65° F
News / Schools / Top Stories
Eanes school district bond package finalized, election set for Nov. 2
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
|
|
52
Residents in the Eanes school district are headed toward a $149.5 million bond referendum on Nov. 2. In a 5-2 vote, school board members elected to put three propositions before voters this fall.
Board members Clint Sayers and Colleen Jones voted against the package, supporting a single alternative proposition totalling $60 million that reduced the scope of bond items.
“We have crafted a proposal,” said Paul Stone, board president. “The taxpayers can now tell us if they agree with it. It’s not cheap, but this community has a history of making significant investments in education. This is the road to excellence.”
Proposition 1 for $72 million covers items the district says are critical to maintenance, operation and current programs. The proposition includes $17 million in technology costs, $15.3 million in energy costs, and $9.7 million in Americans with Disabilities Act work, including new school playgrounds.
Proposition 2 for $57 million calls for the construction of a new $24.2 million elementary school on River Hills Road, the renovation of three elementary schools and a $3.5 million replacement support services facility.
Proposition 3 at $20.5 million covers parking and extracurricular facilities, including a new $ 6.3 million swim center, a $6.5 million student activity center and a $6.6 million dance/cheer/wrestling facility.
“It’s been a long year and a half plus,” Stone said of the bond process. “This has evolved into a proposal not surprisingly not supported by everyone. This is a diverse community.”
Superintendent Nola Wellman said she was happy with the bond package passed by the board.
“It makes a strong statement about the commitment to excellence our community stands for,” she said. “Our community made their opinions known throughout the process in various forums, and the board listened to that.”
Jones offered board members an alternative bond proposal that she and Sayers drafted that reduced the number of needs deemed critical to maintenance and operation and the cost of items remaining on the list, bringing the cost of Proposition 1 down to $50.1 million. Jones, a former Eanes Elementary School Booster Club president, then added back in $10 million in renovation costs she said were critical to the proper renovation of that elementary school campus, bringing the cost of the single-proposition alternative proposal to $60.1 million.
Sayers said he thought part of the scope of the three-proposal bond package was excessive and that the district could get by on less.
“It makes sense to take care of our existing (facilities) rather than add additional improvements when we can’t even take care of what we’ve got,” he said. “And it adds to our M&O costs.”
As an example of how bond expenses could be reduced, Sayers said that the district could realistically reduce the $9.6 million of ADA costs in Proposition 1 to $7.7 million in renovations and improvements. The alternative bond proposal drafted by Sayers and Jones eliminated Propositions 2 and 3 and rejected money for future bond planning.
Board member Ellen Balthazar spoke in support of the $149.5 million package prior to the board vote.
“I feel that we have gotten behind a lot of our peer districts,” she said. “It is time for us to step up.”
“I am going to rely on the administration’s recommendations for what needs to be done for this district,” said board member Robert Durkee. “My goal is to remain a world-class district. Anything less than what is proposed here is going to put us in second place.”
Sayers disagreed, stating that what makes a district world-class are the students, the teachers and the proper maintenance of facilities.
“I don’t think that you have to spend this kind of money,” he said.
Wellman said the district would release the exact wording of the three bond propositions in the next few days.
In the end, the voting process that ended nearly two years of bond discussions and planning was swift. After hearing the alternative proposal offered by Jones and a suggested amendment that extracurricular facilities be cut from Proposition 3, board members voted the nearly $150 million bond proposal into voter options. Most board members seemed happy with the bond that will be put before voters, happy with the opportunities it will offer the district to maintain its reputation and happy that their end of the bond process is over.
“I want to give the voters the opportunity to share the vision of a world-class school district,” Durkee said. “When it comes down to it, the voters of this district are the ones that build buildings. What the school board did tonight was give them a chance to do that.”
BELOW: Eanes school board members, from left, Kal Kallison, Jim Strickland and Colleen Jones study bond options during a meeting Tuesday that ended with a three-option proposal that will go before voters Nov. 2.
Shame on Eanes ISD. What were they thinking asking voters for that kind on money in this economy? And how can a swim or a dance center ever be considered necessary? With the exception of Jones and Sayer, the Board should be voted out and Dr. Wellman fired. Even Prop 1 which is supposed to be essential is a joke. They had items in there that had already been funded as Jones pointed out. Prop 2 is a blatant attempt by Cuernavaca voters to “stick it to us” by building a bloated elementary on River Hills with enough ball fields for a small university so that they can have Little League and adult league fields. They’ve been duped by the developer of the struggling Seven Wins subdivision who wants the LCRA to bring water to the school sight and thus his subdivision at taxpayer expense. Sayers pointed out that enrollment is scheduled to drop by 200 at schools that would transfer to River Hills, so there is no need for a new school. Vote “NO” on all three propositions and then vote out this Board. Eanes needs some common sense.
I am shocked that Clint Sayers and Colleen Jones were the advocates of a plan to significantly reduce the district’s investment in ADA compliance…. I am especially surprised as one of Colleen’s major supporters in her school board race is part of a law suit against the district. Clint seemed to be very ill prepared at last night’s meeting, and seemed to be mainly talking in “sound bites.” It is sad to see the divisive alliance that has developed after Clint recruited Colleen to run for office. I hope this is not the future for the next school board election. It is sad too watch, and unfortunately too many in our district are not there to see it.
Clint is right that ultimately it is the students themselves that make the difference, not facilities, however facilities support the programs that let our students excel and support the teachers that provide the experiences. In the long run, it is an investment in the future. I do not believe that very many in our community have gotten where they are in life by “just maintaining”. They have gotten where they are by investing and taking risks. This bond election reflects the values of our community. I am just not sure what is really behind the negativity of Clint, Colleen and their small band of supporters, and what their values really are. Is it really just the money???
I’m an ex-teacher. I’m for renovations, compliance and building a future for our community, but I cannot support a bond package that a small group of parents benefit by way of such extremely egregious demands. When was it the school districts responsibilities to build swimming pools that no one knows should be staffed; ball fields so adults can organize leagues; or build a new school when only 2 board members were aware or willing to admit future enrollment numbers would actually drop? Don’t be blindsided. One speaker went so far as to vouch for a red light at Bee Cave and River Hills Roads saying he somehow worked in traffic control YET a proper transportation feasibility study has not been done. I guess we should just believe him, because he said so. Everyone who lives in EISD needs to take an interest in this bond if you have children or not. I feel the pubic has been duped. Is it really the school district’s responsibility to build a dance team building and provide facilities for water polo? With the exception of Sayers and Jones, this board looks pretty shallow.
Robert Durkee needs some competition in his presumed next re-election effort. He is clearly distracted from the purpose he was elected to accomplish.
It is glaringly obvious to many of us in the EISD that the EISD Board has lost touch with the realities of administering a school district whose primary goal is the EDUCATION of our public school students.
At a time when many among us are struggling to keep afloat financially, while our ad valorem property taxes continue to rise, here comes the EISD Board approving $150 million in new bond debt to build, among many items, a new elementary school while enrollments are falling, and a wish-list of luxurious amenities for extra-curricular activities, like a COVERED FOOTBALL FIELD (disguised as a “student activity center”) , A SWIM CENTER, and a DANCE/CHEER/WRESTLING CENTER. Please note that 2 of the 3 new facilities will be used heavily for a single sport: FOOTBALL.
Robert Durkee and his ilk on the EISD Board who approved this set of bond proposals has just proven beyond doubt that the Eanes Independent School District is not only a wealthy district, but it also behaves like a wealthy spoiled child.
Strickland, Stone, Balthazar, Durkee and Kallison, hear this: you failed the test of leadership by succumbing to the temptations of unsustainable debt, much like the current administration in Washington, D.C.
You will hear the voice of the EISD voters. The question remains: will you listen?
Who gets it:
Sayers disagreed, stating that what makes a district world-class are the students, the teachers and the proper maintenance of facilities.
and who doesn’t:
“I am going to rely on the administration’s recommendations for what needs to be done for this district,” said board member Robert Durkee.
Thank you Colleen and Clint for voting no!
OK, “Shocked and Saddened,” you seem to believe that it is perfectly fine to “take risks” in order to “reflect the values of our community” but is it right to take risks with OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY, which is exactly what will happen if this EISD Board gets its way with this set of bond proposals, especially Props 2 and 3?
“Negativity” can be looked at 2 ways. You have chosen your view. Believe you me, “Shocked,” there are many many among us who view “negativity” in connection with this bond proposal in EXACTLY the opposite way.
Shame on you, “Shocked,” for your reckless attacks on the opponents of this bond proposal. You may be wealthy, but must you behave like a spoiled child when mommy tells you “no cookies?”
Looks like its time-out for the shocked and saddened. Will the adults here please get their voter registration cards ready for voting?
Just maybe this isn’t about those who love football and those who don’t. It’s about the money taxpayers are asked to spend supporting a football program that rivals many colleges around the country, while teachers and students who aren’t active participants watch their programs fade away. Yes it is about the kids, and the kids don’t always need glitter and glam to succeed. Just maybe, less can actually be more.
There really isn’t any material difference between football, hyline, band, cheerleading, drama, or theater tech. As a parent, I want my kids (all of whom are Chaps) to grow up to be well-rounded individuals. To me, that means getting an exceptional public school education AND participating in sports and other extracurricular activities. I expect WHS and EISD middle schools to offer a full set of extracurricular opportunities, whether or not my kids choose to participate.
That said, WHS does not need a covered practice facility for football or any other “outdoor” sport, a new administration building, another elementary school, or any other fripperies. In truth, WHS didn’t need the state-of-the-art bells and whistles in the FAF either.
This bond process shows that there are legitimate reasons to fault the leadership of EISD’s board and superintendent, especially those trustees who are self-professed rubber stamps for the administration.
Love her or hate her, Nola Wellman won’t be with us forever. Nola has burned through an enormous amount of good will in the Eanes community in the past few years. Nola’s reputation for honesty is in hot dispute, and Nola’s questionable behavior has created some implacable foes who won’t sit quietly on the sidelines. Expect those foes to vote in November and May.
Nola relies on the current board majority’s reflexive and dogmatic support, but her majority is dwindling. The board’s refusal to exercise meaningful oversight has given Nola more than enough rope to hang herself, and sooner or later she will.
Nola and the board bear a lot of responsiblity for creating the poisoned and distrustful atmosphere in the EISD community. Frustration over Nola’s manipulations continues to mount, and the divisions in the Eanes community deepen. Such is the environment fostered by the illustrious Dr. Wellman and her pets on the school board. Nola plays all of us very well.
Anyway, I’ll be at there cheering for the Chaps to corral the Cavaliers. See you at the game. I’ll also be voting in November and May.
I can’t wait until November 2 so that I can vote AGAINST all of the bonds. Until Nola Wellman is gone and we have a new board, no more bond dollars for Eanes ISD to fritter away.
Applause to Sayers and Jones for trying to put a realistic and responsible bond package on the table.
If the EISD Board wants to a bond to pass they need to take specific examples of what the money will pay for and why it is needed. Some of the items, like the ADA items were supposed to be done in the last bond. They also need to communicate to taxpayers that if the bonds do not pass it could affect their property values, something the 72% of residents that do not have kids in the district will be screaming about down the road. The reality is that EISD does not want to make the hard choices. Eanes Elementary is a money pit, in a dangerous location and the land is worth tons. The demographics clearly show that the growth is in the Cuernavaca area, not Eanes/Cedar Creek. The financially smart thing to do is to close Eanes, put $ into an addition to Cedar Creek , build a new school in the Cuernavaca area and rent out the Valley View Building. We are paying a high price for nostalgia.
To “Extracurriculars are important” —
The following portion of your comment communicates so well the opinions held by so many in the Eanes community (parents, students, teachers) who have first-hand experience with Nola Wellman. Thank you for writing the following:
Love her or hate her, Nola Wellman won’t be with us forever. Nola has burned through an enormous amount of good will in the Eanes community in the past few years. Nola’s reputation for honesty is in hot dispute, and Nola’s questionable behavior has created some implacable foes who won’t sit quietly on the sidelines. Expect those foes to vote in November and May.
Nola relies on the current board majority’s reflexive and dogmatic support, but her majority is dwindling. The board’s refusal to exercise meaningful oversight has given Nola more than enough rope to hang herself, and sooner or later she will.
Nola and the board bear a lot of responsibility for creating the poisoned and distrustful atmosphere in the EISD community. Frustration over Nola’s manipulations continues to mount, and the divisions in the Eanes community deepen. Such is the environment fostered by the illustrious Dr. Wellman and her pets on the school board. Nola plays all of us very well.
Great. “Second-class” Sayers and “Just gettin’ by” Jones proposed a second-class solution that would have deprived our students of the education they deserve. Thankfully the majority of the board prevailed and the voters will decide on Nov. 2 whether EISD will be world-class or second-class.
Proposal #2 is a marvelous example of masterfully executed political manipulation – a shining example of why a Bond OVERSIGHT Committee is absolutely necessary.
How soon the voters in this district forget who has taken our schools from mediocre to exemplary! We had awful superintendents who only had their own agenda. Nola Wellman has the best interest of the students in Eanes. She is on call 24/7 and takes input from board members, voters, students and old people who will give her half a chance to hear what their complaints are. So many who are casting stones at the present board were not too long ago supporting them for office. Why won’t those people invite “their” board members over for coffee and hear what those they supported have to say about the present state of the district. If I were Nola Wellman and the 5 board members who voted for the bonds last night, I would hand in my resignation and let C & C have it! Colleen and Clint and their supporters seem to know what is best for all so let them do it! Adios to our wonderful district if more like C&C take over the board.
Sayers has been difficult at best to deal with on the board since fall of 2006. He has had it “out” for Nola Wellman and everyone else on the board. He has an ax to grind with Nola and he will go to any lengths to try to mar the record of achievements she has had in this district. I think that come May Clint Sayers should be voted off the board and with all of the grief the other board members coming up for election take, I would not run again if I were them. I am voting yes for all of the bonds!
Clint Sayers has been a profile in courage for me, and I do not for one minute believe that his dissents have been personal to Dr. Wellman. I first became active in board politics when Brad Shields, also a board president, opposed a bond issue that the board back then supported 6-1. I was inclined to support it because I am very involved in education and very supportive of it. We had similar problems then, with facing severe budget cuts because of m & o caps. I am extremely disappointed in board members who were a part of the effort then to restore financial sanity to our board and now see their only duty as marching in lock step with the administration. The duty of any board is to provide provide leadership and guidance to the staff. Our board has abdicated that role and ridicules those who are trying to assert it, like Colleen & Clint. I think we all have confidence that Collen’s recommendations on ADA would have been to cut pork (it’s evident all over this bond issue) in the form of asking for funding for projects that are supposedly already funded. Remember every time you pass the almost $500 million of red and blue signs around WHS that that is an example of your blank check (tax dollars) at work. Our kids and our community deserve better. Stand up for Eanes and vote against all three propositions until changes are made!
If I were Nola Wellman and the 5 board members who voted for the bonds last night, I would hand in my resignation
Thanks to ‘Still Believe in Excellence” for your suggestion!
Still believe? The rankings (for what they are worth) hit a low of Academically Acceptable under the “leadership” of Nola Wellman. The Exemplary rating (again for what it’s worth) was accomplished before Nola Wellman arrived. Nola Wellman could care less about the students. Eanes ISD has the easiest demographics at all. If the district can’t easily reach the low bar of the TEA exemplary rating, something is very wrong.
Thank you Sayers and Jones for representing the parents, students and taxpayers in our community. People like “Loads of Junk” may be upset but the majority (those who voted down the indoor football field in 2006, those who know just how ruthless Nola Wellman really is, those who are tired of the the rubber-stamping “trustees”, those who voted against incumbent Monnig and voted for Jones and the message she delivered in the campaign — applaud you both and hope for more of the same in November and May.
The comments supporting these bond proposals at a time when many EISD taxpayers are having a very difficult time earning enough money to pay their EISD taxes, which seem to relentlessly increase each and every year, are discouraging and out of touch with reality. The proponents of these bond proposals have created a false choice between “world-class” and “second class” in order to further create a false sense of superiority over inferiority. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. What separates the EISD from other public school districts isn’t a covered football field disguised as a “student activity center” or a “cheer center” or a “swim center” but the commitment by our parents and students to obtain a quality public education. Everyone else, from Nola Wellmann to Robert Durkee to the instructors to the maintenance staff that mows the grass, all, ALL of them serve the parents and students in order to reach their goal of a quality public education. Bond proposals 2 and 3 are good examples of a Superintendent and Board that have lost sight of the goal and purpose of our public schools and that have, instead, pursued wasteful luxury and indulgence at the expense of the EISD taxpayer.
Said it once, I’ll say it again: we may be a wealthy district, but must our Superintendent and Board behave like spoiled children?
Proponents of these bond props demonstrate quite clearly their tin ears.
Thanks for the posts about Clint and Colleen….. While it will be denied vehemently, Clint has had it out for Nola Wellman since there was an incident with his own child and he did not get his way!!! There are many who have lived through this who have seen it and will agree. Eanes ISD had been “wallowing ” through 7 years of no leadership when Nola Welllman came in. We now are now on track. Do I agree with every decision? No…. but every decision I have seen has been made with what is best for our students as a fundamental guiding principal. I can not fault that !!!
Sayers is doing his job, which is to be a Trustee of the taxpayers in a publicly funded agency, not to blindly support administration. I am delighted to see him and Jones asking questions and pushing for more information. High time.
What exactly is the qualitative difference between a world class public school district and one that is second class? Is it a covered practice facility for the football team? A new elementary school for Cuernavaca? Extra sports fields for little league or adult leagues? Borrowing money to plan the next bond election?
The argument that Eanes will fall to second class status and our property values will crumble if Eanes voters don’t pass all 3 bond propositions is completely unconvincing. If all 3 propositions fail on November 2nd, the sun will rise on EISD on November 3rd.
Eanes’s historical success is mostly attributable to the parents who strive for themselves and their children, value education, and provide abundant learning opportunities for their children before the first school bell rings. Of course, capable and dedicated classroom teachers make a difference too. Nola Wellman is the least consequential part of the process. Almost all of us could play Nola Wellman’s hand and deliver the same, if not better, results.
Vote your conscience and your pocketbook on November 2nd. EISD will be just fine if all 3 propositions go down in flames.
Amen — perhaps you should get back into church and do a little soul searching instead of attacking the child of a school board member. Thank you for perfectly illustrating the depths to which the majority of the school board, Nola, and her supporters will sink to silence anyone who dares to stand up to them and their corruption.
Apparently truth is not part of Amen’s ten commandments. I think allegations about any of the board members’ children are off limits, and I’m pretty sure that this one is totally false. Further the “smear” of superintendents doesn’t sell well with me. Yes, Phillips and the board majority ten years ago were driving us down a very similar path, but his successor, Dr. Jess Butler, who lives in our district, is one of the most honest, ethical, and effective educators I have ever known. And I have known many because education is not just an interest, but my business. Our district has historically had high performing students and excellent teachers. Education, even in this era of accountability, is structured for “positive” rewards. Two school administrators from vastly different parts of the state (and with very different demographics both from each other and EISD) joked in front of me recently that it appears that every election cycle the TAKS standards are set so that it appears great gains are being made. When judging our district or our superintendents, there are many areas to consider. I believe that communication with and sensitivity to the community they serve is usually the one that determines their tenure. Education improvement is an issue in an under performing district, which we’ve never been. Financial stability is an area where we need serious attention. That needs to start with the board. I hope that EISD voters look past the “bribes” and pork in this bond and realize we need to get on solid financial footing before we break the bank to grant everything on the wish lists. Even proposition 1 is not justifiable as written. We need to vote down these bonds and seat a new board majority in May. Not planning for the future (like even AISD is doing) is misguided and could be disastrous for our district.
According to “World Class vs. 2nd class” the sun will rise on November 3rd, and everything will be fine without passing these bonds. Will it? We will once again be failing to meet the needs of those students with ADA issues. We will have HVAC units that may not make it through the school year. Hill Country will continue with an unuseable track. We may very well have a swim team with nowhere to swim soon. Tough luck kids, pick a new sport. The 19+ program will continue to be housed in an inadequate facility. Busses that are 25 years old will continue to be used to transport your kids.
Eanes Elementary will have to deal even longer with a 50 year old, subpar structure. Dr. Jones, who only wanted a bandaid for this building, stated that kids had to sit in classes with sewage at their feet when the plumbing backed up. Yes, I consider that 2nd class and unacceptable for any school in this district.
I will agree with “world class vs. 2nd class” on the point that the parents of this school district value education, and work hard to give their kids every opportunity. This is why they will see the importance of these bonds. Disliking Nola Wellman is a poor reason to vote against these bonds and deny the children of this district the facilities they need to succeed.
So much for the ADA advocates that supported Jones. Reduce the $9.6 million of ADA costs in Proposition 1 to $7.7 million. Amazingly quick betrayal.
@ADA: At the start of the most recent study session, the one held before determining the bond package, Dr. Wellman reminded the trustees that the bond will be worded such that the trustees can change how, and on what, the money is spent, regardless of the way the public voted. The excuse is that projects may come in under, and over, budget, so the trustees need that flexibility, as they were carefully reminded.
They certainly took that to heart on the current bond, and $7 million worth of voter-approved ADA work was overlooked.
So – do we believe that any money at all – besides some easily noticed cosmetic changes – will actually be spent on ADA?
The proposed bond would have you spend $24 million on a new elementary school in order to remodel Forest Trail to better serve their special needs population. And in order to repair their current school, the proposed bond forces you to approve an entirely new elementary school for the Valley View students.
The proposed bond would pay for repairs to the 19+ portable, but doesn’t include funds to build a new facility on the proposed site. Unless, of course, a large portion of the $9.6 million is spent on building a 19+ facility, only. (The trustees voted to purchase the property from a separate fund held by the district.)
Maybe Ms. Jones and Mr. Sayers voted to reduce the amount spent on ADA improvements because the superintendent refused to provide specific plans and concrete numbers for the ADA improvements she was proposing. In fact, the audio recording indicates when these trustees asked for documents to support these expenses, our superintendent had the audacity to suggest they file an open request for them!!!!!! To most of us (who cared to look at the overly generalized and obscure line items), the numbers appeared very inflated. I’m a HUGE proponent of ADA compliance, and I would have done the same as Clint and Colleen. Nobody with any fiscal intelligence would just sign off on Wellman’s blank check. Good job you two, and shame on the other 5 board members who turned a blind eye.
Having sat through every board meeting since January to understand these issues, where were you? In the last 8 months a total of 5 people stood up to say they did not like these proposals. 1 due to money concerns (although all 3 bonds work out to less than $2/day for the average household in Eanes) and on Tuesday several people who live on River Hills and clearly do not want to see the nature of their neighborhood change.
If you had been there you would have heard about the demographics report that Sayers refuses to accept as true that states the school population on the west side will increase, not decrease. Sayers repeatedly “recalls” facts that have never been presented in a board meeting to support his opinion. You would have heard Sayers call into question engineering reports on the stadium, and when a 2nd report was done, at the board’s request, with similar results, again state that he thinks the number is wrong.
You would have heard numerous sports parents stand up and state that the wrestling, cheer, and swim teams have inadequate or non existent facilities. You would have seen that the every sport now does weight training, and that the schedule for the current weight room is so complex it needs an advanced math degree to work out.
You would have heard about the 5 and 6 year olds that are having to spend 60-90 minutes on the bus to get to their school, due to prior re districting. You would understand that the River Hills School is a replacement for the poorly located one, not a new one.
You also could have made your opinion known. In public, when it could influence the decision makers. You could have understood all the arguments involved.
Where were you?
Jones did not betray anyone. She and Clint (and even Robert Durkee, which is amazing when you think about it) realized that they had to highlight ADA and make it a center piece of discussion. Why? There are multiple issues reflected in this simply phrase ADA.
First Dr. Wellman has a history of raising bond money for ADA improvements and then spending that money on other things. (Can we all say “$600,000 cameras” and “astroturf practice fields.” Those were both purchased with money that was originally part of the last bond to be spent on ADA improvements.
Second, the superintendent and the trustees have in the past and can in the future shift bond money around to do what Dr. W. wants: and she rarely wants to cover ADA improvements, and apparently only thinks about them when the district is sued. There is nothing to keep Dr. W. from doing this again, only this time the pot of gold is over $7.0MM.
Third there is the little matter of inconsistency between Dr. W.’s position w/r/t ADA improvements. Durkee pointed out the inconsistency that is inherent when Dr. Wellman simultaneously defends a lawsuit by saying the district is 100% in compliance with ADA and at the same time asks the taxpayers to spend about $7.0MM to “come into compliance with ADA.”
And fourth, there is the matter of the $$$. It is crazy stupid to believe that an ADA compliant play ground for Eanes Elementary will cost $1.0MM. Those cost estimates are thru the roof to do two things: (a) build public sentiment against the disabled, and (b) create a slush fund (see above #2.)
So Sayers and Jones–especially Jones–are trying to make sure that this time the political heat is too big for Dr. W. to play her games again and shift money away.
Trust me, as the mom of a child with special needs, Jones is all too aware of who gets the short straw in funding at EISD. She is trying very hard to protect the taxpayers: EISD is defending a lawsuit because it has had over 20 years to come into compliance with ADA, and simply has chosen to spend countless past bond dollars not on ADA, as we have told the public, but on other frivolous things that look very, very good. Jones knows that the court’s forbearance is only going to last so long and eventually, EISD is going to have to pay the piper for ignoring federal law.
So hurray Colleen and Clint: maybe this time Dr. W. will do what she has promised before, and spend this money on ADA.
And Valley view mom posing as ADA, write about something you know about. You don’t know diddly about what Dr. W. can do when she really wants to do it.
But children with special needs sure do.
To: Where Were You
Instead of spending hours listening to the well planned and rehearsed rhetoric spewed at district board meetings (which by the way you can listen to in the comfort of your own home at your convenience), some of us were busy digging through documents to get the real story. Public records reveal a scenario quite different than the picture Wellman paints in public board meetings. That reality explains the sharp rise in legal expenses since her arrival to keep those documents from public review. So, instead of spending time sitting through board meetings, redirect your time and energy to asking to see the public records. Many posting on this blog have done just that, taking the opportunity to express their opinions (based on cold hard fact) in this forum. Wasting your time sitting in Wellman’s board room, accessing a 3 minute time slot to express a public opinion is a choice most won’t make, because opinions expressed in that forum generally fall on deaf ears, or worse, are punished.
The anonymous poster “ADA” who has asserted that Colleen Jones has betrayed me does not speak for Cheryl Fries and has not asked my position on this issue. In fact, I believe everyone in Eanes ISD should applaud Colleen Jones and Clint Sayers and any other Trustees who work to ensure transparency and fiscal responsibility on the part of the district. Eanes ISD has a long history of diverting ADA funds to other projects, which is why we have a lawsuit today. Anyone who has questions should feel free to contact me. I’m in the directory.
Alisa,
The land Eanes Elem sits on is deed restricted and can not be sold for general commercial development. It was gifted to the district and must be used for schools or government. The reason the school is in disrepair is the faiure of the District to maintain and update the facility over the years.
There is great growth at Eanes Elem. Over the last several years the transfers have diminshed with now only 10 out of district non employee children in the mix of the 500 plus students. Barton Creek and Valley View have a combined total of 100 transfer students to fill classrooms. Cedar Creek will be impacted when the new development next to the mall is completed during the next few years- townhomes, garden homes, etc..
Eanes Elem is not against Valley View and there really shouldn’t be a fight over one or the other. It is a simple question of can we maintain what exists and are we?? Take care of existing facilities first, then move towards new facilities based on true numbers based on sound estimates from contractors, demographers, etc.. The District should look at redistricting the areas west of 360 first before building a new school. Then the true needs in terms of traffic and growth shifts can be correctly analyzed.
Eanes Elem supports Valley View but most district residents will not support growth at the expense of the entire district. It would b short sighted and unfair to the entire tax base.
Well to ADA folks, the kids that are always shortchanged in Eanes are MINE, the ones that are—-not special needs, not athletes, not top 10%, just middle of the road, good kids that are involved in other things besides sports. The special needs students get loads of funding, athletics especially football brings in loads of money and the top 10% get the scholarships. My kids JUST GET A GREAT EDUCATION IN EANES in spite of all of this junk that is being thrown around about the present board and Dr. Wellman. I agree with some of the comments above and I will say it again, If I were one of the current board members or Dr. Wellman—-I would resign!!! Apparently there are many that think the present board and Dr. Wellman have something to hide. I have met with a couple of the board members one on one and they are very patient and willing to show me why they vote the way they do and why they believe in what they do. What a thankless job and yes, why don’t some of you jump in and run for the board. I think you will find out that it is thankless and just because you think you can change something you are only one vote. so cast stones all you want but i suggest you walk a month in their shoes or sit in the board seats and maybe y0u will “get it”.
Loads of Junk. You don’t “get it” … instead you buy it. You sit and listen to the district spoon feed their spin to you, eat it all up, and say thank you.
You need to walk a mile, research a mile, think a mile.
Wow… I just sat down to read this and the venom and vitriol from Sayers and Jones supporters towards those who don’t concur with them is palpable. I think that the 5 other Board members decisions/opinions appear more level-headed and less biased by whatever background politics is going on?… definitely less rabid… just my outside observer opinion. Don’t shoot the messenger.
“…….blessed are the peacemakers…….” You can spin everything a lot of ways. In terms of how the bonds are spent, it was actually Clint Sayers that came up with the idea of the turf and lights on the practice field at WHS, that is being criticized as an inappropriate use of the last bond, and I think it has been a grand idea. If we could all just work together, without the accusations, we could model a much better process for our children !!!!
@Observer: Saying someone “betrayed”, or “had it out for”, and “smeared” seems quite vitriolic and venomous to me – but those posts are written about the board members with whom they disagree – in this instance, Sayers and Jones.
Having attended most of the board/district sponsored meetings for the last 3 years, I can assure you that there is background politics from at least some of the 5 other board members. Because you note that you are an outside observer, perhaps you are unaware of what occurred at the board meetings, study sessions, special meetings and community bond forums. You can listen to the tapes of the board meetings and study sessions, all which are posted on the EISD website to become more informed. (The minutes from the meetings are imprecise summaries, at best, and do not provide adequate reference information regarding what was actually said at the meetings.)
One question -for whom are you the messenger?
It’s clear when you look at the things listed in the bond package – swim center, cheer/dance/wrestling facility, student activity center, that this is about being able to say that we have a school district with ‘better toys’ more than it is about educating our kids.
I have one child remaining in school in this district. I want my child to be educated not entertained. The school board forgets that this isn’t monopoly money here, it’s my money that will have to pay for the bond obligation.
In addition, the City of Westlake Hills has said that they want to participate in paying for some of the facilities as well so this would mean that THOSE taxes would go to these projects as well.
I want a board that is focused on education, fiscal responsibility, and maximizing the dollars raised through current taxes – NOT borrowing to build ego gratification centers.
This isn’t about singling out a single board member or administrator. It’s about ensuring that the district deliver a quality education at a fair value for taxpayers. I’m going to encourage those around me to VOTE NO on the bond packages.
To “Light on the hill.” I’m just a regular Westlake mom & wife. I’m not into conspiracies, left or right wing agenda or background backstabbing politics (ie. pushing others down to seemingly lift you up)…
I just love our school district, I have a basic respect for ALL of the Board Members (whom were elected) and I don’t know Nola Wellman, but I’ve got no complaints with her… I don’t think I’m the odd woman out on this and your note was as predicted.
Your “light” seems slightly dimmed by paranoia to me… again, save the venom please.
One problem with the bond package is if we vote “no” on the student activity center, we also vote no on the swim center and wrestling/cheer/dance facility. We are voting no to athletic endeavors which have been ignored for so long while football has been too well taken care of over the years.
I think we do need these facilities too for the other kids. Its too bad we are so broke now and we didn’t see it coming.
Observer–the problem is that unless you have a background in this and have been attending school board meetings, you wouldn’t know about these issues because the school and the Picayune largely only report the positive. All of the board members and Dr. Wellman are nice people–it’s about not waking up the the financial realities, as Dr. Wellman herself has described–not about conspiracies or personalities.
Another perspective–you’re right–there are some very worthy and desperately needed things in the bond. But we need to resist the temptation to, like Congress, pass spending loaded with pork, to get those essential projects, and in the process torpedo our educational services by overspending what we can afford in our operating budget. The representations that most of this bond is operations neutral makes about as much common sense as the elaborate spread sheet we got ten years ago that we could run two high school as cheaply as one. Look at the projects and ask yourself if they would require maintenance, utilities, or staffing beyond what we’re paying for now. Better yet, ask if it’s more important than our teachers, who are at risk if we don’t get our serious operations budget deficit under control. Are stands, lights, artificial turf and PA systems at the middle schools in that category? They are in this proposal.
Those of us who are opposing the bonds don’t oppose everything. We hope that if the bonds are defeated, the board will finally turn its attention to our operating fund where we are budgeting a 10% deficit annually. Our available reserve funds to cover these deficits will be exhausted in three years (and then parents will notice the effects, whether or not they want to–because teachers are paid out of these funds). Th board needs to come up with a bond issue that uses real, reliable numbers and focuses on those desperate needs. Once we get our budget in line, we can better judge what of the “good ideas” should be put back before the voters and focus on spending smartly, not just continuing to add construction in a district that’s been declining in student population for the past ten years.
Everyone strongly supports education. It’s not at all about being opposed to students–it’s about preserving our financial stability to ensure their educational future. Opinions can differ–facts don’t.
Eanes mom –
I haven’t been to the bond study sessions either so I’m not up to speed on all the nuanced politically motivated positions. Looking at this from 40,000 feet, the solution seems simple.
If the population is declining and it’s all about the operating budget and “facts”, here’s my common sense recommendation: It’s a fact that 5 elementary schools are cheaper to operate than 6. It’s a fact that new, or 25 year old, facilities are cheaper to operate than 50 or 60 year old facilities. It’s a fact that fixed facilities are cheaper to operate than portable buildings.
Maybe we should scrape Eanes and move that population to Valley View. Build River Hills Elementary and properly draw boundary lines which will relieve pressure on Forest Trail, thus eliminating the portables and their associated expense.
I’m not sure of the exact numbers, and accuracy doesn’t seem to matter in this forum, but doing this should eliminate about $30 million from the bond and $ 900K from the annual budget.
First of all, to those of you who don’t want to fund additional athletic facilities – I can understand that. I may not agree, but I understand your position on the issue. Please do not vote down all 3 bond requests because you don’t like that one. The board separated out the 3 major areas so that you would have the ability to say you felt we should not spend on athletics. Use it.
For those of you who feel that much of this is not M&O neutral – most of the items you bring up were actually discussed in the board meetings. For example the middle school tracks and fields require significant investment every single year to repair them, one due to soil heave, the other due to grass burn out. Investing bond $$$ to fix this will reduce the M&O costs for the school. So will fixing roofing, and A/C, etc.
For those of you who want to see a smaller bond, Jim Strickland specifically asked the other board members in June if anyone wanted to put forward a single smaller bond. He requested that if that were the case someone put forward a proposal so that the staff could give an idea what such a bond would look like and what it would mean overall for the district. No one on the board (not even Ayers or Jones) responded to this request.
Ayers and Jones’ last minute proposed amendment was pure political grandstanding. They did not mention any of the proposed changes to the board prior to an official vote. This meant that there was no opportunity to determine if any of their changes to the administrations numbers would actually be sufficient for the desire to update many of the items that had been discussed for months prior to the vote. This was purely a move that allows them to state that they tried to change the value of the bond but were unsuccessful.
In terms of M&O, the board is aware that they are spending out of the reserve fund. As a matter of fact Dr. Wellman has been directed by the board to continue spending out of that fund down to a reserve of $18 million. This direction was done to allow for a “soft landing” for the changes in revenue from the recent court decisions. The current plans have this number reducing to 0 in 3 years and actually only spending down to $21 million. If you want to see the board behave differently, please, come to the board meetings so those of us who care can hear your opinion and talk to you about it. The plan as presented seems entirely rational. It may not be, but without the opposing viewpoint it is difficult for those of us who are trying to be involved to get a full picture.
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all take a glance at the ‘full picture”. Unfortunately, the Eanes administration has taken a pretty staunch stand against that concept. Listen to the audios of the board meetings. Our trustees ask our superintendent for specific numbers, costs, and access to plans. She stonewalls. Lacking that information, we are all (the board included) left to guess as to what these bonds entail because Dr. Wellman never gives a straight answer. When taxpayers pose questions, they too are stonewalled, or find themselves involved in a legal skirmish launched by Eanes administrators attempting to block access to public documents. Nobody should vote for a bond absent the opportunity to look at real plans,credible demographic studies, budget spreadsheets, and legally binding contracts that prohibit the redefinition of the scope of our bonds that allow money for approved projects to be diverted to those that weren’t.
@ Mr. Marshall:
Your proposal still gives the district 6 elementaries, so there would be no elimination of operating costs. (Barton Creek, Cedar Creek, Bridge Point, Forest Trail, New River Hills, Eanes- in old Valley View)
“Where were you”–you don’t contradict anything I said, but you leave out pertinent facts that the board knows well. Make no mistake about it, the board is responsible for what ultimately goes to the voters, and I think they know everything the administration is willing to share with them–but the full board should insist that administration respond to all of their information requests, instead of regularly ignoring them. The remaining fund balance cannot be used to cover deficits because legal requirements mandate that it stay in place. A plan to exhaust the expendableportion in three years by maintaining current spending levels with no realistic hope of additional funding is not a plan–it’s financial insanity regardless of whose idea it was or who approved it. Until this is addressed, no bond issue should be approved by our voters.
That “soil heave” and “grass burn out” may be maintenance killers. But that “soil heave” will crack expensive artificial turf, so why we would would incur such an extreme expenditure is beyond me. I seems to me that leveling and resodding have to be less expensive (and it doesn’t explain the need for lights and a PA system at both campuses). Maybe we need to consult a landscape architect or even one of our many fine local nurseries for an efficient solution that costs far less than $4 million–this may even be a legitimate bond expense. The lights at both stadiums are an additional maintenance cost for the power.
As you suggest, the board members are aware of these issues and the good reasons why they shouldn’t be in the critical tier of the bond, along with $19 million of unspecified technology improvements (also at no M & O cost–strange how my technology all requires significant energy–electric or batter to run).
Some of us have been at board meetings voicing concerns, only to be drowned out by the Valley View pep rally (instigated by administration) at every meeting. What is the point when serious concerns fall on deaf ears? The election should have been a wake up call, but it wasn’t.
I think the core problem is that our friends and neighbors in the five-member board majority have given us no reason to trust them to make sound decisions for our schools. We’re not nay-sayers, and the vast majority are not against athletics (many of us are strong supporters of athletics and other student groups). But none of us can afford to let the current board blindly drive this district in the financial ditch. If they’d really restricted it to critical needs, we might be able to support a small bond issue. This one is too outrageously large and stacked with bloated and unnecessary projects tied to those true critical needs. Vote against the bond and demand that the board understand that “critical needs” is not a wish list or a blank check. They need to address Eanes Elementary, ADA (without already funded projects), the middle school fields, a 19+ facility that gives our students more than 1/6 of the building space (the rest is for administration and records), and some other projects that are more important than teachers (whom we’ll have to shed in droves when we spend ourselves into oblivion).
Vote for financial sanity and the future of our children–vote “no” on all three propositions!
We are very concerned that the bond proposal we are voting on is only represented in DRAFT form on the Eanes ISD website. DRAFT implies to me that each and every line item is negotiable. How do we know that the promise to replace faulty HVAC won’t get displaced by a project less critical? With the loose wording that will be on the ballot, it feels like we are only choosing to approve lump sums of money, leaving sole discretion for it’s expenditure to the whims of our current board and administration. There are far too many unknowns for our household to comfortably vote yes on any of the current proposals!