Eleven major
reasons to vote NO on Houston ISD’s 2002 bond program
|
I recommend that the voters emphatically reject
Houston ISD’s $808 million bond proposal on November 5, because of the following
reasons:
1) The American public is rightfully angry over the lack of full and truthful disclosure
to the public regarding the finances of a handful of corporations. By the same token,
Houston ISD voters should be deeply disturbed by the lack of full disclosure and direct
reporting to the public regarding the environment in which HISD financial decisions are
made.
2) Close relatives of trustees are permitted to do business with HISD. For example, the
spouse of the board president is one of two name partners in the lead architectural firm
on four contracts under the 1998 bond program, with approximately $1.6 million in
architectural and engineering fees.
3) HISD trustees accept political contributions from those who do business with HISD. I am
still in the process of determining to what extent. Some of the trustees have advised me
that I am naive to oppose this practice, as otherwise they would have difficulty funding
their campaigns.
4) The PAC formed to promote passage of the 1998 and 2002 bond programs accepts
contributions from those who do, or hope to do, business with HISD. The professional firms
that determine HISD’s bond needs are then permitted to participate in the
expenditures under the construction program.
5) Despite a steadily declining enrollment since 1998, HISD has embarked upon two bond
programs in 1998 and 2002 totaling approximately $1.5 billion.
HISD’s annual debt service cost per pupil essentially doubled as a result of the $678
million 1998 bond program and the $808 million 2002 bond program will have an even greater
impact. I regard that as a grossly irresponsible action from a fiduciary standpoint,
particularly considering the current economic climate in Houston.
6) In 1998, HISD paid a great amount of money for an exhaustive survey to determine
HISD’s totally encompassing bond needs. The independent experts determined those
needs to be approximately $1.2 billion, according to the May 18, 2002 Houston Chronicle.
HISD voters approved a $678 million bond issue in 1998 (which proved to be over $100
million more than needed) for its 1998 needs to carry over to the next bond election.
However, in 2002, HISD states that its totally encompassing needs have now grown to
approximately $1.5 billion. HISD has offered no explanation for this exceptionally large
increase of about $1 billion in just four years. When is enough ever enough? How reliable
is any estimate put out by HISD? How effective is HISD’s stewardship of the
taxpayers’ facilities and monies?
7) HISD’s capital spending priorities seem greatly misplaced. Of the $808 million
2002 bond issue, $289 million is allotted to replacement of 18 schools, 16 of which were
originally built after 1947, most of them in the late 1950s. Yet 37 HISD schools built
before 1930 are not being replaced under either the 1998 bond program or the 2002 bond
program. In fact, 9 of those 37 pre-1930 schools still are not even going to be repaired
or renovated out of the 2002 bond program. Strange prioritizing, to say the least.
8) HISD needs to exert better quality control over its contractors before it is entrusted
with any more bond monies. Very troubling, 16 schools recently built in the 1990s are on
HISD’s $1.5 billion wish list in 2002, supposedly already needing repairs or
renovation (each ranging in represented needs from $1.2 million to $6.3 million).
9) I have been advised by an HISD trustee that the sizing of this $808 million bond issue
was determined by how much capacity for handling additional work existed on the part of
the to be involved architects, engineers and contractors. Bond issues should be sized
according to HISD needs and the financing burdens of taxpayers, not the spending
capabilities of those profiting from the bond proceeds
10) Texas law makes it very clear that school district bonds, and the related
“Interest and Sinking Fund” portion of the district’s tax rate, are to be
restricted to capital cost purposes. Texas law also makes it very clear that maintenance
and repairs are to be paid out of the “Maintenance and Operations” portion of
the district’s tax rate. HISD recognizes these legal requirements, as well as proper
business principles, by stating in its management policies that “Long-term financing
will be restricted to capital projects and purchases of equipment” and
“Long-term bonds will not be issued to finance current operations.”
Yet, ignored maintenance and repairs have been a driving force behind both the 1998 and
2002 bond programs. In the face of all this, the board of trustees has shoved the
responsibility for controlling maintenance and repairs down to the individual school level
and to an outside vendor, with little evidence of overall monitoring by the board of
trustees.
11) HISD continues to engage in greatly misleading advertising. Regarding the 1998 bond
program, HISD used the scare tactics of falling roofs, hazardous materials and life safety
issues. The truth? Of the $678 million the voters gave HISD in 1998: (a) only $7.0 million
was even budgeted for roofing and only $5.3 million was actually needed; (b) only $29.1
million was needed for hazardous materials; and (c) only $44.4 million was needed for life
safety. Regarding the 2002 bond program, the poster child is the need to replace Reagan
High School, built in 1926. Yet there are 17 schools ranked ahead of Reagan on HISD’s
priority list, 12 of which were built in the 50s, 60s, and even as late as 1979.
Additionally, as mentioned previously, 37 of the schools built before 1930 are not being
replaced under either the 1998 or the 2002 bond programs and 9 still are not even being
repaired or renovated out of the 2002 bond program.
HISD has made no attempt to demonstrate to the voters that the age of a properly
maintained school or installation of more modern amenities have any impact upon the
education of a child. I offer two frames of reference on the subject. First, in 1985 a
federal judge commanded the state of Missouri give the Kansas City school district every
sum the district requested to bring its facilities into excellent and more modern
condition as well as meet every operating need, which the state supposedly did.
By 1997 it was apparent that this action had not significantly improved the scholastic
performance of this heavily economically disadvantaged student body and the judge
surrendered the issue. Secondly, the average age of the facilities of the prestigious and
most heavily endowed Harvard University is slightly older than those of HISD.
HISD’s stewardship of operating funds needs to be strongly challenged before voters
approve further bond funds for capital expenditures. HISD’s operating costs per pupil
rose 24% from fiscal 1998 to fiscal 2001, greatly in excess of the rate of inflation. Less
than 60% of HISD’s operating costs go directly into the classroom.
In all of its eagerness to go for the gold from the bricks and mortar standpoint, HISD is
not leveling with the voters regarding whether it is accomplishing what is
really there for. . . academic progress. That is, graduating its students and
preparing its students for college in this exponentially increasing
technological world. Even on an economically disadvantaged or ethnically
grouping basis, HISD graduates a significantly lower percentage of its eighth
grade enrollment than the Texas ISD average or the US average. Only about 56%
of HISD’s African-American eighth-graders eventually graduate and only about
43% of its Hispanic eighth-graders eventually graduate. An absolute tragedy.
On the same grouping comparison basis, HISD students, on average, score below
other Texas and US students on college entrance exams. Framing all of this is
the fact that the academic performances of US students compare poorly with
those of students from most of the other industrialized countries, even though
the US spends more money per secondary school student than any of the other
industrialized countries but one.
It seems patently clear that the voters should resoundingly defeat HISD’s 2002
bond program for $808 million and send HISD back to the drawing board.
HISD then needs to:
(a) remove the apparent conflicts of interest in its financial decision making
environment;
(b) better prioritize its capital needs;
(c) better size and time its bond programs;
(d) better balance HISD needs with taxpayers’ overall tax burdens;
(e) commence using long-term debt only for capital needs and not for maintenance and
repair
needs;
(f) have the board of trustees commence better fulfilling their
oversight responsibilities regarding the capital and maintenance functions of
HISD;
(g) inform the voters exactly how any upgrading or replacement of a
school will enhance students’ learning;
(h) start leveling with voters as to HISD’s true performance in graduating its
students
and preparing them for college; and
(i) most importantly, find out why, regardless of classification grouping, HISD lags
behind
Texas and the US in graduating its students and preparing them for college, and then
correct the problems.
|
