P E Y T O N W O L C O T T |
| h o w w e t a k e b a c k o u r c h i l d r e n ' s e d u c a t i o n -- o n e p e r s o n , o n e q u e s t i o n , o n e s c h o o l a t a t i m e |
| Conservative Commentary - Lake Travis ISD, Texas SLAPP lawsuit (LTISD v. Lovelace) |
| S L A P P N E W S |
| LTISD PRINCIPAL HEIDI GUDELMAN'S VEGAS VACATION PIX ON LAPTOP ISSUED TO HER STUDENT, DAVID & MELISSA LOVELACE'S SON |
| LTISD's STATEMENT RE DECISION TO APPEAL |
| LTISD v. LOVELACE: TIME TO CALL A SLAP IN THE FACE A 'SLAPP' - Part I By Peyton Wolcott - Nov. 21, 2006 |
| Dear LTISD Community, Travis County District Judge Covington today granted the plea to the jurisdiction requested by David and Melissa Lovelace in the lawsuit filed by the Lake Travis Independent School District against the Lovelaces for creating a public nuisance. Since June 2005, the Lovelaces have submitted approximately 2,274 public information requests to the school district. Also, they have made over 70 formal grievances and numerous other informal complaints during that timeframe. Since June 2005, the school district has spent over $700,000, primarily for attorney's fees and lost staff time, responding to the requests and complaints filed by the Lovelaces. Dr. Rocky Kirk, Superintendent of Schools of the Lake Travis ISD, said, "Our school district is disappointed that the Court did not recognize the serious interference that the Lovelaces' actions are causing with the district's ability to educate all of the children in our community. We are proud of our efforts to make information available to all of our constituents, but we continue to believe that the Lovelaces' actions are unreasonable and overly burdensome. No individual should be permitted to misuse resources that are intended to benefit the entire community." The school district intends to appeal the court’s decision as soon as a final order is entered. --October 26, 2006 |
| In talking with California friends about Lake Travis ISD's recent lawsuit against two parents for filing too many public records requests, they told me over the phone, "Oh, that's a SLAPP suit." Not knowing what a SLAPP was, I assumed they were speaking in the vernacular, as in, "Oh, that's a slap suit," inferring they meant LTISD was trying to deter parents and taxpayers from asking too many questions. Which indeed the district was. But while I got the general intent and meaning right, it's useful to know that LTISD's suit was meant to be a SLAPP: |
How we take back our children's education: one person, one question, one school at a time. |
AASA - American Association of School Administrators ASA - Association of School Administrators CSD - Consolidated School District DOE - Department of Education ES - Elementary School HS - High School ISD - Independent School District JHS - Junior High School MS - Middle School MSM - Mainstream media NSBA - National School Boards Association NSPRA - National School Public Relations Association PS - Public School(s) SBEC - State Board for Educator Certification SD - School District Sup't - Superintendent TAKS - Texas Assessment of Knowledge & Skills TASA - Texas Association of School Administrators TASB - Texas Association of School Boards TASBO - Texas Association of School Business Officials TEA - Texas Education Agency TEKS - Texas Essential Knowledge & Skills USD - UnifiedUnited School District |
| GUIDE |
| FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of education issues vital to a republic. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., Chapter 1, Section 107 which states: the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright," the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use" you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. |
| QUOTES |
Separatists in India's north-eastern state of Manipur have shot six male teachers in the leg for allegedly helping students cheat in exams. Two women teachers were beaten with sticks for the same offence, the rebels of the Kanglei Yana Kan Lup group said. The teachers were abducted from their homes after an exam on Thursday. The rebels said the teachers took up to 5,000 rupees ($110) for helping students cheat and warned of further punishment if the cheating continued. The Kanglei Yana Kan Lup (KYKL) is one of many separatist groups fighting Indian administration in Manipur. It said it abducted the eight teachers from their homes in and around the state capital, Imphal, because of reports they had taken bribes. --By Subir Bhaumik - BBC |
| ATTENTION EDUCATORS AND ADMINISTRATORS: Every attempt possible has been made to verify all sources and information. In the event you feel an error has been made, please contact us immediately. Thank you. |
| Copyright 1999-2006 Peyton Wolcott |
POP QUIZ: How do you yourself know for a fact that your state or local supe is actually using the funds entrusted to them for the correct purposes? |
MY NEW BOOK PEYTON WOLCOTT |
The question is not how to measure excellence at public schools and education agencies. The question is how to measure competence. -- Dianna Pharr |
| CONTACT: Peyton Wolcott P.O. Box 9068 Horseshoe Bay, TX 78657 peyton@peytonwolcott.com |
| F o c u s i n g o n accountability f i r s t |
| STATUS OF ANTI-SLAPP LEGISLATION IN THE U.S. |
| CALIFORNIA'S ANTI-SLAPP LEGISLATION California Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 425.16. Claim Arising from Person's Exercise of Constitutional Right of Petition or Free Speech -- Special Motion to Strike. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that there has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances. The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance, and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process. To this end, this section shall be construed broadly. (b) (1) A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim. (2) In making its determination, the court shall consider the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based. (3) If the court determines that the plaintiff has established a probability that he or she will prevail on the claim, neither that determination nor the fact of that determination shall be admissible in evidence at any later stage of the case, or in any subsequent action, and no burden of proof or degree of proof otherwise applicable shall be affected by that determination in any later stage of the case or in any subsequent proceeding. (c) In any action subject to subdivision (b), a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney's fees and costs. If the court finds that a special motion to strike is frivolous or is solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney's fees to a plaintiff prevailing on the motion, pursuant to Section 128.5. (d) This section shall not apply to any enforcement action brought in the name of the people of the State of California by the Attorney General, district attorney, or city attorney, acting as a public prosecutor. (e) As used in this section, "act in furtherance of a person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue" includes: (1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; (2) any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; (3) any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest; (4) or any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest. (f) The special motion may be filed within 60 days of the service of the complaint or, in the court's discretion, at any later time upon terms it deems proper. The motion shall be scheduled by the clerk of the court for a hearing not more than 30 days after the service of the motion unless the docket conditions of the court require a later hearing. (g) All discovery proceedings in the action shall be stayed upon the filing of a notice of motion made pursuant to this section. The stay of discovery shall remain in effect until notice of entry of the order ruling on the motion. The court, on noticed motion and for good cause shown, may order that specified discovery be conducted notwithstanding this subdivision. (h) For purposes of this section, "complaint" includes "cross-complaint" and "petition," "plaintiff" includes "cross-complainant" and "petitioner," and "defendant" includes "cross-defendant" and "respondent." (i) An order granting or denying a special motion to strike shall be appealable under Section 904.1. (j) (1) Any party who files a special motion to strike pursuant to this section, and any party who files an opposition to a special motion to strike, shall, promptly upon so filing, transmit to the Judicial Council, by e-mail or facsimile, a copy of the endorsed, filed caption page of the motion or opposition, a copy of any related notice of appeal or petition for a writ, and a conformed copy of any order issued pursuant to this section, including any order granting or denying a special motion to strike, discovery, or fees. (2) The Judicial Council shall maintain a public record of information transmitted pursuant to this subdivision for at least three years, and may store the information on microfilm or other appropriate electronic media. ------------------------------- LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: Added by Stats.1992, c. 726 (SB 1264), sec. 2. Amended by: Stats.1993, c. 1239 (SB 9), sec. 1, adding subd. (i) and substituting "shall" for "may" preceding "award costs" in subd. (c); Stats.1997, c. 271 (SB 1296), sec. 1, adding last sentence in subd. (a), adding subd. (e)(4), numbering subds. (e)(1)-(3), moving second sentence of subd. (g) to be second sentence of subd. (f), adding new subd. (h), and relettering former subd. (h) as subd. (i); and Stats.1999, c. 960 (AB 1675), sec. 1, adding subds. (j) and (k). Amended by Stats. 2005, c. 535 (AB 1158), amending subds. (b)(3), (f), deleting old subd. (i), relettering accordingly, and amending subd. (j)(1). Uncodified legislative intent for amendment to subd. (f): "It is the intent of the Legislature, in amending subdivision (f) of Section 425.16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to overrule the decisions in Decker v. U.D. Registry, Inc. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1382, 1387-1390, and Fair Political Practices Commission v. American Civil Rights Coalition, Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1174-1178." (Stats. 2005, c . 535, sec. 3.) Amended in 2005 by Assembly Bill 1158. |
| States with Anti-SLAPP Legislation Arkansas Delaware Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Indiana Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Minnesota Missouri Nebraska Nevada New Mexico New York Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island Tennessee Utah Washington |
| States with Judicial Doctrine on SLAPPs (No Statute) Colorado West Virginia |
| States with Anti-SLAPP Bills (Current or Previous) Arizona Colorado Connecticut Illinois Kansas Michigan New Hampshire New Jersey Texas Virginia |
| States in Which Anti-SLAPP Statute Is Advocated North Carolina |
| For more information go to the source group for the foregoing: The California Anti-SLAPP Project www.casp.net/mensta te.html |
| Why LTISD v. Lovelace qualifies as a SLAPP Meant to deter public participation Lake Travis ISD clearly wants no part of transparency. As an example which surfaced just this past week, although the district is paying for the Texas Association of School Boards' BoardBook software which enables users to post, among other possibilities, their entire check register online, LTISD has not chosen to do so. LTISD hasn't even deigned to share its school board agendas with the community, let alone inform them online when it's holding special board meetings. See for yourself: www.laketravis.txed.net/SD/Board%20Meetings.htm |
| A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation |
| My own experiences this summer further bear this out First, after local citizens contacted me, I attended Lake Travis ISD's July 25 special board meeting. Even though the building was deserted except for a handful of people, LTISD paid an armed sheriff's deputy in the neighborhood of $125-$150 to stand guard outside the board's private meeting room where the board and their supe had gone to confer in executive session with lawyers, Bracewell & Giuliani's J. David Thompson, III of Houston. Second, when I asked to see the receipt this past summer for the matching shirts worn by the LTISD so-called "Team of Eight" in its district photo, rather than simply producing the receipt, the district |
| Armed sheriff's deputy at LTISD school board meeting |
| routed my request to a law firm, which meant the attorneys got to charge LTISD taxpayers for the letter. Another simple question also went to the attorneys who sent it to the Office of the Attorney General as a dodge, at which point I faxed the district a cease-and -desist letter, meaning if they couldn't answer a few simple questions themselves without hiring attorneys, I would withdraw my request. LTISD apparently ignored my fax. |
| Who is Dave Thompson? In addition to being arguably the highest-profile education lawyer in Texas today, it seems that every time there's any kind of public education event anywhere in Texas, David Thompson's there--and paid generously to be so by Texas taxpayers, right down to the 1/6th or 1/10th minute or however they're billing over at Bracewell these days. From his official resume at left, we observe a few key points: He served as general counsel for the Texas Education Agency and worked for the Texas Association of School Boards as associate executive director. He also works for the Fast Growth Schools Coalition. Then there's his trial work. |
| Neither Rocky Kirk, LTISD supe, nor his school board have elected to post any LTISD board minutes online. Instead, there are brief summaries. Here's one recent example: |
| Discussion and/or Action (Closed Session) - After discussion in Closed Session, Dr. Kirk presented information regarding his proposed plan for re-organization of central administration. |
| That's it. No details as to how the central administration is being reorganized, how many new (non-teaching) administrators would be hired, what their names or titles were--or how much this proposed plan for reorganization would cost the district. Nothing beyond this scant entry. Aught, zip, nada. |
| Mark your calendars The summary of the November 13, 2006 board meeting includes the following dates for "Upcoming Meetings." Only the Dec. 11 meeting is listed on the district's website. Here's from the summary: "President Tolles announced the following future meetings of the LTISD Board of Trustees: - December 4, 2006, 6:00 p.m., Board Workshop, EDC; - December 6, 2006, 6:00 p.m.., Board/Superintendent Conference, EDC; - December 11, 2006, 7:00 p.m., Board Meeting, EDC." Why so secretive, LTISD? Surely such secrecy is not meant to deter public participation at board meetings. Surely. |
| A strategic lawsuit To understand clearly why LTISD v. Lovelace qualifies as a "strategic lawsuit" we must look at the attorney LTISD engaged to file the suit, Bracewell & Giuliani partner J. David Thompson, III. |
| J. David Thompson, III Partner-Bracewell & Giuliani |
| Mike'n'David Thompson has also been in the news as the result of his working relationship with Texas Education Commission- er Mike Moses, later Dallas ISD supe. Moses took early retirement from DISD when the relation- ship came to light. (More lower right in lilac sidebar.) |
| The Thompson /Moses connection According to Scott Parks in the May 8 edition of the Dallas Morning News, "A Houston law firm has paid DISD Superinten- dent Mike Moses tens of thousands of dollars in consulting fees while simultane- ously billing the district for more than $700,000 in legal fees...David Thompson, a partner in the firm Bracewell & Patterson, and Dr. Moses are long- time friends. The men said they became business associates in 2000, the year before Dr. Moses came to the Dallas Independent School District.... Several DISD trustees said that he informed the board of his consulting relation- ship and that they do not have a prob- lem with the arrangement. Under the law firm's banner, Mr. Thompson used Dr. Moses as a paid consultant to help him find new superintendents for Texas school districts. According to records, Dr. Moses formally recommended that the school board add Houston- based firm Brace- well & Patterson to DISD's stable of outside legal talent. The school board, just weeks after his arrival, unani- mously approved the recommenda- tion Jan. 25, 2001. Before 2001, the law firm had done a little work on a spot basis for DISD --about $7,500 worth in the late 1990s. But since February 2001, DISD has paid the firm more than $718,000. Dr. Moses acknow- ledges that the law firm has paid him tens of thousands of dollars during the three-plus years he has been in DISD. Public records aren't available to deter- mine exactly how much....Even though Bracewell & Patterson pays his fees for superin- tendent searches, Dr. Moses said in an interview, 'I guess I saw my relationship more as with the boards I was doing sear- ches for. Bracewell & Patterson has been the clearing- house for the searches that David and I have done, and that way, they've handled all the billings to the school district and that kind of thing. I've been paid by Bracewell & Patterson, but I have worked with David Thompson.' " |
| While the working relationship may have been legal, experts in the field quoted by the Dallas Morning News faulted it on moral grounds: 1. John Leonard, former Missouri school superintendent: "I could not do what he is doing and pass a review of appropriateness with our state ethics board. I'm not passing judgment from a thousand miles away because our cultures are different and I don't know what goes on there, but it's something I would not do." 2. Robert P. Lawry, director of the Center for Professional Ethics at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, saying the argument that the school board knew about Moses' relationship with Bracewell rings hollow: "My reaction is that even though it's transparent and the board signed off on it, we've seen some boards sign off on some stupid things. That doesn't rectify it. The cure is not transparency but prohibition." (SOURCE--Dallas Morning News) |
| One busy guy At the end of the day, with as many hats as David Thompson wears--and we haven't even mentioned his representation of Houston ISD and several other Texas public school districts--at least when Thompson goes home at night we and he can all take comfort in knowing that he doesn't have to do his own yardwork. One way or another Texas taxpayers take care of that. |
| Two pricey trials at taxpayer expense First came Edgewood IV in which "on behalf of the TASB Legal Assistance Fund, Mr. Thompson represented 263 school districts in Edgewood ISD v. Meno...challenging the constitutionality of the Texas public school finance system." (SOURCE--Bracewell & Giuliani) Thompson, who lives in Houston, also worked the Robin Hood trial in Austin in August/September 2004, representing the West Orange-Cove Intervenors, which challenged the constitutionality of Texas's public school funding system--and generated the following attorney comments, "Never had a chance," and "Bad law, bad representation," and "A waste of time." The mo'money mantra* Basically, the public school districts Thompson represented wanted to be able to tax their taxpayers as much as they wanted, with no limits set by the Legislature. |
| J. David "David" Thompson, III Partner Houston Office Practices: Government Relations, Advocacy and Strategy · Public Law · School Law Admitted State Bar of Texas Education J.D., The University of Texas School of Law, 1976 B.A., The University of Texas at Austin, 1973 Court Admissions U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit U.S. District Court Texas, Southern District Experience Mr. Thompson serves as legislative counsel for the Fast Growth Schools Coalition, Houston Independent School District and other school districts and education organizations, and has been actively involved in most legislative activities affecting public education in the past 20 years. Mr. Thompson represents public school districts, junior colleges and other educational entities in the Gulf Coast area and across Texas. He is a frequent speaker on a variety of school law subjects at legal and educational meetings. He is a former member of the Board of Directors for the NSBA Council of School Attorneys, a national organization of over 3,000 attorneys who represent public school districts. Previously, Mr. Thompson worked for the Public Education Committee of the Texas House of Representatives, as briefing attorney for the Ninth Court of Appeals, as associate executive director of the Texas Association of School Boards, and as General Counsel for the Texas Education Agency. He also has been an adjunct professor at the University of Texas School of Law, University of Houston at Clear Lake, Texas A&M University, and currently teaches education law at the University of Houston - Main Campus. Mr. Thompson was General Counsel for the Texas Education Agency for five years and previously served as associate executive director and director of governmental relations for the Texas Association of School Boards. In addition to his expertise concerning the general areas of school law listed above, Mr. Thompson has extensive experience in school finance matters, legislation, board/superintendent relations, contracts, conflicts of interest, nepotism, student residency and attendance, competitive bidding, school board policy development, and employment matters. Also, he regularly assists school boards in searches for superintendents. On behalf of the TASB Legal Assistance Fund, Mr. Thompson represented 263 school districts in Edgewood ISD v. Meno (Edgewood IV), challenging the constitutionality of the Texas public school finance system. Mr. Thompson currently represents the Plaintiffs in West Orange-Cove v. Neeley, challenging the constitutionality of the Texas Public School System. Professional recognition Texas Super Lawyer, school and education, 2004, 2006 Publications "Analysis of Texas Supreme Court 's Opinion in Neeley et al v. Orange Cove et al, No. 04-144," (Tex. November 22, 2005) Affiliations Education Law Association Houston Bar Association National School Boards Association - Council of School Board of Directors, Boy Scouts of America- Sam Houston Area Council |
| David Thompson's official Bracewell & Giuliani resume |
| Scott Parks |
Lobbyist David Thompson Lynn M. Moak Daniel T. Casey Paul M. Colbert David Anderson Catherine Clark Barry Telford Rusty T. Kelley |
Employer Bracewell & Giuliani Moak Casey & Assoc. Moak Casey & Assoc. Self HillCo Partners TX Assoc. School Bds Self Public Strategies |
| Previous Employment TEA, TASB TASB, Comptroller, Legislature TEA, Comptroller, Lt. Governor Texas House Representative TEA State Property Tax Board Texas House Representative House Speaker's aide |
| Max. Value of Contracts $325,000 $220,000 $210,000 $200,000 $185,000 $150,000 $150,000 $110,000 |
| No. of Contracts 5 8 7 2 6 1 1 3 |
| Top Education Lobbyists |
| This chart prepared by Texans for Public Justice. More here |
| SLAPP SUIT VITALS Lake Travis Independent School District, Plaintiff Attorneys: J. David Thompson, III Susan K. Bohn Bracewell & Giuliani vs. David and Melissa Lovelace, Defendants Attorneys: Jennifer S. Riggs William Aleshire Riggs & Aleshire Cause No. D-1-GN-06-003726 In the District Court of Travis County, Texas 126th Judicial District PETITION AND TEMPORARY INJUNCTION ----------------------------------- Eanes Independent School District, Friends of the Court Attorneys: James R. Raup McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF EANES INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S PETITION AND TEMPORARY INJUNCTION |
| Gardener tending David Thompson's suburban lawn in Houston |
| SLAPP SUIT ATTORNEY HIRED BY LTISD After the above- referenced lawsuit was filed, Bracewell attorney Susan Bohn was hired by Lake Travis ISD as their in-house counsel; base salary: $92,000. |
| BRACEWELL & GIULIANI SCHOOL LAW DIVISION Employment law (including terminations and grievances) Employment benefits Civil rights and constitutional law Election law Condemnation law Real estate law Nepotism Bidding and contracts Privacy law Environmental law Employee contracts Policy development Student discipline and student rights Board issues Special education law Free speech issues Religion in the schools The Texas Open Meetings Act The Texas Public Information Act School bonds and public finance Desegregation Special counsel to other lawyers |
| Susan Bohn |
| CITIZEN COMMENTS "If Rocky'd hired an attorney that won, this I could understand," said one Lakeway resident. "But to hire an attorney from the losing side--huh?" |
| ROCKY COMMENTS “Susan’s broad range of experience at Bracewell & Giuliani has prepared her well for the newly created position with the District.” |
| Mike Moses (center) working the room at close of Robin Hood trial |
| Look below for more on David thompson's lobbying activities |
| Rocky Kirk with Texas periwinkles |
| * "Mo'money mantra" is a hybrid term for whose origins we all have to thank San Antonio Express-News columnist par excellence Roddy Stinson, me most especially. In talking with Roddy, he recalls writing "Mo'money" and somehow I added "mantra." Roddy is not only a true wordsmith but he also makes a lot of sense. Such is his following in San Antonio that he calls them "Roddy's Rangers," folks who let him know what's going on in and around San Antonio. Here's a link to Roddy's SAEN columns: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/columnists/rstinson/storyindex.html |
| Hat trick question o'the day Given that David Thompson is paid almost six figures for representing the Texas Association of School Administrators (TASA--or "the supes' union as it's better known more or less affectionately in these here parts), and given that most superintendents appear to prefer dental work with no anaesthesia to producing public records of how they're spending taxpayer dollars, and to the extent that they are effectively Texas' single most powerful education lobby, wielding far more real power than the teachers' unions can ever dream of--a hat trick question arises. Is it possible that LTISD v. Lovelace is not only a SLAPP on behalf of David's hat as LTISD legal counsel but, ominously, a SLAPP on behalf of the ten-gallon Stetson David Thompson wears when representing TASA? |
| Thompson (center) in court in Austin the day he lost his suit; fortunately, he still had his many hats |
| designed to stifle the Lovelaces' efforts to extract public information from the LTISD and use that information to hold the LTISD accountable to its citizens," says Bill Aleshire, Jennifer Riggs' law partner in the firm Riggs & Aleshire. "There being no specific prohibition against a SLAPP suit in Texas law, that is a secondary argument against the LTISD lawsuit. The best and successful argument is that the LTISD's lawsuit failed to state any cause of action against the Lovelaces known to Texas law." |
| The attorney who prevailed against Thompson weighs in "The LTISD lawsuit against the Lovelaces is clearly a SLAPP suit, |
| The loneliness of the long-distance hunter-gatherer |
| More re Bracewell & Giuliani here www.bracewellgiuliani.com |
| David & Melissa Lovelace's website with their public records findings here: http://www.ltisd.info |
| Lovelace's site here |
| LTISD v. LOVELACE: TIME TO CALL A SLAP IN THE FACE A 'SLAPP' - Part II By Peyton Wolcott - Nov. 22, 2006 |
| October 25, 2006 J. David Thompson, III Bracewell & Giuliani 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 2300 Via fax (512) xxx-xxxx (Page 1 of 1) Austin, Texas 78701-4061 711 Louisiana Street, Suite 2300 Via fax (713) xxx-xxxx (Page 1 of 1) Houston, Texas 77002-2781 RE: Query for Report - School District Transparency Issues David, I'm confused about something which I'm hoping you can clear up for me. On the one hand, you represent Spring Branch ISD ("SBISD") as a professional lobbyist, duly registered with the Texas Ethics Commission. As it happens, in a commendable gesture of voluntary transparency, SBISD is one of a handful of Texas school districts which has committed to posting check registers online (and therefore included in the "National School District Honor Roll" comprising such districts on my website). And on the other hand, you are representing Lake Travis ISD ("LTISD") which has sued a mom and a dad apparently chiefly regarding their issues with it would appear a lack of transparency at LTISD. How can this be? I'd really like to understand your thinking on this. By the way, I'm going to be publishing a report incorporating some or all of the foregoing as early as Friday and will be noting therein that you have been contacted for a response. Perhaps tomorrow after court you might have time for some responsive statements; I'll be checking emails.... Thank you for your assistance with this, and wishing you all the best. |
| NOTE: The following two faxes were sent to Mr. Thompson almost a month ago; to date he has not responded to either. |
| October 27, 2006 J. David Thompson, III Bracewell & Giuliani 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 2300 Via fax (512) xxx-xxxx (Page 1 of 1) Austin, Texas 78701-4061 711 Louisiana Street, Suite 2300 Via fax (713) xxx-xxxx (Page 1 of 1) Houston, Texas 77002-2781 RE: Query for Report - "PROFILE: J. David Thompson, III" David, I'm doing a brief profile of you to accompany a piece I'm doing on public records/ transparency issues in our public schools..., wondering if you might be available this weekend to answer a few questions. Apologies for the short notice; was hoping to have received a response from you by now to my Wednesday request. Perhaps you've been busy and this was overlooked. In the event that you are not able to respond by Sunday night, I'll post the information I have with the notation that you have been contacted for further information/confirmation.... Among my questions: What has Bracewell charged Lake Travis ISD thus far for its legal services in connection with the Lovelace matter? When you traveled to Dallas last Tuesday for the FTPS reception, in what capacity did you attend? Who will reimburse you for your travel expenditures related to that trip, and did you pay the $50 fee for the reception and if so were you reimbursed? Why would you pursue the case against the Lovelaces now given the failure of HB 2264 last year in the House? Even Todd Baxter's listed co-sponsor declined. Finally, how would you respond to the notion which has been put forward by many parents and taxpayers that the people at the top of public education in Texas -- superintendents, lawyers, other vendors -- appear to be living lives that by many standards could be considered "elitist"? Thank you very much, and wishing you all the best. |
| More re LTISD here |
| NOTE: Oct. 26, 2006: Lake Travis ISD lost its SLAPP suit against David and Melissa Lovelace when Austin Judge Susanne Covington threw it out of her 126th District courtroom. Nov. 29, 2007: Austin's Third Court of Appeals dismissed LTISD's claims against the Lovelaces, whose request for attorneys' fees were turned down. More here (scroll down to bottom of page). |