This is what the solar eclipse looked like from Cowboy Hill in Irion County on April 8, 2024.
NOTE: This meeting was initially scheduled on April 15 but was rescheduled to April 22. The April 22 agenda is slightly different than the April 15 agenda, so I am posting them both.
Here are the April 22 and 15, 2024 agendas for the Irion County ISD school board, with my agenda analysis here and my meeting analysis here.
A. Agenda analysis:
Budget amendments, item 6. I have argued elsewhere on this blog that the phrase "budget amendment" on an agenda, with nothing more, is so vague it is not reasonable notice. To prove my point, the last agenda with the phrase was in March. Only by attending the meeting and hearing CFO Helms' report did I learn that part of amendment was to pay the remaining bill for the elementary playground, which was not finished because the contractor went bankrupt. These funds were to have come from the 2019 bond funds, and those dollars are gone. Indeed, only by my reporting on this blog would one know that in fact the District went over budget with the 2019 budget funds. But, Mr. Helms is often quite vague during his reports, and he did not state the dollar amount for this amendment during the board meeting. So, I had to do a Public Information Request in March just to get the dollar amount. The amount was $123,417. So, by my calculations, the District went over budget at least $257,917 for the 2019 bonds. You won't find a disclosure by the District for this anywhere, even though Mr. Helms has consistently earned the District the highest marks on its FIRST reporting to TEA. Now, I'm careful to distinguish new and old leadership responsibilities and errors. Supt. Moore inherited Supt. DeSpain's wreck here. But, good luck to any citizen wanting to know the back story on any "budget amendment" agenda item. You've got to dog it, meaning you have to attend meetings and do PIA requests to figure it all out. This ought never to be the case. All of this is obviously public under the PIA. So, I re-urge my earlier proposed Taxpayer Bill of Rights for School Bonds. Taxpayers should have the right to know whether a bond went over budget, the amount it went over budget, what the money was spent on, and where the amendment money came from. This should all be posted on the school's website so that there would be accountability for the district. And, since districts are increasingly in the position of having "rolling" bonds, there should be a disclosure for each new bond that the district did not go over budget with any prior bond. Taxpayer Bill of Rights for School Bonds. We need one. Citizens shouldn't have to do all that I do just to get basic financial information.
Teacher hires, resignations and salary: As mentioned last month, all this activity generally occurs annually during the spring months and can be found on this agenda at items 11, 14a and 16. Mr. Helms' report at 5a and item 11 on the salary schedule will be the meat and potatoes in terms of salary increases. Roughly 80% of the District's maintenance and operations budget is put towards salaries, so this is a significant outflow of public dollars. Inflation has just been reported to have ticked up to 3.5%, so it will be interesting to see if the pay raises are sufficient to keep up with inflation. (I worked for many years as a state employee earning less and less each year, so I am particularly sensitive to the plight of public employees.) As I said last month, now is a good time to speak up for your child's teacher during open forum. That a $55 million bond proposal is the back drop for likely yet another year of meager or no teacher pay raises underscores just how messed up the funding is for our public state educational system.
The difference between the two agendas can be seen at item 14 where two new items are added to the executive session. In particular, note 14 c, Safety/security update. This is likely related to the very unfortunate incident of the shooter on the lam that caused the District to go into lockdown on April 15 and 16. A few of my observations during the event, since I am next door to the school: a. DPS' presence was heavy in the neighborhood at various times, but not at all times. b. The only reliable information that I received during the event was when I spoke directly to one of the DPS officers on campus. The information on social media and the call outs by phone from the County and City was not specific enough or unreliable. Neighbors on the perimeter of the District's property need a specific visit from law enforcement to alert residents and to share information. c. Judging from the location from which the officer was positioned, the currently closed street in front of my residence was a security advantage to the District. The officer had far less traffic to monitor and the perimeter was that much more secure and in plain sight to the officer. If the street is re-opened (as apparently desired by City Council members Crutchfield and Holland who wish to discuss reopening the street at the next Council meeting on May 6, 2024), the District in similar lockdowns should have at least another two officers present to monitor East/West traffic along its northern campus border. Please note that I did not request the temporary street closure; it is a flood related closure related to the 2019 bond build out.
This is a meaty agenda. I may add more as time permits before the meeting or just wait to cover those issues in my analysis below.
B. Meeting analysis: Mayor Aubrey Stewart and I were the only two members of the public to attend the meeting start to end. My meeting analysis is being updated and will hopefully be complete during the next 24 - 48 hours.
2024 bond election misinformation. The fact that the District is still paying on its 2019 bonds is going to be of concern to some voters regarding whether to vote for the 2024 bonds. There is some reasonable discomfort with the concept of always holding and paying down bonds from previous bond elections. CFO Robert Helms reported "there is a lot of misinformation out there on our [2019] bonds and where we are at." I was able to discern the following from Helms. Currently outstanding of the total $18 million in 2019 bond election is $12,248,000. There is a payment of $1,087,000 due in August. After that is paid, there will be $4.8 million remaining available to pay down some future years. That amount will pay off 8 years of callable bonds IF the board approves that within the next two months. My rough guess is that would bring the original $18 million down to roughly $7.1 million in 2024. That is not a bad pace at all for a pay down, but the question remains whether voters for the 2024 bonds understand the math sufficiently enough to think beyond the mental hurdle of the rolling bond concept. This is the District's first attempt at rolling bonds - that is, always having continuous bond debt. We won't know about the board's direction on this issue until after election day, May 4, because if this early pay down is done it can only be initiated in the May or June board meetings and those will be after the election. The Board missed an opportunity, nonetheless, during this meeting to express its intent for an aggressive pay off schedule as there was no discussion regarding any of this. A simple statement from a board member of "Lets get that on the agenda for next month because I want the community to know we are paying on our debt as aggressively as allowed by law" would have sufficed to project its intent and perhaps address any voter anxiety on the issue. Paying off bonds early means the expense to taxpayers is far less, and it reduces the timeframe for exposure to incorrect income assumptions. Incorrect income assumptions in bond proposals do occur (look no further than wind farms income projection in 2019 and the Moak Casey mystery, reported exclusively on this website), so there is good reason for voters to place high expectations on the Board in this area. The District's bond website does not address the rolling bond issues.
Budget amendments, item 6: In a refreshing change of pace, Mr. Helms requested approval for two budget amendments that were explained and their dollar amounts given. The first amendment was to replace and repair band equipment totaling $4,000 and the second was an additional $700 for closing costs for the purchase of the lots last month. The band amendment merely moved money between line items, and Mr. Helms stated it would not impact the $8.1 million fund balance. Though not stated by him, presumably the $700 would be drawn from the fund balance. Why the detail by me here? I think Board members, Administration and even department heads need the reminder that necessarily comes with financial transparency - the money is not their money. These are public dollars to be spent prudently and in the full sunshine. This sort of transparency creates accountability, a good thing given the public doesn’t attend these board meetings.
Teacher pay raises, contracts, resignations, new hires, hiring authority resolution - items 5a, 14a and b, and 16: The Board approved a 3% pay increase, best I can tell. Regretfully, for all of the new ground gained on the issue of budget amendments, we were back to cloudy skies on these matters before the board. Let me put it in context: Roughly 75-80% of the District's budget of around $21 million is spent on salaries, and a large chunk of that was spent at item 16 through this request for a motion from President Carlile: Do I have a motion to approve contracts, resignations and new hires as presented? Member Ashley Hill stated that she makes the motion and Member Rick Rey seconded. There was no discussion, and the vote of the Board was unanimous. And, just like that, millions of dollars of the public's money was spent and no one could possibly ever tell how much or who received it. One reason teachers are so poorly paid in Texas is because this process of hiring and granting pay increases is largely cloaked. There is very little transparency, and if I were not a regular attendee of board meetings I would never have had a clue about what had just happened. To be fair to Supt. Moore and CFO Helms, the budget/finance report given by Helms at item 5a and the agenda item 11 to approve the new salary scale included a 3% pay raise. Indeed, his report was revealing; he included the cost of that potential bump ($150,000) while appropriately pointing out that the legislature had not approved a funding increase since 2019. He also pointed out that limited ways to fund this increase (remember a "golden pennies" election in November, as I could be coming back to this in the future), and he even emphasized that his proposed pay scale was competitive statewide. Finally, his report also included stipend scale adjustments (relating to UIL events) that would also be increased; these increases were based on TASB's data. But, for all of his efforts, his pronouncements about what the pay scale should be, no doubt also approved by Supt. Moore before the meeting, are only the pronouncements of the CFO and the Superintendent. Say what he wants about how the District needs to take care of its teachers, the buck stops with President Carlile and the Board. This was only a 3% raise, which does not keep up with inflation. As I stated in A1 above, only last month inflation was reported to be 3.5%. So, this really wasn't a pay increase. Neither Supt. Moore or any of the board members made any statement during Mr. Helms' report or after executive session (these matters were discussed in executive session at item 14a) to indicated their views on salaries vis a vis inflation, how any bump could be afforded, or about what raise particular classes of employees would in fact be receiving. As I have mentioned, the dreaded "as presented" was used in the motion, so it is absolutely impossible to discern what the heck happened and, thereby, all public accountability was avoided. Who knew 3% wouldn't keep up with inflation or that Governor Abbott had totally hung teachers out to dry in a high dollar effort to create a statewide voucher system?! You couldn't have ever discerned during this board meeting that the economy was eating up the Board's meager efforts to help, while the Governor was betraying his oath to provide a state educational system as provided in the Texas Constitution. I would be mad as hell were I school board member in this situation! And, were I a teacher, I would be furious, especially with the possible $55 million bond in the hopper. In a similar vein, there was no discussion of the Board's approval of the hiring authority resolution apparently granted to the Superintendent at 12b. This matter was approved without discussion. The immediate questions arise: what does the resolution say, for what positions and were dollar limits included? Typically for governmental bodies the board hires the chief executive, and the chief executive hires everyone else. Any resolution granting specific authority to the Superintendent deserves more sun than this one received. Here are some recommendations for sunshine: a. eliminate "as presented" from all board motions; "as presented" is a total solar eclipse; b. make available to the public financially related meeting documents at the meeting; and then post them immediately online after the meeting (note that the check register is not being updated online); c. do not avoid board member discussion when coming out of executive session and before voting on matters in the "action items from closed session" item; debate and discussion after an executive session are the best evidence that matters were not voted on in the executive session; d. debate salaries, and set a higher bar for salaries than merely staying competitive, as was mentioned by Mr. Helms in his report on the salary schedule. If the Board is going to seek excellent facilities as it is with the proposed 2024 bonds and as it did with the 2019 bonds, the Board needs to pay excellent salaries. Otherwise the disparity between education facilities and educational performance and student outcome will rear its ugly head.
Administrative Reports, item 5: Supt. Moore announced that there would be no report from Athletics. This continued the academic year long pattern of there being no presence at all from either the Athletic Director or his sub. Technically, Jacob Conner still holds the position according the District's release agreement, so this is awkward at best. Still, the silence about athletics at these board meetings is deafening. Given the tremendous showing of support of this department by the Board during the tenure of former Supt. Ray DeSpain, President Carlile's transparent lack of interest regarding Athletics is attention grabbing. Also notably missing from this portion of the meeting was the Superintendent's report. This is significant. Side note: Also not present at the meeting was the only school board candidate challenging a board member incumbent for the upcoming May 4 board election. To his credit, he did attend the bond community meeting that I attended a few weeks ago. I'm not making any endorsements on these races, whether challenged or not. I do want to raise awareness that any candidate for these positions, whether by appointment or by election, should be considered a more viable candidate when they attend board meetings regularly prior to their appointment or election. One huge downside to the Board's longstanding failure to attract the community to attend their board meetings is that candidates that show up only at appointment time or election season are missing a foundation that would be tremendously helpful for the position.
Student Resource Offcer (SRO) resolution and safety and security update, items 9 and 14c: There were no updates given about the campus lockdowns last week that I mentioned above. There is so little reliable information available to the public. I'm not going to give the matter any more air time on these pages until something more reliable comes out. The Texas Legislature extensively updated school safety laws after the Uvalde school shooting. One new requirement is that schools are now required to hire a safety officer for each campus, unless they qualify for a waiver. One waiver, opted for by the Board at this meeting, is permitted if the District has its own "Guardian" plan. Here's a Texas Tribune article that addresses this Guardian waiver. School safety law is quite complex. If you want to do a deep dive check out the Irion County ISD school policy manual policies that start with "CK" in Section C of the Board Policy Manual. Just two days ago the State of Tennessee made national news for amending state law to allow for a similar guardian type program that allowed teachers and staffers to carry firearms. This issue is still quite controversial. I have grown accustomed to the reality of the presence of firearms on campus and in board meetings. I am more troubled with the fact that the District's security system uses a third party vendor who uses AI. AI and school security are the Wild West these days. No one is addressing that, and the area is unregulated.
Copyright 2024 G Noelke