[Hearings on January 18, 2024.]
[00:00:03]
GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS MEETING IS NOW CONVENED AT 2:06 P.M..
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK EVERYONE TO PLEASE SILENCE ALL CELL PHONES.
A QUORUM OF THE BOARD MEMBERS IS PRESENT IN THE BOARD AUDITORIUM.
THEY ARE FROM MY RIGHT ON THE PLATFORM.
I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANYBODY HERE BY ZOOM.
OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO HEAR FROM SPEAKERS TO AGENDA ITEMS. HOWEVER, TODAY WE HAVE NO SPEAKERS REGISTERED FOR THE HEARINGS TODAY.
WE WILL NOW CONDUCT THE HEARING SCHEDULED FOR THIS MEETING.
THE FIRST MATTER FOR CONSIDERATION IS STEPTOE VERSUS HISD.
I AM THEREFORE MOVING FOR A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
I MOVE THAT WE RECONSIDER THE VOTE TAKEN ON DECEMBER 14TH, 2023, AT WHICH WE SUSTAINED THE GRIEVANCE OF OFFICER STEPTOE, AND THAT WE UPHOLD THE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION AND DENY THE RELIEF GRANTED TO OFFICER STEPTOE.
IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND THE MOTION.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE VOTE.
THE MOTION PASSES FIVE IN FAVOR, ONE ABSTENTION.
THE BOARD HAS VOTED FIVE, FOUR, AND ONE ABSTENTION TO THE MOTION THAT WE UPHOLD THE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION AND DENY THE RELIEF GRANTED TO OFFICER STEPTOE.
THIS HEARING HAS CONCLUDED AT 2:08 P.M..
THE PURPOSE IS TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER OF MR. RAMBO, WHO IS A TEACHER AT BRUCE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.071.
IF ANY BOARD MEMBER WISHES TO SEEK THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL, PLEASE MAKE YOUR REQUEST KNOWN TO ME.
MR. FALLON, DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE IN OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION? WE WOULD PREFER OPEN SESSION? OPEN SESSION. OKAY.
THE ISSUES BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD ARE WHETHER TO ACCEPT, REJECT OR CHANGE THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND PROPOSAL BASED ON A REVIEW OF THE RECORD. WE MAY REJECT OR CHANGE A FINDING OF FACT IF, AFTER REVIEWING THE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER, WE FIND IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. IF WE REJECT THE HEARING, EXCUSE ME, THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION OR MAKE ANY CHANGES, WE MUST STATE THE REASON AND LEGAL BASIS IN WRITING.
MR. BRADSHAW, YOU WILL PROCEED FIRST.
YOU'LL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD, FOLLOWED BY A TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION BY MR. FALLON.
AND MR. BRADSHAW YOU MAY RESERVE PART OF YOUR TEN MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL TO MATTERS PRESENTED BY MR. FALLON. BOTH SIDES SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD AND THEIR RESPECTIVE PRESENTATIONS.
AND AFTER DELIBERATION, THE BOARD WILL RENDER ITS DECISION.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WAY THAT THE HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED? NO.
THANK YOU. MR. BRADSHAW HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO DIVIDE YOUR TIME IN MAKING YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD BASED ON THE TRANSCRIPT? EIGHT MINUTES AND TWO MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL.
WHEN YOU'RE READY, YOU CAN BEGIN.
[00:05:01]
THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT.GOOD AFTERNOON, BOARD MEMBERS.
AND THAT IS THE ULTIMATE DECISION OF WHETHER OR NOT TO NON-RENEW A TEACHER'S CONTRACT.
AND BEFORE YOU, YOU HAVE A RECORD THAT CAME FROM A TWO DAY HEARING IN WHICH WE HAD, I WANT TO SAY, SIX WITNESSES, SIX LIVE WITNESSES.
YOU HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE TESTIMONY OF THOSE WITNESSES, OVER 50 EXHIBITS AND A CERTIFIED HEARING EXAMINER SERVED AS JUDGE, AND AT THE CONCLUSION OF THAT HEARING, ISSUED A WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO YOU TO REVIEW AND THEN DECIDE WHETHER YOU WANT TO ADOPT THAT RECOMMENDATION.
IN THAT RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS THE FIRST PART OF YOUR PACKET, YOU'LL FIND THAT THE ADMINISTRATION PUT FORTH NINE SEPARATE NON-RENEWAL REASONS, AND THE HEARING OFFICER FOUND THAT ALL NINE WERE PRESENT BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.
JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND, MR. RAMBO IS A FIVE YEAR TEACHER HERE AT HISD.
HE'S ALWAYS BEEN AT BRUCE ELEMENTARY AND HE'S FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS, TAUGHT FIRST GRADE.
BRUCE ELEMENTARY IS ABOUT A SMALL CAMPUS, 3 TO 400 STUDENTS THIS PAST YEAR.
IT'S EITHER A PERFORMANCE CASE OR IT'S A COMPLIANCE CASE.
AND A PERFORMANCE CASE, OF COURSE, IS WHERE WE HAVE POOR INSTRUCTION IN THE CLASSROOM.
WELL, IN THIS CASE, WE HAVE BOTH.
AND NOT ONLY THAT, TO MAGNIFY THE LACK OF PERFORMANCE AND LACK OF COMPLIANCE, WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT, REFUSAL BY MR. RAMBO TO ACCEPT COACHING AS WELL AS CONSIDERABLE UNCOOPERATIVENESS.
THIS IS WHAT THE HEARING OFFICER FOUND AFTER LISTENING TO TWO DAYS OF TESTIMONIES, INCLUDING FROM MR. RAMBO. FINDING OF FACT NUMBER 32 SAYS MR. RAMBO WAS UNCOOPERATIVE, REFUSED TO ACCEPT HER COACHING.
MR. RAMBO DID NOT RESPOND TO PRE AND POST-CONFERENCE QUESTIONS FROM HIS APPRAISER.
FINDING NUMBER 35, MR. RAMBO TOLD MISS DUNCAN, HIS APPRAISER, HE DID NOT WISH TO PROCEED WITH PLANNING.
AND FINDING NUMBER 43 FROM JANUARY THROUGH MARCH OF 2023.
QUOTE. MR. RAMBO REFUSED TO TURN IN WEEKLY LESSON PLANS AS REQUIRED BY HIS PPA.
AND OF COURSE, PPA IS PRESCRIPTIVE PLAN FOR ASSISTANCE, WHICH IS LIKE A GROWTH PLAN.
DID THE TEACHER GET ASSISTANCE AND COUNSELING? WAS THERE A GOOD DOCUMENTATION SHOWING ALL THIS AND WHAT WAS THE FINAL RESULT? WELL, HERE IN THE PPA IS THE INSTRUMENT TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.
IN THIS CASE, MR. RAMBO REFUSED TO EVEN DO A LOT OF THE ACTIVITIES, AND HE NEVER COMPLETED THOSE ACTIVITIES.
I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU TWO OF WHAT I THINK ARE THE WORST ONE HAD TO DO WITH GRADES.
AND IN ELA THAT ONE GRADE FOR ALL OF HIS STUDENTS WAS 100.
NOW, MAYBE THEY ALL GOT 100 ON THE ONE ASSIGNMENT, I DON'T KNOW, BUT THE TRUTH IS, 85% OF THOSE FIRST GRADERS WERE BELOW STANDARD ON HIGH FREQUENCY WORDS, SO THE ODDS OF THAT ARE SLIM UNLESS IT WAS SOMETHING AWFULLY SIMPLE.
THE SECOND THING THAT WAS QUITE OR COULD HAVE BEEN QUITE SERIOUS, I SUPPOSE THE CAMPUS HAD A POLICY AT THAT TIME THAT ALL CLASSROOM DOORS WOULD BE LOCKED, UVALDI. SO HERE, MR. RAMBO LEFT HIS DOOR WIDE OPEN ONE DAY WHEN THE PRINCIPAL'S OR ACTUALLY WHEN THERE WAS AN AUDIT, A SAFETY AUDIT REVEALED THAT HIS CLASSROOM WAS NOT LOCKED.
[00:10:02]
THAT WAS IN OCTOBER. THEN IN DECEMBER, A TEAM OF ADMINISTRATORS DID A COLLABORATIVE WALK OF THE CAMPUS WHERE THEY CHECKED THINGS LIKE SAFETY AND OTHER THINGS.NOT ONLY WAS MR. RAMBO'S DOOR OPEN, HIS KEYS WERE IN THE LOCK AND HE WAS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND.
SO THOSE WERE SOME OF THE COMPLIANCE ISSUES.
LET ME JUST GO. I'M RUNNING KIND OF LOW ON MY TIME.
LET ME JUST GO STRAIGHT TO A WHAT I THINK IS A GOOD SUMMARY STATEMENT FROM THE HEARING OFFICER.
SHE SAID ON PAGE 13 IN THE DISCUSSION SESSION, QUOTE, MR. RAMBO LACKS ACCOUNTABILITY FOR HIS OWN SHORTCOMINGS AND ALLOWED HIS PERSONAL FEELINGS TO NEGATIVELY AFFECT HIS PERFORMANCE AS A TEACHER.
EXCUSE ME. BASED ON THE RECORD BEFORE YOU, ON BEHALF OF THE ADMINISTRATION, WE ASK THAT YOU ADOPT THE HEARING OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND TERMINATE MR. RAMBO'S EMPLOYMENT, EFFECTIVE TODAY.
MR. FALLON, YOU MAY MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD BASED ON THE TRANSCRIPT.
SURE. THANK YOU. JUDGE. THANK YOU.
OKAY. GOT TEN MINUTES AND THE TIMER IS UP THERE.
OH. RIGHT HERE. OKAY. PERFECT.
GOT TO GET ORIENTED. THANK YOU.
IT IS MY PLEASURE TO MEET YOU NEW BOARD OF MANAGERS.
SO TODAY I'M REPRESENTING THREE PEOPLE THAT YOU'LL SEE ME TALKING ABOUT TODAY.
BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S ABOUT MR. DONNIE RAMBO. AND SO, I'M SURE YOU'VE HAD SOME WORKSHOPS ABOUT HOW THESE LAWS FUNCTION AT THIS POINT.
AND YOU'VE HEARD MR. MILES, A COLLEAGUE OF MINE, FOR SOME 27 YEARS, EXPLAIN IT.
AND HE EXPLAINED IT ACCURATELY.
A JUDGE HAS ISSUED A DECISION, AND WE'RE UP HERE, TALKING TO YOU, THE BOARD OF MANAGERS, ABOUT THE FINAL STEP IN THAT DECISION, WHICH IS WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE GOING TO ACCEPT OR REJECT IT. AND THERE ARE RULES, AS YOU'VE BEEN READ ACCURATELY, ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE ABLE TO DO WHEN YOU WANT TO MODIFY A DECISION.
AND I'VE SEEN THAT IN SITUATIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE A TEACHER WAS ACCUSED OF SOMETHING THE HEARING OFFICER FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE TEACHER, AND THEN THE ADMINISTRATION WAS SAYING, HEY, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T AGREE WITH IT.
AND IN THOSE SITUATIONS, THERE ARE SOME STRONG LAWS YOU KNOW, AT TEXAS EDUCATION CODE LAWS THAT WOULD SAY, OKAY, BOARD OF MANAGERS, Y'ALL WEREN'T IN THE TRIAL. YOU DIDN'T SEE THE FOLLOWING THINGS.
AND AS LONG AS THE JUDGE HAS ISSUED A DECISION BASED ON THINGS THAT THEY SAW IN THE TRIAL, THEN BOARD OF MANAGERS OR SCHOOL BOARD, WHOMEVER, YOU GOT TO FOLLOW THOSE RULES.
YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT THAT HEARING EXAMINER.
THAT'S WHERE I'VE SEEN IT THE MOST.
AND THESE HEARINGS IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS, FOR ME AND MY CLIENT'S TYPICALLY ARE DIFFERENT THAN THAT, BECAUSE WHILE YES, IF YOU WANT TO OVERTURN A FINDING OF FACT, THERE HAS TO BE A LACK OF EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD SO YOU CAN JUSTIFY OVERTURNING IT.
THE BOARD CAN ALWAYS SHOW SOME EXECUTIVE DISCRETION.
THE BOARD CAN ALWAYS SHOW SOME DEGREE OF, JUDGMENT OR MERCY.
AND THAT'S WHAT I'M HERE ASKING YOU FOR TODAY.
YOU'RE GOING TO SEE ME ASKING FOR IT AT LEAST ONE OTHER TIME.
SO, MR. RAMBO, I MEAN, IT'S EASY TO LOOK AT THESE FINDINGS AND, CAST HIM A CERTAIN WAY, BUT IT'S IN TEN MINUTES OR EVEN IN 20 MINUTES, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF MR. RAMBO. LOOK AT HIM.
TODAY, THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST HAPPY PEOPLE I'VE EVER MET IN MY LIFE.
AND HE BRINGS THAT JOY TO THE CLASSROOM.
THIS IS JUST ME POINTING OUT HOW HE'S DRESSED.
HE'S DRESSED BEAUTIFULLY TODAY.
BUT LET ME ADD SOME OF THE TESTIMONY THAT WE HEARD AT THE TRIAL.
HE WAS ABLE TO BRING PEOPLE THAT HAVE SEEN HIM TEACH AND AT THE POINT OF CONTACT.
AND WHAT I MEAN, THAT IS THE PARENTS OF STUDENTS.
RIGHT. SO MISS TENNIS DENARD WAS A PARENT WHOSE CHILD WAS TAUGHT BY MR. RAMBO DURING THE 22-23 SCHOOL YEAR.
HER DAUGHTER WAS VERY SUCCESSFUL IN MATH, AND SHE ATTRIBUTES THAT SUCCESS TO MR. RAMBO. AND I THINK YOU HEARD HE WAS AN EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER.
I THINK HE WAS A FIRST GRADE TEACHER.
I THINK THAT THERE'S CERTAINLY EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT THEY'RE PRESENTING THAT HE MAY HAVE NOT FOLLOWED EVERY RULE AT EVERY POINT IN TIME, BUT WE DO KNOW THAT HIS PRINCIPALS HAD SUPPORTED HIM.
HE'S BEEN IN HISD FOR FIVE YEARS.
HE'S BEEN AN EDUCATOR FOR TEN.
SO IT'S IT'S WHENEVER THE NEW CAMPUS ADMINISTRATION CAME IN LAST YEAR THAT MR. RAMBO HAD PROBLEMS FOLLOWING THE RULES, AS THEY'RE SAYING.
BUT HIS CONNECTION WITH THESE PARENTS AND THESE STUDENTS WAS, I THINK, EVIDENT IN THE RECORD.
[00:15:05]
SO BRYTTNEE OGLESBY WAS AN ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL AT KIPP, AND SHE KNOWS MR. RAMBO FROM WHEN SHE TAUGHT WITH HIM.AND SHE TESTIFIED THAT HE'S A VERY PASSIONATE TEACHER WHO HAS A GREAT DEAL OF KNOWLEDGE IN PHONICS.
AND SHE SAID THAT HE WORKS HARD AND HAD GREAT RELATIONSHIPS WITH COWORKERS AND PARENTS.
HER OPINION OF HIM AS AN EDUCATOR IS HIGH.
TRINA BROOKS IS AN HISD COUNSELOR WHO'S BEEN IN EDUCATION FOR 26 YEARS.
SHE CAME TO KNOW MR. RAMBO WHEN HE TAUGHT HER GRANDSON IN THE FIRST AND SECOND GRADE DURING 19-20 AND IN 20-21, WHICH ARE SOME TOUGH YEARS FOR THOSE GRADES.
AND SHE HAD A HIGH OPINION OF HIS TEACHING.
HER GRANDSON GREW AS A STUDENT, AND SHE ATTRIBUTES THAT GROWTH TO MR. RAMBO. SHE DESCRIBES HIM AS AN ASSET TO EDUCATION AND MISS BRITNEY GIBSON AS A TEACHER IN HISD OF 12 YEARS, AND SHE KNOWS MR. RAMBO FROM TEACHING WITH HIM. AND SHE STATES HE'S VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE IN HIS CONTENT AREA AND HAS GREAT RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARENTS, STUDENTS AND OTHER TEACHERS.
SHE DESCRIBES HIM AS ONE OF THE BEST MATH TEACHERS TO HIS STUDENTS.
SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, EVEN THOUGH IN ESSENCE IT'S JUST CHARACTER EVIDENCE.
RIGHT. IT'S JUST CHARACTER EVIDENCE.
AND HERE I'M RUNNING UP AGAINST FINDINGS FROM A HEARING OFFICER.
BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR YOU, THE BOARD, TO KNOW THAT THERE IS ANOTHER SIDE TO IT.
SO IF YOU'VE GOT AN EMPLOYEE WHO'S BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN THEIR WORK LOCATION AND YOU GET A NEW ADMINISTRATION, ALL OF A SUDDEN THAT EMPLOYEE GOES, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE FEELING OF THE EXPERIENCES THAT NOTHING THAT THEY CAN DO IS RIGHT.
SO, YOU KNOW, APPARENTLY ON TWO OCCASIONS HE HAD PROBLEMS WITH HIS DOOR.
ONE TIME THE DOOR WAS EITHER OPEN OR CLOSED.
ONE TIME HE LEFT HIS KEYS IN THE DOOR.
IS THAT REALLY THE WHY WE'RE FIRING TEACHERS IS THEY LEFT THE DOOR OPEN ONE TIME.
YOU KNOW, THE GREAT ISSUE THAT FREQUENTLY IN HISD, BY PRACTICE, TEACHERS ARE FIGHTING TO GET THEIR GRADES DONE AND GET THEM PUT IN. AND EVERY NOW AND THEN A TEACHER NEEDS MAYBE EVEN DESERVES REMINDING.
AND THAT WAS THE TESTIMONY IN OUR TRIAL.
MR. RAMBO TESTIFIED THAT, YEAH, IT DID HAPPEN ON ONE OCCASION.
FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE REMINDER DIDN'T GO OUT.
SO WHEN THEY FOUND IT AT A LATER DATE, THEY BROUGHT IT TO HIS ATTENTION.
HE IMMEDIATELY FIXED THE PROBLEM, SO I THINK THAT THERE IS A SERIES OF SMALL THINGS THAT THEY BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION TO MAKE THEM LOOK LIKE BIG THINGS, BUT I THINK THAT THE REAL MEAT OF THIS IS THE CAMPUS ADMINISTRATION'S ALLEGATION THAT HE'S NOT SOMEONE THAT THEY COULD WORK WITH. AND THAT'S A REAL ISSUE.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S A REAL ISSUE.
AND MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, COULDN'T WE FIND A DIFFERENT PLACE WITH A DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATOR WHERE HE COULD BE ABLE TO BE SUCCESSFUL LIKE HE WAS BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR CAME? ISN'T THERE ANOTHER SPOT WE COULD PUT HIM? ISN'T THERE ANOTHER CONTRACT STATUS THAT WE COULD PUT HIM ON TO BE ABLE TO SAY, LOOK, YOU KNOW WHAT, YOU DO SOMETHING SPECIAL.
YOU HAVE AN EFFECT ON PARENTS.
YOU HAVE AN EFFECT ON COLLEAGUES THAT WOULD COME IN AND TESTIFY IN A HEARING LIKE THIS.
AND YOU HAVE AN EFFECT ON CHILDREN.
YOU ARE A HAPPY PERSON AND PEOPLE LIKE TO SEE YOU SUCCEED.
SO MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, I WOULD ASK YOU TO CONSIDER SOLUTIONS LIKE THAT IN THIS CASE.
MR. BRADSHAW, DO YOU WISH TO MAKE A REBUTTAL STATEMENT? OKAY, SIR, I THINK YOU HAD.
I DON'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS TWO MINUTES, 18 SECONDS, OR APPROXIMATELY THAT.
SIR. MR. FALLON MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS SOME TESTIMONY IN THE HEARING ON THIS OR THAT, SOME OF IT IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLIENT, CHARACTER WITNESSES, IF YOU WILL.
SOME OF MR. RAMBO'S TESTIMONY HIMSELF, MADE ITS WAY INTO THE HEARING OFFICER'S FINDINGS.
FINDING NUMBER 30, SAYS MR. RAMBO ALSO TESTIFIED THAT HIS PERFORMANCE UNDER THE PPA WAS NOT WHAT THE PAPER SAID BECAUSE, QUOTE, I DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT THE PAPERS SAY.
THAT'S A PRETTY GOOD, INDICATION OF MR. RAMBO'S ATTITUDE TOWARD HIS ADMINISTRATION.
AND HERE'S A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HIM NOT WORKING WITH HIS APPRAISER.
AND SHE WAS MISS DUNCAN, THE KINDEST PERSON.
FINDING NUMBER 40 ON DECEMBER 2ND, 2022.
[00:20:02]
AND LET ME GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF QUICK BACKGROUND.PART OF THE PPA SAID THEY WERE GOING TO MEET EVERY OTHER WEEK AND DO AN AT BAT SESSION, WHICH IS WHERE MR. RAMBO COMES IN, DOES SAY A TEN MINUTE EXAMPLE OF TEACHING A SPECIFIC THING IN THE CLASS.
RIGHT. SO THAT'S SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN EVERY TWO WEEKS.
WELL, MR. RAMBO HAD A BAD HABIT OF NOT COMING TO THOSE FOR A LONG TIME.
AND AT THIS PARTICULAR ONE, IN DECEMBER 2ND, 2022, IT SAYS MR. RAMBO APPEARED AND SAID HE WAS UNPREPARED AND WOULD RATHER DO A PLANNING SESSION.
HOWEVER, WHEN MISS DUNCAN ULTIMATELY AGREED TO USE THE TIME FOR A PLANNING SESSION, MR. RAMBO THEN INDICATED I'M TOO BUSY.
SO SHE WAS WILLING TO ACCEPT HIS UNPREPAREDNESS.
HE SAID HE WAS READY TO DO PLANNING.
SHE SAID, OKAY, LET'S DO PLANNING.
AND SUDDENLY HE WAS TOO BUSY AND LEFT.
THAT'S NOT THE KIND OF TEACHER.
AND I CAN ASSURE YOU, A TEACHER THAT PUTS IN ONE GRADE IN A PROGRESS REPORTING PERIOD FOR FIVE DIFFERENT SUBJECTS, FOUR DIFFERENT SUBJECTS, IS ALSO NOT SOMEONE, A PRINCIPAL OR YOU OR THE ADMINISTRATION NEEDS IN THEIR SCHOOL.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES? NO. OKAY.
WE MUST EITHER ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER, OR REJECT OR CHANGE THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND PROPOSE A GRANT OF RELIEF.
IF WE FIND THAT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT A FINDING OF FACT, THE FINDING MAY BE REJECTED OR CHANGED BASED ON THE RECORD AND EXHIBITS PRESENTED BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER. FURTHERMORE, SHOULD WE DETERMINE THAT THE HEARING EXAMINER DID NOT CORRECTLY INTERPRET THE APPLICABLE HISD BOARD POLICIES OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND OR STATE AND OR FEDERAL LAW, WE MAY REJECT OR CHANGE THE HEARING EXAMINER'S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
A CONCLUSION OF LAW MAY ALSO BE CHANGED OR REJECTED IF A FINDING OF FACT THAT SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION OF LAW HAS BEEN FOUND BY US TO NOT TO BE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE . WE MUST STATE IN WRITING THE SPECIFIC REASON AND LEGAL BASIS FOR ANY CHANGE OR REJECTION.
ANY ACTION WE TAKE MUST BE SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD PRESENTED TO THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION AFTER THAT? THE BOARD WILL NOW RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION UNDER CHAPTER 551 OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, SUBSECTIONS 551.004 THROUGH 551.089 SHOULD BOARD FINAL ACTION, VOTE OR DECISION ON ANY MATTER CONSIDERED IN THE CLOSED SESSION BE REQUIRED SUCH FINAL ACTION, VOTE OR DECISION SHALL BE TAKEN AT THE OPEN MEETING COVERED BY THIS NOTICE UPON THE RECONVENING OF THIS PUBLIC MEETING, OR AT A SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC MEETING OF THE BOARD UPON NOTICE THEREOF, THE BOARD HAS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 2:29 P.M.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? YES. I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT A DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER.
ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RECOMMENDED BY THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER, AND THAT WE TERMINATE MR. RAMBO'S EMPLOYMENT WITH THE DISTRICT, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
I HAVE A MOTION BY MR. MARTINEZ AND A SECOND BY MISS LINDNER.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, PLEASE VOTE.
SIX IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSED THAT WE ADOPT THE DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER, ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RECOMMENDED BY THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER, AND THAT WE TERMINATE MR. RAMBO'S EMPLOYMENT WITH THE DISTRICT, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
THIS HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT 2:42 P.M..
[00:25:04]
THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF JANET WASSERMAN.MISS WASSERMAN IS A TEACHER AT WEST BRIAR MIDDLE SCHOOL.
COUNCIL THANK YOU. MR. FALLON, DO YOU ANTICIPATE MISS WASSERMANS PRESENCE TODAY? MS. WASSERMAN SHE'S GOT A MEDICAL ISSUE. OKAY.
THANK YOU SIR. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF JANET WASSERMAN, TEACHER AT WEST BRIAR MIDDLE SCHOOL. HEARINGS INVOLVING COMPLAINTS AGAINST DISTRICT EMPLOYEES ARE BEING HELD IN CLOSED SESSION UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF THE HEARING REQUESTS AN OPEN HEARING. IF BOTH PARTIES REQUEST AN OPEN SESSION DURING THIS HEARING, THE BOARD MAY GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSULT WITH ITS ATTORNEY AND TO THE TERMS OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.071.
IF ANY BOARD MEMBER WISHES TO SEEK THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL, PLEASE MAKE THIS REQUEST KNOWN TO ME.
FOR THE RECORD JAMES FALLON WITH JAMES T.
FALLON THE THIRD LLC REPRESENTING JANET WASSERMAN IS PRESENT.
C, COREY RESH IS ALSO HERE OR NO? NO. OKAY, SO JUST MORGAN BEAM WITH SPALDING NICHOLS, LAMP LANGLOIS REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION ARE PRESENT AND CATOSHA WOODS HISD GENERAL COUNSEL IS ALSO PRESENT.
MISS BEAM, WHO DO YOU HAVE THERE WITH YOU? THIS IS DR. LEA MISHLAN.
SHE'S THE PRINCIPAL AT WEST BRIAR MIDDLE SCHOOL.
MR. FALLON, DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE AN OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION? THE ISSUES BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD ARE WHETHER TO ACCEPT, REJECT OR CHANGE THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND PROPOSED EXCUSE ME AND PROPOSAL BASED ON THE REVIEW OF THE RECORD, WE MAY REJECT OR CHANGE A FINDING OF FACT IF AFTER REVIEWING THE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER, WE FIND IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
MR. RUSH. MISS BEAM, YOU WILL PROCEED FIRST.
MISS BEAM, YOU'LL PROCEED FIRST.
YOU'LL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD, FOLLOWED BY A TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION BY MR. FALLON AND MISS BEAM YOU MAY RESERVE PART OF YOUR TEN MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL TO MATTERS PRESENTED BY MR. FALLON. BOTH SIDES SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD AFTER THEIR RESPECTIVE PRESENTATIONS.
AFTER DELIBERATION, THE BOARD WILL RENDER ITS DECISION.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WAY THAT THE HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED? NO. THANK YOU AND MISS BEAM, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO DIVIDE YOUR TIME? TO RESERVE TWO MINUTES, PLEASE. OKAY.
I KNOW YOU HAVE A WORKING KNOWLEDGE OF THIS PROCESS.
IN FACT, YOU JUST COMPLETED ONE.
MISS WASSERMAN HELD THIS CONTRACT FOR THE 2022-2023 SCHOOL YEAR.
SHE IT WAS A TERM CONTRACT, WHICH MEANT IT WAS FOR A SET TERM AS OPPOSED TO A PROBATIONARY CONTRACT THAT COULD BE ENDED AT THE END OF ITS TERM IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE DISTRICT. SO WHEN AN EMPLOYEE HAS THAT TERM CONTRACT BOARD, THAT MEANS THAT THE CONTRACT MAY ONLY BE TERMINATED IF THE ADMINISTRATION PROVES THE EXISTENCE OF ONE OR MORE REASONS THAT THE BOARD HAS DEFINED IN ITS POLICY FOR THE NON-RENEWAL OF THAT CONTRACT.
ONLY ONE OF THEM IS REQUIRED FOR YOU TO TAKE THAT ACTION.
AND IN THIS CASE, THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER FOUND THAT THE BOARD HAD PRESENTED EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO PROVE EIGHT DIFFERENT REASONS FOR NON-RENEWAL WITH RESPECT TO MISS WASSERMAN'S PERFORMANCE UNDER HER CONTRACT.
[00:30:05]
AS TO THE BASIS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF EACH OF THESE REASONS, I WILL RUN THROUGH.SO IN THIS CASE, THE DISTRICT, THE ADMINISTRATION CALLED THREE WITNESSES, DR.
MISHLAN, AS WELL AS TWO OF HER DEANS ON HER CAMPUS WHO INTERACTED FREQUENTLY WITH MISS WASSERMAN.
MISS WASSERMAN CALLED HERSELF TO TESTIFY, AND THE DISTRICT CROSS-EXAMINED HER DURING THE HEARING.
DURING DEAN MCCURDY DURING HIS TESTIMONY, DEAN MCCURDY TESTIFIED THAT MISS WASSERMAN HAD SIGNIFICANT ISSUES WITH CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT, SO DEAN MCCURDY WAS NOT HER EVALUATOR.
HE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING THE ADEQUACY OF HER INSTRUCTIONAL PERFORMANCE.
HOWEVER, HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSISTING HER WITH HER DISCIPLINARY ISSUES BECAUSE HE DID HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR APPROXIMATELY HALF OF THE SEVENTH GRADE STUDENTS THAT MISS WASSERMAN WAS TEACHING THERE AT WEST BRIAR MIDDLE SCHOOL.
DEAN MCCURDY NOTED DURING HIS TESTIMONY THAT AS COMPARED TO HER PEERS, MISS WASSERMAN CALLED HIM AND AND SENT HIM TEXT MESSAGES FOR HELP IN HER CLASSROOM SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN OTHER TEACHERS, AND DEAN MCCURDY TESTIFIED THAT THAT DID PULL HIM AWAY FROM HIS OTHER DUTIES AS AN ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL, WHICH TYPICALLY DID NOT INVOLVE INTERVENING IN BEHAVIORAL ISSUES OCCURRING IN THE CLASSROOMS. DEAN MCCURDY TESTIFIED THAT LEVEL ONE, AS THEY CALL THEM ON THE CAMPUS TYPE BEHAVIORS ARE TRADITIONALLY SOMETHING THAT A TEACHER WOULD HANDLE THEMSELVES.
AND SO DEAN MCCURDY TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS UNCOMMON OR OUT OF THE ORDINARY, FOR A TEACHER TO REQUIRE AS MUCH ASSISTANCE AS MISS WASSERMAN SEEMED TO REQUIRE DURING THE TIME THAT HE WORKED WITH HER ON THAT CAMPUS.
ASIDE FROM THAT, DEAN MCCURDY WAS NOT HER EVALUATOR AND COULD NOT SPEAK TO HER PERFORMANCE IN THE CLASSROOM, BUT DEAN JOHNSON COULD, AND DEAN JOHNSON TESTIFIED THAT HE DID A NUMBER OF WALKTHROUGHS, NO FEWER THAN TEN, I BELIEVE, WHEREIN HE OBSERVED PERFORMANCE DEFICIENCIES EACH TIME HE WAS IN MISS WASSERMAN'S CLASSROOM, AND EACH TIME HE PROVIDED HER WITH DETAILED FEEDBACK ON THE APPROPRIATE EVALUATION FORMS THAT THIS DISTRICT UTILIZES.
AND SHE FAILED TO SHOW IMPROVEMENT.
IN FACT, AT TOWARD THE END OF THE SCHOOL YEAR, MISS WASSERMAN WAS REASSIGNED TO A DIFFERENT POSITION THAT DID NOT REQUIRE AS MUCH HANDS ON INSTRUCTIONAL INTERACTION WITH STUDENTS. AND THEY NOTICED AN IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENT IN THOSE STUDENTS, IN THE STUDENTS PERFORMANCE.
AND SO THEY MADE THAT DECISION IN ORDER TO HELP THOSE STUDENTS PREPARE FOR EIGHTH GRADE MATH.
AND THAT WORKED TO THEIR BENEFIT.
MISHLAN TESTIFIED AS EXCESSIVE ABSENCES.
SO BY THE SEVENTH MONTH OF THE SCHOOL YEAR, MISS WASSERMAN HAD ACCUMULATED OVER 200 HOURS OF ABSENCES, SO APPROXIMATELY 25 DAYS ABSENT, WHICH DOCTOR MISHLAN TESTIFIED DURING THE HEARING HAD A DIRECT NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THOSE STUDENTS AND THEIR PERFORMANCE.
WITH RESPECT TO ALL OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER AND ALL OF THE TESTIMONY THAT THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER DID, THE HEARING EXAMINER AGAIN, GAVE YOU A VERY DETAILED BREAKDOWN OF THE REASONS THAT SUPPORT THE PROPOSED NON-RENEWAL.
I WOULDN'T NORMALLY DO THIS FOR YOU, BUT I THINK THAT OUR HEARING EXAMINER DID SUCH A GOOD JOB OF OUTLINING THEM THAT I WOULD LIKE TO READ YOU SOME EXCERPTS WITH RESPECT TO THE EIGHT REASONS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS PROPOSED FOR MISS WASSERMANS NON-RENEWAL.
AGAIN, THESE WILL BEGIN ON PAGE TEN OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION.
IF YOU HAVE THAT PULLED UP IN FRONT OF YOU.
NUMBER FOUR, AS FAR AS THE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, THE DISTRICT ESTABLISHED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT WASSERMAN EXHIBITED PERFORMANCE DEFICIENCIES THAT WERE POINTED OUT TO HER IN OBSERVATION REPORTS, APPRAISALS OR EVALUATIONS, SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDA AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS.
OUR HEARING EXAMINER FOUND THAT THAT ALONE WAS AN INDEPENDENT BASIS TO NON RENEW THIS CONTRACT.
OUR HEARING EXAMINER FOUND THAT THE DISTRICT, ESTABLISHED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT WASSERMAN FAILED TO FULFILL HER DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES WITH RESPECT TO STUDENT INSTRUCTION AND CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT, WHICH ALSO IS AN INDEPENDENT BASIS TO NON-RENEW MISS WASSERMAN'S CONTRACT.
OUR HEARING EXAMINER FOUND THAT THE DISTRICT, ESTABLISHED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WASSERMAN WAS INCOMPETENT AND INEFFICIENT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HER DUTIES AS A CLASSROOM TEACHER IN THAT SHE COULD NOT DELIVER COMPETENT AND MEANINGFUL INSTRUCTION TO HER STUDENTS AND COULD NOT MAINTAIN EFFECTIVE DISCIPLINE IN HER CLASSROOM, WHICH WAS AN INDEPENDENT BASIS FOR THE NON-RENEWAL OF HER CONTRACT.
OUR HEARING EXAMINER FOUND THAT THE DISTRICT, ESTABLISHED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WASSERMAN WAS UNABLE TO MAINTAIN DISCIPLINE IN HER CLASSROOM, WHICH WAS AN INDEPENDENT BASIS FOR THE NON-RENEWAL OF HER CONTRACT.
[00:35:01]
OUR HEARING EXAMINER FOUND THAT THE DISTRICT, ESTABLISHED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WASSERMAN FAILED TO COMPLY WITH OFFICIAL DIRECTIVES TO CONSISTENTLY IMPLEMENT THE SELECTED MATH CURRICULUM AND BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT ROUTINES, WHICH WAS AN INDEPENDENT BASIS FOR THE NON-RENEWAL OF HER CONTRACT.WASSERMAN ALSO FAILED TO COMPLY WITH BOARD POLICIES OR ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO HER ATTENDANCE AND COMPLIANCE WITH DIRECTIVES, WHICH WAS AN INDEPENDENT BASIS FOR THE NON-RENEWAL OF HER CONTRACT, SHE WAS EXCESSIVELY ABSENT, ANOTHER INDEPENDENT BASIS FOR THE NON-RENEWAL OF HER CONTRACT, AND THE HEARING EXAMINER DETERMINED THAT GOOD CAUSE WOULD EXIST FOR TERMINATION OF HER CONTRACT BASED ON THE CULMINATION OF ALL THESE REASONS, WHICH IS AN INDEPENDENT BASIS FOR THE NON-RENEWAL OF HER CONTRACT BOARD.
IN LIGHT OF ALL OF THIS, WE ASK THAT YOU ADOPT THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION, ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RECOMMENDED BY THE HEARING EXAMINER AND NON-RENEW MISS WASSERMAN'S EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH THE DISTRICT AT THE END OF ITS TERM.
MA'AM. MR. FALLON, YOU HAVE, TEN MINUTES TO MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD BASED ON THE TRANSCRIPT.
BOARD PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
SO AS MISS BEAM MENTIONED, THIS CASE, IN THE CASE THAT JUST WAS BEFORE YOU, MR. RAMBO THEY'RE BOTH TERM CONTRACT NON RENEWAL CASES.
SO THEY'VE GOT KIND OF TWO PATHS FOR CONTRACT TEACHERS BEING TERMINATED OR ENDING THE RELATIONSHIP.
THERE'S A NON RENEWAL WHICH HAPPENS WHEN YOU LET THE CONTRACT GO TO THE END.
BUT THEY'VE GOT THEY DON'T HAVE MUCH TO DO, RIGHT? ALL THEY NEED TO DO IS SHOW JUST ONE RULE VIOLATION ON ONE OCCASION, VERSUS WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU BREAK A CONTRACT.
AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, YOU'VE GOT TO SHOW GOOD CAUSE.
SO THIS IS A NON RENEWAL TERM CONTRACT NON RENEWAL.
GET TO THE END OF THE YEAR SHOW THEY VIOLATED A RULE.
AND THEN THEY GET THE RIGHT TO WIN IS WHAT THAT MEANS.
WITH MISS WASSERMAN LET ME START OUT BY SAYING I APOLOGIZE ON HER BEHALF FOR HER NOT BEING HERE.
WHAT HAPPENED LAST YEAR RELATES TO THE REASON WHY SHE'S NOT HERE TODAY.
MISS WASSERMAN WAS DIAGNOSED WITH DIABETES LAST YEAR.
SHE COMPLIMENTED HER ADMINISTRATIVE TEAM.
SHE THANKED THEM FOR THEIR SUPPORT DURING THE YEAR.
BUT THERE WAS ALSO TIMES WHENEVER SHE JUST COULDN'T, SHE MISSED A LOT OF DAYS.
THE WAY SHE FOUND OUT ABOUT IT AND THIS IS IN THE RECORD, IS SHE WAS ON HER WAY TO SCHOOL ONE MORNING, AND SHE PASSED OUT AND HIT HER HEAD IN HER GARAGE, AND SO A NEIGHBOR OR SOMEBODY GOT HER AN AMBULANCE AND GOT HER TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM, AND THAT'S HOW SHE ENDED UP FINDING OUT, I THINK SOME TIME IN OCTOBER.
I MAY BE WRONG ABOUT THE DATE.
THAT'S HOW SHE FOUND OUT SHE WAS DIABETIC.
SO SHE WAS STRUGGLING WITH A NEW DIAGNOSIS OF DIABETES LAST YEAR.
IT'S NOT SOME, LACK OF PROFESSIONALISM OR LACK OF CARING ABOUT STUDENTS.
SHE EVEN APOLOGIZED FOR THE STUDENTS AND WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CLASSROOM.
FOR WHATEVER REASON SHE DIDN'T, ASK FOR FML.
SHE, I BELIEVE, HAD BEEN WITH THE DISTRICT LONG ENOUGH.
I'M NOT SURE WHY THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
AND MISS WASSERMAN IS 64 YEARS OLD, SHE'LL LIKELY NEVER TEACH AGAIN.
BUT I WILL SAY TO YOU, WHAT SHE SAID IN THE HEARING WAS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN, HER PROBABLY GREATEST DESIRE, GIVEN HER MEDICAL CONDITION, TO BE ABLE TO COME BACK TO HISD TO TEACH.
BECAUSE SHE TESTIFIED THAT SHE VERY MUCH LIKES WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
AND SO, THE WHOLE TERMINATION PROCESS AND HER IDENTITY AS A TEACHER, A LIFELONG TEACHER, IS REALLY SOMETHING THAT WAS AT STAKE IN THIS HEARING.
AND I THINK EVEN SHE WOULD ADMIT IT.
BUT, IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT FOR HER TO COMMUNICATE THESE THINGS TO YOU.
MISS BEAM, DO YOU HAVE A REBUTTAL? VERY BRIEF. SURE.
[00:40:10]
THIS PROCESS IS REQUIRED AND ACTION FROM YOU IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO END THIS CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP.AND SO AS AS WE SIT HERE TODAY BOARD, WE DO NOT HAVE AN ACCEPTED OR APPROVED RESIGNATION ON FILE.
WERE YOU TO DECLINE TO TAKE ACTION TO NOT RENEW THE CONTRACT AS MR. FALLON MENTIONED, I'LL SHARE WITH YOU THE ONLY QUESTION THAT THE ADMINISTRATION ASKED MISS WASSERMAN ON, CROSS EXAMINATION DURING HER HEARING WAS WHETHER OR NOT SHE WOULD BE PHYSICALLY ABLE TO TEACH AT THE MOMENT, AND SHE SAID, NO, AT THIS MOMENT, RIGHT NOW, NO.
MISHLAN BECAUSE I HAVE THE UTMOST RESPECT FOR HER.
I WILL NOT DO THAT TO ANOTHER PRINCIPAL.
I WANT TO BE AS CLOSE TO 100%.
SO BOARD FOR BOTH MISS WASSERMAN SAKE AND FOR YOUR SAKE WE ASK THAT YOU DO TAKE THE REQUIRED ACTION TO NON-RENEW THIS CONTRACT, AS EVEN IF YOU DID NOT, MISS WASSERMAN HAS TESTIFIED UNDER OATH THAT SHE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO RETURN TO WORK HERE.
THANK YOU BOARD. THANK YOU MA'AM.
THE PARTIES HAVE COMPLETED THEIR PRESENTATIONS.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES? NO. OKAY. THE PARTIES HAVE COMPLETED THEIR PRESENTATIONS AND IT IS NOW TIME FOR BOARD MEMBERS TO MAKE OUR DECISION ON THE ISSUES BEFORE US.
WE MUST EITHER ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER, OR REJECT OR CHANGE THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND PROPOSE A GRANT OF RELIEF.
IF WE FIND THAT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT A FINDING OF FACT, THE FINDING MAY BE REJECTED OR CHANGED BASED ON THE RECORD AND EXHIBITS PRESENTED BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER. FURTHERMORE, SHOULD WE DETERMINE THAT THE HEARING EXAMINER DID NOT CORRECTLY INTERPRET THE APPLICABLE HISD BOARD POLICIES OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND OR STATE AND OR FEDERAL LAW, WE MAY REJECT OR CHANGE THE HEARING EXAMINER'S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
A CONCLUSION OF LAW MAY ALSO BE CHANGED OR REJECTED IF A FINDING OF FACT THAT SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION OF LAW HAS BEEN FOUND BY US, NOT TO BE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, WE MUST STATE IN WRITING THE SPECIFIC REASON AND LEGAL BASIS FOR ANY CHANGE OR REJECTION.
ANY ACTION WE TAKE MUST BE SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, PRESENTED TO THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD? WE CAN RECESS OR WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.
I DON'T HAVE ANY NEED TO RECESS UNLESS ANYBODY ON THE BOARD DOES.
NO. IS THERE A MOTION? WE HAVE A MOTION BY MICHELLE CRUZ ARNOLD.
CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR MOTION VERBALLY? I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER.
ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RECOMMENDED BY THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER.
AND THAT WE NON-RENEW MISS WASSERMAN'S EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH THE DISTRICT AT THE END OF ITS TERM.
IS THERE A SECOND? MR. CAMPO? THANK YOU.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER CRUZ ARNOLD AND A SECOND BY BOARD MEMBER CAMPO.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, PLEASE VOTE.
THE MOTION PASSES SIX IN FAVOR AND ZERO AGAINST.
THE MOTION TO ADOPT THE DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER, ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RECOMMENDED BY THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER, AND THAT WE NON-RENEW MISS WASSERMANS EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH THE DISTRICT AT THE END OF ITS TERM.
THIS HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT 3:02 P.M..
[00:45:44]
COUNCIL ARE YOU READY? READY? OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA FOR TODAY IS THE PROCEDURE TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF LARRY MCKINZIE, DOCKET NUMBER 079-LH-2023 TEACHER AT SECONDARY DISCIPLINARY ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM CAMPUS.UNDER THE TERMS OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.071.
IF ANY BOARD MEMBER WISHES TO SEEK THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL, PLEASE MAKE THIS REQUEST KNOWN TO ME.
FOR THE RECORD MR. JAMES FALLON WITH JAMES T.
FALLON THE THIRD LLC REPRESENTING LARRY MCKINZIE, IS PRESENT.
PAUL LAMP AND BRYCE CORSAUT, IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. THANK YOU. WITH SPALDING NICHOLS, LAMP LANGLOIS REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION ARE PRESENT.
CATOSHA WOODS HISD GENERAL COUNSEL, IS ALSO PRESENT.
MR. FALLON, DO YOU AND YOUR CLIENT WISH TO CONTINUE AN OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION? WE'D LIKE TO KEEP IT OPEN. OPEN SESSION.
THANK YOU SIR. THE ISSUES BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD ARE WHETHER TO ACCEPT, REJECT OR CHANGE THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND PROPOSAL BASED ON A REVIEW OF THE RECORD.
WE MAY REJECT OR CHANGE A FINDING OF FACT IF, AFTER REVIEWING THE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER, WE FIND IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. IF WE REJECT THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION OR MAKE ANY CHANGES, WE MUST STATE THE REASON AND LEGAL BASIS IN WRITING.
MR. LAMP. MR. CORSAUT, YOU WILL BE THE FIRST TO PROCEED.
YOU'LL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD, FOLLOWED BY A TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION BY MR. FALLON. IF YOU WOULD LIKE, YOU MAY RESERVE PART OF YOUR TEN MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL TO MATTERS PRESENTED BY MR. FALLON. BOTH PARTIES SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD AFTER THEIR RESPECTIVE PRESENTATIONS.
AFTER DELIBERATION, THE BOARD WILL RENDER ITS DECISION.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE WAY THIS HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED? NOT FROM THE ADMINISTRATION.
NOT MR. LAMP, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO DIVIDE YOUR TIME IN MAKING YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD BASED ON THE TRANSCRIPT, I'D LIKE TO RESERVE THREE MINUTES, PLEASE.
WHEN YOU'RE READY, YOU MAY BEGIN.
THANK YOU. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
HISD EMPLOYS MR. LARRY MCKINZIE AS A TEACHER UNDER A ONE YEAR TEACHING CONTRACT FOR THE CURRENT SCHOOL YEAR.
WE'RE HERE TODAY BECAUSE AN INDEPENDENT HEARING OFFICER APPOINTED BY THE TEA ISSUED A RECOMMENDATION TO THIS SCHOOL BOARD FINDING THAT YOU HAVE GOOD CAUSE TO TERMINATE MR. MCKINZIE'S ONE YEAR CONTRACT MID TERM MEANING AT THIS TIME.
BUT THIS TERMINATION REQUIRES GOOD CAUSE.
AND THIS INDEPENDENT HEARING OFFICER, WHO HEARD TWO DAYS OF TESTIMONY, HAS ISSUED A WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO YOU, FINDING UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT YOU DO HAVE GOOD CAUSE TO TERMINATE HIS CONTRACT FOR VIOLATING BOARD POLICY AND THE EDUCATOR CODE OF ETHICS APPLICABLE TO TEACHERS LIKE MR. MCKINZIE. AND THIS IS IN CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN COMMENTS HE MADE TO THIS BOARD OF MANAGERS IN JUNE OF 2023.
THE ADMINISTRATION ASKS THAT YOU VOTE TO ADOPT THE HEARING OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION, ALL OF HIS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND THAT YOU VOTE TO TERMINATE MR. MCKINZIE'S EMPLOYMENT, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
[00:50:08]
. AND DURING THE CITIZENS PORTION, THE CITIZENS COMMENT OF THAT MEETING.AND FIRST HE READ THE DEFINITION, THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF ACCOUNTABILITY.
THE ADMINISTRATION HAS NO ISSUE WITH HIM READING THAT DEFINITION FROM THE DICTIONARY.
THEN, THOUGH, HE MADE COMMENTS TO YOU, TO THIS BOARD THAT HAVE NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH YOUR ACCOUNTABILITY AS BOARD MEMBERS, HE SAID THAT YOU WERE SAFE IN THIS BUILDING, BUT YOU WERE GOING TO HAVE TO LEAVE THIS BUILDING. HE IDENTIFIED THE NAME OF A BOARD MEMBER'S SPOUSE.
HE MADE REFERENCE TO A BOARD MEMBER'S PERSONAL NET WORTH.
HE NAMED THE PLACE WHERE BOARD MEMBER'S CHILDREN PREVIOUSLY ATTENDED PRIVATE KARATE LESSONS.
AS THE HEARING EXAMINER FOUND ON PAGE EIGHT OF HIS RECOMMENDATION, PARAGRAPH 20, QUOTE MCKINZIE'S COMMENTARY REGARDING THE BOARD'S SAFETY AND PERSONAL DETAILS WAS INTENDED TO CAUSE BOARD MEMBERS TO FEAR FOR THEIR PERSONAL PHYSICAL SAFETY. NO ONE GETS TO DO THAT.
ON AUGUST 24TH OF 2023, WHILE MR. MCKINZIE WAS ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE AND BEFORE THE TERMINATION HEARING HAPPENED BEFORE THE TEA OFFICER, HE GAVE AN INTERVIEW WITH A LOCAL, REPORTER ABOUT HIS VERY PERSONAL MATTER, THE ONE THAT WAS PENDING.
AND HE SAID TO THAT PERSON, NUMBER ONE, HE ADMITTED THAT HE COULD HAVE USED A QUOTE, BETTER WORD THAN REFERENCING SAFE. HE SAID HE DUG UP ALL THIS PERSONAL INFORMATION ON YOU BECAUSE HE COULDN'T GET YOUR EMAIL ADDRESSES.
SO HE DECIDED TO GOOGLE ALL OF YOU AND GET ALL THIS PERSONAL DATA AND PERSONAL INFORMATION.
HE MAINTAINED THAT HE DID NOT, IN FACT, THREATEN YOU DURING THAT BOARD MEETING, AND THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO THREATEN YOU BECAUSE, QUOTE, THEY HAVE FAMILY. IMAGINE THE IRONY OF THAT COMMENT.
OF COURSE YOU HAVE FAMILY AND FAMILIES AND SPOUSES AND CHILDREN.
THAT'S WHY YOU DON'T MAKE COMMENTS LIKE HE DID TO THIS BOARD.
THAT'S WHY YOU DON'T THREATEN THE PHYSICAL SAFETY OF ELECTED OFFICIALS FOR THAT VERY REASON.
ALSO, DURING THAT INTERVIEW AND DURING THE HEARING, HE CLAIMED THAT HIS USE OF THE WORD SAFE WHEN HE SAID, YOU'RE SAFE UP HERE. HE SAID, LOOK, WHEN I USE THE WORD SAFE, THAT INCLUDES NOT JUST PHYSICAL SAFETY, HE SAID, BUT MENTAL SAFETY AND SPIRITUAL SAFETY, AND THAT HE WASN'T REFERRING TO YOUR PHYSICAL SAFETY WHEN HE MADE THOSE COMMENTS, WHICH LEAVES IT TO MENTAL SAFETY OR SPIRITUAL SAFETY.
THAT EXPLANATION IS SIMPLY PREPOSTEROUS.
AND WHEN YOU GO TO THE NEXT PAGE, PAGE EIGHT.
THE CODE OF ETHICS STANDARD 1.9 SAYS THE EDUCATOR SHALL NOT MAKE THREATS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYEES, SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS, STUDENTS OR PARENTS OF STUDENTS.
IT SAYS THE EDUCATOR, THIS IS 2.6.
THIS BOARD DECIDES INDEPENDENTLY WHETHER HIS THREATENING COMMENTS TO YOU CONSTITUTES GOOD CAUSE.
NOW, THE HEARING OFFICER, AS I SAID EARLIER, HE SAT THROUGH TWO DAYS OF HEARINGS, LISTENED TO MULTIPLE WITNESSES, RECEIVED VARIOUS EXHIBITS, AND ISSUED A RECOMMENDATION IN EVERY SINGLE FINDING IN THIS MULTI PAGE DOCUMENT IS IN FAVOR OF THE ADMINISTRATION AND TERMINATING MR.
[00:55:08]
MCKINZIE'S EMPLOYMENT.IN SOME PEOPLE DON'T GET TO THREATEN THE PHYSICAL SAFETY OF ELECTED OFFICIALS, EVER.
AND MR. MCKINZIE'S DECISION TO DO SO WAS NOT ONLY INAPPROPRIATE, IT WAS RECKLESS.
WE ASK THAT YOU ADOPT THE HEARING OFFICER'S REPORT AND.
THANK YOU, SIR, MR. FALLON. YOU MAY BEGIN.
GREETINGS. GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN.
FIRST TO SAY THIS IS JUNE 2ND WAS THE END OF MY CONTRACT.
AND I HADN'T BEGAN MY NEW CONTRACT YET.
SO TECHNICALLY I WASN'T AN EDUCATOR.
I WAS JUST A FATHER, PTA MEMBER AND ALL OF THAT.
AND NOW THANKFULLY, YOU GUYS HAVE EMAIL ADDRESSES.
INITIALLY YOU COULD NOT BE CONTACTED.
NOW YOU SEE EXACTLY WHY I ASK YOU TO BE GOOD STEWARDS OF THE DISTRICT.
BECAUSE NOW WE HAVE A SUPERINTENDENT THAT DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE KIDS.
WHAT IF THERE HAD BEEN A BUS THAT HAD AN ACCIDENT ON ONE OF THOSE, HIGH FLOWS AND CHILDREN HAD DIED.
SO I HAD TO DO SOMETHING TO SHOW.
I GET A CHANCE FOR MY MINUTE AND 15 SECONDS BECAUSE I WAS CUT OFF LAST TIME, BUT THE ONLY THING THAT KEEPS ME FROM DOING ANYTHING ELSE IS THAT HOPEFULLY YOU'LL DO THE RIGHT THING.
AS I MENTIONED, THERE'S TWO KINDS OF TERMINATIONS.
THERE'S A NON-RENEWAL AND A GOOD CAUSE CASE, THIS IS A GOOD CAUSE CASE.
GOOD CAUSE AS DETERMINED BY THE BOARD.
YOU, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IN THIS MOMENT, IN THE NEXT EIGHT MINUTES AND 20 SECONDS, I HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAY LEGALLY TO YOU, YOU HAVE THE FULL RIGHT TO INTERPRET YOUR OWN POLICIES AND DETERMINE WHAT YOU THINK GOOD CAUSE IS.
AND THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING YOU TO DO.
I UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN THIS HAPPENED, THIS BOARD WAS BRAND NEW.
YOU HAD JUST BEGUN TO MEET THE COMMUNITIES IN HOUSTON, AND THAT MR. MCKINZIE CAME AND SPOKE TO YOU IN THOSE MOMENTS AFTER HIS SCHOOL YEAR HAD ENDED, NOT ON WORK TIME AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN, AND THAT BECAUSE OF THOSE WORDS, HIS CAREER IS BEING ENDED, AT LEAST HIS CAREER HERE IN HISD.
AND IT'S PROBABLY PRETTY EASY TO ASK ME, WHY DO YOU THINK, WHY SHOULD WE DO THAT, MR. FALLON? WELL, I WILL TELL YOU WHY.
MR. MCKINZIE IS AN OUTSTANDING FATHER AND EDUCATOR.
HE'S WORKED WITH HISD SINCE 1995.
FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS HE'S BEEN WITH THE SECONDARY DAEP.
THAT'S THE DISCIPLINARY ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION PLACE.
THAT'S WHERE THE KIDS THAT ARE HAVING THE MOST DIFFICULT TIME GO.
AND HE IS AN OUTSTANDING EDUCATOR IN THOSE AREAS.
IN FACT, IN THE 22-23 SCHOOL YEAR, HE WAS THE HSC CAMPUS TEACHER OF THE YEAR AND I'M SORRY, HSC CAMPUS TEACHER OF THE YEAR IN 21, 22, AND 22, 23 HE WAS HISD TEACHER AND COUNSELOR OF THE YEAR AND IN 22-23 HE WAS VOTED THE HOUSTON AREA ALLIANCE OF BLACK EDUCATORS OUTSTANDING TEACHER RECEIVED THAT AWARD.
BUT MAYBE YOU CAN SAY THOSE AWARDS DON'T MEAN MUCH.
OKAY, BUT IF YOU READ HIS EVALUATIONS, THIS IS WHO WE'RE FIRING.
I'M GOING TO READ THROUGH THESE. JUST THE BEST ONES.
YOUR STUDENTS TRULY ENJOY YOUR CLASS, AND ENJOY YOU AS A TEACHER.
HE'S TEACHING CHILDREN THAT HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE DISCIPLINARY ENVIRONMENT.
TEACHERS EFFORT PROMOTE TEAMWORK AND INCREASE PRODUCTIVITY AND EFFICIENCIES IN THE WORKPLACE 2019-20 HERE'S ONE FROM 2021-22.
MR. MCKINZIE DEMONSTRATES A HIGH LEVEL OF PROFESSIONALISM AND DEDICATION TO THE TEACHING PROFESSION.
HE WAS ALWAYS FLEXIBLE, ADAPTIVE AND RESPECTFUL.
[01:00:03]
HE DEMONSTRATES EXCELLENT REFLECTIVE PRACTICES IN HIS PERFORMANCE.SO YOU MIGHT SAY, WELL, HOW DO I RECONCILE THAT EMPLOYEE WHO WE WANT TO FIRE WITH THE GUY THAT CAME UP AND CHALLENGED YOU AS A BOARD? CHALLENGED YOU AS A BOARD TO MEET THE EXPECTATIONS OF HIS COMMUNITY.
HOW DO I RECONCILE THOSE THINGS? I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE HERE ON THE BOARD HAS HAD THIS EXPERIENCE, BUT MR. MCKINZIE HAS HAD THE EXPERIENCE OF HAVING SCHOOLS CLOSED.
HE'S A PARENT HISD PARENT SCHOOLS CLOSED TWICE, TWO TIMES WITH HIS CHILDREN IN HISD HAS HE RECEIVED THE NEWS THAT HIS COMMUNITY SCHOOL WAS GOING TO BE CLOSED AND HAD TO FIGURE OUT, WELL, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT? AND THOSE SCHOOL CLOSINGS BACK IN 2005 LED MR. MCKINZIE TO START ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING IN ELECTED PROCESSES, RIGHT TO BE RUNNING FOR SCHOOL BOARD MULTIPLE TIMES, RUNNING FOR CITY COUNCIL, RUNNING FOR THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, BUT MAYBE TO GET ELECTED, BUT PRIMARILY SO THAT HE COULD PARTICIPATE IN A PROCESS AND HAVE HIS VOICE HEARD.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE HAD BROUGHT THREE CURRENTLY ELECTED SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS AS WITNESSES TO TESTIFY ABOUT WHAT THEY SAW, BECAUSE THEY ALL SAW IT.
I MEAN, YOU MAYBE ALL REMEMBER IT.
BUT I THINK YOU PROBABLY REMEMBER IT AN THIS CASE HAS BEEN GOING ON.
AND THERE'S A POLICE REPORT FILED ABOUT IT.
SO BUT THREE OF THOSE ELECTED BOARD MEMBERS SAID THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS AT THE HEARING OF CITIZENS.
THAT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN GOOD, CAUSE UNDER OUR WATCH.
RIGHT. AND THEN I HAD JOLANDA JONES.
WHO? SHE WAS A ATTORNEY, A MEDIATOR, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR AT THURGOOD MARSHALL SAT ON THE BOARD.
SHE SAID THERE WASN'T GOOD CAUSE BASED ON WHAT SHE HAD SEEN.
DR. PATRICIA ALLEN IS A LIFELONG EDUCATOR WHO TESTIFIED THE SAME WAY SHE SAW WHAT HAPPENED.
THAT'S NOT GOOD CAUSE UNDER THE OLD RULES, RIGHT BEFORE THE NEW BOARD OF MANAGERS THAT WASN'T GOOD CAUSE SHE SAW IT, MR. MCKINZIE, MULTIPLE TIMES.
THEY ALL DID. THEY ALL KNEW HIM.
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW WHAT? THESE PEOPLE THAT CAME AND TESTIFIED FOR HIM HE RAN AGAINST HIM.
RIGHT? JOLANDA JONES SAID HE RAN AGAINST ME TWICE.
SO I WOULD IN MY ROLE, BEG YOU TO CONSIDER THAT.
IT'S BEING A LITTLE SENSITIVE TO FIRE A GREAT TEACHER IN AN ALTERNATIVE SETTING FOR GOOD CAUSE FOR THINGS HE DID AFTER THE SUMMER HAD BEGUN ON HIS OWN PERSONAL TIME TO COME AND TALK TO YOU GUYS ABOUT MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN.
HIS FRUSTRATION WAS THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE AN AVENUE OF COMMUNICATION.
HE WAS COMING UP TO THE MIC TO TALK TO YOU GUYS ABOUT IT.
HE SAID THINGS THAT HE'S ADMITTED IN PUBLIC THAT HE COULD HAVE MADE BETTER WORD CHOICES.
HE WAS BEING PIPED IN ON THE SCREEN.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE HE WAS STANDING HERE THREATENING YOU.
INFORMATION, BY THE WAY, THAT ANYBODY WHO RUNS FOR OFFICE HAS TO FILL OUT IN A PUBLICLY AVAILABLE FORM, THAT'S, COMMON WHERE YOU LIVE AS PART OF WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU RUN FOR OFFICE.
THAT IT'S FAIR FOR ME TO ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THE IDEA THAT IF ONE SET OF BOARD MEMBERS WOULD LISTEN TO WHAT MR. MCKINZIE SAID, AS IN THE RECORD WOULD LOOK AT WHAT HE SAID, THEY SAW IT.
THEY'VE SEEN HIM SPEAK BEFORE.
LOOK AT THAT AND SAY, YOU KNOW, IT JUST WASN'T GOOD CAUSE AND FOR THIS BOARD TO SAY IT WAS GOOD CAUSE THAT VERY ACT, THAT VERY DISSONANCE IS ENOUGH OF A QUEUE TO THIS BOARD TO SAY, WAIT A MINUTE, HAVE WE BEEN FAIR IN COMMUNICATING TO PEOPLE W HAT'S GOING TO GET THEM FIRED? BECAUSE THAT'S THE HALLMARK OF GOOD CAUSE.
GOOD CAUSE HAS ALWAYS BEEN DIFFERENT THAN THE NON-RENEWAL.
A NON-RENEWAL IS YOU VIOLATE ONE RULE, ONE TIME.
I'M GOING TO CALL YOU IN HERE AND TELL YOU YOU DID WRONG.
I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO DO BETTER.
I'M GOING TO SUPPORT YOU TO DO BETTER.
AND IF YOU CAN'T DO BETTER, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO LET YOU GO.
THAT'S WHAT GOOD CAUSE AND EDUCATION HAS ALWAYS BEEN.
[01:05:03]
THIS BOARD EXPECTS IN THEIR PUBLIC FORUM, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT MR. MCKINZIE SPOKE EXTENSIVELY TO THE OLD BOARD AND SPOKE MAYBE TWICE TO THE NEW BOARD, TO YOU, THE BOARD OF MANAGERS, THAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER THAT YOU'RE THROWING OUT A GOOD TEACHER FOR THE WRONG REASONS.IT SOUNDS MORE LIKE EGO THAN IT DOES PROFESSIONALISM IN THIS SITUATION.
I SAY IT HUMBLY. AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU SIR. MR. LAMP, DO YOU WISH TO MAKE A REBUTTAL STATEMENT? ABSOLUTELY. FIRST I WANT TO MAKE A SMALL CORRECTION.
EARLIER, I REFERRED TO ELECTED OFFICIALS.
I DO MEAN THAT NO ONE GETS TO THREATEN ELECTED OFFICIALS.
WE ALL KNOW THAT YOU HAVE BEEN APPOINTED TO YOUR ROLES.
BUT, OF COURSE, THE SITUATION APPLIES EQUALLY TO ALL PUBLIC OFFICIALS ELECTED OR APPOINTED.
WE'VE CITED AND IN FACT, THE HEARING OFFICER CITES AN ON POINT CASE FROM THE COMMISSIONER ON PAGE TEN, WHERE IT BASICALLY SAYS EMPLOYEES HAVE TO COMPLY WITH DISTRICT POLICY REGARDLESS IF THEY'RE ON DUTY OR OFF DUTY.
HIS CONTRACT FROM LAST YEAR IN HIS CONTRACT THIS YEAR WERE CONTIGUOUS.
HE ALSO SAID EVERYTHING THAT HE SAID THAT NIGHT TO YOU COULD BE FOUND ON GOOGLE.
WHERE DOES IT SAY ON GOOGLE THAT YOU CAN THREATEN THE PHYSICAL SAFETY OF A PUBLIC OFFICIAL? MAYBE YOU CAN FIND THAT ON THE DARK WEB SOMEWHERE, BUT NOT THE GOOGLE THAT I USE EVERY DAY.
HIS LAWYER SAID THAT HIS COMMENTS CHALLENGED THE BOARD TO MEET THE EXPECTATIONS OF HIS COMMUNITY.
REALLY? HOW DOES REFERENCING THE STREETS WHERE YOU LIVE ON WHERE YOUR KIDS TOOK KARATE, YOUR SPOUSE'S NAME? HOW DOES THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PUBLIC? IT'S FRIVOLOUS.
THAT IS AS PREPOSTEROUS TODAY AS IT WAS WHEN HE SAID IT AT THE HEARING, WITH HIS SPIRITUAL SAFETY THEORY THAT HE SAID AT THE HEARING, HE ALSO LOOKED HIS LAWYER, LOOKED AT YOU A MINUTE AGO AND SAID THAT YOU WANTING TO TERMINATE HIM FOR SAFETY REASONS IS FAR FETCHED.
I ASSUME THAT THE TWO OF YOU WHO REPORTED THIS TO THE POLICE DIDN'T BELIEVE IT WAS FAR FETCHED WHEN YOU WERE MAKING THAT POLICE REPORT, DID YOU? AND FINALLY, THIS LAST COMMENT THAT HE MADE WHERE HE ESSENTIALLY SAID, THIS IS ABOUT YOUR EGO.
SEND HIM AND HIS CLIENT A MESSAGE THAT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EGO, AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH HAVING RESPECT FOR OFFICIALS, KNOWING WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE, AND KNOWING THAT WHAT HE DID AGAIN WAS RECKLESS AND EXCEEDED THE LINE.
THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES? MADAM COURT REPORTER, ARE YOU ABLE TO READ BACK? MCKINZIE SAID THE ONLY THING THAT KEEPS ME FROM DOING ANYTHING ELSE, AND I MISSED THE END OF THAT STATEMENT.
THE ONLY THING THAT KEEPS ME FROM DOING ANYTHING ELSE IS THAT HOPEFULLY YOU'LL DO THE RIGHT THING.
WE MUST EITHER ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER, OR REJECT OR CHANGE THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND PROPOSE A GRANT OF RELIEF.
IF WE FIND THAT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT A FINDING OF FACT, THE FINDING MAY BE REJECTED OR CHANGED BASED ON THE RECORD AND THE EXHIBITS PRESENTED BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER. FURTHERMORE, SHOULD WE DETERMINE THAT THE HEARING EXAMINER DID NOT CORRECTLY INTERPRET THE APPLICABLE HISD BOARD POLICIES OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND OR STATE AND OR FEDERAL LAW, WE MAY REJECT OR CHANGE THE HEARING EXAMINER'S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
A CONCLUSION OF LAW MAY ALSO BE CHANGED OR REJECTED.
[01:10:03]
BASIS FOR ANY CHANGE OR REJECTION.ANY ACTION WE TAKE MUST BE SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD PRESENTED TO THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER.
IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD? ANY QUESTIONS? DOES ANYONE WANT OR NEED TO GO TO CLOSED SESSION? I HAVE ONE QUESTION. OKAY.
SHOULD BOARD FINAL ACTION, VOTE, OR DECISION ON ANY MATTER CONSIDERED IN THE CLOSED SESSION BE REQUIRED SUCH FINAL ACTION, VOTE OR DECISION SHALL BE TAKEN AT THE OPEN MEETING COVERED BY THIS NOTICE UPON THE RECONVENING OF THIS PUBLIC MEETING, OR AT A SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC MEETING OF THE BOARD UPON NOTICE THEREOF, THIS BOARD HAS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 3:28 P.M.
THANK YOU. SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IS NOW RECONVENED IN OPEN SESSION. THE TIME IS 3:40 P.M..
IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION BY MY COLLEAGUES? MR. RIVON HAS JOINED THE MEETING.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, MR. RIVON. IS THERE A MOTION? MISS GARZA LINDNER.
WHAT'S YOUR MOTION? THANK YOU. I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER.
ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RECOMMENDED BY THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER, AND THAT WE TERMINATE MR. MCKINZIE'S EMPLOYMENT WITH THE DISTRICT, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
IS THERE A SECOND? I HAVE A MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER GARZA LINDNER AND A SECOND BY BOARD MEMBER MARTINEZ. IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. PLEASE VOTE.
THE MOTION PASSES SIX IN FAVOR, ONE ABSTENTION ON THE MOTION TO ADOPT THE DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RECOMMENDED BY THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER, AND THAT WE TERMINATE MR. MCKINZIE'S EMPLOYMENT WITH THE DISTRICT, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
THIS HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT 3:41 P.M..
BUSINESS TO DISCUSS THIS MEETING OF THE BOARD IS ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.