Education of Non-Resident Students Questioned at EPISD Board Meeting by Local Taxpayer Group
By: Jose G. Landa, Eagle Pass Business Journal, Inc., Copyright 2016
A representative of Eagle Pass Taxpayers Protection and Oversight Organization, a non-profit organization, addressed the Eagle Pass Independent School District (EPISD) Board of Trustees during the Citizens Communication of the agenda at their Tuesday, April 12, 2016 meeting, questioning the education of non-resident students within the local public school district.
Albert Daniel, Vice-President of the local taxpayers group, raised important issues concerning the eligibility of non-resident students to receive a free public education at the taxpayer-supported Eagle Pass Independent School District, echoing the silent concerns of many local taxpayers whom have seen a significant increase of non-resident students registered and enrolled at one of the campuses within EPISD.
Albert Daniel stated to the EPISD School Board that “There is a serious of questions that our organization would like for the EPISD to answer. We get the impression that every time that we address the issue of residency, you as a body seem to assume that we’re asking about the immigration of the students. We in fact are addressing the status of the student as a Texas resident. This in reality is a violation of law and is explained in Arredondo vs. Brokette, December 19, 1979, which states under Texas common law a minor is not and cannot either select nor change his/her domicile which is affixed by law as that of the father. Indeed, the common law presumption is so strong that even when a child is abandoned by both parents, he or she still cannot acquire his or her own domicile. When they are abandoned by both parents, the domicile of the father is taken as during the time of the abandonment. Since the child’s ability in Texas to acquire his/her own separate residence is a matter of legislative grace, it’s certainly not unreasonable to require that his/her presence in another school district be for some other reason other than attending free public school in that district before qualifying for tuition free status.”
Daniel questioned the EPISD School Board “Why is it that every time that we address the issue of district employees being stationed at the ports of entry to insure that students living in Mexico are doing so legally and not attending our public free schools? You as a body have stated that this is considered a civil rights violation. Please explain how this is possible, when you have as a School Board a fiduciary responsibility to the community that put you in office to ensure that the benefits of a tuition free education are enjoyed only by bonafide residents. How can this be a civil rights violation when the employee would be performing his/her official duties assigned by the government employer.”
Daniels also queried the EPISD Board: “Under what authority is the EPISD able to establish policy when the policy is contrary to the law. It appears that the EPISD has established a guardianship policy that in the Texas Family Code. A Guardian is defined as the person who under court order is the guardian of the person, child or the private or public agency has been placed by a court. Where does the EPISD get the authority to establish a policy and authority to establish a policy contrary to law and accept notarized statements as legal official documents? Do you not have the responsibility to check?”
Daniels advised the EPISD Board that “We have previously asked if it was possible to determine where we had a group of students not from the same family living contrary to law in a single family residence. You have photo of a property located on Webster Street, where we’re told a large number of students from Mexico live there during the school year. You have in effect registered these students as state residents, contrary to state law. With this benefit, they can continue their education as legal residents in Texas and pay state resident rates instead of out of state tuition in college which allows them to enjoy a tuition free or reduced education. This decision by EPISD allows these students to qualify for all grants and benefits, thereby denying legal residents children that opportunity. Please explain in writing and cite all applicable law.”
Daniel and his local taxpayer group want the EPISD to answer taxpayers their questions concerning the abuse of non-resident students claiming resident status within the EPISD in order to receive a free public education and taking valuable time, resources, benefits, grants, scholarships, and honors that would normally go to a lawful bond-fide resident student.
Daniels also told the EPISD Board that “You insist that you need more money to operate, therefore you raise taxes only to educate non-residents by providing them a free education, free meals and free medical attention, yet the taxpayers are losing their properties and their students the educational opportunities and they still have to pay more taxes for more schools and educate more children. We look forward to your response.”
Some local taxpayers estimate over 1,000 students are currently enrolled at EPISD schools are non-residents, increasing the total enrollment of EPISD and receiving increased state and federal funding due to the larger number of students enrolled in the local school district. One taxpayer personally observed EPISD school buses picking up and delivering students at a downtown Eagle Pass intersection just a block away from the International Bridge No. 1 and the students getting on or off the school buses and proceeding to walk across the International Bridge into Piedras Negras, Coahuila, Mexico. The same taxpayer asked one student where he was going to and the student replied to his home residence in Piedras Negras, Coahuila and that he did this Monday through Friday.
Another taxpayer stated that local real property owners rent their homes or apartments to several families from Mexico and board up to as many 10-12 students during the week in order to claim residence status within EPISD and receive a free public education.
Recently, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) sued a South Texas public school district requesting the district reimburse the TEA or the State of Texas for every dollar they had received from the state for non-resident students enrolled in their public school district.
EPISD Board President Lupita Fuentes thanked Albert Daniel and his organization for their insightful questions and concerns involving public education in the local public school district.
Board President Lupita Fuentes told Daniel and the public in attendance that “Let me just assure you that a directive has been given to the Superintendent (Gilberto Gonzalez) to look into this matter that is a concern not just for you, but the board as well. ”
EPISD Trustee Rudy Bowles stated that he is very concerned over non-action on this important issue by the EPISD.
“I’m very concerned over the fact that we have not done anything pertaining to this. Based on what Mr. Daniel has said, I think we need to have our Superintendent give a directive to our employees to check these kids out and if there is any kind of violations as far as civil rights are concerned for us to get it from the proper authorities that were in violation of civil rights. I concur with Mr. Daniel that in order for these kids to attend school, we’re not denying entrance into our schools. We’re just asking for them to reside in Eagle Pass, Maverick County. This being the case in my opinion are attending our schools illegally if they’re not permanent residents of this county.” said Bowles.
Trustee Bowles added that “I think this thing needs to be checked and provided in writing by our attorney, so this thing can come to an end, as soon as possible.”
“I know that the law is vague and their are certain things that leaves the door open for these things to continue occurring.” added Bowles.
Bowles noted the situation which is not unique to the EPISD but is a issue that has been addressed and continues to be looked at throughout all U.S.-Mexico border states.
“I think what we need to do is answer these questions for the people that are interested in this particular item. I am one of them. I believe that it needs to be checked thoroughly and if there are violations, these kids need to be expelled from school until they comply with the regulations that are set up.” added Bowles.
Daniel noted that he would never wish to deny a child an education, but that the unfairness of the issue and answers as to what is applicable and a solution is owed to the taxpayers of the community.
EPISD Legal Counsel Richard Strieber elaborated on the issue, citing with Daniel on the fact that residency and not immigration status was what matters under the courts.
Eagle Pass’s policies are the same as throughout the state and border districts. I have to take some exception to the citation of Arredondo v. Brockette because that case does not adequately set out the current law. There is no law in Texas currently that states that a homeless child is domiciled with the father.” said Strieber.
“Under the federal law we have an obligation as a school district to educate students who are residents of the district, even for example, if the student is homeless. There are. certain steps the district can take, such as reviewing utility records, that kind of thing. We cannot under the federal law ask for a drivers license, we cannot require that as part of our process to enroll a student.” said Strieber.
“As far as court orders, under the law, yes a court can decide a child’s residency, however a parent has the option to designate the residency of a child with another family member and that can be done under the federal law by a power of attorney to an individual,” added Strieber.
“You may have a child with a parent living here and one across the border and the child goes back and forth, in it of itself doesn’t indicate the child isn’t a resident , here. Can the district check to confirm residency ? Absolutely, we have the right to do reasonable checks to determine a residency. Unfortunately , there isn’t a black and white law that says this child’s domicile is with the dad/mother because they are divorced.” said Strieber.
“Are their things the district can do? Yes, absolutely.” added Strieber.
Strieber further explained what are some of the things that have been talked about on the issues such as an increase in residency checks and other steps that can be taken.
“Can we expand that? Yes, absolutely.” added Strieber.
Bowles stated that the issue has to be thoroughly looked at and addressed in all aspects to assure the progress of the district children and community.
“With all due respect, we would like to educate anyone who wants an education but we don’t have the space in many cases. It will create a lot of problems to the EPISD for us to take care of a bunch of people that come from another country , and its not to deny them anything. It’s simply that we cannot curtail the progress of our kids in order for us to provide an education for kids from another country.” concluded Bowles.
EPISD taxpayers demand that the School Board investigate these important issues, develop a district policy, implement procedures to check for abuse of the resident policy, and issue written directives to the Superintendent and staff to implement the Board’s directives and policies.
