You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'News' category.
by Juan O. Sanchez
For the citizens of Medina County, the City of Hondo recall election of May 9, 2009 has raised numerous concerns regarding its validity.
Through multiple sources, La Voz was able to obtain copies of various documents pertaining to the election. The documents include the 80 signed recall petition sheets, a letter from the Hondo city secretary to the Robert Heyen (who organized the recall), a copy of the election ballot, and a copy of the lawsuit filed against the City of Hondo stating that the election violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and should be considered invalid.
Upon inspection of the recall petitions, it was clear that Yolanda Benitez, Hondo city secretary, should have never certified them.
Although Benitez initially sent a letter to Heyen on January 26, 2009 stating that the recall petition was “insufficient” due to lack of an affidavit by one of the signers of the petition stating, “The statements made herein are true,” the corrective measures taken by Heyen still made the petitions deficient. Despite this, Benitez certified the petitions.
What exactly are the deficiencies in the petitions?
As noted, the letter to Heyen from Benitez stated that the petition was lacking an affidavit by one of the signers and that the statement at the top of the petition indicating the reasons for the recall was accurate and valid.
The letter also stated that Benitez had been in contact with Paul Miles from the office of the Texas Secretary of State, who apparently indicated that the petition required an amendment to comply with the recall requirements of the city charter.
Additionally, the letter stated that Miles had indicated that an amendment was not required if “the petition papers which already contain the circulators name and signature at the top and in the affidavit…” This, however, was incorrect.
Just what conversation transpired between Benitez and Miles is unknown; it also unknown how detailed the conversation was, and if Miles understood – based on Benitez’s explanation – just what was being asked. What is known, however, is that there were in effect two affidavits required for each petition sheet (there were a total of 80 petition sheets containing signatures).
The first affidavit was located at the bottom of the petition and was, in effect, the affidavit for the circulator of the petition. That is, the person who was gathering the signatures and who, through the affidavit, was stating that they witnessed the signing of the petition by supporters, and that the signatures were those of the person indicated in the petition.
The second affidavit required, and this is the location of the deficiency, was the affidavit of Statement of Fact. This affidavit was required to be signed by one of the individuals signing the petition verifying the statement regarding the reasons behind the recall. The statement itself was at the top of each petition sheet, but there was no affidavit attached.
As previously stated, the letter sent by Benitez to Heyen was dated Jan. 26, and included a statement to the fact that the deadline for submitting the amended petition, which included the affidavit of Statement of Fact, was Feb. 5. This gave Heyen and the recall supporters 10 working days in which to amend the 80 petition sheets in order to meet the requirements of the city charter.
Of the 80 petitions, only 65 were amended to include what was, in effect, an invalid affidavit of Statement of Fact. Petition #4 is an example of the invalid affidavit that was added to the petition. On the bottom front of the petition is the affidavit for the circulator of the petition. In an attempt to amend the petition, the same affidavit is copied on the backside of the petition and notarized by Heyen.
However, just above the copied affidavit for the circulator, there is a single line stating: “The statements made therein are true,” but there is no signature. Instead, what was done was to write in “#3 of said petition,” on the line where the name of the signer should have been.
In this case, the signer on line #3 on the front side of the petition was Tracy Carlson, who signed the petition on January 3, yet Heyen signed as notary public on Jan. 29.
Furthermore, the fact that no signature appears on the line for the statement of fact on the back of the petition, means that the signer on line #3, Tracy Carlson, was not present at the time the affidavit was notarized. Petition #5 is another example of an invalid affidavit added to the document. Just as with Petition #4, the same wording concerning the affidavit for the circulator is copied on the back, with Heyen notarizing it on Jan. 29.
In the line corresponding to the signature of the affidavit for the Statement of Fact is entered “# 4 of said petition.” Number 4, in this case, is Claire W. Sweet who signed the petition on Jan. 8. Additionally, she signs the Statement of Fact on the front and dates it on Jan. 27, two days prior to the date of the signed notary by Heyen on the back of the petition.
In this case, we have three dates:
• The date corresponding to the signing of the petition by Sweet (Jan. 8 )
• The date corresponding to the date when Sweet signed the Statement of Fact on the front side of the petition (Jan. 27)
• The date when Heyen notarized the backside of the petition on Jan. 29
Once again, what is evident is that Heyen notarized the affidavit without the signer present. This type of discrepancy regarding the signature dates is evident on the 65 petitions that were amended. In some instances, the difference between the signature dates on the front and back is up to 30 days.
Another deficiency in the petitions, specific to the 85 that were amended, is that in the attempt to quickly amend the petitions, the same affidavit for the circulator was used as the affidavit for the signer of the petition verifying the statement in the petition regarding the recall as being true.
As previously noted, the exact same affidavit located on the front of the petition was copied on the back and made to appear as though this was the affidavit for the statement. However, the affidavit for the signer verifying the statement should have included language specific to verification of the statement.
Instead, it contains the same language specific to the circulator. The affidavit on the back, therefore, is completely incorrect for the intended purpose – verification of the statement regarding the recall (see Petitions #4 & #5). The noted discrepancies should have invalidated the petitions, why the city secretary certified the petitions is unknown.
However, this is not the end of the deficiencies in the petitions. Recall that according to the letter of Benitez to Heyen, the city secretary states, “Mr. Miles also states that the petition papers which already contain the circulators name and signature at the top and in the affidavit do not need to be amended.”
As previously stated, this is incorrect.
The petitions required two affidavits; one for the circulator, and one for the signer. What Benitez indicates has been stated by Miles is that if the person signing as circulator has also signed the petition, that such petitions will not need to be amended.
However, having signed as circulator and having signed the petition does not mean that the same person also signed the affidavit of statement of fact, because no affidavit of statement is included. Two affidavits are required, just because the same person signed as circulator and signed the petition does not automatically mean that the second affidavit, the affidavit of Statement of Fact, has been signed.
Each petition sheet required two affidavits, but there is no second affidavit for the fifteen petitions in which the same person signs as circulator and signs the petition. Such petitions are invalid because they do not have the required second affidavit.
What does all this mean? It means that all the petitions are invalid, 65 because;
(1) They contain different dates with respect to singing the petition and the date when the affidavit is notarized on the back,
(2) Some contain different dates besides the signature on the statement of fact on the front, and the date when Heyen on the back of the petition signed the affidavit,
(3) The affidavit for verification of the statement on the back of the petition is the same affidavit for the circulator on the front, in other words, it is the wrong affidavit,
(4) 15 of the petitions contain no second affidavit, thus they are also invalid.
If the city secretary was intelligent enough to note the deficiencies in the petitions the first time, the question is why she did not note the deficiencies the second time after the petitions had been amended?
The public is left with only two possibilities: Either the city secretary is incapable of performing their duty, or she has been coerced into accepting the petitions, even though they were invalid.
It is apparent that the city secretary had reviewed the city charter requirements regarding the petitions; this is why she did not accept them the first time. Sections 6.03 and 6.07 of the city charter are clear regarding the requirements of affidavits, yet the city secretary accepted the petitions even though they did not meet the specifications.
With respect to the ballot used in the election, this too, was invalid because it did not meet the specifications under the city charter. Sections 6.07 – 6.12 specify the manner in which the ballot is to be formatted. Section 6.09 specifically states:
“Ballots used in recall elections shall read as follows: ‘SHALL (name of person or persons) BE REMOVED FORM THE CITY COUNCIL BY RECALL?’
Below such question there shall be printed the following as to each person named:
‘FOR REMOVAL OF (name of person)
‘AGAINST REMOVAL OF (name of person)”
Note should be taken of the term “shall,” this term is indicative of how it must be done, there are no exceptions. Additionally, the format for the ballot is not one in which all the individuals being recalled are voted on as a block. The candidates should have been separated, and each one should have been voted on individually. Therefore, the ballot format used was incorrect.
However, the ballot format was not the only problem. The Spanish words used concerning the recall made voting on the initiative confusing. Whereas in English the wording for or against removal was clear, in Spanish the word revocar is the equivalent of revoke and can be interpreted as revoking the petition, not the candidate. (This is also covered in the lawsuit). This misunderstanding actually led some Spanish-language voters to vote in favor of the recall, instead of against it.
With only a 45-vote difference in favor of the recall, the use of correct wording could easily have resulted in an opposite outcome with the shifting of 23 votes. Based on the results of the election, with Clyde Haak and Michael Sanchez, individuals who opposed the recall winning, it is of interest that the individuals targeted for the recall lost.
This may be explained due to the confusion associated with the ballot. Had the ballot been formatted as specified by the city charter, and worded in such a fashion that it would not have created confusion; the election results could well have been different.
The last item to be covered is the lawsuit initiated in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in San Antonio, on May 18. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Odilia Garcia, Ricardo Benavides, and Raquel G. Morin. The lawsuit provides numbered paragraphs that detail the reasons for the lawsuit.
The lawsuit cites violation of Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act; changes to the election procedures that were inconsistent with the city charter, and inaccurate Spanish translation on the election ballot that resulted in confusion. It also states that the city of Hondo did not pre-clear any of the changes with the proper judicial authorities; it asks that the city not conduct elections in the un-pre-cleared manner in which it did, and asks that the election of May 9, 2009 be nullified.
The lawsuit cites Section 6 of the city charter and notes the violations by the city regarding the improper format of the election ballot, and the lack of the affidavit of statement regarding the recall petition that must be signed by one of the signers of the petition.
In Paragraph 15, the lawsuit details the deficiencies of the petition and the fact that the city secretary certified the petition even though it failed to comply with the city charter requirements.
The lawsuit also detailed the improper format of the election ballot in that it did not comply with city charter guidelines stating that the recall of council members should be conducted individually, not collectively, as was done. According to the lawsuit, because an improper ballot format was used without proper judicial clearance, “Such election is void as a matter of law.”
Another issue covered by the lawsuit was that a school district election was held at the same time as the city election, without separating the voter lists specific to the city and school district elections. This, it stated, may have allowed some residents within the school district who did not reside within the city limits of Hondo to actually vote in the city election thereby giving the supporters of the recall the win.
Another item of interest in the lawsuit is the assertion that the date set for elections to fill the vacancies created by the recall, do not conform to state law regarding when municipal elections can be held. According to the lawsuit, “the Texas election code clearly requires that the uniform election dates set out in state statute that may be used for municipal elections. The next uniform election date would be the first of Tuesday after the first Monday in November, 2009.” (Section 41.001, Texas Election Code) The lawsuit further states that the city’s date of an election in July has not been submitted for judicial approval as required by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Citing the many violations committed by the city, the lawsuit states: “With full knowledge of and in spite of the total absence of compliance with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the Defendant has conducted its 2009 recall election and begun the process for filling the vacancies resulting from that illegal action.”
The lawsuit states that the city, in conducting the election violated the Voting Rights Act and that because of the lack of judicial clearance in using a modified election process that the election “is void and should be set aside.”
It also asks for an injunction barring the city from using election procedures that are not judicially approved “as required by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.” Another request of the lawsuit is that “a three-judge court be convened to hear the case.”
On the final page of the lawsuit it asks that the court declare the actions of the city regarding the elections as a violation of the Voting Rights Act;
• That the city reinstate the council members that were “illegally removed;”
• That it not allow the city to conduct an election to fill the positions held by the members recalled;
• That a new recall be initiated that follows the procedures established by the city charter.
It further asks that the court order the city to comply with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act; that it pay attorney’s fees; that the court maintain jurisdiction over the matter until the city and those involved comply with the mandates of the court, and allow for whatever else is deemed as just and proper by the court.
It is blatantly clear to all that the election was completely invalid, as well as a failed attempt by those accustomed to wielding control to regain political dominance of the city of Hondo. At this point, it is up to the court system to decide based on the facts, and not the “facts” for a select few.
In the last issue of La Voz (Jan. 17, 2009), the TAKS scores were reviewed based on the fact that the Uvalde CISD board members, who voted to provide Superintendent Wendell Brown with a salary increase, used the scores as one of the reasons for the increase.
In the Uvalde Leader-News (Jan. 18, 2009), UCISD board president Allen Mize, one of the primary supporters of the salary increase, was quoted as saying that Brown’s evaluation was “very positive,” that it “went smooth,” and that everyone on the board supported Brown.
One has to wonder why it took from 8:30 p.m. to 1 a.m. – 4½ hours – for the board to come to agreement on the salary increase if everything “went smooth.” Furthermore, if everyone on the board was indeed supportive of the superintendent as Mize claims, then why was the vote split four to three?
If Mize was attempting to paint a positive picture on what by all appearances may have been a drawn out and bitter process that ended in a divided vote, he did not succeed. It is not difficult to read between the lines and come to a realistic conclusion.
However, what is of even greater interest is what Brown stated in an email on Sept. 2008. Through its sources, La Voz obtained a copy of an email sent to UCISD personnel by Brown shortly after the rollback election failed to pass.
The defeat of the tax increase that board members and Brown supported left the district in a financial pinch for the upcoming academic year (the current year). A facsimile of the email (at right) sent by Brown to UCISD personnel because of the failure of the rollback passage is here for LaVoz’s readers.
Note the language used by Brown in the email; in the first paragraph he refers to the rollback election and the fact that it failed. He then states that as a result the “funding for the 08-09 school year will be limited and we will not be able to provide a pay increase. Expect scrutiny with all requests.”
In the second paragraph he further states, “As a point of clarification, we began the school year with the appropriate budget so no adjustments will need to be made in pay for any team member.” Also, note at the bottom of the email that there was a copy of the email sent to the board.
In reviewing the email, it is clear that the message fell on deaf ears with respect to the board members who voted to provide Brown his salary increase. Even though Brown states that the limited funding will not allow for any pay increases, apparently the board felt this did not apply to Brown.
At least three board members took Brown’s words to heart and scrutinized the salary increase and these three board members voted against the increase.
However, beyond that, Brown himself did not serve as a leader exemplifying what he wrote, as he chose to disregard his own words and accept the pay increase. He could have refused in good conscious, but chose not to do so.
La Voz would like to commend George H. Brown (undoubtedly no relation to Dr. Wendell Brown) who in the letter to the editor in the Uvalde Leader-News of Sunday, Jan. 25, succinctly and to the point clearly expressed his opinion regarding the salary increase. His point is well taken, if the excuse to provide the superintendent a salary increase was because it would be brought in line with other districts, there is no doubt that the pay of UCISD teachers is also low when compared to other districts. What about them?
Finally, according to La Voz sources, the morale of district personnel has fallen drastically as a result of the actions of the board. It is clear that some board members are enamored with Brown, but that has only created resentment on the part of district personnel. One is left to wonder where the students are in all of this.
The Uvalde Police Department (UPD) is pleased to announce the clearance of ten separate cases of graffiti reported within the past two weeks. In these reported cases, a single juvenile offender was responsible for defacing private businesses along with state and government buildings.
Uvalde Criminal Investigators were able to develop leads that eventually led to the identification of the offender. Establishing territory in order to display “art” is alleged to be the apparent motivation for the acts of criminal mischief.
All cases have been forwarded to the Uvalde County juvenile probation office. The UPD is committed to keeping our community free from unsightly graffiti, please call (830)-278-9147 with any information that may assist us in that pursuit.
The Uvalde PD would also like to spotlight the successful clearance of a residential burglary that occurred in the 2000 block of East Main Street on Jan. 19. Uvalde PD investigators were able to collaborate with investigators with the Uvalde County Sheriff’s Office (UCSO) and successfully obtain information needed to solve this burglary and recover items taken.
Arrested in connection with this burglary were Ci Sandoval Martinez (17) of Uvalde and a male (juvenile) suspect. The clearance of this burglary was made possible due to the combined efforts of a concerned citizen, The UCSO, and the UPD.
Also, the Uvalde Police Department participated in a multi-agency initiative on Jan. 22 in order to confirm the documented whereabouts of convicted sex offenders residing in Uvalde County.
Convicted sex offenders are required to register with the UPD or the UCSO on an annual basis depending on where they reside within Uvalde County. The multi-agency initiative involved the following agencies: the UPD, UCSO, the Department of Public Safety (narcotics division/criminal intelligence division/motor vehicle theft division), Immigration Customs and Enforcement, The United States Marshals Service, and The Sabinal Police Department.
The joint task force successfully visited several residences in the Uvalde County area and confirmed the reported whereabouts of many registered sex offenders. Future operations of this nature are planned throughout the upcoming year in an effort to obtain compliance with court ordered sex offender registration.
Uvalde County Sheriff Charles Mendeke is pleased with how the UPD and the UCSO is working together with other local, state, and federal agencies in order to better serve our citizens. Anyone interested in knowing the reported whereabouts of known sex offenders is encouraged to log on to the following web site provided by the Texas Department of Public Safety: www.txdps.tx.us.
This type of community partnership and inter-agency cooperation is essential in promoting a safe and secure community.
Please contact the UPD at (830)-278-9147 with any information regarding crimes occurring in your area. Please remember, information that you provide today could prevent a member of our community from becoming a victim of crime tomorrow.
In the last issue of La Voz, information on the district’s TAKS scores was provided by virtue of the fact that Uvalde CISD board members who supported the salary increase for UCISD Supt. Wendell Brown stated that positive results were part of the reason for the raise.
In this issue of La Voz more information concerning UCISD TAKS results and other information is provided to parents and the community in order to obtain a better perspective on where the district is headed.
As was done in the previous issue tables are provided in order to fully explain the results of the state mandated tests. Elementary grades are included in Table 1 (at right) which provides similar information to that provided in the last issue.
However, no comparative state or regional data is provided. Instead, two new columns were added. These last two columns in the table reflect TAKS results for Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students and academically At Risk students. At Risk students are identified as such due to factors such as poverty, language, medical reasons, family problems, or other issues that may interfere with the student’s ability to perform their work.
These two columns were added due to the district’s bilingual education program being under scrutiny of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) for the past three years, and both LEP and At Risk students are found in the bilingual education program. How these student perform is therefore of importance to the district.
In comparing the scores of LEP students to the scores for the entire district, Hispanic, and white students, LEP students overall have lower scores. The only exceptions are third grade reading and math in 2007.
Note should also be made of the lower scores in the table when comparing 2006 to 2008. The scores for LEP students decrease in third-grade math, fourth-grade reading, fourth-grade writing, fifth-grade math, sixth-grade reading, and sixth-grade math.
Also, note the increases in 2007 followed by decreases in 2008 for third grade reading, third grade math, fourth grade reading, fourth grade math, fourth grade writing, fifth grade math, sixth grade reading, and sixth grade math. In some instances, the decreases in 2008 were extensive, such as sixth grade reading where the scores fell by 49% and sixth grade math where they fell by 27%.
Although increases can be seen in some scores of At Risk students, similar decreases between 2007 and 2008 can also be seen for At Risk students. And, decreases between 2006 and 2008 are also evident. For instance, decreases can be seen between 2006 and 2008 for third-grade reading, third-grade math, fourth-grade reading, fourth-grade writing, sixth-grade reading, and sixth-grade math.
The increase in scores from 2006 to 2007, then decreases from 2007 to 2008 can also be determined. These fluctuations can be seen in fourth-grade math, and fourth-grade writing. Although overall increases are evident, such as fifth-grade reading, fifth-grade math, and fifth grade-science, the fact remains that the increases are not consistent across grade levels and the rise and fall of scores leaves much to be desired.
Table 2 (pg. 7) is reflective of similar information for the secondary grades. In all instances, the scores for both LEP and At Risk students are lower than those for the district, Hispanic students and white students. Further, just as is the case for students at the elementary grades, some of the scores for LEP and At Risk students at the secondary level have increases in 2007, only to decrease in 2008. Just as testing scores are inconsistent across elementary grade levels so, too, are they inconsistent across secondary levels.
However, the exceedingly low scores for secondary level LEP students are clearly evident, and the contrast with the scores of both white and Hispanic students is appalling. The difference in scores between Hispanic and LEP students can range anywhere from one point in eleventh grade math to 68 points in eleventh-grade English Language Arts. The differences in scores for white and LEP students are even larger with a low of 21 points in eleventh-grade math and a high of 90 points in eighth-grade science.
Overall, in the three-year span that is covered by the table, the differences between Hispanic, white and At Risk students are lower in comparison to LEP students. In only one instance are the scores for At Risk students higher than that for Hispanic students – tenth-grade social studies.
The smallest difference between Hispanic and At Risk students is in eleventh-grade social studies at 2 points; the largest difference is eighth grade science at 35 points.
The differences for white and At Risk students are higher; the lowest point differential is in eleventh grade English Language Arts at 6 points, and the highest difference in eighth grade science at 67 points. Much as with elementary grade scores, the scores for secondary level At Risk students increase and decrease between 2006 to 2007 and 2007 to 2008.
This is evident in seventh-grade reading, math and writing, eighth-grade reading, science and social studies, ninth-grade reading, tenth-grade math and science and for eleventh-grade English Language Arts, math, science, and social studies.
In only three areas are the increases consistent over the three-year period – ninth-grade math, tenth-grade English Language Arts, and tenth-grade social studies. Again, the issue of inconsistency over grade levels is evident.
To provide a broader review of UCISD academic information, Table 3 (pg. 
reflects the College Readiness information for 2006, 2007, and 2008.
College readiness is measured based on how well students do in English Language Arts and math. When comparing white students to state and regional scores, it is only in math in 2008 in which these students score lower. Hispanic students, on the other hand, score lower than students at both state and regional levels.
The comparison of scores is much worse for LEP and At Risk students. For LEP students it is only in math in 2006 and 2007 that they score at greater than 1%. At Risk students also score lower than both white and Hispanic students in both subjects throughout the three years covered.
The inconsistency of scores is clearly evident in math for white and LEP students. The scores of white students increase from 2006 to 2007, but decrease from 2007 to 2008. The opposite is the case for LEP students, their scores decrease from 2006 to 2007, and then increase from 2007 to 2008. For At Risk students the inconsistency is in English Language Arts where their scores increase from 2006 to 2007, then decrease from 2007 to 2008.
There is consistency, however, in the increase in scores for Hispanic and white students in English Language Arts, and in math for Hispanic students. Another way to look at these scores is to view them inversely, that is, for instance, if 41% of Hispanic students in 2008 were college ready, that means that 59% were not.
For LEP students this means that nearly 100% were not college ready, and for At Risk students 69% were not college ready. It is exceedingly evident that UCISD is doing a poor job in this area.
The last table (Table 4; pg. provides the SAT and ACT test scores, these scores are not provided for LEP and At Risk students. These tests are administered as a means of providing entrance examination data to colleges and universities, thus preparing the students for entrance into higher education.
The first set of rows provides the percent of students who take the examinations. The percent of white students in the district taking the exams exceed the state and regional level, with the exception of 2005. Hispanic student percentages, on the other hand, are consistently below state and regional levels. This means that Hispanic students are less prepared to enter college because they will still require testing.
The scores on the exams is another indicator of preparedness. Once again, in comparing the scores of white students to the scores at the state and regional level, only in 2006 are the ACT score lower.
Based on the reasoning of the board members who voted for the salary increase for Superintendent Brown that the district was doing quite well, it has been shown that the opposite is true. Although there is improvement in some areas, there is lack of improvement, and even regression in other areas.
The inconsistency and the differences in scores between groups is unmistakable. The question that remains is the whether or not the decision of the four board members who voted for the salary increase was unmistakable.
La Voz has become aware of lobbying efforts on the part of Southwest Texas Water Resources LP (STWR) regarding the proposed water pipeline (at right). According to knowledgeable sources, former Governor Dolph Briscoe is in opposition to the pipeline and has provided his own lobbyist to address the matter.
According to documents obtained, STWR lobbyists are attempting to have State Representatives Carlos Uresti and Pete Gallegos sponsor a bill. At this point neither of the representatives has acquiesced to the sponsorship. According to our sources, the scenario would be as follows:
• A bill would be introduced
• Representatives Gallegos and Uristi would be asked to sponsor the bill.
• The bill will deal with:
• Only permitted water
• The water taken from the area could only be used within the EAA boundaries
The bill will be in the form of an exception to the current language in the EAA statute.
Other information pertaining to the lobbying efforts indicate that (1) the economic study was performed by Angelos Angelo, and (2) the EAA is poised to offer to the City (Uvalde) the incremental differences between the Agricultural value and the municipal value of the water. (this offer has been made before).
What must be understood, based on the lobbying efforts of STWR, is that the law itself must be changed (note third item). As it currently exists, the law does not allow for the building of a pipeline. This is the basis for the sponsorship of a bill, once a bill is introduced and passes; it changes the dynamics of the current law and allows for transfer of permitted water (which is already taking place via extraction in Bexar County). The intent behind the changes is of course to allow for the building of a pipeline.
The intent behind the economic study is to try to convince residents and officials in Uvalde County that the building and transfer of water will actually benefit the county economically.
STWR argues that the pipeline would in effect be a “significant management” tool, and that the water project “will be the largest economic development project in the history of the Uvalde area.”
STWR further argues that Uvalde’s “economy will be strengthened by the direct capital investment and jobs that will result from the Uvalde Water Project’s water company located in Uvalde County, the economic benefits to water rights owners, and the hundreds of jobs created during the construction phase.”
In effect STWR, through its lobbying efforts, and its economic studies is attempting to persuade locals and state representatives that building the pipeline will be a benefit to all. The impetus behind the effort, however, devolves to one simple factor – money. Money that is being used to push through a bill that would generate incomes for a select few who will be the final benefactors of the proposed water pipeline.
To get an idea of the amount of money currently being spent on lobbying efforts, the Ethics Commission website was accessed in order to view the list of lobbyists being used by STWR. The following are four of five known lobbyist being used by STWR.
• Robert Black
- Ethics Commission # (00065038)
919 Congress Ave, Austin, TX 78701
Type of Compensation: Prospective
Compensation range: $50,000 – $99,999.99
Client – Start: 01/01/2009 Term Date: 12/31/2009
• Marc Rodriguez - Ethics Commission # (00027635)
1122 Colorado St. Suite 2399, Austin, TX 78701
Type of Compensation: Prospective
Compensation range: $150,000 – $199,999.99
Client – Start: 01/02/2009 Term Date: 12/31/2009
• Hillery Stephens - Ethics Commission # (00065206)
1122 Colorado Suite 2399, Austin, TX 78701
Type of Compensation: Paid
Compensation range: Less Than $10,000.00
Client – Start: 01/05/2009 Term Date: 12/31/2009
• Gilbert Turieta - Ethics Commission # (00010261)
1122 Colorado St. Suite 2399, Austin, TX 78701
Type of Compensation: Paid
Compensation range: Less Than $10,000.00
Client – Start: 01/01/2009 Term Date: 12/31/2009
Uvalde officers, assisted by Uvalde County deputies, responded to a report of a fight in progress on Jan. 14 in the 600 block of Brice Lane.
During the initial investigation, one of the men being questioned decided to disregard officers’ directives and began running in a northeast direction.
After a brief foot pursuit, officers successfully arrested Juan Manuel Fuentes (23) of Uvalde on the following charges: Unlawful carrying of a weapon, resisting arrest, and evading arrest or detention.
Fuentes actively resisted the lawful arrest being executed by Uvalde officers. It is unknown exactly Fuentes chose to evade officers; his flawed decision-making could possibly be due to the fact he was in possession of a pistol, which he discarded during the foot pursuit.
Officers arrested a second Uvalde man, Julio Cardenas (36) at the initial scene of the disturbance for active Uvalde County warrants.
It’s tax time again.
April 15 seems so far away but it will be here before you know it. Are you ready? Do you have questions and need help? Do you like things for free?
If so then come see a representative with the Uvalde Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) Coalition.
The VITA program is an annual program that provides free income tax preparation assistance to individuals and families whose income is below $42,000. Trained tax preparers work with taxpayers to review all of the tax credits that they may be eligible for and file the tax return electronically with the IRS.
“Our sites offer individuals the opportunity to take advantage of the e-file program which files the returns electronically and helps them receive their refunds usually in half the time compared to returns filed on paper,” stated Uvalde VITA Coalition Chairman Barry Zimmerman. “If you have your refund done through direct deposit to your bank account you can usually receive the refund in about 7-10 business days. This can be a big plus for those needing their refund as soon as possible and best of all it is free.”
The VITA Program will begin the 2009 tax filing season on Tuesday, Jan. 20, to assist local citizens who qualify with free income tax filing for their Federal Income Taxes. The VITA program, in cooperation with the Internal Revenue Service, trains volunteers who donate their time to prepare basic income tax returns for those who qualify.
The Uvalde VITA Coalition consists of representatives from these agencies and businesses in partnership with the IRS: Middle Rio Grande Development Council, FUTURO Communities Inc., Community Council of Southwest Texas, El Progreso Memorial Library, Uvalde Area Chamber of Commerce, Uvalde CISD and the City of Uvalde.
“We will be offering the tax assistance at three locations this year along with a few one day sessions in the area. The main sites are the Workforce Solutions Middle Rio Grande Workforce Center, El Progreso Memorial Library and Southwest Texas Junior College with a variety of hours to fit any schedule, says Zimmerman. “We are in the process of finalizing our site hours based on our volunteer’s schedules. Our program relies on volunteers who give of their time to help area citizens with their taxes.”
Volunteer opportunities are available if anyone is interested in helping with the VITA program this year. Zimmerman may be contacted at (830) 278-4491.
Persons needing tax assistance are asked to bring with them to the VITA Site:
1. Forms W-2 and/or 1099 from every place they worked or received income in 2008;
2. Social Security cards for themselves, (wife or husband) and all dependents, including adult dependents;
3. Any other information needed to complete their return (such as statements related to child care); and,
4. If available, a copy of their 2007 tax return.
“The goal of our local VITA Coalition is to provide a valuable service to area citizens by assisting in filing their tax returns and helping them get as much back on their return as possible. Many residents in our region qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit but do not file for it on their returns and lose out on money available to them” states Zimmerman. “The VITA Program helps citizens bring home more money through their tax refund and in turn helps our local economy. Our region has left a great deal of tax credit money with the IRS because people did not know they were eligible for the credits and our program hopes to boost the region’s economy by making sure the residents who qualify for these credits file their taxes properly and receive these refunds.
“We ask area businesses to let their employees know about the VITA program and the EITC as this can only help their employees and their families. If you would like information on the program or would like to distribute VITA information to employees please feel free to contact us for assistance.
“We can be reached at the Workforce Solutions Middle Rio Grande Uvalde Workforce Center at 278-4491. This is a small and easy way to boost economic development in the area by increasing the buying power of local citizens who will most likely spend the money here in Uvalde,” says Zimmerman.
He encourages any interested taxpayer to let VITA help save money and get the most of their return by coming to one of many VITA sites for this free service.
Argumentando que el Superintendente del distrito escolar de Uvalde, Wendell Brown, ha hecho buen trabajo, y los exámenes del TAKS han mejorado, cuatro miembros de la cámara de directores del distrito de Uvalde votaron por darle a Brown un aumento de $10,000 más una anualidad de $200 por mes. Aunque el aumento no será efectivo hasta el siguiente junio, con el aumento el sueldo del superintendente llegara a $150,000. El aumento fue dado menos de un año después de su último aumento, pues su sueldo era de $140,000 desde junio de 2008. El sueldo de $150,000 no incluye otros beneficios, tal como la anualidad, también dado al superintendente.
El voto para proporcionar a Brown con el aumento de sueldo fue de cuatro a tres con Allen Mize, Carper Capt, Bob Lester y Bill Cockerill votando por el aumento, y David Gonzáles, Hector Luevano, y Carlos Fernández votando en contra. A pesar del hecho que el publico votó en contra del aumento de impuesto hace pocos meses, y que el distrito no le proporcionó a maestros y otro personal un aumento para el siguiente año, y que el distrito esta revisando duramente los programas y servicios para reducción o eliminación el año escolar próximo, al parecer los cuatro individuos ya citados estaban de acuerdo que Brown merecía un aumento.
¿Adicionalmente, si de hecho el superintendente estaba asiendo un buen trabajo, qué es lo que los maestros hacen? Maestros son los soldados rasos; son los cuales están en las trincheras, si el superintendente esta haciendo un buen trabajo, es porque los maestros son la vanguardia en la batalla educativa.
Otros distritos en la región y el estado también están sintiendo la escasez de fondos y han empezado a reducir empleados, programas y servicios. Se pone uno a pensar de los programas o servicios cuales se eliminarán para proporcionarle a Brown el aumenta.
Es importante que los padres vean las razones dadas por los cuatro miembros cuales votaron por el aumento. El argumento principal era que los exámenes TAKS del distrito habían aumentado sobre los del año previo. Como el Sistema de Indicadores de Excelencia Académicos (AEIS) ya ha proporcionado los datos del año previo, La Voz decidió revisar los datos para ver los resultados del distrito, como fue anotado por los cuatro individuos cuales votaron para proporcionarle al superintendente su aumento.
Para obtener una mejor estudio, con respecto a los exámenes TAKS, La Voz utilizo los datos de los años escolares 2006, 2007 y 2008. Se hizo esto porque los cuatro miembros utilizaron solamente los datos para los años 2007 y 2008 como comparación. Sin embargo, utilizando el tercer año (2006) se proporciona una comparación de tres años en ves de una comparación de dos años, y, de nuestra perspectiva, presenta un estudio mejor con respecto al “buen trabajo” que el superintendente hace.
La información contenida en las tablas proporcionadas es la siguiente: la primera columna se refiere al nivela escolar de la prueba, la segunda columna se contiene los últimos tres años escolares de resultados de TAKS, la tercera columna se refiere a los resultado de TAKS obtenidos por todo el estado, la cuarta columna se refiere a los resultados de TAKS de la Región 20 (la región en la cual Uvalde es localizado), la quinta columna se refiere a los resultados de TAKS del distrito entero, la sexta columna se refiere a los resultados de TAKS de estudiantes hispanos y la última columna contiene los resultados de estudiantes blancos.
Tabla 1 (pg. 6) proporciona los datos del AEIS de los grados primarios. Padres deben repasar la tabla detalladamente, pues hay varias preocupaciones reflejadas en la información. Una comparación de resultados obtenidos por estudiantes por todo el estado y la región, comparados a los obtenidos por estudiantes blancos, es lo primero que sobresalta. En casi cada caso los resultados de estudiantes blancos superan los del estado y la región. La excepción es en lectura en el grado tres de 2006, grado cuarto en matemáticas en 2006, y quinto grado en matemáticas en 2007.
Al contrario, estudiantes hispanos obtienen resultados más bajos que los del estado y región en casi todas materias. Hay unas cuantas excepciones tal como en matemáticas en el tercer grado en 2006, en matemáticas en el cuarto grado en 2006, en lectura en sexto grado en 2006 y 2008, y matemáticas en sexto grado en 2006 y 2008. Adicionalmente, la diferencia en resultados de las pruebas entre estudiantes blancos y hispanos persiste, y en los grados primarios en actualidad incrementan.
Por ejemplo en lectura del tercer grado la diferencia en 2006 era de 3%, esto aumenta a 15% en 2007 y 2008. Lo mismo se puede decir en matemáticas del tercer grado. En 2006 la diferencia entre los resultados era 12%, esto aumenta a 15% en 2007 y a 28% en 2008. En el cuarto grado, sobre los mismos tres años, la diferencia en lectura aumenta de 3% a 22%, en matemáticas aumenta de 14% a 22%, (esto ocurre porque los resultados de estudiantes hispanos disminuyan mientras los resultados de estudiantes blancos aumentan), y en escrituras la diferencia aumenta de 2% a 15%.
Quinto grado es un poco diferente. En lectura sobre los tres años, la diferencia disminuye de 25% a 17%, en matemáticas la diferencia aumenta de 19% a 22% y en ciencia se queda a 27%. Sólo en sexto grado hay una disminución global. En lectura la diferencia disminuye de 4% a 2%, y en matemáticas la diferencia disminuye de 11% a 6% aunque hay una disminución por ambos estudiantes blancos y hispanos.
Tabla 2 (pg. 7) contiene la información de TAKS por estudiantes al nivel secundario. Como es el caso con estudiantes blancos en los grados primarios, estudiantes blancos al nivel secundario superan a los estudiantes por todo el estado y la región. Hay varios casos en que estudiantes blancos del distrito obtienen resultados más bajos que los estudiantes del estado y la región. Por ejemplo, se anotan resultados más bajos en lectura en séptimo grado en 2008, en matemáticas en séptimo grado en 2008, en lectura en grado once en 2006 y 2008, y en matemáticas en grado once en 2008.
Con respecto a estudiantes hispanos, sólo en escrituras en séptimo grado se anotan más altos resultados que los de estudiantes al nivel estatal o regional. En todas otras materias, estudiantes hispanos anotan resultados más bajos que estudiantes al nivel estatal y regional.
Con respecto a la diferencia en pruebas entre estudiantes blancos y hispanos, el distrito ha tenido éxito en reducir las diferencias al nivel secundario. La diferencia, sin embargo, continua, y hay casos en que aumenta. La diferencia entre los resultado en la Tabla 2 son las siguientes: en lectura en séptimo grado, sobres los últimos tres años, la diferencia ha disminuido de 27% a 14%, en matemáticas ha disminuido de 49% a 30%, (esto es debido a una disminución en los resultados de estudiantes blancos de un 16%), en escrituras la diferencia aumentó 1% de 13% a 14%.
En el octavo grado en lectura, la diferencia disminuyó de 16% a 11%, en matemáticas la diferencia aumentó de 20% a 25%, en ciencia la diferencia disminuyó de 40% a 29%, y en estudios sociales la diferencia disminuyó de 31% a 20%.
En noveno grado la diferencia en lectura disminuyó de 17% a 15%, pero hubo un aumento tremendo en matemáticas de 33% a 54%.
En décimo grado la diferencia en Artes del Idioma Ingles disminuye de 21% a 9%, en matemáticas disminuye de 37% a 31%, en ciencia la diferencia disminuye de 49% a 28%, y en estudios sociales la diferencia disminuyó de 32% a 16%.
En grado once la diferencia en Artes del Idioma Ingles disminuye de 6% a 2%, en matemáticas disminuye de 27% a 20%, en ciencia la diferencia disminuye de 38% a 29%, y en estudios sociales la diferencia disminuyó de 18% a 9%.
Aunque la diferencia entre las pruebas al nivel secundario ha disminuido en la mayoría de materias, diferencias aun existen. Los datos en la Tabla 2 reflejan un total de 17 pruebas (tres en séptimo grado, cuatro en octavo grado, dos en noveno grado, cuatro en décimo grado, y cuatro en grado once). En tres de las áreas de pruebas la diferencia es menos de 10 puntos de porcentaje, en cinco áreas de pruebas la diferencia es menos de 20 puntos, y en nueve áreas la diferencia es 20 puntos o más.
Las diferencias más grandes son en matemáticas en noveno grado a 54%, matemáticas en décimo grado de 31%, matemáticas en séptimo grado a 30%, en ciencia en grados octavo y once a 29%, en ciencia en grado diez a 28%, y matemáticas en octavo grado a 25%.
En los grados primarios hay dos áreas de materia en que la diferencia es menos de 10 puntos de porcentaje. Hay tres áreas de materias en que la diferencia es menos de 20 puntos, y cinco áreas en donde la diferencia es más de 20 puntos.
Otro factor cual también se observa es la inconsistencia de los resultados. Unos ejemplos bastarán para explicar esto. Si revisa Tabla 2 y las pruebas de estudiantes hispanos en el séptimo grado, las pruebas aumentan de 2006 a 2007, pero disminuyan en 2008. Lo mismo se puede notar en el grado décimo en Artes del Idioma Ingles y matemáticas. Las pruebas aumentan entre 2006 y 2007, pero bajan en 2008.
También se puede ver en las pruebas de estudiantes blancos este efecto del yoyo. De nuevo, revise Tabla 2 y note el aumento entre 2006 a 2007, pero disminución en 2008 en matemáticas en séptimo grado, matemáticas en octavo grado, ciencia en octavo grado, y Artes del Idioma Ingles y matemáticas en grado once. Este efecto del yoyo es también notado en los grados primarios en Tabla 1. Este efecto se ha notado antes en otros artículos escritos en La Voz, y como se declaró entonces se declara de nuevo, es una indicación de la inconsistencia en la alineación del currículo.
¿Han mejorado las pruebas TAKS del distrito? En unos caso sí, en unos casos no. El problema fundamental es que el mismo problema que ha sido señala anteriormente por La Voz todavía persiste. Adicionalmente, bajo la último orden de la corte asociado con la demanda de Genoveva Morales, una de las muchas áreas por las cuales el distrito escolar de Uvalde es responsable es la diferencia en los resultados entre estudiantes hispanos y estudiantes blancos.
De la perspectiva de La Voz, el argumento por parte de los miembros de la cámara escolar cuales proporcionaron a Brown con aumento de sueldo debido al “buen trabajo” cual ha hecho, tal vez ha sido prematuro, sobre todo si la diferencia entre las pruebas persisten.
Además, es dudable que el aumento de sueldo proporcionado al superintendente no será agradable para personal del distrito escolar de Uvalde cual no recibieron aumento, o personal cual se elimina debido al presupuesto reducido anticipado para el siguiente año. Hay todavía demasiadas áreas en el distrito cuales requieren mejoramiento; basando el aumento de sueldo en el área de resultados solamente, en luz de diferencias cuales claramente existen, es dudoso por lo menos.
Arguing that Uvalde CISD Superintendent Wendell Brown has been doing a good job, and that TAKS scores have improved, four Uvalde CISCD school board members voted to give Brown a $10,000 raise plus a $200 per month annuity during their last school board meeting.
Although the salary increase will not go into effect until next June, the salary increase provided to the superintendent raises his salary to $150,000. The increase came less than a year since his last increase as his salary had been $140,000 since June of 2008. The $150,000 does not include other benefits, such as the annuity, also provided to the superintendent.
The vote to provide Brown with the salary increase was 4-to-3 with Allen Mize, Carper Capt, Bob Lester and Bill Cockerill voting for, and David Gonzales, Hector Luevano, and Carlos Fernandez voting against. Despite the fact that, a.) The tax rollback was voted down a few month ago, b.) The district did not provide teachers and other personnel a pay increase for the upcoming year, and c.) The district is taking a hard look at programs and services to reduce or eliminate in the coming school year, apparently the board felt that Brown deserved an increase.
Additionally, if indeed the superintendent is doing a good job, what are the teachers doing? Teachers are the foot soldiers; they are the ones in the trenches, if the superintendent is doing a good job it is because the teachers are the ones at the forefront of the educational battle.
Other districts throughout the region and state are also feeling the funding pinch and have begun reducing staff, programs and services. One wonders just what programs or services will be eliminated in order to provide Brown his pay increase.
It is important to look at the reasons given by the four board members who voted for the pay increase. The principal argument was that district TAKS scores had increased over the previous year. As the Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) data for the previously ended year has already been released, La Voz decided to review the data to see just how well the district is doing, as noted by the four individuals who voted to provide the superintendent his raise.
In order to obtain a better picture regarding TAKS scores, La Voz used the data for the 2006, 2007 and 2008 academic years. This was done because the four board members used only the 2007 and 2008 academic years as comparison. However, using the third year (2006) provides a three-year comparison versus only a two-year comparison, and, from LaVoz’s perspective, a better picture regarding the “good job” the superintendent is doing.
The information contained in the tables is as follows:
• The first column refers to the grade level test,
• The second column refers to the last three academic years of TAKS results,
• The third column refers to the TAKS scores statewide,
• The fourth column refers to the scores within Region 20 (the region in which the UCISD is located),
• The fifth column refers to the TAKS scores for the entire district,
• The sixth column refers to the TAKS scores for Hispanic students, and the last column to the scores of white students.
Table 1 provides the AEIS data for the elementary grades. Parents should review the table closely as there are a number of concerns reflected in the information. A comparison of scores between those obtained for the state and region, compared to those obtained by Anglo students is the first salient item. In nearly every instance the scores for white students surpasses those of the state and region. The exception is third grade reading in 2006, fourth grade math in 2006, and fifth grade math in 2007.
Conversely, Hispanic students score lower than the state and region in nearly all areas. There are a few of exceptions such as in third grade math in 2006, fourth grade math in 2006, in sixth grade reading in 2006 and 2008, and sixth grade math in 2006 and 2008. Additionally, the gap in test scores between Anglo and Hispanic students persistently remains, and at the elementary level, the differences increase.
For instances, in grade three reading the gap in 2006 was at 3%, this increases to 15% in 2007 and 2008. The same can be said for third grade math.
In 2006, the testing gap was 12%, this increases to 15% in 2007 and to 28% in 2008. In fourth grade, over the same three year period, the testing gap increases in reading from 3% to 22%, in math it increases from 14% to 22%, (this occurs because the scores for Hispanic students decrease while the scores for white students increase), and in writing it increases from 2% to 15%.
Fifth grade is a bit different. In reading, over the three-year period, the gap decreases from 25% to 17%, in math, the gap increases from 19% to 22% and in science, it remains the same at 27%. Only in sixth grade is there an overall decrease. In reading the gap decreases from 4% to 2%, and in math the gap decreases from 11% to 6% even though there is decrease for both white and Hispanic students.
Table two contains the TAKS information for secondary level students. As is the case for Anglo elementary level students, they outperform students at the state and regional levels at the secondary level.
There are a few instances in which Anglo students in the district score lower than students across the state and region. For instance, they scored lower in seventh grade reading in 2008, in seventh grade math in 2008, in eleventh grade English Language Arts in 2006 and 2008, and in eleventh grade math in 2008.
With respect to Hispanic students, only in seventh grade writing do they score higher than students at the state or regional level do. In every area other than this, Hispanic students score below students at the state and regional level.
With respect to the gap in test scores between Anglo and Hispanic students, the district has been successful in narrowing the differences at the secondary level.
The gap, however, remains, and there are instances in which it increases. The test score gaps in Table 2 are as follows:
• in seventh grade reading, over the last three years, the gap has decreased from 27% to 14%,
• in math it has decreased from 49% to 30%, (this is due to a decrease in the passing rate for white students of 16%),
• in writing the gap increased by 1% from 13% to 14%.
At the eighth grade level the test score gap decreased in reading from 16% to 11%, in math the gap actually increased from 20% to 25%, in science the gap decreased from 40% to 29%, and in social studies the gap decreased from 31% to 20%.
In ninth grade the test score gap in reading decreased from 17% to 15%, but there was a large increase in math from 33% to 54%.
In tenth grade the test score gap in English Language Arts decreases from 21% to 9%, in math it decreases from 37% to 31%, in science the gap decreases from 49% to 28%, and in social studies the gap decreased from 32% to16%.
In eleventh grade the test score gap in English Language Arts decreases from 6% to 2%, in math it decreases from 27% to 20%, in science the gap decreases from 38% to 29%, and in social studies the gap decreased from 18% to9%.
Although the test score gap at the secondary level has decreased in most areas, gaps still exist.
The data in Table 2 is reflective of a total of 17 tests (three in seventh grade, four in eighth grade, two in ninth grade, four in tenth grade, and four in eleventh grade). In three of the test areas the test score gap is less than 10 percentage points, in five test areas the gap is less than 20 points, and in nine areas the gap is 20 points or more.
The biggest gaps are in ninth grade math at 54%, tenth grade math at 31%, seventh grade math at 30%, eighth and eleventh grade science at 29%, tenth grade science at 28%, and eighth grade math at 25%.
At the elementary level there are two test areas in which the test score gap is less than 10 percentage points. The gap is less than 20 points, and five areas in which the gap is over 20 points in three test areas.
Another factor that comes into play is the inconsistency of the results. A few examples will suffice to explain this. If you look at Table 2 and the test results for Hispanic students at the seventh grade level, the scores increase from 2006 to 2007, but decrease in 2008. The same can be said for tenth grade English Language Arts and math. The scores increase between 2006 and 2007, but decline in 2008.
This yo-yo effect can also be seen in the scores of Anglo students. Again, look at Table 2 and note the increase from 2006 to 2007, but decrease in 2008 for seventh grade math, eighth grade science, eleventh grade English Language Arts, and math.
This yo-yo effect is also discernable at the elementary level in Table 1. This outcome has been noted before in other articles written in La Voz; as stated then and stated now, it is an indication of inconsistency in the alignment of the curriculum.
Have the district testing scores improved? In some instance, yes, in some instances, no. The fundamental issue is that the same problem that has been consistently point out by La Voz still persists. Additionally, under the last court order associated with the Genoveva Morales lawsuit, one of the many areas under which the UCISD will be held accountable is the testing gap.
From the perspective of La Voz, the argument on the part of the board members to provide Brown with a salary increase because of the “good job” he has done may prove to be a bit premature, especially if the testing gap persists, and especially if the yoyo effect resurfaces at the end of this year.
Further, it is doubtful that the salary increase provided to the superintendent will play well with UCISD personnel that did not get a pay increase, or personnel that may be eliminated due to the tight budget anticipated next year.
The district still requires improvement in far too many areas. To base the salary increase on the area of testing alone, in light of some of the glaring differences, is dubious at best.
With a less than three weeks remaining to register for spring classes, Rio Grande College Admissions Director Claudia Wright stresses the importance of holding a college degree in times when economic circumstances are fast changing.
“Our doors are like open pathways to new career horizons for students on their way up the ladder toward their first degree, or for students who already have degrees and seek to update their professional knowledge and diversify their skills,” she says.
“The key to career security is marketability,” adds Wright, who offices at RGC’s Eagle Pass campus. “The more training and experience an individual gets, the more in-demand the individual becomes.”
Classes in junior, senior and graduate-level programs start January 20 at Sul Ross State University’s Rio Grande College. Online registration continues through Friday, January 30. For a listing of courses and to register online, visit the College web site, rgc.sulross.edu, or drop by the admissions offices at RGC’s campuses in Del Rio, Eagle Pass and Uvalde.
Although nearly all RGC students now register on the web, students who have been officially accepted for enrollment can get one-on-one help with signing up for classes at the College’s admissions offices. Counselors may be reached at 830/703-4812 (Del Rio), 830/758-5037 (Eagle Pass) and 830/279/3037 (Uvalde).
“At Rio Grande College we say ‘Think Opportunity’ and we really mean it,” says
Wright. “We’re not only home-based for Southwest Texans, RGC offers a wide range of high-quality degree programs at the very lowest tuition rate in Texas.”
“When the economy dives, a college graduate most often survives,” Wright adds.
