Here is the agenda for the January 15, 2024 board meeting with my agenda analysis below that and my meeting analysis below that (pending - the meeting analysis is incomplete and being posted in stages):
Agenda analysis:
Follow the money. The annual audit at item 6, Mr. Helms' report at 8c, and monthly checks at 10b are good focus points, especially in view of a possible May bond election (items 7 and 9). One question is: will the check register will be updated here again? Taxpayers deserve the right to see up to date financials. If you would like to compare last year's audit with this one that will be discussed at this meeting, here is last year's audit. (Like the District's 5 year lapse of posting its check register, note that it has had a similar 4 year lapse with posting its audits.)
Now that it is January, we ought to be getting some more detailed information about the potential May bond election, suggested at item 7. That election will also include board member elections, unless the candidates don't draw an opponent. Four board member terms are up in 2024 - Maegin Carlile, Ricky Rey, DJ Rainey, and Chad Koonce. About 3 weeks ago the District began advertising a leadership academy for potential board members, apparently as an effort to demystify the position. In most communities these races are competitive, so in my opinion this kind of transparency about what a board member actually does is welcome. (Another way potential board members can learn about the role is...come to board meetings regularly! And, don't just come during the election season!)
Superintendent Moore is addressing the Texas Academic Performance Report, TAPR, at item 8d. Here is a pdf of the District's results for 2022-23. You can search for the District at this TEA page. TEA makes this disclaimer on its TAPR Glossary page: "Currently, the TAPR does not include scale scores, A–F ratings, Distinction Designations, or Special Education Determination Status. The initial release does not include the Campus or District 2023 Accountability Reports. The issuance of the A–F ratings under 2023 rule is pending and subject to change." Well, actually, that A-F rating system is under litigation. Here is the trial court order on this site that is being appealed, and here is the page on the 3d Court of Appeals in Austin for the appeal. (See TEA's response in its Appellant's Brief filed on December 20 on that page.) The parties are still in the briefing stage, so there is quite a while yet before there is a final resolution. And, even then it seems likely this will go to the Texas Supreme Court, so a resolution is a long way off. TEA should be more transparent about the lack of the A-F ratings with these TAPR scores. In any event, if you are concerned (as I am) about the District's longstanding historical over attention to athletics - and the physical destruction from flooding and waste of taxpayer dollars that come with it - you will want to know Superintendent Moore's take on the TAPR results.
In more Moore news, her evaluation, though only a few months into her job, is a closed session topic at item 12 a. Her contract is also a topic, and some action is planned in open session at 14b. My recollection is that superintendent contract reviews come in Dec/Jan, so there isn't necessarily something of import here. But, all superintendent reviews should be highlighted.
I'm uncomfortable with the notice of merely "personnel" in 12(c) as a proper disclosure under the Open Meetings Act. See 12.074 for the law on this. Reasonable minds can differ, but I think the better approach for personnel matters especially is to explicitly state that the purpose is to consider the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of a public officer or employee; or to hear a complaint or charge against an officer or employee. For example, the community should not be guessing about the Board's consideration of Athletic Director Conner's position, especially considering his high administrative level. The District has for years had the practice of cloaking its employment actions, and it should shine more sunlight in this area.
Meeting analysis:
2024 bond. The Board spent over an hour in a Zoom meeting with John Blackburn with Live Oak Public Finance (who was also engaged in the 2019 bond package) and two representatives of Parkhill Architects, Jeff Reed and Allan Wolf. The discussion was dizzying with a discussion of the range of the bond package, tax impact to property owners and a discussion of how the money might be used. a. The discussed range is $33 to $41 million. (The 2019 bon was for $18 million.) b. Purpose. The purpose of the bond is for a variety of things. I am going to keep my powder dry regarding the matters that I heard that were being discussed. In truth, it is all very fluid, and this is all before the community representatives and stakeholders have had a chance to look under the hood.
Audit. Mr. McKee gave a good audit report, and the best way to evaluate the audit will be to wait until the audit itself is posted on the District's website. I will refer to it when it is posted. Of particular note: a. He confirmed my analysis, and that of CFO Helms, that it in 2022-23 Moak Casey was off its estimate on the wind farm revenue over $800,000, as I stated on this page. And, he stated, consistent with what I learned from Superintendent Moore, no one knows why the figure was off...and Moak Casey wasn't saying. b. The District has roughly $10 million in its fund balance, which it has partially restricted so as to not appear as having too much money in savings. c. The mineral tax base has ballooned from $1.1 billion in 2022 to $2.3 billion in 2023. Part of the juggling going on with the affordability of the 2024 bonds is just this - that $2.3 billion is not realistic in 2024.
Academic Performance (TAPR). Superintendent Moore gave a summary of her handout summary to the board. In other words, there is some summarizing going on because there is nothing to celebrate over. If there are any retired teachers out there who would like to help me evaluate this TAPR report, I would be most welcome.
Superintendent Moore's contract extension. She received an extension in her contract from July 2024 to July 2029, a pay raise from $115,000 to $125,000 and a fixed increase of 3% each year. Here is what I said two months ago about her pay, so this is welcome news. These bonds deals are controversial at best, and this sort of statement of confidence from her and the Board is promising.
Copyright 2024 G Noelke