8 thoughts on “Lawsuit could cost ACC millions in federal funds”

1. Sure glad I live in San Marcos.

2. Another frivolous lawsuit…someone should sue him for costing taxpayers the additional $21 million.

3. Thank you, thank you, thank you, way to go! Maybe next time they will be more honest with the voting public. Thank goodness “we the people” voted this down the last election.

4. Why did the lawsuit cause ACC to miss the filing deadline? Can ACC still not submitt for Bond approval regardless? Perhaps ACC was unable to file in time because after the voters in SMISD (thankfully) rejected the annexation, ACC scrambled to change their plans by expanding the Kyle campus.
   Sounds like this might be ACC using this lawsuit as a scapegoat to hide their short comings in getting the bond app filed.

5. Or was that the money ACC is using to buy Highland Mall?

6. Talk about arrogance- there is no guarantee that the college will WIN the lawsuit and further force themselves on outside communities. Did you catch the part about the “ACC taxpayers” will have to foot these “extra costs”. This is not a frivolous lawsuit, it is a necessary step to stop a forced acceptance of an additional college in an area that has an excellent 30,000 student university. If ACC had been more forthcoming with voters, there might not be a college to complain about. Good job Dr. and lawyers- hang in there.

7. I’m amazed that this article has not generated dozens of comments critical of the lawsuit. I do agree that there was not nearly enough voter education on the downside of the ACC deal. The deal was supported and very well publicized by all the usual political & commercial interests, but the opposition was mostly silent. A few “letters to the editor” were posted in opposition, and there was a web site that listed the negatives, but from my conversations with my neighbors and with others, it was obvious that most people only had heard about the positives. Here’s an example –
   residents of Plum Creek in Kyle receive a monthly HOA newsletter that keeps us informed about community activities and items of concern (rattlesnakes, for example). In the last newsletter prior to ACC election there was an extensive front-page article extolling only the benefits of the ACC deal. The newsletter gave no clue that there might be opposition to the deal. In dismay, I wrote to the editor to ask why the newsletter did not publish information to make readers aware that not everyone considered the ACC deal to be a good thing. Her reply was that she had no idea that anyone opposed the ACC deal. I asked her where her published article had come from and she told me that the DEVELOPMENT (I assume that means Benchmark (or whatever-the-name of the Plum Creek development company is)). To make things even worse, this newsletter was the last newsletter prior to the election, which meant that there was no time for a subsequent newsletter to be sent.
   Anyway, somehow the voters in San Marcos got educated and voted down the ACC bad deal. I’m sorry that Kyle voters failed to do the same.

8. Texas State does not have the same mission as a community college. TxState is trying to compete with the likes of Texas Tech, UH, & UT branches. They have admissions standards (that have been increasing) that would eliminate many, many people that start at ACC. ACC’s job is to prepare students for places like TxState and to provide vocational ed options.

   I don’t know if you heard, but a HS diploma is mostly useless these days. Apparently most of you are unwilling to pay anything to support your local students beyond that so they can get decent jobs or transfer to university. TxState services largely non-native students. Local graduates that have qualifications and money go elsewhere, those lacking either or both are the people who would use community college. Before the vote, Hays county students had no CC option; they had to move to SA or Austin to get in-district tuition. San Marcos students still face this situation.

   If you folks don’t want community college, fine. Say so. If you want a different community college, take it up with the state legislature. They drew the service area maps, not ACC. I’ve taught classes at 5 community college districts in Texas including ACC, believe me they are all about the same, but actually ACC is one of the better ones. Alamo colleges actually performs worse than ACC in most outcomes, charges higher taxes, and is $1 billion in debt. That’s largely due to a brand-new campus that failed accreditation and won’t be up for it again until 2013.

   I’m tired of the character assassination of ACC as if it’s some sort of pyramid scheme or predatory organization. If it is, then all community colleges are since every one that I’ve worked for has a similar ethos. ACC offered more than enough information regarding annexation on its website, and Texas Association of Community Colleges links to information regarding each CC’s finances, tax rates, budgets, revenue statements, master plans, etc… All of that is public information and available online if you look. It’s the voters responsibility to educate themselves.

   The way the state budget is looking many of you will get your wish and community colleges will downsize while trying to service an increasing number of students.