San Marcos Mercury | Local News from San Marcos and Hays County, Texas

September 27th, 2010
Commentary: Accountability and the ACC taxing district

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Mercury has invited both advocates and opponents of San Marcos CISD’s annexation into the Austin Community College taxing district to write commentary in support of their views ahead of the Nov. 2 ballot measure. This is the first in a series by Lamar Hankins, a member of Citizens for Responsible Education, a group opposing the annexation. For an opposing viewpoint, see Albert Sierra’s column here.

Local Government Watch – Austin Community College District

Four years ago when Austin Community College (ACC) organized a committee in the San Marcos Consolidated Independent School District (SMCISD) to circulate a petition, I did not pay much attention to it until I received a call from a client.  He was incensed that his signature had been forged to the annexation petition and he wanted to do something about it. Many other forgeries on the petitions turned up, as well.

As it turned out, no annexation election was called that year because of the forgeries, but ACC did little to assure that those responsible for their crimes of forgery were brought to justice. No one was prosecuted and ACC prefers that we all forget about this little criminal episode and its responsibility for that crime spree.  When ACC precipitated another “local” committee this year to once again push a petition for annexation of the SMCISD into their taxing district, I remembered the forgeries of 2006 and decided to become involved with an effort to defeat the inclusion of SMCISD in the ACC taxing district.

I joined with several others to both promote improvements in SMCISD and oppose the annexation by ACC by forming Citizens Advocating Responsible Education–S.M.C.I.S.D.  Other groups, individuals, and clusters of citizens have become active in the last few months to oppose this annexation. The main reasons they all have for opposing the annexation of SMCISD into the ACC taxing district fall into three main categories:

  1. Accountability of ACC to the SMCISD and its citizens
  2. ACC financial impacts on local citizens
  3. Academic benefits, if any, of ACC annexation

I will write about each of these matters in separate columns.

Four years ago, when I heard the name ACC, I thought of it as a benign institution providing affordable educational opportunities. I have always supported public education. You might say I have a knee-jerk reaction favoring education. Most people also have an automatic favorable response to education. The great American belief is that education is the key to advancement socially, professionally, and economically. I never thought to challenge my own assumptions until I began to look carefully at what ACC is, how it operates, and what it does.

The first thing I noticed when looking at how accountable ACC would be to the citizens and taxpayers of the SMCISD is that if the annexation occurs, SMCISD will be totally dominated and controlled by Austin/Travis County voters, who make up the bulk of the population base of ACC. Travis County has over 1,000,000 residents, most of whom are included in the ACC taxing district.  San Marcos has just over 52,000 residents.  These figures alone make it clear which voters will control decisions affecting SMCISD if we become a part of ACC’s taxing district.  San Marcos voters have no chance of controlling their own destiny with respect to ACC.

When the ACC taxing district collects $3 million a year from the SMCISD taxpayers, that money goes straight to ACC’s bank account in Austin.  There is no obligation that it be spent in SMCISD.  Local taxpayers will have no voice about how their tax money is spent.

Accountability is a one-way street. Once the voters agree to become part of the ACC taxing district, that decision is forever.  We can’t take it back.  ACC can tax everyone and every business in the SMCISD for as long as ACC exists.  Owners of more than 1500 homes in the SMCISD defaulted on their taxes in 2009.  Obviously, adding to their tax burden will not help them overcome their current delinquencies; it will exacerbate them.

One of the biggest financial accountability issues is that SMCISD residents become jointly and severally liable for all of the ACC taxing district’s liabilities. ACC’s bonded indebtedness, for which we become liable if we become a part of their taxing district, is now at $444 million. That is sure to grow, if it builds more facilities in any of the five areas it is now trying to annex (includes SMCISD, Bastrop ISD, Elgin ISD, McDade ISD, and Hays ISD). As taxpayers, we will have no control over how much debt they incur.

Finally, on the accountability issue, all ACC taxing district trustees live or work in Austin or in nearby Cedar Park or Leander. They have no special interest in SMCISD, its taxpayers, or its students. With the great disparity between the number of voters in the Austin ISD and those in the SMCISD, Austin will continue to control, dominate, and have its way, no matter what the residents of SMCISD want or need.

Voters should not be misled by the deceptive way the ballot is printed. It provides an opportunity to vote For” or “Against” this proposition:


The words “junior college purposes” do not tell the voters that the real purpose is to collect taxes from us.

In future columns, I will explore some alternatives to ACC that may be far better than what ACC has to offer SMCISD and its taxpayers.

© Lamar W. Hankins, Local Government Watch–ACC Taxing District

Email Email | Print Print


4 thoughts on “Commentary: Accountability and the ACC taxing district

  1. You have to be kidding me. They want to build a campus in Kyle. That’s where some of the tax money will go. The rest of it goes to paying teachers and proding education for a lower cost to residences. If this vote doesn’t pass I have to pay three times as much in tuition to drive to Austin to go to school. You are rediculous. You don’t give a hoot about education, you will do anything to keep a couple bucks in your pocket.

  2. Such a short article so many wrong things.

    ACC isn’t in charge of prosecutions. If you have complaints in that department talk to the DA.

    Texas is a small pecentage of the US, saying voters in SMCISD will have no influence in ACC decisions is like saying Texans have no say in federal government decisions.

    Of course there are no current board members from SMCISD area on the ACC board, we’re not part of the district. The Voters Right Act says once we are we must be represented on the board proportionally, they will have to change the lines before the next election.

  3. I usually look forward to reading what you have to say on most subjects regardless of my own personal views. I look forward to your coming articles. I hope they are better prepared than this one. In addition to the shortcomings that have already been pointed out I am concerned with the following.
    “The words “junior college purposes” do not tell the voters that the real purpose is to collect taxes from us”, perhaps you would prefer,”The dang govmint wants to steal your money!”? As written it says exactly what it means, annexing us for a junior college. I know taxes are involved and you know taxes are involved. I don’t think your argument is that the people of San Marcos are too stupid to come to the same conclusion, but it would not be hard for most to make the case that you are saying just that.
    I am also concerned with this, “Owners of more than 1500 homes in the SMCISD defaulted on their taxes in 2009. Obviously, adding to their tax burden will not help them overcome their current delinquencies; it will exacerbate them.”. How many of those tax defaults had nothing to do with taxes but had to do with the recent national mortgage crisis and the resulting recession. If you are losing your house because you can’t pay the mortgage, why would you pay the taxes?
    I am voting for annexation and I am encouraging others to do the same. That said, I really hope you do better with your next article. This one was poorly thought out and easily debunked.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *