School Districts' Needs vs Wants

Later this year, the Texas Supreme Court will hear arguments from attorneys representing over 600 Texas school districts who claim they cannot properly educate Texas school children because the State does not provide enough money.

As a retired teacher who taught in 4 Texas public school districts over 30 years, I know first-hand that “money” does not equal “learning.” 

Yet, Texas School Boards and Superintendents seem to always be screaming that the answer to low performing schools is more tax dollars.

Some offer complex explanations of how items from testing requirements to unfunded mandates drain the districts’ budgets – so much so - that hiring classroom teachers only occurs if funds are left over. 

But could there be a much simpler explanation?

Something as basic as “needs vs wants”?

Did Lt Governor Patrick  hit the nail on the head when he was quoted as saying:

“I am proud of the Texas Senate for uniting to produce a conservative, responsible, state budget that will sufficiently fund our state’s needs over the next biennium, while providing $3.8 billion in necessary tax relief to the businesses and property owners of Texas.” 

The Texas Senate figured a way to fund the “needs” of Texans and cut taxes. Why can't 600+ Texas school districts figure it out?

Look closer at Patrick’s statement. Notice the two words: conservative and needs.

The Texas Senate budgeted for the “needs” of Texans, NOT for the “wants” of every Legislator or school superintendent.

That is the true fiscal difference between liberals and conservatives. 

Conservatives believe taxpayer  money should only be collected for “needs” that only government can provide, (roads, schools, military, etc.) while liberals believe they are ENTITLED to taxpayers supplying their “wants” (day care, health care, cell phones, etc.)

But so many education leaders are “liberals” these days,  that often student “needs” and district “wants” are  purposely mingled. 

To prove the point, I tried a little experiment: comparing the spending habits of two public officials – a conservative who believes taxpayers should only fund the “needs” of government vs a liberal who believes taxpayers should be paying more to provide for “wants.”

I selected two public officials from my area who were both new to their offices –

                    Dan Patrick 

      Texas Lt Governor

                         

Took office  1/13/2015 

and

James Colbert 

School Superintendent 

Harris County

                              

Took Office 12/1/14 

I filed public information requests to find out how each official had spent public funds on "wants" vs "needs" from 1/1/15 thru 6/1/15.

Was there a significant difference? I will let you decide.

First – Office Needs

Both men were provided the same fully furnished office space their predecessors had used.

Conservative (Patrick) – The CapitalBuilding required the office be repainted between occupants. Furniture wasselected from current inventory. Nothing was purchased for redecorating his office.

Liberal (Colbert) – Hired a decorator and went shopping with the taxpayers’ money. Chose the new, modern style furnishings complete with a custom refrigerator. Gave the previous furnishingsto his newly hired assistant, Jimmy Wynn, for use in his new office.

Conservative	Liberal
Lt Governor	School Superintendent
	Desk                                        2,998.21 Serving Cart                           2,548.08 Custom Refrigerator             1,971.74 Conference Table                 4,267.82 End Tables(3)                       4,509.31 Executive Chair                       966.46 Conference Chairs (6)        3,002.16 Guest Chairs (2)                   1,837.29 Sofa                                         1,857.02 Board Room Seating(10)   3,823.50 Board Room Buffet             1,697.06 Board Room Cart                2,423.01 Shutters                                 6,375.00 Picture(1)/Plants(3)           1,500.00 Chrome Coat Rack                 315.00 Freight                                   1,175.95 Installation                          2,732.00 Design Fee                              850.00 New Wall Paper                  2,475.00 New Lighting                       3,193.00
Total   $   0.00	Total    $  50,517.61

Second – Salary

Conservative (Patrick) – 2^nd most powerful person

                                                    in the State.

Liberal (Colbert) – Oversees approximately

                                         1,000 employees

Conservative	Liberal
Lt Governor	School Superintendent
$  600 per month	$  16,250 per month

Third – Cell Phone

Conservative (Patrick) – The Senate does not 

                                                     provide cell phones.

Liberal (Colbert) – New equipment plus 

                                         monthly allowance.

Conservative	Liberal
Lt Governor	School Superintendent
0.00	Equipment                    540.91                                                     Monthly Allowance       75.00

Fourth – Gov't Issued Credit Card

Conservative (Patrick) – The Senate does not 

                                                     issue credit cards.

Liberal (Colbert) – School district credit card.

 Charged for travel; taking board members, district employees, consultants and vendors out for meals; technology supplies.

Conservative	Liberal
Lt Governor	School Superintendent
None	School District MasterCard                                                                                         Chilosos’s Taco House                  20.75 Best Buy                                         324.95 Shady Grove                                   38.48 Schlotzsky’s                                     12.19 Reale’s Pizza                                   66.77 Courtyard by Marriott                769.88 Champions Restaurant                 24.65 Shade Houston                               56.25 Laurenzo’s Grille Dello                 44.62 Laurenzo’s Grille Dello                 53.19 Capital Visitor Parking                   8.00 Lola Houston                                 20.52 Maggiano’s Houston                    69.26 Chick-Fil-A Houston                    10.15 Rudy’s Country Store                     8.15 Reale’s Pizza                                   10.97 Green Mesquite BBQ                    16.33 Marriott Austin                             26.82 Marriott Austin                             25.82 Marriott Austin                           553.61 Babin’s Katy                                   42.68 Chick-Fil-A Houston                    13.85 Shady Grove                                   17.56 Schlotzsky’s                                    12.19 Capital Grill                                    11.14 Shade Houston                             44.97 Shade Houston                             37.48 Embassy Suites Austin               20.00
Total              0.00	Total                    2,361.23

Is there really a difference in the way liberals and conservatives spend public dollars?

This simple experiment seems to show there is.

Do taxpayers work hard to pay their school district taxes because the superintendent “wants”  a custom refrigerator for his office?

Do taxpayers work hard to pay their school district taxes because the superintendent “wants” to use his school district credit card to dine out with his assistants?

Is a school superintendent ENTITLED to plush office furnishings and a tax funded expense account?

That is for you to decide.

But the real  multi-billion dollar question is:

 If the 600+ school districts which are suing the taxpayers for more money would budget as the Texas Senate did – fund “needs” and leave out the “wants” – would they have enough money to educate our kids?

They won't know unless they try.

Note:

 If you would like to let Lt Governor Patrick know how much you appreciate his respect for our hard earned tax dollars, you may contact his comment line at 512-463-5342 or  email:  LTGConstituent.Affairs@ltgov.state.tx.us  

If you would like to let Superintendent Colbert know what you think of his spending habits with public funds, you may contact him at 713-696-0715 or email:  jcolbert@hcde-texas.org 

Colleen Vera
TexasTrashTalk.com

Notice to Harris County Republicans

On 3/29/15 I filed a complaint with the  Harris County Department of Education (HCDE) Trustees over their USE OF OUR LOCAL TAX DOLLARS TO SUPPORT DEMOCRAT CAMPAIGNS.

The HCDE Board will be deliberating the issue at their board meeting on 4/21/15.

Agenda items (8A/9A)

A brief history

HCDE established a 501(c)(3) called The Education Foundation of Harris County (EFHC)  to “support” HCDE, and uses Harris County property tax funds  to supply  EFHC free:

• Office space
• Meeting facilities
• Six figure salary to their CEO
• Website support
• IT services
• Auditing services
• Record storage
• Grant writing services

EFHC Leadership includes:

• a CEO paid with HCDE tax funds
• HCDE Superintendent serving as Board Secretary
• an HCDE  Board Trustee  serving as a liaison member

The Problem?

EFHC’s Board meets six times per year. Their meeting minutes are distributed via HCDE’s tax funded email system and stored by HCDE employees.  At three of those meetings held at HCDE facilities with HCDE Board and Administration participating, the minutes show Douglas Kleiner (EFHC President/CEO) allowed:

• HCDE Board Member Diane Trautman to report on political campaigns involving HCDE Trustees and
• Support the Democrat candidates for public office

Quotes from EFHC’s official meeting minutes:

9/26/13: …We need to make sure we have a competitive candidate to fill that slot and most importantly one who supports HCDE and its programs. Also, in 2014, Debbie Kerner is up for re-election, and we need to support her.

3/27/14: The primary elections are over and the two candidates for HCDE Trustee positions I would ask you to endorse and vote for in the upcoming November election are Debbie Kerner, current HCDE board vice president and Melissa Noriega, former Houston city councilwoman and administrator at HISD. The opponents for both of these women support the abolishment of HCDE, Michael Wolfe and Don Sumners.

5/22/14: …Trautman also noted that she was elected Board of Trustees Vice President, taking Debra Kerner’s place. She also reminded the Board that elections are this fall. Two candidates will be on the ballot for HCDE Trustee positions that she feels are most supportive of HCDE’s mission: Melissa Noriega and incumbent, Debra Kerner.

 View the documents: here 

Federal Law

EFHC has filed with the IRS as a 501(c)(3). The IRSwebsite reads:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity.  Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Thus, EFHC is not in compliance with the U.S. Internal Revenue Code.

Texas Law

Texas Ethics Commission Opinions read:

Section 255.003 of the Election Code states that an officer or employee of a political subdivision may not knowingly spend or authorize the spending of public funds for political advertising. “Spending” of public funds includes the use of political subdivision employees’ work time, the use of existing political subdivision equipment, and the use of facilities maintained by a political subdivision. Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 443 (2002) (EAO 443).

We also caution that government resources generally may not be used for campaign purposes. See Penal Code § 39.02.

A Short Guide To The Prohibition Against Using SchoolDistrict Resources For Political Advertising In Connection With An Election  pamphlet produced by the Texas Ethics Commission states:

An officer or employee of a political subdivision may not spend or authorize the spending of public funds for political advertising. 

 ”Political advertising” is a communication that advocates a particular outcome  in an election

The prohibition applies to any “officer or employee of a political subdivision.”  In  other  words,  if  a  school  district  employee  makes  a decision to use district resources in violation of the prohibition, the employee could be fined by the Ethics Commission or  held criminally liable.  School board members, as “officers”of a school district, are also subject to the prohibition.

 A  school  district  board  member  or  employee  would  violate  the  prohibition
by “spending or authorizing the spending of public funds” for political advertising.   

Also,  it  is  not  permissible  to  authorize  the  use  of  the paid time of the school district employees to create  or  distribute  political  advertising.  For  example,  school district staff may not copy, staple, or distribute political advertising on work time. 

Another  provision  of  the  Texas  Election  Code prohibits a school board member for employee from using or authorizing the use of an internal mail system to distribute political advertising. An internal mail system is a system operated by a school district to deliver written documents to its board members or employees. A violation of this prohibition could also lead to the imposition of fines by the Ethics Commission or to criminal prosecution. 

View supporting documents: here 

Not a Simple Mistake

A mistake is something happening one time. Someone beginning to speak in support of a candidate in a local election before being stopped by the CEO of a 501(c)(3) reminding the board that by law they can’t discuss candidates or campaigns.

But these minutes show the activity was not only routine, it is so acceptable at EFHC that it was included in their OFFICIAL MEETING MINUTES!  Two out of six meetings in 2014 means 33% of their meetings included political campaign activity. That is no simple mistake.

Action Needed

The political activity by the EFHC is a repeated and blatant violation of both the Internal Revenue Code and Texas Election Code. Because HCDE is supporting this activity with Harris County taxpayer funds I urge HCDE to immediately:

• sever all ties between HCDE and EFHC including removal of EFHC and all EFHC documents from HCDE property and servers
• initiate legal action to force EFHC to refund all public funds it received from HCDE since 9/26/2013
• approve a public censure of HCDE Trustee Diane Trautman for using her position as EFHC liaison for political purposes
• issue a public apology  to the Republican Party of Harris County for allowing the use of public funds to promote Democrat candidates for County School Trustee

Voice your opinion

You may voice your opinion to the HCDE Board via email:

Republicans
Angie Chesnut, President	achesnut@hcde-texas.org
Kay Smith, Vice President	kasmith@hcde-texas.org
Marvin Morris	mmorris@hcde-texas.org
Don Sumners	dsumners@hcde-texas.org
Michael Wolfe	mwolfe@hcde-texas.org
Democrats
Erica Lee Carter	elee@hcde-texas.org
Diane Trautman	dtrautman@hcde-texas.org

You may voice your opinion to the HCDE Board via phone message: 713-694-6300 

You may also speak in person during the Open Forum at the HCDE Board meeting

on Tuesday,April 21, 2015 at 1:00pm. 

Location: HCDE Administration 

                Ronald W. Reagan Building 
                6300 Irvington Blvd. 
                Houston, TX 77022

                map

Board Meeting Agenda: Items 8A and 9A

Colleen Vera

colleen@TexasTrashTalk.com

HCDE–Laws & Courts–Phooey

When the 14th Court of Appeals refused to step in to overrule Judge Emmett’s decision not to put the HCDE tax increase on the ballot this November, many hoped the fight to prevent HCDE from using Equalization Tax dollars to fund child care  was over for now. At least until Early to Rise comes back with a better worded petition in 2014.

But not so. It seems HCDE will be doing some of the work themselves. And in their usual M.O., they hid it deep inside their 723 page September 17, 2013 Meeting Agenda.

On page 632, using the term “transfer”, HCDE is asking the board to approve  $550,787 Equalization Tax dollars to be used alongside $340,000 in  Houston Endowment donations to match $1,807.943 in federal funds  for “direct child care” and “child care quality improvement” – the same type of thing the Early to Rise petition wanted a private non-profit to do.




It isn't the $30 million per year Early to Rise wanted, but it is a start using the tax HCDE already collects.

The Agenda item reads:

6G - Consider approval of a certification contribution agreement between the HCDE CASE Division and the Gulf Coast Workforce Board for the period of 10/01/13 through 9/30/14. HCDE will certify $890,787 to receive matching funds from the Gulf Coast Workforce Board for the CASE Partnership Project in the amount of $1,307,943 (approximately 2,000 students served.)

But can the Equalization Tax, which is collected for “the maintenance of the public schools (TEC 18.01)” in Harris County, be used to improve the quality of child care?

Just this month in the arguments put before the 14th Court of Appeals in the Early to Rise  case,  four different attorneys on the winning side stated that the law requires distribution of the Equalization Tax funds to the school districts of the county:


Found in the Statement of the Case presented by Judge Emmett’s Attorneys, we find:

“The board of education shall distribute the moneys collected from the equalization tax according to the express provisions of Section 18.14, which requires that any funds collected under Chapter 18 “be distributed to the common and independent school districts of the county on the basis of the average daily attendance for the prior year.” Id. § 18.14-App.”

The memorandum brief by Vince Ryan, Harris County Attorney reads:

“The Legislature, through the adoption of Section 18.07 of the Texas Education Code, created a mechanism so that every county in the state could collect a countywide equalization tax to be divided among the school districts of the county…

And in an opinion issued by William C Bednar, a Texas school law specialist, he states:

“The concept embodied in the statute is an "additional countywide school district" funded by a single property tax to be deposited in a single "county equalization fund" to be drawn on and expended by an elected county board of education for a county program of education consisting of distribution of funds to eligible school districts for equalization of educational opportunities and the payment of administration expenses. See, Sections 17.031,18.01, 18.14, 18.26,18.28. “

The tax herein provided for shall constitute a part of the school funds of said counties and shall never be levied, assessed, or collected for any purpose other than those herein specified and for the advancement of public
free schools in such counties.. . . [Emphasis added]…

There is no purpose of early childhood education specified anywhere in Chapter 18.”

The  Texas Conference of Urban Counties brief reads:

“…equalization tax revenue must be distributed as specified by Section 18.14, Education Code. Thereafter, the common and independent school districts of the county are free to use the funds in any legally permitted manner…

There is no basis in statute for such limitation - either to permit the Harris County Department of Education to impose restrictions on the use of equalization tax revenue…”

Yet, the HCDE board still chooses to ignore Texas Statute TEC 18.14,  distributes NO Equalization Tax funds to the ISDs of Harris County and uses the Equalization Tax funds anyway they see fit – like matching federal funds for “child care quality improvement.”

They ignore it so much that they were negotiating a contract with the Early to Rise group to hand over control of  all new Equalization Tax revenue to a private non-profit – when the ballot initiative was stopped by Judge Emmett and the 14th Court of Appeals.

But talk has already surfaced about how Early to Rise can reword their next petition to force it on the ballot in 2014.

Because HCDE is so obsolete, is its own political subdivision of the state of Texas, and operates under repealed statutes, there is no longer an entity which oversees their activities.

The County Commissioners have no control over HCDE and TEA has no control over  the Equalization Tax. The Texas Legislature will not meet again until 2015, and the District Attorney’s Office is currently in flux.

So the people of Harris County have no other option but to ask the Texas Attorney for a opinion on HCDE’s activities.


Texas Statute limits who may request Attorney General opinions to:

• the governor
• the head of a department of state government
• the head or board of a penal institution
• the head or board of an eleemosynary institution
• the head of a state board
• a regent or trustee of a state educational institution
• a committee of a house of the Texas Legislature
• a county auditor authorized by law
• the chairman of the governing board of a river authority
• a district or county attorney

Our best bet is to ask the most conservative local person from the list above, Senator Dan Patrick – Chairman of the Senate Education Committee,  to come through for us again and ask the Attorney General three questions:

1. May the citizens of Harris County petition under repealed TEC Chapter 18 to increase the county equalization tax, and if so, can the petition require the increase be used only for a specific purpose?
2. Must the County School Trustees distribute the Equalization Tax funds to the ISDs according to  TEC 18.14, or may they use the funds anyway they see fit?
3. Are the Harris County School Trustees limited to providing services to Harris County public schools or may they provide goods and services to anyone they see fit across Texas?

The citizens of Harris County need these questions answered BEFORE the next ballot petition is initiated and BEFORE HCDE spends all the Equalization Tax revenue this school year.


You can help get this done by contacting Senator Patrick and asking him to request an opinion from the Attorney General on these three questions. The more citizens who ask for his leadership in this matter, the sooner he will file the request, and the sooner our questions will be answered.


District Office:
The Honorable Dan Patrick
11451 Katy Freeway, Suite 209
Houston, Texas 77079
(713) 464-0282
(713) 461-0108 (Fax)
Email:  dan.patrick@senate.state.tx.us


Colleen Vera