Lone Star College Bond–Are Taxpayers Being Used?

Are the taxpayers being used in the Lone Star College 2013 Bond Election?

Look at the evidence – then decide for yourself….

First, make a quick list of who benefits financially when the voters pass a $500 million education construction bond for the Lone Star College System (LSCS):

• Architects
• Construction companies/contractors
• Engineers
• Attorneys
• Real Estate Companies

Second, take a look at the LSCS web page updating the last bond issue in 2008. Notice  two firms listed who gained financially from the bond were:

1. Joiner Partnership  and
2. Perspectiva




Third, take a close look at two of the expensive 4-color –multifold mailers voters have received concerning the 2013 LSCS Bond Election. Notice two important details:

1. Who is listed on the return address?
2. Who paid for the ad?

AD #1

The return address: 700  Rockmead Dr Ste 265  just happens to be JOINER PATNERSHIP, the same company listed on the LSCS 2008 bond web page.

And the ad was paid for by Citizens for Lone Star College System whose treasurer is non other than Carl Joiner, the PRESIDENT of JOINER PARTNERSHIP.

AD #2

The return address: 2500 E TC Jester, STE 309 is listed as COLLABORATE ARCHITECTS.

The ad was paid for by Citizens to Re-Elect LSCS Trustees  whose treasurer is Saul Valentin.

But both persons listed as “Founding Principals” in  Collaborate Architects - Saul Valentin and Martin Needle  are also listed as “Executive Vice Presidents” of  PERSPECTIVA, the same company listed on the LSCS 2008 Bond web page.

Collaborate Architects

Perspectiva

The photographs of the two men are  not only exactly the same on both sites, but they both have the exact same titles with each company.

And both company websites show the exact same project photo.

Collaborate Architects

Perspectiva

But even more interesting is a look at the campaign financial reports filed with LSCS by both PACs on April 11, 2013. They appear to be written by the same person.

Citizens to Re-Elect LSCS Trustees Treasurer Saul Valentin Perspectiva

Citizens for Lone Star College System Treasurer Carl A Joiner Joiner Partnerships

Not only that, page 2 shows both PACs used the same Notary Public on the same day. And it appears to be Saul Valentin’s wife Lisa.

Citizens to Re-Elect LSCS Trustees Treasurer Saul Valentin Perspectiva

Citizens for Lone Star College System Treasurer Carl A Joiner Joiner Partnerships

Both treasurers of these PACs live OUTSIDE LSCS boundaries. Valentin lives within HCC and Joiner lives in Galveston County.

And when you look at the donations made to the PACs and the incumbent trustees, it certainly appears that this election is NOT about education. It appears to simply be about $500 million in construction contracts.

As of 4/11/13, a total of $87,500 in donations was reported by the two PACs and the three incumbent trustees running for re-election.

$ 65,500 –or about 75% – was donated by persons who could possibly end up financially benefiting from the bond funds.

Construction/Contractors	$ 27,500.00
Architects	$ 25,500.00
LSCS Connected- Board/Employee/ Education Foundation	$ 12,650.00
Engineers	$ 12,500.00
Attorneys	#   2,000.00
Real Estate	$   1,350.00
Other/Unknown	$   6,000.00

In sharp contrast. All other candidates COMBINED reported a total of $ 593.33 in campaign donations. That equals LESS than 1% of the PAC’s and incumbent's funds.

Other interesting reading is the list of persons employed with LCSC that donated to Citizens to Re-Elect LSCS  Trustees PAC.

• LSC- North Harris President – $ 250
• LSCS Senior Vice Chancellor – $ 300
• Husband of LSC Tomball President – $ 500
• LSCS Foundation Executive Director – $ 1,000
• LSCS Vice Chancellor – $ 500
• LSCS President  -  $ 500
• Special Assistant to the Chancellor/Board Liaison – $ 200

Though perfectly legal, is it very ethical for the Special Assistant to the Chancellor – the person LSCS hires to keep the public informed  about this election -  to publically show sides by donating to the incumbents’ PAC?

Though again perfectly legal, could the reason LSCS does NOT post campaign financial documents online for all to see be because they don’t want the public to know where the money is coming from? Or at least not know until AFTER the election is OVER?

Now that you’ve seen the evidence, what do you think?

Is this LSCS election about EDUCATION or  about CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS?

All I can say is……

If it looks like a rat……and it smells like a rat……..it just might be a RAT.

You can read the full election financial reports I received via public information requests to LSCS concerning the May 11, 2013 Election below.

PACs:

• Citizens to Re-Elect LSCS Trustees
• Citizens for LSCS

Incumbent Trustee Campaigns

• William R “Randy” Bates, Jr
• Thomas  J Forestier 
• David E Holsey

Other Trustee Campaigns

• San Janie Branham
• Dr. Elizabeth Jensen
• William R Morris
• Dr. Kyle A Scott
• Ronald L Trowbridge

Because the opponents couldn’t afford to send multicolored mailings to the voters in LSCS, you can read more from opponents of the this bond election at the links below:

http://thepoliticalchicken.blogspot.com/2013/05/why-im-voting-no-on-lone-star-college.html
http://rontrowbridge.org/why-we-oppose-the-lone-star-college-bond-proposal/
http://www.kingwoodteaparty.com/2013/04/lsc-bond-chron-kirk/
http://www.texaspatriotspac.com/2013-lscs-election-breakdown-how-we-recommend-voting-and-why
http://www.kingwoodteaparty.com/2013/04/give-me-liberty/

Do your homework. Make up your own mind. And be sure to VOTE on Saturday, May 11, 2013.

Find information about Harris County polling locations to vote on Saturday, May 11, 2013: Here


Colleen Vera

Trouble Brewing in Cy-Fair

Citizens served by Cy-Fair Volunteer Fire Department (CFVFD) need to get involved FAST. There is a major conflict brewing between the Fire Department Governing Board and the Emergency Services District (ESD) #9 Board over the Fire Chief’s contract.

Background:

The citizens elect ESD board members who set the tax rate for funds needed to provide emergency services in our area. The board then contracts with entities to provide those services. The current contract is with CFVFD .

CFVFD members elect the Fire Department Governing Board by station as well as a President and VP to represent them at the ESD board meetings. They select their Fire Chief.

Summary of the issues:

The Fire Department Board voted 10/2 not to renew the Fire Chief’s contract.

The ESC 9 Board does not like the process the fire department used.

The Fire Department claims the ESD 9 Board has no authority over its personnel issues, and has already extended the Chief’s contract at the request of the ESD and is not willing to do it again.

The ESD 9 Board claims that if the Fire Department Board doesn’t do what the ESD 9 Board wants, the ESD can CANCEL its contract with CFVFD all together, or renegotiate its contract with CFVFD and hire the Fire Chief on its own.

The two could not agree on a compromise at the ESD 9 meeting held 4/4/13, so the ESD 9 Board tabled the issue.

(There are other issues, but I am trying to summarize the main conflict addressed at this meeting.)

To see the stalemate for yourself, you can view a segment of the meeting here:

Segment of ESD 9 Board Meeting 4/4/13.

Why should you care?

Cy-fair is served by a VOLUNTEER fire department. Some members are paid, but we save tons of tax dollars because dedicated men and women volunteer their time and energy to come to our aide when we need them.

The conflict between the ESD 9 Board and the CFVFD Board has been going on for months. Conflict lowers morale. The longer morale stays low, the less time people want to volunteer. More paid employees must be hired to make up the difference. Thus the cost of the service goes up for everyone.

And then there is the THREAT by the ESD 9 Board to TERMINATE the contract with CFVFD. That would mean a new fire department would provide our service at a much higher cost to the taxpayer, or even worse, being annexed by the city of Houston to provide emergency services. NOBODY wants that.

What can we do?

If we want to keep a volunteer fire department in Cy-fair, we need to get involved and help these two groups come to an agreement. We need to help them stop the blame game and find a solution – FAST.

Remember, we elected the ESD board members. They represent US.

Then we need to work to improve the morale inside our Volunteer Fire Department. We need to help them now, or they may not be here to help us when we need them.

The Fire Chief’s contract expires at the end of April, so the next meeting of each board needs to be highly productive.


CFVFD Board Meeting -   April 15, 2013      7:30pm


ESD 9 Board Meeting –      April 18, 2013      7:30pm


Both are held at the same location:

 9630 Telge Road
Houston, TX 77095

Map and directions.

Added Note:

Did you know ESD 9 is  holding an election May 11, 2013  to adopt a 1% local sales tax?


Most voters still know nothing about it.


You can find out more here  or attend the ESD 9 Board Meeting meeting April 18 to get more detailed information.

HB 945 - URGENT ACTION

All but 2 of the 254 Texas counties shut down their County School Boards back in the 1960s when all students moved to Independent School Districts….

But Harris County still elects County School Trustees 50 years after our last countywide school closed. 

HB 945 finally shuts down this dinosaur board.

HCDE:

   Collects $19 Million in property taxes each year ON TOP OF ISD taxes.

·       Does NOT distribute tax funds to Harris County ISDs as required by TEC 18.14.

·       Has built elaborate and expensive facilities; pays high salaries to @1500 employees

·       Spends a total annual budget of nearly $100 Million with ZERO zoned students.

·       Uses tax money to pay lobbyists to fight against the taxpayers.

·       Uses tax money as venture capital to start revenue-positive businesses.

·       Serves paying customers all over the United States.

·       Receives “kickback” fees (as high as 33%) on contracts with state/local agencies.

·       Rewards former board members with lucrative “consulting” contracts.

·       Allows board members to represent companies selling to HCDE & its co-ops.

·       Property owners pay for multiple competing services with only the bureaucrats coming out ahead

·     If we don’t get it done THIS WEEK, Harris County property owners have to pay this EXTRA TAX for two more years!

How to contact your State Representative and Senator: link here 

Read more: here

HB 945 Shutting Down HCDE: Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is HB 945?

HB 945 is legislation filed by Rep. Debbie Riddle that would abolish the offices of county school trustee and county school superintendent in Harris County ONLY.

It would leave the Dallas County School Trustees as the sole remaining county school board in Texas.

2. What is a county school trustee?

In the early 1900s, the Texas legislature established County School Boards to operate Texas public schools run by elected County School Trustees. Over time, the Legislature allowed more local control of public schools thus leading to our current system of Independent School Districts (ISDs) run by elected ISD Trustees.

Every county in Texas closed their County School Boards when all students in their county moved into ISDs except for two – Harris and Dallas Counties.

3. What is the Harris County Department of Education (HCDE)?

The Harris County School Trustees filed a Certificate of Assumed Name in 1991 to do business as (dba) the Harris County Department of Education aka HCDE. Their alias name can cause confusion because it leads many to believe HCDE is a “department” operated by Harris County.

HCDE is actually the Harris County School Trustees, a political subdivision of the State of Texas, who operated the public schools of Harris County before all students moved to ISDs.

4. Why does HCDE still exist, when all but one other county school board have been abolished?

TEC 17.95b reads:

 “After Dec. 31, 1978, if at any time all school districts within a county become independent, the office of county school superintendent…and the county board of school trustees…shall be automatically abolished as of the date the last common or rural high school district becomes independent.”

All Harris County districts became independent BEFORE 12/31/78 so the Harris County school board was not abolished.
When the Texas Legislature abolished state funding for county school trustees in 1978 (TEC 17.94), they allowed county school boards that levied their own countywide property tax, called the “Equalization Tax” to remain in operation using those local funds.
Harris County voters had approved a countywide school maintenance tax in the 1930s, so the Harris County School Trustees chose to remain in operation using that local property tax for their support.
n 1995, the Texas Legislature reformed the Texas Education Code. Because county school boards no longer operated Texas public schools, the Legislature removed TEC Chapters 17  and 18 governing county school boards from the books.
Again they granted an exception for Dallas and Harris County school boards to remain in operation under the former laws. (TEC 11.301)


5. What duties and responsibilities do these “former” laws assign to HCDE?

TEC 11.301 allows HCDE to operate under former TEC Chapters 17 & 18 as those chapters existed in 1995 and “under state law applicable to school districts that does not conflict with” those chapters.
TEC 11.302 requires HCDE to make the former laws governing them available to the public for inspection and copying during regular operating hours.

TEC 18.01 allows HCDE to levy a countywide property tax for the maintenance of public schools called the “equalization tax” – which is separate from the property tax levied by local ISDs.

TEC 17.59 instructs the county commissioners to provide “the county superintendent with an office in the courthouse and with the necessary office furniture and fixtures.”

TEC 17.08c states the meeting place for County School Trustees is at the county seat in the office of the county superintendent.
TEC 17.09 allows each County School Trustee to be paid $6 per day to attend meetings, not to exceed $72 in any one year.

TEC 18.30a allows the equalization tax to pay the salary and all expenses of maintaining the office of a county school superintendent.

TEC 18.14b requires HCDE to distribute the “Equalization Tax” funds to the ISDs of Harris County based on their average daily attendance.

TEC 18.26 limits the “Equalization Tax” to never be levied, assessed or collected for any other purpose than those outlined in the chapter and for the advancement of pubic free schools in Harris County.

TEC 18.15d restricts the use of the “Equalization Tax” to never be used to pay any present or future bond issues or interest.

TEC 17.31a allows county school trustees to perform any act consistent with law for the promotion of education in Harris County.


6. How closely does HCDE follow these “former laws?”


HCDE does NOT make the former laws governing them available to the public for inspection and copying during regular operating hours as required by TEC 11.302.

HCDE’s superintendent does NOT have his office in the courthouse with furnishings supplied by the county commissioners as instructed by TEC 17.59, and the County School Trustees do not hold their meetings at the county seat as stipulated in TEC 17.08c.
Instead, HCDE has built a four story, state of the art facility, with multilevel covered parking to house the superintendent’s office and Board Room.


HCDE uses the “Equalization Tax” funds for items other than compensation for the Trustees as stipulated in TEC 17.09 and for the salary and expenses of maintaining the county superintendent’s office as allowed in TEC 18.30.
Instead, HCDE uses the “Equalization Tax” to fund items like business start-up ventures, research and evaluation, client development services, Texas Center for Grants Development, etc.

HCDE does NOT distribute ANY of the $18 million per year collected from the “Equalization Tax” to the ISDs as required by TEC 18.14b.
Instead, HCDE claims ALL $18 million is spent paying for the County School Trustees and maintaining the Superintendent’s office.


HCDE uses the “Equalization Tax” funds to pay QZAB – Quality Zone Academy Bonds even though TEC 18.15d prohibits tax funds from being used to pay present or future bond issues or interest.

HCDE uses “Equalization Tax” funds for the facilities, personnel and County School Trustee compensation to oversee grant programs across the State of Texas, approve contracts for entities across the United States, and provide services to persons and organizations outside of Harris County – even though TEC 18.26 limits the “Equalization Tax” to use for the advancement of public free schools in Harris County.


7. No longer assigned the duty of operating the public schools, what does HCDE do?

After their last county school closed in the 1960’s, HCDE redesigned itself into an educational service center, selling services to school districts, governmental entities and non-profits across the United States.


Today HCDE competes with Texas Educational Service Center 4 (only 9 miles away) for local school contracts to provide services like alternative teacher certification, teacher in-service training, cooperative purchasing agreements, etc.


HCDE also manages Federal and State grant programs like Head Start and Adult Education, some across the entire state.


In recent years, HCDE has begun contracting with ISDs for temporary placement of alternative students by opening 4 Alternative Campuses to serve approximately 300 students per year.


ISDs from Harris and surrounding counties can pay a tuition fee per student to HCDE for this service.

Their largest profit ($2 million in 2010/11) comes from their cooperative service called Choice which provides management of government procurement contracts with fees being paid to HCDE from the cooperative’s vendors.

Even though HCDE claims they serve all 26 Harris County ISDs, they also claim to serve over 1300 clients nationwide.


In 2012, HCDE’s Board of Trustees approved the use of $1 million to fund the start-up of the Texas Cloud Computing Consortium to serve schools across the state in the hopes of one day making the venture profitable, similar to their Choice program.

8. What would happen to the students and schools who receive services from HCDE if it is abolished?

Because county school boards were designed by the Legislature to close after students moved to ISDs, Texas Education Code 17.96 & 17.97 already outlines the responsibilities of ESC 4, local school districts, commissioners court, the county judge and the county treasurer when a county board is abolished.

TEC 8.053 allows ESCs to “offer any service requested and purchased by any school district or campus in the state” so ESC 4 may absorb any program HCDE is currently providing to schools for a fee.

There is no need for disruption of any Federal or State grant service currently provided by HCDE. The HCDE Board of Trustees may make arrangements with ESC 4 or a variety of other non-profit entities to merge programs or take over management of HCDE’s current services.

For example:

· ECI, Early Childhood Intervention, can transfer management from HCDE to ESC 4 (only 9 miles away) and be successful just as ESC 16 manages ECI services in Amarillo.

· Head Start can transfer management from HCDE to ESC 4 (only 9 miles away) and be successful just as ESC 19 manages Head Start services in El Paso.

HCDE also manages a Therapy Services program where ISDs  save money by paying 
HCDE per day for services used instead of having to keep therapists on staff. This same program can continue with the management operated by ESC4 or another non-profit organization.

9. How does HB 945 fit into Governor Perry’s current Legislative initiatives?

· HB 945 supports the Governor’s initiative to reduce waste and redundancies in governmental services.

Currently HCDE, funded by county property taxes, competes for school district business against ESC 4, funded by state dollars, and the two offices are only 9 miles apart. Closing HCDE would reduce waste by abolishing the redundant county school bureaucracy, thus providing local property tax relief, while increasing the financial solvency of ESC 4.
· HB 945 also supports the Governor’s initiative to end the practice of using dedicated funds and fees for anything other than the purpose for which they were intended.


HCDE has not distributed any of the “Equalization Tax” to Harris County ISDs in many years as dictated by TEC 18.14b.Instead, they claim that all $18-19 million is needed every year to pay the salary and all expenses of maintaining the office of the county school superintendent, and compensation for the Board of Trustees,  the only other payments allowed in TEC Former Chapters 17 and18 using the “Equalization Tax” funds.

HCDE uses “Equalization” Tax” funds to pay Quality Zone Academy Bonds even though TEC 18.15 does not allow bond payments with those tax funds.

10. Who is against abolishing a county school board which has not had students zones to it in 50 years?

Persons who make money from HCDE do not want it to close.
Like a previous board member who is paid $100,000 per year as a “consultant” for HCDE.
Like another previous board member who earns commissions from HCDE contracts….


Get the picture???



Read more about HCDE and link to supporting documents: here

CSCOPE–What’s Behind the Curtain? Part II (Updated)

Updated: 3/29/13

Part I raised numerous questions about the business side of CSCOPE but now it is time to dive deeper.




 Let’s start with the question:  WHO OWNS CSCOPE?

To help find the answer, you need to know a little about the  education system in Texas. So the teacher in me is going to give a quick review with the help of the flowchart I made below:






















In Texas, we elect the Legislature that makes the laws governing public education, as well as  collects and distributes the public funds (our money) needed to run it.


The people elect the State Board of Education (SBOE) and the Governor. Two duties of the SBOE are setting Texas curriculum standards  and the review of educational materials purchased with State funds for Texas  public schools.


The Governor appoints the Commissioner of Education who oversees the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and 20 Educational Service Centers (ESC) throughout the State. He sets the process for each ESC to elect a Board of Directors, controls the distribution of  State funds to each ESC, and is responsible for their yearly evaluation.


The Board of Directors of each ESC hires an Executive Director who serves as the CEO and may employ other personnel as needed.


In 2006, CSCOPE was a new curriculum product developed by the ESCs to sell to school districts.

 But in 2009, 19 ESC Executive Directors transferred CSCOPE to a private non-profit corporation controlled by them  called the Texas Education Service Centers Curriculum Collaborative (TESCCC.)  TESCCC charges each ESC a membership fee ($200,000 - $300,000) which gives ESCs the right to sell CSCOPE to their local school districts. ESC 4 chose not to participate originally, but Pam Wells, Executive Director of ESC 4 in Houston, has now joined.

When the TESCCC sells CSCOPE to a school district, they require that all school personnel sign non-disclosure agreements to make sure no one else, including parents, is able to view CSCOPE materials. (TESCCC is now promising the public will be able to view CSCOPE by April 2013.)

The CSCOPE product is designed to REPLACE  textbooks in the classroom even though the CSCOPE curriculum has never been reviewed by the SBOE. Instead, TESCCC bypasses the SBOE process and sells CSCOPE directly to school districts. This is possible because in the last session, the Texas Legislature changed the law and now allows school districts to use State funds to purchase educational materials that have NOT been reviewed and approved via the SBOE process.

Even though TESCCC’s Governing Board is made up of State employees who meet on State property while being paid with State funds, the TESCCC  refuses to allow the public to attend its Board meetings,  refuses to release all the minutes of its Board meetings and the Texas Attorney General ruled that CSCOPE materials are exempt from disclosure because release could harm CSCOPE’s “ competitiveness in the marketplace.”

 (After the Texas Senate Education Committee held a public hearing on CSCOPE 1/31/13, TESCCC held its first publicly posted meeting on Feb. 18, 2013.)

So that means public money produced CSCOPE,  public money is used to pay a fee for the right to sell it, and public money is used to buy it. But, the public has NO right to know what is in it.

Is there a name for a scheme like that? Is it considered self-dealing? Where else in Texas are the taxpayers being scammed????

(Texas Attorney General, Greg Abbott, has now promised a full investigation into TESCCC and CSCOPE.)

All this raises many questions about CSCOPE. Questions like:

• Who owns CSCOPE?
• Why the need for secrecy?
• Why bypass the elected SBOE?
• Who allowed a public product to be transferred to a private corporation?
• Should the government use public funds to operate private corporations that restrict public disclosure?
• Should state employees have control over millions of dollars of public funds without any oversight from elected officials?….and so on…..

While I wait for the Texas Attorney General to rule if TESCCC must release all the minutes from its Governing Board Meetings, more questions arise from the minutes I was able to obtain:

• What is the true mission of TESCCC and CSCOPE?
• How did CSCOPE sell so fast?
• How dysfunctional is the TRSCCC management process?

What is the true mission of TESCCC and CSCOPE?


TEC Sec 8.002 says the purpose of ESC's is to assist school districts in improving student performance and  operating more efficiently. Sec. 8.053 allows ESCs to offer any service requested and purchased by a school district.

So, if the ESCs have a product, and school districts request it, the ESC can sell it. There is no need to set up private, secretive corporations, unless…..

You read TEC Sec. 8.010: Sunset Provision

 Regional education service centers are subject to Chapter 325, Government Code (Texas Sunset Act). Unless continued in existence as provided by that chapter, the centers are abolished and this chapter expires September 1,2015. Added by Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1232, Sec. 2.01, eff. June 17, 2011.

You see, in the “old days”, before DVDs and the internet, ESCs played a role in many classrooms. For example, because it was too expensive for every school to purchase 8mm films, ESCs offered educational films teachers could simply check out. In the days before Xerox when teachers still used mimeograph machines (the copies with purple ink), ESCs offered workrooms for teachers to make professional looking posters, lettering, and other supplies for their classrooms. They also had educational reference libraries and offered a variety of teacher training workshops. There were 20 ESCs spread across the State to make it easier for all schools to have access to their services.

But the world has changed. Most of the services provided by ESCs in the “old days” aren’t needed anymore. Private Educational Service and Consulting companies have sprung up everywhere and are now competing with the ESCs for school district business. Technology changes daily and the ESCs battle against private companies to stay relevant.

The ESC Executive Directors know they have a very short window of opportunity to come up with something they can use to claim they are still relevant,  or they all have to look for new jobs on 9/1/15. (The date the Sunset Provision could shut down all ESCs.)

What better way to claim they are not only relevant, but NECESSARY, if the majority of  school districts in Texas rely on their product for  curriculum, lesson plans, tests,  and all teaching materials? ESCs could claim that if they closed,  there would be chaos in schools across Texas!!! Of course, that is NOT TRUE, but if they scream it loud enough, some people might believe them.

They also know that the citizens of Texas are now awake, politically active, and sick and tired of their hard earned money going to unnecessary  government agencies. So, there is an excellent chance that 20 ESCs will no longer be open all around the state come 2016.

So the TESCCC Board members could simply make money off of CSCOPE via TESCCC instead of being employed by an ESC. They could follow in the footsteps  of past Board members from the Harris County Department of Education (HCDE) who have found clever ways of making money from service on their Board.

Take for example the Mayor of Katy, Don Elder. When he left the HCDE Board,  he was hired as a “consultant” for one of the non-profit corporations set up by HCDE  and has been paid around $100,000 every year.

Another HCDE board member, Roy Morales, uses a different technique. He is a “Business Development Consultant – commissionable /independent contactor “ for a company that has multiple contracts with HCDE and HCDE’s non-profit corporations. So after he leaves the Board in January, he can still earn income from the work he did to expand the company’s business with HCDE and its non-profit corporations.


So, what is the true mission of TESCCC and CSCOPE? To assist school districts or the Board members? To ensure the quality of education  for Texas students or the  quality of life of Board members?

All I know for sure is that HCDE uses the same tactics TESCCC is using to attempt to block the release of public records - arguing release  would harm their business interests.  But, without release of business records, taxpayers would have never known that an HCDE Board member could earn commissions from  district contracts.

Could this answer the question:   Why the need for secrecy at TESCCC?


How did CSCOPE sell so fast?


It took Smart Phones 2.5 years to capture 50% of the cell phone market and people don’t need school board approval to buy one.

In sales, the average  Conversion Rates is  about 29%. That means 1 actual closed sale for every 3 product inquires.

To establish “monopoly  power” the US Court of Appeals  requires a minimum market share of 70-80%…… and…… Sec. 26  the Bill Of Rights in the Texas Constitution states that monopolies “shall never be allowed” in Texas.

Yet, in only 2.5 years, TESCCC has captured 70% of the Texas School District curriculum market –  the cusp of “monopoly” status – with CSCOPE -  a product that was still in the developmental stage  and had never been reviewed or tested…... and……TESCCC  only marketed their product at two conferences -  TASA/TASB and TASA Midwinter.

That is either a sales record that belongs in the Guinness Book  or something fishy is going on with CSCOPE.

Why did 70% of Texas Superintendents convince their School Boards to approve funds for a curriculum product that had never even been tested or reviewed? Did they not know what they were buying? Did they assume that if it was sold by ESCs, it had the approval of the SBOE?

Or, was it sold as a product that could help to guarantee that ESCs in Texas would stay “relevant’  - and thus - stay funded?

Why would they care? Could it simply be the oldest reason in the book….$ MONEY $?

There is a very limited market for top tiered school administrators in Texas and they watch out for each other like a fraternity. There are limited places for them to earn big bucks after leaving ISDs. If ESCs close, a gravy train of State funds dries up for them.

As one  State Legislator said to me, "Everyone knows ESCs are where old school administrators go to retire." 


How dysfunctional is the TESCCC management process?


The minutes of the TESCCC Board meetings I was able to obtain raise even more questions about what is going on inside TESCCC and who has oversight over the public funds they control?

One example of very questionable  business practices is TESCCC’s dealings with a company called National Education Resources (NER.) This is what I can put together from the partial minutes released.

It appears  that for the first two years, all funds from  CSCOPE flowed through NER at some time. Districts paid ESCs, ESCs paid NER, then NER sent a percentage back to TESCCC.


Millions of dollars in public funds changing hands..

...…. yet….

• Months without a formal contract?

(8/10/10) …emphasis on need to have a formal contract with NER…(10/11/10)… The (NER) contract under construction now is to simply capture the current agreement between the TESCCC and NER…(11/8/10)… J. Bass mentioned that the draft NER contract was just finalized and reviewed by legal…                                                                  (1/10/11)… G. Gibson updated the Board on the NER contract development process.

• Contracts that “guess” performance?

(11/8/10) … Greg Gibson emphasized that this is an agreement to represent what is currently in place with NER and the TESCCC. It is an attempt , with some “guessing” to capture what is currently in place with NER in terms of performance, etc…

• No check of the company’s financials?

(11/8/10) … D.Lovett asked if there were more specifics on the financial health and state of NER’s operation. G. Gibson said that no work was done on the financial state of NER outside of this agreement..

• No required audit?

(1/10/11)… G. Gibson updated the Board on the NER contract development process. …the motion also included the elimination of the requirement to have a SAS 70 audit. Instead, TESCCC will retain the right to conduct a technology audit of NER facilities at any time. The Board unanimously approved.

• Nothing in place to review billing?

(2/13/12)…A.Polin explained that some ESCs have noticed discrepancies in invoicing from NER. A Poplin asked that the Governing Board members review and confirm that they have been correctly invoiced.

• No record of data collection?

(4/16/12)… A.Poplin explained that it is necessary to survey districts to find out what locally customized data is in the NER Developer. That knowledge is necessary to validate that NER has transferred all of the data to the State (CSCOPE) Office.

**Note: July 2012 appears to be the  final month of services from NER.


Did no one at TESCCC  - or the lawyers or consultants they hired - even do a simple Google search to find that NER’s address is a home in NY and notice that there is no  company website ?




Concerns over the management practices at TESCCC don’t stop with NER.

•  TESCCC employees amended the budget and spent public funds without Board approval.

(9/13/10)… W. Labay discussed the 09-10 budget, providing summary and detailed documents. SOME MEMBERS QUESTIONED CERTAIN BUDGET AMENDMENTS AND EXPENDITURES THAT WERE MADE WITHOUT BOARD APPROVAL. When it was revealed that the funds in question needed to be expended during a month when there was no Board meeting, the members agreed that a procedure must be written that delineates the actions that need to be taken under such circumstances…

• TESCCC appears more concerned with making money than providing school districts with services:

(2/14/11)… The science lessons will be ready on schedule. We are releasing only the first 12 weeks because there is concern that districts will download a year of lessons and then end or not renew their CSCOPE contracts…

(3/31/11)… W. Labay also included that many ESCs are hosting event/conferences in the summer … somewhat pose a competitive risk to the (State CSCOPE) conference

(8/8/11)… C. Bayuk – Expresses that Leadership Team is extremely concerned about these vendors … because many are in direct competition to CSCOPE.

(2/13/12)… R.Beard explained that his staff asked if CSCOPE could be sold differently from the central practice of district-wide adoption.The Governing Board discussed that this would depart from original, systemic intent; …that some districts might downsize given the option.

(9/13/10)… Gibson summarized the negotiations with the three textbook publishers for contracts to align with CSCOPE. …although we were hoping to get a guaranteed amount in advance from these companies, they are not interested in paying a significant amount for nonexclusive arrangements with us ($50,000)…some in attendance  wanted to continue with the process since their districts had asked for the textbook alignments. Others were concerned about the amount of resources that would have to be invested to review and approve each company’s alignment; currently we don’t know exactly how much time, effort, and manpower the review would take…SEVERAL ATTENDEES EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT PROVIDING WHAT COULD BE SUPERFICIAL TEXTBOOK ALLIGNMENTS TO CSCOPE IF THE MISSION OF CSCOPE IS TO CHANGE INSTRUCTION IN THE CLASSROOM…Board unanimously approved to delay negotiations… and revisit the issue at the January meeting.

• Lack of review of  curriculum materials

(2/13/12)… T. Smith stated the issue of an external review of CSCOPE is becoming more prominent in information requests. The Governing Board may want to consider the option of hiring an outside group to review CSCOPE components…The question was asked if we had any idea who might perform the external review…W.Labay stated that we could use individuals and companies who perform textbook reviews as well as soliciting statewide input.

(3/5/12)…T.Smith explained that the recommendation for an external review …an estimated cost is $75,000 per content area….A.Poplin clarified that the total cost is not included in the budget W.Labay prepared for 212-13….The Governing Board discussed the option of only reviewing one content area or one component across all content areas to begin with.

(4/16/12)… T.Smith stated that the CSCOPE content review starts with Science only

So, who is ultimately responsible for this mess?


If you go back to the flowchart, I think you will find that we are.





 We elected the Legislature who funds the ESCs and the Governor who appointed the Commissioners of Education.


If we want it clean up, we need to let them know that we expect an immediate investigation of TESCCC and CSCOPE with all findings made public.

(Attorney General, Greg Abbott, has now promised a full investigation into TESCCC and CSCOPE.)

And,  we all need to start attending our local ESC Board meetings to make sure our money is being handled properly. We can no longer assume someone else is keeping watch. We have to step up and do the job ourselves.

Your local ESC can be found @ http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=2147503292.

Contact information for your Texas State Senator and Representative @  http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/

Contact information for Governor Rick Perry @ http://governor.state.tx.us/contact/

Contact information for Michael Williams, Commissioner of Education @    commissioner@tea.state.tx.us
       512-463-8985


See you at the meetings.


Colleen Vera
colleen@TexasTrashTalk.com
www.TexasTrashTalk.com

CSCOPE–What’s Behind the Curtain? Part I (Updated)

 













(Updated: 3/29/13 Texas Attorney General, Greg Abbott has now promised a full investigation of TESCCC and CSCOPE.)

As a retired Texas pubic school teacher, the recent concerns being raised over CSCOPE curriculum sparked my interest.

I wanted to know more about the business side of CSCOPE, so I  filed a Public Information Request for the meeting minutes of their governing board. Instead of finding answers, all I found were more questions.


#1 – If a State agency used tax dollars to develop a product, doesn’t the product belong to the People of Texas?


Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative (TESCCC)’s own attorney gives this CSCOPE background:

TESCCC was originally established as a collaborative of several of the Education Service Centers (ESC) in Texas with the stated purpose to provide high quality curriculum and instruction materials, resources, and professional development for Texas public school districts. Subsequently, TESCCC developed CSCOPE which is a comprehensive, user friendly, curriculum support system. As CSCOPE became widely used among Texas school districts, it was necessary for TESCCC to formally organize itself to better protect its intellectual property and serve its customers. Now, TESCCC is a non-profit corporation organized under the Texas Business Organization Code. TESCCC was incorporated in 2009 and was granted non-profit status under 501©(3) of the Internal Revenue Code …Today 816 of the approximately 1230 Texas public school Districts and charter school systems use the CSCOPE product. Although the Attorney General’s office determined in OR2012-04869 dated April 4, 2012 that TESCCC was subject to the Public Information Act, TESCCC operates in every other way as a private corporation.

Public funds paid for the development of CSCOPE. TESCCC is a committee of paid State employees. How can paid employees of a state agency simply transfer ownership of CSCOPE from the People of Texas to a private corporation? Were The People compensated at fair market value for CSCOPE or did TESCCC simply claim eminent domain?

Did the 19 ESC Executive Directors who make up the TESCCC have votes of approval from the 19 elected ESC boards that oversee them? Did TESCCC get written approval from the Commissioner of Education before transferring State property to a private corporation?



#2 – What is TESCC trying to hide?


In April of 2012, the Texas Attorney General ruled that CSCOPE’s governing board, TESCCC, is a “governmental body.” A quote from the ruling:

… upon, review we conclude that the collaborative is funded through public funds, and the collaborative is governed by governmental bodies, namely the member ESCs through its governing board…Accordingly, we conclude that the collaborative falls within the definition of a "governmental body" under section 552.003(1)(A)(xii) of the Government Code.

But TESCCC refused to release all their meeting minutes. Instead, they went back to the Attorney General for another ruling claiming :

…when read as a whole, the minutes TESCCC seeks to withhold offer insight into how the board operates …access into the inner-workings of the organization and how it makes decisions…

REALLY??? They paid a lawyer to write this???
Isn’t that the true purpose behind open meetings and open records? Giving the public insight into how governmental boards operate and how decisions are made?

In fact, Texas law specifically states:

§ 551.022. The minutes and tape recordings of an open meeting are public records and shall be available for
public inspection and copying on request to the governmental body’s chief administrative officer
or the officer’s designee.

I didn’t ask for anything from closed sessions, simply the minutes from meetings I could legally have taped myself. What is in those minutes that State employees are afraid the people who pay their salaries will find out? What are they going to so much trouble to hide?



#3. Have TESCCC meetings been legally posted?


Texas laws are very specific about the posting of public meetings.

Two that appear to apply to TESCCC are:

§ 551.041.  A governmental body shall give written notice of the date, hour, place, and subject of each meeting held by the governmental body

§ 551.044.  Governmental Body With Statewide Jurisdiction (a) The secretary of state must post notice on the Internet of a meeting of a state board,
commission, department, or officer having statewide jurisdiction for at least seven days before the day of the meeting. ..

Yet, a search of the Open Meeting Archive on the Texas SOS website shows no record of TESCCC meetings ever being posted. 

The law goes on to read:

§ 551.141. An action taken by a governmental body in violation of this chapter is voidable.

§ 551.142. (a) An interested person, including a member of the news media, may bring an action by mandamus or injunction to stop, prevent, or reverse a violation or threatened violation of this chapter by
members of a governmental body.

If the TESCCC board meetings have not been legally posted with the SOS, who is responsible for voiding TESCCC’s actions and stepping in to oversee the millions of dollars in public funds they control? The Commissioner of Education? The State Comptroller? The SOS? The AG? The Legislature? Who is watching out for the People?

(After the Texas State Senate Education Committee held a public hearing on CSCOPE 1/31/13, TESCCC held its first publicly posted meeting on 2/18/13.)
(Texas Attorney General, Greg Abbott, has promised a full investigation into TESCCC and CSCOPE.)
#4. Should employees of the State of Texas be doing work for a private corporation while being paid by the taxpayers to work for the State?


In the letter TESCCC’s attorney sent to the AG to block release of their meeting minutes he states:

Although the Attorney General’s office determined…that TESCCC was subject to the Public Information Act, TESCCC operates in every other way as a private corporation…

Really? A private corporation and not an extension of Texas Educational Service Centers? Then…

• why do job postings at ESC13 read,”Serve as representative of the  Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative (TESCCC) and ESC Region XIII”?
• why is the State Director of CSCOPE, who works for TESCCC,  listed as “staff” at ESC 13?
• why does his job description read: “Serve as a representative of the Center and TESCCC.” ?
• why is his email address on a tax supported website and not a corporate site?   wade.labay@esc13.txed.net
• why does he have the same email and phone number as he did when he was presenting a Block Scheduling seminar for ESC13 in 2007? 
• why did the link to register for the TESCCC sponsored state conference in 2012 go the tax supported ESC13 website instead of a corporate site?  http://ecampus.esc13.net
• why does a reply for a request for public information sent to TESCCC get returned from: 

Mason Moses Public Information Officer
Texas System of Education Service Centers
Office: 512-919-5349
Fax: 512-919-5232 ???

But more importantly, who is keeping track of the hours State ESC employees are spending developing a product owned by a private corporation?

Some excerpts from TESCCC minutes show that State ESC employees are doing TESCCC work on taxpayer time.

10-11-10  TESCCC Governing Board Meeting @ ESC 13

J. Vasquez  (Ex Dir ESC19)commented that 2/3 of his staff have been tied down with CSCOPE work at this point in time…C.Bayuk commented that it is better for ESC staff to be part of the development process and not just have contracted personnel…she encouraged a model where each member ESC devotes staff to some degree throughout the development process

8/6/12 TESCCC Governing Board Meeting @ ESC 13
A. Poplin (Ex Dir ESC9) added that her own secretary has taken on a lot of CSCOPE work since there is no administrative support for W. Labay or the State Office in general.

Meeting minutes also show that the TESCCC board meetings coincide with the State CCRS meetings. It appears that ESC directors travel to Austin for the TESCCC meetings using travel allowed for CCRS. Does that mean pubic funds are paying salaries and travel to benefit a private corporation? The two meetings are so intertwined that…

• on 2/14/2012 the TESCCC minutes read: “J. Bass stated that the date of the next CCRS meeting will dictate the date of the next Governing Board meeting.”

• on 8/8/11 the TRSCCC minutes read: “Adjourned at 11:37am and reconvened at 3:58pm after CCRS meeting.”

• on 5/7/12  the TESCCC minutes read: “Approval of the ESC Public Information Specialist position - postpone that for CCRS”

What private corporation has the approval of a State Agency Public Information Officer position on its agenda???

Minutes also show that ESC13 is listed as the “fiscal agent” for TESCCC and the TESCCC State Staff is housed at ESC13. Does that mean employees of a private  corporation are able to earn state employee benefits like state sick leave credits and/or state retirement credits because they are paid via ESC13?

Does TESCCC provide an extra stipend to its board members or do the taxpayers pick up the entire tab for their extra work on the TESCCC Board, its committees and CSCOPE?

(Texas Attorney General, Greg Abbott, has promised a full investigation into TESCCC and CSCOPE.)

#5 – Should State agencies use tax dollars to operate businesses to compete  with private enterprise?

Should 19 State employees be allowed to operate a private corporation inside a Texas State agency and block the taxpayers from information on what they are doing?  Is it really saving taxpayers money when the taxpayers are the investors, the debt holders and the clients?


TESCCC meeting minutes state:

…approximately $4.1 million to develop CSCOPE from the beginning…based from the work done for the FAST Report of 2010. However, the costs would have increased since new components have been added and that original estimate was completed in 2010.

Plus it appears that each participating ESC pays TESCCC:

• “one flat rate amount”  to join TESCCC and earn the right to sell CSCOPE,
• another annual “flat rate amount”,
•   12-14% of their CSCOPE revenue  each year based on $7.oo per ADA
• plus 12% recapture amount from NER back to TESCCC based on invoiced costs                             (minutes 3/31/11 +5/9/11)

Does this mean that:

• A State agency  used State funds to develop CSCOPE…
• State employees gave  CSCOPE to a private corporation….
• State taxpayers pay the salaries of the board who runs it and the directors who oversee it….
• State taxpayers pay yearly fees for the right to sell it to local taxpayers…
• Local taxpayers pay for their school districts to use it…
• And a private corporation gets the “profits”…????

What a racket…and just think of all the State employee expenses and benefits the taxpayers are covering along the way.

(Texas Attorney General, Greg Abbott, has promised a full investigation into TESCCC and CSCOPE.)

Why does it have to be so complicated? Why can’t the school districts just buy CSCOPE from an ESC like other products?

Could the answer be in the spirit of Texas Education Code Sec 8.056 which places limits on the ESCs charging school districts more than their administrative costs as well as restrictions on ESCs retaining profits in certain situations?

It appears from the TESCCC minutes that in 2011,

• the school districts paid their local ESC for CSCOPE
• the ESC paid NER (National Education Resources, Inc)
• NER sent TESCCC back 12%

With monies moving around this way, the  ESCs don’t technically charge above their administrative costs and don’t technically keep any “profits.” It is technically a “private corporation” that keeps the “profits.”


Just how much “profit” are we talking about?


TESCCC  incorporated in 2009 and claims their fund balance on 8/8/11 was  $1.8 million.  That means TESCCC nets an average of $900,000 per year. Not a bad “profit” for a “non-profit.”


But, beyond the money aspect is the question of “competitive advantage.”


TESCCC  argues that they should not have to release meeting minutes  to the taxpayers for a number of reasons, two being…

• TECSSS could lose its competitive advantage over its for-profit competitors and
• TESCCC will suffer specific harm if its RFP process, how it maintains its vendor relationships, and how strategic decisions are made for the development of CSCOPE are  known

Just what do the TESCCC meeting minutes tell us about their management?……

Read on in  Part II….





Colleen Vera
colleen@TexasTrashTalk.com
http://www.texastrashtalk.com/