The Prejudicial Judgment of Team USA

This my first post on my blog is in response to a post made by the Friday, July 14, 2006 6:25:16 PM Anonymous poster on Rico Politico’s blog.

“How do you know that suspending Leo was not the right move? Granted we do not know why this move was made which is my point exactly. Granted public comments could have been worded differently. Granted the current school ‘board’ may have closets in their past.”-Anonymous poster.

To answer that first question, one only has to look at all the posts made in The Politicos blog and you will see facts that provide valid reasons on why she should have stayed in that position, including her certification, which has always been an issue. Many of these posts show her qualifications and prove her competency which debunks the claims of this board:

“Salinas, the board’s secretary, said he and fellow members have a long list of questions about Leo’s competency. Among those, he said, are concerns about her qualifications” (The Monitor June 23, 2006)

Competent as defined by Webster’s dictionary:

1 : proper or rightly pertinent
2 : having requisite or adequate ability or qualities : FIT (a competent teacher) (a competent piece of work)
3 : legally qualified or adequate.

Although there is, to a certain degree, a subjective quality to proving competence, let’s look at the facts. Mrs. Leo has served La Joya I.S.D. for 27+ years in various capacities: a teacher, a school principal, a counselor, an assistant superintendent. Interesting that her career track not only shows experience in the district, but a succession of jobs and promotions within the district which would leave me to believe---and any logical person, that she must be doing something right. Is that a stretch? With such responsibilities, wouldn’t a lack of competency make itself known? One can labor in relative obscurity when ensconced in a position of little responsibility that allows complacency and even laziness but the list of positions Mrs. Leo has held force much public scrutiny that would have brought to light a lack of skill and experience. An assistant superintendent’s position in human resources that requires finesse, skill and savvy to deal with the most personal of issues would clearly highlight deficiencies in a person. At the same time, having to make difficult decisions in that arena would also make many enemies. More on that later...On qualifications and educational attainment we turn to more objective criteria. So how does she rank? Again, citing her resume, ---and hoping she is not the “liar” someone said she is---she has an advanced degree and, on, 06/10/2006, she received her permanent Superintendent’s certificate. If again, incompetence is measured by attainment of certain certifications, degrees, etc., there is no issue here. Mr. Salinas himself holds the same certification. Would he call himself “incompetent”? So objective measures aside, what is the real issue? What is the real motivation for the Board action?

Her real reasons for her suspension are tied to the anonymous posters statements: “skeletons in their closet(s)” (emphasis mine-I am assuming you accidentally left out that word) to the “public comments” and to the fact that suspending Leo was a bad move. Let us examine this “closet”, see what we find, and see how it is relevant; and while many of these examples are not “skeletons” per say, they are still relevant.

Beginning with Mrs. Uresti, we know that her husband had some “qualification” issues. He served as a principal for almost six years without having his principal’s certificate. In the Fall Of 2004, this was brought to Mrs. Leo’s attention and she had no choice but to reassign him—an action wholly consistent with her position (Anonymous mentioned problems with administration- well here is an example of her dealing with some of those problems). Mr. Urersti then went on to correct this problem by completing the necessary work to attain his certification on April the next year. This being completed, Mrs. Leo went ahead and reinstated him as principal now that he had the proper credentials. On April 12, 2006, according to dozens of eyewitnesses, Mrs. Uresti confronted Mrs. Leo after a board meeting in an aggressive manner screaming at her. This aggressive move on Mrs. Uresti’s part forced Mrs. Leo to retrieve the police chief, Mr. Raul Gonzlez, and remove Mrs. Uresti from her presence. Although an official police report was not filed, the fact that Mrs. Leo felt it necessary to have an officer of the law intercede highlights the verocity of Mrs. Uresti’s action. This account is verified by dozens of witnesses who were present at this meeting who also observed Mrs. Uresti being removed from the board meeting itself at the request of the board president, Elma Garza. Again, this action occurred, after Mrs. Uresti’s husband was put back in his former position.

As for Mr. Adolfo “Fito” Salinas, we know that he had some problems regarding his unauthorized use of school property. At the property in question, located at 5 mile line and N. Tom Gill Road, which is under title to the La Joya Independent School District, Mr. Salinas took it upon himself to fence in said property to allow his cattle to graze the land. In response to this, Mrs. Leo, as the head administrative agent for the district and as part of her fiduciary duty to the district, asked Mr. Salinas to remove his fence and cattle from the property.

Now we get to Mr. John Alaniz. For reasons known only to himself, although they may indeed be valid reasons (the reasons are not relevant in this argument), he requested his children be transferred to another school. Unfortunately, due to zoning regulations the district denied his request. In response to this, he enrolled his kids into a private school. Now, we do know that this is not a decision that is handled by the superintendent and we also know that Mr. Alaniz was unhappy with this decision. This is a fact that I learned from supporters of the Alaniz camp during the campaign, as they stated many times that he was upset with Mrs. Leo for not transferring his children.

As we now see, USA all have motives to get back at Mrs. Leo which, I would argue, form the basis of their vendetta. I choose that word carefully, but mindful of what that entails. Again, I turn to Webster’s.

VENDETTA

1 : BLOOD FEUD
2 : an often prolonged series of retaliatory, vengeful, or hostile acts or exchange of such acts vendetta against those who opposed his nomination>

This is strong word and quite an accusation, but there is some evidence, in the form of public behavior by Mrs. Uresti and Mr. Salinas to support this claim. Mr. Salinas is obviously still upset, when he uses strong rhetoric and makes “public comments” such as “She’s a liar. I hate liars, and the Leos are a bunch of liars” (The Monitor, July 9, 2006). What proof does he have to make such a claim? He cites no evidence or examples and leads the reader to believe that absent any hard evidence—or even anecdotal for that matter—these comments are the words of a man fueled by a personal anger and bitterness to the Leo family. The base of this personal animosity is first introduced on the eve of Mr. Salinas’ successful election to the La Joya School Board—a time that should have been marked by celebration and instead strikes a negative tone with the comment from Mr. Salinas, “It is the beginning of the end of Billy Leo…He sees the writing on the wall.” (The Monitor, May 21, 2006)

We can also see how Mrs. Uresti is still upset by observing the way she would speak to Mrs. Leo during board meetings. While it is difficult to read in to how people speak to each other and interpret them, as I am no Psychologist, our common knowledge as human beings can clearly show us the situation at hand. On many occasions whenever Mrs. Leo spoke, she was immediately interrupted by Mrs. Uresti in a disrespectful and demeaning way. It was almost as if she did not acknowledge the presence of Mrs. Leo in the room, as she would then proceed to ask questions to the other board members or make some kind of statement. This occurred on many instances in many meetings. So much so in one meeting, that it caused me to take notice of it. As representatives of the district, it is disheartening to see our elected officials act so unprofessionally in a public setting and to be quite honest, a little embarrassing. Then again, it is not surprising, as witnessed by their actions taken before they were elected into office.

What really happened between Mrs. Leo and Mrs. Uresti concerning the action against Mr. Uresti, and then again with Mrs. Leo and Mr. Salinas concerning his use of school property for grazing of his cattle, may be subject to interpretation (the typical game of he said, she said), but that these incidents did transpire are a matter of fact that can be corroborated by public records and eyewitnesses. So the question for the outside observer is, do these differences form the basis of a personal vendetta that resulted in a public display of improper comments and board action, or is Mrs. Leo simply blowing it all out of proportion to support her claim as the recipient of unwarranted action? On answering that question, we turn again to Mr. Salinas’ most recent comment in the Monitor where he says, of the board action, “it’s political. I’m not going to say it’s not.”...

So, you be the judge.