Charter Schools: The Beginning of a Reform
The charter school movement is one of the most progressive large scale educational movements in the United States to date. These schools are truly on the forefront of diverse teaching and administrative styles. They do not prescribe to the ‘one side fits all’ doctrine of education and are able to free themselves of a large amount of the bureaucracy that drags down so many district schools. They are able to shape and mold themselves to the needs of the given community they are located in. First appearing in Minnesota in 1991 this movement has grown bigger and bigger every year. In fact, many charter schools are forced to use a lottery system to select students due to the high demand of enroll in their given communities.
Charter schools differ from district schools in many ways. For instance, a charter has a greater amount of accountability to the student, community, state and its sponsor for obtaining academic results. If, at any time, the state or sponsor feels that the school is not living up to its given charter they reserve the right to shut down the school. However, in return for this greater accountability these schools are given more freedom to operate the way they see fit. Acting as self-governing bodies they allow the principle to act like a C.E.O., answering to a board of directors and retaining the power to run the day to day operations like hiring and firing administrators or teachers as he/she sees fit.
These schools do receive public funding and are considered public schools therefore they are unable to charge tuition
. When looking at the funding of charter schools compared to that of district schools, on a national scale, charters get 61% of the funding their district counterparts get.[1] The national average of district schools per student funding is $10,771, where as the national average of charter schools per student funding is $6,585.[2] This trend of district schools having more money per student is the same in every state that contains charter laws with a varying degree.
Most charters work off a lottery system to accept students and exist in urban areas which results in a population that is diverse in race, class and gender. Working in tandem with the district schools, charters can help carry the load of an already over loaded inner city school. These schools are not meant to compete or put district schools ‘out of business’ but they are able to design their classrooms and methods to fit the learning needs of their diverse student body and adopt and change those methods every year as the needs of their students change; they are able cater to their population. As a result, many students who have been expelled or failed out of district schools attend charter schools. Studies have shown that this population of students can be successful in the charter school setting.[3] However, this is not say this is the only population that can be successful in the charter school setting. Because of a charters unique ability to cater more directly to the individual needs of each student, students of any learning style can be successful in this setting.
[1] http://www.edreform.com/charter_schools/funding/
[2] http://www.edreform.com/charter_schools/funding/chart.htm
[3] www.ncpa.org/pub/ba403
Friday, April 2, 2010
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Monday, November 30, 2009
November 12, 2009 Trustee Meeting What is the CFBISD Board Hiding?
November 12, 2009 Trustee Meeting What is the CFBISD Board Hiding?
The Carrollton-Farmer's Branch School Independent School (C-FB ISD) response to TEA Accountability Rating Deserves a Failing Grade.
The TEA Commissioner recent denial the appeal of the Carrollton Farmers Branch Independent School District (C-FB ISD) accountability rating, and the District's subsequent response reveals that the District has difficultly holding itself accountable for its own failures. The District fell short of recogonized rating standard set for the completion standard for hispanic students.
Completion guideline states, students must receive their high school diploma on or before August 31 four years following their initial enrollment as 9th grade students whether in this district or some other district. Thus, the term Completion Rate; the Graduation Rate used by the federal government for AYP purposes only includes "on-time" graduates (students who graduate four years after entering the 9th grade for the first time.) The Completion Rate includes both "on-time" graduates and those students who return for a fifth year. For the 2008-2009, the completion rate would be based on those students who began their initial enrollment as 9th grade students in the 2005-2006 school year or returned (enrolled) for a fifth year in 2008-2009.
This guide was applied to C-FB ISD with the following results according to the press release: "The district fell eight students short of the TEA Recognized rating standard set for the completion rate of 85% in one
student group." Although, press release never mentions it, the student group is Hispanic students. Hispanic students are largest demographic group in the district, composing 45 % student enrollment. Completion Rate includes both "on-time" graduates and those students who return for a fifth year. For the 2008-2009, the completion rate would be based on those students, in the student group, who began there initial enrollment as 9th grade students in the 2005-2006 school year or returned (enrolled) for a fifth year in 2008-2009.
Rather, then accepting the fact that District fell to meet the completion rate standard, and outline changes in policies and procedures for better results in the future, the District provided disingenuous excuses why the district fail to meet the standard. Immediately after noting that District's failure to meet the completion rate standard, the press release states,"In the appeal letter to TEA, C-FB ISD identified seven students who became C-FB ISD graduates but not on the state's timeline. They earned their high school diplomas after the August 31, 2008 deadline."
What the press release fails to mention is the August 31, 2008 deadline is that it applies to those students who began their initial enrollment as 9th grade in 2004-2005 school year and applied to calculating completion rate for 2007-2008 school year, not the 2008-2009 school year for which the appeal was made.
These students only needed to pass one, or more, parts of the Exit Level TAKS assessments to qualify for a high school diploma. They had earned all the course credits necessary to receive a diploma. Students are allowed to retake the TAKS Exit Level tests as often as they elect. None of these students enrolled for a fifth year nor attend any classes in C-FB ISD during the 2008-2009 school year.
Because these students began their initial enrollment in 2004-2005 school year as 9th grade students, and did not return (enroll) as fifth year students in 2008-2009, they were not included in the calculation that resulted in the district falling eight students short of the TEA Recognized rating standard. These students
did not contribute in any way to the District meeting TEA Recognized Standard for the 2008-2009.
The commissioner, in denying the districts appeal, noted that, "No enrollment records were found for the seven who graduated after the close of the 2008 school start window. If they had been enrolled, they would have counted as continuers" However, if these students were counted as continuers, the student group would have
also increase by seven students, requiring (7 * 85% completion rate) 6 additional students to have graduated or return for a fifth year. The district was 8 students short of the 85% completion rate prior to the additional 7 students being added to the student group. After the 7 students are added the district would be 8 + 6 = 14 students short, this would be offset by the fact that all 7 students graduated. Even if the TEA Commissioner has approved the appeal for these seven students, the district fell (14 - 7 = 7) 7 students short of the TEA Recognized rating standard set for the completion rate of 85% in one student group.
Addition these seven students, The district appeal the status one additional student which was summarily dismissed by the commissioner,"Lastly, the appeal for the highly mobile student cannot be considered. Many districts in the state are held accountable for students with similar circumstances. A strength of the
accountability system is that its features are applied uniformly statewide."
Completion guideline states, students must receive their high school diploma on or before August 31 four years following their initial enrollment as 9th grade students whether in this district or some other district. Thus, the term Completion Rate; the Graduation Rate used by the federal government for AYP purposes only includes "on-time" graduates (students who graduate four years after entering the 9th grade for the first time.) The Completion Rate includes both "on-time" graduates and those students who return for a fifth year. For the 2008-2009, the completion rate would be based on those students who began their initial enrollment as 9th grade students in the 2005-2006 school year or returned (enrolled) for a fifth year in 2008-2009.
This guide was applied to C-FB ISD with the following results according to the press release: "The district fell eight students short of the TEA Recognized rating standard set for the completion rate of 85% in one
student group." Although, press release never mentions it, the student group is Hispanic students. Hispanic students are largest demographic group in the district, composing 45 % student enrollment. Completion Rate includes both "on-time" graduates and those students who return for a fifth year. For the 2008-2009, the completion rate would be based on those students, in the student group, who began there initial enrollment as 9th grade students in the 2005-2006 school year or returned (enrolled) for a fifth year in 2008-2009.
Rather, then accepting the fact that District fell to meet the completion rate standard, and outline changes in policies and procedures for better results in the future, the District provided disingenuous excuses why the district fail to meet the standard. Immediately after noting that District's failure to meet the completion rate standard, the press release states,"In the appeal letter to TEA, C-FB ISD identified seven students who became C-FB ISD graduates but not on the state's timeline. They earned their high school diplomas after the August 31, 2008 deadline."
What the press release fails to mention is the August 31, 2008 deadline is that it applies to those students who began their initial enrollment as 9th grade in 2004-2005 school year and applied to calculating completion rate for 2007-2008 school year, not the 2008-2009 school year for which the appeal was made.
These students only needed to pass one, or more, parts of the Exit Level TAKS assessments to qualify for a high school diploma. They had earned all the course credits necessary to receive a diploma. Students are allowed to retake the TAKS Exit Level tests as often as they elect. None of these students enrolled for a fifth year nor attend any classes in C-FB ISD during the 2008-2009 school year.
Because these students began their initial enrollment in 2004-2005 school year as 9th grade students, and did not return (enroll) as fifth year students in 2008-2009, they were not included in the calculation that resulted in the district falling eight students short of the TEA Recognized rating standard. These students
did not contribute in any way to the District meeting TEA Recognized Standard for the 2008-2009.
The commissioner, in denying the districts appeal, noted that, "No enrollment records were found for the seven who graduated after the close of the 2008 school start window. If they had been enrolled, they would have counted as continuers" However, if these students were counted as continuers, the student group would have
also increase by seven students, requiring (7 * 85% completion rate) 6 additional students to have graduated or return for a fifth year. The district was 8 students short of the 85% completion rate prior to the additional 7 students being added to the student group. After the 7 students are added the district would be 8 + 6 = 14 students short, this would be offset by the fact that all 7 students graduated. Even if the TEA Commissioner has approved the appeal for these seven students, the district fell (14 - 7 = 7) 7 students short of the TEA Recognized rating standard set for the completion rate of 85% in one student group.
Addition these seven students, The district appeal the status one additional student which was summarily dismissed by the commissioner,"Lastly, the appeal for the highly mobile student cannot be considered. Many districts in the state are held accountable for students with similar circumstances. A strength of the
accountability system is that its features are applied uniformly statewide."
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
The TEA Commissioner letter denying CFBISD's Appeal of Accountability Ratings raises Additional Questions.
Through an open document request, the editor of this blog was able to obtain a copy of the
letter from TEA Commissioner Robert Scott stating his reasons for denying the District's appeal of its accountability rating for 2008-2009 school year.
First, the Superintendent Bobby Burns requested that TEA Commissioner to apply drop out criteria that are not yet effective. The District requested that the commissioner apply standards which ,by statue, will not be effective until the 2009-2010 school year.
Secondly, the District requested the TEA Commissioner re-consider the status of eight Hispanic non-completers. However, the TEA Commissioner denied this request because, "No enrollment records were found for the seven who graduated after the close of the 2008 school start window. If they had been enrolled, they would have counted as continuers. The appeals process is not an opportunity to correct data by supplying information that either was not known by the resubmission deadline or was not properly reported by that deadline. Lastly, the appeal for the highly mobile student cannot be considered. Many districts in the state are held accountable for students with similar circumstances. A strength of the accountability system is that its features are applied uniformly statewide. "
One has to ask why the Superintendent of Schools believed that the Commissioner would even consider a request that the Commissioner apply standards which ,by statue, will not be effective until the 2009-2010 school year to 2008-2009 school year? Even more perplexing is how seven students could graduate without ever being enrolled?
CFBISD Appeal Denial Letter From TEA October 27 2009
First, the Superintendent Bobby Burns requested that TEA Commissioner to apply drop out criteria that are not yet effective. The District requested that the commissioner apply standards which ,by statue, will not be effective until the 2009-2010 school year.
Secondly, the District requested the TEA Commissioner re-consider the status of eight Hispanic non-completers. However, the TEA Commissioner denied this request because, "No enrollment records were found for the seven who graduated after the close of the 2008 school start window. If they had been enrolled, they would have counted as continuers. The appeals process is not an opportunity to correct data by supplying information that either was not known by the resubmission deadline or was not properly reported by that deadline. Lastly, the appeal for the highly mobile student cannot be considered. Many districts in the state are held accountable for students with similar circumstances. A strength of the accountability system is that its features are applied uniformly statewide. "
One has to ask why the Superintendent of Schools believed that the Commissioner would even consider a request that the Commissioner apply standards which ,by statue, will not be effective until the 2009-2010 school year to 2008-2009 school year? Even more perplexing is how seven students could graduate without ever being enrolled?
CFBISD Appeal Denial Letter From TEA October 27 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
CFBISD Budget Deficit for 2009-2010 now projected to exceed $11 million!
Buried in the consent agenda for the for November 12, 2009 board meeting, is the Financial Report for September 2009. This report includes an amended budget for 2009-2010 fiscal year, according to this report the projected expenses with be $2,985,918 HIGHER than the budget approved by the Board of Trustees in late August. Previously, the budget deficit projected for 2009-2010 budget was $8,204,952. The amended budget now projects that new budget deficit will be $11,190,870. This deficit will be funded by depleting the district’s general fund which is essentially the district’s savings account.
CFBISD September 2009 Financial Report
Monday, November 2, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
Carrollton Farmers Branch ISD Press Release September 21, 2009
Carrollton Farmers Branch ISD Press Release September 21, 2009
Here is the text of the District’s Press Release on September 21, 2009.
Please note the press release does not refer to an appeal, although the decision to appeal was made 11 days earlier. According to the press release the district was still consulting with attorneys. Also note, the district characterizes quite properly the ruling of Judge Mohlberg’s Court as “a final judgment”
According to Black’s Law Dictionary:
Here’s the text of the Board of Trustees Resolution on Sept. 10, 2009.
The text for agenda item for this action reads:
The 95th Judicial District Court is Judge Mohllberg’s Court.
Are the members of the Board of Trustees certain that motion on September 10th was authorization to instruct the attorneys to file an appeal in the 5th Court of Appeals in Texas? Are the members of the Board of Trustees willing to be subjected to the consequences for violating the Texas Open Meetings Act? Are the members of Board of Trustees willing to be on record for passing a motion that deceived both the public and press of it’s true intentions?
Here is the text of the District’s Press Release on September 21, 2009.
Statement Regarding Judge’s Order in Richard Fleming’s Case
The Carrollton-Farmers Branch School District is pleased to finally receive Judge Molberg’s ruling. As Judge Molberg noted, the facts of this case raise some perplexing issues.
We are currently reviewing the Judge’s order and final judgment which require the District to continue extensive consultation with our attorneys.
It has been the District’s objective to follow the Texas election law, which requires a candidate to be a District resident for at least six months prior to filing for the position. Carrollton-Farmers Branch School District remains focused on high achievement for all students while continuing to comply with the law.
Please note the press release does not refer to an appeal, although the decision to appeal was made 11 days earlier. According to the press release the district was still consulting with attorneys. Also note, the district characterizes quite properly the ruling of Judge Mohlberg’s Court as “a final judgment”
According to Black’s Law Dictionary:
final judgmentWith respect to Mr. Shor, that is a statement of fact.
n. the written determination of a lawsuit by the judge who presided at trial (or heard a successful motion to dismiss or a stipulation for judgment), which renders (makes) rulings on all issues and completes the case unless it is appealed to a higher court. It is also called a final decree or final decision.
Here’s the text of the Board of Trustees Resolution on Sept. 10, 2009.
"In light of the pending election -- four candidates are spending money, expending efforts, expending resources -- and to prevent the voters and the community members of this district from being disenfranchised, it would be my suggestion that the board's attorneys in the lawsuit pending in Judge Molberg's court be authorized to take the requisite action to obtain a legally final decision as expeditiously as possible."
The text for agenda item for this action reads:
Notice of Regular Meeting September 10, 2009
The Board of Trustees Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD
VIII. Reconvene Public Meeting to Vote on Matters Considered in Closed
Meeting
A. Consider All Matters Related to Cause Number 09-07085, Richard Fleming v. Carrollton-Farmers Branch independent School District and Lynn Chaffin, Presiding Officer, 95th Judicial District Court, Dallas County (Texas Government Code 551.071 – Consultation With Attorney) - Action
The Board of Trustees Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD
VIII. Reconvene Public Meeting to Vote on Matters Considered in Closed
Meeting
A. Consider All Matters Related to Cause Number 09-07085, Richard Fleming v. Carrollton-Farmers Branch independent School District and Lynn Chaffin, Presiding Officer, 95th Judicial District Court, Dallas County (Texas Government Code 551.071 – Consultation With Attorney) - Action
The 95th Judicial District Court is Judge Mohllberg’s Court.
Are the members of the Board of Trustees certain that motion on September 10th was authorization to instruct the attorneys to file an appeal in the 5th Court of Appeals in Texas? Are the members of the Board of Trustees willing to be subjected to the consequences for violating the Texas Open Meetings Act? Are the members of Board of Trustees willing to be on record for passing a motion that deceived both the public and press of it’s true intentions?
Thursday, October 29, 2009
TEA Commissioner Robert Scott denied its request to adjust the district’s rating and Creekview’s rating from Academically Acceptable to Recognized.
The Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD (C-FB ISD) has learned that TEA Commissioner Robert Scott denied its request to adjust the district’s rating and Creekview’s rating from Academically Acceptable to Recognized. The district submitted an appeal to TEA because it had missed one of the 10 indicators on the dropout/completion rate. As a result, the district has an academically acceptable rating as well as Creekview.
The editor of this blog has made an open document request for the copy of the notification letter from TEA Commissioner Robert Scott. The letter will explain the basis for the commissioner's decision.
Texas school district administrators this week learned the fate of their challenges to 2008-09 accountability ratings issued in July. Last year, 83 appeals were submitted to the TEA. This year, 223 appeals were filed, and most were based on completions.
According to the Fort Worh Star-Telegraph, the Texas Education Agency agreed to raise the accountability ratings for the entire Keller school district and an Arlington high school but denied appeals to change ratings at two Fort Worth high schools.
Like C-FBISD, for all three school districts, the problem centered on the completion rate, which was part of the ratings for the first time this year for students who entered high school in 2004-05. The completion rate measures the students who graduate as scheduled or return for another year of school.
Hopefully, the open document request will provide insight into why the TEA Commissioner found that the C-FBISD appeal was without merit.
The editor of this blog has made an open document request for the copy of the notification letter from TEA Commissioner Robert Scott. The letter will explain the basis for the commissioner's decision.
Texas school district administrators this week learned the fate of their challenges to 2008-09 accountability ratings issued in July. Last year, 83 appeals were submitted to the TEA. This year, 223 appeals were filed, and most were based on completions.
According to the Fort Worh Star-Telegraph, the Texas Education Agency agreed to raise the accountability ratings for the entire Keller school district and an Arlington high school but denied appeals to change ratings at two Fort Worth high schools.
Like C-FBISD, for all three school districts, the problem centered on the completion rate, which was part of the ratings for the first time this year for students who entered high school in 2004-05. The completion rate measures the students who graduate as scheduled or return for another year of school.
Hopefully, the open document request will provide insight into why the TEA Commissioner found that the C-FBISD appeal was without merit.
Did Lynn Chaffin act when She had a Conflict of Interest?
Video by CFBOutsideObserver
Did Lynn Chaffin act when She had a Conflict of Interest?
In the October 12, meeting a motion was considered to terminate the appeal, and the board president abstained from voting on the motion. The board president cited a potential conflict of interest. If a potential conflict of existed for the board president on a motion to terminate the appeal, certainly the same conflict of interest existed when voting to initiate the appeal. However, when considering the September 10th motion, the board president did not relinquished the chair, nor abstain from the vote. If the intent of September 10th motion was a vote to authorize the district's attorneys to seek an appeal, the board president acted when she knew she had a potential conflict of interest.
Did Lynn Chaffin act when She had a Conflict of Interest?
In the October 12, meeting a motion was considered to terminate the appeal, and the board president abstained from voting on the motion. The board president cited a potential conflict of interest. If a potential conflict of existed for the board president on a motion to terminate the appeal, certainly the same conflict of interest existed when voting to initiate the appeal. However, when considering the September 10th motion, the board president did not relinquished the chair, nor abstain from the vote. If the intent of September 10th motion was a vote to authorize the district's attorneys to seek an appeal, the board president acted when she knew she had a potential conflict of interest.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
You can't have your Cake and Eat it too!
The Board of Trustees of Carrollton Farmers Branch Indepedendent School District violate "Texas Open Meeting Act" at the September 10, 2009 by passing a motion that purportedly instructs the District's legal counsel to file appeals in, any and all, the litigation regarding Richard Fleming; including making an appeal to the Texas State Supreme Court?
Under the “Texas Open Meeting Act” decisions entrusted to the
board of trustees must be made by the body as a whole at a properly
called meeting. A properly called meeting requires that the meeting be
conducted in public, follow a published agenda, and a majority members
be present . Any action of the board requires the majority vote of
those present.
Notice of Regular Meeting September 10, 2009
VIII. Reconvene Public Meeting to Vote on Matters Considered in Closed
Meeting
A. Consider All Matters Related to Cause Number 09-07085, Richard Fleming v. Carrollton-Farmers Branch independentSchool District and Lynn Chaffin, Presiding Officer, 95th Judicial District Court, Dallas County (Texas Government Code 551.071 – Consultation With Attorney) - Action
After reconvening from an executive session into a public session, the Board of Trustees President Chaffin inquired of the board, if there is any action to be taken under item VIII of the agenda. Trustee Frank Shor (below) immediately made the following motion. James Goode seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously Sept 10.
"In light of the pending election -- four candidates are spending money, expending efforts, expending resources -- and to prevent the voters and the community members of this district from being disenfranchised, it would be my suggestion that the board's attorneys in the lawsuit pending in Judge Molberg's court be authorized to take the requisite action to obtain a legally final decision as expeditiously as possible."
At the October 22, 2009 regular meeting Mark Gommesen, Carrollton a resident, inquired of Board President Chaffin to show where in the official minutes of the Board of Trustees instructed the legal counsel to file an appeal in the Texas 5th Court of Appeals. In response to Mr. Gommesen, Board President Lynn Chaffin said the motion above gave the district's attorneys the green light to file an appeal in Fleming's lawsuit against the district. Mr. Shor concurred, specifically pointing to phrase, "authorized to take the requiste action to obtain a legally final decision" in the above motion. But at least one trustee didn't interpret it that way when she voted for the motion.
"I took it to mean the final decision in Judge Molberg's court," Karin Webb
If Ms. Chaffin and Mr. Shor, are correct that the September 10th motion, was an authorization to legal counsel to take action beyond the 95th Civil Judicial Court, Judge Mohlberg's court, the Board of Trustees violated the "Texas Open Meeting Act."
The agenda item above did not provide sufficient notification to "alert" the public of the Board of Trustees intent to authorize potentially numerous judicial appeals. The Fleming case involves the Board of Trustee President declaring Richard Fleming, a candidate ,elected by a majority of the voters May 9, 2009, administratively ineligible. Any action by the Board of the Board of Trustees authorizing additional litigation regarding Mr. Richard Fleming is of great importance to the community. Any agenda item, which the Board of Trustees was to take action to authorize and initiate legal action, must"provide full and adequate notice, particularly where the subject slated for discussion was one of special interest to the public."
The agenda only references, "All Matters Related to Cause Number 09-07085, Richard Fleming v. Carrollton-Farmers Branch independentSchool District and Lynn Chaffin, Presiding Officer, 95th Judicial District Court, Dallas County." The Board of Trustees was only take action on matters related to case in the 95th Judicial District Court. The courts have been consistent, provisions of the "Texas Open Meetings Act,"are mandatory and are to be liberally construed in favor of open government."
The Board of Trustees were only discuss and seek advice from legal counsel on the item specifically identified in the agenda; it is not even permissable to considered possible related matters.
Olympic Waste Services v. City of Grand Saline, 204 S.W.3d 496 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2006, no pet.).The city violated the Act when it discussed entering into a new garbage collection contract in a closed session held under section 551.071, which allows a governmental body to seek legal advice from its attorney in closed session. The city council was authorized to consult with the city attorney in closed session about the legal ramifications of terminating its existing garbage collection contract,but it had no authority to discuss “resulting contractual options.”
The district is not legally required or even expected to make an appeal. Statements prior to September 10th by the Board President would lead the public that an appeal was unlikely. Ms. Chaffin Statement
The meeting occurred on September 10, 2009, eleven days later, Judge Ken Molberg ruled in Fleming's favor and the district.There is no reason the public or the press would have reasonably anticipated that Board of Trustees would take action to approved an appeal prior to receiving a disparaging ruling in the district court.
The agenda description was so inadequate and the motion so ambiguous, that its true intent was concealed from the public and the Press. Matt Peterson, of the Dallas Morning News described the action taken by the board of trustees as:
"Shor's motion, backed unanimously by his colleagues, directed the district's attorneys to work toward the "expeditious" resolution of would-be trustee Richard Fleming's case before District Judge Ken Molberg."
In a online being conducted by the Dallas Morning News poll overwhelmingly, the participants do not agree that the motion passed at the September 10th meeting authorized an appeal.
Clearly, if Mr. Shor's motion was indeed a motion to authorize legal counsel to file an appeal on the behalf of the district, the Board of Trusteesdid not make full and adequate notice
to the public and the press as required under the "Open Meetings Act."
The Open Meetings Act provides civil remedies and criminal penalties for violations of its provisions. District
courts have original jurisdiction over criminal violations of the Act as misdemeanors involving official misconduct. 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. The court may assess costs of litigation and reasonable attorney fees incurred by a plaintiff who substantially prevails in an action.
Monday, October 26, 2009
My Time flies when you're litigating!
Video by CFBOutsideObserver
My Time flies when you're litigating!
My Time flies when you're litigating!
It is 171 days since the May 9, 2009 Election.
Or 5 months, 18 days including the end date Alternative time units 171 days can be converted to one of these units: * 14,774,400 seconds * 246,240 minutes * 4104 hours * 24 weeks (rounded down)
The good news its only It is 195 days to May 8, 2010 and the election three new board of trustees members.
Or 6 months, 13 days including the end date Alternative time units 195 days can be converted to one of these units: * 16,848,000 seconds * 280,800 minutes * 4680 hours * 27 weeks (rounded down)But who's counting? Just about everyone.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Open Letter to Board of Trustees -- Investigation Needed
Members of the Board of Trustees , I call upon
you to review the video of the September 10th meeting:
The motion made by Mr. Shor was:
"In light of the pending election -- four candidates are
spending money, expending efforts, expending resources -- and to prevent the
voters and the community members of this district from being disenfranchised,
it would be my suggestion that the board's attorneys in the lawsuit pending
in Judge Molberg's court be authorized to take the requisite action to obtain a
legally final decision as expeditiously as possible."
By voting for this motion the board approved..that " it
would be Frank Shor’s suggestion that the board's attorneys in the lawsuit
pending in Judge Molberg's court be authorized to take the requisite action to
obtain a legally final decision as expeditiously as possible."
Clearly by adopting this motion , the board of trustees,
regardless of its intentions, did NOT authorize any action by anyone, at
anytime.
The board needs to investigate why the motion reported in
the minutes does not match the video of the meeting, so this error could
have been corrected in a timely matter. I would strongly suggest all
notes, preliminary minutes, requested corrections or changes by board members
be secured by the superintendent of schools until the board can convene in
public session to investigate why the material discrepancy exists.
Mark Gommesen
Mark Gommesen
Friday, October 23, 2009
Suddenly a suggestion becomes a motion....
According to the video of the September 10th meeting Mr Shor's actual words were:
"In light of the pending election -- four candidates are spending money, expending efforts, expending resources -- and to prevent the voters and the community members of this district from being disenfranchised, it would be my suggestion that the board's attorneys in the lawsuit pending in Judge Molberg's court be authorized to take the requisite action to obtain a legally final decision as expeditiously as possible."But, the official minutes of the meeting reads :
"...in light of the pending election and the four candidates expending money, efforts andresources to prevent the voters and the community members of this district from being disenfranchised, the Board’s attorney in the lawsuit pending in Judge Mohlberg’s court be authorized to take the requisite action to obtain a legally final decision as expeditiously as possible."Suddenly a suggestion becomes a motion.
Statement made in Defense of Open Governent at C-FBISD meeting.
Mr. Gommesen has provided this blog a copy of his statement at the October 22,2009, Carrollton Farmers Branch ISD board of trustees meetings in defense of open government.
Ms. Chaffin, Dr. Burns, Members of the Board of Trustees:
I address to you tonight not in support of a principal spelled P-R-I-N-C-I-P-A-L but a principle spelled P-R-I-N-C-P-L-E. I address the board of trustees in support of Open Government. It is it is my unwavering belief that government should be conducted in the bright sanitizing light of sunshine.
Madam President , Under Sec. 551.042 of the Texas government code permits that at a meeting of a governmental body, a member of the public or of the governmental body inquires about a subject for which notice has not been given as required by Texas Open Meeting Act, the notice provisions of this Act do not apply to a statement of specific factual information given in response to the inquiry; It is my intent to make such an inquiry and respectfully request a response.
Madam President, I make the following inquiry: I have carefully examined the minutes of this public body. I am unable to locate where this board acted to instruct legal counsel to take action in the 5th appellate court on behalf of the board. Madam President , I inquire where in a the minutes of this body where the board of trustees gave instruction to legal counsel to take action in the Texas 5th Appeals court. Further, seek the assurance that the board did not act in executive session to instruct legal counsel to file in the appeals court.
Under 11.151 of the Texas Education authorizes the board to act as a “corporate board” in litigation.
Madam President, as you are well aware, under the “Texas Open Meeting Act” decisions entrusted to the board of trustees must be made by the body as a whole at a properly called meeting. A properly called meeting requires that the meeting be conducted in public, follow a published agenda, and a majority members be present . Any action of the board requires the majority vote of those present. In the current action in the Texas 5th Court of Appeals, the school district is the appellant. An appellant is defined as, the party bringing the action to court. That is the one who initiates the legal action.
Madam President, For the district to act as a plaintiff , that is initiate an appeal, requires a formal action of the board.
The board of trustees is permitted to consult with attorneys in executive session, the board cannot take any action , as a board, in executive session. “The Texas Open Meeting Act” only permits the board of trustees to seeks the advice of its attorney about pending or contemplated litigation.
In the many month’s of litigation, I can only find one time where this board instructed legal counsel to take action on it’s behalf. At the September 10th regular meeting Mr. Shor made a motion to expedite litigation pending in the 95th District court.
This motion did not authorize legal counsel to file an appeal on the board for many reasons least of which are:
1. The motion was approved 11 days prior to the final ruling on the 95th Judicial District Court on September 21, 2009. It is not reasonable that the board could act to appeal ruling without reviewing the judgment and determining, if would be in the public interest to file an appeal. For the board to approve an action to appeal without first determining what is in the best interest of district, the students, and taxpayers, would be a violation of the public trust. On September 10th , there was simply nothing to appeal.
2. Appealing the judgment of the district court is hardly reaching a final decision "as expeditiously as possible." It could be reasonably argued that the motion prohibits the district's attorney from seeking an appeal.
3. The "final decision “in the "lawsuit pending in Judge Mohlberg's court" would be the trial court's judgment. While this final decision is subject to appeal, it is otherwise a final decision.
4. The district is not legally required to appeal the ruling of the district court, nor is it even expected that the district would file an appeal. Less than 1% of civil case rulings in trial courts are appealed. The Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas, does not require or permit an Attorney to file an appeal on behalf of a client who receives a disparaging ruling in a trial court without instructions from the attorney's client.
5. This resolution was passed unanimously, one of trustees voting in the affirmative have publicly stated her opposition to the appeal prior to this vote. This trustee made a motion at the October 12th special meeting to end this appeal. The language of the September 10th motion is so vague as to mean nothing and everything. Because of wording of this motion is vague, it is not possible to ascertain from this motion the pleasure of the board regarding a future appeal.
6. In the October 12, meeting a motion was considered to terminate the appeal, and the board president abstained from voting on motion. The board president cited a potential conflict of interest. If a potential conflict of existed for the board president on a motion to terminate the appeal, certainly the same conflict of interest existed when voting to initiate the appeal. However, when considering the September 10th motion, the board president did not relinquished the chair, nor abstain from the vote. If the intent of September 10th motion was to authorize the district's attorneys to seek an appeal, the board president acted when she perceive she had a potential conflict of interest.
7. This motion specifically refers to "the lawsuit pending in Judge Mohlberg's court. Although, resolution authorizes the district 's attorney to take "the requisite action to obtain a legally final decision as expeditiously as possible" the scope of the resolution can only be applied to the case in district court.
8. Under the Texas Open Meeting law, the Board of Trustees can only take action on those items identified as actionable in the official agenda for the meeting. In this case, the Board of Trustees could only take action on those matters related to the litigation in the 95th district court only. To apply to this motion to other matters would be violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act.
9. The stated intent of the motion, was to prevent the voters from being disenfranchised in the November 5, election, it is impossible that an appeal could have filed and adjudicated prior to the election.
10. The media did not report the intent of motion to authorize legal counsel to seek an appeal.
Thus, Madam President I make my inquiry.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Make Over Three Grand a Month Writing Emails!
Legal expenses paid by the Carrollton Farmers Branch Independent School District to Darlene Ewing totaled $7,981.25 for the period from July 7, 2009 to September 30, 2009. Ms. Ewing was retained to represent Lynn Chaffin, both in the Richard Fleming case in the 95th Judicial District Court and susequent Appeal.
It is not clear whether Ms. Ewing's legal expenses will be paid directly by the School District, or will be rebilled by The Law Offices of Robert Luna. Ms. Ewing's fee agreement was negoiated by Joseph Ball of the Law Offices of Robert Luna. Ms. Ewing receives hourly bill rate of $300 per hour. The latest open document request includes Statements from the Law Offices of Robert Luna and includes expenses through August 31, 2009, and although the statements are heavily redacted, do not include Ms. Ewing's expenses.
From a review of the legal bills below, it appears that Ms.Ewing has not been deeply involved in legal issues in the District court nor in the Appellant court cases. Much of the notation for her billable time references reading and responding to emails, or conversing on the telephone.
At first blush, Ms. Ewing would seem a curious choice to represent Ms. Chaffin. Ms. Ewing is board certified in family law. Her website does not indicate any expertise in education or election law. Ms. Ewing does have one other distinction, she is the current chairperson of the Dallas Democratic Party. The immediate past Chairperson of the Dallas Democratic Party is no less than, Ken Molberg, the presiding judge in the case that was tried in the 95th Judicial District Court.
Darlene Ewing Legal Bills
It is not clear whether Ms. Ewing's legal expenses will be paid directly by the School District, or will be rebilled by The Law Offices of Robert Luna. Ms. Ewing's fee agreement was negoiated by Joseph Ball of the Law Offices of Robert Luna. Ms. Ewing receives hourly bill rate of $300 per hour. The latest open document request includes Statements from the Law Offices of Robert Luna and includes expenses through August 31, 2009, and although the statements are heavily redacted, do not include Ms. Ewing's expenses.
From a review of the legal bills below, it appears that Ms.Ewing has not been deeply involved in legal issues in the District court nor in the Appellant court cases. Much of the notation for her billable time references reading and responding to emails, or conversing on the telephone.
At first blush, Ms. Ewing would seem a curious choice to represent Ms. Chaffin. Ms. Ewing is board certified in family law. Her website does not indicate any expertise in education or election law. Ms. Ewing does have one other distinction, she is the current chairperson of the Dallas Democratic Party. The immediate past Chairperson of the Dallas Democratic Party is no less than, Ken Molberg, the presiding judge in the case that was tried in the 95th Judicial District Court.
Darlene Ewing Legal Bills
Friday, October 16, 2009
Open Meeting Act does not Permit Instructing Legal Counsel in Executive Sessions.
According to Texas Open Meetings Act does not permit the board of trustees to instruct legal counsel to take action on behalf of the district in executive session. The act only permits the board of trustees to seek the advice of counsel...period. For the attorney to act on the behalf of the district the board of trustees must instruct legal counsel to do so in a regular public session.
Mr. Luna did file an appeal naming the district as the plainiff;did the board of trustees instruct Mr. Luna to take this action? Did the board instruct Mr. Luna to file the appeal during a executive session, in violation of the open meetings act?
Open Meetings Act.
Section 551.071: Consultations with Attorney
Mr. Luna did file an appeal naming the district as the plainiff;did the board of trustees instruct Mr. Luna to take this action? Did the board instruct Mr. Luna to file the appeal during a executive session, in violation of the open meetings act?
Open Meetings Act.
Section 551.071: Consultations with Attorney
Section 551.071 authorizes a governmental body to consult with its attorney in an executive session to
seek his or her advice on legal matters. It provides as follows:
A governmental body may not conduct a private consultation with its attorney except:
A governmental body may not conduct a private consultation with its attorney except:
- when the governmental body seeks the advice of its attorney about:
- pending or contemplated litigation; or
- a settlement offer; or
- on a matter in which the duty of the attorney to the governmental body under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with this chapter.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Board of Trustees must explictly approve litigation.
TEXAS EDUCATION CODE
SUBCHAPTER D. POWERS AND DUTIES OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
§ 11.151. IN GENERAL. (a) The trustees of an independent school district constitute a body corporate and in the name of the district may acquire and hold real and personal property, sue and be sued, and receive bequests and donations or other moneys or funds coming legally into their hands.
Any legal action in a court of law, brought on the behalf of the district requires the approval of the board of trustees acting as a corporate board in an open meeting. The school district is the plaintiff in the appeals case...they filed the case (see below). So when did the board of trustees take action to instruct the district attorneys to file an appeal. In The district is not legally required to file an appeal of the judicial district court case. Even if the district was legally obligated to file an appeal, the district's legal counsel could not act until instructed by the board of trustees to act upon the board's behalf.
Although the board of trustees are permitted to consult with attorneys in executive session, the board cannot take any action in executive session. The board must reconvene in public session to take any action. The board of trustees has never in a public session approved a motion to instruct the district's attorney to file an appeal in the Fleming case.
05-09-01166-CV
Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District and Lynn Chaffin v. Fleming, Richard
Case Type: OTH CIV
Trial Court Cause Number: 09-07085
Trial Court: 95TH DISTRICT COURT
County: DALLAS
Although the board of trustees are permitted to consult with attorneys in executive session, the board cannot take any action in executive session. The board must reconvene in public session to take any action. The board of trustees has never in a public session approved a motion to instruct the district's attorney to file an appeal in the Fleming case.
05-09-01166-CVCarrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District and Lynn Chaffin v. Fleming, Richard
Case Type: OTH CIV
Trial Court Cause Number: 09-07085
Trial Court: 95TH DISTRICT COURT
County: DALLAS
Appeal authorization additional concerns...
Addition reasons why the September 10 motion did not and could not have authorized Mr. Luna to take action in appellate court:
- The motion was approved 11 days prior to the final ruling on the 95th Judicial District Court on September 21, 2009. It is not reasonable that the board could act to appeal ruling without reviewing the judgement and determining, if would be in the public interest interest to file an appeal. For the board to approve an action to appeal without first determining what is in the best interest of district, the students, and taxpayers, would be a violation of the public trust.
- Appealing the judgment of the district court is hardly reaching a final decision "as expeditiously as possible." It could be reasonably argued that the motion prohibits the district's attorney from seeking an appeal.
- The "final decision"in the "lawsuit pending in Judge Mohlberg's court" would be the trial court's judgment. While this final decision is subject to appeal, it
is otherwise a final decision. The district is not legally required to appeal the ruling of the district court.
- This resolution was passed unanimously, two of trustees voting in the affirmative have publicly stated their opposition to the appeal, or express serious reservations about seeking appeal prior to this vote. These trustees supported an motion in the October 12th special meeting to end the appeal. The language of the September 10th motion is worded to be so vague as to mean nothing and everything. Because of wording of this motion is vague, it is not possible to ascertain from this motion the pleasure of the board regarding a future appeal.
- In the October 12, meeting a motion was considered to terminate the appeal, and the board president abstained from voting on motion. The board president cited a potential conflict of interest. If a potential conflict of existed for the board president on a motion to terminate the appeal, certainly the same conflict of interest existed when voting to initiate the appeal. However, when considering the September 10th motion, the board president did not relinquished the chair, nor asbstain from the vote. If the intent of September 10th motion was to authorize the district's attorneys to seek an appeal, the board president acted when she perceived a potential conflict of interest.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Did the board of trustees authorized the the Fleming Appeal?
The Board of trustees never authorized, at least not in a public meeting, the the school district's attorney to appeal the ruling of the 95th Judicial District court in the matter of Richard Fleming v. Carrollton-Farmer's Branch ISD.
The last pubic action taken by the board giving any instruction to the District's attorney occurred in the September 10th regular meeting, eleven days prior the final court ruling in the the District court. The Board of Trustees adopted the following motion:
This motion specifically refers to "the lawsuit pending in Judge Mohlberg's court. Although, resolution authorizes the district 's attorney to take "the requisite action to obtain a legally final decision as expeditiously as possible" the scope of the resolution can only be applied to the case in district court.
Under the Texas Open Meeting law, the Board of Trustees can only take action on those items identified as actionable in the official agenda for the meeting. In this case, the Board of Trustees could only take action on those matters related to the litigation in the 95th district court only. To apply to this motion to other matters would be violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Spinning and spending like Oprah!
It is curious that the district's attorney felt it necessary to retain a high powered public relations firm three days prior to final canvass of the May election on May 18th. Most deliberations with Mr. Luna are conducted in executive session, therefore it is impossible determine who, if anyone approved this expenditure and why they felt the expenditure was necessary.
The Carrollton Farmers Branch Independent school district employs 8 people in the Public Information office inside the district ,and as allocated an 1 Million dollar budget for that department, that includes a $500,000 salary budget for that office. Both operating expenses and labor expenses are double any surrounding district, including much larger districts like Plano ISD and Lewisville ISD.
Once again precious resources are diverted from education without explanation or benefit to the district.
Were Tepper Actions legal?
Video by CFBOutsideObserver
The following are the motions and second to motions made by Mr. Tepper. It does not include executive sessions of the board that Mr. Tepper was in attendance. His attendance at these sessions may have been a violation of the State's open meeting act. Mr. Tepper's presence at these meetings where the board consulted with legal counsel may have jeopardized the district's claim of "lawyer client privilege."
The following are the motions and second to motions made by Mr. Tepper. It does not include executive sessions of the board that Mr. Tepper was in attendance. His attendance at these sessions may have been a violation of the State's open meeting act. Mr. Tepper's presence at these meetings where the board consulted with legal counsel may have jeopardized the district's claim of "lawyer client privilege."
Motions and 2nd's made by Tepper
Date
|
Motions
|
1st & 2nd
|
8/27/09
|
Moved to adopt the
resolution for the budget
|
Motioned.
|
8/27/09
|
Resolution to adopt
tax rate
|
2nd
|
8/27/09
|
Motion to Endorse
Nominee Karen Ellis
|
2nd
|
8/27/09
|
Consent Agenda 13
(Microsoft Exchange)
|
2nd
|
8/13/09
|
Accepting a Report
from the Tax Assessor/Collector
|
2nd
|
8/13/09
|
Vote for public
hearing on Aug 27th
|
Motioned.
|
9/10/09
|
Worker’s Comp
Grievance Hearing - Linda Price
|
2nd
|
9/10/09
|
Level 3 Grievance
Hearing
|
2nd
|
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Fleming Costs $302,337.56 AND RISING!!!!!!!!!!!!
Probably in response to several open document requests, the district has released the costs related to the Fleming litigation. the amount of $302,337.56 however, the amounts maybe understated. The District reported legal expenses between June 1 and August 31 2008, of $122,266.21 only includes legal fees and expenses from Robert Luna and Associates and does not include any fees or expenses for Diane Ewing, the attorney retain to represent Ms. Chaffin. It also unclear if Ms. Ewing legal fees and expenses are included in the $69,881.25 billed but not yet paid, or include bills from Robert Luna Associates. According to the district the $38,754.16 is for legal costs prior to the lawsuit. It is unclear if this includes cost the Ingram lawsuit. The total costs of $302,337.42 only addresses legal expenses, but does not include other professional fees including, surveyor and consulant. The Total cost amount includes $71,435.94 nonrefundable amounts paid to county officials
Attorney General Opinions clarify the meaning of existing laws. They do not address matters of fact, and they are neither legislative nor judicial in nature. That is to say, they cannot create new provisions in the law or correct unintended, undesirable effects of the law.
In the lawsuit, Ingram V. Carrollton Farmers Branch School District, the district court found that the district did not have the authority to find Mr. Fleming ineligible due to residency concerns on May 27. On June 4, a day after Mr. Fleming took the oath of office, declared Mr. Fleming ineligible claiming she possessed "public documents that conclusively establishes that Mr. Fleming was not a resident." On September 21, the 95th District found that Ms. Chaffin claims were without merit and ordered Mr. Fleming seated.
It is becoming more apparent that if the district would have sought an opinion from the State Secretary of State or the State Attorney General.
The Secretary of State is the chief election officer for the State of Texas. Section 31.004(a) of the Texas Election Code (the "Code") provides that, "The Secretary of State shall assist and advise all election authorities with regard to the application, operation, and interpretation of this code and of the election laws outside of this code.
"No public record conclusively establishes residency,” correctly states the position of this office. This position is based upon Section 1.015(b) of the Texas Election Code"... Secretary of State the State of Texas.
Attorney General Opinions clarify the meaning of existing laws. They do not address matters of fact, and they are neither legislative nor judicial in nature. That is to say, they cannot create new provisions in the law or correct unintended, undesirable effects of the law.
Determining the question of residency is a question of intent and factual circumstances. It is not within the authority of this office nor within the discretion of the official receiving the application [of a candidate]{ to determine those factual questions. See Parker v. Brown, 425 S.W.2d 379, 381 (Tex.Civ.App.--Tyler 1968, no writ) (question of residence is to be judicially determined); see also Mills v. Bartlett, 377 S.W.2d 636, 637 (Tex.1964) (residence is determined by factual circumstances).
Texas State Attornery General Opinion No. JM-231 http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/opinions/47mattox/op/1984/htm/jm0231.htm
New information on Lynn Chaffin 2005 Ethics Violations
A reader as received a response to an open document request regarding a ethics violation finding regarding Lynn Chaffin and her employment as a Senior Information Technology Manager for the City of Dallas. The reader was kind enough to share the response to his open document request with this blog. (See the entire finding below.)
911 in 'serious trouble'
DPD Responds To False Alarm At High Speed
City Answers Questions About Officer's Death
Ms. Chaffin is employed as the city's Senior Information Technology Manager. Ms. Chaffin was a CFBISD Board of Trustee at the of the ethic violation. Subsequently, Ms. Chaffin was elected board president in May of 2009 after John Tepper lost his bid for re-election to the board to Richard Fleming. Ms. Chaffin has challenged Mr. Fleming eligibility claiming a strict adherence to the law.
lyndal Chaffin
In July of 2005, an internal investigation concluded that three employees,including CFBISD Board of Trustee President Lynn (Lyndal) Chaffin. The three employees involved in a City of Dallas vendor selection committee violated ethics rules by having improper contact with the company that won a $5.2 million job overhauling the city's emergency 911 computer system.(Alleged Ethics Violations Fault Top Officials)
According to the CBS11 report: "Chief Kay, Capt. Coffman and Lyndal Chaffin denied to investigators that they had committed any wrongdoing or that they were unduly influenced by accepting meals from Tritech executives, including one June 8 celebration dinner discovered by CBS-11 the very evening the City Council approved Tritech's contract. The celebratory dinner attended by the three officials took place at the posh Al Biernat's in Oak Lawn where a Kobe/Angus filet mignon steak costs $69.The city's computer aided dispatch system has the focus of controversy since it was first installed. The automated system, known by the acronym CAD, is used by the city to help dispatch emergency personnel based on information from 911 calls.
Despite denials of wrongdoing, investigators stated in their report that Chief Kay, Capt. Coffman and Lyndal Chaffin all "failed to avoid the risk and appearance of impropriety that was depicted by the Channel 11 newscast" by attending the celebration dinner at Al Biernat's. Investigators also upheld a second allegation that Chief Kay accepted a meal from Tritech in March, months before the council approved the tentative selection of Tritech as the vendor."
911 in 'serious trouble'
DPD Responds To False Alarm At High Speed
City Answers Questions About Officer's Death
Ms. Chaffin is employed as the city's Senior Information Technology Manager. Ms. Chaffin was a CFBISD Board of Trustee at the of the ethic violation. Subsequently, Ms. Chaffin was elected board president in May of 2009 after John Tepper lost his bid for re-election to the board to Richard Fleming. Ms. Chaffin has challenged Mr. Fleming eligibility claiming a strict adherence to the law.
lyndal Chaffin
Maybe the right question may is not simply how much the Fleming affair cost, but how will the district pay for it.
Maybe the right question may not simply how much the Fleming affair cost financially, but how will the district pay for it. In approving the 2009-2010 budget, the board of trustees will deplete the general reserve balance to the lowest level in ten years. And,the board did not provided for an expensive legal fight or a costly special election in the budget. Without raiding the already emaciated piggy-bank, How will the board trustees pay for their foray into the State's legal system.
The board only budgeted $191,000 for legal fees for the current year, the total litigation costs for the Fleming affair will far exceed this amount. The board budgeted $51,000 for election costs for the May 2010 election. The cost of a special election is expected to exceed the cost of a regular election. The board will certainly find itself facing a budget gap that well exceeds $250,000.
Well written, multiple open document requests will eventually answer the question of the price tag for the Fleming affair, only the board of trustees can answer who is going the paid the tab. Let's hope they don't need money for a tip.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Two interesting summaries of Texas open records laws ...
Several Blog readers have inquired about Texas Open Records and Meeting Laws. Those with interest in greater transparency in the governance in the Carrollton Farmers Branch Independent School District should visit:
Freedom of Information Texas
Texas WatchDog
Two interesting summaries of Texas open records laws ...
Two interesting summaries of Texas open records laws | Texas Watchdog
An Overview of Freedom of Information Laws in Texas
Texas Open Government Laws 2009
DON'T GET MAD...GET INFORMATION THEN SHARE IT
Monday, October 5, 2009
Jackpot!
Video by CFBOutsideObserver
At Thursday October 8th meeting the Board of Trustees will approve a policy change that will make even harder to determine how taxes dollars are spent.
Consider Approval of Changes to the Following Board Policy: This policy addresses purchasing authority delegated to the Superintendent and administrative staff. In addition to bid requirements, CH (LOCAL) currently requires Board approval for any purchase over $25,000. The passage of HB 987 in the 81st session of the Texas Legislature increases the threshold for competitive bidding from $25,000 to $50,000. The bill became law June 19, 2009, and went into effect immediately. (LEGAL) will be amended as a result this change in the law. This recommended change would increase the purchase authorization threshold to $50,000 matching the bid threshold. The net effect of this change will be a reduction in the number of purchases submitted to the Board for approval.Unlike the over three hundred school districts in the Texas, the Carrolllton Farmer’s Branch Independent School District does not publish its monthly check register on the district’s web site. (Transparency by Texas School Districts: http://www.window.state.tx.us/comptrol/checkup/school-districts.php)
The board of trustees do not received a copy of the check registers or periodic verifiable financial statements, comparing actual performance to budgets.
This change in board policy removes one only opportunities for citizens to determine how their tax dollars are spent.
Is it surprising that Board of Trustees have no idea how much money is spent on recent litigation?
Sunday, October 4, 2009
What does the Law Say?
Video by CFBOutsideObserver
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity. W. B. Yeats
The Secretary of State is the chief election officer for the State of Texas. Section 31.004(a) of the Texas Election Code (the "Code") provides that, "The Secretary of State shall assist and advise all election authorities with regard to the application, operation, and interpretation of this code and of the election laws outside of this code.
"No public record conclusively establishes residency,” correctly states the position of this office. This position is based upon Section 1.015(b) of the Texas Election Code"... Secretary of State the State of Texas.
Attorney General Opinions clarify the meaning of existing laws. They do not address matters of fact, and they are neither legislative nor judicial in nature. That is to say, they cannot create new provisions in the law or correct unintended, undesirable effects of the law.
Determining the question of residency is a question of intent and factual circumstances. It is not within the authority of this office nor within the discretion of the official receiving the application [of a candidate]{ to determine those factual questions. See Parker v. Brown, 425 S.W.2d 379, 381 (Tex.Civ.App.--Tyler 1968, no writ) (question of residence is to be judicially determined); see also Mills v. Bartlett, 377 S.W.2d 636, 637 (Tex.1964) (residence is determined by factual circumstances).
Texas State Attornery General Opinion No. JM-231 http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/opinions/47mattox/op/1984/htm/jm0231.htm
The 95th Judicial District Court of the State of Texas rendered a determination on the questions of intent and factual circumstances.
In making the important determination presented here, the Court is guided by a body of firmly fixed precedent that overlays legal challenges to candidacy and the right to hold elective office based on eligibility requirements. The higher courts have repeatedly admonished us that “any constitutional or statutory provision which restricts the right to hold public office should be strictly construed against ineligibility.” In re Carlisle, 209 S.W.3d 93, 96 (Tex. 2006)(per curiam), quoting Dawkins v. Meyer, 825 S.W.2d 444, at 448 (Tex. 1992). See also Sears v. Bayoud, 786 S.W.2d 248, 251 (Tex. 1990); Brown v. Meyer, 787 S.W.2d 42, 45 (Tex. 1990). It goes without the necessity of citation that this imperative is one of high constitutional importance. ... The Court, having fully considered the wealth of testimonial and documentary evidence before it, together with the arguments of counsel, hereby ORDERS...95th Judicial District Court
Fleming V, Carollton Farmers Branch Independnt School District
Marbury v. Madison (1803) "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each." —Chief Justice John Marshall
What does the law say?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
C-FB ISD Top Salaries
EMPL_NAME_L_F_M------JOB_CODE_DCOD---CFB_TY_SALARY
BURNS, BOBBY C-------SUPERINTENDENT--------$225,000
HYATT, THOMAS M-----ASST SUPT SUPP SER------ $165,952
COLE, CHARLES--------ASST SUPT S F C SV-------$163,459
MAHER, SHEILA A------ASST SUPT CUR/INST------$163,459
BERNING, ANDREW W---CHIEF INFO/TECH OF------$131,461
HOLLAND, MICHAEL K--EXE DIR STU SERV---------$126,502
HIBBS, JOHNNY R------EXE DIR FAC SRV/TR-------$125,145
POUNCY, JOE W-------PRINCIPAL---------------$121,753
MC DANIEL, JAMES T---EXE DIR FINE ARTS---------$120,095
BOYD, CYNTHIA-------PRINCIPAL---------------$117,000
HICKS, DAVID A-------PRINCIPAL---------------$113,737
RANDLE, CINDY L------EXE DIR PUBLIC INF--------$112,836
HOPKINS, MARY D-----EXE DIR PERSONNEL--------$111,660
WARNOCK, TERESA G---PRINCIPAL---------------$111,106
HASTINGS, CLOYD L----EXEC DIR ASSESSMEN------$110,890
HALSEY, BONNIE G-----EXE DIR FINANCE---------$109,726
BARBER, HOLLY H------EX DIR CUR/STF DEV------$108,204
OLIVEIRA, ROSA L------PRINCIPAL--------------$105,571
OPITZ, LYNDA S-------PRINCIPAL--------------$105,571
MILES, DELORES A-----DIR AFTER SCH PROG------$102,677
WELLS, RANDI S-------SP EXEC DIRECTOR--------$101,980
LASKER, NICOLOAS B---PRINCIPAL---------------$101,201
CALVERY, KELLY J------PRINCIPAL---------------$99,840
SMITH, TRACY L-------PRINCIPAL---------------$99,219
GARZA, TRINIDAD P----DIR PERSONNEL-----------$98,261
BAILEY, MICHELLE W----PRINCIPAL---------------$97,639
FAIR, PATRICIA L-------PRINCIPAL---------------$97,335
CUNNINGHAM, JIMMIE---PRINCIPAL---------------$97,326
LILLIE, WADE G--------DIR SECURITY/OPERA-------$97,108
CHARLEBOIS, GERALDIN-EXE DIR ADV ACA SE--------$96,379
BLACK, WATT L-------PRINCIPAL----------------$96,027
WEBB, CATHY A-------DIR STUDENT INFO---------$95,979
DONNELL, ROLAND G--SUPV MAINTENANCE--------$95,784
GORDON, BENITA D---PRINCIPAL----------------$95,737
MAYFIELD, DREAMA L--PRINCIPAL----------------$95,733
FORD, DANIEL W------PRINCIPAL----------------$94,590
LAPUMA, JOSEPH A----PRINCIPAL----------------$94,590
GELLER, KYLE D------COORD CAMP ATHL---------$94,581
HINOJOSA, ISABELLA P-DIR PROG COMPLIANC-------$94,291
MC CONE, ABBY S-----PRINCIPAL----------------$94,192
PUTTER, RENEE R-----DIR ATHLETIC--------------$94,148
CONEY, LESLIE K------PRINCIPAL----------------$93,063
BIGGS, VIRGINIA B-----ASSOCIATE PRIN-----------$92,583
JACKSON, PHILIP A----PRINCIPAL----------------$92,515
RUBENS, THERESA M---PRIN EARLY RD TECH--------$92,278
RODERICK, JOHN S----DIR FINANCE REPORT--------$92,110
WALLACE, MICHAEL S--COORD TECH SVCS---------$91,328
RESSA, PAUL A-------COORD CAMP ATHL---------$91,286
Really a 2.5% raise ACROSS this board? Can't they afford their own
coffee?