The District sent home with students a letter to their parents regarding the upcoming bond election.

The original letter will be quoted fully and exactly in italics, and my comments will be inserted in bold text.


August 29, 2006

Dear Lancaster ISD,

The Lancaster Independent School District Board of Trustees voted to call a school bond referendum election on Tuesday November 7, 2006.

Syntax matters. The board voted on August 28th. The election will be held November 7th.

The $215,000,000 referendum will occur in three phases as student growth occurs.

The referendum is the election. The election will occur, as stated above, on November 7th. Perhaps the referendum will pass. Perhaps not. If and only if the referendum passes might one or more BORROWING phases occur.

The $215 Million to be borrowed is NOT contingent upon student growth. Whether the students are three feet tall or grow to be seven feet tall, the amount the referendum authorizes to be borrowed is the same.

What the district clumsily intends to imply is that as the average number of students in daily attendance grows, more money will be borrowed. This is not accurate. Only if the Lancaster tax base grows may phases two or three become legally possible. If the housing bubble collapses or if anticipated commercial development falls through, the borrowing authorized by this election can not occur. That is, even if student attendance numbers rise; if development and taxable values fall, the 2nd and 3rd phases will not take place. Similarly, even if student attendance falls, but taxable valuations rise, the district CAN borrow and spend money that may be authorized by this referendum.

The capital needs assessment for the November 2006 referendum began with a Citizens Bond/ Faculty Committee and included a review of facilities, expenditures and needs by citizens.

The Citizens'/Facility Bond Committee met three times for a total of about seven hours. One hour of that time was spent providing Superintendent Lewis an audience to discuss the May 2006 election. Another hour provided consultant Red Whiddon a similar audience while he assured all committee members the $110 Million borrowed in 2004 was accounted for -- though he also informed that committee he was neither an accountant nor auditor. Two hours were spent touring buildings. Another, providing an audience for staffers from the city Planning and Zoning commission discuss housing permit processes and statistics.

The citizens did not develop the needs assessment. Those documents were developed by non-citizens; including Red Whiddon, Von Gallagher, and Matt Boles.

The 50 residents involved in the process analyzed demographic information,

The committee was provided advertising from a demographic firm, Population And Survey Analysis, who had conducted a demographic survey for the district in 2003 and hoped to get another such contract. The data provided to the committee had not, in fact, been updated by PASE since their original survey. Demographic data from the TEA Region Ten was also provided. Whether or not individual committee members "analyzed" the data provided, there was no open discussion of the data as assembled by the district.

studied building evaluations,

There were no formal reports on any individual building provided to the committee or composed by the committee.

visited facilities,

True. Walking through a building is a visit, not an evaluation.

and prepared recommendations for the Board of Trustees.

This is exaggerated. The committee was asked one and only one question. Should the district hold three small bond elections, or one big one. Those of us (both "Citizens") who expressed preference for one, even smaller, bond were outvoted by "Faculty".

In their reports, the committee prioritized facility projects into three specific phases.

This is incorrect. The three phase framework and all projects and details comprising each phase had been determined and published before the first committee meeting. Several committee members asked questions regarding changes to the priorities previously established by the district and contract managers. However, no such changes were allowed.

It is correct that during the committee meetings, the overall scope of the projects changed. At the first committee meeting the total bond package was projected to be $211 million. At the second meeting we were told the package would also include an unspecified sum for vehicles and a new vehicle maintenance facility. Only at the third and final committee meeting were the vehicle details presented BY the District TO the Committee and the final total of $215 Million was established.

Please realize that in a three week period the district saw the scope of project costs creep upwards by $4 million dollars. Thank God the committee wasn't invited back for a fourth meeting.

This bond referendum will fund each recommended phase.

The taxpayers may become responsible to fund each phase. Phase one can be supported, at present, if the district raises tax rates to the legal maximum. If and only if property valuations increase, either by new development or the increase in assessed value of our existing property, then the district will gain what the Superintendent refers to as "cap room". Whenever in the future, on the proposed phased schedule or much later, the valuations rise, the district can borrow as much money as the "cap room" will support without returning to voters for approval of any amount or for any specific purpose.

The Board of Trustees and the Administration appreciate the work of these individuals and the time that they spent becoming knowledgeable about LISD facilities.

This committee member reciprocates with appreciation for the opportunity to see how such decisions are developed. If more citizens were provided the opportunity to experience district officials' steam-roller, voter turnout would be higher.

This document provides information related to the 2006 Bond Referendum Package.

True again, insofar as misinformation is a type of information

Please take time to review this information.

Please make efforts to get information from other sources besides the district itself.

District citizens who have additional questions about the bond referendum are encouraged to contact any Board member or school district administration.

Remember that by law neither board members nor district administrators may advocate any position regarding your vote. Violations of state law should be reported to the Texas State Ethics Commission at (800) 325-8506.

You will also find information on the district’s website at www.lancasterisd.org.

You will not find the minutes of the Citizens'/Facilty Bond Committee meetings. You will not find copies of the contract between Red Whiddon of "The School Business Group" and the district. You will not find minutes of the Board of Trustees' meeting of 28 August when this election was approved. You will not find the monthly progress reports by Gallagher Construction Company regarding the projects of the 2004 Bond. You won't find details of the planned "technology" purchases of some $20 million dollars. But check it out, anyway. Maybe you'll find the missing "honor roll".



We stand ready to answer your questions.
Sincerely,
Larry Lewis, Ph.D.
Superintendent of Schools

I think you should call and ask him