The Willis ISD Wake-Up Call

Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines a wake-up call as: “something that serves to alert a person to a problem, danger, or need.” That is a fitting descriptor for the situation in Willis, Texas, a small city located in north central Montgomery County. 

Earlier this month, the town’s chief school district—Willis ISD (enrollment: 8,974)—approached voters with a $115.4 million bond package consisting of Proposition A: Student Activity Center ($27 million); Proposition B: Athletic Complex and Stadium with Community Room ($68.8 million); and Proposition C: Aquatic Center ($19.6 million). The package was “unanimously called for” by the district’s 7-member board of trustees on the grounds that it was “a reflection of what our board, administration and Long-Range Planning Committee members have identified as needs that focus on improving the overall academic experience for students in Willis ISD.” 

Still, Willis voters were unconvinced and soundly rejected all 3 bond propositions. 

What makes this situation unique—and why state lawmakers should take notice of it—is the fact that this was Willis ISD’s “third attempt” to get voters to sign-off on these facilities. As the Houston Chronicle explains further, “District officials have been pursuing voter support to fund construction of a new stadium and aquatic center since 2022.” 

That’s right, the district has been pestering voters to approve the same projects for years, despite repeatedly being told “No.” As documented on its website, officials first sought support for a new football stadium, community room, and natatorium in May 2022, but voters rejected the measures by a slim margin. A likely reason why was the cost of Proposition B ($62.6 million for a football stadium and community room) and Proposition C ($19.4 million for a natatorium). 

Fast-forward to May 2024 and the district again approached voters with another, larger bond package that consisted of four parts, including Proposition B ($68.8 million for a football stadium and community room) and Proposition C ($19.6 million for a natatorium). Again, voters said “No” to both proposals and even rejected a third, Proposition D ($27 million for a student activity center). 

Undeterred, the district stubbornly approached voters again in November 2024 and, as detailed above, failed once more. 

The alarming part about all of this is that there is nothing in state law to prevent local governmental entities from propositioning voters time-after-time-after time until they get the desired result. This should serve as a wake-up call to the Legislature that local debt reforms are sorely needed. 

In particular, policymakers should consider implementing a cooling-off period after failed elections. Such a period of time, which might ideally range anywhere from 3 – 5 years, would allow all parties to regroup and rethink the merits of any such failed proposition and place greater emphasis on respecting the will of voters. 

It’s long past time that governments learned that “No” means “No.”