[00:00:01]
GOOD. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYBODY. THE MEETING IS NOW CONVENED AT 2:08 P.M..
[Hearings on March 20, 2025.]
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT EVERYONE, PLEASE SILENCE YOUR CELL PHONES.MR. CAMPO IS ABSENT THIS AFTERNOON, SO I WILL BE PRESIDING.
A QUORUM OF THE BOARD MEMBERS IS PRESENT IN THE AUDITORIUM.
THEY ARE FROM MY RIGHT ON THE PLATFORM: CASSANDRA AUZENNE BANDY, MICHELLE CRUZ ARNOLD, JANETTE GARZA LINDNER, MYSELF AUDREY MOMANAEE, ROLANDO MARTINEZ, AND I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYBODY HERE BY ZOOM TODAY.
OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO HEAR FROM SPEAKERS TO AGENDA ITEMS. BUT THERE ARE NO SPEAKERS REGISTERED TODAY, SO WE WILL CONDUCT THE HEARINGS THAT ARE SCHEDULED FOR THIS MEETING. THE FIRST SCHEDULED HEARING IS THE PROCEDURE TO CONSIDER THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION OF CELINA ROBINSON, WHO IS A TEACHER AT PARK PLACE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND FORMERLY AT FURR HIGH SCHOOL.
IF BOTH PARTIES REQUEST AN OPEN SESSION DURING THE COURSE OF THIS MEETING, THE BOARD MAY GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSULT WITH ITS ATTORNEY UNDER THE TERMS OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTIONS 551.071. IF ANY BOARD MEMBER WISHES TO SEEK THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL AT ANY TIME, PLEASE MAKE THIS REQUEST KNOWN TO ME FOR THE RECORD.
KIMBAL URRUTIA. THANK YOU. WITH THE HOUSTON FEDERATION OF TEACHERS REPRESENTING CELINA ROBINSON IS PRESENT, MYRA CHICKERING OF ROGERS, MORRIS AND GROVER, REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION IS PRESENT.
AND CATOSHA WOODS HISD GENERAL COUNSEL IS ALSO PRESENT.
MR. URRUTIA [INAUDIBLE] SORRY, DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE IN OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION, SIR? THIS ONE CLOSED. CLOSED SESSION. OKAY. THANK YOU.
IF THERE ARE ANY PARTIES WHO ARE IN THIS ROOM WHO ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THIS PARTICULAR HEARING, I'M ASKING YOU TO PLEASE LEAVE THE ROOM. SHE'S WITH YOU. THE EMPLOYEE HAS TO AGREE. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. AND SO THERE'S NOBODY IN THE ROOM.
THE EMPLOYEE HAS AGREED THAT THERE'S NOBODY IN THE ROOM THAT IS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS MATTER.
AND 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 2:11 P.M.
[00:05:17]
I'M SORRY, MR. HOLLAND. OKAY. OKAY, SO A COUPLE MINUTES AND Y'ALL GET YOUR PEOPLE TOGETHER.OKAY. IT IS 3:08 P.M.. WE ARE READY TO BEGIN AFTER A SHORT RECESS.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE DISPUTE FILED BY ERROL.
IS THAT RIGHT? ERROLL HOLLAND, A FORMER TEACHER AT SHARPSTOWN HIGH SCHOOL.
IF BOTH PARTIES REQUEST AN OPEN SESSION DURING THE COURSE OF THIS HEARING, THE BOARD MAY GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSULT WITH ITS ATTORNEY 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 KIMBAL URRUTIA, WITH THE HOUSTON FEDERATION OF TEACHERS REPRESENTING ERROLL HOLLAND IS PRESENT. CORY RUSH WITH SPALDING, NICHOLS, LAMP LANGLOIS, REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION, IS PRESENT AND CATOSHA WOODS HISD GENERAL COUNSEL IS ALSO PRESENT.
MR. URRUTIA, WOULD YOUR CLIENT OR YOU LIKE TO CONTINUE IN OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION? 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.
MR. URRUTIA, YOU MAY RESERVE PART OF YOUR TEN MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL TO MATTERS PRESENTED BY MR. RUSH, AND BOTH SIDES SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD DURING THE PRESENTATIONS AFTER DELIBERATION.
MR. URRUTIA, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO DIVIDE YOUR TIME? MR. HOLLAND'S GOING TO GIVE A PRESENTATION, SO WHATEVER REMAINING TIME IS LEFT, HE OR I WILL GO UP THERE AND CONCLUDE.
OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR MR. HOLLAND, YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND BEGIN.
GOOD AFTERNOON. THE PURPOSE OF ME FILING A GRIEVANCE IS TO CLEAR MY NAME.
I HAVE LIVED AS A MAN OF PRINCIPLES AND INTEGRITY.
THAT WAS ALL TAKEN AWAY BY THE ACTIONS OF PRINCIPAL CARTER.
I WITNESSED PRINCIPAL CARTER USE EXCESSIVE FORCE IN A SITUATION THAT WAS NOT CALLED FOR.
I WAS STANDING IN BETWEEN THE STUDENTS AND NO PUNCHES HAD BEEN THROWN.
IN ORDER FOR THE STUDENTS TO ATTACK EACH OTHER, THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO LITERALLY GO THROUGH ME.
THIS WAS A PREVIOUS STUDENT OF MINE AND ALSO HAD SPECIAL NEEDS.
AS SOMEONE THAT ACTUALLY WORKED AT HISD ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL AND THE CPI TRAINING, AND WHO ALSO PRACTICED MARTIAL ARTS FOR YEARS AND MY VALID OPINION THE SITUATION WAS COMPLETELY ESCALATED BY PRINCIPAL CARTER.
BY LAW, I HAD TO REPORT WHAT I WITNESSED. THE CAMERA IN THE HALLWAY CAUGHT ALL OF THIS.
[00:10:02]
I WAS ALSO INFORMED BY A FEMALE STUDENT THE SAME DAY THAT PRINCIPAL CARTER WENT INTO HER BACK POCKET AND SNATCHED HER CELL PHONE WHILE SHE WAS IN CUSTODY OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL, WHEN A CELL PHONE HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SITUATION.THE POLICE CAMERA OF THE SCHOOL OFFICER ALSO RECORDED THIS INCIDENT AS WELL.
LET ME SEE. SORRY. HE SCORED ME THE WORST SCORES I HAD EVER RECEIVED AS AN EDUCATOR.
I'M SORRY. OH, THIS WAS AN ACT OF RETALIATION CARRIED OUT BY PRINCIPAL CARTER.
I HAD ABSOLUTELY NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF THAT WALKTHROUGH, YET ANOTHER INSTANCE OF RETALIATION.
IN CLOSING, THE ACTIONS OF PRINCIPAL CARTER ARE UNBEFITTING AS A PRINCIPAL AND AN EDUCATOR.
THE SHARPSTOWN CAMPUS AND COMMUNITY DESERVES BETTER.
AS SOMEONE THAT HAS BEEN IN A MANAGERIAL POSITION AT A CORPORATE CORPORATION BEFORE THE AMOUNT OF COMPLAINTS AND THE AMOUNT OF STAFF THAT HAS BEEN LOST DUE TO ONE ADMINISTRATOR WOULD HAVE WARRANTED AN IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION, AND BASED ON THOSE FINDINGS, THE CORRECT ACTIONS SHOULD BE TAKEN.
IF THIS IS THE QUALITY OF PRINCIPALS THAT ARE BEING PLACED IN THESE POSITIONS, THAT MEANS THE FISH IS ROTTING FROM THE HEAD DOWN, AND I DREAD FOR THE STUDENTS AND THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE.
THE DISTRICT CAN CONTINUE TO SWEEP HIS ACTIONS UNDER THE RUG, BUT LIKE NUCLEAR WASTE, IT IS GOING TO EVENTUALLY LEAK OUT OF THE CONTAINER AND CONTAMINATE EVERYONE IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.
THANK YOU SIR AND YOU ALL WILL RETAIN THE REST OF YOUR TIME.
YES, SIR. GOOD AFTERNOON, BOARD OF TRUSTEES. MY NAME IS CORY RUSH I'M PRIVILEGED TO REPRESENT THE ADMINISTRATION IN CONNECTION WITH THIS LEVEL THREE HEARING.
FIRST AND FOREMOST, I WANT TO START BY SAYING THAT IN YOUR GRIEVANCE BINDER, IN THE RECORD BEFORE YOU BEHIND THE ADMINISTRATION'S EXHIBIT C FROM LEVEL TWO, WHICH HAS A DATE STAMP OF PAGE 9 ON THE BOTTOM 009, THAT IS THE LETTER FROM THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES THAT RULED OUT PHYSICAL ABUSE ON BEHALF OF MR. CARTER. WHAT? I'M SORRY YOU SAID EXHIBIT TWO.
IT'S BEHIND THE EXHIBIT C OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S EXHIBITS IN LEVEL TWO.
AND IT'S A PAGE NUMBER 009 ON THE BOTTOM. THANK YOU.
SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT VERY CLEAR. WE'RE IN OPEN SESSION.
WE JUST HEARD A LOT ABOUT AN ALTERCATION THAT WAS RULED OUT THAT MR. CARTER ENGAGED IN ANY SORT OF PHYSICAL ABUSE BY THE INVESTIGATING AGENCY.
SO I WANT TO MAKE THAT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, EVEN THOUGH THAT'S REALLY NOT ALL THAT RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE BEFORE YOU, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF AN OBSERVATION FORM.
THE CONTENTION HERE AS IT WAS IN LEVEL TWO IS THAT THIS THE SCORES THAT MR. HOLLAND GOT ON HIS SPOT, OBSERVATIONS AND APPRAISALS WERE SOMEHOW RETALIATORY.
RETALIATION IS ONE OF THE EARLIEST THINGS THAT WE LEARN AS HUMAN BEINGS.
YOU KNOW, YOU PUSH ME, I PUSH YOU BACK, YOU YELL AT ME, I'M GOING TO YELL BACK.
YOU TELL ON ME, I TELL ON YOU. IT'S AS TODDLERS, RETALIATION IS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS, RIGHT? WE WE REACT AND WE GUARD AGAINST IT. WE LEARN, NO, YOU DON'T DO THAT, YOU DON'T DO THAT.
AND EVENTUALLY IT CAN BECOME ILLEGAL. AND WHEN IT'S ILLEGAL, THAT'S WHEN YOU HAVE A RETALIATION CLAIM THAT CAN SUFFICE TO DO SOMETHING LIKE REMOVE AN APPRAISING DOCUMENT. RETALIATION, THOUGH, REQUIRES THREE THINGS, AND IT'S ALL ABOUT TIMING.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE ENGAGED IN SOME SORT OF ACTIVITY THAT'S PROTECTED NUMBER ONE.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE SUFFERED SOMETHING NUMBER TWO.
AND THEN THERE HAS TO BE A CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN THOSE TWO THINGS.
[00:15:05]
THAT'S HOW BASELINE AND RETALIATION CLAIM WORKS.UNFORTUNATELY FOR MR. HOLLAND, THE TIMELINE DOESN'T WORK FOR HIM TO CLAIM THAT THE OBSERVATIONS THAT HE RECEIVED, THE SPOT OBSERVATIONS, ESPECIALLY THAT HE RECEIVED DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR FROM MR. CARTER, WERE RETALIATORY. AND THAT'S BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK IN THE RECORD, STARTING WHEN MR. CARTER BECAME MR. HOLLAND'S APPRAISER IN FEBRUARY OF 2024, THE FIRST SPOT OBSERVATION YOU SEE ON FEBRUARY 22ND, 2024, WHICH IS ON THE 23RD PAGE BEHIND EXHIBIT C, HE SCORED A 1, 1 AND 2 ON THE 3 OBSERVATION DOMAINS, SO NOT EXACTLY STELLAR SCORES, RIGHT? WELL, THEN YOU GO TO THE NEXT ONE. MARCH 4TH, 2024.
THIS ONE IS 000. WHAT'S IMPORTANT ABOUT THE 000 APPRAISAL RATING IS THAT AS A FULL MONTH AND A HALF BEFORE THIS STUDENT ALTERCATION OCCURRED. THE FEBRUARY 1ST IS A FULL TWO MONTHS BEFORE THE STUDENT ALTERCATION OCCURRED IN THE HALLWAY.
SO I SAY THIS AND YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT ONE AND IT'S SIMILAR TO 1 0 .
SO ON AND SO FORTH, BECAUSE THE APPRAISAL RATINGS, THE SPOT OBSERVATION RATINGS WERE CONSISTENT PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT THAT MR. HOLLAND REPORTED THAT HE BELIEVES HE WAS RETALIATED AGAINST FOR REPORTING.
SO THE STORY DOES NOT WORK. THE STORY DOES NOT WORK.
HE WAS CONSISTENTLY RATED THE SAME BEFORE AND AFTER THE INCIDENT WITH THE STUDENT.
THE APPRAISAL OR THE SPOT OBSERVATION WALKTHROUGH WALKTHROUGH FORM, FOLLOWING THE ALTERCATION THAT WAS REPORTED TO CPS THAT MR. CARTER WAS CLEARED FROM ANY PHYSICAL ABUSE IN THE INVESTIGATION.
THESE SCORES ARE CONSISTENT WITH A 2 0 0. SO IN TERMS OF THE ISSUE THAT IS ACTUALLY BEFORE THIS BOARD, WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ANY SORT OF RETALIATORY MOTIVE SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE REMOVAL OF THE OBSERVATION THAT OCCURRED AFTER APRIL 16TH OF 2024. THE ANSWER TO THAT IS NO.
THE LEVEL TWO DECISION GOT THIS EXACTLY RIGHT, THAT THERE IS NOT ANY EVIDENCE OF A RETALIATORY MOTIVE SUFFICIENT TO REMOVE THAT OBSERVATION. AND THE ISSUE THAT MR. HOLLAND WANTS TO BRING UP AND FOR THE MOST PART, AND TALK ABOUT THE CULTURE AND WHATEVER AT SHARPSTOWN HIGH SCHOOL HAS LITERALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE BEFORE YOU, THAT WAS JUST A SOAPBOX MOMENT, I GUESS. BUT IN TERMS OF WHAT THE LEVEL TWO DECISION DECIDED, WHAT THE HEARING OFFICER DECIDED AT LEVEL TWO, THIS BOARD SHOULD AFFIRM THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION TO REMOVE THE OBSERVATION, WHICH WAS DONE BASED ON MR. CARTER'S PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT AS THE CAMPUS ADMINISTRATOR AND ASSIGNED APPRAISER FOR MR. HALL, MR. HOLLAND, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL SEE MY TIME BACK.
THANK YOU, MR. URRUTIA. AS ADMINISTRATION JUST SAID, TIMING IS IMPORTANT, BUT I DO WANT TO GO BACK TO SOMETHING REAL QUICK. MR. HOLLAND DID EXPLAIN TO YOU THAT ONE OF THE EARLY OBSERVATIONS THAT HE RECEIVED, WHICH WAS ALL ZEROS, HE HAD NO WORKING TECHNOLOGY.
SO INSTEAD OF GIVING ALL ZEROS, THE FIRST STEP AN ADMINISTRATOR SHOULD HAVE PROBABLY DONE IS MADE SURE THERE'S WORKING TECHNOLOGY. BUT HE RECEIVED ALL ZEROS FOR NO WORKING TECHNOLOGY. SO TIMING. TIMING IS RIGHT. HE'S RIGHT.
THERE IS A PATTERN TO RETALIATION. ALL I EVER HEAR ON A DAILY BASIS.
THERE'S FOUR THINGS THAT WE AT THE UNION HALL ALWAYS HEAR. RETALIATION IS ALWAYS ONE OF THEM.
WE ALWAYS START. HOW DO YOU HAVE RETALIATION? TELL ME HOW IT BEGAN. BUT HERE I WANT TO LOOK AT SOME DATES.
APRIL 16TH WAS THE INCIDENT WITH THE CHILDREN IN THE HALLWAY.
IF THAT WAS A TEACHER, BY MEANS THAT TEACHER WOULD BE REMOVED.
SECOND DATE APRIL 17TH, THE INVESTIGATION. BY CPS OR THE STATE INVESTIGATING MR. CARTER. THAT MEANS HE, MR. CARTER, HAD TO SPEAK WITH SOMEBODY FROM THE STATE ABOUT THE INCIDENT.
YES, HE WAS CLEARED. APRIL 18TH, THE EVALUATION.
TIMING. BOOM. 16TH, 17TH, 18TH, AGAIN ALL ZEROS.
MR. HOLLAND, AND NONE OF THE EXHIBITS OTHER THAN THE EXHIBITS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION PRESENTED SHOWED THAT MR. HOLLAND EVER HAD ALL ZEROS AT ANY TIME, DID THE ADMINISTRATION EVER PRESENT ANYTHING THAT SHOWS THAT MR. HOLLAND'S CAREER AT SHARPSTOWN AND OR ANY OTHER SCHOOL, ANY OTHER SCHOOL IN HISD, DID HAVE LOW SCORES? HE HAD LOW SCORES BECAUSE HE HAD NO TECHNOLOGY 000.
HE HAD LOW SCORES BECAUSE HE MADE A REPORT TO THE STATE 000.
TIMING. RETALIATION IN THE HANDS OF THE ADMINISTRATION IS ALWAYS THEIR DECISION.
[00:20:04]
IT'S YOUR DECISION. YOU CAN VIEW IT THAT WAY, OR YOU CAN VIEW THE FACT THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS PROVIDED NOTHING ELSE TO SHOW THAT MR. HOLLAND DESERVED ALL ZEROS OTHER THAN HE HAD NO WORKING MEDIA, AND THAT HE MADE A COMPLAINT.MR. HOLLAND, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? WE HAVE THREE MINUTES. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? ALL RIGHT.
WE'RE GOOD. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES? YES, MA'AM. MR. URRUTIA, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHICH EXHIBIT YOU'RE REFERRING TO WHEN YOU SAY ALL ZEROS AND NO WORKING TECHNOLOGY.
ACTUALLY, I WAS REFERRING TO THE STATEMENT THAT THE ADMINISTRATION JUST SAID. ADMINISTRATION, WHEN THEY PRESENTED THEIR CASE, SIMPLY SAID THAT ONE OR THE OTHER, HE HAD ONE OF THE OTHER MEMOS THAT THEY USED IN THEIR EXHIBITS TO PRESENT TO THE DISTRICT OR PRESENT IN THEIR LEVEL TWO GRIEVANCE IS THAT HE HAD ANOTHER EVALUATION, WHICH THEY WENT TO. MR. HOLLAND, IN HIS PRESENTATION SUMMARIZED IT, AND HE SAID THAT HE RECEIVED ALL ZEROS IN THAT ONE.
I T'S NOT AN EXHIBIT CAN SOMEBODY ANSWER A QUESTION FOR ME? MAYBE, MR. CARTER. WHEN THESE WALK THROUGH FORMS GET PUT IN, ARE THEY, YOU CAN'T MESS AROUND WITH THEM, RIGHT? THEY'RE PERMANENT. YES, MA'AM. AND ARE THEY INPUT AT THE TIME THAT'S REFLECTED ON THE DOCUMENT THEMSELVES.
BUT ON MARCH 4TH, 2024 AT 8:34 A.M.. YES, MA'AM.
OKAY. OKAY. YOU GET YOUR ANSWER. AUDREY, WHEN YOU SAY INPUT, DO YOU MEAN IN THE SYSTEM? BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S THE TIME FRAME FOR WHEN IT ACTUALLY OCCURRED.
YEAH. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS IT ONCE YOU INPUT THE FORMAL WALK THROUGH FORM.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR INTERFACE LOOKS LIKE, BUT WHENEVER YOU DO THAT, WHICH I'M ASSUMING IS WHERE YOU PLACE THESE ZEROS OR WHATEVER NUMBER YOU'RE GOING TO PUT IN THERE, THE DATE STAMP THAT'S ON THIS HISD FORM THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IN ADMINISTRATION C AT PAGE 21 THAT THAT DATE AND TIME STAMP, IS THAT REFLECTIVE OF THE DATE AND TIME WHEN THE INFORMATION WAS PUT INTO THE SYSTEM, OR IS THAT THE DATE AND TIME WHEN THE EVALUATION GOT DONE? SO THAT'S THE DATE AND TIME WHERE WE THE DATE AND THEN THE TIME THAT THE OBSERVATION STARTS.
OKAY. AND THEN WHEN DO YOU IS THERE A DESIGNATION.
IS THERE AN IDENTIFICATION IN THIS DOCUMENT THAT WOULD CONFIRM THAT IT WAS CLOSED OUT OR OTHERWISE FINAL ON THAT DAY? IT WON'T POPULATE UNTIL YOU SUBMIT IT. OKAY. OH, THIS WON'T POPULATE UNTIL YOU SUBMIT IT.
WE JUST WANT TO ALSO NOTE THAT THAT PARTICULAR SORRY JUST PARTICULAR THAT THAT EVALUATION, MR. HOLLAND ACTUALLY DID NOT SEE IT UNTIL THE LEVEL TWO GRIEVANCE.
HE ACTUALLY MR. HOLLAND NEVER EVEN SAW THAT EVALUATION UNTIL THE ACTUAL LEVEL TWO GRIEVANCE.
OKAY. I THINK THAT ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS. ANYBODY ELSE? I DO HAVE A QUESTION, MR. CARTER. AT WHAT POINT DO YOU PRESENT THE RESULTS OF THE OBSERVATION WITH PRINCIPALS? WHENEVER. I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY WITH THE WITH THE TEACHER.
WHENEVER WE SUBMIT, THE TEACHER GETS A PRE-POPULATED EMAIL WITH THE RESULTS IMMEDIATELY.
OKAY. OKAY. NOW, MR. HOLLAND, THERE'S SEVERAL EVALUATIONS THAT OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT PRIOR TO THE LAST EVALUATION. MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ZERO. ONE OF THEM WAS ZERO, BUT THE OTHER ONE WAS FOUR POINTS.
AT ANY POINT THAT YOU HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH MR. CARTER ABOUT RETALIATION PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER EVALUATIONS? NO, SIR, I DIDN'T. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. THE PARTIES HAVE COMPLETED THEIR PRESENTATIONS.
IT IS NOW TIME FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS TO MAKE OUR DECISION ON THE ISSUES BEFORE US.
WE MUST APPLY ONLY THE FACTS PRESENTED IN THE TRANSCRIPT, THE APPLICABLE POLICY OR LAW, AND MAKE A DECISION IF THERE ARE ANY DISPUTES BETWEEN MR. HOLLAND 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
[00:25:07]
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. THE RECORD ON THE LEVEL TWO HEARINGS MUST SUPPORT ANY ACTION WE TAKE THAT IS, IF THE RECORD SUPPORTS THE POSITION OF THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE POSITION OF MR. HOLLAND, WE MAY FIND ACCORDINGLY. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? OKAY. IF NOBODY HAS A MOTION AT THIS TIME. WE CAN GO TO THE BOARD ROOM FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION, BUT I'LL TAKE A MOTION IF THERE IS ONE.OKAY. OH, I HAVE A MOTION. WHAT'S YOUR MOTION TO? OFFICER. IS THERE A SECOND? I HAVE A MOTION THAT WE DENY ALL REQUESTED RELIEF AND REMEDIES NOT PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE LEVEL TWO HEARING OFFICER AND UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE LEVEL TWO HEARING OFFICER AND A SECOND BY MR. MARTINEZ. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? DOES ANY BOARD MEMBER REQUEST THAT WE GO INTO THE BOARDROOM? SEEING NONE, PLEASE VOTE.
VOTING IS CLOSED. FIVE IN FAVOR. THE BOARD HAS VOTED FOR THE MOTION TO DENY THE GRIEVANCE. A LETTER NOTIFYING BOTH PARTIES OF THE ACTION OF THE BOARD SHALL BE PREPARED AND SIGNED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF BOARD RELATIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
THIS HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT 3:28 P.M.. THANK YOU.
OH, OKAY. WE'LL TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK 3:35.
ALL RIGHT. WE ARE BACK, IT IS 3:36. ARE WE READY? WE'RE ALL GOOD. OKAY. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE DISPUTE FILED.
OH, SIR. I'M SORRY I GOT YOUR LAST NAME. CAN YOU SAY YOUR FIRST NAME FOR ME? OCHI. [INAUDIBLE] OCHI-OKORIE HE'S A TEACHER AT CHAVEZ HIGH 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, KIMBAL URRUTIA, WITH THE HOUSTON FEDERATION OF TEACHERS REPRESENTING MR. OCHI-OKORIE, IS PRESENT. MYRA CHICKERING, ROGERS, MORRIS AND GROVER, REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION IS PRESENT AND CATOSHA WOODS HISD GENERAL COUNSEL IS ALSO PRESENT. MR. URRUTIA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CONTINUE IN OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION? OPEN SESSION. OKAY. THANK YOU SIR. 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. MR..
MR. URRUTIA WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD, FOLLOWED BY A TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION BY MRS. CHICKERING. MR. URRUTIA YOU CAN RESERVE ANY PART OF YOUR TEN MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL TO MATTERS THAT ARE PRESENTED BY MISS CHICKERING, AND BOTH SIDES SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD AFTER THEIR RESPECTIVE PRESENTATIONS. AFTER DELIBERATION, THE BOARD WILL RENDER ITS DECISION. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THIS WILL PROCEED? OKAY, GOOD.
MR. URRUTIA, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO DIVIDE YOUR TIME? HE WILL HAVE HE HAS A PRESENTATION HE'S GOING TO PRESENT AND THEN IF THERE'S ANY REMAINING TIME, THEN I'LL GO UP AND FOLLOW UP IF THERE'S A NEED. OKAY.
VERY GOOD. I'M SORRY. ONE YES. OKAY. WE'LL RESERVE ANY EXTRA TIME.
YES. OKAY. PERFECT. MR. OCHI-OKORIE. YES, SIR.
[00:30:05]
ITEM ITEM ONE, DISTRICT COUNSEL ARGUES THAT SPOT OBSERVATIONS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO APPRAISAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS.THE FOLLOWING TWO SENTENCES ARE COUNSEL STATEMENTS FROM THE LEVEL TWO TRANSCRIPT.
SHE STATES, QUOTE, IN FACT, TITUS DOESN'T EVEN ADDRESS PART OBSERVATIONS.
WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR IS DIFFERENT. END QUOTE.
EXAMPLES OF POLICIES THAT ADDRESS WALKTHROUGH OR SPOT OBSERVATIONS ARE TEXAS EDUCATION CODE, CHAPTER 21.352, PARAGRAPH C-1 AND CHAPTER 19 OF THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, SECTION 150.1003, PARAGRAPH B4. CLEARLY, DECISIONS MADE IN THIS CASE UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT SPOT OBSERVATIONS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO PROVISIONS OF LAW, NEED TO BE REVIEWED FOR ERRORS, INCLUDING THOSE ERRORS THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED.
ITEM TWO I WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW THREE COMMON CAUSES OF DEFAMATORY INFORMATION IN APPRAISAL REPORTS.
ONE, FAILURE OF AN APPRAISER TO EXAMINE APPROPRIATE SOURCES OF EVIDENCE AS REQUIRED BY POLICY.
TWO, AN APPRAISER INDICATING THAT A TEACHER DID NOT PERFORM A TASK WHICH THE TEACHER, BY LAW, IS EXEMPT FROM PERFORMING. THREE, THE SCHOOL OR DISTRICT FAILING TO PROVIDE A RESOURCE WHICH IT IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO PROVIDE SO THAT A TEACHER CAN PERFORM A TASK. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE SCHOOL OR DISTRICT IMPLIES THAT THE TEACHER IS TO BLAME FOR NONPERFORMANCE WHEN THE RESOURCE IS NOT PROVIDED.
EXAMPLES OF SUCH RESOURCES ARE: TIME TO PERFORM THE TASK, AND INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS.
REGARDING THE AMOUNT OF TIME NECESSARY TO PERFORM TEACHER DUTIES, I SUBMITTED DETAILED INFORMATION SHOWING THAT BOTH THE TEA AND MYSELF FOUND THAT THE TIME REQUIRED TO COMPLETE WORK GREATLY EXCEEDED THE TIME PROVIDED TO TEACHERS, WHICH IS IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF LAW.
A CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE OF UNPAID WORK REQUIRED ABOVE CONTRACT HOURS WAS FOUR MONTHS.
AS ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE APPRAISER AT THE LEVEL TWO HEARING, THE APPRAISER TOOK SOME ACTION TO REDUCE DEFAMATORY INFORMATION IN FUTURE APPRAISAL REPORTS SUBSEQUENT TO REBUTTALS THAT I SUBMITTED.
HOWEVER, THE PREVIOUS APPRAISAL REPORTS WERE NOT CORRECTED.
ITEM THREE, DISTRICT COUNSEL ARGUED THAT THE LEVEL TWO HEARING THAT THE ISSUE OF UNLAWFUL WORKLOADS AND RELATED STATUTES WERE NOT RAISED ON THE INITIAL GRIEVANCE FORM, AND THEREFORE THEY NEED NOT BE CONSIDERED. EVEN IF THIS ASSERTION WERE TRUE AN EMPLOYEE MAY STILL SUBMIT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AT THE LEVEL ONE AND OR LEVEL TWO HEARINGS AS PROVIDED IN DBGA LOCAL, WHICH IS A DISTRICT POLICY ON GRIEVANCES.
OVER 70 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT LEVEL ONE LISTED VARIOUS LAWS AND POLICIES AT ISSUE.
I HAVE HERE A COPY OF THE EMAIL EVIDENCING SUBMISSION OF THE DOCUMENTS.
ITEM FOUR, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT DISTRICT OFFICERS HAVE REVIEWED THE DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED.
INSTEAD OF SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING THE ISSUES RAISED, IT APPEARS THAT THE HEARING OFFICERS ARE SIMPLY FILLING OUT SIMILAR TEMPLATE DOCUMENTS AND SENDING TO THE GRIEVANT. ITEM FIVE, DISTRICT COUNCIL AND THE HEARING OFFICERS TAKE THE POSITION THAT REQUESTING A SECOND APPRAISAL IS THE ONLY OPTION FOR ADDRESSING ERRORS IN AN IN AN INITIAL OBSERVATION REPORT.
THIS POSITION IS CONTRARY TO EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF LAW.
TEXAS EDUCATION CODE, CHAPTER 21.352, PARAGRAPH C, PROVIDES THAT A TEACHER MAY WRITE A REBUTTAL AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO REQUESTING A SECOND APPRAISAL. THE HISD TEST HANDBOOK DESCRIBES THIS REBUTTAL AS AN APPEAL.
[00:35:03]
A REBUTTAL SERVES THIS PURPOSE, AND THEREFORE IS AN APPROPRIATE METHOD FOR REQUESTING CORRECTIONS TO AN APPRAISAL REPORT.ITEM SIX, DISTRICT COUNCIL CLAIMS THAT THE HISD APPRAISAL APPRAISAL PROCESS HAS A SELF-CORRECTING MECHANISM, BECAUSE ONLY THE HIGHEST RATED SPOT FORM FOR EACH MONTH IS FACTORED INTO A TEACHER'S SUMMATIVE RATINGS.
THIS PROPOSED SELF-CORRECTING SOLUTION IS PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE TEACHERS, INCLUDING IN THIS INSTANCE, ARE OFTEN OBSERVED ONLY ONCE PER MONTH. HENCE, THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR THEM TO CORRECT ANY ERRORS, EVEN WHEN THERE IS MORE THAN ONE SPOT FORMING IN A GIVEN MONTH, THE HIGHEST RATED SPOT FORM MAY STILL CONTAIN ERRORS.
ADDITIONALLY, THE LOWER RATED SPOT FORMS WITH FACTUAL ERRORS ARE STILL PRESENT IN THE RECORD WITHOUT CORRECTION, THUS EXPOSING THE TEACHER TO DEFAMATORY HARM.
THE CORRECTION FORM THAT THE HEARING OFFICERS CLAIM EXISTS WAS NOT FOUND BY THE APPRAISER WHEN ATTEMPTING TO MAKE CORRECTIONS, AS EVIDENCED IN SUBMITTED EMAILS. DISTRICT COUNCIL ARGUES THAT BECAUSE THE TEACHER WAS RATED AS DISTINGUISHED, IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE DISTRICT TO CORRECT FACTUAL ERRORS IN THE RECORD THAT MAY BE HARMFUL TO THE TEACHER IN THIS OR ANOTHER SCHOOL DISTRICT.
THIS VIEW IS CONTRARY TO ANTI-DEFAMATION LAW.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MRS. CHICKERING.
GOOD AFTERNOON, AND THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.
I AM PLEASED TO BE JOINED HERE TODAY BY CHAVEZ, PRINCIPAL MARLIN MARTINEZ AND DR.
PAULETTE CRAWFORD, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL AT CHAVEZ.
DURING THE LEVEL TWO HEARING. AND AGAIN TODAY, YOU HAVE HEARD MUCH ABOUT THE APPRAISAL PROCESS T-TEST AND THE SPOT PROCESS. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE, TO FOCUS PRIMARILY ON THE FACT THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH A TEACHER WHO IS RATED AS DISTINGUISHED.
SO I FIND MYSELF WONDERING, AS I DID DURING THE LEVEL TWO HEARING, WHAT RELIEF CAN BE AFFECTED HERE.
HE RECEIVED THE TOP RATING AND THE OBJECTIONS HE HAS WITH REGARD TO THE WAY THE SPOTS WERE CONDUCTED ULTIMATELY HAD NO IMPACT, NO NEGATIVE IMPACT WHATSOEVER ON HIS FINAL APPRAISAL.
THE THAT THEY ALLEGE THE GRIEVANCE ALLEGES AND HE ALLEGES THAT PEOPLE HAVE HAD THEIR HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED FOR TERMINATION, HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED FOR NON-RENEWAL AS A RESULT OF LOW SPOTS.
AND IT'S TRUE THAT IF YOU HAVE CONSISTENTLY LOW SPOTS, THAT COULD BE THE BASIS OF YOU HAVING A LOWER APPRAISAL AND A RECOMMENDATION AT SOME POINT FOR TERMINATION OR NON-RENEWAL OF YOUR EMPLOYMENT.
BUT AGAIN, IN THIS SITUATION, WE'RE DEALING WITH SOMEONE WHO RECEIVED VERY HIGH SPOTS ALMOST FROM THE VERY BEGINNING AND HAD THE HIGHEST LEVEL RATING THAT HE COULD POSSIBLY HAVE ACROSS EVERY DOMAIN IN HIS FINAL APPRAISAL.
SO I FIND IT AGAIN STRANGE THAT THE PERSON THAT IS BRINGING THIS COMPLAINT FORWARD AND THAT IS COMPLAINING ABOUT THE SPOTS AND THE WAY THEY'RE IMPLEMENTED, IS SOMEBODY WHO ACTUALLY WAS NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACTED.
AND I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SPOTS AND THE T-TEST OBSERVATION.
THEY HAVE AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PURPOSE. SPECIFICALLY, THE PURPOSE OF THE SPOT, THE WAY IT WAS IMPLEMENTED WAS TO PROVIDE ON THE SPOT REAL TIME COACHING AND FEEDBACK. UNLIKE A FORMAL APPRAISAL, SPOTS ARE MUCH SHORTER IN DURATION, GENERALLY 15 TO 20 MINUTES.
THEY PROVIDE FEEDBACK REGARDING WHAT THE SUPERVISOR SEES ON IN A LIMITED WINDOW.
THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY A SNAPSHOT OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE CLASSROOM DURING THAT 10 TO 15, I'M SORRY, 15 TO 20 MINUTE PERIOD THAT THE APPRAISER, THE EVALUATOR, WALKS IN AND IS STANDING IN THE CLASSROOM.
[00:40:05]
AND BECAUSE OF THAT, BECAUSE OF THE FREQUENCY OF THE SPOTS, THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY SELF-CORRECTING.IF A SUPERVISOR OR AN EVALUATOR DOESN'T SEE A PARTICULAR ELEMENT OR CHARACTERISTIC DURING A VISIT, PERHAPS RESULTING IN A LOWER SCORE ON THAT DAY, THE PROCESS SELF-CORRECTS WHEN THE SUPERVISOR RETURNS FOR A LATER VISIT AND IS ABLE TO CAPTURE THAT CHARACTERISTIC. SO TO WALK YOU THROUGH SOME OF THESE DOCUMENTS, IF I COULD ASK YOU FIRST TO TURN TO EXHIBIT FOUR, PLEASE. THIS IS ADMINISTRATION EXHIBIT FOUR IS THE FORMAL OBSERVATION THAT WAS CONDUCTED FOR MR. OCHI-OKORIE. AND AS YOU'LL SEE, THIS FULLY COMPLIES WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF T-TEST.
AND AS YOU'LL SEE ON PAGE ONE OF THAT DOCUMENT, ONLY THE SIX HIGHEST SPOTS FOR THE YEAR ARE COMPUTED INTO THE END OF THE YEAR APPRAISAL. AND IF YOU GO TO THE FAR RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE PAGE, YOU'LL SEE THE DATES OF THOSE SPOTS.
WELL, MR. OCHI-OKORIE HAD MORE THAN SIX SPOTS CONDUCTED.
AND IF YOU TURN TO NOW FINALLY ADMINISTRATION EXHIBIT 13 AND 14, I'M SORRY, 14 AND 15, YOU WILL SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT ADMINISTRATION EXHIBIT 14 IS A SPOT THAT WAS CONDUCTED ON MARCH 27TH AT 1:13 P.M..
UNLIKE MOST OF THE OTHER SPOTS HE RECEIVED THAT YEAR, THIS ONE, FOR SOME REASON, WAS LOW.
THE FOLLOWING DAY DR. CRAWFORD CAME IN, SO THIS IS 3/28, ADMINISTRATION EXHIBIT 15, THE FOLLOWING DAY YOU'LL SEE THAT HE RECEIVED A 13. SO AND I HATE TO DO ALL THIS FLIPPING BACK AND FORTH, BUT IF YOU NOW RETURN TO ADMINISTRATION EXHIBIT FIVE YOU WILL SEE, SORRY LET ME GET BACK HERE. I APOLOGIZE. JUST TRYING TO GET BACK TO THE RIGHT PAGE.
IF YOU TURN BACK TO PAGE ONE OF THE ADMINISTRATION EXHIBIT FIVE, AND YOU COME ACROSS WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING TO SEE WHICH OF THOSE TWO SCORES WAS CALCULATED INTO HIS FINAL END OF THE YEAR APPRAISAL, YOU'LL SEE IT WAS THE SECOND ONE.
THE FACT THAT YOU KNOW, HE DOES OR DOES NOT SUBMIT REBUTTALS IF THE ADMINISTRATION ULTIMATELY DETERMINES THAT THEY DON'T AGREE WITH THE POINTS MADE IN HIS REBUTTAL, EVEN EVEN THEN, THE FACT THAT HE GOT ONE LOW ONE IS NOT GOING TO ULTIMATELY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE END OF THE YEAR APPRAISAL.
AND AS ILLUSTRATED BY THIS PARTICULAR EXAMPLE.
SO I'M GOING TO BE QUITE CANDID HERE. LET'S TURN TO ADMINISTRATION EXHIBIT SEVEN.
I BELIEVE PART OF THE PROBLEM IN TALKING ABOUT APPRAISALS AND OBSERVATIONS AND SPOTS IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT LAST YEAR'S FORM, LAST YEAR'S SPOT FORM, SAYS FORMAL WALK THROUGH FORM T-TESTS.
THERE IS IT'S I'M SORRY, THAT WAS WHAT IT SAID LAST YEAR.
AND CURRENTLY IT SAYS SPOT OBSERVATION FORM, IT DOESN'T REFERENCE T-TESTS.
SO IF EVEN IF YOU FIND THAT THERE WERE SOME MISSTEPS OR ERRORS PERHAPS MADE IN TERMS OF COMMUNICATING WITH MR. OCHI-OKORIE OR HIS UNDERSTANDING OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SPOT FORMS AND THE OBSERVATION FORMS LAST YEAR, THAT'S ALREADY BEEN CORRECTED. THE ADMINISTRATION HAS ALREADY ADDRESSED THAT CONCERN TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT SPOTS ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FORMAL T- TEST OBSERVATION THAT WAS, THAT'S CONDUCTED EVERY YEAR IT LAST A T LEAST 60 MINUTES.
[00:45:06]
IN THE END, THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE AN EMPLOYEE WHO, BY ALL MEASURES, IS EXEMPLARY.HE'S DISTINGUISHED. AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED EITHER AT LEVEL ONE OR LEVEL TWO THAT ANYTHING WITH REGARD TO THE USE OF THE SPOT FORMS LAST YEAR IN HIS CASE WAS IN CONFLICT WITH EITHER HISD BOARD POLICY OR STATE LAW OR STATE ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION.
AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD MIGHT HAVE.
THANK YOU. MR. URRUTIA. YES. THE ADMINISTRATION IS VERY CORRECT.
HE IS A DISTINGUISHED. HE'S ONE OF YOUR BEST TEACHERS.
AND TO ONE OF YOUR BEST TEACHERS HE VIEWED THAT AS A POSSIBILITY, THAT IF HE WENT ANYWHERE ELSE, THAT ONE SPOT, THAT CHARACTERISTICS OF THOSE FIVE MINUTES IN THAT CLASSROOM WILL IMPACT HIS CAREER.
BUT YOUR DISTINGUISHED TEACHER, YOUR BEST, HAS RAISED THE CONCERN THAT DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER, DEFAMATION OF YOUR PROFESSIONAL SKILL IN THE CLASSROOM TAKES FIVE MINUTES TO HARM YOU.
AND IN THOSE FIVE MINUTES, A PRINCIPAL CAN WALK IN., YOU CAN HAVE AMAZING SCORES AS OCHI HAS HAD ALL YEAR, BUT WITHIN FIVE MINUTES THAT CAN HARM YOU. AND CURRENTLY, WHAT WERE YOU SAYING IN THE HISD MANUAL, THE SPOT OBSERVATION IS STILL UNDER WALKTHROUGH.
THEY'RE NOT SEEING ALL THESE SPOT OBSERVATIONS. THEY'RE SEEING SIX EVERY SPOT OBSERVATION EVERY DAY. THEY'RE THINKING, MY GOD, I GOT A ONE, I GOT A ZERO, I GOT A TWO. IN THEIR HEADS, THEY'RE THINKING, I'M GOING TO LEAVE THIS CAMPUS.
I'M GOING TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. BUT ALL THEY'VE SEEN IS THIS AND BELIEVING I'VE BEEN BURNED, MY CAREER IS OVER. I CAN'T GET A JOB NOW BECAUSE HOW DO I TURN IN MY WALKTHROUGHS? HOW DO I SUBMIT MY OBSERVATIONS? AND IT DID. IT TOOK YOUR BEST TO FILE A GRIEVANCE, A CONFUSING GRIEVANCE FOR EVERYBODY, I WOULD SAY EVEN FOR HFT, BECAUSE WE WERE LIKE, THIS IS AN ASSOCIATION, WE SHOULD DO THIS AS AN ASSOCIATION.
BUT HE DID IT ON HIS OWN BECAUSE HE WANTED TO BRING ATTENTION.
THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE WAY WE ARE DOING OUR SPOT OBSERVATIONS AND THE WAY THAT SOMETIMES THIS PRINCIPAL I KNOW SHE'S BEEN AROUND FOR A WHILE, BUT NOT EVERY PRINCIPAL HAS BEEN AROUND AS LONG.
AND THEY'RE USING THESE SPOTS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT REALLY SURE WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING.
THEY HAVE PRESSURE ON THEM, SO YOU'RE WALKING IN AND YOU'RE JUST GIVING SCORES.
THAT IS THESE PEOPLE'S CHARACTER. THAT IS HIS CHARACTER.
THAT ONE OBSERVATION WAS HIS CHARACTER, AND HE TOOK IT PERSONALLY, EVEN THOUGH HE'S ONE OF THE BEST.
AND I WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT THAT AS WE MOVE FORWARD, BECAUSE YOU GET TO SEE ME NOW BECAUSE ALL MY GRIEVANCES WILL BE COMING, THAT THIS IS PART OF THE PROCESS. SO I'M GLAD THAT HE FILED THIS GRIEVANCE, AND I'M GLAD WE GOT TO SIT HERE.
AND I'M GLAD, MYRA, AS LONG AS I'VE KNOWN HER, WE WERE BOTH ON THE SAME PAGE.
WE WERE A LITTLE CONFUSED ON WHAT WE WERE PRESENTING AT THE TIME, BUT HE MAKES A GOOD POINT.
SO IF YOU GO OUT AND YOU SAY SOMETHING ABOUT SOMEBODY, THEY CAN COME AFTER YOU.
I DO BELIEVE THAT'S THE SAME WITHIN YOUR EMPLOYER.
SO OTHER THAN THAT, WE REST. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS BY MY COLLEAGUES? NO.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE A MOTION? I HAVE A QUESTION MARTINEZ. SO MAYBE I'M CONFUSED AS WELL TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.
THERE'S NOT A CLEAR INDICATION TO ME THAT WHAT IS THE ACTUAL ASK HERE.
IF THE CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE OBSERVATION FORM AS STATED BY MR. GREEN, A SPOT FORM, EXCUSE ME, AN OBSERVATION FORM.
IF THOSE THINGS HAVE BEEN MADE AND EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE, EVEN IF IT'S, I UNDERSTAND, TAKE 13 MONTHS. SO WHAT IS THE ACTUAL ASK TODAY THEN IF THE CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE THAT YOU'VE REQUESTED? WHAT? WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU ASKING FROM THE BOARD? OKAY, THE CHANGES HAVE NOT BEEN MADE. SO WHAT I EXPLAINED WAS THAT THE APPRAISER, GOING FORWARD ON SOME OF THE
[00:50:07]
ISSUES, DID MAKE A NEW, A NEW APPRAISALS ON SOME OF THOSE NEW NEW APPRAISALS SHE DID MAKE SOME CHANGES TO ACCOMMODATE WHAT I DESCRIBED IN THE REBUTTALS.HOWEVER, NOT ALL THE CHANGES WERE, NOT ALL THE CHANGES WERE MADE.
AND ALSO IN PREVIOUS APPRAISALS, THE SPOTS FORMS WERE NOT CORRECTED.
SO THE OLD ONES WERE NOT, THEY DID NOT GO BACK AND MAKE THE CORRECTIONS.
SO THOSE ERRORS ARE STILL THOSE FACTUAL ERRORS ARE STILL THERE IN THE OLD APPRAISAL FORMS. FOR THE NEWER ONES, A FEW OF THE CHANGES WERE MADE, BUT NOT NOT ALL OF THEM.
SOMEBODY CAN ANSWER THIS QUESTION, MAYBE THE PRINCIPAL.
WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE OLD FORM? THAT SPOT FORM I KNOW IT DOESN'T GET CALCULATED AS PART OF YOUR THE MATH WE WERE LOOKING AT THAT EXHIBIT A MINUTE AGO.
BUT THE ORIGINAL SPOT FORM THAT'S THEN REPLACED BY A NEW NUMBER.
WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT FORM? DOES IT REMAIN IN THE FILE? SO YOU CAN DIG DEEPER. SO WHAT HE IS STATING IS LAST YEAR WE DIDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO MAKE CHANGES DIRECTLY TO THE FORM AS APPRAISERS, WE ACTUALLY HAD TO CONTACT SOMEONE AND SAY, HEY, WE MADE A MISTAKE, CAN YOU HELP ME CORRECT.
THIS YEAR, WE ACTUALLY HAVE FULL ACCESS IF WE MAKE THE CHANGES WITHIN A TEN DAY WINDOW, IF A TEACHER SUBMITS A REBUTTAL AND SUBMITS ARTIFACTS OR DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT, YOU KNOW, THE THE EVIDENCE OR THE CASE THEN WE DO HAVE ACCESS TO MAKE THE CHANGES.
THE AVERAGE SCORE, IT'S BECAUSE WE ARE REQUIRED TO DO MORE THAN ONE.
AND THAT'S BECAUSE WE'RE COACHING TEACHERS. AND SO EVEN IF A TEACHER, YOU KNOW, DOES NOT DO WELL ON ONE SPOT, YOU KNOW, WE DO EXPECT AND WE ARE REQUIRED TO GO IN AND CONTINUE TO FOLLOW UP WITH THE TEACHER AS WE COACH THE TEACHER, BECAUSE THE GOAL IS THAT WE'RE IMPROVING THE FEEDBACK.
I THINK WE WERE LOOKING AT EXHIBIT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THAT IS HELPFUL. WE WERE LOOKING AT EXHIBIT FIVE, ADMINISTRATION EXHIBIT FIVE, WHICH HAD, I THINK MRS. CHICKERING WAS POINTING OUT THAT THAT EXHIBIT REFLECTS THAT THESE THE THE LOWER SCORED.
THAT'S CORRECT. AND SO MY QUESTION IS WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT EARLIER NUMBER THAT'S NOT UTILIZED OBVIOUSLY IN THIS CALCULATION, BUT IT'S SOMEWHAT SOMEWHERE IN THE FILE OR SOMETHING WE DON'T KNOW.
IF I IF I CAN RESPOND BASED ON MY OWN EXPERIENCE IN OTHER SITUATIONS, I THINK AT SOME POINT THEY BECOME ALMOST LOCKED IN AND UNAVAILABLE BECAUSE I'VE HAD TIMES WHERE TIME HAS PASSED AND I'VE TRIED TO ACCESS SPOTS.
I DON'T WANT I DON'T WANT SPECULATION. SO IF YOU DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER IT'S FINE. YEAH. THAT'S IN TERMS OF BUT IN TERMS OF WHAT SORT OF FOLLOWS THE EMPLOYEE, IF YOU WILL, THAT'S GOING TO BE THE THE END OF THE YEAR APPRAISAL.
AND I BELIEVE, AND I DON'T WANT TO MISSTATE HERE, BUT I BELIEVE THAT IF YOU OPEN A PERSONNEL FILE, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO SEE ALL THE SPOTS IN THERE.
THE PERSONNEL FILES I SEE FROM THE SPOTS FROM THE PRIOR YEAR ARE NOT IN THE PERSONNEL FILE.
I CAN, HOWEVER FIND THE FORMAL APPRAISALS FROM THE PRIOR YEAR.
SO THEY ARE PULLED IN INTO THAT DOCUMENT. BUT BUT THEY'RE NOT AN ATTACHMENT PER SE TO THAT DOCUMENT.
SO AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, I DON'T KNOW HOW A FUTURE EMPLOYER WOULD EVEN KNOW IF THERE WAS A LOWER SPOT INCLUDED IN THE BUNCH, BECAUSE IT'S NOT REFLECTED ON THE END OF THE YEAR APPRAISAL DOCUMENT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ADDRESSES WHAT YOU WERE GETTING AT. YES IT DOES.
OKAY. MAY I MAY I ADDRESS THAT? DO YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO MY QUESTION? YES. OKAY. YES. SO CHAPTER 21 OF THE TEXAS EDUCATION CODE SAYS THAT ANOTHER SCHOOL DISTRICT CAN REQUEST ANY APPRAISAL DOCUMENT, AND THE DISTRICT IS REQUIRED, THE CURRENT DISTRICT IS REQUIRED TO GIVE IT TO THEM.
[00:55:04]
I MEAN, FROM AN ADMINISTRATION PERSPECTIVE, IS THIS SPOT SPOT FORM CONSIDERED AN APPRAISAL DOCUMENT? I'M GOING TO SAY NO.IT IS YEAH, IT'S PART OF THE APPRAISAL SYSTEM.
IT'S PART OF THE PROCESS. IT'S A COMPONENT OF THE PROCESS.
AND I'M, I'M MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE APPRAISAL, THAT WOULD BE THE THE FINAL DOCUMENT, BUT OKAY. OKAY. I'M GOING TO ADJOURN US 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 A SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC MEETING OF THE BOARD UPON NOTICE THEREOF. THE BOARD IS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 4:04 P.M.
ON MARCH 20TH, 2025. ARE WE READY? ARE WE BACK? OKAY, GREAT. 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 ARE BACK AT 4:18 P.M..
WE MUST APPLY ONLY THE FACTS PRESENTED IN THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE APPLICABLE POLICY OR LAW, AND MAKE A DECISION IF THERE IS ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN MR. OCHI-OKORIE 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 MR. OCHI-OKORIE, I'M SORRY, WE MAY FIND ACCORDINGLY.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION IN OPEN SESSION? NO. OKAY. HAVE A MOTION BY MISS AUZENNE BANDY.
WE HAVE A SECOND BY DR. ARNOLD. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, PLEASE VOTE. THE MOTION PASSES FIVE IN FAVOR TO DETERMINE THAT WE HAVE STOPPED, LOOKED AND LISTENED, AND THAT WE TAKE NO FURTHER ACTION ON THIS MATTER.
THIS HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT 4:19 P.M.. ARE WE LEAVING THIS OPEN? ARE WE GOING TO CLOSE SESSION? OKAY. 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.
SIR, BEFORE YOU LEAVE, THE BOARD APPRECIATES YOUR WORK FOR THE KIDS OF HISD.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALL THAT YOU'VE DONE FOR THEM, AND ALL THE GOOD WORK THAT WE CAN SEE THROUGH THE THE SPOT OBSERVATION FORMS THAT WE HAD IN THE RECORD. THANK YOU. 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 4:20 P.M.
ON MARCH 20TH, 2025. OKAY. WE'RE BACK FROM CLOSED SESSION AT 4:53 P.M.. I WILL TAKE A MOTION COMING OUT OF CLOSED SESSION.
YES, PLEASE. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD APPROVES THE 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 SAME THAT THE BOARD APPROVES SUSPENSIONS WITHOUT PAY FOR CONTINUING TERM AND PROBATIONARY CONTRACTS, AND AUTHORIZE THE SUPERINTENDENT OR DESIGNEE TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF SAME, THAT THE BOARD VOIDS TERM PROBATIONARY AND PERFORMANCE CONTRACTS AND AUTHORIZE THE SUPERINTENDENT OR DESIGNEE TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF SAME.
THAT THE BOARD APPROVES WITHDRAWALS OF CONTRACT RECOMMENDATIONS, AND THAT THE BOARD APPROVES ISSUANCE OF FINAL ORDERS ON CONTRACT TERMINATIONS AND NON-RENEWALS AS DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION EFFECTIVE MARCH 20TH, 2025.
OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION BY MISS LINDNER AND A SECOND BY DR.
[01:00:01]
ARNOLD. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, PLEASE VOTE.THE BOARD MOTION PASSES FIVE IN FAVOR. ANY OTHER MOTIONS? OKAY. SEEING NONE THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED AT 4:55 P.M..
WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A TEN MINUTE BREAK, AND WE'LL START THE BOARD MEETING AT 5:05 P.M..
THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.