Trustee, state misled voters: Two PSJA bonds go down in defeat
PSJA ISD’s $60 million bond package was defeated at the polls last Tuesday, but why?
Too many uninformed people spreading misinformation across social media is one reason.
Second, one disgruntled board trustee, Cynthia Gutierrez, was just tossing out numbers, exaggerating the bonds at one teacher union (AFT) meeting, turning the real bond number (Proposition B — $6 million) into $12 million.
There she is on a video from that very same meeting saying it — “$12 million.”
The district has four unions serving PSJA teachers. AFT (American Federation of Teachers) is the smallest, with approximately 250 members. The largest union, TCTA (Texas Classroom Teachers Association), has approximately 1,250 members, and it stayed neutral this bond election.
Across social media leading up to last week’s election, you saw people popping out of the woodwork to say, “vote down PSJA’s bonds,” led on presumably by some union members, Gutierrez, and her one cohort on the board, Trustee Griselda Quintanilla.
One poster on Facebook called for “transparency.”
Actually, Texas law requires public jurisdictions to now post certain financial information online, most notably campaign finance reports, local budgets, and debt information. This requirement applies to various entities like school districts, cities, and counties, and the law mandates that this information be made available on publicly accessible websites.
All one has to do is bother to look.
In the case of PSJA ISD, its audit is easily available online. One just has to have as much energy to read it (approximately 141 pages) as people seem to have when they spend so much time on social media reading lies and then reposting lies.
“The spreading of misinformation, claiming fraud is actually more fun. Duh.”
Apparently.
The PSJA/Gutierrez Circus
In fact, during one PSJA board meeting last month, Oct. 27, the district had a group of professional liaisons (school staff) stand before the board dais so the group could be officially recognized, along with so many other PSJA volunteers not in attendance, but all of whom deserved credit for the work they did reclaiming drop-outs this school year during a three-week stretch in September.
When school started, approximately 430 secondary students were a no-show.
The group of liaisons and volunteers got busy, visited homes, families, students who hadn’t come to class, and out of the original 430 missing, only approximately nine were still not in school when all was said and done. Thanks to encouraging words, the work of staff and volunteers, the rest had decided to return to school to at least gain a high school diploma or even an associate’s degree at South Texas College … free of charge.
When the liaisons stood before the school board Oct. 27 for recognition, playing the part of a grinch, Gutierrez charged in with a list of 11 questions, knocking everyone off balance.
You could see the good vibe start to drain from the group (body language says a lot) as Gutierrez went so far as to actually throw the word “fraud” around. As in, these student enrollment numbers are fraudulent, manufactured.
Cynthia Gutierrez was speaking via Zoom because the board voted last year to censure her because her actions in person had become so disruptive during board meetings, according to the board majority.
Simple board meetings had turned into interminable affairs, lasting late into the night, all apparently because Gutierrez never knew how to stop talking.
She also wouldn’t follow Robert’s Rules of Order, despite protestations from then-Board President Diana Serna. Gutierrez also had a habit of simply dropping in on school campuses unannounced, which flies directly in the face of school district policy (trustee must first notify the superintendent of a campus visit, the principal, etc).
At the last board meeting, however, even though she was on Zoom, that hardly stopped Gutierrez from attacking the enrollment numbers, and it was nearly impossible to get her to stop talking.
As the Nov. 4 bond election drew closer, Gutierrez really started throwing shade at the bond election, calling it unnecessary, citing the need to spend taxes wisely.
This from the same woman who allegedly lost her home to foreclosure last year.
Another social media post reads:
“In this economy, people are barely surviving, and you are asking more from the working class. This is a slap in the face.”
This comment was obviously directed at the district and elected officials who had voted to place the two bonds on the November ballot.
Actually, no, the bonds weren’t a slap in the face of the working class. They were a gift.
The $60 Million Bonds
In the case of PSJA ISD, if the two bonds worth $60 million had passed, the working class would have heaped the rewards — an ad valorem (prop tax) tax decrease, and $30 million in free money from the state to help pay for needed school repairs, district renovations worth approximately $60 million.
Instead, the working class will now shoulder the cost at a rate of 100 percent. And if and when there ever is enough extra money in the general fund to fix things — one year, two, three years down the road — the cost of renovation and repairs will then have increased how much?
Twenty percent, 30, 40, 50 percent?
With the world tariffs in effect, rate of inflation, ICE detaining blue-collar workers tied to the subcontractors, who really knows. Guaranteed the prices won’t go down.
In the case of PSJA ISD, it’s also unfortunate that Gutierrez went to a union event (AFT) last month, sat on a panel as a spokesperson opposing the bonds, while wearing a union T-shirt, just like she was a union member and not a board trustee.
She said that she wasn’t supposed to advocate (for or against the bonds), but other board trustees were. That’s weird. Haven’t seen anyone other than Gutierrez and Ms. Quintanilla speak about the bonds.
That, in and of itself, wasn’t quite as bad as the fact that she also lied about one of the bonds, Proposition B (renovating the performing arts Osodome), saying it would cost $12 million vs. the actual amount, $5.7 million.
Is really now the right time to spend the $12 million? she asked.
No, why not wait a few more years until renovations and repairs cost even more.
The bonds were separated into two propositions, A and B.
Proposition A was for $54.3 million, which would have been used to replace aging HVAC systems, repair roofs, parking lots, and renovated certain district facilities, including the athletic dome (next to the Dr. Daniel P. King PSJA College & University Center).
Proposition B was for $5.7 million and would have renovated the 1960 dome (performing arts) next to I Rd.
Now, that dome will just sit and wait until, if and when, the district has the money down the road to restore the historic 65-year-old structure.
Makes sense. Proposition A fell by the wayside, 2587 votes opposed vs. 2,195 votes in favor.
Prop B failed — 2,720 to 1,983.
It was a no-brainer, no matter the fact that Gutierrez told union members that it was a mistake to vote in favor of them. In fact, she mocked the phrase “no brainer.”
Here are the real facts:
If approved, the district could have gone out for $60 million in bonds. The state would have paid half. The property taxes would have gone down (the new bonds would have cost less than the older, more expensive bond that had recently been paid off by the district).
Now, the taxpayers are solely on the hook for the money to replace things that need replacing or restoration, and taxes won’t go down because the district now needs the money.
PSJA’s Pain Coming
In this latest PSJA election debacle, which is only going to hurt taxpayers, students, and staff, the “uniformed and misinformed” across the district voted down the two bonds (two propositions, A and B), and then celebrated their “victory” across social media.
“Citizens are overtaxed and finally caught on.”
Actually, the problem is, the voters didn’t catch on to what was being stolen from them — a tax decrease and free money from the state (half of the $60 million).
Now, they won’t get a tax decrease, which would have been the case if the two bonds had passed.
One of Gutierrez’s main voter base, South Pharr, will perhaps be hit the hardest.
PSJA Southwest High, for example, needs a new roof and HVAC.
Total cost — approximately $13 to $14 million, according to district estimates.
Without HVAC, the roof alone would cost approximately $11 million.
Meaning, if the HVAC at PSJA Southwest goes out when the outside temps are in the mid-90s, or if the rainfall degrades the structure because the roof is subpar, voters need to call Cynthia Gutierrez, who is running for JP next March (Democrat Primary, Precinct 2, Place 1) and ask her why she convinced voters to vote “no” in this bond election.
Also, in ironic fashion, the current head of the local AFT is a teacher at Southwest and should have been advocating for the bond, one would think.
State Deceit
Impossible to prove, but I think the Texas Legislature and its overlord, Gov. Greg Abbott, set up the two PSJA ISD bonds to fail by requiring that the words “THIS IS A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE” be placed at the bottom of every ballot in big, bold print.
The change was part of 2025 legislation. A law was passed that requires all cities, counties, and other taxing entities, including school districts, to include the statement “THIS IS A TAX INCREASE” on ballot propositions that involve a tax-rate increase or a bond.
Doesn’t matter if the bond election would have included a tax increase or not.
Brownsville ISD tried to pass a bond package ($460 million) Nov. 4, which failed, but it would have included a tax increase spread out over five years.
But why make all school districts include such incendiary language on their ballots — “THIS IS A TAX INCREASE” — if, as was the case with PSJA ISD, no tax increase would have been forthcoming if the bonds had passed?
For the truly uninformed, those words alone — “This is a tax increase” — would have caused most to vote “no.”
There is money to be made in the privatization of schools, either through huge tax credits offered to those with big assets, or opening a new private school funded in large part through the governor’s new voucher program.
So let’s do what we can to hurt the traditional public school districts?
Is that what’s going on in Austin at the highest levels of government?
Can’t prove that I’m right. But what else makes any sense?
PSJAISD’s taxes were going to go down, not up, if the bonds had passed, but still, the district had no choice but to place those words at the bottom of each ballot:
“THIS IS A TAX INCREASE.”