Monday, November 10, 2014


The saga that is FWISD folks....

So it so happens that all this talk about residency lines has a purpose and it all goes to benefitting the ones at the top.  If you are reading this and any other blog call your board member to vote against the proposed residency guidelines, meaning they want to do away with it for anyone.  Dallas, Keller, San Antonio and other districts require their higher ups to live within the district. Yes folks it's ON PURPOSE!

Basically what we have found out is that the residency lines are for the new superintendent which begs to question why the person hired would not live within the district he or she is supposed to be vested in.  As you can see we smell a rat and the rest of them are lining up to also benefit from.
Take Sorum who according to the blog got a nice 4500 sq ft home for less than 300,000 close by the admin building.  On Dr. Sutherland's blog it says that it was bought for .61 a sq ft, interesting!

Then we get to Barbara Griffith and the sweet deals she has gotten with salary and perks.  She gets to ride on a company vehicle and do her second job with other districts.  Nice how we wish we had a company car!

Read below from Dr. Sutherland:
Dansby's budget had $75,000 for a Cadillac Escalade for Barbara to drive around in. Just part of his $21 million in "enhancements" that will drive us toward insolvency. Wait till you see the "new" budget on Tuesday . . . 

Valerie Carrillo, FWISD attorney, is supposedly going to leave but in the mean time has been covering up all of this.  So much for integrity and ruining your career to cover for the corrupt in the district.  Yes folks it's corruption at it's best and it continues.    Go Valerie because they will get you at some point.......

So Board Members-who is lining up your pockets to make all these changes and allow higher ups to embezzle on the backs of the students of FWISD.  You all speak like you have integrity and yet you show each day that you don't.  


  1. A telling question is; Who is going to benefit from the alleged Bond "shortfall"? Someone needs to research the free concrete some sitting Board Members allegedly received from a previous Bond. What about all the failings to fulfill what was voted on already? Lets start with laptops, Promethean Boards, desks..... To be sure, failing to hold contractors and architects to their own estimates without competing bids or performance bound enforcement is a sure sign the "fix" is/was in. The question is: Who stands to profit from this? So the Board except for Sutherland, voted to provide the Cadillac to Barbara Griffith? Outrageous!

  2. To clarify about the Cadillac: although the board approved it (along with about 10 pages of small print listing a lot of other things totaling $21 million), Dr. Linares removed it along with $10 million other items. You will recall that the budget which the board passed showed our reserves declining from $182 million last year to $54 million 3 years later, so she needed to save $$--even BEFORE the double-counting of the English-Language Learners was discovered.

    With respect to the bond shortfall, I think the post by CIAFWISD showing the Texas Controllers' office's study of the costs of other districts' building activities will result in the recalculating of a lot of the costs. We will see.

  3. Thanks for clarifying and thanks to Dr. Linares for dropping the Cadillac. Shame on the rest of your fellow Board Members. How long had that practice been going on before it was stopped?

  4. In this case, the contractors can't be held responsible because their bids are being made after the passage of the bond. The entity responsible for the shortfall prediction is AECOMM which did the needs assessment. It looks like they did not do a very good job of forecasting future construction costs. They were the same group from the 2007 bond which benefitted from a depression in the construction market at that time. More was able to be accomplished than had been thought. Also, the original needs assessment they made for the 2013 bond was $785 million. Knowing that amount would not pass, Dansby devised, and the Board approved, a 3 proposition bond totalling $489 million--$300 million short of the original needs assessment. It looks like they either didn't drop enough projects or the wrong ones.