WE GOOD? OKAY. THE BOARD IS READY TO VOTE PLEASE.
[Hearings on May 12, 2025.]
[00:00:06]
WE PLEASE GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE AUDITORIUM FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO COME IN.BOARD MEMBERS, DO I HAVE A MOTION? I SHOULD CLICK ON YOUR, MAKE SURE YOU HAVE YOUR ON THE FLOOR.
OKAY. DO YOU WANT TO DO THE MOTION? YES. I'LL MAKE A MOTION.
OKAY. I ACTUALLY I THINK YOUR MOTION WAS ALREADY MADE BY BOARD MEMBER FLOWERS.
YOU WANT TO READ IT? I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE DECISION RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER, ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RECOMMENDED BY THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER, AND APPROVE THE ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL TO TERMINATE RESPONDENT DEWAYNE BECKFORD'S, 24-25 ONE YEAR PROBATIONARY CONTRACT FOR GOOD CAUSE.
OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. IS THERE A SECOND? THANK YOU. THERE WE GO. OH, HERE WE GO. OKAY.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. OKAY. BOARD MEMBERS, PLEASE PLEASE VOTE.
IT'LL BE COMING UP. WHAT'S THAT? PARDON ME. HIS COMPUTER WASN'T WORKING, SO HE'S SIGNALING TO US THAT HIS VOTE IS YES. OKAY. I DON'T SEE. OKAY. EVERYBODY ELSE CAN VOTE THEN.
OKAY. WE HAVE MOTION PASSES, SIX FAVORED. OKAY.
THE BOARD HAS VOTED SIX FOR AND ZERO AGAINST.
THIS HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT 2:26 P.M.. A LETTER.
NO. THAT'S OKAY. GOOD. WE'RE GOOD. OKAY. THANK YOU.
DO ANYTHING ELSE? WITH MARTY GOOSSEN, MARTY GOOSSEN.
YES. THANK YOU. CAN YOU. YES. CAN YOU LOG IN.
EMILY, ARE WE GOOD TO GO? EXCELLENT. OKAY, GOOD.
ALL RIGHT. OUR NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS LEVEL THREE DISPUTE RESOLUTION HEARING.
I'M SORRY, I WASN'T READY. ARE YOU READY? OKAY.
HOLD ON. OKAY. LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU'RE READY.
OKAY. WE'RE GOOD TO GO NOW. OKAY, GREAT. THIS IS A LEVEL THREE DISPUTE RESOLUTION HEARING, WHICH WOULD BE TYRONE SHEELEY. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER A DISPUTE FILED BY TYRONE SHEELEY, SCHOOL COUNSELOR ASKEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. HEARINGS INVOLVING CAMPUS COMPLAINTS AGAINST DISTRICT EMPLOYEES ARE TO BE HELD IN CLOSED SESSION, UNLESS EMPLOYEE WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF THE HEARING REQUESTS AN OPEN HEARING.
IF BOTH PARTIES REQUIRE OR REQUEST AN OPEN HEARING DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING, THE BOARD MAY GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSULT WITH ITS ATTORNEYS 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 CHRISTOPHER TRITTICO IS HERE REPRESENTING TYRONE SHEALY
[00:05:01]
IS ALSO PRESENT. ERICA GRAHAM HICKS, DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL, IS REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION, IS PRESENT, AND CATOSHA WOODS WOODS, HISD GENERAL COUNSEL, IS ALSO PRESENT.MR.. TRITICO DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE IN OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION? OPEN, PLEASE. OKAY. OKAY. THE ISSUES BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD ARE WHETHER BOARD POLICIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES WERE CORRECTLY APPLIED TO THE GRIEVANT, AND WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATION HAS VIOLATED THESE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
MR. SHEALY, SINCE YOU ASKED THAT THE BOARD HEAR THIS MATTER, YOUR REPRESENTATIVE WILL PROCEED FIRST.
AND AFTER DELIBERATION, THE BOARD WILL RENDER ITS DECISION.
ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO RUN THIS? OKAY, GOOD. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO DIVIDE YOUR TIME? QUITE FRANKLY, I DON'T KNOW IF I'LL USE ALL OF MY TIME, BUT IF I DO, I'LL RESERVE THREE MINUTES.
THANK YOU. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU FOR HEARING US TODAY.
MY NAME IS CHRIS TRITICO FOR THOSE OF YOU, I HAVEN'T HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF APPEARING IN FRONT OF YET.
AND I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF REPRESENTING TYRONE SHEALY TODAY.
THIS IS AS AS MR. CAMPO SAID A LEVEL THREE HEARING TODAY.
MR. SHEALY FILED AT, AT LEVEL ONE AND LEVEL TWO, A TITLE NINE COMPLAINT, A BULLYING COMPLAINTS AND AND RETALIATION COMPLAINTS. THE CRUX OF THIS MATTER IS HIS COMPLAINT, TITLE NINE COMPLAINT AGAINST DR.
CURTIN, HIS PRIOR PRIOR PRINCIPAL FOR INAPPROPRIATE TOUCHING, SEXUALIZED REMARKS THAT WERE MADE TO MR. SHEALY. MR. SHEALY COMPLAINED TO JULIA DIMMITT, A EMPLOYEE AT THE TIME WHO WAS AT THE TIME AN AREA SUPERINTENDENT AT HISD.
JULIA DIMMITT BEGAN AN INVESTIGATION AND MR. SHEALY, AT THE REQUEST OF HIS THERAPIST, WENT OUT ON FMLA FOR ABOUT THREE WEEKS. HE HAD TO USE HIS PAID TIME OFF THAT HE HAD RESERVED TO GET PAID WHILE HE WAS OUT ON FMLA. IMMEDIATELY UPON HIS RETURN FROM FMLA, HE WAS TRANSFERRED INVOLUNTARILY TO ASKEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. HE HAD NO WARNING THAT THAT WAS GOING TO OCCUR UNTIL HE GOT BACK FROM FMLA.
THIS WAS IT WAS A LATERAL MOVE. BUT IN OTHER WORDS, HE HAD THE SAME PAY, SAME SAME GRADE AND THE SAME JOB COUNSELOR. BUT IT WAS 35 MINUTES FROM HIS HOME.
FOERSTER HILL ELEMENTARY, WHERE HE HAD BEEN, WAS 12 MINUTES FROM HIS HOME.
AS I SAID, IT WAS NOT DISCUSSED WITH HIM PRIOR TO HIS HIS LEAVING.
THIS MOVE WAS IN MR. SHEALY'S BELIEF, WAS IN RETALIATION BECAUSE HE HAD EXPOSED AT THE CAMPUS THE THE INAPPROPRIATE TOUCHING, THE INAPPROPRIATE SEXUALIZED REMARKS, AND HE HAD BEEN DISCUSSING WHAT HE HAD UNCOVERED AND HE BELIEVED WAS THE IMPROPER FUNDING MECHANISM, THE USE OF THE THEN ACHIEVE 180 FUNDING MECHANISM THAT THE DISTRICT WAS USING.
AND HE HAD BEEN DISCUSSING THIS WITH THE PRINCIPAL AND WITH OTHERS THAT THEY WERE IMPROPERLY USING THE ACHIEVE 180 FUNDS, WHICH WHICH THEY HE BELIEVED THEY WERE THEN RETALIATING AGAINST HIM FOR, FOR POINTING OUT THAT THEY WERE IMPROPERLY USING THOSE FUNDS.
[00:10:01]
THE COMPLAINTS THAT HE HAD MADE. IN HIS SECOND ACT OF BULLYING MEMBERS OF THE FOERSTER ADMINISTRATION THEN FILED A COMPLAINT AGAINST HIM FOR THEFT AND MISUSE OF DISTRICT RESOURCES. HE WAS THEN INVESTIGATED BY THE DISTRICT WHEN HE RETURNED FROM HIS LEAVE, AND THAT COMPLAINT WAS FILED WAS RULED TO BE UNFOUNDED.SO THAT WAS AN ACT OF RETALIATION, ANOTHER ACT OF RETALIATION BY THE DISTRICT.
AT LEVEL TWO, THE HEARING OFFICER RULED AGAINST MR. SHEALY AND HE CAME HE COMES TO YOU. IT'S TAKEN SEVERAL YEARS TO GET TO YOU HERE, AND MR. SHEALY HAS WAITED A LONG TIME. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IT WOULD BE EASY FOR YOU TO RUBBER STAMP THIS DECISION AT LEVEL TWO.
YOU'RE NOT THE BOARD THAT WAS HERE WHEN ALL OF THIS HAPPENED.
AND BE SIMPLE AND EASY TO RUBBER STAMP IT AND SAY IT'S DONE, AND LET'S GET OUT OF HERE.
AND ALL THIS TIME HE'S STILL A GOOD, SOLID EMPLOYEE FOR THIS DISTRICT.
ALL HE DID, THE ONLY THING HE DID WRONG WAS POINT OUT THAT A PRINCIPAL IN THIS DISTRICT WAS TOUCHING HIM INAPPROPRIATELY, TOUCHING HIS GENITALS, TOUCHING HIM IN THE WRONG PLACES, TOUCHING OTHERS IN THE WRONG PLACES, AND MAKE A COMPLAINT ABOUT THAT TO AN AREA SUPERINTENDENT.
AND THEN HE WAS MOVED TO ANOTHER PART OF THE DISTRICT.
AND THEN RETALIATED AGAINST FOR POINTING OUT OTHER IMPROPRIETIES IN THE DISTRICT.
HE NO LONGER WANTS. WE'RE DROPPING THAT REQUEST.
HE'S GOING TO ASK YOU SO LONG, HE LIKES IT, HE'LL STAY.
SO WE'RE DROPPING THAT REQUEST. WE'RE DROPPING THE REQUEST FOR AN APOLOGY.
THE PEOPLE THAT HE THAT DID THIS TO HIM HAVE ALL BEEN FIRED.
THEY'RE ALL GONE. SO HE DOESN'T WANT THAT ANYMORE.
LEAVE HIM WHERE HE IS. HE DOESN'T WANT AN APOLOGY.
GIVE HIM THAT MONEY BACK. AND HE LOST $7,000 THAT HE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN IN A STIPEND IN THE 2021 SCHOOL YEAR OR 20, EITHER THE 2021 OR THE 21-22 SCHOOL YEAR.
QUITE FRANKLY, I COULDN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT YEAR IT WAS THAT HE WAS TRANSFERRED, THAT HE LOST IN A STIPEND THAT YEAR BECAUSE OF THE RETALIATION THAT HE SUFFERED AS A RESULT OF MAKING A COMPLAINT OF BEING SEXUALLY ABUSED BY HIS PRINCIPAL.
HE WANTS THAT STIPEND BACK THAT HE LOST. THAT'S THE TWO THINGS HE'S ASKING FOR TODAY.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S TOO MUCH TO ASK FOR, FOR BEING BEING ABUSED BY A PRINCIPAL AND BEING RETALIATED AGAINST FOR MAKING A COMPLAINT ABOUT IT. THAT'S ALL HE WANTS FROM YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
I THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, BOARD PRESIDENT.
LATERAL REASSIGNMENT. IF YOU DON'T REMEMBER ANYTHING ELSE I SAY WITHIN THE NEXT FEW MINUTES, PLEASE REMEMBER THOSE TWO WORDS, LATERAL REASSIGNMENT.
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT. IT'S NOT ABOUT TERMINATION.
IT'S NOT ABOUT DEMOTION. IT'S NOT ABOUT BULLYING.
IT'S NOT ABOUT A TITLE NINE SEXUAL COMPLAINT.
THIS CASE IS ABOUT A LATERAL REASSIGNMENT. PARAGRAPH FIVE OF HISD'S ONE YEAR PROBATIONARY CONTRACT, WHICH YOU'LL SEE AT ADMINISTRATION EXHIBIT A-11 INCLUDES A PROVISION WHICH STATES AS FOLLOWS.
BECAUSE THE EMPLOYEE IS NOT EMPLOYED TO FILL A SPECIFIC POSITION OR ASSIGNMENT, AN EMPLOYEE SHALL AT ANY TIME BE SUBJECT TO REASSIGNMENT AND ASSIGNMENT OF POSITIONS OF DUTY, DUTIES, ADDITIONAL DUTIES, CHANGES IN RESPONSIBILITIES OR WORK TRANSFERS OR RECLASSIFICATIONS AT ANY TIME FOR WHICH THE EMPLOYEE IS PROFESSIONALLY CERTIFIED OR OTHERWISE QUALIFIED TO PERFORM. IN OCTOBER 2021, MR. SHEALY WAS EMPLOYED UNDER A ONE YEAR PROBATIONARY CONTRACT AND WAS REASSIGNED FROM A FULL TIME COUNSELOR POSITION AT FOERSTER ELEMENTARY TO A FULL TIME COUNSELOR POSITION AT ASKEW ELEMENTARY. DUE TO A LOWER THAN PROJECTED ENROLLMENT AT FOERSTER THAT RESULTED IN A MAJOR BUDGET DEFICIT ON THAT CAMPUS.
[00:15:09]
MR. SHEALY'S EMPLOYMENT WITH THE DISTRICT WAS NOT TERMINATED.HE WAS NOT DEMOTED. HE DIDN'T TAKE A CUT IN PAY.
HE WAS REASSIGNED TO THE EXACT SAME POSITION AT ANOTHER CAMPUS.
THE TWO DECISION POINTS FOR THE BOARD THIS AFTERNOON ARE CLEAR.
FIRST, DID THE ADMINISTRATION VIOLATE THE LAW OR HISD BOARD POLICY WHEN THE DECISION WAS MADE TO REASSIGN MR. SHEALY? THE ANSWER IS NO. BOARD POLICY DK LOCAL, WHICH IS FOUND IN ADMINISTRATION EXHIBIT 86 AND THE ONE YEAR PROBATIONARY CONTRACT THAT HE WAS EMPLOYED UNDER, WHICH GIVES THE ADMINISTRATION THE RIGHT TO LATERALLY RESIGN HIM.
SECOND DECISION POINT WAS MR. SHEALY SUGGESTED, TO SUBJECTED TO WORKPLACE BULLYING BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF AT FOERSTER PRIOR TO HIS REASSIGNMENT. DID HE MAKE A TITLE NINE COMPLAINT PRIOR TO HIS REASSIGNMENT? BOTH ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS ARE NO. THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT LEVEL TWO IN THE TRANSCRIPT, WHICH AGAIN DIDN'T MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT A TITLE NINE, DIDN'T MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT SEXUAL CONTACT OR SEXUAL COMMENTS, SHOWS THAT A BULLYING WORKPLACE BULLYING INVESTIGATION WAS CONDUCTED.
ACCORDING TO DIA THREE REGULATION, AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE CONDUCT MR. SHEALY COMPLAINED OF DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF WORKPLACE BULLYING OR OTHER VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OR HIS POLICY.
THEREFORE, THE ADMINISTRATION RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THAT THE BOARD OPPOSE THE LEVEL TWO HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION AND DENY MR. SHEALY'S GRIEVANCE IN ITS ENTIRETY. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE DECISIONS, THE DISTRICT'S DECISION TO REASSIGN VERY QUICKLY .
IT WAS DUE TO LOW ENROLLMENT WHEN THE CAMPUSES AND CENTRAL OFFICES OF THIS DISTRICT FACED THAT KIND OF BUDGET DEFICIT WE HAVE TO REDUCE FORCE AT THE CAMPUS AND ELIMINATE POSITIONS. BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE ARE UNDER MOST OF THESE ARE TEACHERS AND STAFF THAT ARE UNDER CONTRACTS, WE DON'T TERMINATE THEM. WE MOVE THEM TO CAMPUSES THAT CAN AFFORD THEM.
ALSO, IF YOU TURN TO ADMINISTRATION EXHIBIT NUMBER 14, YOU'LL SEE THAT THAT WAS AN EXHIBIT THAT WAS GENERATED BY THE STUDENT ASSESSMENT DEPARTMENT AND BY THE BUDGETING DEPARTMENT. IF YOU TURN TO THE TRANSCRIPT AT PAGE 44, STARTING AT LINE ONE, YOU'LL SEE SCHOOL SUPPORT OFFICER COOPER'S EXPLANATION OF THE STEPS THE SCHOOL OFFICE TOOK TO ADDRESS THE BUDGET DEFICIT.
WHEN THE DUST SETTLED, THERE WERE A TOTAL OF FIVE POSITIONS.
SOME OF CORE TEACHERS AND OTHER OF TEACHERS SPECIALISTS THAT WERE ELIMINATED.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE DECISION TO REASSIGN MR. SHEALY WAS NOT ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, DISCRIMINATORY, OR RETALIATORY. THE ADMINISTRATION HAD A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS INTEREST FOR TAKING THE ACTIONS THEY TOOK TO REDUCE THE BUDGET DEFICIT AT FOERSTER.
ALSO, MR. SHEALY WOULD HAVE YOU TO BELIEVE THAT HE WAS ELIMINATED BECAUSE HE INVOLVED HE GOT HIMSELF INVOLVED, OR THE CAMPUS DISLIKED HIM, OR HE WAS ENGAGED IN PROTECTED ACTIVITY.
THAT JUST IS NOT THE CASE. FIRST, YOU'LL SEE FROM THE TRANSCRIPT STARTING AT PAGE 47, LINE TWO, THAT MR. SHEALY HAD THREE SEPARATE MEETINGS REGARDING HIS REASSIGNMENT.
THE FIRST ON OCTOBER 13TH WITH MISS COOPER AND THE FORMER PRINCIPAL.
CURTIN, AND AGAIN ON OCTOBER 15TH. THEN ON OCTOBER 20TH, ONLY AFTER MR. SHEALY'S REASSIGNMENT FROM FOERSTER WAS FINALIZED DID HE FILE FOR WORKPLACE BULLYING COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE ENTIRE ADMINISTRATIVE TEAM AT FOERSTER.
AND SO COOPER. THE TITLE NINE COMPLAINT THAT HE FILED WAS AFTER THE FACT.
IT WAS AFTER THE FACT. AND AS YOU CAN SEE FROM MR. COOPER, MISS COOPER'S TESTIMONY AT NO TIME PRIOR TO THOSE THREE MEETINGS AND BEING REASSIGNED, MR. SHEALY, ASSERT OR MAKE COOPER AWARE OF ANY ALLEGED WORKPLACE BULLYING, ANY TITLE NINE COMPLAINTS.
AND THEN THE THE CAMPUS LEVELING PROCESS IS NOT SOMETHING NEW.
WE LEVEL CAMPUSES ALL THE TIME AFTER OCTOBER SNAPSHOTS, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO HAVE THE APPROPRIATE STAFF AT THE APPROPRIATE CAMPUSES THAT CAN AFFORD THEM. AGAIN, THE DISTRICT HAD A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS INTEREST FOR MAKING THE REASSIGNMENT OF MR. SHEALY. THE BULLYING CLAIMS, AS YOU CAN SEE, DIA LOCAL IS OUR HISD BOARD POLICY AGAINST WORKPLACE BULLYING,
[00:20:08]
AND IT'S A VERY CLEAR DEFINITION. BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE POLICY EXPRESSLY STATES THAT WORKPLACE BULLYING DOES NOT INCLUDE LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF EMPLOYMENT, EMPLOYEE MANAGEMENT, TASK ASSIGNMENT, EMPLOYEE COACHING AND WORK RELATED EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE.AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT MR. SHEALY DID NOT FILE ANY TYPE OF WORKPLACE BULLYING COMPLAINTS OR TITLE NINE COMPLAINTS PRIOR TO OCTOBER 20TH, 2021 UNTIL AFTER HIS REASSIGNMENT WAS FINAL. AND THE EXAMPLES OF WORKPLACE BULLYING.
I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH THOSE BECAUSE FRANKLY, THEY JUST DON'T RISE TO THE LEVEL OF WORKPLACE BULLYING UNDER POLICY, THE WORKPLACE BULLYING INVESTIGATION IF YOU TURN THE TRANSCRIPT STARTING AT PAGE 60, LINE NINE, YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE WAS A COMPLETE INVESTIGATION DONE AND THAT THERE WAS NO WORKPLACE BULLYING FOUND.
AND THE REASON WHY WE ALSO INVESTIGATED AFTER THE FACT, AGAIN, AFTER THESE WORKPLACE BULLYING COMPLAINTS WERE FILED, AFTER HE WAS REASSIGNED, THE TITLE NINE COMPLAINT WAS INVESTIGATED AND THE TITLE NINE COMPLAINT WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED.
IN CONCLUSION, OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS, DUE TO DECREASING STUDENT ENROLLMENT, LEGISLATURE RECAPTURE, HISD HAS HAD TO MAKE SOME TOUGH DECISIONS WITH RESPECT TO REDUCING ITS WORKFORCE AT SEVERAL CAMPUSES, CENTRAL OFFICES AND IN OPERATIONS. LAST YEAR, THOUSANDS OF EMPLOYEES LOST THEIR JOBS.
FORTUNATELY, THAT WAS NOT MR. SHEALY'S STORY.
HE STANDS BEFORE YOU HERE TODAY, EMPLOYED AT A CAMPUS WHERE HE'S BEEN SINCE THE 21-22 SCHOOL YEAR.
NO CUTS IN PAY, NO CHANGES IN BENEFIT. I'D ALSO LIKE TO SPEAK TO VERY QUICKLY THE ALLEGATIONS REGARDING REGARDING THE ACHIEVED 180 POSITION. THE ACHIEVE 180 CLAIMED OF MISUSE FUNDS FORCED TO ELEMENTARY WAS NOT AN ACHIEVED 180 CAMPUS FOR THE 21-22 SCHOOL YEAR. MR. SHEALY ARGUED THAT IT WAS, AND THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECEIVING FUNDING FROM THE CENTRAL OFFICE TO FUND HIS POSITION. BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, ACHIEVE 180 WAS A DISTRICT INITIATIVE, NOT INSTITUTED OR MANDATED BY THE STATE LAW OR TEA.
HOWEVER, FOERSTER WAS NOT AND ACHIEVE 180 CAMPUS DURING THE 21-22 SCHOOL YEAR.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPT PAGES 51, LINE SEVEN THROUGH PAGE 52, LINE TEN, YOU WILL SEE WHERE MISS COOPER TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS NOT, AND THAT THOSE FUNDS FOR POSITIONS THAT THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD ON THAT CAMPUS WERE RECOUPED BY THE DISTRICT BECAUSE, AGAIN, IT WAS NOT AN ACHIEVE 180 CAMPUS. MR. SHEALY ALSO DETERMINED THAT HE THAT THERE WERE OTHER FUNDING OPTIONS POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE.
THE DISTRICT DID WHAT THE DISTRICT HAD TO DO TO KEEP THIS SCHOOL AFLOAT.
NO POLICY WAS VIOLATED, NO LAW WAS VIOLATED. MR. SHEALY WAS NOT VIOLATED. THEREFORE, WE ASK THAT THE BOARD UPHOLD THE LEVEL TWO HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION AND DENY MR. SHEALY'S GRIEVANCE IN ITS ENTIRETY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. MR. TRITICO. THANK YOU. THE RECORDS REQUEST THAT MR. SHEALY DID TO THE DISTRICT, IN HIS OPINION, CONFIRMED FOR HIM THAT THERE WAS FUNDING IN PLACE FOR ACHIEVE 180 FOR HIS SCHOOL FOERSTER, WHICH IS WHY HE MADE THE COMPLAINT AND WHAT HE BASED HIS COMPLAINT UPON.
HIS TITLE NINE COMPLAINTS THAT HE FILED WERE AT THE ADVICE OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE ADVISING HIM AT THE TIME, AND WHY HE MADE THE COMPLAINTS HE MADE. THE ADVICE THAT HE GOT IN THE OPINION FROM THE OPINIONS OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE ADVISING HIM AT THE TIME, DROVE UP, DROVE HIM AND DROVE HIM DOWN THE PATH THAT HE WAS ON.
THE THE TIMING OF THE TITLE NINE COMPLAINTS DO NOT CHANGE OR ALTER WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE TRUE.
THE TIMING IS, THE TIMING IS WHETHER OR NOT THEY FALL WITHIN THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
IT DOESN'T MAKE THEM TRUE OR FALSE. IT MEANS THAT THEY STILL NEED TO BE LOOKED AT.
THEY WERE INVESTIGATED AND DENIED, WHICH IS WHY HE HAS A RIGHT TO APPEAL AND WHY HE COMES TO YOU.
THAT DOESN'T MAKE THEM TRUE OR FALSE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT AS TO WHEN THEY WERE FILED.
[00:25:02]
THAT'S WHY HE COMES TO YOU TODAY. COUNSEL MAKES A COUNSEL MAKES A BIG ARGUMENT ABOUT THE TIMING OF THE FILING THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE TRUTH OR VERACITY OF THE FILING. AND THAT'S WHY HE ASKED YOU TO LOOK AT IT.AND THAT'S WHY HE ASKED YOU TO REIMBURSE HIM, NOT REIMBURSE HIM, GIVE HIM BACK HIS DAYS AND GIVE HIM BACK HIS STIPEND THAT HE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN HAD HE NOT BEEN TRANSFERRED. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. BOARD MEMBERS ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY.
IF THERE IS ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN MR. SHEALY AND THE ADMINISTRATION AS TO WHAT THE POLICIES, WHAT THE POLICIES AND OR PROCEDURES MEAN, THEN IT'S THE BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THE MEANING OF OR APPLICATION OF THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
THE RECORD OF THE LEVEL TWO HEARING MUST SUPPORT ANY ACTION WE TAKE.
THAT IS, THE RECORD SUPPORTS THE POSITION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OR THE POSITION OF MR. SHEALY WE MAY FIND ACCORDINGLY. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? DO WE NEED A SESSION IN THE BACK? NOPE. OKAY.
SO LET'S, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I MOVE THAT WE DENY ALL REQUESTED RELIEF, NOT PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE LEVEL TWO HEARING OFFICER, AND UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE LEVEL TWO HEARING OFFICER.
DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
VOTING HAS CLOSED. THE MOTION PASSES. 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 2:52 P.M..
THE NEXT MATTER IS. I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. OKAY.
A RE YOU READY NOW? OKAY. THIS IS THE MATTER OF OF MONICA IRIZARRY ON JUNE 12TH. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER IN THIS MATTER, MONICA IRIZARRY, A TEACHER AT AT RUCKGER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.071 IF ANY BOARD MEMBER WISHES TO SEEK ADVICE OF COUNSEL, PLEASE LET IT BE KNOWN TO ME. LET'S SEE WE DO NOT HAVE MISS IRIZARRY PRESENT OR THEIR COUNSEL? CORRECT. I'M SORRY. OKAY. SO WHAT DO WE DO, WE HAVE TO CONTINUE THIS BECAUSE. IS THAT CORRECT? WHAT DO WE DO? THE EMPLOYEE RECEIVED NOTICE, SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE HEARING.
MOVE FORWARD WITH THE HEARING. OKAY. OKAY. LET'S SEE HERE.
LET'S GO THROUGH A NORMAL HEARING WITHOUT. OKAY.
I HAVEN'T HAD ONE OF THESE BEFORE.
YOU WANT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION, THEN? OKAY.
[00:30:01]
THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO THEN. THE BOARD WILL NOW RECESS INTO CLOSED SESSION UNDER 551 OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, SUBSECTION 551.004 THROUGH 551.089. SHOULD THE BOARD'S FINAL ACTION, VOTE OR DECISION OF ANY MATTERS CONSIDERED IN THE CLOSED SESSION BE REQUIRED UNDER THE FINAL ACTION, VOTE OR DECISION SHALL BE TAKEN IN THE OPEN MEETING COVERED BY THE NOTICE UPON THE RECONVENING RECONVENING OF THIS PUBLIC MEETING OR A SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC MEETING UPON NOTICE THEREOF, BOARD HAS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 2:55 P.M.OKAY. LOOKS LIKE EVERYBODY'S LEAVE LEFT, SO. OKAY.
THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IS NOW RECONVENE AN OPEN SESSION. THE TIME IS 3:05 P.M.. DO I HAVE A MOTION? I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER, ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RECOMMENDED BY THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER, AND DENY RESPONDENT'S APPEAL FROM THE PROPOSED TERMINATION OF HER PROBATIONARY CONTRACT, AND THAT WE TERMINATE THE PROBATIONARY CONTRACT BETWEEN MONICA IRIZARRY AND HISD.
OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE.
OKAY. THE VOTE HAS. THE BOARD HAS VOTED SIX FOR AND ZERO AGAINST.
THIS HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT 3:06 P.M.. OKAY, NOW WE ARE GOING TO.
THIS TIME THE BOARD WILL RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION UNDER 551 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, SUBSECTION 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 AN OPEN MEETING COVERED BY THIS NOTICE UPON THE RECONVENING OF THE PUBLIC MEETING OR A SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC MEETING OF THE BOARD. UPON NOTICE THEREOF, THE BOARD HAS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 3:06 P.M.
ON JUNE 22ND, 2025. WE ARE GOING TO GO BACK TO THE BOARDROOM HERE.
OKAY. OKAY. EVERYBODY HERE. OKAY. THIS MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD IS NOW BACK IN OPEN SESSION AT 04:09 P.M.. DO I HAVE A MOTION FROM THE CLOSED SESSION? 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 TO SAME THAT THE BOARD APPROVES SUSPENSIONS WITHOUT PAY FOR CONTINUING TERM AND PROBATIONARY CONTRACTS AND AUTHORIZATION AUTHORIZES 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 THE SAME, THAT THE BOARD APPROVES WITHDRAWALS OF CONTRACT RECOMMENDATIONS, THAT THE BOARD APPROVES ISSUANCE OF FINAL ORDERS ON CONTRACT TERMINATIONS AND NON-RENEWALS AS DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION, EFFECTIVE JUNE 13TH, 2025.
IS THERE A SECOND? WE HAVE A SECOND. BOARD MEMBERS, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? IF NOT, PLEASE VOTE.
OKAY. THE MOTION PASSES. I THINK WE HAVE ONE OTHER ITEM FROM CLOSED SESSION.
DON'T WE HAVE THE WILLIAMS? YES. GO AHEAD. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GRANT AUTHORITY TO THE SUPERINTENDENT TO NEGOTIATE, EXECUTE AND AMEND AN AGREEMENT WITH WILLIAMS TOWER, L.P.
FOR TRUNKED RADIO ANTENNA AND REPEATER SPACE.
IS THERE A SECOND? OKAY, WE HAVE A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE.
THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.