Reply to comment

The Board heard a gently worded but firm appeal from their Parliamentarian for a return to better adherence to Parliamentary rules of procedure as a way to manage their time. (He also deftly hinted that if there proceedings were exercised with more decorum, it would improve the outside opinion of the Board.)

9:30 am Then, the Permanent School Fund "performance analysts" from Mellon Bank of New York went through the third quarter results: total fund return is 12.62%, way better than average for similar funds. The third quarter was a happy time, but most of those results are swallowed up by very large losses earlier in the year.

David Bradley (R-The Faction, Beaumont) noted that other funds are still doing better. The consultant said it was because of different asset allocation--they tend to be more diversified than the Permanent School Fund has been. Geraldine "Tincy" Miller (R-Highland Park/North Dallas) reminded everybody of Harvard's endowment, which was well-diversified, but included significant holdings with Bernard Madoff. (The Texas Permanent School Fund managed to avoid investing in any Madoff's plans.)

The analysts make the case that in this market, preserving value and maintaining stability means the Board is investing smartly.

The Board is able to transfer $60 million from the Permanent School Fund (investment) to the Available School Fund (textbook purchase money) because the 10-year outlook now seems to be rosier than the recent 10-year outlook. They swiftly vote to do so. The lawyer points out that this provides money that will no longer need to be provided from other sources--it's not MORE dollars for education overall.

Items for the $465 Million Proclamation 2010 (Literature and Reading) are available for Board members to examine and review. (They've also set up laptops in the Board lounge with electronic-only materials.) Several publishers, including the reading program from "Handwriting Without Tears" and "Trevor Romain Company" have withdrawn. (Handwriting Without Tears' other programs, including, well, HANDWRITING, are still in the adoption--this caused great confusion...) All other programs are recommended as "conforming" by the Commissioner.

Most publishers understood the Q & A document that they should not be using "TAKS" as a selling-point for their textbooks. But one didn't follow that guideline. The agency Deputy Counsel first said it was okay because it was "fair use" of a trademark, but the Board reminded them that it was actually a matter of Board Rules and this program would NOT be considered "to specifications." Issue deferred while attorneys confer.

You cannot represent an item as being "tested on TAKS." Lawyer recommends that this is an error, and the publisher will be required to correct that error. Terri Leo has letter from the agency saying it is legally okay as a trademark. She accuses TEA of circumventing the Board, which clearly did not want that used. The lawyer says it is a question of the legal use of the trademark, which was answered correctly. The Agency attorney says the Board cannot forbid a word from being used because that's a control of content. But the Board does have the right to keep control of their trademark, but there are limits.

2010 Reading adoption passes on a voice vote, given the plan to instruct the publisher that they must remove the TAKS references before the texts are acceptable for classroom use.