Politics is a funny business: PSJA trustees once together, now apart
During much of the chaotic Jorge Arredondo years spent as superintendent at PSJA ISD, from 2019 through 2022, the school board was split 5-2, with Carlos Villegas and Cynthia Gutierrez comprising the two.
Now, less than five years after the November 2022 election swept an entire new array of trustees into office, Gutierrez is about to be censured by the board majority, which includes her old political ally, Carlos Villegas.
What exactly the censure will entail won’t be disclosed until an upcoming school board meeting, which is yet to be announced.
For her part, Gutierrez claims that the censure is a deliberate attempt by the board majority to silence her.
In her court petition filed May 27, she named Trustees Diana Serna, Carlos Villegas, and Yolanda Castillo as the defendants, and she as the plaintiff. That suit granted her a temporary restraining order (TRO) by a visiting judge based out of Cameron County, which precluded the PSJA board from voting on the censure, but she lost her court battle during a subsequent court hearing last Tuesday, June 10.
That judicial ruling from Judge Rogelio Valdez allowed the TRO to expire June 16, and it allows the district to vote to censure Gutierrez as long as it gives her a three-day notice for the censure and the reasons for it.
Tit for tat, the judge also said that Gutierrez may censure any other board members, but without a majority vote, what would be the point? Also, there must not be any defamation from either side, warned the judge. The Texas Education Agency (TEA), by the way, has established guidelines and procedures for addressing misconduct by educators through a vote of censure, which may include board trustees.
As with most government guidelines, however, they are about as clear as mud.
Gutierrez’s Claims
According to an affidavit signed by Cynthia Gutierrez May 27, the attacks against her have been relentless.
Gutierrez was contacted about this story over the weekend, but was unable to return the call.
From her (unedited) court affidavit, however, comes these legal claims leveled against three of her board members:
“I submit this affidavit in response to the proposed censure against me, which I strongly believe is unjust, politically motivated, and in violation of my constitutional rights, specifically my right to free speech under the First Amendment.
“For the past eight months, I have been subjected to ongoing harassment, malicious commentary, and targeted social media attacks. These actions escalated significantly following the appointment of Ms. Diana Serna as President of the Board. Under her leadership, I have been systematically excluded and mistreated, both publicly and behind closed doors.
“Ms. Serna has consistently denied me access to 'agenda review' sessions—meetings intended to help trustees prepare for upcoming board meetings — despite extending invitations to two other trustees. When respectfully requested inclusion, Ms. Serna openly dismissed my request and addressed our board attorney, Mr. Ben Castillo, asking, 'I don't HAVE to invite her, right Ben?' Her exclusionary behavior has not only been unprofessional but also discriminatory in nature.
“Additionally, I have occupied the same seat during executive sessions for nearly five years — a position that accommodates my medical condition, as I am blind in my right eye. It allows me to have clear visibility of presenters entering the room. Ms. Serna, who has been on the board for approximately three years, began demanding to sit in my designated spot after becoming board president in January. Despite being informed of my visual impairment, she persisted for four months in trying to displace me. Her behavior only stopped after another trustee reminded her of my condition. I was ultimately forced to send a formal cease-and-desist letter on April 14, 2025, after consulting with legal counsel.
“Due to this hostile environment, I have increasingly limited my attendance at school-related events to avoid unnecessary conflict and preserve my personal safety and peace of mind.
“To date, I have not received any formal notice of violating the board's code of conduct, nor have I been removed from any school meeting or event. There have been no prior attempts to address any alleged misconduct through alternative or restorative measures.
“I believe this censure is not only inappropriate, but deeply harmful. It threatens to distract from the district's core mission of serving students, causes division among board members, incurs potential legal costs, and undermines the board's overall effectiveness. More importantly, it sets a dangerous precedent: punishing a trustee for asking questions, challenging leadership, and speaking out on matters of public concern.
Note: Okay, there’s a few more paragraphs, but that’s the gist of Gutierrez’s claim — she’s being unfairly treated, among other things, mainly by Board President Diana Serna.
Serna and Villegas Speak Out
If you talk to Serna and Villegas, they sound like this is a fight they’d rather not be having right now. After all, the district did well this past school calendar year, they say, the district is moving in the right direction, so why rain down any negative publicity on the district at this moment in time?
And, no, they say, they don’t know what the censure is going to entail. They just want her to stop doing what she’s been doing.
Which is?
Dragging out school board meetings into the late of night with endless, meaningless, in their words, discussions, just because she isn’t getting her way.
Second, both claim that Gutierrez has a bad habit of playing fast and loose with the word “corruption” aimed their way.
Take a recent insurance contract the board awarded to former longtime district insurance provider Bob Treviño.
There was nothing untoward about that, said Serna. Look up the facts, don’t just throw out the word “corruption.”
In fact, the district gave the med insurance business to two companies, not one, both of whom are based in the PSJA area.
“If we were corrupt,” said Serna, “we would have given all the business to one firm, not two.”
Another thing about Gutierrez, said Villegas, she’ll vote to approve one thing, and then two days later, she’ll be asking to reverse course.
“But, lady, you already voted on it, I’ll tell her,” Villegas said.
“Take the teachers’ salaries two years ago. She voted to approve it. Two days later, she's out there having discussions with (certain people) who tell her, ‘Oh, you should have done it this way, or you should have done it that way,’ and then she sends me a text saying, ‘Well, I'm against this retention bonus now. I think what we ought to do is get rid of it. Or else I’m going to make some noise.'”
Board President Diana Serna interjects: “It wasn’t even two days. She called the very next day after the vote to approve, wanting to change it.”
Another thing, said Serna, the board just wants to follow Rules of Order.
“She doesn’t even raise her hand. She’ll just say, ‘I vote.’”
Her Deceased Husband?
According to Serna, if you want to talk about the chair that Gutierrez mentioned in her court petition, it wasn’t a big deal until Gutierrez brought Serna’s deceased husband into the picture. After that, any goodwill between the two was lost as far as Serna was concerned.
“She implied that I own a business, and that I’m a (school) vendor. That business has been in my son’s name since 2016. Yet, she implies that it’s really my business, and I have it (the business sells school trophies to districts) under my son’s name. How is that not slander?”
Serna’s husband passed away approximately six-and-a-half years ago, but according to Serna, Gutierrez brought his name into the fray as well.
“She’s been fighting the dead, so to speak. But her saying that about my son did affect his business, and her saying that about my husband did rattle me.”
According to Serna, Gutierrez implied there was something shady going on between the business and her husband, when all he had done was ask her if Diana Serna was elected board trustee, could his son still bid for school business.
“So, yes, she wanted the same chair she had been sitting in when she was board president and during Carlos’s tenure as president, which I agreed to at first, even though I was the new board president. But after that nasty business about my husband, when she came after my deceased husband that following meeting, I went and sat there, and she fought me for it.”
Serna thinks this whole blowup on the part of Gutierrez began when she wanted the board seat for a second year in a row.
It should have gone to Villegas (in 2022), said Serna. He had most seniority on the board and was board vice president.
“When I found out that she wanted it for a second year in a row,” said Serna, “I said, ‘No, it was supposed to have been Carlos's to begin with. He gave up that seat to you, and now you want it again?’ I said, 'No, Carlos needs to be president. It’s his turn.' That’s right where this whole thing really started.”
According to Villegas, the people who speak with him say they are tired of Gutierrez’s “grandstanding, always wanting to be at the top of the totem pole.
“She cannot stand the fact that she’s just a board member now, not the president, and that she’s in the minority. At least that’s the perception I hear quite often.”
Serna said she thinks it also has to do with new limits on the time that a board member is allowed to speak.
“Well, she cannot stand the procedures that the board adopted. Carlos limits us to two minutes per item, that's all we can speak. When time's up, time's up, and you're muted. She can't live with that.”
Ironic thing about that, said Serna, is that Cynthia Gutierrez voted in favor of the two-minute rule.
“I’m sure she regrets big time that she voted for herself to only have two minutes to speak, and she can’t handle it anymore.”
There is no reason, with very few exceptions, for board meetings to last until midnight, said Serna.
“Rules matter,” said Villegas.
“They do,” said Serna. “At the last board meeting we got out at 8:10.”