Aaron Reich, AISD Place3

To: Aaron Reich <areich.aisd@tx.rr.com>

Cc: sarahforaisd@gmail.com <sarahforaisd@gmail.com>; Melody Fowler <fowler.aisd@gmail.com>; david@wilbanksforaisd.com <david@wilbanksforaisd.com>; chapa.aisd@gmail.com <chapa.aisd@gmail.com>; Brooklyn Richardson <brooklyn.richardson.aisd@gmail.com>; haynes.aisd@gmail.com <haynes.aisd@gmail.com>

Sent: Friday, September 22, 2023 at 02:47:44 PM CDT

Subject: Patrick Mahomes did not win the game, please explain

Dr. Reich,

Maybe you, or one of your colleagues can explain your statement to me.

I view the "game played on the field" as the STAAR test. There are many, many rules, but the general rule/action is the state defines what is to be taught and the test is given in April to evaluate student performance. In this case there are four possible outcomes, super-pass, pass, fail, super-fail. In a football game the general rule/action is try to obtain more points than your opponent, with many, many rules how "play" is done. Potential outcomes are a win, lose, and possibly a tie (depending on the rules of the situation).

The administration of data for statistics and records can change, but do NOT change the outcome of the game. I could give a football hypothetical, but let's go with an actual baseball item. After the games were played they changed the definition of a no-hitter and many feats were removed from the record books. The game outcomes did not change, just the recording of records. This link in wikipedia on Harvey Haddix describes the near perfect game and how in 1991 MLB removed his feat from the record books: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Haddix

Wins on the field have turned to forfeits/loses because of ineligible players, but I do not believe that applies here.

A game might be protested. If the STAAR test contained 20 questions from some unrelated subject, the game should be protested, but I do not believe that is the case here.

I will grant-you/not-deny that the changing of the administrative rules CAN make comparing data from different years like comparing apples and oranges (vs. apples to apples). However, changing the administrative rules does NOT change any of the game outcomes.

So, I am trying to understand your statement regarding taking away Patrick Mahomes' win. Based on my believe of what "the game played on the field" is, it makes no sense. So maybe you, or one of your colleagues, can define for me what is your "the game played on the field" description.

Sincerely,

Did not respond.

========================

To: areich.aisd@tx.rr.com <areich.aisd@tx.rr.com>

Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 07:19:53 AM CDT

Subject: Five questions

Dr. Reich,

Since there is a very confining two-minute time limit for speakers I am forced to send you an e-mail with my questions.

Here is my two major problems with the 4% raise.

1. As you stated at the May 18 meeting, we are already at the top of the chart [setting the standard concerning salaries]. By giving another 4% [for the fourth? year in a row] you are NOT just staying competitive [as Ms. McMurrough stated], but actually causing ISD inflation. Think about it, you are already on top and setting the price even higher. If the only way you can get people to come and/or stay is to overpay over everyone else's price, there must be something else that is wrong, and I say fix that. I also have to question the "heart" of people that are only going where the top dollar is. For paying the top dollar, are we on top of all the ratings? NO, we are not. There are other districts that are paying less and rated higher [obtaining more from their employees]. [I am NOT trying to imply AISD is doing bad, certainly a whole lot better than say FWISD, but others are doing better with less dollars.]

2. ESSER funds are limited and not forever lasting. So you may think $8.6 million deficit for FY23-24 already accounting for ESSER and vacancy funds might be good, but when no more ESSER funds are available, you are talking an already vacancy adjusted $33 million deficit for future years. The raises accumulate. The ESSER funds expire. We are being set up for a disaster.

1. Do you see how a 4% raise is causing ISD inflation?

2. Do you believe there might be better solutions other than just giving a 4% raise?

Another thing discussed at the May 18 meeting, with no fanfare, was the debt service fund having a $10.6 million surplus. The debt service fund should basically have a cushion (for protection of soft tax collections) then basically aim for annual zero balances for debt service expenditures [The district should already have a good idea what the value of those expenses will be tor the year]. In my mind that is another 3-cent reduction that should be coming off the total tax rate.

3. Do you think the district should be investigating lowering the taxpayers' tax rate by looking at lowering the debt service piece?

The Dallas Cowboys and Texas Rangers make payments to the AISD for taking properties off the tax rolls for stadiums. I believe both pay a six-digit figure. In theory, how school funding works, the M&O total dollars are not affected by whether these properties are on the tax rolls or not, but the debt service piece certainly is. In fairness to the taxpayer these funds should be going to the debt service fund, not the general fund.

4. Do you believe that in fairness to the taxpayers, these stadium payoffs for taking properties off the tax rolls should be added to the debt service fund, helping to lower the total tax bill to taxpayers?

5. Do you believe two minutes is the correct time limit for AISD speakers?

Sincerely,

Did not respond.

========================

To: areich.aisd@tx.rr.com <areich.aisd@tx.rr.com>

Sent: Friday, May 19, 2023 at 10:04:30 AM CDT

Subject: Two questions

Dr. Reich,

The FY2023-24 Budget discussed at last night's board meeting has the taxpayers spending greater than $6.1 million on recapture/"Robin Hood".

Question 1: Is this efficient use of taxpayers' dollars?

Question 2: What options are available to reduce that amount to $0?

Sincerely,

Did not respond.