Fleming Costs $302,337.56 AND RISING!!!!!!!!!!!!

Probably in response to several open document requests, the district has released the costs related to the Fleming litigation. the amount of $302,337.56 however, the amounts maybe understated. The District reported legal expenses between June 1 and August 31 2008, of $122,266.21 only includes legal fees and expenses from Robert Luna and Associates and does not include any fees or expenses for Diane Ewing, the attorney retain to represent Ms. Chaffin. It also unclear if Ms. Ewing legal fees and expenses are included in the $69,881.25 billed but not yet paid, or include bills from Robert Luna Associates. According to the district the $38,754.16 is for legal costs prior to the lawsuit. It is unclear if this includes cost the Ingram lawsuit. The total costs of $302,337.42 only addresses legal expenses, but does not include other professional fees including, surveyor and consulant. The Total cost amount includes $71,435.94 nonrefundable amounts paid to county officials

In the lawsuit, Ingram V. Carrollton Farmers Branch School District, the district court found that the district did not have the authority to find Mr. Fleming ineligible due to residency concerns on May 27. On June 4, a day after Mr. Fleming took the oath of office, declared Mr. Fleming ineligible claiming she possessed "public documents that conclusively establishes that Mr. Fleming was not a resident." On September 21, the 95th District found that Ms. Chaffin claims were without merit and ordered Mr. Fleming seated.

It is becoming more apparent that if the district would have sought an opinion from the State Secretary of State or the State Attorney General.

The Secretary of State is the chief election officer for the State of Texas. Section 31.004(a) of the Texas Election Code (the "Code") provides that, "The Secretary of State shall assist and advise all election authorities with regard to the application, operation, and interpretation of this code and of the election laws outside of this code.  

"No public record conclusively establishes residency,” correctly states the position of this office. This position is based upon Section 1.015(b) of the Texas Election Code"... Secretary of State the State of Texas.

Attorney General Opinions clarify the meaning of existing laws. They do not address matters of fact, and they are neither legislative nor judicial in nature. That is to say, they cannot create new provisions in the law or correct unintended, undesirable effects of the law.

Determining the question of residency is a question of intent and factual circumstances. It is not within the authority of this office nor within the discretion of the official receiving the application [of a candidate]{ to determine those factual questions. See Parker v. Brown, 425 S.W.2d 379, 381 (Tex.Civ.App.--Tyler 1968, no writ) (question of residence is to be judicially determined); see also Mills v. Bartlett, 377 S.W.2d 636, 637 (Tex.1964) (residence is determined by factual circumstances).

Texas State Attornery General Opinion No. JM-231 http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/opinions/47mattox/op/1984/htm/jm0231.htm