Lake Travis ISD board hears public allegations of bond misuse; denies multiple Level 3 appeals

Public commenters at a Lake Travis Independent School District (LTISD) board meeting this week urged greater transparency and accountability over bond spending, accused district leaders of obstructing records requests, and asked for a forensic audit — claims the board later reviewed in closed session and rejected.

Several residents used the meeting’s public‑comment period to raise overlapping allegations. One commenter asked the board to “separate out these expenses from the land and label[ them ] as waste,” saying planning costs for an unbuilt elementary had been reported as construction expenditures. Jessica Howard said open‑records requests and procurement documents showed bond money “used to pay salaries, mostly for administrators,” and asked the board to commission an independent forensic audit. Carabelle said she had been threatened with arrest after trying to comment at a prior meeting and described delays in the district’s grievance process. Catherine Sarter and others raised separate concerns about hiring and past alleged misconduct by former employees.

District policy and state law limits what trustees can discuss during public comment, the board chair reminded the audience at the start of the period. The board does not debate or act on items not on the posted agenda; complainants were advised to follow LTISD’s formal complaint procedures and were given contact information for the superintendent’s office.

Later in the evening the board went into closed session under the Texas Government Code to hear multiple Level‑3 grievance appeals that had been filed by community members. After returning to open session, the board voted, in a sequence of motions, to deny the requested relief in each appeal and to affirm the administration’s prior decisions. Board members said they had reviewed material provided to them — including third‑party reviews in at least one case — and that the denials reflected the information available to the board.

Trustees and the superintendent’s office reiterated support for staff and emphasized the district’s obligation to follow legal processes. Multiple trustees said the grievance mechanism must remain available and urged complainants to use it in good faith; several trustees also voiced concern about the administrative time and legal costs the repeated appeals and related public‑information requests require.

Next steps: complainants will receive written confirmation of the board’s decisions and were reminded that specific allegations can be pursued through formal complaint channels, including law enforcement or state agencies when statutes are implicated.