[K-2. Approval To Waive Board Policy BF(LOCAL), Board Policies, And Approval Of Proposed Revisions To Board Policy BBBC(LOCAL), Elections: Campaign Finance, On First Reading]

APPROVAL OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO BOARD POLICY BBBC LOCAL ELECTIONS, CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND FIRST READING, WHICH IS BEING HELD AT THE REQUEST OF TRUSTEE BLUEFORD-DANIELS.

MAY I HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED. SECOND HERNANDEZ.

HAVE A MOTION BY TRUSTEE BLUEFORD-DANIELS AND A SECOND BY TRUSTEE HERNANDEZ.

ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES? IN BOARD SERVICES. IS IT POSSIBLE TO PULL UP THE AGENDA ITEM? THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

NO QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE. COLLEAGUES? CAN I ASK SOME, A CLARIFYING QUESTION? YES. SO THESE WERE PULLED.

WE'RE ASKING QUESTIONS AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE THE FIRST READING OR THIS.

IS GOING TO BE THE SECOND READING OF THAT.

SO THIS ONE IS THIS IS FIRST READING.

OKAY. THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT.

BUT TO CLARIFY, I THINK THE WAY THESE ARE POSTED IS THIS IS FIRST READING IN YOUR WAIVING, SECOND READING.

SO THESE DO BECOME EFFECTIVE ON FIRST READING.

OKAY. DID EVERYONE HEAR, LISA? TRUSTEE SANTOS? PRESIDENT CRUZ, SUPERINTENDENT HOUSE, MY QUESTION IS TO LEGAL.

IS IT NECESSARY THAT WE WAIVE THE SECOND READING? IS IT? IS THERE ANYTHING TIME SENSITIVE? YOU'D HAVE TO TALK TO THE ADMINISTRATION.

NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WAIVING SECOND READING.

I'D LIKE TO STRIKE THAT.

[00:10:02]

LISA AND. I AGREE.

WE CAN SAVE IT FOR THE NEXT BOARD MEETING OR WHATEVER, BUT I DON'T WANT TO.

ANYTHING THAT'S I DON'T WANT TO WAIVE THAT POLICY AT ALL FOR ANY OF OUR ITEMS. SO DO WE NEED TO MAKE AN OFFICIAL MOTION? LISA, SINCE WE WERE POSTED, YEAH.

FOR EACH ONE OF THESE THAT YOU DID NOT TAKE A VOTE ON AT FIRST READING.

I THINK THE WAY THEY ARE POSTED IS TO WAIVE SECOND READING SO NOT THE ONES THAT YOU ADDITIONALLY ADDED.

I THINK IT WAS K-51 AND K-12.

BUT THE ONES THAT ARE ALREADY IN YOUR SCRIPT, MADAM PRESIDENT, THAT WERE NOT DISCUSSED.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE A DIFFERENT MOTION BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT'S POSTED.

SO FOR EACH ONE OF THESE THAT SOMEONE WILL JUST NEED TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE'RE NOT WAIVING FIRST READING AND CLARIFY IF THEY'RE GOING TO COME BACK SEPTEMBER MEETING OR ANOTHER SPECIAL MEETING. AND DO YOU KNOW WHEN YOU WANT TO HAVE SECOND READING OR DO YOU WANT TO? AGENDA REVIEW. WHATEVER OUR NEXT BOARD MEETING IS IS FINE.

RIGHT. YEAH, WE DON'T HAVE TO ADD A SPECIAL MEETING.

WE'RE HERE THE FIRST WEEK OF SEPTEMBER.

WE CAN DO AGENDA REVIEW.

THAT WOULD BE GREAT. THANK YOU.

I'D RATHER AND JUST AS A CLARIFICATION, I'D RATHER HAVE IT AT A VOTING MEETING.

SO NOT TO CONFUSE, WE TRY TO KEEP IT UNDER REVIEW, NOT VOTING.

HOW MANY ITEMS ARE THERE? HOW MANY OF THEM ARE OUR POLICIES? ARE WE TALKING ABOUT IT'S K-2, K-5, K-17, K-26 YOU'VE PULLED K-38 FOR DISCUSSION AT A LATER MEETING. IT'S K-39, IT'S K-40.

YOU PULLED K-41.

YOU'RE NOT DISCUSSING THAT TODAY AND I THINK THAT'S IT.

DID I GET THEM ALL BOARD SERVICES? MADAM PRESIDENT, I WAS JUST GOING TO DEFER TO THE WILL OF THE BOARD.

IF YOU ALL WANT TO WAIT UNTIL THE FIRST WEEK OR ADMINISTRATION EITHER.

IF YOU FIND THAT THAT'S BETTER FOR YOU.

SUPERINTENDENT HOUSE. MADAM PRESIDENT, THEN I'M FINE WITH IT.

I JUST DON'T WANT TO WAIVE THAT POLICY.

TRUSTEE BLUEFORD-DANIELS? YEAH, I WANT TO GET SOME CLARITY HERE.

SO TODAY, RIGHT NOW, THIS MEETING, I KNOW WE'RE POSTED FOR ONE THING.

CAN WE TALK ABOUT THE ONES THAT WE PULLED THAT WE WERE LAST WEEK? THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO GET SOME MORE INFORMATION ON.

AND THEN COLLECTIVELY, IN ADDITION TO THE ONES WE HAD ALREADY PREVIOUSLY READ, HAVE THEM ALL GATHERED FOR SECOND READING, BECAUSE WE'VE GOT TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF POLICIES HERE.

WE'VE GOT THE ONES WE HAD PULLED FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, AND THEN WE'VE GOT ALL THE OTHERS THAT WE REVIEWED AND LUMPED TOGETHER.

THAT MAKES SENSE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO BE ON THE SAME PAGE.

IN OTHER WORDS, THE ONES THAT WE PULLED FOR MORE INFORMATION, LET'S CATCH THEM UP TO THE ONES WE WENT THROUGH LAST WEEK.

WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT YOU WANT CORRECT. AFTER WE GO OVER THE ONES THAT WERE.

YES. I'LL DO THE ALL ON CONSENT TOGETHER.

SO THOSE SEVEN WHAT WAS IT, SEVEN OR EIGHT OF THEM.

EXCUSE ME? THE SEVEN OR EIGHT OF THEM.

WHAT WAS IT, SIX OR SEVEN? LET'S GO OVER THOSE SINCE WE'RE HERE.

THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT WE WERE DOING TOO.

AND THEN COLLECTIVELY HAVE THEM ALL TOGETHER FOR THE REVIEW.

AND THAT WAY WE'LL HAVE MORE TIME TO GO THROUGH AND MARK UP IF NECESSARY.

BUT WE HAVEN'T FIRST READ THOSE.

THAT'S WHAT I'M AND THAT'S THE ONES I'M TALKING ABOUT THOSE FOR FIRST READING.

THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, THOSE THAT WE HAVE TO DO FIRST READING ON BECAUSE WE NEEDED MORE INFORMATION.

DO THOSE RIGHT NOW. TODAY REALLY MEAN TODAY AND THEN HAVE THEM ALL TOGETHER.

ALL 50. HOW MANY IS THE 53? 57. 57.

AND SO THEY'LL ALL BE THEN READY TO MOVE FORWARD TO THE SECOND READING.

NO.

YEAH. THAT'S WHY IT'S CONFUSING.

THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO CATCH THOSE SEVEN UP.

MM HMM. SO, MS. MCBRIDE, ANY ADVICE ON THE FIRST READING? SO WE. THOSE ARE THE ONLY ONES WE'RE VOTING ON.

THE ONES WE WILL BE REVIEWING.

IF YOU WANT TO ACHIEVE WHAT CATHY BLUFORD, TRUSTEE BLUEFORD-DANIELS HAS SUGGESTED, YOU WOULD GO FORWARD WITH YOUR SCRIPT ON THE ONES THAT WE DID NOT DISCUSS ON FIRST READING LAST TIME. THERE ARE SIX OF THEM BECAUSE REMEMBER TWO OF THEM THERE ARE ORIGINALLY EIGHT.

TWO OF THEM WERE NOT DISCUSSING AT ALL.

RIGHT. THEN THERE ARE TWO ADDITIONAL ONES THAT YOU HAVE PULLED FROM CONSENT THAT DR.

ALLEN HAS PULLED FROM, ONE THAT DR.

ALLEN HAS PULLED FROM CONSENT.

AND WHEN YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, HAVE PULLED FROM CONSENT, WE GO AHEAD AND DISCUSS THOSE.

[00:15:04]

THEN WHEN YOU COME TO YOUR MOTION ON YOUR CONSENT AGENDA, YOU'RE GOING TO DO A MOTION TO POSTPONE BECAUSE THOSE ARE ONES THAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO FOR SECOND READING AND YOU DON'T WANT TO DO SECOND READING TODAY.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO EVERYONE? IT MAKES SENSE TO ME.

OKAY. SO WHAT IS THE CONSENSUS OF COLLEAGUES? MAKING IT SIMPLE.

THANK YOU, ATTORNEY LISA.

I THINK THAT WE SHOULD TAKE OUR BOARD COUNSEL'S LEGAL ADVICE.

SO DO WE WANT THEM AT THE AGENDA REVIEW, MEETING, VOTE, OR DO WE WANT TO VOTE ON THEM AT THE REGULAR BOARD MEETING IN SEPTEMBER? REGULAR BOARD MEETING? YEAH. REGULAR BOARD MEETING.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

AS PART OF THE AGENDA ON.

TO DO THAT, THEY NEED TO BE ON THE AIR JUST KNOWING THAT THEY'LL VOTE ON THE.

I KNOW WE HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION, BUT SEE, THAT WAY WE WOULDN'T BE SO PRESSED AND CONFUSED RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE'VE GOT SO MANY 57 POLICIES.

IF WE HAD JUST BROKE THEM DOWN MAYBE TEN, TEN, TEN, THEN WE'D BE ABLE TO ABSORB THEM.

I KNOW IT'S TOO LATE, BUT IF WE HAD BROKEN DOWN WELL, WE STILL SHOULD HAVE KEPT UP WITH THE TEN, TEN, TEN.

ALL IT WAS MORE CONFUSING.

SORRY. I SHOULD SPEAK ON THE MIC.

WE WERE DOING FIRST READING AT AGENDA REVIEW AND SECOND READING AT THE REGULAR BOARD MEETING.

SO AND PLUS ALL OUR REGULAR BOARD MEETING STUFF.

SO IT WAS REALLY EVERYBODY WAS GETTING CONFUSED BECAUSE KIND OF LIKE WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING RIGHT NOW, KATHY BLUEFORD-DANIELS, IS THAT IT'S LIKE THERE'S NO TIME IN BETWEEN TO REVIEW THAT. RIGHT.

SO BUT APPRECIATE THE SUGGESTION.

ALL RIGHT. SO I'M TRYING TO KEEP IT SIMPLE.

IT'S THIS FOR US SMART PEOPLE.

SO WE'RE GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH THE ONES THAT ARE FIRST READING FOR TODAY.

YES. SO K-2 BOARD POLICIES, BBBF LOCAL AND APPROVAL OF REVISIONS PROPOSED REVISIONS TO BOARD POLICY.

BBBC LOCAL.

TRUSTEE GUIDRY, YOU WERE IN THE QUEUE.

I'M SORRY. THANK YOU FOR FINALLY ACKNOWLEDGING ME.

SORRY, BUT I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO HOLD THIS.

WE'RE GOING THROUGH NOW. THAT WAS MY QUESTION.

I HAD A QUESTION ON K-2.

SO I'LL WAIT UNTIL WE GET TO THE QUESTION PORTION OR THE DISCUSSION PORTION.

THANK YOU. WE HAD A WE ALREADY DID A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR THIS ONE; RIGHT? SO I THINK WE ARE THERE.

SO GO AHEAD. SORRY FOR THAT CONFUSION.

OKAY. AND MY QUESTION IS, IS THIS A POLICY RECOMMENDED BY THE ADMINISTRATION? K-2? AND IF SO, I SEE RATIONALE.

BUT COULD YOU JUST EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE THE RATIONALE FOR US WAIVING A SECOND READING? MR. MOLD, DO YOU REMEMBER WHETHER THIS WAS A TASB? WE'RE SO CONFUSED.

THIS WAS A RECOMMENDATION MADE BY BOARD SERVICES, WITH BOARD COUNCIL'S CONSULTATION.

IT WAS MORE OF AN IMPLEMENTATION OF WHAT THE PRACTICE WAS.

NOT NECESSARILY A IT WASN'T A BIG RECOMMENDATION.

GOT IT. THANK YOU, SIR.

YES, SIR. SO THEN IT WAS A RECOMMENDATION BY COUNSEL.

CAN WE GET AN EXPLANATION FOR COUNSEL WHY WE WOULD WANT TO WAIVE OUR SECOND READING? ACTUALLY, THAT THAT WAS NOT I DIDN'T MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO WAIVE SECOND READING ON ON ANY OF THESE.

AND THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN BBB LOCAL THAT WOULD HAVE COME FROM TASB AS WELL.

THEY REGULARLY UPDATE YOUR BBB LOCAL IN ORDER TO REFLECT YOUR NEW ELECTION DATES.

MOST SCHOOL DISTRICTS ACROSS THE STATE OF TEXAS IDENTIFY THEIR ELECTION DATES IN THEIR BBB LOCAL.

AND SO EVERY FOUR OR FIVE YEARS OR SO THAT'S GOT TO BE UPDATED TO REFLECT YOUR ELECTION CYCLE.

ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION TO REMOVE THE VOTER RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT BECAUSE THAT JUST DOES NOT APPLY GENERALLY IN THE STATE OF TEXAS OR SPECIFICALLY TO HISD.

I'VE DONE SOME RESEARCH ON YOUR SPECIAL STATUTE, YOUR BRACKET BILL, AND THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS WITH A 30 DAY DEADLINE IN THAT BRACKET BILL, BUT NOT VOTER RESIDENCY. SO MY THINKING IS AT SOME POINT ALONG THE WAY, SOME KIND OF WAY IN YOUR LOCAL POLICY, A 30 DAY REQUIREMENT THAT APPLIED TO SOMETHING ELSE GOT PLACED IN YOUR LOCAL POLICY.

SO THAT'S JUST A CLEANUP BECAUSE THAT'S NOT IN THE LAW, EITHER YOUR BRACKET BILL OR THE GENERAL LAW.

[00:20:02]

AND THEN THE OTHER CHANGES ARE JUST TO REFLECT YOUR NEW ELECTION CYCLES.

AND THOSE ARE THE ONLY CHANGES THAT I SEE IN YOUR BBB LOCAL.

SO THEN IF WE CHOSE NOT TO APPROVE THIS PARTICULAR POLICY CHANGE, WHAT DOES HE GO BACK TO, LISA? I'M SORRY. WHAT DOES IT GO BACK TO? AND I WOULD DEFER TO TO THE BOARD COUNSEL FOR THE ANSWER.

YOU MAY REPEAT THAT. I THINK SOMEONE WAS SPEAKING WITH HER.

YES. SO IF WE CHOSE NOT TO ACCEPT THIS POLICY, WHAT DOES THE THE ORIGINAL POLICY HOW DOES IT READ? SO THE ORIGINAL POLICY WOULD HAVE SOME DATES THAT HAVE PASSED.

SO IT WOULD NOT MAKE SENSE TO INCLUDE THEM IN YOUR POLICY BECAUSE YOU'VE ALREADY HAD YOUR ELECTION FOR 2019 AND 2021 AND YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THE DATE FOR YOUR 2031 ELECTION OR YOUR 2033 ELECTION IN THERE.

SO. SO WE WOULD REQUIRE US JUST TO ADD DIFFERENT DATES.

OH, I'M SORRY. I'M LOOKING AT A DIFFERENT POLICY.

I'M LOOKING AT K-1.

I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY.

K-2. GOT IT.

OKAY. I WAS LIKE, WHY IS IT REFERRED TO CAMPAIGNS? I APOLOGIZE. NOW I'M LOOKING AT K-2.

IT'S YOUR FIRST MISTAKE THIS YEAR.

SO I THINK WHAT WHAT THIS IS, IS ELECTRONIC FILING VERSUS YOU BEING ABLE TO FILE BY EMAIL.

I THINK BEFORE THERE WAS NO.

IS THAT NOT K-2? TO REVISE CAMPAIGN FINANCE POLICY, TO REMOVE REFERENCE TO ELECTRONIC CAMPAIGN FILING AND TO USE GENDER NEUTRAL LANGUAGE.

SO ARE THOSE CHANGES, NOT THE CHANGES? DO THEY NOT REFLECT THE CONVERSATION OF THE BOARD FROM THE LAST MEETING? THEY JUST THEY DO.

I THINK THE QUESTION WAS THE TASB QUESTION; RIGHT? IS WHAT I WAS HEARING. I'M IN THE Q.

GO TO THE Q.

DO I HAVE TIME LEFT BECAUSE I WANT TO COME BACK AROUND, LET ME TAKE A LOOK AT THIS.

TRUSTEE HERNANDEZ? THANK YOU. I THINK ONE GENERAL RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THIS IS STILL IN BLACK AND WHITE, AND I THINK THAT'S WHY WE'RE A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED. THIS IS NOT PRINTED ANYMORE.

AND I SEE THAT THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT COLORS OF HIGHLIGHTED-EDNESS AND ONE'S A LITTLE BIT DARKER THAN THE OTHER.

THIS IS ALL ELECTRONIC NOW, AND I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE A LOT MORE USEFUL OR EASIER FOR THE TRUSTEES TO READ IF IT WAS IN TWO DIFFERENT COLORS BECAUSE THEY'RE BOTH HIGHLIGHTED. SO IT'S HARD TO TELL WHAT WAS CHANGED FROM FIRST READING TO SECOND READING.

GENERAL LIKE PRACTICE.

I THINK THAT WE NEED TO UPDATE.

BUT MY QUESTION IS, I KNOW THAT WE HAD A DISCUSSION LAST WEEK OVER ELECTRONIC FILINGS AND SOME OF US ON THE BOARD DO ELECTRONIC FILE.

WHY WOULD THE WORDING BE CHANGED FROM ELECTRONIC FILING TO EMAIL? SO I'M NOT FOR SURE THAT ANYONE ON THE BOARD AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, TECHNICALLY DOES ELECTRONIC FILING, ELECTRONIC FILING IS DIFFERENT FROM SUBMITTING YOUR CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT THAT YOU PDF OR EMAIL IN.

YOU CAN DO THAT. ELECTRONIC FILING MEANS THAT YOU'RE USING THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S PORTAL AND YOU'RE ACTUALLY COMPLETING YOUR CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT.

IF YOU ARE SOMEONE WHO HAS TO FILE WITH THE STATE, YOU CAN ACTUALLY HIT SUBMIT ON THAT PORTAL.

IF YOU'RE A LOCAL FILER, YOU CAN'T HIT SUBMIT ON THAT PORTAL.

YOU STILL HAVE TO PRINT IT OUT AND THEN LOCALLY FILE IT HERE WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT ELECTRONIC FILING WOULD MEAN IN YOUR CASE.

IT'S NOT GOING TO BE COMPLETELY DIGITIZED.

IT MEANS GOING TO THAT PORTAL, CREATING YOUR OWN UNIQUE ACCOUNT WHERE YOU CAN ACTUALLY FILL OUT THE FORM ONLINE, SAVE IT, BUT THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO PRINT IT OUT AND THEN FILE IT LOCALLY.

BUT IF YOU WERE A STATE FILER, YOU COULD ACTUALLY HIT SUBMIT.

THAT'S ELECTRONIC FILING EMAIL IS JUST HOWEVER YOU CHOOSE BY HAND OR TYPE OR HOWEVER ADOBE TO FILL OUT YOUR CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT.

AND THEN RATHER THAN PHYSICALLY BRING IT IN, MAIL IT IN, FAX IT IN, YOU CAN ACTUALLY EMAIL IT IN.

SO THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT PROCESSES.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

I UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE NOW.

I THINK THAT WE WERE CONFUSED ABOUT THAT AND DEFINITELY WASN'T EXPLAINED BEFORE.

BUT THANK YOU. WELL.

TRUSTEE BAKER. YEAH.

WE SIMPLY PULL K-2 OUT OF FIRST READING BECAUSE I WAS THERE A WAY THE ADMINISTRATION COULD DEVELOP A ELECTRONIC FILING.

[00:25:02]

BUT I'M GOING TO PULL THAT QUESTION BECAUSE I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE STATE'S ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM.

AND THIS, IT'S FOR ALL STATE GRANT POSITIONS.

SO THAT WOULD BE PROBABLY A HUGE EXPENSE TO DO THAT FOR FOR THE TRUSTEES.

AND SO WE WHEN I FIRST GOT ELECTED, THEY ACCEPTED THE EMAILS, SOME PHONE CALL, THAT ELECTRONIC FILING.

SO ANYWAY, AS LONG AS WE STILL HAVE THE EMAIL AND ALSO BRING THAT IN PERSON, THAT'S FINE WITH ME.

SO I WOULD VOTE TO KEEP K-2 AS IT IS, WITH YOUR CHANGES.

TRUSTEE. BLUEFORD-DANIELS? OH SORRY. HERE IN THE QUEUE? NO? OH, THAT'S FROM BEFORE? TRUSTEE WADE? I THINK I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT AS TO WHEN IT SAYS BY WAIVING THE TWO READINGS THAT THAT'S IN EMERGENCY ADOPTION.

CORRECT. AND THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S WHERE THAT.

EARLIER STATEMENT ABOUT THE CONCERN OVER THE.

THE WAIVING THE TWO READINGS WAS BECAUSE OF AN EMERGENCY ADOPTION.

ARE YOU TALKING? ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE POLICIES IN GENERAL OR THE SPECIFIC POLICY? IN THIS HIGHLIGHTED SECTION.

IT JUST SAYS, WHAT PAGE ARE YOU ON? RIGHT ON.

PACKET 12. PAGE PACKET 12.

I'M JUST MAKING A POINT OF THAT'S WHERE THAT TWO READINGS COMMENT I BELIEVE. MADAM PRESIDENT, IF I CAN RESPOND? SO YOUR POLICY NORMALLY SAYS THAT BOARD POLICIES ARE NOT ADOPTED UNTIL THE SECOND READING, BUT YOU CAN WAIVE A SECOND READING AND IT'S CALLED EMERGENCY ADOPTION IF CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRE EMERGENCY ISN'T DEFINED.

AND SO THE WAY YOU'RE POST IT TODAY IS WHEN YOU ARE MOVING EACH ONE OF THESE ITEMS THAT GOT PULLED AND DIDN'T GET A FIRST READING THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE THEM ON FIRST WITHOUT HAVING A SECOND READING, WAIVING SECOND READING.

SO IF YOU JUST GO TO THE VOTE AFTER DISCUSSION ON THESE SIX ITEMS, YOU ARE WAIVING SECOND READING.

YOU NEED TO MAKE AN ADDITIONAL MOTION NOT TO WAIVE SECOND READING.

IF YOU WANT THIS TO COME BACK AT YOUR REGULAR BOARD MEETING IN SEPTEMBER ON THESE SIX ITEMS. OKAY. SO THERE'S NO ONE MORE NO ONE ELSE IN THE QUEUE.

SO BEFORE WE VOTE, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION.

DO I HAVE A MOTION TO WAIVE? I'M SORRY TO NOT WAIVE SECOND? SO MOVED.

SECOND. MOTION BY TRUSTEE SANTOS AND A SECOND BY TRUSTEE BLUEFORD-DANIELS.

PLEASE VOTE. SO WE'RE VOTING ON NOT WAIVING SECOND READING.

8 FOR, 0 AGAINST, ZERO ABSTENTIONS.

SO NOW WE'LL VOTE ON THE ACTUAL BOARD ITEM ON FIRST READING AND WE ALREADY HAD A MOTION IN A SECOND FOR THAT.

SO GO AHEAD AND VOTE.

THIS IS JUST FIRST READING FOR K-2 ONLY.

8 FOR, O AGAINST, ZERO ABSTENTIONS.

WHY WOULDN'T IT HAVE GONE WITH THE REST OF THEM AND HOLD IT ALL TOGETHER? OKAY. I'VE NEVER BEEN. OUR NEXT ITEM HELD FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA IS K-5 APPROVAL TO WAIVE BOARD POLICY BF LOCAL BOARD

[K-5. Approval To Waive Board Policy BF(LOCAL), Board Policies, And Approval Of Proposed Revisions To Board Policy BBG(LOCAL), Board Members: Compensation and Expenses, On First Reading]

POLICIES AND APPROVAL OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO BOARD POLICY BBG LOCAL BOARD MEMBERS COMPENSATION AND EXPENSES.

ON FIRST READING, THIS ITEM IS BEING HELD AT THE REQUEST OF TRUSTEES SANTOS, GUIDRY, AND ALLEN.

MAY I HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED.

SECOND, HERNANDEZ.

WITH A MOTION BY TRUSTEE SANTOS AND A SECOND BY TRUSTEE HERNANDEZ.

ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? TRUSTEE SANTOS? THANK YOU, PRESIDENT CRUZ SUPERINTENDENT HOUSE.

SO I SEE THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD PARTNERS AND COMMUNITY VOICES FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION WERE ADDED.

CAN YOU TELL ME YOUR RATIONALE AS TO WHY YOU DECIDED TO INCLUDE THAT? CHIEF MOLD. THOSE WERE THE TWO VENDORS THAT WERE DISCUSSED LAST MEETING.

THIS LIST IS A LIST OF THE ENTITIES THAT BOARD MEMBERS HAVE TRAVELED OR DONE TRAINING WITH IN THE PAST.

[00:30:04]

AND BASED ON THE CONVERSATION FROM LAST WEEK, THOSE TWO WERE ADDED.

SO THESE WERE JUST TWO ADDITIONS, IT SOUNDED LIKE TO TO THE LIST THAT WAS ALREADY.

SO BY VENDORS, THEY WERE VETTED.

THEY WENT THROUGH THE THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE VETTED.

IF IT'S [INAUDIBLE] THROUGH THE RFP, RFQ, I'LL DEFER TO THE LEGAL.

I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T HEAR THE QUESTION.

REPEAT YOUR QUESTION. I'M SORRY.

YES. SO THE TWO VENDORS, AS MR. MOLD POINTED OUT, 20, THEY HAD ADDED 29 AND 30 SCHOOL BOARD PARTNERS AND COMMUNITY VOICES FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE VETTED TO BE ON THIS LIST, LISA? I'M NOT FOR SURE HOW WHAT SERVICES CAME UP WITH THIS LIST.

APPARENTLY, THIS IS A LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS THAT YOU GUYS REGULARLY FREQUENT AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE THEY WOULD BE PREAPPROVED TO COME AT THEIR EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THESE ORGANIZATIONS THAT WOULD BE PRE-APPROVED OUT OF YOUR ALLOTMENT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

I DON'T KNOW IF TO GET ON THIS LIST, THEY WERE ALREADY VETTED.

I DON'T KNOW THAT. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. AND THEY DON'T.

MY QUESTION WAS, DO THEY HAVE TO BE IT WAS MY FIRST QUESTION AND THE SECOND QUESTION, AND I PUT IT IN AS A REFERRAL.

SO, SUPERINTENDENT HOUSE, LIKE GOING AND GETTING A MASTER'S IN PUBLIC POLICY AT U OF H? THAT WAS, THAT WOULD NOT BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD DO WITH OUR FUNDS INSTEAD OF LIKE PAYING FOR TRAVEL AND ALL THIS OTHER STUFF THAT WE DO.

NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.

THIS IS SO FRUSTRATING.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

AND TRUSTEE SANTOS, I BELIEVE THIS IS RELATED TO GOING TO TRAVEL TO ATTEND DIFFERENT OK SO IT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE VENDOR THING.

OK. TRUSTEE ALLEN? I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A STATEMENT, BUT NOW I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION.

I MADE A STATEMENT THAT I SENT MY QUESTION IN ON THIS, AND I HAVE BEEN SATISFIED WITH THE ANSWER THAT I GOT BACK.

SO I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION FOR THIS, BUT I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.

THE ALLOCATION THAT WE GET TO FOR THESE; IS THAT $5,000? IS THAT AMOUNT SET BY THE STATE OR IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN RAISE WITH INFLATION? THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION.

I WOULD THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE ADJUSTED AT THE WILL OF THE ADMINISTRATION.

SO, YES, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, IT CAN BE ADJUSTED.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE BUDGET THAT WE'VE ALREADY PASSED? THAT IS CORRECT. SO I WOULD THINK THAT WE COULD TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION NEXT FISCAL CYCLE VERSUS GOING BACK AND TRYING TO RATIFY WHAT WE'VE ALREADY DONE.

THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME.

TRUSTEE. BLUEFORD-DANIELS.

THAT WAS A GOOD QUESTION, DR.

ALLEN. WHERE'S MY GLEN? I WANT TO ASK, BUT I DID WANT TO ASK THE POINT I BROUGHT UP LAST TIME.

AND WITH THESE POLICIES, YOU KNOW, I'M A DOODLER.

SO I WRITE MY NAME, KATHY, ALL THE TIME.

NOT THAT I LOVE MY NAME SO MUCH, BUT BECAUSE I'M A DOODLER.

RIGHT. AND I DO CALLIGRAPHY, SO I LIKE TO MAKE IT FANCY.

SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I ASKED FOR, ABOUT RATHER, AND I DON'T SEE IT CHANGED ON ANY OF THE POLICIES IS OFFICE OF THE OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, BOARD OF EDUCATION.

OK. OFFICE OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT.

MAXIMO CHIEF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT OFFICER AND I'M NOT PICKING ON YOU, MAX.

I'M JUST SAYING, IN GENERAL, WITH THE POLICIES I WAS SUGGESTING THAT WE LEAVE IT UNDER THE DEPARTMENT, NOT NECESSARILY HAVE THE PERSON THE PERSON WHO'S IN CHARGE.

TODAY, ON THE TOP OF THE THING, THAT'S WHAT I REFERENCED.

WHEN I SAY I LIKE MY NAME, I LIKE TO WRITE MY NAME AND DOODLE IT.

SO I'M JUST WONDERING IF PEOPLE LIKE TO SEE THEIR NAME AND DOODLE IT, BUT IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO HAVE THAT AS PART OF THE POLICY ITSELF.

YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING, RIGHT, MAX? JUST TAKE YOUR NAME OFF AND JUST PUT CHIEF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT OFFICER.

YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT HUMAN RESOURCES AND YOU SAY DON'T CALL IT ANYMORE.

SO I'M JUST WONDERING BY THE NAME.

I'M GOING TO HAVE MS. MCBRIDE ADDRESS THAT, TRUSTEE BLUEFORD-DANIELS.

THE AGENDA ITEM ITSELF, WHICH IS THE RECOMMENDATION THAT'S COMING FROM ADMINISTRATION AND THAT IS COMING FROM A SPECIFIC PERSON AND A SPECIFIC DEPARTMENT AT A SPECIFIC TIME.

THE POLICY ITSELF DOESN'T HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, MR. MOLE'S NAME IN THE POLICY, EVEN THOUGH THE AGENDA ITEM CAME FROM HIS DEPARTMENT.

SO I THINK OUR MINUTE SHOULD APPROPRIATELY REFLECT AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME WHO WAS THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT WAS MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE AGENDA ITEM?

[00:35:02]

THE POLICY ITSELF.

YOU WILL SEE NO SPECIFIC NAME IN THE ACTUAL POLICY THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING, AND THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT YOU'RE APPROVING THAT WILL THEN GO IN YOUR POLICY ONLINE AND YOUR PHYSICAL POLICIES. AND I APPRECIATE THAT, IF I MAY MAKE A COMMENT TO THAT.

MADAM PRESIDENT, I KNOW MY TIME, MY BILL WENT OFF, AND I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE THAT'S ALL I WAS SAYING, JUST ALIGNING IT UP WITH WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE NECESSARILY INCLUSIVE.

I JUST I'M LOOKING I'M FORECASTING THAT IN FIVE YEARS FROM NOW WHEN THEY'RE REDONE, MAX MAY OR MAY NOT BE HERE.

AND I'M SORRY, I'M JUST USING YOUR NAME.

CATHY MAY OR MAY NOT BE HERE, AND I WOULDN'T NECESSARILY WANT CATHY ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT EXPLANATION, LISA.

THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. TRUSTEE SANTOS? THANK YOU, PRESIDENT CRUZ, SUPERINTENDENT HOUSE.

I JUST WANT TO REMIND MY COLLEAGUES THAT IF WE HAVE AN EMERGENCY AND WE HAVE RUN OUT OF MONEY AND IT'S LIKE AN APP, LIKE AN EMERGENCY TRAINING AT HARVARD, WHATEVER, THE PRESIDENT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO INCREASE OUR TRUSTEE BUDGETS AND GIVE TRUSTEE BLUEFORD-DANIELS AN ADDITIONAL 2000 OR WHATEVER, BUT IT'S UNDER HER DISCRETION.

THAT'S IN OUR POLICY, NUMBER ONE.

NUMBER TWO, IN THE.

YES, IT IS.

NO, WE DIDN'T TAKE IT OUT.

WE DIDN'T, IT MOVED DOWN.

I HAD LEFTOVER MONEY LAST TIME.

SO ON TOP OF THAT, WE ALSO HAVE THE POLICY, LIKE, IF WE WANT TO INCREASE OUR BUDGET, WE CAN BRING IT TO THE TABLE AND WE AS A BODY CAN VOTE IN FAVOR TO DO THAT WITH WE HAVE OUR MONTHLY BUDGET AMENDMENT.

SO WE CAN DO THAT, TOO, IF WE'RE WORKING WITH THE ADMINISTRATION TO DO THAT.

I JUST WANT TO REMIND MY COLLEAGUES THIS IS, THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO ACCOMMODATE OUR BUDGETS, IF THAT HAPPENS.

THANK YOU. TRUSTEE HERNANDEZ.

I JUST WANTED TO, JUST TOUCH BASE ON KATHY, TRUSTEE BLUEFORD-DANIELS DOODLING. I THINK IN MY OPINION IT'S VERY USEFUL TO HAVE THE NAME ON THERE BECAUSE I READ A LOT OF INFORMATION.

I DON'T KNOW ALL, EVERYONE WHO IS HERE, SO IT'S VERY USEFUL FOR ME TO KNOW WHO IS OVER THAT ITEM THAT WE'RE READING.

SO INSTEAD OF JUST TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT, BECAUSE SOMETIMES I FORGET EVERYBODY'S NAMES AND EXACTLY WHO'S OVER THAT DEPARTMENT.

SO FOR ME, IT'S VERY USEFUL TO HAVE THAT NAME ON THERE.

THANK YOU. I THOUGHT WE WERE OUT OF TIME.

I JUST WANTED TO, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THAT.

I MEAN, I THINK IT'S HEALTHY DISCUSSION AND I UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT IN A PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENT, YOU HAVE ALL THESE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS.

AND THOUGH THE NAME IS INDICATIVE TO US AS TO WHO WAS WORKING TO UPDATE THE POLICY, THAT'S FINE.

BUT FOR THE MOST PART, IN ANY ORGANIZATION YOU HAVE THIS HIERARCHY OF WHERE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS FOLLOW.

AND THAT'S WHY I MENTIONED ABOUT THE HUMAN RESOURCES AND THE SUPERINTENDENT WAS REMINDED ME THAT IT SORT OF FALLS IN IT, YOU TELL YOUR AIDES WHEN I SAY HUMAN RESOURCES AND NOW IT'S OFFICE OF TALENT.

I THINK THAT IF WE JUST HAVE THAT ALIGNMENT SHOWING SUCH WHAT THE DEPARTMENT GOES WHERE, THEN IT WON'T BE NECESSARY TO HAVE ALL THE NAMES.

THAT'S JUST AN OBSERVATION OF MINE.

BOARD MEMBERS, IF I CAN REMIND YOU THAT OUR FOCUS TODAY IS THE ACTUAL POLICIES THEMSELVES, NOT THE FORMATTING OF THE AGENDA ITEMS. YOU'RE NOT APPROVING THAT.

YOU'RE APPROVING THE POLICY.

IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW AGENDA ITEMS ARE GOING TO BE FORMATTED, WE CAN DO THAT AT A DIFFERENT MEETING.

WE NEED TO FOCUS ON THE POLICY THEMSELVES.

I GOT SERVED. THANK YOU, MISS MCBRIDE.

BUT THAT WAS MY TRUSTEE, ALLEN? I DON'T KNOW WHETHER TO ASK MY QUESTION NOW, BUT MY QUESTION WAS GOING TO BE THE COVER SHEET DOES NOT GO ON THE POLICY ONLINE, DOES IT? SO HIS NAME WILL NOT BE LOOKING.

WE WON'T BE LOOKING AT IT IN FIVE YEARS.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

I GOT IT AFTER THAT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

SO WE ARE VOTING ON K-5.

SO IF SOMEBODY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO NOT WAIVE SECOND READING.

SO MOVED. SECOND.

MOTION BY TRUSTEE SANTOS AND A SECOND BY TRUSTEE HERNANDEZ.

PLEASE VOTE, THIS IS ON THE MOTION TO NOT WAIVE SECOND READING.

8 FOR, 0 AGAINST, ZERO ABSTENTIONS.

NOW WE NEED TO VOTE ON THE ACTUAL ITEM K-5 FIRST READING.

8 FOR, 0 AGAINST, ZERO ABSTENTIONS.

[00:40:05]

OUR NEXT ITEM HELD FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA IS CASE 17.

[K-17. Approval To Waive Board Policy BF(LOCAL), Board Policies, And Approval Of Proposed Revisions To Board Policy CKE(LOCAL), Safety Program/Risk Management: Security Personnel, On First Reading]

APPROVAL TO WAIVE BOARD POLICY BF LOCAL BOARD POLICIES AND APPROVAL OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO BOARD POLICY CKE LOCAL SAFETY PROGRAM, RISK MANAGEMENT, SECURITY PERSONNEL. ON FIRST READING, THIS ITEM IS BEING HELD AT THE REQUEST OF TRUSTEE HERNANDEZ.

MAY I HAVE A MOTION.

SO MOVED.

SECOND, WADE.

I HAVE A MOTION BY TRUSTEE HERNANDEZ AND A SECOND BY TRUSTEE WADE.

ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? TRUSTEE HERNANDEZ? I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT.

I SAW THE ADDITION TO NOT PRECLUDE OUR POLICE OFFICERS FROM PARTICIPATING IN MENTORSHIP PROGRAMS OR RESTORATIVE JUSTICE PROGRAMS. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.

SEE NO OTHER QUESTIONS.

TO HAVE A MOTION TO NOT WAIVE SECOND READING.

I HAVE A MOTION BY TRUSTEE SANTOS.

SECOND BY TRUSTEE BLUEFORD-DANIELS.

PLEASE VOTE. THIS IS TO NOT WAIVE SECOND READING ON K-17.

8-4-0 AGAINST ZERO ABSTENTIONS.

NOW WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THE ACTUAL ITEM K-17.

SORRY, I'M A LITTLE SLOW TODAY TRYING TO KEEP IT TOGETHER.

THAT'S WHAT I NEED. WE ALREADY DID THE MOTION.

ACTUAL K-17.

8 FOR, 0 AGAINST, ZERO ABSTENTIONS.

OUR NEXT ITEM HELD FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA IS K-26 APPROVAL TO WAIVE BOARD POLICY BF LOCAL BOARD POLICIES AND APPROVAL OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO BOARD POLICY BEC LOCAL

[K-26. Approval To Waive Board Policy BF(LOCAL), Board Policies, And Approval Of Proposed Revisions To Board Policy DEC(LOCAL), Compensation And Benefits: Leaves And Absences, On First Reading]

COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS LEAVES AND ABSENCES.

ON FIRST READING, THIS ITEM IS BEING HELD AT THE REQUEST OF TRUSTEES BAKER, BLUEFORD-DANIELS, AND GUIDRY.

MAY I HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED, HERNANDEZ.

SECOND. MOTION BY TRUSTEE HERNANDEZ AND A SECOND BY TRUSTEE SANTOS.

ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? K-26. I'M IN THE QUEUE.

TRUSTEE HERNANDEZ? THANK YOU. I PULLED THIS ITEM AND I KNOW DURING THE LAST BOARD MEETING I ASKED ABOUT THE COMBINED LEAVE FOR SPOUSES, AND I DID SUBMIT A QUESTION ON THE Q&A.

THE ANSWER WAS TO REMOVE THIS ITEM FROM THE THIS POLICY AND LEAVE IT IN A DIFFERENT SPACE WHERE IT'S AT, WHERE IT'S HOUSED. I THINK THAT MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO ACTUALLY EXTEND THE FEDERAL FMLA POLICY FOR HISD SPOUSES.

I THINK THAT EACH SPOUSE SHOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE THEIR 12 WEEKS OF FMLA.

AND FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, WE ARE ABLE TO.

EXTEND THAT FMLA TO EACH SPOUSE.

SO CAN WE HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF EMPLOYEES THAT THIS WOULD AFFECT AND ANY OF THE IMPACTS TO THE DISTRICT? THAT'S ME, CHIEF.

CHIEF GRANT SKINNER IS GOING TO ADDRESS THIS WITH YOU.

TRUSTEE HERNANDEZ.

SURE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE INTEREST IS.

AND I'LL SAY FIRST THAT I MEAN, THE REFERENCE TO FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE HERE IS A REFERENCE TO IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, IT IS THE FEDERAL FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE THAT IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT.

WE DON'T HAVE THAT AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT AN EMPLOYEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR UNDER THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT.

IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE DO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO EXTEND WE CANNOT DECREASE THE AMOUNT, BUT WE CAN EXTEND MORE THAN WHAT THE FEDERAL LAW SAYS.

LEGAL THAT THAT'S ACCURATE.

YOU KNOW, THE FEDERAL LAW IS THE MINIMUM THAT YOU HAVE TO GIVE.

[00:45:01]

NOTHING PREVENTS A SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM LOCALLY DECIDING TO GIVE MORE.

NOW, IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE THE SAME PROTECTIONS BECAUSE IT'S A LOCAL BENEFIT OF FMLA.

BUT YOU COULD SAY AND UNDERSTAND THAT UNDER THE FMLA, WHEN YOU ARE A SPOUSE, IT'S ONLY CERTAIN TYPES OF FMLA QUALIFYING LEAVE THAT THE FMLA SAYS YOU GET COMBINED, YOU DON'T GET SEPARATE AND IT'S THE ONES THAT ARE LISTED IN YOUR POLICY.

SO WHAT YOU WOULD BE SAYING IS FOR THOSE THREE TYPES OF LEAVES, WE'RE GOING TO TREAT YOU INDIVIDUALLY LIKE WE DO FOR OTHER TYPES OF LEAVE.

LIKE IF YOU INDIVIDUALLY WERE SICK, YOU DON'T GET A COMBINED LEAVE UNDER THE FMLA, YOU EACH GET YOUR 12 WEEKS.

IT'S ONLY FOR THE BIRTH OR ADOPTION OR PLACEMENT OF A CHILD THAT YOU GET, THE COMBINED LEAVE AND YOU CAN LOCALLY MAKE A DIFFERENT DECISION.

RIGHT. WE CANNOT CHANGE THE PARAMETERS FOR FEDERAL FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE.

I THINK THE BOARD COULD, THROUGH POLICY, SAY THAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS OFFERING PROTECTION OF A JOB, WHICH IS WHAT FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE DOES.

IT SIMPLY SAYS YOU CAN'T BE REMOVED FROM YOUR JOB WHILE YOU ARE ON LEAVE, PAID OR UNPAID FOR THAT MINIMUM PERIOD OF TIME.

SO. I THINK, AS MS. MCBRIDE SAID, THERE COULD BE A SEPARATE LOCAL BENEFIT THAT IS INCLUDED IN POLICY.

IT WOULDN'T BE TECHNICALLY FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE.

IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING, MS. MCBRIDE? YES.

YOU CAN GIVE, YOU CAN LOCALLY GIVE THAT LEAVE THAT, ADDITIONAL LEAVE, THE SAME PROTECTIONS AS THE FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE, MEANING THAT IT'S GOT JOB PROTECTION AND JOB RESTORATION WHEN YOU COME BACK.

WHAT YOU CAN'T DO IS LOCALLY DECIDE, HEY, YOU'RE ENTITLED TO 12 WEEKS UNDER FEDERAL LAW, BUT WE'RE GOING TO LOCALLY DECIDE TO GIVE YOU EIGHT.

YOU CAN'T DO THAT.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME LOCAL POLICY ON EACH SPOUSE RECEIVING THEIR 12 WEEKS INSTEAD OF A COMBINED 12 WEEKS.

WHEN THERE IS A BIRTH, ADOPTION OR PLACEMENT OF A CHILD OR CARE.

A PARENT WITH A SERIOUS HEALTH CONDITION.

AND I THINK YOU ALSO ASKED ABOUT THE IMPACT THAT THAT MIGHT HAVE. AND I THINK THAT'S A SMART QUESTION BEFORE WE MOVE ANY FURTHER WITH ANYTHING LIKE THIS, BECAUSE THERE ARE SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT ARE EMPLOYEES SPOUSES.

AND WHAT WE KNOW IS THAT WE WOULD THEN HAVE AN IMPACT ON NOT ONLY ONE SCHOOL, BUT ANOTHER SCHOOL.

NOT ONLY ONE GROUP OF KIDS, BUT ANOTHER GROUP OF KIDS.

SO I THINK UNDERSTANDING THAT IMPACT WOULD BE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AS WELL.

SO I AGREE WITH YOUR YOUR AGITATION TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT IMPACT MIGHT LOOK LIKE.

DEFINITELY. YEAH, I DEFINITELY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT.

BUT IF THERE ARE SPOUSES BOTH DEDICATING THEIR LIVES TO HISD, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT THEY HAVE THE PROTECTIONS OF ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE WHERE THEY HAVE 12 WEEKS IF THEY HAVE A BIRTH OF A CHILD.

OR THE OTHER INSTANCES MENTIONED HERE TO ME, PERSONALLY, THAT REGULATION DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.

AND HISD IS A VERY LARGE DISTRICT.

THERE'S A LOT OF EMPLOYEES HERE.

SO IT COULD BE AN EMPLOYEE IN TWO DIFFERENT CAMPUSES THAT ARE BEING AFFECTED BY THIS ONE POLICY.

AND IF WE ARE ABLE TO DO THAT, THEN I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT CHANGE.

TRUSTEE BLUEFORD-DANIELS? AND IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE I'VE HAD THAT FORMAL TRAINING BECAUSE IT'S YOU'RE QUALIFIED FOR THREE DAYS, CORRECT? FOR FMLA. IS IT STILL LIKE THAT QUALIFICATION THAT YOU GET AFTER THREE DAYS OF ABSENCE THAT YOU COULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR FMLA BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO BE THE 12 WEEKS? IN OTHER WORDS, AFTER THREE DAYS, IF TRUSTEE, DR.

ALLEN OVER THERE BROKE HER ANKLE AFTER THE FIRST THREE DAYS.

THEN SHE COULD QUALIFY FOR FMLA.

BUT FOR THREE MONTHS, RIGHT? 12 WEEKS? CORRECT.

WE HAVE GUIDELINES FOR THE NUMBER OF DAYS AFTER WHICH YOU MUST REQUEST FMLA.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE OUT LONGER.

BUT THERE'S ACTUALLY NOT A NOT A MINIMUM.

SO IF YOU KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO BE OUT FOR A CERTAIN NUMBER OF DAYS, YOU CAN APPLY FOR FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE TO COVER THAT PERIOD.

AND I'M NOT TRYING TO ZERO IN ON NECESSARILY THAT POLICY, BUT IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THAT YOU CAN BE ELIGIBLE AFTER THREE DAYS OF ABSENCES FOR FAMILY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE JUST MATERNITY.

RIGHT? IT'S ANY NUMBER OF THINGS.

[00:50:01]

IF YOUR DOCTOR SAID YOU NEED TO BE OFF FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME AND YOU QUALIFY UNDER THE GUIDELINES.

CORRECT. SO EVEN WITH MATERNITY, IF I HAD A CHILD, HEAVEN FORBID, BUT IF I HAD A CHILD AND I TOOK MY 12 WEEKS, THEN MY HUSBAND COULD TAKE AFTER I CAME BACK, HE COULD TAKE 12 WEEKS AS WELL.

CORRECT? NO, NOT UNDER THIS POLICY.

THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN HERE.

THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

I MEAN, THE LAW RIGHT NOW SAYS IT'S A COMBINED 12 WEEKS.

SO MOM COULD TAKE SIX WEEKS.

DAD COULD TAKE SIX WEEKS.

IT'S A COMBINED 12 WEEKS FOR THE PLACEMENT, THE ADOPTION PLACEMENT OR BIRTH OF A CHILD.

OH, YOU GOT A GOOD POINT THERE, THEN, DANNY.

DANNY OK.

THAT'S OKAY. AND THEN TO ANSWER YOUR OTHER QUESTION, UNDER THE FMLA, THERE'S A SUCH THING AS FORESEEABLE LEAVE AND UNFORESEEABLE LEAVE WITH FORESEEABLE LEAVE. AS MR. GRANT SKINNER HAS EXPLAINED, YOU CAN KNOW, YOU KNOW, 45 DAYS OUT THAT IN 45 DAYS I'M GOING TO NEED BECAUSE I'M GOING TO HAVE SURGERY.

FML AND SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO WAIT THREE DAYS AND THEN THERE'S UNPLANNED LEAVE WHERE UNDER YOUR LOCAL POLICIES YOU MIGHT HAVE A LOCAL RULE ABOUT HOW MANY DAYS YOU CAN BE ABSENT BEFORE PROVIDING A DOCTOR'S NOTE OR REQUESTING MEDICAL LEAVE.

BUT THAT'S A LOCAL DECISION.

FMLA DOESN'T DO THAT.

AND THEN WE HAVE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF DAYS IN ORDER TO RESPOND TO THAT REQUEST FOR LEAVE.

AND TYPICALLY IT'S FIVE UNDER THE FEDERAL LAW.

SO THERE IS, IT'S A MIXTURE OF CERTAIN LOCAL RULES ABOUT WHEN YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE A DOCTOR'S NOTE UPON HOW MANY DAYS OF BEING ABSENT AND THE FEDERAL LAW, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FORESEEABLE LEAVE AND UNFORESEEABLE LEAVE.

THAT'S INTERESTING, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S, I AGREE WITH TRUSTEE HERNANDEZ.

WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT. I THINK THAT WE NEED TO REEXAMINE THAT.

BUT JUST THAT UNDERSTAND THE FEDERAL LAW.

YOU HAVE THIS CRITERIA THAT'S ALREADY DETERMINED.

AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS POLICY COVERS AND FALLS WITHIN THAT CRITERIA SO THAT MARRIED COUPLES ARE SPOUSES, ARE SIGNIFICANT OTHERS, WHATEVER COULD BE COVERED, COLOR COVERED.

SO THANK YOU.

TRUSTEE BAKER? YES. CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? YES. OKAY.

I JUST WANT TO SAY, YOU MENTIONED MY NAME EARLIER.

MY CONCERNS WERE ALREADY COVERED LAST WEEK CONCERNING ASSAULT LEAVE AND FUNERAL LEAVE.

SO I'M GOOD. OK.

THANK YOU, TRUSTEE WADE.

THANK YOU. TRUSTEE CRUZ I'D LIKE TO ALSO ADDRESS TO THE DISTRICT ABOUT SUPERINTENDENT HOUSE, ABOUT THE FINANCIAL IMPACT TO THE DISTRICT THAT THAT MIGHT INCUR JUST CURIOSITY WISE, AS WELL AS LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS FOR POSSIBLE AVOIDANCE AND TERMINATION SITUATIONS. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE LOOK AT IT FROM THE WHOLE SPECTRUM OF ALL THE THINGS THAT WILL IMPACT THE DISTRICT.

SO I THINK THAT'S A CASE STUDY TO CONSIDER.

WE CAN DO SO. YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD POINT.

TRUSTEE SANTOS.

THANK YOU. PRESIDENT CRUZ SUPERINTENDENT HOUSE.

I AM ON BOARD WITH TRUSTEE HERNANDEZ.

WE CANNOT DISCOUNT THE MORALE THAT WE BRING OUR PARENTS IF WE'RE SAYING, HEY, YOU JUST HAD A BABY, BUT YOU CHOOSE.

YOU GET TO GO BACK IN ONE WEEK, THE HUSBAND OR WIFE OR WHATEVER, AND THEN I GET TO STAY HOME FOR 11 OR WHATEVER.

BUT IF WE CARE ABOUT OUR CHILDREN, WE CARE ABOUT THE MENTAL HEALTH OF THEIR PARENTS, THEIR WHOMEVER IS THE GUARDIANSHIP AROUND THEM.

SO I AM ABSOLUTELY IN FAVOR OF LOOKING MORE INTO THIS, MORE SO THAT WAY WE MAKE SURE THAT WE HONOR NOT JUST THE MORALE THAT WE ARE COMMITTED TO OUR EMPLOYEES, BUT ALSO THAT OUR EMPLOYEES HAVE THE MENTAL HEALTH AND PHYSICAL WELL-BEING TO CONTINUE TO EDUCATE OUR CHILDREN.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS, AND I LOOK FORWARD AND SEEING THAT.

BUT AGAIN AGAIN, I'M WITH TRUSTEE HERNANDEZ ON THIS ONE.

THANK YOU. DO YOU ALL WANT TO DO A SECOND ROUND? ANY OBJECTIONS TO SECOND ROUND? OK. TRUSTEE HERNANDEZ? I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THESE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS, WE ALSO LOOK AT HOW EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AND EMPLOYEE RETENTION WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THIS AND HOW THIS WOULD BE A DIFFERENCE WHERE HISD COULD STAND OUT VERSUS OTHER DISTRICTS IN THE AREA.

I HAVEN'T READ THEIR POLICIES, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE I WOULD THINK THAT IT HASN'T BEEN CHANGED.

SO IF WE'RE LOOKING AT FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS, WE ALSO NEED TO LOOK AT EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AND RETENTION OF OUR EMPLOYEES.

LONG RIGHT ALONGSIDE WITH THAT AND HOW THAT COULD PUT HISD A LITTLE BIT FORWARD.

THANK YOU. TRUSTEE ALLEN? I WANTED TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE MOVE THIS, WAIVE THE SECOND DAY AND MOVE IT TO SEPTEMBER 1ST FOR THE READING

[00:55:10]

SO THAT IT CAN BE ALONE WITH THE REST OF THEM WHEN WE DO SEPTEMBER 8TH.

OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY TRUSTEE ALLEN AND A SECOND BY TRUSTEE SANTOS AND THIS IS TO NOT WAIVE SECOND READING BUT AND TO DO FIRST READING AT THE AGENDA REVIEW MEETING.

CORRECT? OKAY.

IS THAT GOING TO WE WON'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK ANY MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT IT THEN RIGHT AFTER WE VOTE ON IT.

IT'LL JUST BE MOOT. CORRECT.

SEPTEMBER 1ST WOULD BE FIRST READING AGAIN.

RIGHT? RIGHT. BUT I'M SAYING RIGHT NOW.

CONCISE QUESTIONS.

AFTER WE VOTE ON IT, CAN WE STILL HAVE DISCUSSION ON IT AFTER WE MOVE TO MOVE IT TO THE SEPTEMBER THE FIRST MEETING.

IN SEPTEMBER.

BUT I'M SAYING WE CAN STILL HAVE DISCUSSION ON IT.

THAT WAS MY QUESTION, BECAUSE I WAS IN TODAY BECAUSE I WAS IN THE Q.

THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THAT.

YOU'RE GETTING READY THIS VOTE YOU'RE GETTING READY TO DISPENSE OF THE.

AND THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. YEAH.

THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING THAT QUESTION BECAUSE THAT WAS IN A Q FOR SECOND ROUND BEFORE THE MOTION WAS MADE.

SO IF THAT. IS IT SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE TO DISCUSS TODAY OR CAN IT WAIT SINCE YOU'RE GOING TO DO A FIRST READING ON IN SEPTEMBER? CAN YOU SUBMIT IT AS A QUESTION TRUSTEE BLUEFORD-DANIELS? AND GET ANSWERED BEFORE THE SEPTEMBER 1ST MEETING? I CAN, BUT SINCE WE WERE HAVING A DISCUSSION AND THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO DISCUSS IT.

BUT DR.

ALLEN, WILL YOU LIKE TO PULL MY MOTION UNTIL AFTER DISCUSSIONS? THANK YOU, DR. ALLEN.

TRUSTEE BLUEFORD-DANIELS? I PUT UP THE FAMILY ACT AND I WAS JUST CONCERNED WITH BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT MATERNITY AND WE DIDN'T SAY SPECIFICALLY PATERNITY LEAVE.

AND THEN THE FATHERS ARE SPOUSES WHO ARE ELIGIBLE FOR EMPLOYEES CAN TAKE UP TO 12 WEEKS OF LEAVE AS WELL TO CARE FOR AND BOND WITH HIS CHILD.

YOU CAN TAKE YOUR MATERNITY LEAVE, FMLA, AND ANY TIME UP TO 12 MONTHS, UP TO 12 MONTHS.

SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE CONCURRENT.

WHAT I'M READING IN WITH THE FEDERAL GUIDELINES, I'M SORRY, AND THAT WAS MY QUESTION.

IF IT HAD TO RUN, BECAUSE I UNDERSTANDING THAT IT HAS TO RUN TOGETHER, IF IT'S A MARRIED COUPLE.

WELL, HERE IS SAYING IT DOESN'T.

NO. ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES FROM THE FEDERAL GUIDELINES 1993.

SURE, OUR POLICY IS NOT SAYING IT HAS TO BE CONCURRENT.

SO AS IT EXISTS RIGHT NOW, WHAT IT SAYS IS THAT SO THE WEEKS TOWARD FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ARE COUNTED IN A 12 MONTH PERIOD.

RIGHT. SO IT'S SAYING THAT TWO SPOUSES HAVE A COMBINED ELIGIBILITY OF UP TO 12 WEEKS IN A 12 MONTH PERIOD IF.

RIGHT. SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO HAPPEN AT THE SAME TIME.

AND THAT'S WHY ONE SPOUSE COULD TAKE SIX WEEKS IN SEPTEMBER.

THE OTHER SPOUSE COULD TAKE SIX WEEKS, TWO MONTHS LATER.

AND THAT'S WHAT AND THAT'S WHY I SAY A CLARIFYING QUESTION, BECAUSE I WAS ASKING THAT EARLIER IF THEY HAD TO BE CONCURRENT, BECAUSE I HEARD SOMEONE SAY THAT THEY HAD TO BE THE SIX WEEKS AND SIX WEEKS.

BUT IT'S NOT THAT'S NOT WHAT I UNDERSTOOD IT TO BE.

I UNDERSTOOD IT TO BE 12.

YOU COULD BE IN OCTOBER AND THEN 12 AND THE FOLLOWING YEAR FOR THE OTHER SPOUSE, A PARENT.

SO I JUST WANT TO GET THAT CLARITY BECAUSE I WAS KIND OF CONFUSED.

TRUSTEE BLUEFORD-DANIELS NOT THE FOLLOWING YEAR.

SO IT'S A COMBINED 12 WEEKS WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD OF TIME.

NOW, WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR, YOU KNOW, YOU ASKED A QUESTION EARLIER THAT GOT INTO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN UNFORESEEABLE LEAVE AND FORESEEABLE LEAVE.

NOW YOU'RE ASKING THAT THE QUESTION BETWEEN TAKING LEAVE AT ONE TIME AND INTERMITTENTLY, THAT IS A SEPARATE QUESTION FROM THE COMBINED LEAVE OF A SPOUSE THAT DOES HAVE AN OVERLAY. SO IT'S A COMBINED 12 WEEKS IN A 12 MONTH PERIOD AND IT CAN BE TAKEN ON AN INTERMITTENT BASIS.

BUT THAT'S ANOTHER ANALYSIS UNDER THE LAW.

OKAY. I HAVE TIME TO FURTHER DISSECT THAT.

OK THANK YOU.

NOW I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE WAIVE THE MOST THE SECOND READING AND BRING THIS ITEM BACK SEPTEMBER 1ST FOR THE FIRST READING.

SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY TRUSTEE ALLEN AND A SECOND BY TRUSTEE HERNANDEZ.

PLEASE VOTE.

OH, SHE'S NOT HERE. OKAY, SO 7 FOR, 0 AGAINST, ZERO ABSTENTIONS.

[01:00:13]

OUR NEXT ITEM HELD FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA IS K-39 APPROVAL TO WAIVE BOARD POLICY BF L OCAL BOARD POLICIES AND APPROVAL OF PROPOSED DELETION OF BOARD

[K-39. Approval To Waive Board Policy BF(LOCAL), Board Policies, And Approval Of Proposed Deletion Of Board Policy EFAA(LOCAL), Instructional Materials: Selection And Adoption, On First Reading]

POLICY EFAA LOCAL INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS SELECTION AND ADOPTION ON FIRST READING.

THIS ITEM IS BEING HELD AT THE REQUEST OF TRUSTEE WADE.

MAY I HAVE A MOTION? 38 IS POSTPONED.

YEAH. SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR THE SECOND.

I HAVE A MOTION BY TRUSTEE HERNANDEZ AND A SECOND BY TRUSTEE.

BLUEFORD-DANIELS. ANY DISCUSSION? K-39.

THIS IS K-39.

A DELETION OF A BOARD POLICY.

TRUSTEE. WADE? YES, WE CAN. I HAVE NO QUESTION.

SORRY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

PLEASE VOTE.

LET ME MAKE ONE. I DON'T THINK YOU DID THE MOTION ON THIS ONE.

BUT MY QUESTION IS, DO YOU NEED TO DO SINCE THIS IS A DELETION, DO YOU NEED TO DO A MOTION TO WAIVE NOT TO WAIVE SECOND READING OR ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH IT BEING DELETED? YEAH. I'M COMFORTABLE WITH IT BEING DELETED.

OK. I THOUGHT WE DID A MOTION FOR THE THE AGENDA ITEM.

SO MAY I HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED, HERNANDEZ.

SO OUR NEXT ITEM HELD FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA IS K-39 APPROVAL TO WAIVE BOARD POLICY AND APPROVAL OF PROPOSED DELETION OF BOARD POLICY, EFAA LOCAL INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS SELECTION AND ADOPTION AND.

PRESIDENT CRUZ YOU HAD DONE A MOTION ON THE ITEM AND GOTTEN A SECOND WHAT YOU HADN'T DONE A MOTION WAS NOT TO WAIVE SECOND READING, AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING.

DO YOU EVEN NEED TO DO THAT? BECAUSE THIS IS A DELETION.

ARE YOU JUST COMFORTABLE WITH IT BEING DELETED AS A RESULT OF THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE TABLE? SO THE FIRST MOTION INCLUDES THE LANGUAGES PROPOSED DELETION.

SO IF WE APPROVE THAT MOTION, WE'RE DELETING THE POLICY AND MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVED TO DELETE THE ITEM AND TO WAIVE THE READING, THE SECOND READING.

THAT'S HOW WE'RE POSTING IT. THAT'S HOW YOUR POST.

OKAY. SO WE'VE GOT, WE'VE ALREADY GOT THE MOTION.

DO I NEED TO APPROVE THE SECOND? DO I NEED TO SAY THAT ONE AGAIN SINCE WE ALREADY HAVE IT? JUST TAKE THE VOTE. OKAY.

PLEASE VOTE. IT'S ALSO MORE TASB INFO IN THERE TOO.

IT WAS. SO WE HAVE.

YEAH. SO WE HAVE 5 FOR, 3 AGAINST ZERO ABSTENTIONS.

ALL RIGHT. OUR NEXT ITEM FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA IS K-40 APPROVAL TO WAIVE BOARD POLICY BF LOCAL BOARD POLICIES AND APPROVAL OF PROPOSED DELETION

[K-40. Approval To Waive Board Policy BF(LOCAL), Board Policies, And Approval Of Proposed Deletion Of Board Policy EFB(LOCAL), Instructional Resources: Library Media Programs, On First Reading]

OF BOARD POLICY EFB LOCAL SORRY INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCES LIBRARY MEDIA PROGRAMS. ON FIRST READING, THIS ITEM IS BEING HELD AT THE REQUEST OF TRUSTEE WADE.

MAY I HAVE A MOTION? I MAKE A MOTION OF THE SAME MOTION WE MADE LAST TIME.

YOU KNOW, IS THERE A SECOND CAN ADD ON THIS? IF A MOTION BY TRUSTEE CLARIFICATION ON THE MOTION, I AM NOT WAIVING SECOND READING.

SO THANK YOU. OKAY.

SO EVEN IF IT'S A DELETION, I'LL JUST WAIT.

OKAY. SORRY.

[01:05:02]

DID WE HAVE A SECOND? OKAY. SO I HAVE A MOTION BY TRUSTEE.

WAIT IN A SECOND. BY TRUSTEE HERNANDEZ PLEASE VOTE.

RIGHT? YES, BECAUSE IT'S A DELETION.

FIVE FOR THREE AGAINST ZERO ABSTENTIONS.

OKAY. SO THAT IS I HAD REQUESTED TO PULL K -2 FROM CONSENT, BUT I'M FINE PUTTING IT BACK ON.