63° F
News / Schools
Eanes school board approves bond oversight committee
Thursday, October 7, 2010
|
|
10
After much debate, the Eanes school board voted 5 to 1 during a public meeting held Sept. 29 to authorize a bond oversight committee that will monitor the uses of any bond money approved by voters on Nov. 2.
After two previous attempts at a board consensus on the language of the motion, board member Kal Kallison made an amended motion to authorize the formation of a board of trustees approved bond oversight committee that would report to the board if one or more district bond proposals net voter approval next month.
The function of the committee was specified as the monitoring of the progress of bond projects. Committee member duties would include the review of expenditures and any change of scope on projects.
Board members Ellen Balthazar, Colleen Jones, Kallison, Paul Stone and Jim Strickland voted for the committee as outlined by Kallison. Board member Clint Sayers voted against it, and board member Robert Durkee was absent from the vote.
During lengthy discussion of the committee parameters and an earlier motion and substitute motion, Sayers said he wanted to see more detail on how the committee would be populated and how it would function.
“I’m all for a bond oversight committee, but why would we move ahead on a committee that we have no information on?” Sayers asked.
Kallison originally made a motion to approve the formation of a bond-related committee with less detail. That lack of detail prompted Jones to make a lengthy substitute motion, which she read from a prepared sheet to other board members. Jones’ motion provided for an oversight committee made up of seven community members, each selected by an individual board member. She provided specifics on the selection of chair and co-chairs, committee duties, agenda and reporting practices.
“A bond oversight committee is a check and balance, and it is just good business practice,” Jones said.
Jones’ more detailed approach to bond oversight committee language failed on a 4 to 2 vote, with Jones and Sayers voting for it.
The committee structure was a major move forward for supporters of a bond oversight committee. It establishes the committee as a board committee rather than an administrative committee, and it establishes it with oversight function.
Kallison said he felt there was too much detail in Jones motion, and that more time needed to be spent to flesh out details in the event of a passing bond proposal.
“Until the successful passage of a bond, it is just not a good use of board time,” Kallison said. “For now, the fact that it is board appointed and reports to the board should be enough for the public.”
Comment Guidelines
We welcome your discussion on our stories, but we will only publish comments that do not violate our guidelines.
We will not publish comments that:
1. Make personal attacks, including name calling or attacks on one’s sexual orientation or religion.
2. Make false or unsubstantiated statements.
3. Include racist or sexist remarks.
4. Include obscene language.
5. Are not on-topic with the story in question.
6. Are not civil.
Kallison made it clear at the board meeting that the majority would never agree to have members of the oversight committee appointed by individual board members. Instead, they want to interview applicants to choose the members. That may sound reasonable until you remember that that’s how we got Mr. Kallison. The main criteria in such a process with this board is to find people who will work in lock step with that the administration and the board majority want. While we don’t need folks who only want to make trouble, we do need people who are independent thinkers and willing to do the due diligence this board has been dodging for too many years. Cynically, as Robert Durkee had suggested at the previous meeting, this move was made solely to garner a few votes in the election. Who knows if it will ever even be pursued if issues pass because the administration has been opposed to a body with any functional ability from the beginning? They wanted an administrative committee that only reported on “progress”. The purpose in such a committee would be to perform an audit type function in ensuring that funds are spent as indicated in the bonds, not shifted to other projects with little or no public notice or understanding of the reasons.
There are significant reasons why anyone who takes emotion out of these issues would vote against all three propositions. Lack of effective oversight is one, but not even the primary, reason.
“make trouble”? For whom? The majority of the board and the superintendent. Do you mean “disagree” perhaps?
I don’t see any real difference between having a committee with members appointed by individual school board members or by a vote of the school board. In either case I expect that such a committee will be hard to distinguish from the School Board itself or the Chaps Club. I suspect that the school board is taking this step because they know that they have earned the distrust of the community and are afraid that their bond issue will be defeated because of that distrust.
They want a bond oversight committee. When they get it, it’s not good enough. They want mega bucks to renovate Eanes Elementary (even though it would be less expensive to start over or move to Valley View). When they are offered a chance to vote on $27M for Eanes Elem., they want to vote it down. They want accessibiltiy improvements, but when offered same, they say vote no. Makes you wonder what they REALLY want. Perhaps they want to make Nola Wellmn’s life so difficult, she’ll leave. Will they be happy then? I doubt it.
That’s probably because we’ve been paying attention to this board/administration and school board workings since long before a new Valley View Elementary was mentioned. The ADA improvements have been voted by our voters in several bond issues–yet the money has regularly been siphoned off to pay for cost overruns in other areas. The main proponents have realized, after years of trying to work through this amicably with the district, that unless there is a list of improvements and a schedule that is legally binding it will not happen with this board and administration.
Notice how the bond was constructed to try to draw Eanes Elementary (traditionally the largest percentage voters in the district) voters with Valley View (which is energized by the promise of a new elementary) voters? And just about all the high school extracurricular groups are offered carrots in Proposition 3? That’s consistent with the current board/administration style of operation. What do you think is going to happen when (not if) the money for a new Valley View Elementary is nowhere near enough to actually build it? You do realize they’d not be obligated to follow through with the project–nor could you retract your votes for the other propositions. This happened to several critical projects (HCMS track) that were approved in previous bond issues. Also, the band (with the largest number of parents) has consistently supported athletic field improvements under the promise they’d get to share in their use. Yet every August they’re still on the PAF parking lot in 100 degree heat. It will be interesting to see how much they actually get to use an indoor facility if it is approved.
We’ve learned to look beyond the surface, and this offer of a bond oversight committee is very superficial. We’ve also learned that unless there is a strong will with the board/administration, things don’t actually happen. Remember that if Proposition 2 passes.
Vote against all three bonds and make the board bring is a truly critical needs bond until we get our finances in order and the legislative session gives us at least a few years of security on the state of school funding (the fact that our state funding picture could very well worsen, not get better has gotten far too little discussion in this debate).
@ Nothing:
Why do you dislike the families of Eanes Elementary? Does your animosity towards our school extend to the other elementary schools in EISD?
What have the families of Eanes done to you to make you have such vehemance? We may have different viewpoints on the bonds, but we are all supporting Eanes ISD in the way we think is best. Of course, we love our campus – all of the elementary school campuses are special to their students, parents and faculty.That’s the reason we bought our houses where we all did, right?
I think Dr. Wellman is one of the most intelligent people I’ve ever met. Her job as superintendent of a highly motivated ISD is going to be difficult. The district has 7,000+ students and many thousands of parents – there are bound to be some problems somewhere. She knows that not every decision made by the district or by the Board of Trustees will be popular with everyone, and she also knows that it isn’t personal when people disagree with her. I think it belittles Dr. Wellman when you suggest that she’ll leave because her job is difficult.
I can celebrate our district and at the same time be frustrated with certain choices made by the Board or district.
I think Nola Wellman will leave as soon as she finds a district that will hire her. She has accomplished one thing. She has divided this community. Not exactly a selling point …
I could understand electing a named bond oversight committee .. but why would anyone vote to approve an unnamed and unspecified committee?
This should have been part of the bond proposal … not an afterthought.
Why not … rethink th- bond proposal with good oversight / fiscal management in mind? Wouldn’t hurt to “re=propose” after proper independent counsel is elected and in place… it shouldn’t take too long if the proper electoral support is in place.
Without an INDEPENDENT oversight committee … I will vote NO to all 3.
I’m not against all of the ideas … but don’t trust the fiscal management implied by the proposals. Sorry Doesn’t work for me.
Independent oversight MEANS independent decision-making … and it should be very knowledgeable / neutral about varied interests within the law … it should report the short-and long-term impacts of potential key decisions at stake … and if we so dare … we might even commission a visioning committee to foresee possibilities and their means… this district is a community effort … right??? Transparency and fiscal management go together, don’t they?