IC ISD initially failed to do a Stormwater Prevention Pollution Plan (SWPPP), a requirement of state and federal law with construction projects larger than 1 acre, when it started Phase 1 construction with the 2019 bonds. Their position, via their architect and construction firm, was that the first project site, the cafeteria kitchen, was less than an acre. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) said, no, it was larger than an acre; and they said all of the proposed construction site (including the gym), regardless of phasing, counted toward the 1 acre anyway. These are federal laws enforced by TCEQ on behalf of the EPA. I am dumbfounded by the Board's continued resistance to these laws and issues related to stormwater flooding. It's a lose-lose situation for everyone - the District, Parkhill, Gallagher, and our community - to disregard these laws. The blue erosion fence above was required as part of the SWPPP ultimately required by TCEQ. In the background you can see that the roofing was not yet complete on the new gym.
Below is the agenda for this meeting, and underneath it are my Agenda Analysis and Meeting Analysis (pending).
A. Agenda Analysis 1. Location and Time: The Administration has moved to 5th Street, but this meeting is still at the usual Board meeting room on 3rd Street. The meeting is on Wednesday at 6:30.
2. Pending construction projects, item 6:
This agenda language is too vague. One purpose for my critical analysis of agenda language is to publicly question whether the language is specific enough so that the community knows to question what the Board is up to and is voting upon. Consider the following about Mertzon and Irion County that make this an unusual public education environment. First, no one from the community attends school board meetings, including parents. Second, there is no Fourth Estate (local media). Third, the Board does not stream its meetings or post recordings of them online. And, fourth, races for school board elections are largely not competitive. So, the Board and Administration generally gets to operate in private. It historically has tended toward being as cryptic with its agenda language as it deems fit.
Understandably, the Board and Administration desire as much independence from the community as necessary so that they can accomplish their goals. The problem being, however, is that there is an entire body of law just on specificity of agendas. So that I avoid writing a legal brief here, go no further that the District's own board policy BE, where it is stated, "Agendas for all meetings must be sufficiently specific to inform the public of the subjects to be discussed at the meeting, setting out any special matters to be considered or any matter in which the public has a particular interest". (That's the Cox Enterprises v. Austin ISD Texas Supreme Court case, and its progeny.) I have already asserted for the previous agenda on this page at B.1.c. (where the Board first used similar agenda language) that the Board was voting on bond construction projects not previously disclosed to the voters prior to the bond election. (Estes Gym rehab and Field House addition.) As I try to interpret the language for this agenda item, item 6, I'm in the same quandary as I was in for agenda item 8 for the November 8 meeting: which construction project are they going to vote on? And, for this agenda, add the question: what specific "bond purchasing" might they vote on? Does the public have a "particular interest" in the kind of detail I am asking for here? Yes, and it's called preventing community wide stormwater flooding that is destroying both private and public property. The remedy for future agenda items like item 6? It's easy and would cost nothing. The drafting just needs to identify with more detail the specific bond project or part of bond project being approved. Not only will this kind of specificity alert the public about what is going on, it will help keep the Board, Administration, staff, private donors, Parkhill, Gallagher and the myriad of subcontractors honest.
I spent an extraordinary amount of time following the money spent on the 2019 bonds, up to and including winning an Open Records dispute with the District (See OR2022-17229) in which the District tried to keep secret the name of one of its large donors to City Gym. (At the time it appeared to me that private donations were being solicited by Board members and staff in order to get the gym or parts of the gym named after the donors. But, it was impossible to tell from the agendas or during the meetings where the money was going!) My experience analyzing the spend down of the 2019 bonds teaches me that one of the best ways to keep everyone honest is to openly disclose where the bond money is being spent as it is being approved by the Board at its board meetings. The Board clearly needs to be more specific in its agendas.
3. Administrative reports, agenda item 8: Highlighting this is a given - this is always a portion of the meeting that should receive focus. Here's a thought for the future, though: maybe an "Music" or "Music and Arts" ought to be added to these reports. A fair portion of the 2024 bond funds is going to a new marching field for the now 3 time State champion IC ISD marching band. Maybe its time the District play to its strengths outside of its passions for athletics? The only time there is band representation at Board meetings is when they are recognized.
4. Dyslexia handbook, agenda item 9: I was educated at IC ISD during the dark days before Section 504 and when the District had no affirmative legal obligation to screen for dyslexia, as it does now. One obvious advance in public education is that the Board has to approve the dyslexia services the District provides to students. They have to do it annually, and its a good thing.
5. Present and discuss new football field/track: The flooding of the football field and track by stormwater coming from the IC ISD campus' impervious cover, paid for with public bond money, is the crux of my argument that the District is flooding itself. No funds should be considered for a new field and track until Parkhill makes public its data from its surveys of the area. To be specific, the following is the data I have requested several times in my PIA requests to the District: A copy of the following survey results and all accompanying interpretations done by ParkHill or any of its agents or contractors:
A. Lidar survey, done in August 2024. (Previously asked for in August and September, 2024.)
B. Topography, done in October 2024. The Board should not repeat the mistakes it made with the 2019 funds where Phase 1 funds were spent first on its lowest elevation property at the football field and Phase 2 funds were spent later at higher elevation property, the campus, where the new impervious cover created more stormwater runoff that flooded the lower elevations. Thus, part of the solution to objectively evaluate whether the Board is throwing good money after bad and continuing to flood itself at the lower elevations is to evaluate Parkhill's Lidar and topography surveys.
6. Closed session and actions, items 13 and 15: I highlight these each meeting as a reminder that matters can only be discussed in closed session if they are specifically allowed in the Open Meetings Act. An exception has to exist.
B. Meeting Analysis 1. Pending construction projects and/or bond purchasing, item 6: The Board voted to approve the purchase of a medium sized bus with bond money, though the dollar amount was not discussed openly during the meeting. As a continuation of my analysis above, I think the Board should be transparent about the dollar amount of the purchase or construction at the time of the motion. They appear to be relying on meeting notes provided by Supt. Moore, and the public doesn't have access to those during the meeting. No one will know whether those notes become part of the official record of the meeting. In addition, a more frank and open discussion of the cost creates accountability of the Board members, especially in that rare event down the road that the budget gets blown up, as happened during the previous administration. Yes, that happened. 2. Present and discuss new football field and track, item 5: Asst. Principal/Athletic Director Morrow lead this part. No vote was taken, and the discussion was about the kind of field and track surfaces to use. For the first time it was publicly disclosed that bond money would be used for these improvements. I'll be revisiting this issue later, as a central criticism I had of the 2019 bond package is that the lions share of the money was spent on athletics and no classrooms were built. The 2024 bond pre-election community meetings clearly kept the plans to continue with the athletic facility build out on the down low so as to not trigger, pre-election, this criticism that the Board's emphasis is on athletics.
There was no discussion about the history of the track and field to flood from stormwater, and there was no discussion about the potential cost, including the cost of flood remediation. Artificial turf has to specially cleaned when it floods. Coincidentally, this week I learned that one reason the great Notre-Dame Cathedral could be re-opened this week after that terrible fire is that they had an exact digital 3D of the interior because Lidar had been used before the fire. (See also here.) Our community now has this kind of data, accurate up to a few millimeters, of the basins that flood the football field and track. Yet, it is not being discussed during Board meetings, and my repeated efforts to get access it via the PIA have all failed. (I am not stopping, though.) What I learned with the build out of the 2019 bond funds is consistent with the build out of the 2024 bonds: the architects, engineers and construction firms (the Parkhills and Gallaghers) know or have access to quite precise data that will inform our community the degree of stormwater flooding that will occur before the ground is even broken for the construction.
This is a travesty. They, Parkhill and Gallagher, aren't members of this community, and they, like Jeff Potter Architects and WBK Construction before them, are going to leave this community as soon as that final bond fund check lands in their company account...and they will never be heard from again.
3. Administrative reports, item 8: Superintendent Moore's report mentioned the following: a. She and staff have done a tour of the Wall ISD special ed facilities run by Small Schools Coop. (Special Ed funds from Washington are potentially on the chopping block given a campaign promise to abolish the Dept. of Education. So, this is an area to watch.) b. Bond construction update: planning stages still, and portables are currently being delivered. Coming up are meetings for construction fencing and elementary school "saves". (The steeles on the front of the elementary, flooring of the old gym and other things are being listed as things to not to be destroyed but kept for part of the new construction.) Raising the building won't start until about March 1. c. Home inspections - the new property recently purchased at 612 W. Fleming is under rehab. More on this property later. d. Next board meeting is on Wed Jan 15, location unknown.
4. Discuss/approve dyslexia handbook, item 9: The Texas Dyslexia Handbook, published by TEA, was updated in Aug. 2024, so the District's handbook had to be approved to be consistent. This is a fascinating and ever changing area of the law. An important change is that now dyslexia is identified as a specific learning disability. A child will qualify for Special Education under IDEA if they have dyslexia AND need evidence based reading instructions. This means federal money kicks in, there's an ARD and potentially an individual education plan specific to that child's needs. Specific IEP's are a lot of labor for school districts, but they potentially have HUGE benefits to the child. If the child is going on to higher education, that IEP can be used by him/her to require their college to provide those or similar services. So, when I speak to parents about learning disabilities I tell them to get as specific of a plan as you can in primary school because your child may need that in higher education. There may be around 7 students at IC ISD that are identified as dyslexic but who have already been provided reading instructions, so do not have to go into SPED under this year's handbook. Their parents might want to reconsider that because they potentially will get more protection from discrimination later on with an IEP than a 504 plan. (But, there's also the stigma of special education to contend with...) The Board's treatment of the new handbook at this meeting was about what one might expect. Some members failed to even read it (and one said so!) , while others indicated they had and were appreciative of the efforts that went into it. The handbook was approved by the Board, but without any discussion. The District's page for dyslexia is here. As an aside, my first memorable "No, you can't do this, you aren't smart enough" relating to my own education was at IC ISD. My IC ISD high school principal smirked at me when I told him about my low SAT score. His smirk burns me to this day, but along the way it provided me with some fuel, like a good breakfast bar does when one is on a long hike, to accomplish a few things. So, it is critically important that board members try harder when they approve this manual. Any lack of concern from the Board about learning differences can send a terrible message to the administration, staff and ultimately to students. I'm a firm believer that how the school board feels about learning differences is how the entire school feels. Diversity in learning skills means diversity in thought. The lack of uniformity is what makes education worthwhile to us all. Thankfully we are not all the same. 5. The following update was posted on Dec 18 and was cross posted on this page: Tournament parking: The IC ISD Billy Barnett Hoops Classic set for Dec. 27 and 28 2024, once again makes painfully transparent the achilles heel of City Gym: parking and flooding. (Read more about Barnett here.) To his credit, former Mertzon Mayor Bill Taylor (before he got his ears boxed at this hearing) tried to get the District to address the parking problems for the gym before the gym was built. Former AD Jacob Conner and Supt. Ray DeSpain ultimately failed to alleviate the parking pressure by constructing a new parking lot that I have labeled the GMPL. Even that parking lot was not enough, so part of the 2024 bond funds will be used to pay for the destruction of the current maintenance barn and construction of a new parking lot in its place. (See the photo on this page.) Watch these pages for my posts on the additional stormwater that more parking at City Gym is going to add to our community. More flooding is a certainty, and it will be substantial because the GMPL could be doubled in size. I have personally notified Supt. Moore of these concerns. Expansion of the GMPL is a huge mistake and will lead to additional flooding at the football field.
Stormwater management, including snow melt management, takes all forms. The week before we arrived Santa Fe NM was blanketed with a foot of snow. During the early part of the melt each rain gutter at the Palace of the Governors had these galvanized tubs underneath so that the melt would not splash on the vendors and so the flow would enter the street, owned by the City of Santa Fe. Unlike the City of Mertzon, however, the City of Santa Fe has an underground stormwater management network of pipes to redistribute the stormwater runoff. Here is the EPA's page on Santa Fe's stormwater management, a plan especially notable because of its adoption of green infrastructure concepts.
Copyright 2024 G Noelke