[00:00:03]
GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS MEETING IS NOW CONVENED AT 2:05 P.M..
[Hearings on April 11, 2024.]
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK EVERYONE TO PLEASE SILENCE YOUR CELL PHONES.A QUORUM OF THE BOARD MEMBERS IS PRESENT, AND THE BOARD AUDITORIUM.
THEY ARE FOR MY RIGHT ON THE PLATFORM.
CASSANDRA AUZENNE BANDY, MICHELLE CRUZ ARNOLD, JEANETTE GARZA LINDNER.
MYSELF, AUDREY MOMANAEE, RIC CAMPO, ROLANDO MARTINEZ, AND PAULA MENDOZA.
IS ADAM GOING TO BE BY ZOOM? NO. OKAY.
OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO HEAR FROM SPEAKERS TO AGENDA ITEMS. PUBLIC COMMENT DURING SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS, EXCUSE ME, WILL ONLY BE AVAILABLE TO THOSE PERSONS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK PRIOR TO THE MEETING TIME PER CURRENT PROTOCOL, VERBAL AND OTHER DISRUPTIONS BY PERSONS DURING SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE, AS THEY INHIBIT THE BOARD'S ABILITY TO CONDUCT BUSINESS AND THE PUBLIC'S ABILITY TO OBSERVE THOSE PROCESSES. PERSONS WHO PARTICIPATE IN SUCH BEHAVIOR WILL BE GIVEN ONE WARNING, AND IF THE BEHAVIOR IS REPEATED, THEY WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE MEETING.
TONIGHT, WE HAVE THREE REGISTERED SPEAKERS WHO WILL BE LIMITED TO TWO MINUTES EACH PER BOARD POLICY.
I ASK THAT YOU PLEASE RESPECT OUR PROCEDURES AND THE OTHER SPEAKERS AND END YOUR COMMENTS PROMPTLY.
WHEN YOUR TIME IS EXPIRED AND THE TIMER RINGS, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME BEFORE STARTING YOUR REMARKS.
WE'LL BEGIN WITH BOARD OF EDUCATION TRUSTEE SAVANT MOORE.
PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE, SIR.
YES, SIR? I APOLOGIZE, YOU KNOW, I OWN A TRUCKING COMPANY, SO I HAD TO STOP.
MICHELLE WILLIAMS I MET ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO, AND I ALWAYS SAW HER COMING TO EVERY MEETING AND JUST ADVOCATING FOR THE CHILDREN AND MY SIDE OF THE TOWN AND MY DISTRICT, AND SO FOR THERE TO BE A SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY WHERE IT COULD BE THE REASON THAT SHE'S TERMINATED, I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WHY WE CAN SET THAT TYPE OF PRECEDENT.
THE TEA, THEY ASKED ME TO SHOW THE SUPERINTENDENT GRACE.
THE ENTIRE TIME HE'S BEEN HERE, I'VE SHOWED HIM THAT GRACE.
THERE WAS A POLICY JUST THIS WEEK THAT AFFECTED MY OWN CHILDREN.
THEY GOT ACCEPTED TO CARNEGIE, BUT YET I WANTED THEM TO GO TO A SCHOOL THAT'S IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE ARE TEACHERS LIKE MICHELLE WILLIAMS THAT ARE CERTIFIED AND GO ABOVE AND BEYOND FOR EVERY CHILD IN THAT CLASSROOM, REGARDLESS OF US BEING ADULTS AND DISAGREEING WITH CERTAIN POLICIES AND OUR POLITICS.
THIS SHOULD NEVER BE THE STANDARD TO TERMINATE SOMEONE BECAUSE YOU HAVE A DISAGREEMENT.
IN THE BIBLE, IT SAYS HOW OFTEN SHOULD SHE FORGIVE SOMEONE? 70 TIMES SEVEN.
SO I'M ASKING THAT YOU SHOW FORGIVENESS FOR THIS SLIGHT IN THIS POLICY BECAUSE SHE'S A GOOD TEACHER, AND IF YOU JUST HAVE THE RESPECT THAT WHEN SHE WAS SHOWING UP, SHE WAS TELLING HER KERNEL OF TRUTH, HER SIDE OF THE TRUTH FOR THOSE STUDENTS THAT SHE'S ALWAYS ADVOCATING FOR, FOR THOSE TEACHERS THAT SHE'S ALWAYS ADVOCATING FOR, AND SO I'M JUST ASKING THAT YOU SHOW HER GRACE.
ALL RIGHT, I'LL SEE Y'ALL LATER.
NEXT SPEAKER IS LARRY MCKENZIE.
WILL YOU PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE? AS GOOD A TEACHER AS I AM, AND I'M A GREAT TEACHER, MICHELLE WILLIAMS IS A GREATER TEACHER AND MOST OF YOU WILL BE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY WHEN THIS HAPPENS.
THERE ARE TEACHERS THAT GO ABOVE AND BEYOND THE THINGS THAT THEY DO INSIDE OF THEIR CLASSROOMS. SHE NOT ONLY HAS AN OFFICE, SHE'S THE HEA PRESIDENT, AND SHE DOES THINGS THAT ARE NEEDED FOR THE COMMUNITY THAT SHE LIVES IN.
SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OR THE BOARD OF MANAGERS, SHE DOES.
NOW SHE STATES ALL THE RULES THAT ARE ELIGIBLE AND THAT YOU GUYS SHOULD BE FOLLOWING, AND SHE POINTS OUT THE MISTAKES THAT FLOYD MIKE MILES MAKES.
I THINK THAT'S HER ONLY, THAT'S THE ONLY RULE THAT SHE BROKE.
NOW SHE DID THE SCHEDULING FOR THE MEDIA, AND ANYONE THAT DOES SOCIAL MEDIA WOULD KNOW THAT.
SHE'S DONE THAT, AND NOW YOU'RE TRYING TO FIRE ONE OF THE GREATER TEACHERS THAT'S IN HISD.
[00:05:04]
THAT ARE BEING FIRED AND LET GO.I'M HERE FOR HER, BUT IF YOU LET HER GO, THEN THERE'S GOING TO BE ISSUES WITH HIM, AND FOR THOSE THAT VOTED AGAINST HIM, AGAINST FLOYD LAST TIME, THANK YOU.
SO WHAT HAPPENS IS, IS WHEN ALL THIS IS OVER, YOU WILL STILL LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY.
HE'LL BE GONE LIKE HE WAS IN DALLAS.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS HOLLY CRAMER, WHO IS REGISTERED TO ADDRESS THE BOARD BY ZOOM.
WE WILL NOW CONDUCT THE HEARING SCHEDULED FOR THIS MEETING.
THE FIRST HEARING SET IS THE PROCEDURE TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF EBONY BLACKLOCK WHO IS A FORMER TEACHER OF SHARPSTOWN HIGH SCHOOL.
IF BOTH PARTIES REQUEST AN OPEN SESSION DURING THIS HEARING, THE BOARD MAY GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSULT WITH ITS ATTORNEY 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.
MYRA CHICKERING FROM THE FIRM OF ROGERS, MORRIS, AND GROVER LLP REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION, IS ALSO PRESENT, AS IS CATOSHA WOODS HISD GENERAL COUNSEL. MR. TRITICO, WOULD YOU WISH TO CONTINUE AN OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION? OPEN, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT.
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.
MISS CHICKERING, YOU WILL PROCEED FIRST.
YOU WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD, FOLLOWED BY A TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION BY MR. TRITICO. MISS CHICKERING, YOU CAN ALSO RESERVE PART OF YOUR TEN MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL TO MATTERS PRESENTED BY MR. TRITICO. 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 REGARDING THE WAY THE HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED? NO. OKAY.
MS. CHICKERING, IS THERE AN AMOUNT OF TIME THAT YOU'D LIKE TO A LOT FOR REBUTTAL? OKAY. YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND BEGIN.
MADAM BOARD PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, GOOD AFTERNOON, AND I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE TJ COTTER, WHO WAS THE PRINCIPAL THAT INITIATED THE RECOMMENDATION, WHICH RESULTED IN THE HEARING THAT WAS CONDUCTED BEFORE THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER AND WHICH YOU'RE CONSIDERING HERE TODAY.
SOME STUDENTS WERE ENGAGING IN OFF TASK BEHAVIOR, TALKING AND LAUGHING TOGETHER AS A GROUP.
IT WAS THE TYPE OF SITUATION THAT TEACHERS ENCOUNTER ON A REGULAR BASIS, THE TYPE OF SITUATION THAT IS TYPICALLY ADDRESSED IN A PROFESSIONAL MANNER AND THEN PASSES WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE.
THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE ESTABLISHES THAT ON THAT DAY, SEVERAL STUDENTS IN HER CLASSROOM WERE APPARENTLY TALKING AND LAUGHING TOGETHER AS A GROUP WHEN APPROACHED BY MISS BLACKLOCK, ONE OF THE STUDENTS WHO WAS IDENTIFIED IN THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION AS STUDENT A, WAS LAUGHING AND APPARENTLY SPIT IN MISS BLACKLOCK'S DIRECTION.
THE HEARING EXAMINER FOUND, BASED ON THE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE OR THE CREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF THREE WITNESSES, INCLUDING STUDENT A, THAT THE SPIT WAS ACCIDENTAL, THAT IT WAS AN INVOLUNTARY REACTION WHEN HE WAS LAUGHING AND IF YOU LOOK IN THE RECOMMENDATION ITSELF, FINDING NUMBER 16 SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT AND I QUOTE STUDENT A WAS LAUGHING, LEANING DOWN, TALKING TO ANOTHER STUDENT, AND SPIT CAME OUT OF HIS MOUTH UNINTENTIONALLY.
[00:10:04]
THE HEARING EXAMINER WENT ON TO FIND THAT MISS BLACKLOCK WAS ANGERED BY STUDENT A AND RESPONDED BY SLAPPING HIM.MISS BLACKLOCK ADMITTED DURING THE HEARING THAT SHE SLAPPED THE STUDENT.
HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO MISS BLACKLOCK AND HER ATTORNEY, SHE WAS DEFENDING HERSELF WHEN SHE SLAPPED STUDENT A, AND THUS SHE'S ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY FROM DISCIPLINARY ACTION UNDER TEXAS EDUCATION CODE SECTION 22.0512.
THE HEARING EXAMINER, AS YOU KNOW FROM READING THE RECOMMENDATION, FLATLY REJECTED THAT CLAIM, AND I WOULD REFER YOU SPECIFICALLY TO SOME FINDINGS THAT SHE MADE IN HER RECOMMENDATION.
FINDING NUMBER 51, THE HEARING EXAMINER FOUND THAT BLACKLOCK'S USE OF FORCE WAS NOT NECESSARY TO FURTHER THE EDUCATION AND SUPERVISION OF STUDENT A, OR TO MAINTAIN DISCIPLINE IN THE CLASSROOM.
FINDING NUMBER 52, BLACKLOCK'S USE OF FORCE WAS NOT OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE.
FINDING NUMBER THREE, BLACKLOCK'S USE OF FORCE WAS UNNECESSARILY DEGRADING AND PUNITIVE, AND FINDING NUMBER 54 BLACKLOCK'S USE OF FORCE WAS DISPROPORTIONATE TO STUDENT A'S ACCIDENTAL SPITTING.
THEN, HAVING FOUND THAT MISS BLACKLOCK WAS NOT ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY, THE HEARING EXAMINER WENT ON TO FIND THAT THE DISTRICT HAD DEMONSTRATED, BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, GOOD CAUSE FOR TERMINATION, BASED ON HER VIOLATION OF THE EDUCATOR'S CODE OF ETHICS AND HISD BOARD POLICY, SPECIFICALLY IN FINDING NUMBER 50 AGAIN ON PAGE EIGHT.
SHE FOUND THAT AN EDUCATOR OF ORDINARY PRUDENCE UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD NOT HAVE SLAPPED A STUDENT TWICE ON THE FACE, AND FURTHER, IN FINDING NUMBER 56, SHE FOUND THAT MISS BLACKLOCK'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE EDUCATOR'S CODE OF ETHICS CONSTITUTES GOOD CAUSE FOR TERMINATION. TO BE TOTALLY HONEST, I UNDERSTAND THAT BEING SPIT ON IS GROSS.
I WOULDN'T LIKE IT MYSELF, BUT EVEN IF IT WAS AN INTENTIONAL ACT AND REMEMBER, THE FINDINGS ARE THAT IT WAS AN ACCIDENT, EVEN IF IT WAS INTENTIONAL, THE HEARING EXAMINER PROPERLY FOUND THAT MISS BLACKLOCK'S RESPONSE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED.
IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT MISS BLACKLOCK JUST SIMPLY LOST HER TEMPER THAT DAY, BUT HISD CANNOT IGNORE THE CONDUCT AND RUN THE RISK THAT IT HAPPENS AGAIN, AND POTENTIALLY RESULTS IN SIGNIFICANT INJURY TO A STUDENT.
IT DIDN'T ON THIS OCCASION AND WE'RE FORTUNATE FOR THAT.
IT IS FOR THAT REASON THAT THE BOARD PROPOSED THE TERMINATION OF MRS. BLACKLOCK'S TERM OF CONTRACT, AND I WOULD URGE YOU TO ACCEPT IN ITS ENTIRETY THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER.
I'LL RESERVE THE REST OF MY TIME.
MR. TRITICO, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
THANK YOU FOR HEARING US TODAY.
FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO I HAVEN'T MET, MY NAME IS CHRIS TRITICO.
THIS CASE TODAY CALLS UPON YOU TO CONSTRUE THE DECISION ABOUT WHETHER 22.0512 OF THE TEXAS EDUCATION CODE APPLIES TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, AND I ASK YOU TO CAREFULLY CONSIDER THAT FACT.
WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT 22.0512 TWO AND THE CASES THAT FOLLOW IT IS THAT A PROFESSIONAL EDUCATOR HAS THE RIGHT TO DEFEND HERSELF WHEN SHE FEELS THAT SHE IS UNDER ATTACK.
22.0512 TWO WAS PUT INTO THE TEXAS EDUCATION CODE BY THE WORK OF MYSELF AND MISS GAIL FALLON OF THE HOUSTON FEDERATION OF TEACHERS BEFORE SHE RETIRED.
THE 22.0512 TWO APPLIES WHEN A PROFESSIONAL EDUCATOR FEELS THAT THEY ARE BEING, WHEN THEY ARE UNDER ATTACK, AND THEY HAVE IMMUNITY FROM TERMINATION.
IT IS IMMUNITY FROM TERMINATION IF THEY CANNOT BE PROSECUTED UNDER THE TEXAS PENAL CODE.
TEXAS PENAL CODE SAYS AN EDUCATOR HAS A DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION IF THE DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION OF
[00:15:08]
EDUCATOR STUDENT, WHICH SAYS THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE PHYSICAL FORCE, NOT INCLUDING DEADLY FORCE.IN THEIR CLASSROOM, OR WHEN THEY HAVE A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE OVER THE CONTROL OF A STUDENT.
IN OTHER WORDS, THEIR STUDENTS, OR THE PEOPLE OR THE STUDENTS IN THE SCHOOL.
EBONY BLACKLOCK WAS TRYING TO MAINTAIN CONTROL IN HER CLASSROOM WHEN STUDENT A WAS OUT OF HIS SEAT FOR THE SECOND TIME THAT DAY, WHEN SHE TOLD HIM TO SIT DOWN AND HE GOT BIGGER THAN HER, GOT AGGRESSIVE, GOT IN HER FACE AND SPIT IN HER FACE TWICE.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE HEARING OFFICER CHOSE TO IGNORE WAS THE FACT THAT LADY IS RECOVERING FROM CANCER AND HAD JUST GOTTEN OFF OF CHEMO WHEN HE SPIT IN HER FACE, AND SHE WAS EXTREMELY CONCERNED FOR HER OWN WELL-BEING AND HER LACK OF IMMUNITY.
SHE DID NOT KNOW WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT WHEN SHE TOOK ACTION TO DEFEND HERSELF.
WHAT TEXAS LAW SAYS IS WE DO NOT HAVE TO WAIT TO SEE WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN BEFORE WE TAKE ACTION TO DEFEND OURSELVES. WE DO NOT HAVE TO WAIT TO SEE IF SOMEONE IS GOING TO SHOOT US BEFORE WE SHOOT FIRST.
SHE TOOK ACTION TO DEFEND HERSELF FROM A STUDENT WHO, THE DISTRICT'S OWN EVIDENCE SAYS IS A CHRONICALLY...
LET ME FIND IT. I THINK IT WAS EXHIBIT 21 CHRONICALLY... COME ON, I JUST MARKED IT.
CHRONICALLY IN TROUBLE AT SCHOOL.
THIS IMMUNITY STATUTE HAS BEEN CONSTRUED BY THE COMMISSIONER MULTIPLE, MULTIPLE TIMES, AND WHEN YOU EXAMINE IT, YOU EXAMINE IT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE EDUCATOR ALONE.
WHERE THE HEARING OFFICER GOT THIS WRONG WAS BY EXAMINING IT FROM EVERYBODY ELSE'S PERSPECTIVE, BY EXAMINING IT FROM THE EVIDENCE OF THE OTHER STUDENTS THAT THE OTHER STUDENTS GAVE, BY EXAMINING IT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF THE EXPERT, BY EXAMINING IT FROM THE TEXT TESTIMONY OF THE STUDENT, FROM STUDENT A, THE LAW SAYS THAT WE EXAMINE IT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF MISS BLACKLOCK ALONE.
IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT DID SHE PERCEIVE? DID SHE PERCEIVE THAT SHE WAS UNDER ATTACK? WHEN SHE PERCEIVED THAT SHE WAS UNDER ATTACK, DO WE THEN WAS HER ACTIONS REASONABLE AT THAT TIME? THAT'S HOW WE EXAMINE WHETHER OR NOT SHE HAD THE RIGHT TO DEFEND HERSELF, AND IF SHE HAD THE RIGHT TO DEFEND HERSELF, SHE HAS IMMUNITY UNDER 22.0512. THAT'S WHAT THE LAW SAYS.
THAT'S HOW WE EXAMINE THESE FACTS IN THIS EVIDENCE.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH 22.0512, BUT THAT'S THE LAW OF THE GREAT STATE OF TEXAS.
THAT'S WHAT THE LAW SAYS, AND THAT'S HOW THAT'S WHAT THE LAW HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO DO TO PROTECT A TEACHER, TO GIVE THEM THE RIGHT AND THE ABILITY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES WHEN THEY ARE UNDER ATTACK.
IT'S GROSS TO BE SPIT ON BUT IT'S ALSO DISGUSTING FOR A HEARING OFFICER TO IGNORE THE FACT THAT A TEACHER IS RECOVERING FROM CANCER, AND THEIR IMMUNITY, T HEIR IMMUNE SYSTEM IS DEPRESSED.
YOU CANNOT IGNORE THAT WHEN YOU ARE WEIGHING THE FACT OF WHETHER OR NOT A TEACHER SHOULD HAVE IMMUNITY WHEN THEY'RE DEFENDING THEMSELVES, YOU CANNOT IGNORE THOSE FACTS, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS HEARING OFFICER DID.
[00:20:01]
TO STRIKE ALL OF THE FINDINGS THAT RELATE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE OTHER WITNESSES AS IT RELATES TO WHAT MISS BLACKLOCK PERCEIVED AND HOW IT RELATES TO HOW MISS BLACKLOCK REACTED.INSERT HOW MISS BLACKLOCK PERCEIVED IT AND REVERSE THIS, AND IF YOU'RE UNCOMFORTABLE JUST REVERSING IT, THEN PUT HER ON PROBATION FOR ONE YEAR.
THAT WILL ALLOW THE DISTRICT TO ANALYZE THIS FOR ONE YEAR AND AT THE END OF THAT YEAR, IF SHE STILL ISN'T PERFORMING, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS WRITE HER A LETTER, AND LET HER GO.
SHE DOESN'T GET ANOTHER HEARING.
I DON'T GET TO COME BACK HERE AND BOTHER YOU.
SHE JUST GETS, THEY JUST GET TO FIRE HER.
YOU DON'T FIRE SOMEBODY WHO'S RECOVERING FROM CANCER.
WHO A CHILD'S VIOLATED YOUR DIRECTIVES TWICE STOOD UP AND GOT IN YOUR FACE AND SPIT ON YOU.
YOU DON'T FIRE SOMEBODY FOR THAT.
HOW MANY TIMES SINCE YOU TOOK OFFICE HAS SOMEBODY COME HERE AND SAID, WE WANT YOU TO FIRE THIS PERSON BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT DOING THEIR JOB? SHE DID HER JOB.
NOW THEY WANT YOU TO FIRE HER FOR THAT.
I ASK YOU TO DO THE RIGHT THING.
MS. CHICKERING, DO YOU HAVE REBUTTAL? FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS MR. TRITICO'S ARGUMENT THAT THE STANDARD FOR IMMUNITY IS JUDGED FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THE EMPLOYEE, THE TEACHER IN THIS CASE, MISS BLACKLOCK.
THE STANDARD IS FROM HOGENSON VERSUS WILLIAMSON, WHETHER OR NOT THE CONDUCT WAS OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE, AND IF YOU'LL REMEMBER, THE HEARING EXAMINER MADE SPECIFIC FINDINGS THAT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN LIGHT OF THE TOTALITY OF THE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE, HER CONDUCT WAS NOT OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE.
A PRUDENT EDUCATOR IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD NOT HAVE REASONABLY BELIEVED THAT SLAPPING THE STUDENT WAS A NECESSARY RESPONSE TO THE STUDENT'S CONDUCT.
SO UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN LIGHT OF THE FINDINGS IN THE HEARING OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION AND EMPLOYING THE CORRECT STANDARD FOR EVALUATING IMMUNITY THE CONDUCT CLEARLY WAS OBJECTIVELY UNREASONABLE, AND THAT PART OF THE DECISION SHOULD CLEARLY BE UPHELD AND THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO ADDRESS, MR. TRITICO HAS BASICALLY ASKED YOU TO REJECT THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT OF WHAT HAPPENED, BUT IF YOU'LL REMEMBER, AND I DON'T MEAN TO GET DOWN INTO THE WEEDS HERE WHEN REVIEWING HEARING OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION, AS THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID A BOARD CAN REJECT OR CHANGE THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS ONLY WHEN THOSE FINDINGS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AND THE COMMISSIONER HAS DEFINED SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS MORE THAN A MERE SCINTILLA, EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD PREPONDERATES AGAINST THE DECISION SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STILL EXISTS IF THERE'S MORE THAN A SCINTILLA.
SO EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE COULD GO EITHER WAY IT MUST BE CONCLUDED THAT THE RESPONDENT'S DECISION IS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, SO LONG AS THERE IS MORE THAN A MERE SCINTILLA.
HERE, THE FINDER OF FACT WAS THE HEARING EXAMINER, AND SHE CONSIDERED ALL THE EVIDENCE DURING THE HEARING, NOT JUST ONE SIDE'S VERSION OR THE OTHER SIDE'S VERSION, BUT ON BALANCE, SHE REVIEWED ALL OF THE TESTIMONY AND ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, AND SHE FOUND IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT, AGAIN, THE TEACHER'S CONDUCT, MISS BLACKLOCK'S CONDUCT WAS NOT OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE, AND SHE MADE SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF FACT THAT HER CONDUCT ON MAY 17TH WAS IN VIOLATION NOT ONLY OF THE CODE OF THE EDUCATOR'S CODE OF ETHICS, BUT ALSO THIS BOARD'S POLICIES REGARDING THE PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS AND THE EXPECTATIONS OF THIS DISTRICT.
IT'S MR. TRITICO'S JOB TO COME IN HERE AND SHOW YOU THAT THERE WAS NOT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT EACH OF THE FINDINGS, THAT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND HE HASN'T DONE THAT.
[00:25:05]
BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, AND IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, WE HAD A MULTITUDE OF WITNESSES WHO CAME IN, AND THE HEARING EXAMINER CLEARLY FOUND THE TESTIMONY OF THE THREE STUDENTS WHO DESCRIBED WHAT HAPPENED, INCLUDING THE STUDENT WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE SITUATION TO BE THE MORE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE AND BASED HER DECISIONS ON THAT.ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES? ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY.
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 TO NOT 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 AMONG THE BOARD MEMBERS? IS THERE A MOTION? OKAY. I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY MOTIONS.
ALL RIGHT, SO LET'S RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION.
THE BOARD WILL NOW RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION UNDER CHAPTER.
WELL, BEFORE WE DO THAT, DOES ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THESE FOLKS BEFORE WE LEAVE? NO? OKAY.
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 2:32 P.M.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS OR ANY QUESTIONS? NO. OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION? YES. I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE DECISION AND THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER.
SORRY ABOUT THAT. I'LL START OVER.
YES. I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER, ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF THE FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RECOMMENDED BY THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER, AND THAT WE TERMINATE MISS BLAYLOCK'S EMPLOYMENT OR BLACKLOCK'S EMPLOYMENT WITH THE DISTRICT, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
IS THERE A SECOND? MR. MARTINEZ, WE HAVE A MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER CAMPO AND A SECOND BY BOARD MEMBER MARTINEZ.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? NO? OKAY. PLEASE VOTE.
THIS HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT 2:39 P.M..
OKAY. OUR NEXT HEARING IS RELATED TO THE MATTER OF DIANA DALE JACKSON.
[00:30:22]
SIR, ARE YOU MR. CARTWRIGHT? YES, I AM. OKAY.THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF DIANA DALE JACKSON, FORMER SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER AT HARTMAN MIDDLE SCHOOL. HEARINGS INVOLVING COMPLAINTS AGAINST DISTRICT EMPLOYEES ARE TO BE 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.
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, PRINCE CARTWRIGHT JR.
REPRESENTING DIANA DALE JACKSON IS IS PRESENT IN MYRA CHICKERING FROM THE FIRM OF ROGERS, MORRIS AND GROVER LLP REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION IS PRESENT AS WELL AS CATOSHA WOODS HISD GENERAL COUNSEL.
MR. CARTWRIGHT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROCEED IN OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION? OPEN SESSION. OKAY.
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, EXCUSE ME, BASED ON A REVIEW OF THE RECORD, WE MAY REJECT OR CHANGE A FINDING OF FACT.
MISS CHICKERING, YOU WILL PROCEED FIRST.
MISS CHICKERING, YOU MAY RESERVE ANY PART OF YOUR TEN MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL TO THE MATTERS PRESENTED BY MR. CARTWRIGHT. BOTH SIDES SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.
AFTER THEIR RESPECTIVE PRESENTATIONS, AND AFTER DELIBERATION, THE BOARD WILL RENDER ITS DECISIONS.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE PARTIES REGARDING THE WAY THAT THIS HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED? NO. OKAY.
MS. CHICKERING, DO YOU WANT TO DIVIDE YOUR TIME NOW OR JUST RESERVE WHAT'S REMAINING? JUST WHATEVER'S LEFT. OKAY.
THANK YOU, AND YOU MAY BEGIN WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
I HAVE THE PLEASURE OF BEING JOINED TODAY BY MR. GERROL JOHNSON, THE PRINCIPAL OF HARTMAN MIDDLE SCHOOL.
MY COMMENTS TODAY ARE GOING TO BE VERY BRIEF, AND THAT'S BECAUSE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER IS VERY BRIEF, AND AND THE REASON THE RECOMMENDATION IS PARTICULARLY BRIEF IS THIS.
DIANA JACKSON AND HER ATTORNEY, MR. CARTWRIGHT, DID NOT APPEAR FOR THE HEARING, THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
ON MARCH 4TH, 2020 FOR THE DISTRICT'S COUNSEL CLAY GROVER CONFIRMED WITH THE HEARING EXAMINER AND MR. CARTWRIGHT THAT THE HEARING WOULD BE CONDUCTED ON MARCH 7TH, 2024 IN THE OFFICES OF ROGERS, MORRIS AND GROVER LOCATED AT 5718 WESTHEIMER AND THE TIME FOR THE HEARING HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN ESTABLISHED AT 10 A.M., FOR 10 A.M..
MISS JACKSON AND MR. CARTWRIGHT, HOWEVER, DID NOT APPEAR FOR THE HEARING AT 10 A.M. ON MARCH 7TH AND AFTER WAITING MORE THAN AN HOUR, THE HEARING EXAMINER WENT ON THE RECORD AT 11:04 A.M, AND ANNOUNCED THAT THEY HAD FAILED TO APPEAR AND TO EXHAUST THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, AND AT THAT POINT MR. GROVER OFFERED INTO EVIDENCE EXHIBITS ONE THROUGH 22 WHICH WERE ADMITTED, AND THEN HE MADE AN ORAL MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL HEARING.
THE REQUEST FOR HEARING BASED ON FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AND WANT OF PROSECUTION, AND AT THAT POINT, THE HEARING EXAMINER CLOSED THE RECORD.
LATER, MR. CARTWRIGHT CONTACTED THE HEARING EXAMINER AND MR. GROVER TO ADVISE THAT HE AND HIS CLIENT HAD GONE TO THE WRONG LOCATION FOR THE HEARING AND REQUESTED TO REOPEN THE RECORD IN ORDER FOR MISS JACKSON TO TESTIFY AND TO PRESENT EVIDENCE.
THE HEARING EXAMINER DETERMINED THAT REQUEST COULD NOT BE ACCOMMODATED BECAUSE AT THAT POINT THE COURT REPORTER HAD BEEN DISMISSED AND THUS EVIDENCE COULD NOT BE PLACED INTO THE RECORD, AND AGAIN, THAT'S AFTER WAITING FOR MORE THAN AN HOUR AT THE PREARRANGED LOCATION FOR THEM TO APPEAR, AND THEY DID NOT CALL.
[00:35:05]
GROVER'S OFFICE, THAT THERE WAS ANY KIND OF CONCERN OR CONFUSION ABOUT THE TIME OR THE LOCATION.SO ON MARCH 21ST, 2024, THE HEARING EXAMINER ISSUED A RECOMMENDATION THAT MISS JACKSON'S APPEAL BE DENIED FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AND FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION AND THAT'S A RECOMMENDATION I WOULD URGE YOU TO ACCEPT.
KEEP IN MIND THAT UNDER THE TEXAS EDUCATION CODE THERE'S AN ENDPOINT.
THE EDUCATION CODE DOESN'T GIVE HEARING EXAMINERS SORT OF AN OPEN END ON WHEN THEY CONDUCT HEARINGS.
IT'S A STATUTORILY PRESCRIBED DATE WHEN THE RECOMMENDATION HAS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE TEA.
THE RECOMMENDATION IS DUE WITH THE TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY, AND HERE THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION PROVIDED ABOUT WHY MISS JACKSON AND HER ATTORNEY COULD NOT APPEAR AT THE AGREED UPON TIME AND LOCATION, AND THERE'S NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO ESTABLISH WHY THEY FAILED TO APPEAR.
SO GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE HEARING EXAMINER WAS ABSOLUTELY WITHIN HIS RIGHT TO GO AHEAD AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION, AND ALSO BASED ON MISS JACKSON'S FAILURE TO EXHAUST HER ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, THE EDUCATION CODE AND HISD BOARD POLICY GIVE AN EMPLOYEE WHO'S BEING PROPOSED FOR TERMINATION RIGHTS, BUT ALONG WITH THOSE RIGHTS, THERE IS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO ACTUALLY SHOW UP AND PARTICIPATE IN THE HEARING, AND SHE CANNOT BE NOW COME BEFORE YOU AND ASK YOU TO REJECT THE RECOMMENDATION WHEN SHE DIDN'T SHOW UP FOR THE HEARING IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND HAD THE FULL OPTION AND OPPORTUNITY AVAILABLE TO HER TO PUT HER EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD.
THANK YOU. MR. CARTWRIGHT, WHEN YOU'RE READY.
I'M HAPPY TO APPEAR ON BEHALF OF MISS DIANA DALE JACKSON.
THE REASON WHY WE DID NOT APPEAR.
WE APPEARED AT THE HISD ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE.
I HAD BEEN GIVEN THAT INFORMATION TO APPEAR HERE.
ONCE WE APPEARED HERE ON THAT ON MARCH THE 7TH WE WERE TOLD THAT WE WERE NOT ON THE AGENDA.
SUBSEQUENTLY, I DID CALL MR. GROVER'S OFFICE TO INFORM HIM THAT I WAS AT THE WRONG LOCATION, AND WE PROCEEDED TO GO TO HIS OFFICE, AND HE SAID AT THAT TIME THAT HE DID NOT HAVE A COURT REPORTER TO APPEAR.
SO WE DID NOT, WE HONESTLY I DID NOT KNOW EXACTLY THAT, THAT THE HEARING WAS TO TAKE PLACE AT HIS OFFICE, AND THAT IS THE REASON WHY WE WERE WERE AT THE WRONG LOCATION. MISS JACKSON DID NOT EXHAUST HER ALL OF HER ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING REMEDIES BEFORE THE BOARD, AND WE DID WANT TO GO ON TRANSCRIPT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES TO R EFUTE WHAT THE PRINCIPAL HAD MADE AS FAR AS A RECOMMENDATION FOR TERMINATION.
MISS JACKSON HAS BEEN A SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER AT HARTMAN ELEMENTARY FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, AND THERE WERE SOME INSTANCES WHERE SHE DID NOT WAS NOT A PROVIDED HER TEACHING MATERIALS AND OTHER THINGS THAT SHE, SHE ENCOUNTERED WHILE SHE WAS WHILE SHE WAS AT HARTMAN.
SHE ALSO HAD SOME INSTANCES WHERE SHE WAS ABSENT, ABSENT BECAUSE OF HER DISABILITY, BUT AT ALL TIMES, SHE HAD ADMINISTERED GOOD FAITH IN WANTING TO PROCEED IN HER TEACHING CAREER AT HARTMAN.
[00:40:01]
SO FOR THAT REASON WE WOULD LIKE THIS BOARD, WE WOULD PREFER TO REOPEN THIS HEARING FOR RECONSIDERATION, WHICH WE FILED A MOTION WITH THE HEARING OFFICER, HEARING EXAMINER FOR MISS JACKSON TO REAPPEAR AND, WHEN A COURT REPORTER WAS PROVIDED, WOULD BE PROVIDED AND THEY OF COURSE, HAD TOLD US THAT WHEN, WHEN A COURT REPORTER WOULD BE AVAILABLE THAT WE WOULD BE ASSURED TO HAVE OUR RECONSIDER OUR MOTION TO HAVE HER TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES, IF NECESSARY TO APPEAR.SO, IN THAT LIGHT, WE WOULD ASK THE BOARD TO PLEASE REJECT THIS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING OFFICER TO TERMINATE MRS. JACKSON'S EMPLOYMENT AT HARTMAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
MISS CHICKERING, DO YOU HAVE A REBUTTAL? YES.
IF I COULD REFER THE BOARD MEMBERS TO HISD EXHIBIT 22 THAT THE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE DURING THE MARCH 7TH HEARING BRIEF AS IT WAS AND THAT IS OF COURSE THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION FROM MR. GROVER COPIED TO PRINCE CARTWRIGHT JR.
THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT THERE WAS AMPLE NOTICE GIVEN TO MR. CARTWRIGHT IN ADVANCE OF THE HEARING, AND IF IN FACT, THEY WERE AT THE LOCATION THAT MR. CARTWRIGHT CLAIMS AT 10:00, HE COULD HAVE CALLED MR. GROVER AND OR MADE COMMUNICATION WITH THE HEARING EXAMINER TO SAY, OH, WE'RE AT THIS OTHER LOCATION.
WE'RE AT THE HATTIE MAE WHITE COMPLEX, AND THE COURT REPORTER STILL WOULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE AT THAT POINT, BUT THE HEARING EXAMINER AND MR. GROVER HAD NO COMMUNICATION AT ALL FROM MR. CARTWRIGHT AND HIS CLIENT WHILE THE RECORD WAS OPEN.
THEY DIDN'T EVEN GO OPEN THE RECORD UNTIL 11:04, AND THEY'D STILL NOT HEARD ANYTHING FROM MR. CARTWRIGHT AND OR MISS JACKSON AT THAT POINT.
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OR NO SUGGESTION AT THAT POINT THAT MR. CARTWRIGHT WAS GOING TO APPEAR, AND THERE'S CERTAINLY NO REQUIREMENT IN THE EDUCATION CODE THAT THE RECORD BE LEFT OPEN FOR HOURS UNTIL SOMEBODY DECIDES TO APPEAR.
YOU KNOW, IT'S UNFORTUNATE IF IF IN FACT, MR. CARTWRIGHT WAS CONFUSED ABOUT THE LOCATION, BUT THERE'S NO INDICATION THAT HE OR HIS CLIENT, ANYTIME BETWEEN 10:00 AND 11:00, MADE ANY ATTEMPT TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE HEARING EXAMINER TO EXPLAIN THEIR CONFUSION, AND AND JUST BY A BRIEF BIT OF BACKGROUND HERE, THIS WAS ACTUALLY NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT THE HEARING EXAMINER ENTERTAINED A MOTION TO DISMISS AFTER THE TEA ASSIGNED THIS PARTICULAR APPEAL HEARING TO THE HEARING EXAMINER.
THE HEARING EXAMINER ATTEMPTED ON MANY OCCASIONS TO GET IN TOUCH WITH MISS JACKSON AND MR. CARTWRIGHT TO SCHEDULE A PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS THE MATTER.
NONE OF THOSE COMMUNICATIONS WERE RESPONDED TO.
NO PHONE CALLS WERE RETURNED, AND SO THE HEARING EXAMINER ENTERTAINED A MOTION TO DISMISS FILED BY MR. GROVER AT THAT POINT REQUESTING THAT THE HEARING REQUEST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE THEY HAD NO COMMUNICATION, NO RESPONSE FROM MISS JACKSON OR HER ATTORNEY, AND THE HEARING EXAMINER DID JUST THAT AND WENT AHEAD AND ISSUED A DISMISSAL FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION THE SAME DAY SHE ISSUED THAT, OR HE ISSUED THAT MOTION TO DISMISS.
SUDDENLY MR. CARTWRIGHT MAKES AN APPEARANCE AND SAYS, OH, WE WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE HEARING.
WE ARE GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH THE APPEAL.
SO IT WAS AT THAT POINT THAT THE MARCH 7TH HEARING DATE WAS IDENTIFIED AND SET FOR 10 A.M..
[00:45:04]
THE HEARING EXAMINER IN THIS CASE DETERMINED PROPERLY SO THAT ON MARCH 7TH, AFTER NO COMMUNICATION FROM MR. CARTWRIGHT, THAT AND NO APPEARANCE WHATSOEVER, THAT THE LIMIT HAD BEEN REACHED AND DETERMINED THAT THERE HAD BEEN A WANT, A LACK OF PROSECUTION, WANT OF PROSECUTION, AND DETERMINED THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE DISMISSED, AND I WOULD URGE YOU TO ADOPT AND ACCEPT THAT RECOMMENDATION IN ITS ENTIRETY.CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? MAYBE FOR BOTH COUNSEL.
IS IT WITHIN THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DISCRETION TO EITHER KEEP A MATTER OPEN OR CLOSE A MATTER? EVIDENTIARY? WELL, FOR PURPOSES OF A HEARING? EXAMINERS DISCRETION WHEN THERE'S NOTICE GIVEN OF THE HEARING AND THEN AT A CERTAIN DATE AND TIME, AND THEN IF IT HAD BEEN FIVE MINUTES LATER, I WOULD ARGUE THAT'S PROBABLY ABUSE OF DISCRETION, BUT TO KEEP THE RECORD OPEN, YOU KNOW, TO BE READY FOR THE HEARING AND AND PAST THE APPOINTED TIME BY MORE THAN AN HOUR, THEY FINALLY HAD, THE HEARING EXAMINER, I WOULD ARGUE, HAD NO CHOICE AT THAT POINT REALLY, BUT TO PROCEED AND AGAIN, WITHOUT ANY COMMUNICATION AT ALL ABOUT CONFUSION OR MISUNDERSTANDING.
YOU KNOW, I WOULD ARGUE IT'S ENTIRELY WITHIN THE HEARING EXAMINER'S PURVIEW AT THAT POINT TO GO AHEAD AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO DISMISS.
ANY RESPONSE? THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOME CONFUSION ON MY PART AS TO THE LOCATION.
I DON'T REMEMBER, YOU KNOW, RECEIVING AN EMAIL FROM MR. GROVER. WHEN I WAS INITIALLY INFORMED, I WAS INFORMED THAT THE HEARING WAS GOING TO BE AT THE ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING HERE, AND THAT IS WHAT WE PROCEEDED ON, ON THAT DAY, WE DID NOT TRY TO NOT APPEAR OR ANY OF THAT MATTER AT ALL.
WHEN I WAS FIRST CONTACTED BY MR. GROVER, HE DID TELL ME ORALLY THAT THE HEARING WAS GOING TO BE HERE AT THE ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, AND THAT IS THE REASON WHY MISS JACKSON AND I APPEARED HERE ONCE WE ARRIVED HERE.
WE ARE CHECKED WITH THE RECEPTIONIST AT THE DESK, AND SHE INFORMED US THAT THERE WERE NO HEARINGS TO BE SCHEDULED HERE AT THE ON THAT DATE. SO WE IMMEDIATELY, I IMMEDIATELY CALLED MR. GROVER'S OFFICE TO FIND OUT, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE AND THAT'S WHERE WE PROCEEDED ON TO HIS OFFICE AND I DID NOT WE WEREN'T, I DIDN'T WE DID NOT FOR ANY REASON TRY TO DELAY THE HEARING OR ANYTHING ON OUR PART.
IT WAS JUST AN ERROR IN THE LOCATION.
OKAY, AND THAT IS THE REASON WHY WE MADE THE MOTION TO, YOU KNOW, TO RECONSIDER OR OPEN THE HEARING, THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING BEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER OR TO GIVE HER TO EXHAUST ALL OF HER ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, AND I WANT THE BOARD TO KNOW THAT IT WAS JUST AN ERROR ON OUR PART.
WE DID NOT INTENTIONALLY DELAY OR TO CAUSE ANY PROBLEMS IN PROCEEDING WITH THE HEARING IN GOOD FAITH.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS? IS THERE A MOTION? I HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. MARTINEZ. CAN YOU PLEASE GO AHEAD? YES. I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CERTIFIED HEARING EXAMINER TO DISMISS THE RESPONDENT'S APPEAL FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST HER ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AND FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION, AND THAT WE TERMINATE MISS JACKSON'S EMPLOYMENT WITH THE DISTRICT, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
OKAY. NOW THAT WE HAVE, OH, I'M SORRY, I HAVE A SECOND FROM MR. CAMPO. BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO VOTING THE PARTIES HAVE COMPLETED THEIR PRESENTATIONS, AND IT IS NOW TIME FOR THE BOARD TO MAKE OUR DECISION ON THE ISSUES BEFORE US.
[00:50:01]
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 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 BE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, WE MUST STATE IN WRITING THE SPECIFIC REASON AND LEGAL BASIS FOR ANY CHANGE OR REJECTION.
ANY ACTION HERE HAS TO BE SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD PRESENTED TO THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER.
BEFORE WE VOTE, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MR. MARTINEZ, CAN YOU TELL US YOUR MOTION AGAIN? I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CERTIFIED HEARING EXAMINER TO DISMISS THE RESPONDENT'S APPEAL FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST HER ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AND FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION, AND THAT WE TERMINATE MISS JACKSON'S EMPLOYMENT WITH THE DISTRICT, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
OKAY, AND WE HAVE A SECOND FOR MR. CAMPO ON THAT.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. SEEING NONE, PLEASE VOTE.
THE BOARD HAS VOTED SEVEN IN FAVOR, TWO ABSENT.
THIS HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT 3:01 P.M..
THANK YOU. OUR NEXT MATTER INVOLVES EDWINA LEWIS.
MISS LEWIS. IS SHE HERE? IT LOOKS LIKE MR. TRITICO FORGOT HIS HAT.
OKAY. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF EDWINA LEWIS, FORMER KINDERGARTEN TEACHER, RAUL MARTINEZ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.071.
BECAUSE MISS LEWIS IS NOT PRESENT, WE WILL PROCEED IN CLOSED SESSION.
SO ANYONE WHO'S NOT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, WHICH IS PROBABLY EVERYONE WHO'S IN THE AUDIENCE, IF YOU CAN PLEASE LEAVE AS WE'LL PROCEED IN CLOSED SESSION.
[00:59:30]
CONVENED AN OPEN SESSION.OKAY. READY TO ACCEPT A MOTION? YES. YES, MA'AM? I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CERTIFIED HEARING EXAMINER TO GRANT THE PETITIONER'S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND THAT WE TERMINATE MRS. LEWIS'S EMPLOYMENT WITH THE DISTRICT, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
OKAY. I HAVE A, MS. MENDOZA, CAN YOU CLICK THE MOTION BUTTON? THERE WE GO. IS THERE A SECOND?
[01:00:01]
OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION BY MISS MENDOZA AND A SECOND BY MISS CRUZ ARNOLD.IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? OKAY. THERE BEING NO DISCUSSION, PLEASE VOTE.
I DON'T KNOW. MR. MARTINEZ. I DON'T KNOW IF, DO WE KNOW WHERE HE WENT? OKAY. I THINK WE CAN PROCEED.
THERE'S BEEN A MOTION BY MISS MENDOZA AND A SECOND BY MISS CRUZ ARNOLD.
IF YOU'RE AVAILABLE TO VOTE AND FEEL COMFORTABLE DOING SO, PLEASE DO.
THIS HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT 3:11 P.M..
OKAY. OUR FINAL HEARING TODAY IS RELATED TO THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION OF MICHELLE WILLIAMS. I SAW MISS WILLIAMS. I THINK SHE MAY HAVE STEPPED OUT.
CAN SOMEBODY GRAB OH, MISS WOODS IS GOING TO GO.
UNDER THE TERMS OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071.
[01:05:05]
IF ANY BOARD MEMBER WISHES TO SEEK THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL, PLEASE MAKE THIS REQUEST KNOWN TO ME.FOR THE RECORD MR. JOHN MCCORMICK OF THE MCCORMICK LAW GROUP, REPRESENTING MICHELLE WILLIAMS, IS PRESENT ALONG WITH MISS WILLIAMS HERSELF AND MYLES BRADSHAW OF BRADSHAW LAW, REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION, IS ALSO PRESENT, ALONG WITH CATOSHA WOODS HISD GENERAL COUNSEL.
MR. MCCORMICK, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CONTINUE IN OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION, SIR? I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT IN OPEN, PLEASE.
YES, SIR. THE ISSUES BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD ARE WHETHER BOARD POLICIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES WERE CORRECTLY APPLIED TO THE GRIEVANT, AND WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATION HAS VIOLATED THOSE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
MISS WILLIAMS, SINCE YOU ASKED THE BOARD HEAR THIS MATTER, YOUR REPRESENTATIVE WILL PROCEED FIRST, AND HE WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD, FOLLOWED BY A TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION BY MR. BRADSHAW AND MR. MCCORMICK. YOU MAY RESERVE ANY PART OF THAT TEN MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL TO MATTERS PRESENTED BY MISTER BRADSHAW.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WAY THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED? NO QUESTIONS. OKAY.
VERY GOOD. MR. MCCORMICK, WOULD YOU LIKE TO DIVIDE YOUR TIME NOW? YES. OKAY.
YES, SIR. I WOULD LIKE TO RESERVE 3.5 MINUTES.
MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M JOHN MCCORMICK, AND I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF REPRESENTING MISS MICHELLE WILLIAMS, WHO IS A 24 YEAR EDUCATOR, A MATH TEACHER, AND AT THE TIME THAT THIS GRIEVANCE WAS FILED, WAS A MATH TEACHER AT FOREST BROOK MIDDLE SCHOOL.
THIS GRIEVANCE REALLY IS ABOUT THREE WORDS.
THIS IS THIS GRIEVANCE WAS FILED SOME TIME AGO.
MISS WILLIAMS FILED A GRIEVANCE OVER SOME ISSUES THAT WERE OCCURRING AT FOREST BROOK MIDDLE SCHOOL.
I'M SORRY. THERE WERE THREE ISSUES.
THE FIRST ISSUE WAS THE OPEN THE MAIN GATE TO FOREST BROOK, WHICH HAD BEEN CLOSED.
THE SECOND ISSUE HAD TO DO WITH A FACULTY ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT COMMITTEE HAD BEEN FORMED AS REQUIRED BY YOUR BOARD POLICY AND STATE LAW, AND ALSO WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A SHARED DECISION MAKING COMMITTEE FORMULATED ON THAT CAMPUS, BECAUSE PRIOR TO, IN THE PREVIOUS SCHOOL YEAR THAT HAD NOT TAKEN PLACE.
IN THE LEVEL ONE DECISION, THE PRINCIPLE ESSENTIALLY SAYS, WELL, WE'RE GOING TO FIX THE TWO OF THE ISSUES, AND THE TWO ISSUES WE'RE GOING TO FIX ARE NUMBER ONE THE FACULTY ADVISORY COUNCIL.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND START THAT AND WE'LL ALSO START THE SHARED DECISION MAKING COMMITTEE.
WE'LL START THAT PROCESS AS WELL.
MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD, I'D LIKE YOU TO REMEMBER, THOUGH, CHRONOLOGY AND TIMELINES ARE IMPORTANT, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOKED AT THE RECORD AND YOU LOOKED AT THE TRANSCRIPT, YOU DISCOVERED SOME INTERESTING THINGS ABOUT THOSE TWO COMMITTEES.
NEITHER OF THEM HAD THEIR FIRST MEETING UNTIL WELL AFTER MY CLIENT FILED HER GRIEVANCE, AND I'LL LEAVE IT TO YOU TO ASK THE ADMINISTRATION THERE HOW COMMITTED THEY WERE TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT COMMITTEE, AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT COMMITTEE IS STILL BEING OF THOSE COMMITTEES ARE MEETING AND DOING AND FUNCTIONING AS THEY SHOULD.
THE MAIN ISSUE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER, HOWEVER, TODAY, IS WHETHER OR NOT THE CORRECT DECISION WAS MADE ABOUT CLOSING THE MAIN GATE TO FOREST BROOK MIDDLE SCHOOL.
THERE IS A VIDEO WE'D LIKE TO PLAY FOR YOU, IF I MAY.
[01:10:09]
NOW LET ME SHOW YOU.IN THE VIDEO, TO THE RIGHT WAS THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO THE SCHOOL.
IF YOU WILL PLEASE HALT MY TIME, AND IT WAS I HAD IT QUEUED UP AND THEN I WENT TO THE VIDEO.
WHAT YOU SAW IN THE VIDEO WAS YOU SEE THE CIRCLE IN BLUE THERE.
THAT'S THE GATE THAT'S CLOSED.
IN ORDER FOR PARENTS TO DROP THEIR STUDENTS OFF, RATHER THAN GOING THROUGH THE MAIN GATE, WHICH YOU WOULD ASSUME THAT THEY WOULD DO, THE PRINCIPAL DECIDED TO CLOSE IT. SO INSTEAD, WHEN YOU SAW IN THE VIDEO THESE CARS MAKING U-TURNS, WHAT YOU WERE SEEING WAS PEOPLE WERE MAKING U-TURNS HERE AT THIS INTERSECTION AND GOING DOWN HERE UNDER A BRIDGE ALL THE WAY HERE TO COME AROUND, TO COME IN THROUGH THE BACK GATE.
THE PROBLEM IS THINGS, UNSEEMLY THINGS WERE GOING ON HERE UNDER THE BRIDGE.
ALL OF THOSE THINGS WERE GOING ON UNDER THAT BRIDGE, AND YOUR STUDENTS WERE EXPOSED TO THAT NOT ONCE, BUT EVERY SINGLE DAY THAT GATE WAS CLOSED.
THE ISSUE, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, IS, IS THAT THE SAFEST THING FOR YOUR STUDENTS? DO YOU WANT THEM EXPOSED TO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY ON A DAILY BASIS? DO YOU WANT THEM TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH NEAR WRECKS GOING UNDER A BRIDGE, BY THE WAY, AND LET ME JUST ADD THIS WHERE THAT PLACE UNDER THE BRIDGE, THE DISTRICT DOESN'T HAVE JURISDICTION THERE; ONLY THE CITY OF HOUSTON DOES.
THE REMEDY IS SIMPLE, OPEN THE GATE, AND I ANTICIPATE THAT THE ADMINISTRATION WILL TELL YOU THAT ESSENTIALLY THE REASON THEY DID THAT SHE CLOSED THE GATE WAS BECAUSE STUDENTS HAD TO WALK ACROSS THE PARKING LOT TO THE BACK PART OF THE BUILDING, AND THAT PARENTS WERE NOT BEING COOPERATIVE IN PULLING IN AND NOT GOING OUT THE BACK WAY.
NOTICE SHE DECIDED TO CLOSE THE GATE.
WHAT I DIDN'T HEAR, AND I'M SURE YOU HAVE READ THE TRANSCRIPT.
WHAT I DIDN'T HEAR IS THAT STUDENT SAFETY WAS AT THE PARAMOUNT, WAS HER NUMBER ONE CONCERN.
WHAT I HEARD WAS, WE DON'T WANT OUR SCHOLARS WALKING ACROSS THE PARKING LOT.
QUESTION IS, WOULD YOU RATHER YOUR STUDENTS WALK ACROSS A PARKING LOT INSIDE OF THE CAMPUS, OR WOULD YOU RATHER THEM EXPOSE THEMSELVES TO ALL KINDS OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND DANGER BY WALKING UNDER A BRIDGE? NOW, I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT THE PRINCIPAL, MISS LEWIS, KNEW ABOUT THIS BECAUSE MY.
MY CLIENT TOLD HER THAT IT TOOK PLACE AND TOLD HER REPEATEDLY.
IT WAS ONLY AFTER MISS LEWIS DECIDED THAT SHE WOULD NOT DO IT, THAT MY CLIENT DID THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT SHE COULD BECAUSE THE NUMBER ONE THING IN HER MIND IS STUDENT SAFETY.
NOTICE WHAT THIS GRIEVANCE IS NOT ABOUT.
IT'S NOT ABOUT ANYTHING RELATED TO HER.
IT'S ABOUT WHAT'S BEST FOR THE CAMPUS AND THE STUDENTS.
I'LL RESERVE THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME.
[01:15:01]
THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, BOARD OF MANAGERS.WE'RE HERE ON BEHALF OF THE ADMINISTRATION AND ASKING YOU TO AFFIRM THE LEVEL TWO DECISION.
MR. MCCORMICK IS CORRECT THAT THERE WERE THREE ISSUES BROUGHT UP.
I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS TWO OF THOSE THAT I THINK CAN BE DISMISSED PRETTY QUICKLY, AND THOSE WERE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FACULTY ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OR I GUESS APPROPRIATE CONTINUATION WOULD BE THE BETTER WAY TO SAY IT OF THE SDMC COMMITTEE.
THEY HAD DONE ALL THE THINGS THAT THEY WERE REQUIRED TO DO, AND SO THAT RELIEF WAS GRANTED, AND IT AND IT HAD HAPPENED, AND SO IT BECAME A MOOT ISSUE.
SPECIFICALLY, IN ADDITION TO THAT SINCE THIS HEARING WAS HEARD AT LEVEL TWO, THE FACULTY ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WHICH IS ONLY IN A REGULATION OF HISD, IT'S NOT STATE LAW HAS BEEN REPEALED, AND SO THERE'S NOT EVEN A REQUIREMENT FOR THE CAMPUS OR ANY CAMPUS TO HAVE A FACULTY ADVISORY COMMITTEE. SO THOSE TWO ISSUES TRULY ARE MOOT, AND I DIDN'T EVEN REALLY HEAR ANY ARGUMENT ABOUT THAT.
LET ME KIND OF GIVE THE ADMINISTRATION SIDE OF THIS THING.
MISS LEWIS, WHO WAS WITH ME HERE TODAY, THE PRINCIPAL AT FOREST BROOK, SHE CAME TO THE SCHOOL IN JUNE PRIOR TO THE 22-23 SCHOOL YEAR, AND SHE MET WITH HER, I GUESS IT WAS ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL MISS SCOTT, AND THEY TALKED ABOUT A LOT OF DISCIPLINE ISSUES.
THEY TALKED ABOUT YOU KNOW, WHAT WERE THE ISSUES THAT SHE NEEDED TO ADDRESS RIGHT AWAY, AND ONE OF THEM WAS PICK UP IN THE MORNING AND HOW IT WAS, HOW IT WAS OPERATED, BECAUSE AT THAT TIME EXHIBIT TWO, IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT IN YOUR IN YOUR IN YOUR BOOK IS THE PICTURE OF THE CAMPUS, AND AT THAT TIME BOTH THE WHAT'S THE BACK GATE, WHICH ARE ALL THE GREEN ARROWS, AND THEN THE FRONT GATE, WHICH IS THE BLUE CIRCLE.
THOSE ARE BOTH OPEN FOR DROP OFF IN THE MORNING AND SO PEOPLE WERE COMING IN FROM EVERYWHERE.
STUDENTS WERE RUNNING CRISSCROSS.
SOME WANTED TO GO TO THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, SOME WANTED TO GO TO THE BACK OF THE BUILDING, AND IT WAS VERY HARD TO MANAGE THIS CAMPUS, BEFORE MISS LEWIS CAME, THERE WAS ONE OF THE HIGHEST HAD ONE OF THE HIGHEST INCIDENT RATES OF DISCIPLINARY ISSUES AT HER CAMPUS.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS IS SHE WANTED TO KIND OF REEL THAT IN, AND SO THEY CAME UP WITH A SYSTEM.
SHE WORKED WITH HER TEAM AND SHE DID TAKE INPUT FROM MISS WILLIAMS VERY GLADLY SO, AND CAME UP WITH THE SYSTEM THAT THEY NOW HAVE, WHICH IS THE GREEN ARROWS IS WHAT WE CALL THE BACK GATE, AND THERE YOU GO.
THANK YOU. THEY CHOSE TO LEAVE THAT GATE OPEN IN THE MORNING, AND KEEP IN MIND, THAT GATE IS OPEN FROM 7:30 TO 8:25, AND AT 825, STUDENTS ARE CONSIDERED TARDY.
THAT WAY THE SCHOOL CAN MONITOR WHO'S COMING IN.
NOT ONLY THAT, BUT THE BUILDING RIGHT THERE WHERE THE DROP PIN IS THE CAFETERIA AREA AND MOST STUDENTS, A LOT OF STUDENTS WILL GO IN AND HAVE BREAKFAST BEFORE THE SCHOOL SCHOOL DAY BEGINS.
IT'S REALLY JUST COMMON SENSE.
NOT ONLY THAT, BUT THE PRINCIPAL ASKED THE RISK OR I'M SORRY.
THE RISK MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT OF HISD INFORMED HER IN SEPTEMBER OF THAT YEAR THAT THEY'RE GOING TO COME OUT AND DO A SITE VISIT, AND THEY DID THAT SITE VISIT, AND WHEN THEY CAME, SHE ASKED THEM TO LOOK AT THIS ISSUE.
LOOK AT THE GATE. IS IT, YOU KNOW, WHICH IS SAFER? ARE THERE OTHER THINGS WE NEED TO DO TO MAKE IT EVEN MORE SAFE? , AND THEY DID GIVE A COUPLE RECOMMENDATIONS.
THEY SAID TO YOU SHOULD TO HAVE HAVE SOMEONE STATIONED AT TWO AREAS, ONE WHERE I HAD A BLACK X, WHICH WAS DOWN BY THE ROAD IN THE BACK GATE WHERE PEOPLE WERE COMING IN.
HAVE SOME HAVE AN ADMINISTRATOR STATIONED THERE AND HAVE ONE STATIONED AT THE ACTUAL DROP OFF NEAR THE CAFETERIA, AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, THEY ALSO HAD A DESIGNATED WALKWAY WITH RED CONES, WHERE STUDENTS WERE TO WALK FROM, WHERE THE GATE WAS OPENED UP TO THE CAFETERIA AREA, AND THAT WAY THEY COULD BE SOMEWHAT CONTAINED, AND THERE WERE OTHER STAFF, OF COURSE, HELPING WITH DROP OFF NOT TO MENTION THE TWO POLICE OFFICERS THAT THEY HAD WHO WERE STATIONED IN THAT AREA DURING DROP OFF IN
[01:20:03]
THE MORNING AND SO THAT'S THE SYSTEM, AND AND THAT'S WHY SHE DID IT THAT WAY.SHE CONSIDERED SHE ALWAYS CONSIDERED MISS WILLIAMS' INPUT.
SHE NEVER YOU KNOW, NEVER DENIED IT, NEVER IGNORED IT, AND NOT ONLY THAT, THE SDMC, ONCE IT GOT GOING ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SDMC GOT WITH THE CONSTABLE'S OFFICE WENT TO THE CITY OF HOUSTON AND SAID, HEY, THERE'S A BUNCH OF TRASH UNDER THIS BRIDGE.
I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN THE RECORD WAS HAPPENING DOWN THERE.
I DON'T RECALL ANY ACTUAL CRIMINAL ACTIVITY GOING ON EVERY DAY.
ONE OTHER THING, JUST FOR YOUR OWN BENEFIT, THE EXHIBITS, NOT SEVEN, EXHIBITS 16 ARE WHAT ARE CALLED POSSIP REPORTS, AND THOSE ARE FOR PARENTS AND OTHERS TO GIVE INPUT TO THE SCHOOL ON ISSUES, AND SURE ENOUGH, WHEN THIS WAS IMPLEMENTED, WHICH WAS AUGUST THE 28TH THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER THE 4TH, THERE WERE FOUR REPORTS ABOUT DROP OFF, RIGHT, AND TWO OF THOSE, ONLY TWO OF THOSE WERE ACTUAL COMPLAINTS.
THEY WERE, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE VERY SHORT.
THIS IS NO GOOD. IT'S NOT WORKING.
THERE HAVEN'T BEEN ANY COMPLAINTS SINCE THERE HAVE BEEN NO INCIDENTS.
DROP OFF HAS BEEN HANDLED THIS WAY ALL THIS TIME, AND IT'S WORKING GREAT.
SO IF YOU WOULD WE ASK THAT YOU LET THE PRINCIPAL BE THE PRINCIPAL, AND YOU GUYS CAN HANDLE YOUR BUSINESS TODAY? THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
YES, SIR. JUST PLEASE GO AHEAD.
HOW MUCH TIME DO I HAVE? TIME? HOW MANY? JUST ONE SECOND.
I'M GOING TO ASK THAT THEY PUBLISH ONE THING ON THE BOARD.
IF YOU COULD PUBLISH THE COMPUTER SCREEN AGAIN.
CAMPUS ADMINISTRATION REFERENCED A RISK MANAGEMENT.
I'M GOING TO CALL IT AUDIT, IF YOU WILL, AND WHAT YOU SEE THERE IS A PART OF THE RECORD.
THEY CAME OUT AND TWO THINGS ARE SHOULD JUMP OUT AT YOU IMMEDIATELY AND CONCERN YOU.
THE AUDIT JUST SIMPLY LOOKED AT THE BACK GATE.
HERE'S THE MOST INTERESTING THING THOUGH, AND YOU'LL SEE IT ON THE SCREEN BEHIND YOU.
NOTICE THE TIME THAT THEY THE RISK MANAGEMENT WENT OUT TO THE CAMPUS ON OCTOBER 11TH, 2022 AT 12:34 P.M.. WHEN THE FRONT GATE IS OPEN.
THEY DIDN'T DETECT MUCH TRAFFIC THERE.
WHY? IT'S THE WRONG TIME OF DAY.
REMEMBER, MISS WILLIAMS'S COMPLAINT IS YOU'RE CLOSING THE GATE.
THE FRONT GATE AT THE BUSIEST TIME OF THE INSTRUCTIONAL DAY.
IT IS THE TIME WHEN THE MOST STUDENTS ARE BEING DROPPED OFF.
IT'S THE TIME WHEN THEY'RE COMING IN.
WHY DIDN'T THE RISK MANAGEMENT COME AT THE BEGINNING? SAY 7:30/7:45.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, THEY ONLY CAME WHEN THE FRONT GATE WAS OPENED.
FOR THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME, I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO HEAR FROM MISS WILLIAMS, BECAUSE I TOLD YOU AT THE BEGINNING OF MY COMMENTS THAT THIS GRIEVANCE REALLY WAS ABOUT THREE WORDS: OPEN THE GATE.
ADMINISTRATION SIMPLY DONE THOSE THREE THINGS.
WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO TAKE UP YOUR TIME TODAY.
[01:25:02]
IT'S A SIMPLE FIX.MISS WILLIAMS. GOOD AFTERNOON.
THE STUDENT STAFF AND FOREST BROOK COMMUNITY DESERVE TO BE SUPPORTED BY HISD IN THE SAME MANNER AS LANIER MIDDLE SCHOOL, MARLIN INTERMEDIATE, LAMAR HIGH SCHOOL. STUDENTS AT FOREST BROOK SHOULD NOT HAVE TO CROSS OVER RAILROAD TRACKS AND PUT THEIR SAFETY AT RISK TO MAKE THEIR WALK SHORTER, BECAUSE MISS LEWIS REFUSED TO OPEN THE GATE.
I'M ASKING YOU ALL TO TREAT THIS COMMUNITY IN THE SAME WAY THAT YOU TREAT THE COMMUNITIES, THE SCHOOLS IN THE WEST SIDE THAT Y'ALL WOULD NOT ALLOW RIVER OAKS TO CLOSE THE GATE AND MAKE PARENTS AND STAFF GO BY AND PASS BY TRASH EVERY DAY.
SO I'M ASKING YOU TODAY TO NOT ALLOW THAT AT FOREST BROOK MIDDLE.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES? ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY.
DO WE NEED TO HIT A BUTTON? HERE WE GO. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A MOTION AT THIS TIME, OR WE CAN RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION.
WE MUST APPLY ONLY THE FACTS PRESENTED IN THE TRANSCRIPT AND THE APPLICABLE POLICY OR LAW, AND MAKE A DECISION IF THERE IS ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN MR. MCCORMICK AND THE ADMINISTRATION AS TO WHAT THE POLICIES AND OR THE PROCEDURES MEAN, THEN IT IS THE BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THE MEANING OR APPLICATION OF THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. THE RECORD OF THE LEVEL TWO HEARING MUST SUPPORT ANY ACTION WE TAKE.
THAT IS, IF THE RECORD SUPPORTS THE POSITION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OR THE POSITION OF MR. MCCORMICK, WE MAY FIND ACCORDINGLY.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? NO? OKAY.
IS THERE A MOTION? MAKE A MOTION. I MOVE THAT WE.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD DENY THE GRIEVANCE AND UPHOLD THE DECISION OF LEVEL TWO HEARING OFFICER.
IS THERE A SECOND? I HAVE A MOTION BY MR. CAMPO. IS THERE A SECOND? MISS MENDOZA. THERE IS A MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER CAMPO AND A SECOND BY BOARD MEMBER MENDOZA TO DENY THE GRIEVANCE AND UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE LEVEL TWO HEARING OFFICER.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION AT THIS TIME? IF NOT, PLEASE VOTE.
THIS HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT 3:38 P.M..
AT THIS TIME, THE BOARD WILL 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.
THE BOARD HAS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 3:39 P.M.
THE BOARD IS RECONVENED FROM CLOSED SESSION AT 4:52 P.M..
I DON'T BELIEVE THERE ARE ANY MOTIONS.
OR ARE THERE FROM A CLOSED SESSION? NO. SO WITH THAT, WE ARE ADJOURNING THE 2 P.M.
MEETING AT 4:53 P.M..
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.