LAW DAWG
DEAR DAWG:
We are having a problem I never expected to encounter. We are having a hard time finding enough kids who want to play football. Yikes! I became superintendent here two years ago. This is a great district with a tradition of strong performance in academics, athletics and other UIL activities. Our football tradition is particularly strong, and when you drive into town you will see the billboard that touts our state champions from 1963, 1977, 1987, 2001 and 2012. We are always contenders, and sometimes champions. But the last two years, our participation rate has dropped. We had 30 boys on the team at the start of this season, and only 21 at the end. Kids are dropping out because they’d rather play video games. Parents are not letting some of them play due to fear of injury. Being on the football team is just not as “cool” as it used to be. We made sure that the girls understood that they can play, but no takers. We are worried that we won’t even be able to field a team next year. I know that high school football is mandated by the Texas Constitution, but I’m not sure what the consequences are for the failure to field a team. Does the school district get abolished? Does the superintendent automatically lose his job? Where in the Constitution is this covered? Can I require kids to play? IF YOU CAN’T HELP, I’M CALLING JERRY JONES.
DEAR IF YOU CAN’T HELP:
Ease up, Partner. You are not in trouble with the Texas Constitution. Contrary to popular belief, high school football is not mandated by the Texas Constitution, the Education Code or any other law. You don’t have to play. In fact, there are high quality, reputable school districts in the state that have chosen not to field a football team. Consider, for example, Chapel Hill ISD in Region 8. There, the motto is “Where Everybody is Somebody.” And I guess they could add, “But Nobody is an Offensive Lineman.” Of course we cannot guarantee that your community will look favorably on this development. They may view it as a sign of a lack of leadership in the superintendent’s office. But as far as legal concerns, nope. You are OK on that.
DEAR DAWG:
Six of our seven school board members are married to teachers. The only one not married to a teacher is a new guy and we think he is not exactly a strong supporter of public education. We have had some preliminary discussions about our direction, strategy and long range plan. The six board members who are married to teachers all think we need to do a salary survey. They are under the impression that our teachers are seriously underpaid compared to teachers in comparable schools. It’s pretty clear that they want to commission a survey to justify a substantial pay raise for our teachers. The other guy is strongly opposed. He keeps mentioning the “three months of vacation” and the “overly generous retirement plan.” He thinks that all public school employees are underworked and overpaid and has already told us he will vote against a salary survey. Moreover, he will vote against any pay raise for anybody, and he thinks that he is the only one who gets to vote on that. He claims that the other six, being married to teachers, cannot vote on a teacher pay raise. Yikes! Is that true? ONE OF THE SIX, AND MY SPOUSE DESPERATELY NEEDS A PAY RAISE!
DEAR ONE OF THE SIX:
We are assuming that all of the teachers who are married to board members come under the “continuous employment” provisions of our nepotism laws—that is, they were there before the board member was elected or appointed. If that be the case, then all of the board members can vote on any motion that involves a “bona fide class or category of employees.” Section 573.062(b) of the Government Code addresses this issue and it tells us that a trustee who is married to a teacher may not vote on an issue that involves a change in the compensation of the teacher “if that action applies only to the individual and is not taken regarding a bona fide class or category of employees.” So if the motion is to raise the pay of all classroom teachers, or all employees, by a certain percentage, that would be a “bona fide class or category of employees.” We expect that motion will pass 6-1 and your one dissenter can spend the rest of his term of office feeling self righteous.
DEAR DAWG:
Our homebound teacher is scared to death to go to the Jones household because they have a pit bull. The Jones kid needs homebound services, but we are worried about our teacher’s safety. Does the law about homebound have a “pit bull” ex- ception? WE PREFER DACHSHUNDS.
DEAR WE PREFER:
Nope. There is no “pit bull” exception. If the student needs homebound services you have to figure out a way to provide them. However, it is reasonable for the school to make sure that parents understand that they will be expected to provide a safe and appropriate environment for instruction. You might want to put something in your operating guidelines about this. Alternatively, tell the teacher to bring her own pit bull.
Got a comment or question for the Dawg? Send it to jwalsh@wabsa.com.
NOTE TO READERS:
THE DAWG NOW TWEETS!
FOLLOW THE LAW DAWG ON TWITTER: