Friday, July 17, 2009

Is budget crisis at Bexar probation real or an excuse to fire Bill Fitzgerald's enemies?

A story published yesterday in the San Antonio Express News announced that Bexar County's controversial probation director, Bill Fitzgerald, plans to fire nine employees ostensibly because of a reduction in their budget ("Bexar probation office eyes layoffs, furloughs," July 16):

Aimee Sharp, finance director of community supervision and corrections, said the department has seen a 28 percent drop in court fees since Bexar County courts-at-law judges restructured in May the way court fees are allocated.

The court fees that probationers pay now go first to the courts before any of the money is distributed to community supervision. If probationers don't pay the full amount of the court fees, community supervision may not get any of the allotment, according to Sharp.

She also said because judges are not inclined to require probationers to pay off probation fees at the completion of their program, community supervision is not receiving its share.

“We were really caught by surprise when this happened,” she said.

The probation department has been dipping into its fund balance — used for emergencies — to compensate for the loss of fees. In May, it had a fund balance of about $655,000, about 5 percent of its total budget.

The department receives half of its funding from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and court fees fund the remainder of the $13 million budget.

The state recently informed the Bexar County probation department that its state funding would decrease by 3.15 percent — or $170,762, which is the equivalent of four probation officers.

If the restructured fee collection continues, the department could expect a $700,000 decrease in its share of fees for an entire fiscal year, which runs from October to September.

The decrease was the unintended consequence of the judges' efforts to raise revenues and avoid layoffs in their courts, Fitzgerald said.

A couple of things strike me about this story. First, the decision by Bexar judges shows they're still utterly out of touch with what's going on at the probation department, worrying more about budgets for their own individual court staff more than providing supervision for convicted defendants they've allowed to stay in the community. That's a bad public safety decision. The judges serve as the board of the county probation department, but in Bexar the current crop of jurists has seldom behaved like people that understand they have a fiduciary responsibility toward the department, instead worrying only about their own feifdoms in each individual courtroom.

Also, I want to learn more about the assertion (which I'm not sure I believe) that "The state recently informed the Bexar County probation department that its state funding would decrease by 3.15 percent." All the data I'd seen from the recent legislative session said probation funding was increased overall statewide. According to the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition's budget analysis, during the 81st legislative session this spring:
  • Approximately $11.1 million was allocated for projected community supervision population growth.
  • $13.1 million was allocated for a 3.5% pay increase in FY 2010 and an additional 3.5% salary increase in FY 2011 for community supervision officers and direct care staff. A similar increase (about 3.5% in each year of the biennium) was also provided to correctional and parole officers. ...
  • The "Community Supervision Officers and Direct Care Staff Salary Increases Rider" appropriates $13.1 million over FY 2010-2011 and specifies that “It is the intent of the legislature that community supervision officers and direct care staff receive a 3.5% salary increase in fiscal year 2010 and an additional 3.5% salary increase in fiscal year 2011.”
So with all those new resources allocated, how is it that the Bexar probation department is claiming their funds have been cut? Why haven't other departments seen their budgets cut, if that's the case? (Maybe they have - a lot of Grits readers work in the probation field so let me know if this is happening where you are.) Unless the Department of Criminal Justice is reducing Bexar's funds because they've flouted state diversion efforts - in which case the REAL story would be their gross failure to implement required diversion programs - the information being provided here doesn't sound correct to me.

A healthy dose of skepticism is required because of Bill Fitzgerald's well-earned reputation as a union-busting, retaliatory manager who's not above terminating or harassing employees who're whistleblowers or union sympathizers. Is there really a budget crisis at the Bexar probation department or is this just an excuse for Fitzgerald to get rid of more internal enemies? That's the unspoken question looming over this announcement, and it deserves an honest answer before any layoffs begin.


Anonymous said...

Judges taking care of their own wants and needs over those of the probation departments? What's new there? No news here, move along.

Anonymous said...

Can you say PENDING LAWSUITS and CRIMINAL CHARGES? There's way more than you'll ever believe going on at Bexar County CSCD. Ask Ms. Sharp about possible supplanting of grant funds. Manufactured and fake e-mails.
Probationers not being seen at home, work as directed by the State. This is a losers idea of how to reduce revocations! Ms. Welebob are you paying attention? You're the new director of CJAD-Adult Probation! GOOD LUCK!
Chief(?) Fitz hires Dr. Fabelo to help him learn why they keep failing audits. 3 so far! I'll tell you that the reason is the GOOD OL BOY promotions of managers and administators whom are not qualified. Payout for Federal wrongful termination lawsuit, it just keeps going, stay tuned!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Enough already, flush the turds. why didn't this happen with the previous administration?

Anonymous said...

Thanks Grits, for seeing the truth. Why is other counties not laying off??? Just Bexar? Again and again, Chief Fitzgerald gets by with his lies. Our caseloads are higher than 120 and we were to get raises??? Fitzgerald is playing games again.

I dont believe Sharp's claims!

Fitzgerald already has Probation Officer Positions that are not filled....maybe 30??? so we need more layoffs???

They just rolled in a 8,000 dollar refrig... another 300 dollars extra to each field officer....the beat goes on and on.

Anonymous said...

First, to the obviuos grammatical ineptitude of a supposed professional writer. Your quote, though partial, is correct. However your understanding of the basic setence structure is worrisome. The intent of the legislature is to pay for the increase of the salary. That is not the salaries themselves. In the full appropriations rider no where is it intended that the $13.1million over two years is to pay any salaries only salary increases. There is a difference and the words used in a statement connect. We call this context.

Second, as to the chicken shit anonymous comments. Develop some courage and sign your claims. (Except for you 08:22) Now, Bat Shit Crazy 01:01:00 your argument is all over the place. You go from falsey connotating the word supplanting to some wierd systematically impossible conspiracy theory about supposed corruption. Provide proof or go home to your 30 cats. Loon!

01:04:00 How do you know?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 8:27, the fact that there was money allocated for 3.5% salary increases implies that there was enough to pay the salaries of the existing employees plus 3.5%. This is allocation from the state. Plus there are other increases in funds from the state, making it reasonable to be a skeptic about the supposed 3.15% decrease in state funds that the state doesn't seem to know about.

And you can take your grammatical construction and shove it up yr...nose. It's not real effective to use supposed grammatical errors as a club to beat up on evidence & cites.

Defensive, scornful, angry, wants people's that you, Bill?

Anonymous said...

I think we all know who made the last comment. There is only 3 peolpe in the whole world who would defend Bexar's layoff dilemma. So, after knowing who the last blogs identity is, why tell someone not to post anon. blogs but yet turn around and anon. blog yourself.

Kind of, do as I say... not as I do!!! Boy, now we really know who you are!!!

Anyway, some of us talked to the state today and they are confirming the increase in budget. Unless crime decreases then there should be no layoffs. The theory is retaliation and piss-poor administration. Get it...piss poor...from the past pee probs!!! Ha Ha Humor!!

Anywho, 1:01 post...I think you may be right. We have known the truth and waited for it to come out. Guess what, it is coming. This time they can't delete it, scare it,cover it up, lie about it , twist it, or run from it. The cows are coming home and they are telling the truth. Fitzgerald and crew....we all know...YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!

Anonymous said...

Bust on Grammar? Why try and scare people who want to comment with Grammar insults? Trying to scare the troops off the site? Trying to do what you do at work?

Anonymous said...

How did you pay off the Lara Federal Case??? Is that our 9 officers layoff.

Mr. Grits...I think the layoff is to settle his lawsuits. He lost one already. How many more to go?
10,9,8??? Where is stops nobody knows. How many toes nobody knows!

Anonymous said...

To the 8:27 P.M. Blogger tell your friends to stop blogging. You and your Administration are a JOKE!!!! Do you know that your lies and Scare Tactics are going to turn on all of U. Keep Promoting your friends, having your get your LIES STRAIGHT Meetings and keep sucking on the cigarettes. Gonna need lots where you guys are going! No wonder the dept. can't move forward.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Grits! You are the only outsider that can SEE THE SMOKESCREEN!! Bexar Co.Probation Administration has Absolutely NO INTEGRITY!!! SELFISH! SELFISH!SELFISH!

Anonymous said...

To the 8:27 P.M. Blogger Bill, Cathy, Letty, Aimee U R Part of the CORRUPTION!!!!!! HELLO?? Please, STOP BLOGGING!!!

Steve said...

I don't know everything about the problems of the Bexar County CSCD administration, but they really are facing a financial crisis. In a chart that TDCJ-CJAD distributed earlier this year, the Bexar County CSCD was scheduled to receive $5,900,435 in Basic Supervision funding for FY 2009 (after money was cut to make up for increased health insurance costs). According to the chart that CJAD just released for FY 2010 funding, the Bexar County CSCD is scheduled to receive $5,421,018 next year. The fact is that the department will be hurting for funding this year. The recent action the judges have taken on probation fees will just compound the financial problems.

Steve said...

By the way, many CSCDs are disappointed that the increased funding from the state for FY 2010 is going to be eaten up by increased costs for benefits, including health care costs, unemployment insurance and retirement. In addition, the 3.5% raise from the legislature looks good on its face, except the legislature forgot to provide funds to cover the cost of benefits with those raises. Many CSCDs across the state are facing a financial crisis.

Anonymous said...

Good reporting and blogging...Grits!!!

You have it right!!!

Thanks to Grits.

Anonymous said...

Steven, thanks for the information. Legislatures do tend to "forget" to fund things on occasion. And governments everywhere are strapped for funds, the bad economy has hit all govt, especially below the federal level, extremely hard this time. I don't know the specifics of what was and was not cut from the stimulus package but there was some talk of direct state-level relief, don't know if that was reduced or cut in the final though.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Steven, if your numbers were right it'd be an 8.1% decrease in state funds, which still doesn't jibe with what's being claimed. And if you know, why would Bexar's funding decline if the Lege increased funding overall? Maybe email me off line and tell me more about these documents you're citing and I'll try to confirm the data with CJAD next week.

I agree health costs are a problem for everyone - maybe Obama's health plan will help - but Bexar CSCD didn't claim their problem was increased costs but state cuts, even though statewide funding increased.

I also think it's not unreasonable to ask if paying for lawsuits is contributing to the reported deficit - settlements have to come from somewhere.

Bottom line, there's a trust problem at Bexar CSCD that doesn't exist elsewhere because Fitzgerald has been trying to fire critics among his employees for going on two years. Everybody in the agency can name nine people Fitzgerald wants to axe, both to get rid of critics and to intimidate other potential union organizers, whistleblowers, etc..

If it's true that every CSCD in the state has budget problems, it's also true that it's Bexar first out of the box saying "fire people," while elsewhere that's more of a last resort. Maybe it's all legit but IMO some healthy skepticism has been earned.

Anonymous said...

Mr Henson and all interested parties,

What is happening at the Bexar County Adult Probation Department is quite simple. Since the birth/creation of the Probation Department in Bexar County, there has been a deep seperation of power among the County Court of Law Judges and the District Court Judges in the operations and on goings at the Adult Probation Department.
For example: When Mr Fitzgerald was hired in 2004, there was no imput by the County Court of Law Judges. He was chosen by a panel of District Court Judges.
Since his hiring, the Bexar County Adult Probation Department has become a hugh Embarrassing state agency that Texas has never seen before. With all the pending LAWSUITS, continued failed AUDITS, Wrongful TERMINATIONS of Officers/Administrators and URINALYSIS fiasco's/ investigations, there is no wonder why Morale among its employees (Officers and Support staff) is at its lowest it has ever been in the history of the department.
The Criminal Court Judges are at odds with one another. Most if not all the County Court at Law Judges want Fitz's head on a SILVER platter. Yet, most if not all the District Court Judges want Fitz's to stay. WHY?
The Criminal Court Judges may be doing things like lowering supervisory fees in an effort to put the pressure on the District Court Judges to rid the Probation department of Fitz and his cronies.
It is a SHAME that the Adult Probation Director (Bill Fitzgerald) has had so many Lawsuits filed against him in such a short period of time since his date of hire in Nov-2004. Has any other Director of any other State Agency in the history of Texas had this many Lawsuits filed against them? My research, has shown NONE!!!!!!!!!
What more needs to happen in BEXAR county for all the Criminal Court Judges to finally WAKE up and come to their senses and realize the wrong individual was hired????????????????????

Anonymous said...


I have seen the Bexar Budget. I saw the legal fees on there. I eyeballed it myself. Also, the professional fees were over a half million. That puzzles me.

The just of the situation is that the last blogger is right.

We should have 9 officers that quit before they need to layoff. Four to Five just quit in the last month. Our retention is over 70% in the last 3 years. Mostly all new officers straight out of college.

No matter if you are a Fitzgerald supporter or hater. You have to look at the facts and the facts are he killed the department.

Steve....even if you facts are right.... I need to see them to believe. ( it would be just like Fitzgerald's crew to plant a comment from someone)

I don't trust anything that come out of that administration's mouth. I try to believe in him, time and time again I see the lie.

The pay is way lower in Bexar than all the other big counties by a lot. So do we have more officers than other large counties??? The EN article was wrong on the 120 cases. I checked with 8 officers yesterday. All officers report 150 to 174. Did sharp lower in smaller diversion program caseloads to look like they were keeping caseloads down????

Good point blog...with the unfilled Probation Officer positions. Explain the 30 unfilled with a layoff loom.

My thought are fitzgerald really does not understand the budget or probation. This new budget Sharp is just as confused.

This should be the last straw for the judge's. If the rumors are true....Cline and Fitzgerald and Boor...need to worried about prison.

Grits, I think you may have some eye-opening info coming your way.

I would love to hear CJAD's response? Also, who is paying for Fabelo's 3 year study??

R. Shackelford said...

Jesus, what a mess. If these are the people who are expected to rehabilitate and reintegrate criminals into productive Bexar society, then I'm damned glad I don't live there. Anyone else see the bitter irony of criminals supervising criminals here?

Anonymous said...

If Bexar is adding 3 new county courts, has the highest crime rise in the nation...why would there be layoffs.

Seems if the judge's can not do their job the lawsuits need to move to them?

County Commissioners need to step in here. This silly Fitzgerald may be hired by the judges but as a citizen I expect the County Commissioners to watch over my tax paying safety. If a state agency goes rouge then come on commissioners do your job.

asharp said...


While I can see this may be a place for personal attacks, I believe you posed a question that some have interest.

There are a number of different calculations you can make in the state funding portion of the basic supervision budget. (do we include the health insurance withholding, safp aftercare, and which yrs to compare, ect...) In keeping with the CJAD funding announcement I used the 3.15% decline which was off the last biennium, not fiscal year. This point is not clearly made in the article from SA Express. Out of the 122 CSCD's in the State, a total of 44 had a negative percent change in basic supervision funding according to the funding worksheet. The funding is formulaic and is defined in statute. Personal feelings, opinions, or even blog comments toward anyone can't change the formula. How the decrease hurts the really small cscd's as well as the large??

The discussion above is only on one funding stream. The raises for staff are budgeted and funded by the state and awarded seperately. The fund for raises will be calculated from the 8-31-09 payroll and will be distributed later. The funding for the raises isn't included in the overall basic supervision funding for next fiscal year. Once that award is made and if you add it to our previously referenced funding the amount released to Bexar may overall increase. I think that could be what you were looking for at the end of your post and to Steven & Shell.

The issue most at hand at this time, is the collection of fees. We have seen declination trend in collection of fees going back through Sep. 09 and consistently trending 5-10% below similar month comparisons. Since May 13, the Misdemeanor collections levels dropped, and now measure consistenly -28% when measured on a daily basis. Since collection of fees represent approximately 1/2 of the basic supervision budget, this trend is very concerning. You seem to have a good understanding of the fees collection issue. Thanks for the space, A.Sharp

Anonymous said...

The ones ultimately responsible for these trends are the County Curt at Law Judges and Fitzgerald. Why do I mention this? The Judges are pissed at Fitsgerald for what ever reasons they have and as a result they are lowering supervisory fees $10.00 to $30.00. When the law states they can charge up to $60.00 monthly. Then if the defendant is unable to pay then they waive the fees altogether. Who are the ones that gets hurt, it is the OFFICERS, not the Judges, not A Sharp are the rest of the administration (Kline, Esquivelle, Boore or Mary). If they dont care for Fitzgerald lets call the meeting and get rid of him and stop hurthing the OFFICERS / SUPPORT STAFF.

Anonymous said...

"The discussion above is only on one funding stream. The raises for staff are budgeted and funded by the state and awarded seperately."

So....Sharp when you got your raise it was from the state? When did you get that raise? Willing to go back to your old salary for the public's safety? Your raise is less than a year old....administration took a raise without officers getting one. Now administration needs to step up
and give back what you took. spelled with the a in place of the e..... Check the budget maybe there are some mistakes there also??? Hey, thanks for stepping up and posting.

Anonymous said...

"There are a number of different calculations you can make in the state funding portion of the basic supervision budget. (do we include the health insurance withholding, safp aftercare, and which yrs to compare, ect...) "

Did you mean there is a number of different ways you can spin the calculations?

Spin it so there is no layoffs!

SAFP...what is that? Did you mean the Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facility which is SAFPF?

The aftercare should not be in basic supervision budget????

Or are you talking about the aftercare that Treatment Associates provides for SAFPF? I guess in case anyone does not know! Treatment Associates was also give the contract for the Urinalysis Lab as well as the SAFPF aftercare treatment.

This is a clear conflict of interest and misdemeanor. If a probationer tested positive then Treatment Associates could then provide the treatment. The more positives the more treatment.

Did you know that one... Grits?

Pull the contracts. Just call Fitz and ask.

Maybe all those False Positives were to drum up business for Treatment Associates? Who knows?

Judge Herr warned you...did she not? I guess then Judge Herr knew also about the conflict? Is she over the drug court? Maybe Judge Herr does not want Fitz to leave to protect herself? Makes horse- sense. Does Reed know all this?

Wonder if you ever thought anyone would care about this? No, they are just probationers. No one cares about them?

Wouldn't the irony of the situation be if some of those who did not care about the Urinalysis Lab have to use it some day for their own probation? Makes you think?

Anonymous said... etc....some one check the budget!!!

Anonymous said...

To ASharp

Why not make it easier for probationers to pay? Keep the cashiers open one night a week! Do something to make it easier for them to not loose a day of payroll to come and pay probation fees? This is a no brainier?

Most of your officers are trying to leave because of the climate you have created. They don't care about fees and like the probationers more than the chief. They will never collect the fees administration needs to keep their jobs. They just dont care!!!

Report your true retention rates????

Keep the dictator and the public suffers. Real good, judges in Bexar County.

Most officers want to quit and are not going to squeeze some probationer so he cannot feed his kids.

Anonymous said...

!. Miss Sharp: Do you plan to replace the eight field team members that were active case management officers?
2. How can Bexar County afford to take eight officers/one manager for NONCASELOAD carrying FIELD TEAM, without losing funding/raises for them? Especially since they are out of their respective units/courts?
3. Wasn't there a grant funded car for those sex offender officers?
4. Per your own admission, the magic date for the promised raise is as of 8-31-09. Well, as in #2 above, those eight officers will not receive the raise, am I correct?
5. Is it true that an officer just left your department earning $31,000 for the same probation job in McAllen where he will start at $41,000? I guess they are having a BUDGET CRUNCH in that booming town/county too.
5. I vote that you cancel all promotions over the last 2 years and place all those folks back in caseload management. You see the problem with all the AUDITS are simply PISS POOR MANAGEMENT by those you promoted.
6. NOTE: If you put a drunk driver in charge of a bus, you can only expect a bad outcome. Welcome to the worst wreck this county, possibly state, has ever seen!
P.S. Bill, what type of "talking to" did you get when you left Yavapai County, Arizona?

Anonymous said...

or if you plce that drunk driver as head of the buss they might jst wet thier panties. lol WONT THEY, YES IM TALKING ABOUT YOU.

Anonymous said...

This isn't the first time a probation department has had budget problems, however, their solution is to threaten with layoffs. They feel bullied by the Misdemeanor Judges so they bully back. Another fine example of POOR ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT. The reason the District Judge's haven't moved against him because two of their colleagues were actively involved with the reapplication process a few years ago. That is what the cell phone records between Cline, Harle, and Kazen will reveal. Continue to close your eyes Judge Herr. Next time Bill will grant your reguest for the Manager of your choice just as he did Kazen. The whole dirty unethical affair is revolting. Obviously, these players are highly invested in their salaries and NOT THE COMMUNITY

Anyone with the number of lawsuits, terrible audits, UA lab issues, and poor financial administration would have been FIRED!!

Thank God there will be elections in 2010.

Anonymous said...

Why officers??
Why not Administration??
One admin salary equals 3 officers.

3 failed audits....the auditor needs to go also with administration.

We raided CJAD for auditors who we hired and were still flunking?

Anonymous said...

It's amazing how Sharp will show respect and courtesy to a blogger that she doesn't know personally, yet acts so high-and-mighty, and disrespectful to the officers that are her coworkers.

She fears conflict from grits, yet encourages it from the staff in the same building she's in; by flaunting her unchecked number of smoke breaks, getting to work late and leaving early, and the general nature of the tone of superiority she takes with all she works with --minus Cline, of course. She sucks her butt so hard she's got peanut breath.

Anonymous said...

In your article you mention that Chief Fitzgerald is a union buster. The union was never been successful in Bexar County and it had nothing to do with Fitzgerald. Two unions have failed to gather support and a third is currently not gaining any support.

The lack of support is due to the poor union leaders and the causes they have chosen to push forward. The people they have chosen to support in their lawsuits has also failed to generate any interest. Steve, Michelle,and Sherry are not people most employees want to
follow as a champion for the department.

Union leaders are trying to blame their own failures on Bexar County Administration. Lets face it. If the union had something better, union membership would be increasing.


Anonymous said...

Union membership is up. Main problem is people want to quit the department ASAP.

Lots going on your just not in the know, last blogger.

Two of the people you talk about have personal lawsuits. The union had nothing to do with either lawsuit. One you talk about already won his suit! The others....well I think..
You may not want to speak to soon.

Better see who they were at lunch with today. I saw myself! Bet you can't guess?

The union is not about its leaders it is about a better working environment. The people you talk about do not want you to champion their cause. The union is about employees working for a common cause. The lawsuits are all about to be over. I think we all know who you are last blogger and if not it's sad others are confused. The scornful comments of old members who were ousted is meaning less.

The union would love to have new help and leaders. So, step up and help. The more bodies the better. They need help it is a lot of work. I would love to help but have a special needs family member and cannot.

People that write blogs about Fitzy not being a union buster just don’t know the facts. Fitzy has a neighbor he told about how he wanted to fire everyone who signed the first petition. This neighbor works where relatives of union members work. Fitzy had a leak on his plan from the start.

I think unions fail because it is all very time consuming. Unions don’t try to form 3 times in a good working environment. We saw the pay in Hidalgo County, Dallas and others....Bexar is a problem. Fitzgerald's pay charts are so far messed up he will never be union free.

I doubt the union or the 3 you talk about would even care about your blog. I should have not wasted my time to blog either.
Dumb statements don't deserve an answer. Sorry, I’m just up late at my 3rd job and bored.

I think to sit back and be a critic while others are putting their job on the line to improve conditions to feed their family is a shame.

I know all 3 you are talking about and all you do is make their resolve stronger. Kind of like the more shots to the butt you get the tougher you are. This union has lived through tons of retaliation and it will live through negative blogs.

Sorry Grits, I should not have entertained the last blogger.

I wanted to talk about they feel other CSCD's will have layoffs?

So drug dealers should go free, sexual harassment is ok, innocent people go to jail, and the right of free speech and assembly is not a good thing.

I cannot relate last blog. Even if you don't like the union leaders, you work in the department you have to know they are right.

Guess you will find out soon enough who is right here.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Bill Fitzgerald's own actions earned him the "union buster" label, regardless of any criticisms you may have of the union. That was a shameful and revealing moment.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Grits. People outside the Union don't really know what we are about. We haven't had failures, but it is clear this administration and its management has had plenty. Paul K's lawsuit was finally filed and there is more to come. More to come with information and documention to prove this Administration's deceitful, unethical nature. Those of you who don't choose to believe won't have a choice. Will you feel dirty and stupid for believing this man?

Anonymous said...

Grits, if you are really worried about shameful and revealing moments why do you not chastise all comments that are critical. There are many blogs on this article that speak of corruption, dishonest judges, naming the chief as a dictator, and implying Bexar administration is abusive.

There is even one blog before the one you admonish that speaks of Sharp sucking Cline's butt so hard she's got peanut breath. Why don;t these blogs rise to your level of disgust.

It is your blog site and you can do what you want. But don't claim to be all sanctamonius when it is obvious you are not.

Anonymous said...

Last blog that is free speech! It is ok to disagree! The blog is to discuss ideas and thoughts.

Some have insulting thoughts.

I would say after reading the articles on this Fitzgerald these employees need to vent.

Looks like the employees know the bosses read this blog and are giving them some of the behavior the bosses seem to display at work.

I love seeing the unfairness come full circle and then the bosses cry. Go and give them heck employees that are oppressed. I don’t even understand the peanut comment?

Gritsforbreakfast said...

"Grits, if you are really worried about shameful and revealing moments why do you not chastise all comments that are critical. "

First, I didn't chastise anyone - the statement you quote reacted to the comment that my use of "union busting" was inappropriate. I think that's a fair characterization of Bill Fitzgerald's record.

I don't vet Grits comments before they're published - there are too many of them and it'd be all I do. Every individual is responsible for what they write - I'm not your momma. When the problem gets too severe, as has been the case,for example, on TYC strings, I just shut comments completely off. In this case I don't think the employee venting here rises to that level.

Finally, it's one thing to hold a director of a public agency accountable for decisions made in an official capacity, and quite another to spend much energy worrying about what an anonymous blog commenter wrote. One is worthy of chastisement, the other is just people with no power blowing off steam in a relatively harmless forum.

I don't understand the peanut comment, either.

Anonymous said...

I don't think there is any validity to the peanut butter comment. If Sharp actually planted her face in Cline's bunghole as alleged, her breath would smell a lot worse than peanut butter.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know how many lawsuits the department has paid to settle out of court and the amount of any settlements ?

I'm not sure where to find that information or if it is obtainable under the open records law.

Anonymous said...

It would seem reasonable that expenses for lawsuits have to be included in the department's basic supervision budget(s). You can probably get those through an open records request to TDCJ-CJAD at 512-305-9300, or 209 W. 14th Street, Suite 400, Austin 78701.

Anonymous said...

A. Sharp is paranoid in SA, what would you expect if you work for FRITZ? I guess she heard about Paul's lawsuit!

Anonymous said...

If lawsuits have been won/lost, why doesn't anybody post the facts here, instead of being so cryptic about it? Who sued, and who won?

Anonymous said...

Fitzgerald lost two points of his first still pending.
He stopped the interviews of all his staff(the famous reapply for your job at Christmas Massacre) and met with his workers who filed the grievance. So, he had to have a lawsuit filed to give in to workers protected rights. Don't think he wanted to he had to. He then ran around the office and lied to his staff and told them he had won his first lawsuit which is a big fat lie. Moot means he complied with what was asked for in the lawsuit. However, Fitz thinks that was a win because two points were met on the lawsuit. Sad thing is most of his managers believed him.

The second lawsuit he lost is Steven D. Lara VS William Fitzgerald and Bexar CSCD who was unlawfully terminated and is back at work. I'm sure Mr. Lara has a big fat check in the mail to him.