2009 FBISD Tax Hearing (On YouTube)

CLICK HERE FOR THE 2009 FBISD CONTROVERSIAL TAX HEARING (YES THEY ARE RAISING THEM AGAIN--see petition of over 500 district taxpayers asking for board accountability) --In case anyone missed it they raised the property tax rate again (4th time) in 2010 and more than likely will do so again in 2011 facing another projected 15-20 million dollar budget deficit, according to some media reports. ***NEW*** ..Petition TO STOP THE GSTC (Global Science Museum being planned at the district central office--near $30 million dollar project that superintendent Jenney is pushing): http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/stopthegcst/ (see update below on this apparently ending this project after 2 years)

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

FBN: Superintendent Gets Raise Despite District Budget Crisis!

FBISD Board Trustees Grant Superintendent 3% Raise; Buy Background-Check Package
January 13th, 2009 | by Bob Dunn, FortBendNow

Fort Bend Independent School District Superintendent Dr. Timothy Jenney received a 3% raise, approved by the district’s Board of Trustees on Tuesday night. . .

. . .Starting with a $240,000 salary just over two years ago, the superintendent now will be paid at an annual rate of $254,616.

Chronicle related: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nb/fortbend/news/6208180.html




Anonymous said...

According to the Houston Chronicle this is his second raise in the 2 years he has been here.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Area blog comments on this:

JohnBernard.Books says:
January 13th, 2009 at 12:11 pm (#)

If Dr Jenney had written into his contract a cola then he’d be just like dems in Congress…..a guarenteed raise no matter how bad of job he was doing…..

midnightridr says:
January 13th, 2009 at 12:45 pm (#)

Leave it to some to try and make nonsensical posts and apply partisan rhetoric to it.
Now let’s consider raises based on actual performance. If this $14,000 raise is kudos for passing a record bond debt that has thrown the district budget into its first ever deficit, then I would say he has earned it. Or if it is because absolutely NO middle school or high school on the east side of the district has earned exemplary status, then I would say he has earned it. If it is for record truancy and fine collections, then yes, by all means give it to him. If it is for the $10 million plus already spent on the HR software and consultants, by all means give him more. Or if it is for not investigating the allegations against his police chief recently, well all I can say is well done!

Only in America do we reward executives for non-performance. What a job (sarcasm intended)! None of this even mentions that he started a little over 2 years ago with the highest supts salary in district history (what’s the old question, are we better off?)…..who knows because these raises aren’t tied to our children’s actual academic performance, but to a superintendents ability to get RECORD bond-debt passed by the public.

Now have at it #1. Defend the increased taxes to cover his already record pay and now this incentive (for performance?). Just lovely!

Kampf says:
January 13th, 2009 at 12:54 pm (#)

I wonder why he didn’t offer to work for free for a year until the economy turned around? Between this and the other security headline it looks like the board sure knows how to spend our money in tough times.

Kat_Princess says:
January 13th, 2009 at 12:57 pm (#)

A 3% raise? Isn’t that equivalent to the standard workforce annual “cost of living raise”? Yes father, it has been awhile since my last profession..haha

Anonymous said...


concerned citizen says:
January 13th, 2009 at 2:00 pm (#)

I guess the only comment is that you hear folks talk about the superintendent being like a CEO. If CEOs do not perform and show a profit, they are gone.
There is no way for a school district to show a “profit” other than educating our children.

January 13th, 2009 at 2:05 pm (#)

The background checks are going to be great for employee morale. *rolling eyes*

Factually Speaking says:
January 13th, 2009 at 11:16 pm (#)

This still does not answer a recent question I posed. Did the Superintendent ever receive his incentive bonus for student achievement for increasing student test scores which is separate and apart from the raise? Somehow that tidbit has yet to be disclosed. The increase did not have to be a lot in order to qualify; it was very minimum.

As far as criminal background checks go, this has become a standard procedural requirement. Although, when you consider the actuality of what the 10 Commandments state, it also includes lying; but, then again, lying and dishonesty of character can still prevail because it does not necessarily manifest itself on a criminal background check.

twilight says:
January 14th, 2009 at 12:14 am (#)

While most of us disagree, we have a board that wants to run the district “like a business”. Concerned Citizen, that’s why we have a CEO who doesn’t have to “make a profit”. That appears to be the way these days, look at GM/Ford et al.

Factually Speaking says:
January 14th, 2009 at 6:13 am (#)

Well stated Concerned Citizen and Twilight, the irony is that Education/School Districts are non-profit monetary entities, yet our product is very precious, greater than money, the child/the children. Therefore measurable achievement goals for students indicating success if one is to be rewarded for monetary incentive compensation and high salaries should be more than minimum and/or slight gains across the board for all children.

Kampf says:
January 14th, 2009 at 7:05 am (#)

I think watching the problems this year with the budget, which he is directly responsible for, is more than enough to with-hold his raise. Also it wasn’t that long ago that local media was reporting the clamp down at the communications office and the reorganization of committees that used to include members of the community. This is a public entity, not a private corporation.

Yes, it should be about the children, but look at the sheer number of classroom population waivers being requested this year over last because of the budget problems. Over-crowding won’t impact our children?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.