Cause No.

________________

v.
HOUSTON INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT,

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

_______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Defendant.

ea
se

Plaintiffs,

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

el

ADRIENNE B. MURRY; NANCY A.

ABREGO; ADRIEN ADAMS; RON E.
KAHANEK; KATHY KAHANEK;
SHIRLEY HORTON; JOHN FAULK;
NICK HARIS; AND MARK SCHULTZ,

as

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION, ORIGINAL DECLARATORY-JUDGMENT

ACTION, APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION,
AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

ex

Plaintiffs file this original petition, original declaratory-judgment action, application for

tT

temporary and permanent injunction, and request for disclosure against Defendant, Houston
Independent School District (HISD). In support, they allege the following:

Plaintiffs intend to conduct discovery under Level 3 of Texas Rule of Civil

ei
tb

1.

ar

DISCOVERY-CONTROL PLAN

Procedure 190.4 and affirmatively plead that this suit is not governed by the expedited-actions

Br

process in Texas Rule of civil Procedure 169.

2.

PARTIES
Plaintiff Adrienne Brooks Murry is an individual property owner and taxpayer

zoned to Houston Independent School District who resides in Houston, Harris County, Texas.
She can be reached through her attorneys at Goforth Law Firm.
1

3.

Plaintiff Nancy A. Abrego is an individual property owner and taxpayer zoned to

Houston Independent School District who resides in Houston, Harris County, Texas. She can be
reached through her attorneys at Goforth Law Firm.
Plaintiff Adrien Adams is an individual property owner and taxpayer zoned to

ea
se

4.

Houston Independent School District who resides in Houston, Harris County, Texas. He can be
reached through his attorneys at Goforth Law Firm.
5.

Plaintiff Ron E. Kahanek is an individual property owner and taxpayer zoned to

6.

reached through his attorneys at Goforth Law Firm.

el

Houston Independent School District who resides in Houston, Harris County, Texas. He can be

Plaintiff Kathy Kahanek is an individual property owner and taxpayer zoned to

as

Houston Independent School District who resides in Houston, Harris County, Texas. She can be

7.

ex

reached through her attorneys at Goforth Law Firm.

Plaintiff Shirley Horton is an individual property owner and taxpayer zoned to

tT

Houston Independent School District who resides in Houston, Harris County, Texas. She can be
reached through her attorneys at Goforth Law Firm.
Plaintiff John Faulk is an individual property owner and taxpayer zoned to

ar

8.

ei
tb

Houston Independent School District who resides in Houston, Harris County, Texas. He can be
reached through his attorneys at Goforth Law Firm.
Plaintiff Nick Haris is an individual property owner and taxpayer zoned to

Br

9.

Houston Independent School District who resides in Houston, Harris County, Texas. He can be
reached through his attorneys at Goforth Law Firm.

10.

Plaintiff Mark Schultz is an individual property owner and taxpayer zoned to

Houston Independent School District who resides in Houston, Harris County, Texas. He can be
reached through his attorneys at Goforth Law Firm.
Defendant Houston Independent School District is a governmental unit operating

ea
se

11.

within Harris County, Texas and may be served by delivering a copy of the petition and citation
to General Counsel Elneita Hutchins-Taylor or Superintendent Kenneth Huewitteach located

JURISDICTION

The amount sought by Plaintiffs is within the jurisdictional limits of the court.

12.

el

4400 West 18th Street, Houston, Texas 77092-8501.

as

Additionally, this Court has jurisdiction over this matter under 65.021 of the Texas Civil

ex

Practices and Remedies Code.

VENUE

Venue is proper in Harris County, Texas, for that is where HISD maintains its

tT

13.

principal office in Texas and where all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise

ei
tb

ar

to Plaintiffs claims occurred.1

13.

FACTS

HISD is in dire financial straits. In December 2015, a desperate HISD approved

Br

borrowing over $212 million to cover a shortfall in its nearly $2-billion bond program, the
largest school bond in Texas history.2 The shortfall resulted from ballooning construction costs,
which an internal audit suggests were caused by HISDs mismanagement and lack of
1

See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE 15.002(a)(1), (3).

(Ex. 1, at Pkt. Pg. 11920); (Ex. 7, at 11); (Ex. 22).

competitive bidding.3 Compounding the hemorrhaging of these $212 million was the states
finding that HISD is a property-wealthy districteven though three out of four HISD students
live in poverty.4 Because of this finding, HISD must send over a billion local-tax dollars to the
state over the next four years as part of the states Robin Hood program.5 That includes about

ea
se

$419 million in the next two years and over $162 million for the 20162017 school year alone.6
As a tourniquet, HISD enacted a 20162017 budget that addresses a resulting $95 million

shortfall by cutting over $80 million in programs.7 Of course these cuts have consequences. For

el

instance, they strip funding from campuses and eliminate administrative and tutoring positions.

Specifically the budget ends the districts Apollo program, which spread about $20 million to
low-performing schools for tutors and longer hours.8 The budget also abandons a program that

as

awarded bonuses to teachers.9 And the budget slashes student funding by $179 per student.10 As

14.

ex

a result of these drastic cuts, HISD concedes that its classrooms will be impacted.11
Instead of using the funds it does have to lessen the classroom impact, HISD has

tT

chosen now to rename eight of its schoolsa choice that will directly cost HISD taxpayers

ar

millions of dollars. In doing so, HISDs actions are not only fiscally irresponsible but also legally

(Ex. 20); (Ex. 21); (Ex. 22).

(Ex. 23, at pp. 15); (Ex. 24); (Ex. 25); (Ex. 26).

(Ex. 23, at pp. 15); (Ex. 24); (Ex. 25); (Ex. 26).

(Ex. 23, at pp. 15); (Ex. 24); (Ex. 25); (Ex. 26).

(Ex. 23, at pp. 15); (Ex. 24); (Ex. 25); (Ex. 26).

(Ex. 23, at pp. 15); (Ex. 24); (Ex. 25); (Ex. 26).

(Ex. 23, at pp. 15); (Ex. 24); (Ex. 25); (Ex. 26).

Br

ei
tb

10

(Ex. 23, at pp. 15); (Ex. 24); (Ex. 25); (Ex. 26).

11

(Ex. 24, at 1) (Because the vast majority of HISDs budget is spent directly on schools, there was no way to
implement the state-mandated cuts without impacting classrooms.).

prohibited. Thats because the way HISD has gone about renaming these schools violates state
laws and HISD regulations. So Plaintiffs, as concerned HISD taxpayers, are suing to halt HISD
from expending the publics funds illegally.
15.

HISDs illegal conduct began in January 2016. That month, HISDs board of

board proposed to rename were:

Richard Dowling Middle School;

Thomas Stonewall Jackson Middle School;

Albert Sidney Johnston Middle School;

Jefferson Davis High School;

Lee High School;

Henry Grady Middle School;

Sidney Lanier Middle School; and

John Reagan High School.13

ex

as

el

ea
se

education convened to vote on whether to rename eight of its schools.12 The schools that the

tT

According to the boards agenda, these schools would be renamed because each had been named
after a prominent confederate leader.14

But the boards agenda item containing the renaming proposal offered little more

ar

16.

ei
tb

information for the public to consider. Perhaps thats becauseas internal board e-mails
suggestthis agenda item was not reviewed and placed on the agenda at the regularly scheduled

Br

agenda-review meeting.15 Rather the renaming proposal was strategically inserted at the last

12

(Ex. 2, at Pkt. Pgs. 2224).

13

(Ex. 2, at Pkt. Pgs. 2224).

14

(Ex. 2, at Pkt. Pg. 24).

15

See (Ex. 15) (e-mail from board-member criticizing how the school-renaming item was placed on the agenda at
the last minute and the lack of communication by other board members in offering this item); see also (Ex. 16)
(indicating that the board-member strategically offered renaming item at last minute to ensure its placement on the
agenda).

minute by a board member to ensure its placement on the agenda: I had to keep this under my
hat and be strategic about it. Wouldnt have made it to the agenda any other way.16
17.

The effect of these tactics was that the school-renaming agenda item omitted facts

ea
se

that HISDs policy regulations require it to disclose. For instance, one regulation in HISDs
policy manual states that an agenda items description of cost and funding sources must detail
the total dollars being spent and identify all funding sources.17 Yet the agenda item to rename
these eight public schools failed to identify the costsand the source of funds for renaming

el

them.18 Just the opposite, the agenda item misrepresented that renaming these schools had no

costs.19 Of course thats not only impossible but also inaccurate, which HISD has since
admitted.20

Nevertheless, the boards agenda item hid how much it would cost to rename

as

18.

ex

these eight schools and how the renaming would be paid for. Despite violating its regulations by
failing to publicize these critical details, the board voted to change the names of four schools and

tT

to establish committees to rename them.21 The board also postponed the vote to rename the other

ei
tb

ar

four schools so that board-members could meet with their communities.22

(Ex. 16).

17

Policy Manual BE3 (REGULATION)Board Meetings, at pp. 23; (Ex. 13, at pp. 23).

Br

16

18

Policy Manual BE3 (REGULATION)Board Meetings, at pp. 23; (Ex. 13, at pp. 23); (Ex. 2, at Pkt. Pg. 22).

19

(Ex. 2, at Pkt. Pg. 22).

20

See, e.g., (Ex. 18).

21

(Ex. 8, at pp. 35); (Ex. 2 at Pkt. Pg. 2224).

22

(Ex. 8, at pp. 35).

19.

Less than a month lateron February 11, 2016the board reconvened to vote on

whether to rename three out of these four remaining schools.23 And just like the renaming agenda
item from the January board meeting, the February agenda item omitted information that HISD
policy regulations require to be disclosed.24 That is, the agenda item failed to detail the costs to

agenda item misrepresented that the renaming costs were none.26

20.

ea
se

rename the three schools and identify the money source to fund the renaming.25 Instead the

To say its a misrepresentation that the board failed to disclose there would be

el

costs and a funding source is confirmed by HISDs internal e-mails. In the two days before the

February board meeting, a board-member e-mailed HISDs deputy superintendentwho is also

HISDs chief financial officer.27 In the e-mail, the board-member asked if HISD had looked at

as

the budget cost for renaming the schools and whether that cost was reflected in the budget.28 The

ex

deputy superintendent responded that the renaming was not a budgeted item and that HISD
would pay for the one-time cost out of the fund balance.29 To this, the board-member asked if

tT

HISD knew what the projected cost would be.30 The deputy superintendent replied that HISD

ei
tb

ar

didnt know at that time and that facilities would have to assess and provide an estimate by

(Ex. 3, at Pkt. Pgs. 2223).

24

(Ex. 3, at Pkt. Pgs. 2223).

25

(Ex. 3, at Pkt. Pgs. 2223).

Br

23

26

(Ex. 3, at Pkt. Pgs. 2223).

27

(Ex. 17).

28

(Ex. 17).

29

(Ex. 17).

30

(Ex. 17).

school.31 In other words, in the two days before the February board meeting, HISD
acknowledged that there would be costs and a funding source for the renaming. And it conceded
that the exact costs were still unknown and that the renaming costs hadnt been budgeted.
21.

The failure to budget for the renaming costs is especially surprising. To be sure,

ea
se

the 20152016 budget began months earlier.32 But state law prohibits a school district from

spending public funds in any manner other than as provided for in the budget.33 So HISD needed
to either budget for the renaming costs initially or amend the budget to cover them.34 But the

el

internal e-mails show it had done neitherchoosing instead to write a blank check for one-time

costs out of the fund balance.35 So by not disclosing the renaming costs, concealing the renaming
funding source, and spending public funds on costs not covered by the budget, HISD violated the

But violating the law didnt stop HISDs board from voting. Two days after the e-

ex

22.

as

law.

mail exchange, the board voted to rename the three schoolsclaiming in its agenda that

tT

renaming the schools would cost nothing.36 And with its vote, the board also established

31

(Ex. 17).

32

ar

committees to propose new names.37 Within a one-month period, HISD decided to change the

ei
tb

See HISDs adopted budget effective July 1, 2015June 30, 2016 for HISDs 20152016 school year. This 944page budget can be found at the following link:
http://www.houstonisd.org/site/default.aspx?PageType=14&DomainID=8008&PageID=127782&ModuleInstanceID
=181569&ViewID=1e008a8a-8e8a-4ca0-9472-a8f4a723a4a7&IsMoreExpandedView=True
33

Br

See TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. 44.006(a) (Public funds of the school district may not be spent in any manner other
than as provided for in the budget adopted by the board of trustees, but the board may amend a budget or adopt a
supplementary emergency budget to cover necessary unforeseen expenses.)..
34

See id.

35

(Ex. 17).

36

(Ex. 9, at pp. 35); (Ex. 3, at Pkt. Pg. 22).

37

(Ex. 9, at pp. 35); (Ex. 3, at Pkt. Pgs. 2223).

names of seven public schools without disclosing the real price or a properly-budgeted-for
funding source. And now only one school remained.
23.

The next monthon March 10, 2016HISDs board of education met again to

vote on whether to rename the eighth and final school.38 Once again the renaming agenda item

ea
se

failed to detail the costs to rename the school.39 Once again the renaming agenda item failed to
publicize the school-renaming costs funding source.40 Once again the renaming agenda item
misrepresented that the renaming costs were none.41 And once again, HISD violated its

el

regulations and state law by failing to disclose these details and, if paid for with public funds, to

ensure any school-renaming costs were properly budgeted.42 But the board nonetheless voted to
rename this school and to establish a committee to propose its new name.43 Along with deciding

as

to rename this last school, the board officially renamed one of the eight schools.44 And just like

ex

the agenda items authorizing the renaming of the eight schools, the agenda item that actually
renames the school misrepresented that there were no renaming costs.45
As the school-renaming issue transformed into controversy, however, HISD

tT

24.

openly admitted that renaming the eight schools entailed costs. But it never formally recognized

ei
tb

ar

this reality in its agenda, its resolutions, and its budgetas it was legally required to do. After

(Ex. 4, at Pkt. Pgs. 910).

39

(Ex. 4, at Pkt. Pg. 9).

40

(Ex. 4, at Pkt. Pg. 9).

Br

38

41

(Ex. 4, at Pkt. Pg. 9).

42

(Ex. 4, at Pkt. Pg. 9); Policy Manual BE3 (REGULATION)Board Meetings, at pp. 23; (Ex. 13, at pp. 23).

43

(Ex. 10, at pp. 23); (Ex. 4, at Pkt. Pg. 10).

44

(Ex. 4, at Pkt. Pgs. 2627); (Ex. 10, at pp. 6).

45

(Ex. 4, at Pkt. Pgs. 26).

the fact, HISD did guesstimate that the cost to rename the eight schools would be about $250,000
per school.46 So according to HISDs own figures, renaming these eight schools would cost the
taxpayers $2 million. That figure, however, seems to be underestimated. A study by a group not

ea
se

affiliated with HISD assessed the cost to rename just one school at about $500,000.47 If the study
is accurate and indicative, then the taxpayers costs for renaming all eight schools would be
doubled to $4 million.
25.

Amidst this backdrop, a concerned alumnus e-mailed HISD on May 8, 2016 about

el

its $250,000-per-school estimate.48 An HISD representative replied that the $250,000 figure was

an average estimate based on previous efforts in the district.49 The representative further
reminded that he previously said each campus would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with

as

some campuses needing less and some campuses needing more.50 And he added that the faculties

ex

team will conduct a cost assessment.51 So in this May 2016 e-mail, HISD acknowledged that no
cost assessment for renaming the eight schools had been done yet.52 And it admitted that its

tT

$250,000-per-school estimate was not based on any assessment of these schoolsand perhaps

ei
tb

ar

the costs for some campuses will be even more.53

See e.g., (Ex. 18).

47

(Ex. 19).

48

(Ex. 18).

Br

46

49

(Ex. 18).

50

(Ex. 18).

51

(Ex. 18).

52

(Ex. 18).

53

(Ex. 18).

10

26.

Four days after this e-mailon May 12, 2016HISDs board of education met to

officially rename the remaining seven schools.54 This time the agenda items describing the
renaming proposals for each school were different. They did not state that the renaming costs and
funding source were none. Instead the agenda items reported next to the costfunding category:

ea
se

General Fund Fund Balance.55 In other words, the agenda items implicitly recognized that
renaming costs could be incurred and explicitly stated that the costs would be paid for by the

districts general fund. Of course this new information is a significant departure from HISDs

el

earlier formal declarations that there would be no renaming costs. To add insult to injury, HISD

still hadnt disclosed how much it would actually cost to rename these schoolsas it was
required to do under its regulations.56 And HISD hadnt updated its budget to cover the costs to

as

rename the schools. Yet these legal hurdles didnt stop HISDs board. The board officially

ex

renamed these seven schoolswithout telling the taxpayers of the actual costs.57 And through
this resolution, it essentially endorsed a blank check from the general fund to pay the hidden

27.

tT

costs.

Since the May board meeting, the reality of issuing a blank check for the

ar

renaming costs has emerged. HISD has proceeded to order new team uniforms for the renamed

ei
tb

schools.58 And the costs are astronomical. Indeed at its board meeting on June 9, 2016, the board

(Ex. 5, at Pkt. Pgs. 2437).

Br

54

55

(Ex. 5, at Pkt. Pgs. 2437).

56

(Ex. 5, at Pkt. Pgs. 2437); Policy Manual BE3 (REGULATION)Board Meetings, at pp. 23; (Ex. 13, at pp. 2
3).
57

(Ex. 11, at pp. 79); (Ex. 5, at Pkt. Pgs. 2437).

58

(Ex. 6, at Pkt. Pg. 116).

11

considered approving a school-uniforms contract for $7 million.59 Tucked in at page 116 of the
agenda, the approval states that that average historical expenditure on uniforms is $2 million,
with the expenditures last year totaling $1,154,033.60 But this year, the expenditures increased to

ea
se

$7 million because of new-uniform requests for the name-changed schools: The dollar increase
represent new uniforms request for schools affected by the name change. The projected annual

expenditures for this project is $7,000,000.61 So just changing team uniforms alone will cost the
taxpayers over $5 million.

Given HISDs informal assessment of about $2 million in total costs to rename all

el

28.

eight schools, HISDs decision to spend over $5 million on uniforms alone is troubling. But its
not necessarily surprising, considering the lack of competitive bidding HISDs internal auditor

as

uncovered in the construction-bond saga. On information and belief, the skyrocketing school-

ex

renaming costs may have resulted from HISD failing to fulfill its legal duty to use best-value
methods, like competitive bidding, when contracting for goods and services of $50,000 or

tT

more.62 State law requires HISD to use certain types of best-value methods when contracting for
goods or services of $50,000 or more.63 And HISD apparently did not employ the sanctioned

ar

best-value methods when ordering team uniforms. Of course that revelation is obvious on its

ei
tb

face. After all, HISD will be spending $3 million more than it had forecastedjust from buying
uniforms. If HISD has failed to use best-value methods for purchasing team uniforms or in
(Ex. 6, at Pkt. Pg. 116).

Br

59

60

(Ex. 6, at Pkt. Pg. 116).

61

(Ex. 6, at Pkt. Pg. 116).

62

See TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. 44.031(a) (Except as provided by this subchapter, all school district contracts for
the purchase of goods and services, except contracts for the purchase of produce or vehicle fuel, valued at $50,000
or more in the aggregate for each 12-month period shall be made by the method, of the following methods, that
provides the best value for the district: .).
63

See id.

12

contracting for any other goods and services of $50,000 or more, then these purchases must be
stopped immediately, before taxpayer dollars are squandered.
29.

HISD has gone about renaming eight of its schools in a way that violated its

ea
se

statutory and regulatory duties. Those duties were largely created for two purposes. First, to
provide taxpayers fair notice so they have the opportunity to oppose any proposals being

considered by HISDs board. Second, to safeguard taxpayer dollars. Underlying these dual

purposes is the requirement that HISDs board be transparent with its constituents. This school-

el

renaming incident highlights precisely what can happen when those legal duties are disregarded.

Without full disclosure to the public, millions of taxpayer dollars can be wasted. If HISD
believes that renaming the eight schools is worth the effort and cost in light of its drastic budget

as

cuts, it must comply with its legal obligations. It must be upfront to the public about the costs

ex

and whether those costs will burden the taxpayers. Because HISD violated its statutory and
regulatory duties in the way it went about renaming these schoolsat the price of millions of

tT

taxpayer dollarsPlaintiffs ask for this Courts help in holding HISD accountable. Plaintiffs ask
that HISD be enjoined from renaming these schools until it has complied with its legal

ei
tb

ar

responsibilities.

30.

CAUSES OF ACTION

Plaintiffs causes of action are described in the following claims. These claims

Br

arose from HISD violating its legal duties under the Texas Government Code, the Texas
Education Code, and HISDs own regulations. Plaintiffs are taxpayers and are suing to stop
HISD from expending public funds on its illegal activities stemming from its violating these
laws. Plaintiffs claims incorporate the facts alleged in this pleading. And when appropriate,
these claims should be understood as pleaded in the alternative.
13

Count 1Violation of Texas Education Code 44.006

31.

HISD has violated Texas Education Code 44.006, which restricts a school

districts use of public funds to budgeted items.64 In renaming the eight public schools at issue,

ea
se

HISD has spent, is spending, and will spend public funds of the school district. The public funds
that HISD is spending have not been budgeted for, and HISDs board of education has not

amended the budget or adopted an emergency supplement to the budget to cover the school-

el

renaming costs, which will ultimately be millions of taxpayer dollars. Because 44.006 of the

education code prohibits public funds of the school district from being spent in any manner other

than as provided for in the budget, HISD has violated 44.006 by failing to adopt a budget that

as

covers the costs to rename the eight schools. In violating 44.006 to effectuate the renaming of

ex

these eight schools, HISD is spending public funds on an illegal activity.

Count 2Violation of Texas Education Code 44.031

HISD is violating Texas Education Code 44.031, which governs school-district

tT

32.

purchasing contracts.65 In renaming the eight public schools at issue, HISD has spent, is

ar

spending, and will spend public funds of the school district. Portions of these funds will be paid

ei
tb

through contractswhich HISD has entered intofor the purchase of goods and services valued
at $50,000 or more in a 12-month period. That includes a $7 million contract to purchase

Br

uniforms, which apparently includes over $5 million to be spent on new team uniforms for the

64

TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. 44.006(a) (Public funds of the school district may not be spent in any manner other
than as provided for in the budget adopted by the board of trustees, but the board may amend a budget or adopt a
supplementary emergency budget to cover necessary unforeseen expenses.).
65

TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. 44.031(a) (Except as provided by this subchapter, all school district contracts for the
purchase of goods and services, except contracts for the purchase of produce or vehicle fuel, valued at $50,000 or
more in the aggregate for each 12-month period shall be made by the method, of the following methods, that
provides the best value for the district: .).

14

schools that were renamed. The Texas Education Code requires all school-district contracts for
the purchase of goods and services valued at $50,000 or more in the aggregate for each 12-month
period to be made by a provided method that offers the best value for the district. HISD is

ea
se

apparently not using a sanctioned best-value method when entering into purchasing contracts
valued at $50,000 or moreincluding the school-uniforms contractin renaming the eight

schools. HISD is therefore violating 44.031 in renaming these schools and spending public

Count 3Violation of HISD Regulation BE3

HISD has violated HISD policy-manual regulation BE3, which states what

33.

el

funds on an illegal activity.

as

information must be included on an agenda item.66 According to this regulation, an agenda item
must detail the total dollars being spent on the action. And it must disclose all sources of

ex

funding, with an exact dollar amount and budget strings being shown following the statement of

tT

total cost. Under this standard, the agenda items for the renaming of the eight HISD schools
should have specified the total dollars that will be spent on renaming the schools. And the items

ar

should have pinpointed the funding source to pay for the renaming costsshowing the exact
dollar amount and budget strings. But that didnt happen. The agenda items deciding to rename

ei
tb

the eight schools simply said none in the costfunding section, even though HISD estimated
that it will pay roughly $2 million for the name changes out of the districts general fund.

Br

Moreover, agenda items that actually renamed these schools merely said, General Fund Fund
Balance in the costfunding section. In other words, HISD never stated in the agenda items the
total dollars being spent on the renaming of these schools. And it didnt correctly identify in the
agenda items the funding source with exact dollar amounts and budget strings. Accordingly,
66

See Policy Manual BE3 (REGULATION)Board Meetings; see also (Ex. 13, at pp. 23).

15

HISD violated policy regulation BE3 by failing to identify the costs and funding source in its
school-renaming agenda items. In violating BE3 to effectuate the renaming of these eight
schools, HISD is spending public funds on an illegal activity.

34.

ea
se

Count 4Violation of HISD Regulation BE2

HISD is violating HISD policy-manual regulation BE2, which requires certain

expenditures be placed as an item on the agenda.67 According to this regulation, an agenda item

el

is required when seeking approval by the board of education for authority to negotiate, execute,
and approve service contracts over $50,000. An agenda item is also required when seeking

approval by the board of education to approve vendor awards for purchases over $100,000 or to

as

ratify vendor awards for purchases under $100,000. In renaming the eight public schools at issue,
HISD has spent, is spending, and will spend public funds of the school district. Indications are

ex

that portions of the funds to rename these schools are for purchases and contracts that trigger

tT

policy regulation BE2 and must be placed as items on the agenda to be approved by the board.
Unless these purchases and contracts are properly voted on as agenda items, HISD is violating

ar

policy-manual regulation BE2. And in violating BE2 to effectuate the renaming of these eight

ei
tb

schools, HISD is spending public funds on an illegal activity.

Count 5Violation of Texas Government Code 551.041
35.

HISDthrough its board of educationviolated Texas Government Code

Br

551.041, which governs the notice requirements of the Texas Open Meetings Act.68 HISDs
board of education is a governmental body within the meaning of 551.041. As a governmental
67

See Policy Manual BE2 (REGULATION)Board Meetings; see also (Ex. 14, at pp. 23).

68

TEX. GOVT CODE ANN. 551.041 (A governmental body shall give written notice of the date, hour, place, and
subject of each meeting held by the governmental body.).

16

body meeting to vote on whether to rename eight of its schools, the board was required to give
written notice of the date, hour, place, and subject of that meeting. Because the controversial
renaming of these schools was a topic of special interest to the public, the board had to describe
the subject of the meeting with greater detail and with reasonable specificity of the subject matter

ea
se

to be considered. In other words, the boards renaming agenda item had to describe not only the
boards consideration of whether to rename these eight schools but also the costs and funding

source associated with renaming the schools. Because the board failed to describe the costs and

el

funding source in the agenda items to rename the schools, it violated its duty to provide

sufficient notice under this section of the Texas Open Meetings Act. HISD is expending public

as

pubic funds as a result of the boards illegal activity. The boards actions are therefore voidable.69

Count 6Violation of Texas Government Code 2166.5011

HISD is violating Texas Government Code 2166.5011which governs the

ex

36.

tT

removal, relocation, and alteration of monuments and memorials.70 In seeking to rename schools
named after confederate leaders, HISD is targeting the names of schools honoring Texas citizens

ar

for their military or war-related service. These schools are located on property protected under

ei
tb

2166.5011. The names of these school buildings are therefore monuments and memorials within
the meaning of 2166.5011. As it applies to this case, the schools names may be altered only by
the: (1) the legislature; (2) the Texas Historical Commission; or (3) by the State Preservation

Br

Board. None of these authorities sanctioned HISDs renaming of these eight schools. Thus,
HISD has violated Texas Government Code 2166.5011 by renaming these schools and
expending public funds on this illegal activity.
69

TEX. GOVT CODE ANN. 551.141 (An action taken by a governmental body in violation of this chapter is
voidable.).
70

TEX. GOVT CODE ANN. 2166.5011.

17

REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

37.

Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in this

pleading. Given the laws set forth in the Texas Government Code, the Texas Education Code,

ea
se

and HISD regulationsall of which HISD has violatedPlaintiffs respectfully ask for
declaratory relief. Specifically, Plaintiffs ask that the Court declare the following:

HISD has violated Texas Education Code 44.006 by spending public funds of
the school district in a manner not provided for in HISDs budget to rename eight
schools;

HISD is violating Texas Education Code 44.031 by entering into contracts for
goods or services valued at $50,000 or more in a 12-month periodwithout using
a sanctioned method that provides the best value for the districtto rename eight
schools;

HISD has violated policy-manual regulation BE3 by voting to rename eight

schools through agenda items that do not identify the costs to rename the schools
and the funding source to pay these costs;

HISD is violating policy-manual regulation BE2 to the extent its authorizing,

approving, and ratifying certain contracts and awardsto pay for renaming eight
schoolsthat are required to be, but are not being, voted on through board-ofeducation agenda items;

HISD violated Texas Government Code 551.041 by failing to give sufficient

notice of the subject of the board-of-education meeting to vote to rename eight
schools when it noticed the meeting with agenda items that do not identify the
costs to rename the schools and the funding source to pay these costs; and

ei
tb

ar

tT

ex

as

el

Br

38.

HISD is violating Texas Government Code 2166.5011 by altering monuments

and memorialsthrough the renaming of eight schoolswithout authorization.
Plaintiffs are entitled to recover reasonable and necessary attorneys fees that are

equitable and just under Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code 37.009 because this is a suit
for declaratory relief.

18

REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMENANT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

39.

Plaintiffs ask the Court to set their application for temporary injunction for a

hearing and, after the hearing, issue a temporary injunction against HISD. And Plaintiffs ask the

ea
se

Court to set their request for a permanent injunction for a full trial on the merits, and after the
trial, issue a permanent injunction against HISD.
40.

Plaintiffs have joined all indispensable parties under Rule 39 of the Texas Rules

of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in this

el

41.

42.

pleading.

Plaintiffs application for a temporary injunction is authorized by Texas Civil

Plaintiffs apply for injunctive relief seeking to enjoin HISD from renaming the

ex

43.

as

Practices and Remedies Code 65.011(1).

eight schools at issue because it hasnt satisfied statutory and regulatory duties. Plaintiffs

44.

tT

request for injunctive relief is supported by the attached affidavit.

The specific facts that Plaintiffs rely on to justify the issuance of a writ of

ar

injunction are contained in this pleading. In sum, Plaintiffs maintain that HISD had statutory and

ei
tb

regulatory duties to comply with in renaming the eight schools at issue. Those statutory and

Br

regulatory duties include:

spending public funds of the school district in a manner provided for in

HISDs budget;71

using a sanctioned method that provides the best value for the school district
when entering into contracts for goods or services valued at $50,000 or more
in a 12-month period;72

71

See TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. 44.006(a).

72

See TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. 44.031(a).

19

identifying costs and funding sources for agenda items considered by HISDs
board of education;73

using board-of-education agenda items to authorize service contracts over

$50,000, approve vendor awards for purchases over $100,000, and ratify
vendor awards for purchases under $100,000;74

giving sufficient notice of the subject of board-of-education meetings

involving topics of special interest to the public;75 and

obtaining proper authorization from the legislature, Texas historical

commission, or State Preservation Board before altering monuments and
memorials.76

el

ea
se

For the reasons described in this pleading, HISD failed to comply with these

45.

statutory and regulatory duties in proceeding to rename the eight schools at issue. Plaintiffs

as

therefore seek the Court to enjoin HISD from spending public funds on renaming these schools
until it has complied with its legal obligations.

Plaintiffs have a probable right to relief in this case, after a trial on the merits,

ex

46.

tT

because HISD has violated the statutes and regulations that govern HISDs conduct in the
renaming of these eight schools. Specifically, HISD has violated and is violating statutes and

HISD has violated Texas Education Code 44.006 by spending public funds of
the school district in a manner not provided for in HISDs budget to rename eight
schools;

ei
tb

ar

regulations in the following ways:

Br

HISD is violating Texas Education Code 44.031 by entering into contracts for
goods or services valued at $50,000 or more in a 12-month periodwithout using
a sanctioned method that provides the best value for the districtto rename eight
schools;

73

See Policy Manual BE3 (REGULATION)Board Meetings; see also (Ex. 13).

74

See Policy Manual BE2 (REGULATION)Board Meetings; see also (Ex. 14, at pp. 23).

75

See TEX. GOVT CODE ANN. 551.041.

76

See TEX. GOVT CODE ANN. 2166.5011.

20

HISD has violated policy-manual regulation BE3 by voting to rename eight

schools through agenda items that do not identify the costs to rename the schools
and the funding source to pay these costs;

HISD is violating policy-manual regulation BE2 to the extent its authorizing,

approving, and ratifying certain contracts and awardsto pay for renaming eight
schoolsthat are required to be, but are not being, voted on through board-ofeducation agenda items;

HISD violated Texas Government Code 551.041 by failing to give sufficient

notice of the subject of the board-of-education meeting to vote to rename eight
schools when it noticed the meeting with agenda items that do not identify the
costs to rename the schools and the funding source to pay these costs; and

HISD is violating Texas Government Code 2166.5011 by altering monuments

and memorialsthrough the renaming of eight schoolswithout authorization.

el

Imminent and irreparable harm will result to Plaintiffs if injunctive relief is not

as

47.

ea
se

granted because HISD is proceeding with spending public funds on its illegal activities of

ex

renaming these eight schools. Plaintiffs understand that HISD intends to complete all renamingrelated expenditures before the beginning of the 20162017 school year.77 Once HISD proceeds

done.
48.

ar

tT

to waste millions of taxpayer dollars on renaming these schools, the damage will have been

Plaintiffs do not have an adequate remedy at law. There is a substantial need to

ei
tb

prevent HISD from spending taxpayer dollars on acts that are illegal under statutes enacted by
the legislature and the regulations promulgated by HISD. Allowing HISD to implement the name

Br

changes, just to have a court later invalidate its actions and require it to undo the name changes,
will have a foreseeable and negative impact on Plaintiffsas taxpayers of Houston. And
requiring HISD to spend more taxpayer dollars on damages only exacerbates the wasting of the
school districts public funds. Plaintiffs only remedy is for this Court to enjoin HISD from

77

(Ex. 5, at Pkt. Pgs. 2437).

21

spending public funds on the renaming of these schools. So the failure to immediately enjoin
HISD from wasting taxpayer dollars on illegal activities will cause irreparable harm to Plaintiffs
interests with no adequate remedy at law.
No damage will be done to HISD by the relief requested. Although HISD has

ea
se

49.

been taking shortcuts to rush its renaming crusade to completion, time is not of the essence. Nor
should time be of the essence when the requested relief is for HISD to be required to comply
with its legal obligations. Five of the eight schools to be renamed have had their names for

el

roughly 90 years. And the other three have had their names for about 50 years. Theres no need

to rush spending millions of taxpayer dollars to rename these schoolsand bypass the law in the
process.

Plaintiffs application for an injunction is authorized by Texas Civil Practices &

as

50.

ex

Remedies Code 65.01178; Texas Education Code 44.03279; and Texas Government Code
551.142.80

Under Texas Education Code 44.032 and Texas Government Code 551.142,

tT

51.

Plaintiffs also ask to be granted a judgment for the reasonable attorneys fees and expenses

ei
tb

ar

incurred in obtaining a writ of injunction.

78

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. 65.011 (A writ of injunction may be granted if: (1) the applicant is
entitled to the relief demanded and all or part of the relief requires the restraint of some act prejudicial to the
applicant; . . . .).
79

Br

See TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. 44.032 ((f) A court may enjoin performance of a contract made in violation of this
subchapter. A county attorney, a district attorney, a criminal district attorney, a citizen of the county in which the
school district is located, or any interested party may bring an action for an injunction. A party who prevails in an
action brought under this subsection is entitled to reasonable attorneys fees as approved by the court.).
80

See TEX. GOVT CODE ANN. 551.142 ((a) An interested person, including a member of the news media, may
bring an action by mandamus or injunction to stop, prevent, or reverse a violation or threatened violation of this
chapter by members of a governmental body. (b) The court may assess costs of litigation and reasonable attorney
fees incurred by a plaintiff or defendant who substantially prevails in an action under Subsection (a). In exercising
its discretion, the court shall consider whether the action was brought in good faith and whether the conduct of the
governmental body had a reasonable basis in law.).

22

52.

Plaintiffs are willing and able to post an appropriate bond determined in this

Courts discretion.

JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs demand a jury trial and tender the appropriate fee with this petition.

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
54.

ea
se

53.

All conditions precedent necessary to maintain this action have occurred or been

el

performed.

Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Plaintiffs request that HISD disclose,

as

55.

REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

ex

within 50 days of the service of this request, the information or material described in Rule 194.2.

PRAYER

For these reasons, Plaintiffs ask that HISD be cited to appear and answer.

tT

56.

Plaintiffs are seeking monetary relief of $100,000 or less and nonmonetary relief.81 Plaintiffs

ar

therefore ask that they be awarded a judgment against HISD for the following:
temporary injunction;

Br

ei
tb

81

permanent injunction;

declaratory judgment;

attorneys fees and expenses;

actual damages and consequential damages, if any, as allowed by law;

court costs;

TEX. R. CIV. P. 47(c)(2).

23

prejudgment and postjudgment interest as allowed by law; and

all other relief that Plaintiffs may be entitled to.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Daniel O. Goforth

Daniel O. Goforth
Texas Bar No.: 08064000
dangoforth@goforthlaw.com
Ryan D. King
Texas Bar No.: 24073263
ryanking@goforthlaw.com
Avi Moshenberg
Texas Bar No.: 24083532
avimoshenberg@goforthlaw.com
1900 Pennzoil South Tower
711 Louisiana Street
Houston, Texas 77002
Tel: (713) 650-0022
Fax: (713) 650-1669

ex

as

el

By:

ea
se

GOFORTH LAW FIRM

Br

ei
tb

ar

tT

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

24