45° F
16 Two of the three incumbents seeking re-election to the Eanes school board will face opposition in the May 8 election, as a result of two candidates filing just prior to Monday’s deadline.
Sharman Reed has filed for Place 5 that is currently being filled by interim appointee James Kallison, who replaced Gail King when she resigned in August 2009; Dr. Colleen Jones filed opposite Place 6 incumbent Mike Monnig; and Place 7 incumbent Ellen Balthazar is unopposed for re-election.
Early voting runs from April 26-May 4 at Randalls, 3300 Bee Cave Road, from 7 a.m.-7 p.m. Monday-Saturday and Sunday from noon-6 p.m., or at any of the other early voting polling locations provided by Travis County.
The polling place on Election Day is Valley View Elementary School, 1201 Capital of Texas Highway.
Hurray! The only thing that could have made this better news is if Sharman had run against Ellen! Kal has been a very good board member, even if the process of selecting him was, shall we say, tainted. But if we can replace Monnig with someone who cares more about education and long term viability of the district than he appears to, we all will win. I hope Dr. Jones offers a true alternative and is not another friend of the other trustees who all watch each other’s and Nola’s back.
I am not sure Kal is the right person for the job. He may have an education background but he has yet to not vote in lock step with Ellen and Mike. He has also come out at the Bond meetings saying he is for everything and never once asking for a financial analysis. Sayers, Durkee and Stone have said they want to see the numbers of how different parts of the bond would impact the finances of the district.
Plus, the Trustees who put Kal on Board are all there and he is loyal to them. We need new people asking new questions- even if they come to the same conclusion we need to see the thought process. We need transparency, fiscal responsibility and Board members who do not rubberstamp everything Dr. Wellman asks for.
Go Dr. Jones and Go Sharman Reed!! New people, new voices, new ideas!
I agree with the previous post. And I will vote for anyone who is not an incumbent. Those of us who follow the politics in this district are aware that it isn’t easy to run against the PACK of board members currently in place. And we all know that the Eanes administration supports thopse board members who are currently serving and rubber-stamping her orders. Maybe over time, we will have a board that represents the taxpayers … and all of the children who live in this district. Thank you (Dr. Jones and Ms. Reed) for running!
Is the idea simply having someone run against the current candidates? Does qualification matter? In the previous statements it does not sound like it. Check out the qualifications of the candidates before chosing purely because its a change in the current state.
Dr. Jones is extremely qualified- PHD in Education(Curriculum and Instruction), former high school and college teacher, parent of four in the district-3 elem and 1 middle, PTO President, Campus Leadership Team, Westlake Supporter, EEF Supporter, and the list goes on. She has great qualifications, a strong base of support and the educational background that will be of great value on our School Board. She has nothing but good intentions and believes strongly in our District and Schools.
Dr. Jones has four children currently attending schools in EISD at both the elementary and secondary levels. She has a PhD in education and experience teaching in high-school and college classrooms. She is a current PTO president and active volunteer. She lives, understands and listens to the wide range of educational needs of EISD students. Dr. Jones is the most qualified candidate in many years to step forward for this very important position.
Dr. Kallison’s expertise is in school finance. To say he hasn’t considered or asked for financial analysis is woefully misguided. Reed is a real estate agent with no real qualifications. How would that be better?
If Reed can think independently, then she would be the better candidate to represent the public. If a board member rubber-stamps the administration’s decisions, then we have no representation, only the illusion of such.
Degrees don’t always come with common sense. Reed is an active school and community volunteer who has devoted countless hours to our schools and actually listens to the concerns of voters. How can a school finance expert endorse over $40 million in elementary school bonds when he knows that we will exhaust our reserve fund in only a couple of years without any increased operations costs? Opening a new elementary, converting Valley View to offices and admin to classrooms is not only inefficient, it will require cuts in other areas to operate those facilities. According to Dr. Wellman at the public board meetings, cuts in programs will need to start this spring. Maybe it’s Kallison’s election rhetoric because it sure isn’t the opinion of a school finance expert!
So Wellman said that “cuts in programs will need to start the spring?” Where are the cuts to athletics? to the administrative staff? No cuts, just more excess in those areas. I’ve paid attention for many years and can’t find a single reduction in sports except that the athletic director position was cut back in about 03/04 … but Wellman reversed that. As far as I can tell, the athletic program is exempt from the budget cuts and is a top priority for any and all planning/funding. Wellman has also increased the size of the central administrative staff and their salaries. By a lot. No wonder class sizes are on the rise and the district needs transfer students to fill the classrooms.
I would hope that all candidates would be involved in the complex deliberation that is occurring regarding all the options for a possible bond as it will require much more than common sense. Thank you to the citizen that did an excellent job of transcribing the recent (and past) school board meetings (see site below) where citizens are presenting views and trustees are asking questions. Posts on this site that imply that due process and financial analysis of bond options are not occurring are misinformed. There are also other sites that support various bond options – http://www.newvalleyview.com and http://www.renovateeanes.com and contain substantive information. All community and neighborhood views must be considered and the candidates must listen to all voters. I would hope we would have community forums for this election so we can hear from all the candidates on their platforms for these complex issues.
http://www.savefte.org
For example – a quote for the site:
Mr. Strickland commented that there are three general reasons the Board needs to thoroughly vet:
1) Size of the bond offering. The current perception is that passing a bond over the $100M mark will be more difficult. He hopes to find out more at the upcoming Community Forum to see if this is a reality based upon community feedback. The size of the bond needs to be kept in mind since this bond must succeed for the 19+ and other much needed repairs.
2) Overall increase in square footage. Currently the plan is at a net increase of 169,000 square feet in a district that has growth at a moderate rate
3) Can we afford the additional M&O costs that the additional square footage will create?
Mr. Strickland commented that if the Board can answer these three questions to the community, then they will have success.
Isn’t it interesting that Mr. Strickland is even talking about the 19+ facility? Why his sudden interest in that old dilapidated trailer where children with disabilities are educated? The board, the administration, have been abundantly aware of this “problem”, this sort of discrimination for years, even decades. So why do you suppose this issue has Strickland’s attention now? He’s no advocate for children with special needs, that’s for sure. In the past, he could easily ignore those students and focus on more and better athletic facilities. (He does sell sports uniforms and such “for a livin’.”) So why, according to Jim Strickland, must this “bond succeed for the 19+ and other much needed repairs”? What has changed?
Instead of making this an all or none bond election, the board could propose separate bonds. That choice would allow the voters to choose which portions to support.
TL – Many voiced that idea during the 2006 bond election as well and as a result, the bond was divided into two proposals. The “indoor football field” was moved to a separate$5.5 million bond … and it failed.
A few weeks ago this paper reported that even though school board members acknowledged that an extravagant bond isn’t a good idea in this economy, “Board member Mike Monnig voiced support for a new student activity center.
‘I’m all for doing the whole thing right now,’ he said. ‘Make it not only a practice facility, but add some costs to it and make it a community center.’”
Eanes taxpayers don’t need to “add costs.” Remember what this guy said when you go to vote.
In February 2010, Kallison and Monnig voted to give the superintendent $10K in salary (instead of reimbursing her district travel expenses) so that Nola Wellman could hide her travel receipts from the public and gain financial benefit from TRS. That’s what she wanted and that’s what she got. Only one board member voted against this blantant action to hide information from the public: Clint Sayers.
Kallison and Monnig represent the superintendent, not the public.