No Way to Treat Kids and Taxpayers

By Alden Nellis

In response to the Times-Review editorial of September 20, 2009, “No way to run a school district” and recent news stories in both local papers, I would like to make the following points.

I agree that the fact that most board trustees come from the same section of town does not necessarily mean the children are not properly represented. It does mean there is that possibility. I know from listening to them that some trustees have no grasp of living conditions and the situation of many kids living in neighborhoods outside their own posh Southwest quadrant of CISD.

Most Southwest quadrant board trustees have little empathy with some people from other sections of the district. Yes, they may have sympathy, in a condescending way, but that is often more about bolstering their own ego than helping achieve equality.

The fact that six of the seven trustees come from one section of town means that most of the district is without a board representative from their neighborhood. That violates the ideal of equal representation which is at the very core of our concept of government.

Single Member Districts (SMDs) with the purpose of equal representation for all sub-groups and neighborhoods within a society are not just for the children. Taxpayers, many with no children in school, pay most of the costs of operating CISD and are entitled to equal representation also.

The Times-Review editorial is partially correct in their intimation that conflict is counterproductive. However, in the course of human events, conflict is inevitable. In the case of SMDs, when the board president said he did not want to talk about SMDs and failed to put SMDs on the agenda for discussion, he set the stage for conflict and violated the first rule of dispute resolution mentioned by Dr. Geren, the TEA monitor.

If the president and some of the board trustees feel they are threatened by a loss of power by going to SMDs, then it does become a power struggle and not a matter of what is best for the kids and taxpayers.

I understand the establishment’s fear that the presence of trustees from other neighborhoods might result in conflict and dissension on the board. But there is nothing wrong with a different opinion and a great deal to be gained by the diversity that comes with involving the whole community.

The welfare and education of the district’s children is the most important goal. Close behind that is consideration for the district’s taxpayers and the proper use of their money. Neither of these is possible when the most of the community is excluded from the debate and decision-making process.

No matter how good their intentions, the residents from one area of the district cannot represent the whole district as well as a board composed of residents from all neighborhoods in the district. SMDs are not without faults, but they are the best way to achieve a truly representative board.

I agree with the Times-Review point that mention of a lawsuit is threatening. However, I do not know any other way to point out the perilous position the board is putting CISD in by taking no action. One needs only look a short distance to see what looms ahead. A court has ruled against at-large elections for the Irving City Council. Arlington ISD is facing a lawsuit to force them to abandon their at-large election process. Why should ISD taxpayers be saddled with the expense of defending against a lawsuit just because a few board trustees do not want to relinquish power?

Board president Stu Madison has repeatedly said that I do not have standing to bring suit because I have not been harmed. Either Mr. Madison does not listen, or he chooses to misrepresent the facts, since I have repeatedly said from the first that I personally do not intend to bring a lawsuit.

However, lawyer’s doubletalk notwithstanding, we can debate who has been harmed. I submit that we have all been harmed. Our Republic was founded as a democracy with equal representation for all. Everyone is harmed when Mr. Madison tries to deny equal representation. Such actions slowly erode our Democracy with long-reaching consequences.

That said, and Mr. Madison’s rhetoric aside, I will repeat that it is not my intent to bring a suit against CISD. However, it is my intent as a taxpayer to avoid the expense and wasted effort of a defense against such a suit.