Trash the bond issue to send DISD a lesson? It's the right idea, but the wrong way to do it.

I don't agree with Jim Schutze's conclusion in his latest column for the Dallas Observer: "DISD Doesn't Deserve to Win Its Bond Election Because of Its Fiscal Incompetence." Based on that headline, I don't need to tell you which side of the bond issue (Saturday's voting day) Jim comes out on. His comments, though, represent the crux of the argument against the $1.3 billion bond proposal, which is being touted by DISD as a way to help continue modernizing the district's schools and ensuring that student achievement continues to improve.

Jim's conclusion, if I may be so brave as to try and synthesize Obi-Wan in a few words, is that DISD has been so screwed up for so long that it's time to teach those clowns a lesson by standing up to them and voting the bond issue down. Or something like that. Jim seems to believe that stiffing DISD on the bond issue by voting it down is somehow going to send a message to the adminstrators and school board members that it's time to quit screwing around and start making the district run like a business. After all, how long can a school district promise financial and management improvements and then appear not to deliver on them?

I've got news for you, Jim: Pretty much every reasonable person in charge of anything at DISD already knows it's screwed up. They just can't figure out a way to turn things around as quickly as you and I and they would like.

The real problem is that relatively new DISD Supt. Michael Hinojosa is doing just what Jim and the other bond naysayers are demanding: He's going through the district in a fairly laborious fashion and trying to turn the place into something that functions more like a business than a financial suck-hole. But it's unrealistic to expect Hinojosa, or anyone else for that matter, to turn around something so obviously messed up in just a couple of years. The oft-delayed audit of the district's finances contributes to the feeling that DISD isn't getting better, but the opposite seems true: Hinojosa is making progress, but now he's being victimized by our expectation that every two or three years, DISD is going to implode yet again — because for as long as I've been in Dallas, that's exactly what has happened.

Defeating the bond issue is something voters clearly can do, but a "no" vote isn't going to speed up the DISD cleanup, it's not going to bring angels down from on high to start zapping recalcitrant administrators, and it's not going to cause some of the "only-out-for-number-one" employees still working in the bowels of DISD to confess the errors of their ways. All of that is only going to happen if Hinojosa hangs around long enough (like another 5-10 years) so that the culture of the place can be turned around, at least as much as a place with 160,000 students and employees can actually be turned around — which is to say, the next time a DISD bond issue is put before voters, we'll probably still be talking about this same stuff ... because that's the inevitable nature of a bureacracy that's just too large to effectively manage. So what we need to do is carve DISD up into smaller districts that are more manageable and more effective for the students in our neighborhoods ... but that's a column for another day.

Comments

[Norman Alston]

If you don't like the way DISD is run, then demand better school board members. Demand accountability from them and their staff, including Hinojosa. March on Ross Avenue.

Defeating the bond issue only hurts the kids. They are the ones who need the facilities repaired, the latest technology and relief from overcrowding (without bussing them all over the county). This "They don't deserve my money" attitude is exactly how we got into the position of needing $1.3 billion bond issues. Mortgage our future? We're living with it now. Thanks to this exact same skepticism from years past, the DISD has always floated bond issues based on what they thought they could get approved in a hostile environment, not what the facilities needed. The environment has always been hostile. So we defer the needs until near the breaking point. We were at the cliff's edge with the last bond. We're better now but the needs are still pretty desperate. It takes awhile to catch up from 50 years of falling behind. And the DISD has made it pretty clear that they are still only asking for money for about half of the needs identified, so we'll be doing this again in about 5 years, even if this one passes.

Nothing helps and promotes our neighborhoods (including property values, for those who watch such things) more than our schools. How many people do any of us know who state they moved to or live in a suburb mostly for the schools. I know lots. Good facilities is not all that is needed for quality schools, but it's the easiest to see and the only option available on Saturdays ballot. So to fix the DISD, vote yes to the bond then get to work preparing to vote for your school board representative when that election comes up. It's that next election where we need to show 'em we're not happy.

[Amy S]

Give me a tough, thorough audit anytime over a quick overview. At least Hinojosa is willing to rip the band aid off with an audit that will probably prove to be unflattering. And it will help him justify getting the staff and training levels up in the finance department, an area that seems to have been shorted under previous administrations (non-teaching staff and all that). This problem with the district's finances goes back many, many years, shorting today's students is not the correct penalty.

[Alfredo]

Voted no and I make no apology for it. The DISD has shown an inability to manage money over the last several years and made no attempt to even clean up the mess they made with the credit cards. Better trustees? The only name on my ballot was the current board chairman who has had issues raised about his ethics, was unopposed. Sorry, but I am no longer drinking the "But it's for the children" kool aid.

[Jim Napper]

Those of us that have taken the time to STUDY this botched bond proposal will vote no. those who have read the campaign brochure and want to believe can do so. A better bond can be put up for a November vote.

Exactly how can you trust a school district that states on its web site that they have over 1 thousand portables in use when the fact is that OVER really means about 1600 to 1700 portables in use. If they cant count to 1600 how are earth can they count to 1,370,000,000?

[jm]

> So what we need to do is carve DISD up into smaller districts that are more manageable and more effective for the students in our neighborhoods ... <

?

Well. My home ISD, just to the south, is a lot smaller and neighborhood-like than Dallas ISD. We, like Dallas, had a late audit last year. Like with Dallas ISD's Coleman Williams, we had a senior convicted and sentenced by the Feds for embezzlement. Like Dallas, we passed a (for us) gigantic bond to get rid of portables and fix crumbling schools, only to see MORE portables brought in, and usable buildings demolished for the sin of not being "state of the art". Having not-quite-enough money left to finish the projects promised last go round, our leadership -- just as in Dallas -- proposed NOT doing ANY of the promised small building projects. Instead, like in Dallas, our district bought gas-guzzling SUVs for the police force, big screen HDTVs for the administrative offices, and similar luxuries. Then they came in for another gigantic bond.

Organized community efforts said it was just too big and wasn't targeted sufficiently to specific projects. We voted it down -- specifically asking, in campaign literature, that the district come back with a better, smaller, targeted bond.

Our smaller neighborhood district did come back, with an even MORE gigantic bond package, with even more luxury projects.

Community organization more easily won -- and again, specifically asked for a small bond, with propositions targeting what schooled would be fixed for how much.

And our small neighborhood district responded with an insulting series of propostions that balled all the schools for the next ten years into two props, and four of their luxury "wish list" items into disposable add ons.

All six props went down to defeat with a 2/3rd majority rejecting the leadership.

We're going to try to communicate, again, with the leadership. We in fact WANT to get rid of portables, fix the fixable schools, and build (about one) new elementary school. Our estimate is between 30 and 50 million -- there's room to compromise and negotiate.

But our small little neighborhood school district seems to have, just like Dallas, arrogant leadership. Like Dallas, leaders apparently feel entitled to hold children hostage or for ransom. Like Dallas, they warn of ceilings dropping on little heads and sewage seeping up around little ankles ... continuing until we fork over our taxes. Then, STILL holding our childen at risk, and like in Dallas, they build their gradiose monuments, skimming profits to their cronies.

So. I would tend to agree that Dallas ISD would benefit from being split into smaller parts.

But I would disagree that would stave off the system's ravenous appetite for ever higher bond debt, ever vaster construction, and ever more corrupt procurement contracts.

[jm]

for "senior" above, in comparison to Coleman Williams, please read "senior financial official".

As far as I recall, our 12th graders have no federal felons among them. Recently.