Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
This is my first budget as a trustee so I am not the expert. As such, I have referred to state law in the TEXAS EDUCATION CODE for guidance.
Unfortunately, we aren’t allowed to post hyperlinks so I copied and pasted the long title of the governing document:
TITLE 2. PUBLIC EDUCATION
SUBTITLE I. SCHOOL FINANCE AND FISCAL MANAGEMENT
CHAPTER 44
FISCAL MANAGEMENT
SUBCHAPTER A. SCHOOL DISTRICT FISCAL MANAGEMENTThe words “tax rate” appear 23 times in the relevant section (44.004).
I do recall what Pres Weir is talking about. I recall the district always posting the proposed tax rate in accordance with all requirements (such as the 10 days in advance notification requirement) specified leading up to the board adopting the tax rate every September.
Where I lack clarity is the fact that the word “budget” also appears regularly throughout 44.004 when referencing these notification and posting requirements. I’m not a lawyer or accountant. It appears to me that the same notifications/posting we make regarding the tax rate are also required when it comes to the budget itself.
I think it’s prudent to ask our general counsel and probably TASB for clarification at this juncture.
I think it’s important for the community to understand that the first opportunity this board has had to discuss, deliberate and negotiate the superintendent contract terms and conditions with our attorney was at the 10 Jun 2021 meeting. There were two segments of time in which the contract was discussed in that meeting. The first was a 30 min segment of time early in the meeting. Trustees Weir, Vessa, Harrison, Feller, Bone and Weston were present for this 30 min discussion. Later in the meeting there was a much longer period of time (almost two hours) to continue our deliberation, discussion and negotiation of the contract with only five trustees present (Weir, Harrison, Feller Bone & Weston).
I was present for last night’s budget meeting and have been present for all budget meetings since I was elected in Nov 2020.
Human capital represents the lion’s share of RRISD’s expenses. Dr Presley has told us repeatedly that he recommends we engage the next superintendent on finding efficiencies in our staffing models as he (Presley) believes meaningful efficiencies exist. That’s why I stated last night that I believe our M&O budget should look very different this time next year. Raising the tax rate at a time when the federal government is infusing our district with $14.5M this year and $14.5 M next year, property valuations are explosive and both the CPI and inflation rates are the highest since the economic meltdown of 2008 and prior to an efficiency audit demonstrates a lack of insight and sensitivity to our taxpayers who fund our schools. I can’t predict the future because I am not an oracle. I can only assume that in two years when the federal money dries up, this district might actually be a position to need access to an easily accessible funding source. We should preserve this source for whoever sits on our seats in two years. I do not support increasing the tax rate by this final golden penny right now. Let’s not forget that failure to preserve the flexibility this golden penny represents will likely result in RRISD having to go to the voters sooner rather than later and asking for approval of a tax increase.
Furthermore, although I would like to see our I&S tax rate reduced another half penny, I am satisfied with the currently proposed rate of twenty-four cents per one hundred dollars in property valuation so long as we do not increase the M&O tax rate by that 5th golden penny. If RRISD had a history of addressing the billion dollars + of debt that we have carried for over a decade, I might feel differently. Instead, I see a history of keeping the I&S tax rate high so as to not have to tell the voters that passing bonds does in fact increase their property tax burden.
I have said multiple times from the dais (and again last night) that HB3 from the 86th legislature represents a major change in what voters will see in ballot language on school bonds including the next RRISD school bond. For the first time, ballot language will explicitly tell voters “This is a property tax increase” whether we raise the I&S rate or not. If bonds are worth passing, they are worth paying for. As I stated above, so long as we do not approve increasing the M&O tax rate with the 5th (and last) golden penny, I am content with the I&S tax rate where Dr Adix has it currently.
Lastly, even with a $17M deficit budget, there is no way we will actually end the FY with a $17M deficit. Dr Adix has explained this many times and I have seen that this is true in all the years I have been attending RRISD budget workshops long before I was an elected trustee. Every RRISD budget I have seen delivers a much smaller deficit (easily addressed with the $100M+ we have in fund balance) that what was predicted when the budget was passed by the board of trustees.
I agree Dr Bone. I received the contract at 4 pm yesterday via email. I was at an event all evening last night and today I have work crews at my house and two kids doing virtual learning from home occupying our personal computers. I’m only able to contribute to this post because my daughter is on a break right now. There is no way that I have had the time to properly review, research and vet this 11 page, high dollar contract. I am not a contract or employment lawyer and 24 hours just isn’t enough time for me to do the work this deserves and our community expects.
I emailed Pres Weir and our attorney, Mr Poneck, yesterday asking for this agenda item to be tabled tonight (not removed from the agenda) so that we can devote the entire evening to the important budget work. She said I would have to make a motion in the meeting tonight to table the item (D1), which I plan to do. My ask is that we devote our Monday (14 Jun 2021) meeting to the work and any action on the proposed superintendent contract after we have all had time to deliver our best work and preparation to the community.
I have regrets about the speedy timeline of our superintendent search. I believe that it should have been a little slower process and that I could have done more to advocate for more transparency to the community. I have made a lot of mistakes in my life but I seldom repeat mistakes. I don’t intent to ignore the lessons from the supt search. I intend to apply them to the contract process and the other work that is on the horizon for this board.
I personally conducted a lot of research our final four candidates. I watched board meetings from their current districts, looked at years of social media posts of their districts and of them personally (if they have an official professional social media account) and I spent a lot of time on the internet looking for media articles on current events in their districts over time. I also reviewed district, campus and student academic performance as reported and publicly available by TEA. Between the time we narrowed our focus from seven to four candidates, two candidates withdrew from our search. One withdrew because his/her current board of trustees significantly increased his/her annual compensation upon learning of their interest in becoming our next superintendent. The second candidate withdrew to accept another job that he/she applied for three weeks prior to interviewing with us. After our board interviewed the two finalists, I asked my colleagues if any of them had watched board meetings from the districts our two finalists are currently employed in. All said “no.” I was the only trustee who had watched these board meetings as part of my preparation for those important superintendent finalist interviews on 19 May 2021. My understanding is that since I posed that question, some of my colleagues have now gone and watched board meetings of our two finalist’s districts.
That left us with two finalists. After the research I did, Dr Azaiez was not my choice to be the next superintendent and that’s why I voted “no” on naming him the lone finalist.
Here are my reasons:
-Lack of relevant work experience and job performance.
Donna ISD is one of the poorest ISD’s in Texas and has a homogeneous student body of 14k. RRISD is one of the wealthiest ISD’s in Texas and has a heterogeneous student body of 48k students. I also did not see an established record of improving and sustaining student academic performance. TEA data is nuanced. A grade of “B” in one district doesn’t necessarily equate to a “B” in another district. Allowances and adjustments are made in these ratings for things like the % of economically disadvantaged students. Furthermore, the almost 3 years Dr Azaiez spent as Donna ISD superintendent represents the entirety of his experience as a superintendent. I respect his work in Donna ISD but I do not believe that this enormous jump in size, scope, diversity and needed experience level is in the best interest of our students or community. I want to add that I have tremendous respect for Dr Azaiez’ work in Donna ISD. My “no” vote for him is rooted in my commitment to finding a superintendent I believe is ready and prepared to serve in RRISD, right now. That is the standard on which I made my decision. My decision has nothing to do with my opinion on his work in Donna ISD and whether or not I believe he is doing a good job there.
-Concerning media articles I found about incidents and decisions made in Donna ISD during his tenure.
I shared the specifics of these concerns with my colleagues in our deliberations multiple times. One incident involved an SRO accidentally firing his weapon in a high school and the community’s concerns about the timeline of their notification of this and the other is about the hiring of a principal in Donna ISD who was filmed on video dragging a student with special needs down a hallway while employed in another district. We asked Dr Azaiez about these incidents and I was not comfortable with the answers/explanations we were given.
If Dr Azaiez does come to RRISD as the next superintendent, I will do everything in my power to help him be successful. I want more than anything for my instincts on this decision to be wrong.
Many community members spent time away from their professional and personal commitments to participate in community engagement events so that our board could learn what this community wanted in the next superintendent and make that part of our decision making. Our school district doesn’t belong to the school board members, the superintendent, employees, or the legislature. Our school district belongs to the taxpayers and citizens who pay for it. And our commitment is to the students who populate our schools. To that end, our search firm took the time to create two scoresheets for our use in comparing the finalists. One scoresheet is a list of the top 10 priorities that were born out of the hours of community engagement events that took place around the district. The second scoresheet was a list of 13 questions, we as a board decided to ask both finalists. I took these scoresheets seriously out of respect for the community and my colleagues. Thus I filled them out and based my decision on how both finalists ranked on the scoresheets.
I think it’s a great idea for the community to have the opportunity to engage Dr Azaiez and ask him questions during this 21 day waiting period. If logistics present a challenge, we’ve learned over the last year that Zoom makes things easy and convenient.
In addition, I reviewed Texas Government Code Sec. 552.126. It states:
“Exception: Confidentiality of Name of Applicant for Superintendent of Public School District
The name of an applicant for the position of superintendent of a public school district is excepted from the requirements of Section 552.021 (Availability of Public Information), except that the board of trustees must give public notice of the name or names of the finalists being considered for the position at least 21 days before the date of the meeting at which a final action or vote is to be taken on the employment of the person.”It’s important to note that there is no requirement for a contract to be negotiated or signed immediately after the expiration of the 21 day waiting period. My preference is to allow the community to engage Dr Azaiez and that we take the time to craft a mutually beneficial contract that all trustees have the time and opportunity to weigh in on.
I want to let my colleagues know that since HB 1925 passed through both Texas legislative chambers with bi-partisan support and is headed to the governor’s desk to be signed into law, I have let Pres Weir know that I no longer wish to place this item on the agenda.
HB 1925 relates to prohibitions on camping in a public place and to a political subdivision’s designation of property for camping by homeless individuals. We aren’t allowed to post hyperlinks here on the message board so you’ll have to look up the bill to read it if you’re interested. It’s a short 9 pages. Pages 4 and 5 set forth requirements for the locations of homeless housing including the availability of local health care, access to Medicaid services and mental health services, availability of indigent services, availability of public transportation etc.
Dr Bone,
Do you have any thoughts on Pres Weir’s thoughtful comments?
Are we ready to place this on an agenda for discussion and action?Yesterday (4/28/2021) and important bill passed unanimously out of the Texas House Public Education Committee. HB 3880, sponsored by Rep Dutton relates to a student’s eligibility for special education services provided by a school district. This bill would do several things. Notably it would align special education identification (including dyslexia) and needed services to the federal IDEA law and provide funding. Parents have been requesting improvements in this area in RRISD (and around the state) for years.
I just watched the entire hearing which is posted on the Texas House’s website. To watch the hearing of this bill, go to the 4.28.2021 date in the Pub Ed committee and start at the 00:06:25 mark and watch until the end at the 2:25:01 mark. The last speaker is TEA Dir of Special Populations, Justin Porter.
There is an identical bill in the Texas Senate (SB 1694), sponsored by Sen Paxton. I haven’t seen any hearings in the senate on SB 1694 yet.
I appreciate that clarity Trustee Bone. The definitions of “should” and “must” have been known for centuries. They also have legal definitions.
I have combed through all 17 pages of the board-approved “Parent/Guardian Guide Covid-19 Health and Safety Protocols” publicly available on the RRISD website. It is void of any mention of administrators being allowed to remove their mask while in their office. But since the district policy for all persons is that masks “should” be worn, it’s not problematic at all for an administrator to not wear a mask while in their office, or anywhere else.
My expectation is that all protocols and policies be followed as written and approved.
At the 0:01:30 mark in last night’s (15 Apr 2021) meeting, I offered a motion to move all public speakers to the beginning of the meeting. Trustee Bone seconded it. The remaining five trustees voted “no” and forced the public speakers to wait. Had a majority of trustees agreed to my motion, no public speakers, including students, would have been made to wait. This is not complicated.
I even cited my experience from almost 3 years ago (before I was a trustee) when I showed up to my first RRISD board meeting as a constituent and was made to wait until midnight on 21 Jun 2018 to be heard. I said “It was wrong then and it’s wrong now to make the public wait.” Sadly, due to technical difficulties, there is no audio of that portion of the recording of last night’s meeting so the public didn’t hear it. This underscores the need for our meetings to be held in person but that is a topic for a different thread.
The problem with public speakers (including minor children) not being heard until 10 pm in the 15 Apr 2021 board meeting does not lie in our policy. The problem lies in the board’s vote to reject my motion to move them to the beginning of the meeting.
For those who are interested, I recapped my motion to move all speakers to the beginning of the meeting, who seconded, who voted for and against at the 4:09:45 mark in the meeting recording.
It’s going to be problematic to segregate or prioritize speakers based on age or anything else. I will always advocate and vote for public speakers to be able to deliver their comments at the beginning of board meetings. I believed that before I got elected, now that I am in this seat, and will believe it when I am no longer in office.
Making speakers wait last night was ill advised and tone deaf and that’s why I offered an opportunity to avoid it. That opportunity was rejected by the board.
Trustee Vessa, I am glad to learn that you see value in providing the clarity I called for in last night’s meeting to our community re: masks. Stakeholders deserve to know sooner rather than later whether masks will be required in RRISD during the summer months and in the 2021-2022 school year so that they can plan accordingly. Thank you for soliciting the thoughts of all of us. I am happy to share mine.
I was disappointed that just as statewide and local mask mandates are being lifted, my colleagues voted last night for even more restrictive masking requirements than the TEA Public Health Guidelines mandate. I don’t think this decision will age well and that’s why I warned against it last night.
Covid-19 isn’t leaving RRISD any time soon. It will be with us for a while, masks will not. We cannot delay moving to a mask-optional standard until Covid vanishes or until there is zero risk. It’s likely that many (if not most) of the staff and students who have tested positive for Covid and/or been hospitalized with it did not acquire it in RRISD. A virus is impossible to control or track 100%. Leaders are charged with weighing risks and making decisions.
The three data points I have been looking for with regard to making masks optional in RRISD have been:
1. An on-going trend of low data points (cases/hospitalizations/deaths). This trend began in late January and has continued to where it is now at a very low plateau. As an example, today in Williamson County, there were 12 new Covid cases. I haven’t seen that number that low since I started tracking this daily in November 2020. WilCo has 600k residents. But mostly I look at hospitalizations and deaths. The data clearly shows that the link between Covid hospitalizations and death has been successfully broken, probably since the vaccine has reached a majority of the most at-risk population. Travis county has a population of 1.3M and their data is proportionately similar to that of WilCo.
2. 100% of RRISD staff age 65+ being granted access to the vaccine. We know that this population has suffered the wrath of Covid more than any other group. Dr Presley briefed us in January that 100% of our 279 employees over the age of 65, 100% had been given the opportunity to be vaccinated. As I recall, around 70 of these employees opted out of receiving the vaccine.
3. Every RRISD adult staff member (of all ages, including those in the extremely low risk age groups) having access to at least the first dose of the vaccine. As I previously stated on this message board in a separate post, I was briefed by the county on 19 March 2021 that this metric had been achieved by this date (19 Mar 2021). Out of an abundance of caution, I waited until the end of March (30 Mar 2021 to be exact) before formally requesting the topic of discussing mask rules be added to our meeting agenda as soon as possible. Pres Weir added it to the 15 Apr 2021 meeting (last night’s meeting).
These metrics are very meaningful. All 3 reduce the likelihood of not only acquiring the virus, but also these metrics mean that for anyone who does contract the virus, the symptoms will be lessened and the likelihood of hospitalizations or death reduced significantly. These metrics do not guarantee zero risk. No reasonable metric will guarantee that. These metrics provide a prudent exit ramp. Given that the metrics I needed to see had been met, I was 100% comfortable in moving to a masks-optional standard in RRISD on 30 Mar 2021.Since I did not believe that a majority of my colleagues would join me in this move, I scrutinized the TEA Public Health Guidelines and looked for reasonable edits that could be made to address the biggest pain points among students with masks for the remainder of this school year while maximizing safety. I developed two edits to the guidelines and presented them in a motion last night. These edits were born out of many e-mails we’ve received from parents, teachers and school nurses ever since I was sworn in in late Nov 2020.
First, it became obvious that requiring our youngest students to wear a mask was very problematic. I’ve learned that mask wearing for a young child and teacher is a big barrier for students who are trying to learn to read and learn their phonics. I have learned how important it is for student and teacher to be able to see each other’s mouths when learning these basic skills. Teachers have explained this to me. This is just one example of how mask wearing is especially problematic among our youngest students. There are additional psychological and physical harms that it brings as we have all learned in the e-mails we receive. Thus, my suggestion to not require children under 10 to wear a mask was born.
Second, it was clear that wearing a mask outdoors is very problematic as well as wearing a mask indoors while exercising. I didn’t need to see this in the e-mails to realize this, but there it was, over and over again. This has always seemed obvious to me as I have never worn a mask outdoors and never indoors while exercising. This is common sense. As an example, I have learned that children have been required to wear wet masks (whether from sweat or rain) all the way home while riding the school bus. This is obviously problematic. Why not put the mask away when it’s raining or when it’s sweaty? Thus, my suggestion to not require masks outdoors at all or indoors while exercising was born.I was surprised and disappointed that my motion to adopt these reasonable edits failed.
I do not support any threshold for moving to a mask-optional standard to hinge on vaccine legalization or availability to minor children. It never occurred to me that this would ever be put forward as any sort of decision criteria for moving to a masks optional standard in our public schools. I do not support delaying a decision on making masks optional in order to wait on a vaccine for children. I also do not support some classrooms requiring masks and some not. That would lead to a logistical nightmare. I believe anyone, in any classroom or facility, should be free to wear a mask(s) whenever they choose.
Furthermore, as I said last night, I do not believe that requiring masks in our schools is going to withstand legal scrutiny any longer. Just this afternoon, the Katy ISD Superintendent released a statement to his community stating, “Katy ISD will return to a completely normal operations on 1 Jun 2021. Students and staff will no longer be required to wear facial coverings and daily COVID-19 notifications will cease.” This is significant for several reasons. First, recall that Katy ISD is the defendant in a lawsuit that has been levied by a group of parents challenging their mask requirement. This statement from KISD changes the dynamic of that lawsuit meaningfully, virtually rendering it irrelevant. Additionally, Katy ISD has a student body of approximately 80k, over 30k more students than RRISD. KISD is now the largest ISD I am aware of that has set an end date for their mask requirement. This is their exit ramp.
Where is our exit ramp? I can only speak for myself. I want masks to be optional in RRISD now.
Ninety Texas ISD’s have already taken the exit ramp.I want to suggest that whenever we finally do move to a masks-optional standard, can we please provide an N-95 surgical mask for any staff member who wants one? These masks are MUCH more effective that the cloth masks virtually everyone is wearing now. This might help those who are still very concerned feel safe when masks become optional for all.
Colleagues, this is the motion I have prepared for tonight on Item L:
“I move that the following two clarifications to the TEA Public Health Guidelines be adopted in RRISD effective Apr 19, 2021 though the end of the 2020-2021 school year. Firstly, make it clear that masks are optional for students under the age of 10. And secondly, make it clear that masks are optional outdoors under all circumstances and that masks are not required indoors while exercising for all persons.”Given the drastic decline in the data including cases, but most especially the uncoupling of the link between hospitalizations and deaths state wide and here locally, it’s time to pivot to data driven decisions when it comes to requiring children to wear a mask in order to receive a public education. TEA Public Health Guidelines first published on March 12, 2021 are entirely appropriate as our starting point. The two clarifications I put forward in my motion are reasonable clarifications and address legitimate learning and development concerns for our youngest students. They also address safety concerns as temperatures rise here in central Texas. The fact that putting a mask over a student’s mouth and nose has been prohibited by the Texas Education Code for years should remind us that looking for an exit ramp to this practice must be prioritized. The data speaks for itself and provides that exit ramp. The good news is that TEA Public Health Guidelines already make it clear that masks are not required when persons are able to socially distance, even indoors. This applies to all persons on RRISD property.
As trustees we have received much communication from the community including many parents, teachers and school nurses in recent days. We have also heard from area physicians, nurse practitioners and nurses. We are getting conflicting guidance, articles, research and perspectives from all of these community members and I appreciate their input. There is no consensus among our school nurses, teachers or area healthcare professionals on whether masks should be required in RRISD any longer. The CDC has published the results of their research on the efficacy of masks in a public setting. Their own research found a 1.8% difference in the spread of Covid when mask mandates are in place versus when they are not. This negligible difference means we are now at a point where the downside of requiring children and staff members to wear a mask all day long far exceeds the upside. This is why we are seeing state and local mask mandates being lifted. Furthermore, over 90 school districts across the state have lifted their mask rules originally put in place in 2020.
As a trustee of this school district, I feel compelled to acknowledge that I do not believe that continuing to require persons to wear a mask while on public school property is going to withstand legal scrutiny for much longer.
The mental health and academic progress of our youth has taken a beating over the last year. I want these things reversed and tonight’s motion is a good first step. I commend our teachers and staff for rising to the tremendous challenges this year has brought.
Regardless of how the board votes on my motion tonight I want to make it clear that I think it’s extremely important to provide this community with clarity sooner rather than later on what they can expect next school year regarding masks. Parents deserve to know what educational experience they can expect for their children and staff members deserve to know what working conditions they will be under as well. All stakeholders need to know what to expect in time for them to plan accordingly for the 20210-2022 school year. We owe the community that clarity.
I believe I am one of only two current trustees whose children grew up on RRISD Title 1 campuses. I am very familiar with the challenges including mobility children experience. I’m not opposed to this idea Trustee Vessa. Perhaps you can reach out to the administration and see if there has ever been any request for this from community members. I’d be curious to learn what level of interest has been expressed. Like Trustee Weir, for me this is less about growing enrollment for the financial benefit of RRISD and more about being a good steward in the community.
My thoughts in response to Trustee Weir taking the time to dig into this are below. Thank you Pres Weir!
I’m amenable to changing from a 4 year to a 3 year term.
I think this Board and future boards can determine which trustees they wish to have support the CCPOC, much like how the Board determines who will be the trustee rep on the RR Chamber, PIE Foundation, etc. In most situations a consensus can be reached and if not, the body can vote.
I’m not inclined to mandate a trustee attend every CCPOC mtg.
The goal with 5 votes on #8 on page 3 is to set a basic threshold of affirmation in order for this body to approve anything. If only the 2 CCPOC members appointed by one or two trustees is empowered to make decisions, it could be problematic. A threshold of 5 means that members appointed by at least 3 trustees must agree to approve anything. The reluctance to make it a majority of the 14 total members comes from concern about holding up progress if folks are unable to attend a particular meeting for whatever reason. I am curious about Trustee Bone’s thoughts on this, especially with you pointing out that we have a requirement of a quorum needed to make decisions.
I’d appreciate input from staff on your point about meetings being on the 3d Tuesday of the month. Thank you for pointing that out.
