July 5, 2009

CISD’s Belt Tightening or Spending Spree?

by Harold Gentry

This past week a local daily newspaper praised the school board’s expenses at the Summer Leadership Institute in San Antonio June 11-13 as a major milestone toward fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers. On the list of seven suggested possible accommodations they did pick the lowest nightly charge of $132 at the Menger Hotel. To that I have to say good job. Several board members have requested partial refunds for meals and valet parking which are well within the guidelines of their newfound title as Key Officials.  The other expense, Registration, was from $325 to $475 per person, depending on the days attended and the classes taken.

Secondly, I will also admit that with the continual scrutiny of Dr. James Warlick, chief financial officer David Johnson, Dr. Nancy Vaughn and TEA monitor Dr. Monte Geren, that the local, state and federal funds are being monitored in a way that can only produce positive results. Some say that these consultants’ salaries are exorbitant, but in their defense, they do not set their own rate. It is set for them.

So, taxpayers, we are paying for our past sins in lack of oversight and for the sins of those who did the deed but instead of being held accountable were rewarded with fat paychecks after they left. In my opinion, these people will likely continue down that same crooked path in some other school district. The entire education system is plagued with these “gypsies of no accountability” and they are costing Texas taxpayers and children millions.

CISD is moving in a positive direction and things are improving for the most part but here’s the rest of the story on the school board’s frugality. Five days after the San Antonio meeting, on June 18-20, 2009 the same TASB convention, Summer Leadership Institute North, was held in Fort Worth, Texas. Which would have been more expensive to attend - San Antonio or Ft Worth?

If this is a stop, look and listen year financially for us, then how did we miss the obvious? The itinerary was the same at SLI North or South as far as classes go, and remember this is not supposed to be a fun-filled vacation. The purpose is training new and old board members. TASB says that one of the main functions of the school board is oversight and that “School boards do not run districts well but are there to see that districts are run well.”  

Board members have said in the past we just go where they tell us to go and stay where they tell us we stay. The board listened to central office administration in the past and did not bother to check the facts. Where did that get us? Should board members blindly accept everything that TASB or central office suggests? Is this the same degree of lax oversight they demonstrated for so long in the past?

As far as I know, Mr. Dempsey was the only board member who questioned why we did not attend the TASB convention in Fort Worth. Dr. Beard’s explanation was we could not have charged off some of the expenses by going to Fort Worth. Dr. Warlick said they were told by TASB the instructors were better in San Antonio than those in Fort Worth.

The Texas Education Agency in their final report chastised CISD for going to Rough Creek when they could have done training closer to home. Taxpayers, you can come to your own conclusion on this. If it were your money, which convention would you have attended?

If we are tightening our belts at CISD, why did the board approve the recently completed $2.5 million indoor practice facility during the TEA fiasco? (Heat strokes and lightning were part of their justification.) In addition, the board recently approved $69,750 for a long range strategic planning study and a facility study. CISD is forming a new strategic planning and facilities study committee (just like CISD did for the last bond election) and your board members are already submitting names of community members. The CISD school board gets to choose whom they would like to sit on that committee.

This certainly looks like a ramp-up for calling another bond election. You remember the bond election in 2005 when CISD spit in the face of democracy, majority vote rights and the taxpayers by calling another identical bond election just six days after the first one failed.

A local daily newspaper is running a poll on whether or not Coach Phil Young should be replaced because the Jackets came out dead last in the ’09 district football season. Are we also going to be told that a new $20 million football stadium is needed so the Jackets can play better?

What are we not being told about that is already planned?

Tightening their belt or tightening their grip on your pocketbook?

We have heard the complaints about recent outrageously increased property tax valuations in Cleburne. Would planning to build a new $20 million dollar football stadium in the next two years be the best way the school board can show taxpayers that they are tightening their belts in these tough economic times?

Is CISD tightening their belt or tightening their grip on your pocketbook for another $70 million dollar school bond election in 2011?