No Way Ed
Click here to edit subtitle
Ed Griffin has a long history of political involvement. Our concern, as demonstrated by public records, is that Ed will create a school board of politics, dissension, and distrust.
Dr. Lowell Strike, who retired at the end of 2017 at the superintendent of LEISD, has spoken out online, "The election of Mr. Griffin would be at the determinant of the students, teachers, parents, and the general LEISD community at large. Do the right thing for the future of the children of Little Elm ISD and vote for DeLeon English"
Ed Griffin became the president of the Education Foundation for LEISD. The purpose of this foundation was to raise money for teacher grants and student scholarships. At the end of 2017, Little Elm ISD submitted two bond proposals that would address dire needs, most notably was the addition of two middle schools.
Ed Griffin, who owns his own political consulting business, created a Political Action Committee (Wolf Pac) to support the bond. In the Star Local Media, the following claim was made, "He and his political consulting company, Ed Griffin Consulting Group, will be instrumental in developing the ad and marketing campaign for passing the school bond." This implies that it was intended for Ed to use and even profit off the contributions, even if that never came to be. It was also claimed that it would need "a $15,000 to $20,000 budget."
Click here to read the Star Local Media article with Ed Griffin.
This amount of expected money did not set well with certain individuals.
Then controversy began to break out as lines between the school board, the Education Foundation and the Wol Pac became crossed. David Montemayor, school board official, was going to make a donation to the Pac. He however claims he thought it would be a good idea for the Education Foundation to show that it supports the proposed bonds. He spoke with Ed Griffin before time, with the expectation that the board would vote on accepting David's money and earmarking it for the bond. The first issue occurred in that Ed Griffin, has president, did not inform the board about the issue and the check was deposited without a vote. The vote did not occur when it should have, as the board meeting was pushed back - which again Ed has president still did not inform other board members. Ed did in fact though justify both the deposit and the check written to the PAC by citing it's legality. He states that persons against the bond are taking David's generosity out of context (of which Ed later describes differently) and were creating a theater of drama. The second issue came in that some Education Foundation members were not yet convinced in supporting the bonds, one of which was Amy Hillock.
Ed seconds a motion to reverse the money donations as a way to address the matters of social media and other types of drama, but not because it seemed the ethical or appropriate thing to do.
Here are the emails that broke out, as discovered by the Free Information Act.
So to sum the information up. David Montemayor, possibly for transparency reasons, made a public statement on facebook announcing what had happened and what is intentions were. Erin Mudie, a board member, was not pleased that David did not tell anyone else that he was going to make the statement or evidently that other board members were not aware. It had been 12 days (since an apparent discussion between Ed and David or the deposit of the check??) and it would be 27 days before a vote would be taken on the issue. She was concerned about public scrutiny hurting the foundation.
Amy Hillock had responded the same day, calling the idea "laundering of money." In another email, Amy Hillock expresses that she is not yet convinced of supporting the bond, and believes that the check should have never been received or that a check to the PAC should have been made, "This should have been brought to the attention of all the board members prior to receiving the money from David and cutting a check to the Pac."
The next day, a motion is made that essentially returns the money given to the Wolf PAC (by having the wolf PAC write them a check) and then the foundation write David a check to return him his money.
Ed shifts the focus on David's "good intentions" error and the "theatre of drama" with the start of the letter.
To make this board vote, Erin Mudie set up a voting poll for all members to vote online.
Sandra Lohr, who had already began taking issues with how matters were being handled within the Foundation board, replied that the same protocol should have been used before the "autonomous decision" was made for the Foundation to write the PAC a check. She refers to Ed's actions as plutocratic demeanor.
On October 6th, more email drama breaks out.
This email starts with Amy Hillock announcing a public statement to be made concerning this incident. There was a lot of discussion that occurred about what was to be said and how it should be said. Sandra Lohr agreed that a public apology needed to be made, but emphasized that Ed was wholly responsible for the incident. She suggested that he should resign as a result. She brought back the question of why Ed suggested the Wolf Pac needed to raise $20,000 dollars in the first place, suggesting that it was a political front to begin with. She also mentions that Ed has called for her resignation.
The response from Ed speaks volumes. He states that, "..do what ever you want to do but consult the attorney of your choice first. If you are as reckless with actions as you are with your accusations you will need one to keep your house." He continues to pressure her to resign and accuses her of "prostituting the foundation".
This is threatening a person who is on the fence of whistleblowing. It is our opinion that this is the action of a bully and that Ed does not want this information to come to light.
Even Amy Hillock responses by saying, "Wow Ed. That's taking it too far."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, we have Ed emailing a different school board member, who is also up for re-election but remains unopposed.
In it he begins to belittle DeLeon to another school board member. He also begins talking about how he is communicating with the new superintendent about a Bond oversight committee and who is going to be selected. Ed is suggesting that this board member consider nominating this person for the Bond Oversight committee partially due to his many political contacts, as a nomination would "cement" the relationship.
Now Ed is trying to work another angle through two other board members to try to get them to support him for the Board of Trustees over Deleon. Why this this even being brought to the superintendent is also of curiosity.
In the first email, Ed Griffin has created his website to run against DeLeon for Place 4. Many people were listed at one time as supporting Ed, when it appeared that in fact they never did - and eventually were removed. In this case, a thank you letter for his service on the Education Foundation was placed on his website that could be mistaken as the school district endorsing him as a candidate.
In this email above, Ed responds to an ethics violation investigation. Ed states that although he is listed as the treasurer of the Wolf Pac, someone else is actually handling those duties. So, essentially is the President of the Ed. Foundation when he wrote a check to the PAC that he was the treasurer of, and without the consent of the Foundation board.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below, December 15. Despite Ed being a candidate for Place 4, he is still expecting to be a member of the Board Oversight Committee. It's not going as he hoped, evidently. Each board member had a pick, and the board members he has been friendly to also did not pick him.
Now here is where things get really interesting. Ed has attached his response about the ethics compliant to an email for the superintendent.
First, he states that he was no longer the president of the Foundation when he chaired (and treasured) the Wolf Pac. This claim is not supported by the previous records as established.
Second, Ed is claiming that this is a political conspiracy to keep certain board members in power. He adds his suspicion of what these current board members are going to do with the bond money, too.
He begins by attacking David Montemayor's intentions, claiming David was trying to prevent it from being known David was making a contribution to the Pac. He also calls into question other board members.
Now, Ed Griffin is claiming that he advised David to wait for a board meeting, but Ed himself never brought the issue before the board. It was discovered by Facebook.
Ed then cites an old controversial Dallas morning news article created when DeLeon first took office as part of his support that this somehow relates to political conspiracy.
Ed also attached 'criminal allegations' of one board member's relative, without of-course disclosing the true findings of the court in those allegations (the allegation was not found true by court of law), to possibly imply that a criminal conspiracy on the part of board members at work against him. He seems to implicate that the ethics commission should be investigating those conspiring against him.
So, instead of stating the facts of what happened, saying that David did this and then this happened, what Ed has done here is to add opinion to his statements and fuel the fire of political drama.
Second, Ed is claiming that this is a political conspiracy to keep certain board members in power. He adds his suspicion of what these current board members are going to do with the bond money, too.
He begins by attacking David Montemayor's intentions, claiming David was trying to prevent it from being known David was making a contribution to the Pac. He also calls into question other board members.
Now, Ed Griffin is claiming that he advised David to wait for a board meeting, but Ed himself never brought the issue before the board. It was discovered by Facebook.
Ed then cites an old controversial Dallas morning news article created when DeLeon first took office as part of his support that this somehow relates to political conspiracy.
Ed also attached 'criminal allegations' of one board member's relative, without of-course disclosing the true findings of the court in those allegations (the allegation was not found true by court of law), to possibly imply that a criminal conspiracy on the part of board members at work against him. He seems to implicate that the ethics commission should be investigating those conspiring against him.
So, instead of stating the facts of what happened, saying that David did this and then this happened, what Ed has done here is to add opinion to his statements and fuel the fire of political drama.
--------------------------------------
January 5th. DeLeon shares a post from Lakeview Elementary where the school shared their thanks to current school board members during School board month. Ed takes offense that the superintendent and the former superintendent (now retired) also give them thanks. Ed verbally attacks Dr. Strike while also sending that email to Dr. Gallagher. Ed claims, like he has rumored to with several others, that Dr. Strike vocally supported his campaign. Ed attacks the character of Dr. Strike for endorsing DeLeon. Ed also insinuates that the school board is holding Dr. Gallagher's job over his head and that caused Dr. Strike to change his endorsement. Dr. Strike takes the higher road and states that he is not even going to entertain the discussion. Ed responded with yet another email, this time insinuating that Frank Harding is behind some of this. Ed then turns around and emails two other school board members accusing others in a political conspiracy of using threats and intimidation, rather than fact, to persuade others to endorse his opponent. He takes on unproven criminal allegations against one of his alleged conspirators (again, found to not be true in court of law).
-above - Dr. Gallagher discusses once again that the thank you letter from LEISD was once again posted on Ed's political page after having been asked to remove it. Dr. Gallagher also addresses that his posting of gratitude on Facebook was normal (especially for board appreciation month) and not political endorsement. Dr. Gallagher the addresses another controversy. Dr. Tipton recognized the Wolf Pac members during a school board, but Ed was not happy about the fact that he was not allowed to make a speech or be the one giving the awards. Dr. Gallagher stated that standard practice was simply followed. Lastly, Dr. Gallagher offered a website to where Ed could see the responsibilities of school board members. There has been some conversation that Ed has stated his objectives for being on the school board, which some would fall outside the duty of a board member. Ed's email to Dr. Gallagher should be read in full.
February 19 ----
School Board meeting video -click here- Sandra Lohr at 32:36
In this video, former Education Foundation VP speaks out about her time on the board.
Amy Hillock speaks at 1:21:00 about what has occurred.
This post in response to Ed's post below.
Here is Ed's response to the posting to Dr. Gallagher. Again, Dr. Gallagher has stated his neutrality and Ed claims the school board members are putting pressure on Dr. Gallagher. So Ed's motives for this email is questionable and concerning.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
The check drama continues has two more checks were discovered.
Ed Griffin was presiding as chair over both the Education Foundation and the Wolf Pac, and had access to the checking accounts to both. As established before, he was also seeking a position on the Bond Appropriation Committee. What is said to have occurred is that Ed had counter temporary checks with no account name on them. He used these checks to write two separate checks for campaign purposes. These checks in fact belonged to the Education Foundation and should not have been used in this manner. After already having one incident regarding check writing from the Education Foundation, there were to be protocols put into place. However, these protocol were either not implemented or comprehensive enough to safeguard against this from occurring. Ed says it was a innocent mistake, whereas other may regard it as irresponsible. In either case, Dr. Gallagher stated that with the mishandling of the first situation, that the public should be made aware. However, his advice was not heeded and the majority of the board voted to release only a generic statement until an audit was done. Dr. Gallagher warning may have come to pass, as some community members saw this as further reasons to mistrust certain actions.
