8 thoughts on “San Marcos, Wimberley voters OK school bonds, Kyle goes for roads”

1. Looking fwd to open records requests who receives all these expensive contracts
   and where all the campaign money came from.

   Only in San Marcos Do Both Sides Hug!
   http://lmc4sanmarcos.com/?p=1938

2. Not a surprising outcome, as supporters of the bond packages appeared well financed and organized. Bond supporters mounted aggressive phone campaigns (we were hit up at least three times), whereas the other side sent out a single flyer.

   It would be interesting to find out who funded those phone call campaigns. Brings to mind the best investigative journalism tip ever uttered in a DC parking garage: “Follow the money.”

3. Sadly, another 3 years of listening to Crowley pick fights over nothing and draw the spotlight to himself. I hope the board is able to do their business around him and in spite of him.

4. Right on Target, SMsince95, Crowley has his own agenda. He’s not Rattler, just a plain snake. Fooled the voters again. Hope he changes his tune.

5. Sounds like sour grapes 95’…Crowley obviously knows and represents his district. I supported him because he’s smart, not afraid to ask tough questions, and not be a rubber stamp for this administration. He has taken a leadership role in getting the board on TV, which Eads does not fully support, and something I suspect even you will praise when it happens.

6. Why would the Supe not want board meetings on TV?

7. Watson – Have you gone to a meeting.? For the bond election, he voted to support the bond (even though he had reservations). For superintendent, he also had reservations. When it comes to a serious vote, he votes with everybody and then backpedals the fastest. He also cost the district $100,000 by continuing to have the election in May instead of moving to November – this certainly appears to work out in the districts favor – lower turnout, bonds passed, Crowley re-elected. Status quo stands. $100,000 would pay two teachers, but instead it buys one election.

8. There will always be some decision an elected official makes that we disagree with. The fact is the equipment to HOLD elections in May cost $100K. A one time cost and not a recurring expense and therefore not possible to fund 2 teachers yearly as Mary suggests. The district paid about $5K to the County to administer the citywide election this year. Also, the vote Crowley made was only to place the bond propositions on the ballot, not to endorse or oppose them. And by the way, both bond propositions failed in the district that Crowley represents.