[00:00:03]
[Hearings on December 10, 2024.]
THIS MEETING IS NOW CONVENED AT 2:04 P.M.I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT EVERYONE, PLEASE SILENCE YOUR CELL PHONES.
A QUORUM OF THE BOARD MEMBERS IS PRESENT.
AND THE BOARD AUDITORIUM. THEY ARE FROM MY RIGHT, CASSANDRA BANDY, JEANETTE GARZA LINDNER, MYSELF, AUDREY MAHONEY, RICK CAMPO, ROLANDO MARTINEZ, PAULA MENDOZA. AND I BELIEVE MR. RIVON WILL BE HERE SHORTLY.
THERE ARE NO ZOOM BOARD MEMBERS, RIGHT? OKAY. OKAY.
OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO HEAR FROM SPEAKERS TO AGENDA ITEMS. WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER THIS AFTERNOON, MELISSA YARBOROUGH, MAKING SURE SHE'S HERE BEFORE I READ THE ADMONITION, I DON'T SEE HER.
OKAY. THEN WE HAVE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS WHO ARE HERE TODAY.
SO WE WILL NOW CONDUCT THE HEARING SCHEDULED FOR THIS MEETING.
OUR FIRST IS WITH RESPECT TO THE MATTER OF CHARLES COLLINS.
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.071.
MARJORIE MURPHY WITH THE MURPHY LAW PRACTICE, PLLC, REPRESENTING MR. COLLINS, IS PRESENT. THAT YOU, MA'AM? MR. COLLINS HERE WITH YOU. HI, SIR.
AND PAUL LAMP WITH SPALDING NICHOLS.
LAMP LANGLOIS REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION AS PRESIDENT.
ALONG WITH KATASHA WOODS, HIS GENERAL COUNSEL, WHO'S ALSO PRESENT.
AND WHO DO YOU HAVE, MR. LAMPE, WITH YOU? JOSE SANTOS, THE PRINCIPAL OF CHALLENGE EARLY COLLEGE.
OKAY. MISS MURPHY, WOULD YOU ALL LIKE TO GO FORWARD AND OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION? OPEN. OPEN.
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. LAMPE, YOU WILL PROCEED FIRST.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW WE'LL PROCEED? NOT FROM THE ADMINISTRATION.
THANK YOU, MR. LAMP. DO YOU WANT TO SPLIT YOUR TIME NOW OR LATER OR NOT? SPLIT YOUR TIME. I'D LIKE TO RESERVE TWO MINUTES, PLEASE.
SO, EIGHT MINUTES FOR THE PRESENTATION AND TWO MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL.
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, SIR, YOU CAN BEGIN.
THANK YOU. BEAR WITH ME. I'M JUST CONNECTING THE WI-FI.
MAY I PROCEED? YES. THANK YOU. BOARD PRESIDENT.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MY NAME IS PAUL LAMP.
I'M REPRESENTING THE HISD ADMINISTRATION THIS AFTERNOON.
I'M HERE WITH JOSE SANTOS, THE PRINCIPAL OF CHALLENGE EARLY COLLEGE HIGH SCHOOL.
THIS AFTERNOON WE WILL BE ASKING YOU AS THE BOARD TO REJECT A HEARING OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION IN A NON-RENEWAL MATTER AND TO CHANGE TWO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW THAT THE HEARING OFFICER FOUND IN HER RECOMMENDATION, BECAUSE THEY ARE FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED BASED ON THE FACTS THAT SHE ALSO FOUND IN THE SAME HEARING.
NOW, THIS IS A PERFORMANCE CASE ARISING OUT OF CHALLENGE EARLY COLLEGE HIGH SCHOOL.
NOW, JUST BY ACCOUNTABILITY STANDARDS.
JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND CHALLENGE IS BY ACCOUNTABILITY STANDARDS, THE NUMBER TWO SCHOOL IN THIS SCHOOL DISTRICT, IT'S THE NUMBER FOUR SCHOOL IN THE GREATER HOUSTON AREA.
AND IT IS THE NUMBER 21 SCHOOL IN TEXAS.
THIS IS A VERY HIGH PERFORMING, HIGHLY SOUGHT AFTER CAMPUS.
AND PRINCIPAL SANTOS CERTAINLY HAS HIGH EXPECTATIONS FOR ALL OF HIS FACULTY MEMBERS.
[00:05:01]
YEAR. HISD PRESENTED FIVE WITNESSES IN SUPPORT OF ITS NON-RENEWAL AND OFFERED 38 EXHIBITS INTO THE RECORD.MR. COLLINS OFFERED NO WITNESSES OTHER THAN HIMSELF AND NO EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF HIS POSITION.
NOW THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION HAS FOUND, AND IT IS THE LAW, THAT ONE VIOLATION OF AN OFFICIAL DIRECTIVE BY A SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR WHERE AN EMPLOYEE VIOLATES THAT DIRECTIVE, EVEN ONE VIOLATION IS SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE GOOD CAUSE TO TERMINATE OR NON-RENEW AN EMPLOYEE'S CONTRACT.
HERE THIS RECORD SHOWS MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS OF DIRECTIVES.
SO. AND MR. COLLINS DURING THE HEARING, NEVER DISPUTED ONCE THAT HE VIOLATED OFFICIAL DIRECTIVES GIVEN TO HIM BY HIS SUPERVISORS.
FROM A FACTUAL STANDPOINT, THIS RECORD IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT HIS ADMINISTRATION HAD GOOD CAUSE TO NOT RENEW HIS CONTRACT.
I THINK THE MOST ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF THE HEARING OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION IS WHAT SHE DID NOT ADDRESS, AND SPECIFICALLY, SHE DID NOT ADDRESS HISD'S EXHIBIT 32.
AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT 32, IN THE RECORD, IT'S A MEMO FROM PRINCIPAL SANTOS TO MR. COLLINS DATED APRIL 5TH, 2024.
AND IN THAT MEMO, PRINCIPAL COLLINS REITERATES AND DOCUMENTS SPECIFICALLY THE TITLE OF THE MEMO IS FAILURE TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVE AND PROFESSIONAL EXPECTATIONS.
AND THROUGHOUT THAT MEMO, HE DISCUSSES HOW MR. COLLINS FAILED TO MEET EXPECTATIONS AND FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIVE HE HAD GIVEN HIM, SPECIFICALLY FOR MR. COLLINS TO WRITE A MEMO THAT HAD REFLECTIONS ON A PERFORMANCE, AN OBSERVATION THAT MR. SANTOS HAD RECENTLY CONDUCTED ON HIS CLASSROOM.
IT'S A TWO PAGE, SINGLE SPACED MEMO THAT GOES THROUGH GREAT DETAIL THE PERFORMANCE DEFICIENCIES OF MR. COLLINS. NOT ONCE DOES THE HEARING OFFICER EVEN REFERENCE THIS MEMO IN HER RECOMMENDATION.
PRINCIPAL SANTOS TESTIFIED AT LENGTH ABOUT THIS MEMO ABOUT THE REASONS HE WROTE IT, ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE DEFICIENCIES HE PERSONALLY OBSERVED THAT LED TO THIS MEMO. AND THIS HEARING OFFICER NEVER EVEN MENTIONS IT IN HER RECOMMENDATION.
AND THE REASON IT IS, IS BECAUSE THE HEARING OFFICER IS APPOINTED BY THE TEA.
FOR THIS HEARING OFFICER, NOT TO EVEN MENTION THIS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT MEMO SHOULD PROVIDE YOU WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT SHE WAS RESULTS DRIVEN.
BUT YOU CANNOT BE A HEARING OFFICER IN TEXAS AND HAVE THIS KIND OF EVIDENCE IN FRONT OF YOU AND FAILED TO EVEN MENTION IT IN YOUR RECOMMENDATION. IMPORTANTLY, SHE DOES FIND, AND I WANT TO READ THIS TO YOU BECAUSE THIS IS ALSO CRITICALLY IMPORTANT FINDING OF FACT NUMBER 67 IN HER RECOMMENDATION, SAYS COLLINS, CONSTANT FAILURE TO SUBMIT GRADES, ATTENDANCE AND LESSON PLANS IN A TIMELY MANNER LED TO THE ISSUANCE OF A MEMORANDUM IN WHICH HIS NONCOMPLIANCE TO DIRECTIVES, PLURAL WERE BROUGHT TO HIS ATTENTION.
THAT IS A FINDING OF FACT ISSUED BY THIS SAME HEARING OFFICER.
NOW, GOOD CAUSE IN THE NON-RENEWAL CONTEXT, AS YOU MAY APPRECIATE OR KNOW, IS LESS THAN GOOD.
AND REMEMBER, IT ONLY TAKES ONE VIOLATION OF ONE DIRECTIVE TO CONSTITUTE GOOD CAUSE.
SO FOR A HEARING OFFICER TO MAKE A FINDING LIKE THAT NUMBER 67, AND YET SIMULTANEOUSLY CONCLUDE THAT WE DON'T HAVE GOOD CAUSE TO TERMINATE OR NON-RENEWAL HIS CONTRACT.
[00:10:10]
DOES HAVE GOOD CAUSE.NOW I REALIZE MY TIME IS SHORT.
SO LET ME WRAP UP WITH A COUPLE OF COMMENTS.
I ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ HER FINDINGS OF FACT NUMBER 58 THROUGH 67, BECAUSE THEY ALL SUPPORT HIS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH BASIC TASKS OF HIS JOB, FAILING TO CREATE LESSON PLANS AND SUBMIT THEM SO HIS SUPERVISOR COULD REVIEW THEM PRIOR TO THE NEXT WEEK, REPEATEDLY FAILING TO DO THAT, REPEATEDLY FAILING TO COMPLETE GRADES AND SUBMIT GRADES IN A TIMELY MANNER.
READ HER FINDINGS OF FACT 58 THROUGH 67.
ALL OF THEM SUPPORT NON-RENEWAL.
ANOTHER VERY INTERESTING FAILURE OR REFERENCE IN HER RECOMMENDATION IS THE FACT THAT SHE SAID THAT SHE WAS BASING HER DECISION ON TEXAS LAW AND, QUOTE, TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINIONS.
THAT'S NOT WHAT GOVERNS THESE.
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION DECISIONS ARE WHAT GOVERN THIS.
SO WE'RE DEALING WITH A HEARING OFFICER WHO, FRANKLY, DID NOT EITHER UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS OR, LIKE I SAID, REACHED RESULTS FOR REASONS WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND.
SO THE ADMINISTRATION IS RECOMMENDING THAT YOU CHANGE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW NUMBERS FIVE AND SIX TO STATE THAT THE ADMINISTRATION DID IN FACT HAVE GOOD CAUSE TO NON-RENEW HIS.
OH, AND ALSO, I KNOW MR. RIVON HAS JOINED US.
GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS MARJORIE MURPHY.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM PRESIDENT.
I'M HERE TODAY WITH CHARLES COLLINS, A TEACHER FROM CHALLENGE EARLY HIGH SCHOOL, TO URGE YOU TO UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION AND DENY THE PROPOSED NON-RENEWAL OF MR. COLLINS CONTRACT.
THIS DECISION IS CRUCIAL NOT ONLY FOR MR. COLLINS CAREER, BUT TO MAINTAIN FAIRNESS AND INTEGRITY WITHIN HISD.
I'M GOING TO FOCUS ON FOUR KEY REASONS TO DENY HISD'S PROPOSED NON-RENEWAL.
THE VERY FIRST REASON IS THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO POLICY VIOLATION PROVEN.
HISD HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED, AS DETERMINED BY THE HEARING OFFICER, BY PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT MR. COLLINS FAILED TO FULFILL HIS DUTIES, VIOLATED ANY POLICIES, WAS INSUBORDINATE OR ANY OTHER POLICY.
INSTEAD, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT MR. COLLINS RECEIVED SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS THROUGHOUT THE NINE YEARS THAT HE TAUGHT AT CHALLENGE HIGH SCHOOL, INCLUDING THE 23-24 SCHOOL YEAR WHEN HIS PRINCIPAL PROPOSED THE NON-RENEWAL OF HIS CONTRACT.
I'M GOING TO TALK QUICKLY ABOUT EXHIBIT 32 THAT WAS JUST MENTIONED AND THE FAILURE TO MEET EXPECTATIONS PROPOSED BY, EXCUSE ME, MR. SANTOS IN THE RECORD.
RESPONDENT TALKS ABOUT EXHIBIT 32 AND SPECIFICALLY NOTES THAT THE RECORD IS DEVOID FROM ANY EVIDENCE THAT PRINCIPAL SANTOS EVEN BOTHERED TO ASK MR. COLLINS WHETHER HE RECEIVED THE EMAIL DIRECTIVE ON MARCH 21ST BEFORE ISSUING THE DIRECTIVE.
ADDITIONALLY, THE RECORD IS FULL OF EVIDENCE AND FACTS THAT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PROPOSED DISCIPLINE AND THE DISCIPLINE ACTUALLY ISSUED TO MR. COLLINS DID NOT MATCH WITH THE ACTUAL OCCURRENCES DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR.
NOW I'M GOING TO BACK UP A LITTLE BIT.
NOT ONLY HAD MR. COLLINS RECEIVED SATISFACTORY, SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE.
THROUGHOUT HIS TIME AT CHALLENGE HIGH SCHOOL, WHEN HE STARTED IN THE 2324 SCHOOL YEAR, HE WAS ONE OF THE ONLY TEACHERS ACCREDITED TO TEACH THE STUDENTS A COURSE THAT WAS GIVEN COLLEGE CREDIT.
[00:15:07]
CHALLENGE HAD THREE MATH TEACHERS, MR. COLLINS. MR. COLLINS TAUGHT TWO MATH CLASSES.EACH OTHER TEACHER TAUGHT ONLY ONE MATH CLASS.
THAT MEANT THAT MR. COLLINS HAD AN EXTRA AMOUNT OF CONTENT TO PREPARE, SLIDES TO PREPARE, LESSON PLANS TO SUBMIT, AND GRADES TO SUBMIT. MR. SANTOS DOESN'T DENY THAT.
IN FACT, ON AT LEAST ONE OCCASION, IT WAS MADE CLEAR DURING THE HEARING THAT WHEN MR. COLLINS RESPONDED TO A REMINDER EMAIL ABOUT THE ABOUT THE PROCESS OF SUBMITTING HIS GRADES BECAUSE HE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE REQUIREMENT, HIS QUESTION JUST WENT UNANSWERED.
THIS SHOWS THAT THERE WAS NO HELP TO MR. COLLINS DURING THIS TIME.
ANOTHER IMPORTANT THING THAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS IS THAT DESPITE HIS ARGUMENT THAT MR. COLLINS WAS EXCESSIVELY LATE ON HIS GRADES OR LESSON PLANS IN THE HEARING, MR. SANTOS AND MR. SEIKEN, THE ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL, ADMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT MR. COLLINS WAS LATER THAN ANY OTHER TEACHER AT CHALLENGE HIGH SCHOOL WHEN SUBMITTING GRADES OR LESSON PLANS.
IN FACT, THEY ADMITTED OTHER TEACHERS WERE ALSO LATE SUBMITTING GRADES AND LESSON PLANS.
ADDITIONALLY, THE HEARING DURING THE HEARING, NONE OF THE FIVE WITNESSES THAT HISD PRESENTED WERE EVER ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT, BECAUSE OF ANY LATE SUBMISSION BY MR. COLLINS, THAT THERE WAS ANY ISSUE, ANY PROBLEM, ANY DISRUPTION TO THE CLASS OR HIS STUDENTS OR A PARENT COMPLAINT. RATHER, WHAT DURING THE HEARING, WHAT WE LEARNED IS THAT AFTER MR. COLLINS FACED A SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMPLAINT THAT WAS LODGED AGAINST HIM IN DECEMBER 2022 AND ENGAGED IN PROTECTED ACTIVITY, HIS WHOLE CAREER AT CHALLENGE HIGH SCHOOL CHANGED IN 2022, WHEN HE WAS FIRST MADE AWARE OF THE COMPLAINT. MR. SANTOS WAS ALSO MADE AWARE OF THE COMPLAINT AND REQUIRED THAT HE CONTINUE TO ATTEND MEETINGS WITH THE ACCUSER.
THIS. THIS WAS DISTRESSING FOR MR. COLLINS AND HE REQUESTED FMLA LEAVE.
IT WAS DENIED IN THE 2223 SCHOOL YEAR.
HE CONTINUED TO WORK AT CHALLENGE RETURNED IN THE 2324 SCHOOL YEAR.
MR. SANTOS AGAIN ASSIGNED HIM TO WORK WITH THE PERSON ACCUSING HIM OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT.
THIS WAS DISTRESSING FOR MR. COLLINS. HE MADE A PROTECTED COMPLAINT.
HE ALSO REQUESTED FMLA LEAVE, WHICH WAS GRANTED IN THE 2324 SCHOOL YEAR PRIOR TO COMING BACK FROM HIS FMLA LEAVE.
HE ASKED MR. SANTOS, BASED ON A MEDICAL ORDER FROM HIS DOCTOR, WHETHER HE COULD CHANGE HIGH SCHOOLS, CHANGE THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH HE WORKED BECAUSE IT WAS SO DISTRESSING FOR HIM.
NOW, THIS COMPLAINT WAS MADE IN DECEMBER 22, IN THE 23-24 SCHOOL YEAR.
HISD STILL HAD NOT TOLD MR. COLLINS THE OUTCOME OF THE COMPLAINT.
YET HISD AND MR. SANTOS KEPT MR. COLLINS IN THE DARK FOR TEN MONTHS.
THIS MAN WAS SEEING A DOCTOR BECAUSE OF THE DISTRESS THAT THIS CAUSED.
HE REQUESTED FMLA LEAVE BECAUSE OF THE DISTRESS THAT THIS CAUSED.
WHEN HE BEFORE RETURNING AND WHEN HE REQUESTED A CHANGE OF LOCATION OF HIS WORK ENVIRONMENT, MR. SANTOS FLATLY TOLD HIM NO, HE DID NOT DETERMINE, HEY, THIS WAS A MEDICAL REQUEST.
ALTHOUGH MR. COLLINS SAYS IT IN HIS EMAIL, HE SAYS THIS IS DISTRESSING FOR ME AND THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMPLAINT HAS NOT BEEN HANDLED WELL. I WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE SCHOOLS AS HISD HAS ALREADY STATED, CHALLENGE IS A TOP SCHOOL.
A TEACHER WANTS TO BE AT CHALLENGE HIGH SCHOOL.
MR. SANTOS IGNORED HIS ACCOMMODATION REQUESTS AND INSTEAD STARTED SCRUTINIZING HIS PERFORMANCE BETWEEN NOVEMBER 2023 AND APRIL 2024.
THERE WERE NO LESS THAN FOUR INSTANCES EVERY MONTH, AND UP TO SEVEN THAT MR.
[00:20:03]
SANTOS AND DEAN JOSEPH, MR. COLLINS APPRAISER, WOULD DO SPOT CHECKS AND AUDITS OF MR. COLLINS PERFORMANCE.THIS HADN'T HAPPENED BEFORE HIS FMLA REQUEST.
THIS ALSO ACCORDING TO MR. SANTOS. IN THE HEARING, HE ADMITS THAT HE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW IF HE AUDITED ANY OTHER MATH TEACHER AS MUCH AS HIM AND DEAN JOSEPH AUDITED MR. COLLINS. WHAT IS REALLY UNIQUE HERE IS THAT IN SPITE OF THESE WRITTEN EXHIBIT 32 AND ALL OF THESE EVALUATIONS WHERE YOU SEE LOW, LOW SCORES, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE HEARING OFFICER NOTED IN HER ORDER IS THAT THE LOW SCORES DON'T MATCH THE EVALUATIONS.
THE APPRAISAL WAS ABLE TO SAY HE HAD WELL-STRUCTURED TEACHING PLANS, AND THE STUDENTS WERE ENGAGED.
HOWEVER, THOSE SAME EVALUATIONS RESULTED IN A LOW SCORE.
ALSO VERY CONCERNING IS THAT DEAN JOSEPH, WHO PRINCIPAL SANTOS SUPERVISES, LIED DURING THE HEARING AND PRINCIPAL SANTOS ADMITTED THAT SHE DID.
DEAN JOSEPH SAYS HE WASN'T PART OF A DISCIPLINE.
TO MR. COLLINS, WE KNOW THAT SANTOS WAS A PART OF EVERY BIT OF DISCIPLINE WHICH LED TO THE NON-RENEWAL IN MAY. SO WHILE THERE ARE INFRACTIONS IN THE RECORD, AND MR. COLLINS DID IN FACT ADMIT TO OCCASIONALLY NOT SUBMITTING HIS GRADES ON TIME, THIS ISN'T A CASE OF NONPERFORMANCE.
THIS IS A CASE OF RETALIATION FOR MR. COLLINS PROTECTED ACTIVITY.
THE ONLY THING I HEARD ABOUT MR. COLLINS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH MULTIPLE DIRECTIVES WAS THE SUGGESTION THAT PERHAPS HE DIDN'T GET ONE EMAIL THAT CONTAINED A DIRECTIVE.
SO SUGGESTING THAT HE DIDN'T GET ONE EMAIL.
AND THEREFORE, ALL OF THESE FAILURES TO COMPLY WITH DIRECTIVES ARE EXCUSED.
SHE SAID THAT WE DIDN'T POINT OUT THAT HE VIOLATED A POLICY, AND THEREFORE WE CAN'T NON-RENEW HIM.
NUMBER ONE, THAT'S NOT THE STANDARD.
THE HEARING OFFICER SAYS THAT IN HER RECOMMENDATION, BUT THAT'S FALSE.
FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S NOT AN HISD POLICY THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO SUBMIT YOUR LESSON PLANS TO YOUR SUPERVISOR THE WEEK BEFORE YOU GIVE THEIR LESSONS, BUT IT CERTAINLY IS A REQUIREMENT AT THE CAMPUS LEVEL.
AND IT WAS A DIRECTIVE HE WAS ISSUED THAT HE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH.
HIS PRIOR VALUATIONS ARE QUITE IRRELEVANT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE VALUATIONS OF THIS SCHOOL YEAR, AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK AT EXHIBIT 25, WHICH WAS HIS MIDDLE OF THE YEAR VALUATION THAT CONTAINED SIGNIFICANT AND PROTRACTED COMMENTS ABOUT HIS POOR PERFORMANCE AND HIS NEED TO IMPROVE IN SEVERAL AREAS.
THEY DIDN'T MENTION THAT EVALUATION TO YOU.
AGAIN, WE REQUEST THAT YOU REJECT IT.
YEAH, IT'S SET FORTH IN THE TEXAS EDUCATION CODE AND ITS SIMPLY GOOD CAUSE DO WE HAVE GOOD CAUSE TO NON-RENEW HIM? AND GOOD CAUSE IS SET FORTH IN A HOST OF COMMISSIONERS' DECISIONS, BUT IT'S ESSENTIALLY FAILING TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF YOUR EMPLOYER FAIL FAILING TO DO SOMETHING AND FOLLOW THE RULES AND REQUIREMENTS AS SET FORTH BY YOUR EMPLOYER.
[00:25:08]
THAN TERMINATING AN EMPLOYEE IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR CONTRACT.THIS IS AT THE END OF THEIR CONTRACT.
AND THAT'S THE THAT'S THE TERMINATION DECISION.
MY QUESTION IS ABOUT THE BOARD DECISION.
IS IT THE SAME? ARE WE LOOKING AT A DE NOVO? I MEAN, ARE WE LOOKING AT ALL THE FACTS? YEAH, YEAH. YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE RECORD AND THE EXHIBITS AND DETERMINING WHETHER THERE IS IT'S CALLED SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, WHICH OF COURSE REALLY MEANS ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A FINDING OF FACT OR CONCLUSION OF LAW.
HERE THE HEARING OFFICER MADE SEVERAL FINDINGS OF FACT THAT WE AGREE WITH.
IT'S THE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW THAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD CHANGE, AND TEXAS LAW PERMITS THE BOARD TO CHANGE A CONCLUSION OF LAW IF THE FACTS DON'T SUPPORT IT.
AND SO THAT'S REALLY THE STANDARD WE'RE PROPOSING TO YOU.
THANK YOU, MISS MURPHY. DO YOU AGREE DISAGREE.
HAVE A DIFFERENT TAKE ON THAT.
ONLY THAT WHEN HE SAID SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT IT IS NOT ANY EVIDENCE, BUT IT IS IT IS MORE 51% THAN NOT JUST ANY EVIDENCE. OKAY.
AND, MISS MURPHY, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU AS WELL.
CAN YOU GIVE US AN EXHIBIT NUMBER? SURE. 32.
WHERE HIS SCORES ARE REFLECTED AS TWOS.
BUT THE COMMENTS DEMONSTRATE THAT THE EVALUATOR SAID THAT HIS LESSON PLANS WERE WELL STRUCTURED.
I'M JUST GOING TO TURN IT OVER.
32 LOOKS LIKE IT'S THE APRIL 5TH DIRECTIVE.
YEAH. I'M SORRY I WENT TO THE WRONG ONE.
FOR EXAMPLE, ONE EXHIBIT WAS 21 WAS ANOTHER EXAMPLE WHERE THE HEARING OFFICER NOTED THAT IT WAS A 90 MINUTE CLASS AND THE EVALUATION WAS FOR 17 MINUTES DID NOT SEEM TO JUSTIFY THE COMMENTS.
AND IT'S ACTUALLY EXHIBIT 33, EXCUSE ME, WHERE HE RECEIVED VERY LOW SCORES.
BUT THE COMMENTS OF THAT EXHIBIT STATE THAT HIS TEACHING PLAN WAS WELL STRUCTURED, ALIGNED WITH CURRICULUM STANDARD, AND WAS CONDUCIVE TO LEARNING, BUT STILL AWARDED HIM TWOS ON EXHIBIT 33 AND ON 21.
AND CAN I ADD ONE OTHER FACT? NOT ANOTHER FACT. JUST IF THOSE ARE THE TWO EXAMPLES AND I APPRECIATE IT.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? I JUST HAVE A GENERAL QUESTION.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE'RE MISSING? JUST TO BE CLEAR FROM YOUR END? THERE'S NOTHING THAT YOU WERE MISSING.
MR. COLLINS DID MOVE TO ALLOW US TO SUBMIT EXHIBITS AND WITNESSES.
I WAS RETAINED AT THE LAST MOMENT.
AND SO HE SIMPLY JUST DID NOT KNOW THAT THERE WAS A DEADLINE, WAS NOT INFORMED, DID NOT HAVE THE INFORMATION TO SUBMIT HIS WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS TIMELY.
SO WE DID USE THE ISD'S EXHIBITS AND ALSO QUESTIONED THE WITNESSES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. THE PARTIES HAVE COMPLETED THEIR PRESENTATIONS, AND IT IS NOW TIME FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS TO MAKE OUR DECISION ON THE ISSUES BEFORE US.
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 A FINAL, I'M SORRY, 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.
CONCLUSION OF LAW MAY ALSO BE CHANGED OR REJECTED.
[00:30:03]
BASIS FOR ANY CHANGE OR REJECTION.IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION BASED ON THAT BY THE BOARD? SEEING NONE. 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 UPON THE OPEN MEETING COVERED BY THIS NOTICE.
THE BOARD HAS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 2:34 P.M.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION AMONGST THE BOARD? OKAY. SEEING NONE.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MR. MARTINEZ, I SEE THAT YOU'VE MADE A MOTION.
SURE. THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT.
I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT.
I HAVE A SECOND BY MR. VAUGHN. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE, PLEASE VOTE.
THIS HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT 3:07 P.M.
THANK YOU. THE NEXT MATTER IS THE PROCEDURE TO CONSIDER THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION OF SHEILA BURTON.
OKAY. ARE ALL PARTIES HERE? YES. HI.
OKAY. IS EVERYBODY READY TO GO? EVERYBODY READY? OKAY. VERY GOOD. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE DISPUTE FILED BY SHEILA BURTON, FORMER SCHOOL SECRETARY AT WESLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTIONS 551 .071.
IF ANY BOARD MEMBER WISHES TO SEEK THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL, PLEASE MAKE THIS REQUEST KNOWN TO ME.
FOR THE RECORD. HÉCTOR MORALES, TEXAS SUPPORT PERSONNEL.
EMPLOYEES LOCAL ONE REPRESENTING MRS. BURTON IS PRESENT AND CLAY GROVER OF ROGER MORRIS AND GROVER LLP REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION, IS PRESENT.
KATASHA WOODS, HISD GENERAL COUNSEL, IS ALSO PRESENT.
MR. MORALES, WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO FORWARD AND OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION, SIR? EXCUSE ME. OPEN. OKAY.
THE ISSUES BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD ARE WHETHER BOARD POLICIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES WERE CORRECTLY APPLIED TO THE GRIEVANCE, AND WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATION HAS VIOLATED THOSE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
YOUR REPRESENTATIVE WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD, FOLLOWED BY A TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION BY MR. GROVER AND MR. MORALES. YOU CAN RESERVE ANY PART OF YOUR TEN MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL TO MATTERS THAT ARE PRESENTED BY MR. GROVER, AND BOTH SIDES SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD AFTER THEIR RESPECTIVE PRESENTATIONS.
AFTER DELIBERATION, THE BOARD SHALL RENDER ITS DECISION.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE WAY THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS WILL BE HANDLED? THANK YOU. NO, MA'AM.
OKAY. VERY GOOD. MR. MORALES, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO DIVIDE YOUR TIME? IF YOU'D LIKE TO? SEVEN AND THREE FOR REBUTTAL, PLEASE.
[00:35:02]
OKAY. YES, SIR. OKAY, SIR.WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. YOU MAY BEGIN.
I'M SURE YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN ME HERE IN THE PAST.
AND I'VE ARGUED IN FRONT OF YOU MANY CASES.
AND IF YOU RECALL BACK LAST YEAR WHEN YOU GUYS WERE JUST APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR, AND I PRESENTED TO YOU AT THE BOARD MEETING ABOUT FRAUD THAT'S BEING COMMITTED BY A PRINCIPAL AT WESLEY ELEMENTARY.
THERE WAS A DOCUMENT THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO YOU AT A PUBLIC HEARING THAT WAS SUBMITTED.
EXCUSE ME. AND IF YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT EIGHT, THERE'S ANOTHER ONE FOR EXHIBIT FOR $1,880.
SO THE PRINCIPAL WAS INSTRUCTING HIS ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO MAKE THAT BE PAID IMMEDIATELY.
SHE FOUGHT BACK AND SAID IT CANNOT BE PAID THROUGH A PRO CARD.
SO, HE TOLD HER TO DO IT, HOWEVER WAY YOU HAVE TO DO IT TO GET IT DONE.
IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE PAID 150 STUDENTS.
STUFFED WINGS, MEALS INCLUDING THREE RINGS, FRIES AND A DRINK.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE OTHER EXHIBIT EIGHT, IT SAYS 150 STUDENT PROGRAM KITS.
NEITHER ONE WAS PROVIDED TO THOSE STUDENTS AT WESLEY ELEMENTARY.
THE INDIVIDUAL WAS FIRED BY NOT DOING WHAT THE PRINCIPAL WANTED HER TO DO, WHICH WAS COMMIT FRAUD.
AS YOU CAN SEE US TODAY, THE PRINCIPAL IS NO LONGER HERE.
MRS. BURTON HAS BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THE DISTRICT.
WAS EMPLOYED WITH THE DISTRICT OVER 27 YEARS.
SHE NEVER, NEVER RECEIVED A REPRIMAND, NEVER RECEIVED A WRITE UP.
HER EVALUATIONS WERE ALL EXCELLENT.
THE ONLY MISTAKE SHE MADE WAS SHE SHOULD HAVE FILED IT UNDER THE WHISTLEBLOWER ACT, WHICH SHE DID.
AND WE'RE NOT SURE IF IT FELL ON DEAF EARS, BECAUSE WHEN I REQUESTED THIS PAPERWORK, IT WAS NEVER SUBMITTED TO ME UNDER THE OPEN RECORDS REQUEST. MISS BURTON WAS RESPONSIBLE TO MAKE SURE THE CHECKS AND BALANCE WERE MADE AT WESLEY ELEMENTARY.
SHE DID THAT. SHE DID THAT TO THE BEST OF HER ABILITY.
SHE WAS PUNISHED FOR BEING HONEST AND TELLING THE TRUTH.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR TODAY.
YOU CAN MAKE THE JUSTICE CORRECT BY REINSTATING HER AND MAKING HER WHOLE.
THE TWO INVOICES ALONE SHOULD RAISE THE FLAG OF WHY THESE INVOICES WEREN'T PAID.
THE PRINCIPAL ALSO WAS INSTRUCTING HER THAT ALLEGED OVERTIME FRAUD THAT WAS BEING COMMITTED BY MR. DAWSON, BY ALLOWING EMPLOYEES TO WORK OVERTIME, AND WAS FORCING MISS BURTON TO APPROVE IT.
ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD, MISS BURTON.
AND WOULD YOU STATE IT TO ME ALSO? CAN YOU PLEASE STATE IT FOR THE RECORD SO THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD IT? PAGE 24.
THIS IS A TEACHER, MISS BARTHOLOMEW.
SHE SAID THINGS SHE COULD TAKE CARE OF.
THE PRINCIPAL CAME IN AND INSTRUCTED HER UNDER THE TESTIMONY ON THE TRANSCRIPT FOR IT TO BE PAID.
YOU LOOK AT PAGE 26, EXCUSE ME, 25.
SO, MISS BARTHOLOMEW, WHEN WE GOT TO THE TIME CLOCKS, IT WAS.
NOW ALLOW ME TO GIVE HER THE OVERTIME LIKE IT WAS.
SO, SHE CAME TO ME, AND SHE ASKED ME PERSONALLY, ARE YOU NOT TAKING CARE OF ME?
[00:40:04]
LIKE MR. DAWSON SAID? BECAUSE MY CHECK IS SHORT.SO, ARE YOU GOING TO CONTINUE TO GIVE ME THE EXTRA TIME? THE OVERTIME? THERE WAS SO MUCH FRAUD BEING DONE AT THAT SCHOOL THAT I HAVE NO IDEA WHY CHARGES WERE FILED AGAINST THAT PRINCIPAL.
MISS BURTON TRIED TO DO THE RIGHT THING, AND SHE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
SHE WAS HELD ACCOUNTABLE AND DISMISSED FOR BEING HONEST AND TRUTHFUL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR, MR. GROVER. MAY I PROCEED? YES, MAY IT PLEASE THE BOARD.
MISS BURTON'S EMPLOYMENT AS A CAMPUS SECRETARY AT WESLEY ELEMENTARY WAS TERMINATED IN MAY OF 2023 FOR WORK PERFORMANCE ISSUES AND SAFETY CONCERNS.
ALL THE COMMENTS THAT OPPOSING COUNSEL JUST MADE ABOUT FRAUD OR FRAUDULENT ACTIVITIES, THERE'S NO RECORD OF THAT IN THIS RECORD.
THOSE ARE UNSUBSTANTIATED SPECULATIONS.
THERE'S NOTHING TO PROVE THAT THE PRINCIPAL DID ANYTHING WRONG IN THIS CASE.
BUT WHAT I WANT TO GET TO IS THAT AS A CAMPUS SECRETARY, MISS BURTON'S EMPLOYMENT IS AT WILL, WHICH MEANS THAT HER EMPLOYMENT CAN BE TERMINATED FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER, AS LONG AS IT'S NOT UNLAWFUL OR DISCRIMINATORY.
TWO OF THEM INVOLVED SAFETY CONCERNS AND NOT FOLLOWING PROCEDURES ONE, SHE ALLOWED SOMEONE TO COME INTO THE BUILDING, NOT WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURES, AND THAT PERSON PARENT WAS ABLE TO GET INTO THE CAMPUS AND CONFRONT A TEACHER AND THREATEN THE TEACHER, AND THE TEACHER WAS QUITE SCARED OF IT AFTERWARDS, AND SHE HAD NOT FOLLOWED THE PROCEDURES. THE PRINCIPAL WROTE HER UP FOR THAT.
AGAIN, THERE WAS ANOTHER INSTANCE LIKE THAT WHERE SHE WENT OUTSIDE AND TALKED TO A PARENT OUTSIDE THE CAMPUS, SHARING NOT ONLY FALSE INFORMATION, BUT INFORMATION THAT, IF TRUE, WOULD HAVE BEEN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION ALLEGING THAT THE CAMPUS WAS INSTIGATING A CPS CASE AGAINST THE PARENT, WHICH OBVIOUSLY MADE THE PARENT IRATE AND CAME IN AND CAUSED A THE SCENE AND THREATENED PEOPLE AND HAD TO BE ESCORTED OUT OF THE BUILDING.
SHE RECEIVED, APPROPRIATELY, A WRITTEN REPRIMAND FOR THAT.
AND THEN LASTLY, ONE OF HER JOBS IS THE BUSINESS PROCUREMENT, AND THE CAMPUS'S PRO CARD WAS SUSPENDED FOR A WHILE BECAUSE OF HOW IT WAS USED.
BUT WE KNOW THAT THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT ARE TRAINED TO DO THIS ARE THE CAMPUS SECRETARIES ON HOW TO USE THE PRO CARD AND WHAT IT CAN BE USED FOR AND HOW IT'S TO BE USED. IF SHE THOUGHT THAT SHE WAS BEING ASKED TO USE THAT PRO CARD IN A WAY THAT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE, SHE SHOULD HAVE RAISED THAT ABOVE HER PRINCIPAL.
AND YET THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF THAT.
THE TRUTH IS, SHE'S THE ONE THAT'S TRAINED IN THE USE OF IT AND DIDN'T SEEK ANY HIGHER GUIDANCE.
SHE RECEIVED THOSE THREE MEMOS IN THE SPRING OF 2023.
SHE CAN BE TERMINATED FOR ANY REASON.
IT DOESN'T VIOLATE ANY POLICY.
THAT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE BASED ON THIS RECORD.
WE ASK. SHE'S ASKING FOR REINSTATEMENT AND BACK PAY.
WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU DENY HER REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT, DENY ANY BACK PAY, AND THAT YOU APPROVE THE LEVEL TWO DECISION AND DENY HER GRIEVANCE.
AND LASTLY, I WOULD JUST SAY, BASED ON HER OWN TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING, SHE'S THE CAMPUS SECRETARY WORKING FOR THE PRINCIPAL AS HER MAIN SUPERVISOR. SHE ADMITTED DURING THE LEVEL TWO HEARING THAT THEIR PERSONALITIES WERE INCOMPATIBLE.
[00:45:04]
STATED. HE SHOULDN'T BE FORCED TO KEEP A SECRETARY ON CAMPUS THAT HE CAN'T WORK WITH.AND FOR THOSE REASONS, WE'D ASK THAT YOU DENY THE GRIEVANCE.
THANK YOU, MR. MORALES. THANK YOU.
AS A CLERK, AS A PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
I WANT YOU TO VISUALIZE IT, IF YOU CAN, FOR A MINUTE.
THE PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE IS HERE.
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY IS RIGHT NEXT TO HIM.
SO HOW IS SHE RESPONSIBLE TO THE FRONT DESK WHEN SHE DOESN'T HAVE ACCESS TO THAT? AND WHEN YOU GO TO THE SCHOOLS, YOU HAVE TO BUZZ IN, AND THEY HAVE TO BUZZ YOU TO LET YOU IN.
SECONDLY, THIS IS THE ADMINISTRATION'S EXHIBIT.
IF YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT SEVEN FOR VIOLATION OF THE PRO CARD POLICY LEADING TO SUSPENSION.
IF YOU LOOK IN RED, THIS IS MISS BURTON'S REBUTTAL.
I EXPLAINED TO MR. DAWSON REGARDING THE THREE WEEKS PRIOR NOTICE FOR FUNDING.
WE CAN'T JUST DO IT AT HIS BECK AND CALL.
AND THAT'S BEEN HER ARGUMENT FROM THE BEGINNING, IS THERE'S RULES.
THERE'S POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT SHE WOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE IF THEY DIDN'T DO IT.
SO WHEN SHE TRIED TO TELL THE PRINCIPAL THAT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW IT.
HE'S TELLING HER I DON'T CARE.
AM I GOING TO BE HELD FOR INSUBORDINATION, OR AM I GOING TO BE HELD LIABLE FOR NOT DOING WHAT POLICY AND PROCEDURES TELLS US TO OUTLINE? THE QUESTION IS, WHAT DID SHE VIOLATE TO WARRANT HER TERMINATION? ALL SHE DID WAS TELL THE TRUTH AND TO BE HONEST AND TRY TO HOLD THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTABLE.
YOUR LEGAL COUNSEL HERE COULDN'T GIVE YOU A REASON WHY THE PRINCIPAL IS NOT HERE.
IT'S BECAUSE EVENTUALLY THE INVESTIGATION WAS DONE AND FOUND OUT THAT FRAUD WAS COMMITTED.
THERE'S NO EVIDENCE. CAN YOU PLEASE STICK TO THE TRANSCRIPT AND THE RECORD THAT I'M STICKING TO THE TRANSCRIPT? TO THE RECORD? IF HE WAS NOT HELD LIABLE, HE WOULD BE HERE TODAY.
DO YOU THINK MIRACULOUSLY, I DON'T SPECULATE AS TO REASONS WHY HE'S NO LONGER IMPORTANT.
I MEAN, BASICALLY, YOU'RE INSTRUCTED TO DO WHAT YOU'RE INSTRUCTED TO DO.
I'VE ARGUED MANY CASES IN FRONT OF YOU AND ASKED YOU TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND.
WEIGH IN ONLY ON THE EXHIBITS, ONLY ON THE EVIDENCE THAT'S BEING PRESENTED TO YOU.
I'M ASKING YOU GUYS TO GIVE THEM A FAIR CHANCE.
THAT'S ALL I'VE ASKED FOR SINCE I'VE COME IN FRONT OF YOU.
THIS ISN'T THE LAST CASE THAT'S GOING TO BE BROUGHT IN FRONT OF YOU.
ALMOST. ALMOST A YEAR AND A HALF CASE.
I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE STILL GOING TO BE HERE.
SO YOU'RE STILL GOING TO SEE ME HERE? ARGUE A CASE IN FRONT OF YOU.
DON'T WEIGH IN WHAT SOMEBODY TELLS YOU, WHAT TO DO AND WHAT YOU NEED TO DO.
I'M ASKING YOU TO WEIGH IN INTO THE EVIDENCE THAT'S BEING PRESENTED TO YOU.
THE ARGUMENT THAT'S BEING PRESENTED TO YOU.
THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING IS GIVE MY CLIENT A FAIR SHARE.
I'M ASKING YOU TO GIVE THEM A FAIR SHARE.
THANK YOU. I WILL NOTE THAT THE BOARD HAS NEVER BEEN DIRECTED ON HOW TO RESPOND OR DEAL WITH THESE CASES.
DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM MY COLLEAGUES? QUESTIONS? OKAY.
I HAVE A MOTION. OR SHOULD WE GO TO CLOSED SESSION? I GUESS I SHOULD READ THE INSTRUCTIONS.
IF THERE IS ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN MRS.
[00:50:01]
BURTON AND THE ADMINISTRATION AS TO WHAT THE POLICIES AND OR 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 MRS. BURTON, WE MAY FIND ACCORDINGLY.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION AT THIS TIME? THE BOARD WILL NOW RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION UNDER CHAPTER 551 OF THE 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 MADE AT THE OPEN MEETING COVERED BY THIS NOTICE.
THE BOARD HAS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 3:26 P.M.
THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE HOUSTON ISD SCHOOL BOARD IS NOW RECONVENED IN OPEN SESSION AT 03:36 P.M.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? DO I HAVE A MOTION? I HAVE A MOTION BY MR. MARTINEZ.
MR. MARTINEZ, CAN YOU PLEASE READ YOUR MOTION? THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT.
BEFORE I READ THE MOTION, I WANT TO JUST SAY, MR. MORALES, PIGGYBACK ON WHAT MADAM PRESIDENT SAID.
WE MAKE OUR INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS UNBIASED.
WE HEAR AND THE FACTS, THE FINDINGS OF FACTS.
WHEN YOU ACCUSE THE BOARD OF, YOU KNOW, BEING FORCED TO VOTE SOMETHING.
IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY HELP YOUR CLIENT OUT IN THIS CASE.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I MOVE THAT WE.
I BELIEVE IN SPEAKING THE TRUTH, THOUGH, FOR THE RECORD.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD DENIED THE GRIEVANCE AND UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE LEVEL TWO HEARING OFFICER.
IS THERE A SECOND? I GOT A SECOND FROM MISS BANDY.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, PLEASE VOTE.
THIS HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT 3:37 P.M.
THE NEXT MATTER WE HAVE BEFORE US IS THE PROCEDURE TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF [INAUDIBLE].
OKAY. DO WE HAVE ALL PARTIES HERE? YES, YES.
LADIES, ARE YOU ALL INVOLVED IN THIS HEARING? YOU TWO? YES.
ANYBODY ELSE IN THE ROOM? 04:30 P.M.
WE'LL REFER TO THE STUDENT BY FIRST AND LAST NAME INITIALS TO PROTECT THEIR PRIVACY.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? YES, MADAM PRESIDENT, I MOVE THAT WE SUSTAIN AND ADOPT THE DECISION OF THE DESIGNEE AS THAT OF THE BOARD AND FIND THAT SHE VIOLATED THE CODE OF STUDENT CONDUCT AS ALLEGED BY COMMITTING ARSON AT BRIAR MEADOW CHARTER SCHOOL.
I HAVE A MOTION BY MISS LINDNER AND A SECOND BY MR. CAMPO. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION AT THIS TIME? YES, I THINK IT'S JUST IMPORTANT TO NOTE IT'S A LITTLE UNCLEAR STILL TO ME THAT I UNDERSTAND NOW THAT THE STUDENT IS AT HOME IN ONLINE SCHOOL, WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S SOME SOMETHING AS FAR AS THE AP OR DA EAP THAT APPLIES AFTER HE RETURNS OR ONCE THE COURT HAS LITIGATED THE MATTER, I THINK IT BODES TO THAT WE NEED TO
[00:55:05]
HAVE SOME OPEN COMMUNICATION ABOUT WHATEVER THE FOLLOW UP TO THAT IS, IF YOU WILL, BECAUSE TO ME, IT'S STILL A LITTLE BIT IN THE AIR.ARE YOU ASKING THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE TIME THAT HE SPENDS ON THIS ONLINE ACADEMY CONSTITUTES TIME TOWARDS THE AP OR JJAEP EXPULSION? OKAY HOLD ON A SECOND.
KATASHA, ARE WE ALLOWED TO ASK THAT QUESTION? YOU CAN. OKAY, SIR, CAN YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR US? I CAN ANSWER IT. OKAY.
NO, THAT WOULD NOT COUNT AS TIME SERVED IN JJAEP.
OKAY. SORRY. I'LL LET YOU IF YOU HAVE A FOLLOW UP.
ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION BY MISS LINDNER AND A SECOND BY MR. CAMPO. NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.
WE HAVE FOUR IN FAVOR, TWO ABSENT, TWO OPPOSED.
THIS HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT 4:33 P.M.
THANK YOU. WITH NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO DISCUSS, THIS MEETING OF THE BOARD IS ADJOURNED.
ON DECEMBER 10TH, 2024.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.