IC ISD Board Meeting May 12 2025

Agenda Analysis | Meeting Review | Meeting Documents | Commentary | Last Meeting

The lots between Duncan and Fleming on 5th Street in Mertzon were purchased recently by the District from David Harris. The District has cleared the brush and will be using them as a construction staging area during the build.

---

Agenda for this meeting

A. Agenda Analysis

1. Budget amendments, item 6: As noted many times before, I always encourage citizen involvement when a governmental body amends its budget. It's especially important here because the public gets no substantive notice about how the budget is proposed to be changed. "As presented" here means, in effect, the public gets notice if, and only if, it shows up at the meeting. I have protested this language many times before and will continue to do so. Let's say, hypothetically, this amendment involves the budget line item related to energy costs (electricity). Then, this particular item need only read, "Budget amendment related to energy costs." All budget amendments, no matter how complex, can be synthesized down to a general matter it relates to. 2. Approve total sheet and prime contractors, item 7: This is a follow up to the special meeting where the Board approved an initial list to avoid the Trump (not approved by Congress) tariffs. This should be a comprehensive approval of the prime contractors, presented by Parkhill, upon their review and recommendation. 3. Superintendent approval to sign contracts, item 8: You might not think about it much until an item like this pops up. Superintendents serve at the direction of the Board. She isn't the ultimate boss, they are. I'm not going to research it, but I would guess that this item is a statutory requirement for bond related construction contracts. It is a good thing because it creates accountability for the Board and the Superintendent on high dollar contracts. 4. Administrative reports, item 5: Each and every report at each and every meeting is important. 5. Raises for 12 month employees, item 9: I don't see how anyone gets a raise with the chaos taking place in Austin. I hope I'm wrong. If I'm consistent on anything, its that communities need to support government employee pay raises regularly and above the rate of inflation.

   6.Letters of reassurance for paraprofessionals and aides, item 10: If these folks were getting raises for next year, they likely would have been added to item 9. Also, typically paraprofessionals and aides are "at will" staffers, so they don't have protection of a contract with the District. I am assuming that this item is about giving those folks some assurance that they still have a job next year. While that may only be an assurance, in the face of the headwinds of a pending Trump tariff related recession, it might mean a lot to some folks. 7. Closed session, action from closed session, items 13 and 15: I'm guessing the "approve" part in item 13's "Discuss/approve resignations/new hires" is an oversight. This Board and Supt. Moore know that they can't formally "approve" anything in closed session with a vote. ("Approve" typically calls for a formal vote, which is not permitted in closed pursuant to the Open Meetings Act.) But, as I've said before, don't be fooled. Achieving a consensus in a closed session can and does regularly happen. Here, the formal vote will come at item 15, in open session. I will be listening to see who is resigning and whether the new band director is being hired.

   
   

---

The buildings marked with X are the ones being demolished and replaced. (Though I did not mark teacher housing.) First up will be the cafeteria extension, not pictured here.

B. Meeting Review

1. Approve total sheet and prime contractors, item 7: Ashley Foye, and estimator and cost manager with Gallagher, presented the total sheet with some analysis of the meaning of the numbers and categories. I have not reviewed her sheet at the time of this review, but I anticipate posting it as I did the previous one on April 28.

   Probably the most significant part of this meeting was the Board’s response to Ms. Foye's presentation. Just like their consideration back on April 28, the Board was spot on with their questions. Several members drilled down to get additional information from Ms. Foye, and she answered best she could but sometimes could only promise “I can get you that information.”

   For my “how to read an open meeting” series, the dialogue in this item is a perfect one to point out pregnant pauses during discussions. Pay attention to pregnant pauses during discussions over money. They speak volumes about the comfort level board members have with the answers, and here some of the pauses were in their 9th month.

   At the end of the discussion and just before President Carlile called for a vote, Board member Ashley Hill landed the perfect question: In the future can y’all give more information? The correct answer by Ms. Foye was given - yes of course.

   In fairness to Ms. Foye, what the Gallagher folks may not appreciate is something I am keenly aware of. The previous Administration, Board, architect and construction manager operated mostly in the dark with the 2019 bond funds. I can say that with some authority, as I had numerous PIA requests back then get outright ignored by the District, and several sent to the Attorney General’s Office to get quashed. I sense that some of these board members don't want a repeat of those dark days, and certainly Supt. Moore and President Carlile don't. Thus, the extra questions. Also, I can tell this Board and Administration are more fiscally conservative than the past. And, they should be. Some of the problem supply chain and recessionary indicators are present today that were present during the pandemic when the 2019 bonds were being spent down. We have been here before. Gallagher and Parkhill need to carefully navigate this terrain. I will post more on the actual numbers in Ms. Foye's document once I have obtained it. In the end, the Board approved her list, but not without hesitation. They also gave Supt. Moore authority to sign the contracts under item 8, a matter that is a practice of Gallagher's and apparently not a statutory requirement according to the discussion.
   

2. Open forum, item 4: Sara Lindley and Erin Douglas presented their concerns about how the District has handled recent transfer rejections. Some 20+ citizens attended the meeting apparently for this one issue. I haven't seen this kind of community attendance on a school conflict since 2020 when the Board organized the community to overturn the City of Mertzon's refusal to close 4th Street for the new gym! I detected a sense of chumming for sharks, which has been unheard of at IC ISD meetings since that 2020 board meeting to close 4th Street. (Chumming occurs at large school board meetings all the time, in my experience.) In fairness to both sides of this dispute, let me confess I don't have the time or the resources to delve into this issue. And, this blog is not really about reporting on the conflict of the day with local government. It's intended to promote civics and interaction with local government, among other things. My thoughts on the issue behind this open meeting? Advocates on this transfer issue should get off Facebook and regularly attend the school board meetings, first. Social media is where ill intentioned chumming gets started, and then gets promoted by folks who have their own agendas. Organize in a group text if you have to, but in 2025 it is time to dispense with Facebook as an organizing tool. Second, there's nothing better than a direct one on one meeting with the Superintendent to clear the air before airing the laundry at a board meeting. Superintendent Moore excels in one on one conflict resolution, in my opinion, whereas the previous superintendent was rather Trumpian in his authoritarian style of doubling down with resistance and excluding dialogue and information. If discussions didn't happen before this meeting, then start over. Trust sometimes has to be built from scratch.

   
   

   Advocacy tip: if the law at issue says “there is no appeal”, then asking for a one-on-one with the superintendent is likely going to be denied. One’s only option then might be what was done here: speak to the board in an open forum. But, even that approach has limitations. A board can’t just invent a remedy where they had no authority in the first place. Time permitting, I’ll look further into the appeal ability of transfer decisions.

   In her comments to the Board, Erin Douglas eloquently said, "Transparency is a foundational principle of public institutions." And there you have it - that's the sum total of all that is contained in our Open Meetings Act and Public Information Act laws. And so, while I stay on the sidelines on the particulars of who is right and who is wrong on this transfer debate, I support wholeheartedly the freedom of these citizens to assemble, speak and ask for transparency. Whether you realize it or not, what all of us are ultimately asking for when we lodge a complaint with our government is increased transparency. Transparency is the sun. Here are the folks that attended this meeting:

   

   Meeting attendees.

3. Raises for 12 month contracts and letters of reassurance, items 9 and 10: During a discussion of the potential raises I engaged the Board in a manner I usually don't recommend. A sidebar discussion (private) on the board caused a stall, more sidebars occurred, then the audience started talking, and within a flash it was impossible to tell whether the board members were speaking publicly or privately. And, it was impossible to hear because the audience began to chatter. So, I asked the Board to please speak up. I don't like interruptions from the audience during public meetings (technically the Open Meetings Act doesn't permit it), but sometimes it is necessary because board members shouldn't deliberate in a manner that the meeting can't be heard. Here my interruption was important because the Board was backing into a practice of giving employees a raise of only once every three years. The language of the motion did not contain explicit language to that effect, but the discussion approved the 3 different categories of employees getting raises on a rotating basis every three years. While the economic reality may be that grim, the practical effect of such a practice - backed into without a full discussion - is not something the Board should endorse. The Board, rather, should take each year on its own financial merit so that each year all employees, regardless of category and whether contracted, are considered for pay increases. In end, the Board approved the pay raises at item 9. Item 10, the letters of reassurance, were as I expected - letters telling employees they could come back next school year. To put this in perspective, the practice backed into, if implemented, means the 12 monthers would not be eligible for their next raise for another 3 years, whiled those who got their letters of reassurance would be eligible, I think, next year. Teachers would be eligible in 2 years, if I understand the calendar correctly. Who wants to work under those facts?! Advocacy tip: perhaps a better way to ask for board members to speak up is to ask a staffer at the meeting to ask the chair to raise their discussion volume. This adds more civility to the exchange, and civility is important because I have seen meetings go south where even just one member of the public starts to yell. Yelling encourages yelling, unfortunately. Sometimes, though, just blurting out that you can't hear is as good as it gets. Much more and in certain situations you might be encouraging a riot.
   

4. Budget amendment, item 6: Ms. Lakey reported on the need for a roughly $6,000 increase in the budget for special education services through the Menard co-op. The Board approved. Upon hearing about the purpose of this item, I with my analysis above at A1. An agenda item that reads "Discuss/Approve budget amendment as presented" is entirely too vague. It could easily be amended to be more public friendly by changing it to, "Discuss/Approve budget amendment related to special education services". This would generally give notice to the public about the nature of the amendment.
   

5. Administrative reports, item 5: a. The meat on Principal Jessica Parker's report was that enrollment was: Elementary 210, Secondary at 139, for 349 overall. Attendance for both is just under 97%. b. Asst. Principal/Athletic Director Morrow reported on various track awards, but money part of his report was about the replacement of the field and track. Demolition at the stadium will start on May 14. The entire field and track are being replaced, and once started will take about 7 weeks.  Here is the offer document from the construction firm, Hellas. The Board approved Proposal alternatives 1 and 2 on page 2, for just over $1 million. In keeping with my commentary below that I do not want to see the field wasted (again) by flooding, I had a brief conversation with Mr. Morrow before the start of this meeting where I said that the cement wall acting as a foundation for the fence adjoining the field house was not built to keep out flood waters. Parkhill and Gallagher, please make note of this. The cement wall was built to hold up the fence that sits on top of it, which was a requirement of the School Safety Commission a few years ago. c. Supt. Moore's report, bond wise, addressed the clearing of the lots for staging, pictured above, as well as the two lots behind the current admin office at 5th and Juanita. She mentioned several oak trees were saved and replanted, a matter I discussed at the last City Council meeting here at B4. These lots are being used for sea containers for storage of various things during construction. Another portable will be coming at the end of July to be placed on street in front of the High School.

6. Closed session, items 13 and 15: The closed session lasted approximately 2 hrs and 40 minutes, an especially long time for the posted items of accepting resignations and new hires.

   The Board approved the following, without discussion:

   Resignation: Darla Tillman

   New hires: Kimberly Williams, Ashley Nutgrass and Tommy Nutgrass. No mention was made whether any of these were the new music director, and I assume the position is still unfilled because it remains listed on the District's vacancies page.
   

7. Meeting Documents: I have not yet submitted a PIA request for them at the time of posting this on May 14. When received, I will post on this page. Especially relevant to this page will be the final prime contractor sheet used by Ms. Foye. Advocacy tip: Documents talked about and physically shared in the open portion of a public meeting will almost always be available through the Public Information Act.
   

8. Miscellaneous: The Board was in full force with all in attendance at this meeting. Watch this part of this page for anything else that I might add in the near future. This page is getting a larger than normal number of views, so I may need to update.
   

---

The stormwater was still flowing at the Field House several hours after a 1.5” rain fell this week. The new storage extension will be added at the end of this building. If the County increases its impervious footprint with a new Community Center, this location will be the first to see increased flooding.

C. Commentary The Irion County Commissioner's Court is evaluating community input for the new Community Center. In response to question 4 asking "What would you like to see in a new Community Center?" I stated:

I would like it to be environmentally and tax friendly. Please do not take out oak trees or flood City Park or the Stadium with storm water runoff. Please coordinate with the City and IC ISD and develop a comprehensive storm water management plan before undertaking Community Center improvements. I have been asking for greater coordination among the the District, City and County since April 2019, before the passage of the 2019 school bonds. To date, I haven't seen any movement on the issue.

I raise it now for two reasons.

First, it is readily transparent that if the County expands its impervious footprint at City Park the first to receive the stormwater will be the District's football stadium. Though the District is flooding my property upstream, I am not small enough to favor their getting flooded down stream, especially by another governmental entity, the County. I am a taxpayer upstream and downstream, and community wide flooding impacts us all. (My advocacy is about more than my own property.)

Second, I see an increased need for local government to coordinate given that President Trump is attempting to decommission FEMA. One way to interpret what is happening in Washington is that the Whitehouse is decentralizing its key functions, which may include absence of federal resources and money even in an emergencies. This potentially means that we all are going to need rely more on local government in dire circumstances. Let's hope our local folks are coordinating on more than just stormwater management. None of us have ever been here before.

See also Local Officials Brace for Loss of Disaster Preparedness Funding.

You can respond to the County’s inquiry here. The deadline is May 15.

---

Copyright 2025 G. Noelke