[Hearings on September 25, 2025]
[00:00:02]
OKAY. GOOD EVENING. THIS MEETING IS NOW CONVENED AT 5:09 P.M..
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK EVERYONE TO PLEASE SILENCE ALL CELL PHONES.
THE QUORUM OF THE BOARD MEMBERS IS PRESENT IN THE BOARD AUDITORIUM.
OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS TONIGHT IS TO HEAR FROM SPEAKERS TO AGENDA ITEMS. PUBLIC COMMENT DURING SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS WILL ONLY BE AVAILABLE TO THOSE PERSONS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK PRIOR TO THE MEETING TIME.
PER CURRENT PROTOCOL, VERBAL AND OTHER DISRUPTIONS BY PERSONS DURING THE SCHOOL BOARD MEETING ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THEY INHIBIT THE BOARD'S ABILITY TO CONDUCT BUSINESS AND AND THE PUBLIC'S ABILITY TO OBSERVE THOSE PROCESSES.
PERSONS WHO PARTICIPATE IN SUCH BEHAVIOR WILL BE GIVEN A GIVEN ONE WARNING, AND IF THE BEHAVIOR IS REPEATED, THEY WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE MEETING. WE HAVE TWO REGISTERED SPEAKERS WHO WILL BE LIMITED TO TWO MINUTES EACH PER BOARD POLICY.
WE ASK THAT YOU STAY ON TOPIC AND REFRAIN FROM NAMING INDIVIDUALS, ESPECIALLY STUDENTS, AS THEIR IDENTITY IS PROTECTED UNDER LAW, BUT YOU MAY NAME YOUR OWN CHILD.
I ASK THAT YOU PLEASE RESPECT OUR PROCEDURES AND THE OTHER SPEAKERS WHEN YOU HAVE COMPLETED. SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND BRING UP THE FIRST SPEAKER, WHO IS THE FIRST SPEAKER.
I DON'T HAVE THAT LIST, SO BE SURE.
COME ON. GO AHEAD. OH I'M SORRY.
YES. NEIL STEWART THERE IT IS.
IT. YOU'RE PERFECT. THANK YOU.
I'M HERE TO JUST CLEAR UP A FEW THINGS THROUGH PUBLIC INFO REQUEST.
WE FOUND THE FULL SURVEY RESULTS TO THE FAMILY SENTIMENT SURVEY THAT FLOYD SAID TO SHOW A MAJORITY OF THE PARENTS WERE HAPPY WITH HISD.
THE REAL NUMBERS PROVE THAT HE HAS CHERRY PICKED HIS DATA AND DOES NOT FIT THE NARRATIVE, AND HE SUPPRESSES THE ONES HE DOESN'T LIKE.
MILES THEN LIED TO CITY COUNCIL LAST WEEK.
THIS YEAR IS NOT ESPECIALLY BAD BECAUSE OF DEPORTATION RATES AND NOT EVERYWHERE IS FACING ENROLLMENT DECLINES. IN FACT, DURHAM'S STANDS TO LOSE $154,000 WORTH OF FUNDING BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS PULLED OUT TO GO TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS.
AND THAT'S JUST THE NUMBER WE KNOW ABOUT THIS YEAR.
THERE ARE MORE THAT WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT AND THERE WILL CONTINUE TO BE. ENROLLMENT IS FLAT IN NYC. THEY'VE LOST 100,000 STUDENTS SINCE THE PANDEMIC, BUT NOT 70,000 IN 1 YEAR.
LA HAS NO REPORTS OF MASSIVE 100,000 STUDENTS DECLINE IN ONE YEAR, BUT CHICAGO DOES HAVE 2 TO 3% PER YEAR.
BUT HISD IS MORE THAN DOUBLE THAT AT 6.6%.
I GOOGLED IT. HISD HIGH TEACHER TURNOVER IS LARGELY DUE TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THE HIGH PRESSURE NES MODEL THAT HAS LED TO LOW TEACHER MORALE, A LOSS OF AUTONOMY FOR EDUCATORS IN A HIGH PRESSURE WORK ENVIRONMENT, RESULTING IN THE SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF TEACHERS LEAVING THE DISTRICT. PERFECT EXAMPLE. THIS YEAR AT DURHAM WE HAVE HAD ONE KINDER, ONE FIRST, THREE THIRD, ONE FOURTH GRADE TEACHER AND A LIBRARIAN WITH THE TEACHING STAFF OF 32.
THAT COMES OUT TO 21.875% TEACHER TURNOVER RATE.
AND THAT'S JUST FOR THE FIRST TWO MONTHS OF SCHOOL. SO NOW I'M NOT TALKING TO ANY OF YOU.
I'M TALKING TO YOUR SUBCONSCIOUS WHETHER YOU CAN WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, IT CAN HEAR ME. SO WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO FALL ASLEEP, LISTEN TO THAT LITTLE VOICE THAT IS TALKING TO YOU, OR THE ONE THAT WON'T LET YOU GO BACK TO SLEEP AT NIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT.
ONCE HIS CONTRACT IS UP IN 2027, IF HE STAYS THAT LONG.
BECAUSE REMEMBER, HE BAILED FOR THE MOUNTAINS BEFORE WHEN IT WASN'T GOING HIS WAY. HE'S OUT, HE'S GONE. HE'S GOT HIS PAYCHECK AND NOW HIS BONUS.
AND WHO IS GOING TO BE LEFT HERE? YOU. DON'T DO THIS TO YOUR GRANDCHILDREN.
THANK YOU. NEXT UP, KYLE TUCKER.
NOT HERE. OKAY. WE WILL NOW CONDUCT A HEARING SCHEDULED FOR THIS MEETING.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF KAYLEY GALLAGHER.
SPECIAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT CHAIR STEVENSON.
MIDDLE SCHOOL HEARINGS INVOLVING COMPLAINTS AGAINST DISTRICT EMPLOYEES ARE TO BE HELD IN CLOSED SESSION UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE WHO IS SUBJECT TO THE HEARING REQUEST.
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 HIS ATTORNEY. UNDER THE TERMS OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551071.
IF ANY BOARD MEMBER WISHES TO SEEK THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL, PLEASE TELL ME. FOR THE RECORD CHRISTOPHER.
YES. IS REPRESENTING MISS SCALIA AS PRESENT IN THE ROOM.
MYRA CHICKERING WITH ROGERS, MORRIS AND GROVER.
LP REPRESENTS THE ADMINISTRATION AND IS ALSO PRESENT.
[00:05:03]
AND CATOSHA WOODS HISD GENERAL COUNSEL IS ALSO PRESENT.WOULD YOU WANT A CLOSED OR OPEN SESSION? OPEN. OPEN IT IS. OKAY.
LET'S LET ME GET TO MY OPEN SESSION PIECE.
OKAY. THE ISSUES FOR THE SCHOOL BOARD ARE, ARE, ARE WHETHER TO ACCEPT, REJECT OR CHANGE THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND PROPOSED AND PROPOSAL BASED ON A REVIEW OF THE RECORD.
WE MAY REJECT OR CHANGE A FINDING OF FACT IF, AFTER REVIEWING THE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER, WE FIND IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
IF WE REJECT THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION OR MAKE ANY CHANGES, WE MUST STATE THE REASON AND LEGAL BASIS IN WRITING.
MR. CHICKERING WILL PROCEED FIRST.
YOU'LL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD, FOLLOWED BY A TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION BY MR. TRICOT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO DIVIDE YOUR TIME OR.
I'LL JUST USE. HOW MUCH TIME? OKAY. YOU MAY BEGIN.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. I AM JOINED HERE TODAY BY MARGARET RANDALL, THE PRINCIPAL OF WALTRIP HIGH SCHOOL, WHO FORMERLY SERVED AS THE PRINCIPAL OF STEVENSON MIDDLE SCHOOL, WHERE SHE WORKED.
IT IS REALLY UNFORTUNATE THAT WE ARE HERE TODAY, AND IN FACT, IT'S THE LAST THING THAT MARGARET RANDALL AND I WANT TO BE DOING, PARTICIPATING IN A HEARING THAT COULD RESULT IN THE TERMINATION OF MISS GALLAGHER'S CONTRACT, WHICH IS THE RECOMMENDATION BEFORE YOU TODAY.
THIS SITUATION COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED ENTIRELY.
AS YOU WILL HEAR, MISS RANDALL DID EVERYTHING SHE COULD TO PREVENT THIS OUTCOME.
BUT NEVERTHELESS, WE ARE HERE.
TO BE CLEAR, THIS CASE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MISS GALLAGHER'S DAY TO DAY PERFORMANCE OR HER EFFECTIVENESS IN HER POSITION AS THE SPECIAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSON OF STEVENSON KNOW THIS TERMINATION IS INSTEAD BASED ON SOMETHING MUCH MORE BASIC A DELIBERATE FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTIVES OF HER SUPERVISOR.
AND LET ME BE CLEAR WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT A FAILURE TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES, TO TURN IN PAPERWORK, OR A FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE SIGN IN SIGN OUT PROCEDURES. IN THOSE SITUATIONS, YOU WOULD SEE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REMEDIATION.
RATHER, THIS CASE INVOLVES A WILLFUL, DEFIANT DECISION TO DEVIATE FROM THE EXPLICIT DIRECTIVES OF THE PRINCIPAL AND THE ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS.
IN OTHER WORDS, RANK INSUBORDINATION.
THE INCIDENT IN QUESTION WHICH RESULTED IN THE TERMINATION RECOMMENDATION OCCURRED ON OCTOBER 2ND, 2024. AND ON THAT DAY, A SENSITIVE ARD MEETING WAS TAKING PLACE IN THE SPECIAL EDUCATION OFFICE AT STEVENSON INVOLVING A STUDENT, MJ, WITH WHOM MISS GALLAGHER HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN INVOLVED IN A SERIOUS ALTERCATION THE PRIOR SEMESTER. DURING THE 2324 SCHOOL YEAR, AND AS A RESULT OF THAT PRIOR INCIDENT, MISS RANDALL DETERMINED THAT IT WAS IMPERATIVE TO MAINTAIN SEPARATION BETWEEN THE STUDENT AND MISS GALLAGHER AT ALL TIMES.
MISS GALLAGHER CONCURRED IN THAT DETERMINATION, AND EVEN COLLABORATED WITH MISS RANDALL TO DEVELOP A STAY AWAY, NO CONTACT AGREEMENT, WHICH WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ADDRESSED WITH MJ AND HER MOTHER DURING THE OCTOBER 2ND ARD MEETING.
AS PART OF THAT ARRANGEMENT, MISS RANDALL AND MISS GALLAGHER AGREED THAT THE SPECIAL EDUCATION OFFICE WOULD SERVE AS AN MJ FREE OR STUDENT FREE SAFE SPACE FOR MISS GALLAGHER, WITH ONE SIGNIFICANT EXCEPTION.
MISS RANDALL EXPRESSLY INFORMED MISS GALLAGHER THAT THE SPED OFFICE, THE SPECIAL EDUCATION OFFICE, WOULD BE THE SITE OF THIS PARTICULAR OCTOBER 2ND ARD MEETING WITH MJ AND HER MOTHER AND A NUMBER OF OTHER INDIVIDUALS.
MISS KELLY KNEW THAT THE MEETING WAS TAKING PLACE THAT DAY, AND KNEW THAT MJ AND HER MOTHER WOULD BE IN ATTENDANCE.
NEVERTHELESS, UPON RETURNING TO CAMPUS FROM A FIELD TRIP,
[00:10:02]
RESPONDENT INTENTIONALLY ENTERED THAT OFFICE WHILE THE MEETING WAS STILL IN PROGRESS, AND SHE DID SO DESPITE BEING INFORMED IN THE HALLWAY BEFORE ENTRY BY ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL LARKIN SCOTT THAT THE MEETING WAS NOT OVER AND WAS DIRECTED NOT TO ENTER.IGNORING MISS SCOTT'S DIRECTIVE, MISS GALLAGHER UNLOCKED THE DOOR AND ENTERED.
SHE ENTERED THE ROOM DESPITE KNOWING THAT THE MEETING WAS TAKING PLACE AND THAT MJ WOULD BE PRESENT. SHE ENTERED THE ROOM DESPITE HAVING BEEN DIRECTED JUST MOMENTS BEFORE IN THE HALLWAY TO NOT ENTER, AND SHE WAS TOLD THAT THAT WAS A SPECIFIC DIRECTIVE. SHE ENTERED THE ROOM AND THEN, DESPITE BEING TOLD BY MISS RANDALL TO LEAVE, SHE STAYED AND LINGERED FOR A FEW MINUTES.
ALTHOUGH SHE INITIALLY LEFT THE MEETING, THE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED THAT SHE INEXPLICABLY RETURNED A SECOND TIME.
AGAIN PAUSING TO LINGER BEFORE SHE LEFT.
NOW THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT MISS GALLOWAY'S CONDUCT LEFT THE ARD PARTICIPANTS DUMBFOUNDED. AND BY DELIBERATELY ENTERING THE OFFICE, DESPITE EXPLICITLY EXPLICITLY BEING DIRECTED TO STAY AWAY, MISS GALLOWAY EXHIBITED AN INTENTIONAL DISREGARD FOR HER SUPERVISORS.
THIS IS THE KIND OF CONDUCT WHICH, AS I SAID, IS NOT REMEDIABLE. HER ACTIONS DO NOT REFLECT THAT SHE UNDERSTANDS OR APPRECIATES ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY.
SHE INTENTIONALLY UNDERMINED CAMPUS LEADERSHIP, AND IN SO DOING, SHE EFFECTIVELY DESTROYED THE TRUST THAT MISS RANDALL WAS ATTEMPTING TO BUILD WITH THE FAMILY.
NOW, I CANNOT STAND HERE TODAY AND SAY, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THIS HEARING EXAMINER'S FACTUAL FINDINGS AND REASONINGS.
IN FACT, I ABSOLUTELY DISAGREE WITH MUCH OF THE RECOMMENDATION.
HE REJECTED WHAT I BELIEVE IS CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT MISS GALLAGHER IGNORED ADDITIONAL DIRECTIVES ON THE DAY IN QUESTION THAT SHE RECEIVED FROM MISS RANDALL, AND HE EVEN WENT SO FAR AS TO SUGGEST THAT MISS RANDALL SOMEHOW CONTRIBUTED TO THE SITUATION BY NOT HOLDING THE ARD MEETING IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION.
WE DISAGREE, AND WE WOULD POINT OUT THAT A PORTION OF THE RECOMMENDATION IS AT DIRECT ODDS WITH THE FINDINGS OF A DEA INVESTIGATOR WHO INVESTIGATED THE INCIDENT INVOLVING MISS GALLAGHER AND MJ FROM THE PRIOR YEAR.
NOTWITHSTANDING ALL OF THAT, I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT MR. BERRINGER, THE HEARING EXAMINER, ULTIMATELY REACHED THE RIGHT CONCLUSION.
HE CONCLUDED, AS A MATTER OF LAW, AND I QUOTE FROM PAGE 16 IF YOU WANT TO FOLLOW ALONG. IN CONCLUSION, NUMBER SEVEN, THE DISTRICT PROVED GOOD CAUSE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT MR. GALLAGHER FAILED TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTIVES OF ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL SCOTT TO NOT ENTER THE ARD MEETING AND FINDING.
I'M SORRY. CONCLUSION NUMBER EIGHT.
THE DISTRICT PROVED BY GOOD CAUSE, BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, THAT FAILURE TO PERFORM THE DUTIES IN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, THAT A PERSON OF ORDINARY PRUDENCE WOULD HAVE DONE UNDER THE SAME OR SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES.
UNDER THE SAME UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.
A PERSONAL REASON A PERSON OF REASONABLE PRUDENCE WOULD NOT HAVE RISKED THEIR PROFESSIONAL POSITION BY DEFYING THE DIRECTIVES OF ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL SCOTT.
AND BASED ON THAT CONCLUSION, THE HEARING EXAMINER WENT ON TO FIND, NOTWITHSTANDING SOME OF THOSE OTHER THINGS I MENTIONED THAT, IN FACT, THE HE CONCLUDED THAT THE DISTRICT HAD PROVEN SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF GOOD CAUSE AND HAS RECOMMENDED TO THIS BOARD THAT HER CONTRACT BE TERMINATED.
THE ULTIMATE RECOMMENDATION THAT I WOULD ASK YOU TO UPHOLD TODAY.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. TRITICO. YOU CAN MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD NOW.
THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR FOR HEARING US TODAY.
I, MY GOOD FRIEND MISS CHICKERING, GLOSSES OVER A LOT OF THE FACTS THAT ARE SO IMPORTANT IN THIS DECISION TODAY THAT I NEED TO GO BACK AND TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THEM.
MISS CARLY GALLEHER IS HOW YOU PRONOUNCE HER NAME.
GALLEHER HAD BEEN A FAITHFUL, LOYAL, AND EXCEEDS EXPECTATION TEACHER FOR THE HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR 17 YEARS.
IN THE RECORD. NOT EVERY ONE OF HER PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS ARE IN THE RECORD, AND NOT ONE TIME HAD SHE EVER BEEN LESS THAN EXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS IN THAT TIME.
IN THE ALMOST 40 YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN DOING THIS, THAT'S ONE OF THE FEW TIMES THAT WE'VE SEEN A TEACHER THAT EVERY TIME WAS EXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS. NOT ONE TIME HAD COLLIER EVER BEEN WRITTEN UP FOR ANYTHING BEFORE THIS DAY?
[00:15:05]
BEFORE THIS TIME. THE THE SERIOUS ALTERCATION THAT MISS CHICKERING GLOSSED OVER WAS A PHYSICAL ASSAULT ON MISS CARLY COLLIER BY THE STUDENT, MJ, WHEN MISS COLLIER RESPONDED TO A CALL FOR HELP WHEN WHEN MJ ATTACKED ANOTHER TEACHER IN THE HALLWAY AND MISS COLLIER RESPONDED BONDED AS THE AS THE PERSON CLOSEST TO COME AND ASSIST. SHE HAS BEEN TRAINED TO, AS THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT, TRAINED IN HOLDS BY CPI, TOOK OVER THE SITUATION AND THE CHILD BROKE LOOSE, ATTACKED HER, RIPPED HER HAIR OUT AND CAUSED HER TO BLEED AND WAS CHARGED WITH ASSAULT. CONVICTED OF ASSAULT AND HAD TO WEAR AN ELECTRONIC MONITOR ON HER ANKLE.THAT'S THE ALTERCATION THAT MISS CHICKERING GLOSSED OVER FOR YOU.
THIS WAS NOT JUST A SIMPLE ALTERCATION IN THE HALLWAY BETWEEN A TEACHER AND A STUDENT.
THIS WAS A ACTUAL PHYSICAL, SERIOUS ASSAULT.
A CRIME THAT TOOK PLACE IN THE HALLWAY BECAUSE THIS LADY WAS DOING HER JOB AND GOT ASSAULTED FOR IT. WHAT THE HEARING OFFICER FOUND AS A RESULT OF THAT, THAT MISS CHICKERING HAS SO SUCH AN OBJECTION TO.
AND I'D LIKE TO READ IT FOR YOU. I NEVER DO THIS, BUT I'M GOING TO READ THIS BECAUSE IT'S SO IMPORTANT. ON PAGE 13. IN THIS EXAMINER'S OPINION, PRINCIPAL RANDALL FAILED TO ACT REASONABLY AS A REASONABLY PRUDENT PRINCIPAL IN THE AREAS OF HER INTENT TO EXCLUDE RESPONDENT FROM ENTRY INTO INTO THE SPED OFFICE DURING THE SENSITIVE ARD MEETING.
SHE ONLY GAVE A DIRECTIVE ONCE, ONCE SHE SAW RESPONDENT HAD ALREADY ENTERED THE SPED OFFICE, AN ATTEMPT TO CORRECT TO CORRECT HER OBVIOUS ERROR OF THE SITUATION.
SHE FAILED TO ACT REASONABLY IN HER SELECTION OF MEETING LOCATIONS, TIMES, OR BY NOT ENSURING RESPONDENT WAS OFF CAMPUS ON THE DAY OF THE ARD MEETING.
IT APPEARS THAT PRINCIPAL RANDALL WAS CHOOSING A MORE CONVENIENT OFFICE, TO CONVENIENT OFFICE TO CONDUCT THE SENSITIVE ARD OVER THE NEEDS AND REQUESTS OF BOTH STUDENTS, MOTHER AND RESPONDENT.
WHAT THAT MEANS IS SHE HELD THE ARD MEETING IN MISS COLLIER'S OFFICE, AND AFTER SHE HAD ALREADY SAID TO HER, YOUR OFFICE IS YOUR ONLY SAFE PLACE ON CAMPUS. WHEN YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH M.J., YOU GET TO GO TO YOUR OFFICE.
AND INSTEAD OF HOLDING IT IN HER CONFERENCE ROOM, SHE HELD IT THE ARD MEETING IN HER OFFICE AND TOOK AWAY THE ONLY PLACE SHE HAS ON CAMPUS TO GO. WHY IS THAT IMPORTANT? ON THIS DAY? MISS COLLIER HAD BEEN GONE ALL DAY LONG AT A AT A AT A, AT A FIELD TRIP, HAD NOT BEEN ON CAMPUS, GOT BACK AT LUNCHTIME.
ALL SHE WANTED TO DO WAS GET HER LUNCH.
SHE WAS IN THAT OFFICE FOR 57 SECONDS.
HISD IS THE LARGEST SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND HISD ATTORNEYS HAVE CONTINUOUS ACCESS TO FACILITIES TO CONDUCT LARGE MEETINGS OFF CAMPUS HATTIE MAE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL'S COUNSEL'S OFFICE AND CAMP AND ON CAMPUS THAT CAN ACCOMMODATE ALL PARTICIPANTS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE T.E.A.
DECISION AND STANDARDS TO CONDUCT IEP.
THE IEP, ESPECIALLY DUE TO THE NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THESE TYPES OF SITUATIONS. ALTERNATIVELY, THE MEETING COULD HAVE BEEN DONE IN THE MORNING AS RESPONDENT WAS OUT ON A FIELD TRIP TO A 1 P.M..
OR THE MEETING COULD HAVE BEEN HELD AFTER HOURS, OR RESPONDENT COULD HAVE BEEN DIRECTED TO TAKE THE REST OF THE DAY OFF, AND A SUBSTITUTE COULD HAVE TAKEN HER PLACE.
ALL OF THESE SCENARIOS ARE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS THAT COULD HAVE PROTECTED BOTH THE STUDENT AND RESPONDENT IN THE DEMANDS OF THE MOTHER.
IF ONLY JUST ONE OF THESE WAS IMPLEMENTED IMPLEMENTED, THEN THE INCIDENT WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED AND CALIGULA WOULD NOT BE SITTING HERE TODAY.
SHE'D HAVE HER JOB. SHE'D BE DOING IT TODAY.
PRINCIPAL RANDALL, PRINCIPAL RANDALL'S DECISIONS, STATEMENTS, AND ACTIONS CONTRIBUTED TO THE ERROR OF EVENTS THAT OCCURRED ON OCTOBER 2ND, 2024. KNOWING THAT THE POSSIBILITY EXISTED THAT THE STUDENT AND RESPONDENT COULD ENCOUNTER EACH OTHER ON CAMPUS REGARDLESS OF THE MEETING, WHEN THEY ARRIVED OR OR EXITED THE BUILDING OR THE MEETING ITSELF.
I MEAN, IF THE IF THE STAY AWAY AGREEMENTS WERE SO IMPORTANT, KNOWING THAT RESPONDENT HAD AT LEAST THREE ENCOUNTERS BETWEEN SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER
[00:20:02]
WITHOUT A MEETING, WITHOUT THE MEETING, WHY WOULD YOU TAKE THE EXTRA PRECAUTIONS AS A LEADER? PRINCIPAL RANDALL FAILED BOTH THE MOTHER AND THE RESPONDENT, AND THEN HE GOES ON TO SAY THAT THAT 57 SECONDS IS ENOUGH TO TERMINATE A TEACHER OF 17 YEARS WITH A SPOTLESS RECORD.17 YEARS OF EXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS.
17 YEARS OF DOING EVERYTHING YOU HAVE ASKED HER TO DO.
YOU HAVE THE POWER. YOU HAVE THE POWER TO REJECT THIS, TO MODIFY IT. YOU CAN MODIFY THIS.
PUT HER ON PROBATION AND GIVE HER HER JOB BACK.
IS NOT ENOUGH TO END A CAREER THAT'S AS GOOD AS THIS ONE.
RESPONDENT COLLABORATED WITH THE PRINCIPAL IN DRAFTING THE PROPOSED STAY AWAY AGREEMENTS.
THE COLLABORATION IS INDICATIVE THAT SHE WAS NOT RESISTANT TO DIRECTION AND OR DETERMINED TO DO THINGS HER WAY. RESPONDENT RESPONDED TO TO THE RESPONSE CALL TO ASSIST IN THE HANDLING OF A VIOLENT AND AGGRESSIVE STUDENT AND WAS ASSAULTED IN DOING IT.
PRINCIPAL FAILED TO RECOGNIZE RESPONDENT'S TRAUMA FROM THE INCIDENT OF FEBRUARY 22ND.
WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT FROM A PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEE THAN WHAT CALLIE GOLYAR DID ON THAT DAY? SHE DID EVERYTHING THAT SHE WAS THAT WAS ASKED OF HER.
AND 57 SECONDS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IS NOT ENOUGH.
NOT ENOUGH TO END THIS CAREER.
THROUGH A LAPSE OF JUDGMENT AND RESISTANCE OCCURRED FOR 57 SECONDS.
BY NOT FOLLOWING AP SCOTT DIRECTIVES DOES NOT REALLY WARRANT THE TERMINATION OF A 17 YEAR EMPLOYEE WHEN THE DECISION MAKER PRINCIPAL RANDALL, FAILED ON SO MANY LEVELS.
RESPONDENT IS A HIGHLY TRAINED HISD EMPLOYEE, SPECIFICALLY IN SPECIAL EDUCATION AND HAS 17 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE.
RESPONDENT HAS NO NEGATIVE MARKS ON HER HISTORY.
AND THEN HE WENT ON TO SAY THAT THAT 157 SECOND LAPSE IN JUDGMENT WAS ENOUGH TO END THIS CAREER. NOW, I ASK YOU, IS THAT ENOUGH? IS THAT ENOUGH? YOU HAVE THE POWER TO DO THE RIGHT THING.
YOU HAVE THE POWER TO REJECT THIS RECOMMENDATION.
AND AT LEAST AT A MINIMUM, PUT HER ON PROBATION.
GIVE HER A CHANCE TO SHOW YOU THAT 17 YEARS IS WORTH MORE THAN 57 SECONDS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS CHICKERING.
DO YOU WISH TO MAKE A REBUTTAL? I THINK YOU HAVE A LITTLE OVER 3.5 MINUTES.
SOMEWHERE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. MISS.
WE AGREE SHE WAS A LOYAL, LONG TERM EMPLOYEE OF HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND SHE HAD GOOD APPRAISALS.
I SAID THAT FROM THE VERY GET GO IN MY INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
THE ISSUE IS FOLLOWING THE CHAIN OF COMMAND.
AND AT THE TIME, THE STAY AWAY AGREEMENT WAS DRAFTED.
AND MISS MISS GALLAGHER WAS A PART OF THAT PROCESS.
SHE WAS TOLD IT WAS MADE VERY CLEAR THAT ON THIS PARTICULAR DAY, THAT OFFICE IS NOT YOUR SAFE SPACE, BECAUSE WE HAVE THIS ARD MEETING, WHICH IS GOING TO START IN THE MORNING, AND WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE ATTENDING NOW.
THE HEARING EXAMINER SORT OF GOES OFF ON A NOTE AND, AND MR. TRITICO READ FROM THAT SECTION SAYING THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A BUILDING, SOME OTHER BUILDING THAT COULD HAVE HOUSED THE MEETING, OR THEY COULD HAVE DONE IT ON SOME OTHER DAY OR SOME OTHER LOCATION.
THE FACT REMAINS, IS THAT THE PRINCIPLE MADE IN HER MIND AN EVALUATION, A REASONABLE EVALUATION OF THE OPTIONS AND DETERMINE THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE HELD IN THAT DEPARTMENT, IN THE DEPARTMENT OFFICE.
AND SHE PUT US ON NOTICE THAT THAT WAS GOING TO TAKE PLACE AT THAT POINT, AS THE HEARING EXAMINER CORRECTLY NOTES, A PRUDENT PERSON IF THEY WANTED THEIR LUNCH, BUT THEY KNEW THAT THEIR LUNCH WAS IN A ROOM WHERE THERE WAS A MEETING BEING HELD THAT THEY WERE OFF LIMITS TO.
COULD HAVE ASKED THE ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL, HEY, MY LUNCH IS IN THAT OFFICE, COULD YOU GO GET IT? SHE COULD HAVE TEXTED SOMEONE, CAN YOU GO IN AND GET THE LUNCH? BUT INSTEAD SHE HEARD THE DIRECTIVE FROM THE ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL, IGNORED THAT DIRECTION, AND WILLFULLY ENTERED THE OFFICE AREA IN
[00:25:04]
VIOLATION OF THAT DIRECTION.NOW, AGAIN, THERE'S MUCH OF THIS RECOMMENDATION THAT I CAN'T SUPPORT AND THAT I DISAGREE WITH, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO STAND UP HERE AND SUGGEST THAT YOU START CHANGING FINDINGS OF FACT. WHAT MR. TRITICO FAILED TO DO, AND IT'S IT'S VERY IMPORTANT HE CAME UP HERE AND SAID, YOU KNOW, YOU NEED TO WE AGREE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION, BUT I WANT YOU TO REACH A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION OF LAW.
IN ORDER TO DO THAT, HE WOULD HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE TO YOU THAT THE HEARING EXAMINER'S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ONE OR MORE OF THEM WERE CLEARLY ERRONEOUS, AND HE HASN'T DONE THAT.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION, HE CITES THE PROPER LEGAL STANDARDS.
HE CITES THE COMMISSIONER'S DECISION IN THE COX CASE.
AND I QUOTE FROM THAT AN EMPLOYEE DOES NOT GET ONE FREE CHANCE TO DEFY A CLEAR DIRECTIVE. EVERY EMPLOYEE KNOWS THAT DEFYING A SUPERVISOR'S INSTRUCTION THAT IS NEITHER ILLEGAL NOR IMMORAL CAN LEAD TO SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES, INCLUDING TERMINATION.
THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE RECOMMENDATION, AND THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH HIS DECISION TO RECOMMEND. TERMINATION ACTION WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE YOU.
THANK YOU. BOARD MEMBERS, ANY QUESTIONS? ANYBODY HAVE A QUESTION? OKAY.
I HAVE ONE, MR. CHAIRMAN. SURE. GO AHEAD.
YEAH. I MEAN, A LOT OF THIS TURNS ON THOSE 57 SECONDS.
IN THE CLASSROOM AND THEN SOME PERIOD OF TIME OUTSIDE OF THE CLASSROOM.
WHAT WAS HOW LONG WAS THAT PERIOD OF TIME OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM BEFORE THE 52ND STARTED? SO IT'S NOT A CLASSROOM.
IT WAS HER. IT WAS THE SPECIAL EDUCATION OFFICE.
THE OFFICE. AND SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.
MISS GALLAGHER WAS COMING BACK ON CAMPUS FROM THE FIELD TRIP AND WAS COMING IN THROUGH THE HALLWAY AND RAN INTO THE ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL WHO HAD EXITED THE AND I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD HOW LONG IT HAD BEEN FROM THE TIME THIS. THE AP LEFT THE NOT LONG AND RAN INTO HER IN THE HALLWAY AND SHE AND ASKED, IS IT OVER? AND AND THAT'S WHEN THEY, THAT'S WHEN THE THE CONVERSATION OCCURRED AND SHE SAID, I NEED TO GET MY LUNCH.
AND THAT'S THE 57 SECONDS OCCURRED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT OR SHORTLY AFTER THAT.
OKAY. SO THERE WAS A IT WASN'T SORT OF A MISTAKEN ENTRY INTO THE ROOM.
THERE WAS A THERE WAS KNOWLEDGE THAT THE MEETING WAS HAPPENING, AND THEN THE AP SAID, IT'S ALMOST OVER OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.
OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD. WHEN WE SAY OFFICE, DO WE MEAN A SINGLE PRIVATE OFFICE, OR DO WE MEAN LIKE OFFICE WITH MULTIPLE? IT'S A IT'S A IT WAS A IN MY IT'S MY RECOLLECTION MY REMEMBER AS WELL.
IT WAS A FORMER CLASSROOM THAT WAS TURNED INTO AN OFFICE.
IT'S A FAIRLY LARGE RIGHT WHICH WOULD ACCOMMODATE THAT NUMBER OF PEOPLE.
THERE WAS HER DESK. THERE WAS A CONFERENCE ROOM TABLE WITH A NUMBER OF CHAIRS AROUND IT.
AND I WANT TO SAY THAT THERE WERE 13 PEOPLE IN THAT MEETING.
AND IS IT MULTIPLE TEACHERS OFFICE OR JUST.
I BELIEVE IT WAS JUST MISS COLLIER'S. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT.
OKAY. AND THEN THE MODE OF COMMUNICATION FOR THE FOR FOR HER INITIALLY FINDING OUT THIS MEETING IS HAPPENING AND YOU SHOULD NOT BE THERE. HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? IT WAS ORAL DISCUSSION, BUT THEN ALSO THAT THERE WAS A WRITTEN COMMUNICATION AS WELL.
AND THAT'S THAT'S IN THE PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS.
AND IF I IF I MAY JUST RESPOND, FOLLOW UP TO MR. GORE'S QUESTION. IF YOU REFER TO PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 18, THAT IS THE STATEMENT FROM MISS SCOTT OUTLINING THE INTERACTION THAT TOOK PLACE IN THE HALL BEFORE BEFORE MISS GALLAGHER ENTERED THE SPECIAL EDUCATION OFFICE.
AND ONE MORE FOLLOW UP TO THAT TO MISS GALLAGHER RAN INTO HER SECRETARY IN THE HALLWAY, ALSO WHO HAD BEEN IN TO GET HER LUNCH, AND SHE TOLD HER THAT SHE HAD JUST GONE IN TO GET HER LUNCH.
IF I MAY RESPOND TO THAT, MISS, THE SECRETARY WAS NOT THE ONE WHO WAS A PARTY TO THE STAY AWAY AGREEMENT, AND THE SECRETARY WAS NOT THE PERSON WHO WAS TOLD, THIS IS NOT YOUR SAFE SPACE ON THIS PARTICULAR DAY.
OKAY, THANKS. YOU KNOW, IT'S INTERESTING.
[00:30:01]
I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE STATE OF MIND UPON ENTERING THE ROOM.THAT SEEMS TO BE IMPORTANT. LIKE ARE PEOPLE IN AND OUT OF THE ROOM? IS THERE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS NOT SORT OF A THIS IS A CLOSED MEETING.
IT IS CLEAR. AND THEN THE DECISION WAS MADE TO ENTER THE ROOM.
RIGHT? BY ITS NATURE, AN ART MEETING IS A PRIVATE, CONFIDENTIAL MEETING. AND THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE IN THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE PARTICIPATING IN THE MEETING.
I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU HAVE THE TIME OR THE INTEREST IN LOOKING AT IT, BUT THERE'S ACTUALLY VIDEO OF THE PERIOD OF TIME THAT SHE WAS IN, IN THERE. AND YOU CAN SEE THE OTHER PEOPLE IN THERE, INCLUDING THE STUDENT AND THE STUDENT'S MOTHER.
SO IS THERE A NEED FOR THE BOARD TO GO TO THE BOARDROOM AND DISCUSS THIS? NO, I THINK SO. OKAY, GREAT.
LET'S SEE. THE BOARD IS RELOCATING TO THE BOARD CONFERENCE ROOM AT FIVE OH 05:40 P.M.. WE WILL THEN BE IN CLOSED SESSION, SO THE BOARD WILL NOW RECESS TO THE CLOSED SESSION AT 551 OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, SUBSECTION 551.0043551.089.
AND SHOULD THE BOARD'S FINAL ACTION, VOTE, OR DECISION OF ANY MATTER CONSIDERED THE CLOSED SESSION BE REQUIRED, FINAL ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IN THE OPEN MEETING. I NOTICE THIS NOTICE OR RECONVENING THE PUBLIC MEETING AT A SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC MEETING IN THE WITH PUBLIC NOTICE THEREOF.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. DO I HAVE A MOTION? I DO. 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 TERMINATE HIS EMPLOYMENT WITH THE DISTRICT, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY. IS THERE A SECOND? OKAY, WE HAVE A SECOND.
THE BOARD HAS VOTED THREE IN FAVOR AND ONE ABSTENTION.
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 5:53 P.M.. THANK YOU.
ARE WE GOOD TO GO FOR THE NEXT ONE? OKAY. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF OF KUDO ET AL.
AND HIS TEACHER AT MILNE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, DOCKET NUMBER 2025. THE PARTIES HAVE ENTERED A STIPULATION, A STIPULATION REQUESTING THE BOARD ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING.
HEARING EXAMINER. NATALIE BARLETTA THAT THE APPEAL BE DISMISSED DUE TO LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER AND DISMISS THIS APPEAL? YES. I MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER AND DISMISS THIS APPEAL.
OKAY. THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION? IF NOT, PLEASE VOTE.
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. THE HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT
[00:35:01]
05:55 P.M.. OKAY. OUR NEXT ONE.THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO IS TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF OF LASHONDA LOVE TEACHER AT HIGH SCHOOL.
AHEAD, ACADEMY HEARINGS INVOLVING COMPLAINTS OF 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 THIS 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 ADVICE OF COUNSEL, PLEASE TELL ME FOR THE RECORD.
SELENA VINSON OF THOMPSON AND HORTON LP REPRESENTS THE ADMINISTRATION AS PRESENT.
CATOSHA WOODS HISD GENERAL COUNSEL, IS ALSO PRESENT.
MISS LOVE, DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE AN OPEN SESSION OR CLOSED? OPEN SESSION. OKAY. LET'S GO TO OPEN SESSION.
OKAY. THE THE ISSUES BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD ARE WHETHER TO ACCEPT, REJECT OR CHANGE. THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDING THE FACT CONCLUSION OF LAW AND PROPOSED PROPOSAL BASED ON REVIEW OF THE RECORD.
WE MAY REJECT OR CHANGE A FINDING OF FACT IF, AFTER REVIEWING THE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINERS, WE FIND IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
WE WILL, IF WE REJECT THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION OR MAKE ANY CHANGES. WE MUST STATE THE REASON AND THE LEGAL BASIS IN WRITING.
MISS. MISS VINCENT, YOU WILL PROCEED FIRST.
YOU CAN GO AHEAD. YOU'LL HAVE TEN MINUTES.
AND IF YOU WANT TO SPLIT UP YOUR TIME, YOU CAN.
OKAY. OKAY. YOU MAY. GOOD EVENING.
I PLAN TO BE REALLY EFFICIENT WITH YOUR TIME.
THE DISTRICT HAS NO OBJECTIONS OR QUALMS WITH THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION.
IN FACT, WE FULLY SUPPORT IT AND ASK THAT YOU ACCEPT IT.
IT IS BASED ON A PROPOSED NON-RENEWAL OF MISS LOVE.
MISS LOVE'S PROPOSED NON-RENEWAL WAS BASED ON SIX FACTORS THAT WERE LISTED IN THE NOTICE OF PROPOSED NON-RENEWAL. THE HEARING EXAMINER FOUND FIVE OF THEM FOUND THAT THE DISTRICT HAD PROVED, BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, FIVE OF THE FACTORS, AS YOU KNOW, FOR A NON-RENEWAL UNDER THE POLICY FOR A NON-RENEWAL, WE ONLY HAVE TO PROVE ONE OF THE POLICY REASONS TO NOT RENEW HIS CONTRACT.
AND THE THREE THAT THE HEARING EXAMINER FOUND WERE THAT THE DISTRICT HAD PROVED, BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.
AFTER MISS LOVE APPEALED THE NOTICE OF HER NON-RENEWAL, THE DISTRICT PROVED DEFICIENCIES POINTED OUT IN OBSERVATION REPORTS, APPRAISALS OR EVALUATIONS, SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OR OTHER COMMUNICATIONS YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU IN THE RECORD HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF DOCUMENTATION OF MISS LOVE'S DEFICIENCIES AND HER REPORTED VIOLATIONS OF POLICY.
THERE'S CONFERENCES OF SUMMARY.
THERE'S MEMOS OF CONCERNS THAT ARE IN THE RECORD THAT WERE PRESENTED TO THE HEARING EXAMINER, WHERE SHE ULTIMATELY FOUND THAT THE DISTRICT HAD PROVED, BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THOSE DEFICIENCIES DID EXIST.
WE WERE ALSO ABLE TO PROVE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH BOARD POLICIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS. AND WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWED IS THAT MISS LOVE FELL TO INPUT.
ATTENDANCE IN A TIMELY MANNER.
AND THIS WAS A VERY DISRUPTIVE, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, TO THE SCHOOL. IT WAS THE HIGH SCHOOL AHEAD ACADEMY.
AND HER LACK OF FAILURE TO PUT IN HER ATTENDANCE PREVENTED THE DISTRICT FROM COMPLYING WITH REGULATIONS AND RULES OR THE SCHOOL FROM COMPLYING WITH THOSE REGULATIONS AND RULES. MISS LOVE ALSO FAILED TO INPUT HER STUDENT GRADES, SO MUCH SO THAT REPORT CARDS WERE DELAYED.
SHE HAD A REPETITIVE, REPETITIVE PROBLEM OF TIMELY INPUTTING STUDENT GRADES, SO THE HEARING EXAMINER IN THE FINDINGS FINDS THAT THOSE FACTS WERE APPROVED. THAT INFORMATION, AGAIN, IS IN THE RECORD BEFORE YOU.
AND THEN MOST EASILY AND OBVIOUSLY IS THAT THERE WAS A REDUCTION IN FORCE WHERE MISS LOVE'S POSITION WAS ELIMINATED.
SHE IS A MATH OR WAS A MATH INTERVENTION SPECIALIST.
IN A MAY 2024 RIFF, THAT POSITION WAS ELIMINATED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD.
SHE WAS THE ONLY MATH INTERVENTION SPECIALIST AT THE HIGH SCHOOL AHEAD ACADEMY, WHICH MEANT THAT THE DISTRICT OR THE SCHOOL DIDN'T HAVE TO APPLY THE CRITERIA.
[00:40:05]
IT MEANT THAT, UNFORTUNATELY, MISS LEVY'S POSITION WAS GOING TO BE ELIMINATED. WE COULD HAVE PROCEEDED ON THE NONRENEWAL BASED ON THAT ISSUE ALONE, JUST THAT HER POSITION WAS ELIMINATED.BUT BECAUSE, IN FACT, WE HAD THESE OTHER ISSUES WITH MISS LEVY'S PERFORMANCE, WE WENT AHEAD AND INCLUDED THOSE.
AND I WILL JUST, YOU KNOW, POINT TO THIS RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE AS YOU CAN SEE OR AS I'VE STATED, WE HAVE NO ISSUES WITH IT.
THE HEARING EXAMINER DIDN'T FIND THREE OF THE REASONS THAT WE APPROVED THEM BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, BUT WE ONLY NEEDED ONE, AND WE DON'T TAKE ISSUE WITH HER FINDINGS.
AND SO YOU'LL SEE ON. LET'S SEE AGAIN.
I DON'T WANT TO WASTE YOUR TIME.
SO I THINK I'M GOING TO REFER YOU TO PAGE 12 OF THE HEARING EXAMINERS DECISION.
AND IT SAYS LET ME START WITH 11.
PETITIONER HISD HAS PROVEN BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT RESPONDENT LOVES TERM CONTRACT SHOULD NOT BE RENEWED BASED ON AT LEAST ONE BOARD POLICY STATED IN THE NOTICE OF NON-RENEWAL. ONE OF THE REASONS WAS A RIFF AN HISD HAS PROVED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, THAT THERE WAS A RIFF OF LOVE'S POSITION WITHIN HISD.
THE NEXT PAGE 12. ADDITIONALLY, IN CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF RESPONDENT'S PERFORMANCE IN THE 2023 2024 SCHOOL YEAR, THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY REVEALED THE FOLLOWING ISSUES. AND THEN THERE'S A VERY LARGE PARAGRAPH THAT COVERS ALMOST ALL OF PAGE 12 THAT LISTS OUT HER DEFICIENCIES.
AND AGAIN, THEY WERE POINTED OUT IN OBSERVATIONS, REPORTS, EVALUATIONS, APPRAISALS AND FINALLY ON PAGE 13, HISD IS PROVEN BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT LOVE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH BOARD POLICIES OR ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. LOVE'S FAILURE TO TIMELY INPUT STUDENT GRADES IN ATTENDANCE AFFECTED THE ENTIRE SCHOOL. SO THE CONCLUSION WAS, IN FACT, THAT PETITIONERS MET ITS BURDEN OF PROVING BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT UNDER RESPONDENT'S TERM CONTRACT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW, THE DISTRICT HAS FOLLOWED THE STATUTORY PROCEDURES FOR NONRENEWAL FOUND THAT THERE WERE NO POLICY VIOLATIONS WHICH SHE HAD HER DUE PROCESS, HAD HER HEARING, RECEIVED HER NOTICE ON TIME, AND THAT THERE IS A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT RESPONDENT HAS VIOLATED ONE OR MORE OF PETITIONER'S PRE-ESTABLISHED REASONS FOR NONRENEWAL.
THAT'S ON PAGE 14. AND THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF HOUSTON ISD ADOPT THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FURTHER RECOMMENDS THAT RESPONDENT'S TERM CONTRACT WITH HISD BEING NON-RENEWED.
SO I'M ASKING YOU THAT BASED ON THE EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU, THE RECORD AND THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION, THAT YOU ACCEPT THAT AND ADOPT THAT RECOMMENDATION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MISS LOVE, YOU MAY MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD.
PERFECT. ON MAY 13TH, 2024, I ATTENDED A CONFERENCE FOR THE RECORD WITH MY FORMER PRINCIPAL, MEGAN LINDSAY.
AND ED RANDALL WAS A WITNESS, IN WHICH HE INFORMED ME THAT MY POSITION WAS ELIMINATED DUE TO BUDGET CUTS IN HIGH SCHOOL.
AHEAD ACADEMY WOULD NO LONGER HAVE THE POSITION HERE FOR MATH INTERVENTIONIST.
SHE EXPLAINED THAT THIS WAS THE OFFICIAL CONFERENCE. FOR THE RECORD, SHE EXPLAINED THE PREVIOUS CONVERSATION CONVERSATION WAS JUST A COURTESY SO THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTOOD.
DURING THE HEARING, EXAMINER LINDA SAY CONFIRMED THAT THIS WAS THE ONLY REASON FOR THE REDUCTION IN FORCE.
AND YOU CAN SEE THAT ON PAGES 199 THROUGH 205 OF THE HEARING DOCUMENT.
LINDA ALSO EXPRESSED ON PAGE 204 THAT SHE DID NOT KNOW WHY ANYTHING OTHER THAN RAPE WAS INCLUDED IN THE DOCUMENT SENT BY THE BOARD.
LETICIA LINDNER SAY ALSO, I MEAN LETICIA MENDEZ ALSO CONFIRMED THIS FACT AS WELL DURING HER TESTIMONY HEARING TESTIMONY ON MAY 29TH, I HAD AN IN-PERSON MEETING IN WHICH LINDA SAY PRESENTED AN OFFICIAL NOTICE OF NON-RENEWAL FROM THE BOARD, WHICH INCLUDED OTHER REASONS REASONS OTHER THAN REDUCTION IN FORCE.
ON JUNE 6TH, I FILED A WRITTEN APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE POLICIES AND LAWS. ON JUNE 13TH, 2024, HISD BOARD PROCEEDED WITH NON-RENEWAL OF MY CONTRACT DESPITE HAVING FILED AN APPEAL WITH TO IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW.
I HAVE EVIDENCE THAT T.A SENT MY APPEAL TO THE APPROPRIATE PARTIES.
I ALSO DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE OF THE SCHEDULED BOARD HEARING, IN VIOLATION OF THE TEXAS TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND LEGAL DUE PROCESS.
ON JUNE 17TH, I WAS ASSIGNED SUMMER SCHOOL AT BURBANK MIDDLE SCHOOL AND WAS UNABLE TO GO TO WORK FOR TWO FOUR DAYS UNTIL REINSTATEMENT.
THIS WAS AFTER ATTENDING ORIENTATION ON JUNE 14TH, 2020 2024. I HAVE A TEXT FROM YOLANDA MARSHALL, WHICH WAS THE PRINCIPAL AT BURBANK AT THE TIME, STATING THAT HR HAD INFORMED HER THAT I HAD A RESIGNATION ON FILE AND IT'S BEEN PROCESSED
[00:45:03]
FOR CLARITY. NO SUCH. AT NO SUCH TIME HAVE I RESIGNED, AND THAT HAS NOT BEEN ENTERED INTO THE RECORD BY ANY INVOLVED PARTIES.SUBSEQUENTLY, I RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM JASMINE STIVERS STATING MY REINSTATEMENT WAS COMPLETED ON JUNE 20TH, 2024.
THIS IS A CLEAR CASE OF RETALIATION AS I WAS PENDING APPEAL.
ON JUNE 22ND. ON JUNE 27TH, 2024, HISD REVERSED THIS DECISION BY WITHDRAWING THE ACTION OF JUNE 13TH.
AGAIN, THE BOARD DID NOT SEND PRIOR LEGAL NOTIFICATION OF THESE HEARINGS IN VIOLATION OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT.
I DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE OF THIS BOARD DECISION UNTIL JUNE 20TH.
SORRY, MORE THAN A MONTH LATER, THE BOARD IS REQUIRED TO GIVE TEN DAYS NOTICE OF THIS DECISION. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO MY EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION HISTORY, I WAS REINSTATED JUNE 7TH, WHICH IS WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE BOARD.
FORMER SENIOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR EMPLOYEE RELATIONS FOR HUMAN RESOURCES MARCY BAEZ ADMITTED TO THIS WRONGDOING ON PAGE 240 AND 243.
ON JUNE 20TH 24TH, WHILE WORKING AT BURBANK MIDDLE SCHOOL, I RECEIVED A MESSAGE FROM MY FORMER TEACHER, LETICIA MENDEZ, ASKING TO MEET. I RESPONDED, I CAN MEET AFTER CLASS.
AT THAT MEETING, MENDEZ PRESENTED ME WITH A LETTER FROM HISD BOARD THAT THEY HAD ENTERED A FINAL ORDER TO NOT RENEW MY 2023 2024 TERM CONTRACT ACTUALLY ON MAY 23RD, 2024. THIS IS IN VIOLATION OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, WHICH STATES I MUST BE GIVEN THREE DAYS NOTICE OF THE HEARING.
THE LETTER STATED THAT I HAD PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE NON-RENEWAL PROPOSAL, WHICH IS FALSE. THE LETTER.
THE LETTER ALSO STATED THAT I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST THE PROPOSED NON-RENEWAL WITHIN THE TIME FRAME ALLOWED BY LAW, WHICH IS ALSO FALSE. I TOLD HER IN HER IN THIS CASE IS LETICIA MENDEZ, THAT I DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE SIGNING THE DOCUMENT.
ALL RIGHT. SHE THEN CALLED HIGH SCHOOL AHEAD AND MEGAN LINDNER SAY MY FORMER PRINCIPAL TRIED TO FORCE ME TO SIGN THIS.
BULLYING AND HARASSMENT AT THE DIRECTION OF LINDNER SAY WENT ON FOR APPROXIMATELY 18 MINUTES. SHORTLY AFTER, ON JUNE 29TH, 2024, I RECEIVED A COMPENSATION LETTER FOR WORK ASSIGNMENT TO HIGH SCHOOL AHEAD ACADEMY.
I FILED A WORKPLACE BULLYING BULLYING COMPLAINT ON SEPTEMBER 26TH, 2024 WITH WITH HISD EMPLOYEE RELATIONS REGARDING INCIDENT, AND HISD HAS REFUSED TO INVESTIGATE IT FOR OVER A YEAR.
IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT MENDEZ STATED IN HER HEARING THAT I THAT WE HAD AN AMICABLE WORKING RELATIONSHIP PREVIOUSLY, ALTHOUGH SHE WASN'T ABLE TO MEET WITH ME A LOT BECAUSE I HAD A CLASS DURING MATH PLC TIME AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, DURING THIS, DURING THIS, THIS INCIDENT, THIS BULLYING INCIDENT.
LETICIA MENDEZ MENTIONED WHEN SHE FIRST GOT THERE, SHE GAVE ME A HUG. WE SIT DOWN.
WE HAD NO ISSUES. I JUST WANT TO POINT THAT OUT.
ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. SO LINDA'S SAY.
AND SO SPEAKING OF AMICABLE RELATIONSHIPS, MISS LINDA SAY ALSO GAVE ME A MOST HELPFUL AWARD. PRIOR TO DURING THE 2023, 2024 YEAR.
AT THE END, HOWEVER, AND SHE STRESSED THIS POINT.
MISS OR HOWEVER, DURING THE HEARING, EXAMINER HIRED SELENA VINCENT CONTINUED TO INTERRUPT ME WHEN I WAS TRYING TO ASK MENDEZ QUESTIONS RELATED TO FEELING UNCOMFORTABLE DURING THE INTERACTION.
THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE HEARING, ATTORNEY VINCENT CONTINUED TO OBJECT AND REQUESTED I MOVED ON. YOU CAN FIND EVIDENCE OF THAT ABUSE OF POWER IF YOU LOOK THROUGH THE DOCUMENT. AND FOR THE WORD OBJECT.
ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON. ON JULY 3RD, 2024 WHEN INQUIRE.
AND THIS IS JUST A SERIES OF EVENTS, SOME OF THEM KIND OF MESHED BECAUSE THE DATE HAD HAPPENED AND THE DATE I GOT NOTIFICATION ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
BUT I JUST DID IT BY THE DAY THAT THE EVENT OCCURRED.
OKAY. SO ON JULY 3RD, 2024, WHEN INQUIRING ABOUT MY FINAL ESCROW PAYOUT, RICKETTSIA STUART WOODARD, WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE SERVICES SPECIALIST, INFORMED ME THAT THERE WAS NO INDICATION IN HIS SYSTEM THAT I WAS LAID OFF OR RESIGNING.
I HAVE EVIDENCE, AND I'VE INCLUDED THAT, AND I INCLUDED IT IN MY HEARING AS WELL.
SO AS YOU SEE THE DATES, THEY KIND OF MIX BECAUSE WE'RE SAYING THAT NO POLICIES WERE VIOLATED.
SO NOW IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE BOARD TO HAVE BOTH ENTERED A FINAL NONRENEWAL ORDER TO FIRE ME ON MAY 23RD, 2024, AND AT THE PROPOSAL FOR NONRENEWAL WAS ALSO PENDING AS OF THAT SAME DAY, THEN SUBSEQUENTLY SUBSEQUENTLY FIRING ME AGAIN ON JUNE 13TH, THEN REVERSING THAT DECISION ON JUNE 3RD JUNE 27TH, ALL WITHOUT GIVING NOTICE.
ALL RIGHT. ADDITIONALLY, I DID FILE ANOTHER WORKPLACE BULLYING
[00:50:01]
COMPLAINT WITH HISD EMPLOYEE RELATIONS ON MAY 21ST, 2024 REGARDING EMAILS SENT FROM A FORMER COLLEAGUE INVOLVED IN THE CASE.AND THAT HAS NOT BEEN INVESTIGATED EITHER.
ALL RIGHT. ON JUNE, ON JULY 27TH, 2024, ADRIAN MOORE CALLED ME TO NOTIFY ME THAT I WAS BEING TEMPORARILY REASSIGNED TO THE HILC, WHICH IS THE HOUSTON EDUCATION LEARNING CENTER BY MARCY BAEZ, IS A FACT CONFIRMED BY HIS TESTIMONY.
I REMAINED THERE FROM AUGUST 1ST, 2024 TO MAY 7TH, 2025. SINCE THAT TIME, I HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED HOME DUTY.
ALL RIGHT. BOARD POLICY STATES THAT THE DISTRICT SHALL USE THE TEACHERS CONSECUTIVE APPRAISALS FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR WHEN MAKING EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS.
AT THE TIME OF MY PROPOSED PROPOSAL FOR NON-RENEWAL ON MAY 20TH 23RD, 2024, ALL OF MY ALL OF MY EVALUATIONS WERE EITHER PROFICIENT ONE OR PROFICIENT TWO.
I ONLY BECAME A DEVELOPING TEACHER, RATED A DEVELOPING RATED TEACHER ON JUNE 2027, WHICH IS OUTSIDE OF THE APPRAISAL PERIOD.
TO BE CONSIDERED, IT HAD TO BE 20TH MAY, 2023, 2024. MOVING, GOING BACKWARDS.
BUT FOR SOME REASON IT WAS INCLUDED IN EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT I WAS DEFICIENT.
I BECAME A DEVELOPING TEACHER THE SAME NIGHT THAT THE BOARD REVERSED THE JUNE 13TH, NONRENEWAL DECISION. AND IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY AT THE SUMMATIVE RATING THAT WAS SUBMITTED, IT'S NOT SIGNED BECAUSE I HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE MEETING UNTIL I BEGAN TO LOOK FOR MY DOCUMENTS FOR THESE PROCEEDINGS.
AND YOU'RE I'M I'M ALLOWED TO HAVE A MEETING TO DISCUSS THOSE, TO DISCUSS MY EVALUATIONS, THIS BOARD POLICY.
UNFORTUNATELY, I HAVE BEEN IN LIMBO SINCE OCTOBER 15TH, 2024, WHICH IS THE FIRST AVAILABLE BOARD MEETING BOARD HEARING FOLLOWING RECEIPT OF THE FINDINGS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER.
I HAVE BEEN DENIED MY RIGHT TO ADDRESS THE BOARD FOR APPROXIMATELY 11 MINUTES IN VIOLATION OF TEXAS EDUCATION LAWS.
FEDERAL TITLE NINE LAWS, THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION, AND THE US CONSTITUTION.
THE TEXAS EDUCATION EDUCATION CODE STATES THE MEETING MUST BE HELD NO LATER.
AND WHEN I SAY THE MEETING, I MEAN THE BOARD MEETING THAT I'M JUST NOW HAVING TODAY. THE MEETING MUST BE HELD NO LATER THAN THE 20TH DAY AFTER THE DATE THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD RECEIVED THE EXAMINER'S HEARING.
THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION AND THE RECORD OF HEARING, WHICH WAS SEPTEMBER OF LAST YEAR.
EVEN AS I'M PRESENTING THIS CASE, I WASN'T GIVEN A HEARING EXAMINER'S TRANSCRIPT UNTIL THIS MORNING.
IN CONCLUSION, THE BOARD DID NOT TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 21 OF THE EDUCATION CODE AND POLICY.
DFD, DFD. THEREFORE, I'M REQUESTING THAT THE NONRENEWAL BE MODIFIED OR REJECTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THANK YOU.
MISS VINCENT, DO YOU HAVE A REBUTTAL? SURE. I'LL JUST RESPOND TO A COUPLE OF POINTS.
I DO HAVE A SIGNED NOTICE OF PROPOSED NONRENEWAL FROM MISS LOVE ON MAY 29TH.
WE ALSO HAVE A CERTIFIED SLIP SHOWING.
WE ATTEMPTED TO SEND IT TO HER BY CERTIFIED MAIL, BUT IT WAS UNCLAIMED. NO ONE WOULD CLAIM IT.
I ALSO HAVE THE PRINCIPAL HERE FOR HIGH SCHOOL HEAD ACADEMY, AND I THINK MISS LOVE JUST TESTED OR STATED.
SHE REFUSED TO SIGN AND RECEIVED THE NOTICE OF NON-RENEWAL AND THE HEARING EXAMINER.
AS YOU FIND IN HIS DECISION, HE SAYS THAT SHE DID RECEIVE NOTICE.
SO THERE, AS I STATED BEFORE, THERE WAS NO FINDING OF ANY POLICY VIOLATION WITH RESPECT TO THE NOTICE.
AGAIN, YOU KNOW, SHE POINTS OUT THAT THERE WERE SOME THINGS WE ALLEGE THAT THE HEARING EXAMINER DIDN'T FIND. WE DON'T WE WE WE AGREE WITH HER TO THAT POINT.
WITH RESPECT TO A HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD.
I BELIEVE YOU JUST BECAME AWARE OF AND RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION. SO THAT TIMELINE STARTED WHEN YOU RECEIVED THAT NOTICE.
AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
I THINK THE REST OF THE STUFF IS KIND OF ANCILLARY TO THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION. AND THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION AND THE NOTICE OF NON-RENEWAL.
AS WE SAID, ALTHOUGH SHE TESTIFIED THAT SHE DID RECEIVE, YOU KNOW, THESE DEVELOPING RATINGS.
ALL WE HAVE TO SHOW IS THE NON-RENEWAL, AND WE PROVE THAT AND MORE.
I'M SORRY THE PROGRAM CHANGED THE REDUCTION IN FORCE FOR PROGRAM CHANGE.
OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MY COLLEAGUES? OKAY. IS THERE A NEED TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION? ANYBODY? I'M SORRY. NO.
THERE'S NO OTHER REBUTTAL WITH YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. OKAY.
[00:55:03]
DID SHE HAVE TIME LEFT? NO.OKAY. SO IF THERE ARE NO OTHER DISCUSSIONS OR OR QUESTIONS DO I HAVE A MOTION? I MOVE. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
YOU HAVE TO READ THE MOTION. YOU HAVE TO READ THE MOTION. NUMBER EIGHT, I THINK WHATEVER MOTION YOU'RE GOING TO READ, WHICH IS HERE.
I ASSUME YOU'RE GOING TO READ THAT ONE.
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 NON-RENEWED LASHONDA LOVE'S TERM CONTRACT.
OKAY. THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND.
THE BOARD HAS VOTED FOUR IN FAVOR, SO 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 6:16 P.M..
OKAY. ARE THE PARTIES HERE FOR THE NEXT MEETING? WHICH IS? THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE DISPUTE FILED BY JAMES PERKINS, FORMER DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL DIVISION FACILITIES OPERATIONS.
OKAY. 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 THE COURSE OF THIS 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 ADVICE OF COUNSEL, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. FOR THE RECORD HECTOR WITH THE TEXAS SUPPORT PERSONNEL, EMPLOYEES IS REPRESENTING JAMES PERKINS IS PRESENT.
ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL IS REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION AS PRESENT.
CATOSHA WOODS HISD GENERAL COUNCIL IS ALSO PRESENT.
DO YOU WISH TO GO IN CLOSED OR OPEN SESSION? OPEN SESSION. OPEN SESSION.
OKAY. OKAY. THE ISSUES BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD ARE WHETHER BOARD POLICIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ARE CORRECTLY APPLIED TO THE AGREEMENT, AND WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATION HAS VIOLATED THOSE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
MR. PERKINS, YOUR REPRESENTATIVE WILL PROCEED FIRST AND WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD, FOLLOWED BY A TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION BY MR. LEBLANC. PRESENT PRESENTATIONS MUST BE BASED ON THE LEVEL TWO HEARING TRANSCRIPT.
YOU MAY RESERVE PART OF YOUR TEN MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL TO THE MATTERS PRESENTED BY MR. LEBLANC. BOTH SIDES WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES. YOU WILL PROCEED FIRST.
SO HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO DIVIDE YOUR TIME? SEVEN AND THREE. SEVEN AND THREE.
WE'LL LET YOU KNOW WHEN YOU GET TO SEVEN. OKAY.
BOARD PRESIDENT. NEW BOARD MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS HECTOR MORALES. I'M THE PRESIDENT FOR THE TECH SUPPORT PERSONNEL EMPLOYEES UNION. I'M HERE REPRESENTING TODAY, MR. PERKINS. WE COME TO YOU TODAY.
I'VE ARGUED MANY, MANY TIMES IN FRONT OF THE BOARD, MR. CAMPOS AND MISS ARNOLD.
I ASK YOU, WEIGHING ONLY IN THE EVIDENCE AND THE EXHIBITS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU, TO WEIGH IN A DECISION THAT'S GOING TO BE MADE.
MR. PERKINS HAS BEEN WITH HISD OVER 13 YEARS.
BLEMISHED RECORD. NO REPRIMANDS, NO WRITE UP.
[01:00:01]
PERKINS SPOKE VERY FREELY AND HONESTLY, AND THEY'RE MAKING HIM THE SCAPEGOAT.AND NOW THEY'RE TRYING TO HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT HE SAID AND WHAT WAS STATED. SO THIS ALL OCCURRED ON AUGUST 19TH, 2024, WHEN THE TEAM'S MEETING OCCURRED AT 5 P.M..
THE ONLY THING MR. PERKINS SAID WAS AT THIS MEETING TO WARRANT WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY IS DOCTOR LUZ MARTINEZ, WHO WAS THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE CENTRAL DIVISION, WHO'S NO LONGER WITH HISD HAD A MEETING.
SHE STATED AT THE MEETING BY SAYING, GLAD EVERYONE CAN ATTEND.
SHE STATED, WHY WAS THE AC NOT WORKING IN THE CENTRAL AREA? MR. RAY WINKLER WAS THE SENIOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATED THAT MY CLIENT, MR. PERKINS, CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE IN THAT WHOLE FIELD.
HE SAID NO DISRESPECT TO ANYONE.
WE NEED MORE MANPOWER TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM.
THAT MR. MILES HAS CUT US SO SHORT AND SO UNDERSTAFFED.
BECAUSE OFFICER JOLIVET, MR. SALAZAR STATED OFF THE RECORD THAT WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO QUESTION ANYTHING THE SUPERINTENDENT SAYS. SO IF HE'S ASKED TO SPEAK FREELY AND WHY WE'RE HAVING PROBLEMS, AC CHILLERS AT SCHOOL CAMPUSES AND HE SPEAKS FREELY.
AND HONESTLY. HE'S BEING TERMINATED FOR THAT.
I THINK WE LIVE IN A COUNTRY THAT WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK FREELY AND SPEAK HONESTLY WHEN WE NEED HELP. WHY SHOULD A 13 YEAR VETERAN BE PUNISHED FOR JUST SAYING THAT.
MR. MILES, OUR SUPERINTENDENT CUT US WAY SHORT.
I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND IF HE DID SOMETHING VERY VULGAR, SOMETHING THAT HE BROKE OR SOMETHING THAT HE DID THAT WOULD WARRANT HIS TERMINATION, I CAN RESPECT THAT. BUT MR. PERKIN HAS A BLEMISHED RECORD, HAS NEVER VIOLATED ANY BOARD POLICY, HAS NEVER BEEN REPRIMANDED.
IF YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT EIGHT, WHICH IS A VERY IMPORTANT EXHIBIT, AND IF YOU COULD JUST CHECK AND SEE IF YOU HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU, IT'S THE EMPLOYEE EXHIBIT.
MR. PERKINS FILED FOR UNEMPLOYMENT.
HISD FOUGHT HIM FOR NOT TO RECEIVE IT.
IF YOU LOOK AT IT, IT'S BASICALLY SAYS WE CAN PAY YOU BENEFITS.
YOUR EMPLOYER, WE CONSIDERED, WAS NOT MISCONDUCT.
AND SO THEY TERMINATED HIM FOR MISCONDUCT.
BUT A TEXAS GOVERNMENT AGENCY OVERRULED HISD AND STATED, WE CAN NOW COMPENSATE YOU UNEMPLOYMENT BECAUSE WHAT HE DID TO YOU WAS UNLAWFUL.
SO IF A GOVERNMENT AGENCY CAN RULE IN MR. PERKINS FAVOR, YOU AS THE BOARD TODAY CAN OVERRIDE THE DECISION THAT HISD DID UNJUSTLY TO MR. PERKINS. GREAT EMPLOYEE, A GREAT HUMAN BEING.
THE ADMINISTRATION IS GOING TO ARGUE.
WELL, HE DID A, B AND C, BUT MY ARGUMENT IS ALWAYS BEEN SHOW, SHOW THE EXHIBITS, SHOW THE DOCUMENTATION WHAT HE VIOLATED TO WARRANT THE TERMINATION.
IF HE'S TOLD TO SPEAK FREELY IN A TEAMS MEETING AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO FIX THE PROBLEM. HE DOES THAT, I'M SURE.
SCIENCE 2020. BUT IF HE HAD TO DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN, HONESTLY, I THINK MR. PERKINS WOULD HAVE JUST KEPT HIS MOUTH SHUT AND SAID, YES, SIR. YES, SIR, YES, SIR. BUT IF YOU'RE ASKED TO SPEAK FREELY AND HE DOES SPEAK FREELY, WHY WOULD IT WARRANT TERMINATION? IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO RUIN A GENTLEMAN'S CAREER THAT'S BEEN WITH HISD OVER 13 YEARS.
MR. PERKINS USED TO BE IN CHARGE OF THE GROUNDS DEPARTMENT.
EXCELLENT. NEVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH ANY OF OUR SCHOOL CAMPUSES.
NOW IT'S HARD TO GET OUR SCHOOLS CUT.
IT'S HARD TO GET THE GRASS CUT.
YOU HAVE TO FIGHT TOOTH AND NAIL TO FIND SOMEONE TO COME CUT IT.
MR. PERKINS DID SUCH AN EXCELLENT JOB THAT HE GOT PROMOTED TO THE ROLE THAT HE'S IN NOW.
AND FOR HIM TO SPEAK HONESTLY, TRUTHFULLY AND FREELY.
[01:05:02]
YOU RECOMMEND TERMINATION? IT'S NOT RIGHT. I DON'T THINK WE LIVE IN A COUNTRY WHERE WE CAN SPEAK FREELY AND THEN BE HAVE SOME CONSEQUENCES BY SAYING, YOU KNOW WHAT, MR. PERKINS? YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO QUESTION OUR SUPERINTENDENT.I THINK YOU AND EACH ONE OF YOU HERE TODAY SHOULD HONESTLY SAY, DO WE CHALLENGE HIM OR DO WE SPEAK FREELY? THANK YOU. MR. BLOCK. YOU CAN BEGIN.
GO AHEAD. GOOD EVENING EVERYONE.
THIS GRIEVANCE TURNS ON A SIMPLE QUESTION.
WHAT KIND OF BEHAVIOR SHOULD BE EXPECTED FROM HISD EMPLOYEES? HISD BOARD POLICY, WHICH YOU WILL FIND BEHIND ADMINISTRATION.
EXHIBIT FIVE SETS FORTH A NUMBER OF EMPLOYEE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT, INCLUDING AT PAGE TWO OF THE POLICY, THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC EMPLOYEE RESPONSIBILITIES ONE. RELATING TO COLLEAGUES AND SUPERVISORS WITH RESPECT, COURTESY AND IN A PROFESSIONAL MANNER, AND TWO FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIVES OF THE SUPERVISOR. NOW, AT ALL TIMES RELEVANT TO THIS GRIEVANCE, JAMES PERKINS WAS EMPLOYED AS A FACILITIES ONE DIRECTOR.
IN THAT CAPACITY, HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MANAGING THE MAINTENANCE AND CUSTODIAL OPERATIONS TEAM FOR THE CENTRAL DIVISION, WHICH AMOUNTS TO 80 PLUS SCHOOLS.
MR. PERKINS HAD AN IMPORTANT LEADERSHIP POSITION AT THE DISTRICT, ONE THAT REQUIRED HIM TO ADHERE RIGOROUSLY TO EMPLOYEE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT SET FORTH IN BOARD POLICY RD LOCAL, IF FOR NOTHING ELSE, THAN TO SERVE AS A ROLE MODEL OR A MODEL OF BEHAVIOR SAVIOR FOR ALL THOSE HISD EMPLOYEES WHO REPORTED TO HIM.
UNFORTUNATELY, ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS, NOT JUST THE ONE THAT MR. MORALES TALKS ABOUT, HE FAILED TO LIVE UP TO THOSE EMPLOYEE EXPECTATIONS.
IN THE TRANSCRIPT, THERE IS TESTIMONY FROM EUGENE SALAZAR, FORMERLY SENIOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF MAINTENANCE, WHO WAS MR. PERKINS SUPERVISOR AT THE TIME OF HIS FILING OF THIS GRIEVANCE ABOUT THE INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR OF MR. PERKINS AT A MEETING CONVENED ON AUGUST 19TH, 2024, TO ADDRESS SEVERE DAMAGE CAUSED TO DISTRICT FACILITIES BY THE DERECHO THAT STRUCK IN MAY OF 2024 AND BY HURRICANE BERYL THAT SWEPT THROUGH HOUSTON IN JULY OF 2024.
MR. SALAZAR TESTIFIED AT THE LEVEL TWO HEARING THAT A VIDEO CONFERENCE WAS CONVENED TO ADDRESS DAMAGE TO DISTRICT FACILITIES IN GENERAL AND FUR HIGH SCHOOL IN PARTICULAR, WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF ENSURING THAT REPAIRS WERE COMPLETED IN A TIMELY MANNER.
STARTING ON PAGE 32 OF THE LEVEL TWO HEARING TRANSCRIPT, MR. SALAZAR TESTIFIED THAT MR. PERKINS WAS A PARTICIPANT IN THE VIDEO CONFERENCE.
MR. PERKINS WAS ASKED WHAT WAS NEEDED TO EFFECTUATE REPAIRS.
HIS RESPONSE WAS, TO PARAPHRASE, THAT SUPERINTENDENT MILES SHOULD INVEST IN HIRING MORE PEOPLE. RATHER THAN CUTTING STAFF.
MR. PERKINS EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT THE LACK OF MANPOWER AND RESOURCES HE THOUGHT WAS REQUIRED TO EFFECTUATE THE NEEDED REPAIRS.
MOREOVER, HE STATED THAT HE WANTED TO SPEAK TO TO SUPERINTENDENT MILES DIRECTLY TO EXPRESS HIS CONCERNS, MR. SALAZAR EMPHASIZED IN HIS TESTIMONY THE INSUBORDINATE AND UNPROFESSIONAL TONE OF MR. PERKINS REMARKS, WHICH HE DESCRIBED AS AGGRESSIVELY CONFRONTATIONAL.
MR. PERKINS REMARKS WERE PARTICULARLY INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE THEY WERE UTTERED AT A MEETING THAT INCLUDED HIGH LEVEL DISTRICT OFFICIALS, INCLUDING CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER ALICIA JOLIVETTE.
MR. SALAZAR TESTIFIED THAT HE TEXTED MR. PERKINS TO TONE IT DOWN.
MR. JOLIVETTE ALSO ASKED MR. PERKINS TO TONE IT DOWN DURING THE MEETING.
FURTHERMORE, MR. SALAZAR TESTIFIED THAT DANIEL SOLIS, WHO IS CURRENTLY DEPUTY CHIEF OF SCHOOLS AND AT THE TIME RELEVANT FOR THIS GRIEVANCE, WAS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF SUPPORT REPORTED TO HIM ON AUGUST 1ST, 2024, THAT HE AND RAY WINKLER, FORMERLY SENIOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF SUPPORT, HAD TO ADDRESS WITH MR. PERKINS HIS UNPROFESSIONAL TONE IN COMMUNICATING WITH CENTRAL DIVISION
[01:10:05]
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF ON AUGUST 20TH, 2024.MR. PERKINS WAS CALLED INTO A MEETING WITH MR. SALAZAR TO DISCUSS HIS CONDUCT AT THE AUGUST 19TH VIDEO CONFERENCE.
THE MEETING BETWEEN MR. PERKINS AND MR. SALAZAR WAS MEMORIALIZED IN A MEMO THAT HIS ADMINISTRATION EXHIBIT TWO.
IN THAT MEMO, MR. SALAZAR MAKES IT CLEAR TO MR. PERKINS THAT THE BEHAVIOR HE EXHIBITED AT THE AUGUST 19TH MEETING AND ON AT LEAST ONE OTHER OCCASION AT THE CENTRAL DIVISION, WOULD NOT BE TOLERATED.
MR. SALAZAR STATES IN THE MEMO THAT MR. PERKINS EXPRESSED REGRET ABOUT HIS CONDUCT.
FINALLY, ON AUGUST 20TH, 2024, MR. SALAZAR SENT MR. PERKINS HOME WITH PAY AND TOLD HIM TO STAY OFF DISTRICT PROPERTY UNTIL A CONFERENCE FOR THE RECORD WAS SCHEDULED ON SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2024. MR. SALAZAR DIRECTED MR. PERKINS TO ATTEND A CONFERENCE FOR THE RECORD ON SEPTEMBER 13TH TO DISCUSS HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE DISTRICT. THAT NOTICE IS IN THE TRANSCRIPT BINDER AT ADMINISTRATION EXHIBIT THREE. AT THE CONFERENCE, FOR THE RECORD, MR. SALAZAR REVIEWED MR. PERKINS EMPLOYEE CONDUCT SHORTCOMINGS AND CITED THE SPECIFIC SECTIONS OF BOARD POLICY D H WHICH HE VIOLATED, ALL OF WHICH IS MEMORIALIZED IN ADMINISTRATION EXHIBIT 4 IN 4 BULLET POINTS IN THE CONFERENCE.
FOR THE RECORD SUMMARY, MR. SALAZAR NOT ONLY RECOUNTED HIS INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT DURING THE AUGUST 19TH VIDEO OF YOUR CONFERENCE AND WITH CENTRAL DIVISION ADMINISTRATORS, BUT ALSO DISCUSSED MR. PERKINS REFUSAL TO FOLLOW A DIRECTIVE FROM MR. SALAZAR TO REMAIN OFF DISTRICT PROPERTY.
MR.. MR. PERKINS IGNORED THE DIRECTIVE AND ATTEMPTED TO HAVE AN UNPLANNED MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2024 TO DISCUSS HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE DISTRICT WITH THE SUPERINTENDENT, SPECIFICALLY THAT HE WANTED HIS JOB BACK EVEN THOUGH HE HAD NOT YET BEEN TERMINATED. IN THE FINAL BULLET POINT, MR. SALAZAR REMINDED MR. PERKINS OF A MEETING HELD ON JUNE 6TH, 2024, DURING WHICH HIS PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS WERE DISCUSSED, WHICH IS MEMORIALIZED IN A MEMO IN THE TRANSCRIPT AT EXHIBIT ONE, NEXT TO EACH BULLET POINT DISCUSSING MR. PERKINS TRANSGRESSIONS IN THE CONFERENCE.
FOR THE RECORD SUMMARY, MR. SALAZAR CITES THE SPECIFIC SECTION OF BOARD POLICY DX LOCAL, THAT HE VIOLATED. VIOLATIONS OF DX LOCAL BY AN HISD EMPLOYEE CAN RESULT IN TERMINATION.
MR. PERKINS DOCUMENTED MISBEHAVIOR RESULTED IN HIS TERMINATION FROM THE DISTRICT, WHICH IS DOCUMENTED IN ADMINISTRATION EXHIBITS NUMBER SIX AND SEVEN.
HIS BLATANT VIOLATIONS OF HISD STANDARDS OF CONDUCT CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT BE COUNTENANCED. SO LET'S NOW FOCUS ON MR. PERKINS FIRST REQUESTED MEMORY, WHICH IS THAT HE BE REINSTATED TO HIS FORMER POSITION OR ANY OTHER POSITION EQUAL TO HIS FORMER SALARY THAT HE BE, AND THAT HE BE MADE WHOLE.
THE FACTS SURROUNDING MR. PERKINS TERMINATION, AS WELL AS HISD BOARD POLICIES, DO NOT SUPPORT GRANTING THIS REMEDY.
BASICALLY, WE ARE HERE TODAY AT THIS LEVEL THREE GRIEVANCE HEARING BECAUSE ON AUGUST 19TH AND ON SEPTEMBER 12TH OF 2024, MR. PERKINS CHOSE TO IGNORE ESTABLISHED DISTRICT POLICY GOVERNING EMPLOYEE CONDUCT AS WELL AS CLEAR DIRECTIVES FROM HIS SUPERVISOR.
THE TAKEAWAY FROM ALL OF THIS IS THAT MR. PERKINS WAS AGGRESSIVELY INSUBORDINATE AND GENERALLY BEHAVED IN AN INAPPROPRIATE MANNER FOR AN HISD EMPLOYEE. MR. PERKINS SECOND REQUESTED MEMORY IS THAT THERE BE NO REPERCUSSIONS OR RETALIATIONS AGAINST HIM, OR ANYONE ELSE WHO TESTIFIES ON HIS BEHALF.
THE LEVEL TWO HEARING EXAMINER GRANTED THIS REMEDY, AND OF COURSE, HISD ADMINISTRATION DOES NOT OBJECT TO THAT RULING.
FINALLY, AT THE LEVEL TWO HEARING, MR. PERKINS, THROUGH HIS REPRESENTATIVE HECTOR MORALES, ARGUED THAT THE DETERMINATION BY THE TWC ON AUGUST 15TH THAT MR. PERKINS WAS ELIGIBLE FOR UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION IS SOMEHOW DISPOSITIVE OF THIS GRIEVANCE, WHICH IS PLAINLY INCORRECT.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES OF THE TWC RELATING TO UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ARE WHOLLY SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE EMPLOYEE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES OUTLINED IN HISD BOARD POLICY, DBA LOCAL. THEY BEAR NO RELATION TO ONE ANOTHER.
THIS IS A MISLEADING AND SPURIOUS ARGUMENT THAT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.
[01:15:05]
IN CLOSING, WHEN I WAS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN THE 60S, HISD STUDENTS RECEIVED CONDUCT GRADES ON REPORT CARDS.ONE OF THE CONDUCT CATEGORIES WAS WORK AND PLAY WELL WITH OTHERS.
WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHAT CONDUCT GRADE MR. PERKINS RECEIVED WHILE HE WAS IN SCHOOL, BUT AS AN ADULT, WORKING IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY AT HISD, HE EARNED A U FOR UNSATISFACTORY.
MR. PERKINS FORFEITED HIS EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE OF HIS BEHAVIOR.
AND I ASK THAT YOU UPHOLD THE LETTER LEVEL TO EXAMINE THIS RULE IS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MIRELES.
AND TWO OF YOU ARE FAIRLY NEW TO WEIGH IN, ONLY THAT'S PRESENTED TO YOU.
THE TEAM'S MEETING THAT HE'S ACCUSED OF HIS BEHAVIOR.
THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD HAVE PRESENTED TO YOU AS AN EXHIBIT.
AND THEY DIDN'T BECAUSE HIS BEHAVIOR WAS NOT UNPROFESSIONAL.
HIS BEHAVIOR WAS VERY, VERY PROFESSIONAL, VERY CARING OF THE EMPLOYEES WORKING UNDER HIS STAFF, UNDER HIS SUPERVISION.
THEY WOULD HAVE PRESENTED IT AT LEVEL TWO IF HIS BEHAVIOR WAS VERY UNPROFESSIONAL.
THEY DIDN'T. I REQUESTED IT UNDER THE OPEN RECORDS REQUEST, AND MIRACULOUSLY, THEY DIDN'T WANT TO GIVE IT TO ME.
THEY DON'T HAVE IT. HOW CAN YOU NOT PRESERVE A TEAMS MEETING WITH TECHNOLOGY NOW, IF IT WAS SO AWFUL? HIS BEHAVIOR.
I PROMISE YOU, MR. LEBLANC, AS GOOD AS HE IS, WOULD HAVE SHOWED IT TO YOU ON THE VIDEO.
HIS EVALUATION WOULD HAVE SHOWED A YOU UNSATISFACTORY.
MR. PERKINS DID NOT ATTEND THE U.
MIAMI UNIVERSITY BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT.
BECAUSE MR. PERKINS IS A GREAT, EXCELLENT MAN.
AND EVERYBODY LOVED WORKING UNDER HIS SUPERVISION.
AND TWO NEW FELLOW MEMBERS, I ASK YOU AND ASK THE ADMINISTRATION WHY THEY DID NOT PRESENT THAT VIDEO TO YOU TODAY.
WHY IS IT NOT ON THE SCREEN TO SHOW HIS BEHAVIOR? BECAUSE THEY LIKE TO FABRICATE STORIES, TO INFLUENCE YOU, TO VOTE IN THEIR FAVOR.
YOU TODAY CAN OVERRULE THAT DECISION AND PUT A STOP TO IT.
I'M GLAD THAT I WAS HERE TO WITNESS A COUPLE OF HEARINGS THAT YOU GUYS ASKED QUESTIONS.
THE LAST FEW HEARINGS THAT I'VE BEEN THIS BOARD HAS NOT ASKED ANY QUESTIONS.
I'M VERY PROUD OF YOU GUYS TO DO THAT.
AND I HOPE THAT AFTER THIS ONE THAT YOU CAN ASK MR. PERKINS OR ASK ME ANY QUESTIONS THAT I'LL BE OPEN, THAT BE HONESTLY TO ANSWER IT FOR YOU.
BUT I'VE ASKED GUYS WEIGH IN ONLY TO THE EXHIBITS.
ASK THE ADMINISTRATION WHY DIDN'T YOU PRESENT THE LEVEL TWO HEARING SO YOU CAN SEE IT AND SAY, MR. PERKINS, I WOULD HAVE EVEN TOLD MR. PERKINS MR. THAT WAS UNSATISFACTORY BEHAVIOR.
VERY UNSATISFACTORY. BUT I KNOW MR. PERKINS WELL. HE WOULD NEVER, NEVER DO THAT KIND OF THING.
BUT WHEN YOU'RE ASKED TO SPEAK FREELY AND YOU'RE SAYING, HEY, WE'RE WAY UNDER STAFFED.
HE HAD 80 CAMPUSES THAT HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYONE ELSE THAT WAS IN HIS ROLE.
THEY HAD 50. SO WHY WOULD YOU GIVE SOMEONE THAT DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING? MORE CAMPUSES THAN THE OTHER INDIVIDUALS.
IT'S THE BURDEN OF THEM TO SHOW.
YES, HE DID WRONG. YES, HE VIOLATED BOARD POLICY, BUT THEY DIDN'T. THEY'RE BANKING ON WHAT THEY'RE SAYING TO YOU TODAY TO WEIGH INTO THE DECISION TO UPHOLD THE LEVEL TWO HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION.
BUT YOU TODAY CAN OVERRULE THAT DECISION OR ASK HIM IF IT WAS SO AWFUL, WHY DID YOU NOT SUBMIT? THE TEAM'S HEARING AS EXHIBITS.
OR WHY DIDN'T YOU GIVE IT TO MR. MORALES WHEN HE REQUESTED IT UNDER THE OPEN RECORDS REQUEST? SO I CAN HAVE YOU GUYS SEE IT AND YOU DETERMINE WHETHER HIS BEHAVIOR WAS UNACCEPTABLE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES?
[01:20:02]
QUESTIONS? OKAY. IS THERE A ON.THE PARTIES HAD COMPLETED THEIR PRESENTATIONS, AND IT'S NOW TIME FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS TO MAKE OUR DECISION ON THE ISSUES BEFORE US.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? DO WE NEED TO GO TO CLOSED SESSION? OKAY. ALL RIGHT THEN. DO I HAVE A MOTION? SURE. I'LL MAKE THE MOTION.
I MOVE THAT WE DENY ALL REQUESTS FOR RELIEF.
NOT PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE LEVEL TWO HEARING OFFICER. AND UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE LEVEL TWO HEARING OFFICER.
IS THERE A SECOND? OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION.
AND SECOND, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, PLEASE VOTE. THE BOARD HAS VOTED FOR FOUR FOR AND ZERO AGAINST.
A LETTER NOTIFYING BOTH PARTIES OF THE ACTION OF THE BOARD SHALL BE PREPARED AND SIGNED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE BOARD RELATIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
THIS HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT 6:41 P.M..
OKAY. WITH NO OTHER MATTERS ON THE AGENDA, I WILL.
THE MEETING IS NOW ADJOURNED AT 6:41 P.M..
THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.