Tuesday, September 26, 2006


Sec. 8817.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Board" means the board of directors of the district.
(2) "Director" means a member of the board.
(3) "District" means the San Patricio County Groundwater Conservation District.
Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 1178, Sec. 1, eff. June 18, 2005.
Sec. 8817.002. NATURE OF DISTRICT. The district is a groundwater conservation district in San Patricio County created under and essential to accomplish the purposes of Section 59, Article XVI, Texas Constitution.
Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 1178, Sec. 1, eff. June 18, 2005.
Sec. 8817.003. CONFIRMATION ELECTION REQUIRED. If the creation of the district is not confirmed at a confirmation election held before September 1, 2007:
(1) the district is dissolved on September 1, 2007, except that:
(A) any debts incurred shall be paid;
(B) any assets that remain after the payment of debts shall be transferred to San Patricio County; and
(C) the organization of the district shall be maintained until all debts are paid and remaining assets are transferred; and
(2) this chapter expires on September 1, 2010.
Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 1178, Sec. 1, eff. June 18, 2005.
Sec. 8817.004. INITIAL DISTRICT TERRITORY. The initial boundaries of the district are coextensive with the boundaries of San Patricio County, Texas.
Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 1178, Sec. 1, eff. June 18, 2005.
Sec. 8817.005. APPLICABILITY OF OTHER GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT LAW. Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, Chapter 36, Water Code, applies to the district.
Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 1178, Sec. 1, eff. June 18, 2005.
Sec. 8817.006. CREATION OF AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY CONSERVATION DISTRICTS IN SAN PATRICIO COUNTY. (a) This chapter does not preclude the creation of an aquifer storage and recovery conservation district in San Patricio County.
(b) The district may not limit or restrict an aquifer storage and recovery conservation district from recovering water stored by the aquifer storage and recovery conservation district in a municipal aquifer storage area located in the district.
(c) To the extent that the boundaries of the aquifer storage and recovery conservation district and the district overlap, the power and authority of the two districts are joint and coextensive.
Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 1178, Sec. 1, eff. June 18, 2005.
Text of section effective until September 1, 2010
(a) Not later than the 30th day after the effective date of the Act creating this chapter, the San Patricio County Commissioners Court shall appoint five temporary directors and enter the appointments in the minutes of the court.
(b) If a temporary director fails to qualify for office or if there is a vacancy on the temporary board of directors of the district, the county commissioners shall appoint a person to fill the vacancy.
(c) Temporary directors serve until the earlier of:
(1) the time initial directors are elected as provided by Section 8817.022; or
(2) the date this chapter expires under Section 8817.003.
Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 1178, Sec. 1, eff. June 18, 2005.
Text of section effective until September 1, 2010
(a) The temporary directors shall hold an election to confirm the creation of the district and elect seven initial directors.
(b) At the confirmation and initial directors' election, the temporary directors shall have placed on the ballot the name of any candidate filing for an initial director's position and blank spaces to write in the names of other persons. A temporary director who is eligible to be a candidate may file for an initial director's position.
(c) Section 41.001(a), Election Code, does not apply to a confirmation election held as provided by this section.
(d) Except as provided by this section, a confirmation election must be conducted as provided by Sections 36.017(b)-(i), Water Code, and the Election Code.
(e) If the district is confirmed at the election, the temporary directors, at the time the vote is canvassed, shall declare the qualified person who receives the most votes for each position to be elected as an initial director for that position and shall include the results of the initial directors' election in the district's election report to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 1178, Sec. 1, eff. June 18, 2005.
Text of section effective until September 1, 2010
On the first uniform election date prescribed by Section 41.001, Election Code, in November of an even-numbered year that is at least six months after the date on which the district is authorized to be created at a confirmation election, an election shall be held in the district for the election of three permanent directors to serve a term expiring November 15 following the first election under Section 8817.052 and four permanent directors to serve a term expiring November 15 following the second election under that section.
Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 1178, Sec. 1, eff. June 18, 2005.
Text of section effective until September 1, 2010
This subchapter expires September 1, 2010.
Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 1178, Sec. 1, eff. June 18, 2005.
Sec. 8817.051. DIRECTORS; TERMS. (a) The district is governed by a board of seven directors.
(b) Directors serve staggered four-year terms, with three or four directors' terms expiring November 15 of each even-numbered year.
(c) Newly elected permanent directors take office at the first regular meeting of the board after the vote is canvassed.
(d) The board shall adopt rules and procedures for the appointment of a permanent director to fill a vacancy or to complete an unexpired term.
Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 1178, Sec. 1, eff. June 18, 2005.
Sec. 8817.052. ELECTION DATE. The district shall hold an election to elect the appropriate number of directors on the uniform election date prescribed by Section 41.001, Election Code, in November of each even-numbered year.
Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 1178, Sec. 1, eff. June 18, 2005.
Sec. 8817.101. GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES. Except as provided by Section 8817.006, the district has all of the rights, powers, privileges, authority, functions, and duties provided by the general law of this state, including Chapter 36, Water Code, applicable to groundwater conservation districts created under Section 59, Article XVI, Texas Constitution.
Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 1178, Sec. 1, eff. June 18, 2005.
Sec. 8817.151. LIMITATION ON TAXES. The district may not levy ad valorem taxes at a rate that exceeds five cents on each $100 of assessed valuation of taxable property in the district.Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 1178, Sec. 1, eff. June 18, 2005.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Yes Sir Mr Cohn, indeed you WERE talking to me!

Mr Cohn: I read Bruce Olson's dmcall. It took all the fun out of Karl Kemm's marvelous e-mail.

JK: Will somebody please provide this email from Karl Kemm so I can see WATT “fun” Ed is speaking of?

Mr Cohn: Here is the problem. He starts from the premise that the President is anti-faculty and this bias has lead to: (1) the "release" time study; (2) the Rangel report; (3) the president's pay raise; (4) various supposed statements by the President; and (5) various alleged communication and leadership problems. He concludes that the Regents should fire the President, if the President will not resign himself.

JK: In rebuttal Mr Cohn, I must disagree. Dr Olson begins from the premise that he was, well I will use his words, I served as Chair of the Chairs Council when the president came to the College. I was on the search committee that recommended him. Most at the College seemed excited and pleased with his selection and everyone wanted him to succeed. As Chair of the Chairs Council, I organized a transition workshop for him and all department chairs. It took place on a Friday in order to spend the entire day with the new president on building a new team and discussing and analyzing strengths and weaknesses of DMC from the chairs perspective.“ Dr Olson is establishing the history, which is in direct contradiction to Mr Cohn’s assertion, Here is the problem. He(Dr Olson) starts from the premise that the President is anti-faculty”. At one time Dr Olson was in full support of Dr Carlos Garcia (DMC President). The most recent response from DMC Board of Regents candidate Howard Karsh, illustrates Dr Olson in a light quite contrary to the one Mr Cohn attempts to bill.

Dr. Cohn:“(1) the "release" time study; (2) the Rangel report; (3) the president's pay raise; (4) various supposed statements by the President; and (5) various alledged communication and leadership problems.”

JK: It is obvious that Mr Cohn is not “in the know” when it comes to the inappropriate behavior of DMC hierarchy, either he is: trying to score points, benefiting from the present Power Structure or a wannabe hoping for inclusion. Pull your head out sir. Dr Carlos Garcia can be attributed to possess severe deficiencies in his communication and leadership skills. He is a very quick to frustrate persona. There is significant documentation of Dr Garcia’s words and actions, which deem him spontaneous, whimsical and inappropriate for the position he enjoys as DMC President. One example would be the knee jerk response to an email he received titled “Nah! There aint nothin inappropriate goin on at Del Mar College. Right Adriana? This was a fatal error for DMC and for Dr Garcia. I would have enjoyed watching the facial expressions and the discussion when Mr. Westergren learned of this “knee jerk” response by Dr Garcia.

Dr. Cohn: The problem is with the premise. The President has not been anti-faculty.

JK: Dr. Cohn is attempting to address the premise of Dr Olson. Cohn has a problem with this position and maintains the position, “The President has not been anti-faculty”. The faculty, I assure you Mr Cohn; does not share your sentiments regarding the anti faculty issue of the President. The Rangel report reflects this disenchantment.

Mr Cohn: Looks at Bruce's memo again. What is Bruce's proof? First, the president left a meeting and did not reconvene it. Assuming that is true, it is not as though the President has never since met with the Chairs and the Faculty Council. Quite the contrary, he has met with FC more than any President.

JK: First of all by the nature and context of your very own response, it is true. The next two sentences are only a failed attempt to digress and are disingenuous. Please refrain from insulting the intelligence of our audience.

Mr Cohn: Second the President has, according to Bruce, spoken against the Faculty: faculty are retired in place, faculty are lazy, faculty are overpaid, faculty don’t work enough hours. The first phrase is an old military one, as I am sure Bruce knows; it was not used by the President, but by a faculty member (not me). The last is one that the President has repeatedly disavowed (he has been very articulate on why Faculty in fact must be working 40 hours a week). As to being overpaid, he has consistently argued that he wanted the DM faculty to be among the top 5 best paid in the state (and our clerical and APT to be well compensated ). As to faculty being "lazy", I have never heard him make such a statement, certainly not publically.

JK: Although these statements are indicative and consistent with Dr Garcia’s actions I will practice my “laziness” and address the above section expediently. The disclaimer, “certainly not publicly” either demonstrates your “off the record” knowledge or your uncertainty.

Mr Cohn: What the President has tried to do--what most General Officers I have known have tried to do--is to challenge his staff. Are you doing all you can do to make this a great place? Is being a great classroom teacher enough? Here is the difference between what Bruce is accusing the President of and what the President has actually done. The President has challenged us--the faculty, as well as other elements of the college. He has NOT publically (outside the college) run the Faculty down. He always--to my knowledge--has spoken highly of the College and the Faculty publically.

JK: This is BS. Have you offered any evidence supporting the assertions? Dr Garcia should challenge his faculty to learn to define the word PUBLICALLY. For some reason I cannot find it in the dictionary? LOL. However, you are correct the PUBLIC is DMC’s ALLY.

Mr Cohn: Now let us turn to Bruce and his allies in their campaign to oust the President. What have they done? They have taken our dispute public. They have sought the limelight of KRIS. Here is an example. KRIS did NOT cover the August 11 Faculty Council meeting; they were not there. However, faculty dissatisfaction at Del Mar was reported that day. Why? Because Ann Thorn notified KRIS about the meeting, just as she notified the Caller Times. On the one hand we have a President who has said nothing to the detriment of Del Mar publically. On the other we have someone who has aired our problems in the most public manner possible.

JK: Taking the dispute Public? The Public is your BOSS. The Public knows about the situation at DMC due to inappropriate actions, abuse of power and abuses of position wielded on the students. The faculty is a tertiary element when it comes to the Public becoming involved. Ann Thorn is with Ann Matula and that tells us everything we need to know.

Mr Cohn: Let's look at a second item. Bruce says that the August 22 Board meeting shows the President should resign because "even the GI Forum and other citizens" want him put on administrative leave for "improrieties".

JK: The Regents are considering giving him the boot however; there are other factors such as increased acknowledgement and further liability for the College. The GI Forum has asked for DMC SOP to be adhered to and Dr Garcia be placed on administrative leave.

Mr Cohn: Unfortunately for Bruce, I was at the August 22 Board meeting. The people orchestrating that protest were Jaime Kenedeno and his group. This group is the same one that tried to get our Professor of the Year to resign from the college because of "impropieties" a year ago; the accuser and her helper-part of Kenedeno's entourage-were right there trying to undermine the President about something that needs to be left to the EEO processes and the Courts.

JK: First of all, there was no protest. Joe A Ortiz (GI Forum National Civil Rights Director) and Mr. Rolando Garza (community advocate and defender of the “little people”) addressed the DMC Board of Regents as per Open Meeting Decorum. All conduct was proper and distinguished. As far as Ben Blanco, the Due Process via EEO remedies has been thwarted, not to mention the Theresa Cox revelations. WATT is unfortunate is, Ben Blanco lusted for the wrong female student and his inappropriate aggression has ruined the life of human beings. The improprieties are documented, supported with affidavits and some of the conversations are even recorded. We will be getting to this issue in due time. Ben Blanco was just, “Going through a mid-life crisis and needed a young female”.

Cohn: Surely Bruce does not want us as faculty to be aligned with Jaime Kenedeno. I know that he would never agree to such a thing. I am concerned that he would use the August 22 Board meeting as a basis for calling for the resignation of the President (with due respect to the GI forum). The August 22 meeting was covered by the press and TV. Does any faculty member think that publicity was good for the college. Does anyone think that Jaime Kenedeno had the best interests of Del Mar (or its faculty) in mind on August 22?

JK: WATT is your opposition to aligning with the Jaime Kenedeno? Sometimes Ed we need to shine the light on roaches so we can quash them and exterminate them. Just look at me as an exterminator and getting rid of the roaches is good for DMC. The DMC hierarchy has been petitioned and pleaded with to address, acknowledge and allow the Due Process to operate unimpeded. The voices of students, faculty, staff, community leaders and others have fell on deaf ears. The only remedy was to appeal to Public Opinion. It is working brilliantly I might add.

Cohn: I would not have a problem with Bruce's approach of going loudly public and latching onto any possible ally, if the College were in danger, but it is not. It is headed by a pro-faculty administration. The Rangel report had been put as deeply to sleep as it could be, within the college. The Administation (Rosie and Carlos; the Academic Deans), the Chairs and FC all attacked the misguided Reassignment report. The truth of the matter is that FC officers read the report before the VPI and the President because the President gave us a copy before he had even read it (his attempt to have open communications). The President had supported many faculty initiatives, including pay raises. The President tried very hard to communicate with Faculty Council, as did the VPI.

JK: Bruce is not the one who went “loudly to the public”. The GI Forum was pursuing remedies through their own accessible channels. Thanks to Ben Blanco, Los Kenedenos became involved. Kenedeno & Associates are the ones who blasted the message and engaged the Public. Initially, we did this without inside access to DMC Faculty or Staff. The Rangel Report is highly accurate and very eloquently addresses crucial issues in a most positive demeanor. The President per SOP should be placed on administrative leave yet he remains active to the detriment of the College.

Cohn: Immediately after the July 28 meeting of Faculty Council, I called for a meeting of the VPI, the incoming and incumbant chair of chairs, and the incoming and incumbant FC chair. I presented a paper which delineated where I thought the communication had broken down, leading to significant faculty concerns. The VPI said: this has to go to the President. We were overtaken by events (the August 11 FC meeting). After that meeting, the administration acknowledged that communication needed to be improved with FC and with impacted faculty for any further restructuring and agreed to do so in an Addendum to its announcement restructuring. I must add that the failure of communication was not solely the Administrations fault. I need to take my share of that failure.

JK: Underlined above are direct contradictions to your assertions regarding communication and leadership deficiencies. In this section above and after reading the brown nosing rebuttal; “the whole world” can see right through the rhetoric. Also, I surmise this response is embarrassing that DMC would employ such inadequacy with respect to the Language Arts Department. I know the English instructors cannot help but to wince.

Cohn: Now we can finally lay out the contrast between two segments of the faculty. Bruce and his team believe that the President is anti-faculty to the degree that he must be opposed at all costs. Therefore, it is OK to bring our disagreements into the open. It is also OK to rely on the enemy of our enemy in the battle against the President. Another group of faculty believe that we have a human and fallible Administration which is pro-faculty and reform minded. This group believes that debating our differences out of public (non-Del Mar) view, and without running to the regents and regent's meetings is the best approach because the President and his Administration are essentially pro-faculty.

JK: Contrast the faculty division? Either you are with em, or you,…. I will use the words of DMC Board of Regents Candidate Howard Karsh, In the end as I have often said you are either swallowed up by the culture of corruption or you are gone”. With regard to the “out of public” approach, been there done that and bought the t shirt. It is too late to keep it out of the Public; we are here and we will remain. As for the remainder of your rebuttal I see no reason to continue, unless you insist Mr. Cohn.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Edward Cohn <ecohn@delmar.edu>
Date: Sep 11, 2006 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Del Mar Electronic Anonymous Input Forum] This Letter From Dr Olson stands on it's own. We will address the Rebuttal by Dr Cohn Soon.
To: elle mintry <dannoynted1@gmail.com >
Cc: cgarcia@delmar.edu

Don't bother. I was not talking to you.

Ed Cohn

Yes Sir Mr Cohn, indeed you WERE talking to me!

Saturday, September 02, 2006

WATTA ya think Mr Zepeda?

The evidence speaks for itself.

Progressive is a noble cause but corrupted and disingenuous from the beginning.

They are laughing at South Texas.

On Monday (Labor Day) we will make the information readily accessible in the digital format.

Then, the decision to admit or deny will be an educated and informed one.

I once believed in the Progressive Democrat. The label is an oxymoron.

Now we have discussed the DINO and we all know how we feel regarding the deception. How can one be a member of the SPTX and run for office as a Democrat? IMO, this Political Bigomy?

Infidelity and deception?

With Malice and Forethought?

With intent to defraud and harm?

Why dont John Kelly just come out and admit it to South Texas?

Tell us how we (South Texas) will be better off following your dream and the platform of the SP-TX.

Don't bullsh/t us no more John Kelly. Or is it Kelley?

The perfect line up for Air America would be Moctemoc's Door in the Morning and Joe Flores' "And Justice For All" every afternoon.

WATTA ya think Mr Zepeda?

COMRADE is that WATT we shall call each other from now on?

Shozz Bot........ Nano, Nano

Friday, September 01, 2006

John Kelly: You are not from here Comrade.

WATT’S that rumble do you think you hear

Is it loathing, is it fear

Or is the virus exiting from our rear.

Ram Chavez letter to Tony Morales (tomorrow)

Democrat or Progressive?

Taste Great or Les filling?

Now, tell us WATT is the definition of the following words: Socialismo, Solidarity and BTW, do you know by now who is the “SPTX Independent” to challenge for District 27? Or “Just like everything else those crazy dreams just kinda came and wentJack & Diane. Socialist ideology? Be forthright with your presentation do not come here accept our gracious hospitality and endearment; while you infiltrate and undermine as an “Out of the Box Democrat”. DINO no,…???? THAT LABEL IS MOST UNFITTING ….... SPDINO, now that is most apropos, no? Most South Texans consider Socialism and Communism as just plain ole Communism so don’t try and baffle us with the philosophical / ideological BS. We smelled it but just couldn’t locate the Bull and to find out the aroma originated from the STEER. Now it is time to go to market and you will market yourself as a different breed of stock. You have not the DNA of a Democrat. You are not from here Comrade.

Roland Garza called a Communist because of association

Roland is PRO Union and he is Democrat.

Distance yourself PEOPLE!

That is all I will tell you.

Good Luck