A better way to Budget

Open budgeting allows community to present their demands and priorities for improvement, and influence through discussions and negotiations the budget allocations made by the school district.  An open budget process   at the district level may include:   post budget alternatives on the web solicit feedback from the public, hold town hall meetings to inform the public and solicit ideas, create a committee with a membership from various constituencies in the community to advise the board.  Whenever, possible budget decisions should be made by those most impacted by the budget; the district should implement  site base or participatory budgeting.

 Participatory Budgeting, at its most basic, refers to turning over budgetary decisions to the community members impacted by the budget.  Most of the well-known examples of participatory budgeting involve city administrations that have turned over decisions over municipal budgets, such as its overall priorities and choice of new investments, to citizen assemblies.  Other examples involve school budgets, housing project budgets, and the budgets of cooperatives and non-profit organizations.

Participatory budgeting consists of a process of democratic deliberation and decision-making, in which parents, teachers, students, and  administrators  (community members) decide how to allocate part of  a local school ‘s  budget through a series of local assemblies and meetings. It is generally characterized by several basic features:  community members identify spending priorities and elect budget delegates to represent their local school , budget delegates transform community priorities into concrete project proposals, district level facilitate and provide technical assistance, community members vote on which projects to fund, and the school district implements the budget priorities and budget  projects. Various studies have suggested that participatory budgeting can lead greater government transparency and accountability, increased levels of public participation (especially by marginalized residents), and democratic and citizenship learning.

http://www.cfbisd.net/

http://www.cfbisdnet.blogspot.com/

Cost Saving Transparency

Interesting article on how local governmental entities can cut costs by being more financial transparent. http://www.texasahead.org/texasrising/tr0908/transparency.html

The State Comptroller now reports that :
Eighty-six of the state’s more than 1,000 school districts have posted their budget, financial report and check register online. Of the remaining school districts, 760 have posted the fiscal 2009 budget and 287 post a check register. Total of 373 school districts post their check registers on online--close to 40%.

The has come for Carrollton Farmers Branch ISD to become an innovator and leader in financial transparency.

Open Letter to Board of Trustees

To: Board of Trustees
Carrollton-Farmers Branch School District

Dear Trustee:

It is unfortunate that the board of trustees depended primarily on representations made by the district administration, and did not seek input and expertise in the community. The board of trustees restricted public disclosures and input to the minimum required by law. Considering the district is facing a significant tax rate next year, it is imperative that the board of trustees include the community in the budget process. The district’s budget should reflect the values and the priorities of the community.

The Board of Trustees should publish all financial reports, supplemental data and financial plan submitted to the TEA on the district web site. Obviously, the community has a right to know how the their money is spent, the Board of Trustees should require that district join the over 300 school districts in Texas and publish the district’s check register on the district web site. Because of continuing financial challenges facing the district, financial information will become more transparent to the public either through the TEA web site, or through numerous document requests made under the Texas Public Information Act, Chapter 552, Texas Government Code. It is my hope that the board of trustees will take the lead on greater financial transparency.

The new CFBISD budget triggers financial solvency review by TEA.

The new Financial Solvency Review provisions passed by the state legislature (HB 3) require that the TEA implement a review process to analyze district revenues and expenditures for the preceding school year, and projected district revenues and expenditures for the current school year and the following two school years. Additionally , if a district a projects a deficit for a school district general fund within the following three school years, to provide TEA interim financial reports, supplemented by staff and student count data, as needed, to evaluate the district's current budget status. A deficit is projected, a district develop a financial plan and submit the plan to TEA for approval To discourage a rapid depletion of a district's general funds balance, TEA must established an alert in reporting system.

The Board of Trustees should publish all financial reports, supplemental data and financial plan submitted to the TEA on the district web site.

They're students not criminals except at Barbra Bush Middle School.

http://cfbstaff.cfbisd.edu/bush/policies/policies.html#Conduct.

They're students not criminals. Twelve year old children should not be treated as criminals for a loud outburst or profanity. Barbra Bush Middle School criminalizes student misconduct by applying provisions in the State Education Code to protect schools from intentional disruptive behavior. (see the law below.)

Unfortunately, the administration at Barbra Bush Middle school applied this provision of the law to cite students for class B and C misdemeanors for misconduct including "...yelling or screaming in anger at another person, the use of profanity, behavior that repeatedly disrupts classroom instruction, or a physical altercation. This behavior may be between student & adult or student & student." However, if one actually reads the law, a person can only be cited for "entering a classroom without the consent of either the principal or the teacher and, through either acts of misconduct or the use of loud or profane language, disrupting class activities."

The law is not directed at students but, at "a person;" any person, including teachers and administrators, yelling or screaming in anger at another person, the use of profanity must be cited. If your student's teacher yells and screams in anger call the Irving police and ask to have them cited. Any law directed at “a person” must be enforced in the same matter, regardless if that person is a student, a teacher or administrator

Citations cannot be reversed once they are issued, and require appearance by the student and parent in court.

If not dismissed by the court, a Class C citation issued at school can
have long-lasting implications:
• Included on adult criminal record
• Not automatically expunged from a criminal record
• Must be disclosed on job and college applications as a “criminal conviction”
• May be considered in sentencing in future criminal cases

Unfortunately, the Board of Trustees has not established policies outlining the specific conditions and disruptive behavior that would require intervention by the police and the issuance of a citation.

A reasonable policy would include a cooling off period before citations are issued. Parents should have a 24-hour window in which they can appear before any criminal citation can be administered. The only exception would involve firearms and a continuing threat to the safety of school personnel and students. Concerning any infraction that may result potential law enforcement action, parents must be contacted immediately and given to opportunity to be present prior to any questioning by law enforcement.

If these policies remain unchanged at Barbra Bush Middle School, parents of students need to direct their child to remain silent in the event he/she is questioned by a teacher, principal, social worker, psychologist or police officer about any non-academic matter related to information about said student or another student. Because any statement they make can and will be used in a court of law.


Sec. 37.123. DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES. (a) A person commits an offense if the

person, alone or in concert with others, intentionally engages in disruptive

activity on the campus or property of any private or public school.
(b) For purposes of this section, disruptive activity is:
(1) obstructing or restraining the passage of persons in an exit, entrance, or

hallway of a building without the authorization of the administration of the school;
(2) seizing control of a building or portion of a building to interfere with an

administrative, educational, research, or other authorized activity;
(3) preventing or attempting to prevent by force or violence or the threat of

force or violence a lawful assembly authorized by the school administration so

that a person attempting to participate in the assembly is unable to participate

due to the use of force or violence or due to a reasonable fear that force or

violence is likely to occur;
(4) disrupting by force or violence or the threat of force or violence a lawful

assembly in progress; or
(5) obstructing or restraining the passage of a person at an exit or entrance to

the campus or property or preventing or attempting to prevent by force or violence

or by threats of force or violence the ingress or egress of a person to or from

the property or campus without the authorization of the administration of the

school.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.
(d) Any person who is convicted the third time of violating this section is

ineligible to attend any institution of higher education receiving funds from this

state before the second anniversary of the third conviction.
(e) This section may not be construed to infringe on any right of free speech or

expression guaranteed by the constitution of the United States or of this state.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995.

Sec. 37.124. DISRUPTION OF CLASSES. (a) A person commits an offense if the

person, on school property or on public property within 500 feet of school

property, alone or in concert with others, intentionally disrupts the conduct of

classes or other school activities.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Disrupting the conduct of classes or other school activities" includes:
(A) emitting noise of an intensity that prevents or hinders classroom

instruction;
(B) enticing or attempting to entice a student away from a class or other school

activity that the student is required to attend;
(C) preventing or attempting to prevent a student from attending a class or other

school activity that the student is required to attend; and
(D) entering a classroom without the consent of either the principal or the

teacher and, through either acts of misconduct or the use of loud or profane

language, disrupting class activities.
(2) "Public property" includes a street, highway, alley, public park, or

sidewalk.
(3) "School property" includes a public school campus or school grounds on which

a public school is located and any grounds or buildings used by a school for an

assembly or other school-sponsored activity.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995.

What student code of conduct should be...

Safe, orderly high achieving schools require the collaboration and support of
students, staff, parents, and the community. CFBISD needs develop a plan to
involve parents in the creation and maintenance of a safe and orderly school
environment which positively impacts the learning environment.

The Board of Trustees should provide for the annual review and updating of the
code of conduct. Based on the statistical data collected regarding discipline, the
school should review the code to determine if corrections, additions or deletions
are necessary. Data and feedback of staff, parents, and students are critical to
keeping the code of conduct relevant to the student body. Sharing the data with
the community and parents ensures the perception of a safe and orderly school.

Progressive discipline processes, shall be designed to create the expectation that
the degree of discipline will be in proportion to the severity of the behavior
leading to the discipline, that the previous discipline history of the student
being disciplined and other relevant factors will be taken into account, and that
all due process procedures required by federal and state law will be followed.

Codes of conduct specify behavior that is accepted or prohibited in the school as
well as in any setting that is related to the school. Codes of conduct generally
state the behavior expected to be demonstrated by the student. Discipline policies
outline consequences/punishments that will occur in response to specific
misbehavior.

Schools generally define and shape desirable behavior within the framework of a
code of conduct. Consequences and punishments for unacceptable behaviors are
specified in a discipline policy. Neither by itself is sufficient to completely
address the spectrum of student behavior. Merely stating desired behavior has no
provision for inevitable misconduct; having only a discipline code dwells on the
negative and does not provide a positive direction.

Elements of an Effective Code of Conduct

1. Establish expected behavior. Codes of conduct should enumerate those
behaviors that the student is expected to demonstrate. These behaviors may become
the system's/school's core values. Generally codes of conduct state that students
are expected to:

* Demonstrate respect for self and others.
* Demonstrate courtesy to others.
* Behave in a responsible manner.
* Attend class regularly.
* Be prepared for class.
* Take seriously the course of study.
* Dress appropriately.
* Cooperate with school officials.
* Respect other's property.
* Avoid violation of student code of conduct.


2. Encourage parent, community, staff, and student support. Community and parent support of the district and its discipline code is critical. The district must ask parents, and may wish to include staff, students, and community representatives to serve on the team developing the code. This cross-section of community will allow for broad representation of ideas and values. Codes must also specify how communications with parents and the community will be maintained throughout the discipline process. Once completed, the code should be shared with all interested parties and any feedback should be given serious consideration.

3. Are written in easy-to-understand terms. Write codes in clear and concise language identifying unacceptable behavior and specify the consequence that will be administered for engaging in the behavior. Clear and concise codes are essential for understanding and support of an orderly school by the community and parents. Clear and concise codes also help teachers and other school personnel who are responsible for administering them to act swiftly and with authority. An example of a code statement is as follows:

* Behavior: Destruction of school property.
* Consequence: Parent conference; After-school detention; Assignment to In-School Suspension.

4. Include consequences for unacceptable behaviors, as defined by the district, from minor to severe. Schools must facilitate the development of self-discipline in students. Neglecting to address minor unacceptable behaviors such as rudeness and other disruptive actions may lead to more serious behaviors. Codes that focus on one or the other may undermine the development of self-discipline in students. For schools to maintain a safe and orderly environment, systems must handle the full range of unacceptable behaviors.

5. Match consequences with the severity of the misbehavior. Codes should list
separately minor and severe misbehavior with the resulting disciplinary action.
Codes constructed in this format allow students to immediately identify the range
of actions, from loss of privileges to expulsion, that may result from the behavior.

6. Require prompt removal of dangerous and chronically disruptive students from
the learning environment.

7. Provide for the annual review and updating of the code of conduct. Based on the statistical data collected regarding discipline, the school should review the code to determine if corrections, additions or deletions are necessary. Data and feedback of staff, parents/council, and students are critical to keeping the code of conduct relevant to the student body. Sharing the data with the community and
parents ensures the perception of a safe and orderly school. Community and parent support of the district and its discipline code is critical. The district must ask parents, and may wish to include staff, students, and community representatives to serve on the team developing the code. This cross-section of the community will allow for broad representation of ideas and values.

8. Each incident of inappropriate behavior is unique in terms of situational variables. Similarly, disciplinary action will reflect consideration of a number of factors specific to the student involved in the misbehavior. Teachers and administrators shall consider intent or lack of intent of the misconduct at the
time the student engaged in the conduct, as well as, the student’s age and grade level, the frequency of misbehavior, the student’s attitude, the effect of the misconduct on the school environment, the student’s disability, and claims of self-defense. In each decision, an administrator must consider did an individual student acted in self-defense, an individual student’s intent or lack of intent at the time the student engaged in the conduct, an individual student’s disciplinary history, or disability that substantially impairs the individual student’s capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the student’s conduct. Mitigating factors should be defined broadly. The definition of self defense should be based
on the definition of self-defense in section 9.31 of the State Penal code: …a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force… in determining whether an actor …reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat. Consideration of self defense as a mitigating factor does not require that a student assert he or she acted in self defense prior to school administrator
giving consideration self defense as a migrating factor. Consideration of disability a mitigating factor do NOT require that a student with a disability be enrolled in special education nor the student required reveal his disability to school officials prior to engaging in the conduct under review.
9. Although the use of physical force by students should not be encouraged or condoned, however, disciplinary action will reflect consideration when a student uses physical force to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself, or to the degree the student reasonably believes that
his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

10. Disciplinarians, although proceeding in utmost good faith, frequently act on the reports and advice of others; and the controlling facts and the nature of the conduct under challenge are often disputed. The risk of error is not at all trivial. The code of conduct will include an appeals process that insures the child receives basic due process rights. All students and parents will have the ability to appeal any punishment decision to the school board within one month of the incident.

11. Concerning any infraction that may result in removal from school and potential law enforcement action, parents must be contacted immediately and given to opportunity to be present prior to any questioning by law enforcement. Parents will have a 24-hour window in which they can appear before any punishment or criminal citation can be administered. The only exception would involve firearms and a continuing threat to the safety of school personnel and students. Parents have the right to demand an attorney be present before police questioning (exception being a continuing threat) of their child.

12. Concealment of contraband items are a threat to the student and public safety. Students will have an opportunity to turn in any contraband item without immediate punishment. In the case of weapons, drugs, and alcohol, parents must be notified within 24 hours of the incident. If the administrators decide punishment is necessary, a student/parent conference shall be convened to discuss the incident and punishment will be determined at that time.

13. Student code of conduct should include a student's bill of rights. The bill rights will include all due process requirements of federal and state law. A student's excercise of his rights under the Constitution of United States will not be considered insubordination, admission of guilt or the basis for reasonable suspiscion or cause. A student has the right remain silent in the event he/she is questioned by a teacher, principal, social worker, psychologist or police officer about any non-academic matter related to information about said student or another student. A student has the right to not consent to his/her search of person, car, locker, purse, backpack or books. A student has the right not to sign any documentation without first obtaining permission from a parent or legal guardian.

CFBISD BUDGET BLACKMAIL

If for third year in a row the CFBISD Board of Trustees approves a deficit budget for 2009-2010, the voters of district will be forced to accept a significant tax increase or the district will be insolvent. Although new proposed budget includes cuts in pre-kindergarten programs, staff health insurance, secondary class sizes and staff reductions, it is too little too late. Serious budget changes should have been made beginning in 2007-2008 school year when for the first time the district’s revenues did not cover its operating expenses.

For 2009-2010, the Texas State Legislature required Texas Education Agency (TEA) to include an alert in the new Financial Solvency Review System when a school district has significant reductions in its general fund balance. There several reasons for this:
1. By depleting significantly the general fund balance to fund budget deficits, a board of trustees of a school district is avoiding the underlying problem --expenses are growing at faster rate than revenues. For example, the Carrollton Farmers Branch Independent School Board of Trustees approved a budget resolution for the 2007-2008 school year with a deficit of $6 million. And, in 2008-2009, the Board of Trustees approved a deficit of $13.5 million. These deficits were to funded by depleting the general fund balance. Because the underlying budget issues were not addressed, the district could face the prospect of a tax rate increase of almost 9% to fund the budget for 2009-2010 school year. The proposed $220 million budget for 2000-2010 includes a mandated raise for all employees, costing about $3.2 million. This budget is about 7.5 percent less than last year. Cuts were made through changes to the pre-kindergarten program, staff health insurance, secondary class sizes and staff reductions. This budget will still result in a $ 8.3 million deficit rather than earlier $10 million deficit projected earlier.
2. If the board of trustees does not approve a tax rate increase, and elects to approve a deficit budget for the third year in a row, next year voters will be left with two choices a substantial property tax increase or an insolvent school district.
3. By depleting the general fund balance, a Board of Trustees of a School district is increasing future budget deficits. General fund balances are invested and return revenue in the form interest. This interest income stream is lost from future budgets. The depletion of the general fund has the affect on future budgets as if the district borrowed the money, and is paying an interest rate equal to the interest rate the district would have received if funds remained in the general fund. Depleting general funds to cover operating expenses is single one-time fix. However, operating expenses are continuous and tend to increase. Deficits occur when expenses increase at faster rate than revenues. Funding operating expenses from the general fund does not increase future revenues nor decrease future expenses. Because It is not surprising the Carrollton Farmers Branch School District Board of Trustees found, it self dealing with larger deficit for 2008-2009 school year than in 2007-2008. By depleting the general fund to address the 2007-2008 deficit, the board did not address the issue of the increasing disparity between the growth of the district's expenses and revenue.
4. By depleting the general fund balance, a Board of Trustees of School district may create future cash flow difficulties, or even insolvency for a school district. The timing and speed in which a district receives cash from revenues is dramatically different from timing and speed in which a district spends cash to cover expenses. Balances in the general fund are used to manage these cash flow differences. As operating budgets continue to grow rapidly, it becomes necessary to districts to maintain larger general fund balances to manage its cash flow needs. In period of time, when school districts find it difficult to balance operating budgets, it becomes all but impossible for a district to increase balance of its general fund. One proposal 2009 state legislative session would have required that a district maintain minimum general fund balances equal to at least two months of the district's operating budget. The Carrollton Farmers Branch ISD operating budget will exceed $220 million dollars for 2009-2010 school year. Based on two month requirement, the district should maintain a general fund balances of about $37 million. For fiscal year ending in August 2008, the district reported general fund balances of $60 million. The Board budgeted a deficit of $13.5 million for 2008-2009 school year to be funded from the general fund. If the budget is accurate, the current general fund balance is approximately $47.5 million; If the district adopts the $220 million budget with a deficit of 8 million dollars, the general fund balance will decrease to approximately 44 million. – barely above the two month balance requirement of $37 million.
As a consequence, the voters will have no choice but to support a tax increase or the district will face insolvency!

ONE IN TEN STUDENTS SUBJECT TO OUT OF SCHOOL SUSPENSIONS

I am currently comparing discipline 2007-2008 statistics for CFBISD and LISD. Did you realize that 1 in 10 of CFBISD students was suspended out of school in 2007-2008? Did you realize that each one of students were suspended an average of 2 times. Unfortunately, the numbers I have were not broken down by grade level. Considering, these calculations are based on total enrollment and, since approximately 50% of the enrollment in CFBISD is in grades pre-k through 5th grade, the rate of suspensions among middle school and high school students is probably closer to 1 in 5. One has to question the effectiveness of out of school suspensions, when they are used so frequently and repetitively. In LISD, 1 of 50 students was suspended. Each student was suspended an average of once.
The Carrollton-Farmers Branch School District Student Code Conduct does not outline the conditions under which a student may be suspended, nor does the Student Code Conduct identify conduct for which a student could be suspended. Both are required by the State Education Code. The LISD Student Code Conduct does clearly identify conduct could be suspended. Additionally, LISD permits the appeal of suspensions. I believe that suspension should be used only in select circumstances, e.g. to defuse a tense situation.
In 2007-2008, 17576 disciplinary interventions , including expulsions, DAEP referrals, in school detentions and out of school suspensions. One third of these disciplinary interventions, 5835, were out of school suspensions. I cannot understand how anyone can justify this level of use out-of-school suspensions. How can everyone explain why a student at CFISD is five times more likely to be Suspended Out of School than a student at LISD?

See the full report here:

http://www.cfbisd.net/discipline_report.html
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/adhocrpt/Disciplinary_Data_Products/Download_District_Summaries.html

CFBISD STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT FOR 2009-2010 VIOLATES STATE LAW!

http://www.cfbisd.edu/pages/studentsDocuments.cfm?codeconduct2009%2D10%2Epdf&object=81&folderID=6&fileID=18&action=view


http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/HB00171F.htm

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/ED/htm/ED.37.htm



With the passage Texas State Legislature and signing in to law by Governor Perry of HB 171, the Board of Trustees of School District had to make significant changes to the Student Code of Conduct. The board of trustees failed to make these changes.

The Texas State Legislature passed HB 171 unanimously in the House and with only one dissenting vote the Senate. Clearly, it was the intent of legislature to send a message to administrators and school boards that they need to make major changes in disciplinary policies.

In analysis of HB 171 the State Legislature concluded :

Many students are unreasonably disciplined because of a school district's choice not to consider mitigating factors when evaluating a student’s action in a decision regarding suspension, removal, expulsion, or placement in a juvenile justice alternative education program. Current law authorizes, but does not require, school districts to consider mitigating factors such as self-defense, intent or lack of intent at the time the student engaged in certain conduct, a student's disciplinary history, or a disability that substantially impairs the student's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct. Such factors are clearly relevant and consideration of such factors is clearly necessary in making a fair and impartial decision as to the manner in which a student is disciplined.

Although the CFISD school district policy always permitted building administrators to consider self-defense and a student’s disability as mitigating factors in determining appropriate disciplinary action, administrators often ignored this policy. The CFBISD Board of Trustees never established procedures to enforce this policy. Nor has the Board of Trustees ever conducted review to determine if building level administrators are incompliance with this policy. In fact the Board of Trustees has abrogated its responsibility for student discipline. In most cases student discipline is administered by building level without any review or opportunity for appeal.

HR 171 changes the State Education code to require that: “...that consideration will be given, as a factor in each decision concerning suspension, removal to a disciplinary alternative education program, expulsion, or placement in a juvenile justice alternative education program, regardless of whether the decision concerns a mandatory or discretionary action, to:
(A) self-defense;
(B) intent or lack of intent at the time the student engaged in the conduct;
(C) a student's disciplinary history; or
(D) a disability that substantially impairs the student's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the student's conduct;”



In each decision, an administrator must consider did an individual student acted in self-defense, an individual student’s intent or lack of intent at the time the student engaged in the conduct, an individual student’s disciplinary history, or disability that substantially impairs the individual student’s capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the student’s conduct.

The code change clearly states, "consideration will be given, as a factor in EACH decision..." Another words..ZERO TOLERANCE..policies are illegal.
For example, it is no longer acceptable or legal for a school to have a policy to automatically suspends a student simply because a student engages in physical altercation. In each case, an Administrator must consider if student acted in self-defense. The administrator must establish that a student to mutually engaged in the altercation with the intent to subdue, to control, or cause harm to another individual. The administrator must establish that the student voluntarily participated in the altercation. The administrator ascertain whether a student a have disability that substantially impairs the student's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the student's conduct. The administrator must consider each incident and each student individually. Further, Administrator was required under the state education code to determined if a student was a victim of an assault. An administrator must take reasonable steps to find the truth in EACH case.

Please note, that the code change does not require that a student assert he or she acted in self defense prior to school administrator giving consideration self defense as a migrating factor. The new code changes, do NOT require that a student with a disability be enrolled in special education nor does the change the state code required that the student reveal his disability to school officials prior to engaging in the conduct under review. The clearly requires administrators to give consideration to any student with a disability “that substantially impairs the student's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the student's conduct.”

State legislature did not provide a definition for self-defense in the changes to the education code, however, the State legislature did define self-defense in section 9.31 of the State Penal code: …a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force… in determining whether an actor …reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat. This is the definition that must be applied by school districts. An administrator is not allowed to apply or substitute his or her own definition of self-defense. Because HR 171 requires that changes in education code be included in the district student code of conduct, the legal definition of self-defense must be included to assure compliance with the code change.

According to the 2009-2010 code of conduct, suspensions are building-level decisions and shall not be appealed. The building level administrator has the final decision in building-level interventions. This policy must change. Although, HR 171 does not specifically require that school districts establish an appeal process for suspensions, obviously districts must establish procedures resolved disputes when violations of State Education Code are alleged. Additionally, a student with a disability that substantially impairs the individual student’s capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the student’s conduct , must be opportunity present statements from medical and mental health professionals. Clearly, the State Legislature intent in HR 171 was to assure fair and impartial decision as to the manner in which a student is disciplined, an appeal process is absolutely necessary to assure compliance with HR 171. It is unreasonable to allow building administrators to suspend a student without any review or appeal and expect compliance with the provisions of HR 171.

Additionally, The student code of conduct provides a laundry list 31 offenses under the heading of General Misconduct. This list includes minor offenses such as violating safety rules, and vulgarity, as well as, fighting and scuffling. Separately, the Student of Code of conduct also lists 24 possible disciplinary interventions including “out of school suspension.” Neither lists ranks or classifies misconduct or disciplinary intervention by severity or appropriateness. There is no correlation made between an act of misconduct and a possible disciplinary intervention. It is impossible to identify any conduct for which a student may or may not be suspended. The Board of Trustees of the Carrolton- Farmers District did not identify , in the student code of conduct, any conduct for which a student may be suspended as required by the state education code:

Sec. 37.001. STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT

(3) outline conditions under which a student may be suspended as provided by Section 37.005 or expelled as provided by Section 37.007;

Sec. 37.005. SUSPENSION. (a) The principal or other appropriate administrator may suspend a student who engages in conduct identified in the student code of conduct adopted under Section 37.001 as conduct for which a student may be suspended.

John Tepper should not serve on Carrollton Farmers Branch ISD Board of Trustees.

John Tepper should not serve Carrollton Farmers Branch ISD Board of Trustees.

Although there are reasonable questions about Richard Flemings' residency, it is abundantly clear that the voters of the district do not want Mr. Tepper on the board.
The this critical time, the Board of Trustees needs the support of the community. Mr. Tepper’s presence on the board cannot be productive.
Serious questions loom about Mr. Tepper’s leadership. Not only from the handling of the Dr. Griffin affair, but the failure of the Board to address serious budget issues in 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years.

Financial Transparency -- Step2 Quarterly Financial Statements

Financial Transparency -- Step2 Quarterly Financial Statements
The Carrolllton Farmer’s Branch Independent School District must join the scores of other school districts in Texas and publish quarterly financial stateents 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, at a minimum, should adopt policies that require that:

The school district shall post on the district's Internet website the district's quarterly financial statements. The fiancial statements must include :

(1) budgeted revenue summarized by source, including
local, state, and federal;
(2) expenditures, including the function code
assigned to the expenditure for the purpose of meeting state
reporting requirements;
(3) projected fund balance and net asset balance for
the fiscal year end compared with the actual dollar amount in each
fund or asset account; and
(4) a comparison of actual revenue and expenditures to
budgeted revenue and expenditures.
The school district shall maintain each quarterly statement on the district's Internet website until the second anniversary of the date of the statement.

Financial Transparency -- Step1 The Check Register

Financial Transparency -- Step1 The Check Register

There must be increased transparency in education spending. With a annual budget expect to exceed $300 million for the 2009-2010, taxpayers have a right to know how the school district is spending their tax dollars. Costs have nearly doubled over the last decade, with per student spending exceeding more than $10,000 per student per year.



According to State Comptroller Susan Combs:

"In our determination, a government entity is meeting a high standard for transparency if it:

Opens its books to the public, providing clear, consistent pictures of spending

Provides information in an easily accessible, user-friendly format

Lets taxpayers easily drill down for more detailed information

On the Texas Transparency Check-up, the Comptroller’s office checked to see to what extent local government entities provided online access to their budgets, financial reports and check registers, as defined below:

Budget: Proposed spending and revenue, typically for a one-year period, shown in broad categories by office/department and by account type, such as salary, transportation or supplies. A more detailed budget may show data by month. A budget serves as the financial plan for the city, county or governing body.

Financial Report: A comparison of budgeted to actual expenses and revenues, typically for a one-year period, shown in the same broad categories and account types as Budget. Monthly financial or treasurer's reports are typical shown in summary only. A financial report demonstrates how well the city, county or governing body managed within the proposed budget and plan.

Check Register: Listing of line item expenses typically showing date, amount, to whom payment was made, account type, and purchase order number where applicable. Some check registers are searchable by vendor name and/or account type."

The Carrolllton Farmer’s Branch Independent School District must join the scores of other school districts in Texas and 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, at a minimum, should adopt policies that require that:

The school district shall maintain the transaction register for the district's checking account in a searchable electronic spreadsheet format, such as a portable document format (PDF) or similar file type. The school district shall prominently post the electronic checking account transaction register at all times on the district's Internet website for viewing and downloading by interested persons. The school district shall share data from the electronic checking account transaction register with any interested person who requests the data.

The school district shall update the electronic checking account transaction register at least once each month, not later than the 30th day after the closing date of the most recent monthly statement for the checking account; and maintain each transaction or listing in the electronic checking account transaction register on the district's Internet website until the second anniversary of the date of the transaction or listing.

The electronic checking account transaction register must include for each check written from a district checking account: the transaction amount; the name of the payee; and a statement of the purpose of the expenditure for which the check was written.
The school district may not include in the district's electronic checking account transaction register a check issued to a district employee in payment of: salary, wages, or an employment stipend; or a workers' compensation income benefit, medical benefit, death benefit, or burial benefit that is issued if the school district operating as a self-insurer under Chapter 504, Labor Code.

The school district shall post on the district's Internet website a monthly listing of each transaction made using a credit card issued to: the district; or a district officer or employee for use in connection with district business. The listing of credit card transactions must include, for each transaction: the month and year of the transaction; the amount of the transaction; and the name of the payee.

CFBISD Board of Trustees must make major changes to Student Disciplinary Policy.

CFBISD Board of Trustees must make major changes to Student Disciplinary Policy.



The Texas State Legislature passed HB 171 unanimously in the House and with only one nay the Senate. Clearly, it was the intent of legislature to send a message to administrators and school boards that they need to make major changes in disciplinary policies.

In analysis of HB 171 the State Legislature concluded :

Many students are unreasonably disciplined because of a school district's choice not to consider mitigating factors when evaluating a student’s action in a decision regarding suspension, removal, expulsion, or placement in a juvenile justice alternative education program. Current law authorizes, but does not require, school districts to consider mitigating factors such as self-defense, intent or lack of intent at the time the student engaged in certain conduct, a student's disciplinary history, or a disability that substantially impairs the student's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct. Such factors are clearly relevant and consideration of such factors is clearly necessary in making a fair and impartial decision as to the manner in which a student is disciplined.

HR 171 changes the State Education code to require that: “...that consideration will be given, as a factor in each decision concerning suspension, removal to a disciplinary alternative education program, expulsion, or placement in a juvenile justice alternative education program, regardless of whether the decision concerns a mandatory or discretionary action, to:
(A) self-defense;
(B) intent or lack of intent at the time the student engaged in the conduct;
(C) a student's disciplinary history; or
(D) a disability that substantially impairs the student's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the student's conduct;”

Although the CFISD school district always required building administrators to consider self-defense and a student’s disability as mitigating factors in determining appropriate disciplinary action, administrators often ignored this policy. The code changes give this policy the force of law. Please note, that the code change does not require that student has to assert he or she acted in self defense prior to the building administrator considering self defense as a migrating factor. Neither the established school policy nor the new code changes, require that a student be enrolled in special education to be considered disabled. Neither does the existing school board policy or the change the state code required that the student reveal his disability prior to the building administrator considering the disability as a mitigating factor. Under new code change must consider a student’s intent or lack of intent at the time the student engaged in the conduct.


The code change clearly states, " specify that consideration will be given, as a factor in EACH decision..." Another words..ZERO TOLERANCE..policies are illegal.

For example, it is no longer acceptable or legal for a school to have a policy to automatically suspend student simply because a student engages in physical altercation. In each case, an Administrator must consider if student acted in self-defense. The administrator must establish that a student mutually engaged in the altercation with intent to subdue, to control, or cause harm to another individual. The administrator must establish that the student voluntarily participated in the altercation. The administrator ascertain whether a student a have disability that substantially impairs the student's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the student's conduct. The administrator must consider each incident and each student individually. Further, Administrator was always required under the state education code to determined if a student was a victim of an assault. An administrator must take reasonable steps to find the truth in EACH case.

State legislature did not provide a definition for self-defense in the changes to the education code, however, the State legislature did define self-defense in section 9.31 of the State Penal code: …a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force… in determining whether an actor …reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat. This is the definition that must be applied by school districts. An administrator is not allowed to apply or substitute his or her own definition of self-defense.

Even before the passage of HR171, Texas courts had clearly established that administrators must considered student’s intent or lack of intent at the time the student engaged in the conduct.

Tarkington ISD v. Ellis


The Ninth District Court of Texas ruled that the Texas Education Code permits Texas school districts to decline to expel students for mandatory disciplinary infractions except for firearms if intent is adopted as a factor in expulsion decisions in the school district’s student code of conduct. From the opinion:

“The central issue in this case is whether Texas law mandates the expulsion of a student for unknowingly possessing a weapon on a school district’s property. We hold that the Texas Education Code permits school districts to decline to expel students for unknowingly possessing prohibited weapons if the districts have adopted intent as a factor in expulsion decisions.”

http://www.texaszerotolerance.com/data/TarkingtonISD_1_.pdf

It is abundantly clear, by requiring administrators to consider a student's disciplinary history as a mitigating factor, a student should not be suspended for a single minor violation of the Student Code Conduct. Suspensions, as a disciplinary intervention should be used for significant or repeated violations of the student code conduct.

CFBISD Board of Trustees Funding Operating Deficits by Depleting General Fund is Bad Financial Managment!

Why using the General Fund Balance to fund Ongoing Operations is Simply Bad Financial Management.

In H.B 3, the Texas State Legislature required Texas Education Agency (TEA) to include an alert in the new Financial Solvency Review when a school district has significant reductions in its general fund balance. There several reasons for this:

1. By depleting significantly the general fund balance to fund budget deficits, a board of trustees of a school district is avoiding the underlying problem --expenses are growing at faster rate than revenues. For example, the Carrollton Farmers Branch Independent School Board of Trustees approved a budget resolution for the 2007-2008 school year with a deficit of $6 million. And, in 2008-2009, the Board of Trustees approved a deficit of $13.5 million. These deficits were to funded by depleting the general fund balance. Because the underlying budget issues were not addressed, the district faces the prospect of a tax rate increase of almost 9% to fund the budget for 2009-2010 school year .
2. By depleting the general fund balance, a Board of Trustees of a School district is increasing future budget deficits. General fund balances are invested and return revenue in the form interest. This interest income stream is lost from future budgets. The depletion of the general fund has the affect on future budgets as if the district borrowed the money, and is paying an interest rate equal to the interest rate the district would have received if funds remained in the general fund. Depleting general funds to cover operating expenses is single one-time fix. However, operating expenses are continuous and tend to increase. Deficits occur when expenses increase at faster rate than revenues. Funding operating expenses from the general fund does not increase future revenues nor decrease future expenses. It is not surprising the Carrollton Farmers Branch School District Board of Trustees found, it self dealing with larger deficit for 2008-2009 school year than in 2007-2008. By depleting the general fund to address the 2007-2008 deficit, the board did not address the issue of the increasing disparity between the growth of the district's expenses and revenue.
3. By depleting the general fund balance, a Board of Trustees of School district may create future cash flow difficulties, or even insolvency for a school district. The timing and speed in which a district receives cash from revenues is dramatically different from timing and speed in which a district spends cash to cover expenses. Balances in the general fund are used to manage these cash flow differences. As operating budgets continue to grow rapidly, it becomes necessary to districts to maintain larger general fund balances to manage its cash flow needs. In period of time, when school districts find it difficult to balance operating budgets, it becomes all but impossible for a district to increase balance of its general fund. One proposal 2009 state legislative session would have required that a district maintain minimum general fund balances equal to at least two months of the district's operating budget. The Carrollton Farmers Branch ISD operating budget will exceed $300 million dollars for 2009-2010 school year. Based on two month requirement, the district should maintain a general fund balances of about $50 million. For fiscal year ending in August 2008, the district reported general fund balances of $60 million. The Board budgeted a deficit of $13.5 million for 2008-2009 school year to be funded from the general fund. If the budget is accurate, the current general fund balance is approximately $47.5 million; well below the $50 million level.

Changes in State Education Code for Financial Solvency Review has major impact for CFBISD

Changes in State Education Code for Financial Solvency Review has major impact for CFBISD

The State of Texas seeks to strike a balance between student achievement and financial accountability. Changes will have a major impact on the Carrollton Farmers Branch School District. The code change directly address unwise budgeting practices in the district.

Changes in the State education code requires the Comptroller to evaluate academic
and financial data of all Texas public schools and districts and rank them by their level of academic achievement and cost-effective operations. No longer will districts be held accountable solely on academic achievement, but also on cost-effectiveness. The Carrollton Farmers Branch School District will evaluated on the district's ability to achieve high student achievement while maintaining cost-effective operations.

The new Financial Solvency Review provisions require that the TEA implement a review process to analyze district revenues and expenditures for the preceding school year, and projected district revenues and expenditures for the current school year and the following two school years. Additionally , if a district a projects a deficit for a school district general fund within the following three school years, to provide TEA interim financial reports, supplemented by staff and student count data, as needed, to evaluate the district's current budget status. A deficit is projected, a district develop a financial plan and submit the plan to TEA for approval To discourage a rapid depletion of a district's general funds balance, TEA must established an alert in reporting system.

Although TEA commissioner has not issued final regulations to implement the Financial Solvency Review provisions, it is probably a safe bet that the district would had made dramatic changes in budgets if this provision of code existed in 2007. Every year since the 2007-2008 school year the district has projected deficits. Rather than developing a financial action plan to address deficits the Board of Trustees elected to deplete the the general funds balance. One does not have to be accountant or economist to realize, that when your revenues don't cover your expenses, that you can not continue to deplete your savings. It is time for the Board of Trustees and District administration make the same tough decisions that families and businesses in the district make everyday.

Budgeting Changes Needed at CFBISD

The four B’s of school budgeting: baffle, bewilder, befuddle …. Bobby

At its August 13th meeting, the Carrollton Farmers Branch School District Board Trustees will "Consider Revised Time, Place and Location of a Public Meeting to Discuss Budget and Proposed Tax Rate for the 2009-2010 Budget Year." The Board of trustees face the thorny task of approving a budget for the 2009-2010 school year. The district faces a $10 million deficit and must contend with $3 million in state-mandated teacher raises, whose federal funding is uncertain. In June, district superintendent Bobby Burns' staff presented the board with three preliminary budget options, two of which would require a rollback election. In order to pass a balanced budget, trustees were told, the tax rate would have to rise 9 cents to $1.457 per $100 of valuation. The Districts current total tax rate is $1.367 per $100 ( $1.04 per $100 of valuation for management and operations, $ .327 per $100 of valuation for debt service. ) As January 2008, only 123 districts 0f 1028 school districts in Texas had a higher combined tax rate.

What is baffling, bewildering and befuddling, is the board of trustees has all but excluded the public from the budgeting process. Last May, the public clearly expressed its lack confidence in the board by ousting two sitting trustees, including longtime board President John Tepper. This vote was not simply a referendum about the outcome of the Annette Griffin affair , but a clarion call for more open school district governance. Even if the board chooses to forgo a tax increase in favor of substantial budget cuts, the board and the district administration must acquire the buy-in of the public to final budget, if the district is to succeed in these trying times.

What is baffling, bewildering and befuddling, is the budget deficit is a surprise. In August of 2008 the Board of Trustees approved a budget for 2008-2009 school year where expenditures exceeded revenues by almost 13.5 million dollars. (Revenue $284,230,351 Expenditures $297,664,026). The deficit is expected to be funded by depleting the district’s general fund (savings account). In August of 2007 the Board of Trustees approved a budget for 2007-2008 school year where expenditures exceeded revenues by 6 million dollars, the final actual shortfall was 2 million. It baffling, bewildering and befuddling that the Board of Trustees would continue to approve budget resolutions where expenditures grow at faster rate than revenues , compounding the size of yearly deficit. Clearly as early as the spring of 2007, it was apparent that difficult decisions on budget priorties had to be made by the district.

The Board has a choice to make to continue to approve budgets that compound the size of deficits and continue to deplete the general fund balance, or include the community in setting budget priorities, and make the tough budget decisions that are necessary for financial well being of the district. If the board of trustees does approve a tax rate increase, the board will no doubt try to justify the increase as necessary to paid for righteous cause like a well deserve paid increase for teachers. However, any increase in revenues from a tax rate hike cannot be earmarked for a specific purpose. If the board adopts a budget that makes any spending contingent on a tax rate increase, the board is identifying those expenditures as the least important to district, in the opinion of the board. Any tax rate is permanent; there is no assurance that future budgets will reflect the priorities of the community.

It is baffling, bewildering and befuddling, that board would expect the community to surrender more its treasure, without greater input to the budget priorities and transparency.
Successful change begins with acquiring the community’s buy-in to needed budget changes. In the future, the Board of Trustees must increase transparency of, and community participation in the financial decision making of the school district. First, the board needs to create a community based committee to advise the board on budget priorities. This committee should include a broad membership, including parents, community and business leaders, educators and others. Preliminary budgets and options should be posted on the district website, and an provide opportunity for every member of the community to have a voice in setting budget priorities. Everyone agrees that student achievement should be the highest priority of the district. In these trying times, the goal of high student achievent must be accomplished, while maintaining
cost-effective operations. Secondly, the district should post quarterly financial statements and monthly check registers on the district website. Only by the district providing complete financial transparency can the community evaluate the the return on its tax dollars invested to gains in student achievement.