What Has Changed at CISD, and What Hasn't Changed

by Micki Nellis

What Has Changed

Superintendent Damron was "reassigned" and is drawing his $11,000 per month for doing nothing.

Interim Superintendent Dr. James Warlick is talking to the people who filed the complaint with TEA. He is responding to the TEA, trying to minimize the $367,000 fine, possible full audit of Federal funds, and possible sanctions against CISD.

What Hasn't Changed

First, neither the School Board nor the Administration has admitted any wrongdoing. CISD press releases and the Times Review still insist the money was spent "in the interests of the children."

Second, neither the School Board nor the Administration has apologized to the taxpayers for misspending their money.

Third, neither the School Board nor the Administration has apologized to Access Cleburne members for not only refusing to listen, but also branding them as "CAVE people."

Fourth, there is no evidence of a change of attitude among top administrators, Dr. Warlick notwithstanding.

Fifth, those responsible for the misspending are still in place at CISD with the exception of Robert Damron and Joe Ripple, who took a job elsewhere.

Sixth, the School Board has developed no plan of oversight for the future.

And finally, nobody has mentioned the real losers - the children for whom this federal money was meant

The letter from Rikky Perkins printed below is an example of public sentiment :

Editor:

I read with some interest Philip Navarrette’s column on CISD in the Sunday Times Review. It was a well written article and I wish Dr. Beard all the luck in the world if he is hired as Superintendent. However, I did take notice of one sentence in the column that is typical of the bias slant the Times Review has given to downplay the seriousness of the scandal involving the illegal use of federal grant monies by certain employees of CISD and certain members of the school board. The sentence I refer to is, and I quote, “The money was spent on student’s education needs but not following federal guidelines.”

C’mon, give me a break here! This statement is an insult not only to my intelligence, but that of every other taxpayer in this school district! I ask you this:

Were students taken along to shoot skeet or play golf during the retreat at Glen Rose which ran to the tune of 9800.00+ dollars (that 1500.00 dollar room service tab charged to one room is the one that intrigues me) and lasted less than 24 hours?

Were students taken on the trip to Mexico along with non-district employees whose expenses were paid by CISD? Were students taken on the trip to San Antonio to enjoy the comforts of extravagant hotels and gourmet meals?

Now you tell me, how did any of those trips enhance the educational needs for students at CISD? What we had was a group of individuals having a good time at the taxpayer’s expense, who simply thought no one would be curious (or smart) enough to question these expenditures and much to their dismay, got caught (thank you, Harold Gentry)! We’ve had a partial audit that instead of taking 2-3 months, has taken over a year. We’ve had a report that was refused release to the public in spite of multiple requests until a serious attempt at damage control had been made and then only to try convincing an increasingly skeptical public the report was not as bad as it really was. We’ve had a resignation (and reassignment) and a “retirement” because of this “scandal” and who knows how many more “retirements” or “reassignments” may take place before this is over.

If as indicated, Dr. Beard is hired, then in all fairness to him, the entire current sitting school board should step down as they too are tainted by this scandal which has rocked our community and have no credibility whatsoever. A special election should be held to install a new school board to work with Dr. Beard and together with the TEA conduct a “complete” audit and put this issue to rest once and for all.

In closing, I don’t think CISD should have to repay a dime of the 367,000+ dollars in question. The individuals involved should bear that responsibility along with being prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows if applicable. However, due to whatever form of collective insanity suffered by the members of the school board (at the time) that hired the outgoing superintendent by allowing a clause in his contract stating CISD would be responsible for any legal fees incurred during and after his employment, CISD would lose again. But, then again, this is just my opinion.

Rikky D. Perkins