[Hearings on February 13, 2025.]
[00:00:04]
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS MEETING IS NOW CONVENED AT 2:05 PM.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK EVERYBODY TO PLEASE SILENCE YOUR CELL PHONES.
QUORUM OF THE BOARD MEMBERS IS PRESENT AND IN THE AUDITORIUM, THEY ARE FROM MY RIGHT.
CASSANDRA AUZENNE BANDY, WE HAVE MICHELLE CRUZ ARNOLD, WE HAVE, LET'S SEE TO MY LEFT NOW, AUDREY MOMANAEE.
WE HAVE ROLANDO MARTINEZ AND ADAM RIVON. ADAM, GOOD TO SEE YOU.
HELLO. OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS.
WE DON'T HAVE SPEAKERS. I'M GOING TO MOVE ON FROM THAT.
LET'S SEE, I'M GOING TO GO TO THIS ONE HERE.
I'VE DONE ONE OF THESE BEFORE.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A PROCEDURE TO CONSIDER THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION OF CARLA LEWIS.
THIS IS A LEVEL 2 DISPUTE HEARING.
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE DISPUTE FILED BY CARLA LEWIS, A FORMER GRANTS ADMINISTRATOR IN THE EXTERNAL FUNDING GRANT DEVELOPMENT OFFICE OF THE HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT.
HEARINGS INVOLVE COMPLAINTS AGAINST DISTRICT EMPLOYEES ARE TO BE HELD IN CLOSED SESSION UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE WHO IS SUBJECT TO THE HEARING REQUESTS AN OPEN HEARING.
IF BOTH PARTIES REQUEST AN OPEN SESSION DURING THE COURSE OF THIS HEARING, THE BOARD MAY GO INTO A 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 ADVICE OF COUNSEL, PLEASE MAKE THIS REQUEST TO ME.
FOR THE RECORD, MISS LEWIS IS PRESENT.
MILES BRADSHAW, BRADSHAW LAW, REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION IS PRESENT, AND CATOSHA WOODS, HISD GENERAL COUNSEL IS ALSO PRESENT.
MISS LEWIS, DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE AN OPEN SESSION OR CLOSED SESSION?
THE ISSUES BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD ARE WHETHER BOARD POLICIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES WERE CORRECTLY APPLIED TO THE GRIEVAN AND WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATION HAS VIOLATED THOSE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
MISS LEWIS, SINCE YOU'VE ASKED THE BOARD TO HEAR THIS MATTER, YOU WILL PROCEED FIRST.
YOU WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A 10-MINUTE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD, FOLLOWED BY A 10-MINUTE PRESENTATION BY MR. BRADSHAW.
MISS LEWIS, YOU MAY RESERVE PART OF YOUR 10 MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL TO MATTERS PRESENTED BY MR. BRADSHAW.
BOTH SIDES SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD AFTER THE RESPECTIVE PRESENTATIONS.
AFTER DELIBERATION, THE BOARD WILL RENDER ITS DECISION.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO RUN THIS HEARING? MISS LEWIS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO DIVIDE YOUR TIME IN MAKING YOUR PRESENTATION?
>> I PLAN TO USE THE FULL 10 MINUTES, BUT IF THERE'S TIME REMAINING.
THAT WORKS. MISS LEWIS, YOU MAY BEGIN.
>> PROBABLY UP HERE, SO EVERYBODY CAN SEE YOU. THAT'D BE GREAT.
>> LET ME KNOW WHEN I'M READY.
>> ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, BOARD MEMBERS.
I'M A DEDICATED EDUCATOR WITH 30 YEARS OF EXEMPLARY SERVICE IN THE HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND I STAND TO REFUTE THE FALSE CLAIMS LEVIED AGAINST ME THAT LED TO MY WRONGFUL TERMINATION.
WHAT YOU HAVE HEARD ARE HEARING OR WILL HEAR FROM MY FORMER MANAGER IS AN EXAMPLE OF A BIG LIE THEORY, AND THE THEORY IS THAT IF YOU REPEAT A LIE OFTEN ENOUGH, PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE IT AND YOU CAN EVEN COME TO BELIEVE IT YOURSELF.
THEY HOPE THAT I WOULD BELIEVE IT AND GO AWAY WILLFULLY.
THEY ARE HOPING TODAY THAT YOU WILL BE LEVERAGED TO BELIEVE THIS BIG LIE ONCE AGAIN TO GAIN YOUR ACCEPTANCE FUELED BY SOME KEY WORDS THAT YOU'LL HEAR MISSED DEADLINES, AUDITABLE, OFFERED SUPPORT, AND UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE.
I STAND AS A VICTIM OF WORKPLACE RETALIATION, FALSE ACCUSATIONS, AND AN UNJUST TERMINATION.
WHAT HAPPENED TO ME IS NOT JUST UNFAIR, IT'S A DELIBERATE ABUSE OF POWER.
FOR 30 YEARS, I MAINTAINED AN UNBLEMISHED RECORD.
THE LATTER HALF OF MY CAREER HAS BEEN SPENT WORKING WITH FEDERAL GRANTS, AND FOR THE LAST NINE YEARS OF MY CAREER, I WORKED WITH PRIVATE NONPROFIT SCHOOLS PARTICIPATING IN FEDERAL GRANTS WITH HISD.
I REGULARLY WENT OVER AND BEYOND THE CALL OF DUTY TO ENSURE THAT HISD AND THE SCHOOLS RECEIVE THE BEST OF MY WORK.
POOR PERFORMANCE IS NOT A PART OF MY WORK HISTORY IN ANY ROLE THAT I SERVED THROUGH THE YEARS OF MANY SUPERINTENDENTS AND REORGS.
[00:05:03]
MY WORK AND CONTRIBUTIONS CAN BE VALIDATED BY MANY PEOPLE WITHIN TEA, INCLUDING THE STATE PNP OMBUDSMAN, AND HISD DEPARTMENT HEADS AND MEMBERS.IF A FORMAL INVESTIGATION HAD BEEN DONE PRIOR TO MY TERMINATION, GIVING THEM PROTECTION, TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS.
HOWEVER, I COULD NOT CALL ON THESE INDIVIDUALS FOR STATEMENTS, AS IT WOULD JEOPARDIZE THEIR JOBS AS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR CREATE STRAINED WORKPLACE RELATIONSHIPS.
THAT LEAVES US RELYING ON THE PERSONAL FEELINGS OF THREE INDIVIDUALS WHO PURPOSELY ALIGNED THEIR ACTIONS AND MADE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ME THAT WERE FALSE, CONTRADICTORY, AND DESIGNED TO SET ME UP FOR FAILURE, EVEN WHILE THEIR ACTIONS VIOLATED MULTIPLE LEGAL PROTECTIONS, INCLUDING WHICH I ONLY HAVE TIME TO NAME.
RETALIATION UNDER TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS UNDER HISD POLICY AND TEXAS LABOR LAWS, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND GOOD FAITH EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES, DEFAMATION AND DAMAGE TO PROFESSIONAL REPUTATION.
NOW, THE HISTORY OF RETALIATION BEGAN LONG BEFORE I SUBMITTED MY WRITTEN RESPONSE TO PAM EVANS CLAIMS IN 2023.
IT STARTED WHEN I SPOKE TRUTH TO THE UNTRUTHS OF MY SUPERVISORS, AND THAT WAS THE BOTTOM LINE OF MY WRITTEN RESPONSE.
IN MAY OF 2022, I REQUESTED TIME OFF TO ATTEND A GENERAL CONFERENCE FOR MY CHURCH.
THIS WAS NOT A SMALL LOCAL CONFERENCE.
IT WAS A NATIONAL CONFERENCE WHERE GOVERNING LEGISLATION WAS PROPOSED AND VOTED ON FOR THE ENTIRE CHRISTIAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH.
WE WERE ALSO ELECTING BISHOPS TO REPLACE RETIRING OR DECEASED BISHOPS WHO HEADED THE DENOMINATION, AND BISHOPS WOULD BE THE EQUIVALENT OF POPES IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCHES.
PAMELA EVANS DENIED MY REQUEST TO ATTEND TWICE AND THEN IMPOSED EXCESSIVE UNJUSTIFIED REQUIREMENTS TO DISCOURAGE ME FROM TAKING LEAVE.
WHEN I SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED ALL EXTRA TASK, I WAS FINALLY GRANTED PERMISSION TO ATTEND, BUT WAS LATER TARGETED WITH UNFOUNDED WRITE UPS AND MICROMANAGEMENT.
I WAS SUBJECTED TO ESCALATING SCRUTINY AND BASELESS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS, INCLUDING MY FIRST EVER WRITE UP IN HISD HISTORY ON FEBRUARY 17, 22.
VACATION REQUESTS SUBJECTED TO EXCESSIVE REQUIREMENTS ON MAY 2ND, 2022, AND THEN THE SECOND WRITE UP OCCURRED ON JUNE OF 2022.
TO COUNTER PAM'S MANY CLAIMS FROM THOSE WRITE UPS. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE.
I REQUESTED MY BADGE ACTIVITY REPORT TO CONFIRM MY CLAIMS AGAINST THE TARDINESS.
HOWEVER, HISD DENIED THAT REQUEST, HEREBY PREVENTING ME FROM DEFENDING MYSELF WITH SOLID EVIDENCE.
I EVEN APPEALED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, BUT THEY UPHELD HISD'S DECISION.
NOTE THAT THE ALLEGATIONS USED AGAINST ME WERE FALSE, CONTRADICTORY, AND DESIGNED TO SET ME UP FOR FAILURE.
HERE'S SOME EXAMPLES OF THE FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF TARDINESS.
PAM FALSELY ACCUSED ME OF BEING LATE AND THEN FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT HER CLAIM AT THE TIME OF THE REVIEW.
NO SIGN IN SHEETS, NO ANYTHING.
AT THE SECOND REVIEW, SHE EVEN ASKED ME WHAT TIME WAS I SUPPOSED TO REPORT, SOMETHING THAT I WOULD THINK SHE WOULD CLEARLY HAVE KNOWN.
ANGELA BROOKS ACCUSED ME OF BEING LATE WHEN I HAD WRITTEN PROOF AND A WITNESS TO CONFIRM MY PRESENCE.
YET SHE ASKED ME TO CHANGE MY TIME ON THE TIME SHEET BECAUSE I CAME IN 30 MINUTES LATE.
I TOLD HER I WOULD NOT CHANGE MY TIME BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT TRUE.
SHIRLENE ALEXANDER ALSO ACCUSED ME OF LYING ABOUT MY ARRIVAL TIME AND I CONTACTED HER BY PHONE ABOUT ARRIVING LATE DUE TO HEAVY TRAFFIC.
OVER THAT DISCREPANCY SHE GAVE ME THE OPTION TO DEDUCT THE TIME OR BE WRITTEN UP.
CHOOSING TO DEDUCT THE TIME WAS A BETTER OPTION FOR ME.
BOTH SHIRLENE AND ANGELA ATTEMPTED TO COERCE ME INTO FALSIFYING A SIGN IN SHEET TO MATCH THEIR FALSE CLAIMS. ANOTHER EXAMPLE, EXAGGERATED NEGATIVE EVALUATIONS.
THOUGH I WAS MARKED AS DEVELOPING IN TWO AREAS FOR TWO YEARS IN A ROW, I WAS ALSO MARKED EFFECTIVE OR HIGHLY EFFECTIVE IN ALL OTHER 10-PLUS AREAS.
I SUGGEST THAT THIS IS NOT INDICATIVE OF POOR PERFORMANCE.
I WAS NEVER PLACED ON A GROWTH PLAN, PASSED EVERY COMPLIANCE REVIEW WITH AN AUDIT, UPLOAD, SUBMISSION, ETC, ON BEHALF OF HISD.
I SUCCESSFULLY MANAGED THREE FEDERAL GRANTS AND ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR NINE YEARS.
WITHIN THAT TIME, FOUR FEDERAL GRANTS AND ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR TWO OF THOSE YEARS BECAUSE THERE WAS A FOURTH GRANT ADDED.
NOTE THAT I AM THE ONLY GRANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR THIS PROGRAM.
THERE WERE ALSO BLATANT DIFFERENCES MADE FOR INDIVIDUALS HAVING THE SAME OR SIMILAR RESPONSIBILITIES.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE, PLACING BLAME FOR THE SR SPREADSHEET DEBACLE, I WAS BLAMED FOR AN AUDITABLE SPREADSHEET DELAY.
YET THE SPREADSHEET WAS NOT AN OFFICIAL AUDITABLE DOCUMENT.
THE PROCESS WAS TIME AND LABOR INTENSIVE THAT WAS PROPOSED FOR COMPLETION.
THERE WERE SUDDEN LAST MINUTE CHANGES IMPOSED ON ME BY SUPERVISORS.
YET DESPITE THOSE OBSTACLES, I REPEATEDLY MET THE IMPORTANT DEADLINES MENTIONED FOR JANUARY, FEBRUARY, AND MARCH.
THIS WAS NOT A PERFORMANCE ISSUE.
IT WAS A SET UP. ANOTHER EXAMPLE, MY SUPERVISORS CLAIMED THAT WEEKLY MEETINGS WERE NECESSARY TO HELP ME MANAGE MY WORKLOAD.
IN REALITY, THESE MEETINGS BEGAN IN ABOUT 2016,
[00:10:03]
FOR A DIFFERENT REASON ALTOGETHER AND CONTINUED ON TO DISCUSS ALL THINGS PNP.BUT SOMEHOW MORPHED IN THE 2022-23 SCHOOL YEAR TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE GRANT WITH WRONG INTENTIONS.
THE MEETINGS WERE INTENDED TO BE EXCESSIVE AND DISRUPTIVE.
A MEANS TO MONITOR AND CONTROL MY ACTIONS UNNECESSARILY.
INCONSISTENT AND CONTRADICTORY.
AS ANGELA BROOKS AND SHIRLENE ALEXANDER CREATED CONFUSION WITH CHANGING AND CONFLICTING EXPECTATIONS.
THEIR ACTIONS CREATED A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT, MORE HARASSMENT, AND ACTS OF RETALIATION, DIFFERENCES IN BEHAVIOR AND TREATMENT WITH COUNTERPARTS WITH THE SAME WORK.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS RETALIATION WAS GREAT.
THERE WASN'T JUST A WRONGFUL TERMINATION.
THIS WAS A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO DESTROY MY CAREER AND LIVELIHOOD.
I WAS MARKED INELIGIBLE FOR HIRE PERMANENTLY DAMAGING MY REPUTATION, A VIOLATION OF DEFAMATION LAWS.
MY FINANCIAL LIVELIHOOD WAS PUT AT RISK.
MY SUPERVISORS EVEN KEPT SOME OF MY PROPERTY REFUSING TO RETURN THEM, SUBJECTING THE DISTRICT TO A LAWSUIT.
AGAIN, THIS WAS NOT ABOUT BAD PERFORMANCE.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK THIS BOARD OF MANAGERS TO CLEAR MY SERVICE RECORD OF THE INFORMATION FROM EXTERNAL FUNDING, WHICH IS 300 PAGES IN MY SERVICE RECORD.
I ASK IMMEDIATELY TO BE REINSTATED FOR THE LAST YEARS AND FUND THE COST TO RESTORE PAYMENTS FOR MY TRS, TO FULLY RESTORE MY PAST WAGES AND RELATED BENEFITS, TO INSTITUTE REFORM AND LEAD A CALL TO ACTION FOR THE REVIEW OF HISD'S TERMINATION PROCESSES.
IN MY FINAL WORDS, I WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT THESE CHARGES ARE FROM SUPERVISORS WHO JUST BEGAN THEIR FIRST YEAR IN MANAGEMENT ROLES FOR EXTERNAL FUNDING AND THEIR FIRST DEEP DIVE INTO THE WORK OF FEDERAL GRANTS IN PNP SCHOOLS.
HERE'S THE HEART OF THE MATTER.
I DID BELIEVE IN HISD, I STILL DO.
I BELIEVED IN ITS MISSION, ITS LEADERSHIP, AND ITS COMMITMENT TO FAIRNESS.
I ASK YOU TO DO WHAT MY SUPERVISORS DID NOT, AND THAT IS ACT WITH INTEGRITY. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. MR. BRADSHAW, YOU MAY BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION.
>> THANK YOU, PRESIDENT CAMPO, AND GOOD AFTERNOON, BOARD MEMBERS.
MISS LEWIS WAS A GRANTS ADMINISTRATOR FOR HISD.
HER SUPERVISOR IS MY REPRESENTATIVE HERE TODAY, PAMELA EVANS, AND GIVE ME A SECOND ON THIS TITLE BECAUSE IT'S LONG, SENIOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ESSER.
>> YEAH. OTHER FUNDING. TITLES 1, 02, AND 4 AND GRANT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTS.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO KNOW WHAT THIS DEPARTMENT WAS DOING.
WHAT THEY WERE DOING IS THEY WERE IN CHARGE OF THE GRANTS THAT COME THROUGH HISD, FROM SUBMITTING APPLICATIONS FOR THOSE GRANTS TO THEN RECEIVING THOSE FUNDS, MONITORING THE EXPENDITURE OF THOSE FUNDS OUT AT THE CAMPUS LEVEL, DEPARTMENT LEVEL, AND FOLLOWING THOSE FUNDS, MAKING SURE THAT DOCUMENTATION IS, OF COURSE, SOLID, AND IT IS AUDITABLE BY TEA AND OTHERS.
FUNDS LIKE THE ESSER FUNDS, WHICH WERE FROM COVID-19 FOR THREE SCHOOL YEARS, AND THEY ALSO WORK WITH BUDGETING FOR THE SCHOOLS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN GET WHAT THEY NEED.
IN ADDITION, MISS LEWIS HERSELF WOULD GO OUT AND INSPECT AT CAMPUSES TO SEE THAT THIS CAMPUS HAD FUNDING FOR A NEW COMPUTER, HERE, AND IT'S THERE, AND IT'S ACCOUNTED FOR AND IT'S WORKING, ETC, THINGS LIKE THAT.
IT WAS AN IMPORTANT JOB BECAUSE ALL THE MONEY WAS TIED TO ALL THOSE REQUIREMENTS AND BEING AUDITABLE, OF COURSE, IT WAS IMPORTANT.
JUST TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, THE ESSER FUNDS, THAT WAS HISD RECEIVED $1.2 BILLION IN ESSER FUNDS, AND TIED TO THOSE FUNDS THERE WERE 15 SPECIFIC ASSURANCES THAT ANYONE WHO RECEIVED THOSE FUNDS HAD TO MAKE.
ONE OF THOSE ASSURANCES WAS SPECIFICALLY TIED TO THE PRIVATE NONPROFIT SCHOOLS THAT MISS LEWIS WORKED WITH SPECIFICALLY.
THAT WAS HER SPECIFIC AREA, IN ADDITION TO SOME OTHERS.
IT'S CORRECT, I'LL GET BACK TO IT IN A MINUTE, THE ESSER SPREADSHEET.
THE STRAW THAT BROKE THE CAMEL'S BACK IN THIS CASE WAS THIS ESSER SPREADSHEET.
BUT BEFORE WE GET INTO THAT, LET ME JUST GIVE YOU A FEW OTHER BACKGROUND FACTS.
MISS LEWIS IS AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE.
[00:15:02]
SHE HAS NO CONTRACT.IN TERMS OF DUE PROCESS, AS SHE CALLS IT, HER DUE PROCESS IS LIMITED TO WHAT'S IN YOUR POLICIES FOR AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE.
ESSENTIALLY, THE LAW AND THE POLICY ON THAT IS THAT AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE CAN BE TERMINATED FOR ANY REASON AS LONG AS IT'S NOT AN ILLEGAL REASON.
NOW, MISS LEWIS CLAIMS RETALIATION BUT SHE TIES IT.
SHE SAYS THAT WHEN SHE GOT A MARCH 2023 WRITE-UP, SHE WROTE A RESPONSE TO IT.
THEN A WEEK OR TWO LATER, SHE WAS FIRED.
HER CLAIM IS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION RETALIATED AGAINST HER FOR RESPONDING TO AN EMPLOYMENT CONCERN THAT HER SUPERVISOR HAD.
I'M NOT SURE THAT'S REALLY A VIABLE LEGAL RETALIATION CLAIM.
BUT NONETHELESS, THAT'S WHAT IT IS AND REGARDLESS OF THAT, THERE WERE REASONS FOR THE ACTIONS THAT WERE TAKEN AND IT WASN'T ANYTHING THAT JUST CAME UP SUDDENLY.
IT WAS SOMETHING THAT HAD BEEN GOING ON FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS.
THE PROOF IS IN THE EXHIBITS, HER EVALUATION FROM THE PREVIOUS SCHOOL YEAR 21-22 SHOWED THAT THERE WERE TWO AREAS SHE WAS DEVELOPING IN, AND THOSE BOTH HAD TO DO WITH TIME MANAGEMENT, MEETING DEADLINES.
JUST AS MISS LEWIS SAID, THAT WAS THE THEME OF THE CONCERNS THAT HER SUPERVISORS HAD.
ALSO WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT MISS EVANS WAS MISS LEWIS' SUPERVISOR AS FAR BACK AS 2010 AND SO SHE KNEW HER WELL, THAT SHE DIDN'T JUST MAKE THIS UP, SUDDENLY, SHE HAD GOTTEN GOOD REVIEWS IN THE PAST, BUT THIS WAS CATCHING UP TO HER, AND SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE.
ONE THING THAT YOU SHOULD ALWAYS ASK, I THINK, AS A BOARD IS DID THE EMPLOYEE GET SUPPORT? IN THIS CASE, I WOULD SAY, YES.
HER IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR, MISS ALEXANDER, AND SHE BOTH TOOK A TIME MANAGEMENT COURSE TOGETHER.
MISS ALEXANDER TESTIFIED IN THE LOWER LEVEL THAT WHEN THEY WOULD OFFER MISS LEWIS HELP, SHE WOULD SAY, "I DON'T NEED HELP.
I CAN DO IT MYSELF." THERE WAS ALSO TEA TRAINING AVAILABLE ON HOW TO HANDLE THESE GRANTS.
THEY ALSO ENCOURAGED HER TO GO OUT AND FIND OTHER TRAININGS THEN THEY WOULD PAY FOR THEM IF SHE NEEDED THEM.
REALLY FROM FEBRUARY OF 22, THE ISSUE ABOUT TIMELY COMPLETION OF WORK BECAME A CONSTANT.
IT SEEMED LIKE EVERY SO OFTEN, THERE WERE MEETINGS, WHERE THEY HAD TO TALK ABOUT IT, WHERE SHE RECEIVED COACHING ON IT.
THEY ALSO SET UP WEEKLY MEETINGS, WEEKLY CHECK-INS TO HELP HER PUSH THINGS ALONG AND MAKE SURE PROGRESS WAS BEING MADE.
NOW, IN THE ESSER SPREADSHEET THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER, THAT WAS THE THING THAT REALLY ENDED UP BEING TOO MUCH TO HANDLE.
>> THE THING ABOUT THE ESSER SPREADSHEET, IS IT CONTAINED A WEALTH OF INFORMATION THAT WAS TIED TO THESE ESSER GRANTS, AND SO IT HAD TO BE COMPLETE.
IT HAD TO BE ACCURATE, AND IT HAD TO BE CONFIRMED.
TOWARD THE END OF THE PROJECT, IT HAD TO BE CONFIRMED THROUGH VENDORS THAT THESE AMOUNTS OF MONEY ARE CORRECT, THAT THE EQUIPMENT WAS ACTUALLY PURCHASED, NOT JUST THOUGHT ABOUT PURCHASING IT, THINGS LIKE THAT.
WELL, INITIALLY, THEY SAID WHAT REALLY WAS A TARGET DATE OF NOVEMBER 17TH, 2022, IN WHICH TO COMPLETE THE ESSER SPREADSHEET.
THAT TARGET DATE GOT MOVED TO JANUARY 17TH, 2023, WHICH CAME AND WENT.
IT GOT PUSHED THEN TO FEBRUARY 17TH, CAME AND WENT.
THEN IT GOT PUSHED TO MARCH 7TH.
NOW IT'S A DEADLINE, AND IT'S A DEADLINE IMPOSED BY THE ADMINISTRATION BECAUSE OTHER PROJECTS AND OTHER PEOPLE TRYING TO FINISH PROJECTS ARE BEING HELD UP BECAUSE THESE DEADLINES ARE NOT BEING MET.
THE MARCH 7TH DEADLINE WAS NOT MET.
IT WAS MARCH 9TH WHEN THE BIG MEMO CAME OUT THAT ADDED UP ALL THE PRIOR MEETINGS AND OTHER MEMOS AND EVALUATIONS AND SAID THAT THIS IS TOO MUCH.
THERE'S A CONFERENCE SUMMARY THAT SHOWS THAT SHE WAS GOING TO
[00:20:01]
BE TERMINATED. THIS WAS NOT A SECRET.IT WAS THEN TWO THINGS HAPPENED RIGHT AFTER MARCH 9TH.
ONE, THAT'S WHEN MRS. LEWIS MADE HER RESPONSE THAT SHE CLAIMED SHE WAS RETALIATED FOR.
THE DAY BEFORE, I BELIEVE IT WAS MARCH 8TH, THERE'S AN EMAIL AS EXHIBIT 3, IS WHEN MRS. EVANS CONTACTED HR AND SAID, I NEED A DOCUMENTATION REVIEW TO CONSIDER EMPLOYMENT ACTION FOR THIS EMPLOYEE.
TO SAY IT WAS RETALIATION JUST DOESN'T FIT THE TIMELINE. I GOT AHEAD OF MYSELF.
THE TERMINATION RECOMMENDATION WAS NOT UNTIL APRIL 9TH.
REALLY AS OF THAT DATE, THE ESSER SPREADSHEET STILL WAS NOT COMPLETED AND CONFIRMED AS BEING ACCURATE.
I WILL GIVE SOME OF CERTAINLY DUE RESPECT TO MRS. LEWIS.
SHE DID SERVE THE DISTRICT FOR 30 YEARS, I BELIEVE IT WAS, AND SHE HAD GOOD YEARS, BUT THE TRUTH IS THE DISTRICT WAS WORKING WITH HER ON THIS MANAGEMENT ISSUE THAT WASN'T GETTING BETTER, AND THEY WORKED WITH HER FOR TWO YEARS.
FINALLY, IT GOT TO THE POINT WHERE SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE.
WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU WOULD UPHOLD THE LEVEL 2 DECISION IN THIS CASE. THANK YOU.
>> I THINK YOU HAD A MINUTE AND A HALF LEFT.
MRS. LEWIS, IF YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING. GO AHEAD.
>> IN TERMS OF THAT AUDITABLE SPREADSHEET, IT IS NOT AUDITABLE.
WE TURNED IT IN ON AN AUDIT BEFORE.
THE FEDERAL INVENTORY IS THE FIXED ASSETS INVENTORY, WHICH HAS ALL THE TRACKING NUMBERS AND ALSO HELPED PREPARE THAT, AND WE PASSED THE AUDIT ONCE WE SUBMITTED THAT.
ALSO, WHEN YOU SAY ANY REASON OR NO REASON FOR TERMINATION, THEY GAVE REASONS.
THEY SAID MISSED DEADLINES, AND I REFUTED THOSE MISSED DEADLINES WITH YOU.
ALSO, THE RETALIATION IS CLEAR THAT IT STARTED PRIOR TO.
THE FIRST AUDIT WAS IN APRIL, THE LAST ONE ENDED.
IT WAS A PLAN FOR A YEAR BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE A YEAR'S DOCUMENTATION TO TERMINATE ME.
THERE WAS A PATTERN AND I HAVE OTHER EXAMPLES, BUT IN 10 MINUTES, I COULD NOT GIVE THEM ALL.
WHEN HE REFERENCED THE HELP IN THEIR SUPPORT, SHIRLENE ALEXANDER LAUGHED AND TALKED THROUGH THAT ENTIRE TRAINING.
THERE WERE THREE PEOPLE PRESENT, ME, SHIRLENE AND CELISA.
SHE ASKED ME FOR MY NOTES TO WRITE THE REPORT AND THE SUMMARY OF IT BECAUSE I WAS BUSY TAKING NOTES.
SHE OFFERED CODING ON THE CALENDAR WITH DIFFERENT COLORS.
THAT FOR ME IS VERY DISTRACTING.
I HAVE TOO MANY APPOINTMENTS ON THERE.
THAT WAS NOT GOING TO WORK FOR ME.
SHE ALSO SUGGESTED MOVING MY EMAILS OUT OF MY INBOX TO THE SIDE AND HAVING THEM BY YEARS.
I DID THAT, BUT I KEEP ABOUT TWO YEARS, HONESTLY, OF EMAILS IN MY INBOX BECAUSE I HAVE TO GO BACK AND SEE WHAT WAS WRITTEN, HOW IT WAS SENT, WHEN THE TIME WAS, AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SHE ALSO MADE A COMMENT, I THINK IN THERE ABOUT, I SENT FIVE EMAILS TO SCHOOLS.
WELL, THE SCHOOLS PARTICIPATE IN DIFFERENT GRANTS, 1, 02, 4 ARE ESSER.
I DON'T SEND A BLANKET EMAIL BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE GOING TO GET ALL THE EMAILS BACK THAT TELL, I DON'T PARTICIPATE IN THAT GRANT.
IS THAT FOR ME? THAT CAN'T HAPPEN.
THE REASON THE EMAIL WAS SENT LATE.
THE SERVER WAS DOWN FOR THE PRIVATE SCHOOLS.
I DIDN'T SEE THE DOCUMENTS I ATTACHED.
THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE CREATED, THE PERSON WHO CREATED THEM DIDN'T SEE THEM WHEN WE WENT TO THE WEBSITE WHERE THEY'RE LOADED.
THE EMAIL SAYS THAT THE DOCUMENTS WERE THERE.
I USED PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT THAT IT WOULD NOT BE WISE TO SEND IT THE FIRST DAY OR THE SECOND DAY BECAUSE THE EMAILS WEREN'T THERE.
THEN FINALLY, I JUST SENT IT WITH ATTACHMENTS ON IT.
>> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES? ANY QUESTIONS HERE? NO. THE PARTIES HAVE COMPLETED THEIR PRESENTATION.
NOW IT'S TIME FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS TO MAKE OUR DECISION ON THE ISSUES BEFORE US.
WE NEED TO APPLY ONLY THE FACTS PRESENTED IN THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE APPLICABLE POLICY OR LAW AND MAKE A DECISION.
IF THERE'S ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN MRS. LEWIS AND THE ADMINISTRATION AS TO WHAT THE POLICIES AND/OR PROCEDURES MEAN, THEN IT'S THE BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THE MEANING OF THE APPLICATION OF THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
THE RECORD OF THE LEVEL 2 HEARING MUST SUPPORT ANY ACTION WE TAKE.
THAT IS, IF THE RECORD SUPPORTS THE POSITION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OR THE POSITION OF MRS. LEWIS, WE MAY FIND ACCORDINGLY.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION DO WE NEED TO GO TO GO TO THE BOARDROOM TO DISCUSS THIS?
[00:25:07]
THE BOARD IS RELOCATING TO THE BOARD CONFERENCE ROOM AT 2:30 PM ON FEBRUARY 13TH. THANK YOU.THE BOARD IS NOW RECONVENED IN THE BOARD AUDITORIUM AT 2:35 PM.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION? GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU, PRESIDENT CAMPO. I MOVE THAT WE DENY ALL REQUESTED RELIEF REMEDIES NOT PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE LEVEL 2 HEARING OFFICER AND UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE LEVEL 2 HEARING OFFICER.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION, PLEASE VOTE.
HOW ARE WE DOING ON VOTING? HERE WE GO, 5-4. THE MOTION PASSES.
5-4, THE MOTION, THOUGH NO OPPOSED.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MRS. LEWIS.
OUR NEXT ITEM IS THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION OF MR. HAROLD.
HOW DO YOU SAY? EGBUNE, MR. HAROLD EGBUNE.
SORRY ABOUT THE PRONUNCIATION OF YOUR NAME.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE DISPUTE FILED BY HAROLD EGBUNE, IS THAT CORRECT? EGBUNE.
A FORMER TEACHER AT MADISON HIGH SCHOOL.
HEARINGS INVOLVING COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE DISTRICT EMPLOYEES ARE TO BE HELD IN CLOSED SESSION UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE WHO IS SUBJECT TO THE HEARING REQUESTS AN OPEN HEARING.
IF THE PARTIES REQUEST AN OPEN SESSION, DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING, THE BOARD MAY GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSULT WITH ITS ATTORNEY UNDER THE TERMS OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.071.
IF ANY BOARD MEMBER WISHES TO SEEK ADVICE OF COUNSEL, PLEASE MAKE THE REQUEST KNOWN TO ME.
FOR THE RECORD, WE HAVE HAROLD EGBUNE IN PRESENT.
WE HAVE MILES BRADSHAW OF BRADSHAW LAW, REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION.
CATOSHA WOOD, HISD'S GENERAL COUNSEL IS ALSO PRESENT.
DO YOU WANT TO STAY IN OPEN SESSION OR CLOSED SESSION?
>> OPEN. THE ISSUES BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD ARE WHETHER THE BOARD POLICIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES WERE CORRECTLY APPLIED TO THE GRIEVANT AND WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATION HAS VIOLATED THOSE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
SINCE YOU'VE ASKED THE BOARD TO HEAR THIS MATTER, YOU WILL PROCEED FIRST, AND YOU WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A 10-MINUTE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD, FOLLOWED BY A 10-MINUTE PRESENTATION BY MR. BRADSHAW.
YOU MAY RESERVE PART OF YOUR 10 MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL OF MATTERS PRESENTED BY MR. BRADSHAW.
BOTH SIDES SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD AFTER THE RESPECTIVE PRESENTATIONS.
AFTER DELIBERATION, THE BOARD WILL RENDER ITS DECISION.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS? ALL GOOD. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO DIVIDE YOUR TIME? WOULD YOU LIKE TO DIVIDE YOUR TIME AT THE BEGINNING, AND THEN AFTER MR. BRADSHAW SPEAKS, YOU HAVE 10 MINUTES.
YOU CAN SEPARATE THAT TIME OR JUST USE THE WHOLE 10 MINUTES.
>> I'M USING PART TO READ OUT MY.
>> OKAY. IF YOU HAVE SOME LEFT, WE'LL LEAVE IT FOR LATER.
YOU MAY BEGIN ONCE YOU COME UP TO THE PODIUM HERE, SO PEOPLE CAN SEE YOU. THERE YOU GO.
>> MY NAME IS MR. EGBUNE HAROLD, TEACHER MADISON HIGH SCHOOL BETWEEN 2022 AND 2024.
I TEACH PHOTOGRAPHY, CERAMICS, AND ART MEDIA.
[00:30:01]
FIRST, I MUST RAISE OBJECTIONS TO THE TRANSCRIPT I GOT.IT DOESN'T REPRESENT WHAT WE DISCUSSED.
A WHOLE LOT IS MISSING AND THE EXHIBIT TENDER DOES NOT SHOW WHAT HAPPENED.
I READ OUT MY GRIEVANCE WHICH I SENT TO YOUR OFFICE.
I'VE BEEN TRAUMATIZED BY THE ACTION OF MRS. MARCHAND AND MR. EDGAR CONTRERAS, MY PRINCIPAL.
I CANNOT BEAR THE BURDEN OF A SUPERVISOR'S INCOMPETENCE AND ABUSE OF OFFICE, THAT BORDERS ON INTIMIDATION, EMOTIONAL BULLYING, MALEVOLENCE, DISCRIMINATION, AMONG OTHER UNETHICAL PRACTICES.
AT INITIAL, MRS. MARCHAND DISPLAYED GROSS IGNORANCE OF WHAT IT TAKES TO RUN MY THREE COURSES.
SHE ALLOTTED ME A CUBICLE, ROOM 1512 THAT COULD BARELY CONTAIN 20 STUDENTS TO DO PHOTOGRAPHY, ART MEDIA AND CERAMICS.
NO STORAGE, NO DARKROOM, NO LIGHT STUDIO.
I SOMETIMES I HAVE ABOUT 35 STUDENTS IN ONE OF MY EIGHT CLASSES, YET SHE GAVE ME THAT ROOM.
I HAD TO PLEAD TO EXPLAIN TO HER THAT IT WAS MISSION IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO OPERATE AS AN ARTIST.
COACH DAMIEN, MY FELLOW ARTIST, THE AP DRAWING, PAINTING SPECIALIST, ADDED HIS VOICE BEFORE SHE GAVE ME A SLIGHTLY BIGGER SPACE THAT I SHARED WITH MRS. WILLIAM.
THERE IS THAT OF BASIC FACILITY UNTIL DATE, AND SHE TOLD ME EMPHATICALLY IN OUR MEETING THAT DARKROOM FOR PHOTOGRAPHY OR STUDIO IS NOT FEASIBLE WITH A BRUTAL FINALITY THAT HARBORING THIS THOUGHT COULD BE AN INFRACTION.
I UNDERSTAND HER PREDICAMENT, BUT WHAT I DO NOT UNDERSTAND IS HER SUBJECTIVE RATING OF MY PERFORMANCE AS IF SHE MET THE STANDARD REQUIREMENT FOR DECENT OPERATIONS.
I'M STRUGGLING TO ESTABLISH THE CAUSES AND PLACE THE DEPARTMENT ON A FIRM FOOTING.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE PRINCIPAL THAT EMPLOYED ME, MRS. BRUCE, SHE GAVE ME THE MANDATE TO RUN A DIGITAL COURSE, BUT SHE LEFT BEFORE MY CONFIRMATION.
I CONTINUE. MY SUPERVISOR PROVIDED LOW-CAPACITY LAPTOP FOR ANIMATION.
I KNEW THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT TAKES.
MY REQUEST FOR A SUITABLE LAPTOP WITH A GRAPHIC CARD WAS NOT HONORED.
THE LAPTOP THEY GAVE ME STALLS MOST TIMES IN MY CLASS DUE TO LACK OF ADEQUATE SPACE.
I HAD TO IMPROVISE WITH TWO LAPTOPS.
WHEN I TOLD HER I WAS OPERATING UNDER SEVERE CONSTRAINT, IT WAS AS IF THE THREE COURSES THEY ASKED ME TO RUN WAS AN AFTERTHOUGHT.
I'VE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS TO MY GRIEVANCE THAT UNFORTUNATELY, I'VE PRINTED OUT SOME THREE COPIES OF MY GRIEVANCE BECAUSE ALL THROUGH THE GRIEVANCE STAGES, THEY'VE NOT MADE ANY REFERENCE TO THE DOCUMENTS.
I ADVOCATED FOR SOFTWARES AND THROWING WHEELS FROM THE SCHOOL TO THE DISTRICT.
FINALLY, I GOT FOUR THROWING WHEELS IN YEAR 2023, '24 UNDER NEW PRINCIPAL, MRS. LEE TANISHA, WHO UNDERSTOOD THE IMPORTANCE OF THROWING WHEEL IN CERAMICS.
MRS. LEE LEFT SINCE LAST YEAR.
I STRUGGLE FOR BASIC NEEDS, FROM SOFTWARE TO TOOLS.
YOU CAN SEE THE MULTIPLE CORRESPONDENCES I ATTACHED.
BUT ALL MRS. MARCHAND WANTED WAS JUST MY EXIT WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION.
IN SPITE OF THE CHALLENGES AND LIMITATION, THE STUDENTS' WORK WERE OUTSTANDING.
I HAVE A VIDEO OF MY STUDENTS' WORK, IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN SEEING IT.
THE HOUSTON ISD VISUAL ART CURRICULUM SPECIALIST FOR HIGH SCHOOL, MRS. BONNER CHANDEL, WHO SAW OUR 2023 END OF YEAR ART EXHIBITION, PROBABLY ANNOUNCED TO OTHER DISTRICT ART TEACHERS AT OUR PD MEETING, THAT MADISON ART EXHIBITION WAS ROBUST.
SHE MADE ME A FACILITATOR IN A DISTRICT-WIDE SUMMER ART CAMP BECAUSE SHE SAW THE QUALITY OF WHAT I WAS DOING AT MADISON.
SHE'S HERE. SHE'S IN THIS BUILDING.
[00:35:02]
SHE BROUGHT STUDENTS FROM ALL OVER THE DISTRICT FOR ME TO SHOW THEM HOW WE DO SOME OF THOSE STUFF IN PHOTOGRAPHY AND DIGITAL ARTS, BECAUSE SHE SAW IT AT OUR EXHIBITION.THE SHOW HELD AT MADISON, MRS. MARCHAND MY SUPERVISOR DID NOT SEE THAT.
ALL SHE NEEDED WAS MY EXIT WITH A SUBJECTIVE GRADING FOR REASONS BEST KNOWN TO HER. I DON'T WANT TO BORROW.
I'VE TAKEN GREAT ACCOUNT OF TOOLS, STOLEN CAMERAS HAVE BEEN REPORTED MISSING AND RECOVERED.
LAST YEAR, INTUITIVELY, I COUNTED AND DISCOVERED ONE OF MY 13 CAMERAS GOT MISSING OVER THE WEEKEND WITHOUT A CLUE.
SHOULD I KEEP QUIET OR REPORT THE LOSS? I CHOOSE TO LOOK STUPID DURING THE WRITING AND REPORTED A LOSS.
IMAGINE MY DISBELIEF WHEN MRS. MARCHAND, MY SUPERVISOR, REVEALED THAT SHE TOOK THE CAMERA FROM MY STORE WITHOUT ANY PERMISSION OR APOLOGY.
YET SHE WOULD ACCUSE ME OF NOT MONITORING STUDENTS WHEN SHE'S FULLY AWARE THAT I MONITOR BOTH MEN AND MATERIAL IN MY CUSTODY.
I BELIEVE SHE WOULD BE PROBABLY ANNOYED I DID NOT FALL INTO HER BOOBY TRAP.
DO I HAVE TO BE TRAUMATIZED OR TAUGHT A LESSON FOR BEING TOO ACCOUNTABLE.
I HOLD STUDENTS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR REFUSAL TO LEARN.
IN AN INSTANCE, THEY RUN TO HER FOR INTERVENTION.
I POSTED IT A MONTH AFTER NOVEMBER IN A VINDICTIVE QUEST.
FOR TURNING DOWN HER PERSONAL REQUEST IN OCTOBER, SHE WOULD ACCUSE ME OF NOT MONITORING STUDENTS.
HOW EVIDENCE ARE BOUND THAT SHE HAS RESOLVED TO MAKE THREE-POINT, RIGHT FROM THE INSERTION OF I'M AN INTERN YET TO BE RECOMMENDED OR CONFIRMED.
SHE MADE THREE-POINT HER BENCHMARK.
>> WHATEVER I DO IS JUST 20% OVER 100.
THAT'S 20% IS A BENCHMARK FOR ME FOR REASONS BEST KNOWN TO HER.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY, I HAVE TWO OTHER SUPERVISORS WHO GAVE ME THESE ARE MY OTHER SUPERVISORS.
TWO DIFFERENT SUPERVISORS WHO HAVE SERVE ME TEACH GAVE ME PROFICIENCY.
I MEAN, PROFICIENCY RATING IN MY CLASSES.
I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH TEACHING ART.
I PASSED ALL MY CORE SUBJECT AT A SITTING.
MY TEST OF TEACHING A THAT'S PEDAGOGY TEST.
I PASSED IT AT A SEATING, BUT FOR MISS MARCHAND, I'M NOT QUALIFIED TO BE A TEACHER.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS.
THESE ARE SUPERVISORS WHO HAVE SEEN ME FROM BEGINNING OF A CLASS TO THE END.
MISS MARCHAND HAS NEVER SEEN ME FROM BEGINNING OF ANY CLASS TO THE END OF ANY CLASS.
SHE HAS NEVER DONE ANY FULL FORMA OBSERVATION.
YET SHE FELT COMFORTABLE RATING ME 20/100 THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF MY TWO YEARS. FOR NO REASON.
I CONTINUE. AFTER TURNING DOWN HER FUNDRAISING REQUEST IN OCTOBER, SHE DROPPED MIGRATE IN HER NEXT QUAL OBSERVATION TO TWO POINTS.
FOR THE SPACE SHE GAVE ME FOR BEING UNSAFE.
SHE KNOWS IT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
WHEN THEY BROUGHT WHITEBOARD FOR TEACHERS, I COULDN'T TAKE ONE BECAUSE I HAD NO SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE IT.
YET SHE WOULD TURN AROUND TO RATE ME GIVE ME ANY GRADE BECAUSE SHE DOESN'T WANT ME TO TEACH IN THIS SQUAD I DON'T KNOW.
SHE GAVE ME A ZERO FOR THE SHARED QUA SPACE SHE ALLOTTED TO ME BEING UNSAFE.
EVEN WITH MY USUAL SEATING ARRANGEMENT IN THAT, SEE THE DOCUMENT I ATTACHED IT.
RECENTLY, SHE SAW MY KEYBOARD ON THE BOARD.
I MET MY A STUDENT WATCHING A VIDEO TUTORIAL, REPLICATING SAME AT THEIR OWN PACE, MAKING IT THEIR OWN.
BEST WENT TO WRITE THAT THERE WAS NO DIFFERENTIATION.
FOR THE FIRST TIME, I HAD TO WRITE HER AND ASK.
>> YES. THAT'S 10 MINUTES. THANK YOU.
MR. BRADSHAW, YOU MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD?
[00:40:04]
THE DOCUMENTS, I BELIEVE ARE ALREADY ON THE RECORD, CORRECT? YEAH. WE HAVE THE DOCUMENTS HERE IN THE RECORD.>> MR. GENE, THE RECORD IS LIMITED TO WHAT WE ALL PRESENTED AT LEVEL 2.
IF YOU REMEMBER AND YOU PRESENTED SOME EXHIBITS AFTERWARDS BY E-MAIL, THOSE ARE IN THE RECORD.
THEY ARE ON THE RECORD. THEY WERE EMAILED TO YOU BEFORE THE HEARING.
SO THE ISSUE IN THIS GRIEVANCE IS THE PRINCIPAL'S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING MR. EGBUNE'S ACP CERTIFICATION.
THAT'S THE ISSUE IN THE GRIEVANCE.
THE PRINCIPAL, MR. EDGAR CONTRERAS IS HERE WITH ME TODAY.
HE'S THE MADISON HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL.
HE'S BEEN THERE SINCE DECEMBER OF 2023.
PRIOR TO THAT, HE HAD FOUR YEARS AS PRINCIPAL AT FONERN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
MR. GMANE HAS BEEN AN ACP INTERN AT MADISON HIGH SCHOOL FOR THE PAST TWO SCHOOL YEARS.
WHAT HAPPENED IS IN DECEMBER OF 2023, DURING THE CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY, HIS CERTIFICATE EXPIRED, AND SO IT NEEDED TO BE EITHER RENEWED OR DROPPED, I GUESS.
THE ACP PROGRAM CONTACTED THE PRINCIPAL AND SAID, HEY, I NEED A RECOMMENDATION FROM YOU.
WHAT THE LAW SAYS, IT'S ACTUALLY IN THE LAW, HOW THESE FOLKS ARE CERTIFIED.
IT STATES, AND I'M QUOTING FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND IT'S EXHIBIT 9.2, AN INTERNSHIP IS SUCCESSFUL WHEN THE CANDIDATE DEMONSTRATES PROFICIENCY IN EACH OF THE EDUCATOR STANDARDS FOR THE ASSIGNMENT.
THE FIELD SUPERVISOR AND CAMPUS SUPERVISOR RECOMMEND THAT THE CANDIDATE SHOULD BE RECOMMENDED FOR A STANDARD CERTIFICATE.
SO HERE, THE CAMPUS SUPERVISOR EXCUSE ME, IS MR. CONTRERAS AND THE FIELD SUPERVISOR IS SOMEONE THROUGH THE PROGRAM THAT COMES AND CHECKS IN ON THEM FROM TIME TO TIME AND GIVES THEM AN EVALUATION.
NOW, IN THIS INSTANCE, THE PRINCIPAL WAS GIVEN THREE OPTIONS, AND HIS OPTIONS WERE ONE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, TWO TO RECOMMEND ANOTHER YEAR IN THE ACP PROGRAM AND THEN RECONSIDER AT THE END OF THAT YEAR, OR THREE TO NOT RECOMMEND CERTIFICATION.
IN THIS CASE, THE PRINCIPAL DID NOT RECOMMEND CERTIFICATION.
HE DIDN'T DO IT JUST HAPHAZARDLY.
NOW, GRANTED, HE HAD JUST STARTED AS PRINCIPAL AT THE AT THE CAMPUS.
SO WHAT HE DID IS, THE FIRST THING HE DID IS HE ASKED MR. EGBUNE.
I'LL BE HAPPY TO DO THIS FOR YOU.
CAN YOU PROVIDE SOME STUDENT WORK SAMPLES, WHATEVER INFORMATION YOU'D LIKE ME TO CONSIDER? HE SENT SOME INFORMATION IN.
THEN MR. CONTRAS WENT ABOUT TALKING TO HIS OTHER APPRAISERS, HIS OTHER ADMINISTRATORS ON THE CAMPUS, WHO HAD OBSERVED HIS CLASSROOM.
HE LOOKED OF COURSE AT HIS PERSONNEL FILE TO SEE ABOUT HIS EVALUATION, AND SO ON.
THAT INFORMATION IS WHAT SUPPORTED HIS DECISION, ULTIMATELY.
JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, KEEP IN MIND, THIS IS A DISCRETIONARY DECISION BY THE PRINCIPAL.
IF THIS PRINCIPAL HE'S GIVEN HIS OPINION BASED ON DOCUMENTATION, ET CETERA, AND THE PROGRAM EVEN REQUIRES, IF YOU'RE GOING TO SAY NO TO CERTIFICATION, YOU HAVE TO SEND US DOCUMENTATION THAT SUPPORTS IT.
HE DID THAT, AND THEY DIDN'T OBJECT.
THEY DIDN'T SAY, OH, WE CAN'T DO THAT.
POINT BAND IT'S A DISCRETIONARY JUDGMENT.
NOW, HIS T-TEST EVALUATION FROM 22, 23, THE PRIOR SCHOOL YEAR WAS BELOW PROFICIENT.
UNDER THAT SYSTEM, PROFICIENT WAS 2.5-3.5.
HE HAD A 1.67 IN INSTRUCTION AND LEARNING ENVIRONMENT, AND THAT WAS IN THE DEVELOPING CATEGORY.
THE ISSUE WITH MR. GENE'S CLASSROOM WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS VERY CONSISTENT AND FOUR OTHER ADMINISTRATORS, IN ADDITION TO HIS APPRAISER, WENT IN DOING SPOTS OR OTHER CHECKS AND SAW THE SAME THINGS.
IT WAS VERY CONSISTENT THAT STUDENTS WERE NOT ENGAGED, STUDENTS WERE ON THEIR CELL PHONES, STUDENTS HAD THEIR HEADS DOWN.
ONE, WHICH IS CALLED A NON-NEGOTIABLE AT THE CAMPUS IS THE FRONT ROW WILL BE FILLED WITH STUDENTS.
[00:45:06]
THAT'S A NON-NEGOTIABLE AT THE CAMPUS.I'M NOT A TEACHER, BUT MR. GMANE WAS DIRECTED TO DO THIS BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FROM THE DISTRICT OFFICE WHO CAME BY AND SAW THIS.
HE IMMEDIATELY SENT AN E-MAIL TO HIM AND SAID, HEY, FILL UP THAT FRONT ROW, DIRECTED HIM ON ALL THESE ISSUES.
THAT WAS IN OCTOBER OF 2023, AND IT DIDN'T AND IT SHOWED UP IN THE EVALUATIONS AND THE SPOTS FROM THEN ON UNTIL I THINK ABOUT MARCH.
SO JUST AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT THE ISSUES WERE.
AS I MENTIONED, IT WAS SANDRA DORIA, I WAS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WHO SAW THAT NO ONE WAS SITTING IN THE FRONT ROW.
THERE WERE IN THE RECORD, THERE'S 11 SPOT OBSERVATIONS, SOME OF THEM BY HIS APPRAISER, MISS MARCHAND, WHO HE TALKS ABOUT.
THE RATINGS IN THOSE SPOTS WERE FROM 2-5 WHEN PROFICIENT IS EIGHT OR BETTER.
SO HE NEVER GOT PROFICIENT UNDER HISD STANDARDS.
THE LAW REQUIRES THAT TO GET APPROVAL, THEY MUST DEMONSTRATE PROFICIENCY.
I THINK, AGAIN, GIVEN SOME CREDIT TO MR. EGBUNE, EVERYONE AGREED THAT HE KNEW THE CONTENT.
HE WAS VERY GOOD AT SOME MEDIA TYPE THINGS WITH PHOTOGRAPHY, WITH CERAMICS, THOSE SORTS OF THINGS.
BUT THE CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION WAS POOR. I MEAN, IT WAS NOT GOOD.
SO MR. EG BINET WAS GIVEN SUPPORT AS AN ACP INTERN, THE SCHOOL CAMPUS PARTNERS HIM WITH ANOTHER MENTOR TEACHER.
THAT WAS MR. HUNTER, AND MR. HUNTER WAS THERE FOR HIM FOR THE WHOLE TWO SCHOOL YEARS, I GUESS.
HIS APPRAISER, MISS MARCHAND, OF COURSE, DID WALK THROUGH, DID FEEDBACK, ON THE SPOT COACHING FROM TIME TO TIME, SEND HIM TO A PEER OBSERVATION TO GO SEE A TEACHER THAT THIS IS HOW YOU DO IT.
HE WROTE UP, HIS NOTES FROM HIS PEER OBSERVATION, IT'S IN THE RECORD.
YOU READ HIS NOTES, AND I THINK HE WAS PAYING ATTENTION.
HE WAS WRITING DOWN SOME STUFF THAT MADE SENSE, BUT HE WASN'T IMPLEMENTING IN HIS CLASSROOM.
EVEN AFTER THAT, AND THAT WAS THE ISSUE THAT JUST KEPT POPPING UP.
IN ADDITION, ON JANUARY 5 AND 6 OF THE SCHOOL YEAR, RIGHT BEFORE MR. C ATRAS HAD TO MAKE HIS RECOMMENDATION.
HE DID WHAT HE CALLED THE GALLERY WALK WHERE ALL THE TEACHERS WERE INFORMED AND EDUCATED ON ALL THE T-TEST REQUIREMENTS, THE MRS STRATEGIES, THE NES WAY, WHICH IS THE NES CAMPUS.
AND SO HE WANTED TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE HAD BEEN TOLD THIS IS THE STANDARD, AND THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT IT ANYMORE BECAUSE EVERYBODY ALREADY KNEW THAT, BUT HE DID IT AGAIN.
MR. CONTRERAS HIMSELF, FROM WHEN HE GOT THERE IN DECEMBER TO THE TIME HE MADE HIS RECOMMENDATION.
HE TESTIFIED THAT HE OBSERVED HIS CLASS FOUR TIMES AND SAW THE SAME THINGS, HEADS DOWN, NOBODY IN THE FRONT ROW, KIDS SCROLLING ON THEIR PHONES, LOOKING AT TIKTOK.
SO HE LACKED STUDENT ENGAGEMENT.
I ASKED MR. CONTRERAS, AT THE END OF THE TESTIMONY, I SAID, I SAID, WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST GIVE HIM THE SECOND OPTION.
THE SECOND OPTION, WHICH IS GIVE HIM ONE MORE YEAR.
I WANT TO READ TO YOU WHAT HE SAID, BECAUSE I THINK IT REALLY SUMS UP THE CASE.
IT'S ON PAGE 54 OF THE TRANSCRIPT.
PRINCIPAL CTRA STATED I'VE BEEN IN EDUCATION SINCE 2007.
I HAVE WORKED WITH MANY ACP CANDIDATES, SEVERAL FROM TEXAS TEACHERS REGION FOUR, WHICH WAS THIS ONE.
THERE IS A WILL AND SKILL SITUATION HERE.
MR. EGBUNE IS CLEARLY AN EXPERT IN HIS CRAFT OF FINE ARTS. HE KNOWS HIS CONTENT.
HOWEVER, IN OUR SCHOOL AND IN EDUCATION, YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO CONVEY THAT INFORMATION TO STUDENTS.
IMPLEMENT BEST PRACTICE SO STUDENTS CAN LEARN AND ACQUIRE INFORMATION AND BE SUCCESSFUL.
UNFORTUNATELY, HE IS NOT SHOWING ME THAT HE HAS THE WILL TO TAKE FEEDBACK AND APPLY THAT.
IT IS GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR HIM TO BE SUCCESSFUL.
IF HE HAS ALREADY HAD TWO YEARS TO DO THAT, I HAVE ENOUGH DATA THAT I WOULDN'T SEE A DIFFERENT OUTCOME.
THERE ARE DEFINITELY MORE CANDIDATES OUT THERE THAT ARE ABLE TO DO THAT.
SO WE ASK THAT YOU UPHOLD THE LEVEL 2 DECISION. THANK YOU.
[00:50:02]
>> THANK YOU, MR. BRATCHER, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES?
>> THE RECOMMENDATION HAPPENED ON THE FIFTH.
>> SIR, I NEED YOU TO USE YOUR MICROPHONE SO THEY CAN HEAR YOU ON THE RECORDING.
>> THE RECOMMENDATION HAPPENED ON 5 JANUARY, JUST THE FIRST WEEK OF SCHOOL.
WHAT THE OBSERVATION THEY TALKING HAPPENED AFTER.
HE CAME TO MY CLASS, SCORED ME 0/100 FOR NO REASON.
HE BROUGHT ANOTHER SPANISH TEACHER WHO KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT ART.
THOSE ARE THE EXHIBITS THEY'VE TENDED TO MAKE ME LOOK INCOMPETENT.
HOW BAD COULD A TEACHER BE TO SCORE A ZERO?
>> I APPRECIATE THAT. WE HAVE THE RECORD.
THE PARTIES HAVE COMPLETED THEIR PRESENTATIONS, AND NOW IT'S TIME FOR BOARD MEMBERS TO MAKE OUR DECISION ON THE ISSUES BEFORE US.
WE MUST APPLY ONLY THE FACTS PRESENTED IN THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE APPLICABLE POLICY OR LAW AND MAKE A DECISION.
IF THERE'S ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN MR. EGBUNE AND THE ADMINISTRATION AS TO WHAT THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MEAN, THEN IS THE BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THE MEETING OR APPLICATION OF THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES? THE RECORD OF LEVEL 2 HEARING MUST SUPPORT ANY ACTIONS WE TAKE.
THAT IS IF THE RECORD SUPPORTS THE POSITION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OR THE POSITION OF MR. EGBUNE, WE MAY FIND ACCORDINGLY.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SHALL WE MOVE TO THE BOARD ROOM.
SO THE BOARD IS GOING TO RELOCATE TO THE BOARD CONFERENCE ROOM AT 3:02 P.M. ON FEBRUARY 13.
THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IS NOW RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION.
THE TIME IS 3:08 P.M. DO I HAVE A MOTION?
>> PRESIDENT CAMPO, I MOVE THAT WE DENY ALL REQUESTED RELIEF REMEDIES NOT PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE LEVEL 2 HEARING OFFICER AND UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE LEVEL 2 HEARING OFFICER.
>> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND.
WE HAVE FIVE YES AND ZERO OPPOSED.
SO THE MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU.
ONE HERE. OKAY GOOD. AT THIS TIME, THE BOARD WILL RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION UNDER CHAPTER 551 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE OPEN MEANINGS ACT SUBSECTION F100 451089.
SHOULD BOARD FINAL ACTION VOTE OR DECISION ON ANY MATTERS CONSIDERED IN THE CLOSED SESSION BE REQUIRED, SUCH FINAL ACTION, VOTE, OR DECISION SHALL BE TAKEN AT THE OPEN MEETING CONVEYED 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 CLOSE SESSION AS OF 3:10 P.M. FEBRUARY 13, 2025.
THIS MEETING IS RECONVENED AT 3:42 P.M. ON FEBRUARY THE 13, 2025.
WE HAVE BEEN JOINED BY BOARD MEMBER MENDOZA.
ARE WE READY TO CONSIDER ITEMS FROM THE CLOSED SESSION? SOMEBODY HAVE A MOTION? HERE WE GO.
>> YES, PRESIDENT CAMPBELL, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD APPROVES A CLOSED SESSION PERSONNEL AGENDA, INCLUDING SPECIFICALLY THAT THE BOARD APPROVES PROPOSED TERMINATIONS, NON-RENEWALS OF CONTINUING TERM, PERFORMANCE, AND PROBATIONARY CONTRACTS AND AUTHORIZE THE SUPERINTENDENT OR DESIGNEE TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF THE SAME, THAT THE BOARD APPROVED SUSPENSIONS WITHOUT PAY FOR CONTINUING TERM AND PROBATIONARY CONTRACTS AND AUTHORIZE A SUPERINTENDENT OR DESIGNEE TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF THE SAME.
THAT THE BOARD AVOIDS TERM, PROBATIONARY AND PERFORMANCE CONTRACTS AND AUTHORIZE
[00:55:01]
A SUPERINTENDENT OR DESIGNEE TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF THE SAME, THAT THE BOARD APPROVES WITHDRAWALS OF CONTRACT RECOMMENDATIONS, AND THAT THE BOARD APPROVES ISSUANCE OF FINAL ORDINANCE ON CONTRACT TERMINATIONS AND NON-RENEWALS AS DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 13TH, 2025.>> IS ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? HEARING NONE, PLEASE VOTE.
OKAY. THE MOTION PASSES, I GUESS THAT'S SEVEN YES, AND TWO ABSENT.
WE WILL NOW ADJOURN THIS MEETING OF THE BOARD, AND WE WILL HAVE ANOTHER ONE AT 5:00. THANKS.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.