Published: November 19, 2008 09:26 am            

Harold Gentry: Who says you have to spend that much?

For the sake of discussion let’s say I accept the idea that all administrators and board members in the State of Texas are key officials or chief officers of a state agency and therefore entitled to $170 per night lodging.

TEA’s Rita Chase’s opinion, now made available to us, says the CISD’s board can adopt any travel policy they like, either lower or higher than the state-allowed rates, but whatever policy and rate they adopt they must follow.

CISD travel expenses of $26,331.72 were disallowed by TEA auditors, noting that “In most instances, the travel related transactions selected for testing exceeded the maximum recovery amounts for travel and per diem costs as approved locally by the board and authorized in the State of Texas Appropriations Bill for the particular funding period.”

Although these expenses were not board travel, the administration did not follow board-adopted policy, yet the board approved the expenses. However, in the past open records does prove board members and administrators have exceed this maximum allowable rate without making reimbursements.

Here is the real crux of the argument: Where does it say that any key officials are mandated by law to spend a minimum of $170 per night for lodging?

The contention really centers on a reasonable price of a room to serve a proper public purpose, not what title you ascribe to yourself. Whenever school district officials travel with their families using their own money and not the taxpayers, do they always book a room at $170 because they are key officials?

The primary reason for attending meetings is to get training needed to perform their duties. They get the same training no matter how much they pay for a room. The room should be comfortable, convenient, and suitable for personal use with good value for both the district and the taxpayer. The bulk of the time is spent getting the training and not in the room. It is merely a place to sleep at night.

As long as the lodging meets these requirements and puts no attendees at risk for their safety, I do not see why a $99-$120 room at a La Quinta or any other value hotel is not something the district will even consider.

Does anyone feel this is wrong or in any way absolutely unreasonable to ask, especially when you’re using someone else’s money? Ever heard of a word called stewardship?

No one is refusing to pay all expenses including meals, mileage, etc., so this request in no way places undue financial burden on any attendee.

There is no evidence that staying at the convention hotel saves any money. With mandatory $20 valet parking fees at the Adolphus and other convention hotels, attendees could pay for a cab to the convention location if their hotel didn’t offer a shuttle.

What if the board set its travel policy with a maximum allowable rate of $120 per night for lodging? The Adolphus hotel bill for the 2008 TASA/TASB convention was $6,464.13. However if you went with this suggestion it would be about ($360 x9) $3,240. You could have saved the taxpayer $3,224.13 and put that into the children’s bank account.

The Adolphus Hotel was not the only housing available for this convention. In these troubling times with our world economy in a financial meltdown and people losing their jobs by the thousands, I do not see the harm in all of us tightening our belts a little.



Harold Gentry is a Cleburne resident.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.