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 (assuming no major new improvements, etc.—beyond standard maintenance and upkeep—to meaningfully increased the value of the property), did that School Board Member vote to "increase taxes" on that property?

According to DSISD's 2021-2022 Official Budget, DSISD's total current bond debt obligations (principal + interest) are $452,880,061 (nearly one-half billion dollars), resulting a per-student debt obligation of $56,560.51.

Recognizing that both of these debt rankings are higher than 95% of Texas school districts, according to our/CEEDS's analysis of the Texas Comptroller's latest Texas ISD debt data—should the DSISD School Board prioritize spending restraint and work to identify all possible opportunities for cost savings across all future bond propositions?

Please also note that our/CEEDS's calculations (using DSISD debt data and US Census population data) show DSISD's per-capita debt at $12,203.14, while the District's 2020-2021 Debt Transparency Report shows per-capita debt at $10,309, so DSISD is indebted $10k-$12k per District resident, regardless of age/school attendance.

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 tax 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. DSISD's $92 million 2014 Bond also failed to achieve widespread support, passing 58% For to 42% Against.

There are several bond proposition-related bills that have been considered by recent Texas Legislatures, 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.

Less than one month prior to the start of the 2019 school year, DSISD's last long-term superintendent resigned outside of his contractual window for doing so. The 2019-2020 School Board voted to accept his resignation and apparently without penalty, even though they had no contractual obligation to do so.

And then they did so again with his permanent, albeit short-term, superintendent replacement—even though the Austin American-Statesman reported that Washburn's "resignation" included the DSISD School Board approving a lump sum payment of $185,250, indicating that it was a forced resignation/the Board likely pushed him out, instead of a voluntary resignation as the District's official statements advertised.

As a result of that first vote that appears to have triggered a disruptive chain of events including the second that continued it, DSISD has now had FIVE superintendents in less than TWO years.

As a DSISD Board Member, would you vote to accept the resignation of a permanent superintendent outside of their contractually-permitted resignation window?

14a. 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 forms to be submitted at least 3 hours prior to the start of the 6 PM meeting, eventually returning to the current and former start of meeting deadline.

Is it appropriate for the 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 form deadlines?

14b. The 2019/86th Texas Legislature codified all Texans' right to petition their local government officials by requiring public comment at every open meeting and for each specific agenda item on all open meetings' agendas before or during the elected body's consideration of a given agenda item—and further specified that a "governmental body may adopt reasonable rules regarding the public's right to address the body under this section, including rules that limit the total amount of time that a member of the public may address the body on a given item." The Legislature also codified that "A governmental body may not prohibit public criticism of the governmental body, including criticism of any act, omission, policy, procedure, program, or service".

The Texas Attorney General has also issued an opinion letter on these 2019 public comment updates to Texas OMA Law, regarding time limits for public comment, which states "Thus, a rule capping the total amount of time a speaker has to address all agenda items is permissible only if the rule is reasonable. [...] Whether a particular period of time is reasonable to address all desired agenda items at an open meeting will depend on many factors, including the number of agenda items and their complexity, and is a fact question for the county to determine in the first instance subject to judicial review."

Recognizing that the DSISD School Board has implemented 90 second and three minute total public comment time limit caps to citizens' public comments for meeting agendas that contain dozens of items (and amounts to a few seconds per agenda item should a citizen wish to address all), regardless of the number of agenda items referenced on citizens' public comment forms, AND further restricted public comment at Workshop/Special/Agenda Planning/all non-Regular Meetings to only those items on each specific meeting's agenda...

Do you believe that DSISD's current public comment policies are in violation of the spirit, if not letter, of Texas' updated OMA Law, and would you work to bring DSISD's public comment policies in to strict compliance with the law by revising them so that any public comment time limits are only on a "per agenda item" basis?

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)?

The for-profit data-mining of education technology (EdTech) providers has been described as a modern gold rush and the FBI even warned in 2019 that the vast troves of data collected by EdTech companies "present unique exploitation opportunities for criminals."

As a DSISD School Board Member, will you ensure that any EdTech contracts:
1) limit the collection and prevent the monetization of DSISD student data,
2) that students or their parents rather than DSISD or private corporations maintain ownership and the ability to permanently delete any data collected, and
3) that the entirety of that data remains secure, encrypted, and accessible only on a "need-to-know" basis?

20a. Should masks and other COVID-19 PPE be optional for all students and staff?

20b. Should COVID-19 vaccines be optional for all students and staff?