Five months in, Lamar CISD bribery case remains in limbo
Five months after a Houston businessman was publicly accused of offering cash to two Lamar CISD candidates prior to last May’s elections in what some saw as a bid to win contracts, the issue still hangs over the suburban district.
After newly elected school board member Tyson Harrell questioned businessman Jim Gonzales’ cash offer, a divided board voted last June to terminate negotiations on a roughly $8 million contract with a partnership that included Gonzales’ company, Houston-based IDC Inc.
Plano-based Gilbane Building Co., the top bidder, and IDC had been selected to oversee work on bond projects approved by voters last year in the district in central Fort Bend County.
Gonzales sued the district and the two board members for defamation, but his lawsuit was thrown out by a judge after the court determined the board members were protected by professional immunity.
The Fort Bend County Sheriff’s Office is continuing its own investigation of the matter, according to Bob Haenel, the agency’s spokesman. The sheriff’s office previously said it was looking into “actions and allegations” regarding May’s school board election.
Attorneys for Gonzales wrote in his suit that the businessman was delivering cash donations that had been raised by other sources for the campaigns of the two candidates after he was asked to assist their campaigns.
The two new board members who were reportedly offered the cash, Harrell and James Steenbergen, could not be reached, and their attorneys declined to comment. The school district also declined to discuss the case.
Harrell had recently been in- stalled on the board when he told board members that Gonzales had offered him cash in the runup to the election. He said Steenbergen had a similar experience.
Both of the trustees were named in the lawsuit filed by Gonzales on July 20.
“The lawsuit is brought because of LCISD’s total disregard of the laws of the state of Texas,” read the petition.
The suit denies Harrell’s implication that Gonzales had acted improperly, calling it “scurrilous and absolutely false.
The petition also defended IDC’s long-standing relationship with Gilbane, a construction management company.
Gonzales contended that both Harrell and Steenbergen requested his assistance during their campaigns before the most recent contract for the 2014 bond program was approved.
He said the candidates both asked him for help raising funds. With the aid of others, including board members Frank Torres and Ana Gonzales, Gonzales gathered cash donations from a variety of sources and delivered them to both candidates on April 9, the petition states.
“Steenbergen received the contributions,” alleged the petition. “Harrell informed Jim Gonzales that he did not need the contributions, that he ‘had things covered.’”
At the June meeting, Harrell asked whether other board members and a Gilbane project manager found the offer appropriate. No, said the project manager. The board voted at that meeting to terminate the contract with Gilbane and IDC for the 2014 bond program management.
Five days later, according to the petition filed on behalf of Gonzales, Gilbane terminated its own contract with IDC for the 2011 bond.
In the petition, Gonzales asked for damages for the lost business and insisted that the discussion and vote on items not on the agenda violated the board’s procedures.
According to court filings, the board members denied all allegations and sought the protection of governmental immunity. State District Court Judge Brady G. Elliott ultimately agreed with the defendants, dismissing the case during an oral hearing.
Attorneys working on behalf of the board and district then filed a written order to dismiss the case on the grounds that the board members were protected by statutory professional immunity, according to court documents.
That order, still pending final approval by the judge, went further, stating that Steenbergen and Harrell were entitled to reimbursement for attorneys’ fees.