Lancaster vote on budget, tax rate postponed until Aug. 21

interestedcitizen, says:

I don't know how the budget and tax rate can be adopted on the 21st. To do so, then we have to admit that the public hearing on the proposed budget took place on August 2, 2007. Yet, look at the agenda. There was nothing there saying anything about a public hearing, and there was nothing in that agenda stating that a budget would be discussed.

So, how can the general public say they were given notice of a public hearing on August 2, 2007? The words "budget" were notwhere to be found in the August 2, 2007 agenda. The words "tax rate document" were there, but there is nothing in that agenda mentioning anything about a public hearing. Would anyone understand the words "tax rate document" to mean "public hearing to receive comments about the proposed 2007-2008 tax budget and tax rate?" If not, how could August 2, 2007 have been the required public hearing?

If August 21st is going to be the date at which the budget and tax rate are going to be adopted, August 11th was the deadline for publishing notice. I didn't see it in the Focus yesterday and I didn't see it in the Dallas Morning News today. Did anyone see it?

interestedcitizen, says:

Has anyone seen a debt budget showing how the $.39 debt rate is justified? A debt budget, along with a maintenance and operation budget are supposed to be posted at the district's website at the same time a newspaper notice is published advertising the public hearing on the budget and tax rate. You say the budget was the talk of the town prior to August 2, 2007. What were people saying about it? Why wasn't it posted for a public meeting on August 2? Why weren't people there to comment? Why is a summary of the budget still not published at the LISD website?

According to some numbers I've seen, a debt date of around $.365 will raise the same amount of money as last year's debt rate of $.39. Yet, last year's debt rate of $.39 increased the balance of our year end debt service fund. Since we issued no new debt last year that can be paid from our debt service fund, we need to know why we need so much more debt revenue than we had last last year. A budget summary at the website that is required by law would go a long way to explaining why we are maintaining a $.39 debt rate when the revenus raised by a $.365 rate appear to be adequate.

What could possibly by the school district's motive in failing to post a legally required debt budget at its website? What is the point of keeping us ignorant?

estherspeaks, says:

It is my suggestion, that questions that seemingly do not have answers should be sent to our elected representatives and insist that they get the right answers from Lewis. The LISD Board of Trustees have email addresses and you can make sure they read them by sending them to "firstnamelastname@lancasterisd.org"

Even though, Lewis does not care about what the community thinks (his words-not mine), we still have the power of the vote and come May we will exercise it. Remember, a new board can demand Lewis' departure.

queensheeba, says:

Interested citizen, if you do email board members do not be suprised when they do not acknowledge your email. I beleive atleast 4 of the members have their heads in the sand and believe Dr. Lewis knows what he is doing and can do know wrong. I think the public needs to request that an outside audit be done, so that if no wrong doing is going on, they can give taxpayers a peace of mind.

jefmelch, says:

The 16 August LISD budget workshop discussed raises to coaches' stipends, freezes on procurement of classroom supplies, and reductions of teachers's pay.

In particular, the district has seen the departure of dozens of long-term, highly experienced teachers. These teachers had qualified for "Longevity Pay" of up to $15,000 each. Even though the district has hired more than enough new teachers to replace the departing longevity-paid teachers, thereby increasing the total teaching staff by over 30 positions to about 470 teachers, the total salaries paid to teachers was reduced in the 2007-08 budget by about $1.3 million dollars.

Previous budget meetings had also proposed, across-the-board, increase in teachers' pay of $700 per year. This increase was projected to be a one-time payment in December and characterized as a "Christmas Bonus" in those workshops. Now that raise has been recommended for elimination. The funds instead are slated for a several hundred thousand dollar contribution toward increasing the district's financial reserve -- the "fund balance".

A change in compensation rates for a dozen or so coaches has less impact. Extra days worked have formerly been paid at $100 per day. The current budget proposes instead that each coach be paid at his or her "daily rate". This represents about a 150% raise in the rate for those days. The impact on the overall budget is only about one-quarter million dollars in increase.

Raises for top administration officials have been reduced or eliminated.

Classroom supply budgets are based on enrollment and are unchanged -- frozen -- from last year at the rate of $75 dollar per enrolled child. However, as last year, teachers are strongly encouraged not to buy supplies at the start of the year but save some funding for later. Later -- November and after -- they are encouraged (or required) not to buy supplies because those supplies will not arrive in time to affect current students. Superintendent Lewis denies that this 'freeze' is a response to financial hardship but reports there is routinely such a 'freeze' during each school year, a practice he characterized as good business.

Maintenance Manager Pape reported, in response to board President Kirkland's questioning, that the district has purchased 24 vehicles and 9 school buses with 2004 bond funds, a procurement Kirkland and Pape assure each other is perfectly legal. The district's attorney was not present for comment.

Large portions of special state and federal funding intended for enrichment and improvements to failing schools and at-risk students have been committed to continuation of existing programs at previous budget levels. For example, the full-day pre-kindergarten programs previously supported by local funding continue, now to be paid by state compensatory education funds under "extended school day" rules. The day is not longer than LISD offered last year, but it is longer than the half-day program required by statute. Similar re-sponsored programs were discussed for the middle school ( a "stage three" continued failure under federal "No Child Left Behind" rules) and the High School (now in the 2nd year, stage two, of NCLB sanctions.) The board heard of no actually new programs or initiatives requiring the budget to apply state and federal compensatory / targeted funds. The same programs as fell short last year will be continued under state and federal sponsorship this coming year.

The absentee-reduction plan to incentivize attendance and reduce expenses for substitutes was not re-addressed last night.

A question from the board for the breakout of the new high school stadium's costs and returns on investment was incompletely answered. The particular question to break out the amortization and depreciaton for the stadium as a yearly expenses was rejected, with Mr Pape explaining that those financial details were inseparable from the total $110 million bond repayment schedule. (How this differs from the accelerated and targeted repayment of bond-procured vehicles was not addressed.) Nor are the electricity payments for stadium lighting distinguishable from those of the high school, generally.

letslearn, says:

Between what was written, in the Dallas Morning News on Saturday's editorial page and the CNN interview, I would say Lancaster, Texas, is on the educational laugh track, nationally. Thank you, so much Larry Lewis!!!

Oh, does anyone know, why; the budget the board is to vote on at, the next meeting has salary raisies and other increases. Not decreases as was discussed, with the budget they shared with the public. No, I am talking about the budget, the trustees recieved on their way out the door. What a clever tactic. Let's ask for a copy of the real budget to be voted on, now.

Did the district not send any students to the JJAEP last year? If we did was it a free service to Lancaster? And will it be free again this year? Or is Lewis, trying to keep one of his hundreds of promises and dealing fairly, compentely and wisely with students who are having trouble with the rules, and the law and order of the district.

Did anyone see a copy of the new student code of conduct? Does it meet all legal requirements and not give the staff, a free hand to do anything, they please to students, under the quise of disicipline?

Frankly, I do not understand the need to please and lift athletics, when the test scores are still in the dump, overall. How about lifting and pleasing teachers, those who are really in the trenches daily? Especially, those the students have come to know, that really care to teach them. So you hired more teachers this year, than last. Who are they related to? Sorry, but I just had to ask? If we take sports, music and overall arts how many students are really benefitting? Maybe 600-700. Because some of the same students are in all the different things. So those areas you are lifting with more funds and attention; are not benefitting, the many. Are you not concerned with the whole student body, Larry Lewis?

And oh yeah that thing, to CNN, about the success of the summer and winter reading programs....show the community the gains academically, PLEASE!!!! In numbers with a benchamark when the program started and then the rise in scores over time. What schools have been fully okayed to implement the IB program, by the IB panel? When was the approval givena dn the board notified? Must be all of them, the way, Lewis speaks of them. Does anyone really know, how much all the trips to Canada and around the country to train and learn is costing a district with no money?

I have heard so much about how the 2004, 110,000,000.00, bond money was used. Someone had better start showing where the law says the district could buy police cars, along with buses from the bond funds. If the finances in the district have improved with the coming of Lewis, why are we discussing the issue and not applauding him? Lancaster, never had an academically unacceptable school, until Lewis came. Huh!

Please let us find Eugene Preston Smith, so he can give an accouinting. You now the certified and qualified, Chief Financial Officer, Lewis bought in after Ted Warren retired, shortly after Lewis got here.

OOPS!! I forgot; LancasterISd, does not always have the proof, because they are paperless and the tech department, has trouble making queries. That must be it, since, no one can get open records request filled without a big cost attached to gathering and retreiving information. Truly, I thought the tech folks were super, but now, I am not so sure. But hey could it be the superintendent does not want the truth out, about anything?

We want the check registers online NOW!!!

We want TEA, TASB and the Att. General's Office to audit N OW!!!

Chestertonian, says:

letslearn,

What a sad commentary you set forth. Reminds one that TEA let WHISD rock along for years knowing that there were problems. TEA, unfortunately because of LISD's incompetency, has the gigantic opportunity to get it right this time. Let's see if they have the intestinal fortitude to do so. And if they don't, pray the voters do.

queensheeba, says:

We had students sent to JJAEP for sure. If I am not mistaken, several staff members at the high school were assulted by students last year. Hopefully the district will not fabricate the report to TEA on this matter. If I was a gambling person, I would bet fabrication runs high in this district. But you know, there are people in the world who lie, cheat, and steal so much, they begin to believe that it is not wrong and continue to do it as if it was second nature. Hopefully those in LISD that are doing this will find themselves in new living quarters with bars on the windows.