You Want the Truth? You Can't Handle the Truth!

 This is a long and involved article with links. Will you take the time to know the truth?

By now, many people have read or heard about the Financial Accountability letter written by the BISD Superintendent and read at the February 28th school board meeting. That letter went out the next day to every parent who has an email address registered with the district. I’m sure it has been forwarded to many others. Wednesday, March 9^th edition of the Burleson Star reported on its contents as well. The Star did a good job of balanced coverage, in my opinion, but didn’t report the entire letter. For those of you that want to read it, you can access it by clicking here. 

It appears that last week’s release didn’t spur any feverish letters to the editor so far, but who knows what The Burleson Star’s Wednesday's edition may bring. However, I’m sure the  Burleson STAR”s new editor’s stringent enforcement of the 300 word limit may be keeping some of the more prolific letter writers silent – it has me. But, I do feel that I need to make some statement about the letter as well as some other “truths” that have gone unsaid for too long,  so here goes-

 I am totally supportive of the content of Superintendent’s letter and view the fact that it was written at all as a milestone in the district. I've known Mr. Crummel for more than a decade and I believe the meeting when he read the letter and gave other recommendations to the Board was one of his finest hours.

Many say they want to know the “truth” yet they don’t feel they get the whole story sometimes. The reason for this feeling is that when governmental entities have political pipe bombs thrown at them by HATERS, those who have motives other than to be informed and participate openly and honestly in our governance system, district officials are reluctant to even defend themselves from such accusations or even to attempt to give explanation or factual information as to why such allegations are incorrect. This is because those who are just banging the drum to create noise rarely have any interest in the truth but only want to insure further chaos to confuse and frustrate. Sometimes engaging in the fracas comes across as defensive and can lead to even more misunderstanding and mistrust as Jeff Gill voiced as his opinion in the Burleson Star article. You should know that Jeff Gill is a former and CURRENT school board candidate running against JoAnne Smith.  But I digress.

Honest people want the truth but are mistrustful because they have been burned in the past. I am sure that some of those that voted "yes" in the district TRE feel betrayed because the newspaper and some of the most vocal people in town told them they were. I can't and don't blame them for feeling that way. It has taken me three months of research to come to the firm conclusion that they are wrong. It is my hope, that their faith can be restored so that our school district can continue to grow and be successful.  At some point, everyone has to move on.

Others that opposed the district, I call the HATERS, never will accept the truth because they have an agenda and they won’t let facts get in their way. Many times, this agenda is motivated by a personal or political agenda against someone or in an attempt to gain something they want (like a political office, perhaps). In this case, it is my opinion, that those that I call HATERS are motivated by a desire to see the Superintendent discharged from his position due to a personal agenda. They are joined by others that have a political reason, either to stay in office when they feel threatened or want to attain a position they seek. This is where I throw in my favorite quote from a Tom Cruise movie. Tom is hammering away at Jack Nicholsonm a superior officier,  in "A Few Good Men".  "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!". Of course Nicholson's character is about to get hauled away and court-martialed for bad acts, but it really is a good line and I wanted to use it!!

During the October 2010 TRE election a group of sundry elected officials decided to instigate an assault against the current school administration and board by disputing the validity of a deficit budget projection for the 2010-2011 school year. Because the State is in charge of providing the necessary funds to provide Texas children a free public education, many Texas school officials were concerned that formulas set in 2006, with no inflationary factors attached, were going to see no relief in the upcoming legislative session. They believed this because as early as last summer (2010), warnings had already gone out that Texas was going to have a huge multi-billion dollar deficit. As many districts, including Burleson, were already cutting budgets to deal with the lack of formula adjustments, they were rightly questioning what was going to happen if the State did not step up and adjust funding for the growing student population in the coming bi-ennium . Burleson is one of the fastest growing areas in North Texas, although growth has slowed for the time being. Burleson even had a citizen's committee that met numerous times to discuss the need for a TRE since the Fall of 2009. This was no "seat of the pants" decision. It started with the previous administration.

As the much discuss TRE began to become more certain, there were those who felt the State, as well as those that represent Texas citizens at the State level,  shouldn’t be blamed for the approaching school funding crisis. It was also an election year and certainly one characterized by a “no tax” chant of Tea Party members across the United States. Perhaps it was an honest quest for some people at first. Unfortuately, what could have been an opportunity to have a dialogue about our increasing revenue opportunities for BISD to weather the impending revenue crunch the district was going to face, turned into a situation where those who were attempting to avert any responsibility for the funding dilemma now joined the HATERS. They made use of the current "no tax" sentiment for their own purpose. That is why I do not critize those who voted "No" to any increase in tax as a personal philosophy but see them separately from those who used the "no tax" position as a political ruse to cover the real motivation. I believe this because one of the leading accusers and HATERS who wrote the damning letter to the Editor on December 1, 2010, and was instrumental  in the Patriot Tea Party filing the ethics complaint against the BISD appeared before the school board on January 24, 2011 and addressed the board in the open forum time. After taking time to make comments about the Superintendent's failure to be truthful with the community during the TRE campaign, this person informed the board that the community was distrustful of them and when they went into closed meeting that evening to discuss the Superintendent's contract they needed to make some "hard decisions" to win the community back.  In my opinion, the decision suggested was to fire the Superintendent. He further purported to be a "friend of the district" and reminded the Board of his support for the bond program.  He further added, "He thought it was time for another tax increase due to the State budget crisis". Again I assume this was intended to convey to the board that if they took the right action, he would not oppose another TRE effort "because the state is in a budget crisis". Click here to hear his statement (It should be Track 01 under unknown album). The unmitigated gall of a person that led a charge against the district due to a  personal bias,  pretending to stand on principle of "no taxes" and then come to the very district that he helped prevent a needed tax increase in just months before and suggest that they needed to have another TRE!!!! All of you that wrote "Letters to the Editor" charging that the district should "live within it's means" should be shocked by this wonton display of hubris!!

On this same topic ,  I was  told by someone that I generally have great respect for and an associate of the person mentioned above, "no one knew the state deficit was going to be so bad". So, I guess there is some regret with some people that the district was dealt such a hard blow in the TRE defeat.

On the matter of revenue projections. Because the Barnett Shale has increased property values over the last decade, it has been a slow steady, growth and somewhat under the radar. However, in the last few years, that growth, especially in personal property assessment accelerated. (Click here for a look at these property assessments over the last decade) The district had a more than decade old policy of not using protested tax assessments as part of their calculation for projected revenues. This had been a process that had worked for many years. It was a win-win situation. The district usually had sufficient revenues to cover expenditures and faced no end of the year shortages that had to come out of fund balance and if there were excess funds, it would go into the fund balance account as undesignated reserves. This is the ONLY way to increase the reserve toward the TEA recommended goal of two months plus of operating expense. It also was a God-send as it improved the district’s bond rating at the time when the district was engaged in the biggest bond sale in its history. This saved untold amounts of money in interest.  Click here to see a comparison of fund balances for Johnson County schools and others. Joshua certainly has a healthy balance for their district size.

The HATERS who have accused the district of deception have cited the most recent addition of under projected revenue to the fund balance as evidence of “sand bagging” and lying about having deficits in the last three years as reported during the TRE campaign. This severely undermines my belief that those who accuse the district really have any understanding of budgets at all. (I guess that SMU MBA was a waste!) . The Legislature has a list of expenditures for the next two years that the State Comptroller says can’t be covered with current revenue. They also have a type of “fund balance” it’s just called the “rainy day fund”. State officials say they are reluctant to use it because, “What happens if it rains harder the next biennium? Why can these BISD HATERS not see the similarity in the State budget situation and the one we have at home? Why is the BISD adminstation liars and the State officials are not? You can't have it both ways.

A fund balance does NOT prevent you from having a deficit; it only allows you to cover your short fall if you chose to use the money to do so. It doesn’t mean there isn’t a deficit such as the Patriot Tea Party members were chanting at the Admin Building on October 16^th. Click here to see how the fund balance was build since 2006 and the public documents that showed that build up that was always available for the public to see.

 I attended the board meeting in November, 2010 when the supposedly “found money” was discussed (click here to see the breakdown of this revenue presented at the November board meeting) after the 2010 audit release and I never heard the board president say that if they [the Board] had known  about the 2010 surplus of revenue, they would have not done the TRE. I heard the statement, “We might have made a different decision”.  I took that to mean that the board may have used some of the fund balance and asked for less in the TRE. I can’t foresee any Board averting a TRE by using $5 million of their fund balance when they still had a legal option for raising revenue on the table: that of setting a tax rate above the $1.04 level which would trigger the TRE. The HATERS would have you believe that raising your tax ceiling to $1.17 was equal to charging up all your credit cards. Baloney! The State Legislature made that the mandatory method for securing additional funding so school districts wouldn’t rush to get more money from the State at the next opportunity. Our own representative to Austin, told board members to go home and ask your voters for a raise. After two years of discussion, which included community members, there was a decision to adopt a budget that required setting a tax rate above $1.04. This action triggered the TRE.

There were other things that this group of HATERS didn’t like and attacked the district for that need to be set straight.

1.  The district didn’t lie about cutting staff from 2008-2010. Click here and see the information that will show how the district trimmed staff to insure that the increasing student enrollment was covered by the classroom teachers necessary. Click here to see a list of changing demographics in the BISD and why it is necessary to increase staff that work with at-risk students but yet keep their staff/student ratios stable.  Click here to see ratios related to spending on administrative staff relative to student enrollment. Adminstrative staff spending has been low and is lower in 2010 than it was in 2006.

2.  The district said they had not received increased “per student” funds from the state since the formula was set 2006. Representative Orr provided a copy of legislation that he says gave districts additional funding to begin in 2011. The amount is estimated to be $120 a student more if a complicated formula says you can have more). The failure to mention this funding was viewed as a lack of integrity on the part of the BISD. I have yet to hear one Superintendent mention this additional funding in any on camera interview. Perhaps, because by the time it was signed, it was basically a teacher pay raise bill and did nothing to assist the other costs of the districts as intended. In fact, 99% of the funding under this bill went straight to techer pay raises for 2009-10 and 2010-11.  Click here to read the legislation Representative Orr provided to me. Click here to read an interpretation of the entire HB 3646. Click here to read the opinion and summation of the effects of the additional revenue intended to assist districts but resulted in hurting them instead.
     
      Click here  to see information about the level of state funding given to BISD in the last 4 years. You can see that when property taxes move, state funding goes the opposite direction. The year where they meet in the middle was when the State was attempting to equalize funding between the state and local property owner.- ground zero. You can see they go in the opposite direction afterwards. Also please note the audited revenue column. You will see that the amount of state aid decreased in 2009 and 2010 just ask stated by BISD officials in TRE literature. There was documentation provided by our State Representative indicating that there was more state aid provided than the district represented. However, that printout included I&S funding as well as M&O funding which was the object of the TRE. Also, the state uses ADA in its ratio with FTE instead of Enrollment. However, teachers and staff have to be in place to teach students enrolled because you hope they show up. ADA only deals with the days that those students show up. I assume the incentive is to get them to come to school. However, it is not a true picture of the of staff justification.

3.   Another charge that was made by some in the community was that other districts in Johnson County were able to balance their budgets and BISD was not able to do so. Click here to see a comparison of Johnson County school districts and data supporting the claim that the BISD is not fairly compensated by the state (see percent of budgets from State formulas). Note that BISD has a lower percentage in state aid than other districts in Johnson County. The district’s M&O rate is also lower than some of the others but the over-all rate is higher.  This is because the I&S rate is set to  pays for the bonds that were sold with over-whelming voter approvals. Two replacement elementary schools, three new elementary schools plus one new high school are being paid for with that $.50. (Plus remaining bond on previous construction at BHS). Those individuals that complained about higher taxes to cover operating expenses (TRE), but voted for the bond program, need to take responsibility for their bond vote and stop complaining.

5.   The HATERS stated that the district "sand bagged" and tried to cover up revenue by under projecting revenue from local taxes. Click here to see documentation from the last four years showing where the district amended revenue projections up and state projections down (1), each year with the attempt to more closely reflect tax receipts. However, due to the size and suddenness of the increases, local revenues were still under projected.  (shaded areas reflect amended final budgets compared to original budget). The district has made it very clear that they have moved to insure that this cannot happen again.

6.   Gas lease revenue was never hidden. It was shown on the monthly budget report and available in the board packet provided to Trustees and available online after each regular meeting. Click here to see documentation. See end footnote.  The audited statements included mineral leases in “local and intermediate” income. However, this item was broken down for reporting on schedule B-1 and reported as “misc. local and intermediate sources”. Click here to view page.

7.   Other complains by the HATERS, including those made to the Texas Ethics Commission may or may not have basis for a complaint in regards to advocacy. There was one statement, such as the title of the brochure, initially. However, this was changed on the second printing to “Tax Ratification Election”. The HATERS cited the district as saying, “The district is asking for voter approval…”. That was a line from a newspaper story. The district didn’t write the story and they have no responsibility for how the newspaper reporter or editor reported it. Another allegation was the district lied when it stated that Joshua had a successful TRE. It was not a lie; there was a TRE and it did pass. The fact that they provided a “swap” wasn’t relevant. (A “swap” means JISD took $.13 off the I&S rate of $.50 maximum and move it to their M&O already at $1.04, leaving the district at $1.17 the maximum rate for M&O (with voter approval).  This allowed JISD to make use of some of the remaining I&S cap that was sitting unused.  By the way, Burleson was unable to perform this “sleight of hand” as they were already at the State maximum of $.50 due to the most recent bond passage.

8.   Another complaint was the fact the election was October 16^th instead of the general election day of November 2, 2010. The HATERS applied all kinds of motives to this decision to which the district responded with their own reasons. However, the district officials and board have a duty to do what is best for the district at large and as long as the decisions are within the law as clearly defined, and they were, it is just a matter of opinion. Love it or hate it, it’s your choice but the district did nothing unethical by scheduling it as they did.

9.   There was some upset that the district had early voting opportunities at various public school locations. The principals may have been asked or decided on their own to hold special events at their schools that coincided with those voting opportunities. On site early voting has been a practice used in the BISD since the 1995 bond program that built the new BHS. Yes, it gives more opportunity to vote to EVERYONE. Yes, parents of current students are more likely to attend. Yes, parents are more likely to know about the opportunity to vote at their local school. HOWEVER, all voting locations and times were public information. The information was printed on all the TRE brochures and in the newspaper. Public meeting were held throughout the community at churches, civic clubs, the schools, and other places so that anyone interested could be informed. There are those that claimed that this was still unfair and exclusive. They are welcome to their opinion but there was nothing exclusive about any polling site. Not all parents or teachers voted for the TRE. Many were very vocal about their opposition and were even members of the Patriot Tea Party group. There was no way to assure that anyone would vote for or against just because of where they voted.  There was nothing illegal or unethical about the practice of multiple voting sites. Love it or hate it-but get over it.

10. There was a claim that teachers and school employees were threatened with job lose and harassed. There is no evidence that any staff member or teacher was told how to vote in any format during the TRE. No teacher was told specifically that his/her job would be eliminated if they didn’t vote for the TRE. All staff were told they could not tell students or parents, on school time, on school property, using school equipment or in their official capacity, how to vote. However, school employees can, on their own time, using their own resources, participate in PACs that advocate for the passage or defeat of any measure, whether school related or not. There could have been some cases where staff members, feeling the strain of budget discussions, may have felt emotional panic about the potential of their job being cut due to the type of position in which they are employed being on a list of possible eliminations. There may have been a time when a teacher or coach improperly implored students or parents to vote for the passage of the TRE. It was never condoned, ordered or suggested. Any automated calls to staff or parents on the BISD call system were only encouragements to vote in the election.

There is more, but it will come later!

In the meantime, I'm just say'in....

Ann