11 DISD Execs File for Residency Waivers
Submitted by Allen Gwinn on Fri, 03/07/2008 - 23:48.
With thanks to Michael Davis at Dallas Progress, we have a copy of the residency waivers filed by DISD's executive staff.
DISD Policy requires senior staff members to live inside the DISD boundaries. These requests for waivers, plainly put, are from those senior staffers who don't want to live in the District (as per policy) and are asking DISD Superintendent Michael Hinojosa to grant them exceptions.
Read on to view the waivers and discuss the issue.
Read the document (requires Adobe Reader).
The waivers must be approved by the Board of Trustees at the March 27 meeting. We'll obviously be there blogging it live!
Send Your Kids to DISD
I work for the district and I say, let them live where they want. BUT......if they have school age children, they must send their kids to a DISD school. They don't get to choose (everyone would go to Lakewood, Stonewall Jackson, DeGoyler, Walnut Hill, W.T. White and the like).....instead, a school from the area that is closest to their home will randomly be chosen, at a school board meeting, in the public session. Better yet, force them to send their child to the lowest performing school in the area, maybe that will help clean things up.
[Ed Note: That might be a good plan. However, I've seen at least one case of an administrator who abused [his/her] position when it came to [his/her] kid. So there are multiple layers of accountability to be addressed here.]
Limit Principals' kids
The idea that a principal can be a boss and a parent at the same school is awful. The abuse of power and favoritism (and cover ups of misbehaviors) at several schools in DISD over the last few years need to stop.
If the parent wants to be the boss, fine. Be a parent, fine. But not both. It puts the staff on eggshells. It is unfair to the kids, too.
Get rid of Residency Requirement
Ooooops, I'm sorry. I shouldn't reply to this post since I don't live in the city of Dallas. I must not be qualified to have an opinion then. Forget the fact that I live within walking distance of Dallas and pay Dallas County taxes. Yes, some of the Dallas county taxes help our children too! Forget the fact that I work for DISD within a commute of time that's probably shorter than it takes many Dallas residents. Forget the fact that DART still comes to my suburban city to help commute members of my community to work in Dallas. Forget the fact that nearly all the other districts in the area, around the state, and around the country don't require this for their school districts. Forget the fact that the DFW area is one of the largest (landwise) metroplexes in the country, and that it's the collective population of the area, that stimulates this economy through sales taxes, and etc..., rather than just property taxes.
For the proponents of the residency requirement, lets just make this rule apply across the board. Anyone who works for the City of Dallas, the Dallas police department, the Dallas ISD, or any other entity that uses taxpayer dollars, lets make them all live in Dallas. If that were the case, I'm sure we'd be losing the majority of our workforce. But hey, those of us who live across that "magic" dallas city line, are all of a sudden, uncaring, inconsiterate fools, who just want to punish Dallas taxpayers by taking away their jobs and using up their precious tax resources. Give me a break!
If the argument is whether the rules are being broken or whether everyone, including the top officials, should be made to follow the same rules and not get waivers, then Yes, I completely agree that there should be no waivers. If the argument is whether this is a good rule to begin with, then I definately say no! There are a lot of talented people in the metroplex, and I truly don't believe it makes one bit of difference if they live in the city of Dallas or in a nearby city.
If it were up to me, I would make the rule that only the superintendent has to live in the city. Otherwise, I would say as long as you live in Dallas county or a bordering county, then you are within the guidelines. Remember folks, these aren't "elected" positions we are talking about here. This isn't like the Board of Trustees where we have people represent the interests of the southern sector, or north dallas, etc... We are trying to hire talented people to look at the big picture and try to help the students in the district. If you think the only ones with the talent and integrity to do what's best are people living within the city of Dallas, then that's your opinion, but it certainly isn't mine.
Olson Sighting
DISDers had an actual sighting of Ms. Olson this weekend. Yes, she and her family live in Weatherford, attend church there, and pay school taxes there while she sits on the Weatherford School Board.
So the head of DISD HR (known as Chief for short in her waiver application) has been violating policy since the day she signed her contract, but of course, why not since she knows Eli Broad? That's also the reason for the outlandish salary of $170K--certainly not based on her background in school law or personnel.
If the Chief for personnel refuses to follow policy, why shouldn't the PCard offenders keep their jobs, why shouldn't principals change grades for athletes, why shouldn't the bond money find all kinds of illegal alleys to flow through, and why shouldn't teachers cheat on state tests while the superintendent refuses to respond to any of this illegal, unethical behavior?
Vote No to stop the gravy train.
[Ed Note: She's certainly in between a rock and a hard place on this one. It will be interesting to see what the Board does in March.
I do have to ask: what is the purpose for this policy? I think we're one of the only school districts in Texas to have adopted it. Is it purely symbolic? Does it get a needed commitment to our District from the employees? If we have it, do we lose an opportunity to hire otherwise qualified people?
I'd like some opinions.]
Earn, Live, Spend Here
Blogman, can you not understand that if we taxpayers are footing the bill for these enormous salaries, the least the recipients can do is reinvest in our community. There are only 50+ of 18,000 DISD employess asked to reside within the DISD. My personal opinion is that all employess being paid with taxpayer dollars should be within the taxing district. National, state, county, city, school district, or other, "you dance with the one that brung ya." Of course, I too believe that our representatives should also live within our communities as well, but Sam Johnson is another blog. Taking our hard earned tax money out of our local economy is insulting. It is not just property taxes, but sales taxes, local retailers, grocers, barbers, dry cleaners, all personal service and then we start on the streets, police, water, city and county services that non residents have the benefit that we pay for. Beyond that, there are the policy violations. When top executives feel they do not have to follow policy the next step is to be above the law. How many of these 11 waiver requests signed their contracts knowing they were in violation? How many purchased homesteads after they were in positions requiring residency? How many had their job titles changed by Hinojosa in order to avoid the residency requirement? the only good thing....they can't vote for the bond issue....maybe I will check their voter registrations.
[Ed Note: Good points. But the question stands: by mandating this policy, are we limiting ourselves from getting good talent that goes to other Districts without this policy?]
Lets Talk Good Talent
I think there is a perspective to this policy that we all overlook. The Pro's and Con,s so to speak. Try this on.
The district sends its HEADHUNTERS to Puerto Rico to get teachers to come to our district. To teach here they must live nearby, not phone in their lesson plans to their students. One plus for an American of Puerto Rican descent living in Dallas Texas is that after an amount of time that us citizen can vote in a presidential election. Something that us citizen cannot if they continue to live in Puerto Rico. Is that not an important plus to that person ?
Let's say we send Hinojosa packing and have a nationwide search for a new superintendent. Lets pretend ! Now let's just say that the superintendent of the Manhattan school district is interested in the position. Now let's say that that person is balking at coming here because of salary and perks being less than what he or she is getting now. As a recruiter how do I work around that ?
To start with the city of Manhattan takes 14.9 percent of the superintendents income, OFF THE TOP, thats gross income, NO DEDUCTIONS, as city income tax. Then the state of New York takes another 14.8 percent, NO DEDUCTIONS, of the gross income as state income tax. When you factor in cost of living, cost of housing, and property taxes being our STATE INCOME TAX, suddenly being approached by our school board trustee's to apply for the position becomes lucrative, from a financial sense.
So now we have broadened our area of selection to the entire nation of qualified applicants.
And now we have come to my opinion about the residency rules. There are qualified applicants all over this country, who, living in states like New York, ( I believe 38 at least have the same state income tax structure ), would be more than willing to consider working for Dallis ISD. Why do we limit our google search to within a 50 mile radius ?
And if local applicants don't like it why should we care ?
Follow the rules or WE CAN FIND SOME ONE ELSE !
[Ed Note: I believe it is a bit more complicated than that.]
Resident Location Reply
[But the question stands: by mandating this policy, are we limiting ourselves from getting good talent that goes to other Districts without this policy?]
No, because if the one is right, they will come to Dallas. Or if they want a challenge of fixing up a school in Dallas and having that lead to a better job elsewhere. They will come.
I think we should make these folks live in the very districts they are suppose to be serving. What was around in Dallas ISD that is now gone to a certain point?
When some of you were growing up-how many of you saw teachers, school board members, trustees, coaches and other school staff in your neighborhood and stores? In other words the staff at your school lived in your neighborhood.
For a lot of schools that is what is missing. Some kids don't see a single person from their school in their neighborhoods or stores. So that bond between parent, school staff and student is gone.
I'm not going to clown in school if I know there is a 95% chance that the teacher would run into my parent outside of the school.
[Ed Note: So basically the argument is that you're saying people would move to DISD in order to teach or serve there?]