Comments on: Eanes school board edges closer to final bond proposal

By: Wake UP

Wake UP — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 03:50:47 +0000

I’d trust the trustees a lot more if they would ever challenge Dr. W. on anything. They have followed her blindly into financial ruin. She overspends (pulling another $3.0MM from the rainy day fund). She overbuilds (asking for huge bond programs in the middle of a recovery from the worst economic recession in decades) and she over promises that someday the Texas Leg will bail her bottom out of this fix.

She is a disaster: I’d trust the trustees a lot more if they acknowledged that over promises, overspending, and overbuilding is not what we ask them to fall for. We ask them to use their heads.

That seems to be asking too much.

By: no mo' money

no mo' money — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 23:31:08 +0000

Spending more money on more legal fees, is not money well spent for the education of our students. The rapidly growing administrative staff has added more legal teams than we can keep track of in recent years in their attempts to defend their increasingly outrageous decisions. They will out last and out spend all of us using our tax dollars. Instead of suggesting the ‘editorialists’ reach deeper into their individual pockets, I’d like to suggest the following. The elected officials already paid with our tax dollars, should commit to enforcing the law, step up to the plate, and investigate evidence our school funds may have been misappropriated. They have been approached by several community members, on several occasions over the course of several years with these concerns and despite well documented evidence to support allegations of wrong doing, have chosen to do nothing. Guessing the decision making may have something to do with who contributes the most to their political coffers come election time. Follow the money folks.

By: Caveat emptor

Caveat emptor — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:16:35 +0000

Apparently, there is agreement that the next bond election will be about trust. We’ll find out if a majority of EISD voters trust the board and the administration. I submit that (1) passage of all 3 propositions will show that the majority of EISD voters trust the board and the administration, (2) defeat of all 3 propositions will show that the majority of EISD voters don’t trust the board and the administration, and (3) a mixed bag will show that a majority of EISD voters haven’t yet made up their minds. Go vote.

Not having faced a legal challenge is not the same as behaving lawfully. Litigation is expensive and time-consuming. But the place to resolve a legal dispute is at the courthouse. While I agree with many of the complaints on the Picayune’s website, at some point, these private editorialists need to pool their resources, put their money where their keyboards are, and file suit.

If this is a political dispute, it should be settled at the ballot box. The private editorialists need to open their pocket books and finance a campaign to defeat the bonds AND/OR encourage like-minded candidates to run next May, finance their campaigns, and vote the rascals out.

Unfortunately, the 2010 election did not decide the trust issue. Each side finished 1-1. Let’s hope a big turnout in the November bond election will do more to clarify the trust issue for the EISD community and set the stage for the May 2011 board elections when a new governing majority could be elected.

By: Trust

Trust — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 05:38:26 +0000

I agree, Caveat emptor, but the reality is that school board change the scopes of bonds after the fact and to my knowledge, have not faced legal challenges. Eanes ISD did in fact “change the scope” of the last bond to include the two fields of artificial turf in front of WHS 9th Grade Center. That’s documented. Nola Wellman reminded the board during the last meeting that a “change of scope” is always an option after the bond is approved. Apparently the “contract” doesn’t include details and isn’t actually enforceable.

I agree that a bond election is about trust. Here’s the problem: we don’t have a school administration or board that we can trust.

By: Eanes mom

Eanes mom — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 02:54:03 +0000

And that trust has pretty much been spent over the past several years. Yes, we’ve come to realize wording as innocuous as “signage” can be used to spend $450,000 for superfluous (and not WLH approved) signs around WHS with no board member professing to have any idea who approved such an expenditure. They are writing the bond language loose enough to legally justify the transfers that are being made, so the AG has not and will not intervene. That’s why we keep seeing community priorities, like ADA, pushed aside for other priorities of some mysterious purse string puller who has the power to do so. I recognize several things in this bond we’ve passed before. I understand there have been cost overruns. But when I see that even the desperately needed 19+ facility is slated for 6,000 sq ft. of space for the students and 30,000 sq. ft. of space for administrators and records, I throw up my hands. I can’t support a bond until we have some idea of how we’re going to get our operating budget under control (and the $150,000 in bus signs won’t really make a dent in a $4.6 million budget, especially when Dr. Wellman has stated that the board hasn’t made that a priority for her) and change the leadership on the board to citizens with some common financial and educational sense. Only Sayers and Jones are voting for changes. I have no trust that any of the other board members have the interests of the children and the community at the forefront. Several have been quoted as identifying their primary goal as supporting administration. Change is badly needed.

By: Caveat emptor

Caveat emptor — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:01:28 +0000

A bond election can create a contract between the voters and the taxing entity. “Changing the scope” of a bond proposition after approval is risky because it can breach the “contract” between the voters/taxpayers and the taxing entity created by the bond election.

A single bond proposition can include several projects. Specificity is the key. EISD voters should demand that the board specify those projects to be funded by each bond proposition. If a bond proposition is successful, the voters have every right to expect and demand that only the projects included in that particular bond proposition, and no other project, shall be funded with proceeds from the sale of that bond.

If the board or administration tries to “change the scope” of the bond after approval, voters can complain to the Texas Attorney General or file suit to enjoin misapplication of bond proceeds.

A bond election is about trust.

By: Buyers beware ...

Buyers beware ... — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:13:10 +0000

If this district proposes any wish list items (separate bond or not), I will vote for nothing. As Nola Wellman admits, just because they promise the bond will cover a particular item doesn’t mean the money will actually be spent for that item. You see, the board can “change the scope” of the bond and spend our tax dollars as they wish. In fact, they did just that in the 2006 bond passed for “safety” … they changed the scope of the bond and funded two artificial turf practice fields.

Buyers beware.