Letters to the Editor

Letter To the Editor:

Like a thief in the night, someone stole the signs for Bill White on FM 831 in Oakwood. It is a sad state of affairs when you cannot express your political beliefs by placing signs in your yard because some narrow minded individual cannot accept the fact that there are others who do not think as he or she does. I would never go on someone’s property and steal what is not mine. I hope that this person received some satisfaction. You can steal signs, but you cannot take my beliefs. I thought we live in a democratic society. Someone forgot to inform the thieves of that. We are free to choose who we vote for in a political race. Not only was my sign taken, but there were others are FM 831 taken, also. If you really want a sign, I can tell you where to get one. You know who you are and you will have to face God because of your deeds. May he have mercy on your soul.

Nyanza Price

To Buffalo ISD Taxpaying Citizens

In a recent newspaper article, information regarding a proposed increase in school taxes was addressed. Our district is fortunate to have a considerable surplus of funds: enough to build a quality sports complex and to refurbish existing buildings. Even after all these expenses are covered, a surplus of several million dollars will be available to cover any possible forthcoming short falls from our local tax base. I am not in favor of the proposed tax increase because I do not believe you, the taxpayers, should be burdened unnecessarily. A public meeting is scheduled on August 30, 2010 at 6 PM at the new high school for the purpose of deciding whether or not to increase school taxes as well as to approve the budget. Several taxpayers/business owners have informed me they are also not in favor of an increase but they do not vote in this district. If you pay school taxes either on land owned in the district or if you own a business in the district you need to let the trustees know how you feel regarding this situation. I believe it is prudent for all school taxpaying citizens to be aware of the financial climate of our school district. If you are interested in this situation, mark your calendars for the public meeting on Monday, August 30, 2010 at 6 PM at the new high school.

Another portion of the recent article I would like to address deals with a comment stating I was the “lone opposing vote” in the hiring of two new faculty members for the high school. I would like to take this opportunity to offer an explanation for why I voted this way. In accordance with a recommendation from the Texas Association of School Boards and in accordance with our local superintendent’s recommendation, the board has attempted to adhere to the policy of hiring only teachers who are fully certified by the State of Texas. This being said, one of the candidates was not fully certified and I followed our local policy. I opposed the other candidate for high school because it was my understanding that another teacher was not needed at the time. I have since been informed that this position was necessary. If I had understood the situation more clearly, I would have voted differently.

I would like to thank all those who have voiced support for my stand as your elected representative in attempting to obtain the best educational opportunities for the children of our district as well as to ensure that you receive the most value for your tax dollars. If you are interested in the board’s action regarding the proposed school tax increase, contact your elected trustees and/or attend the public meeting on August 30 at 6 PM at the new high school.

Jack Helmcamp

BISD Trustee

Letter to the Editor:

Over the past few weeks there have been numerous articles in the paper about the petition to detach from OISD. After reading these articles, several questions arose. A review of the Texas Education Codes, Education Law, and the Supreme Courts decision, has provided some clarification.

For those of us who were not here in 1971, one question is why did the courts mandate that the LSRHSD become part of Oakwood ISD in the first place? The answer to this question is found in the court papers United States of America v. State of Texas CIV. A. No. 5281 (330 F. Supp. 235). In May, 1971, the court found that the “annexation of Lone Star appeared reasonable in that the district, while not directly adjacent to Oakwood or St. Paul-Shiloh, is separated from it by only a narrow finger of land. Lone Star operates only an elementary school, and its high school students must, even now, transfer elsewhere. The record shows that at least one child living in the strip between Lone Star and Oakwood is presently enrolled in Oakwood, and that at various times during the past few years a number of Lone Star students, particularly some of those in the high school grades, have attended school in Oakwood. The distance between most of Lone Star and the Oakwood schools is less than twenty miles, and since the district is entirely rural, virtually all of its students, even at the elementary level, are presently transported to school.

It is apparent from testimony that popular opinion in Lone Star would not support annexation to Oakwood. The Lone Star District, however, is too small under any educational standards available to the Court, including the Report of the Texas Governor’s Committee, Volume IV to allow for the provision of quality education except at exorbitant cost to the taxpayers, and the annexation to Oakwood could be ordered under Texas law, regardless of the lack of contiguity of the two districts. The annexation of Lone Star to Oakwood would substantially increase desegregation in the Oakwood-St. Paul- Shiloh District and clearly would benefit the elementary students from Lone Star by enlarging their scope of contact with other children and by providing for continuity in the flow of their education from grade 1 through grade 12. There was no showing that the assignment of Lone Star’s high school students to Oakwood would have a substantial adverse effect on their education. Moreover, as has been established by the Supreme Court, community hostility to desegregation may not be permitted to interfere with the vindication of the constitutional right of children to receive equal educational opportunities. “

The FCTA has been working very diligently to secure 500 signatures on a petition to support detachment from Oakwood ISD. Two questions come to mind: What are the requirements for granting a detachment petition? According to Education Law 1.04a a petition for detachment and/ or annexation OF SCHOOL TERRITORY SHOULD BE GRANTED ONLY WHERE OVERALL BENEFITS TO THE ANNEXING SCHOOL DISRICT CLEARLY OUTWEIGH THE RESULTING DETRIMENT TO THE LOSING SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE COMMUN ITY AS A WHOLE. Factors to be considered when determining whether to grant a petition for detachment or annexation of school property include a comparison between school facilities and curricula in competing school districts, distance from the petitioner’s home to the respective schools, the effect detachment would have on the ability of either district to meet state standards of recognition, and the impact of proposed boundary change on tax revenues of both districts. Courts will also consider the racial impact a district boundary change may have on both districts to ensure that a dual school system based upon race, national origin or color does not result.

Second question is what is the process after the petition is presented to the three School Boards? Texas Statue Title 2 Education Code 13.051 states the process that must be followed. If all school boards agree that the district’s boundaries be changed the commissioners court shall enter an order redefining the boundaries. If the board of only one district disapproves the petition, the decision may be appealed to the Commissioner of Education. An appeal under this subsection of the law is de novo. The case begins new. All findings are suspended. In deciding the appeal the commissioner will only consider the educational interests of the students in the affected districts and the social, economic, and educational effects of the proposed boundary change.

For me, understanding the whole picture is important. Going directly to the source documents brings that picture more into focus. At the end of the day, as in 1971, our legal system will make the final decision on the petition request.

Kay Lynn Moran