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)

Friday, January 2, 2009

FORTBENDNOW.com UPDATES FBISD INVESTIGATION!

"The only response given by the school district is that the district does not discuss “personnel matters.” MaryAnn Simpson, Communications Office

School Watchdog Group Calls For Investigation Of FBISD Police Chief
January 2nd, 2009 | by John Pape

In the wake of allegations against Fort Bend ISD Police Chief J.L. Campbell that surfaced in a series of recent FortBendNow news stories, the FBISD WatchDogs organization is calling for an investigation by the school district and the Texas Ethics Commission.

The WatchDogs sent a letter dated Jan. 1 to all members of the school board and FBISD Superintendent Dr. Timothy Jenney formally requesting the investigation. The letter was also posted on the organization’s website, http://fbisdwatch.blogspot.com.

The allegations against Campbell include his conducting his two campaigns for Galveston County Sheriff from his FBISD police department office, as well as using district time and resources to run for office.

Campbell ran unsuccessful campaigns for Galveston Sheriff in 2008 and 2004. He was serving as FBISD police chief during both campaigns.

Campbell has also been accused of bringing pressure on school police personnel following the publication of the stories in an attempt to identify which employees were providing information to FortBendNow.

Campbell has not responded to requests for comment.

The only response given by the school district is that the district does not discuss “personnel matters.”

Get the full FBN story at:

http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/school-watchdog-group-calls-for-investigation-of-fbisd-police-chief/

22 comments:

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

Blog comments coming in on this story:

MaryMcClure says:
January 2nd, 2009 at 9:16 am (#)

Who signed this letter? Who are the members of this watchdog group? Whom is/are “We”? Unless I’m missing something, when I visit the URL link, it does not indicate who/whom represents this watchdog group.

FBISDWatch says:
January 2nd, 2009 at 11:57 am (#)

Ms. McClure,

This is the information contained on the site. FBISDWatchdogs formed after the dissolution of the SOS watch group here in FBISD and is part of the Texas Watch network, which includes KatyWatchdogs, GISDWatchdogs, CYFairISD Watchdogs and many other tax watch groups, including Texas Watch.

We were present and very public during the last record bond election that caused the school district to register its first ever budget deficit (we were opposed to the lack of over-site involving the RECORD bond and were pushing for accountability in the process, a smaller bond, about half the size of the near 500 million asked for and received and we fully support single member school districts). We also were successful at helping our sister GISDWatch site head off a SLAPP-suit by legal vendors out of Houston attempting to shut down their public forums.

The public contact person on this issue is Mike Lee and can be reached at fbisdwatch@yahoo.com.

Here is the other information you excluded from your review of the watch site:

fbisdwatch@yahoo.com
FBISDWatchDogs Welcome You:

Hello & Welcome,

FBISD watchdogs are here to serve the public and to keep them informed on how their tax dollars are being spent in the local school system. Quality education is no accident and through keeping a closer eye on how your money is spent we feel education in FBISD schools can not only be improved, but better managed in this growing and diverse system.

This organization will seek to engage local district officials on ways to enhance the quality delivery and efficiency of resources and services supported by your property taxes and bond/debt elections. The primary goal is to engage the district on and offline in the further discussion that can help improve what is and isn’t happening with our district.

Stay tuned as we provide information resources and alternative opinion from the community at large here at http://fbisdwatch.blogspot.com/.

Thank you for your response Ms. McClure.

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

JohnBernard.Books says:
January 2nd, 2009 at 12:02 pm (#)

good catch Mary, it’d be interesting to see who lays claim to this drive by blog.

Anonymous said...

DosCentavos says:
January 2nd, 2009 at 12:30 pm (#)

I really have no opinion about the above story except that I think the responses are inappropriate. Not sure why you guys have such zeal for attacking the messenger. In this particular case, Pape and his superiors thought it was news, so it was printed. News comes from a lot of sources and obviously some of the sources can be unreliable. I think the purpose of this news blog is to give persons a chance to give their opinion about the gist of the story, not attack the source or others giving responses. By doing this, I think you cause other persons with opinions not to share those opinions because they’re afraid of being personally attacked or criticized.

Kampf says:
January 2nd, 2009 at 12:41 pm (#)

“‘Following the election, several Fort Bend ISD police officers contacted FortBendNow and accused Campbell of using his school district office to run his campaign and district administrators of turning a blind eye to the use of district resources and time for a political race.”’ – FortBendNow

if this is true it needs to be examined more closely. i pay my property taxes and do not like them used in this fashion. you are correct doscentavos about the status quo types, anything goes with them.

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

midnightridr says:
January 2nd, 2009 at 12:13 pm (#)

I always find it quite fascinating when some attack those seeking justice. It looks to me like FortBendNow broke this story almost a month ago and the school board and administration have failed to act on it. Looks like this is our tax dollars being wasted on several Galveston campaigns. I hope they do investigate as they should on issues like this.

If the police chief is harassing some of his staff for doing the right thing, reporting him, then that should be exposed too. Thank you FBN for shining the light on these actions or inactions by our elected officials and public servants.

Keep up the great work!

Anonymous said...

I would really like to see some new blood on this school board. What are they doing to watch out for us.

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

I wonder why the board has remained silent on this?

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

More from local blogs:

JohnBernard.Books says:
January 3rd, 2009 at 7:02 am (#)

Apparently some feel when someone uses a blog to attack someone anonymosly and people question who’s behind the blog somehow they are attacking them. Last time I looked this is still America and Ft Bend is still repub country where liberties are valued over anonmyous blogs.

midnightridr says:
January 3rd, 2009 at 7:44 am (#)

I guess I wonder why you aren’t concerned about the possible misuse of funds John and I do see a Mr. Lee listed above in the contacts. What have you got against the FBN investigative report? The byline is list as John Pape.

JohnBernard.Books says:
January 3rd, 2009 at 8:37 am (#)

“midnightridr says:

January 3rd, 2009 at 7:44 am (#)

“I guess I wonder why you aren’t concerned about the possible misuse of funds John”….
as usual you “assumed” wrong…

Kat_Princess says:
January 3rd, 2009 at 9:04 am (#)

[Meanwhile...]

Our citizen tax dollars are wasting…wasting…wasting away— figuring out why sum poster, namely “midnightridr”, is missing his “e”? If my mere preceding utterance counts for sumthing… I’d be the first to cop to we are all innoc$nt until proven beyond a rea$sum$able doubt.

Now carry on!

Kampf says:
January 3rd, 2009 at 11:08 am (#)

I think the ultimate irony in this thread is the anonymous posters complaining about protected news sources.

Kat_Princess says:
January 3rd, 2009 at 11:37 am (#)

It is my sincere respect to educational values — to engaging pleasing, peaceful resolutions in the name of everyone’s validated interests.

“This organization shall seek to engage local district officials on ways to enhance the quality delivery and efficiency of resources and services supported by your property taxes and bond/debt elections. The primary role is to engage the district on and offline in the further discussion that can help improve what is and isn’t happening with our district.” ~ FBISDWatchdogs

Admittingly, FBISD may not encompass my educational jurisdiction, it certainly encompasses the jurisdictional aspects within the City of Sugar Land — more specifically with respect to the fudicial functions and goals of the Fort Bend Education Foundation. It is Sugar Land Councilman Michael Schiff, Single Member District Four — Mayor Pro Tem that currently resides on the Board of Directors of FBEF.

With that being said, it would appear to resourceful to now place “on the table” facts to a website that I continue to research.

~
http://www.window.state.tx.us
Susan Combs Comptroller of Public Accounts
~

[...] Several focus group participant complained that open record requests are not handled in a timely manner by FBISD. Focus group participants stated that citizens submitting open records requests are often stonewalled by the district’s Administrative Services Department, which processes the requests. Common complaints from citizens included the district requesting legal opinions from the Texas Attorney General’s office to delay processing. [...]

[...] Recommendation 36: Create an ombundsman position as a means of establishing better two-way communication between the district and the community. [...]

********
What would Christmas’ be like, without our sweet Rosenberg Rotary Club? LCISD 3rd graders love their new dictionary! Hmm…ombundsman? Love that idea!

Kat_Princess says:
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:36 pm (#)

TSPR Fort Bend Independent School District
http://www.window.state.tx.us/tspr/fortbend/chapt4a.htm

ombudsman…my apologies, it’s not always easy to be perfect =-)

JohnBernard.Books says:
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:10 pm (#)

I would not call a highly partisian/slanted blog a “newsource”…but to each his own….

midnightridr says:
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:19 pm (#)

‘Susan Combs Comptroller of Public Accounts
~

[...] Several focus group participant complained that open record requests are not handled in a timely manner by FBISD. Focus group participants stated that citizens submitting open records requests are often stonewalled by the district’s Administrative Services Department, which processes the requests. Common complaints from citizens included the district requesting legal opinions from the Texas Attorney General’s office to delay processing. [...]‘

Well good background on this one above.

Sorry John you exposed your position on this one in the earlier investigative reports done by Mr. Pape on this issue. You have never shown any interest in exposing the misuse of these funds or the ethics issues involved.

I would agree that an independent position not funded by the district to look into concerns like these may be useful, but often ‘ombudsman’ hired by and taking their salary from the district turn into defenders and not public advocates.

JohnBernard.Books says:
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:27 pm (#)

midnightridr says:

January 3rd, 2009 at 3:19 pm (#)
“Sorry John you exposed your position on this one in the earlier investigative reports done by Mr. Pape on this issue. You have never shown any interest in exposing the misuse of these funds or the ethics issues involved.”

MNR once again you’ve wrong…..

midnightridr says:
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:31 pm (#)

‘MNR once again you’ve wrong…..’

Then make your position very clear instead of smoke-screening as normal for you. Are you joining the article series call for a board and TEC investigation into these allegations or are you going to continue to oppose any responsible actions regarding taxpayer monies?

JohnBernard.Books says:
January 3rd, 2009 at 7:44 pm (#)

MaryMcClure says:

January 2nd, 2009 at 9:16 am (#)

“Who signed this letter? Who are the members of this watchdog group? Whom is/are “We”?”…any answers MNR?

midnightridr says:
January 3rd, 2009 at 7:55 pm (#)

Looks like you deliberately ignored the second post and response John in your #18. Why is that? Are you trying not to answer another direct question?

‘Then make your position very clear instead of smoke-screening as normal for you. Are you joining the article series call for a board and TEC investigation into these allegations or are you going to continue to oppose any responsible actions regarding taxpayer monies?’

Well? More silence or diversion?

JohnBernard.Books says:
January 3rd, 2009 at 7:59 pm (#)

once again….

“Who signed this letter? Who are the members of this watchdog group? Whom is/are “We”?”

who SIGNED THE LETTER?…….thats WHO?….for those who missed it?

JohnBernard.Books says:
January 3rd, 2009 at 8:05 pm (#)

does this help MNR….?
Who is a PRONOUN:
definition of Who: What or which person or persons:

as in WHO?

midnightridr says:
January 3rd, 2009 at 8:17 pm (#)

Like I said you are going to ignore the #2 response above which gives all that information you are gaming over and ignore the question for you to clarify YOUR position?

Smoke-screen as usual.

Kat_Princess says:
January 3rd, 2009 at 8:23 pm (#)

Smoke-screen… maybe in that 2 spam posts prior to 8:17 pro-actively needed an ombundsman?

Kat_Princess says:
January 3rd, 2009 at 8:24 pm (#)

Spellchecker????

JohnBernard.Books says:
January 3rd, 2009 at 9:32 pm (#)

MNR see post #1…the question is WHO…as in who’s behind the blog and who signed the letter?…..you seem a little defensive…are you involved?

midnightridr says:
January 3rd, 2009 at 9:40 pm (#)

John, just a little suggestion. Why don’t you contact them and ask (see #2 post above).

Next, answer the question you’ve been repeatedly asked?

‘Then make your position very clear instead of smoke-screening as normal for you. Are you joining the article series call for a board and TEC investigation into these allegations or are you going to continue to oppose any responsible actions regarding taxpayer monies?’

What’s wrong John is it ok for an employee of the district to use public tax dollars this way? Make your position PERFECTLY clear.

grnguyen says:
January 3rd, 2009 at 10:57 pm (#)

Ruint. R U I N T, ruint. Satellite radio, the only way to understand life.

Factually Speaking says:
January 4th, 2009 at 1:29 am (#)

To strategize on or about how to root out the practice of untoward behavior in FBISD is easier said than done for power does not concede without a struggle; never has and never will. FBISD has been at this a very long time and they have perfected the entrenchment. It is mind boggling as to how they continue as they do in the environment of sophisticated, educated, and affluent citizenry, but, they do nonetheless. Therefore, I wish the Watchdog Group good luck in their investigation. I hope they are prepared for a rocky ride, for it will be riskier than ever imagined because power does not concede without a struggle; never has and never will.

JohnBernard.Books says:
January 4th, 2009 at 6:52 am (#)

seems awfully hard to get an answer on who’s behind http://fbisdwatch.blogspot.com/

Kat_Princess says:
January 4th, 2009 at 7:08 am (#)

It’s like…moonlight all over my body!

JohnBernard.Books says:
January 4th, 2009 at 7:13 am (#)

hahaha…I’m afraid to ask…..moonlight?

Kat_Princess says:
January 4th, 2009 at 7:40 am (#)

Mmmm, moonlight!
“Shimmering whispers sweetly embrace; touch my face [...]”
Lucky for you my poetry is too sexxxy to divert here!

Kat_Princess says:
January 4th, 2009 at 8:07 am (#)

Faux Paws…I know who? His “ha” is in the middle? (of his name)

Kampf says:
January 4th, 2009 at 8:50 am (#)

I think what concerns me is the time lapse between the initial allegations and the failure of the board to act. It would seem factuallyspeaking that they may be avoiding their obligations on this one.

FBISD has been at this a very long time and they have perfected the entrenchment.

Factually Speaking says:
January 4th, 2009 at 9:05 am (#)

Kampf,

Exactly—but that is one the entrenched strategies–delay, delay, delay, ignore, ignore, ignore, and avoid by any means necessary; I think it is also called stonewalling which they do very effectively.

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

I've been reading all of this and wonder why we don't hear more about it in the papers?

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

Just wanted to comment on the lack of action by the board. I think it is a disgrace.

Anonymous said...

I remember when we attended a school board meeting and Knox stopped debate because she claimed to many had signed up.

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

more:

Kampf says:
January 5th, 2009 at 1:30 pm (#)

Well factuallyspeaking can sure say I told you so on this one.

“# Factually Speaking says:

January 4th, 2009 at 9:05 am (#)

Kampf,

Exactly—but that is one the entrenched strategies–delay, delay, delay, ignore, ignore, ignore, and avoid by any means necessary; I think it is also called stonewalling which they do very effectively.”

It must be nice to have no accountability and an open check book.

Sugarland watch says:
January 5th, 2009 at 2:02 pm (#)

The Fort Bend ISD does not plan to issue a statement on a call from a local taxpayer advocacy group to investigate the school district’s police chief.
I wouder Why!!!!!
Is it because FBISDWatchDogs is a local taxpayer advocacy group.
Well I am a taxpayer,I deman answer schoolboard.

midnightridr says:
January 5th, 2009 at 2:07 pm (#)

How surprising is this? Remember last year when the communications office attempted to control the news on the Marshall disturbance that involved so many different policing agencies. I think you can still get the tapes of the police 911 calls on this site.

I wonder why the board members won’t break ranks on this and comment. Especially the ones up for spring elections?

Kampf says:
January 5th, 2009 at 2:30 pm (#)

I made that demand over the weekend Sugarlandw. It doesn’t look like the communications office gives a damn whether we pay for their services, or lack of services, or not.

It must be nice to have no accountability and an open check book.

midnightridr says:
January 5th, 2009 at 3:56 pm (#)

Those TEC complaints apparently take close to two years to investigate. Does the local county DA ever look at other agencies?

MEGABITE says:
January 5th, 2009 at 4:27 pm (#)

This just in…the Chief’s computer hard drive mysteriously catches fire. 8^P

Kampf says:
January 5th, 2009 at 5:47 pm (#)

I’ve got a better one. The entire network crashes and they need to spend another $60,000 for another 9 month consultant to recover all the server info. The consultant is a brother-in-law of one of the cousins of one of the trustees that billy-bob used to know.

It must be nice to have no accountability and an open check book.

Kampf says:
January 5th, 2009 at 5:53 pm (#)

That’s a good one. How about the network crashed and they have to find funding for a new one so they weren’t able to recover any e-mail and never heard about any of this from the media.

It must be nice to have no accountability and an open check book.

JohnBernard.Books says:
January 5th, 2009 at 6:05 pm (#)

maybe the BOT has figured out that FBISDwatchDog isn’t elected or running the school district….would be my guess.

midnightridr says:
January 5th, 2009 at 6:21 pm (#)

I like that quote above of open checkbook and no accountability. Too bad the board members don’t take their positions more seriously.

Kampf says:
January 5th, 2009 at 6:59 pm (#)

The joke seems to be that we pay our taxes to be ignored by our elected officials.

Factually Speaking says:
January 5th, 2009 at 7:57 pm (#)

I would have rather been proven wrong.

Kat_Princess says:
January 5th, 2009 at 8:38 pm (#)

“I would have rather been proven wrong”…depends who is proving ya wrong ha..

MEGABITE: “Everyone keep your posts warm & friendly!” My intuition says you weren’t speaking about that flame in your post #6

midnightridr says:
January 5th, 2009 at 9:04 pm (#)

Me too FS, but at least they are predictable. Too bad it’s on our dime.

‘Campbell, while employed by the school district, ran unsuccessful campaigns for Galveston Sheriff in 2004 and 2008. A number of district insiders have claimed Campbell “ran the campaigns from his office” at the school district police department.’

midnightridr says:
January 5th, 2009 at 9:06 pm (#)

Me too FS. It’s just too bad it happens to be on our dime.

‘Campbell, while employed by the school district, ran unsuccessful campaigns for Galveston Sheriff in 2004 and 2008. A number of district insiders have claimed Campbell “ran the campaigns from his office” at the school district police department.’

Kat_Princess says:
January 5th, 2009 at 9:28 pm (#)

“I wonder why the board members won’t break ranks on this and comment. Especially the ones up for spring elections?”
- Midnightridr

Three Fort Bend ISD Trustees were elected on May 10, 2008 to serve three-year terms: Position 1, Position 4, Position 5.

The Board elected officers for 2008-2009, their titles are as follows: President, Vice-President, Secretary.

Factually Speaking says:
January 5th, 2009 at 9:33 pm (#)

Midnightridrider and Kampf,

Do you all really understand the depth of all of this?
Although, I knew there was entrenchment, but, nonetheless, I am afraid it is deeper than originally thought.

Kat_Princess says:
January 6th, 2009 at 4:04 am (#)

Morning,
In “early” rising above the clouds– my inquisitive mind wonders if anyone views a “silver lining” in sight? My analysis has proven correct in that life is worthy of peaceful debate. I wish to thank everyone in advance, for peacefully standing firm — on the subject in this thread.
=-)

JohnBernard.Books says:
January 6th, 2009 at 6:06 am (#)

This is the same tactics ex-Travis Cty DA Ronnie Earle used on Sen Kay Bailey Hutchison….he indicted her for using her computer, staff and time to campaign. When asked by the Judge to state his case, he simply stood up and said “I have none” and sat down….the case was dismissed.
Its a shameless tactic dems use to drag someone’s name through the mud and some in the media willingly comply.
Guilty till proven innocent……

Kat_Princess says:
January 6th, 2009 at 6:23 am (#)

What I have witnessed, in this journey called life is, one must have the courage to not be afraid to understand the elements of negativity, and thrust oneself forward to ask pertinent relative questions. At times, that requires one to be submissive to listening just long enough to listen to one anothers heart–coming into a mutual agreement to thus belong to the “same page”. In applying the mindful thoughts I outlined, I have supplied mutual understanding to relevancy in my post inquiry #15.

In making intelligent sense out of somethings that appear to be left out in the dark, I supplied the FBISD BOT “positions” (entitlements) to all the FBN posters who were interested in elaborating upon that, especially as they appeared to be exempt in this thread–in doing so I felt an obligation to my dedication to FortBendNow.

Thanks.

Kampf says:
January 6th, 2009 at 6:24 am (#)

I would have to agree factually on this one. I really feel for the officers that did their duty reporting this. Hopefully the admins won’t be able to find out whom they are and wrongfully terminate, because the same set of reviews will be left in the hands of the BOT and it doesn’t look like they act on much of anything except what they are told from Mr. Jenney.

..A number of school district police officers brought the allegations forward in a series of interviews with FortBendNow following the November election.

Kat_Princess says:
January 6th, 2009 at 6:43 am (#)

It would be intriguing to begin contemplating that run for BOT President, Vice-President, or Secretary. It’s never too early to educate yourself accordingly.

Kat_Princess says:
January 6th, 2009 at 7:24 am (#)

FACT: Due to “pending moderations”
My post #20 presently applies to my #16.

Who wouldn’t agree with JohnBernardBooks rationalizations to character in his reference #19.

In the precending thread wrt FBISD and the fiery debate upon my judgment skills, I cop to the rationalization that emotions on other levels appear to just get in the way of facts. I appreciate your “tag” John, as always. Ignoring posters who supply intentions to create positive solutions appears to be a “step backwards” — proactively “out of step” and not in the right direction.

Good luck FBISD, and all parents in all ISD’s…it is you the taxpayer that benefits from rational debate.

midnightridr says:
January 6th, 2009 at 8:29 am (#)

A couple of points.

I think this comment from the other thread on this represents well the lack of communications going on between the district upper administration and board to the public:

‘Susan Combs Comptroller of Public Accounts
~

[...] Several focus group participant complained that open record requests are not handled in a timely manner by FBISD. Focus group participants stated that citizens submitting open records requests are often stonewalled by the district’s Administrative Services Department, which processes the requests. Common complaints from citizens included the district requesting legal opinions from the Texas Attorney General’s office to delay processing. [...]‘

> This very much reminds me of the changes made last year to the zoning committees from parent involvement to NO parent involvement (on the committee) and the change of rules to further limit speakers that come to regular board meetings.

I agree with you FS on the complexity of a closed system like this and I’m not sure the current structure will significantly reform it since only 2 positions appear to be up for election this spring according to the district website. I believe those are pos. 6 of Mr. Smelley whose wife is the manager of the FBISD foundation and Sonal Bhuchar, the current board president.

With the budget crisis, 10 million+ spent on the personnel software program problems and this current crisis of confidence/failure to act, I would agree with several of the earlier posters about getting involved in the elections.

Kat_Princess says:
January 6th, 2009 at 8:54 am (#)

I appreciate Midnightridr providing my statement relative to the Comptroller– it was beyond rationality that one poster in particular you speak of had issues with my inordinate pro-active research skills that I have thus provided. It is beyond comprehension, simultaneously that there appears to be a lack of judgment relative to that posters submissive apologies to that effect. But I have grown to understand, in fact, to listen and write what posters are looking for to the best of my abilities. It is in my spiritual nature, I guess– something that seemed, at one point in time, to be something of a commonality when she was on better terms to speak to me. So in that way, my volunteership to coming into mutual agreements at least, is tagged by my research you provided. I appreciate that.

Kat_Princess says:
January 6th, 2009 at 8:56 am (#)

I also appreciate you tagging my concerns relative to involvement in elections. It is important to me, as a parent, and out-spoken political activist to attribute accordingly. I appreciate your approach. Thank you once again.

Kat_Princess says:
January 6th, 2009 at 9:09 am (#)

Bob Broxson is currently indicated as Secretary, according to one non-profit organizational publication provided by FBISD. Please note the discrepancy between three and the two positions up for next election.

midnightridr says:
January 6th, 2009 at 9:33 am (#)

Well, hopefully, some will run that are willing to speak up and try to change things, not just take orders or fail to question publically. We have had enough local politicians willing to do that.

There was a young US congressman (I believe 27 y/o) on the news yesterday that was very enthusiastic about taking his seat. He seemed to have many good ideas, but when the interviewer asked his much older predecessor what he should do, he said, “he will do fine as long as he listens to what he is told”. This statement isn’t something that instills a great deal of confidence in me and perhaps cuts to the heart of our problems in this apparent republic and I say apparent lightly. What the elder statesman was saying to the newbie was keep your mouth shut and do as your told. Sounds more like a corporate board room than one of our vaulted congressional seats where we should expect and encourage debate.

I wonder how Jefferson or Adams would feel if they were alive today to witness all this crony capitalism?

I intentionally did not include his party affiliation, because most of us have seen this behavior in both parties at all levels.

MaryMcClure says:
January 6th, 2009 at 10:38 am (#)

Mr. Pape and/or FortBendNow,

Who signed the letter? Who/whom represents this watchdog group? Unless I’m missing something, when I currently click the URL above, it appears anonymous.

I have no intention of joining this group nor contacting them. I’m curious as I’d like nothing more than to be reassured that this blog is not authored by a source who has unfortunately proven themselves beyond no doubt to be less than credible in our community. I believe other readers might also appreciate this reassurance.

I would also appreciate it if no anonymous posters manipulate my words here thus and respect the fact that I am specifically addressing my question to the author of this article…Mr. Pape and/or this news agency.

Further, I would like to state for the record that I do applaud any ethical watchdog group that steps up to the plate to truly represent the best interests of taxpayers…However, if their intentions are nothing but ethical and representative of taxpayers at large…I believe there is no reason to remain anonymous.

John Pape says:
January 6th, 2009 at 10:55 am (#)

In response to Ms. McClure’s question, the contact person for FBISD WatchDogs is Michael Lee.

I believe this information was previously posted in response to a similar question on an earlier story about this same issue.

MaryMcClure says:
January 6th, 2009 at 11:07 am (#)

Mr. Pape,

I do not currently see Mr. Lee’s name on the blog accessible by clicking the URL noted above. I have no idea who Mr. Lee is and am certainly not inferring anything in re to a person I do not know/know of or know for a bona fide fact truly exists representing this group. I cannot put blind trust in information provided by an anonymous poster who previously provided this forum with Mr. Lee’s name.

I reiterate, I am curious who signed the letter also.

Again, I would like reassurance that this blog is not authored by an individual who has also used names of real people in our community with common first and last names to mask their intentions.

Kampf says:
January 6th, 2009 at 11:21 am (#)

Well, hopefully, some will run that are willing to speak up and try to change things, not just take orders or fail to question publically. We have had enough local politicians willing to do that.

These are rare characteristics these days mnr. Perhaps by keeping the light on the subject something can be done.

JohnBernard.Books says:
January 6th, 2009 at 11:29 am (#)

Mary you have noticed FBISDwatchdog have taken posts from this site and posted at their site as comments……

Kat_Princess says:
January 6th, 2009 at 11:32 am (#)

Bravo, bravo … ghost_dance!

Overshadowing the alleged misprint? I gotcha covered!
Once again my “mail” out is unequaled. We all make mistakes, but this misprint aka “alleged or otherwise”, comes directly from my Fort Bend ISD publication. So guess I’m off the hook =-)

midnightridr says:
January 6th, 2009 at 11:35 am (#)

I would have to agree kampf. Start looking and drafting your neighbors because spring is almost here.

Pape > I remember reading the response to the poster above in the other thread. Makes you wonder why they are trying to expose people whom wish to remain anonymous? I wonder if they want the names of the police officers who moved this complaint to the media or if they want all our names for posting? It’s amazing how far they will go to silence the community isn’t it? I guess a list is the first step to retaliation.

Kat_Princess says:
January 6th, 2009 at 11:52 am (#)

Say, if only Dr. Jenney was home when I came knocking on his door during election time! Nonetheless, Congressional election but at least maybe we could have chatted about the BOTs.

MaryMcClure says:
January 6th, 2009 at 12:07 pm (#)

Yes JBB, I have…and very coincidental if nothing else, as the individual whom I hope is not authoring this anonymous watchdog blog has a pattern of doing such for years. If I was a betting woman, I’d lay down a grand on this assumption.

I do thank Mr. Pape for his response, but I do hope he remains wary of information provided by anonymous sources.

I have nothing to gain by contributing to this forum other than getting behind in my daily responsibilities…but I find it difficult also to turn a blind eye to what I know for a fact with evidence going on years now, as attempts to manipulate the community.

Unfortunately, for FortBendNow and its journalists, I have heard via a very credible and politically connected source that “Nobody” (I assumed in the context of having in-depth community or local political true knowledge) pays attention to the FortBendNow Comments section anymore…What a shame for FortBendNow, as it is a helpful news source…and the comments section could be utilized for productive and helpful discourse if not for the constant abuse and manipulation by some. I guess you just have to pray for some of these troubled and angry anonymous pseudonyms sometimes…they probably hope to fool some newcomers visiting the comments section I suppose…but eventually most readers and newcomers will catch on or become informed of the truth eventually, I believe.

ktunstall says:
January 6th, 2009 at 12:11 pm (#)

“MaryMcClure says:

I have no idea who Mr. Lee is and am certainly not inferring anything in re to a person I do not know/know of or know for a bona fide fact truly exists representing this group.”

Mr. Lee is indeed a real person. It is unlikely that you will ever make his acquaintance due to your support of the status quo of non-accountability and raping of the taxpayers.

Kat_Princess says:
January 6th, 2009 at 2:03 pm (#)

NewsFlash…FortBendNow…DashBoard
At a Glance

6,773 Posts 181 Comments
2 Pages 181 Approved
7 Categories 0 Pending
1 Tag 0 Spam

From MaryMcClure on FBISD Has No Comment On Call To Investigate Police Chief #

“Unfortunately, for FortBendNow and its journalists, I have heard via a very credible and politically connected source that “Nobody” (I assumed in the context of having in-depth community or local political true knowledge) pays attention to the FortBendNow Comments section anymore [...]

**************************************************
Lone Star Times linked here saying, “A local blog, FortBendNow, is making a serious all …”
**************************************************

Mary,
You may wish to rephrase your statement “credible and politically connected source” to truthfully document that http://www.lonestartimes.com is one of several high-profile websites virtually following our words. You may notice the other websites toward the bottom of the “Dashboard” page, once you log into FortBendNow.

I felt an obligation to set the record straight.

MEGABITE says:
January 6th, 2009 at 2:13 pm (#)

If nobody pays attention to the comments section, why is she
even bothering to post on it? 8^P

Kampf says:
January 6th, 2009 at 2:30 pm (#)

Good catch megabite and Kat. I did a google search and found a website for McClure in this county. I wonder if it is one and the same? Well, hopefully it won’t refocus the topic of this report by John Pape. Those officers that went out on a limb don’t deserve to have it sawed off. They appear to have done the right thing and need our support!

MaryMcClure says:
January 6th, 2009 at 3:45 pm (#)

ktunstall,

You do not personally know me and I do not know you personally…but this is not the first time you have attacked me on this forum for no apparent reason.

But for your information and for the record, I simply support ethics and truth.

Regardless, I hope you all have a nice evening and blessed and healthy new year (no sarcasm intended). Be nice all! God loves you.

midnightridr says:
January 6th, 2009 at 4:07 pm (#)

Maybe kampf the best advice for them is to get a good attorney and prepare themselves if history is any indicator. I remember FS mentioning how they treated a teacher of the year when he spoke up on supplies on his campus. It’s best to always be prepared.

JohnBernard.Books says:
January 6th, 2009 at 4:25 pm (#)

not sure of why the attacks either Mary, but thanks for your input.

MaryMcClure says:
January 6th, 2009 at 4:27 pm (#)

P.S. …and yes, I run a site called http://www.FortBendThinker.us.

midnightridr says:
January 6th, 2009 at 6:49 pm (#)

I just got off the phone with someone who called the central office and he said they told him they actually were meeting and discussing this very issue, but apparently that is off the record. Perhaps if more people called we could get them to actually investigate these allegations.

KT > I wonder if that’s all this bull was about ktunstall, someone plugging their site and why would they post their link if they thought this site was useless? I think you smoked out a spam monkey. Good job!

MaryMcClure says:
January 6th, 2009 at 6:58 pm (#)

Re 46.: Thanks for the thanks. It is truly sad and I take no pleasure in being the messenger.

MaryMcClure says:
January 6th, 2009 at 7:04 pm (#)

The messenger of the sad truth, that is.

Kat_Princess says:
January 6th, 2009 at 7:21 pm (#)

Tomorrow is another day! Chalk it up to hearts-on sleeves…
Meanwhile, we await comment to a possible communication break_through? Good luck.

midnightridr says:
January 6th, 2009 at 8:04 pm (#)

KP, that sounds like Scarlet in GWTW.

Hopefully we can get more to call in the morning.

Sugarland watch says:
January 6th, 2009 at 8:31 pm (#)

Well Well, Look at my posting #2 on January 5th. We (the tax payer) demand answers.

Since no one on this blog has the nerve or audacity to call the FBISD. I surely did and I asked to speak to the communication dept. I spoke to a lady in that dept and I asked several questions.

One of the questions was how many people call the dept on J.L. Campbell? I WAS THE FIRST.

The second question was, has the school board discussed this issue? The answer surprised me. She said yes the school board had discussed it and that it was a personnel problem and she could not discuss it.

I responded by saying that is so bad. We the taxpayer have the right to know. Her reply to me was “I know”.

So that says alot about our school board.

I wonder if it is really “Personnel Problem”, what would happen to the officer that made the allegations and the others who were involved.

So it is your turn to call or do something.

I am srue this will go on for a little while.

So JBB I challenge you!

Factually Speaking says:
January 6th, 2009 at 9:10 pm (#)

I admire your courage Sugarland Watch,

Unfortunately, most people think that to challenge policy is disloyal, unpatriotic, and/or being a trouble maker and renegade. Those who prefer to march in lock-step will distance themselves and criticize. Contrary to what those who whisper and point fingers think, it is very patriotic to question when policy and law are not followed because otherwise it puts our freedom and liberties at risk in a Democratic society.

Sugarland Watch, you wondered: “I wonder if it is really “Personnel Problem”, what would happen to the officer that made the allegations and the others who were involved.”—Harassment and Retaliation, initially, but if they hang tough, in the end comes vindication, a clear soul, a straight back, and a proud stride. Day always follows night.

Oh by the way, has there been an update regarding the Superintendent’s bonus?

JohnBernard.Books says:
January 6th, 2009 at 9:13 pm (#)

challenge me to? I’m still trying to find out who FBISDwatchdog is…..seems no one wants to own up

JohnBernard.Books says:
January 6th, 2009 at 9:19 pm (#)

oic challenge me to join the witch hunt…..no thanks I’ll leave that to you guys. But I’ll challenge you to dmand we quit spending tax$s for union personell on union business.

Kampf says:
January 6th, 2009 at 10:38 pm (#)

I will try to give them a call on Weds. Sugarlandwatch. Thanks for going the extra mile to help out. We owe these inside sources a great deal for bringing this to the attention of the public.

“I responded by saying that is so bad. We the taxpayer have the right to know. Her reply to me was “I know”.” SLW

I found this statement very interesting. I would be willing to bet there are many good people working for the district who would like to speak up. Even the one you talked to.

Again, thanks and thank you Mr. Paper for covering this for all of us, well almost all.

Factually, was the superintendent offered another raise during all this?

Factually Speaking says:
January 7th, 2009 at 5:34 am (#)

I’m referencing the student achievement incentive bonus beyond and separate from the superintendent’s salary or raise. It was discussed in a closed door BOT session during late summer or early fall. if my memory is correct, and the final decision, supposedly, was to occur in January 2009.

Kat_Princess says:
January 7th, 2009 at 11:51 am (#)

Kampf,
Please visit the Agenda Minutes to The Sugar Land City Council Meeting at http://www.sugarlandtx.gov

In my very attendance one evening, and prior to SL Mayor Thompson’s reign — former Mayor David Wallace placed Dr. Timothy Jenney’s salary “upon the agenda table”.

Kat_Princess says:
January 7th, 2009 at 12:28 pm (#)

My familiarity, references Sugar Land Mayor David Wallace’s [former] recognitions to honor “America’s Promise Alliance”, the nations largest alliance dedicated to children and youth. The evening of my attendance, 2.05.08.

Mayor Wallace invited FBISD Superintendent Dr. Timothy Jenney as guest of honor. In my recollection Mayor Wallace verbally, graciously recognized Dr. Jenney — proudly honoring his Superintendent duties alongside the youth.

I am also familiar in the duties of the Trustees, thus one of the major decisions that BOT’s must fulfill, is relative to salaries placed “upon their own agenda table.” In that way, it makes clear sense what I did in fact hear relative to salaries at the Sugar Land Council meeting.

JohnBernard.Books says:
January 7th, 2009 at 4:40 pm (#)

somehow the discussion moves from Chief Campbell to Dr Jenney….which I suspect the “witch hunt” is really about….

JohnBernard.Books says:
January 7th, 2009 at 7:06 pm (#)

just as I thought the “witch hunt” is all about Dr Jenney and not about Chief Canpbell….who wooda thunk…..

MaryMcClure says:
January 8th, 2009 at 11:17 am (#)

JBB,

Speaking of “witch” and witches…

I feel I must admonish you for your methods because I think you could catch more flies with honey…but at times, I feel a distant online proverbial kinship with you (even though I have no idea who you are) only in that we may serve as a revisionist “Hansel and Gretel” whose remaining breadcrumbs eventually lead readers who can see the truth for what it is to view the proverbial “witch’s/es’” trap for what it is…a trap…albeit proven time and again as simply a social engineering trap that does not work due to a combination of Divine Providence, readers gifted with discernment, and people who really care about the community above personal ambitions or their own egos, in my opinion.

…and please know I am definitely not referring to any aging female/females as the proverbial trickster witch(es) (as witches are portrayed in most storybooks) attempting to fool the community as though the community was comprised solely of naive and gullible children.

MaryMcClure says:
January 8th, 2009 at 11:23 am (#)

P.S. JBB, my gut tells me it may be about both…but I think it is an aversion and jealousy that goes way back…but I am only going by past events I have unfortunately witnessed myself and what a troubled soul once told me about themselves.

Kampf says:
January 8th, 2009 at 12:01 pm (#)

“Campbell, while employed by the school district, ran unsuccessful campaigns for Galveston Sheriff in 2004 and 2008. A number of district insiders have claimed Campbell “ran the campaigns from his office” at the school district police department.”

Thanks to this series of investigative reports by Mr. Pape, the public will continue to get the truth. It is very much appreciated!

midnightridr says:
January 8th, 2009 at 12:36 pm (#)

Thanks FS and Kat for your posts on this important topic. I think FBN has done a good job on this series of investigative reports and their sources can be trusted. It is important for the district to develop a more open and transparent process, which they apparently do not have.

Hopefully the report by SLwatch is correct and they really are looking into the harassments against those officer that did their duty. The taxpayers should always demand accountability in their public institutions, otherwise you get what you deserve and then more of the same.

Some will defend that, but I feel it is unconscionable given the facts. Hopefully the board will meet its fiduciary responsibility.

Kat_Princess says:
January 8th, 2009 at 2:26 pm (#)

I imagine…
It was a “hot spam” evening of “merry wanderment” pleasures? Ah, whatever happens behind closed monitored doors is not my business, but yes yanno I luv ta watch!

May we all turn our head to more cunning&..
less-facts?

FACT:
TEXAS SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF’S ASSOCIATION
Board of Directors
J.L. Campbell — Secretary
http://www.texasisdchiefs.com/boardofdirectors.html

Ha, ha who hear wishes to begin speaking factually?

Kat_Princess says:
January 8th, 2009 at 2:36 pm (#)

Less cunning…more facts please?
http://www.texasisdchiefs.com/boardofdirectors.html

J.L. Campbell is clearly the focal point, and it seems strange to leave him out of this thread. Especially strange since I kept my eyes on our “Dashboard” last eveening. Striking an all time blastful high of 13 spam sessions?

I hereby call this thread to order!

Kat_Princess says:
January 8th, 2009 at 2:40 pm (#)

Ha, ha
There’s an extra “e” up for grabs in my “eveening” if anyone wishes to cop to it? Just be nice. I wouldn’t want J.L. Campbell to get out is handcuffs ;-)

JohnBernard.Books says:
January 8th, 2009 at 4:45 pm (#)

Mary I appreciate your comments here and I know that you as well as I support holding the BOT accountable. Thanks

midnightridr says:
January 8th, 2009 at 5:18 pm (#)

It looks like the school district police departments all began around the mid 1980s and have grown since. I wonder if discipline has improved over that time span or continued as a growing problem? Would it have been better to contract security services to local agencies with perhaps stations at key schools? Is it cheaper and more effective?

Sorry if this is just a tad off topic.

midnightridr says:
January 8th, 2009 at 5:19 pm (#)

btw, thanks for posting that link!

MaryMcClure says:
January 8th, 2009 at 6:37 pm (#)

Re 73: Thanks for the thanks again. Yes, of course I support holding them accountable if there is any concrete evidence of an unethical nature. However, I will never support any unsubstantiated witch hunt in the school system, local political arena, and/or local business community promulgated by less than credible individuals (including one of these individuals chronically) with less than good intentions as has occurred too often and instigated by some of the same individuals repeatedly in Fort Bend.

MaryMcClure says:
January 8th, 2009 at 8:02 pm (#)

Re 73: Thanks for the thanks again. Yes, of course I support holding them accountable if there is any concrete evidence of an unethical nature. However, I will never support any unsubstantiated witch hunt in the school system, local political arena, and/or local business community promulgated by less than credible individuals (including one individual chronically) with less than good intentions as has occurred too often and instigated by some of the same individuals repeatedly in Fort Bend.

I have no idea whether this is a witch hunt or whether an investigation is truly warranted and I do not know the chief nor have ever met him…but it does not impress me that an anonymous blog and what appears to be an unsigned letter is offered as an obviously hopeful catalyst in pressing for an investigation.

MaryMcClure says:
January 8th, 2009 at 9:40 pm (#)

77, I hope you are not including me in on your “consensus” as I’m no witness, do not know the witnesses, do not know the Chief, and have read of no concrete evidence presented in the above article.

Allegations in and of themselves do not convince me beyond a reasonable doubt, especially anonymous allegations…only concrete evidence along with credible named sources of information can convince me.

Kat_Princess says:
January 9th, 2009 at 6:55 am (#)

Morning Midnight, Every1 =-)
Sipping kona 2gether is fun…

“[...] In furtherance of the goal of professionalizing school district policing [...]” ~ Texas ISD Chiefs

GWTW Scarlett teasingly says:
“Frankly my dear, I do give a …”

BTW: Governor Rick Perry designated January 2009 -
School Board Recognition month…

May I have this Ghost_Dance with you? “Nothing like consensus!” But playing around with handcuffs while dancing? ;-)

midnightridr says:
January 9th, 2009 at 7:49 am (#)

GD you are correct with your use of the term ‘consensus’. It simply means a majority (not everyone). In this case a majority supports accountability with regard to the BOT and its oversight duty of the use/misuse of our tax dollars.

Next, I’m not all together sure how you answer any of the allegation questions from the multiple sources from inside the administration or clear the chief without an investigation. Also, I’m not sure how you have responsible oversight, verification or ACCOUNTABILITY without the board looking into this matter (investigation) further.

Hopefully, what SLW reported earlier is an indication of some sort of internal investigation. I would agree though that perhaps an external investigation by the TEC isn’t a bad idea. It could also be used to either support the inside allegations or clear Campbell. Inaction will do neither and will not restore public confidence in the system.

You would think most would want the truth to emerge from this process, rather than a dark cloud hanging over the chiefs office with more internal ‘witch hunts’ in the search for those who did their job by reporting the potential wrong doing.

I appreciate the fact that this news agency was willing to cover this for the public.

Kampf says:
January 9th, 2009 at 7:53 am (#)

I’m on board with those calling for an investigation. It is the only way to answer the allegations.

grnguyen says:
January 10th, 2009 at 11:11 pm (#)

I wasn’t aware that FBISD Police provided security and traffic control for local churches Sat’s & Sun’s. I guess this is an extra source of revenue that relieves taxpayers in FBISD. Wonder how much they get per service/per day? Do the officers get OT? Do they have to share it with the school district or do they get to keep it all? What about their patrol cars?

How many churches pay FBISD Police for this security/traffic service? Which churches?

Hmmm, because churches are immune from taxes, this means that a taxing agency, FBISD, is getting relief (benefit) from entities that aren’t taxed. Is this a constitutional issue, e.g., separation of church / state?

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

More:

MEGABITE says:
January 15th, 2009 at 4:32 pm (#)

Not taking sides here, but I fail to see how they are obligated to respond to an internet blogger’s allegations.

getrealnow says:
January 15th, 2009 at 4:43 pm (#)

The board is obligated to address taxpayers concerns, especially when the concern involves one of their own…
All of ths damn covering up is making me sick……

grnguyen says:
January 15th, 2009 at 4:45 pm (#)

Does the income FBISD officers in FBISD patrol cars receive from local churches for providing traffic control and security find its way into the FBISD general (or allocated) fund?

Which churches receive the services of FBISD Police personnel and police cars?

Kampf says:
January 15th, 2009 at 4:54 pm (#)

Naturally some think it is better to let the media cloud and allegations by many insiders just hang over the district. If the board doesn’t wish to respond to taxpayers perhaps they should consider responding to the media reports, since we all don’t count apparently in this or they can keep releasing those feel good pieces on the recent raise. Why should we expect anything different out of the communications office, after all we don’t pay their salaries do we and the board doesn’t have any duty to the public?

Kampf says:
January 15th, 2009 at 4:58 pm (#)

Hathaway said. “If any organization wants to win the respect and confidence of their customers, in this case the taxpayers in the school district, they’re going to have to learn to embrace a greater degree of transparency in their corporate communications.”

Thank you Dr. Hathaway for stating the obvious!

Factually Speaking says:
January 16th, 2009 at 8:19 pm (#)

Dr. Hathaway has stated what we know to be the authentic truth. Now, why it is that those who operate in a contrary manner to what Dr. Hathaway has stated is an incomprehensible mystery which defies logic time and time again.

MNR, anyone who is knowledgeable about this district is absolutely “not” surprised by the posturing.

Factually Speaking says:
January 17th, 2009 at 9:14 am (#)

In remaining mum or utilizing stonewalling strategies is not toward, in essence what crisis communication specialist has stated is the following: Dr. Hathaway, said, “The public may well get the impression the district is more concerned with covering up misconduct than correcting it.”

Well, Dr. Hathaway, you hit the nail on the head in an exact, correct interpretation. Although, many thought that the escape to the burbs seemed as if it was going to be a heavenly promise land for suburban parents and their children, however, not necessarily so. Parents and citizenry in general are not receiving due respect by school officials; and contrary to popular opinion, the urban parents and general citizenry receive far more respect in being informed, and in receipt of timely response from board members, and the superintendent who by the way is a public employee, which if properly actualized is the necessitated, operative transparency of a public entity accorded to their tax dollar. In my humble opinion the suburban parents and the community at large are being lessened and disrespected which actually equates to a type of disenfranchisement.

Kat_Princess says:
January 17th, 2009 at 9:29 am (#)

Maganimously spirited opinions exemplify clarity to concerns — resulting more easily into transparent, and informed decisions. Whether calculating or miscalculated, the desired consistency to become informed is best explored in it’s delivery.

We are speaking about mutual benefitting factors and on both sides of your identifiable entities, mind you.

Seems like an amicable and wise discussion to me….

Willie says:
January 17th, 2009 at 10:50 am (#)

FBISD’s method in dealing with problems that are pointed out is to stonewall those pointing out the problems and treat the problem with silence in the hopes that it goes away. The Board of Trustees has been contacted on several occassions regarding alleged violations of Title VII law and theft and surprisingly instead of eagerly investigating these claims to see if they are true, the board members remain silent. The alleged evidence has even been given to the board member, so all that would be required would be a simple verification on their part to either prove or disprove that allegations. You can read the details about these allegations at
http://fortbendemployees.blogspot.com/

Kat_Princess says:
January 17th, 2009 at 8:59 pm (#)

Thankfully,
My school taxes et al, are figured into my mortgage. I never understood why you guys always miss that discussion.

Factually Speaking says:
January 18th, 2009 at 9:33 am (#)

Willie,

My heart goes out to you and the others; and I regret being the bearer of less than happy tidings. My sources tell me that this is not the first time that FBISD has been investigated by EEOC and seemingly, the district comes through the investigation like Teflon. Some seem to think that’s one of the main sources of the district’s legal expenses; having deep pockets and fighting off charges due to the fact that they never admit wrong doing, no matter the expense because after all, others people’s money’s spends easier than one’s personal money. My prayers are with you and I wish you all the best of luck. I hope you realize with FBISD, it matters “not” that you are right and have been “wronged” and violation and disrespect of Civil Rights Laws/Codes/Policies mean nothing to FBISD because they operate in a vacuum and, of course, are above the law—they do whatever they want to do because they don’t have to follow policy/law- they make their own rules and get away with it.

Now, with God’s power, all things are possible; however, God moves in his own time and not always in the time that we think he should; let’s just hope that God has determined that this is the time.

Kat_Princess says:
January 18th, 2009 at 9:50 am (#)

Seeminglyless courage to stand legal grounds:
Why not speak about the “Legal Entity” representing FBISD?
God is not speechless, is he?

Kat_Princess says:
January 18th, 2009 at 9:55 am (#)

Should anyone of the FBISDWatchDogs groups come to a P&Z meeting, you should see all the aspects to your issues in a different light. Why not come out and show yourselves there to ask why your FBISD kids are not important enough they must be crowded in classrooms like sardines because why? Because ya’ll are too caught up in your own agenda ….why in God’s name does it truly matter that when all is said & done, it’s THE KIDS THAT LOSE BECAUSE YOUR BLIND EYES ARE NOT ON THE SAME PAGE AS THE DEMOGRAPHER’S?

Glory be to God…wake up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kat_Princess says:
January 18th, 2009 at 10:31 am (#)

Is it beyond the legal scope to intellect that FBISDWatchDogs care more about their “own power to control” powerful entities such as the FBISD Chief of Police –that in turn allows every penny, every dime, every dollar, every moment spent to not even contemplate as much as 1 cents worth to not even include the CHILDREN in your agenda?

Factually Speaking says:
January 18th, 2009 at 11:47 am (#)

That’s the whole of the agenda, the children. If the school district exhibits behavior that is contrary and in conflict with toward character and ethics in “any” area, this makes it more likely that it lacks the appropriate character and ethics to lead children and model for children; and makes it less likely that its interactions pertaining to children will impact children in a fair and just manner. Moreover, if the district ignores parents/taxpayers request for transparency, will it be transparent with issues regarding the education of children? If the district limits parent input regarding educational issues within the district, is it not a simultaneous disrespect for the children? If a district is oblivious to inefficiencies and wrong doings which, eventually, calls for spending money on legal defense and thus leading to excess money and time spent on bottled neck, negative issues/matters in the final analysis, this too spills over to cause suffering for children because all the negativity takes precious time from the appropriate engagement of educational leadership which it takes to concentrate and focus upon the children and their educational needs, well being, and safety. Additionally, excess money spent trying to defend negative issues take educational dollars away from the children. Consequently, all things directly related and indirectly non-related in an educational entity eventually come full circle to also include the most vulnerable, within educational entity, the children.

Kat_Princess says:
January 18th, 2009 at 11:55 am (#)

As to contrary, discerning, genuine “conflicts of interest” please turn your page to the “Star”…

Integrity speaks volumes. Are we as loyal, avid journalistic lovers to FortBendNow, suppose to assume YOU are the FBISD Spokesmodel person to accept all responsibilities for speaking in lieu of the FBISDWatchDog groups? If so please state your case in 10 words or less, so we may understand your genuine position.

Kat_Princess says:
January 18th, 2009 at 12:03 pm (#)

Opening Minds to Open Doors…
Factually Speaking are you aware of this statement as I outlined? Exactly what is the relationship– if any– reflects towards FBISD or to the FBISD District Police Chief Campbell? To safely assume and digest any of your opinions would indeed be justifiable and of interest to all of the children listening and reading your points on FortBendNow, as we speak. Are you willing to confirm or deny any of my questions as I relate them to you?

Kat_Princess says:
January 18th, 2009 at 12:08 pm (#)

P.S. It is educationally fundamental to learn at least one thing from your post — Factually Speaking what would that in fact be? Police Chief Campbell lost his position, are you intending upon replacing him in the near future? Or perhaps lead in some other propaganda set agenda, or would you be even willing to further clarify, how in fact the children do relate in anything you attempt to convey in your #17. It appears difficult to digest without your clear parallel to how the children in fact relate.

Factually Speaking says:
January 18th, 2009 at 12:30 pm (#)

The quintessence of what one comprehends as related or does not comprehend as related is beyond my control. Simply put, some will see the related facts as presented; some may not.

Kat_Princess says:
January 18th, 2009 at 12:42 pm (#)

Factually Speaking, your statement to clarity is well defined within your following quote as exhibited here:

“..other people’s money’s spend easier..”

In your own words, once again, exactly how does your statement parallel? I shall walk one-step to elaborate further: Why not use your statement as a “catch all” to basically every fiscal projection in life? Governmental entities, albeit in both sides of Legislation (The House of Congress, The Senate) may just be watching your statements to clarify, as well.

Kat_Princess says:
January 18th, 2009 at 12:57 pm (#)

Factually Speaking:
Would you be willing to confirm or deny…we are now in a “State of Filibustering”? ;-(

Kat_Princess says:
January 18th, 2009 at 3:23 pm (#)

Clearly,
It becomes “easy to see” why FBISD Communications have “no comment” — once one is confronted with alleged FBISDWatchDogger’s unwilling to speak in specificalities; rather speak in generalities. It all begs more questions, but at least that’s my opinion willing to back myself up.

Apparently, no one wins in cases like this — simply due to the fact that “closing door” vs “opening door” statements lose out big as in most unfortunate mindsets as spoken by Factually…”beyond my control”? Practically sounds like a disease but albeit it’s not. But it is cold outside, today.

JohnBernard.Books says:
January 18th, 2009 at 3:47 pm (#)

not sure of the purpose of the on going discussion but if you read the FBISD BOT 2008/2009 Operating Procedures it clearly states BOTs cannot discuss personnel issues publicly and concerning letters, it states “17. Phone Calls/Letters
A.The FBISD Board of Trustees
encourages input; however, anonymous
communications will not receive
Board action”….. that should be self explanatory.

Kampf says:
January 18th, 2009 at 4:26 pm (#)

I’m not sure why you are attempting to scapegoat the watchdogs considering these allegations came from internal sources and were reported by the press in this series of articles. After reading their request for an investigation to either clear or not the chief, which you seemed to be supporting, you seem now to be pointing your finger at the 3rd party involved (the taxpayers) rather than the insiders (news sources) or the media.

I still hold to the fact that if we’re paying our tax dollars on this then we have a right to know if the chief was spending our money needlessly to better himself personally, rather than doing his job for the district that pays him.

I think Dr. Hathaway, factually and others who live in this district and pay taxes are absolutely correct in demanding accountability by the board and positive role models for their kids. If they won’t do their duty, then we need to find those that will.

Are you a taxpayer in this district and why have you flipped on your earlier positions on this investigative series? I will continue to applaud this news service for reporting the facts and keeping the public informed and I fully support watchdogs anywhere keeping an eye on their local governments and how they do or don’t spend the public monies or protect the TRUST that should exist, but often doesn’t.

Kat_Princess says:
January 18th, 2009 at 8:19 pm (#)

JBB you are a wiseman to question, and provide “self explanatory” genuine sources to TRUST.

~
“Are you a taxpayer in this district and why have you flipped on your earlier positions on this investigative series? …” [It is unclear who you are speaking to.]
~

“If” one assumes a stance, conceding linguistically into a rhetorical “conjunction” — [ie the continuous usage of the word "if" as mused in post #17]

than
how much
FAITH/TRUST

should one be required to place in that posters unsubstantiated stance?

Please excuse, but FBISDWatchDogs certainly should be able to commentary wisely to prove their point?

Kat_Princess says:
January 18th, 2009 at 8:30 pm (#)

“If” one assumes a stance, conceding linguistically into a rhetorical “conjunction” — [as mused in post# 17's usage of the word if] than how much Faith/Trust should one be required to dignifiably place on one’s unsubstantiated stance?

~
If you are speaking to denounce or humiliate FBISD, why allow ambiguous-speak to preside your “good intentions”?
~

“Are you a taxpayer in this district and why have you flipped on your earlier positions on this investigative series?” — It is most ambiguous who your intent is to reach.

Issuing ambiguity in lengthy statements today, seemed to accomplish what?

Thank you JohnBernard, for publicizing your genuine intent to understand and provide the facts to clarify rationalities.

Kat_Princess says:
January 18th, 2009 at 9:24 pm (#)

In still holding to the fact, that an all day unsubstantiated discussion as outlined in post #17, appears to be the “best” way to successfully discuss issues? “If” that is the best spokesway of accomplishing a positive resolution perhaps that “source”’s style should not be so abrasively pointing fingers especially as it relates to FBISD’s style of commentary [or lack thereof]

That’s the point, I wish to get across plainly.

“Are you a taxpayer in this district?” Why not speak about anything or everything I ask of you? Where is the validation to my question relative to school taxes? Not every issue must be entrusted with your agenda questioning does it?

Factually Speaking says:
January 18th, 2009 at 11:58 pm (#)

Kampf,

Actually, I’m sure you know that some individuals are always on the prowling troll to make something of nothing; and to read more into something as being a discussion or debate when it really is not.

I wrote commentary about how anything happening in an educational entity whether seemingly related or not eventually, though, in the final analysis, related or non-related occurrences in most instances does come full circle to impact the children within the educational entity. Unfortunalrly, some are so eager to compete so they perceive that every commentary is a response to their rants and so they try and make a case when there is no case to be made. I normally do not response to this individual and against my better judgment, I made a few response commentaries, since I’m her favorite poster to stalk, and compete with, this was a big mistake on my part.

As you well know Kampf to know FBISD is to “really know” them and it is not an enviable position; and those of us who really know; know the generalities and the specifics and when best to speak in general terms or specific terms. Those who do “not” really know FBISD, but, yet pretend to know what they do not know, it becomes quite evident because they know neither the generalities nor the specifics and so therefore are not able to recognize either.

So in the final analysis, all discussion between those who really know and those who do not know become pointless. When someone does not “really know” FBISD, it, eventually, becomes, without a doubt, conclusive that games are being played. It is understandably baffling as to why any one would trivialized the seriousness of the matters regarding this school district as being contrived make believe or pretend games pursued by the WatchDogs. Although, not a FBISD WatchDog, I recognize in knowledge the source of their plight, and I understand your sentiments about those who make inference that the WatchDogs should not be taken at their word or taken seriously and the projection that FBISD has legitimate reason to not comment and to engage in stonewalling the public. Any one making such a statement “really” has no clue and depth of knowledge about FBISD.

JohnBernard.Books says:
January 19th, 2009 at 5:58 am (#)

I’m sorry maybe you missed this….
“17. Phone Calls/Letters
A.The FBISD Board of Trustees
encourages input; however, anonymous
communications will not receive
Board action”

Kat_Princess says:
January 19th, 2009 at 7:40 am (#)

Appeasement, Kampf is not compassionately a “bad thing”. Patience, tolerance and kindness toward understanding everyone’s emotional criticism; however is not always constructive as exhibited in this thread. With that being said, would it have not been wiser to leave the unsubstantiated “finger pointing” out of this discussion? If one genuinely truly wishes to successfully charter the best recourse of action, one’s answer appearingly favors “yes”.

Now, JohnBernard has been gracious in his provisions to personally assume supportive responsibility exactly where it belongs — certainly we should all appreciate the FBISD’s BOT position, as exhibited in their brochure to policy?

Similiarly, John Pape’s newest editorial appears to relate in that Sugar Land’s Charter Review Commission strives to reflect upon their own value system via recommendations to change the City’s governing business procedures.

With that, too, being said why then must this thread continue with unconstructive criticism that favors no one’s position?

Kat_Princess says:
January 19th, 2009 at 7:56 am (#)

Exactly,
How does a monologue filled with “enticing linguistical entanglements” contribute wisely or constructively toward FBISD BOT Policies/Brochure; FBISD Police Chief Campbell?

In your continual barrage of attempts to discount me through linguistic analogies relating to troll-bevavior assumes a stance far beyond your educational knowledge to constructively contribute to conversations with dignity to respect everyone’s position.

Of course, the “sources” I speak to/about have great difficulty in relating your words to mean anything other than disparaging type put-downs, in hopes to do what with it? Only God knows?

What we have here is a thread stream of emotions and nothing but letting off steam, unless of course one of you provides something tangible to discuss provided there are indeed facts to back you up.

Now, who wishes to begin with these thoughts in mind?

MaryMcClure says:
January 19th, 2009 at 8:40 am (#)

Post #25 is extremely helpful and informative to those unaware. Bravo!

Another quote comes to mind re this story, and again, I have no idea what the truth is re the Chief or unnamed employees’ testimony, but I’d bet my last dollar on who is behind the anonymous FBISD Watchdogs blog…and this quote comes to mind:

“Tyranny and anarchy are never far asunder.” (Jeremy Bentham)

…fyi, “asunder” is an old fashioned word that means ‘apart’. …and please do not misinterpret usage of this quote as though I’m inferring any bona fide tyranny exists in FBISD in the first place that I know of.

Kampf says:
January 19th, 2009 at 8:45 am (#)

I’m not sure how the policy quote applies to anything. I believe Mr. Pape gave the contact person for the tax watch group earlier in this series and apparently Mr. Pape is a real person too. What’s your point or is there one? You often seem to be working against more transparency in our governmental institutions, which is vastly needed. Even the expert in the quotes above confirm that. Why is that so threatening to some? After all we are paying them quite a bit to be ignored on some pretty important issues like this one.

Factually Speaking says:
January 19th, 2009 at 9:42 am (#)

JBB,

Regarding your address to my commentary #17, I read several pieces of verifiable documentations over dinner recently and, factually speaking, the BOT already has been informed, many times over.

Moreover, I regret that some do not understand that the use of the term “if” is not always meant in a sense of being supposition rather than a reality. To challenge commentary without knowing and/or being privy to the authentic factual source upon which it is written exemplifies someone being out of synch, out of touch, and not in knowledge about what they are trying to offer as challenge commentary. End of Story.

Kat_Princess says:
January 19th, 2009 at 10:07 am (#)

If one would be not be “factually forthcoming” in the Legislative process (for example) what indeed, would everyone quibble over? Character?

What we have here, is Factually not speaking forthright in her rhetoricals?

Moreover JBB provided FBISD BOT procedures, where is your analysis? Where is your meeting to successfully venture out into the Educational world of ethics to facts?

Wow, FS. Your continual “follow-ups” to deny questions that everyone presents as logical never end, do they?

Factually Speaking says:
January 19th, 2009 at 12:09 pm (#)

It is highly disingenuous to include everyone when it is only one; the same one who is the stalker of FS.

Logical? I think not. Ignorance of the subject’s commentary, is indeed, bliss.

Kat_Princess says:
January 19th, 2009 at 12:20 pm (#)

My stance, Kampf, supports ALL children, in ALL ISD’s relative to the fiscal aspects of building new school to reasonably and logically accomodate their infrastructural needs, as well as teachers too. Why is it apparently difficult for some of you to intelligently discuss anything without pointing fingers first?

If one would stop to rationally assume why my questions all relative first, without being demeaning, than wouldn’t that in fact be a great start?

FBISD is growing enrollment-wise , so why is this not a factor to anything you guys are pursuing? My thoughts immediately, as they always have, gravitate toward what are the future parents that move into FBISD thinking once they assume that new job in our sprawling County of Fort Bend? Are posters commentaries, in this thread appealing their interests to move here? I don’t believe so.

That is my point.

Why be so dysfunctionally organized with respect to the FortBendWatchDogs stance? Allowing Factually full reign at this point anyways, does not seem to bode well for anyone –not with the current stance of “I know more than you–ha, ha!” presides over this thread.

Compromise is a 2way street my friends….let’s drive Texas Friendly 2gether?

Kampf says:
January 19th, 2009 at 12:27 pm (#)

“said the district needs to, at the very least, assure the public that they will not stand for misconduct by district employees”

I would guess since we haven’t even heard so much as a simple statement, like the above Hathaway quote, that it does begin to look more like a cover-up. Much like those campus disturbances involving several area policing agencies last year.