From FBN: Denials Being Made By District Officials In Growing FBISD Bond Controversy
Concerns Raised By Resident Over FBISD Bond Issues Not Valid, Jenney Tells Board
by Bob Dunn, Oct 30, 2007
Top administrators have refuted allegations – raised by a local resident opposed to the 2007 bond referendum being voted on in the Nov. 6 election – that Fort Bend Independent School District improperly handled money from a 2003 bond referendum.
District resident Carlos Cain has said he believes the district put some money from the 2003 bonds into a trust fund to pay off debt from past bond issues, instead of using it to complete buildings and other projects.
At least one Fort Bend ISD board trustee questioned the district administration about the trust fund, and about allegations Cain raised that the district is seeking money through the 2007 bond referendum to pay for projects that were listed under the 2003 bond, but weren’t completed.
In an email message sent to board members on his behalf, district Superintendent Timothy Jenney responded to those questions and denied Cain’s allegations are true. On Tuesday, Cain said he still isn’t satisfied with the answers the district has provided. . . (click the link below for more).
http://missouricitychatter.blogspot.com/2007/10/fbn-denials-being-made-by-district.html
http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/3494/concerns-raised-by-resident-over-bond-issues-not-valid-jenney-tells-board
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Thread update:
FBISDWatch said...
Current running thread on this from FBN:
1 Mary McGarr - Oct 23, 10:14 AM
As in every other public school district in America, Ft. Bend ISD voters are being asked to vote for yet another bond to “support the children and their schools.”
Taxpayers, parents and supporters of education should not be fooled, again. There’s an agenda afoot that everyone may not realize.
Take note of the fact that public school districts went for ten or more years between bond initiatives in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Districts were able to do that because honest superintendents who spent their lives in the same district and who had loyalty to the district and its patrons, used money wisely.
But then “restructured education” came along, and all of a sudden, almost on the same day, newspapers and TV spots were clamoring for new school buildings and other facilities. That event was not a coincidence; it was part of a national agenda to change public schools as we know them.
The newly designed “restructured” curriculum called for new “spaces.” It was a paradigm shift, don’t you know?
Actually, the concept of “reforming” education was a bunch of hooey, designed to dumb down our kids and part all of us from our hard earned cash.
School districts have refined the bond scheme to the point that they now recruit and hire superintendents merely because they have been successful elsewhere at floating a bond—and the bigger the bond, the better.
Ft. Bend ISD is such a school district. Your superintendent has been on the scene creating good will for a couple of years. He apparently was pretty much retired but was coaxed in to coming your way for the purpose of passing a large bond. He had recently passed a big one where he was in Virginia Beach.
Who benefits from such a scheme? Well, first of all the superintendent does. If he can pass a monster bond, he can write his own ticket for a bigger and better job in a public school system elsewhere (and his own board will get in a bidding war to keep him), or he can easily go into school related private enterprise like the Cy Fair and Katy ISD superintendents have done whether he has the real expertise to perform or not. And when he retires, some of the vendors, who have made all the bucks from the big bonds, building overpriced, over designed, flashy schools, will contribute handsomely to the superintendent’s retirement gift. (http://www.katyisd.org/files/community_information/Conflict%20Disclosure/Dr.%20Merrell_Retirement%20Gift.pdf)
Secondly, the vendors, which include the architects, the developers who sell their land to the school district at inflated prices, the lawyers who set it all up, the builders and all the contractors who build the monuments, all stand to benefit from the largesse of a free wheeling school board that wants to create “good will” in the community so they can get re-elected.
Do the students benefit from a big bond? Maybe, but in most cases they are the last entity to be considered in the big picture. And if one considers what all these overpriced ventures will do for students’ academic gain, please know that the answer is “nothing.” “Just for the kids” is a disingenuous slogan.
The process for floating a bond issue is quite orchestrated at this point. Bond committees are selected—some are more fairly chosen groups than others, but the average citizen is usually left out. And even if they are included, a process called the Delphi Technique is utilized with the aid of pre-selected facilitators who are spread through the bond meetings to make certain of the pre-conceived outcome. (Read http://www.katycitizens.org/index_files/Page6680.htm on the Delphi Technique and the following article on School Board committees.)
School boards are prone to utilize committees to arrive at decisions which they themselves were elected to make. Foisting off the responsibility of sitting in endless meetings to learn about bond matters appears to be terribly boring for them if not totally incomprehensible—thus their willingness to let others make decisions for them.
As has been clearly pointed out elsewhere, school districts and their rubber stamp school boards are more likely than not to spend hard earned tax dollars for anything BUT what they said they would when they were trying to get voters hooked on the bond.
In MY school district, Katy ISD, the district asked for bond funding for one school (James E. Williams Elementary on Peak Road) three times before they ever built it!
They’ve also asked for money for duplicate computers and telephone systems and bus barns. Somehow buildings don’t ever get built or they need just a couple of hundred thousand more to build that swimming pool, or the equipment never is what we were told it would be. Roofing systems are replaced before they should be; carpeting and air-conditioning systems, high school tracks, and Astroturfed football fields require replacement before the warranties have expired; parking lots that no one knew we needed go up overnight, and amazingly, the warranties on replacement items are never quite what they seemed when the administration was making the original pitch for the projects to the school board.
The public has a short memory if they have one at all, and after all who has time to keep track of all the things that do and don’t happen with bond money? But someone should be paying attention, because, in my opinion, the use of bond money by school districts is one of the biggest rip offs in America.
The first thing citizens need to understand is that schools today aren’t the same as they were when you went to school. That’s supposed to be a “good” thing, but it’s not. When you went to school, you had probably a principal, an assistant principal who took care of discipline, two counselors (one for the boys and one for the girls), a nurse, and that was it for administrators. You had one teacher all day in elementary school and you had about six teachers (one for each subject) when you were in junior high and high school. That’s really all that was needed.
In today’s world (for example at Cinco Ranch High School in the Katy ISD) there is a principal, seven assistant principals, eight counselors, twenty instructional aides, four security guards, twenty-three secretaries, two nurses, and two librarians. Do we really need that many people to teach kids English, history, math, science, a foreign language and fine arts?
My point is that it’s not the academic education that we all want for our kids that is being currently addressed with a bond issue. It’s all the stuff that is NOT academic that is eating up tax dollars. Look around the next time you’re in a public school, and you will see what I mean. All that other “stuff” has to be housed, and so you get to pay for it.
Can’t have a winning baseball team playing on a field without an elevator in the press box or a place to sell high priced hot dogs or a bathroom that Queen Elizabeth can’t use.
Can’t have the girls’ gym looking better than the boys’.
Can’t have the principal residing in an office that doesn’t equate to her station in life.
Can’t have a school that doesn’t cost at least three times as much per square foot to build as it does for the homes that surround it.
Can’t have students walk to school, or Heaven forbid, ride in a bus without air-conditioning.
Can’t allow all the students with cars to not have a place to park close to the front door.
You get my point.
Taxpayers have to decide when they’ve had enough. Taxpayers have to decide what’s important—is it paying teachers a decent wage or building Taj Mahals so that parents can “feel good” about that education that may or may not be transpiring inside? And don’t buy into the argument that the M&O part of the tax rate isn’t affected by capital improvements. As long as there is a cap on the tax rate, the M&O can be affected. Your school district is making an arbitrary decision to spend money on buildings OR to spend it on students and their teachers.
Top school administrators are behind this scam on the public, and they have used their “professional” associations to lobby the state legislature to give them all the power they now enjoy. While no one was watching, they in essence stole our public schools.
You can let them have some more of your money or you can tell them no. The bottom line is, this bond is NOT for the kids, and your kids will not suffer one minute if you vote to keep your hard earned money.
Mary McGarr
Mother, former Texas public school teacher, and Katy ISD School Board Trustee 1991-1996
2 chris - Oct 23, 11:55 AM
For those interested in this election you may also want to follow the growing TEA fund crisis that many of our district bond ratings depend. Then ask yourself if we are over-spending? See:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5236349.html
3 wadefishin - Oct 23, 12:28 PM
eggxatly…..well said Mary
4 martha - Oct 23, 12:38 PM
Your school district – Katy ISD – has been in a deficit situation for three years. With the legistlature freezing revenues with the the property tax reduction, districts have no choice but to go after a bond referendum or take a tax increase to the voters (again, limited in scope by the lege.)
5 Patty - Oct 23, 12:45 PM
I knew it was bad, but I didn’t know how bad it is! If Mary’s numbers are correct (and I have no reason to doubt her), there are 63 people at Cinco Ranch High School doing what 17 people did at Lamar High School (HISD) when I was there a little over 40 years ago. What has the world come to? (Don’t answer that; the answer is way too depressing!)
6 chris - Oct 23, 12:52 PM
Martha,
Shifting regular operational costs to be financed later through debt is no way to conduct this. BTW, Katy ISD’s bond rating is higher than ours here in FBISD and we are one of the districts borrowing from the state rating (ask yourself why). Read the linked article and review the revenue coming in from property taxes and then ask yourself why we need a bond nearly double the size of our last one (with almost half ending up in a trust fund)? Additionally ask yourself why the big Houston development companies get a free ride on all this with the at market or above purchases generously hidden in this bond when they benefit directly from having the schools in their MPs through increased home/land sales?
7 TexasRose - Oct 23, 01:01 PM
Patty,
Uh-oh
I have something in common with this bond? !
Gooooo
Lamar Arrowettes!!!
(VP)
Good luck with your bond…however the vote!
:-)
8 Mary McClure - Oct 23, 01:22 PM
Here’s a sampling of Carlos’ “integrity”:
http://www.fortbendnow.com/opinion/3400/if-we-build-it-they-will-come
9 Rodrigo Carreon - Oct 23, 01:32 PM
We need an expanded parking lot for Goodman Elem. tobe rated one, for more community input and support. On the FBISD the parking lot is rated four an low. If county commissioners votes down landfill tipping fees to pay the cost for Goodman Elem. parking lot and sidewalks, thence vote down bonds.
10 Jimmy Kilpatrick - Oct 23, 02:54 PM
If FBISD reduced the waste they pay outside law firms we wouldn’t need a major bond election.
11 chris - Oct 23, 03:09 PM
Yes Jim. What I find amazing is how so many districts use this TX bond fund as another bank account. It’s like because they can’t continue to dip into the property tax well they shift operational costs to the bond well. What would happen if this option were scrutinized too, as it should be. Yes we owe community involved people like Carlos much, thanks Mr. Cain!
12 Capt. Kirk - Oct 24, 11:35 AM
Fort Bend Ranked No. 20 Among Fastest Growing U.S. Counties
See this
In reading the article above I noticed one similarity in most of the counties listed. That is, the numbers of “undocumented workers”. (I doubt this reply will see the light of day due to the politically correct world we live in but just in case it does)...I am tired of paying more than my “fair share” to raise others kids who don’t have the same love for this great country of ours. And then getting hit up every 3rd or 4th year on another bond issue. I learned to balance my check book and the local, state and federal authorities should learn too. Time to say NO folks…enough is enough. Take our country back one vote at a time.
And yes, I am a veteran.
13 chris - Oct 24, 04:21 PM
Mary McGarr,
Do you have access to a database that allows us to look up current and past FBISD supt (and possible other admins) to see if they have been engaged in similar activity?
Like this one:
http://www.katyisd.org/files/
community_information/
Conflict%20Disclosure/Dr.%
20Merrell_Retirement%
20Gift.pdf
I noticed the FBISD website doesn’t carry the comprehensive financials either on its district website (when I checked today). I found it though on the KISD website. I wonder why ours doesn’t post it?
The disclosures link on the KISD former supt. is very telling and I would like to dig a little here. After all the edc usually list these people and several other area politicians on their membership directory.
I also noticed today, in the FB Sun, on page 6A that the edc claimed in that report several positions on the bond committee had been assigned to their board and membership. The counter-point guest column (3A) was also authored apparently by another solicited edc member. The district claimed at one of the sales meetings that the selection process was somewhat randomized and fair. It would also seem that with many of the Greater Fort Bend Economic Development Council members possibly benefitting directly by these bond expenditures that this over-involvement may give off the appearance of conflict of interest. Kinda like when they endorse the road bonds and the contracts seem to go to related businesses or membership companies/individuals.
Any clarification and or links would be appreciated.
Thx!
14 Noel Pinnock - Oct 24, 08:46 PM
Great Op-ed piece Chris…I truly believe you are on target and I too demand more integrity from our school board but much of this will not be taken care of until we have single member district representation…I just read in the Chronicle that these bonds across the state will virtually cap the State’s allocation and the district will have to purchase millions of dollars in insurance premiums if they want to sell their bonds at a triple A rating…the triple A rating is tantamount to an individual with a 800 beacon score.
We are contributing to systemic problems that leave other districts carrying the bond bag.
I will VOTE NO on this bond until we restore representation and integrity…this is true EXCELLENCE!
15 TexasRose - Oct 25, 06:52 AM
It is evident that allocations to bond line items will always raise a few eyebrows to controversy…..
If I may, ask Jimmy a question relative to an elaborately controversial “bond” item not on the agenda for election?
Respectfully, your opinion to compassion is evident on another thread, however IMHO there are answers left to the imagination. As I understand, although I may be incorrect in my assumption, your recommendation to “rightfully” inform elementary parents is they are “wrong”. IMHO it begs this question. Exactly how does one reform? Logically, as a PTO parent I am highly aware of monies raised as a result to fundraisers/donations. Library books, are also a tremendous asset with regard to plentiful donations to resource. Bond monies are never allowed for this type of resource, if I understand correctly; therefore I am perplexed who pays for this video? Keeping in mind, the Superintendant & Principals must be the first on board to your platform.
Just a wonder I had.
Thank you for your time.
16 chris - Oct 25, 07:04 AM
Thanks Mr. Pinnock. I agree only through direct district level representation (via single member districts) can we hope to curb the abuses and control by our special interest friends. I think Ms. McGarr provided a wonderful case study in KISD and they have a higher bond rating than us. The central office in FBISD continues to ignore the problem though!
17 Jimmy Kilpatrick - Oct 25, 07:24 AM
Parents and those who really care about kids should band together and push for a KIPP school in MoCity.
18 chris - Oct 25, 08:06 AM
Jim,
can you provide links. I believe I have seen these before. Also can you share some of your experiences with this program and if you don’t mind any disclosures too (not to offend, but to keep everything transparent).
Thanks!
19 Jimmy Kilpatrick - Oct 25, 09:50 AM
Here is a link to their site found on Google. I am in no way involved in KIPP if this is your question. What I understand is they provide opportunities for families to overcome the shortcoming of public schools.
I often wonder why no one else has any suggestions other then supporting mo” money for public schools.
http://www.kipp.org/
20 chris - Oct 25, 11:06 AM
“I often wonder why no one else has any suggestions other then supporting mo” money for public schools.”
Actually I don’t think this piece or thread suggests more debt/money to public schools (or the special interests). As for choice in education that debate has brought clearly a change to all schooling. I’ve seen numerous suggestions for alternatives and I’m always open to them too. I think that is why I requested a link Jim from you.
21 wadefishin - Oct 25, 04:21 PM
so what the name of these KIPP schools football teams?.....dance teams?
synchronized swimming teams?
oh you mean they focus on EDU?.....what a novel idea…....
22 TexasRose - Oct 25, 05:23 PM
GO…OO…T-E-A-M...I-N-T-E-G-R-I-T-Y
Focus your spirit to propositions too….
Ya’ll “Rock Your Vote!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
23 j williamson - Oct 25, 05:28 PM
Now if the bond was to be used to upgrade our sports facilities it would probably pass by large margin. Because that’s a Texas priority.
It is a shame that our coaches are our highest paid teachers.
24 chris - Oct 25, 06:53 PM
Jim,
I think what might be useful with these type of programs is some sort of consumer journal that helps keep the public better informed on available options. Without something of that nature you can still end up with good or bad choice programs/schools as has sometimes been the case in the charter effort. Of course we always here about the negative ones first.
25 wadefishin - Oct 25, 06:55 PM
TR
nice pom poms…..
26 Jimmy Kilpatrick - Oct 25, 10:10 PM
I totally agree with aconsumers guide for selecting programs and schools. If the public only understood how many kids we are losing daily in public schools.
27 Carlos Cain - Oct 25, 10:49 PM
I’m elated that my humble attempt to shed light on this swindle has evolved into a real effort to put an end to the FBISD BOND of 2007! Their high pressure sales pitch reminds me of the infomercials with starving children and pudgy ex movie stars begging for donations. Actually I’d feel better sending my money to the pudgy ex movie star. At least I know she really needs it. After all she probably lost her 10 million dollar bungalo in the fires this past week. Thanks to so many people pitching in hopefully we can make some real changes. I’m tired of my 6 year old sharpening pencils and picking up trash because they cannot deal with a child that has a brain. Thank you Mary with Katy Watchdog group for opening my eyes about that. And the comment above about the check book. Believe me their check book is well balanced. I should have some numbers soon, I’m guessing their cash on hand today is well over 400 million CASH in various accounts, funds, trusts etc. which really makes me wonder why their rating is only AA. Could it be that the bond buyers charge more interest for that rate? And WHO buys these bonds? Well I did get a letter saying some of my FOIA requests could not be fulfilled. Wonder why? I’ll have more info soon. Go to
http://fbisdwatch.blogspot.com/
for future data on FBISD finances. Sorry I have been kinda busy, but I’m still here. See you all soon. Hopefully at the polls – PULLING THE NO NO NO LEVER!
28 wadefishin - Oct 26, 06:29 AM
the key to this bond passing or failing is two things….1.) an educated public….2.) how many teachers the district can convince to vote for it…..
29 KT - Oct 26, 06:36 AM
Carlos,
Missed you at the polls, but when I voted yesterday in the east end, I voted yes, and those I waited in line with were voting the same (or so they said). When I took business 101, I learned that a large business (like our district) needs a lot of money on hand. Makes sense to me. I have a few months of cash in reserve for my own small business, after all. Mary’s experience in Katy is interesting, but unless she actually taught in shacks where the kids are sent to the gym for the day because the wind is strong, she doesn’t have direct experience with the learning conditions in FBISD now. Of course, the district isn’t bound by law to spend the money where they say it will be spent, but to change that, you’ll have to go to the legislature. Rejecting the bond in protest is spitting in the wind. FBISD did build needed schools with the last bond, and I believe they’ll do it this time too. Of course they plan to build in areas that aren’t fully developed yet, that’s where land is available (to address one of the points you made earlier). If the bond doesn’t happen to pass, my hope is that rezoning will be immediate to distribute the children and the overcrowding across the district. Perhaps when that happens, and your 6-year-old spends a lot of time on a bus, and when he gets to school he has no playground because the space is covered with shacks, and houses in your neighborhood don’t sell because no family wants to move into a neighborhood with overcrowded schools and a community with no positive plan for the future, you’ll see the other side of the issue. Or maybe not then, but the second or third year out, when your child is rezoned again (because growth is occurring, whether we all want it or not) and the BOT and district are being blamed for not planning ahead, as they were just a year ago, I believe…
30 TexasRose - Oct 26, 07:30 AM
Mine are red/white and blue for you….ha ha.
31 chris - Oct 26, 08:34 AM
“Of course, the district isn’t bound by law to spend the money where they say it will be spent, but to change that, you’ll have to go to the legislature. “
Sounds like BS to me KT. Boards can set policy that requires a public hearing when changes are made. This is not prohibited in law. Whether you know it or not the t-shacks will still be here and just like the over-priced land being sold and the new schools opening at capacity the problem will remain until we address it. Oh and KT you should be concerned about the redirection of bond monies because it is the east end schools that get the shaft.
Do your homework next time you vote. Because they are coming back in 2-3 more for possibly another record bond and we will scrutinize it and this one too.
Oh, BTW I’ve had just the opposite experience and most the people I talked to had voted against it. I guess we will see, but the numbers do not change the facts Mr. Cain has uncovered or the FACT that the district may have violated FOIA by withholding requested financial documents.
See: http://fbisdwatch.blogspot.com/ for more
32 Jimmy Kilpatrick - Oct 26, 08:37 AM
KT likes to tossed around the usual scare tactics given out by the district’s spin doctor. Surprised she just didn’t come out and say white kids were going to be bused to Willowridge! If the district would have built larger schools verse a new high school for every 2500 students more money wouldn’t have been needed. Maybe KT will share how a fancy new building will improve education in FBISD. I suspect there are many of us who were taught in shakes and received a good education.
33 Rodrigo Carreon - Oct 26, 09:05 AM
We need community help tobe present at DOORS of FBISD Bond Election polls and standup to directway for voters to vote, victory? A big step for taxpayers to win the 2007 elections? Low voter turnout, will put down taxpayers? THANK YOU
34 chris - Oct 26, 09:17 AM
“I suspect there are many of us who were taught in shakes and received a good education.”
Good point Jim. At the last sales pitch mtg. we attended the CFO Seale told us there would be no reduction in t-shacks after this bond election, so I don’t think KTs arguments wash anyway. Until the district takes serious steps, which I doubt will ever happen, they will keep coming back to the public for more, until it gets several firm NOs and meets and discusses bond accountability, and process change (like direct representation through single-member districts). These are just starts. I think Mary raised a number of other valid concerns that we need to check out here in FBISD too. That supt. financial report was very telling. I would also like to see the district stop purchasing land at full market value from these developers and finding alternative properties nearby at less cost, until the big companies decide to start kicking in to the over-development stress they have helped create when they over-plat!
35 K D Tunstall - Oct 26, 09:52 AM
J K
There is a similar school to KIPP in Richmond / Rosenberg called the YES Prep Academy. Here is the link:
http://www.yesprep.org/index.htm
KT….your promotion of unaccountability is quite telling. Will your “months of cash in reserve” increase if the bond passes?
36 TexasRose - Oct 26, 10:03 AM
“An educated public”.....
Luckily, I have no kids in this fight.
‘06 was my ISD to “Rock our Vote” Yes!
With my eyes wide-opened, I felt honored to be an integral part of educational representation. Beyond my wildest dreams I felt proud to be a successful part of our dynamic PAC of integrity. We fought lo-ong battles for inclusion to our rightful claim to secondary schools, within our community.
Overwhelmingly, can you believe we supported 70%+ of our votes!? Yes, In the end it was worth it….
Keep the faith fires burning! Integrity will sure to follow….
:-))))
37 wadefishin - Oct 26, 10:24 AM
“ Mary’s experience in Katy is interesting, but unless she actually taught in shacks where the kids are sent to the gym for the day because the wind is strong,”
how strong were these winds…and how many of these shacks were blown down?
being an administrator in a school must be interesting….it sounds like some of the teachers/parents are less mature than the kids…I’m constantly amazed at what I see written here…..
38 Mary McGarr - Oct 26, 10:28 AM
Chris has asked if I have any knowledge of “Conflict of Interest” affidavits for
Fort Bend ISD officials (and/or Board Members I assume). The school district
should be posting any of those that are applicable on their official web site, I believe.
Katy ISD posts some at http://www.katyisd.org/community/conflict_disclosure.htm
Look at that web page so you will know what to look for in your school district.
Who knows if these statements include ALL the conflicts of interest statements or that they
also include any for board members.
If citizens in Fort Bend are receiving pro bond literature in the mail, those should
have stamped on the bottom, the name of the group who paid for them and
mailed them. If they don’t, I believe they are illegal. The same information should be on all campaign signs as well.
The school district cannot send pro bond literature out. They are only supposed
to send factual information, and while sometimes it is hard to tell that they
are not soliciting favorable votes, you can be assured that what they have
sent has been vetted by their attorneys.
If the sender is a PAC, then you can go to http://www.ethics.state.tx.us/dfs/paclists.htm
to find out information about them. Also do a google search using their name.
You have to know the exact name of the PAC (Political Action Committee) in order to do
the search.
PACS have to follow very strict rules. They have to report all their donors, they have to
have money for a certain amount of time before they can spend it, and so on.
The PACS are not connected to the school district, but you can bet that it’s the supporters
of the bond who are funding and running the PAC.
The other thing that you should watch for is the PAC or the PTA or other groups using school facilities for pro bond meetings where they hand out pro bond literature. That’s a NONO too. And no one should be sending home pro bond
literature in your child’s back pack.
Mostly people get caught up in these matters, and they don’t mean to break the law.
Someone just needs to remind them what the laws are. The school district should be doing that, but if they are not, then citizens should.
However, people who should know better, DO make mistakes, and sometimes they
get caught. You can read about the CEO of the Katy Chamber of Commerce here:
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2007_4348294
To get a better handle on the process, your best source is the FBISD Board Policy
Manual http://www.tasb.org/policy/pol/private/079907/
39 I like my wood house - Oct 26, 11:24 AM
KT – These guys don’t care because they don’t live in overcrowded areas and their children are already grown. Let them comment on here. Just talk to your neighbors and get the word out to the people who need it.
40 chris - Oct 26, 01:06 PM
ILMWH,
Actually all the different subdivisions and people I have met through this process, myself included, have kids in FBISD. We just don’t like information constantly with-held and then changed time and time again. We also do not like our money being spent on other projects or redirected to other projects or stuffed in trust funds for “later” (how much later?).
Yes we are parents, taxpayers and your propaganda will be exposed. When the district with-holds requested financial information I think we all should start to worry (Parent or not, certinly all taxpayers).
Oh, ILMWH, you know that most recent flier that came in the mail listing all the schools and the amounts of money each school will get? Just remember that they do not have to deliver on that, nothing requires it. Not current board policy or state law and yes we found redirection of funds in the ’03 bond that are still in a trust fund (when will it get used for the projects advertised?).
TRUST is earned and not by a good PR & Marketing campaign.
41 TexasRose - Oct 26, 01:38 PM
I wish to clarify for further analysis: :
Q:
“If these bonds are approved, is the district obligated to spend the money?”
A:
“No. Voter approval is an authorization for the district to issue bonds. They will be sold at future dates approved by the Board of Trustees when the facilities are actually needed. If growth slows down, the District will revise its facitlity plan and postpone selling bonds and constructing new buildings until they are actually needed.”
Would anyone care to respectfully elaborate upon the above?
42 Mary McGarr - Oct 26, 02:20 PM
Yes, wadefishin’, I have taught in shacks—the first year I taught school and also at Waltrip High School in the 1970’s. The first shack was located in a place a lot windier than Ft. Bend ever gets! Actually I enjoyed that facility because I could control the air-conditioning unit so the students and I didn’t freeze in the spring and burn up in the winter, no one much bothered the class by peeking in the windows or interrupting for this or that, and because I was there, the principal seemed more apt to provide me with the resources that I needed.
As a side note, if you are concerned about the T-shacks at your child’s school, I suggest you check on them by looking underneath to see if they have proper metal tie-down straps. In Katy a friend noticed several years ago that ours didn’t. Now they all do, I believe.
Another matter that one needs to check is that when the school district tells you that there are “thousands” of students using a shack every day, your question needs to be, “For how long?” because in our school district we figured out that one teacher in high school with five classes was running a LOT of kids through the room every day, but those kids weren’t in a shack ALL day. So the numbers aren’t exactly truthful.
43 chris - Oct 26, 03:23 PM
“Would anyone care to respectfully elaborate upon the above?”
Actually this is a good question that raises another one. Why are they asking for it if they do not need it? Also why is so much of it being diverted to trust funds if it is so desperately needed? One more, why haven’t they used all of the last bond money (i.e. the trust 100+ million) on the target concerns before asking for more? and so on and on and on. We asked many of these questions during the bond sales meetings and the answers seemed to change at each and every mtg. I attended. It seems to be geared towards just getting a yes vote.
You know, tell them anything as long as they vote yes…good questions…
44 wadefishin - Oct 26, 03:35 PM
Mary
I’m sorry if you misunderstood me….my question was “how strong was the wind and were any shacks blown down?’
I keep looking but so far the sky isn’t fallin….
whats the problem with shacks?....the law says I have to pay for illegals kids edu it doesn’t say they get the spa treatment with bon bons does it?
45 chris - Oct 26, 05:33 PM
Mr. Pinnock,
If you are still reading this thread could you pass on any updates on the possibility of legal pressure on the district to revisit adoption of single-member districts to improve direct representation and to help reduce specal interest influence on things like land purchases and redirection of tax/bond funding?
46 Carlos Cain - Oct 26, 09:24 PM
Tx Rose – I’ll elaborate – let’s look at their track record. August 2006 FBISD still had 108 million in bonds they hadn’t used and didn’t need. So being good stewards and not wanting to waste a perfectly good bond, they sold them. And eventually we will know what they did with them. I do know that September 1, 2006 FBISD had 176 million in the construction fund, 100 million in cash and approx. 125 million in the irrevocable trust. Now did the 108 go into the construction fund or the trust? My vote is the trust. Soon will have more of the documents I requested by FOIA. So look at the answer. 2003 bond – Aug. 2006 sold the last 108 million. Three schools built and full of kids, 3 still in construction and still 400 million in CASH! 100 plus million in older bonds defeased but, did our debt service tax go down? NO! Follow the Money! Conspiracy, Malfeasance, RICO – take your pick… I went to school in shacks and I can read a financial statement and smell a rat. To me all of FBISD reeks of corruption. It’s the new fad. Use the children to steal our taxes. OH yeah, KT, exactly what service do you provide to FBISD? AC work, track resurfacing? See you all soon…
October 27, 2007 7:36 AM
Comment deleted
This post has been removed by the blog administrator.
October 27, 2007 7:36 AM
Anonymous said...
I just got off the phone with one of the bond committee members who stated he felt the process was being directed by the district hired facilitator and that he was voting no on this record bond.
October 27, 2007 7:39 AM
Anonymous said...
Thank you Ms. McGarr for exposing the process.
October 27, 2007 9:23 AM
Anonymous said...
Ck this out:
Today, FBISD has debt of $1.15 Billion (with a B) with payments strung out through 2030. That's a debt load of about $17,160 for every student currently enrolled in the district.
From: http://save-our-schools.blogspot.com/2007/06/look-at-fbisd-debt.html
& this related comment:
D said...
It would be great if FBISD would address the facility deficiencies in the older schools, in the less affluent neighborhoods. While the new schools receive all new furniture and materials, the oldest schools in the lowest economic areas of FBISD have to deal with hand-me-downs from newly rebuilt schools like QVE or whatever the schools can get from the warehouse. The more affluent schools received significant improvements (beautification projects, large gifts to libraries, etc.)through PTO fundraisers. This is not true of the FBISD schools serving kids from economically disadvantaged children. Don't believe it? Just check out say, Sienna Crossing El. and then go see one of the schools on the east side, like Ridgegate. The difference is clearly visible.
October 27, 2007 9:52 AM
FBISDWatch said...
Some of you may be interested in this website. You can find out exactly how much debt your district is carrying:
http://www.brb.state.tx.us/dbsearch/isd.lasso
October 27, 2007 10:43 AM
FBISDWatch said...
Here is a related piece and thread on the bond from the chron:
http://blogs.chron.com/fortbend/archives/2007/10/opposition_to_s_1.html#comments
See:
Comments
If the bond passes, the new high school at Sienna will have a chance to become the district's second exemplary high school (along with Clements). Sienna is well east of FM 2234 but Mr. Poats and his little band of naysayers always seem to forget that.
The bond will easily pass as it did the last time out. The same folks as always will try their best to drum up support but it won't be nearly enough.
Posted by: Hightower Parent at October 4, 2007 07:41 PM
I am just amazed at the number of people who turned out at these bond meetings. Do people really care about what's going on in the school district? Or maybe most who don't show up at these meetings don't think their concerns will be taken seriously by the school district anyway. Simgle-member district..... well, that sounds pretty remote for FBISD. But I am glad we are beginning to awaken to something that could change FBISD and the lives of our children fundamentally.
Posted by: Trish at October 4, 2007 10:42 PM
I think that there needs to be a fundamental change in how we fund school construction. For too long, we have coddled and bowed down to developers who do nothing to help FBISD build these new schools. Our representatives at both Missouri City and FBISD have to be bolder, plan better and use more innovative ways to deal with land acquisition for new subdivisions. By waiting till growth demands the construction of new campuses, we are placed at a tremendous disadvantage. Land costs are a huge cost of these new schools. Construction costs are also way too high. Voters are the only ones who believe the new construction are for the common good. How many developers do you know who have donated land or cut costs so we can have schools built?
Posted by: LongTimeResident at October 5, 2007 06:56 AM
I agree with TRISH, aoubt these low turnouts for meetings and voting. Having an effect today and future ?
Posted by: Carreon at October 5, 2007 08:30 AM
I remember the last SCHOOL BONDS electionS. I put an S at the end of election because that it what it was.
The peple did not vote for these Bonds so the School board later had another election and I had to vote at the School Administration building, instead of having a nearby place to vote. This allowed the Bonds to be voted for.
BECAUSE of this trickery - I will NOT VOTE FOR SCHOOL BONDS because I believe that the School Board or the Administration has shown that they will do whatever THEY WANT to get THEIR WAY.
Posted by: Iodine99 at October 5, 2007 08:36 AM
Leadership improvement are needed for responsablities and accounablities, for those not doing their jobs. FBISD BOT have been lacking to visit school campus, that plays a row
on how our tax dollars are spent, an viewing staff or employees doing their jobs. Example: Blue Ridge Elem. wouldn't be in serious conditions, in need for renovation, if previous FBISD BOT would have been visiting the school campuses to view for them self. The jobs would have been made? Single member district, public taxpayers can take the message directly the to BOT elcted official to get the job done or be voted out for accountability, for school campus responsilities in their part of the district.
Posted by: Carreon at October 5, 2007 09:07 AM
There was no "commotion" Zen. The officer requested that we "move to the sidewalk" or come inside. As it was humid and hot, we elected to go inside and enjoy the cool air. I for one believed the officer to be courteous.
We were the only people there. Therefore, conducting the presentation would be a waste of time. I have seen the presentation already and seeing it again will not change my opinion.
I overheard one of the bond committee members state that they "thought voter apathy" would make this bond a sure thing. I certainly hope that is not the case.
Asking for accountability may appear to be a radical departure of the status quo. To those who profit off of the fleecing of the taxpayers, it is certainly problematic.
Zen, whoever told you that there was a "commotion" has a problem expressing themselves in a truthful fashion. I find this of no surprise as many of the establishment backed political operatives have a problem with "bearing false witness."
Posted by: K Tunstall at October 5, 2007 09:49 AM
I am on my PDA and on break...this article is clearly a fallacy of composition. There was not a commotion that exuded from any area at Hightower. Everyone acted like gentlemen and gentle ladies.
My detraction for the current "developer" bond election isn't predicated on nefarious motives...it is based on true and sincere intentions that are under-girded with statistical facts and figures. I believe in making well informed decisions not arbitrary decisions and if one does the math and look at the state of our school district, then it would be overtly transparent that we have a big problem that continues to propagate and mitigate.
We need Single Member District Representation as much as we need a process that would preclude such a crisis due to the lack of problem avoidance.
Posted by: N. Pinnock at October 5, 2007 10:59 AM
Todays FBISD top BOARD member responsible for incompleted work is Cynthia Knox (FBISD BOT President) an atlarge board member. Twelve consecutive years as a BOT, while Blue Ridge(1969) Elem. still waits for mayor renovation to take place. Thence, Goodman
Elem. still waiting seven years, for its phone number, tobe listed/printed on the Verizons phone directory for for community and school inputs to improve the east side of the district.
Elkins has malfunstional water fountains, still waiting for months tobe replace for drinking water.
Has FBISD president Mrs. C.Knox ever visited any of these school campuses, for improvements or jobe tobe made, but just left them as it is in malfunctional conditions! Leadership improvements need tobe made, the sooner the better!
Posted by: Carreon at October 5, 2007 12:25 PM
I plan to vote yes to the bond.
Posted by: Mary McClure at October 5, 2007 01:40 PM
Having seen bond politics in many schools systems and at different levels of government, it doesn't surprise me that some would refer to our efforts as "bond opposition". I believe our position is crystal clear, but being intentionally ignored. We supported, at the HHS mtg and Dulles mtgs, accountability in the bond expenditures. Currently no policy exists at the board level or state level to insure the monies WILL be used as intended from the bond committee (which was formed by FBISD officials). We also SUPPORTED improved voter representation and will continue to do so until the word is saturated into the communities that are so often ignored in the diversion of funds, post bond vote. I believe the chronicle has already reported on this concern.
Finally, the districts reaction to supposed "opposition" concerns me considering this was supposed to be an open meeting (isn't that a TOMA violation?). The officer was directed by someone to come down that long hall to the front of the building for a reason talk to us (2 local educators and 2 businessmen--hardly radicals). I hope Jenney does well on his first bond here in FBISD, he seems nervous about it, but I hope he takes taxpayer/voters concerns more seriously and will stop the politics of marginalization so common in this area with the status quo types. I would also like to encourage SOS to get active again and fullfill its function as a citizens/taxpayer watch group, rather than joining the fbisd communications office. This bond is going to cost us all a great deal of money on our property taxes over the next few years and it needs watching when no accountability exists, other than a politician giving his word.
Posted by: Chris Calvin, Ph.D. at October 5, 2007 01:51 PM
I will vote NO on this one and will let neighbors know too. I had no idea they could spend the bond money anyway they like.
Posted by: bravo at October 5, 2007 05:02 PM
I wonder who sent the cop out after these people? I've seen the Hightower set-up and that is quite a distance. How do you promote open discussion if you pound the alternate ideas?
Posted by: freespeech at October 6, 2007 02:10 PM
The reason the turnouts are so low because when parents and community came out in droves to oppose the ridiculous K-6 plan and GT Academy the cries were blatantly ignored and the board voted for it anyway. It is ridiculous to burden 9 struggling elementaries so 2 middle schools can be smaller. Ignoring the community was a big mistake. Lawsuits are in the works.
Posted by: community at October 6, 2007 07:38 PM
"How do you promote open discussion if you pound the alternate ideas?"
Because the "ruling elite" view us as the "unwashed masses."
Posted by: K Tunstall at October 7, 2007 01:31 AM
Thank you community for the additional information. This generations long neglect must end and I support your efforts and understand the depth of the issues!
Posted by: bravo at October 7, 2007 09:01 AM
The essence of support for these school bond issues is that voters believe that they are "for the kids" so everything is ok and "how could anyone be so selfish as to not vote for anything that benefits our children." Fort Bend County voters need to wake up and investigate these bond issues, determine if the funds are actually going to be spent for what they're planned to be spent for, and insist that a thorough financial review of the proposed expenditures be done. Just because we live in affluent Fort Bend County doesn't mean we should throw huge amounts of money at the problem and make it go away.
Posted by: LongTimeResident at October 8, 2007 07:48 AM
Very true LTR. We found through our quieries massive redirection of voter supported bond dollars to further finance district debt. Certainly not what taxpayers supported or what was sold to them in the last bond election. Accountability is needed!
Posted by: bravo at October 8, 2007 10:36 AM
P.S. ...and I'm o.k. with the single-member district idea.
Posted by: Mary McClure at October 8, 2007 03:12 PM
LTR,
I found this thread running on another local blog and wanted to share it here with some comment:
72 j williamson - Oct 8, 07:25 AM
I believe the one resource that all kids the same amount of is parent participation.
And I know there is less parent participation in under-performing schools.
73 parent too - Oct 8, 10:23 AM
When Marshall High School was built 5 or 6 years ago it opened fully equipped with computers, an auditorium, a library, new band uniforms and much more. It also has an Academy. I think you all need to look deeper to solve the problems at that school and not blame everything on an unequal share of resources. If that school was not failing FBISD could rezone students there to alleviate overcrowding at Hightower and Elkins. I think j williamson is thinking along the right lines.
75 K D Tunstall - Oct 8, 12:05 PM
This bond has nothing to do with with increasing performance of schools. That is not the purpose of a bond.
76 maized&cornfused - Oct 8, 01:41 PM
The bond could increase the performance for those east side students stuck in overcrowded schools.
How could not providing room for students already enrolled in FBISD-the purpose of the bond- not be a good thing.
It seems like more of the old squabbles regarding the BOT this time with the east side students being collateral damage.
---------------
Notes:
I think it is important for those who are not familiar with the issues to understand that over 50% of the last bond was not used as the district advertised in the 2003 effort. Most of the bond was used to finance additional debt. Many buses and non-fixed items, that normally go on the regular budget, were shifted to the bond, listed then never funded. On this bond they have a similar list of buses, technology (non-fixed items again) that may or may not end up being funded.
I see the problems as two-fold. One is the fact that the state and our BOT do not require the bond to have any accountability. This, in my opinion, has to do with the districts vendors and their close relationship with the BOT and administration. Additionally, this district does not use a electoral system that leads to more direct representation and this allows for major accountability problems, like this big one.
A no vote sends a strong message that this will not be tolerated any longer by taxpayers and that manipulation by those directly benefitting on the front and back ends of these bonds needs to stop.
I'm voting no. The arguments by maized don't wash when you see the financing and track it out. East-end schools and non-Sugar Land schools are getting the short end on these vendor gifts.
Posted by: fbisdparent at October 8, 2007 04:04 PM
I wonder why you never hear Missouri City council, or any other area council, speaking up for their neighborhood schools? The schools have a much larger impact on our property values and taxes than do some of the issues they get involved with. Why wouldn't Mayor Owen, Jimerson or Wyatt work with FBISD officials to improve Mo-City schools? Instead they just allow the slow deterioration.
Posted by: taxpayer at October 8, 2007 04:46 PM
As I stated on another blog. This issue is not about education. It is about MONEY! Look at the money pouring into FBISD from ALL sources. There is NO reason any of our schools need any repairs. There is MORE than enough money in the bank to solve these problems. Paying a jacked up price for land that the developer bought from the State of Texas is ridiculous. (Aliana, Telfair etc.,) Whoever put the information all over the internet stating "Sugarland" was one of the best places to live in the US forgot to mention a few things like high taxes. And I wonder who was behind that massive ad campaign anyway? Who profited the most? "FOLLOW THE MONEY"! The trail leads somewhere.
If the money was consistently used for education of our children I would see it and say it. But that's not what I'm finding. And Mary - Google this "How to build a school on a low budget" I did over a month ago. I discovered a plethora of information on "Green" schools, buildings and homes. Built for less and operated for less. But that takes a little effort. You have to "Think outside of the box" the problem is our local builders don't specialize in building to "Green" standards. Currently Those standards are followed by a rating system that was established and referred to as "LEED" or "Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design"
My first search for "building school on a budget" led me to Washington State board of Education. They are 10 years ahead of everyone else in "Green" building. They referred me to http://www.usgbc.org/ (U.S. Green Building Council) I have spent hundreds of hours researching "Green" as well as FBISD financials. When I asked Seale and Jenney if they ever heard of the "LEED" system - I got that deer in the headlights look from both. Current "LEED" standards were established in year 2000.
***USGBC WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1993*** They can TEACH YOU HOW TO BUILD AND OPERATE A SCHOOL FOR LESS MONEY!!! WHY HAS FBISD NEVER HEARD OF THEM????
GO TO http://www.usgbc.org/ and read up on it. I DID! 2 schools in HISD are in the process of their "LEED" certification and West Brazos Jr. High has received their "LEED" certification.
Bare in mind, "Green" facilities can cost less or more than conventional construction. It all depends on the total package. The difference is in operational cost, student/teacher comforts and an average of "Higher" test scores.
FOLLOW THE MONEY! Do what I did. GET INFORMED!! Then tell me this is "for the children" BULL! This is and always will be about MONEY!
Posted by: Carlos at October 9, 2007 02:03 PM
"Bare in mind, "Green" facilities can cost less or more than conventional construction. It all depends on the total package. The difference is in operational cost, student/teacher comforts and an average of "Higher" test scores."
I would bet if this district got hold of it we would see more excuses for increases and other hidden costs.
October 27, 2007 10:51 AM
Anonymous said...
"Secondly, the vendors, which include the architects, the developers who sell their land to the school district at inflated prices, the lawyers who set it all up, the builders and all the contractors who build the monuments, all stand to benefit from the largesse of a free wheeling school board that wants to create “good will” in the community so they can get re-elected."
This is the real vendor problem!
October 27, 2007 1:51 PM
Comment deleted
This post has been removed by the blog administrator.
October 29, 2007 2:08 PM
Mike Seale said...
FBISD BOND: The Facts, 10.30.07
In recent weeks, a community member has suggested that his examination of Fort Bend ISD’s audited 2006 financial statements revealed that the district has diverted 2003 bond proceeds into an irrevocable trust, to be used for purposes other than those approved by taxpayers. That community member further notes that as of the statement date, $176 million of bond proceeds had been diverted to other uses.
Those accusations are false and display either a lack of interest in or a lack of ability in ascertaining the truth.
The community member cites Page 75 of the district’s audited August 31, 2006 financial statements to support his accusations. That document states the following;
“In prior years, the District “defeased” outstanding bonds by placing the proceeds of new bonds in an irrevocable trust to provide for future debt service payments on old bonds.”
Bonds are much like home mortgages. Just as a wise homeowner will refinance their mortgage when interest rates drop, school districts refinance bonds when dropping interest rates provide an opportunity to save taxpayer dollars.
In other words, the district identified an opportunity to save taxpayer dollars by refinancing debt, and as is required by law, put those new bond proceeds in the hands of an outside trust which is charged with distributing them to the original bond holders. This is a legal and financially sound practice followed by all fiscally responsible school districts when the opportunity arises.
Pages 40 and 45 of those same financial statements note the fact that as of that date, $176 million of bond proceeds had been reserved for future capital projects. In other words, those funds had been set aside for the completion of bond projects. The 2003 Bond Referendum covered construction and renovations that would occur over a 5 year period. All of the projects identified in prior bond referendums will be completed.
It has also been suggested that some projects listed in the 2003 referendum reappear in the 2007 referendum. Once again, that claim is false. Though there are projects with similar titles, such as “school buses,” it takes very little research and effort to determine that the projects are not the same.
Fort Bend ISD has taken extraordinary steps to assure that the 2007 bond referendum is completely transparent and that it reflects broad community input. A committee of 60 community members and business leaders, drawn from every area of the district, spent many hours developing the package that will go before the voters. As one committee member put it, “We took this rug out back and beat it until every question had been answered and every concern had been addressed.”
The outcome of this election will be decided by those who go to the polls between now and November 6. The students and taxpayers of this district deserve to have this issue decided by informed voters, not those who have been misinformed. If you have any questions or concerns regarding any aspect of this bond proposal, please contact the District and we will be happy to provide you with timely, factual answers to your questions.
Mike Seale
Chief Operating Officer
Fort Bend ISD
October 30, 2007 9:44 AM
fbisdwatch said...
FBISDWatch would like to thank CFO Seale on posting here. We appreciate the attempt to clarify, and not vilify, Mr. Cain (?).
Some follow-up questions to your post were sent in so we are reposting them here below. Also we have an FBN update on the districts "denial" from the story of a trust (the story seems to be contradicting the previous poster). Which is it?
Where did the trust money come from?
As you said Seale why would you take long-term mortgage to buy a computer or other short-term assets?
FBN story:
http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/3494/concerns-raised-by-resident-over-bond-issues-not-valid-jenney-tells-board
October 30, 2007 11:32 AM
Anonymous said...
Then what is this denial from Jenney in the story?
--"At least one Fort Bend ISD board trustee questioned the district administration about the trust fund, and about allegations Cain raised that the district is seeking money through the 2007 bond referendum to pay for projects that were listed under the 2003 bond, but weren’t completed.
In an email message sent to board members on his behalf, district Superintendent Timothy Jenney responded to those questions and denied Cain’s allegations are true. On Tuesday, Cain said he still isn’t satisfied with the answers the district has provided."
October 30, 2007 11:34 AM
More:
1 Anon - Oct 22, 08:20 AM
“A Fort Bend ISD bond steering committee whittled what initially looked to be a $490 million proposal by the administration, down to $428 million, much of it proposed to deal with overcrowding and other issues caused by rapid growth, according to administrators and board trustees. “
This is a record bond that needs much more scrutiny than is currently allowed by law. The 2003 bond had hundreds of millions diverted to a special account without prior notification or review by the public. Under state law the bond monies once approved by voters can be redirected for almost any purpose. This has been a historical practice in fbisd and with the lower bond rating, than neighboring districts, we are paying more per square foot for construction costs. Voters/taxpayers also may want to note that the newer larger developments are getting a disproportionate share of this bond, while older communities are receiving far less. Regardless the special interest developer vendors are the big winners in a yes vote since they do not have to donate the land and are charging maximum commercial value on school land sales in these big MPs.
We’ve voted NO to these gifts. Please consider doing the same until better representation is brought to the district so these matters can be more fully addressed.
2 Mary McClure - Oct 22, 09:12 AM
Thank you for the very detailed info, Bob.
Early voting info and locations per the county site can also be found on my site under “Latest Items” (click my name).
3 Rodrigo Carreon - Oct 22, 12:40 PM
Voters , have elected official kept to their promise on cutting taxes(BONDS). Proposing vote for more bonds, means more taxes to come !!
4 anonymous - Oct 22, 01:33 PM
anon – could you please be more specific about the redirecting of millions of dollars in bond money? Where can I read about that? Are you saying that the district spent money we designated for construction and maintenance on other items?
5 TexasRose - Oct 22, 01:47 PM
Oh my!
Please look at the Propositions!
Especially Texas Constitutional Ammendments # 3, #7, #8.
3) Home Appraisal Value
7) Eminent Domain
8) Home Equity Loans
SOS: I’m worried about this “defeat”...any elaborations ?
:(
6 Anon - Oct 22, 03:29 PM
anonymous,
Contact the district and make an FOIA request for the financial reports on the dedicated trust for the 2003 bond. Also request all the expenditure reports and compare them to the original proposal. Next seperate out what has been and has not been paid for and what shows up on the list more than once in the ’03 proposal and current proposal. The more you dig the more astounded you will become and disillusioned with the process. Do not take my word for it or anyone elses, but before you vote do the research for yourself.
You may also want to spend the time looking up all the non-fixed use items that are usually on the general budget that are somehow now on the proposal (not a good idea)....AGAIN, DO NOT TAKE ANYONES WORD FOR IT.
7 Rodrigo Carreon - Oct 28, 04:11 PM
Voters failing to vote, leads to public voters being defeated for higher future taxes to pay, at a higher costs without leadership.
8 intheknow - Oct 29, 07:51 AM
Anon — If you have done the above, please provide some specific details. An FOIA request takes at least 10 days to receive.
I’ve looked at the 2003 bond documents and it looks to me like at least 99% of the money was spent where it was projected to be spent. Personally, I think you’re full of a lot of hot air, have not pulled the FOIA your self and are either making this stuff up or taking someone else’s word that is making it up. Please put up or shut up for a change instead of spouting off general accusations with no specifics to back it up.
9 Rodrigo Carreon - Oct 29, 09:25 AM
The number of Voters that turnout to vote is the type of leadership we ask for, an taxpayers are recieving ! ! We on the east side at Hightower HS get very low voter turnouts , because the early poll-site doors are set to close early at 5pm for the working class voters.
10 K D Tunstall - Oct 29, 09:34 AM
ITW said
I’ve looked at the 2003 bond documents and it looks to me like at least 99% of the money was spent where it was projected to be spent
Having an issue with that IX’th commandment are we?
11 Anonymous - Oct 29, 09:45 AM
KD – - Thanks for the comment. A thorough study of the 2003 Bond shows that the money has been, or is slated to be used precisely as the Bond reads. Some folks just seem to be bent on casting a bad light on the District. There may be things to throw stones at, but this simply is not one of them.
12 Anonymous - Oct 29, 09:48 AM
Sorry. My last comment should have been addressed to ITK. KD still needs to do some studying.
13 chris - Oct 29, 10:10 AM
Kevin,
I think ITK was associated with the old FBISD watch group SOS. They ended up supporting the new supt. and stopped questioning the district use of our tax/bond dollars. Perhaps this is why we are seeing this type of response from them. The SOS site has been virtually abandoned since July.
14 K D Tunstall - Oct 29, 11:07 AM
Sorry. My last comment should have been addressed to ITK. KD still needs to do some studying.
I read fine thank you. I also have no issue with the IX’th commandment. I would suggest that you talk to your priest and sin no more. God is watching and I hear that hell is quite hot.
15 chris - Oct 29, 11:32 AM
Anonymous is sounding an awful lot like an associate of the district communications office. Propaganda is an easy thing to spread. I attended many of the misinformation sessions and watched as many questions were left unanswered by those seeking legitimate answers. I too have seen the documents and the trust that is mentioned in an OP/ED piece and it was set-up without the public knowledge or input and that constitutes a change in the original proposal (FACT). Additonally you folks aren’t even addressing the land purchase issues or the non-fixed use items that HAVE been moved off the regular operations budget.
I was also a direct witness to a police officer being asked by district officials to walk down a long hall, at one of the bond mtgs., and come outside and ask the only taxpayers/voters attending the bond presentation at hightower to “move out to the sidewalk” (for what? talking?). These are the tactics being employed to pass this RECORD bond gift to the special interest district vendors.
Try again old SOS bunch and then consider getting back on the WATCH side of this thing and not the status quo tax and spend side! Cut the diatribe!!!
Click my name for a piece from a former BOT member who has been in the trenches and is helping expose much of this…
16 Parent Response - Oct 29, 03:55 PM
For those of you reading this thread and the other two FBISD voting related threads I would like to say the following.
Please notice that it is the same three or four people repeating themselves over and over again with no details to back them up about problems with this bond and the earlier 2003 bond.
When asked for details, we are told to ask for the records ourselves. When asked for details of what specific ideas those supporting single member districts would impliment we are told we just don’t understand and we must be paid political consultants to ask that type of question.
I would like Mr. Cain to tell us specific items he has found that were on the 2003 and again on the 2007 bond. I would like him to publicly say which documents and page numbers he has found problems with, so we don’t have to start from scratch.
Also, the current system is what the system is. Failing this bond does nothing to change the system and will only cost us each more tax money in the long run. If you want to change the system, go to Austin and do the work there. I’m talking about school finance and developer infastructure responsibilities. The only thing failing this bond will do is to cost us more taxes in lost opportunity costs and take the new administrative team’s time away from student achievement and school improvement.
The last thing I’ll add is that I will miss Fort Bend Now and Bob’s perspective in the items he chooses to publish. FBISD Watch looks to be more of the same from these few people and will never be Fort Bend Now. Thanks and goodbye Bob.
17 Parent Response - Oct 29, 04:06 PM
chris said….
“Click my name for a piece from a former BOT member who has been in the trenches and is helping expose much of this…”
Although I do not know Ms. McGarr I do notice she is a former KISD not FBISD trustee. I point out that this is the type of ommission and technique that make me question the information I hear from this crowd.
18 Mary McGarr - Oct 30, 01:21 PM
Parent Response
Your statement suggests you haven’t bothered to read my posts. In the first place I ALWAYS attach my name so that you know who is speaking. In my FIRST post on this site, I identified myself as a “wife, mother, former Texas Public School Teacher and Katy ISD School Board Trustee from 1991-1996.
I don’t usually respond to anonymous attacks, but in your case, I thought you needed correcting. Anyone who wants to know what I think and believe or what my credentials are can go to http://www.katycitizens.org/index_files/marys_corner.htm and read articles posted in “Mary’s Corner.”
It appears to me that you have no understanding about what is happening in public schools. If you did, you would either oppose the bond or at least keep your thoughts to yourself.
When some of us in Katy successfully opposed the Katy ISD bond initiative in 2006, we had bond committee members spinning for the District all over the place. Perhaps that is what is happening here.
What too many do not understand is that it is a common ploy for the District to put their critics on such committees, thus co-opting them and shutting them up! I hope that’s not what has happened here.
As for your implication that I’m an outsider, I would suggest to you that ALL Texans are involved when you choose to float megabonds that are backed by the full faith and credit of the State of Texas.
I just wonder who's telling the truth, Dr. Seale or Dr. Jenney? Shouldn't they at least coordinate their stories before doing an interview?
Does anyone out there care about the poor performance we have with the People soft product? It takes over 30 minutes to process 1 purchase order.
Who purchased it?
More comments:
1 chris - Oct 30, 12:55 PM
“Regarding Cain’s belief that the district put money from the 2003 bond into a trust fund to pay off past bond debt, Jenney said, “the district has not diverted 2003 bond funds to a trust fund or to any fund other than the Capital Projects Fund. Those funds are not available for any other use until all of the 2003 bond referendum projects have been completed.”
If this report is accurate then it seems to contradict statements another district official made in front of numerous witnesses at the Marshal H.S. bond sales meeting. The official at that meeting acknowledged the trust fund. I want to know the truth, keep digging Mr. Cain. Somethings up and it isn’t bond accountability, that’s for sure. The reports seem to implicate that the stories are continually changing….this is not a good sign.
2 K D Tunstall - Oct 30, 01:12 PM
None of the money used to defease the bonds from the 1990s came from the 2003 bond issue, Seale said.
Where did the money come from then Mr. Seale?
3 chris - Oct 30, 01:53 PM
It seems Seale, from the report and his OP/ED piece is directly contradicting the superintendent. Which is it? Why can’t Mr. Cain and the public get a straight answer. The questions are simple enough, aren’t they?
“In an email message sent to board members on his behalf, district Superintendent Timothy Jenney responded to those questions and denied Cain’s allegations are true.”—from Jenney interview
———-
From Seale Op/ED:
“In other words, the district identified an opportunity to save taxpayer dollars by refinancing debt, and as is required by law, put those new bond proceeds in the hands of an outside trust which is charged with distributing them to the original bond holders. This is a legal and financially sound practice followed by all fiscally responsible school districts when the opportunity arises.”—Seale letter
So which is it trust or no trust. I know who I don’t trust. Again, this does nothing to restore faith in a process that isn’t transparent or easily trackable. The public was not notified when this happened with the earlier bonds. The process must be changed. And no Mr. Seale most people do NOT take out a mortgage to PURCHASE computers (short-term items) and other items that should be on the yearly operational budget, which we as taxpayer fund directly too. Additionally, the Houston chronicle reported on the problem with the states fund about to go over the cap (our district is involved in that fund).
See: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5236349.html
More questions…
I find the Ms. McGarr piece compelling:
"School districts have refined the bond scheme to the point that they now recruit and hire superintendents merely because they have been successful elsewhere at floating a bond—and the bigger the bond, the better."
More:
1 chris - Oct 30, 12:55 PM
“Regarding Cain’s belief that the district put money from the 2003 bond into a trust fund to pay off past bond debt, Jenney said, “the district has not diverted 2003 bond funds to a trust fund or to any fund other than the Capital Projects Fund. Those funds are not available for any other use until all of the 2003 bond referendum projects have been completed.”
If this report is accurate then it seems to contradict statements another district official made in front of numerous witnesses at the Marshal H.S. bond sales meeting. The official at that meeting acknowledged the trust fund. I want to know the truth, keep digging Mr. Cain. Somethings up and it isn’t bond accountability, that’s for sure. The reports seem to implicate that the stories are continually changing….this is not a good sign.
2 K D Tunstall - Oct 30, 01:12 PM
None of the money used to defease the bonds from the 1990s came from the 2003 bond issue, Seale said.
Where did the money come from then Mr. Seale?
3 chris - Oct 30, 01:53 PM
It seems Seale, from the report and his OP/ED piece is directly contradicting the superintendent. Which is it? Why can’t Mr. Cain and the public get a straight answer. The questions are simple enough, aren’t they?
“In an email message sent to board members on his behalf, district Superintendent Timothy Jenney responded to those questions and denied Cain’s allegations are true.”—from Jenney interview
———-
From Seale Op/ED:
“In other words, the district identified an opportunity to save taxpayer dollars by refinancing debt, and as is required by law, put those new bond proceeds in the hands of an outside trust which is charged with distributing them to the original bond holders. This is a legal and financially sound practice followed by all fiscally responsible school districts when the opportunity arises.”—Seale letter
So which is it trust or no trust. I know who I don’t trust. Again, this does nothing to restore faith in a process that isn’t transparent or easily trackable. The public was not notified when this happened with the earlier bonds. The process must be changed. And no Mr. Seale most people do NOT take out a mortgage to PURCHASE computers (short-term items) and other items that should be on the yearly operational budget, which we as taxpayer fund directly too. Additionally, the Houston chronicle reported on the problem with the states fund about to go over the cap (our district is involved in that fund).
See: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5236349.html
More questions…
4 Carlos Cain - Oct 30, 06:53 PM
Today October 30, 2007 at approximately 10:27 AM I (actually my wife went in the back to get them) picked up from FBISD a stack of documents as a result of a FOIA request dated October 8, 2007. In that stack of documents is a note on desktop note stationary with the FBISD logo and
“From the desk of… John W. Davis III
The note is handwritten and is as follows
“FBISD has no Irrevocable Trusts to defease debt.
FBISD does have private purpose trust funds. They are defined in the attachment. Financials are provided as of 8-31-06.
End of Memo
Perhaps Mr. Jenny, Mr. Seale and Mr. Davis need to talk to each other so they can figure out which story they want to release to the public. Since both statements were released today. I guess they are attempting to make a play on words utilizing “Irrevocable” as the vehicle justifying “Plausible Deniability”. Much like they are using our children as a vehicle to keep the gravy train rolling! Now. On Saturday October 27, 2007 I received a link to the TEA site that states FBISD’s total revenues for fiscal year 2006 were 636 million. However their financials stated revenues were 521 million. This reflects an additional 116 million in revenues that FBISD was not required to report and guess what… true to form, they DIDN’T! So now we have another 116 million CASH that FBISD has somewhere. All I want to know is, WHERE’S THE MONEY?
I will call Tim Jenney today to determine if *Seale* wrote and submitted this *op-ed* piece on my *tax dollars*...that's a violation of the law and may require a meeting of conference to discuss this actions are not permissible during work hours…isn’t that right jwilliamson*???* Just a small indication that some will travel at any lengths…these guys inherited this issue…
I wonder why some of the top officials are calling citizens and are making threatening statements. This is a sign of *culpability*to me?
Now that I am at it...the *defeased* or *refinanced* loans/bonds from the past should no longer be included in debt services thus the district will have to pay for the debt from another revenue stream...hmmm...why are they still saying that we will have to pay when TEXAS EDUCATION CODE says it differently...also stadiums and other service generating facilities according to TEC should not be permitted in an general bond *as FBISD has proposed in this bond*.
In fact, FBISD can't even purchase servers and other technology for the central office...but what *FBISD has proposed violates the code too* because I can assure you that if you bring new hardware to the schools they will need additional *central* infrastructure to support that type of load and now-a-days new computers on old infrastructure is akin to putting a new 2007 engine in a Model T Ford...yeah you can put it in but it will need a lot of conversion...
Come on people...it appears that even the Fort Bend Sun is violating some kind of law when they continue to *ENDORSE* people and or candidates....Fort Bend just simply...*SUCKS*!
I will vote *NO!* This bond will be defeated just like many across the state…we need to find a better way and kill the perpetuity of madness…we can manage…why can’t we?
I am glad to see the FBISD Watch site *(http://fbisdwatch.blogspot.com/)* online and rocking…thanks for this…because SOS needs to send a true SAVE OUR SOULS signal because they have definitely have been brought into the special interest fold.
This e-mail is a small sampling of taxpayers contacting us and came into the fbisdwatch contact site. We have removed the sender information, but would like to share it here for your consumption.
". . . Additionally, I'm more than a little concerned about those who desire to silence me. After all, desperate times call for desperate means; and, you never know how desperate some persons are to silence others, particularly, if they have something to hide. However, I will be checking into the FBISDWatch site from time to time."
Because of the extensive number of requests coming into the site it may take us 24-48 hours to respond. Remember we are neighbors and volunteers and will try to keep up. Please feel free to post here if a more immediate response is needed. We ck the blog daily.
Hello,
Just a note to please keep posts on topic and please refrain from using inappropriate language in your posts. We have listed this as a family friendly site!
Thank you for you help and cooperation. Visit the online store for FBISDWatch at cafepress (we've provided a link on the main page) and help us get more taxpayers/voters involved in our district politics TODAY!
Post a Comment