Are you satisfied with the current level of transparency of and by the current DSISD School Board?

Regardless of the TAX RATE, if a School Board Member votes to enact a budget that results in a DSISD tax bill for a property that is higher than that property's bill in the preceding year, did that School Board Member vote to “increase taxes” on that property?

As a DSISD School Board Member, would you oppose raising the Interest and Sinking (I&S) TAX RATE in order to increase DSISD's borrowing/bonding capacity that would allow for an increase in the overall dollar amount of future bond propositions?

Remember, the I&S Tax Rate is not subject to 2019 Legislature's House Bill 3’s 2.5% Maintenance and Operations (M&O) Tax Cap, meaning that if the value of a property increases year to year (YTY), the property’s I&S taxes and DSISD's revenues will also increase by an equivalent amount, unless the I&S Tax Rate is lowered. Raising the TAX RATE would further accelerate those YTY tax increases.

DSISD's $132 million 2018 Bond allegedly passed by just 1% of the vote, a razor-thin majority, and only after the School Board approved spending nearly one-half million dollars on attorneys fees to uphold Hays County Elections' certified vote totals, even after both DSISD and Hays County Elections officials admitted to many mistakes and maladministration of the election and its recount while under oath.

There are several bond proposition-related bills currently being considered by the 2021 Texas Legislature, including at least one requiring future bond propositions to receive a super-majority of the vote.

Do you believe future bond propositions should be required to receive a super-majority of community support before indebting the entire community?

To ensure our community's tax dollars are spent efficiently and effectively, would you support an independent, third-party efficiency audit of Dripping Springs ISD's finances?

If you are unfamiliar, here is some information on efficiency audits.

Prior to 2019, the DSISD School Board allowed two public comment opportunities at Board Meetings with one near the beginning of the meeting and one near the end—and only required public comment forms to be submitted prior to the Board moving onto the agenda item following public comment.

The School Board then began requiring public comment forms to be submitted prior to the start of the meeting (usually meaning a 30 minute to an hour+ wait until public comment as Board Meetings begin with various awards, acknowledgements, and presentations) and then during the COVID-19 pandemic began requiring public comment to be submitted at least 3 hours prior to the start of the 6 PM meeting.

Is it appropriate for the current DSISD School Board's latest public comment policies to prioritize bureaucratic ease instead of maximizing opportunities for public participation, and as a DSISD Board Member would you support a continuation of the Board's current public comment policies?

As a DSISD School Board Member, will you be committed to maintaining and ensuring adequate resources—or even expanding and increasing—DSISD's personalized learning options (e.g., CTE/SpEd/Special Services/Gifted and Talented/AP/Dual College Enrollment/International Baccalaureate/College Prep/Fine Arts/STEM/Etc)?

Should all DSISD students have the option to learn from and be tested using printed materials (e.g., textbooks, print outs, paper materials, pens and pencils, etc.) instead of being required to use electronic devices?

As part of DSISD's Social Emotional Learning (“SEL”), the District conducts regular “assessments” of and tracks students' progress on SEL competencies. In fact, students' SEL scores are tracked as part of DSISD's Continuous Improvement Plan.

As a DSISD School Board Member, do you support the District continuing to treat SEL "assessments" as something other than a "psychological examination, test, or treatment", which per the DSISD Student Handbook requires written parental consent—and even though SEL is acknowledged to be a psychological "intervention"?

The American Bar Association (ABA) describes Critical Race Theory (CRT) as follows: "CRT is not a diversity and inclusion 'training' but a practice of integrating race and racism in society that emerged in the legal academy and spread to other fields of scholarship. Crenshaw—who coined the term 'CRT'—notes that CRT is not a noun, but a verb. It cannot be confined to a static and narrow definition but is considered to be an evolving and malleable practice. It critiques how the social construction of race and institutionalized racism perpetuate a racial caste system that relegates people of color to the bottom tiers. CRT also recognizes that race intersects with other identities, including sexuality, gender identity, and others. CRT recognizes that racism is not a bygone relic of the past. Instead, it acknowledges that the legacy of slavery, segregation, and the imposition of second-class citizenship on Black Americans and other people of color continue to permeate the social fabric of this nation."

So since CRT is acknowledged by the ABA to be an "evolving and malleable" "practice" of implementing situational ethics and perspectives that reject colorblindness and embrace the "practice of integrating race and racism in society", while also asserting that that non-BIPOC Americans are responsible for current and continued "institutionalized racism" that "perpetuate[s] a racial caste system that relegates people of color to the bottom tiers" and that "permeate[s] the social fabric of this nation", should CRT or similar diversity/inclusion curriculum only be taught to DSISD students after their parents have had the opportunity to review the curriculum, all materials, and opt their child(ren) out of participating, like with Sex Ed?