Sales Tax Election 2010

One of the two local measures on the November election is a re-authorization of the current 1/2 cent 4B sales tax for economic development. We plan on publishing a series of articles where we look at the issues surrounding this measure in depth and get some little known and critical facts before the public. We will try to fill in some of the missing numbers to help create context and clarify real impact. We will cover subjects like what's at stake in this election, what is a 4B sales tax and what can it be used for, local water history, local tax history, the Hickory Aquifer and alternative long term water possibilities, the impact of this proposal on our water bill, and a look at the special projects that are part of the measure we will vote on in November.

A disclaimer is needed here. I actively campaigned against the previous 2 sales tax propositions. Conchoinfo grew out of the last sales tax campaign. I am not automatically against optional sales taxes such as the 4B sales tax we have today. They can be useful and do have their place. Still, I have some serious concerns about what is being put before the voters, and I keep finding problems with the Hickory Aquifer and how they are trying to fit it into a dependable long term water supply for San Angelo and the Concho valley. I will try to make it clear what is fact, what is analysis, and what is just my opinion. I also welcome your feedback, analysis, and opinions. Just keep it relevant to the topic of the post, and don't make it personal.

In my opinion, you seldom get a good election result without good information and discussion of all the issues. This isn't about selling a position to the voters. The long term water supply and economic health of our community shouldn't be marketed like just a fancy box of Cracker Jacks.

Census Time

The ten year census is upon us. With it come employment opportunities, always a plus. Also comes the decennial deluge of questions and misinformation.

The Census has Constitutional roots in Article 1, Sec. 2. Crafted in a time with slavery, and exempting "untaxed Indians", the Constitutional language is hardly an exact guide. Its original purpose was to apportion the members of the House of Representatives in Congress according to reasonably accurate population the members represented.

The debate over what this Constitutional "enumeration" ought to contain goes back to the beginning. The Census was Statute 2 of the very first Congress in 1790. This gives us a clue it is of great importance. Even then, the questions to be asked were debated. Livermore of New Hampshire complained that questions as to "profession" would be hard on his constituents, as many held more than one, changing seasonally. Sedgewick, of the more industrial Connecticut, wanted the questions to "extend further" and give a better picture of the economy.

I actually worked evenings on the 1980 Census in North Carolina, so though a bit dated, I have seen both sides. I hear the complaints of the right wing as to intrusive none-of-your-business questions. I understand the fear of residents whose legal status may be questionable. I strongly advise both: Fill out the form!

As to the first question, if you get the "long form" it will have questions about bathrooms, vehicles, all sorts of nonsense that you might consider none of the government's concern. The cover letter will tell you it must be completed under penalties of 13 USC 221. PLEASE go ahead and respond to the first ten or so questions (I have not seen the current questionaire) and if you choose, leave the nosy questions blank. It may well be a violation, but I have been unable to find any case where failure to complete everything resulted in criminal or even civil action. The Census Bureau itself describes the penalty section as "psychological encouragement".

On the second, one part of the Federal Government I trust is Census in this respect. They want numbers. The information, the names and addresses will be bundled into district info, but NOTHING you send Census will be shared with Homeland Security, ICE, INS, La Migra, whatever you want to call it.

It is very important that everyone gets counted. This Census result will determine each state's number of Congressmen, for instance, Texas will gain 2-3; California will lose at least that many. Also, the Census numbers will be used in determining grants and federal aid for all sorts of programs, everything from housing to education to health care, to public safety, to libraries, ad infinitum.

We know from reasonable "eyeball surveys" that San Angelo was under-counted in 2000. We lost tens of millions of dollars over a decade due to that undercount. We will not get another chance for ten years, we must make the best of this one. We want to count EVERYONE! You live under a bridge; I want you counted. You are "undocumented?"; on this I don't care, if you live here, I want you counted. Folks, on this states and even intrastate districts go to court and fight over which body gets to count prisoners, one group claiming they count where sentenced, another that they count where they serve the sentence!

Census has been a nuisance of some degree for at least as long as one forced the baby Jesus to be born in a manger in Bethlehem. Ours is considerably less troublesome than that of Mary and Joseph. Please follow their biblical example and respond to this Census. It is good for our city, and long run, good for you.

Labor Day Ups and Downs

Labor Day has an interesting history. While New York City celebrated the day as early as 1882, It became a national holiday in 1894 under one of my favorite Presidents, Grover Cleveland. The Pullman Strike had just ended. This rather ugly event had seen a number of deaths of strikers at the hands of police and even military personel. Cleveland was anxious to ease the discord with a growing labor movement and Congress was only too happy to go along, making it a national holiday in short order.

Had it not been for Chicago's Haymarket affair, Labor Day would probably have been set on May 1. At Haymarket, Chicago police were moving in to disperse a peaceful pro-labor rally when anarchists tossed bombs, killing 8 police, with a number of civilians shot in the ensuing gunfire from the surviving officers. Probably good fortune for American labor unions. Though it hadn't come to pass in the 1890s, Mayday would later become inextricably tied to the Communist celebration of that name.

Being in a good mood, let's start with good news. City Council last week passed a budget that gives us another one cent reduction in property tax rate. Staff turned in a really good piece of work here. They had been given two weeks from the prior Council meeting to come up with savings to permit at least a half-cent reduction. Frankly, I went to last week's meeting thinking perhaps that half-cent was all we would see, but they had managed to scrounge over $330,000 and permit another full cent. That makes five years running. Not that we want to get too comfy; our tax rate is still on the high end of Texas cities. For instance, Tyler, a city about our size, has been at this since the mid-90s and with some creative use of its 4B sales tax has a rate of about 25 cents, I believe the lowest for a city above 25k in the state. Still, we didn't get here overnight, we can't undo it overnight, but we are steadily moving in the right direction. I hope Staff and Manager Dominguez are enjoying this fine day off, you guys earned it.

Nice rains across the Concho Valley. Save the applause, but I'll take credit for that thank you. See, I finally broke down and spent all night last week soaking my thirsty pecan trees. Donations to cover the water bill I will be afraid to open...Ah well, it was for the good of the community.

It wasn't such a good week for SAISD. They did pass a reasonable budget, but then came the now infamous Obama speech decision. Board member Max Parker was right, there simply was not time to convene a Board meeting, which might have allowed for a more thoughtful response. Not to be unduly harsh, indeed, overall I am still glad we have Bonds as Superintendent, but it looks as though in this case, she allowed a small vocal group to sway the decision not to air the President's comments where possible.

I do not recall a topic that generated the volume of posts on the Standard Times gosangelo site, overwhelmingly against the call. Even arch-conservative Charles Krauthammer of Fox News was saying that with the essay assignment, "How I can Help the President" struck from the package, he had no problem with having our first black President give American students a "Stay in school and study hard" message. You never know, it might actually help some of the kids.

It's hardly a secret that I did not vote for Obama, BUT..I've seen his short prime-time ad on the "stay-in-school" message, and it is just that. Nothing partisan, it isn't "stay-in-school-and-learn-how-to-be-a-good-Democrat", just stay in school and learn. I would be very surprised if this TV address is anything other than that message expanded. If even a small percentage of kids, especially disadvantaged kids react well to hearing that message from the man who proved even black children can grow up to be President, that will be a positive.

It is a fact of political life that the negative side of any topic will be expressed more quickly and noisily than the positive, thus the one-sided e-mails and calls the Superintendent fielded at first. For all the complaints about "negative campaigns" they are still widely used for one reason only: they work. Pure fact, a campaigner is more likely to stir an otherwise complacent voter off his duff to vote against something than to vote for something.

I dissent from Trustee Tim Archer's comment that this is not a "big deal". True, it will not be dominant in the context of a full year's education. Still, the symbolism, especially in the minority community that did vote heavily for the President, the symbolism is huge, and it will be remembered like a thorn in the side or a burr in the saddle. I have dabbled in matters political long enough to know, politically, symbolism IS reality. 'Nuff said on that.

Overall, I see a pretty good Labor Day for San Angelo. Economy is a bit down, sales tax revenues show that. Not quite boom time, but San Angelo has fared better than much of the country. We still have new construction going up, not the least the joint Martifer/Hirschfeld wind turbine tower plant.

I am thrilled about the turnout for the Mayor's race. Whatever one may think of him, J. W. Lown proved that though the Mayor is just one vote on Council, if someone is willing to work full time at this basically unpaid job (we need to correct that BTW) and build a city-wide coalition of support, the position can be quite effective. Conchoinfo does not, will not endorse candidates, but... I know some of the candidates, I intend to get to know the rest. I can say, we have a good field of qualified people running, the best I can recall. My thanks to all who have been willing to step up to the plate and run.

I will go this far out on a limb: I will not support any candidate who thinks people ought to raise fighting cocks in town. Another topic for another day.

School Single Member Districts

The school board has something interesting on the agenda for Tuesday's meeting. They want to change the boundaries for SMD 1 and 4. I can understand their concerns. That said, I really have to question their timing. They seem to think they can have all this done in time for the May election? Do they think they will have the DOJ approval back before February 7th?

You may be wondering: if the Election is on May 9th, and early voting starts on April 27th, where does Feb. 7th come in? That's the the first day you can file to run for office. Aren't the legal boundaries in effect on that date the ones you would have to use for that election?

This also seems premature when we have a census coming up next year with mandatory redistricting soon after the results are in. This whole exercise will have to be redone in about three years.

Add in all the work that will have to be done by the secretary of state's office and the local elections office to redo the voter registration records, get updated registration cards to the voters, and get the voters informed before April, and I see this as being a lot of extra work for very little real benefit to the voters and citizens of San Angelo.

The school board has valid concerns about the growth of the Bluffs and the Central vs Lake View mix in the districts. These are not new problems. They could have been addressed when the last redistricting was done. They will need to be readdressed during the next redistricting. Now, less than a month before the boundaries need to be in place for an election, is not the time to make these changes.

Fieldhouse Followup

After my last post on the Fieldhouse, I received two responses from Board members calling me down for my characterization of the executive session of Nov. 10 as a "snout-counting". Upon review, as they say in the NFL, they are quite right, and I owe the Board an apology.

For one thing, I was venturing an unsubstantiated opinion as to "appearances". I had not then, nor do I have now, any actual knowledge of what transpired in that meeting. By putting my unsubstantiated opinion out there, I unfairly put the members in a position of being unable to defend themselves without breaking oath as to keeping executive sessions private.

Aside from my unprofessional and unfair characterization of the executive session, I would take back that whole section of last week's article if I could because it was really irrelevant to my primary point. What's done is done, all I can do at this point is offer my sincere apology, and I do. SAISD trustees serve without pay, they mostly show up prepared, to be sure, we have seen worse Boards than we have today.

That out of the way, back to the fieldhouse funding. To the extent the two responses addressed that point, they pointed out that the existing fieldhouse is in terrible shape, no disagreement there, it is in sad shape. Then both put forth the idea it was a valid investment in "economic development".

Here is the first point we diverge on. We have a few entities dedicated to economic development, Chamber of Commerce, COSADC half cent sales tax Corp., the hotel occupancy tax, as well as private groups representing restaurants and retail stores. ASU has a vested interest in both the fieldhouse and economic development in general, a healthy economy adds to the luster Rallo needs to attract a 10,000 student body. The interest of these bodies in contributing to the fieldhouse fund has been somewhere between zip and diddly.

Sports-related "economic development" schemes are finally coming under close scrutiny nationwide, and it ought to here. Grant the best assumptions, and I don't in this economy, who gets these travelers' dollars? Hotels, restaurants, retail stores, maybe the hawkers selling Cokes and snacks in the stands. We really want to build our economic future on the strength of jobs as retail clerks, waiters and hotel housekeepers? Nothing wrong with those jobs, I've done two of them, but solid investment in a strong local economy? It is to laugh. To be fair, neither correspondent made economic devlopment the primary reason to support this expenditure.

As one of my Board respondents reminded me, this private fundraising effort actually goes back four years rather than two. Timing was bad, it butted heads with the Library effort, and a lot of philanthropic money went to books instead. Unfortunate, but perhaps people with money rank books above athletics. Whodathunkit in West Texas, but there it is.

As far as I can determine, this $6.5 million fieldhouse is the largest single infrastructure project SAISD has funded outside a bond subject to voter approval in, at least recent history. I think it would be the largest such ever. Compared to the items on the bond we approved, only two elementary schools received more money, Goliad and Crockett, and they were near total renovations/new construction.

The members talking to me expressed a) the need for repairs; and b) had this fieldhouse been on the ballot, the bond as a whole would have failed. I agree with both points. Prop Two failed by less than 600 votes, and it is taken as given that the "competition gym" component sank it. It is possible that everything, collapsed into one bond might have squeaked by, but had we further burdened it with a fieldhouse, I don't believe voters would have gone that stretch.

I know, because I hear from them, voters feel this fieldhouse appropriation is "inappropriate", if not a betrayal of their "yes" vote on the bond.

I sympathize with the urge to do this project before costs escalate further, cost has already doubled in 4 years. That does not mean there is not something on the spectrum between total, first-class rebuild and flat make-the-plumbing-work short-term repair.

I know Jeff Bright scrambled to come up with the funding SAISD is proposing. I might even be talked into the notion that long-term, purely economically, this expenditure now is the better route. It would take some tall talking, but possible. I also know that as a political reality, the voters will see it as breaking faith with them this soon after a close bond election, and that breach of faith, long-term, will come back to bite us next time we go to the bond issue well.

The proposed fundraising efforts are laudable, borrowing some from the Library effort. I promise to support that with a personal check and my support. As I said last week, this fieldhouse funding got lost in the noise of the bond items. SAISD needs to make a better effort at persuasion of donors before they undercut the expressed will of the voters.

Is the Board on board with the Bond?

Open letter to SAISD Board:

Is this Board on board the good ship School Bond? I'm seriously starting to wonder.

When I was in opposition to the last bond, I always 'fessed up, I knew the district needed that amount of money, but I could not go along with the direction of that bond. Closing, consolidating and moving elementary schools out of their neighbohoods, moving Central across town, I knew that was not what the voters wanted. The voters agreed with that assessment, 2/1.

I suggested, and offered published material from people who had more experience than any of us, that a critical element to passing a school bond was "polling, polling, and polling". in short, before we formulate a package, find out what the community wants and how much the voters will be willing to spend. Then track response and either amend the bond or target voters as needed. As I reminded Board, most of whom were not on deck for the last sucessful bond in '96, that bond had to be amended between presentation and passage.

Then, again referring to those successful bonds, select an election date where your bond is the headliner. Last November, with no candidates running would have been great. Last May, even with a hot Police Chief race, the bond would have gotten at least second billing.

As it is, the bond is almost lost in the political noise. Every office from tax assessor to President is up, we are so awash in political ads the voters start to tune them out, vast sums are being spent and one has to scream to be heard at all. The SAISD response; not nearly what was put out for the failed bond. No newspaper insert, a few 5x10 newspaper ads, a little radio from the PAC, I'm told there is some TV, but I haven't seen it, and I am a solid political junkie.

Most voters assume this is the last bond with a fresh coat of paint. The message that this bond is 180 degrees from the last is not getting out there. I was discussing election preparations with my Democrat compatriot in this precinct and the bond came up. This is someone with enough political motivation to serve on election days, and she was under the impression we were selling the same Edsel we put out 18 months ago! It only took me 10 minutes to convince her to vote for the bond, and talk to her friends, but she had been under the misapprehension this was the last bond redux.

There is no polling, but my political antennae tell me we are at this moment going to lose by over 10%, possibly a replay of last bond. The promised "media blitz" is underwhelming to say the least. More effort was put into the last bond at this point in the election run-up than has been this time, and we are lost in the background noise this time. Last bond, the only competition for attention was a mayoral race so pre-determined that Lown won every precinct in town, his challenger's neighborhood included.

Another bit of my advice the Board discounted; If we are to have a good chance, get the message out before early voting. THIS IS NOT THE LAST BOND! It is a dead-lock certainty this election will set turnout records. IF SAISD gets its message on high enough volume to be heard, over 2,000 voters have already voted and can't change their minds. I'm holding with a turnout over/under of 36,000, 40% of whom will have already voted by Nov. 4.

It pains me to say this, but this bond is all but dead. Without a serious effort by SAISD and the www.lovekidsfixschools.com PAC, I could safely order a funeral wreath without fear of wasting the money. I have shown up and offered my promotion as a former opponent to as many presentations as my job allowed. I wouldn't use all the fingers on one hand to count the Board members I have seen at these meetings.

If there is any prayer of passage, it will be in your collective AND individual full-throated support to every elective demographic you have a connection to. Inflation has already reduced the physical results of a $150 million bond by at least 10% from last Nov., and that figure isn't going to improve as it ages.

The last bond that failed was the first ever to go down in SAISD. The voters are not uncaring, but at least on this bond, too many are un-informed or mis-informed They confuse this bond with the failed measure and most of the fault for that lies with SAISD Board. Last bond, SAISD pushed the envelope as to "informational" advertizing. Well, we don't have to fret that this time, nobody is likely to accuse you of crossing the line in your enthuisasm.

Editorial letters and comments of late show that many voters do not understand that A) SAISD and City of San Angelo are distinct governmental entities; and B) this bond is diametrically opposite of that which we defeated 18 months ago. A&B are points that must be made to the voters. Quickly folks, we are "burning daylight".

That 18 month gap between losing and new issue is regrettable and expensive. A point that I have tried to hammer home, this bond is not just "for the children", a trite phrase too many politicians have used. We cannot have a first-rate city with a second-rate school system. Quality schools are every bit as important to a city's prospects as the streets you drive on or the pipes your water comes through.

This is truly a "pay me now or pay me later" moment, and paying later will not be the less expensive option.

What to Look for in a School Bond

I find myself in an odd position. After chiding the SAISD Board for its glacial pace in deciding to move to a new bond after last year's first ever defeat of a bond, now that they have decided to move forward, their new advisory committee is certainly wasting no time. After a total of three, maybe four meetings, they plan to unveil the new bond to be placed on the November ballot.

There is a hard deadline of August for ballot language, and one would hope for an unveiling far enough ahead of that to take the voters' temperature and allow some amendation before going "all in" betting the hand. Perhaps the idea is to start that taking of the temperature early, may be merit in that. We do need that time, the '96 bond had to be modified from four separate issues to two to assure passage. Speaking purely to political process, I would have advised we not go with the unveiling until after the May city elections. We are looking at a hot Police Chief race. I think it would be wiser to wait until the bond was not competing with that for voter attention.

Well, it is what it is. While I have some insight from committee members, I will hold comments on the specifics until we actually get a look at the showroom floor model tomorrow.

I share some thoughts as what we as voters should look for generally in a workable bond. I stress here, I want us to come up with a bond that will sell, I admitted last time we knew the system needs money, frankly, more money than is addressed in this bond, assuming the committee does actually go with this "99 cent sale" figure. I think it is critical we do not lose a second bond, we don't want our voters to get in the habit of saying "NO". Something close to 90% of Texas school bonds pass, and a thumping defeat such as we had is passing rare, the voters sent a message, actually several messages, this bond must address if it is to pass.

First, details, lots of details. Prior to last bond, we forwarded to our Board the Midland ISD bond, which passed handily. It was clear and specific. It put classroom construction in one issue, athletics in another. It detailed things such as "School A will get 4 new classrooms, School B will get 6" and in similar detail told voters where ballfields would be built or upgraded. Clarity and transparency will be vital to a successful bond here. Our voters sent a resounding message they did not trust the system to take a large sum and "do something" with it. The very late and unclear drawings of new schools offered obviously did not reassure the customers. This bond will need to be at least as open as the last successful bond was.

One example here: during the debate over the failed bond, we were told repeatedly that it would require $50 million to bring the Central campus up to specs if we turned down the new Central. How much of this proposal will go to Central, and specifically what will it be spent on. One glaring deficiency at Central is the "two-pipe" heating and cooling system. About half the buildings on campus have independent HVAC units from the last bond, and one gym has nothing at all. Will that upgrade be a part of the Central improvements?

Honesty is also critical. The last bond was at least forthright in telling us it would be phase one of three, the later phases to be brought on as the first was getting close to paid off. We are told the advisory committee relied heavily on the Huckabee assessments of needs, as it should have. Huckabee did a lot of good work looking at physical plant needs. My opinion, and apparently the voters' also, their recommendations went too strongly for new construction, but the base assessment of problems was a pretty thorough work product.

Now subtracting the new schools, Crockett and Central, but adding back the renovations needed at existing sites, I still come up with a grand total, all three phases, somewhere on the high side of $400 million. Either the Huckabee work on which this committee relied was off by about $300 million, or this $99 million bond, if that is all they are selling, is a drastic understatement of needs. In that a school bond is comparable to a house mortgage, it would be roughly equivalent to signing an adjustable rate mortgage, and I'd hate to try to make a living selling that in today's market.

Now before anyone runs screaming into the night, that $400 million is money spread out over a 20- 30 year period. If I am lucky, I will still be above ground and sucking wind then, but it was a long-term plan.

That brings up another thing this bond should address. A good bond should sell more than bricks and mortar and ballfields. It SHOULD be bold enough to look far ahead and sell a vision, a concept that once brought to reality, parents and children can be proud of when the grandchildren of today's students are going to the schools. Superintendent Bonds, Board members, the margin of last year's defeat should inform you, but don't let it scare you. I have told you and written elsewhere repeatedly, the last bond did not fail over the amount of money, it failed for, among other things, being a vision the voters did not support.

Today's Central was sold to voters during a period of drought and hard times for West Texas, but it was sold. The vision was, and I quote, "America's first ageless, campus style high school". Had it been properly maintained, that would still be undeniable. You are doing better on the maintenence, lots of room to improve, but it seems that lesson at least was taken to heart.

What I fear on this bond is that someone decided we needed to "go cheap" just to get something approved. We didn't sell the Edsel last time, so now we have a new sales staff and we're going to try to sell'em a Yugo. Then we come back when the Yugo dies and try to sell the Cadillac we really need.

Did this advisory committee honestly put all options on the table? Voters will insist on that. Trustee Max Parker wrote a timely and thorough Viewpoint article last Thursday on the problems with the new UIL district, and the process by whch it was arrived at. Mr. Parker is quite correct, this puts too much expense on us, not only monetary, but student-athlete time from studies. I've tried it, admittedly a long time ago, but laptops or pen&paper, let's not pretend these kids are going to get a lot of school work done during long bus rides. Mr. Parker suggests we get Rep. Darby to take our concerns to the UIL legislatively. I am first in line to admire Darby's effectiveness, maybe he can pull another rabbit out of the hat. Let me suggest an option we have local control over.

What if we consider that all those kids in Lamar and southwest Angelo are going to be in high school soon enough. Instead of building an overpriced 5A school, we shift to a three 4A high school model, "vision", if you will? We're then halfway to a UIL district in the city limits. I didn't dream this up last night, this concept as been discussed for at least twenty years. Had not Grape Creek pulled its students, the pressure for it would have come to a head a few years ago, but we are back to gaining population. If SAISD treated high schools as a district resource rather than stand-alone institutions, there is no reason 3 4A high schools could not offer as many, if not more, diverse course programs as a 5A school. Voters made it clear they prefer community based elementary schools, they will accept losing economy of scale to keep kids that age close to home. High school is a different item, by that age students are starting to choose between college bound or vocational preference and San Angelo is not so large as to make transportation to the school specializing in one area or another a big problem.

I didn't throw that out as something SAISD has to do, but as an example of what we need to seriously consider as we determine the direction we will go for the next few decades. Was it honestly considered?

Unless Huckabee and I and the Board were all wrong a year ago, a stand-alone $99 million bond will not adequately address our long term needs. This is not to say that if this "99 cent sale" is the best Board can bring itself to put forward that I will vote "no". The schools do need the money and the improvements. I will be disappointed in the lack of vision and honesty, and I will still believe that when the Yugo is "dead on the road" a few years hence, the voters are going to feel twice stung and selling that Cadillac is going to be double tough.

I sincerely hope I have to correct some of this after Monday's presentation. We need a bond, but we need a bond with a vision that might outlast some of us. You didn't take my advice on election date, but please consider this; better to suck it up now, give a good shot. The voters might well surprise you what they are willing to embrace IF they think they are being honestly dealt with.

School Board Trustee Responds

Note: This post was originally an e-mail received from Trustee Max Parker in response to last weeks article "To the Board on the Bond". With his permission, I publish it as a stand-alone article, rather than burying it as a "comment" to a week-old article. I struck the opening salutation and some personal communication from Mr. Parker to me, otherwise the body of the text is published without editorial revision. With that cleared up, I give you Mr. Parker's comments.

At no time were we expecting the new Central to have a new stadium. That was what the survey was supposed to convey--no money for a new stadium. I agree that was not clear in the survey, but the athletic facilities to be built at the proposed new campus were made clear in our presentations and literature.

Here's the deal with the field house. Most 4A and 5A high schools have athletic practice facilities on campus. Lakeview does as do the high schools in Abilene, MIdland, Lubbock, and Amarillo. So does ASU which uses our stadium on game days. All these teams can dress and shower and work out without ever leaving their campuses and only use the stadium on game days. But that is not true at Central. Football, track ( mens and womens), soccer (mens and womens), powerlifting, softball and baseball must leave campus to dress, shower, and workout daily. The students and coaches drive to the stadium area or ride a bus to do this. This is a disadvantage time wise and safety wise for our coaches and students. I know for a fact that this split between campus and workout facilities has dissuaded coaches from other cities from considering Central as a prospective coaching job.

When Stormy Kimrey approached the board about raising money for field house renovations a few years ago, his thought was primarily economic --if we had a more modern field house with four full dressing rooms, San Angelo could host more play off games, even two per day with two teams playing in the afternoon and two more waiting in the wings for a night game. But the board had to consider a field house that could be used daily by student athletes also. The board approved an architect to prepare some preliminary plans for a new field house. ( I was not on the board at this time) Since Central did not have facilities on campus for athletics, as mentioned above, the proposed new field house included dressing rooms for football, and for men's and women's track, and mens and womens soccer. It included a weight room for men and women, I think. And it included storage space for equipment, laundry rooms, training room, and offices and meeting rooms for coaches.

Two things slowed things down on the field house: 1.) Stormy's fund raising was not as fruitful as he expected as a fund raiser began for a new library and "large" contributors donated to the library before Stormy could commit them to the stadium. 2.) We proposed a bond issue for a new high school for Central. Had the new high school been built, it would have been constructed like most high schools and had practice facilities on campus and students would have been able to dress and shower and work out on campus. And the field house, then would have become like the field houses at Abilene, Lubbok, Amarillo, Midland, and Odessa ( and like other field houses in most major cities in Texas) and only been used by teams on game days. No weight rooms, offices, laundry rooms, or storage facilities would have been needed at the stadium. Now Central has to store all its football uniforms and equipment at the stadium. The athletes leave their uniforms and equipment in permanent lockers at the field house and all laundry is done at the stadium. Coaches meet, and plan, and watch film in offices at the stadium. If the bond had passed, we would have only needed four dressing rooms and showers for games days to be used by Lakeview, ASU, and Central. We would not have needed separate dressing rooms for men and women for track and soccer as there would have been places for both to dress on game days-- Just a place for the athletes to change clothes, if necessary, on game days. So the new field house would have needed less space if the bond has passed.

So, we waited to see what happened with the bond proposal. If failed, as everyone knows. This fall, the infrastructure began deteriorating more at the field house and we determined that we needed to go forward with renovations now and not wait to see what a new bond proposal might be. I hope this makes this issue more clear to you.

To the Board on the Bond

Last Friday's news article on the new fieldhouse at Bobcat Stadium got me to thinking, Heaven knows that can be dangerous. I was at the meeting when the motion was approved. I had no comment then as I agree this is money we need to spend. The current condition of the dressing rooms is deplorable, a real downside to an otherwise beautiful facility.

The part of the S-T article that caught my attention was "To be fair, the project was delayed much of that time by last year's bond election." As a leading opponent of the last bond, I became fairly familiar with it, I can almost guarantee there was no $4 million item in it for a new fieldhouse at the old stadium

Now one of the many things that helped defeat the last bond, Question 18(e) promised, "as none of the money will go to athletics, except for basic needs." Then we found out the "new Central" was budgeting almost as much for fields, pools and tennis courts as had been spent on a post-fire total rebuild of Lakeview.

Now let's examine the notion that the delay in moving on this item was somehow related to the last bond. Is it possible that the "new" Central was intending to play its UIL varsity games at the new location? In that case the new fieldhouse expenditure might have become a low priority since "only" the Lakeview students would continue to suffer the deplorable fieldhouse at the existing stadium.

The other option would be that the last bond really had nothing to do with the delay in moving on this expenditure, it was just one more example of this board moving at its usual glacial speed. I recall opining satircally that the board might, on being informed the building they were meeting in was on fire, task it to staff, defer to the next pre-agenda meeting, and table any immediate action on possible evacution routes pending further study.

Sadly, neither option makes the board look good. I recognized last year that SAISD does need a bond for capital improvements. The last bond did not fail because voters are stingy, we had never voted down a bond before. It did not fail for lack of understanding or low voter turnout. We had near record turnout and most voters understood the issues all to well. They did not like the bond, they were insisting on an entirely different direction for a bond.

I have expressed to Dr. Bonds and the board that I would love to see a bond issue for about the same sum with new direction that I could get behind and help sell. The last meeting of the new facilities committee didn't happen. I am hearing word that the early appearance is that this committee is heading toward putting a new shine on the old boots the voters booted last year. If that turns out to be the case, you will see the next bond go down in flames again.

Board has already put itself in an electoral hole by setting the issue for an election that will almost certainly set records for turnout on the Presidential election. Bonds should be scheduled for elections when they will be the headline ballot item. One thing you want to avoid is getting voters in the habit of voting "no" on school bonds. That really is a rarity, I think something close to 90% of all Texas school bond issues pass, people really do care about their kids' education.

The last two meetings I have attended, discussion of the bond is nearly the last item on the agenda, and then it gets a wink and a pass unless I rise on my hindlegs. You need to understand, this bond is the single most important thing you are dealing with from now to November and act like it!

Change...What?

I listen to a lot of National Public Radio while driving for a living. During the week, they really do make an effort to at least appear even-handed. Come the weekend NPR really lets its hair down, relaxes and indulges its liberal bias unabashedly. A fine example is the "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" program. It is a humerous quiz show format putting to contestants questions on the week's headlines.

Overheard there, a line from panelist Paula Poundstone, "I haven't even asked a clerk to break a dollar in the last month, I am so tired of hearing the word 'change'".

"Change" as a campaign slogan is really a no-brainer. If any candidate for any office didn't want to change something, they could have saved themselves a lot of time and expense by re-electing the incumbent. Typically, it is used as a stand-alone term, and as such it is devoid of useful information. It taps into general dissatisfaction. The voter response it seeks is "Hey, I want to change things too, this guy is on my side". Note that that voter is often heard on sound-bite interviews declaring his support because "I feel X wants change, so do I". Shame the voter was never taught to "think" rather than "feel". Feelings are for Valentine's Day, thinking is for election day.

Ms. Poundstone was, of course referring to the Presidential campaign. Obama has had such success with "Change" that both Hillary and McCain are calling him to task for it. As even an Obama supporter, Juan Williams called it this morning, it has been "eloquent, but empty" rhetoric. Tactically, it is hard to fault Obama; goes to the axiom, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. As long as he can be all things to all people and still win, why would he want to paint himself into corners?

The problem is, once any candidate states any position, for a certainty there will be voters on the other side of any issue who will think (or feel) "Whoa Nellie, I didn't know you were for (or against) THAT!" Why alienate any voter before one is forced to?

I'm really not here to discuss the Presidential race, it has become so rich an example of my main point I had to use it. We are going to see candidates for several local offices tell us they want "change". Here is where your job as voter starts. Don't let them get away with it. If the press fails to "press" them, do it yourself. These are local people, they have phone numbers, they show up at forums, ask them, "What exactly are you going to change, how are you going to get it done, and if you can, what will you change it to?"

Personally, I am more likely to support a candidate with honest differences on specifics than I am to support some tap-dancing master of the art of ducking the question. I don't ask for 100% agreement, heck, I don't agree with me all the time. I've had the experience of looking up old essays, and tripping over something I penned a few years back I had forgotten. I end up sitting slack-jawed and thinking, "Oy vey, had a bad hair day then, eh what?"

Your vote really is important, if it weren't candidates wouldn't spend so much time and money trying to get it. Don't give that vote up for a firm handshake or pretty dental work. Make the candidate earn it. If you get a straight answer you don't totally agree with, consider whether the candidate is still worthy of support overall. If you get a dance-of-the-seven-veils, look for another candidate.

To Dr. Bonds on the Bond (corrected)

The following was originally sent to Dr. Bonds, Dr. Brian May, chair of the new Facilities Advisory Committee, and SAISD Board members. The magazine mentioned is "District Administration. The article url is http://www.districtadministration.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=119&p=1#0 I held this to allow for comment by any recipient to be included. I have received polite "Thanks for the input" from Dr. Bonds and Dr. May.

We publish this in the hope it will encourage others to offer their opinions to the Committee. This Committee met last Wednesday, I do not have their next meeting date yet. For those unable to take off workdays, Chairman May's e-mail is brian.may@angelo.edu mail is Box 10888, ASU Station, San Angelo, Texas 76909, Phone: 942-2027 x 283.

Open Letter to Dr. Bonds;

The link here is to an article from an educrat (pardon the term, I do not intend it to be negative) trade magazine we forwarded to the Board last time around. In case it has been forgotten, I think it worth another look. Mr. Vogel makes some great points and a lot of his advice carries over into ANY election, I pass this to candidates I support.

Point Four, the new Facilities Committee is a good start. The last one self-destructed publically and cost that bond more votes than our underfunded S-PAC dreamed of. I remember telling our first STEER meeting that defeating the bond would be a good start, but "if we knock it back by 10 points or more we will have the Board's undivided attention when we next speak to them." As I later said in my post-election autopsy of the bond published May 24, S-T "Doomed to fail", our opposition S-PAC was so much "flatulence in a hurricane", the voters simply were not going to buy that lump of coal. Dr. May's committee is small enough to be functional; I know many members by reputation, if not personally, strikes me as a good, representative body.

I think the decision not to hire another consulting firm is wise. Huckabee came in with a perfect track record, but frankly, looking over their prior clients, they had mostly represented districts where the bond would have passed with or without them. Presented with the company's first real challenge, they were, if anything, counter-productive. The Bond Awareness Survey poll was so transparently a "push-poll" that it worked against the bond. You may recall, I warned the Board about push polls, told them they resulted in candidates waking up on the first Wednesday past the first Monday in November and wondering "How did I lose?"

On the other hand, going back to the "How to Get Your Bond Passed" article, it emphasizes repeatedly, do polling. If you recall, when you met with Mr. Turner and myself, as we were walking from your office to your "wall of comments" I suggested that if you could convince the Board to fund it, you should put a genuine poll in the field ASAP. I repeat that now. Turner and I were discussing this yesterday, what about a joint venture having a good poll be a class project for some bright ASU statistics class? It is not that hard to put together an honest opinion-gathering poll. The tricky part the pros get paid mega-bucks for is "spinning" or "shading" polls tailored to the candidate paying the bills. Ask Hillary how much bang-for-the-buck she got out of South Carolina polling.

Point Three of the article; Motivate Your Friends, Ignore Your Enemies (and BTW I hope you know I am really not your enemy; more on that later). as this has wound out, SAISD is proposing to put this on ballot in November. I can hope this is not a fatal mistake, but politically, demographically, Poli-Sci 101, this is bad timing. Unfortunately, unless we can afford to wait for May 2009, it is what it is, no way we can be ready for this May. November is going to be unique in my lifetime. For the first time since 1952, we have a Presidential election with no incumbent, no heir-apparent VP running. I was on record six years ago predicting this as the most "interesting" election of my life. Now we are facing an economic "hard landing" (aside here, I think San Angelo will fare better than much of the country), never mind this little war in Iraq, forget the feminist/race split which may yet allow the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, for purposes of this bond we will probably see the highest turnout of my life INCLUDING a lot of, pardon me, geezers looking to protect their often fixed incomes. The money, the ads, the attention will be on anything BUT this bond...which should be the headline driver in its election cycle.


Who told you this was a good date? Gallegos, who still thinks more voter education and higher turnout would have sold the last Edsel? I play politics at at least a semi-pro level. I tell you now, the election date itself puts us in a 5-10 point hole before the starting gate opens, and I don't need a poll to tell me that. It can be overcome, but only if we are selling the customers (voters) something they are inclined to buy.

Going back to the Bond Awareness push poll; the last legitimate question on it was money, question 9. The breakdown was b) $100 million to $125 million, then c) $125 million to $150 million, then d) $150 to $175 million. The break point was (d) at which point the approval line graph glides like a brick into single digits. If you recall, I told the Board money was not the problem, recession or not, I don't think it will be the big item on next bond. Angelo voters are not that stingy, they had never turned down a bond before. Remember that old promo we dug up originally promoting Central as "America's First Ageless, Campus Style High School"? A visionary Board sold that bond in the middle of drought and hard times. Dr. Bonds, Dr. May, I tell you now, present a vision the voters will see as a good plan for the next 50 years, it can be sold, I'd love to get in there and help you sell a $140+ million bond. And yes, I remember, as Phase One.

I give you a couple other points I get from the last true poll, I think we called it an "election" . Board did at least break the issue into elementary and secondary spending. I knew the latter was dead, but I thought the elementary bond had a chance. Oops! It is obvious voters prefer the smaller, neighborhood model elementary school. The Holiman/San Jacinto/Bradford consolidation model did as much as the Crockett proposal to kill that Prop. Lamar works, the population there is dense enough it is still "neighborhood" at 600+, but when it comes down to shipping 6 year olds half way across north Angelo to Bradford, thank you very much, we'll pay a bit more to keep the kids in walking range. San Jacinto is my area, I am old enough to remember when that field on Pulliam was "Bobcat Stadium". I remember when Holiman was a state-of-the-art new school. BTW, the feature there of every classroom opens to the outdoors was a selling point used all over America then, it was going to make evacuation easier in case of fire or nuclear attack! Of course these schools need money and work, let's make sure we get it done.

I don't know the range of Dr. May's committee. I hope it is open to more than putting a new shine on the boots that got so badly booted last election. For a start, I advise you set up a link on the SAISD website for voters to offer their opinions to the committee. For the next few months, make a point of emphasizing at every opportunity that this is a committee open to public comment and make it easy for the public to comment. Yes, you will hear from all the tinfoil hats still camping out on the grassy knoll, but you will also hear from the good people whose wallets you are asking them to open. Remember the first point in my "Doomed to fail" autopsy; trust, the two edged sword. More than anything else it is incumbent on SAISD to regain that trust. Fail to do that, I don't care what the final package looks like, the voters are not going to trust you with 9 figures of their money.

It is not a deal breaker, but this Committee needs to give the three 4A high school model a good look. I'm far from the first person to suggest it, this has been out there for at least 20 years. Population has shifted southwest, that's definitely where young families and next generation's students will be coming from, we need to consider this demographic reality. The objection that 4A schools cannot offer the variety of courses available in a 5A school can be overcome IF we treat the district as a single entity rather than separate stand-alone campuses. One campus might offer the Voc-Ed curriculum, another perhaps the G-T program, perhaps Arts & Drama at Central with its lovely Bernhardt theater. Of interest to those who live and die by athletics, last year, UIL ruled that even if a student physically attends all classes in a "magnet" school outside the normal attendance zone, for extra-curricular purposes, that student may play football, tennis, swim or cheerlead or whatever where he/she lives.

OK, that ends my letter to Dr. Bonds. I have been promised the Committee is open to and desires public input. The schools still do need money for renovation and certainly some new construction. They will have to put together a proposal by August to make the November ballot, and the earlier they get it, the more likely any idea can be worked into that bond. Voters and parents, the ball is in your court, speak up.

Email from San Angelo Ex-Pat

Sir:

I originally sent this to one of your partners in crime, but believe now I should have sent it to you since you as Webmaster solicited input from the huddled masses. Anyway...

I am a San Angelo ex-pat. I was born and raised there, moved away and back a number of times for reasons of no great import now, and currently reside in the DFW Metroplex (or MetroMess, as some describe it). I am retired and working diligently on becoming an obstreperous grizzled old fart, and doing rather well at it (according to those who know me).

Over the years I have had occasion to describe San Angelo to a number of folks, and in summary I deem it to the Largest Small Town In The United States. In terms of population some might consider it to be a city. In terms of attitude, atmosphere, and governance it clearly is not. It is a small town. I see this every time I visit, and when I'm driving there and hit Bronte I say to myself, "Self, remember where you're going. It ain't Dallas. Slow down. Put your gun in the trunk. Be civil. Smile more.".

This is not a bad thing. I have long maintained that God put some of the best people on His Good Green Earth in San Angelo, and I love 'em all... or at least, most of 'em. However,...

I read the Standard-Times Web page every day in a feeble attempt to keep current with the happenings there, and find your site to be a very worthy addition to my sourcing. I must say over time I have been at times amused and at other times distressed.

I have read of the monetary issues regarding the school district and of the deterioration of SACHS, from which I graduated in '65.

I was there when a significant part of the water supply system cratered.

I read statistics related to average pay in the area and wonder how anyone can live even reasonably well on such. If the area counts on burgeoning local job growth that is call center based, it must be acknowledged these are in general not well paying and rather crappy jobs to boot.

I noted in one of your blogs that someone considered nuclear power to be a potential godsend for the area (someone please explain the economics, licensing, waste disposal, cooling, and site location realities to this person. It ain't gonna, nor should it, happen.).

I read about the benefits of corn-based ethanol processing plants in the area when in reality the program is simply a sop for corn growers and processors like ADM. If one looks at the numbers it's a disaster, with both Republicans and Democrats proving themselves to be whores regarding the issue.

I read of water sourcing ills and proposed solutions like energy-intensive desalinization and pipelines to more reliable sources than currently available (like the Mississippi River). Face it, guys, you live in a semi-arid area that is doomed to become ever drier as population grows and farmers continue to draw down the water table with their irrigation. Then there's the issue of long-term projections of rainfall...

And the good Mr. Blaine takes his party somewhere else because of BYOB-phobes. I don't blame him.

Ah, the theatre, large and small, attendant in all this. It is entertaining, and I have touched on only a small portion of it.

Of course, I have no all-consuming answers for the ills of the Pearl On The Concho. I'm smart, but I ain't that smart. I love the place and always will. It's just that at times I find the whole thing amusing, especially when I read of things like ASU's now sucking up to the Texas Tech way of doing things and this being portrayed as being a Big Fat Hairy Deal when the area has infinitely more important issues than a local college's affiliation. I knew Drew Darby a thousand years ago. I'm still looking for him to do something significant, if he's so influential.

But then, what the hell do I know?

Peace, my new friend. Forgive my ranting.


San Angelo Ex-Pat

Indecision As Art Form

I deeply regret I was unable to attend last Thursday's School Board meeting. Bearing in mind that Board trustees are unpaid, they seem to be dedicated to proving the old saying, “You get what you pay for.”

In particular, there was a list of summer projects to get done at Central presented by Asst. Superintendent Jeff Bright. It caught my eye because after the defeat of the bond, I had, in an online reply to a gosanangelo article, suggested nearly the exact list of obviously needed, and very doable tasks at Central as a possible demonstration that someone in SAISD understands the word “maintenance”. No rocket science here, things like fix some broken plumbing, chip rust and repaint, take care of a few ADA access problems. Basically the sort of projects Hi from the comics might find in Lois' Job Jar.

In truth, every project on the list should have been taken care of years ago. As has been mentioned here and elsewhere by many others, the fact that SAISD has been so poor a custodian of that which we have already bought them helped many voters decide not to give them another gob of money until we had some assurance they could take better care of the toys they already have. In truth, Bright's list of jobs should have been given a unanimous “go” the first meeting after the bond went down. By last meeting it really should have been a no-brainer, and instead it failed 6- 1. There was doubt expressed that local contractors might not have been given a fair shot, or there was not enough time to complete all the jobs by school opening. By putting off the possible start date until late July, Board has guaranteed the latter concern.

Quibbles, details, draffsack and havers! This was one time the need to get something done and possibly convince some voters that maintenance matters outweighed the ever-so-cautious dotting of “i's”. By failing to gather their collective courage and make so basic a decision, the Board has in essence made a decision, a decision to accomplish nothing this summer. That seems to be the thing they do best, that is dither until it is too late, then do the wrong thing for no better reason than an unavoidable deadline. The bond itself was a prime example, not until the final meeting before the legal deadline did Board approve placing the bond on the ballot, then publicly drove a stake through it by spending two hours wrangling over the Crockett site and alienating their own task force. Considering I have been told Board had really wanted the bond on the Nov. '06 ballot, that's not exactly warp speed.

Shortly after the May defeat of the bond I met with Superintendent Bonds. I came away well impressed, in fact she made the point that maintenance was high on her list of priorities. Dr. Bonds is not free to do anything she desires, by design, she is charged with implementing policy passed by the Board. So long as the Board insists on punting the ball on first down, Dr. Bonds' options are somewhat limited.

I cannot read minds, I do not know whether Board thinks some electoral miracle will pass the bond we recently thumped come November. Matters not, even if they are that delusional, under any circumstances the Central campus will be in use for several years to come if nothing else serving during new construction. The $500,000 in overdue projects would have directly improved the campus for student and teacher alike. Looking back at the last couple meetings the word “postponed” comes up on more agenda items than not. If this is the best this lot can do, we the voters need to start thinking of new faces to put in those seats.

Open Letter to SAISD

Bond election results are in, not much to be said there. Board President Layman, S-T Sunday; “maybe we are not in step with the community and we need to find out what objections they had”. Good start, now let's see if you mean it.

STEER belatedly formed an S-PAC, hard to say how much impact we had. In retrospect, given the actual margin, our effort might have been so much flatulence in a hurricane. This issue was obviously the driver in the high turnout and the lopsided defeat. We like to think our networking and few ads might have padded the margin, but in all honesty, we could have caught up on our reading and ignored the issue, this bond was doomed from the start.

STEER agreed fundamentally that SAISD needs money, lots of it, for renovation, repair, some new construction. We might hope to shave a bit of money here and there, but that was never our primary issue. Obviously, another bond will be coming, we genuinely hope it will be one we can support. On that line, I offer some advice. If you recall my comment walking away from the podium at the ethics training session, “I'm cheaper than they (Huckabee) are”.

Trust: The Board has made this a two-edged sword and managed to find itself on the wrong side of both edges. The public obviously does not trust you, but more importantly, you obviously do not trust the voters. The decision to edit the cablecast version of the March 26 meeting was possibly illegal, definitely contrary to the spirit of 551.022 Government Code. Nothing in law requires a video record, but if you make one, it becomes “public record” and is not to be tampered with. When Terry Bader failed to get a second to look into the matter, then resigned to make it a newsworthy matter, the Board made the classic mistake of making the “cover-up” a bigger issue than the original bad call. When the Board alienated the Task Force in the Crockett decision, it lost that cloak of “public input”. To be honest, Bader, Paschal, and Barbour probably killed this bond before STEER spent a dime on ads. Using the same company with which we contract for new school architecture to do an evaluation of existing facilities creates an unavoidable $8 million conflict of interest. I make no allegation of wrongful conduct against Huckabee, SAISD hired them, but that evaluation should have been done by a company at some remove from fiscal benefit. At the March 3 meeting during the Crockett debate, the new location for Crockett was referred to several times as “the Albert property”, a term never again used in public. There is an abiding suspicion that that decision had been made in advance of the Task Force's recommendations to take an inconvenient property off Jack Albert's hands. If you can put that issue away, please do, many voters believe it.

Community: Schools are more than interchangeable cogs in an educational machine and here dollars and cents need not be the primary concern. Especially at the elementary level, schools are an integral part of the their community. A local school encourages parent involvement, something we all agree is already too low. As I write, precinct breakdowns are not yet available, but I doubt you got many votes from the Holiman precincts. Holiman may have a small student count, but it is growing and many of the home buyers in Paulann bought there because of the walking distance school. Closing Holiman puts nails in the coffin of one of the only bright spots in northeast Angelo's economy. Ditto the above for the Crockett precincts. See below on attendance lines.

Maintenance: Here we start at the top management, the people who in 2001 RIF'ed the department by 50 %, with predictably bad results. The Central tour was a damning indictment of whatever passes for maintenance and included items which had to be glaringly apparent even before that reduction in force. Time and again we were shown the sort of problems homeowners deal with without calling in the bulldozers, but which had obviously been ignored for years. Green plumbing, flaked paint and rust, uneven sidewalks, etc. these things do not happen overnight. Matters not if the problem here was budgetary or management, I am telling you, the most outspoken tourist in my tour group in favor of the bond during Van Hoozer's tour in a parking lot post-tour discussion told us he inclined to vote “no” just to get your attention on maintenance.

Open Process: This goes beyond the issues I mentioned in the trust section. Board continues to treat “workshops” as less than fully public sessions. By law, if four of you meet at a steakhouse, it is a quorum and you best have an official recorder along and publish a 72 hour advance notice of the dinner. There is a widely held belief that options available were never seriously considered due to an axiomatic decision by the Board that any long range plan had to result in a single 5A football team. All options have to be on the table when we are discussing 9 figure bonds, especially when this is the first of three bonds proposed long term. Angelo's growth is lopsided toward southwest, why does the Board hold that attendance zones should be carved in stone? Well, except when changes are convenient as in Holiman, Bradford, and San Jacinto. Then the same Board treats actual bricks and mortar buildings as disposable. Suggestions have been gaining support for either equalizing Lakeview and Central or moving to three 4A high schools with a new facility out where the people are actually moving in, but these ideas seem to get short shrift in long term planning. The SAISD response that 4A schools could not offer the curriculum available in a 5A school is irrelevant in a district of our size. If each 4A school specialized in a magnet school way we could allow high school students to attend the school best suited to their career plans and offer possibly more courses, district wide, than a single 5A school.

Unifying SAISD: When I wrote a column in S-T supporting the '96 bond, one thing I deeply hoped for was that it might heal the treatment of the Lakeview area as a “red-headed step-child”, particularly by placing Lamar on the same proposition with the new Lincoln. Then comes the Lakeview fire, and Board's decision to take $2 million of that insurance money and spend it elsewhere. Now the new Central, far closer to Bobcat stadium than Lakeview, and you propose to spend as much on athletic facilities there as was spent on all of Lakeview rebuilding to prevent travel by Central students. BTW, my $15 million estimate on Central athletics was my guess. Two direct questions asking for that figure were answered by claiming “it is difficult to separate athletics from academics”, a response that gets hoots of laughter from anyone I've shown it to. Jeff Bright finally allowed I might be a little high, but in the right range. Lakeview was two generations ago, are we ever going to treat the adopted child as a full family member?

Open Thread on the School Bond

Please share your thoughts on the school bond and related issues here. All comments are welcome.

Different thoughts on the School Bond

One of our readers forward this to me.

Things to think about on the school bond issue.

1. They say Central cannot be secure because it is so spread out well I take a different view of that. Lets look at what has happened in the last few years. Columbine - Virginia Tech - Oklahoma City -------- Who would have a better chance for survival? All of our kids confined into one building, or fewer kids in several separate buildings? And also if Central is not safe for high school kids why would it be safe for jr. high kids?

2. High school age kids are old enough to handle an open campus but I don't think jr. high school age kids should be put in that situation. Jr. high kids have enough problems and temptations without being on an open campus.

3. What ever happened to the 150 acres of land the school already owns out by Lamar elem?

Education Committee

Yesterday papers were filed forming a Specific-purpose PAC related to the bond issue before us on May 12. The committee is named Sensible Taxation for Educational Excellence and Reform, or STEER. The name is appropriate, everyone connected with this PAC so far is in agreement on some basics, namely that SAISD does need a bond and money for construction, renovation, and overdue maintenance; and that this notwithstanding, we cannot support the bond as proposed now. It is too late to modify the ballot measure before us, so we hope to defeat this bond and work for a better measure next election.

This is only partly about money. Some of us hope a re-examination of the bond could save significant money, but we could be persuaded to support a bond in this amount, if that's what it takes to get the best educational result. Unfortunately, this bond is far more about buildings than educational output.

Our concern lies primarily with the policy dictated by this bond. The Board is draping itself in the mantle of the three year effort of the Facilities Task Force and claiming that assures adequate public representation. Unfortunately, at the same meeting when the Board put the bond on the ballot, they effectively flushed the Task Force's efforts. The disaffection of the public members of the Task Force is so deep that Bob Paschal, a dedicated Task Force member, will take the “con” position at Tuesday's San Angelo Forum, and the Board is having difficulty finding an appropriate speaker to carry its side of the debate.

There have been options to the proposals in this bond. A few years back, Jack Cowan, editor emeritus at S-T put out the idea that perhaps we should roughly equalize the student bodies of Lakeview and Central, but acknowledged a core objection existed in that they would then have to play one another football. Another idea we have all heard before, and some of us support, was shrinking Central, and putting a new 4A school in the southwest area where much of the growth is. My sources tell me this three 4A model was the initial inclination of the Task Force, but they were told in no uncertain terms the Board would not entertain any work product not resulting in a single 5A high school, and they so modified their deliberations. See “Is the tail wagging the Dog”, this BLOG.

As to policy, the Holiman consolidation is going to be one hot item at least to Holiman families, probably Crockett as well. From what we have seen, Holiman has probably the highest percentage of students who actually walk to and from school, (at least on nice weather days). Many families based their decision to buy homes in Paulann on the Holiman school, and are not remotely happy that SAISD plans to bus those kids halfway across town.

See “Some Assembly Required”, this BLOG. Mr Turner makes a great point, that schools are more than interchangeable cogs in an educational machine. By the time kids get to high school, it is no great problem in a city our size to go to a school across town if it caters more to one's educational preference. At the elementary level, the local school is an integral part of a thriving neighborhood. Close the school, move the students, and parental involvement, already too low, goes down further. SAISD has done this once, in closing Holiman and moving Crockett out of the community it serves, they propose to compound their mistake. STEER objects more to the policy demonstrated here than to the expense.

STEER intends to stay in existence after this election, whatever the result. It is plain that SAISD needs someone paying them the sort of oversight attention Conchoinfo has paid to city and county government.

News from the school bond front

The SAISD educational effort on the proposed school bond, includes under “Tax Rate Information” a very thorough analysis of tax impact of the bond. It does however seem to assume we will receive a state funded Existing Debt Allotment payment, the effect of which would reduce our tax liability for the new bond.

If one looks at the Texas Association of School Boards' “Funding School Facilities” report, the rate without the EDA appears to be the rate taxpayers should bear in mind on May 12. In order even to be eligible, a district (read SAISD) “must have made a payment on the bonds on or before August 31 prior to the start of a new biennium in order to receive EDA funding”. Go to the “Issues” section of the same 3 page report, and we are at the edge of a formula for funding.

Actually, EDA is a state program started in 1999 intended to assist low-wealth districts with EXISTING debt. It was not started to encourage extravagant bond issues, but to help low income districts which had fallen on hard times after passing a bond. We barely qualify for the low wealth side, and unlike a district having difficulty paying off a bond from better years, we are proposing to pass a brand new indebtedness and slough off part of it to the state, assuming the legislature rolls over EDA this term.

I quote from the TASB's own Issues analysis, “School districts hope for, but cannot be certain of, the extension of EDA funding for another biennium. Uncertainty makes school district fiscal planning and clear communication to the public difficult.” I have asked the saisd.huckabee.com website for a rendering of approved/unapproved applications for EDA, with a breakdown by dollar amounts. This could give us a ballpark range of our odds of winning the “EDA lottery”. I hope that as the hired gun pros on this bond business Huckabee might have handy the information I have not found...yet. I have discovered that Paris, Texas is getting very nervous about its EDA hopes on a $35 million bond scheduled for a May 12 election. In short, failing to pass the bond in May and make a first payment by August 31 would mean we have no chance for state EDA money this biennium, but passing the bond in May by no means assures we WILL get EDA funding. Also, should we tell the Board “no, you wish for too much”, and end up passing a slimmed down version in November, next session we can apply for help with our then existing debt, if indeed our circumstances qualify and EDA is again rolled over.

My advice to the voter now is, if you think the issues in this bond are worth an effective SAISD tax increase of roughly 35 cents, so be it, but do not bet the ranch on a state funded EDA bailout. I further advise the voter that in considering this bond as the recommendation of a three year Facilities Advisory Committee we should keep in mind, this is the first of three shoes to drop. The Long Range Facilities Plan envisions two more bonds of similar size to complete its proposal. The Board is reluctant to speak to this three phase plan, but voters should force them to acknowledge this reality of their own making. Long term, we are not discussing a $130 million bond, but phase one of a package that, with debt service, will cost taxpayers half a billion over thirty years or so.

For comparison, Midland ISD is putting a two part, $37 million bond before voters in a district with a growing enrollment. Their package adds to and renovates, the second part separates athletics from classroom building, and their superintendent assures voters this bond will serve Midland's needs “for the next 50 years”. How can that Be?! By SAISD standards, under which buildings start to crumble after 40 years, Midland (and presumably we) will be totally rebuilding in less than that 50 years.

On another posting on this Blog we offered an old post-completion 12 page booklet on Central titled “America's First Ageless, Campus Style High School”. A couple things are clear from it. The Central campus was designed to be flexible of use, but also to stand, with anything like reasonable maintenance, for a long time. Also, a great deal of planning and thought went into the design before the Board of that day approached a drought-stricken, hard times electorate. Today's Board makes much of the three year Facilities task Force work, but at the same meeting the Board voted formally to put the bond on the ballot, they flushed a couple of critical items from the Task Force's work. Only this week, barely a month before the election, are voters finally given a peek at some crude, rough draft concept drawings of what the new schools might actually look like if approved by an infrastructure-stricken, overtaxed already electorate. Compared to the Central proposal of the 50's with a clearly defined, truly visionary concept put forth, this last minute, back-of-the-envelope sketch is insulting to our intelligence. It amounts to “Give us a pot full of money and we'll build you, oh something with it, and if we're lucky, all this will actually be built before we hit you up with the next bond.”

SAISD does need a bond issue for very real building and renovation items. Like it not, and I don't, schools typically do “maintenance by bond” and our schools have physical plant needs, some left over from promises made but not kept in the '96 bond. SAISD does NOT need this bond, and the voters are justified in saying “NO” loudly enough to get the Board's attention. Then they can go back, and like any home or business owner on a budget, figure what they really need as opposed to the unaffordable McMansion on the hill they wished for on our nickel.

School's Back; Form, Function and Finance

Spring break is over, time to get back to school. By the way, Monday 3/19, the school board agenda kicks off with a presentation of the ethical and legal limits on just how the board can spend our money to “educate” us silly voters into approving the bonds on the table.

The decision to split the bond into two ballot measures was made for one reason only: The board fears the issue in its entirety would fail. I am less than enthusiastic about the extent to which the Long Range Facilities Plan, which includes this bond and the next two, depends on new construction. Still, the elementary construction in May's bond is more justifiable, not to mention affordable, than the megabuck Central loosely envisioned.

The board is counting on the work, and it was a long effort, by the Facilities Advisory Task Force to convince voters the community has been consulted in the planning. I can't help but be reminded of Mark Twain's observation that “a camel was a horse designed by a committee”. I have my doubts whether all options were fully considered.

In recent editorial comments to the Standard-Times, two writers, both prominent members of the community, have referred to the current Central as “ready for the scrap yard” and the other, “pretty” and “park-like”. Hard to believe both are discussing the same physical plant. I am waiting for SAISD to have at least a couple weekends of “open house” at the schools named in the Long Range Plan and let the voters get a first hand look.

An earlier post referenced a brochure [here] we found that bragged on Central as “America's First Ageless, Campus Style High School”. It makes clear the original design was intended for adaptability and with proper maintenance, a long life. It just happens I was watching a story on Philadelphia's misuse of eminent domain this AM. People there were scrapping to the last dime and final legal appeal to stay in buildings so old that my Dad was a gleam in Grandad's eye when they were built. I am familiar with some of the buildings slated for demolition. My opinion, we have an upkeep crisis more than we need new buildings to serve a declining enrollment. Coincidentally, Midland is pushing a bond issue this year [here] at a price tag of $37 million, athletic improvements separated from classrooms. Superintendent Perez says “you are looking at something for the next 50 years”. Midland plans to add to and renovate schools, not tear them down, and Midland has growth and oil money we do not.

One point I made at the Saturday board meeting was that if the high school ballot fails, the board should listen to the voters, fall back, trim down and come up with an issue that might pass in November. A “NO” vote in May will not condemn students to an eternity of poor education. One message we might get across is that the board desperately needs a built-in capital improvement plan, something the city is finally getting going, so that we do not lurch along between bonds, spending too little maintaining what we have until suddenly we the taxpayers are presented with a “crisis”. The May ballot is a fine opportunity for us to pass this message to the board and see how it reacts.

I contest a couple of selling points. One is the grade realignment plan. One of the first times I stood to address a public meeting, Wake County, NC where I was in ninth grade, was considering shifting 9th grade to middle school, which I didn't like then. I have kept an interest in the subject since, and honestly, I don't find a scrap of evidence that tinkering with grade alignment a year's worth about the edges has any demonstrable effect one way or the other. It is a matter of fashion, not academic science. As to spending money for bricks and mortar to implement one alignment over another, put the effort into curriculum and teachers, no building ever taught anyone anything. Well, maybe taught taxpayers that new buildings ain't cheap. It is reported that Socrates made do with a shadetree, though I am not quite old enough to personally vouch for that.

I see no evidence that alternative high school ideas were seriously entertained. The idea of making Central and Lakeview roughly equal sized schools, or the notion of a third southwest high school with three roughly equal sized, smaller student bodies, these possibilities never seem to have been on the radar screen. The phrasing of the SAISD “Bond Awareness Survey” questions makes clear that keeping a single 5A high school was a major priority.

As Frank Lloyd Wright put it, form should follow function, not fashion, and at this level of finance, I fully agree.

Ageless?

It's amazing what you discover when you are researching an issue. Here is a handout we found on Central from shortly after it was built. This is their description for "Americas first ageless, campus style high school." How do you think it compares to todays proposal?

THE EVOLUTION OF AN IDEA INTO REALITY

The changing face of American Education is symbolized in the brilliantly new Central High School of San Angelo, Texas. It is a living testimonial to the inspired and progressive thinking of this city's school administrators, Board of Education, and the architects, with the full support of an enthusiastic citizenship.

From the inception of the basic idea to its ultimate development, a completely fresh approach has resulted in the nation's first ageless, campus type high school. Its many educational innovations and distinctive features are summarized here, depicting the evolution of an idea into reality.

In 1954 a soundly planned survey was made, analyzing San Angelo's school building requirements for the immediate future. The results were startling. Because of the growth of the city, and the rapidly increasing birth rate, the survey showed that the secondary school enrollment would almost double in eight to ten years.

Thus, the Board was faced with the problem of providing new high school facilities for an ever increasing enrollment. This meant the erection of a high school adequate for current needs, but with a high degree of flexibility for a continuing increase in the number of pupils. The Board recognized its responsibility to solve this problem at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayers, and yet to provide the city with a modem high school that was conducive to the highest possible scholastic standards.

Before reaching any conclusions, the Board and school administrators set out to learn the most advanced thinking in the planning, design and construction of similar schools over the nation. Much research was conducted, and inspection visits to new high schools in other cities were made.

The next step was the selection of a firm of architects with proven imagination and creative ability, and with broad experience in school construction.

Gradually the various phases of the problem began to crystallize, and soon there emerged a preliminary picture of the school you see today.

The school would he centrally located in a park-like area on the hanks of North Concho River; it would be larger than normal; its design would be completely functional, with the elimination of all expensive monumental architectural features; and the plant would be flexible for later expansion as enrollment increased.

In order to combine the known advantages of both small schools and large schools, and to house the students by age groups, permitting a closer relationship between teachers and pupils, a bold decision was reached. The Board decided to build individual schools within the total school plant, resulting in the revolutionary new campus type institution with eleven buildings, each designed for a specific purpose and use. This provides the very definite educational advantage of permitting small units of age-group students to spend about half a day under the supervision of familiar teachers, and the remainder of the day in other buildings designed for elective courses to meet a wide variety of special needs.

The multi-building decision brought many other advantages, of which a notable example is the use of any building at times outside the normal school day without operational expense to the other buildings. Thus, the facilities of the library, science labs, commercial shops, or gymnasium may be used at night without adding operating costs to the other buildings.

Moreover, should the time come when the traditional school day must be expanded into a longer day, or the school used more months a year, or when educational methods require changes, the school plant will be adaptable to all of these and other progressive innovations.

Total air conditioning of the buildings came as a result of a thorough and cautious analysis of all cost factors, and from the experience gained from the operation of another local air-conditioned school. Two basic facts were the significant factors in the decision. Buildings designed for air' 'conditioning are less costly to construct because of the elimination of ventilation windows and other structural details, resulting here in a building cost with air conditioning equipment that was competitive with the cost of traditional buildings. And, through the elimination of dust and dirt by air conditioning, the maintenance costs were decreased by forty to fifty percent, which more than offset the increased cost of the utilities. Moreover, year-'round air conditioning makes the buildings efficiently useful all months of the year, without regard to outside weather or temperature.

Protection of pupils' eyesight through the reduction of eye strain, comes from scientifically designed lighting which provides continuously uniform and glare-proof illumination at all hours of the day or night.

Another facility, one for physical education, which was added without any material increase in cost, is the gymnasium with swimming pool. Water sports are of growing importance, particularly in San Angelo with its rivers and lakes. Instead of the usual two gymnasiums for specialized purposes, a single large one was constructed at a cost which permitted the inclusion of the swimming pool, with its many obvious advantages.

In the type of structures, the architects met the challenge with a completely new approach to the design of school buildings; which resulted in the elimination of expensive ornamental frills; the utilization of many new materials such as glare-proof glass, porcelain and plastics; and other architectural innovations readily apparent to the observer.

The results of these many months of research, planning and building have produced America's first ageless, campus type high school. Its countless educational features can best be summarized by the single statement that it is designed to inspire students with a DESIRE TO LEARN.

In comparison with schools of similar size elsewhere, the cost figures are exceptionally favorable. The building construction cost was $2,604,277 amounting to $12.41 a square foot and $1,042 per pupil. Including furniture, equipment and other related expenditures, the total cost exclusive of the site was $3,042,277, amounting to $14.50 a square foot and $1,217 per pupil.

This, then, is the dramatic achievement of the San Angelo Board of Education and school administrators. The citizens of this city are justifiably proud of the nation's finest school plant - the San Angelo Central High School.