Monday, January 31, 2011


BV will have the full story by 1:15 p.m.

The other day when I was speaking with the IFA person at the TEA I sensed he was hedging his statements. This caused me pause so I started to ask more questions. The IFA money is not the problem.

The government, not Rick Zayas or Ruben Cortez, created a program which would encourage bond investors to invest in the building of new schools. The program requires the school district create a special corporation on which ALL board members serve, not just Rick Zayas and Ruben Cortez. The reason for the corporation is to separate out the asset of the new school and land from the school district. This allows for the bond holders to foreclose on the new building if the bonds are not paid. This was all explained at the board meeting in December.

The bonds include both federal and state money. The IFA money is in place. The federal government writes regulations and then has the states administer the programs. As to the federal money it is my understanding the TEA changed its interpretation of the federal regulations and this is creating a problem with the $26 million. If everything stays as it is with the TEA BISD will have to pay back $8 million dollars. BISD is still getting $26 million dollars worth of construction for $8 million dollars.

But it does not end here. BISD and other school districts appear to be challenging the TEA’s application of the federal regulations. A final decision has yet to be made.

But here is reality. Presas-Garcia and Escobedo were part of this corporation - why did they not tell the public about these problems before the December vote. Why did Escobedo vote for the construction if these problems were known. We all saw the meeting and every trick Saavedra, Longoria and Presas-Garcia tried to throw out there. Not once did they mention this problem. Why?- because the TEA changed its interpretation of the rule after the fact.

This has nothing to do with the 2011 Texas budget, as being alleged. It has nothing to do with IFA money.


Hanna for example is a mess with overcrowding. BISD is being offered $26 million in construction for a cost of $8 million to the taxpayers. How often does that happen? Presas-Garcia, Longoria, and Saavedra would have us walk away from that deal because of a dispute with the TEA in the application of federal regulations. A dispute which has yet to be resolved.

Overcrowding leads to higher dropout rates and fewer services for special needs children. Now is the time to build while nearly all of the money is free. To wait when our schools are busting at the seams and children are being denied an education is a reckless disregard for the safety and welfare of the children.
While this dispute does not bode well for BISD’s budget, assuming the final decision is against BISD and all similarly situated schools, BISD is still better off with $18 million dollars of free construction to offset overcrowding.

I will keep my readers informed as I learn more.

But to point blank lie about what is happening so that you can embarrass Springston and Fuller is wrong. This is about getting rid of Springston and Fuller because they will not play the corruption game. It is not about the children and what is best for them.

I will do an open records request to secure the letters from the TEA to explain what is happening. What ever that letter says is the best evidence of the truth. Anyone who wants the truth will seek out that letter, and publish it. If it is shown that BISD played games in the application process, I will be the first to call for heads. But let’s get the letter with the facts.


You know how you protect teacher’s jobs - you do not dismiss the Healthsmart lawsuit. It is worth potentially $15-20 million dollars to BISD. Keeping the Healthsmart lawsuit alive is how you protect the taxpayers.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

As usual, you r the only source for the truth about BISD.