Public commentator accuses trustee of sharing confidential information during campaign; board statement cites independent construction review finding no impropr
Loading...
Summary
A public commenter accused Trustee Garrett Linker of sharing confidential information and questioned whether he violated board confidentiality rules; the district read a statement earlier that an independent review found no evidence of financial impropriety in prior construction projects.
A public commenter told the Prosper ISD Board of Trustees Monday that Trustee Garrett Linker "cannot be trusted with confidential information" and accused him of publicizing material she said he had held since October.
The commenter said claims made by Linker during the recent school board campaign had implicated a district vendor, the superintendent and current and past elected officials and asked "has mister Linker violated his oath of confidentiality and or the Open Meetings Act in order to further his political gain?" She asked whether the board planned to hold him accountable.
The comment was part of the meeting's public-comment period; the transcript does not record a board response to those questions during the public comment segment. Earlier in the meeting Superintendent Holly Ferguson read a district statement about an unrelated investigation into construction concerns that said an independent outside law firm "found no evidence of financial impropriety, breach of contract, or any other action resulting in harm to Prosper ISD." The district statement named Pogue Construction as a longtime partner and said financial controls have since been strengthened.
Why it matters: the remarks raise questions about trustee conduct and confidentiality during a campaign. The meeting record shows the district acknowledged and investigated prior construction concerns and reported no impropriety, but the public commenter urged the board to address alleged campaign disclosures and whether they complied with board and state rules.
What the record shows: the public commenter said alleged evidence was first received in October, was not brought to the board until December and was then discussed publicly during the campaign. The commenter also said an item to retain additional counsel appeared on a February 26 closed-session agenda but that no motion was made. The transcript records the public commenter's account; it does not provide independent confirmation of the timeline or the existence of specific documentation beyond the complainant's statements.
No formal board action on these public allegations is recorded in the meeting minutes or the public portion of the transcript for May 19, 2025.
The commenter: the speaker did not identify her name on the public record portion of the transcript. In the meeting record she is listed as a public commentator who addressed the board during the agenda-item public-comment period.
