Published: May 07, 2008 11:16 am         

Ad question uncovers missing vote in minutes

A question over truth in advertising revealed that a moot vote was not recorded in the official minutes of the North Central Texas Community College District’s Board of Regents.

An advertisement on page 2 of Monday’s Register by Place 1 Board of Regents candidate Ken Arterbury raised some eyebrows at the North Central Texas College Administration Building when it accused Place 1 incumbent Lynn Williams of voting “to raise taxes 7 percent or $140,000.”

Arterbury cited his source as the July 24, 2007, Register story titled “NCTC gets ready to up tax, tuition.”

Williams was not available for comment due to illness.

NCTC Board of Regents President Bill Ledbetter approached Register staff Tuesday morning concerned about the ad, saying there had been no tax increase at that time.

“We simply did not raise taxes,” Ledbetter said Tuesday morning, noting that either the Register was incorrect and/or Arterbury’s ad was wrongly worded.

The Register article from the July 23, 2007, meeting reported a vote was taken to raise taxes and tuition. But, according to the official minutes report of the NCTC Board of Regents meeting of July 23, 2007, a vote was not recorded regarding taxation.

NCTC President Dr. Eddie Hadlock, Secretary of the NCTC Board of Regents Steve Gaylord, Ledbetter, Arterbury and this reporter met Tuesday afternoon to discuss the missing vote, joined by county resident David Hansmeyer and administrative secretary Sandy Otto.

The group reviewed a DVD video of the July 23, 2007, meeting and discovered that, indeed, a vote was taken. But since the vote was out of order it did not count. Nor was it recorded in the minutes.

Gaylord, who signed the minutes along with Ledbetter, said even an invalid motion voted on favorably should at least be noted in the minutes.

“Any motion that is made should be recorded in the minutes,” Gaylord said. “... If anyone wants an apology for that, I’ll certainly apologize for it.”

He continued: “I think I messed up, and I didn’t catch it. The administration makes the minutes and I just correct and review them.”

Gaylord said he had no problem with the way Arterbury’s ad was worded, and that a little extra explanation may have helped.

“It’s possible to explain yourself to a fault,” he said. “You can buy out a whole page and explain yourself in detail, and still have no one reading it.”

During the meeting in question, the NCTC Regents were considering how best to respond to a $1.4 million shortfall brought on NCTC by the governor’s veto of a spending bill in 2007. The Texas Legislature had approved $153,979,799 to cover group health insurance benefits of certain employees. But, according to the Texas Community College Teachers Association, Gov. Rick Perry accused the staff of all 49 of the Texas community colleges of falsifying their budget requests. Therefore, the governor vetoed the spending bill.

NCTC was covered for 2008-09, but starting in 2009, the funds would not be available.

Hadlock, like many other college presidents throughout Texas, strongly opposed the veto and said it was “highly unlikely” that all 49 community colleges in Texas would have falsified their health cost records.

But with the projected funding cuts still looming, NCTC administrators were left with the task of cutting spending, raising taxes and/or raising tuition and fees to cover the expected, massive loss.

The Regents did vote 6-1 at the July 23, 2007, meeting to approve Option “A” from a list of four options in response to an anticipated drop in funding. The option would have delayed major purchases by the college, as well as raise tuition fees by $9 per semester.

But since Option “A” also involved raising taxes, a special meeting had to be called for a future date — July 30, 2007. Plus, Hadlock noted, the agenda called for a “discussion of proposed budget” and did not list an action item to consider cutting spending or raising fees or taxes. Legally, the Regents could not take action as no prior notice was given to the public.

Between July 23 and July 30, 2007, the Office of the Lieutenant Governor contacted NCTC administrators and, essentially, told them not to raise taxes to make up for the vetoed funding, and that a legislative solution was being worked on.

At the July 30 meeting, no action was taken on the options, which included:

A. Tuition increase and tax increase.

B. Tax increase and no tuition increase.

C. Tuition increase and no tax increase.

D. No tax increase or tuition increase.

With no action taken, a public hearing and a tax rate adoption were not scheduled for that August.

In light of the findings, Arterbury’s ad will now read “Lynn Williams voted on a plan to raise NCTC taxes 7 percent or $140,000.”

Arterbury said his original statement was correct, in essence, and he would like an apology from Ledbetter and Hadlock.

“Calling that (July 30, 2007) meeting started the ball rolling to raise taxes,” Arterbury said. “If the Lieutenant Governor did not contact the college, the Board of Regents would have raised tuition and taxes.”

Ledbetter said he was ready to raise taxes, but reluctantly. He said he was relieved by the Lieutenant Governor’s recommendation not to raise taxes.

“Anytime we raise taxes, I regret having to do it,” he said. “But when you have a situation where you’re cut $1.4 million over a biennium, you have to take care of the college. The responsibility of a board member is to take care of the college. So if a board member has to do that, then he shouldn’t be afraid of voting to raise taxes.”

Reporter Andy Hogue may be contacted at andyhoguegdr@ntin.net