September 14, 2009

Tell CISD “No New Bond”

By Alden Nellis

I was allowed to review the article “CISD’s Strategic Plan Against the Taxpayers” by Harold Gentry (posted also on this site.) It is an excellent article but I want to share a few more related experiences and observations.

Dr. Beard at a meeting with Dr. Warlick, Mr. Gentry and me soon after he came here, said the previous administration did it all wrong on the last bond issue. He said it would be done very differently in his administration. We are already seeing some of that difference.

For the last bond issue, CISD spend $20,000 for demographics studies. For the upcoming bond issue CISD is planning, CISD has already spent nearly $100,000.

In the last bond issue, CISD formed a “citizens committee” to study and recommend future needs. The present administration has appointed and paid for three days of indoctrination of its 25 member committee. One big problem is that the committee is not representative of the district. A minor portion of the committee represents the community. The majority of the committee is closely associated with CISD. The Cambridge group which is guiding CISD through this process says “A community-driven plan will carry more weight with voters than would a district-driven plan.” This committee is district heavy, which says to me that the administration does not care about the voters. Their concern is getting inside the taxpayers wallets.

If you ask Dr. Beard about this campaign he will no doubt say it is not about a bond. But Dr. Beard says one thing to one group and a different thing to a different group. Mr. Gentry has proven the intent of this campaign and the purpose of the committee regardless of what Dr. Beard and some Board Trustees may say.

When Dr. Hooper presented his facilities study report, he included all the reports the administration and some Board Trustees wanted (such as the purported need for a stadium). But more interesting were the things the administration and some of the Board did not want to hear. For one, Dr. Hooper said CISD does not need a new High School. He said the High School was in need of maintenance, but if properly maintained it should be good for another 20 years.

Dr. Hooper was critical of the CISD maintenance program in general. I think his criticism is justified. I think the district has long operated on a policy of building new with a building life of 25 years. They do minimal maintenance to achieve that life and plan on replacing the building after 25 years. Original Santa Fe and Original Irving buildings thwarted that plan because they were so well built in 1916.

On the other hand, the New Irving has already developed serious structural problems that may cause its early demise.

Does anyone remember the promise by the Board and Administration during the last bond election to maintain the Original Irving building and not allow its death by neglect? That promise got them votes they desperately needed but the promise was not kept. The building is now a shambles due to CISD’s neglect. I hope voters will remember that fact when CISD starts making promises as they gear up for a new bond election.

I once asked Dr. Beard to sit down with me someday and explain why Superintendents are so driven to build empire – that empire being physical facilities. He has not been inclined to do that yet. I especially do not understand that drive when considering the fact that students can learn equally well in a well-maintained 1916 building and a 2006 building.

As always, one thing that must be considered in any bond / building campaign is the economic well-being of the district. A good indicator of the area economy is the collection of sales tax. Sales tax collection by the City of Cleburne has been down compared to last year for six months. The past three have been down 29%, 30%, and 31%. While CISD does not levy any sales tax, the tax is a good indicator of the economy and the economy impacts the property tax base. Property tax accounts for 66% of the CISD income.

All county taxing entities are really worried about the reduction in the property tax base over the coming years. The general economy has an impact but the biggest factor is the reduction in gas and oil activity and the associated pull-out of operations and equipment. That loss is permanent even if the economy does slowly rebound.

Under these conditions it is foolish and arrogant for CISD to even consider increasing bond debt. And it is fiscally irresponsible for CISD to spend taxpayer dollars to try to pass a bond which will increase the burden on taxpayers.

When CISD comes to try to sell a new bond issue, ask them if we really need new facilities at this time. If their answer is honest it will be “no.”

Ask them if the proposed facilities are for the kids or to stroke the egos of the Board and Administration or to “one up” the Joshuas and Burlesons. If they say it is for the kids, remind them that teachers and subject matter is what furthers education, not shiny new buildings.

Just tell CISD we do not want a new bond now or anytime in the near future.