack of knowledge on how the DWSRF program works. then why is he there ....calling all experts

2006-12-28T00:14:00.000-08:00

Home About Assistance Planning Data Mapping Publications Search Customer Service
Publications Main Page

Administrative Rules

Brochures

Forms

Manuals

Press Releases

Periodicals

Reports

Requests for Proposals & Qualifications

Minutes of the
TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD
September 17, 2003
Chairman E.G. Rod Pittman called to order the regular meeting of the Texas Water Development Board at 9:35 a.m. in Room 118 of the Stephen F. Austin Building, Austin, Texas. The following Board members were present, constituting a quorum:

E.G. Rod Pittman, Chairman
Jack Hunt, Vice Chairman
Thomas Weir Labatt III, Member
D.V. Guerra, Jr., Member

Members Wales H. Madden, Jr. and Bill Meadows were not present.

Members of Texas Water Development Board staff attending included: Jorge Arroyo, Dan Hardin, Gabriela Quiroga, Ignacio Madera, Jr., Bill Mullican, Suzanne Schwartz, Kevin Ward, and Otis Williams.

The following individuals were present:

Richard Acosta, Ramirez and Company
Dwayne “Sparky” Anderson, Clean Water Action
Tom Arndt, Dannenbaum Engineering Corporation
Carole Baker, Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District
Anthony Bennett, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Evelyn Bonavita, Region L Water Planning Group
Laura Brock, Environmental Defense
Joseph Brown, Northridge Acres Homeowners’ Association
Nettie Brown, Northridge Acres Homeowners’ Association
John Bruciak, Brownsville Public Utilities Board
David Burnett, Texas A&M TWRI
Max Castaneda, City of Corpus Christi
Carmen Cernosek, Office of Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst
James Dannenbaum, Dannenbaum Engineering Corporation
Anne Burger Entrekin, First Southwest Company
Bill Fox, Texas Water Resources Institute
Eduardo Garaña, City of Corpus Christi
Guy Goodson, Germer Gertz, L.L.P.
Herb Grubb, HDR Engineering
Bill Harris, TAMU/TAES/TWRI
George Janning, First Southwest Company
Keith Kindle, Turner Collie & Braden, Inc.
Dan Kohlhofer, Bolivar Peninsula Special Utility District
Ken Kramer, Sierra Club
J. A. Lazarus, Senate Natural Resources Committee
Mark Lowry, Turner Collie & Braden, Inc.
Ronald Massey, City of Corpus Christi
Carol McGarah, El Paso Public Service Board
Jennifer McKnight, Bolivar Peninsula Special Utility District
Mark McLiney, Southwest Securities
Lucas Meyers, Office of Representative Vilma Luna
Art Morales, Banc of America Securities
Susan Morgan, Brazos River Authority
James Murphy, Emerson Process Management
Craig Pederson, Brownsville Public Utilities Board
David Potter, First Albany Corporation
Keith Richard, Lehman Brothers
Tomas Rodriguez, Jr., Webb County Engineer
Andy Shea, Poseidon Resources
Sandra Simmons, Bolivar Peninsula Special Utility District
Steve Stevens, Mesa Water Inc.
Robert Tijerina, Estrada Hinojosa & Company, Inc.
Jerry Valdez, Pavlik-Valdez
Clarence Watson, U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray
Karin Werness, Banc One Capital Markets, Inc.
Dorothy Young, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Mr. Reggie Williams was recognized for his years of service upon his retirement.

The items on the formal agenda were considered in the following order.

1. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AUGUST BOARD MEETING MINUTES.

Mr. Guerra moved to approve the minutes as submitted; Mr. Labatt seconded the motion; it passed unanimously 4-0.

2. BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION ON THE FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 2003.

Committee report was provided.

Consent
Mr. Hunt moved to approve the action requested by staff for the following items on the Consent Agenda with the exception of item no. 16 which was pulled at staff’s request and item no. 7 which was moved to the regular agenda. Mr. Guerra seconded the motion; it passed unanimously 4-0.

Tomas Rodriguez, Jr., Webb County engineer, addressed the Board to express his appreciation to the Board for considering the approval of the Webb County request for financial assistance.

3. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS PERFORMANCE REPORT.

4. CONTRACT STATUS REPORT.

5. CONSIDER APPROVING A REQUEST FROM WEBB COUNTY, TEXAS (WEBB COUNTY) FOR AN INCREASE OF $3,010,827 GRANT/LOAN FOR A TOTAL COMMITMENT OF $26,175,227 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CITIES OF EL CENIZO AND RIO BRAVO. (ECONOMICALLY DISTRESSED AREAS PROGRAM) (FINANCE-6/15/99 & 9/17/03)

6. CONSIDER APPROVING A REQUEST FROM ANGELINA WATER SUPPLY CORPORATION (ANGELINA COUNTY) FOR A $1,700,000 LOAN FROM THE RURAL WATER ASSISTANCE FUND TO FINANCE WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS, UTILIZING THE PRE-DESIGN FUNDING OPTION.

8. CONSIDER APPROVING A REQUEST FROM WYLIE NORTHEAST WATER SUPPLY CORPORATION (COLLIN COUNTY) FOR AN $882,000 LOAN FROM THE RURAL WATER ASSISTANCE FUND TO FINANCE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE WATER SYSTEM, UTILIZING THE PRE-DESIGN FUNDING OPTION.

9. CONSIDER APPROVING: (A) A $1,270,000 LOAN FROM THE RURAL WATER ASSISTANCE FUND TO BENTON CITY WATER SUPPLY CORPORATION (MEDINA, ATASCOSA, AND FRIO COUNTIES) TO FINANCE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE WATER SYSTEM; AND (B) TO RESCIND RESOLUTION NO. 03-28 WHICH APPROVED A LOAN COMMITMENT OF $1,270,000 FROM THE DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND, UTILIZING THE PRE-DESIGN FUNDING OPTION.

10. CONSIDER AFFIRMING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING AND APPROVING RELEASE OF FUNDS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FROM THE $1,200,000 LOAN TO THE CITY OF BRIDGEPORT (WISE COUNTY) FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, UTILIZING THE PRE-DESIGN FUNDING OPTION (CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND).

11. CONSIDER AFFIRMING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING AND APPROVING RELEASE OF FUNDS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FROM THE $1,875,000 LOAN TO THE CITY OF PANHANDLE (CARSON COUNTY) FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, UTILIZING THE PRE-DESIGN FUNDING OPTION (CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND).

12. CONSIDER AFFIRMING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING AND APPROVING RELEASE OF FUNDS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FROM THE $340,000 LOAN TO THE CITY OF MOUNT CALM (HILL COUNTY) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ELEVATED WATER STORAGE TANK, UTILIZING THE PRE-DESIGN COMMITMENT OPTION (DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND).

13. CONSIDER APPROVING A REQUEST FROM GOLDEN WATER SUPPLY CORPORATION (WOOD COUNTY) FOR PARTIAL RELEASE OF LIEN ON PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CORPORATION.

14. CONSIDER APPROVING THE FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2004 INTENDED USE PLAN FOR THE DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND.

15. CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE PUBLICATION OF: (A) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 31 TAC CHAPTER 363, FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS; AND (B) NOTICE OF INTENT TO REVIEW CHAPTER 363, AS REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT CODE §2001.039.

16. CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE PUBLICATION OF: (A) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 31 TAC CHAPTER 354, MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING; AND (B) NOTICE OF INTENT TO REVIEW CHAPTER 354, AS REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT CODE §2001.039.

17. CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE PUBLICATION OF: (A) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 31 TAC CHAPTER 379, ADVISORY COMMITTEES; AND (B) NOTICE OF INTENT TO REVIEW CHAPTER 379, AS REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT CODE §2001.039.

18. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE PREAMBLE AND AMENDMENTS TO 31 TAC CHAPTER 371, DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND, RELATING TO LENDING RATES. (FINANCE 7/16/03)

19. CONSIDER APPROVING THE REGION C WATER PLANNING GROUP'S PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO INCREASE THE WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS AND INCLUDE REUSE OF ATHENS WASTEWATER AS A RECOMMENDED WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR THE CITY OF ATHENS, HENDERSON COUNTY.

20. CONSIDER AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PUBLISH A REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS IN THE TEXAS REGISTER FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,200,000 FROM THE RESEARCH AND PLANNING FUND FOR REGIONAL WATER AND WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLANNING AND FLOOD PROTECTION PLANNING.

21. CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR AND THE DEVELOPMENT FUND MANAGER TO: (A) APPLY FOR RESERVATION OF UP TO $25 MILLION IN PRIVATE ACTIVITY BONDS FOR FY 2004 FROM THE TEXAS BOND REVIEW BOARD TO BE USED TO FUND PROJECTS FROM THE RURAL WATER ASSISTANCE FUND; (B) APPLY FOR A PORTION OF THE CARRY FORWARD ALLOCATION OF PRIVATE ACTIVITY BONDS IF AVAILABLE FROM THE 2003 PROGRAM YEAR; AND (C) CARRY OUT ALL ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE APPLICATIONS FOR RESERVATIONS.

22. CONSIDER AUTHORIZING: (A) THE EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT WITH TURNER COLLIE & BRADEN INC. ON OR BEFORE OCTOBER 18, 2003, TO INCREASE THE CONSIDERATION FOR TWDB CONTRACT 02-0483-0473 BY AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $73,000, TO CONDUCT ADDITIONAL WATER RESEARCH THAT EVALUATES WATER AND WASTEWATER FACILITY NEEDS FOR COMMUNITIES IN BOARD-SPECIFIED ECONOMICALLY DISTRESSED AREAS PROGRAM (EDAP) ELIGIBLE COUNTIES SPECIFICALLY TO INCLUDE THE EL PASO COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING STUDY; AND (B) THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE WATER ASSISTANCE FUND TO THE RESEARCH AND PLANNING FUND.

23. CONSIDER AUTHORIZING JORGE ARROYO AND HARI KRISHNA TO ATTEND THE INTERNATIONAL DESALINATION CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 28 THROUGH OCTOBER 3, 2003.

Regular
24. BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION OF THE TWDB DESALINATION WORK PLAN.

Mr. Jorge Arroyo, Special Projects in the Office of Planning Division, remarked that it has been has been 16 months since the agency received the gubernatorial charge to pursue development of large-scale seawater desalination supplies. During that period of time, Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) has undertaken a significant and diverse level of effort to accomplish that charge and, at the same time, ensure a wider benefit to the entire state from the use of desalination technologies. Examples of these efforts are the actions to be considered under items no. 25 and no. 26. Item no. 25 is the consideration of applications from Brownsville Public Utilities Board, the City of Corpus Christi, and the Brazos River Authority – for regional water facility planning with a focus on seawater desalination sources; these studies constitute the next step in pursuing the development of the large-scale demonstration seawater desalination project. Item no. 26 presents a proposal to evaluate a promising technology that may be applicable to the cost-effective treatment of brackish groundwater.

Mr. Arroyo acknowledged the role that a wide network of support from academic researchers, project developers and sponsors, and state and federal agencies has provided in the implementation of the activities reflected in the work plan. House Bill No. 1370, adopted during the 78th Texas Legislative Session, gives the institutional framework for seeking development of seawater desalination sources and sets accountability for what the agency is trying to do by requiring biennial reports to the state leadership on progress made and remaining impediments to the use of large-scale seawater desalination. The interest in desalination in Texas is not new. For example, the first round of regional water plans considered water desalination strategies to meet their water needs. The increasing interest in seawater desalination is prompted by the dramatic improvements in desalination technologies, the need for drought proof water sources and the benefits of diversification of a water portfolio from a security standpoint.

The role of TWDB in this process is to demonstrate the feasibility of large-scale seawater desalination and to chart the way for the wider use of cost-effective desalination technologies in Texas. Mr. Arroyo stated that former chairman Wales Madden realized that this initiative was a valuable opportunity to explore the wider use of desalination technologies for the benefit of areas of the state with access to vast amount of brackish groundwater and that Mr. Madden directed staff to ensure that knowledge and information transferability is an integral part of the TWDB desalination program. The research component of the work plan addresses this interest.

Research is a key to the continued development of the cost-saving improvements to the technology. TWDB staff prepared and submitted two key research proposals to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (US BoR) Desalination Research Program. The US BoR approved funding for a proposal to assess the use of abandoned oil and gas wells for concentrated disposals.

Chairman Pittman expressed the importance of desalination for the future of Texas. He said that a recent report states that the areas in the state with the most water needs are also generally where brackish groundwater is available in quantities that could be used in future desalination. He expressed his enthusiasm in the potential that this process can have in helping to solve the water problems of the state. He noted that currently there are approximately 100 desalination facilities authorized to operate in the state. Mr. Labatt said the Desalination Work Plan was the correct strategy for the agency to pursue and that he believed staff’s efforts were appropriate.

25. CONSIDER AUTHORIZING: (A) THE EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE CONTRACTS WITH BRAZOS RIVER AUTHORITY, THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI AND BROWNSVILLE PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $500,000 EACH, FOR A TOTAL OF $1,500,000, FOR THE PREPARATION OF REGIONAL WATER FACILITY PLANNING; AND (B) THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE WATER ASSISTANCE FUND TO THE RESEARCH AND PLANNING FUND.

Special Projects Director Jorge Arroyo stated that these three projects are similar but each brings a different issue to the table, which we can learn from. The minimum proposed service area for the Brownsville project is Cameron County. The project will address the potential benefit to be gained by reducing Brownsville’s dependence on the Rio Grade; this includes possible marketing of water rights that may be freed-up and could serve upstream users. This project will consider co-siting with a new power generation facility – this is of particular interest because integration of power generation and desalination operations is a source of significant cost-savings. The disposal of concentrate is also being researched.

Corpus Christi’s water needs are met until the year 2060; however, it is in an ideal location in terms of seawater desalination potential. A large-scale desalination plant in Corpus Christi may enable the release for marketing purposes of other water resources that could be used upstream via water trade-offs in the Lower Colorado, Guadalupe, San Antonio & Nueces basins.

The Freeport project is the result of a public-private partnership. The treatment facility will be located on the Dow Chemical Complex. The Brazos River Authority will look into providing water for the district and distributing the water to users located along Highway 288. This will open the opportunity for Brazos River Authority to use some of these water rights, currently tied up downstream, to provide and meet needs upstream in the basin.

Mr. John Bruciak, General Manager of the Brownville Public Utilities Board, expressed his appreciation to the Board for considering this project as a major desalination project in the state. The Brownsville facility will begin operation in October, with full operation beginning in January. He stated that the cooperation among the contractors allowed the facility to be completed ahead of schedule. With the completion of a large coal acquired generation facility in conjunction with the desalination project, the cost of water will be considerably lower. He said the Board will be invited to the ribbon cutting ceremonies which will take place in a few months.

In response to a question concerning permitting, Mr. Arroyo stated that the previously funding permitting roadmap study will be implemented shortly and the expectation is to have the results available for the use of the present regional water facility planning studies. The consultant for the permitting roadmap is Mr. Neil Callahan, who has been involved in the Tampa Bay project and has quite knowledgeable on permitting and desalination issues. Regarding a question concerning concentrate disposal and potential environmental issues, he stated that environmental review of the different alternatives is part of the scope of the proposed studies.

Mr. Gurerra moved to approve the staff recommendation; Mr. Labatt seconded the motion; it passed unanimously 4-0.

26. CONSIDER AUTHORIZING: (A) THE EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT ON OR BEFORE DECEMBER 17, 2003 WITH THE TEXAS WATER RESOURCES INSTITUTE IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $35,000 FOR A GRANT TO CONDUCT TESTING OF CDT INC. CAPACITIVE DISCHARGE DESALINATION TECHNOLOGY; AND (B) THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE WATER ASSISTANCE FUND TO THE RESEARCH AND PLANNING FUND.

Jorge Arroyo, Special Projects Division, stated that this research will be used to evaluate an innovative process which has the potential to provide a cost-effective desalination treatment. The technology is a promising technology that may be used for brackish water desalination. It operates better in lower salinities of 5000 parts per million or less as the optimum range. Information reviewed estimates that this system can produce water at an approximate cost of $1.40 per 1000 gallons. Additional studies will evaluate the performance of technology for water supply purposes.

In response to questions, Mr. David Burnett from Texas A&M stated that the big advantage to this technology is that it works on lower power and is very interesting for purposes on rural applications requiring low volts. However, he stated that the capital expense is higher.

Mr. Labatt moved to approve the staff recommendation; Mr. Hunt seconded the motion; it passed unanimously 4-0.

7. CONSIDER APPROVING A REQUEST IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $7,180,000 FROM BOLIVAR PENINSULA SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT (GALVESTON COUNTY) CONSISTING OF: (A) A $1,100,000 LOAN FROM THE TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT FUNDS TO FINANCE LAND EASEMENTS ACQUISITION, UTILIZING THE PRE-DESIGN FUNDING OPTION; AND (B) A $6,080,000 LOAN FROM THE DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND TO FINANCE WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS, UTILIZING THE PRE-DESIGN COMMITMENT OPTION. (FINANCE 8/19/03)

Financial Analyst Gabriela Quiroga stated that the District’s Texas Water Development Funds (DFund) application is solely for the purpose of acquiring private easements in which to place a pipeline to deliver treated surface water to the upper half of the Bolivar Peninsula. The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund loan is for the construction of the pipeline to deliver water for the lower half of the peninsula. She said that the majority of the right-of-way acquisition is undeveloped agricultural tracts. She stated that the engineer is designing the transmission line to prevent blocking access to property or diminishing property values. She said that there are approximately 11 areas where existing improvements could possibly encroach into the 20-foot easement zone.

Ms. Quiroga said that rate increases will be required to service all of the district’s obligations and customers will have to pay higher rates. The rate increases are based on a base rate not per water usage. Another fee has been adopted which consists of a $450 reconnect fee, which is to prevent secondary homes from disconnecting during the off-season.

In response to questions concerning the right-of-way, Mr. Dan Kohlhofer, Bolivar Peninsula Special Utility District, stated that TxDot will be moving Highway 87 and purchasing the District’s own right-of-way will be more cost effective as well as being a preventative measure from having to relocate when the highway is moved.

Deputy Executive Administrator Ignacio Madera, Jr. stated that the landowners are being approached to donate the land for the easement. Condemning the property will be a last resort. Mr. Kohlhofer stated that three easements have currently been donated and that the majority of the 180 landowners are in favor of the easement.

In response to a question concerning the new line, Bolivar Peninsula Special Utility District General Manager Jennifer McKnight told the Board that the line will have to crossover the highway one time near Gilchrist and then cross back over. She said that the decision was made to seek a private easement because of more beach erosion, environmental issues, construction costs of existing lines in the TXDot right-of-way, and the possibility of the relocation of the highway. She stated that currently the peninsula has a two percent growth rate. She believes the growth will increase when the project is completed and good water is available to its customers.

Mr. Guerra moved to table this item until next month’s meeting; Mr. Labatt seconded the motion; it passed unanimously 4-0 to table the item until next month’s meeting.

27. CONSIDER APPROVING THE MEMBERS OF THE WATER CONSERVATION IMPLEMENTATION TASK FORCE, AS AUTHORIZED IN SENATE BILL 1094, 78TH LEGISLATURE, REGULAR SESSION.

Deputy Executive Administrator Bill Mullican gave a brief summary of the process involved in implementing the Water Conservation Task Force. He stated that staff had received, at the time of Board mailout, nominations for 89 individuals to be considered for membership of this Task Force. Mr. Mullican stated that the recommendation of the 32 nominees best meets the evaluation criteria while maintaining the size of the Task Force at a level conducive to effective meetings and development of required tasks. He said that the kick-off meeting for the Task Force will be held on September 29, 2003.

Mr. Hunt moved to approve the staff recommendation; Mr. Labatt seconded the motion; it passed unanimously 4-0.

28. CONSIDER APPROVING THE NEW WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS FOR WATER PLANNING REGIONS A, G, H, L, N AND O, AND OF REVISED POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR WATER PLANNING REGIONS H, L, AND O FOR THE 2006 REGIONAL WATER PLANS.

Mr. Dan Hardin, Water Uses Section Manager, stated that the projections have been reviewed by four state agencies – Texas Water Development Board, Texas Parks and Wildlife, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and Texas Department of Agriculture. All have concurred with recommended adoption of these projections. He stated the rate of change in future decades are based on demand categories – municipal, agricultural and industrial. He said that five of the six regions being considered requested revisions. Mr. Hardin gave a brief summary of the revisions in each region. Montgomery County in Region H and Hockley and Lubbock Counties in Region O have requested population revisions for specific water user groups through a redistribution of county population, with no increase in county or regional totals. Caldwell, Calhoun, and Goliad Counties in Region L have requested increased population projections.

Mr. Labatt moved to approve the staff recommendation; Mr. Hunt seconded the motion; it passed unanimously 4-0.

29. CONSIDER APPROVING RELEASE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT OF AMENDMENTS TO THE 2002 STATE WATER PLAN TO INCORPORATE ADOPTED AND APPROVED AMENDMENTS TO 2001 REGIONAL WATER PLANS.

Deputy Executive Administrator Bill Mullican stated that the requirements for amending the State Water Plan are the same as those that are required for adopting the original State Water Plan. It is necessary to incorporate the two amendments for Region C and Region M that were approved at the August Board meeting and the one that was approved at today’s meeting for Region C. Once amendments are published in the Texas Register, a public hearing will be held in Austin in early November and notices will be sent to all planning groups about these amendments.
He said that in November this item will be brought back to the Board for further consideration.

Mr. Labatt commented that everyone in the planning process throughout the state needs to be cognizant to water conservation. He stated that rather than building more projects, using less water can be effective.

Mr. Hunt moved to approve the staff recommendation; Mr. Guerra seconded the motion; it passed unanimously 4-0.

30. THE BOARD WILL RECEIVE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.

Mr. Dwayne “Sparky” Anderson, State Program Director with Clean Water Action, expressed his appreciation for the work involved in the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Intended Use Plan. He stated his concerns during the full legislative session, when several utilities came before legislative representation and asked for a rollback of protections under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Concerns exist with the utilities’ ability to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act rule currently on the table as well as those being proposed by Environmental Protection Agency. Their primary concern has been funding mechanisms, such as how they would pay for improvements necessary to get into compliance or to stay in compliance. The utilities have administrative roadblocks as well as lack of knowledge on how the DWSRF program works. He asked the agency to look into ways to assist the utilities to stay in compliance instead of asking for rollback of standards. He suggested grants be considered and assisting the utilities in applying for various loan programs available to them.
Mr. Ward stated that the agency is engaging in a strategic planning process that begins next month. During the stakeholders meeting, people will be commenting on the agency’s mission statement and also commenting on strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats that the Board, state, and constituents will be facing over the next several years. He suggested that this will be an excellent forum to voice his concerns to the Board.

Ms. Nettie Brown, Northridge Acres Homeowners Association, expressed her appreciation to the Board for the various programs made available to non-border colonias. She stressed the needs of the community and asked the Board to expedite the progress of the programs. She also expressed her appreciation to the Board for tabling item no. 7 because of concerns for property owners facing condemnation of personal property.

31. THE BOARD WILL RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO CONSULT WITH ITS ATTORNEY REGARDING PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION AND/OR SETTLEMENT OFFERS, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE §551.071 OR TO CONSIDER PERSONNEL ISSUES, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE §551.074 AND WILL RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION FOR ANY NECESSARY ACTION ON ANY SUCH MATTER CONSIDERED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

An executive session was not held.

The meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

APPROVED and ordered of record this 15th day of October 2003.

TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD

___________________________________
E.G. Rod Pittman, Chairman

ATTEST:
____________________________
J. Kevin Ward
Executive Administrator

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Open Records Requests | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Policy | Link Policy | Contact Webmasters | Site Map | Compact with Texans
Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) - All Rights Reserved

Texas Ethics Commission just made a gift to corrupt politicians

2006-12-02T23:07:00.000-08:00

Ethics Commission does Texans a huge disservice
Panel's ruling that state officials need not report the value of monetary gifts they receive from their supporters is a travesty.

November 29, 2006

Consider this hypothetical case. You're a state official. Someone who expects favorable action on a matter under your control gives you a check - say, for $100,000 or even $200,000. Do you have to disclose it?

Incredibly, the Texas Ethics Commission ruled in April that all you must do is report that you received a check as a gift, without revealing the amount. Editorial writers reacted quickly, saying the ruling opened the door to greater graft and corruption in Texas, creating a loophole for officials to accept large amounts of cash.

Behind this decision was a real case. Bill Ceverha, a member of the State Employees Retirement System, got a check from Republican contributor Bob Perry. Texas law requires officials to file financial disclosure statements, including a description of gifts in excess of $250.

Ceverha disclosed he received a check without specifying the amount. Through newspaper interviews, it was revealed that he received two checks from Perry, each for $50,000, to defray legal expenses; he was treasurer of a political action committee, Texans for Republican Majority, which was under investigation. It was also reported that Bob Perry had no interest in the Texas State Retirement System, which oversees a $20 billion system, that no quid pro quo was involved.

That may all be true, but the ruling by the Ethics Commission has far greater implications than this one case.

On Monday, the Ethics Commission had a chance to undo the original mistake, but it reaffirmed its earlier ruling. The commission voted 5-3 to approve a staff advisory opinion that describing such a gift as a "check" is enough; no amount need be disclosed.

Back in April, Tom "Smitty" Smith, director of the Austin office of Public Citizen, said the ruling was outrageous. It opens a huge loophole that would allow a Texas politician to accept a check for, say, $1 million as a gift and then simply disclose that he or she received a "check."

The Texas Ethics Commission just made a gift to corrupt politicians. Allowing monetary gifts of more than $250 to be listed as a generic "check" or "cash" makes a mockery of the commission's assignment to deal with problems of corruption to help restore public confidence in the integrity of state government. The Ethics Commission has somehow misinterpreted its mission; it is not supposed to be providing greater access to graft and corruption and less public accountability. This ruling screams out for a legislative remedy, which should come in the next session.

who is mary cano?

2006-11-28T00:48:00.000-08:00

A material witness is an individual who contains information "material" to a criminal proceeding

CCISD is ripped off by Colleen McHugh ~expensive pay with nothing to show for it

2006-09-12T17:53:00.000-07:00

RELATED STORIESBria turned down more than $195K
PRINT THIS STORY E-MAIL THIS STORY CCISD paid $72,000 for search
Superintendent hunt too costly, some officials say
By Dan Kelley Caller-TimesSeptember 12, 2006
The Corpus Christi ISD spent more than $70,000 on its two failed attempts to hire a superintendent since December 2005, with more than half of those funds spent on legal fees and thousands more spent on hotel rooms, airfare and catered meet-and-greet affairs.
"It's so disappointing," said Board of Trustees President Manuel Flores, "and it is too much money."
The Caller-Times on Aug. 25 requested an accounting of all costs associated with the superintendent search and all draft copies of former finalist Shonny Bria's proposed contract. That's the day she backed away from a $195,000 per year job offer without explanation. The district released the information in a letter dated Sept. 5 and Caller-Times received it Monday.
The district released information indicating it spent $77,561. On Monday, district spokeswoman Lorette Winters said the total paid is $4,750 less. The district has withheld that amount, the final installment of the search consultant's $19,000 contract, because the board has not hired a superintendent. The contract with Webb and Associates also called for about $5,500 in expenses. An accounting of those expenses was not immediately available.
According to the records, the district paid more than $41,000 in legal fees to two law firms - one to represent members of the board of trustees, the other to represent the district - though the district has its own in-house legal department.
After Bria turned down the offer, Flores said the search costs were about $20,000. At the time, he was referring to the search consultant's contract.
Trustee Lucy Rubio, after she was shown the records released by the district, said she had no idea of the amount spent on the search and that the legal fees were a surprise.
"We didn't take a vote on this," Rubio said. "We voted on the attorney, but the fees were by the hour." She later added: "They are a little higher than I would have liked, but our legal fees are always high because we are under so many mandates."
Board member Bill Clark questioned why the district would need to pay for two outside law firms, and said he had not been aware of the extent of the legal fees. He added that he would have to see the numbers himself before making a judgment.
One firm, Bracewell Giuliani of Houston, serves as standing counsel to the board of trustees and was paid $10,175 for its part in the search. The district also paid the firm of Welder Leshin $31,097 for the services of attorney Colleen McHugh..
McHugh was reached by telephone Monday but broke off the call. District officials later contacted the Caller-Times to say she would not comment because of attorney-client privilege."She was engaged because she specializes in human resources law," said acting superintendent Scott Eliff.
Flores said the district did not seek bids when it hired McHugh. Bracewell & Giuliani was selected from among respondents to requests for proposals. The contracts called for both law firms to be paid by the hour but did not cap the total value of the arrangement.
The later stages of contract negotiation with Bria generated much of McHugh's fee total, Flores said.
"Those last two weeks killed us," he said.
The $41,000 generated by both firms also includes $4,432 associated with the departure of former Superintendent Jesus Chavez, interim superintendent Scott Elliff said.
It also was not immediately known if costs associated with this search are unusual for the district. Flores said he personally estimated fees for the superintendent search would be about $60,000 at the beginning of the process.
Bria's decision was the second attempt to hire the district's top officer. Earlier this year, the district suspended the search after the Caller-Times announced the identities of two close contenders.
The board voted Aug. 29 to postpone the search until after November school board elections.
Other expenses included $3,103 spent at the Omni Bayfront Hotel for rooms and refreshments used during the interview process, as well as lodging for candidates.
The district paid a pianist $150 to play a $1,200 party at the Holiday Inn Emerald Beach to introduce Bria to the school principals and other management. The district hosted six other meet-and-greet events for a total of $2,650. The district also paid for three round-trip coach tickets and related travel expenses for $2,722.
Flores said he was "disappointed about the money and time spent without the result we were looking for" - hiring a superintendent.
"I fully believe the process can be handled with a search firm and a local attorney," Flores said. "I don't believe it would cost $30,000 or $40,000. The board can do it without a search firm and save another $20,000."
But, he said, Webb had achieved a spectacular result, with approximately 70 applicants.
American Federation of Teachers Corpus Christi President Juan Guerra said the district could recoup its costs by re-examining applicants from the previous search.
"If we've invested the money in that search," Guerra said, "we need to go back and look at the 69 other candidates. That seems like quite expensive legal bills for a failure."
SEARCH COSTS
TOTAL COST
$72K
LEGAL fees
$41,272
Paid to: Welder Leshin/Colleen McHugh Bracewell & Giuliani
Professional fees/Expenses
$19,750
Paid to: Harold Webb Associates, Ltd.
Several other expenses
$11,783
Used for: Candidate interviews, advertising, brochures, food services, transportation among others.
Contact Dan Kelley at 886-4316

this is ethics

2006-06-24T22:39:00.000-07:00

A Lawsuit Filed in Corpus Christi Says the Games Perpetrate "Fraud"

Story As It Appeared in the
San Antonio Express News

A lawsuit filed in Corpus Christi says
Texas Lottery Scratch games perpetrate "fraud"

Posted: Friday, June 11, 2004

Read the first San Antonio Express News
story that ran June 9, 2004, click here.

Ken Rodriguez: In 22 scratch-off games, gamblers are only playing for fun
Web Posted: 06/11/2004 12:00 AM CDT

San Antonio Express-News

The Texas Lottery Commission calls its 83 scratch-off games "fun." A lawsuit filed in Corpus Christi says the games perpetrate "fraud."

A reasonable person could believe the Texas Lottery Commission if you redefine "fun" to mean "suckered and ticked off."

People don't know that much of the cash they're scratching for already has been claimed.

One game, "Casino Action," offers a top prize of $1 million. That prize has been claimed, but tickets for the game are still being sold.

Another game, "$500,000 Payday," offers a top prize of, you guessed it, half a million dollars. That prize has been claimed, but tickets for the game are still being sold.

Casino Action and $500,000 Payday aren't anomalies. Tickets are being sold for 22 scratch-off games whose top prizes have been claimed.

The others are: $100,000 Cash Vault, $50,000 Cash Bonanza, 3 Card Cash, ($2) Bingo, ($5) Bingo, Break The Bank, Club Casino, Crown Jewels, Diamond Mine, Doubler Bingo, Holiday Bonus, Hot Dice, Hot Slots, Luck Of The Draw, Magnificent 7s, Mega Bucks, Midas Touch, Roll For Riches, Top Tens, and Weekly Grand.

People are paying up to $20 per ticket, hoping to win more than $2.7 million in top prizes that no longer exist.

Bet you can hardly wait to join the fun. Five plaintiffs in Nueces County had so much fun they decided to sue.

They are suing GTECH, the company that designs and runs the Texas Lottery, and Scientific Games, the company that prints the scratch-off cards, alleging "fraud" and "theft."

The plaintiffs are naming the Texas Lottery Commission, which is immune from lawsuits, as a "co-conspirator." GTECH and Scientific Games won't comment.

"It makes sense that you tell people what they can win before you take their money," says Bill Edwards, a Corpus Christi lawyer who filed the suit. "If you hide it, you are running a crooked numbers game."

The Texas Lottery Commission posts a disclaimer on the back of all tickets: "A Scratch Off game may continue to be sold even when all the top prizes have been claimed."

The words appear in tiny print. To read the warning, you first have to buy a ticket.

Express-News reporter John MacCormack pointed out the disclaimer to a woman after she bought a ticket.

"It's not fair," the woman said. "It's a come-on. I'm buying tickets. I'm thinking I'm going to hit it, but it's already gone."

She was right. The top $100,000 prize for the Club Casino ticket she bought already had been claimed. One $10,000 prize and one $5,000 prize remain.

The Texas Lottery Commission will not close the Club Casino game until July 31.

Why? Spokesman Bobby Heith says the Texas Lottery Commission closes games based on sales — and not because top prizes are claimed.

Heith points out that the Texas Lottery Commission posts the number of winning tickets remaining for each game on its Web site, www.texaslottery.org.

Bill Edwards points out that many low-income people who buy tickets don't have access to Web sites.

I'd like to point out that the Texas Lottery Commission and the Attorney General's Office refuse to comment on the lawsuit. That's courageous.

A spokesman in the Attorney General's Office says the lottery commission is not in the suit. Wrong. The lottery commission is named as a co-conspirator.

If the Texas Lottery Commission wanted to avoid the appearance of running a questionable game, it could at least post the number of winning prizes remaining where scratch-off tickets are sold.

But then this is the same commission that says legalizing video lottery terminals would generate $1.6 billion after two years — while the state comptroller's office estimates the revenue at $548 million.

And this is the same lottery commission whose executive director was accused of giving vague and misleading answers last week to lawmakers regarding a $250,000 contract with a Las Vegas law firm.

So when you hear the commission call games with no top prizes available "fun," here's the truth: It's a lie.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To reach Ken Rodriguez call (210) 250-3369 or
e-mail krodriguez@express-news.net

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Special Note From Dawn Nettles - Publisher of LottoReport.com

Many of you have been asking if we couldn't file a class action lawsuit against the TLC and it's employees. Well, I'm about ready to seriously check into this as the District Attorney of Travis County has just recently notified me that the DA has no jurisdiction in the matter of not considering comment for rule changes. We did however discuss another avenue to which the DA may have jurisdiction and I will submit that complaint in coming days. In the meantime, for those of you who wish to participate in a class action lawsuit should I find that avenue to be advantageous to us, then send me an email with your name and address and I'll notify you when and if the time comes. Here is an email link

The Lotto Report
Dawn Nettles
P. O. Box 495033
Garland, Texas 75049-5033
(972) 686-0660
(972) 681-1048 Fax
lottoreport@lottoreport.com

Comments - E-mail Us
Comments for the TLC - E-mail Them

MARK POLLY "MASTER OF PUPPETS'

2006-06-15T04:12:00.000-07:00

Post a Comment On: SonsoftheBeaches "Poor Paul Shexnailder!"
3 Comments -Show Original Post
Collapse comments

CIARAN said...
SONS OF THE BEACHES:-
It is now widely known that Mr. Shexnailder (unpopular developer & "Citizen Beach Blocker") has contributed mega$$$ to the CC Realtors Assoc. & Chambers of Commerce to mount a media campaign to destroy the Citizen Petition attempt to obtain a democratic vote against the blocking of over 7,000 ft, of Texas Heritage Padre Island Beach access.
How low can CC Council and a "greedy" developer stoop?
CIARAN

2:39 PM

Stephen McArthur said...
When a greedy rich person starts talking about risk, it is merely confirmation that they are a greedy rich person. Risk is the pixie dust they throw in everyone's eyes.

7:56 PM

CCDemocrat said...
Great observation on Shexnailder (Mark Scott's puppetmaster).

6:41 AM

Section 552.267 of the Texas Public Information Act of the Texas Government Code

2006-06-14T20:53:00.000-07:00

when utilizing taxpayers money anyone can :

request under the TEXAS PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT, Chapter 552,texas government code,which guarentees the public's access to information in the custody of governmental agencies.

such as this one

1. All and any types of reports, contracts,documents, written notes, faxes, including but not limited to electronic emails between carlos garcia, president of delmar college, and guadalupe rangel from the rangel consulting firm between january 1, 2005 as of today june14, 2006.

2. All and any types of reports, contracts, documents, written notes, faxes, including but not limited to electronic emailsbetween the delmar college administration, and Guadalupe Rangel from the rangel consulting firm between January1, 2005 as of today june 14,2006.

Disclosure of this information is in the public interest because providing a copy of the information primarily benefits the general public. Therefore I request a waiver of all fees and charges pursuant to Section 552.267 of the Texas Public Information Act of the Texas Government Code

Fred Jimenez Expenditures

2006-02-20T00:33:00.000-08:00

Report #
Filer ID
Filer's Name
Payee's Name
Amount
Date
Description
Payee's City
Payee's State
Payee's Zipcode
ReimbursmentIntended?
301821
00057426
Jimenez, Freddie
Creative Solutions,
$ 3,450.00
1/09/06
Political Signs
Corpus Christi
Tx
78401

301821
00057426
Jimenez, Freddie
Saldana, Susie
$ 2,000.00
1/03/06
Consulting
Corpus Christi
Tx
78415

301821
00057426
Jimenez, Freddie
Saldana, Susie
$ 1,250.00
1/13/06
Consulting
Corpus Christi
Tx
78415

301821
00057426
Jimenez, Freddie
Saldana, Susie
$ 1,000.00
2/03/06
Consulting
Corpus Christi
Tx
78415

301821
00057426
Jimenez, Freddie
Gonzales, Esther
$ 825.00
1/04/06
Pa System Speaker
Robstown
Tx
78380

301821
00057426
Jimenez, Freddie
Villarreal, Matlide
$ 500.00
1/27/06
Political Ad
Robstown
Tx
78380

301821
00057426
Jimenez, Freddie
Villarreal, Homer
$ 500.00
1/30/06
Political Ad
Robstown
Tx
78380

301821
00057426
Jimenez, Freddie
Villarreal, Matlide
$ 500.00
1/09/06
Political Ad
Robstown
Tx
78380

301821
00057426
Jimenez, Freddie
Villarreal, Matlide
$ 500.00
1/18/06
Political Ad
Robstown
Tx
78380

301821
00057426
Jimenez, Freddie
Extreme Graphics,
$ 315.00
1/19/06
Extreme Graphics -t-shirts
Corpus Christi
Tx
78415

301821
00057426
Jimenez, Freddie
Reyes, Alta
$ 250.00
2/02/06
Blockwalking /putting Up Signs
Robstown
Tx
78380

301821
00057426
Jimenez, Freddie
Ruiz, Trinidad
$ 250.00
2/02/06
Block Walking / Putting Up Political Signs
Robstown
Tx
78380

301821
00057426
Jimenez, Freddie
Ruiz, Trinidad
$ 150.00
2/02/06
Block Walking/ Putting Up Poliltical Signs
Robstown
Tx
78380

301821
00057426
Jimenez, Freddie
Economy Signs,
$ 150.00
1/19/06
Magnetic Sign
Corpus Christi
Tx
78404

301821
00057426
Jimenez, Freddie
Economy Signs,
$ 150.00
1/26/06
Magnetic Sign
Corpus Christi
Tx
78404
15 Matches Found

Fred Jimenez Campaign Finance

2006-02-20T00:32:00.000-08:00

Report # Filer ID Filer's Name Contributor's Name Contribution
Amount
Date
Description Contributor's
City
State
Zipcode
Employer
Occupation
Job Title
301821 00057426 Jimenez, Freddie Garza, Rudolph $ 500.00 1/20/06 Corpus Christi Tx 78403 Law Offices Of G. Rudolph Garza Jr. Attorney Attorney
301821 00057426 Jimenez, Freddie Barrera, Hector $ 250.00 1/27/06 Corpus Christi Tx 78415 United States Coast Guard Military Enlisted
301821 00057426 Jimenez, Freddie Gibson, Mary $ 200.00 2/03/06 Corpus Christi Tx 78411 Beauty Salon Hair Stylist Hair Stylist
301821 00057426 Jimenez, Freddie Gibson, Mary $ 200.00 1/13/06 Corpus Christi Tx 78411 Hair Salon Hair Stylist Hair Sylist
301821 00057426 Jimenez, Freddie Phillips, David $ 100.00 1/13/06 Corpus Christi Tx 78403 Mcallen Phillips & Langenfeld Pllc Attorney Attorney
301821 00057426 Jimenez, Freddie Kirksey, Jim $ 100.00 1/13/06 Corpus Christi Tx 78403 Retired N/a N/a
301821 00057426 Jimenez, Freddie Phillips, David $ 100.00 2/03/06 Corpus Christi Tx 78403 Mcallen Phillips & Langenfeld Pllc Attorney Attorney

Marisela Saldana Expenditures (not including County Court at Law)

2006-02-20T00:29:00.000-08:00

Report #
Filer ID
Filer's Name
Payee's Name
Amount
Date
Description
Payee's City
Payee's State
Payee's Zipcode
ReimbursmentIntended?
301900
00058570
Saldana, Marisela
Montgomery & Associates,
$ 5,000.00
1/13/06
Consultant Fee
Austin
Tx
78741

301900
00058570
Saldana, Marisela
Nueces County Democratic Party,
$ 1,500.00
1/02/06
Filing Fee
Corpus Christi
Tx
78401

301900
00058570
Saldana, Marisela
Badd Boy Graphix,
$ 750.00
1/26/06
Tee Shirts
Corpus Christi
Tx
78411

301900
00058570
Saldana, Marisela
Aa Express Unlimited,
$ 641.89
1/12/06
Campaign Promotional Items (key Chains)
Portland
Tx
78374

301900
00058570
Saldana, Marisela
Printers Unlimited,
$ 291.00
1/06/06
Push Cards
Corpus Christi
Tx
78415
5 Matches Found

Marisela Saldana Campaign Finance

2006-02-20T00:28:00.000-08:00

Report #	Filer ID	Filer's Name	Contributor's Name	Contribution Amount	Date	Description	Contributor's City	State	Zipcode	Employer	Occupation	Job Title
301900	00058570	Saldana, Marisela	The Watts Law Firm Llp,	$ 8,000.00	1/21/06	Video Production	Corpus Christi	Tx	78478
301900	00058570	Saldana, Marisela	The Edwards Law Firm Llp,	$ 3,000.00	1/09/06		Corpus Christi	Tx	78403	The Edwards Law Firm	Law	Attorney
301900	00058570	Saldana, Marisela	Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson Llp,	$ 2,500.00	1/05/06		Austin	Tx	78760	Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson	Law Firm	Na
301900	00058570	Saldana, Marisela	Dominguez, Ron	$ 2,500.00	1/05/06		Corpus Christi	Tx	78401	Carrigan Law Firm	Office Manager	Office Manager
301900	00058570	Saldana, Marisela	Carrigan, Stephen P.	$ 2,500.00	1/05/06		Houston	Tx	77024	Carrigan Law Firm	Law	Attorney
301900	00058570	Saldana, Marisela	Saldana, Guadalupe G.	$ 1,000.00	1/16/06		Corpus Christi	Tx	22039	U. S. Environmental Protection Agency	Us Government	Program Manager
301900	00058570	Saldana, Marisela	Vaughn, Genevieve	$ 1,000.00	1/11/06		Austin	Tx	78764	Na	Writer	Na
301900	00058570	Saldana, Marisela	Barrera, Nelia E.	$ 1,000.00	1/21/06		Corpus Christi	Tx	78418	Emerald Drilling	Oil	Owner
301900	00058570	Saldana, Marisela	Lucas, James E.	$ 500.00	1/18/06		Corpus Christi	Tx	78413	The Gould Law Firm	Law	Attorney
301900	00058570	Saldana, Marisela	Gould, Keith M.	$ 500.00	1/18/06		Corpus Christi	Tx	78413	The Gould Law Firm	Law	Attorney
301900	00058570	Saldana, Marisela	Kane, Jerry	$ 500.00	1/09/06		Corpus Christi	Tx	78401	Sam Kane Beef Processors	Meat Processors	President & Ceo
301900	00058570	Saldana, Marisela	Fields, Ken	$ 500.00	1/22/06		Corpus Christi	Tx	78404	Hermansen Mckibben Woolsey & Villarreal	Law	Attorney
301900	00058570	Saldana, Marisela	Kratzig, Paul G.	$ 400.00	1/11/06		Corpus Christi	Tx	78477	Law Office Of Paul Kratzig	Law	Attorney
301900	00058570	Saldana, Marisela	Susser, Sam L.	$ 325.00	1/13/06		Corpus Christi	Tx	78469	Sam L. Susser	Business	Ceo
301900	00058570	Saldana, Marisela	Bonilla, Ruben	$ 300.00	1/05/06		Corpus Christi	Tx	78405	Bonilla & Chapa	Law	Attorney
301900	00058570	Saldana, Marisela	Dreiling, Fred D.	$ 250.00	1/18/06		Corpus Christi	Tx	78471	Law Office Of Fred Dreiling	Law	Attorney
301900	00058570	Saldana, Marisela	Westergren, Phillip	$ 200.00	1/11/06		Corpus Christi	Tx	78404	Phillip Westergren Attorney At Law	Law	Attorney
301900	00058570	Saldana, Marisela	Palacios, Andrew L.	$ 200.00	1/11/06		Corpus Christi	Tx	78374	Law Office Of Andrew Palacios	Law	Attorney
301900	00058570	Saldana, Marisela	Martinez, Nelda	$ 200.00	1/22/06		Corpus Christi	Tx	78404	Stewart Title	Real Estatetitle	Regional Marketing
301900	00058570	Saldana, Marisela	Miller, Brian C.	$ 200.00	1/07/06		Corpus Christi	Tx	78402	Hermansen Mckibben Woolsey & Villarreal Llp	Law	Attorney
301900	00058570	Saldana, Marisela	Reddell, David	$ 200.00	1/11/06		Sugarland	Tx	77479	The Reddell Law Firn	Law	Attorney
301900	00058570	Saldana, Marisela	Ramos, Alvaro J.	$ 150.00	1/22/06		Corpus Christi	Tx	78466	Alvaro J. Ramos	Medicine	Physician
301900	00058570	Saldana, Marisela	Wolter, Robert C.	$ 125.00	1/19/06		Corpus Christi	Tx	78411	Wood Boykin & Wolter	Law	Attorney
301900	00058570	Saldana, Marisela	Albarracin, Cesar	$ 100.00	1/22/06		Corpus Christi	Tx	78466	Cesar Albarracin Md	Medicine	Physician
301900	00058570	Saldana, Marisela	Blay, Jorge A.	$ 100.00	1/22/06		Corpus Christi	Tx	78413	Jorge Blay Md	Retired	Physician
301900	00058570	Saldana, Marisela	Grande, Ben	$ 100.00	1/18/06		Corpus Christi	Tx	78404	Grande Properties	Real Estate Investment	Owner
301900	00058570	Saldana, Marisela	Elovitz, Stuart	$ 100.00	1/18/06		Corpus Christi	Tx	78402	Stuart Elovitz Md	Medicine	Physician

27 Matches Found

Angelica Hernandez Expenditures

2006-02-20T00:23:00.000-08:00

Report #
Filer ID
Filer's Name
Payee's Name
Amount
Date
Description
Payee's City
Payee's State
Payee's Zipcode
ReimbursmentIntended?
298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Hernandez, Angelica
$ 1,300.00
1/13/06
Reimburse Remainder Of Filing Fee.
Corpus Christi
Tx
78410

301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Kxtm,
$ 850.00
1/18/06
Purchase Radio Advertising.
Corpus Christi
Tx
78427

298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Sanchez Inc.,
$ 687.50
1/12/06
Payment For T-shirts.
Corpus Christi
Tx
78415

301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Kxtm,
$ 600.00
2/02/06
Purchase Radio Advertising.
Corpus Christi
Tx
78427

301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Hernandez, Angelica
$ 350.00
2/01/06
Reimburse B&t Rents And Meals.
Corpus Christi
Tx
78410

301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
B&t Rents,
$ 345.54
1/17/06
Rent Tables Chairs And Linens For Fundraiser.
Corpus Christi
Tx
78404

301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
El Defenzor,
$ 250.00
1/28/06
Purchase Advertising In Publication.
Robstown
Tx
78380

301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
El Tejano,
$ 250.00
1/18/06
Purchase Full Page Ad.
Corpus Christi
Tx
78405

301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
H.e.b.,
$ 173.15
1/17/06
Purchase Food For Fundraiser.
Corpus Christi
Tx
78411

301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Senior Citizen Community Services,
$ 150.00
1/18/06
Help Sponsor Senior Pageant.
Corpus Christi
Tx
78414

298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Walmart,
$ 137.40
1/11/06
Purchase Candy For Parade.
Corpus Christi
Tx
78410

301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Naacp,
$ 100.00
1/20/06
Purchase Tickets For Mlk Banquet
Corpus Christi
Tx
78401

301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Artwerks Gallery,
$ 100.00
1/17/06
Payment For Use Of Location For Fundraiser.
Corpus Christi
Tx
78412

301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Office Depot,
$ 84.88
2/01/06
Purchase Paper Stamps And Envelopes For Breakfast And Dinner Invitations.
Corpus Christi
Tx
78404

298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Joe Cotten's,
$ 76.56
1/14/06
Purchase Food For People Who Helped In The Parade.
Robstown
Tx
78380

298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Office Depot,
$ 74.67
1/03/06
Purchase Paper Stamps And Envelopes For Fundraiser Invitations.
Corpus Christi
Tx
78404

301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Circle K,
$ 52.21
1/26/06
Purchase Gas.
Corpus Christi
Tx
78410

301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Cafe Maya,
$ 48.08
1/20/06
Purchase Food For People Passing Out Literature And Buttons.
Corpus Christi
Tx
78404

298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
H.e.b.,
$ 47.39
1/07/06
Purchase Candy For Parade.
Corpus Christi
Tx
78411

298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Circle K,
$ 45.00
1/13/06
Purchase Gas For Parade.
Corpus Christi
Tx
78410

298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Home Depot,
$ 44.04
1/07/06
Purchase Items To Put Up Signs.
Corpus Christi
Tx
78410

301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Circle K,
$ 40.02
2/01/06
Purchase Gas.
Corpus Christi
Tx
78410

301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
La Paletera,
$ 36.00
1/17/06
Food For Fundraiser
Corpus Christi
Tx
78412

298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Ms Express #2,
$ 35.07
1/07/06
Purchase Gas For People Putting Up Signs.
Corpus Christi
Tx
78410

301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Floyd's,
$ 16.43
1/20/06
Purchase Food For People Helping With Signs.
Corpus Christi
Tx
78410

301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
H.e.b.,
$ 15.92
2/01/06
Purchase Lollipops For Coffee Group Meeting.
Corpus Christi
Tx
78411

301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Taqueria Altos De Jalisco,
$ 14.40
1/19/06
Purchase Food For People Putting Up Signs.
Robstown
Tx
78380
27 Matches Found

Bobby Galvan Expenditures

2006-02-20T00:21:00.000-08:00

Report #
Filer ID
Filer's Name
Payee's Name
Amount
Date
Description
Payee's City
Payee's State
Payee's Zipcode
ReimbursmentIntended?
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Montgomery & Associates,
$ 40,000.00
1/24/06
Political Consultant Retainer And Televison And Radio Placement Funds
Austin
Tx
78741

301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Garcia, Richard
$ 2,735.94
1/13/06
Signs
Corpus Christi
Tx
78415

301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Soto, Jessie
$ 2,000.00
1/06/06
Signs
Corpus Christi
Tx
78415

301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Nueces County Democratic Party,
$ 1,500.00
1/02/06
Filing Fee
Corpus Christi
Tx
78401

301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Garcia, Richard
$ 1,109.56
1/26/06
Signs For Political Campaignn
Corpus Christi
Tx
78415

301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Knight, Charles
$ 730.00
1/05/06
Paint Billboard
Corrpuschristi
Tx
78415

301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
El Defenzor,
$ 700.00
1/10/06
Political Newspaper Advertisement
Robstown
Tx
78380

301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
De Los Santos, Mondo
$ 350.00
1/26/06
Radio Advertisement Get Out The Vote Rally C/o Kmtv
Corpus Christi
Tx
78408

301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Kxtn,
$ 350.00
1/10/06
Radio Advertising
Corrpus Christi
Tx
78408

301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Serna, Russell
$ 300.00
1/09/06
T-shirts
Robstown
Tx
78380

301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Serna, Russell
$ 300.00
1/13/06
T-shirts
Robstown
Tx
78380

301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Serna, Russell
$ 259.80
1/21/06
Shirts
Robstown
Tx
78380

301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Grunwald Printing Co.,
$ 257.64
1/18/06
Print Envelopes
Corpus Christi
Tx
78404

301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
A+printing,
$ 194.85
1/26/06
Push Cards
Corpus Christi
Tx
78415

301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Roosevelt-baker Photo Co.,
$ 138.56
1/10/06
Photographs
Corpus Christi
Tx
78404

301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Serna, Russell
$ 135.00
1/13/06
Buttons
Robstown
Tx
78380

301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Parkdale Printing,
$ 101.60
1/23/06
Thank You Cards
Corpus Christi
Tx
78411

301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Zdansky Mapstore,
$ 55.15
1/04/06
Maps
Corpus Christi
Tx
78418

301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Roosevelt-baker Photo Co.,
$ 21.65
1/03/06
Sitting Fee
Corpus Christi
Tx
78404

301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Office Depot,
$ 20.56
1/20/06
Office Supplies For Campaign Headquarters
Corpus Christi
Tx
78404

301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Office Depot,
$ 11.90
1/03/06
Pocket Calendar

Angelica Hernandez campaign Finance

2006-02-20T00:12:00.000-08:00

Report #
Filer ID
Filer's Name
Contributor's Name
ContributionAmount
Date
Description
Contributor's City
State
Zipcode
Employer
Occupation
Job Title
301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Berry, Kenneth
$ 1,000.00
1/17/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78410
Berry Company
Owner
Owner
301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Berry, Brenda
$ 500.00
1/17/06
Food For Fundraiser.
Corpus Christi
Tx
78410
None
None
None
301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Anthony, Brett
$ 500.00
1/31/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78413
Brin & Brin
Attorney
Attorney
301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Martin, Edward And Carole
$ 300.00
1/17/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78414
Bay Ltd.
Business Manager
Manager
301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Salazar, Rene
$ 300.00
1/17/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78404
Jerry Guerra
Investigator
Investigator
301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Scott, M.
$ 250.00
1/17/06
Purchase Beverages For The Fundraiser
Corpus Christi
Tx
78469
H&s Constructors Inc.
Owner Of Construction Company
Owner
301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Infante, Susie
$ 200.00
1/17/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78414
Bay Ltd.
Accountant
Accountant
301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Silver, Thomas
$ 200.00
1/17/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78411
Hermansen Mckibben Woolsey & Villarreal
Attorney
Attorney
301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Ortiz, Joe
$ 200.00
1/19/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78415
Self Employed
Owner Construction Company
Owner
301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Rodriguez, Jesus
$ 100.00
1/23/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78412
Retired
Retired
Retired
301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Munoz, Joey And Lori
$ 100.00
1/17/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78413
Paul Kratzig & Associates
Paralegal
Paralegal
301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Mcniff, Frank
$ 100.00
1/25/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78411
Welder Leshin & Mahaffey Llp
Attorney
Associate
301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Allen, Linda
$ 100.00
1/18/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78418
Retired
Retired
Retired
301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Miller, Brian
$ 100.00
1/17/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78402
Hermansen Woolsey Mckibben & Villarreal
Attorney
Attorney
301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Kratzig, Jane
$ 100.00
1/17/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78404
Self Employed
Provides Tutoring Services
Owner
301358
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Davila, Elsa
$ 25.00
1/17/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78411
Ctx Mortgage
Mortgage Broker
Mortgage Broker

Report #
Filer ID
Filer's Name
Contributor's Name
ContributionAmount
Date
Description
Contributor's City
State
Zipcode
Employer
Occupation
Job Title
298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Johnson, Kirk And Lindy
$ 2,500.00
10/25/05
Payment For Printing Of Signs.
Houston
Tx
77385
Self-employed
Marketing Representative
Marketing Representative
298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Clower, Tim
$ 1,500.00
1/12/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78403
Clower Realty
Business Owner
Owner
298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Groff, Jo
$ 500.00
8/31/05

Port Aransas
Tx
78373
Realty World
Broker
Broker
298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Martin, Edward And Carole
$ 500.00
12/09/05

Corpus Christi
Tx
78414
Bay Ltd.
Business Manager
Manager
298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Joe Ayala,
$ 450.00
10/08/05
Donated All The Cooked Rice And Beans For Barbeque.
Corpus Christi
Tx
78411
Ayalas Mexican Restaurant
Owner
Owner
298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
De La Paz, Arnold
$ 250.00
11/17/05

Corpus Christi
Tx
78410
De La Paz Construction
Owner Of Company
Owner
298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Nisimblat, Giancarlo
$ 250.00
12/28/05

Alice
Tx
78332
Law Office Of Giancarlo Nisimblat
Attorney
Owner
298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Rodriguez, Mack
$ 200.00
10/11/05
Provided Part Of The Chicken For The Barbeque.
Corpus Christi
Tx
78414

298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Bayou Meat And Seafood Market,
$ 150.00
8/12/05

Corpus Christi
Tx
78412
Bayou Seafood Market
Owner
Owner
298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Clower, Tim
$ 100.00
10/06/05

Corpus Christi
Tx
78403
Clower Realty
Business Owner
Owner
298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Snyder, James
$ 100.00
11/01/05

Corpus Christi
Tx
78418
Southwest Phoenix Group
Owner
Owner
298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Soliz, Jose Fortunato
$ 100.00
11/17/05

Corpus Christi
Tx
78407

298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Alaniz, Marcos And Belinda
$ 95.00
10/08/05

Robstown
Tx
78380
Citgo
Refinery Worker
Refinery Worker
298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Garcia, Richard And Beatrice
$ 55.00
10/08/05

Robstown
Tx
78380

298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Leija, Jesus
$ 50.00
10/08/05

Corpus Christi
Tx
78403
Self-employed
Architect
Architect
298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Barrera, Rolando
$ 50.00
10/05/05

Corpus Christi
Tx
78405
Roland Barrera Insurance
Owner/operator
Owner
298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Rodriguez, Mary Lee
$ 50.00
10/08/05

Robstown
Tx
78380

298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Bazan, Francisco Or Diana
$ 50.00
10/08/05

Corpus Christi
Tx
78413
Nueces County
Maintenance Supervisor
Maintenance Supervisor
298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Mcniff, Frank
$ 50.00
8/24/05

Corpus Christi
Tx
78411
Welder Leshin & Mahaffey Llp
Attorney
Associate
298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Ovalle, Raymond
$ 40.00
10/10/05

Corpus Christi
Tx
78415
Retired
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Flores, Frank
$ 25.00
10/08/05

Robstown
Tx
78380

298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Zamora, Mary Lou
$ 25.00
10/07/05

Robstown
Tx
78380

298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Sandoval, Jeremy And Margo
$ 20.00
9/28/05

Corpus Christi
Tx
78410

298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Gonzales, S.m.
$ 20.00
10/06/05

Corpus Christi
Tx
78414

298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Guerrero, Diana
$ 20.00
10/14/05

Corpus Christi
Tx
78405

298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Molina, Rafael And Maria
$ 20.00
10/06/05

Robstown
Tx
78380

298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Munoz, Joey And Lori
$ 16.00
10/06/05
Purchased Jalapenos And Pickles For Barbeque Plates.
Corpus Christi
Tx
78413
Paul Kratzig & Associates
Paralegal
Paralegal
298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Valdez, Selina
$ 15.00
10/08/05

Corpus Christi
Tx
78414
Lacks Department Store
Sales Department
Sales Manager
298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Stutts, Edward & Rebecca
$ 10.00
10/05/05

Corpus Christi
Tx
78408
Nueces County Sheriff's Department
Law Enforcement Officer
Sheriff
298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Flores, Manuel & Elida
$ 10.00
9/05/05

Robstown
Tx
78380
Nueces County
Maintenance Employee
Maintenance Employee
298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Hawkins, Ken
$ 10.00
1/12/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78414
Retired
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Trevino, Renee
$ 10.00
10/06/05

Banquete
Tx
78339

298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Arce, Jose And Gracie
$ 10.00
10/07/05

Banquete
Tx
78339

298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Rodriguez, Lupe
$ 10.00
10/08/05

Corpus Christi
Tx
78412

298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Caceres, Armando & Gloria
$ 10.00
10/07/05

Corpus Christi
Tx
78413
Unemployed
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
298081
00057436
Hernandez, Angelica E.
Baltierras, Rebecca
$ 5.00
10/05/05

Banquete
Tx
78339

36 Matches Found

Bobby Galvan's Dinero (Employed by Mikal Watts)

2006-02-19T23:57:00.000-08:00

Report #
Filer ID
Filer's Name
Contributor's Name
ContributionAmount
Date
Description
Contributor's City
State
Zipcode
Employer
Occupation
Job Title
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Law Offices Of Douglas A. Allison,
$ 7,500.00
1/23/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78410

301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer & Kern L.l.p.,
$ 5,000.00
1/03/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
75206

301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Galvan, Robert
$ 5,000.00
1/02/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78401
Galvan Music
Musician And Music Store Owner
Owner
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
The Edwards Law Firm L.l.p.,
$ 3,000.00
1/09/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78403-0480

301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Bell, James
$ 2,500.00
1/04/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78401
Self
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Lerma, Ruben
$ 2,500.00
1/03/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78413
Self
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Abney, Russ
$ 2,500.00
1/02/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78478
Watts Law Firm L.l.p.
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Gowan, Gregory
$ 2,500.00
1/02/06

Corrpus Christi
Tx
78478
Watts Law Firm
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Svoboda, Jacqueline
$ 2,500.00
1/02/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78418
Prudential Real Estate Center
Realtor
President/owner/broker
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Barrientos, G. Joseph
$ 2,500.00
1/02/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78478
Watts Law Firm L.l.p.
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Hada, James
$ 2,500.00
1/02/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78478
Watts Law Firm L.l.p
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Watts, Mikal
$ 2,500.00
1/02/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78478
Watts Law Firm
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Celis, Mauricio
$ 2,500.00
1/23/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78471-0048
Cgt Law Group L.l.p.
Attorrney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Gwytther, Douglas
$ 2,500.00
1/23/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78471-0048
Cgt Law Group L.l.p.
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Tapia, R.
$ 2,500.00
1/23/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78471-0048
Cgt Law Group L.l.p.
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Guajardo, T. Anthony
$ 2,500.00
1/23/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78471-0048
Cgt Law Group L.l.p.
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Pinedo, Chris
$ 2,500.00
1/02/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78478
Watts Law Firm L.l.p.
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Canales, Jose
$ 1,500.00
1/06/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78465
Canales & Simonson
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Huseman And Pletcher P.c.,
$ 1,000.00
1/11/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78473

301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Holstein, Rick
$ 1,000.00
1/02/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78410
Self
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Galvan, Robert
$ 750.00
1/04/06
Use Of Part Of Galvan Building As Campaign Headquarters During Primary Campaignn
Corpus Christi
Tx
78401
Galvan Music
Musician And Music Store Owner
Owner
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Galvan, Robert
$ 750.00
1/02/06
One Half Of Both Sides Of Sign On Galvan Building For Use As Poiltical Sign During Primary
Corpus Christi
Tx
78401
Galvan Music
Musician And Music Store Owner
Owner
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Lerma, Mary
$ 649.50
1/18/06
Magnetic Signs
Corpus Christi
Tx
78415
Self
Businesswoman
Office Manager
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Bonilla, William
$ 500.00
1/06/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78405
Bonillia & Chapa Pc
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Mclallen Phillips & Langenfeldpllc,
$ 500.00
1/19/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78477

301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Hoetzel, Michael
$ 500.00
1/05/06

San Antonio
Tx
78248
Retired
Counselor
None
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Gonzalez, Al
$ 500.00
1/13/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
75001
Age Refining Inc.
Businessman
President
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Bonilla, William
$ 500.00
1/06/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78413
Law Offices Of William D. Bonilla
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Barrera, Randall
$ 500.00
1/04/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78413
Law Offices Of Randall Barrera
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Rodriguez, Debra
$ 500.00
1/12/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78401
Self
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Galvan, Ralph
$ 500.00
1/16/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78411
Retired
Adminstrator Texas Education Agency
None
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Barker Leon & Barker L.l.p.,
$ 500.00
1/12/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78478

301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Brunkenhoefer, Blake
$ 500.00
1/08/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78478
Brunkenhofer And Associates
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
G. Rudolph Garza Jr. Attorney At Law P.c.,
$ 500.00
1/20/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78403-1437

301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Soto, Jessie
$ 345.00
1/04/06
Radio Advertising Kmtv
Corpus Christi
Tx
78415
A+ Printing
Printer
Printer
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Starcher, Cecil
$ 300.00
1/06/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78468
Self
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Bargas, Dario
$ 300.00
1/10/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78403
Bargas And Rodriguez
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Lerma, Mary
$ 276.04
1/12/06
Magnetic Signs
Corpus Christi
Tx
78415
Self
Businesswoman
Office Manager
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Coover & Coover Attorneys At Law,
$ 250.00
1/18/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78401

301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Huerta, A. Jospeh
$ 250.00
1/05/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78401
Huerta Law Firm
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Jordan, Shelby
$ 250.00
1/19/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78471
Jordanhyden Womble & Culbreth Pc
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Bonilla & Chapa,
$ 250.00
1/06/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78405

301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Welder Leshin Llp,
$ 250.00
1/23/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78401

301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Dunn, David
$ 250.00
1/18/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78401
Dunn Weathered Coffey Rivera Kasperitis & Rodriguez Pc
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Kieschnick, Rebecca
$ 250.00
1/17/06

Sinton
Tx
78387
Donnell Abernathy & Kieschnick
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Rodriguez, Alonzo T.
$ 200.00
1/12/06

Sinton
Tx
78387-0237
Bargas And Rodriguez
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Martinez, Lee
$ 200.00
1/05/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78411
Self
Rental Business
Owner
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Duncan, Scott
$ 200.00
1/05/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78401
Porter Rogers Dahlman & Gordon P.c.
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Soto, Jessie
$ 194.85
1/13/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78415
A+ Printing
Printer
Printer
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Moss Law Office,
$ 150.00
1/18/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78411

301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Nicholas, Toufic
$ 150.00
1/17/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78412
Nicholas Morris Gilbreath & Smith Llp
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Holstein, Rick
$ 116.31
1/15/06
T-posts Forsigns
Corpus Christi
Tx
78410
Self
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Collin, Rosie
$ 100.00
1/05/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78414
Retired
Teacher
None
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
William A. Thau Iii Pc,
$ 100.00
1/17/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78418

301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
The Reddell Law Firrm Pc,
$ 100.00
1/17/06

Sugarland
Tx
77479

301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Jack, William
$ 100.00
1/14/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78404
Cardiology Associates Of Corpus Christi
Physician-cardiologist
Cardiologist
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Rodriguez, Alonzo T.
$ 100.00
1/13/06

Sinton
Tx
78387-0237
Bargas And Rodriguez
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Young, Misty
$ 100.00
1/11/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78418
Prudential Real Estate Center
Broker
Broker
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Reyna, Armando
$ 100.00
1/14/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78405
Self
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Galvan, Sam
$ 100.00
1/20/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78404
Retired
Musician/bailiff
Retired
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Woerner, Mark
$ 100.00
1/03/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78401
Self
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Kreneck, Thomas H.
$ 100.00
1/20/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78412
Texas A&m University- Corpus Christi
Professor
Professor
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Richey, Mike
$ 100.00
1/20/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78413
Port Of Corpus Christi
Harbor Traffic Controller
Harbor Traffic Controller
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Young, Jeff
$ 90.00
1/07/06
Used T-posts For Signs
Corpus Christi
Tx
78418
Prudential Real Estate Center
Broker
Broker
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Holstein, Rick
$ 64.76
1/06/06
Post Drivers Wire Ties
Corpus Christi
Tx
78410
Self
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Oliviera, Hector
$ 50.00
1/05/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78404
Self
Dentist
D.d.s
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Oliviera, Elizabeth
$ 50.00
1/05/06

Corpus Christi
Tx
78413
Retired
Physician
None
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Holstein, Rick
$ 36.34
1/04/06
Office Supplies For Campaign Headquarters
Corpus Christi
Tx
78410
Self
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Holstein, Rick
$ 21.59
1/15/06
Wire Ties
Corpus Christi
Tx
78410
Self
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Holstein, Rick
$ 14.98
1/06/06
Roofing Nails For Signs
Corpus Christi
Tx
78410
Self
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Holstein, Rick
$ 13.48
1/07/06
Wire Ties
Corpus Christi
Tx
78410
Self
Attorney
Attorney
301694
00058463
Galvan, Robert M.
Holstein, Rick
$ 8.55
1/04/06
Map Supplies
Corpus Christi
Tx
78410
Self
Attorney
Attorney72 Matches Found

corpuschristiethics

2006-02-19T02:48:00.000-08:00

corpuschristiethics