I watched the whole thing. There's an hour and 10 minutes of my life I will never get back. I need to stop watching these - bad for my blood pressure. I also went back and re-viewed the September 2012 regular meeting - agenda items 4b and 4c. Now I am really mad.

<Long post alert>
As an aside, there is a selection process that completely escapes me with regard to which topics certain members choose to pick apart in incredible detail and which ones are skimmed past.

I have a few thoughts after to listening to this whole thing, but there are a couple of "can't miss" moments on the highlights reel:

40 minutes in, Jason and a couple of the other trustees are surprised to discover there is only one employee in the finance department since Mark Tarpley left and the CFO position was left vacant to be filled by the new sup. I am a civilian and I knew that. I knew it last summer. When it was stated in a board workshop. Anyway, the entire exchange is kind of humorous in a very sad way.

49 minutes in, Mike Myers plaintively asks "Do we have something we can vote on?" which I took to mean "Can we please wrap this up and move on?" I agreed with the sentiment.

Okay, Texas school finance is pretty complicated but the basic principles are simple. The legislature allows the district so many dollars of revenue per student per penny of tax effort. If your local property valuations and tax effort bring in less than that, the legislature makes up the difference. If it brings in more than that, you send money back to the state.

So here (in simplest terms) are the big variables for revenue - property wealth divided by enrollment, pennies of tax effort, legislated target revenue per student. Then you need to know that 85-ish percent of the budget is payroll, so headcount and payscale drive the expense side.

Legislated target revenue per student is interesting because that is the number that can vary substantially from one session to the next. Thanks heavens they only meet in alternate years. Hard to predict so the best one can do is keep a healthy fund balance in case the legislature does something draconian (as it did in 2011) and - here are the magic words for managing a school budget - keep staffing levels commensurate with enrollment.

A healthy fund balance is necessary for a lot of reasons but here are three big ones:
1) Smooth the legislative bumps. If your funding gets cut dramatically - as it did in 2011 - it creates maneuvering room to realign and balance the budget.
2) Keep your bond rating high. Now that the permanent school fund is fully subscribed in terms of backing bond debt, districts have to go borrow money on the strength of their own ratings. Undesignated fund balance is a major factor in the bond rating formula.
3) Bridge the annual gap between start of school and the flow of property tax revenue in property wealthy districts. If a district is receiving money from the state, the state will front load the payments so the district can operate until its local revenue begins to flow in November - Jan timeframe. Property wealthy districts have to pay from fund balance or else be faced with taking out short term loans to make payroll.

So, we hold as axiomatic that a healthy fund balance is a good thing. But "healthy" has to be defined. Anything beyond that and the district needs to release revenue back to local taxpayers. And healthy IS defined - in state guidelines and local policy.

Back in May of 2000, the Allen ISD had less than one million dollars in fund balance and was facing a 4.5 million dollar budget shortfall for the 2000-2001 school year. The district got through that crisis, but teachers and students paid the price. By the fall of 2001, there were more than 80 sections of core subject classes at the HS with more than 30 students. Think about MS science teachers doing desktop demonstrations instead of kids being able to work at lab stations because there weren't enough to go around. Picture HS math and English teachers seeing 150-180 students every two days.

Over the next 9 years, the district consistently underspent revenue, opened a new facility every year, lowered class sizes, and built up a significant fund balance. Again, it was staff doing more with less. And in the decade from 2000-2010, while the district nearly doubled in size, the central office staff professional headcount remained unchanged.

There were a few bumps in the road along the way and the district took some money from fund balance to cover teacher pay increases a couple of times during that period to smooth over those bumps.

In 2011, the legislature finally threw a giant redwood across the road and the district could not get over it without the TRE. So they put it on the ballot. In June of 2011, a conservative political think tank out of Austin went into the Keller ISD and actively funded and engaged a big "vote no" campaign to defeat their TRE. This is the same group that was active this past spring in places like Lovejoy ISD - helping to defeat their bonds.

So I went to Ken Helvey and asked if a PAC had been formed to help pass the TRE and he said no one had really stepped up and he was frankly worried. The district can distribute information but it cannot use taxpayer dollars to campaign.

I got together with a retired assistant superintendent and organized a campaign. Louise, Lois, Gary, and Susan worked like Trojans on that campaign. Jason and Mark may have sent out some emails, but I never saw a contribution or any visible presence or public advocacy from them to get the TRE passed. I am not saying they did nothing - they voted to put it on the ballot - but I am saying they did so little that they never made it onto the radar of the chairperson or treasurer or volunteer coordinator of the PAC as being a force in that election. Myers of course was not on the Board at the time and he did not bother to vote in the TRE. I thank again each and every person who voted yes.

But you understand how I feel a bit personally on the line about the TRE. During the campaign, the biggest reservation I heard, even from supporters, was "If we approve this now and they don't need it in the future, will they roll it back?" At the time I thought surely so, but now I think not - or not without pressure.

Fast forward to September 2012. One year after the TRE, the new positions have been hired, the final property valuations are in, and administration is recommending a one time payment to the staff. Basically it is the balance of a 3% midpoint increase but paid as a lump sum rather than an add to base. So they know they can afford it and there is no future commitment.

The Board splits 4-3 in favor of the payment. Louise said it best - "We told staff and taxpayers this is why we needed the money. We have to keep our word." Jason and Mark were worried about fund balance and what the legislature might or might not do in 2013. Again, the recommendation was an affordable one time payment - not an add to base that would commit future revenues. Carl also voted against it. I could give him a new guy pass on that one but Jason and Mark should have known better.

Now it is summer of 2013 and the Board has been conservative in staff compensation in the spring because the legislature was in session and heaven only knows what they will do. As it happens, the legislature smiles and AISD receives more than anticipated. I think six million more is the number but not sure on that - let's say "several million." They have the opportunity to roll back a little of the M&O tax rate but they don't. I mean come on - at least take a page from the City of Allen book and lower it by 1/100th of a penny or something. Some good faith gesture even.

The deal is, once the district reduces the tax rate, they can't go back up again without holding another TRE. So they are afraid of their own voters. Instead, Jason suggests (and Mark supports) we lower the tax rate by gutting the general fund balance to pay for capital projects instead of selling authorized bonds. The First Southwest guys and Marlene have to go back and explain how bad it would be for the district to do that.

This is just 9 short months after they refused to spend 1 million out of fund balance to compensate staff!

Then, in October, Mark gets the idea to designate 2.5 million dollars out of the surplus for an add to base teacher raise. The Board never talked about the longer term implications of that add to base move. I even asked a couple of them if I missed it. Nope. Everybody votes for it (including Jason.)

It was most likely the right thing to do, but it was done in a vacuum of the right kind of information and inquiry. What I would have loved to have seen as a taxpayer (and would have asked for as a trustee last summer) is a cash flow projection for the next several years given best demographic projections, conservative property value increases, annual staff compensation increase, and do no harm from the legislature. What does that look like and what can we afford?

Instead here they are in January asking about spending $38K from an activity fund to resurface the tennis courts and extra bottled water for the kids during playoffs.

On the January 20 meeting that is the subject line of this post, Mark says that he will consider lowering the tax rate "if and only if the TRE rules change." Meaning if and only if they can reduce the rate now and raise it back later without calling another TRE.

Doesn't anyone see how wasteful and destructive this cycle is? The legislature gets beaten up because local tax rates went through the roof in the wake of the 2011 session. So they put money back into the system in 2013. But the local districts don't lower the rates at all because they don't trust the legislature not to take it away in the future and they don't trust their own voters to understand that and vote yes in the future. The legislators say - hey, we gave money back but the local boards did not do their part.

Jason and Mark SAY the taxpayers are their constituents (they don't say the kids are their constituents - that's another issue) but they clearly don't trust their constituents to understand complex issues and vote responsibly.

I personally believe the AISD should have lowered the M&O rate last summer. But then, I have profound respect and no fear with regard to my friends and neighbors who vote in Allen.

The Board has another chance this next summer. They have already said they'll be on the ballot in 2015 with a bond proposition for Lowery refresh and other maintenance items. Perfect time to revisit the TRE if the funding shrinks in the 2015 session. Allen voters are smart and responsible. The Board needs to show some faith.

I just feel the honest and concerned and intelligent dialog about the educaton and future of our children has been hijacked the past several years by special interests and empty political rhetoric. I want to see discussions about HB-5 with its changes in basic 4x4 curriculum and the graduate profile and a top to bottom refocus on the strategic plan.

Bringing in a new superintendent creates an opportunity for positive change. I hope we take it. The kids are our most important constituents. Let's not lose sight of that.

pitch perfect

The Board has another chance this next summer. They have already said they'll be on the ballot in 2015 with a bond proposition for Lowery refresh and other maintenance items. Perfect time to revisit the TRE if the funding shrinks in the 2015 session. Allen voters are smart and responsible. The Board needs to show some faith.

Fortunately, I think the voters in Allen are sophisticated enough to sort it out.

All data requires context and the Rotten Apple people deserve a Rotten Tomato award for comparing apples and oranges - presenting data out of context for the purpose of advancing an agenda rather than informing accurately.

To get to the fewer than 50% of dollars going into the classroom number, they count debt service as well as M&O. With a combined rate of $1.67 and 50 cents of that on debt service I am not sure how any rational person would expect to get the number of dollars into the classroom above 50%.

Competitive salaries for teachers and total operations dollars per student are far more useful and even handed measures of district efficiency.

Let's have thoughtful conversations in this election cycle and be the voters we want everyone to be :-)

Competitive salaries for teachers and total operations dollars per student are far more useful and even handed measures of district efficiency.

"The problem with the school board is they have been asleep at the wheel and let important positions go unfilled, had no accountability for the person who stole from under the nose of the school district, and have mismanaged funds"

Isn't it the Superintendent' s role to hire administrative staff and not the role of the Board - beyond hiring the Superintendent? I expect the new Superintendent will be busy filling critical positions.

Isn't the former employee already being prosecuted for theft? Isn't that accountability?

40 minutes in, Jason and a couple of the other trustees are surprised to discover there is only one employee in the finance department since Mark Tarpley left and the CFO position was left vacant to be filled by the new sup. I am a civilian and I knew that. I knew it last summer. When it was stated in a board workshop. Anyway, the entire exchange is kind of humorous in a very sad way.