Buddy Falcon

🪶 PFISD’S “OTHER PAY” PROBLEM: WHO GETS EXTRA, WHO GETS ZERO, AND WHY? 🪶

Before Pflugerville ISD asks families to accept school closures, campus consolidations, and “optimization” as an unavoidable financial reality, taxpayers—and district staff—deserve a clear explanation of how administrative money is being distributed through supplemental pay categories.

To be clear: this is not an allegation of wrongdoing by any employee. Public employees do not control how a district codes, authorizes, or reports compensation. The issue is whether PfISD can clearly explain the written rule, payroll code, funding source, and authorization used to award supplemental pay — including why some campus leaders show thousands of dollars in “Other Pay” while others show $0 in that same column.

Recently, a tip led us to review public salary records, TEA employment data, and district directories. Additional records remain have been requested from PFISD and any updates will be based on verified documents. The records reviewed so far raise more questions than they answer.

We recognize that base pay varies by campus level; a high school principal may make more than an elementary principal based on standard contract days, campus size, and assignment responsibilities.

The issue is not base pay. The issue is the money recorded in the column labeled “Other Pay.”

According to published public employee compensation data—cross-referenced with Texas Education Agency employment records and district directories—PfISD campus and administrative leaders show significant differences in supplemental compensation in the records reviewed.

The public records reviewed show some administrators receiving thousands of dollars in “Other Pay,” while others show $0 in that same column.

In the 2023 itemized public payroll records reviewed, the “Other Pay” column highlights clear differences for those receiving additional supplemental compensation:

* Lacey Ajibola — $104,371 base pay + $15,000 Other Pay
* Emily Rachel Delgado — $101,304 base pay + $10,000 Other Pay
* A high school campus principal — $111,703 base pay + $14,000 Other Pay
* Paula Gamble — $127,078 base pay + $6,938 Other Pay
* Barry Miller — $98,058 base pay + $14,000 Other Pay
* Dora Molina — $96,897 base pay + $14,000 Other Pay

Public records reviewed for the following campus leaders show $0 in that same supplemental column:

* Zachary Kleypas, Principal (former) of Pflugerville High School: $0
* Michael Grebb, Principal of Hendrickson High School: $0
* Reese Weirich, Principal of Timmerman Elementary: $0
* Philip Hogan Clayton, Principal of Pflugerville Middle School: $0
* Genia Antoine, Principal (former) of Pflugerville Elementary School: $0

The records reviewed also raise questions beyond a single reporting year. Not every difference is improper, and this is not offered as a one-to-one comparison of job difficulty. It is offered to show why itemized payroll coding matters.

One high school campus principal was listed at $125,703 in 2023, including a $14,000 “Other Pay” entry. By 2025, public salary data lists the same administrator at $147,955 — a more than $22,000 increase over two years. Without itemized payroll detail, the public cannot determine whether that increase came from base salary movement, contract days, reclassification, assignment pay, supplemental pay, or another authorized category.

Meanwhile, Genia Antoine, an elementary principal with $0 in the reviewed supplemental column, was listed at $101,958 in 2023, $104,988 in 2024, and $110,180 in 2025. Reese Weirich, listed by PfISD as Principal of Timmerman Elementary, also shows $0 in that supplemental column in the reviewed records. Their listed wages show a different compensation trajectory. This comparison is not offered to claim any employee was paid improperly; it is offered to show why itemized payroll detail matters. If there is a written formula distinguishing these assignments, PfISD should release it.

Campus level and contract days may explain part of the baseline difference between leaders. But they do not explain why one public payroll record shows $14,000 in “Other Pay,” while other records — including records for veteran principals, high school principals, and a principal tied to opening a new campus — show $0 without a visible written explanation.

Because the 2025 public salary summary rolls compensation into one annual wage figure, the public cannot determine the breakdown. The public cannot tell whether the difference is contract-based, stipend-based, assignment-based, policy-based, or otherwise authorized.

Texas school districts operate under adopted compensation plans and board-approved budgets. When some administrators receive five-figure supplemental payments while others show $0 — including some principals at large high school campuses — it raises reasonable questions. If these payments were issued under different supplemental compensation rules, what written rule controls who receives them and who does not?

Formal Public Information Act requests have been filed for the written payroll codes, funding sources, and board authorizations for each identified payment. We will update the public as information is received. However, given prior issues with delays, cost estimates, redactions, and Attorney General referrals in public records matters, the public should not have to wait months, if ever, for a basic explanation.

If any figure is incomplete, miscoded, or missing context, PfISD can correct the record by producing the payroll code, funding source, written purpose, and authorizing policy. If the explanation is legitimate, PfISD can resolve this with one table showing each payment, each $0 entry, payroll code, funding source, written purpose, and authorizing policy.

If these payments are routine, the documentation should be routine too. A basic explanation should not require a protracted process.

It may be longevity pay. If so, that should mean the payment was based on a consistent service calculation — not a selective, unexplained decision. Who had uninterrupted PfISD service? Who left and returned? Were prior years counted anyway? Were all employees with the same credited years treated equally? If PfISD claims this was longevity pay, the district should be able to show the service dates, eligibility basis, and calculation used for every person who received it — and every comparable person who did not.

The records reviewed so far are enough to justify one basic request: show the payroll math.

PfISD wants the community to trust its school-closure math.

Then start by showing the payroll math.

Source Note: Figures cited above are drawn from public compensation records, including OpenPayrolls, GovSalaries, TEA employment data, and district directory information reviewed to date. Public payroll databases may contain coding or context limitations; PfISD is invited to correct or clarify any figure by producing the underlying payroll code, funding source, written purpose, and authorizing policy. Additionally, principals mentioned are invited to clarify any additional pay they receive. Email [email protected].

— Buddy Falcon Media, LLC
Keeping Watch. Always. 🪶

🪶 WHO ARE WE LETTING INTO OUR HOMES — AND HOW DO WE CHECK THEM? 🪶

As summer begins, the safety questions around our children shift.

School is out, parents are working, and all over the state, some teenagers may be home while workers, agents, or contractors come and go—whether they are getting properties ready for a move, fixing the roof, or repairing the AC. We are leaving our children alone with strangers, trusting a company logo on a truck.

While I will absolutely continue looking into and covering public corruption just like always, we have recently received several messages pointing us toward this different, urgent kind of access.

This is not a shift away from education, public service, or government accountability. It is the same question in a different setting: Who has access to our children, who is responsible for supervising that access, and what happens when the system relies on trust instead of transparency?

They can screen you. But can you screen them?

The timing matters. One good thing came from my last post reminding people what this account has done and how we operate behind the scenes: my team came back. Two of my former helpers came forward and asked to help again. They are ready to get back to work, but one of them insisted that I post about this specific issue as a condition of their return, because of something that had happened.

And this is the question they want to ask:
Who are we allowing into our homes?

Not just landlords or property managers. But realtors, contractors, roofing companies, construction crews, repair workers, inspectors, movers, and maintenance companies.

Some of the concerns raised involve concerns about people with histories of sexual misconduct, boundary complaints, or serious safety concerns being allowed into homes or around children through private companies. Others involve people who may have serious ethical issues, prior complaints, dishonesty, or patterns the public would never know about.

Think about how the system currently works. Real-estate professionals and landlords have access to background-check apps and tenant-screening tools that can instantly pull your criminal history, address history, and financial records. They can screen us before we even walk through a door.

But I want to ask the question from the other side:

Where is the tool for families?

Where is the system that lets a parent know exactly who is being sent through the front door while their teenager is sitting in the living room?

Right now, the system is deeply fragmented.

Yes, there are some public checks available. You can search the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) public sex-offender registry, but that only catches individuals who are already registered offenders.

For certain trades, you can verify credentials. Plumbers can be searched through the Texas State Board of Plumbing Examiners, where consumers can call enforcement directly to ask if valid complaints have been filed against a license. For real estate license holders, you can search license status and formal disciplinary history directly on the Texas Real Estate Commission (TREC) website; if no "Disciplinary Search" line appears, no formal disciplinary action has been taken against them.

But does that mean there have been no complaints?

Why are some complaint and discipline systems public, while other access-heavy industries remain so hard for families to check?

In fact, what happens behind closed doors when a complaint is filed can leave consumers completely in the dark. TREC rules allow advisory letters, but those are not the same thing as public formal discipline. Staff may issue these when they determine a warning is sufficient or when they want to educate a license holder to avoid future violations, meaning some concerns may not appear as public formal discipline.

And then there are industries where the safety net is much thinner.

Take the roofing industry. Right now, Texas has no mandatory statewide roofing-contractor license. The Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) does not regulate or license roofing contractors at the state level. While organizations like the Roofing Contractors Association of Texas (RCAT) offer an excellent voluntary licensing program that requires exams, experience, and proof of financial responsibility, it is not mandatory by law.

Unless a specific city or county enforces local contractor registration or permits, a homeowner or parent has no centralized state database to check. This low barrier to entry makes it incredibly easy for unqualified individuals or bad actors to operate, shifting the entire burden of safety and due diligence directly onto families.

Many safety concerns never become criminal convictions. Some complaints are handled internally by companies. Some people move from job to job, company to company, or contract to contract before the public ever knows there was a pattern.

We need a better way to know who we are allowing into our homes and around our children.

You should be asking these questions:

* What screening software do realtors and property managers use on us, and what prevents its misuse?
* Beyond the standard public disciplinary search, how are consumer complaints handled behind closed doors, and what happens to issues that end in non-public advisory letters?
* How can families effectively check contractors, roofers, and subcontractors before they cross the threshold, especially in fields with no state licensing requirements?
* Are companies required to disclose prior workplace misconduct or internal safety complaints to consumers?

This is not about accusing every realtor, contractor, roofer, or repair worker. Most people are out there doing an honest, hard day's work.

If companies can check us before renting, selling, repairing, or servicing property, then families deserve a clear, reliable way to check who is being sent into their homes.

If you have firsthand experience with tenant-screening software, realtor risk-assessment apps, or filing actions with state boards, Buddy Falcon wants to hear from you. We are looking for concrete evidence to build this story—including screenshots, emails, contracts, corporate names, and undocumented complaint histories. True public accountability requires an unshakeable paper trail, because no family should have to find out who they allowed through the front door after it is already too late.

Buddy Falcon Media
— Keeping Watch. Always🪶

🪶 WHAT’S WITH THE NAME? WHAT BUDDY FALCON IS — AND WHY I’M STILL HERE 🪶

By Buddy Falcon

A lot of new people have found this page lately. And a few old supporters have stopped by to remind me that Buddy Falcon has a history long before the stories I’m digging into right now.

Some followed for the drama. Others followed because Buddy Falcon helped them understand they were not crazy, not alone, and definitely not the only ones seeing the pattern.

Before anyone tries to pin an agenda, a party, or a political angle on this account, let me clear the air:

Buddy Falcon is not political. Don’t bother looking for the angle—you won’t find one.

Over the years, since 2018 in fact, I have called out Republicans, Democrats, sheriffs, judges, school administrators, and anyone else who uses a title as a shield. This has never been about left or right. It has always been about power—and what people do with it when they think nobody is watching.

This whole thing started in Williamson County, Texas, when people inside local government were afraid to attach their names to records or complaints. They had records, stories, and documentation they believed the public needed to see. But they also had jobs, pensions, and families to protect. They believed the threat of retaliation was real if they put their own names on what they knew.

So, Buddy Falcon became the drop point.

The name was intentional. In law enforcement and military slang, a “Blue Falcon” is someone accused of betraying their own. “Buddy Falcon” was my answer to that toxic culture. If exposing misconduct made me the bad guy to corrupt officials, so be it.

No gossip.
Just records.
No rumors.
Just receipts.

One quick way to lose me is to send me something and say, “put this on your site.” Buddy Falcon has never been a bulletin board. I do my own research. I verify. If the records do not support it, I do not run with it.

Back then, the epicenter was the Williamson County Sheriff’s Office under Sheriff Robert Chody and Commander Steve Deaton. Under Chody, the department’s relationship with Live PD became a major public controversy, with critics arguing that law enforcement priorities were being shaped by television exposure Questions were later raised about personnel decisions, officer conduct, and whether the show created incentives that harmed public accountability.

Buddy Falcon did not create that culture. I just dragged it into the light.

When a national organization first responded by exposing Deaton’s racist, misogynistic, and violent Facebook posts, local outlets like the Austin American-Statesman followed. To me, Deaton’s conduct reflected a broader leadership culture that tolerated behavior the public had a right to scrutinize. I was a source for the KVUE reporter behind the scenes. When internal affairs videos contradicted the public narrative, I put the footage out there, including the raw body camera video showing a deputy throwing a domestic violence victim to the ground.

I have been in the room. I know how this works.

I coordinated with the photographer for the Bill Gravell story because we had inside knowledge of his plans to show up in a fire suit, with a deputy es**rt, despite the stay-at-home orders in place at the time. Gravell actually messaged me directly to demand I take the post down, incorrectly stating his grandson had been photographed.

I did not bow down.

After that, Chody’s allies and political supporters focused heavily on identifying Buddy Falcon. At one point, they became so obsessed that Jason Nassour showed up at a fired deputy's SOAH appeal hearing. The county wasn’t even contesting the appeal, but Nassour appeared anyway, and according to those present, one of the only questions he asked the deputy was whether the deputy was Buddy Falcon (You can see my response to that in the image I posted).

That was my takeaway: the focus appeared to be less on the misconduct and more on identifying the person exposing it.

I requested. I received. I verified. I routed. I connected. I published. I protected people. I gave reporters time to work before I posted. I helped them find the policy, the video, the witness, the background file, and the missing timeline. That was the value of Buddy Falcon: not just posting documents, but knowing why they mattered, who they affected, and where the next record was buried.

I have reported wrong twice. The last one is on me. The first one involved Mike Gleason telling me—and swearing—that the jail had never been found deficient. It had been. Apparently, in his mind, not for a “good reason.” I learned then that you verify everything yourself. And when that voice says something may not be right, you listen. That part is on me.

Then came the headline that showed why all of this mattered: “Chase ends in death as cameras roll”

Javier Ambler died while cameras rolled, and for more than a year, the full story did not reach the public. That story did not finally break because officials voluntarily centered transparency. It broke because insiders talked, reporters kept digging, records surfaced, and public pressure became too loud to ignore. And the Ambler family finally learned what really happened to their son.

* The Ambler family sued.
* Ramsey Mitchell sued.
* The Watsky case followed.
* Scott Phillip Lewis sued.
* Williamson County sued over the Live PD contract.
* Chody was later indicted on an evidence-tampering charge in connection with the Javier Ambler case.

Buddy Falcon did not create those cases. Buddy Falcon helped expose the culture behind them. Once the pattern was visible, it could not be explained away as one bad night or one bad decision.

That was the point of Buddy Falcon: Make the pattern visible.

As often happens when the truth starts getting too close to home, fake accounts appeared. They were designed to make the watchdog look unstable, political, reckless, and dirty. But they did not change the records.

Because the records were real. The videos were real. The lawsuits were real.

And there are victims here now, too.

This is not just a Williamson County history lesson. The same pattern is showing up in Pflugerville ISD, and families say they are being hurt while officials appear more focused on protecting the institution.

Ashley Valderas’s children are one example. They are not talking points. They are children. Their family is asking for help, and they deserve someone outside the district’s control to review the records and look at what happened.

This is also why independent watchdog work still matters.

I raised concerns about Ramon Nazario and the DPS trooper incident nearly two years ago. The concerns were there. The records were there. The families were there. But the coverage did not come with the urgency this deserved.

I have spoken with reporters who were interested. The problem is not always the reporter. The problem is what happens once a story moves up the chain. Stories involving law enforcement misconduct often get more immediate attention than school-district corruption, even when children and families are harmed.

But alleged harm does not become less serious because the institution involved is a school instead of a sheriff’s office. Families do not need less help because the person holding power has a campus title instead of a badge. The public deserves facts, unfiltered by political agendas or financial motives.

That is why Buddy Falcon is still here.

If anyone reading this knows a civil rights attorney willing to review the records involving Ashley Valderas’s children, please contact me. I will pass the information along.

The same cycle repeats everywhere—in police departments, school boards, HR offices, and anywhere else leaders start believing they are untouchable.

When employees tell me they are scared to attach their names to a report, I get it. Retaliation is not just a buzzword to them. It is a threat to their livelihood. That fear is exactly how misconduct allegations stay hidden or unresolved.

I do not have the same human crew behind the scenes anymore. Too many good people are scared of losing everything. So I adapted. My Twitter team, Beastwithin, Chanuk, Soph, Candace, and a few others, along with open records guru Michelle were my human team. Now they are part of my X Grok team (yes you can name it) . Today, we use AI tools to help read document dumps, organize timelines, manage recorded meetings and grievance files, compare statements, flag contradictions, and check language before publication. I have multiple subscriptions that help me find the facts and report them accurately.

The mission did not change. The tools did.

So when I receive records, I take it seriously. I am not here to be liked. I am not here to get invited to backroom meetings. I am here for the people outside those rooms who are impacted by decisions they were never supposed to see.

Buddy Falcon did not do this alone.

Good people trusted me with records. Reporters verified what they could. Families spoke when they were scared. Insiders took risks they should never have had to take.

I brought the receipts.
The records told the story.
And the pattern is still the pattern.

Which means I'm not going anywhere.

Buddy Falcon Media
Keeping watch. Always. 🪶

🪶 PfISD Parents Are Tired of Being Told to Trust a Broken Process 🪶

Trust the campus. Trust the administrator. Trust the investigation. Trust that the school will tell you the truth about what happened to your own child.

But what happens when the parent does not trust the process because the process has already failed her child?

That is exactly what happened to Ashley Valderas at Weiss High School.

In May 2026, Ashley’s daughter was pulled into a disputed search situation after other students at the same table were allegedly caught with vapes. When Assistant Principal Uyen Tran, currently under investigation with TEA, approached to conduct a physical search, the teenager immediately FaceTimed her mother.

The teenager didn't just call for advice—she called out of fear. She already knew exactly who AP Tran was. She knew about Tran’s involvement in a severe inappropriate contact outcry involving behavior teacher Ramon Nazario—the same teacher who is now, two years later, under investigation with twenty years worth of allegations surfacing. In that earlier case, Tran forced another minor to physically re-enact an inappropriate full-frontal hug with Nazario on her own body against her objections.

For that reason, and because Ashley had already experienced Tran's coercive tactics firsthand when dealing with her son, Ashley drew a hard line.

Ashley stated in real time over FaceTime that nobody had permission to search her child without Ashley physically present. She was adamant: she did not want AP Tran putting hands on her daughter. It was a point of absolute disbelief for the family that an administrator who was under active investigation for coercing a minor was still allowed to be on campus at all—let alone permitted to conduct physical searches of students.

According to Ashley’s messages, AP Tran ignored the mother's directive, continued speaking directly to the teenager, and pressed her to allow the search, telling her, “so u could make this easy and let me complete the search quickly”. Ashley objected immediately, telling Tran not to convince her daughter to do what Ashley had just told her not to do.

After the teenager followed her mother’s instruction and refused the search, Tran issued a disciplinary referral for “insubordination,” and Ashley's daughter was later placed in ISS. Ashley’s messages show she was actively challenging the referral while the ISS consequence was still being imposed.

Ashley put her concerns in writing while the punishment was still happening. She sent them directly to the PfISD Board of Trustees and Superintendent Dr. Quintin Shepherd.

In the email shown below, Ashley laid out the timeline: she contacted campus and district officials while her daughter was serving ISS and repeatedly reported that no one had responded. She reached out on May 11, May 13, and May 18. According to Ashley, she received no response until after she and I publicly commented on the Board President Chevonne, Pflugerville ISD Trustee, Place 7 official page. When the Board President responded, she indicated that someone else was already getting back to Ashley. By that point, Ashley says she had been waiting nearly two weeks while her daughter had already served the punishment.

When Assistant Superintendent Hutcherson Hill finally called her on May 29, Ashley reported that he had only “looked over one” of her complaints or grievances.

Ashley reported that Hill said he was having trouble understanding her and told her to “calm down.” Ashley responded that she was calm and that she has a speech impediment.

At that point, Ashley had already documented the search objection, the disputed referral, the ISS placement, and the lack of timely response while the punishment was still being carried out.

Ashley wrote to the Board that she is no longer comfortable speaking to district officials by phone without a witness present to ensure she is understood and protected.

Why did Ashley bypass the campus and go straight to the Board?

Because Ashley had already experienced how Weiss handled her questions during a prior investigation involving her son.

Prior to the incident with her daughter, Ashley had to fight for her son, a Section 504 student with ADHD, after he reported that a male teacher got in his face and told him, “Shut up, boy”. As Ashley pointed out, that is a highly derogatory term to direct at a Black student, and she rightfully demanded a transparent investigation into the adult’s conduct.

Ashley was not asking for her children to receive a free pass. She explicitly told Assistant Principal Uyen Tran during a meeting that she holds her own kids strictly accountable. “They get no special treatment,” Ashley stated, adding, “I have no problem embarrassing him... calling him out... or making him act right if I need to”. She made it clear she viewed her son as a student of the whole student body, not just her child.

Instead of giving Ashley confidence that the matter would be handled fairly, AP Tran focused on controlling who Ashley could talk to.

When Ashley said she intended to speak with the parents of other students in the classroom to find out what their children saw or heard, Tran told Ashley not to contact other students because it could “taint the investigation”.

That may sound procedural until you understand the context. Ashley was being told to rely only on the same campus administrators she already did not trust.

When Ashley stood her ground and stated she did not trust the campus’s investigative process because of its history of failures, Tran did not reassure her. She told the mother of a public school student:

“Well then, if you don’t have trust, then you need to think about other options”.

Ashley’s child had a right to attend his public school. A parent questioning a campus investigation is not a reason to suggest the family should look elsewhere.

Tran then connected Ashley’s lack of trust to how future consequences would be received:

> “But if you don’t have trust in us, this is gonna continue, Ms. Valderas, because whatever we assign him as a consequence, you’re not gonna be happy with us”.

That is the part parents need to hear carefully.

The issue was no longer just whether a teacher said “shut up, boy.” The issue became whether a parent could question the campus without her children being treated like the problem.

This is what Ashley heard in the recorded meeting when she questioned the campus investigation.

Ashley Valderas did what parents are supposed to do when campus answers are not enough. She put it in writing and took it to the PfISD Board.

Once Ashley put the timeline, the unanswered contacts, and the concerns in writing, the Board had notice.

That is why we are sharing Ashley’s email to Chevonne Lorigo-Johst.

Parents need to read the words for themselves.

(A link to the previous post with the audio/transcript regarding Ashley’s earlier meeting with AP Tran is available in the comments below.)

— Buddy Falcon Media, LLC
Keeping Watch. Always. 🪶

This post is about Ashley Valderas’s email to Board President Chevonne Lorigo-Johst, her daughter’s disputed search and discipline, and the documented statements attributed to Assistant Principal Uyen Tran. It is public-interest reporting about PfISD student discipline, parent communication, student-search practices, and board-level notice. It is not directed at any other individual, and no contact with any individual is requested or encouraged.

Pflugerville ISD Chevonne, Pflugerville ISD Trustee, Place 7 Texas Education Agency Texas Education 911 Erin Anderson Texas Scorecard KXAN News KVUE Austin American-Statesman K*T Austin Greg Abbott

---

*This is Part One. This post focuses on Ashley Valderas’s email regarding her daughter and what the transcripts show about how her concerns for her son were previously handled by Assistant Principal Uyen Tran. Part Two will address the broader documented record involving Tran’s administrative conduct.