Killeen ISD seeks community input in long range planning
Such committees are used to look at what the district now has, projections of growth, projections of future needs and to determine when new construction might be needed. Many districts use such committees to gauge community reaction to potential bond issues and to help design the to be most acceptable.
The district is now accepting interest forms from individuals who are committed to supporting student success through informed planning and community collaboration.
The announcement said this particular committee would help in evaluating existing school facilities, identifying long-term needs and developing recommendations that align with the district's educational mission and community values.
'Our goal is to develop a data-driven, community-informed plan that aligns with educational priorities, fiscal responsibility and future growth,' said Adam Rich, Assistant Superintendent for Facilities Services. 'We want to ensure our district facilities support equitable access to quality instructional programs and meet both current and future student enrollment needs.'
The committee will participate in seven in-person evening meetings between July 2025 and January 2026. Each session will build upon the previous one, making consistent attendance important. Meetings will be held at various KISD campuses to give participants firsthand insight into the condition and functionality of school facilities.
Meeting Dates:
July 9
Sept. 3
Oct. 28
Nov. 12
Dec. 3
Dec. 18
Jan. 15
All meetings will begin around 6 p.m. Final times and campus locations will be shared with selected participants in advance. Community members can learn more and submit an interest form by June 23, 2025.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
7 hours ago
- Forbes
Signals Of Scale: How We Identify The Next Billion-Dollar Startups
Since 2015, the Next Billion-Dollar Startups list – produced in partnership with TrueBridge Capital – has highlighted rapidly growing, venture-backed startups with the potential to endure and thrive over the long term. As of mid-2025, with more than 54,000 venture-backed startups operating in the U.S. alone, selecting the 25 with the strongest potential to achieve valuations in excess of a billion dollars has become increasingly difficult. A defining trend among this year's honorees is capital efficiency – these startups are scaling quickly while maximizing limited resources. While we periodically review the methodology behind the Next Billion-Dollar Startups, the core framework has remained largely consistent since the list's inception. The process begins with nominations from top-tier venture capitalists, who put forward the startups they see as the most promising. We also conduct direct outreach to companies we believe fit the profile. To qualify for the list, companies must meet a set of clear criteria: they must be based in the United States, meaning their headquarters or CEO resides domestically; they must be privately held and venture-backed; their current valuation must be under $1 billion; and they must be willing to share key data for analysis. TrueBridge, data partner for the list, receives the confidential submission data and runs a comprehensive analytical model to produce the list, which is then shared with Forbes. With this partnership, startups can feel confident in submitting sensitive information including financial metrics. Any data that is ultimately included in the Next Billion-Dollar Startups story is provided directly to Forbes reporters by the companies during original reporting for the list. The analysis draws from both submitted information and publicly available data. A range of metrics are considered in the model, some of which carry more weight than others. These include team size, user or customer base, annual revenue, valuation, and capital raised, as well as the growth rates of each of these metrics. In addition, we examine qualitative indicators such as the strength and experience of founding teams as well as the distinct ways in which startups position themselves in their respective markets. Our evaluation includes a close look at founders' track records, leadership capabilities, and strategic vision. We believe that understanding how companies differentiate themselves and how leaders navigate challenges gives us deeper insight into the long-term potential of founding teams and companies. With AI continuing to command investor attention – and overshadowing many other sectors – competition for investment is fierce. In this environment, only the most capital-efficient startups, led by resilient and visionary founding teams, are managing to secure the funding needed to sustain growth. Now more than ever, strong leadership is a key differentiator in determining which startups break through. By outlining the process behind the Next Billion-Dollar Startups list, we aim to spotlight the companies demonstrating extraordinary growth and long-term promise, and the visionary leaders driving them forward. We also hope to shed light on emerging investment patterns and market dynamics shaping the future of innovation. Further details on the Next Billion-Dollar Startups model and evaluation criteria can be found on the submission site. If you're interested in being notified when submissions open each year, please reach out.
Politico
a day ago
- Politico
The post-Long landscape
THAT DIDN'T TAKE LONG: In the end, Billy Long made it about eight weeks as IRS commissioner. For comparison's sake, it was around half a year between when President Donald Trump announced his intention to nominate Long and when the Senate confirmed him on a party-line vote. That Long flamed out as IRS chief won't come as a huge surprise to a lot of people. A former six-term GOP congressman from Missouri, Long didn't have extensive managerial experience, either in the bureaucracy or with other types of big organizations. Nor was he an expert in tax administration or law, while basically all of his immediate predecessors checked at least one of those boxes. Plus, there were definitely missteps in Long's opening weeks. He got ahead of his skis twice just in a single appearance before a conference of enrolled agents in Utah — announcing that he was killing the Direct File portal and that next year's filing season would be delayed. That raised further questions about Long's ability to lead an agency that still has around 75,000 employees, even with all the recent cuts. And yet, there's an argument that Long also got an incredibly short leash — particularly given that other rookies in the administration have been given more time to find their sea legs. WELCOME TO Weekly Tax. More on everything in a bit. And as the old saying goes: What's the matter with Kansas? (At least when it comes to identifying wild animals.) The first spin of the merry-go-round: Today marks 52 years since what's generally acknowledged as the birth of hip hop, when DJ Kool Herc played at a back-to-school party in the Bronx. Help keep us on the beat. Send your best tips and feedback. Email: bbecker@ bfaler@ and teckert@ You can also reach us on X at @berniebecker3, @tobyeckert, @brian_faler, @POLITICOPro and @Morning_Tax. Want to receive this newsletter every weekday? Subscribe to POLITICO Pro. You'll also receive daily policy news and other intelligence you need to act on the day's biggest stories. MORE ON LONG'S SHORT TENURE: Here's one potential explanation — the Washington Post reported over the weekend that the IRS had not been particularly helpful in a recent data request from immigration authorities. (Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has replaced Long as interim IRS chief.) It wouldn't be the first time this year that a head of the IRS left at least in part because of tensions over the data-sharing agreement with the Department of Homeland Security — though at the very least, Long put on a positive face about being pushed out at the IRS and subsequently being nominated as ambassador to Iceland. Either way, it's a tricky time for the IRS to be without a Senate-confirmed leader — and with little idea of how quickly another one can be put into place. Long quite prominently underscored how much work the IRS and Treasury have to do to implement the tax provisions from the megabill that Trump signed into law in July. That's largely because of the immediate work needed to flesh out new policies like the deductions for tipped income and overtime pay, something that administration officials are already deep in the weeds on. But there's plenty more, too. Companies will be looking into just what the rules are for winding down the clean energy incentives from the Inflation Reduction Act, and the changes that Republicans made to international provisions in the megabill, among other things. Speaking of: You know all that talk about another round of budget reconciliation for Republicans in the coming months? We'll see about that. House Republicans are showing a good deal of interest at taking another bite at that apple, but there's a similar amount of skepticism within the Senate GOP, as our Mia McCarthy, Jordain Carney and Cassandra Dumay noted. LET'S TAKE A STEP BACK: Taxpayer advocates say that data-sharing agreement between the IRS and immigration authorities could end up forcing the government to pay an extensive amount to affected taxpayers. Current tax law allows people to sue for civil damages if their tax information is wrongly disclosed, and to receive $1,000 or more in damages if the government is found liable. But how vulnerable is the government to those challenges under the IRS-DHS agreement? The answer to that question largely depends on whether you believe the Trump administration's public comments on the agreement. The memorandum of understanding between the IRS and the Department of Homeland Security allows for confidential taxpayer data to be shared to assist in criminal investigations. Some taxpayer advocates aren't buying that the sharing will be that limited, particularly after multiple outlets have reported that administration officials wanted the information from seven million-plus taxpayers. Experts argue that's far more disclosures than could feasibly be needed for criminal inquiries, which can number in the thousands per month — and tens of thousands for a given year. Using some of those reported figures, Dahlia Mignouna of the Tax Law Center at NYU Law argues that the government could be on the hook for $7 billion or more for improper disclosures. 'The reported data-sharing between the IRS and DHS could put a huge swath of taxpayers at risk, even American citizens or legal permanent residents who have similar names to those DHS requests,' said Mignouna, a senior attorney adviser at the Tax Law Center. IRS employees could also be liable for the unauthorized disclosure or inspection of confidential data, she added. A Treasury spokesperson didn't repond to a request for comment on this issue. But the government has stressed in court filings that it will follow the memorandum and won't use taxpayer information to help with civil deportation cases. This wouldn't be the first time the government potentially has found itself liable under this statute in recent years. The hedge fund billionaire Ken Griffin sued under the same statute after his returns were disclosed by Charles Littlejohn, the contractor who was sentenced to five years in prison after also leaking tax information about Trump and thousands of others. Griffin eventually settled with the government, receiving an apology for his trouble. But that case also raises another question: Griffin knew his returns were improperly shared because they ended up in the hands of a news organization. So how would a taxpayer whose information might be wrongly disclosed to DHS become aware of it? Some experts acknowledge that only the federal government would truly know how many taxpayers might be affected by such a breach. But plaintiffs also might not need to understand the full scope to start a class action suit that could potentially compel the federal government to identify those who might be eligible to receive damage payments. Around the World Bloomberg: 'Poland's New President Challenges Premier With Plan to Cut Taxes.' Bloomberg, again: 'Romania Holds Interest Rate With Tax Hikes Set to Fuel Inflation.' Reuters: 'South African tax authorities extend jet fuel lifeline to airports.' Around the Nation Boston Globe: 'Massachusetts collected $2 billion more in tax revenue than expected because of millionaires tax.' WHYY: 'Delaware progressives, Democratic leaders square off over plans to address high tax bills in upcoming session.' San Jose Spotlight: 'Santa Clara County puts sales tax measure on November ballot.' Also Worth Your Time Associated Press: 'College endowment tax is leading to hiring freezes and could mean cuts in financial aid.' CNBC: 'Trump's 'no tax on tips' raises worker questions: One bartender says it feels 'too good to be true.'' Wall Street Journal: 'The Estate Tax Mistake That Can Cost Families Millions.' Did you know? DJ Kool Herc was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2023.
Forbes
a day ago
- Forbes
The Enemy Within: How AI Uncovers Corporate Espionage In Real Time
Raghu Para is a tech exec with over 15 years of progressive experience in software, artificial intelligence and machine learning. Picture this: At a Silicon Valley tech firm, the office Keurigs kept mysteriously dying. IT wrote it off as hard water until their AI security system cross-referenced maintenance logs with HR records and discovered the outages always occurred precisely 27 minutes after Greg from Facilities received negative feedback in his quarterly review. Turns out Greg had been remotely triggering maintenance alerts as petty revenge, proving even coffee machines aren't safe from workplace drama. When confronted, Greg claimed it was "just a weird coincidence," right before the system flagged his LinkedIn activity, showing he'd connected with three competitors that morning. This isn't some Black Mirror episode. It's the new reality of corporate security, where the line between employee and insider threat is thinner than the patience of a sysadmin during a server migration. Forget Russian hackers—today's most dangerous threats wear employee badges and know where the good snacks are. According to the 2024 Verizon DBIR, the "human element"—including errors and misuse—is involved in 68% of data breaches. Enough time for a disgruntled worker to do the digital equivalent of keying the company Ferrari while maintaining perfect deniability. AI-powered sabotage detection is like giving every cubicle a lie detector—with a psychology degree and zero chill. These systems don't just block hackers; they analyze digital sweat. From too-perfect mouse jiggles to passive-aggressive Slack emoji storms, they flag patterns even the drama club would call extra. What if a bank caught a quant tweaking risk models? His 'random' seeds matched his employee ID, edits always came at 4:45 p.m. on Fridays, and he Googled 'how to adjust financial models without getting caught' on his work laptop. The AI would likely flag it as fraud. Traditional rule-based security is like hunting for plastic explosives with a metal detector while wearing oven mitts. Sure, it catches the massive downloads and sketchy links but misses the nuanced sabotage. Think subtle algorithm tweaks that nudge forecasts or slow-drip data theft: 10MB a day that quietly turns into a hemorrhage. In hyper-connected workplaces, it's not the firehose that will get you—it's this steady leak. One national bank discovered its employees using mouse movements to fake activity. They'd perfected the "minimum viable productivity" approach until the company's activity tracking software was in play. Even better now, AI can start to notice their "work" followed mathematically perfect sine wave patterns no human could maintain (unless they'd developed robot-level precision). The system can also catch agents deliberately sabotaging knowledge base articles to generate more calls, like changing "restart your computer" instructions to something weird. Modern detection systems combine three scary-smart technologies that would make even the NSA blush. 1. Behavioral biometrics monitor typing patterns, login timing and mouse movement to flag anomalies—like a daytime analyst suddenly typing erratically at 3 a.m. while digging through sensitive files. 2. NLP-based tone analysis tracks emotional shifts in communication. One system using sentiment features on email data achieved 91% accuracy in detecting insider threats using a Random Forest model. 3. Graph AI maps digital relationships to catch suspicious behavior, such as sudden encrypted chats or odd emoji signals before trades. Financial institutions increasingly employ graph-based behavioral analytics to identify potential insider collusion. By mapping communication and trading interactions into a network, anomalous relationship patterns can surface as early warning signs. The benefits are obvious: Prevention beats damage control, and AI can monitor employees without needing coffee breaks or developing personal biases (though some systems can be caught flagging too many Daves in IT departments). Many banks now use AI audit trails as courtroom evidence, turning HR investigations into episodes of Law & Order: SVU, where the smoking gun is a suspiciously timed VPN connection instead of a bloody glove. But there's a dark side to our new digital hall monitors: Imagine working under constant surveillance where your keystrokes are analyzed more closely than a polygraph test and your Slack tone is graded like a high school essay. A company could flag an employee for "suspicious activity" because he job-searched on LinkedIn during lunch (the horror!), while another company's AI nearly caused a mutiny when it started questioning why the marketing team spent so much time on "unproductive" sites like Pinterest and Instagram (clearly built by engineers who've never heard of visual content creation). Under the hood, these systems use self-supervised learning—essentially teaching themselves what shady behavior looks like by studying millions of data points until they can spot anomalies with the accuracy of a mother knowing exactly which child took the last cookie. They establish baselines (your normal work patterns), then use isolation forests (statistical outlier detectors that sound like rejected Hunger Games locations) to spot anomalies. Advanced systems are now exploring reinforcement learning approaches to detect sophisticated 'false flag' tactics—cases where attackers deliberately mimic legitimate activity to evade detection, a phenomenon detailed in MIT's attribution research on cyberattacks. We're now in an arms race where employees use ChatGPT to generate activity logs while companies deploy "honeypot" trap files with names like "LAYOFF_LIST_FINAL_FINAL_REALLY.xlsx" that trigger alerts when opened. Behavioral biometric systems are now so advanced that they may one day build profiles even for devices—from typing pressure on keyboards to interaction patterns—to detect abnormal activity and potential misuse. The future might involve thermal sensors detecting stress during sensitive tasks or analyzing keyboard acoustics to verify identities. The ethical tightrope is real. Yes, AI can prevent sabotage, but at what cost to workplace trust? The solution lies in transparency explaining how monitoring works (without tech jargon), allowing appeals (because even AIs make mistakes), and auditing the algorithms themselves (preferably before they develop opinions about who deserves promotions). After all, the best defense against betrayal isn't just smarter tech but creating a culture where going rogue doesn't pay better than just doing your job. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to explain why I just Googled, "How to write about corporate espionage without looking suspicious" three times in a row. For research. Obviously. Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?
