Resolution vs. Revolution: The Race for SBOE – District 12

In responding to a private report that was sent by myself to the board members of Golden Corridor Republican Women regarding the current field of State Board of Education (SBOE) candidates, SBOE Representative George Clayton, District 12, recently issued a press release in which he publicly stated that he “lives with a male partner and wants to focus on education”, as well as why he feels that his sexual orientation has no bearing on his candidacy for the State Board of Education. It is unfortunate that Mr. Clayton did not contact me directly, as I would have willingly clarified my comments. Instead, he has called “foul” and circled the wagons.

I have absolutely no ill will toward Mr. Clayton or the gay community. However, as a political candidate, Mr. Clayton should expect questions on a wide variety of subjects that would guide his educational philosophy. One’s personal life and philosophy most certainly affect their world view and the decisions that they make as representatives. (Just look at our current Presidential race and try to tell me that one’s personal life doesn’t matter.) The voters deserve to know where SBOE candidates stand on sex education since health standards will be considered in 2013. I strongly urge Mr. Clayton (as well as other candidates) to clarify his position and disclose if he will support an abstinence-only curriculum or something else. When a candidate has an underlying agenda, we, as constituents, must live with the consequences of who we elect to office. By his vitriolic response, am I to assume that Mr. Clayton does indeed have an agenda? Mr. Clayton and his supporters couldn’t be further from the truth regarding my thoughts and opinions. I am blessed to have a very diverse group of friends with many different backgrounds and world views. Faith, race and sexual orientation have NEVER been part of my criteria for choosing friends. Furthermore, I choose not to let this situation change my goodwill toward the gay community as a whole.

Gross mischaracterizations are a common tactic used to gain sympathy, and manufactured causes can often serve as a battle cry, motivating faithful supporters to action. Unfortunately, Mr. Clayton has managed to erode all diplomacy that could lead to real understanding. It is as irresponsible as yelling “FIRE” in a crowded building and it has done immeasurable damage.

The candidates for the SBOE are in a position to make public policy and impact what we teach future generations. Personal life, world view and philosophy are entirely relevant to their candidacy.

Ultimately, voters will choose the candidate that best represents their own values, and as voters, we must not abdicate our roles in the process. I believe that any candidate running in the Republican Primary should have the political integrity to stand on the GOP Platform and be intellectually honest with those they seek to represent. Furthermore, if they are elected, they should be mindful that they represent the entire district and be available to hear all of their constituents concerns.

Words mean things. Mr. Clayton says that we should “focus on education,” and I wholeheartedly agree. More specifically, let’s focus on how and what we will teach our children in our public schools. It is obvious that Mr. Clayton has an enormous chip on his shoulder and clearly prefers a revolution over a resolution. He has chosen to push away someone who would genuinely like to have a rational discussion about the issues facing the SBOE in the next few years.

Ultimately, I am thankful that we live in a free society that allows us to have this frank discussion. It is regrettable that Mr. Clayton has chosen to derail his own campaign. It remains to be seen if Mr. Clayton will address how his personal life will impact his decisions on the SBOE in regard to sex education – or if he supports the 2010 Texas Republican Party Platform. You see Mr. Clayton, my question IS germane to your candidacy.

Press Release from George Clayton

Press release to:
Dallas Morning News
The Texas Tribune
The Austin American Statesman

From the office of George M. Clayton, Member
Texas State Board of Education, District 12

Subject: Sexual orientation.

It has come to my attention that one of my opponents in my bid for reelection to the State Board of Education and certain member(s) of the Golden Corridor Republican Women's Club are questioning my sexual orientation. So as to avoid the tyranny of misinformation and innuendo in this political race, I wish to say that I, in fact, do have a male partner who lives with me in my home in Richardson, Texas. I hope this frank announcement satisfies Tincy Miller and the ladies associate with the Golden Corridor organization. All of us can now move on with discussions concerning education instead of being overly occupied with my personal life.

NOTE: For clarification please read the attached interview given by Tincy Miller to the President of the Golden Corridor Republican Women Club, paying close attention to the final remarks at the end of the document.

Original Report sent to GCRW Board Members (privately – not originally intended for public distribution):

November 1, 2011

Interview with Tincy Miller – Candidate for State Board of Education

Q: Why did you vote against the Conservatives on the Science Standards - to change the requirements of teaching Pros & Cons of Evolution?
A: She says she voted to teach all of the theories – pros & cons and that was the “common agreement”. She says that the “new language did not restrict the curriculum to just Evolution”. She says “the old language said ‘weaknesses and strengths’ and didn’t clarify it enough, so I was for teaching the pros/cons of all of the scientific theories, including creation and evolution.” She also said that she did change her position (didn’t specify when) because at one point, she “thought that Creation should be taught as a theory under a different area, but had come to the conclusion that it should be included with the Science standards and taught as another Scientific theory, along with the others.” She then pointed me to Sect. 112:34; Biology 3A, 7G & 7B.

Tincy also said that she considers herself to be a strong conservative and how it hurts when others have referred to her as a moderate or RINO. She hoped that by sitting down and addressing our concerns, it would clear the air and explain where she’s coming from.

I explained that the most common thing I’ve heard in response to the new district is that people recognize that we should have a very strong conservative in that seat – because the new District 12 is much more conservative than the old District 12 that only included a sliver of Collin County.

Q: Why were you absent for the 9-5 vote on the Social Studies/History Standards?
A: “I had a plane to catch, but if I had been concerned that there was any danger of them not being approved, I would have cancelled my flight / meeting. I voted in favor all along – and they kept putting off the vote. I begged the Chairman to hold the vote when I could be there, but that did not happen and I felt that everything would turn out OK and it would pass even without me being present for that particular vote.”

Q: Why did you vote against the pro-Islamic / anti-Christian resolution?
A: She remembers there were some issues with the resolution, but will have to go back to her notes and get the specifics. She said that there was “some language in there that was not accurate”, so they asked for those parts that were incorrect to be omitted. She said that they were not willing to omit the parts that were inaccurate, so she could not vote for the resolution. She said that she went to the microphone and spoke after the vote, explaining her position and why she voted against the resolution.

She went on to clarify that she was against all forms of Sharia Law, Islamic schooling, etc. She expressed a clear concern about following the laws that are already in place here.

Q: What is your philosophy on Constructivism vs. Traditional Education (fact-based education)?
A: “I am for Traditional Education, no political correctness and historical accuracy. We must teach Free Market / Free Enterprise, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, the Pledge of Allegiance, etc.” She seemed very strong and determined on this when I asked… I saw no hint of wavering.

Q: Do you support abstinence-only sex education as it pertains to the new health education textbooks to be adopted in 2013?
A: “Yes.” She was very strong on this topic and went on to say, “It is very important that the health curriculum to be taught is abstinence-only. We need to also teach the other specific criteria that is necessary regarding how our bodies work, etc. I am strongly opposed to providing a ‘How To’ manual to teach kids about having safe sex” – which she explained that the publishers were supporting.

At this point, Tincy went on to tell me that in 1995, publishers got mad at the SBOE members for pointing out areas in the textbooks that were incorrect, so they went to the legislature and got them to take that power away from the SBOE to regulate specific content. She pointed out that they are now only able to regulate the curriculum that is to be taught but not make corrections to the published materials. However, she added that the published materials must accurately reflect the content, so that’s the way they can regulate the content. She also explained that Bill Ratliff wanted the SBOE appointed (which failed) – but was able to rearrange the organizational structure and took the board away from overseeing the Commissioner and away from the agency. Now the Governor appoints the Commissioner.

She explained during that time, she decided that she became keenly aware that the SBOE needed a parliamentarian, so Vance paid the salary of Pat O’Grady for the first year. Now the salary is in the Commissioner’s budget.

Q: What is your position on the new STAAR tests?
A: “They are an improvement and back to the good way we used to learn and be tested. The TAKS system has teachers that are teaching to the test instead of teaching the curriculum and then testing on it.”

Q: How do you feel about Thomas Ratliff and his service on the SBOE?
A: “Any Ratliff is a no-no.” She was very distrustful of Thomas, realizes that the AG’s office has issued an opinion, but does not know how to get him removed. We both discussed it, wondering what the next step is – and what is necessary to remove him from office. *We are not sure what the Texas Election Code has to say about that, but we both agreed that something must be done. The Education Code is very clear – and he is in violation.

Q: How do you feel about the Permanent School Fund?
A: “I believe it should be left alone and not raided. It was created in 1874 and is not made up of tax dollars, so they should leave it alone.” She condemned Bullock for looking to the fund in the 1990’s. She also explained how external managers were making millions of dollars in fees when they managed the fund, although we received no increases. She also referred to some shenanigans regarding unethical campaign donations that were exposed during that time from the fund managers… forcing an official to step down.

NOTE: My notes are minimal from this point forward, so I’ll just list what I wrote down… we were running out of time and quickly hit on the rest of the questions I had…

Q: How much do you know about the adoption of the new ELAR, Science, and Social Studies TEKS?
A: Reading TEKS great – phonics based. Science – partially funded. Social Studies – to be developed if legislature approves funding. *I think we moved on rather quickly here…

Q: Do you think that the new ELAR, Science, and Social Studies TEKS need to be rewritten?
A: “No – they have already been approved by the board.” She then went on to explain the rotation every 10 years – Math, History, Reading, Science, etc. and said that Math is up again…

Q: What is your position on bilingual education?
A: “It is the law, so that’s what we’ve got to deal with.” While on the board, she explained that she tried to “tighten up” the policy and make it where by the time they are out of 3rd grade, they are taught in English. Others migrating in should get it in 2 yrs.

She also said that she invited some folks from California to come speak about Immersion and how it’s worked there. It was a program that was supported by Hispanic mothers and has worked very well for them… with higher successes, test scores, etc. Tincy believes that Immersion would be good for Texas – and supports legislation that would allow for that to be another option - instead of bilingual education only.

Q: What do you know about the Common Core Standards, and do you think that Gov. Perry and Texas Commissioner of Education Scott did the right thing in declining to participate in the CCS/RTTT?
A: “Yes. They did the right thing. We do not need national standards – education would be liberalized. Perry was absolutely right to stand up for that.”

At this point, it was 2:15 p.m. and we had been there since noon. I do appreciate that Tincy was willing to take the time to sit and be questioned about her past dealings as well as her positions on the items above.

End of interview.

Now, I have some other questions that I would like to have answered. Of course, all of the questions above (except the ones specific to how Tincy voted) should be asked of the other candidates… along with these that have also been raised:

Additional questions for George Clayton:

  • Why does he think it’s OK to raid the permanent school fund?
  • What are his living arrangements in Richardson? With whom does he live? It’s not appropriate to comment further – but this needs to be investigated.

Additional questions for Pam Little:

  • Explain her connection with the publisher that she has worked for / is working for? 
  • To me, this seems like another conflict of interest – similar to Thomas Ratliff. It has been mentioned that Pam has attended SBOE meetings to lobby the members on behalf of the publisher. This should be explored.


Susan Fletcher
Golden Corridor Republican Women


Make sure to check out the comments on Facebook.

In order to be fair to all of the candidates, I have requested for all of the JPG supporting documents that were submitted during our interview to be removed.  In my current position as president of a TFRW club, I may not endorse any of the candidates.  Note:  to date, there are four candidates including the newest to announce just last week.  The current field includes (in alphabetical order) George Clayton, Pam Little, Tincy Miller & Gail Spurlock. 

12.13.11 – To TexasGOPVote 

[I appreciate Susan Fletcher for conducting the interview with Geraldine “Tincy” Miller, candidate for Texas State Board of Education, District 12.  However, I believe there are many inconsistencies in Tincy Miller’s answers.  Because I have voluntarily assisted the members of the SBOE for more than 24 years, I have institutional memory of Tincy’s  years on the Board (1984-2010).  In the following response, I have included as many facts as possible; but I have also included my opinions which do not necessarily reflect the opinions of anyone else mentioned in the article. My only purpose in sharing this information is to help elect authentic conservative SBOE members to the Board for the sake of our Texas public school students. – Donna Garner]


12.13.11 – My Comments on Tincy Miller, Texas State Board of Education Candidate, District 12


Geraldine “Tincy” Miller started serving on the Texas State Board of Education in 1984. In the mid-90’s, Texas began writing new curriculum standards when the Texas Education Agency (TEA) stole control over the public schools from the elected Texas State Board of Education members.  




During that time, I served on the English / Language Arts / Reading (ELAR) writing team, tried to work within the system, realized the agenda had been set by NCEE (a national group headed by Marc Tucker and Hillary Clinton), and joined a small group of dedicated classroom teachers to write our own ELAR standards – the Texas Alternative Document (TAD).  


Our TAD is the only standards document that has ever been written by actual classroom teachers – before or since 1997. Our TAD drew national attention from Education Week and Teacher Magazine because we teachers wrote it on our own time and at our own expense all during the time that the TEA-driven standards were costing taxpayers thousands of dollars per page.


Hillary Clinton’s plan was to change the public schools from teaching knowledge-based, academic content (objectively graded, right or wrong answers, foundational skills) to that of performance-based assessments (project-driven), subjective scoring (emotions, opinions, beliefs), and social engineering (e.g., multiculturalism, political correctness, diversity, environmental extremism).




At the time, we did not have a large number of SBOE conservatives on the Board, yet they did all they could to support the TAD.  I remember well the conversation that I had with Tincy Miller in which I begged her to support the TAD for the sake of the children going through our schools.  Instead, Tincy chose to compromise instead of holding firm.  


The standards (TEKS) that ended up being passed and implemented into our Texas public schools brought ten years of confusion and lack of academic progress to our Texas students. Tincy had her chance to do the right thing but chose to compromise.  In March 2003, Tincy became the chair of the SBOE.




During the years that followed, many battles erupted on the SBOE with the conservatives each time trying to make substantive changes to move our students back-to-the-basics. Every so often Tincy would vote with the conservatives, but frequently she chose to compromise or vote with the “other side.”   




Somewhere around 2006, Tincy was removed as the chair of the SBOE; and Don McLeroy took her place. It was when Tincy had the power of the chair taken away from her that she became even more obstinate and frequently refused to vote with the conservatives.  Instead she made it a practice of voting very frequently with the RINO’s  (Republicans-in-Name Only) and Democrats.


However, because of McLeroy’s leadership and the hard work of the other seven conservatives, things began to move forward on the SBOE. The majority of the Board voted to take charge of writing and adopting new TEKS, utilizing the authority given to them in the Texas Education Code.




It was McLeroy and the authentic conservatives on the SBOE who pushed and shoved the Board to set up new writing teams of Texas educators to issue recommendations for the new ELAR, Science, and Social Studies TEKS. 




In June 2007 Robert Scott was appointed the interim Texas Commissioner of Education and later became the Commissioner.  His leadership at the Texas Education Agency and his support for the writing of really good, new-and-improved curriculum standards (TEKS) has been of utmost importance in moving our Texas public schools into true education reform. 


During the 33+ years that I was a classroom teacher, I saw many Commissioners come and go; but I have never been disappointed in the excellent leadership that Robert Scott has given to our Texas public schools.  [Aside:  Guess who dislikes Robert Scott intensely and who did everything in her power – and would do it again --  to make life miserable for Robert Scott – Tincy Miller.]   


As each one of these new standards documents went through the long process to completion, Tincy frequently was the obstructionist who harshly questioned the changes the other seven (the SBOE has 15 elected members) were trying to make to the TEKS. I remember that Tincy seldom took the time to go through the lengthy draft documents and write up her own suggested wording, but she was first in line to criticize the wording that the conservatives took the time to produce.   




When the SBOE, the writing teams, and the TEA were struggling to produce a coherent draft of the new ELAR/TEKS, the suggestion was made to hire an outside group (StandardsWork) to bring all the various drafts together into one document. 


Because Tincy threw such a fit about the RFQ being awarded to StandardsWork (SW), she and several of the Democrats insisted that SW not be allowed to write anything but would only be permitted to reorganize the drafts which were sent to them from Texas.  This directive kept SW from doing the job they needed to do and led to severe problems.  




At that point (February 2008), there was so much chaos over the ELAR document that I agreed to update the TAD (written by experienced English teachers back in 1997) and introduce it as a Substitute Amendment to become the working document for the SBOE.


Per usual, Tincy listened to the ELAR Coalition (made up of those in the education establishment who wanted to maintain the status quo in Texas, mostly because they had vested interests in their TAKS materials built upon whole language, invented spelling, and lack of grammar/usage instruction).  Tincy helped to lead the vilification of the Substitute Amendment (i.e., updated TAD).  The Substitute Amendment was never even permitted to be presented to the SBOE for their consideration.


After many more months in which the Coalition attempted to obstruct the conservatives on the SBOE, the majority of SBOE members finally approved the new ELAR/TEKS; but it came at a high price for the conservatives who had to wage battle many times against Tincy to pass a much-improved set of ELAR standards over those used in Texas from 1997 to 2008.  Tincy voted for the final ELAR/TEKS in May 2008 but not before she played havoc with the conservatives’ “ulcers” because Tincy could never be counted on to make a rational decision.   


Even though Don McLeroy and I were vilified for the Substitute Amendment, it ended up influencing the final document, slowing down the process enough so that our forces could gather steam. 


The final ELAR-TEKS document has a separate Oral and Written Conventions strand containing grammar, usage, penmanship, capitalization, punctuation, and an emphasis on research, four writing modes, decodable text, different genres of literature along with characteristics of each. 


Tincy did stand with the conservative SBOE leaders in passing the strong phonemic awareness/phonics elements in the new ELAR’s; but the conservatives never could depend upon her to help them fight for the back-to-the-basics, academic, rigorous, knowledge-based, measurable skills that are now contained in the new-and-improved ELAR’s.  




In 2008 when the TAKS tests (built upon the TEKS) had had time to infiltrate our Texas schools, I worked behind the scenes with a testing specialist to write a three-part report that proved the ineffectiveness of the ELAR/TAKS tests and the manipulation of scoring. Even though I sent the reports to Tincy, she did not do anything to address our well-documented concerns.  Because of her wealth and political contacts, she could have helped to bring our concerns out into the public for debate.  Instead she remained silent.




Because Tincy frequently exhibited unstable tendencies, the Board members never knew which Tincy would show up for the SBOE meetings. Would it be the reasonable Tincy, or would it be the Tincy who threw public fits and railed at the conservatives on the Board?


At one particular SBOE meeting, a man who had been a Texas Legislator told me after listening to Tincy’s disgraceful behavior directed at the hard-working SBOE conservatives, “If any member of the Legislature were to act that way on the floor of the chamber, she would be escorted out immediately.”



In 2006, it was Gail Lowe who had the courage to bring forth the bilingual education issue for debate by the SBOE – not Tincy Miller.  It was Gail who reached out and invited true experts on sheltered English immersion instruction to present to the Board.  It was Gail who invited Ken Noonan, the superintendent of schools in Oceanside, California, to speak to the Board.  It was also Gail who wrote the 2.7.06 article for the Texas Insider entitled “The Case for Structured-English Immersion.” 

As correctly stated in the Austin American-Statesman on 2.1.06, " ‘We're not out to undo years and years of what we've done,’ " said board member Gail Lowe, who initiated the presentation. " ‘But it's incumbent on us to be informed about successful programs.’ " Unfortunately, because the conservatives on the Board did not have enough votes to bring bilingual education to an action vote, the issue was dropped.


In 2009 Gail Lowe became the chair of the SBOE, and she continued the excellent work begun by Don McLeroy.  Gail had already proved her commitment by working tirelessly, reading each and every standards draft, writing up succinct yet substantive changes, having the boldness to present her work when the time was right, and standing by her recommendations when under fire by destructive forces such as Texas Freedom Network.  


Other conservative Board members worked diligently with Don McLeroy and Gail Lowe -- Terri Leo, David Bradley, Ken Mercer, Cynthia Dunbar, and Barbara Cargill.  It was they, not Tincy, who led the efforts toward authentic education reform in Texas.


I well remember on March 27, 2009, when the other conservatives were trying to make sure that Texas students were taught both the strengths and weaknesses of leading scientific theories, including evolution.  Tincy Miller threw her support behind Bob Craig’s attempt to muddy up the wording by instead changing it to say,  “…what is not fully understood in all fields of science…”  Compromise!  That is Tincy’s usual response, and she employed it a million times while she was on the Board.   There is a time when compromise is a healthy thing, but there is also a time when compromising away basic principles destroys a successful outcome.


On May 21, 2010, when the conservatives on the SBOE desperately needed Tincy’s vote to pass the new-and-improved Social Studies TEKS over which they had made deliberative progress for nearly two years, Tincy was nowhere to be found.  Tincy had  gotten mad and left the meeting before the final vote was taken even though when criticized for her actions later on, she denied she left for that reason.    


The problem is that there were only seven conservative SBOE members on the Board during those years, and they always had to try to coddle Tincy in order to get her to be the eighth vote on the 15-member Board.  If the truth were known, it was probably a relief to all concerned when Tincy lost her re-election bid in 2010.  




I cannot find a kind way to describe Tincy.  She is what she is.  She loved the power she felt as an SBOE member; and now in her advancing age, she wants that power back again. Unfortunately, she thinks she has the money to buy people’s votes. 


Tincy is a compromiser, a Republican-in-Name Only (RINO).  She cannot be counted on to carry the banner for conservatism.  She is too fond of the limelight; she enjoys the attention too much to jeopardize all of that by taking a principled position that might bring her public criticism.  


Isn’t that what is wrong with many of our elected officials?  Isn’t that why our country is in real jeopardy right now?  Isn’t that what the conservative tsunami in Nov. 2010 was all about – the voters drawing a line in the sand and saying, “We want conservatives to lead and not just follow whatever is the easy way out?”




District 12 has a far better SBOE candidate – Gail Spurlock. She is an authentic, gifted, articulate, committed conservative candidate who is humble and has no personal agenda built upon wealth and power.  Gail Spurlock will listen to concerned citizens, evaluate their input, and make a principled decision. 


Gail Spurlock will be issuing a press release in the next few days, and I believe the voters in District 12 will be as excited as I am about her SBOE candidacy.


Donna Garner

[email protected]




Thank you so much, Donna, for being the thorough researcher that you are. You have consistently followed and reported through the years all that happens at the State Board of Education. Your service is invaluable to all of Texas and especially to an entire generation of students where 90% of Texans are educated in the public school. We need solid Conservatives on the board who are responsive to the voters. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I do not believe that Tincy Miller is going to change her stripes at this stage of life (late 70's). She will continue to rail and criticize other SBOE CONSERVATIVE member’s laborious work and research while passing judgment AND she will continue to confer with TFN (liberal Texas Freedom Network).  All of her objections to the conservative’s proposals brought to the SBOE board may very well be nothing more than that she is their mouthpiece and the vote of representing TFN on the SBOE. Her close association with TFN over the years is likely still very much in place but she realizes at this time, that association must be kept out of the public’s eye.

During the 3-4 months of the board reviewing the Science standards and taking testimonies, she and RINO Bob Craig were in repeated strategy planning sessions during the SBOE breaks with Planned Parenthood, TFN, ACLU and Eugenie (previously Eugene).  Their discussions centered on opposing all proposals that were being put forth by the conservative board members Don McLeroy, Cynthia Dunbar, Gayle Lowe, Terri Leo, Ken Mercer, Barbara Cargill and David Bradley. She was absolutely insistent in striking the completely scientific terms “strengths and weaknesses” from the standards. This caused the board deliberations to be drawn out for weeks while liberal news outlets negatively assailed the conservatives with false and misleading information.  In order to end such pressure on the conservatives, they were forced to change the wording simply to appease the liberal left who would not allow the scientific terminology to be applied to Darwinism. Radical Darwinists simply want their theory taught as the gospel truth and other theories referred to as inferior. These were the very people that Tincy conferred with, while ignoring others with different views.

If it were not for the many grassroots voters who continued to call Ms. Miller and the pressure that they kept up for some 3 ½ months, she would have never changed her vote. In the end, she came to realize that this issue would not go away for her even if she voted with the liberals and finally, on the last vote that was taken (on 2 previous votes she voted with the liberals), she changed her vote and voted with the conservatives—only after the conservatives agreed to compromise wording that struck the term “strengths and weaknesses” from the Science standards.  The SBOE rules stated that the board can not consider a vote more than 3 times.  This was indeed a very intense situation for many concerned parents, teachers and students who stood to loose having all Origin theories taught and subjected to testing for the strengths and weaknesses of all theories and not with one theory being treated as “preferred”.

Tincy Miller's almost complete disregard for anybody who did not agree with her that strength and weaknesses should be taught was OBVIOUS throughout the debates. She was totally unresponsive to voters and mad because she wanted to do what she wanted on the SBOE and did not want to answer to her own constituents in her district. She was conferring the entire time with the far left group. Now, let me be clear, during the SBOE hearings and meetings over a 3-4 month period, I would call Ms. Miller’s phone number and get a voicemail but not one phone call did she ever return nor did anyone who answered give me an e-mail address in order to contact her. I left so many messages, but all went unanswered. Meanwhile, I was able to converse with other board members who returned calls and were very helpful--Dr. Don McLeroy, Gail Lowe, Ken Mercer and Mavis Knight. Being unresponsive to voters who have tried repeatedly to discuss these issues with Tincy is a MAJOR concern and frustration.

It's time to get new conservative leadership. I notice that on Gail Spurlock's website,, candidate for District 12, she has asked for input from district's voters on webpages titled, "Constituent Survey" and "Teacher Survey". How refreshing--someone who values and wants our input.


© 2015 TexasGOPVote  | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy