Sign up for TPR Today, Texas Public Radio's newsletter that brings our top stories to your inbox each morning.
Trustees for the Judson Independent School District voted late Thursday to end their contract with an outside financial consultant. The decision came after TPR reported the consultant was paid $1,500 a day.
The vote split 5 to 2, with Board President Monica Ryan and new trustee Amanda Poteet dissenting — a shift that appeared to catch Ryan off guard.
Prior to July 19, new trustees Stephanie Jones, Lesley Lee and Amanda Poteet had all voted mostly in lock step with Ryan, including choosing her as board president.
But on Thursday night, Jones and Lee agreed to a compromise that put Judson Superintendent Milton Fields back in charge of coming up with a plan to get the district on firm financial footing.
Last month, trustees voted 4 to 3 to give Ryan the authority to hire a financial consultant to work directly with the board to make cuts.
Two days later, Ryan signed a contract with former Somerset ISD Superintendent Ann Dixon to be the board’s consultant. According to the contract obtained by TPR through an open records request, Ryan agreed to pay Dixon $1,500 a day plus expenses for up to 20 days, with the option for Ryan to extend the number of days.
But now Fields will be back in the driver’s seat.
After nearly four hours behind closed doors Thursday evening, trustees returned to open session and voted unanimously to direct the superintendent to create a financial solvency plan and bring it back to the board for approval. They also directed the superintendent to make an academic acceleration plan.
Trustee José Macias Jr. then made a motion to end the consultant’s contract after she worked the final two days of a 20-day contract, and to let Fields reach out to Dixon when he wants advice hammering out the financial solvency plan.
“There was an article in Texas Public Radio that stipulated she's making more than our superintendent is,” Macias said during board discussion. “And if we're going to be good stewards with funding, we can't afford to be paying $1,500 a day.”
Ryan and Poteet wanted to extend Dixon’s contract and have her more directly involved in making the financial solvency plan, and at first Ryan seemed confident that would happen.
“I think we have to put in perspective what has occurred in the last month with Dr. Dixon, because before that we were having a hard time getting anything passed,” Ryan said. “So, I'm excited to [have] Dr. Dixon to continue to work with us, because I'm pretty sure this motion will not pass.”
But this time Lee and Jones said they were amenable to letting Fields take the lead, since Fields agreed to work with Dixon and call her for input.
“I guess I'm confused on who's coming up with the list [of cuts],” Ryan said. “So, Ms. Jones, you're saying you want Dr. Fields to come up the entire list of $37 million worth of cuts, and Dr. Dixon will only help if he calls?”
“I thought they would be collaborating together, not necessarily using her in the scope that we have been right now, but that she's going to transition over to just assisting him come up with this plan,” Jones replied. “My understanding of us accepting this plan was that he would utilize her to assist. Not that it's an option. That she would help him.”
Judson is grappling with one of the most urgent budget deficits in the San Antonio region. The district is currently projecting a $37 million deficit for the 2025-2026 school year, which would cut its funding reserves in half.
TPR’s journalism is free to read, but not free to produce. If you believe in independent, local journalism, help us keep it going.
Cuts now or later
Macias wants to hold off on making more cuts until Judson asks voters to give the board access to more pennies on the tax rate. If voters agree, the district estimates the deficit could shrink to $15 million.
“What I'd like my colleague to know is we're not interested in any more real cuts now. Let's get to the [Voter Approval Tax Rate Election],” Macias said. “Let's get the community behind supporting education, and let's not talk about cutting academic trainers. Let's not look at cutting librarians. Let's not look at closing schools. All of that is going to hurt students.”
Ryan saw that hesitancy as evidence the board needed the consultant.
“Certain board members feel like we don't need to make any cuts to anything ever. And that's just — our community has been pretty clear it's fiscally irresponsible,” Ryan said. “Mr. Macias has posted multiple videos on Facebook.”
“I've supported cuts,” Macias interjected.
“And just for the record, I supported appropriate cuts, and I do not live in this delusion that we will not be making more cuts. There will have to be,” he later added.
“I'm just not seeing a path to cutting $37 million without Dr. Dixon, because we've been trying to do this for a year,” Ryan said. “I don't think our taxpayers should have to bear the weight of additional tax burden unless Judson ISD has done every single thing they can do to find every financial efficiency.”
“I would ask that you give us an opportunity to make those recommendations, Fields sad. “I also said, though, earlier, I'm not confident that we can go that much in a year.”
“And I think that's why we brought a consultant in,” Ryan said. “I'd rather hear from a consultant that we have overturned every single rock. Because we simply couldn't cut anything else and look it: We found $5 million.”
What changed: the consultant or the board?
Trustee Laura Stanford, who often votes with Macias, said she agreed with ending the consultant’s contract because most of the cuts she suggested had already been brought to the board by administration.
“They had put in a lot of work and brought much of that to us already. Correct, Dr. Fields? You would agree with that?”
“I would agree with that,” Fields said.
“So, I don't know if the difference was Ms. Dixon,” Stanford said. “I don't know if the difference was that or a change in the board. It was a board decision, a board vote to things that the district had already brought to us [that saved Judson $5 million].”
“I do get that it was, it's a different board, but her approach, the way she explained things, the fact that she is an unbiased third party, it's easier to take that information in and just understand she has nothing to gain from making cuts,” said Poteet, who voted with Ryan to keep the consultant.
Third party pros and cons
Ryan and Poteet credited Dixon with helping them make $5 million in cuts and think they need a third-party advisor to help them continue making more.
“I think we're going to go right back to where we were if we go back to the way we were doing things,” Ryan said. “It's not that nobody's been trying hard. Everyone's been trying hard. I'm just saying it's a complicated problem that needs outside perspective, and this board needs a little bit of hand holding to get through a yes vote on these things that we've never been able to get to before.”
“She's able to look at it with clearer eyes that [are] not necessarily affected by emotion or by knowing staff and being able to visualize those people,” Poteet said. “And while I do see the benefit in being able to do that, sometimes you need that third party to come in and help you look and make those hard cuts.”
However, Macias sees a third party as a con.
“When you talk about not being biased, you were correct. There's also no accountability,” Macias said. “[She can] walk away and make these recommendations, and [if] our scores fall, [it] doesn't matter to her.”
“I would actually ask if we see our district fall, that we get a full refund, because supposedly the investment we're supposed to be getting is supposed to be making us stronger,” Macias added.
