EARMARK BOND FUNDS BEFORE VOTING:

Earmark bond funds before voting  by Elizabeth L. Westhoff

Letter to the Editor printed on February 23, 1994 in the Katy Times

When it was announced that the board was developing a steering committee for the proposed upcoming bond election, I hoped above all that just this once, it would not turn out to be a farce.  To have the committees go to the public to receive input from the constituents was a worthwhile concept.  I commend Dr. Harrison for all of his effort and time.  Too bad Dr. Hayes shot down every idea that was brought back to the whole committee by implying that they (the committee could not tell the board to do the things that the voters wished for.  Then pathetically, some of the committee members and administrators thought so eminently of the participants of the forums, they openly ridiculed them and their input.

One prominent debatable issue, that was belittled, was the fact that the Board plans on calling two elections this spring, one for the bond and another for trustees.  In fact, I was informed by a precinct judge that he was approached by KISD to continue his position at the bond election, which he was told will be held April 9 or 16.  This occurred before the public forums.  At what cost to the taxpayers will these two elections consume?  Would it not be more cost effective to hold just one election? Or is the district hoping that a smaller turnout will be in their favor?

The one area we have not heard from is the neighborhood businesses. Why didn't the program committee hold a forum for the business community, especially the local commerce groups?  Where was the business community's input on this proposed bond?

It is my opinion that the bond call the Board of Trustees has made has fundamental deficiencies.  The most catastrophic being absence of accountability and inadequacies in (in Dr. Hayes' own word) "specificity".  The committee was told by the taxpayers who were concerned enough to attend, and who will be footing the bill for this $90 million dollars, they want some form of specifics on how the money will be spent, and they want justification for the spending.

I keep hearing phrases such as ..."I don't want to tie the hands of future board members."  With the strong probability of another bond election in five to eight years, its OK to saddle the current as well as future taxpayers with this debt and for what only God, and the administration, knows.  Yet, at the same time they have promoted how unsatisfactory the three Katy proper schools are, and have already hired an architect and/or engineering firm to access the Katy High/Junior High site.  In addition, having proposed a location for the new junior high, this sounds quite specific to me.  The district boast at Mr. Leach's accuracy in his demographic predictions which he has virtually "hit the mark" for years also computes to "specifics" for me.

I have heard repeatedly that the $90 million will be gone in five years.  this again appears to be a definite plan of action.  Why not spell it out?  What are they afraid of?  If ISD plans on coming back to the taxpayers in the very near future for the sale of more bonds, should they not try their best to accommodate the constituents with which the outcome of the entire district falls upon?  With this closed viewpoint, will they get the money that is needed for this and future construction that is desperately needed?

I attended last August's Board Retreat in Columbia Lakes where the board members and our administrative officials discussed this bond in great detail.  One of the remarks I remember distinctly and wrote down was Dr. Hayes telling Board members in reference to the bond "The more money we ask for, the less specific we will have to be on how to spend it."  Furthermore, the fifth-sixth configuration was addressed somewhat at length.  Mr. Thompson, did you ever get answers from this administration on the questions that you raised back then?  Did Mr. Leach prepare the study you requested and were told you would get on this subject?

Fascinatingly, in the 1980's demographic study, of which Mr. Leach was chair, it states, and I quote "....it was interesting to note that no apparent study has ever been made of the PK-5, 6-8, 9/12 grade level grouping utilized in the Katy Independent School District. Does this arrangement deliver the best system of education while maximizing resource utilization?"

This study also states that a number of district facilities exceeded their capacity.  One of those being Wolfe Elementary with the "use of five temporary buildings."  The current information disseminated by the district describes that these five T shacks are still there today.  When is something "specific" going to be done about this injustice?  While on the same note, Memorial Parkway Junior High was slated in the 1982 bond election, (see information on the bond printed and distributed by KISD) as needing relief from overcrowding.  Today it has five T shacks and no earmarking of funds by the current administration for relief. While I can fully understand that no one could have predicted the economic crunch of the 80's, this school again (or still) finds itself bursting at the seams.

While I agree that the schools in Katy proper need replacement, renovation and/or enlargement they are not the only ones.  Katy Junior High currently has an enrollment of 700 students in grades 6-8.  Memorial Parkway has 452 students in the sixth grade alone, with a total of 1,304 for grades 6-8.  There are "specifics" for the schools in Katy proper, why not the others?

I will be advocating for the accountability and "specificity" for this bond election.  I can not be a proponent for unspecified spending and lack of fiscal responsibility.  The taxpayers have spoken and have been ignored as well as insulted.  Does the board really imagine that the taxpayers, including businesses, will be complaisant and give this administration unconstrained authority with their tax dollars?

Taxpayer and voter,

Elizabeth L. Westhoff