If Sally Cain is so interested in the children of DISD, where has she been all these years that we have been trying to insure that all children are educated? I am not sure that she has attend a board meeting or board briefing?
She is probably a nice lady but when the Dallas Citizens Council,Jack Lowe and Jerome Garza put their stamps of approval on her,that makes me think that she will be part of the "SLAM DUNK" at DISD. If she had been aware of what was going on at DISD she would have known that.
Jerome Garza IS NOT trustworthy. Garza has undermined the black trustees since he has been on the board. He did not only try to get someone to run against Ranger,he took a school out of her district without her knowledge (Molena) when Wilmer Hutchins became part of DISD and please do not forget that he was also instrumental in leading the board to gut the funding for Learning Center,pushed for more BiLingual (Spanish) programs that exceed the State mandate (more jobs),and he was the mastermind behind getting a school named for (hateful towards blacks) Adelpha Callejo. Garza should be asked if he believe that he represent all races of children or only Hispanics? We who follow the politics of DISD know the answer. That is why you now have black flight just as you had white flight. Look at the demographics in school districts like Lancaster, DeSoto, Cedar Hill and Duncanville most are majority blacks.
It is unfortunate that Garza and Flores believe that because the majority of students in DISD are Hispanic that the others do not matter. The politics of inclusion should be taught to these board members. All children are important and should be educated. I do believe that Adam Medrano gets it and I appreciate him being the board president because under Jack Lowe's leadership it was "My Way Or The Highway".
Hang in there Carla Ranger.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
DISD College Readiness Program
The staff did not answer most of the questions that the board ask. The purchasing dept. was the most shocking. They only put the bid out for 2 weeks, no pre-bid conference, no interviews of the companies that submitted bids,score cards from the panel that left additional questions, and on and on.
From the staffs comments, ASP did not really give a good accounting of their work. It was noted that the 82 Million in scholarships that they reported were awarded had grants in the calculations and they would have to recalculate. The staff also noted that they were not sure how many students really accepted the scholarships.
When the staff was asked if DISD counselors could do this work, they replied that DISD counselors do not have relationships with the colleges therefore it would be better to have contracts with an outside source for college readiness.
When Lew Blackburn ask the question about the shift from Title I to general funds, I thought the staff was going to fall out of their chairs. It was a lot of I don't know why, but I will find out from TEA. Larry Thorn is always answering the budget questions in a snappy way to the board, but he did not say a word.
I think for half the money they could hire a counselor for all 22 schools. Silly me, they have got to hire the people from Teach For America.
From the staffs comments, ASP did not really give a good accounting of their work. It was noted that the 82 Million in scholarships that they reported were awarded had grants in the calculations and they would have to recalculate. The staff also noted that they were not sure how many students really accepted the scholarships.
When the staff was asked if DISD counselors could do this work, they replied that DISD counselors do not have relationships with the colleges therefore it would be better to have contracts with an outside source for college readiness.
When Lew Blackburn ask the question about the shift from Title I to general funds, I thought the staff was going to fall out of their chairs. It was a lot of I don't know why, but I will find out from TEA. Larry Thorn is always answering the budget questions in a snappy way to the board, but he did not say a word.
I think for half the money they could hire a counselor for all 22 schools. Silly me, they have got to hire the people from Teach For America.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Response to Dallas.Org-Allen Gwinn
Allen,
I know Bea Martinez and I am not a member of LULAC, but I believe that she is honest and a hard worker. I can not believe that you would stoop so low. Did you check to see if it was a conflict for Rene to work for DISD and for his wife to run for school board? I think that is where you should start. If it is a conflict, tell all of us so that we will know.
Please tell us what you know about Bea Martinez and why she (not her husband) should not be running for this office. Since you are in District 3 have you had a conversation with her before today regarding DISD? Does she have knowledge of the issues concerning DISD? Is she compassionate about children? Has she served on any boards that would give her insight to a billion dollar budget and how to manage it? Can she represent the total community? Does she understand working with employees that report directly to the board?
If you think that Leigh Ann Ellis is not part of the "Slam Dunk" you are dreaming. She has voted along with Flores, Garza, Lowe and Bingham on most of the bad decisions that have been made on this board. She voted for the budgets, she voted for the RIF, she voted against the Learning Centers, she is one of the five (5) that they count on to keep Hinojosa, she voted for the DUMB new ethics policy that allows board members to do business with DISD, she voted to ILLEGALLY EXTEND HER TERM IN OFFICE, etc. Please tell me when Leigh Ann Ellis has taken a strong position on any issue opposing the administration.
Everyone on the board needs to go except Adam and Carla. Go after the candidate’s qualifications not her family.
I know Bea Martinez and I am not a member of LULAC, but I believe that she is honest and a hard worker. I can not believe that you would stoop so low. Did you check to see if it was a conflict for Rene to work for DISD and for his wife to run for school board? I think that is where you should start. If it is a conflict, tell all of us so that we will know.
Please tell us what you know about Bea Martinez and why she (not her husband) should not be running for this office. Since you are in District 3 have you had a conversation with her before today regarding DISD? Does she have knowledge of the issues concerning DISD? Is she compassionate about children? Has she served on any boards that would give her insight to a billion dollar budget and how to manage it? Can she represent the total community? Does she understand working with employees that report directly to the board?
If you think that Leigh Ann Ellis is not part of the "Slam Dunk" you are dreaming. She has voted along with Flores, Garza, Lowe and Bingham on most of the bad decisions that have been made on this board. She voted for the budgets, she voted for the RIF, she voted against the Learning Centers, she is one of the five (5) that they count on to keep Hinojosa, she voted for the DUMB new ethics policy that allows board members to do business with DISD, she voted to ILLEGALLY EXTEND HER TERM IN OFFICE, etc. Please tell me when Leigh Ann Ellis has taken a strong position on any issue opposing the administration.
Everyone on the board needs to go except Adam and Carla. Go after the candidate’s qualifications not her family.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
New Poll Shows Consumer Rejection of Cap-and-Tax Plans
July 20, 2009
Unsubscribe
Update My Profile
New Poll "Foreshadows Massive Consumer Rejection of Cap-and-Tax Plans," Civil Rights Leader Says:
Rapidly growing consumer grassroots movement also "will punish those who push these anti-consumer schemes," Innis warns
North Las Vegas, NV -- A new national poll confirms that a rapidly growing consumer tide is building against cap-and-tax plans that will raise electricity bills, according to civil rights champion Roy Innis, who says the poll "foreshadows a huge defeat for cap-and-tax activists and their supporters in the U.S. Senate."
The national poll, conducted by Lauer Johnson Research (LJR) on behalf of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, found nearly six in 10 Americans oppose paying any more than they currently pay in their electricity bills to combat climate change. It also found that an overwhelming 78 percent of all respondents say that a $50 increase monthly in utility bills "would be a hardship."
"Poll after poll now shows the same thing that we hear in our national grassroots campaign against cap-and-tax," Innis said. "Consumers are rising up in strong opposition to cap-and-tax schemes that will raise their rates. They can't afford even small increases in their energy bills. And they don't believe politicians' promises that cap-and-tax is a free lunch."
Innis added "It's also becoming crystal clear that consumers and voters are going to be angry enough punish those who get behind these anti-consumer tax plans. In fact, I predict that consumer anger isn't going to be focused only on the sound-bite politicians. I think consumer anger is going to expand to include those private sector interests that sought to line their own pockets through the cap-and-tax feeding frenzy in Washington, D.C."
Innis urged leaders in the U.S. Senate and in the business community to "get back to the drawing board and come up with legislation that focuses on rapidly advancing emissions technologies, not legislation that seeks to punish consumers for using American energy."
The national poll, conducted by Lauer Johnson Research (LJR) on behalf of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, had a sample size of 807 and a +/- 3.5% sampling error rate. It found:
58 percent of Americans opposed to pay any more than they currently pay in their electricity bills to combat climate change, a 23% increase in those unwilling to pay more since 2007.
One-half (50%) of the country opposes enacting a carbon tax to fund energy research, which represents a 49-point shift (22% drop in agree; 27% increase in disagree) away from supporting a carbon tax for energy research in 2007.
Interest in protecting the environment and fighting climate change has dropped from a low priority (8%) in 2007 to receiving virtually no attention (3%) in 2009.
Fifty-five percent of all respondents, and 69% of working/lower class families, say a $20 increase in their monthly electric bill would cause financial difficulty for their household.
68% disagree with the idea that Congress should enact a carbon tax to encourage consumers to cut back on their electricity usage.
Not one respondent indicated a willingness to pay over 20% more on their monthly electricity bill to combat climate change, according to the survey. "Working/lower class and age 65+ respondents are the least willing to pay more, but substantial percentages of all classes and age cohorts indicate they do not want to see their electric bills increase by even one dollar for the purposes of combating climate change," the survey summary memo noted.
Both this survey and a recent Gallup Poll have found that for the first time in Gallup’s 25 year history of asking Americans about the trade-off between environmental protection and economic growth, a majority of Americans say economic growth should be given the priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent.
# # #
Contact: Niger Innis, National Spokesman, (702) 463-0768
Unsubscribe
Update My Profile
New Poll "Foreshadows Massive Consumer Rejection of Cap-and-Tax Plans," Civil Rights Leader Says:
Rapidly growing consumer grassroots movement also "will punish those who push these anti-consumer schemes," Innis warns
North Las Vegas, NV -- A new national poll confirms that a rapidly growing consumer tide is building against cap-and-tax plans that will raise electricity bills, according to civil rights champion Roy Innis, who says the poll "foreshadows a huge defeat for cap-and-tax activists and their supporters in the U.S. Senate."
The national poll, conducted by Lauer Johnson Research (LJR) on behalf of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, found nearly six in 10 Americans oppose paying any more than they currently pay in their electricity bills to combat climate change. It also found that an overwhelming 78 percent of all respondents say that a $50 increase monthly in utility bills "would be a hardship."
"Poll after poll now shows the same thing that we hear in our national grassroots campaign against cap-and-tax," Innis said. "Consumers are rising up in strong opposition to cap-and-tax schemes that will raise their rates. They can't afford even small increases in their energy bills. And they don't believe politicians' promises that cap-and-tax is a free lunch."
Innis added "It's also becoming crystal clear that consumers and voters are going to be angry enough punish those who get behind these anti-consumer tax plans. In fact, I predict that consumer anger isn't going to be focused only on the sound-bite politicians. I think consumer anger is going to expand to include those private sector interests that sought to line their own pockets through the cap-and-tax feeding frenzy in Washington, D.C."
Innis urged leaders in the U.S. Senate and in the business community to "get back to the drawing board and come up with legislation that focuses on rapidly advancing emissions technologies, not legislation that seeks to punish consumers for using American energy."
The national poll, conducted by Lauer Johnson Research (LJR) on behalf of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, had a sample size of 807 and a +/- 3.5% sampling error rate. It found:
58 percent of Americans opposed to pay any more than they currently pay in their electricity bills to combat climate change, a 23% increase in those unwilling to pay more since 2007.
One-half (50%) of the country opposes enacting a carbon tax to fund energy research, which represents a 49-point shift (22% drop in agree; 27% increase in disagree) away from supporting a carbon tax for energy research in 2007.
Interest in protecting the environment and fighting climate change has dropped from a low priority (8%) in 2007 to receiving virtually no attention (3%) in 2009.
Fifty-five percent of all respondents, and 69% of working/lower class families, say a $20 increase in their monthly electric bill would cause financial difficulty for their household.
68% disagree with the idea that Congress should enact a carbon tax to encourage consumers to cut back on their electricity usage.
Not one respondent indicated a willingness to pay over 20% more on their monthly electricity bill to combat climate change, according to the survey. "Working/lower class and age 65+ respondents are the least willing to pay more, but substantial percentages of all classes and age cohorts indicate they do not want to see their electric bills increase by even one dollar for the purposes of combating climate change," the survey summary memo noted.
Both this survey and a recent Gallup Poll have found that for the first time in Gallup’s 25 year history of asking Americans about the trade-off between environmental protection and economic growth, a majority of Americans say economic growth should be given the priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent.
# # #
Contact: Niger Innis, National Spokesman, (702) 463-0768
SEND A KID TO CAMP PROGRAM - LETTER WRITTEN BY JIM GRAHAM TO PAUL DYER
Dear Paul:
I read in the DMN last week that one of the programs to be cut from the Park Department budget was the Send a Kid to Camp program. The last time Dallas was dealing with a severe economic turn down, we had to discontinue the summer camp programs the Park Department had provided children all over the city for decades. In order to, at the minimum, serve the most underprivileged and at risk of our youth during the summer months, Park Board President Ida Papert asked me to develop a plan to keep some camps open in target areas. The challenge was to provide a positive summer experience to our higher risk youth at little or no cost to the Park Department. Sensing that youth serving agencies were also feeling the financial pinch, we developed a plan to form partnerships with such agencies whereby the City allowed them to utilize our parks and other facilities at no cost if they would provide the staffing and programming. I met with numerous youth serving agencies, developed a short and simple agreement between them and the City of Dallas, and a few signed on to partner up with us for the good of the kids. We jointly reached out to the public to provide funding to fill the financial gap for such items as refreshments, equipment, supplies and field trips. We were successful, and several Send a Kid to Camp camps were operated that first summer at little or no cost to the Park Department or City of Dallas. A contribution form for Send a Kid to Camp was included in water and electric bills to the citizens, grocery store check out counters took donations, vendors to the city were asked to contribute, and contributions were solicited by mail and public service announcements. All in all, the program was a win-win for the city, the youth serving agencies and primarily for the kids served. Since the Send a Kid to Camp program has operated successfully and served perhaps 50,000 or more of our children over the past 20 plus years, it would be a shame to see it discontinued just because times are tough. Tough times are why we started the program in the first place!
I firmly believe that a child will make a positive choice if a positive choice is available. Without the positive choice of attending a summer camp, many of our high risk youth face a summer of boredom with too much non productive time on their hands to get into mischief. Is this really a cost effective option for Dallas, or are we all better served by providing our youth with a physically and mentally challenging camping experience? I know from painful experience from my time on the Park Board in lean financial times that you are being besieged with valid pleas to spare programs across the board. Nevertheless, I encourage you and the Park Board to preserve the Send a Kid to Program for the benefit of our city and most of all, our youth. Thanks.
James P. Graham
PresidentPalo Petroleum, Inc.5944 Luther LaneSuite 900Dallas, Texas 75225(214) 691-3676
I read in the DMN last week that one of the programs to be cut from the Park Department budget was the Send a Kid to Camp program. The last time Dallas was dealing with a severe economic turn down, we had to discontinue the summer camp programs the Park Department had provided children all over the city for decades. In order to, at the minimum, serve the most underprivileged and at risk of our youth during the summer months, Park Board President Ida Papert asked me to develop a plan to keep some camps open in target areas. The challenge was to provide a positive summer experience to our higher risk youth at little or no cost to the Park Department. Sensing that youth serving agencies were also feeling the financial pinch, we developed a plan to form partnerships with such agencies whereby the City allowed them to utilize our parks and other facilities at no cost if they would provide the staffing and programming. I met with numerous youth serving agencies, developed a short and simple agreement between them and the City of Dallas, and a few signed on to partner up with us for the good of the kids. We jointly reached out to the public to provide funding to fill the financial gap for such items as refreshments, equipment, supplies and field trips. We were successful, and several Send a Kid to Camp camps were operated that first summer at little or no cost to the Park Department or City of Dallas. A contribution form for Send a Kid to Camp was included in water and electric bills to the citizens, grocery store check out counters took donations, vendors to the city were asked to contribute, and contributions were solicited by mail and public service announcements. All in all, the program was a win-win for the city, the youth serving agencies and primarily for the kids served. Since the Send a Kid to Camp program has operated successfully and served perhaps 50,000 or more of our children over the past 20 plus years, it would be a shame to see it discontinued just because times are tough. Tough times are why we started the program in the first place!
I firmly believe that a child will make a positive choice if a positive choice is available. Without the positive choice of attending a summer camp, many of our high risk youth face a summer of boredom with too much non productive time on their hands to get into mischief. Is this really a cost effective option for Dallas, or are we all better served by providing our youth with a physically and mentally challenging camping experience? I know from painful experience from my time on the Park Board in lean financial times that you are being besieged with valid pleas to spare programs across the board. Nevertheless, I encourage you and the Park Board to preserve the Send a Kid to Program for the benefit of our city and most of all, our youth. Thanks.
James P. Graham
PresidentPalo Petroleum, Inc.5944 Luther LaneSuite 900Dallas, Texas 75225(214) 691-3676
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Main Post Office on Interstate 30
Where are the elected officials? We need USPS or an elected official to call a community meeting to discuss what all of the losses for Dallas would be if the sorting of mail would be moved from the facility on Interstate 30. If the main functions are moved, do you believe that USPS would operate out of this facility? It would not be cost effective to do so.
It is my understanding that USPS is closing all of the Post Offices where they do not own the land and building. Will this be in your neighborhood?
I usually work late so I have to use the Main Post Office because the one in my neighborhood closes at 6:00 p.m. and you do not get a minute over that.
I understand effencies, but at what cost to large number of customers do you make such a move? I do not think that there are more customers in Coppell than in Dallas. I believe that the following aspects of our mail service will be affected;
a. Home and Business mail delivery in Dallas will be affected if this takes place.
b. There will be job loss of tenured employees that primarily live in Dallas.
c. Dallas will loose the postmark (8th largest city with no postmark). Coppell will be the postmark.
d. Dallas residents will loose the convenience of using a Post Office in the evenings for stamps, money orders, shipping boxes and mailing letters.
Help me ask for a community meeting so that USPS can explain this move to Coppell to the Dallas residents and elected officials. Call your Dallas City Councilperson, State Senator, State Representative, US Representative and US Senator.
It is my understanding that USPS is closing all of the Post Offices where they do not own the land and building. Will this be in your neighborhood?
I usually work late so I have to use the Main Post Office because the one in my neighborhood closes at 6:00 p.m. and you do not get a minute over that.
I understand effencies, but at what cost to large number of customers do you make such a move? I do not think that there are more customers in Coppell than in Dallas. I believe that the following aspects of our mail service will be affected;
a. Home and Business mail delivery in Dallas will be affected if this takes place.
b. There will be job loss of tenured employees that primarily live in Dallas.
c. Dallas will loose the postmark (8th largest city with no postmark). Coppell will be the postmark.
d. Dallas residents will loose the convenience of using a Post Office in the evenings for stamps, money orders, shipping boxes and mailing letters.
Help me ask for a community meeting so that USPS can explain this move to Coppell to the Dallas residents and elected officials. Call your Dallas City Councilperson, State Senator, State Representative, US Representative and US Senator.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Saving Paul Quinn College
What is so sad to me is that some people do not understand that cities like Atlanta are successful because they embrace higher education. Atlanta has three (3) Historical Black Colleges (Clark Atlanta, Morehouse and Spellman). Dallas should be embracing all institutions of higher learning for the sake of making sure all of our children have educational options. People in this city always talk about an educated workforce, but we are still struggling with making sure that happens.
We spend millions of taxpayer dollars on colleges like the UT System and Texas A&M System each year to ensure that they are able to meet the needs of the students. I am not against us investing in our future with any of the institutions but I believe that Paul Quinn also have value and should be treated in the manner.
The facts are that many professional African Americans graduate from Historical Black Institutions of higher learning.
Saving Paul Quinn College is a win for all of Dallas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
