[00:00:02]
          >> GOOD EVENING. THE MEETING IS NOW CONVENED AT 5:01 PM. 
          [Hearings on October 23, 2025.]
I'D LIKE EVERYONE TO PLEASE SILENCE YOUR CELL PHONES. 
          A QUORUM OF THE BOARD IS PRESENT IN THE BOARD AUDITORIUM. 
          FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO HEAR FROM SPEAKERS ON AGENDA ITEMS, PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          DURING SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS WILL ONLY BE AVAILABLE TO THOSE PERSONS WHO SIGNED UP TO SPEAK PRIOR TO THE MEETING TIME PER CURRENT PROTOCOL. 
          VERBAL AND OTHER DISRUPTIONS BY PERSONS DURING THE SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THEY INHIBIT THE BOARD'S ABILITY TO CONDUCT BUSINESS AND THE PUBLIC'S ABILITY TO OBSERVE THOSE PROCESSES. 
          PERSONS WHO PARTICIPATE IN SUCH BEHAVIOR WILL BE GIVEN ONE WARNING, AND IF THE BEHAVIOR IS REPEATED, THEY WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE MEETING. 
          WE HAVE TWO REGISTERED SPEAKERS TODAY 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 THE LAW. 
          BUT YOU MAY NAME YOUR OWN CHILD. 
          I ASK THAT YOU PLEASE RESPECT OUR PROCEDURES AND THE OTHER SPEAKERS, AND YOUR COMMENTS PROMPTLY WHEN THE TIME HAS EXPIRED AND THE TIMER RINGS. 
          WE'LL FIRST HEAR FROM A PARENT WHO'S REGISTERED TO SPEAK VIA ZOOM. 
          WE MUST SEE YOU LIVE ON YOUR CAMERA, SO MISS SMITH, YOU CAN ADMIT MELISSA ARBOUR. 
          SHE'S NOT. 
          OUR SECOND SPEAKER IS ARNETTA MURRAY, WHO IS HERE WITH US TODAY. 
          MS. MURRAY. THANK YOU. 
          >> GOOD EVENING, TRUSTEES. 
          MY NAME IS COUNCILWOMAN ARNA MURRAY. 
          I AM A 19-YEAR SPECIAL ED TEACHER WHO WITH 20 MONTHS LEFT REMAINING UNTIL RETIREMENT, WHO HAS NEVER, EVER BEEN SUBJECT TO DUE PROCESS UNTIL NOW. 
          THIS NON-RENEWAL IS NOT SIMPLY ABOUT ATTENDANCE. 
          IT'S ABOUT THE STRICT TEN-DAY 15-DAY RULE TO REMOVE VETERAN TEACHERS, PARTICULARLY THOSE OVER 50 WHO BECAME POSSIBLY CAREGIVERS OR THEMSELVES HAVE BEEN ILL, EVEN WITH PROPER DOCUMENTATION. 
          MY STUDENTS WHO ARE IN SPECIAL ED WERE THRIVING IN THEIR IEPS AND READING BY DESIGN. 
          MY CLASSROOM PERFORMANCE WAS NEVER AN ISSUE. 
          IEPS, PAPERWORK, PROGRESS MONITORING, AND SPOT REVIEWS WERE ON POINT. 
          AT THE HEARING TWO MONTHS AGO, I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF DEALING WITH ATTORNEY ASHLEY BI, WHO TREATED ME LIKE I WAS A CRIMINAL, WHO TALKED TO ME IN WAYS THAT WAS UNBELIEVABLE. 
          ONLY BECAUSE I'VE HAD SOME ISSUES AND SOME CONCERNS. 
          THE HEARING OFFICER FOCUSED ON THE ABSENT COUNT WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE FULL LEGAL CONTEXT OF THE MATTER. 
          MY STUDENTS WERE GETTING CONSISTENT, SOLID INSTRUCTION. 
          THEY LOVED LEARNING, AND I KEPT THEM ENGAGED. 
          THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T HAVE BEHAVIOR ISSUES. 
          I'M ASKING THE BOARD TO PERMIT ME TO REMAIN IN MY CURRENT ASSIGNMENT THROUGH MY EARNED RETIREMENT. 
          WITH ME BEING SO CLOSE TO RETIREMENT, AFTER MY ATTEMPT TO SERVE FMLA, THIS RAISES AN ISSUE ABOUT AGE-BASED DISPARITY AND COULD POSSIBLY PLACE THE DISTRICT UNDER FEDERAL SCRUTINY. 
          PLEASE REMEMBER, AND I'M GRATEFUL FOR MY JOB. 
          PLEASE REMEMBER. I HAD A 93-YEAR-OLD MOTHER. 
          PLEASE REMEMBER, I MYSELF, EVEN THOUGH I'M 59 AND I LOOK 29, I HAD SOME ISSUES. 
          I'M GETTING A LITTLE OLDER AS WELL. 
          PLEASE REMEMBER TONIGHT'S VOTE WILL NOT ONLY BE IN A CLOSED SESSION, AND A PERSONNEL MATTER. 
          >> THANK YOU. WE'LL NOW CONDUCT THE HEARING SCHEDULED FOR THIS MEETING. 
          PLEASE NOTE THAT WE WILL NOT BE CONDUCTING A HEARING SCHEDULED FOR JACKIE BROWN AS THE DISTRICT HAS ACCEPTED HER RESIGNATION. 
          THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA THEN IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF SUSAN TITTLE, A TEACHER AT FAVILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. 
          A HEARING INVOLVING COMPLAINTS AGAINST DISTRICT EMPLOYEES ARE TO BE HELD IN CLOSED SESSION UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE WHO IS SUBJECT TO THE SUBJECT OF THE HEARING REQUESTS AN OPEN HEARING. 
          AND 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 TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551071. 
          IF ANY BOARD MEMBERS WISH TO SEEK ADVICE OF COUNSEL, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. 
          FOR THE RECORD, JAMES FALLON OF JAMES T. FALLON, THE THIRD LLC, REPRESENTING SUSAN TITTLE, IS PRESENT. 
          MYRA CHICKERING, OF ROGERS MORRISON AND GROVER LLP, 
          [00:05:05]
REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION, IS PRESENT, AND CATOSHA WOODS, HIC'S GENERAL COUNSEL, IS ALSO PRESENT. 
          MR. FALLON, DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE AND OPEN OR CLOSED? 
          >> WE'RE PART OF IT. 
          >> OPEN. 
          THE ISSUES BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD ARE WHETHER TO ACCEPT, REJECT, OR CHANGE THE INDEPENDENT HEARINGS EXAMINER'S FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSION OF LAW OR AND 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 EXAMINER, WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. 
          IF WE REJECT THE INDEPENDENT HEARINGS EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION OR MAKE ANY CHANGES, WE MUST STATE THE REASON AND LEGAL BASIS IN WRITING. 
          MISS CHICKERING, YOU WILL BE PROCEEDING FIRST. 
          YOU'LL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A 10-MINUTE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD, FOLLOWED BY A 10-MINUTE PRESENTATION BY MR. FALLON. 
          MISS CHICKERING, YOU MAY RESERVE PART OF YOUR 10 MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL TO THE MATTERS PRESENTED BY MR. FALLON. 
          BOTH SIDES WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD AFTER THE PRESENTATIONS. 
          HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO DIVIDE YOUR TIME? 
          >> [INAUDIBLE]. 
          >> SOUNDS GOOD. YOU MAY BEGIN. 
          >> CAN YOU HEAR ME? 
          >> YES. 
          >> GOOD AFTERNOON, PRESIDENT CAMPO, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. 
          I'M COMING BEFORE YOU TODAY TO ASK THAT YOU MODIFY THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION IN THE MATTER OF HISD VERSUS SUSAN TITTLE. 
          I'VE ACTUALLY NEVER BEEN IN THIS POSITION BEFORE, ASKING TO HAVE A BOARD CHANGE OR REJECT A RECOMMENDATION AS I'M DOING HERE TODAY. 
          AND I RECOGNIZE THAT UNDERTAKING ANY MODIFICATION OF A HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION IS A TECHNICAL AND COMPLICATED PROCESS. 
          HOWEVER, AS I HOPE YOU WILL SEE BY THE CONCLUSION OF MY PRESENTATION, THIS RECOMMENDATION DEMANDS IT. 
          AS OUTLINED IN THE MATERIALS I HAVE SHARED WITH YOU, THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION IS ERROR-LADEN FROM LITERALLY THE TOP TO THE BOTTOM. 
          AND THAT IS NOT LAWYER HYPERERBAL. 
          AND IF YOU TURN TO THE FOLDERS THAT I'VE PROVIDED YOU WITH, AND I'VE ALSO FURNISHED A COPY TO OPPOSING COUNSEL, AS WELL AS THE COURT REPORTER, THERE ARE TWO STAPLE DOCUMENTS, AND I'M GOING TO BE REFERRING PRIMARILY TO THE SECOND ONE. 
          WHICH HAS THE COMMENTS ON THE SIDE AS WELL AS EMBEDDED THROUGHOUT. 
          IF YOU LOOK AT THIS DOCUMENT, YOU WILL SEE THAT THE HEARING EXAMINER GOT THE DOCKET NUMBER WRONG AT THE VERY TOP OF THE RECOMMENDATION, AND THE ERRORS CONTINUE FROM THERE. 
          NOW, EVEN THOUGH THE ADMINISTRATION DOES NOT AGREE WITH MANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS' FACTUAL FINDINGS, WE ARE NOT GOING TO ASK YOU TO CHANGE ANY OF THEM. 
          RATHER, WE MAINTAIN THAT THE BOARD CAN ACCEPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT AS OUTLINED IN THIS RECOMMENDATION AND NEVERTHELESS DETERMINE THAT THE RECOMMENDATION TO NON-RENEWAL OF SUSAN TITTLE WAS RATIONAL AND SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND SHOULD CARRY FORWARD. 
          I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION IS FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED IN ITS LEGAL ANALYSIS BECAUSE THE HEARING EXAMINER EMPLOYED THE WRONG LEGAL STANDARD. 
          AS YOU KNOW, GOOD CAUSE IS THE LEGALLY PRESCRIBED STANDARD APPLICABLE TO THE TERMINATION OF TERM CONTRACTS AND THE MID-YEAR TERMINATION OF PROBATIONARY CONTRACTS. 
          NON-RENEWAL, WHICH IS WHAT WAS AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE, IS SUBJECT TO AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AND MUCH LOWER THRESHOLD. 
          THE QUESTION IN THE CASE OF A NON-RENEWAL IS WHETHER THE RECOMMENDATION TO NON-RENEWAL IS NUMBER 1, RATIONAL AND NUMBER 2, SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. 
          I'M GOING TO BREAK THAT DOWN. 
          RATIONAL MEANS THAT THE RECOMMENDATION IS NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. 
          LEGALLY, THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION HAS HELD THAT IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE HEARING EXAMINER OR A DIFFERENT SCHOOL BOARD MIGHT DISAGREE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION TO NON-RENEWAL. 
          AS LONG AS THERE IS A REASONABLE BASIS FOR THE RECOMMENDATION, THE NON-RENEWAL IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT. 
          AND THE SECOND ASPECT, AS I MENTIONED, IN THE ANALYSIS, IS WHETHER THE RECOMMENDATION IS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. 
          IT DOESN'T TAKE MUCH TO CLEAR THAT BAR. 
          [00:10:02]
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN DEFINED AS MORE THAN A MERE SCINTILLA. 
          EVEN THOUGH MANY OF THE FACTUAL FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THIS RECOMMENDATION MAY ARGUABLY PREPONDERATE AGAINST THE RECOMMENDATION. 
          THE RECORD, NEVERTHELESS, CONTAINS EVIDENCE, AND THE HEARING EXAMINER EVEN FOUND THAT SUSAN TITTLE GAVE A UNIT ASSESSMENT TO A STUDENT'S MOTHER IN ADVANCE OF THE TEST ADMINISTRATION, AND THAT SUSAN TITTLE COMMUNICATED WITH A STUDENT DURING INSTRUCTIONAL TIME AFTER SHE WAS NO LONGER ON THE CAMPUS. 
          FOR THOSE REASONS, WE WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU CAN ACCEPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT, AND YOU STILL HAVE SUFFICIENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO FIND THAT THE RECOMMENDATION TO NON-RENEWAL IS RATIONAL, AND YOU SHOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION. 
          NOW, AS YOU WILL SEE, AND JUST A MOMENT AS WE GO THROUGH THIS DOCUMENT, THE RECOMMENDATION IS REPLETE WITH LEGALLY ERRONEOUS REFERENCES TO GOOD CAUSE. 
          REPEATEDLY, THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER STATES AS A CONCLUSION THAT THE PETITIONER FAILED TO ESTABLISH GOOD CAUSE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE. 
          THAT INCORRECT LEGAL ANALYSIS IS THEN EMBEDDED IN THE CONCLUSIONS OF LAWS NUMBER 6, 07, AND 8. 
          AND ONE PARTICULARLY GLARING AND FRANKLY, BAFFLING ERROR IN THE RECOMMENDATION MAY BE FOUND ON PAGES 7 AND 8. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION, BUT IF YOU COULD TURN TO PAGES 7 AND 8 OF THE RECOMMENDATION, IF YOU FLIP THOSE PAGES, YOU WILL SEE THAT THE HEARING EXAMINER STATES THAT THE DISTRICT HAS CITED DFBB LOCAL REASONS 616 AND 37 AS GROUNDS FOR NON-RENEWAL. 
          NOW, IT IS TRUE THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE NON-RENEWAL NOTICE THAT MISS TITTLE RECEIVED, THOSE REASONS, THOSE NUMBERS ARE CITED IN THE NON-RENEWAL LETTER. 
          HOWEVER, IF YOU LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE SHE HAS ATTRIBUTED TO THOSE REASONS IN THE RECOMMENDATION, THEY DON'T MATCH UP WITH HISD BOARD POLICY. 
          IF YOU LOOK AT HISD BOARD POLICY DFBB LOCAL, ITEM NUMBER 6 IS NOT JOB ABANDONMENT. 
          ITEM NUMBER 16 IS NOT PUBLIC LEWDNESS OR OTHER ACTS OF MORAL TURPITUDE. 
          AND ITEM NUMBER 37 IS NOT ANY OTHER REASON DETERMINED TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE DISTRICT. 
          I CANNOT TELL YOU WHERE SHE GOT THAT LANGUAGE FROM OR WHAT SHE WAS THINKING, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT THAT IS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS. 
          AND I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU, IT CALLS INTO QUESTION THE ANALYSIS BEHIND THE ENTIRE RECOMMENDATION. 
          NOW, OBVIOUSLY, I CAN'T GO INTO DETAIL THROUGH ALL OF THE CHANGES WE'D LIKE YOU TO MAKE. 
          BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THAT DOCUMENT I REFERENCED, WE HAVE IDENTIFIED THE LEGAL BASIS FOR EVERY CHANGE WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO MAKE TO THE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 
          WE'VE ALSO IDENTIFIED SPECIFICALLY THE RATIONALE FOR THE CHANGES WE'D LIKE YOU TO MAKE TO THE DISCUSSION SECTION. 
          AND YOU WILL NOTE THAT THE COMMENT IS THE LEGAL RATIONALE THAT'S PROVIDED. 
          AND THEN IF YOU NOTICE, THROUGHOUT THE BLUE UNDERLINING IS THE ACTUAL RED LINE CHANGES THAT WE PROPOSE THAT THE BOARD MAKE. 
          THE SECOND DOCUMENT THAT YOU'VE GOT IS THE SAME DOCUMENT MINUS THE COMMENTARY ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THE PAGE. 
          SO THE SAME EXHIBIT OR THE SAME DOCUMENT, JUST MINUS THE NOTATIONS ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THE PAGE. 
          I'M GOING TO RESERVE THE REST OF MY TIME TO RESPOND TO MR. FALLON, AND I WILL BE AVAILABLE TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. 
          >> OKAY. GREAT. THANKS. MR. FALLON, YOU MAY MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD. 
          >> I REST ON TIME. OKAY. YOU GOT ME. 
          GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. 
          SO THIS IS A CASE OF ME WANTING YOU TO SAVE THEM FROM THEMSELVES. 
          THERE'S NEVER BEEN A TIME WHENEVER I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME AND TALK ABOUT A CASE IN FRONT OF YOU THAT I'VE WON BECAUSE TYPICALLY THE BOARD OR THE ADMINISTRATION SETTLES THOSE CASES. 
          I CAN SPECULATE AS TO WHY I THINK, QUITE HONESTLY, 
          [00:15:02]
IT'S A RESULT OF THEM NOT WANTING TO AIR THEIR DIRTY LAUNDRY ABOUT SOME OF THE UNDERLYING FACTS, WHICH YOU WILL HEAR TONIGHT IN THIS CASE. 
          THERE'S REASONS WHY THE JUDGE FOUND THAT THEY DIDN'T MEET THEIR BURDEN IN THIS CASE. 
          BUT LET'S START FOR A SECOND. 
          TEN MINUTES IS SUCH A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME TO GO THROUGH WHAT NEEDS TO BE GONE THROUGH LEGALLY. 
          AND I CAN'T MAKE THIS A CONTINUING EDUCATION. 
          I CAN ONLY HOPE THAT I CAN COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY AND SHOW YOU WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW. 
          WE'RE AT A TRIAL LEVEL AT THE LEVEL BELOW US. 
          THAT IS A CIVIL PROCEEDING WHERE FACTS MUST BE PROVEN BY A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE. 
          THAT IS THE STANDARD IN A CIVIL CASE. 
          FACTUAL FINDINGS HAVE TO BE SUPPORTED BY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE SUCH THAT THEY MEET THE 51% BURDEN. 
          THAT IS NO DIFFERENCE HERE THAN IN ANY OTHER PLACE IN THE UNIVERSE OF LAW IN THE UNITED STATES. 
          WHAT HAPPENS IS WHEN THE CASE GOES UP ON APPEAL, IF YOU WANT TO REVERSE A HEARING OFFICER'S FACTUAL FINDING, THEN WHAT I WOULD HAVE TO DO IF I WANTED TO DO THAT IS SHOW THAT THE RECORD DIDN'T HAVE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT FINDING. 
          THE JUDGE SAYS THE SKY WAS BLUE. 
          THERE'S NO EVIDENCE TO SAY THE SKY WAS BLUE; THERE'S NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON APPEAL. 
          SO WHAT YOU READ HERE IN THIS DECISION, AND THERE'S SO MANY TONIGHT THAT CASES THAT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GOT A CHANCE TO READ THEM. 
          THE FACTUAL FINDINGS IN THIS ARE EGREGIOUS. 
          WHAT HAPPENED TO MISS TITTLE WAS, FIRST OF ALL, SHE'S A PERSON WHO'S TAUGHT IN HISD FOR A HANDFUL OF YEARS, AND SHE'S GOTTEN FINE PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS. 
          NO ISSUES THERE. 
          SO WHAT HAPPENED IS MISS GLINDO, HER PRINCIPAL, HIRED HER OVER THE SUMMER, HAD HER COME AND TEACH AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR AND PUT HER IN WHAT THEY CALL A SELF-CONTAINED CLASS. 
          SHE'S CERTIFIED IN SPECIAL EDUCATION. 
          THE LAW REQUIRES THAT THOSE CHILDREN IN THE SELF-CONTAINED CLASS AND EIGHTH-GRADE CLASS WOULD RECEIVE THEIR INSTRUCTION IN THE PRIMARY AREAS OF MATH, SCIENCE, SOCIAL STUDIES FROM A CERTIFIED TEACHER. 
          MISS TITTLE WASN'T CERTIFIED IN THOSE AREAS. 
          SO SHE WAS ASKED TO DO THIS. 
          SHE STARTED TO DO IT, SO SHE RECEIVES LOW PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS. 
          IMMEDIATELY, SHE REACHES OUT TO MISS GLINDO IN A VERY POLITE EMAIL THAT I WISH I HAD TIME TO READ TO YOU TODAY AND EXPLAINS, SHE WAS UPSET THAT SHE GOT A LOWER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION THAN SHE HAD IN THE PAST. 
          AND THEN WHAT DOES SHE DO? SHE ASKED MISS GLINDO TO GIVE HER THE RUBRIC FOR SPED TEACHERS. 
          MISS GLINDO GIVES HER THE RUBRIC FOR A REGULAR EDUCATION TEACHER. 
          AND THEN PROCEEDS TO GO IN AND EVALUATE HER IN SPOT OBSERVATION SIX TIMES BEFORE SHE WAS REMOVED. 
          >> IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THOSE, LIKE I HAD TO DO IN THE HEARING, FOUR OF THOSE SIX WERE IN MATH. 
          AN AREA OF MRS. TITTLE IS NOT CERTIFIED TO TEACH IN AND GAVE HER LOW PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SCORES IN THAT. 
          THAT'S A PROBLEM, AND WHAT DID MRS. TITTLE DO? WHAT ANY CIVILIZED PERSON IN THIS COUNTRY WOULD DO, SHE EXERCISE HER GRIEVANCE RIGHT AFTER HAVING TRIED IN A POLITE WAY TO GET MRS. GALINDO TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND PUT HER IN CHARGE OF THE DUTIES THAT SHE'S QUALIFIED TO DO. 
          SHE FILED A GRIEVANCE. FASCINATINGLY ENOUGH, THE GRIEVANCE WAS FILED, MRS. TITTLE PUT UP WITH THIS ALL THROUGH SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER. 
          SHE FILED IT ON OCTOBER 18TH. 
          SHE GETS A FINDING BACK ON HER GRIEVANCE ON NOVEMBER 11TH. THAT'S A MONDAY. 
          NOVEMBER 11TH, MONDAY. 
          GRIEVANCE SAYS TO MRS. GALINDO. 
          SHE'S A CO TEACHER. SHE CAN DO THAT. 
          THAT'S ACCORDANCE WITH HER SPECIAL EDUCATION CERTIFICATION, BUT SHE CANNOT BE TEACHING MATH OR SCIENCE OR SOCIAL STUDIES. 
          YOU NEED TO GIVE SOMEBODY ON THE CAMPUS THE DUTY TO DO THAT AND THEN LET MRS. TITTLE DO WHAT A SPED TEACHER DOES, WHICH IS CO TEACH, HELP THAT PERSON IN THE AREAS OF THEIR DISABILITY. 
          THAT CAME DOWN ON NOVEMBER 11TH. 
          EIGHT DAYS LATER, THE FIRST MEMO CAME. 
          NO MEMOS PRIOR TO THAT. 
          ALL OF A SUDDEN, SOME SMALL MEMO OR MEMO ABOUT SOME SMALL THING SIGNING IN WAS SENT TO MRS. TITTLE. 
          THAT WAS NOVEMBER 19TH. 
          EIGHT DAYS AFTER THE GRIEVANCE. 
          ELEVEN DAYS AFTER THE GRIEVANCE, ON NOVEMBER 22ND, SHE GETS WRITTEN UP FOR A SOCIAL MEDIA POST DECEMBER 2ND, 21 DAYS AFTER, THEN SHE GETS WRITTEN UP FOR CALLING INTO WORK, AND THEN THEY REMOVE HER FOR THIS TESTING IMPROPRIETY ALLEGATION. 
          THE ALLEGATION WAS THAT SHE HAD HELPED A STUDENT CHEAT ON A TEST. 
          THEY BROUGHT THE HEAD OF STUDENT PERFORMANCE IN TO TESTIFY ABOUT WHAT LEVEL TEST THIS WAS. 
          APPARENTLY, IT WAS A UNIT TEST DESIGNED FOR CAMPUS LEVEL EVALUATIONS, AND IT WAS NOT USED FOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PURPOSES, IT WASN'T USED FOR DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS LIKE DISTRICT WIDE COMPARISONS, AND IT WASN'T USED FOR PAY. 
          [00:20:01]
IT WAS A LOW LEVEL TEST THAT SHE USED HER DISCRETION AND HER EXPERIENCE WITH THE STUDENT THAT SHE'D BEEN TEACHING AND SOME OF HIS MEMORY ISSUES TO GIVE THE TEST TO THE MOM A FACT SHE NEVER HID. 
          SHE DISCUSSED WHY SHE DID IT. 
          THE MOM COULD GO OVER IT WITH THE STUDENT, AND THE STUDENT THEN TOOK THE TEST AND CAN STILL FAIL THE TEST. 
          THEY FIRE HER IN 21 DAYS AFTER RECEIVING THE RESULT OF THE GRIEVANCE. 
          THAT IS LIKELY THE BIG REASON WHY THE JUDGE FELT THAT THE DISTRICT FAILED TO MEET THEIR BURDENS BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, BUT AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT SHE WROTE IN HER DISCUSSIONS OF THE CASE. 
          THAT IS THE THING ADMINISTRATION TYPICALLY DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE. 
          THEY WANT YOU TO BELIEVE THAT THEIR PRINCIPALS WOULD NEVER RETALIATE AGAINST SOMEBODY FOR FILING A GRIEVANCE, THAT THEY WOULD NEVER RETALIATE AGAINST SOMEBODY FOR TRYING TO MAKE AN EDUCATIONAL CHANGE, THAT THE LAW TELLS THEM THEY SHOULD BE ABIDING. 
          MRS. GALINDO DIDN'T CARE. 
          I DON'T MEAN TO BE ELEVATED WITH YOU. 
          I KNOW THAT ANGRY PEOPLE ARE OFF PUTTING, BUT THIS IS UPSETTING. 
          THE HEARING OFFICER ADDRESSED ALL THESE THINGS IN DETAIL, AND ULTIMATELY FOUND THAT THEY DIDN'T PRESENT CREDIBLE EVIDENCE IN THE HEARING TO MEET THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE TO PROVE ANY FACTUAL ASSERTION TO SUPPORT THE TERMINATION, AND THEY GO ON AND SHE TALKS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT HOW THAT HAPPENED, AND IF I MAY, IT'S THAT WHEN MRS. GALINDO TESTIFIED ON DIRECT EXAMINATION, THEY PRESENT MRS. GALINDO, AND SHE TALKS ABOUT THE CASE. 
          SHE GOES THROUGH AND DESCRIBES POOR PERFORMANCE AND ALL THE ISSUES IN THE CASE AND NEVER ONCE TALKS ABOUT THE FACT THAT SHE'S EVALUATING HER OUTSIDE OF HER AREA OF CERTIFICATION. 
          THAT'S LIKE HAVING A CRIMINAL LAWYER BEING EVALUATED FOR DOING A PROBATE CASE. 
          THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING IF THEY'RE NOT CERTIFIED IN THE AREA. 
          SHE GOES THROUGH HER DIRECT EXAMINATION, DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING TO THE HEARING OFFICER ABOUT THAT. 
          AFTER A GOOD 45 MINUTES OR AN HOUR OF CROSS EXAMINATION, WHILE SHE DENIED THAT SHE WAS DOING IT, MEANING EVALUATING HER OUTSIDE OF HER AREA OF CERTIFICATION, I WALKED HER THROUGH HER COMMENTS WHERE SHE'S TALKING ABOUT GEOMETRY. 
          SHE WAS FORCED TO ADMIT. 
          WELL, THAT LOOKS LIKE MATH. 
          THAT MAY BE WHY THE JUDGE THOUGHT, GOSH, THIS IS PROBABLY NOT GOOD EVIDENCE. 
          LET'S BRIEFLY OR QUICKLY MOVE ON TO WHAT THE HEARING OFFICER DID. 
          THEIR CONTENTION IS THAT THE HEARING OFFICER APPLIED THE WRONG STANDARD. 
          BY THE WAY, WHY THEY TELL YOU THAT THE STANDARD IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, IT IS NOT IT'S A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE. 
          THEY MUST PROVE THEIR FACTS BY A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE. 
          WHAT THEY PROVE IS HAS TO BE IN A NON RENEWAL CASE LISTED IN BOARD POLICY, THOSE HAVE TO HAVE A RATIONAL BASIS. 
          THEY CAN'T HAVE A RATIONAL BASIS FOR NON RENEWAL OR AN IRRATIONAL BASIS FOR NON RENEWAL. 
          IN THIS CASE, THOUGH, LET'S REST ASSURED THAT IN THE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, WHICH IS ONE MERE PAGE, MAYBE SOMEONE ON THE NEXT PAGE. 
          ON PAGE 12, SHE WRITES IN HER CONCLUSION OF LAW 7, THE DISTRICT FAILED TO MEET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF ON ANY OF THE GROUNDS CITED IN THE NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED NON RENEWAL, AND SHE LISTS OUT ALL OF THE REASONS WORD FOR WORD THAT WERE LISTED IN THE ORIGINAL NOTICE LETTER. 
          IF I HAVE TO DEFEND THIS CASE ON APPEAL, I WILL BE ABLE TO SHOW A JUDGE EITHER AT THE TEA OR IN DISTRICT COURT IN TRAVIS COUNTY THAT THE HEARING OFFICER CITED AND ADDRESSED THE STANDARD THAT WAS CITED TO HER IN THE NOTICE LETTER. 
          NOW HER DISCUSSION MAY HAVE SOME THINGS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION DOESN'T LIKE, AND THERE MAY BE SOME ERRORS IN IT, BUT IF YOU READ THROUGH THEM AND YOU READ THROUGH THE EVIDENCE, WHICH IS A LOT IF YOU HAVE AS MANY CASES AS YOU HAVE, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE UNDERLYING FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE SHAMEFUL. 
          THEY'RE SHAMEFUL. 
          THEY NEED TO MANAGE THESE PRINCIPLES BETTER SO THAT WHENEVER SOMEBODY IS BEING ASKED TO TEACH OUTSIDE OF THEIR CERTIFICATION, THEY DON'T SIT ANY IN THIS TABLE RIGHT HERE. 
          THAT'S NOT FAIR. I WOULD ASK THAT YOU UPHOLD THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER IN THIS CASE, AND PUT MRS. TITTLE BACK TO WORK. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> I THINK I HAVE TWO MINUTES. 
          >> 2.5 I THINK [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> WELL, I CANNOT SAY THAT I'VE PERSONALLY BEEN PRESENT FOR EVERY ONE OF MR. FALLON'S PREVIOUS ARGUMENTS WHERE HE WAS TRYING TO REVERSE OR MODIFY A HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION, BUT I CAN PRETTY WELL GUARANTEE YOU BASED ON AT LEAST MY ATTENDANCE AND A NUMBER OF THOSE, THAT HE WAS ASKING THE BOARD TO REJECT OR CHANGE FINDINGS OF FACT. 
          [00:25:01]
WE AREN'T DOING THAT. 
          THE ADMINISTRATION IS SAYING TO THE BOARD THAT EVEN IF YOU ACCEPT THESE FINDINGS, SOME OF WHICH WE DO NOT AGREE WITH, BUT EVEN IF YOU ACCEPT THOSE, THERE IS STILL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD WHICH SUPPORTS THE NON RENEWAL. 
          THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE HEARING EXAMINER USED THE WRONG STANDARD THROUGHOUT HER RECOMMENDATION, INSISTING THAT WE DID NOT ESTABLISH GOOD CAUSE. 
          SHE MAY BE RIGHT, BUT THAT'S NOT THE LEGAL STANDARD IN A NON RENEWAL. 
          TO ESTABLISH A NON RENEWAL AND TO CARRY FORWARD WITH THE NON RENEWAL, YOU HAVE TO SHOW THAT A TEACHER GOT NOTICE. 
          SHE DID. YOU HAVE AND IN FACT, THE HEARING EXAMINER AGREED WITH THAT. 
          YOU HAVE TO GIVE NOTICE OF AND NUMBER 2, THE REASONS STATED IN BOARD POLICY, WHICH WE DID, AND THERE HAS TO BE A EVIDENCE OR THERE HAS TO BE A DEMONSTRATION THAT THOSE WERE, IN FACT, THE REASONS THAT THE BOARD PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WE DID. 
          WE DON'T HAVE TO SHOW GOOD CAUSE TO ESTABLISH THOSE REASONS. 
          WE JUST HAVE TO SHOW THAT THOSE WERE REASONS THAT MAY BE FOUND IN HISD BOARD POLICY. 
          ALL WE'RE ASKING YOU TO DO IS TO RECOGNIZE THE CORRECT LEGAL STANDARD, WHICH IS OUTLINED AND DISCUSSED THROUGHOUT THE RED LINE VERSION I GAVE YOU, TO APPLY THAT TO THE FACTS IN THIS CASE, AND IF YOU DO THAT, YOU WILL FIND THAT AT LEAST FOR TWO OF THE FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THERE IS, IN FACT, EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CHANGING THE CONCLUSIONS. 
          WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU TO CHANGE ANYTHING RELATED TO HER PERFORMANCE OR HER ATTENDANCE. 
          WE'RE ASKING YOU SIMPLY TO CHANGE THE CONCLUSIONS TO REFLECT THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND IT WAS RATIONAL TO RECOMMEND HER NON RENEWAL BASED ON NUMBER 1, THE FACT THAT SHE PROVIDED A UNIT ASSESSMENT TO A STUDENT'S MOTHER IN ADVANCE OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THAT TEST, AND NUMBER 2, THAT MRS. TITTLE ELECTRONICALLY COMMUNICATED WITH A STUDENT DURING THAT STUDENT'S INSTRUCTIONAL TIME AFTER SHE WAS NO LONGER ON THE CAMPUS. 
          THOSE ARE THE ONLY PIECES OF FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS THAT WE'RE ASKING YOU TO FOCUS ON. 
          THE REMAINDER WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU TO BASE THE NON RENEWAL ON, BUT IF YOU LOOK [BACKGROUND] 
          >> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES? I WOULD EXPECT THAT WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO NEED TO GO AND DISCUSS THIS FOR SURE. 
          IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OF THE COUNCIL, GO AHEAD BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO GO TALK TO OUR COUNCIL HERE IN A MINUTE. 
          >> I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. 
          IF YOU COULD DESCRIBE THE BASIC CONTENTION YOU'RE MAKING IS THAT THE ULTIMATE FINDING IS INCORRECT, BUT THE FACTS ARE CORRECT. 
          THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. 
          >> YOU AGREE WITH THE FACTS. 
          >> YOU GO TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE. 
          >> WE DON'T AGREE WITH THE FACTS, BUT WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU TO MODIFY THEM. 
          OUR POSITION IS THAT IF YOU ACCEPT THOSE FACTS, AND THEN YOU EMPLOY THE CORRECT LEGAL ANALYSIS THAT'S APPLICABLE TO NON RENEWALS, NOT TERMINATIONS, IF YOU UTILIZE THE CORRECT LEGAL ANALYSIS, THEN THERE WE HAVE ESTABLISHED, WE BELIEVE A REASON FOR CHANGING THE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND THEN THE ULTIMATE RECOMMENDATION. 
          >> I'M SURE YOU'VE DEALT WITH A NUMBER OF THESE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINATIONS. 
          WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THESE WOULD YOU SAY THAT TOWARDS, WHERE YOU SAY THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION IS INCORRECT? 
          >> AS I MENTIONED, I'VE ACTUALLY NEVER HAD TO DO THIS BEFORE. 
          I'VE NEVER HAD TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD OR ANY BOARD ASKING TO HAVE ANY ASPECT OF A RECOMMENDATION CHANGED. 
          I WAS HERE ROUGHLY A MONTH AGO ON A DIFFERENT CASE, AND THAT WAS ACTUALLY A TERMINATION CASE, AND AGAIN, A NUMBER OF THE FACTS WERE ONES THAT THE ADMINISTRATION DIDN'T AGREE WITH, AGAIN, I ASKED THAT YOU UPHOLD THAT RECOMMENDATION. 
          I'VE NEVER ACTUALLY HAD TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD AND ASK TO HAVE A CONCLUSION OF LAW CHANGE. 
          I WILL ALSO NOTE THAT THE COMMISSIONER HAS HELD ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS, AND THIS HAS ALSO BEEN UPHELD IN AN ISSUE THAT'S GONE ALL THE WAY TO 
          [00:30:04]
THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT THAT UNLIKE CHANGING FINDINGS OF FACT, WHICH IS FRANKLY A VERY PERILOUS TRAIL FOR A SCHOOL DISTRICT TO GO DOWN. 
          THE SCHOOL AND I'M QUOTING LANGUAGE FROM MULTIPLE HEARING COMMISSIONER DECISIONS, A SCHOOL BOARD HAS CONSIDERABLE DISCRETION WHEN CHANGING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 
          THAT'S THE TERMINOLOGY THAT YOU'LL FIND IN THE COMMISSIONER'S DECISIONS AS WELL AS APPELLATE COURT DECISIONS, CONSIDERABLE DISCRETION. 
          THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE SITUATION WITH CHANGING FINDINGS OF FACT. 
          THE QUESTION ABOUT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW GENERALLY RESIDES WITH THE PURVIEW OF THE SCHOOL BOARD. 
          >> OTHER QUESTIONS? PLEASE. 
          >> THANK YOU MR. GORE. UNTIL THIS YEAR, I'VE NEVER HAD ONE WHERE THEY CHALLENGED IT AND TRIED TO REVERSE IT IN HISD. 
          I'VE GOT TWO TONIGHT AND I SAW ONE ONLINE FROM EARLIER IN THE YEAR WHERE THEY WERE DOING IT. 
          IT'S A NEW TREND IN HISD, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY A TREND TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION BECAUSE WHILE [OVERLAPPING]. 
          KNOWN MYRA A LONG TIME. WHILE MYRA MAY NOT HAVE HAD IT. 
          NOW WE HAVE IT FREQUENTLY. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> THAT HELPS. 
          >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THE BOARD WILL NOW RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION UNDER CHAPTER 551 OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, OPEN MEETINGS ACT SECTION 551.004-355-1089. 
          SHOULD BOARD FINAL ACTION, VOTE OR DECISION ON ANY MATTER CONSIDERING THE CLOSED SESSION BE REQUIRED? SUCH FINAL ACTION, VOTE OR DECISION SHALL BE TAKEN AT AN OPEN MEETING CONVEYED BY THIS NOTICE UPON THE RECONVENING OF THIS PUBLIC MEETING OR AT A SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC MEETING AT THE BOARD UPON NOTICE THERE. 
          IT IS 5:33. 
          WE ARE NOW IN CLOSED SESSION. 
          THANK YOU. THIS SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE HOUSTON DEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IS NOW RECONVENED IN OPEN SESSION AT 6:08 P.M. DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? 
          >> YES, PLEASE. I MOVE THAT WE MAKE CHANGES TO THE CERTIFIED HEARING EXAMINER'S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, NUMBER 6, 7 AND 8, FOR THE REASONS CITED IN THE ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSED CHANGES SUBMITTED BY MYRA CHICKERING, THAT WE MAKE CHANGES TO THE UNNUMBERED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOUND IN THE HEARING EXAMINERS DISCUSSION SECTION FOR THE REASONS CITED IN THE ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSED CHANGES SUBMITTED BY MYRA CHICKERING, THAT WE ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED BY MYRA CHICKERING, AND CONSISTENT WITH THOSE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, I MOVE THAT WE NON RENEW SUSAN TITTLE'S TERM CONTRACT. 
          >> IS THERE A SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. WILL MEMBERS, PLEASE VOTE. 
          VOTING HAS CLOSED, THE MOTION PASSES. 
          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, THE SEATING IS CONCLUDED AT 6:09 P.M. 
          [BACKGROUND] PARTIES READY TO GO. 
          THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF BRIAN TUCKER, TEACHER AT SHADOWBRIAR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. 
          HEARINGS INVOLVING COMPLAINTS AGAINST DISTRICT EMPLOYEES ARE TO BE HELD IN CLOSED SESSION, LESS EMPLOYEE WHO IS SUBJECT TO THE HEARING REQUESTS AN OPEN HEARING. 
          IF BOTH PARTIES REQUEST AN OPEN SESSION DURING THE HEARING, THE BOARD SHALL GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSULT WITH ITS ATTORNEY UNDER THE TERMS OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.071. 
          ANY BOARD MEMBER WISH TO SEEK ADVICE OF COUNCIL, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. 
          [00:35:03]
FOR THE RECORD, JAMES FALLON OR JAMES T. FALLON THE 3RD LLC, REPRESENTING BRIAN TUCKER IS PRESENT. 
          ASHLEY YE, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNCIL, REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION IS PRESENT. 
          CATOSHA WOODS, HISD, GENERAL COUNCIL IS ALSO PRESENT. 
          MR. FALLON, DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE OPEN OR CLOSED? 
          >> OPEN. 
          >> OPEN, IT IS. 
          >> THE ISSUES BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD OR WHETHER TO ACCEPT OR REJECT OR CHANGE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINERS FINDING OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND PROPOSAL BASED ON A REVIEW OF THE RECORD. 
          WE MAY REJECT OR CHANGE A FINDING OF FACT IF, AFTER REVIEWING THE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINERS, WE FIND IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. 
          IF WE REJECT THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION OR MAKE ANY CHANGES, YOU MUST STATE THE REASON AND A LEGAL BASIS IN WRITING. 
          MS. YE, YOU WILL PROCEED FIRST. 
          YOU MAY BE ALLOWED A TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD, FOLLOWED BY A TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION BY MR. FALLON. 
          YOU MAY RESERVE PART OF YOUR TIME IF YOU WANT TO, AND DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT? DO YOU WANT TO DIVIDE YOUR TIME OR DO YOU WANT TO JUST GO UNTIL YOU'RE DONE, AND THEN WHATEVER YOU LEFT, YOU CAN ADD? NINE AND ONE. GOOD. YOU MAY BEGIN. 
          >> GOOD EVENING, PRESIDENT CAMPO, BOARD MEMBERS. 
          JOINING ME TODAY IS DORCAS SABETH PARA MALEK, AND SHE IS THE PRINCIPAL AT SHADOWBRIAR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. 
          WE ARE HERE TODAY ASKING THE BOARD TO UPHOLD THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS OF FACT FOR REJECT HER RECOMMENDATION. 
          ON APRIL 16, THIS BOARD HAD APPROVED THE PROPOSED NON-RENEWAL OF MR. TUCKER'S 24/25 CONTRACT BASED ON SEVERAL DFBB REASONS, BUT SPECIFICALLY, WE'LL BE FOCUSING ON HIS EXCESSIVE ABSENCES, THE DEFICIENCIES POINTED OUT IN HIS OBSERVATIONS AND HIS PROFESSIONALISM. 
          STARTING WITH MR. TUCKER'S ABSENCES, THE HEARING EXAMINER MADE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT. 
          THAT ALL TEACHERS ARE STATUTORILY GIVEN FIVE STATE PERSONAL LEAVE DAYS, AND THIS DISTRICT OFFERS AN ADDITIONAL FIVE LOCAL LEAVE DAYS TO OUR TEACHERS FOR A TOTAL OF 10 PERSONAL LEAVE DAYS. 
          THESE PERSONAL LEAVE DAYS CAN BE ACCRUED, BUT ALL DISTRICT EMPLOYEES ARE LIMITED TO USING A TOTAL OF 15 PERSONAL LEAVE DAYS A YEAR IF THEY HAVE IT IN THEIR LEAVE BANK. 
          NOW, ONCE A TEACHER EXHAUSTS THEIR STATE AND LOCAL LEAVE TIME, ABSENT BEING ON ANY TYPE OF PROTECTED LEAVE, THEY GO INTO UNPAID STATUS AND ACCRUED DAYS, THEN THEY ARE IN VIOLATION OF BOARD POLICY DC EIGHT REGULATION. 
          MR. TUCKER HAD CARRIED OVER 31 HOURS FROM THE PREVIOUS SCHOOL YEAR, GIVING HIM A TOTAL OF 13.875 PERSONAL LEAVE DAYS TO USE FOR THE 24/25 SCHOOL YEAR. 
          THIS IS BASED ON TESTIMONY FROM MS. IKIMOPA, WHO IS OUR DIRECTOR OF LEAVE ADMINISTRATION, AND HER TESTIMONY CAN BE FOUND ON PAGE 33 OF YOUR TRANSCRIPT. 
          NOW, DESPITE HAVING ONLY 13.875 PERSONAL LEAVE DAYS TO USE, MR. TUCKER HAD A TOTAL OF 20.3 ABSENCES FOR THE 24/25 SCHOOL YEAR, NOT INCLUDING ANY OF THOSE ABSENCES WHILE HE WAS OUT FOR FMLA. 
          OF THE 20.3 ABSENCES, SEVEN OF THOSE DAYS WERE UNPAID OR DOCKED DAYS. 
          THIS WAS A FINDING THAT WAS MADE BY THE HEARING EXAMINER AND ADMITTED TO BY MR. TUCKER HIMSELF. 
          HOWEVER, MR. TUCKER HAD CONTESTED AT THE HEARING THAT HE SHOULD HAVE CARRIED OVER 5.42 ADDITIONAL HOURS FROM THE PREVIOUS SCHOOL YEAR INTO THE 24/25 SCHOOL YEAR BECAUSE HE WAS ON HOME DUTY, AND HE BELIEVED THAT HE WAS MISTAKENLY MARKED AS ABSENT. 
          THIS HEARING EXAMINER THEN DECIDED TO RECALCULATE MR. TUCKER'S ENTIRE ABSENCE HISTORY COUNT, AND ON HER OWN VOLITION, CREDITED MR. TUCKER WITH FIVE ADDITIONAL PERSONAL LEAVE DAYS. 
          NOW, THESE FIVE ADDITIONAL DAYS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY TESTIMONY NOR ANY EVIDENCE. 
          WHAT THE EVIDENCE DOES SHOW AND BASED ON THE FINDINGS THAT SHE DID FIND FOR, IS THAT MR. TUCKER'S ABSENCE HISTORY REPORT SHOWED THAT HE WAS ABSENT FOR 20.3 DAYS, AND SEVEN OF THOSE DAYS WERE UNPAID. 
          EVEN BEFORE MR. TUCKER HAD WENT OUT ON FMLA ON NOVEMBER 21, HE WAS IN VIOLATION OF DEC 8 WHEN HE TOOK HIS FIRST UNPAID DAY ON NOVEMBER 14. 
          THEREFORE, THIS HEARING EXAMINER'S OWN FINDINGS OF FACT SHOULD HAVE ESTABLISHED MR. TUCKER VIOLATED THE ABSENTEEISM POLICY UNDER DEC 8. 
          ASIDE THOUGH FROM HIS EXCESSIVE ABSENCES, THE ADMINISTRATION HAD POINTED OUT DEFICIENCIES IN 
          [00:40:01]
HIS OBSERVATIONS, SPECIFICALLY SPOT OBSERVATIONS. 
          THE HEARING EXAMINER FOUND ONCE AGAIN IN HER OWN FINDINGS OF FACT THAT MR. TUCKER HAD A TOTAL OF 10 SPOT OBSERVATIONS FOR THE 24/25 SCHOOL YEAR, AND OTHER THE 10 SPOT OBSERVATIONS, MR. TUCKER NEVER ONCE RECEIVED A SCORE THAT WAS PROFICIENT. 
          THIS DISTRICT REQUIRES OUR TEACHERS TO BE AT A PROFICIENT THRESHOLD. 
          BUT AT THE MIDDLE OF THE YEAR CONFERENCE, MR. TUCKER HAD RECEIVED A SPOT AVERAGE OF SEVEN, AND AN AVERAGE OF SEVEN CORRESPONDS TO A PROGRESSING TWO PROFICIENCY LEVEL. 
          MR. TUCKER'S APPRAISER HAD PROVIDED HIM WITH COACHING THROUGH VERBAL AND WRITTEN FEEDBACK WHEN NECESSARY, AND THE SCHOOL PROVIDED PLCS, DEMO DAYS, AT-BAT SESSIONS, IN WHICH HE PARTICIPATED IN ALL OF THEM. 
          MR. TUCKER'S APPRAISER HAD TESTIFIED THAT SHE ADDRESSED WITH HIM HIS PERFORMANCE CONCERNS AND GAVE HIM REPEATEDLY THE SAME DIRECTIVE TO DIFFERENTIATE INSTRUCTION FOR STUDENTS WITH DIFFERENT DISABILITIES BY USING EFFECTIVE ENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES. 
          HOWEVER, BY THE END OF THE YEAR CONFERENCE, MR. TUCKER'S SPOT AVERAGE STILL EQUATED TO A PROGRESSING PROFICIENCY LEVEL. 
          NOW, DESPITE THESE FINDINGS, THE HEARING EXAMINER BELIEVED THAT THERE WAS A MISALIGNMENT BETWEEN HIS 24/25 SCHOOL YEARS PERFORMANCE AND HIS PRIOR PERFORMANCE FROM THE PREVIOUS YEARS. 
          MIND YOU, THIS DISTRICT HAS SHIFTED ITS CURRICULUM DURING THE 23-24 SCHOOL YEAR AFTER TA'S INTERVENTION, AND MR. TUCKER DIDN'T EVEN RECEIVE A SCORE DURING THE 23-24 SCHOOL YEAR. 
          NOW FOR THE 24/25 SCHOOL YEAR, MR. TUCKER'S CONSISTENT PERFORMANCE DEFICIENCIES SHOWED A LACK OF GROWTH AND IMPROVEMENT AND MEANING THIS DISTRICT'S NEW STANDARD OF INSTRUCTION. 
          ADDITIONALLY, THIS HEARING EXAMINER BELIEVED THAT MR. TUCKER'S PERFORMANCE DID NOT ALIGN WITH THE SCORE THAT HE RECEIVED FOR OUR STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AT THE MOYC OR THE MIDDLE OF THE YEAR CONFERENCE. 
          HOWEVER, AT THE HEARING, PRINCIPAL PARA HAD MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT PORTION FOR THE MOYC IS BASED ON MR. TUCKER'S OWN SELF EVALUATION, WHETHER HE BELIEVED THAT HIS STUDENTS HAVE MET THEIR GOALS. 
          IT IS NOT INDICATIVE OF HIS ACTUAL PERFORMANCE. 
          PRINCIPAL PARAS' TESTIMONY CAN BE FOUND ON PAGES 253 AND 254 OF YOUR TRANSCRIPT. 
          THEREFORE, THIS HEARING EXAMINER'S OWN FINDINGS OF FACT, ONCE AGAIN, SHOULD HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT MR. TUCKER'S PERFORMANCE DEFICIENCY BASED ON HIS SPOT OBSERVATIONS EXISTED. 
          FURTHERMORE, THIS HEARING EXAMINER FOUND IN HER FINDINGS THAT MR. TUCKER HAD VIOLATED DH LOCAL NUMBER 9, FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIVES OF HIS SUPERVISOR. 
          ON MARCH 28, MR. TUCKER HAD RECEIVED A MEMO FOR INSUBORDINATION AFTER PRINCIPAL PARA HAD DIRECTED HIM TO COMPLY WITH HIS SUPERVISOR'S REQUEST TO PROVIDE A LIST OF HIS STUDENTS. 
          MR. TUCKER'S RESPONSE WAS NO, AND DID NOT COMPLY WITH THIS REQUEST. 
          ON A SEPARATE MEMO FOR PROFESSIONALISM, PRINCIPAL PARA HAD DIRECTED MR. TUCKER NOT TO CC INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE NOT PRIVY TO THEIR CONVERSATION. 
          TO REFRAIN FROM USING A DISRESPECTFUL TONE IN EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE. 
          HOWEVER, IN AN APRIL EMAIL EXCHANGE BETWEEN PRINCIPAL PARA AND MR. TUCKER. 
          WHEN SHE ASKED HIM TO MAKE UP IT AT THAT SESSION DAY, HE HAD BLIND COPIED THE ENTIRE SCHOOL STAFF AND EMAILED AND RESPONDED TO PRINCIPAL PARA BY STATING, YOU'RE NOT BEING HONEST AGAIN. 
          WHAT ABOUT WHEN YOU CAN'T BE FOUND ON CAMPUS, WHEN YOU'RE AT HOME TAKING CARE OF YOUR MOTHER IN LAW, SOUNDS MORE LIKE RETALIATION. 
          PRINCIPAL PARA FOUND THIS RESPONSE TO BE OFFENSIVE AND UNPROFESSIONAL, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT SHE ATTENDED HER MOTHER IN LAW'S FUNERAL THAT DAY. 
          BOARD MEMBERS, THIS WAS A NON-RENEWAL HEARING WHERE THE ADMINISTRATION'S THRESHOLD TO PROVE THE DFBB REASONS WERE VERY LOW, WHERE OUR BURDEN TO PROVE IS A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, IS IT MORE LIKELY THAN NOT. 
          BUT IT IS EVIDENT THAT THIS HEARING EXAMINER HELD THE ADMINISTRATION TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF GOOD CAUSE AS SHE REFERENCED IT THROUGHOUT HER RECOMMENDATION. 
          THIS HEARING EXAMINER'S OWN FINDINGS OF FACT SHOULD HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT THE ADMINISTRATION MET ITS BURDEN. 
          WE ARE ASKING THIS BOARD TO REJECT THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION AND TO ADOPT THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS THAT HISD DID PROVE BY THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE HOW MR. TUCKER'S EXCESSIVE ABSENCES VIOLATED BOARD POLICY DEC 8, THAT THERE WERE DEFICIENCIES POINTED OUT IN HIS SPOT OBSERVATIONS, AND THAT HE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH BOARD POLICY DH LOCAL NUMBER 1, NUMBER 3, NUMBER 9. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. 
          [00:45:10]
          >> I LIKE TO GIVE EVERYBODY THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT, AND EVEN WHENEVER I'M IN THESE HEARINGS WITH ADMINISTRATORS THAT I KNOW ARE LYING, I LIKE TO GIVE THEM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT THAT MAYBE WHEN I PRESENT MY CASE AND THEY'VE BEEN CROSS EXAMINED AND CONFRONTED WITH THE THINGS THAT SHOW A JUDGE WHY I THINK THEY'RE LYING, THAT WHEN THEY ARE LYING, THAT THEY MAY CHANGE THEIR MIND. 
          YOU KNOW WHAT, IN THESE HEARINGS, THEY'VE NEVER DONE IT. 
          BUT I'VE ALWAYS HAD A FINDER OF FACT BACK THERE THAT I REASONABLY BELIEVED IN. 
          A BOARD THAT I COULD COUNT ON FOR 30 YEARS TO SUPPORT THOSE JUDGES IN THEIR OPINIONS. 
          IN MY FIRST CASE, I SAID SHAME ON THEM. 
          I SAY SHAME ON YOU. 
          YOU, THIS BOARD, ARE THERE TO LOOK AT THESE HEARINGS AND DECIDE, DO I WANT TO SUPPORT A TERMINATION WHEN MY PRINCIPAL IS RETALIATING AGAINST THIS PERSON, THIS HUMAN BEING WHO IS A TEACHER? THIS MAN, BRIAN TUCKER, HAS BEEN WITH THIS DISTRICT FOR 22 YEARS. 
          BEFORE LAST YEAR, HE HAD OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS. 
          IT'S UNCONTESTED. 
          IT'S UNCONTESTED. 
          WHAT HAPPENED IN TWO YEARS AGO, ON DECEMBER 8, HE GAVE A SERIES OF INTERVIEWS BEFORE YOU CHANGED YOUR MEDIATE POLICY, YOU COULDN'T FIRE HIM FOR WHAT HE SAID. 
          HE CONTESTED IN A VERY PROFESSIONAL WAY THE CHANGES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION. 
          HE ADDRESSED AN ISSUE OF PUBLIC CONCERN, AND WHAT HAPPENED ON DECEMBER 8, YOUR ADMINISTRATION REMOVED HIM UNDER AN INVESTIGATION, TOOK HIM OUT OF THE CLASSROOM. 
          THEN WHAT HAPPENED? HE STAYED OUT OF THE CLASSROOM. 
          WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY. 
          A VETERAN OF 20 SOMETHING YEARS AT THE TIME THAT HAD PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS AT THIS LEVEL, TOOK HIM OUT, DON'T WANT HIM, DON'T NEED HIM, DON'T CARE WHY, BECAUSE HE'S SMART ENOUGH TO RECOGNIZE WHEN THE CURRICULUM IS BAD. 
          THEN WHAT HAPPENS? YOU LET HIM GO THROUGH THE SPRING, AND THEN YOU NO LONGER KNEW HIM. 
          WHY? REDUCTION IN FORCE. 
          WELL, GOSH, HE'S A SPECIAL EDUCATION CERTIFIED TEACHER. 
          HE IS A MAN WHO IS IN NEED FOR HIS PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION AND QUALIFICATIONS. 
          OF COURSE, THEY PUT HIM BACK TO WORK, AND WHAT HAPPENS? THIS TERMINATION HAPPENS. 
          WHY DO YOU THINK THE HEARING OFFICER LOOKED AT THE FACTS PRESENTED TO HER AND SAID, GOSH, I THINK SOMETHING SMELLS FUNNY HERE. 
          BECAUSE THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE PRINCIPAL, WHICH I'M SURE SHE WAS TOLD TO DO, TOLD TO GO IN THERE AND GIVE HIM LOW EVALUATIONS, DIDN'T JIVE WITH THE PRIOR 20 SOMETHING YEARS OF HIS PROFESSIONAL CAREER. 
          IT ALSO DIDN'T DIVE WITH HIS PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS OF THE STUDENTS. 
          HIS STUDENTS WERE GIVING HIM 15 OUT OF 15, AND THEIR PROGRESSION OF THEIR IEPS. 
          THERE WAS A LACK OF ALIGNMENT BETWEEN WHAT THEY WERE DOING. 
          THAT'S NOT ALL. WHAT ELSE HAPPENED? WELL, BECAUSE OF THE PRIOR TIME YOU TRIED TO FIRE HIM, HE WAS PUT IN THE CLASSROOM BACK IN MID AUGUST. 
          IN MID AUGUST, THEY PUT HIM BACK IN THE CLASSROOM. 
          HE HAD MISSED THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. 
          ALL THE STUFF WHERE THEY TEACH YOU WHAT YOU'RE BEING EVALUATED ON. THAT WAS T TEST. 
          THE PRIOR YEAR, HE WAS NEVER EVALUATED ON T TEST BECAUSE YOU TOOK HIM OUT OF THE CLASSROOM. 
          HE NEVER HAD A PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USING THE INSTRUMENT THAT THEY USED THIS YEAR. 
          YOU KNOW WHAT HE DID, WHAT A SMART PERSON WOULD DO. 
          HE POLITELY ASKED HIS PRINCIPAL, I DON'T KNOW, SEVEN DIFFERENT TIMES THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. 
          HEY, COULD YOU GIVE ME SOME GUIDANCE ON HOW YOU'RE GOING TO EVALUATE ME? THEY NEVER GOT AROUND TO IT. THEY FINALLY DID BEFORE THE ONE FORMAL OBSERVATION. 
          YOU ALL HAVE TO GIVE HIM ONE FORMAL OBSERVATION BEFORE YOU FIRE HIM OR BEFORE YOU USE THOSE SCORES AGAINST HIM. 
          ONE OF THE VERY FEW RULES YOU HAVE IS YOU HAVE TO GIVE HIM HIS INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION WORKS. 
          THEY DIDN'T DO THAT UNTIL MARCH. THEY DIDN'T. 
          HE'S SUPPOSED TO HAVE A TWO WEEK PERIOD OF TIME WHERE HE'S BEEN GIVEN HIS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION INFORMATION. 
          HE'S IN SERVICE OVER IT. 
          THEY WAITED UNTIL MARCH TO DO IT, 10 DAYS BEFORE THEY GAVE HIM THE FORMAL OBSERVATION. 
          THEY CAN'T EVEN FOLLOW THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL AND SIMPLE OF RULES THAT YOU GIVE TO THEM, WHICH IS PROBABLY WHY YOU'LL KEEP CHANGING THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TO LESSEN THE RULES FOR THEM. 
          THEY CAN JUST ARBITRARILY GO IN THERE AND SAY, WELL, IT'S NOT ABOUT WHAT YOU SAID IN THE PRESS, MR. TUCKER, YOU'RE JUST A BAD TEACHER ALL OF A SUDDEN. 
          SORRY. THAT'S WHY THE HEARING OFFICER WROTE THIS DECISION, WHERE SHE DOESN'T RELY ON GOOD CAUSE. 
          THAT'S A LIE. 
          IN THIS CASE, THAT IS NOT WHAT SHE SAID. 
          GO BACK AND TALK TO YOUR LAWYER AND HAVE YOUR LAWYER LIE TO YOU ABOUT WHAT THE LAW SAYS, BUT ON APPEAL, YOU'LL BE READING ONE DAY THAT IN HER FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, 
          [00:50:03]
SHE SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES THE ISSUES FOR NON-RENEWAL. 
          GOOD CAUSE IS A REASON FOR NON-RENEWAL IN EVERY ONE OF THE CASES. 
          GOOD CAUSE IS IN THERE ALONG WITH ALL THE OTHER THINGS, AND SHE SAYS, I ADDRESSED IT. 
          THEY DIDN'T HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR IT. 
          SINCE I HAVE 5 MINUTES, LET'S TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THESE ABSENCES. 
          LET'S LOOK AT THE LITTLE ADMINISTRATIVE TRICK THAT THEY DID. 
          THEY CHANGED A WORKDAY. 
          THEY ALWAYS HAVE BEEN COUNTED AS 7.75 HOURS. 
          THIS YEAR, THEY CHANGED IT TO EIGHT. 
          WHAT DOES THAT DO? LET'S JUST SAY THAT YOU HAVE 100 HOURS STORED UP BECAUSE YOU'RE A GOOD EMPLOYEE, AND YOU GO TO WORK, YOU HAD 100 HOURS STORED UP. 
          OR NO, LET'S JUST SAY YOU HAD 100 DAYS. 
          THAT MEANS YOU HAVE 775 HOURS. 
          IF YOU DIVIDE THAT NOW BY THE NEW WORKDAY OF 8 HOURS, YOU SHORT PEOPLE DAYS. 
          YOUR POLICY DOESN'T GIVE THEM HOURS, IT GIVES THEM DAYS. 
          IN THE PAST, THE POLICY DOESN'T ADDRESS THE STORAGE OF HOURS, IT ADDRESSED THE STORAGE OF DAYS. 
          BUT BY THIS LITTLE ADMINISTRATIVE MANEUVER, THEY SHORT PEOPLE LIKE MR. TUCKER IN THESE HIGH STAKES TERMINATION CASES, DAYS, LITTLE BITS OF DAYS AT A TIME, AND IT MATTERS. 
          MR. TUCKER, AND ALSO, LET ME JUST THROW THIS IN THERE FOR FUN. 
          HE'S OUT ON REASSIGNMENT FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR WHEN THEY DIDN'T LIKE WHAT HE SAID IN THE PRESS, AND YET THEY SOMEHOW MYSTERIOUSLY IN ONE OF THE EXHIBITS, SHOWED THAT HE WAS ABSENT FOR A DAY. 
          HE WAS ON AT HOME ASSIGNMENT. 
          NOW, KEEP IN MIND, WHEN THEY TOOK HIM OUT ON REASSIGNMENT, THEY DIDN'T GIVE HIM ANY RULES OR PROCEDURES OR CALL IN. 
          THEY JUST SAID, HEY, MR. TUCKER, GO ON HOME. WE DON'T WANT YOU. 
          THEN, SOMEHOW IN FEBRUARY 22 OF 2024, THEY DOCK HIM FOR A DAY. 
          WHY? THERE'S NO EVIDENCE AS TO WHY. 
          THAT'S WHY THE JUDGE IN THIS CASE SAID, THERE'S SOMETHING SUSPICIOUS ABOUT THESE ABSENCE RECORDS. 
          I DON'T KNOW THAT I FEEL LIKE THAT I CAN RELY ON THEM BY A PREPONDERANCE OF CREDIBLE EVIDENCE WHENEVER I GO TO TERMINATE MR. TUCKER. 
          THERE IS A CONTEST THERE. 
          I'LL CONCEDE THAT WE WERE ABSENT 15.375 DAYS. 
          THE 0.375 DAYS, ACCORDING TO SABRINA IKI MOPA, THE HEAD OF LEAVE ADMINISTRATION, WE DON'T MOVE THEM FOR TERMINATION FOR PORTIONS OF A DAY. 
          THAT WAS HER TESTIMONY. 
          WHEN THE JUDGE GOES THROUGH AND FINDS THOSE THINGS, IF YOU'LL EVEN BOTHER TO READ THIS THING, YOU'LL SEE THAT SHE WAS VERY PRECISE ABOUT HER CALCULATIONS AND HER REASONS WHY. 
          AN APPELLATE COURT ONE DAY IS GOING TO LOOK AT THAT AND GO, HSD, WRITE HIM HIS CHECK. 
          >> THE FINAL THING ABOUT THE ABSENCES AT THE VERY END, HE HAD A SERIES OF WORK-RELATED INJURIES. 
          HE WAS INJURED ON THE JOB BECAUSE A STUDENT ASSAULTED HIM, AND HE FELL AND SLIPPED. 
          WHAT HE DID THEN WAS FOLLOWS HISD'S WORKERS' COMPENSATION RULES THAT SAY GO TO THEIR DOCTOR. 
          THERE'S VERY SPECIFIC RULES, AND THE JUDGE DETAILS IT BEAUTIFULLY, PROBABLY FAR MORE BEAUTIFULLY THAN I EVEN SAID IT. 
          SHE CLEARLY READ THE RULES, AND SHE WENT IN THERE AND SAID, GOSH, HISD MADE HIM GO TO A DOCTOR. 
          BUT WHEN HE GOT THERE, THERE WAS NO DOCTOR. 
          HE SAW A PHYSICIAN'S ASSISTANT. 
          THAT PHYSICIAN'S ASSISTANT FILLED OUT PAPERWORK AS IF SHE WERE A DOCTOR, FILLED IN DOCTOR'S INFORMATION IN THERE, AND THEN SENT HIM BACK TO WORK. HE SAID, WAIT A MINUTE. 
          YOUR PHYSICIAN'S ASSESSMENT, AND HE DETERMINED THAT SHE'S NOT QUALIFIED TO READ HIS X-RAYS. 
          SHE'S SENDING HIM BACK TO WORK. SHE DOESN'T KNOW IF HE'S GOT A BROKEN BONE, IF HE'S AGGRAVATING HIS BACK. 
          SHE HAS NO IDEA. SHE DOESN'T HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS. 
          BUT SHE DID, THEY DID SET HIM UP AN APPOINTMENT WITH A DOCTOR. 
          HE SAW THE DOCTOR HE WENT BACK TO WORK. 
          ALL THAT IS DISCUSSED IN THIS HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION ABOUT HIS DAYS. ALL OF IT. 
          SHE DETERMINES THAT HISD CAN'T SET UP A SET OF RULES THAT PUT HIM IN A POSITION TO MISS DAYS, IF HE FOLLOWS THE RULES, AND THEN FIRE HIM FOR FOLLOWING THOSE RULES. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE NEEDS TO BE SAID. 
          I EXPECT BETTER. 
          JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE APPOINTED DOESN'T MEAN THAT THIS LAW MEANS NOTHING. 
          THESE FACTUAL FINDINGS MEAN THINGS TO PEOPLE. 
          THESE ARE PEOPLE'S LIVES. 
          DID ANYBODY KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE IN A CLASSROOM FOR 20 YEARS? IT'S HELL. 
          I COULDN'T DO IT. I WOULD ASK THAT YOU RESPECT THESE PEOPLE AND FOLLOW THESE LAWS. 
          I HOPE THE APPELLATE COURT SOON WILL DO IT IF YOU WON'T. 
          I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. 
          >> THANK YOU. YOU MAY PROCEED. 
          >> FOR MEMBERS, MR. FALLON MAKES SEVERAL ALLEGATIONS OF IMPROPRIETY. 
          BUT WHAT DOESN'T, IT DOES NOT NEGATE THE FINDINGS OF FACT MADE BY THIS HEARING EXAMINER. 
          [00:55:05]
NOW, THE ADMINISTRATION DOES NOT AGREE WITH ALL THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF THIS INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER. 
          BUT EVEN WITH THE FINDINGS AT HAND, IT SUPPORTS A REASON FOR NON-RENEWAL. 
          EVEN THOUGH THE ADMINISTRATION LETS SEVERAL REASONS FOR DFBB, THIS DISTRICT NEEDS TO JUST PROVE JUST ONE OF THOSE DFBB ALLEGATIONS BY THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE. 
          WHETHER THAT BE HIS EXCESSIVE ABSENCES, WHETHER THAT BE FOR HIS POOR PERFORMANCE THROUGH HIS SPOT OBSERVATIONS, OR WHETHER THAT BE FOR HIS PROFESSIONALISM. 
          THE ADMINISTRATION HAS MET ITS BURDEN OF PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, AND WE ASK THAT YOU REJECT THIS INDEPENDENT HEARING DAMER RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS, COLLEAGUES? NO. THE BOARD WILL NOW RECESS TO CLOSE SESSION UNDER CHAPTER 551 OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE OPEN MEANINGS ACT SUBSECTION 551.004 THROUGH 551.089. 
          THAT SHOULD BOARD FINAL ACTION VOTE OR DECISION IN ANY MATTER CONSIDERED IN THE CLOSED SESSION BE REQUIRED. 
          SUCH FINAL ACTION VOTE AND DECISION SHALL BE TAKEN AT THE OPEN MEETING COVERED BY THIS NOTICE UPON THE RECONVENING OF THE PUBLIC MEETING OR AT A SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC MEETING OF THE BOARD UPON NOTICE. 
          THE BOARD HAS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 6:32 P.M. 
          THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IS NOW RECONVENED. 
          IN OPEN SESSION. THE TIME IS 7:01 P.M. DO I HAVE A MOTION? 
          >> YES. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD ADOPT THE HEARING OFFICER'S FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, EXCEPT FOR THE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW NUMBERED 18,19, AND 20, AND THAT THE BOARD ADOPT THE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, RATIONALE, AND RECOMMENDATION SET FORTH IN PETITIONER'S PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND THAT THE BOARD NON-RENEW THE CONTRACT TO BRIAN TUCKER EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY. 
          >> WE HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? THERE'S A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE. 
          THE BOARD HAS VOTED, AND VOTING IS CLOSED; AND 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 OF RELATIONS WITHIN 10 DAYS. 
          THE LETTER SHALL INCLUDE THE FINDINGS OF CONCLUSIONS OF LAW OF THE SCHOOL BOARD AND ANY GRANT OF RELIEF OBTAINED. 
          FURTHERMORE, THE LETTER SHALL STATE THE REASONS AND LEGAL BASIS FOR REJECTING THE CHANGE OF THE FINDINGS OR FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BY THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER. 
          THE HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT 7:02 P.M. 
          ARE YOU READY? THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF ARNETTA MURRAY, TEACHER AT SHIM ASHERN ELEMENTARY. 
          HEARINGS INVOLVING COMPLAINTS AGAINST DISTRICT EMPLOYEES ARE TO BE HELD IN CLOSED SESSION UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE WHO IS SUBJECT TO THE HEARING REQUESTS AN OPEN HEARING. 
          IF BOTH PARTIES REQUEST AN OPEN SESSION DURING 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 ADVICE OF COUNSEL, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. 
          FOR THE RECORD, JAMES FALLON OF JAMES T. FALLON, THE THIRD LLC, REPRESENTING ARNETTA MURRAY, IS PRESENT. 
          ASHLEY, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION, IS PRESENT, AND CATOSHA WOODS, HISD'S GENERAL COUNSEL, IS ALSO PRESENT. 
          MR. FALLON, DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE IN OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION? 
          >> IN OPEN. 
          >> OPEN. THE ISSUES BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD ARE WHETHER TO ACCEPT, REJECT, CHANGE, OR CHANGE THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDING OF FACT, CONCLUSION OF LAW, OR 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 IT'S NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. 
          IF WE REJECT THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION OR MAKE ANY CHANGES, 
          [01:00:04]
WE MUST STATE THE REASON AND LEGAL BASIS IN WRITING. 
          MS. YE, YOU WILL PROCEED FIRST. 
          YOU'RE ALLOWED TO MAKE A 10-MINUTE PRESENTATION, FOLLOWED BY 10 MINUTES BY MR. FALLON. YOU MAY BEGIN. 
          >> GOOD EVENING AGAIN, BOARD MEMBERS. 
          BUT THIS TIME JOINING ME I HAVE PETA DOUGLAS, AND SHE IS THE PRINCIPAL AT SHARN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. 
          WE ARE ASKING YOU TO UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION TO NON-RENEW MS. MURRAY'S 24-25 CONTRACT DUE TO HER EXCESSIVE ABSENCES AND HER FAILURE TO ADHERE TO THE CAMPUS'S ATTENDANCE PROCEDURES. 
          SPECIFICALLY, HER VIOLATIONS OF BOARD POLICY, DH LOCAL, AND DC-8 REGULATION. 
          THE HEARING EXAMINER HAVE FOUND THAT PURSUANT TO BOARD POLICY DC LOCAL AND DC-8, TEACHERS ARE ALLOTTED FIVE STATE PERSONAL LEAVE DAYS, FIVE LOCAL LEAVE DAYS FOR A TOTAL OF 10 PERSONAL LEAVE DAYS AT THE START OF EVERY YEAR. 
          OF COURSE, TEACHERS CAN ACCRUE THESE LEAVE DAYS, BUT THEY ARE RESTRICTED TO A MINIMUM OF 15 PERSONAL LEAVE DAYS IF THEY HAVE IT IN THEIR LEAVE BANK. 
          MS. MURRAY DID NOT HAVE ANY CARRYOVER DAYS FROM THE PREVIOUS SCHOOL YEAR AND THEREFORE, SHE ONLY HAD HER TEN PERSONAL LEAVE DAYS FOR THE 24-25 SCHOOL YEAR. 
          HOWEVER, MS. MURRAY HAD ACCUMULATED A TOTAL OF 21 ABSENCES, WITH 11 OF THOSE DAYS BEING UNPAID OR DOCKED DAYS, AND OUR ABSENCE HISTORY REPORT CAN BE FOUND ON EXHIBIT 4. 
          AN EMPLOYEE WHO GOES INTO UNPAID STATUS, ABSENT, BEING ON PROTECTED LEAVE VIOLATES DC-8. 
          EARLY ON, MS. MURRAY WAS INFORMED BY LEAVING ADMINISTRATION OF THE TYPES OF PROTECTED LEAVES AVAILABLE TO HER AND THE PROCESS IN WHICH TO APPLY FOR IT. 
          MS. MURRAY HAD ATTEMPTED TO APPLY FOR FMLA IN JUNE OF THIS YEAR, BUT BY THE TIME THAT SHE HAD APPLIED, SHE WAS ALREADY IN VIOLATION OF BOARD POLICY BECAUSE SHE TOOK HER FIRST UNPAID DATE IN JANUARY. 
          SHE ALSO HAD FAILED TO TIMELY TURN IN ALL HER REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION NEEDED TO APPLY FOR FMLA, SPECIFICALLY, THE CERTIFICATION OF HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FORM. 
          MS. MURRAY HAD 15 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF HER APPLICATION TO TURN IN THIS FORM. 
          THIS 15-DAY DEADLINE IS NOT A TIME FRAME THAT'S SET BY THIS DISTRICT, BUT IT IS A FEDERAL REQUIREMENT. 
          HOWEVER, MS. MURRAY HAD TURNED IN THE CERTIFICATION 15 DAYS PAST THE DEADLINE. 
          WHEN SHE DID TURN IT IN, THE HEALTHCARE PROVIDER SECTION WAS NOT FILLED OUT BY THE HEALTHCARE PROVIDER HIMSELF AS REQUIRED, BUT MS. MURRAY HAD FILLED IT OUT HERSELF. 
          MS. MURRAY'S ADMISSIONS REGARDING THE UNTIMELY AND IMPROPER SUBMISSION OF THE CERTIFICATION CAN BE FOUND ON PAGES 190 AND 224 OF YOUR TRANSCRIPT. 
          NOW, EVEN IF THE DISTRICT WERE TO APPROVE MS. MURRAY FOR FMLA, AND LEAVE ADMINISTRATION HAD RETROACTIVELY GIVEN HER BACK SEVEN DAYS AS A COURTESY FROM THE DATE SHE TURNED IN HER APPLICATION, SHE WOULD STILL BE IN VIOLATION OF DC-8 WITH 3.5 UNPAID OR DOCKED DAYS. 
          ASK TESTIFIED TO BY MS. IKIMOPA, WHO IS THE DIRECTOR OF LEAVE ADMINISTRATION, AND HER TESTIMONY CAN BE FOUND ON PAGE 86 OF YOUR TRANSCRIPT. 
          IN ADDITION, THOUGH TO MS. MURRAY'S EXCESSIVE ABSENTEEISM, THE ADMINISTRATION HAD ALSO PRESENTED AT THE HEARING HER CAMPUS ATTENDANCE VIOLATIONS. 
          THE ADMINISTRATION HAD PRESENTED MS. MURRAY'S CAMPUSES TIME SHEET THAT SHOW THAT SHE WAS TARDY ON AT LEAST 19 TIMES THROUGHOUT THE 24-25 SCHOOL YEAR, AND THE TARDIES HAD RANGED FROM 3 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS. 
          ADDITIONALLY, SHE HAD FAILED TO SIGN OUT ON THE CAMPUS TIME SHEET AT HER DEPARTURE TIME ON 18 DIFFERENT OCCASIONS. 
          HER TIME SHEET CAN BE FOUND ON EXHIBIT 14. 
          THESE ATTENDANCE VIOLATIONS VIOLATE BOARD POLICY, DH LOCAL, AND THE STERN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HANDBOOK. 
          MS. MURRAY HAD ADMITTED SHE RECEIVED THE STERN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HANDBOOK, THAT INCLUDED HER DUTY TIME AND HER ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENTS. 
          SHE HAD ADMITTED THAT IT WAS HER RESPONSIBILITY TO ADHERE TO THESE ATTENDANCE PROCEDURES AND EXPECTATIONS. 
          MS. MURRAY'S ADMISSIONS CAN BE FOUND ON PAGES 214, 227, AND 230 OF YOUR TRANSCRIPT. 
          INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER ULTIMATELY FOUND THAT THE ADMINISTRATION MET ITS BURDEN TO NON-RENEW MS. MURRAY'S CONTRACT AND FOUND THAT THE DISTRICT PROVED BY THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT MS. MURRAY HAD VIOLATED BOARD POLICY DC-8 AND DH LOCAL FOR HER 11 UNPAID OR DOCKED DAYS, HER 19 TARDIES, AND HER 18 FAILURE TO SIGN OUT THROUGHOUT THE 24-25 SCHOOL YEAR. 
          THEREFORE, THIS ADMINISTRATION WOULD ASK THIS BOARD TO UPHOLD THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION, HER FINDINGS OF FACT, AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU, MR. ALLEN, YOU MAY BEGIN. 
          [01:05:02]
          >> THANK YOU. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, THIS IS HOW A LAWYER WHO RESPECTS THE LAW ADDRESSES A LOSS. 
          WATCH. I RESPECT WHAT THE FINDING OF FACT IS IN THIS CASE. 
          I UNDERSTAND THE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 
          I'M HERE TODAY TO ASK YOU TO DO WHAT ONLY YOU CAN DO AT THIS POINT, WHICH IS LOOK AT THIS HOLISTICALLY AND COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT SOLUTION. 
          I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO DO SOMETHING THAT IS DIRECTLY AND LINEARLY CONTAINED WITHIN THE CODE, BUT A SCHOOL BOARD HAS DISCRETION TO SAY, WOW, WE DON'T NEED TO FIRE HER. 
          WE COULD GIVE HER SOME OTHER OUTCOME. 
          WE COULD GIVE HER A PROBATIONARY CONTRACT. 
          WE COULD PUT HER ON A PROBATIONARY CONTRACT. 
          WE COULD SUSPEND HER FOR A HANDFUL OF DAYS. 
          I WILL SPEND MY TIME TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU WHY, BUT I THINK THAT THAT'S THE CASE IN THIS SITUATION. 
          LET ME TAKE CARE OF A BRIEF HOUSEKEEPING MATTER. 
          TARDIES WERE NOT IN THE NOTICE LETTER. 
          IF THE HEARING OFFICER FIRED MS. MURRAY FOR TARDIES, THEN SHE WOULD HAVE VIOLATED THE LAW BECAUSE THERE WAS NO NOTICE OF TARDIES. 
          THERE WAS NO NOTICE OF SIGN-IN AND SIGN-OUT VIOLATIONS. 
          THAT WAS SIMPLY NOT GIVEN TO US AS A GROUNDS FOR NOTICE. 
          IT WOULD BE A DUE PROCESS VIOLATION TO DO SO. 
          FOR YOUR LAWYER TO COME UP HERE AND IMPLY THAT THAT IS A PART OF THE REASON FOR THE TERMINATION IS DECEIVING TO YOU, AND YOU SHOULD BE OFFENDED BY IT. 
          IT IS NOT THE GROUND IN THIS CASE. 
          WHAT IS THE GROUND IS TERMINATION FOR OR NON-RENEWAL FOR ABSENCES? MS. MURRAY, WHO'S BEEN WITH OR HAS BEEN AN EDUCATOR FOR 18 YEARS AND HAS A STELLAR RECORD IN HISD, MISSED DAYS BEYOND HER ALLOTTED AMOUNT LAST YEAR. 
          SHE HAD 10 DAYS. 
          SHE MISSED MORE THAN TEN DAYS. 
          I'M GOING TO BREAK IT UP INTO TWO PARTS. 
          I'M GOING TO GO WITH THE LAST PART FIRST, IF YOU DON'T MIND LINEARLY. 
          AT THE END OF THE SCHOOL YEAR, MS. MURRAY'S 93-YEAR-OLD MOTHER FELL. 
          SHE FELL AND ENDED UP BEING HOSPITALIZED THROUGH AT LEAST HALF OF THE SUMMER. 
          MS. MURRAY, WHO'S AN ONLY CHILD, ALSO TAKES CARE OF HER 87-YEAR-OLD FATHER. 
          SHE HAD A PROBLEM. 
          SHE WAS BY HER MOTHER DURING ALL THAT TIME. 
          THAT HAPPENED IN MAY. IT CAME ACTUALLY AFTER THE TERMINATION LETTER CAME. 
          WHAT SHE DID, ACCORDING TO OUR RECORD, IS SHE FILED FOR FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE, WHICH WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE USE OF FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE. 
          SHE HAD THE BENEFIT OF FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE WAITING FOR HER; SHE FILED FOR IT IN A TIMELY MANNER. 
          THE REASON THEY DIDN'T GRANT IT, WAS BECAUSE SHE HAD A HARD TIME GETTING THE DOCTOR TO GET A SIGNATURE ON THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATION. 
          YOU FILE THE FORM, I WANT MEDICAL LEAVE, THEN YOU FILE THIS MEDICAL CERTIFICATION. 
          SHE HAD TO CHASE THIS DOCTOR AROUND THE HOSPITAL AND ULTIMATELY WAS ABLE TO GET IT. 
          THE DAY SHE GOT IT, THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT SHE TURNED IT BACK INTO HISD'S LEAVE ADMINISTRATION. 
          MS. IKIMOPA TESTIFIED, WELL, WE GIVE HIM 15 DAYS. 
          UNLESS THERE'S EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES, AND I DON'T FIND THAT THERE'S ANY EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS SITUATION. 
          THEREFORE, I DON'T GRANT YOU THE LEAVE. 
          I ASKED MS. IKIMOPA TO CITE THE POLICY THAT EXPLAINS OR COMMUNICATES TO PEOPLE LIKE MS. MURRAY. 
          THAT THAT'S HOW SHE DOES IT. YOU KNOW WHAT? SHE SAID THERE IS NO POLICY ABOUT THAT. 
          THAT'S JUST WHAT SHE MADE UP IN HER HEAD. 
          I BELIEVE THAT THAT'S LITERALLY THE TESTIMONY THAT SHE ADOPTED. 
          IT IS WHAT I CAME UP WITH AS THE STANDARD, AND THAT'S HOW I DO IT IF THERE'S AN EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCE. 
          I WOULD ASK THAT YOU LOOK AT THAT AND SAY, GOSH, THAT SEEMS UNFAIR. 
          THAT SHE HAD A QUALIFYING FML CASE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROTECTED FOR THOSE DAYS, COULDN'T GET THE DOCTOR'S NOTE FOR REASONS THAT WERE BEYOND ANYTHING SHE HAD CONTROL OVER, BUT DID GET IT, AND THAT THOSE DAYS SHOULD BE PROTECTED. 
          THAT IS THE TRANCHE OF DAYS THAT THEY'RE FIRING HER FOR, AFTER SHE RECEIVED THE NOTICE LETTER THAT BECAME AN ISSUE IN THE CASE. 
          PRIOR TO THAT, LET ME JUST SUMMARIZE HOW THIS BOILS DOWN. 
          IN THE MIDDLE OF THE YEAR, MS. MURRAY HAD FIVE DAYS WHERE SHE HAD HER ABSENCE HISTORY REPORT SHOWS ABSENCES. 
          JANUARY 24TH, MARCH 24TH, MARCH 27TH, MARCH 28TH, AND APRIL 8TH, I BELIEVE. 
          ON TWO OF THOSE DAYS, MARCH 24TH AND APRIL 8TH, THEY WERE FOR 2 HOURS AND 3 HOURS RESPECTIVELY. 
          ACCORDING TO MS. SABRINA IKI MOPA, HISD DOESN'T MOVE TO TERMINATE PEOPLE FOR PORTIONS OF A DAY. THAT IS THE PRACTICE. 
          WE DON'T SEND THEM TO FILE REVIEW IF THEY'RE MISSING 2 HOURS OR 3 HOURS OR A PORTION OF A DAY. WE FIRE THEM. 
          WE MOVE THEM FOR FILE REVIEW WHEN THEY MISSED A WHOLE DAY. 
          [01:10:03]
WHEN YOU APPLY WHAT SHE SAID IN THE HEARING AS THE HISD PRACTICE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THEN WHAT YOU END UP WITH IS THREE DAYS. 
          THERE'S THREE DAYS, JANUARY 24TH, MARCH 27TH, AND MARCH 28TH. 
          >> I'VE BEEN TELLING THIS TO MY FRIENDS AS A JOKE. 
          WHY DO YOU THINK THAT MS. MURRAY WAS FIRED FOR BEING ABSENT ON THE 27TH AND 28TH OF MARCH? WHAT WOULD YOU GUESS A TEACHER WOULD BE SUFFERING FROM? THAT SHE WOULD NOT COME TO SCHOOL EVEN THOUGH SHE WAS BEYOND HER DAYS. 
          THINK ABOUT SOME MALADY IN YOUR MIND THAT TEACHERS MIGHT GET. 
          HERE'S YOUR HINT. SHE'S AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHER. 
          ONE OF HER KIDS GAVE HER PINK EYE. 
          SHE'S BEING FIRED BECAUSE SHE GOT PINK EYE FROM ONE OF THE BABIES THAT SHE CARES FOR AND EDUCATES AND COULDN'T COME TO SCHOOL BECAUSE THAT'S CONTAGIOUS. 
          WELL, WHAT A RIP OFF? WHAT AN INCREDIBLY FOUL THING TO DO TO SOMEBODY WHOSE JOB IS TO EDUCATE SMALL CHILDREN. 
          SO OF THE THREE DAYS WHAT BOILS DOWN TO, TWO OF THEM WERE FOR PINK EYE. 
          WOULD YOU WANT HER GOING TO SCHOOL IF SHE HAD PINK EYE AND YOUR KIDS WERE IN THE CLASS? DO YOU REALLY THINK SHE SHOULD BE FIRED FOR THOSE DAYS IN YOUR HEARTS? JANUARY 24TH, WHY WAS SHE ABSENT? SHE HAD A WORK-RELATED INJURY. 
          SHE INJURED HERSELF ON THE JOB. 
          SHE IS LIKE MYSELF, OVER 50-YEARS-OLD. 
          THOSE SHE WENT TO WORKERS COMP, JUST LIKE MR. TUCKER DID, FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS. 
          HEN SHE WENT BACK TO WORK OR SHE TRIED TO GO BACK TO WORK WITH ACCOMMODATIONS, SHE JUST COULDN'T. 
          SHE HAD AN INJURY THAT REQUIRED JUST A DAY OF REST, AN INJURY THAT SHE RECEIVED ON THE JOB. 
          MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, THEY'RE NOT ROBOTS AND THEY'RE NOT PUNCHING BAGS. 
          WHEN YOU WANT SOMEBODY WHO'S GOT THE EXPERIENCE TO DO WHAT ONLY AN EDUCATOR OF 18, 25, 35 YEARS CAN DO, YOU CANNOT APPLY A POLICY IN THIS WAY TO THEM. 
          YOUR OLDER TEACHERS ARE GOING TO BE FIRED DISPROPORTIONATELY, AND YOU WILL, IF THERE IS A HEAVEN, YOU WILL BE SUED FOR DOING THAT BECAUSE IT'S UNFAIR TO THEM. 
          IT DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTS THEM TO APPLY THE POLICY THAT WAY, AND YOUR POLICY DOESN'T EVEN SAY THAT. 
          YOUR POLICY SAYS THAT THEY WILL BE DISCIPLINED UP TO AND INCLUDING TERMINATION. 
          THAT'S WHAT YOU TELL ALL OF THE EMPLOYEES OF HISD. 
          YOU CAN BE FIRED. 
          YOU CAN BE DISCIPLINED UP TO AND INCLUDING TERMINATION. 
          I ASKED, IN THIS CASE AND ALL THE CASES COMING AFTER IT THIS EVENING BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL ABSENCE CASES. 
          DIFFERENT BUT EQUALLY AS SYMPATHETIC. 
          WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THEM TOGETHER. 
          YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR THAT I ASKED THESE QUESTIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATORS. 
          DID YOU LOOK AT HER RECORD TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT SHE WAS A GOOD TEACHER BEFORE YOU MOVED TO FIRE HER? NO, WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO. 
          DID YOU LOOK AT THE REASONS WHY SHE WAS ABSENT? NO, WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO. 
          DID YOU CONSIDER ANYTHING OTHER THAN TERMINATION? DID YOU CONSIDER A RETURN TO PROBATIONARY CONTRACT OR REFER HER TO THE EMPLOYEE'S ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, OR MAYBE DOC OR PAY? NO, WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO. 
          AND I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT THAT IS NOT THEM FOLLOWING THE VERY LETTER OF THE POLICY THAT YOU VOTED TO ACCEPT AS THE POLICY. 
          UP TO AND INCLUDING MEANS YOUR ADMINISTRATOR SHOULD CONSIDER DISCIPLINE UP TO AND INCLUDING TERMINATION WHEN YOU FIRE SOMEONE FOR ABSENCES. 
          THAT UP TO REALLY WOULD HELP THE OLDER EXPERIENCED TEACHERS WHO PUT THE EDUCATION OF THESE CHILDREN ON THEIR BACKS WITH THEIR EXPERIENCE. 
          IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT. 
          THAT IS HOW YOU RESPECT A FINDING OF FACT BY A PERSON WHO LISTENED TO ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, WATCHED THE CROSS-EXAMINATION, LOOKED AT THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES, AND CAME UP WITH A DECISION. 
          I WOULD ASK THAT YOU RETURN MS. MURRAY TO WORK ON A PROBATIONARY STATUS, SEND HER BACK TO THE CLASSROOM. THANK YOU. 
          >> GO AHEAD. 
          >> FOR EMERSON ADMINISTRATION CAN UNDERSTAND MS. MURRAY'S CIRCUMSTANCES FOR TAKING CARE OF HER MOTHER. 
          IT IS TRULY COMMENDABLE. 
          BUT THE FACTS ARE AS ARGUED BY MR. FALLON, 
          [01:15:03]
SHE EXHAUSTED HER STATE AND LOCAL LEAVE TIME. 
          SHE FAILED TO PROPERLY APPLY FOR FMLA DESPITE BEING INFORMED OF THE PROCESSES AND DEADLINES BY LEAVE ADMINISTRATION. 
          MS. MURRAY IS NOT ABOVE BOARD POLICY OR FEDERAL LAW. 
          I ASK THIS BOARD TO FAIRLY AND EQUITABLY APPLY BOARD POLICY TO ALL DISTRICT EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING MS. MURRAY. 
          THE ADMINISTRATION WILL ASK THIS BOARD TO UPHOLD THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINERS RECOMMENDATION TO NON-RENEW MS. MURRAY'S CONTRACT. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? OVER HERE. WE NEED TO GO. 
          OKAY. THE BOARD WILL NOW RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION UNDER CHAPTER 551 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, OPEN MEETINGS ACT SUBSECTION 551.004 AND THROUGH 551.089. 
          SHOULD BOARD FINAL ACTION, VOTE OR DECISION ON ANY MATTER CONSIDERING THE CLOSED SESSION BE REQUIRED? SUCH FINAL ACTION VOTE OR DECISION SHALL BE TAKEN AT THE OPEN MEETING CONVENED BY THE NOTICE UPON THE RECONVENING OF THE PUBLIC MEETING OR AT A SUB PUBLIC MEETING OF THE BOARD UPON NOTICE THEREOF. 
          THE BOARD HAS RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION AT 7:20 P.M. RIGHT HERE. 
          >> THIS SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IS NOW RECONVENED IN OPEN SESSION. 
          THE TIME IS 7:36 P.M. DO YOU 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 NON -RENEW ANOTHER MURRAY'S ONE-YEAR-TERM CONTRACT. 
          >> PLEASE VOTE. WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND, PLEASE VOTE. 
          VOTING IS 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 7:37 P.M. 
          EVERYBODY READY TO GO? DID THEY? WE'RE GOOD TO GO. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF TIFFANY RANDOLPH, A TEACHER AT HAMILTON MIDDLE SCHOOL. 
          HEARING'S INVOLVING COMPLAINTS AGAINST DIRECT 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 HEARING, THE BOARD MAY GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSULT WITH ITS ATTORNEYS UNDER THE TERMS OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071. 
          IF ANY BOARD MEMBER WISHES TO SEEK ADVICE, COUNCIL, LET ME KNOW. 
          OR THE RECORD, JAMES FALLON, FALLON JAMES T. FALLON, THIRD LLC, REPRESENTING TIFFANY RANDOLPH IS PRESENT. 
          AMIR ROHE ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNCIL, REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION IS ALSO PRESENT, AND CATOSHA WOODS HISD GENERAL COUNCIL IS ALSO PRESENT. 
          MR. FALLON, DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE AN OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION? 
          >> OPEN. 
          >> OPEN. 
          THE ISSUES BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD OR WHETHER TO ACCEPT, REJECT, OR CHANGE THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINERS FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND PROPOSAL BASED ON A REVIEW OF THE RECORD. 
          WE MAY REJECT OR CHANGE A FINDING OF FACT IF AFTER REVIEWING THE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINERS, WE FIND IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. 
          IF WE REJECT THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION OR MAKE ANY CHANGES, WE MAY STATE THE REASON AND LEGAL BASIS IN WRITING. 
          MR. ROHE, YOU WILL PROCEED FIRST. 
          YOU WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A 10-MINUTE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD, FOLLOWED BY A 10-MINUTE PRESENTATION BY MR. FALLON. YOU MAY BEGIN. 
          SURE. 
          [01:20:06]
WE'LL WAIVE AT YOU. GO AHEAD. 
          > GOOD EVENING, BOARD PRESIDENT AND BOARD MEMBERS. 
          MY NAME IS AMIR ROHE, AND I WILL BE REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION IN THIS HEARING. 
          JOINING ME HERE TODAY IS DEJONNETTE CHILDRESS, PRINCIPAL AT HAMILTON MIDDLE SCHOOL. 
          THE ADMINISTRATION IS HERE TO ASK YOU TO UPHOLD THE TA INDEPENDENT HEARING OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION TO NON-RENEW MISS RANDOLPH'S 24-25 TERM CONTRACT. 
          MISS RANDOLPH WAS NON-RENEWED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF HER EXCESSIVE ABSENCES AND HER FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE DISTRICT'S ATTENDANCE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. 
          SPECIFICALLY, SHE WAS FOUND TO BE IN VIOLATION OF BOARD POLICY DH LOCAL AND DEC 8 REGULATION. 
          THEY'RE LABELED EXHIBIT 2 I'M SORRY EXHIBIT 12 AND EXHIBIT 9, RESPECTIVELY IN YOUR BACKEND. 
          THE INNOVATING HEARING OFFICER IN HER FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ON PAGE 14, STATED AND I QUOTE, ''REGULAR AND PREDICTABLE ATTENDANCE IS AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION OF AN EMPLOYEE'S JOB.'' IT IS BECAUSE OF THIS THAT HISDS BOARD ADOPTED THE AFOREMENTIONED BOARD POLICIES. 
          AS HISD'S DIRECTOR OF LEAVE ADMINISTRATION EXPLAINS ON PAGE 12 OF YOUR TRANSCRIPT, YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU, STARTING ON LINE 4. 
          UNDER BOARD POLICY DEC LOCAL AND DEC 8, TEACHERS ARE ALLOTTED FIVE STATE PERSONAL DAYS AND FIVE LOCAL PERSONAL DAYS. 
          AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH SCHOOL YEAR. 
          MOREOVER, ACCORDING TO DEC 8 REGULATION, REGARDLESS OF THE AMOUNT OF LEAVE AT AN EMPLOYEE'S LEAVE BANK, NO EMPLOYEE MAY BE ABSENT FROM MORE THAN 15 DAYS OF LEAVE PER FISCAL YEAR. 
          IMPORTANTLY, FOR THIS CASE, EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE NOT YET ACCRUED 15 DAYS MAY NOT USE UNPAID DAYS AND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO DISCIPLINARY ACTION UP TO AND INCLUDING TERMINATION ONCE THEY EXHAUST ALL PAID LEAVE DAYS. 
          MISS RANDOLPH DID NOT HAVE ANY CARRYOVER DAYS FROM PREVIOUS YEARS AND THEREFORE ONLY HAD 10 LEAVE DAYS FOR THE 24-25 SCHOOL YEAR. 
          AS YOU CAN SEE ON PAGE 13 OF THE TRANSCRIPT, STARTING ON LINE 8, HISD'S DIRECTOR OF LEAVE ADMINISTRATION EXPLAINS THAT DESPITE ONLY HAVING 10 LEAVE DAYS, MISS RANDOLPH ACCUMULATED 29 ABSENCES, 15 OF WHICH WERE UNPAID AND NOT PROTECTED. 
          THAT IS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF DEC 8 REGULATION. 
          YOU CAN SEE YOUR ABSENCE HISTORY REPORT IN YOUR PACKET AS EXHIBIT 1. 
          MISS RANDOLPH REQUESTED AND RECEIVED FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE FOR THE 23-24 SCHOOL YEAR. 
          AS YOU CAN SEE ON PAGE 16 OF THE TRANSCRIPT STARTING ON LINE 3, THE DIRECTOR OF LEAVE ADMINISTRATION EXPLAINS THAT TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR FML, FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE, AN EMPLOYEE MUST WORK A TOTAL OF 1,250 HOURS IN THE 12 MONTHS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE START OF THE REQUESTED PERIOD. 
          BECAUSE MISS RANDOLPH TOOK FML DURING THE 23-24 SCHOOL YEAR, SHE WAS NO LONGER ELIGIBLE FOR FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE FOR THE 24-25 SCHOOL YEAR. 
          ON JULY 29, 2024, HISD SENT MISS RANDOLPH AN EMAIL, PROVIDING INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO APPLY FOR ADA ACCOMMODATIONS. 
          THAT IS LABELED EXHIBIT 2 IN YOUR PACKET. 
          ON AUGUST 22, EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE, WELL, WHICH IS EXHIBIT 4 IN YOUR PACKET, SHOWS THAT HISD ASKED FOR AN UPDATED DOCTOR'S NOTE AS THE ONE SUBMITTED BY MISS RANDOLPH WAS OUTDATED. 
          ON OCTOBER 16, 2024, MISS RANDOLPH RECEIVED AN EMAIL EXPLAINING HOW TO APPLY FOR TEMPORARY DISABILITY LEAVE TO QUALIFY FOR ADDITIONAL PROTECTED TIME. 
          THIS IS EXHIBIT 5 IN YOUR PACKET. 
          MISS RANDOLPH DID NOT APPLY FOR THIS EXTRA PROTECTED LEAVE. 
          AS HISD DIRECTOR OF LEAVE ADMINISTRATION EXPLAINS ON PAGE 17 OF THE TRANSCRIPT, STARTING ON LINE 9, ON JANUARY 29, 2025, FIVE MONTHS T AFTER THE AUGUST 22 EMAIL WAS SENT TO HER BY HISD, [NOISE] MISS RANDOLPH SUBMITTED THE REQUESTED DATED DOCTOR'S NOTE, AND THE EMAIL IS EXHIBIT 6 IN YOUR PACKET. 
          AS YOU CAN SEE ON PAGE 39, STARTING ON LINE 5 OF THE TRANSCRIPT ON FEBRUARY 28, 2025, MISS RANDOLPH RECEIVED ADA ACCOMMODATIONS IN LINE WITH THE DOCTOR'S RECOMMENDATION. 
          RETROACTIVE FROM THE DATE, MISS RANDOLPH SUBMITTED THE REQUIRED DOCTOR'S LETTER ON JANUARY 29, WHICH COVERS JANUARY 29 TO JUNE 5TH. 
          THAT IS EXHIBIT SEVEN IN YOUR PACKET. 
          HOWEVER, AS IS DISCUSSED ON PAGE 19, STARTING ON LINE 19 OF YOUR TRANSCRIPT, BY JANUARY 29, 2025, MISS RANDOLPH HAD ALREADY ACCUMULATED 29 MISS DAYS, 15 OF WHICH WERE UNPAID ABSENCES. 
          THIS IS A VIOLATION OF HISD BOARD POLICY. 
          ON PAGE 57 OF THE TRANSCRIPT, 
          [01:25:01]
YOU CAN SEE THAT MR. FALLON ARGUED THAT MISS RANDOLPH WAS AN EXCELLENT TEACHER. 
          THE INDEPENDENT HEARING OFFICER NOTED THIS IN HER FINDINGS AND STILL FOUND ON PAGE 14 OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW THAT ''EXCESSIVE ABSENTEEISM IS GROUNDS FOR TERMINATING A TEACHER'S EMPLOYMENT, AND AS WE NOTED EARLIER, ''REGULAR AND PREDICTABLE ATTENDANCE IS AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION OF AN EMPLOYEE'S JOB.'' INDEPENDENT HEARING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE DISTRICT MET ITS BURDEN TO NON RENEW MISS RANDOLPH'S CONTRACT AND FOUND THAT THE DISTRICT PROVED BY THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT MISS RANDOLPH VIOLATED BOARD POLICIES DEC 8 AND DH LOCAL FOR HER EXCESSIVE ABSENTEEISM WITH 15 UNPAID DAYS THAT WERE NOT PROTECTED. 
          THEREFORE, THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD ASK THIS BOARD TO UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU. MR. FALLON, YOU MAY MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION POINT. 
          >> THANK YOU, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. 
          >> THIS CASE LIKE THE LAST CASE IS AN ABSENCE CASE, AND I'M ASKING SIMILARLY TO THE LAST CASE THAT YOU EXAMINE THESE FACTS AND MAYBE FOR YOUR OWN GOOD, CONSIDER SOMETHING OTHER THAN A TERMINATION, BECAUSE THIS CASE HAS STRONG IMPLICATIONS OF AN ADA LAWSUIT. 
          YOU MIGHT WANT TO TALK TO YOUR LAWYERS ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS BECAUSE AFTER I RUN THROUGH THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. 
          FIRST OF ALL, WHY WOULD I ASK YOU TO RECONSIDER A TERMINATION OF THIS NON RENEWAL? PART OF IT HAS TO DO WITH HER PERFORMANCE. 
          IT IS IN THE RECORD THAT SHE WAS PROFICIENT IN 2021, '21 '22, SHE WAS EFFECTIVE, IN '22 '23, SHE WAS ACCOMPLISHED. 
          IN '23 '24, SHE WASN'T GIVEN A FORMAL OBSERVATION BECAUSE SHE ENDED UP GOING OUT ON FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE. 
          BUT YOU CAN LOOK AT HER SCORES WHERE HER PLANNING GAVE HER A 12 OUT OF 12 INSTRUCTION 35 OUT OF 48, AND LEARNING ENVIRONMENT IS 25 OUT OF 30. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ALL HAVE DUG INTO THE EVALUATION MANUALS, BUT THOSE ARE RIDICULOUSLY GOOD SCORES. 
          THE FACT THAT SHE WAS ACCOMPLISHED IN THE '22 '23 SCHOOL YEAR SPEAKS TO HER EXCELLENCE IN THE CLASSROOM. 
          IN FACT, HER EFFECTIVE RATING OF IN '21 '22 AT A DIFFERENT INSTRUMENT THEY HAD WAS FINAL INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICE RATING, GAVE HER FOUR OUT OF FOUR POINTS, AND HER FINAL PROFESSIONAL EXPECTATIONS RATING, SO YOU HAD INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES AS TEACHING PROFESSIONAL EXPECTATIONS, PROFESSIONALISM, SHE HAD A FOUR OUT OF FOUR. 
          SHE CONSISTENTLY WAS PUSHING THE UPPER LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE MRS. RANDOLPH WAS. 
          THAT'S ONE REASON I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO RECONSIDER WHAT YOU'RE DOING. 
          BUT THE BIGGER REASON, I THINK, GOES TO THE ADA ISSUES THAT ARE THAT INVADE THIS CASE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. 
          MRS. RANDOLPH SUFFERS FROM A MEDICAL CONDITION THAT SHE WILL SUFFER FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE. 
          THAT'S MEMORIALIZED IN THE RECORD, I'LL NOT GET INTO THE DETAILS OF IT. 
          BECAUSE SHE'S A YOUNG WOMAN AND SHE JUST HAS BEEN COMING TO TERMS WITH THAT MEDICAL CONDITION. 
          HADN'T AFFECTED HER PERFORMANCE ACCORDING TO HER PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS. 
          MRS. RANDOLPH, AS YOU LEARNED HAS LEARNED ABOUT HER DISABILITY AND WHAT IT TAKES TO MANAGE HERSELF ON THAT DISABILITY. 
          IN THE '23 '24 SCHOOL YEAR IN THE FALL, APPLIED FOR ADA ACCOMMODATIONS. 
          SHE FILLED OUT THE FORMS WITH HISD. 
          SHE GOT THE DOCTOR CERTIFICATION AND WAS ASKING FOR AMONG OTHER THINGS, BUT RELEVANT IN THIS ABSENCE CASE, THREE DAYS A MONTH PROTECTED BY ADA. 
          WELL, THE LEAVE ADMINISTRATION DIDN'T RESPOND TO HER. 
          THEY JUST DID NOTHING. 
          THEY SAT ON HER APPLICATION THROUGHOUT THE '23 '24 SCHOOL YEAR, GAVE NO RESPONSE WHATSOEVER. 
          MRS. RANDOLPH BEGAN TO SUFFER FROM SOME OF THE EFFECTS OF HER DISABILITY. 
          AT FIRST SHE TOOK A FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE INTERMITTENTLY AND ULTIMATELY WENT OUT ON A CONTINUOUS LEAVE AS A RESULT OF HER DISABILITY. 
          SHE COMES BACK DURING THIS YEAR, THE RELEVANT YEAR, '24 '25. 
          SHE COMES BACK TO HISD, AND AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR, THEY SAY, "HEY, YOU'RE STILL INTERESTED IN THIS ADA?" SHE SAYS, "YES." SHE SENDS IN [NOISE] THE SAME INFORMATION THAT SHE HAD SENT IN BEFORE. 
          IT'S NOT THE KIND OF A DISABILITY, BY THE WAY. 
          IT'S NOT LIKE A BROKEN LEG. 
          THIS IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE, IT DOESN'T CHANGE OVER THE COURSE OF HER LIFE. 
          [01:30:02]
SENDS IN HER SAME DOCTOR'S NOTE VERIFICATION. 
          WELL, THEY BASICALLY WRITE BACK AND SAY, WELL, WE NEED AN UPDATED VERSION OF THE DOCTOR'S NOTE. 
          SHE SAYS, OKAY, SO SHE GOES THROUGH THE YEAR. 
          SHE ULTIMATELY TO SHORTEN THIS UP, DOESN'T GET THE DOCTOR'S NOTE TO HISD UNTIL FEBRUARY. 
          I THINK MAYBE FEBRUARY 22ND, SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES, 25. 
          SHE RECEIVED THE DOCTOR'S NOTE, AS AMIR HAS MENTIONED IN OCTOBER, MR. ROCKY, SORRY. 
          THERE WAS A DELAY IN GETTING IT TO HISD. 
          DURING THAT TIME SHE MISSED DAYS RELATED TO HER DISABILITY AND BY DECEMBER, SHE WAS REMOVED FROM HER POSITION BASED ON MISSING THOSE DAYS. 
          THEN IN FEBRUARY, THEY GRANTED HER ADA ACCOMMODATIONS, WHICH WOULD HAVE GIVEN HER THREE DAYS A MONTH TO BE ABSENT SO THAT SHE COULD MANAGE HER DISABILITY. 
          THIS IS WHY I THINK YOU SHOULD REALLY LOOK AT THIS CASE. 
          I DON'T REALLY HAVE A DOG IN THE FIGHT HERE. 
          I HATE THAT YOU'RE DOING THIS TO SOMEBODY. 
          I'M NOT MAD AT THE HEARING OFFICER. 
          MS. GUIDRY WAS A REAL GENTLEMAN IN THE HEARING, VERY COMPASSIONATE ABOUT IT ALL, PRESENTING THE EVIDENCE. 
          BUT THERE WAS A TROUBLING ASPECT TO IT BECAUSE WHY DID HISD DENY HER ACCOMMODATIONS BY SITTING ON HER PAPERWORK FOR A YEAR. 
          THEN WHENEVER IT WAS BROUGHT BACK UP IN THE NEW YEAR, REQUIRE HER TO REPEAT OR GIVE HER WHAT'S ESSENTIALLY A REPEAT DOCUMENT TO CERTIFY HER MEDICAL CONDITION, WHICH IS NOT THE CONDITION THAT CHANGES? WELL, I WOULD ASSERT TO YOU IN THE PENDING LAWSUIT THAT YOU WILL INEVITABLY GET IN THIS CASE, THAT THEY WILL POSE IT TO THE COURT AND TRY TO PROVE THAT WOULD HAD YOU GIVEN THE ACCOMMODATIONS THAT SHE DESERVED AND HAD THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE BACK IN 2023, SHE WOULD NOT HAVE NEEDED FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE. 
          I'M SURE ONE DAY YOU'LL BE HEARING AN EXPERT TESTIFY THAT HAD SHE BEEN ABLE TO MANAGE HER DISABILITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADA, THAT HISD ACKNOWLEDGED LATER ON THAT SHE DESERVED, SHE WOULD HAVE HAD PERHAPS THE 1,250 HOURS NECESSARY FOR FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE DURING THE CURRENT SCHOOL YEAR. 
          IF SHE CAN MANAGE CERTAIN CONDITIONS, THEY DON'T GET TO THE POINT WHERE YOU'RE ABSENT FOR 30 DAYS, DEPENDING ON YOUR CONDITION. 
          I'M SURE YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR AN EXPERT TESTIFY ABOUT THAT SOMEDAY. 
          THIS IN MY VIEW, THIS TERMINATION GIVES YOU THE ABILITY TO CUT OFF HER DAMAGE MODEL IF YOU PUT HER BACK TO WORK. 
          WHAT WILL SHE SUE OR HOW WILL SHE COLLECT UNDER ADA IF YOU DON'T FIRE HER? I DON'T THINK SHE DESERVES TO BE FIRED. 
          I THINK THAT HISD FAILED HER BY NOT GIVING HER, HER ADA ACCOMMODATIONS. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHY ANYBODY WOULD LOOK AT THIS CASE AND SAY, GOSH, I THINK WE NEED TO FIRE HER, WE DID WRONG, WE NEED TO DO BETTER. 
          LOOK AT HER PERFORMANCE. OBVIOUSLY, SHE'S BEEN ACCOMPLISHED UNDER NOT JUST OUR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM, BUT THE EVALUATION SYSTEM OF HISD BEFORE US, AND WE NEED TO REALLY EXAMINE OUR PROCEDURES. 
          WHY DID THIS HAPPEN? WHAT ARE PEOPLE BEING TOLD WHEN THEY GO APPLY FOR LEAVE IN ADA? WHY? I WILL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SHE GOT HER DOCTOR'S NOTE IN OCTOBER AND DIDN'T GET IT OVER UNTIL FEBRUARY. 
          BUT I WON'T AGREE THAT THAT IS LIKELY THE RESULT OF THE MEDICAL CONDITION THAT SHE STRUGGLES WITH NOW AND STRUGGLES WITH AND WILL FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE. 
          I WOULD ASK YOU TO RECONSIDER THIS CASE FOR THOSE REASONS. 
          I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU. MS. GUIDRY, DO YOU HAVE A REBUTTAL? 
          >> BEFORE THE REBUTTAL, I THINK WE HAVE TO CORRECT THE RECORD. 
          IS YOUR CLIENT PRESENT TODAY? 
          >> SHE'S NOT PRESENT. THERE'S NOTHING TO CORRECT [INAUDIBLE]. 
          >> ACTUALLY, THE INFORMATION THAT WAS READ INTO THE RECORD THAT YOUR CLIENT WAS PRESENT. 
          WE'RE NOTING FOR THE RECORD THAT SHE IS NOT HERE. THANK YOU. 
          >> THE ADMINISTRATION IS NOT INSENSITIVE TO THE PLIGHT OF AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS DISABLED OR WHO MAY BECOME DISABLED. 
          IT IS PRECISELY FOR THAT REASON THAT HISD ADHERES TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS AND ADOPTED VARIOUS POLICIES, PROTOCOLS, AND PROCEDURES TO PROTECT THOSE INDIVIDUALS JOBS. 
          AS YOU CAN SEE ON PAGE 14 OF THE TRANSCRIPT, STARTING ON LINE 21, HISD PROVIDED MRS. RANDOLPH WITH THE VARIOUS TYPES OF LEAVE SHE WOULD QUALIFY FOR IN JULY OF 2024, DESPITE BEING GIVEN ALL OF THE INFORMATION NECESSARY TO APPLY FOR AND RECEIVE PROTECTED LEAVE. 
          [NOISE] DESPITE THE FACT THAT SHE HAD SHOWN THAT SHE DID KNOW HOW TO APPLY FOR LEAVE, GIVEN SHE HAD APPLIED FOR AND RECEIVED FMLA PROTECTION DURING THE '23 '24 SCHOOL YEAR, 
          [01:35:05]
MRS. RANDOLPH STILL CHOSE NOT TO. 
          WAITING UNTIL THE END OF JANUARY, A FULL FIVE. 
          >> [INAUDIBLE] CORRECT YOUR RECORD. 
          RECORD IS UNCONTESTED THAT SHE RESPONDED AND DID FILE FOR FMLA. 
          >> [OVERLAPPING] YOU ARE OUT OF ORDER. 
          >> YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER. 
          >> SHE DIDN'T GET HER DOCTOR CERTIFICATION UNTIL [INAUDIBLE]. 
          >> [OVERLAPPING] YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT MR. FALLON. 
          >> RECORD IS BEING MISCHARACTERIZED. 
          >> EXCUSE ME? NO. SIR. YOUR TIME IS UP. 
          >> TO CORRECT THE RECORD AS THEY DID. 
          >> PLEASE HAVE A SEAT SO WE CAN CONTINUE THIS HEARING. 
          PLEASE HAVE A SEAT. THANK YOU. 
          >> TO CONCLUDE, BOARD PRESIDENT, THE ADMINISTRATION ASKS YOU TO UPHOLD THE TA DECISION TO NON RENEW MRS. RANDOLPH'S CONTRACT. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. GOOD EVENING. 
          >> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? BOARD WILL NOW RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION OF CHAPTER 555 OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE OPEN MEANS ACT, SECTION 551.004-551.089. 
          SHOULD BOARD FINAL ACTION VOTE OR DECISION OF ANY MATTER CONSIDERED IN THE CLOSED SESSION BE REQUIRED, SUCH FINAL ACTION VOTE OR DECISION SHALL BE TAKEN THE OPEN MEETING COVERED BY THIS NOTICE UPON THE RECOMMEND OF THIS PUBLIC MEETING OR AT A SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC MEETING OF THE BOARD UPON NOTICE THEREOF. 
          THE BOARD HAS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 7:56 PM ON OCTOBER 23RD. 
          >> 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 TIFFANY RANDOLPH'S TERM CONTRACT. 
          >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, PLEASE VOTE. 
          VOTING IS CLOSED, THE MOTION PASSES. 
          A LETTER NOTIFYING NOTIFYING BOTH PARTIES OF THIS 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 8:07 PM. 
          IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE HERE. 
          GOOD. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF CHRISTINA SCHNAUBELT, TEACHER AT STERLING 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, REQUEST AN OPEN HEARING. 
          IF BOTH PARTY REQUEST AN OPEN HEARING, DURING THIS HEARING, THE BOARD MAY GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSULT WITH HIS ATTORNEY UNDER THE TERMS OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.071. 
          ANY BOARD MEMBER WISH TO SEEK ADVICE OF COUNSEL, PLEASE TELL ME. 
          FOR THE RECORD, JAMES FALLON OF JAMES T. FALLON III LLC, REPRESENTING CHRISTINA SCHNAUBELT, IS PRESENT. 
          MILES BRADSHAW. I'M GOING TO SAY THAT. 
          THE SECOND, THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          MILES BRADSHAW LAW, REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION IS PRESENT, AND CATOSHA WOODS HISD GENERAL COUNCIL IS ALSO PRESENT. 
          CHRISTINA SCHNAUBELT IS NOT PRESENT. 
          MR. FALLON, DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE AN OPEN SESSION OR CLOSED SESSION? 
          >> OPEN PLEASE. 
          >> OPEN. THE ISSUES BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD ARE WHETHER TO ACCEPT, REJECT, OR CHANGE THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDING OF FACT, CONCLUSION OF LAW, AND THE PROPOSAL BASED ON A REVIEW OF THE RECORD. 
          WE MAY REJECT OR CHANGE A FINDING OF FACT AFTER REVIEWING THE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER. 
          IF WE FIND IT 
          [01:40:01]
IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OR SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. 
          IF WE REJECT THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION OR MAKE ANY CHANGES, WE MUST STATE THE REASON AND THE LEGAL BASIS IN WRITING. 
          MR. BRADSHAW, YOU WILL BE FIRST TO PROCEED. 
          YOU'LL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE 10 MINUTE PRESENTATION. 
          YOU CAN SAVE SOME OF YOUR TIME AT THE END AS WELL, SO YOU MAY BEGIN. 
          >> THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, BOARD MEMBERS AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT. 
          I WILL TRY TO BE BRIEF. 
          THIS CASE IS SIMILAR TO YOUR OTHER CASES YOU'VE HAD TONIGHT. 
          IT IS AN EXCESSIVE ABSENCES CASE. 
          I BELIEVE THIS ONE IS SIMPLER THAN ANY OF THE OTHERS YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT. 
          MS. SCHNAUBELT WAS ABSENT 16 DAYS DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR. 
          THAT EXCEEDED HER ALLOWABLE AMOUNT, WHICH WAS 10 DAYS. 
          SHE HAD SIX UNPAID DAYS, WHICH HAS HAS BEEN NOTED, VIOLATED YOUR POLICY, DEC8, YOUR ABSENCE CONTROL POLICY. 
          MS. SCHNAUBELT IN THE HEARING, WHICH WE HAD LASTED ABOUT A HALF A DAY. 
          SHE ADMITTED THAT THE ABSENCES WERE ACCURATE. 
          THAT WAS NOT IN DISPUTE. 
          ULTIMATELY, THE HEARING EXAMINER, AND YOU HAVE THE DECISION IN YOUR RECORD, FOUND FOR THE DISTRICT, FINDING THAT ALL FIVE REASONS IN THE NON RENEWAL LETTER WERE SUPPORTED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE. 
          THE FMLA CAME UP IN ONE INSTANCE IN THIS CASE, BUT IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. 
          MS. SCHNAUBELT HAD HER 11TH ABSENCE, WHICH PUT HER IN VIOLATION OF THE POLICY ON JANUARY THE 15TH. 
          UNDER THE PRACTICES OF LEAVE ADMINISTRATION, SHE MADE HER REQUEST FOR FMLA NOT UNTIL FEBRUARY 18TH, OVER A MONTH LATER AFTER SHE'D ALREADY EXCEEDED THE NUMBER OF ABSENCES. 
          IN FACT, BY FEBRUARY 18TH, SHE HAD ACCUMULATED 15 ABSENCES. 
          SHE REQUESTED THAT SHE HAVE RETROACTIVE FMLA BACK TO SOME VERY SPECIFIC DAYS JANUARY 15TH THROUGH 21 AND JANUARY 29TH THROUGH 31. 
          LEAVE ADMINISTRATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW HAS THE DISCRETION TO AWARD RETROACTIVE FMLA OR NOT AT ALL. 
          THE PRACTICE AT THAT TIME WAS TO GO BACK NO MORE THAN SEVEN CALENDAR DAYS. 
          IN THIS INSTANCE, HER FEBRUARY 18TH REQUEST TO COVER DAYS, THE LATEST OF WHICH WERE JANUARY 31ST WAS NOT TIMELY, ESSENTIALLY. 
          IT WAS IMMEDIATELY DENIED AND SO THAT'S THE ONLY ASPECT OF FMLA THAT CAME INTO PLAY IN THIS CASE. 
          THE PRINCIPAL, MS. TANNISHA GENTRY, WHO'S BEEN THERE FOR FOUR YEARS. 
          I ASKED HER DURING THE HEARING BECAUSE SHE HAD BEEN THERE FOR FOUR YEARS AND SHE KNEW THE PRACTICE OF THE DISTRICT AND THE EMPLOYEES AND THEIR ATTENDANCE DURING THAT TIME PERIOD. 
          I ASKED HER WHETHER ATTENDANCE HAD IMPROVED SINCE THE TIME THAT MR. MILES HAD COME TO THE DISTRICT AND MADE A STRICTER POLICY. 
          ON PAGE 38 OF THE TRANSCRIPT, SHE SAYS, "I'VE SEEN A BIG IMPROVEMENT WITH EMPLOYEES COMING TO WORK." THE STRICTER POLICY IS WORKING IN THAT SENSE, KIDS ARE GETTING MORE INSTRUCTION FROM THE TEACHERS THAT THEY SHOULD BE GETTING INSTRUCTION FROM. 
          WE ASK THAT YOU ADOPT THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION. 
          >> THANK YOU. MR. FALLON, YOU MAY MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD. 
          >> THANK YOU, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD FOR YOUR TIME. 
          THIS MR. BRADSHAW ACCURATELY CHARACTERIZES THE RECORD, AND I NONETHELESS ASK FOR WHAT I'VE ASKED FOR IN THE PREVIOUS TWO CASES. 
          THIS IS NOT A PERFORMANCE CASE, IT'S AN ABSENCE CASE WITH A TEACHER WHO HAS SOME CHARACTERISTICS THAT I THINK WOULD WARRANT A REVIEW AND SOME DETERMINATION FROM YOU THAT SOMETHING OTHER THAN A NONRENEWAL IS APPROPRIATE. 
          WHY DO I ASK THAT? ONE, THERE'S A SYMPATHETIC NATURE TO THE CAUSE OF HER ABSENCES. 
          HER SON, WHO IS IN HIS 30S, APPARENTLY HAD GRANDMA SEIZURES DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME. 
          HER ABSENCES IN JANUARY WERE, I THINK, SHE MISSED THREE DAYS AS A RESULT OF HIM SUDDENLY SEIZING IN AN UNCONTROLLABLE WAY THAT ENDED UP PUTTING HIM IN THE HOSPITAL. 
          [01:45:05]
IT WAS OUT OF NOWHERE. 
          THERE WAS NO HISTORY WHATSOEVER OF THAT. 
          IT WAS A QUITE ALARMING THING. 
          WITHIN TWO WEEKS, SHE WAS BY HIS SIDE. 
          SHE WAS ALSO SUFFERING SOME MEDICAL CONDITIONS AS A RESULT OF HIS MEDICAL CONDITIONS BECAUSE SHE WAS GETTING STRESS, AND IT CAUSED HER STOMACH TO GET UPSET IN A WAY THAT SHE WAS UNABLE TO GO TO SCHOOL. 
          FIVE OF HER DAYS WERE THE RESULT OF THIS CIRCUMSTANCE. 
          I THINK THAT IT'S ACCURATE TO SAY SHE DIDN'T APPLY FOR FML IN A TIMELY MANNER. 
          I THINK IT'S ALSO ACCURATE TO SAY THAT SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET FML HAD SHE DONE IT. 
          THERE'S A QUALIFYING CONDITION FOR AN INCAPACITATED ADULT CHILD AS PART OF FML, BUT SHE DIDN'T. 
          I'M NOT GOING TO PRETEND LIKE SHE DID. 
          BUT I'M ALSO NOT GOING TO PRETEND LIKE THIS IS A LADY THAT SHOULD BE FIRED FROM HISD. 
          HER PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS WERE VERY GOOD. 
          AGAIN, 2023 '24 WAS RATED AS ACCOMPLISHED, PROFICIENT BEFORE THAT, AND IT JUST GOES BACK WITH SOLID SCORES FOR YEARS. 
          THE COMMENTS REALLY GOT TO ME. 
          SHE'S BEEN AN EDUCATOR FOR OVER 21 YEARS. 
          HER HISD APPRAISER IN 2021 WROTE, "MS. SCHNAUBELT IS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF WHAT A CO-TEACHER SHOULD BE." SHE'S A FED TEACHER, WHILE A CERTIFIED TEACHER TEACHES IN THE TOPICAL AREA, AND SHE SUPPORTS THAT PERSON DEALING WITH THE SPECIAL EDUCATION NEEDS. 
          IT'S CALLED A CO-TEACHER. 
          MS. SCHNAUBELT IS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF WHAT A CO-TEACHER SHOULD BE HELPFUL, FRIENDLY, COMMUNICATIVE, WILLING TO ASSIST IN ANY WAY, AND ALWAYS A TEAM PLAYER. 
          SHE ALWAYS WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE VARIOUS FORMS OF DIFFERENTIATION, AS WELL AS DIFFERENT WAYS TO COMMUNICATE CONCEPTS TO STUDENTS. 
          SHE REGULARLY COLLABORATES WITH HER COLLEAGUES AND CONSISTENTLY MAKES STUDENTS' SUCCESS A PRIORITY. 
          THEN JUST GO ON. I'M CUTTING IT SHORT. 
          PRIOR YEAR, IN 1819, MS. SCHNAUBELT WAS A GREAT CO-TEACHER. 
          SHE FOCUSES ON STUDENT SUCCESS AND IS PASSIONATE TO STUDENTS AT STERLING. 
          MS. SCHNAUBELT WORKS WELL WITH HER COLLEAGUES TO HELP ENSURE THE SAFETY OF STUDENTS. 
          SHE COMMUNICATES WITH HER PARENTS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR TO ENSURE SUCCESS. 
          AND THROUGHOUT, I WAS JUST REALLY STRUCK BY THESE PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS. 
          I 21 TO 20 I THINK 21 22, THE ADMINISTRATOR WHO EVALUATOR WROTE, MS. SCHNAUBELT IS VERY METICULOUS WITH HER TIME IN THE CLASSROOM AND WITHIN THE SPECIAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. 
          SHE CREATED A COUNTER OF SCHEDULED RDS AND RD PREPARATION, AS WELL AS CO TEACHING TIME. 
          THE TEACHER WILL CO TEACH OR LEAD LESSONS IN CLASS AND WORK ONE ON ONE, OR IN SMALL GROUPS, ENSURING STUDENTS ARE RECEIVING ACCOMMODATIONS AS PRESCRIBED. 
          MS. SCHNAUBELT IS VERY CAPABLE OF PROVIDING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION TO ALL STUDENTS IN THE CLASSROOM. 
          SHE COLLABORATES WELL WITH HER PARTNER TEACHERS AND ADJUSTS LESSONS AND ASSESSES ACCORDINGLY. 
          HER FLEXIBILITY WITH HER TEAM IS VERY ADMIRABLE AND APPRECIATED. 
          CONTINUE TO COLLABORATE AND PLAN IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT STUDENTS' NEEDS ARE MET AND THERE IS STUDENT PROGRESS. 
          THE TEACHER TREATS HER COLLEAGUES WITH RESPECT AND IS ALWAYS WILLING TO STEP INTO ANY CLASSROOM TO ASSIST WITH A SMILE. 
          23-24, THE YEAR THAT SHE WAS RATED AS ACCOMPLISHED. 
          THEY WROTE, MS. SCHNAUBELT'S COMMITMENT TO HER STUDENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES IS EVIDENT IN HER STRONG COMMUNICATION SKILLS AND HER DEDICATION TO FOSTERING GROWTH WITHIN THE CLASSROOM. 
          BY MAINTAINING OPEN LINES OF COMMUNICATION WITH PARENTS ABOUT STUDENT PROGRESS, SHE ENSURES THAT EVERYONE IS WORKING TO SUPPORT THE STUDENT DEVELOPMENT. 
          COLLABORATING WITH COLLEAGUES TO SHARE INSIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES FROM PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES FURTHER ENRICHES THE LEARNING COMMUNITY WITHIN THE SCHOOL. 
          THIS COLLABORATIVE SPIRIT FOSTERS A CULTURE OF SHARED LEARNING AND INNOVATION, ULTIMATELY BENEFITING BOTH TEACHERS AND STUDENTS ALIKE. 
          SO I MEAN, I FEEL TERRIBLE THAT HER SON HAD A CONDITION THAT WOULD HAVE QUALIFIED FOR FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE, AND SHE JUST DIDN'T HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE TO FILL IT OUT IN A TIMELY MANNER. 
          SHE DIDN'T TESTIFY THAT SHE MADE EFFORTS, AND SHE DIDN'T. 
          I'M NOT GOING TO PRETEND THAT SHE DID IT THE WAY YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO IT. 
          BUT I WOULD ASK YOU TO PERHAPS REEVALUATE THE SYSTEM SO THAT PEOPLE COULD UNDERSTAND HOW TO PROPERLY APPLY FOR THEIR LEAVE WHEN IT'S NECESSARY, SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO SIT HERE AND FIRE ANOTHER EXCESSIVELY COMPETENT PERSON FROM HER JOB. 
          IT IS VERY SAD THAT SOME OTHER DISTRICT WILL GET TO RECEIVE THE BENEFITS OF MS. SCHNAUBELT. 
          BECAUSE SHE IS VERY GOOD. 
          SHE WAS AN ANCHOR ON HER SCHOOL, WHEREVER SHE TAUGHT. 
          SO AGAIN, I ASK YOU TO DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN TERMINATE HER. 
          [01:50:03]
I DO BELIEVE THAT THE LANGUAGE IN YOUR POLICY SAYS UP TO AND INCLUDING TERMINATION, THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO BACK AND EXAMINE THAT. 
          THE DISTRICT SHOULD HAVE. 
          THEY SHOULD HAVE EVALUATED THESE THINGS BEFORE PROPOSING HER TERMINATION. 
          CURRENT PRACTICE IS A STRICT LIABILITY APPLICATION OF THE ABSENCE POLICY. 
          I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S SUPPORTED BY WHAT YOU SAY. 
          IF YOU'RE GOING TO IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE AND CHANGE IT, CHANGE YOUR POLICY. 
          MAKE IT CLEAR FOR EVERYBODY. 
          THE LANGUAGE DOESN'T SAY YOU GET FIRED FOR TEN FOR 11. 
          IT SAYS DISCIPLINED UP TO AND INCLUDING. 
          AND THAT'S JUST NOT FAIR. 
          THAT'S NOT CLEAR. AND YOU'LL FIND AND CONTINUE TO FIND IN THE YEARS TO COME CASES THAT ARE THIS SYMPATHETIC. 
          SOME CASES YOU'VE HEARD ME ARGUE IN THE PAST. 
          AND IN MANY CASES, YOU'LL NEVER HEAR IT ARGUED BECAUSE THEY JUST SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT, HIST IS JUST NOT WORTH THE FIGHT. 
          IT'S NOT WORTH GETTING THIS BLACK MARK ON MY RECORD TO GO MAKE MY POINT TO THIS BOARD. 
          AND THAT IS VERY SAD. 
          SO I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME THIS EVENING. 
          MY TIME IS OVER. THIS IS MY LAST CASE. 
          AND THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU. MR. BRADSHAW, DO YOU WISH TO MAKE A REBUTTAL STATEMENT? 
          >> I JUST HAVE A VERY BRIEF STATEMENT. 
          ONE THING THAT DOESN'T GET DISCUSSED MUCH IN THESE CASES IS WHAT EFFECT DOES THE ABSENCE OF THAT TEACHER HAVE ON THE CLASSROOM? AND IN THIS CASE, WE HAD TESTIMONY MS. SCHNAUBELT WAS A SPECIAL ED CO TEACHER, ESSENTIALLY AN INCLUSION TEACHER IN THE REGULAR HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH CLASS. 
          AND SO SHE WOULD WORK WITH FOUR OR FIVE STUDENTS THAT NEEDED IMMEDIATE ASSISTANCE AS THE LESSON WAS BEING TAUGHT. 
          THE PRINCIPAL TESTIFIED THAT WHEN SHE WAS ABSENT. 
          SOMETIMES THOSE STUDENTS WOULDN'T GET, YOU KNOW, THEIR ACCOMMODATIONS AND THE ASSISTANCE THAT THEY NEEDED. 
          AND IF THEY DID GET IT, IT WAS BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE CAME IN AND FILLED IN, WHICH PULLED THEM AWAY FROM THEIR WORK. 
          AND IT ALSO HURT EMPLOYEE MORALE FOR THOSE WHO WERE IN ATTENDANCE. 
          SO I DON'T THINK THAT GETS SAID ENOUGH IN THESE CASES, THEY COME ACROSS AS REALLY DRY AND COLD. 
          I WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR ON THE RECORD THAT THERE IS A CONSEQUENCE WHEN TEACHERS AREN'T IN THE CLASSROOM. 
          >> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS, COLLEAGUES? NO. YOU NEED A CLOSED SESSION? NO. OKAY. THE PARTIES HAVE COMPLETED THEIR PRESENTATIONS. 
          IT'S NOW TIME FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS TO MAKE OUR DECISION ON THE ISSUES BEFORE US. 
          IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE. 
          DO I HAVE A MOTION? 
          >> YES, PLEASE. I MOVE 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 NOT RENEW CHRISTINA SCHNAUBELT'S ONE YEAR TERM CONTRACT. 
          >> WE HAVE MOTION IN A SECOND, PLEASE VOTE. 
          VOTING IS CLOSED, AND THE MOTION PASSES. 
          A LETTER NOTIFYING BOTH PARTIES OF THE ACTION OF THE BOARD SHALL BE PREPARED AND SIGNED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE BOARD OF RELATIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. 
          THIS HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT 8:22 P.M. THANK YOU. 
          IS EVERYONE HERE WHO NEEDS TO BE HERE FOR THE OTHER LAST ONE? YES. READY TO GO? GOOD. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE DISPUTE FILED BY RENEE SARTON, A FORMER CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE, FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS. 
          HEARINGS INVOLVING COMPLAINTS AGAINST DISTRICT EMPLOYEES WOULD BE HELD IN CLOSED SESSION UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE WHO IS SUBJECT TO THE HEARING REQUESTS AN OPEN HEARING. 
          IF BOTH PARTIES REQUEST AN OPEN SESSION. 
          DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING, THE BOARD MAY GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSULT WITH ITS ATTORNEYS UNDER THE TERMS OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071. 
          IF ANY BOARD MEMBER WISHES TO SEEK THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. 
          FOR THE RECORD, RENEE SARTON IS PRESENT. 
          MILES BRADSHAW OF BRADSHAW LAW, REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION, IS ALSO PRESENT. 
          CATOSHA WOODS, HIC GENERAL COUNSEL, IS ALSO PRESENT. 
          [01:55:02]
MISS SARTON, DO YOU WISH TO HAVE AN OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION? OPEN SESSION. 
          OKAY. THE ISSUES BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD ARE WHETHER BOARD POLICIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES WERE CORRECTLY APPLIED TO THE GRIEVANCE AND WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATION HAS VIOLATED THOSE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. 
          MISS SARTON, YOU WILL PROCEED FIRST. 
          YOU WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD, FOLLOWED BY A TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION BY MR. BRADSHAW. 
          PRESENTATIONS MUST BE BASED ON THE LEVEL TWO HEARING TRANSCRIPT. 
          CERTAINLY, YOU MAY RESERVE PART OF YOUR 10 MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL TO THE MATTERS PRESENTED BY MR. BRADSHAW. 
          BOTH SIDES WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD AFTER THE RESPECTIVE PRESENTATIONS. 
          HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPLIT YOUR TIME? SEVEN AND THREE. OKAY OKAY? YOU MAY BEGIN. THANK YOU. 
          >> GOOD AFTERNOON, CAMPO PRESIDENT AND BOARD MEMBERS. 
          BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION. 
          MY NAME IS RENEE SARTON. 
          I'M CURRENTLY A FORMER EMPLOYEE FOR HISD FOR APPROXIMATELY FIVE YEARS. 
          I'M HERE TODAY TO ACT FOR REINSTATEMENT TO MY POSITION AS A CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE DUE TO BEING WRONGFULLY TERMINATED WHILE ON AN APPROVED FMLA. 
          ON MAY 1, I WAS TRANSFERRED TO PETS CONTROL DEPARTMENT. 
          DUE TO COMPLAINTS BEING MADE BY THE CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPARTMENT. 
          IT WAS LIKE A CIRCUS, AMUSEMENT PARK AND A BURGER KING. 
          YOU HIT YOUR WAY. SO AFTER VOICING MY OPINIONS ABOUT THE THINGS THAT WENT ON IN THAT CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPARTMENT, I WAS TRANSFERRED TO PEST CONTROL. 
          ONCE BEING TRANSFERRED TO PEST CONTROL, I WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR IRRIGATION GROUNDS, BLEACHERS, AND A WHOLE BUNCH OF THINGS. 
          BUT ANYWAY, THERE WAS A MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER THE 21ST IN THE CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPARTMENT. 
          DURING THAT MEETING, IT WAS ALICIA JALOVT, PATRICE HUMPHREY, AND JASMINE SCOTT. 
          THEY PRESENTED TO US THAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN TO OUR DEPARTMENT, THAT EVERYTHING WAS UP TO MR. MILES, THAT MR. MILES WAS MAKING DECISIONS THAT THEY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH. 
          THEY DIDN'T TELL US WHAT THEY WERE REALLY GOING TO DO. 
          THEY JUST TOLD US THAT THEY WEREN'T AWARE. 
          THEY WANTED TO GIVE US FIRSTHAND ON THE EXPERIENCE OF WHAT THEY HAD. 
          DURING THAT WEEK, I WAS OUT THE MONDAY BEFORE. 
          PRIOR TO THAT, MONDAY BEFORE, I WAS OUT A WEEK BEFORE THAT 0925, I WAS APPROVED ON A FMLA, I WAS AT HOME, AND THE MAILMAN BROUGHT THREE CERTIFIED LETTERS. 
          THE FIRST CERTIFIED LETTER STATED THAT I WAS SUPPOSED TO ATTEND A CONFERENCE OF RECORD ON SEPTEMBER 25, WHICH I DID NOT RECEIVE. 
          THE LETTER WAS DATED SEPTEMBER 20. 
          THE NEXT CERTIFIED LETTER, DATED SEPTEMBER 28, SAID THAT ON SEPTEMBER 27, I WAS SCHEDULED FOR A CONFERENCE OF RECORD, BUT I DID NOT ATTEND THAT CONFERENCE OF RECORD BECAUSE I WAS ON A CALL OUT, WHICH IS NOT TRUE. 
          I WAS ON APPROVED OF FMLA. 
          THE THIRD CERTIFIED LETTER STATED THAT, AS I'M SORRY, IN YOUR PACKET, YOU WOULD SEE THE LETTERS AS EXHIBIT 56 AND SEVEN. 
          THE THIRD ONE IS DATED SEPTEMBER 25-26. 
          DATE OF SEPTEMBER, I'M SORRY, DATE OF SEPTEMBER 29 OF SEPTEMBER 26, SAID THAT THEY HELD THE CONFERENCE WITH ME AND THAT I DECIDED THAT I TOLD THEM THAT I DIDN'T WANT TO REPRESENT THE PRESENT AND THAT THEY TOLD ME TO SEEK EMPLOYMENT ELSEWHERE. 
          HOW COULD YOU SIT DOWN WITH ME ON SEPTEMBER 26 AND STATE THAT YOU HAD A CONFERENCE OF RECORD WITH ME WHEN I WASN'T AT SCHOOL? I WASN'T EVEN THERE. 
          SO THEREFORE, THAT INFORMATION RIGHT THERE IS NOT TRUE. 
          OKAY. I HAD A LEVEL ONE HEARING WITH MISS JASMINE SCOTT, WHO WAS MY SUPERVISOR AT THE TIME. 
          MY LEVEL TWO HEARING WAS HELD WITH MISS PATRICE SCOTT AND MILES BRADSHAW. 
          AND DURING THE VERY START OF THE MEETING, BROUGHT IN JASMINE SCOTT AS A WITNESS. 
          IN MY OPINION, THE LEVEL ONE HEARING WAS HELD WITH MISS SCOTT. 
          THE LEVEL TWO WAS WITH MISS PATRICE HUMPHREY. 
          HOW DO I STAND A FAIR CHANCE WHICH YOU HAVE A LEVEL TWO HEARING WITH THE PERSON WHOM MY COMPLAINT IS AGAINST? MY COMPLAINT WAS AGAINST MISS HUMPHREY, BECAUSE SHE STATED THAT THEY SAT ME DOWN. 
          IN MY OPINION, THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A THIRD PARTY THAT WAS PRESENT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN NEUTRAL, THAT DIDN'T KNOW EITHER ONE OF US. 
          >> IN YOUR PACKAGE THAT YOU HAVE, THEY HAVE THIS EXHIBIT 1 ON THERE. 
          THEY HAVE A LEVEL 1 HEARING, THEN THEY DID MY JOB DESCRIPTIONS THAT THEY HAD. 
          UPON TRANSFERRING ME TO PEST CONTROL. 
          [02:00:03]
I HAD ONLY BEEN EMPLOYED IN THAT DIVISION FOR ABOUT THREE MONTHS. 
          YOU TRANSFERRED ME TO PEST CONTROL BECAUSE YOU SAID THAT PEST CONTROL NEEDED HELP, GROUNDS AND ALL NEEDED HELP. 
          BUT THEN YOU DON'T GIVE ME THE NECESSARY TOOLS THAT I NEED TO BE SUCCESSFUL. 
          MISS LUCI GARCIA WROTE LETTERS TO TELL YOU THAT I NEEDED ACCESS TO I39, I17, YOU REFUSED TO GIVE IT TO ME. 
          BUT BECAUSE OF ME BEING THE PERSON THAT I AM A VERY HARD WORKER OF QUICK LEARNER, I MANAGED TO SURVIVE. 
          THEN IN THE EXHIBIT 3, I GAVE THEM TWO DOCTOR'S NOTE. 
          I GAVE THEM ONE DOCTOR'S NOTE FOR THE WEEK PRIOR TO ME BEING THERE, AND I GAVE THEM A DOCTOR'S NOTE THAT SAID THAT I WOULD BE OUT TO OCTOBER 7TH. 
          IF I'M ON APPROVED LEAVE, PLUS YOU HAVE A DOCTOR'S NOTE STATING THAT I'M OUT TO OCTOBER 2ND, HOW COULD I BE THERE? THEN THEY SAID THAT THEY GAVE ME A DIRECT ATTENDANT CONFERENCE. 
          DIRECT ATTENDANT CONFERENCE I DID NOT RECEIVE. 
          THE SIGNATURE ON THAT LETTER IS NOT MINE. 
          IT WAS COPIED AND PASTE BY THEM. 
          THE DOCUMENT THAT THEY GIVE YOU IN YOUR PACKETS, THEY DELETED THE TEXT MESSAGE. 
          IF YOU SEE YOUR EXHIBIT 4, YOU SEE A BLANK SPOT, THEY TOOK OUT WHAT I ACTUALLY GAVE THEM. 
          ON EXHIBIT 6, I DID NOT ATTEND THE CONFERENCE. 
          ON EXHIBIT 7, THEY STATED AGAIN THAT I WAS NOT THERE DUE TO A CALL OUT. THIS IS NOT TRUE. 
          I WAS ON APPROVE FFM LEAVE FROM SEPTEMBER 25TH TO NOVEMBER 13TH. 
          MISS SCOTT STATE THAT SHE DID NOT RECEIVE THAT INFORMATION ON OCTOBER 14TH. 
          IT'S NOT MY FAULT MISS SCOTT NEVER COMES TO WORK. 
          THAT INFORMATION WAS GIVEN TO HER BY BEN WATSON, WHO SHE INSTRUCTED TO BE MY TEAM LEAD AT THAT TIME. 
          HE SENT THE EMAIL TO HER AT THAT TIME. 
          I SHOULDN'T BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE IF YOU DIDN'T GET IT ON OCTOBER 4TH, BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT AT WORK. 
          THEN THE NEXT THING THEY TOLD ME THAT I WAS TERMINATED BECAUSE I FAILED TO SHOW UP. 
          THEN THEY CAME BACK AND SAID I WAS TERMINATED BECAUSE THERE WAS A REDUCTION IN WORKFORCE. 
          YOU HAVE A REDUCTION IN WORKFORCE, BUT THEN YOU TURN AROUND AND MISS HUMPHREYS AND ME ASSISTANT'S DAUGHTER. 
          HELP ME LET THAT MAKE SENSE. I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING IT. 
          WHEN YOU HAVE REDUCTION IN WORKFORCE, YOU DON'T GO OUT AND HIRE SOMEBODY NEW. 
          THEN I CONTACTED TYLA TALBCH MYSELF BECAUSE ONCE I RECEIVED THE LETTER CERTIFIED, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO. 
          I CALLED THE EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, THEY SAID TO CONTACT HISD, HUMAN RESOURCES. 
          I CONTACTED TYLA TALBCH WHICH SAID THAT SHE WAS NEW, SHE HAD NO IDEA WHAT WAS GOING ON. 
          SHE WOULD CONTACT THE PERSON THAT THEY HAD ASSIGNED TO EACH DISTRICT, LIKE BOWMAN. 
          EACH PERSON HAD A DIFFERENT LEADER THAT DESIGN. 
          SHE SAID THAT SHE WOULD CONTACT THEM. 
          I'M HERE TODAY TO ASK YOU TO BE REINSTATED DUE TO THE INCONSISTENCIES IN THE LEADERSHIP, THE FALSIFYING DOCUMENTS, NOTHING TRUTHFUL. 
          [NOISE] 
          >> THANK YOU. YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES AT THE CONCLUSION. 
          MR. BRADSHAW, YOU MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD. 
          >> THANK YOU, MR. BOARD PRESIDENT. 
          LET ME GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND OF WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THIS MATTER. 
          THERE WAS A REORGANIZATION WITHIN THE FMO DEPARTMENT AND THE CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPARTMENT. 
          WITHIN THAT DEPARTMENT, THERE WERE AT THE TIME, ABOUT 40 EMPLOYEES AND THE WAY THEY DECIDED TO DO THE REORGANIZATION WAS THAT EVERYBODY WAS GETTING TERMINATED, AND THEN EVERYBODY COULD REAPPLY TO THE NEWLY CREATED POSITIONS, AND THAT WAS THE PROCESS. 
          IT WAS A VERY QUICK PROCESS. 
          ALL OF THAT WAS GOING TO TAKE PLACE WITHIN ABOUT A 10-DAY PERIOD IN SEPTEMBER OF 2023, AND PROBABLY THE BEST THING THAT YOU CAN LOOK AT AS FAR AS UNDERSTANDING THE TIMELINE IS TO LOOK AT EXHIBIT 15 OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S EXHIBITS. 
          ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER THE 20TH IS WHEN MISS SCOTT HEARD ABOUT THE REORGANIZATION. 
          SHE WAS PART OF THE REORGANIZATION HERSELF. 
          ON THE VERY NEXT DAY ON THE 21ST, A DEPARTMENTAL WIDE MEETING WAS CALLED AND EVERYBODY, INCLUDING MISS SARTON WAS REQUIRED TO BE THERE. 
          MISS SARTON WAS THERE. 
          SHE HEARD WHAT THE PROCESS WAS GOING TO BE. 
          SHE KNEW THAT THERE WOULD BE CONFERENCES FOR THE RECORD FOR EVERYBODY, 
          [02:05:02]
AND SHE EVEN SIGNED THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED HER NOTICE OF CONFERENCE FOR THE RECORD. 
          THAT IS EXHIBIT 4. 
          I CAN ASSURE YOU THE FIRST TIME I'VE HEARD THAT WE FALSIFIED HER SIGNATURE WAS JUST NOW. 
          PRETTY SURE THAT DID NOT HAPPEN AND THERE'S NO EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. 
          SHE KNEW THE CONFERENCE FOR THE RECORD WAS ON THE 27TH. 
          THERE WAS A FALL HOLIDAY ON THE MONDAY FOLLOWING, AND SO OVER THE WEEKEND, APPARENTLY, SHE SENT IN HER REQUEST FOR FML STRAIGHT TO LEAVE ADMINISTRATION. 
          MISS SCOTT WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT. 
          SHE DID NOT BECOME AWARE OF IT UNTIL OCTOBER THE 4TH AFTER THE ENTIRE PROCESS WAS COMPLETE, AND EVERYONE HAD BEEN FIRED, REAPPLIED, RE-INTERVIEWED, AND ORDERED TO WORK ON OCTOBER 2ND. 
          THAT WAS THE PROCESS. 
          MISS SCOTT DIDN'T EVEN WAS NOT AWARE THAT SHE HAD REQUESTED FML UNTIL OCTOBER THE 4TH. 
          NOW, IT IS CORRECT THAT MISS SARTON'S SUPERVISOR, MR. BEN WATSON, LEAVE ADMINISTRATION DID SEND HIM ONE OF THOSE AUTOMATIC EMAILS THAT SAYS, THIS PERSON HAS APPLIED FOR FMLA, AND IT IS IN PROCESS. 
          HE FORWARDED THAT TO MISS SCOTT IN AN EMAIL, SAID FYI. 
          MISS SCOTT DID NOT SEE IT. 
          NOW, IT DID GO TO HER LIKE AROUND SEPTEMBER 29TH, SO TOWARD THE END OF THAT WEEK. 
          BUT ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT WITH REGARD TO THE LAW AND FMLA, DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION, OR INTERFERENCE, IT'S NOT AGAINST THE LAW TO TERMINATE SOMEONE WHILE THEY'RE ON FMLA. 
          MISS SARTON MAKES THE ARGUMENT THAT THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE EVEN COMMUNICATED WITH HER WHILE SHE WAS ON FMLA, WHICH DIDN'T EVEN GET APPROVED UNTIL OCTOBER THE 4TH. 
          ALL THE COMMUNICATIONS WERE PRIOR TO THAT. 
          WHAT THE LAW SAYS IS IF THE PERSON WOULD HAVE BEEN TERMINATED ANYWAY, REGARDLESS OF THEIR FMLA REQUEST, THEN IT'S NOT DISCRIMINATION, IT'S NOT RETALIATION. 
          THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE HERE. A REDUCTION IN FORCE, A REORGANIZATION IS THE PRIME EXAMPLE THAT ATTORNEYS TALK ABOUT WHEN THEY SAY THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHEN YOU CAN FIRE SOMEONE WHEN THEY'RE ON FMLA, AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANYTHING TO WORRY ABOUT BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS BEING TREATED THE SAME, AND IT WAS TO A T, EVERYONE WAS TREATED THE SAME IN THIS INSTANCE, EVERYONE WAS TERMINATED. 
          EVERYONE HAD TO REAPPLY. 
          EVERYONE HAD INTERVIEWS IF THEY REAPPLIED, AND THEN THEY WERE BROUGHT BACK TO WORK THE NEXT WEEK. 
          MISS SARTON WAS AWARE OF THAT BECAUSE SHE WAS AT THE DEPARTMENTAL MEETING, AND SHE SIGNED OFF ON HER CONFERENCE FOR THE RECORD. 
          WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHY SHE REQUESTED FML, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD. 
          SHE TALKS ABOUT THIS DOCTOR'S NOTE THAT WAS BLANK. 
          WELL, IT WAS BLANK BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY SHE SENT IT TO HER SUPERVISOR. 
          WE COULDN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT IT SAID EITHER. 
          SHE DIDN'T ENTER IT INTO EVIDENCE. 
          SHE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT AND CLEAR ALL THAT UP, AND SHE DIDN'T DO IT. 
          SHE CLAIMS SHE CONTACTED HER SUPERVISOR AND YET THERE'S NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD WHATSOEVER THAT SHE DID EXCEPT HER OWN TESTIMONY. 
          ALSO, HER SUPERVISOR, MISS SCOTT'S TESTIMONY THAT SHE DID NOT CONTACT HER AT ANY TIME VIA EMAIL, TEXT, PHONE CALL. 
          THE SAME IS TRUE FOR MISS JOE LEVET, WHO WAS A HIGHER UP SUPERVISOR, AND SHE INCLUDED A STATEMENT THAT SAID SHE WAS NEVER CONTACTED EITHER SO THAT THIS COULD BE DISCUSSED OR THAT THERE MAYBE THERE COULD BE SOME ACCOMMODATION THAT WAS MADE BASED ON THE FML THAT WAS ULTIMATELY APPROVED. 
          BUT SINCE IT WAS APPROVED AFTER THE FACT, IT REALLY ULTIMATELY DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE SHE WAS TREATED THE SAME AS EVERYONE ELSE AND SO FOR THAT REASON, WE BELIEVE HER REQUEST FOR RELIEF SHOULD BE DENIED. 
          I WOULD ALSO REMIND THE BOARD THAT MISS SARTON IS ELIGIBLE FOR REEMPLOYMENT. 
          SHE HAS REMAINED ELIGIBLE FOR REEMPLOYMENT, AND SO NO ONE'S PREVENTING HER FROM COMING BACK IF SHE WANTS TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU. MISS SARTON, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES LEFT? 
          [02:10:01]
          >> YES, SIR. THANK YOU, SIR. ONE THING MR. MILES DID SAY THAT THE PROCESS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE 10 DAYS. 
          THIS PROCESS WAS NOT 10 DAYS. 
          THEY DID ALL THIS IN THREE DAYS. 
          THEY STARTED ON THE 21ST WITH THAT NOTE THEN THE 25TH. 
          HOW I GOT TO RECEIVE THIS THEY SENT OUT A NOTICE THAT THEY WERE RUNNING BEHIND ON INTERVIEWS. 
          ALL THIS WAS DONE IN THREE DAYS. 
          IT'S LIKE IT WAS PROBABLY SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN DONE IN 10 DAYS, BUT DUE TO THEIR LACK OF PROFESSIONALISM OF URGENCY ABOUT THINGS, THAT'S HOW IT WAS DONE. 
          I DID SUPPLY THEM WITH THE DOCUMENT. 
          THAT'S WHAT I WAS TELLING YOU THAT AT THE LEVEL 3 HEARING, AND ALSO RIGHT HERE, I HAVE A SECOND COPY OF THE TWO DOCUMENT THAT WAS GIVEN THEM. 
          IF YOU LOOK IN YOUR EXHIBIT, YOU WILL SEE ONE DOCUMENT THAT THEY HAVE ON THAT, BUT THEY CLAIM THAT THEY COULDN'T READ IT. 
          AT THE LEVEL 2 HEARING, I GAVE THAT DOCUMENT TO THEM. 
          THAT'S NOT TRUE. IN YOUR PACKAGE, YOU WILL SEE, THE FMLA WAS APPROVED NOT OCTOBER 2ND. 
          THE FMLA IT WAS NOT A PRE-NOTICE SENT TO MR. WATSON SAYING THAT IT WAS A NOTICE TO LET HIM KNOW. 
          THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO MR. WATSON BECAUSE MISS SCOTT WAS NEVER AT WORK. 
          SHE DOESN'T LIKE TO BE BOTHERED WITH YOU, SO SHE ASSIGNED OTHER PEOPLE TO BE YOUR TEAM LEAD. 
          AT THAT TIME, IT WAS SENT TO BEN WATSON AND KEITH WHATEVER KEITH I CAN'T THINK OF KEITH NAME RIGHT NOW. 
          IT WAS SENT TO THEM SO SHE WAS MADE AWARE OF IT. 
          AS I TOLD YOU EARLIER, I SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT AT WORK. 
          SHE DID NOT READ HER EMAIL. 
          YOU HAVE THE FACT THE LETTER IN YOUR PACKAGE, SAYING WHEN THE LEAVE WAS ACTUALLY APPROVED. 
          THE LEAVE WAS APPROVED FROM SEPTEMBER 25TH TO NOVEMBER 13TH. 
          ONCE AGAIN, BOARD MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. 
          I DO APPRECIATE YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES? WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A FEW MINUTES IN A CLOSED SESSION SO THE BOARD WILL NOW RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION AND CHAPTER 551 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE OPEN MEANINGS ACT SUBSECTION 551-004-3551-089. 
          SHOULD BOARD FINAL ACTION, VOTE DECISION OR ANY OTHER MATTER CONSIDERING THE CLOSED SESSION BE REQUIRED, SUCH FINAL ACTION, VOTE OR DECISION SHALL BE TAKEN IN 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 RECESS TO CLOSE SESSION AT 8:42 PM ON OCTOBER 23RD. 
          WE ARE HERE. SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE HOUSTON IN PENN SCHOOL DISTRICT IS NOW RECONVENED IN OPEN SESSION. 
          THE TIME IS 9:01 PM. DO I HAVE A MOTION? 
          >> YES. 
          >> SORRY, I JUMPED YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> YES, PLEASE. I MOVE THAT WE DENY ALL REQUESTED RELIEF, NOT PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE LEVEL 2 HEARING OFFICER AND UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE LEVEL 2 HEARING OFFICER. 
          >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. 
          ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE VOTE. 
          SOMEBODY MISSED THE VOTE. SHE WENT TOO FAST, BUT YOU VOTED YES, IS THAT CORRECT? [BACKGROUND] THE VOTING HAS CLOSED AND THE MOTION PASSES. 
          THE LETTER NOTIFYING THE PARTIES OF THE ACTION OF THE BOARD SHALL BE PREPARED AND SIGNED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF BOARD RELATIONS AS POSSIBLE THIS HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT 9:02 PM. 
          I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT YOU ARE WELCOME BACK. 
          PLEASE REAPPLY AND PERHAPS SOMETHING CAN HAPPEN POSITIVE IN THE FUTURE SO THANK YOU. 
          >> THAT'S NOT THE CASE. I UNDERSTAND [INAUDIBLE] 
          >> I UNDERSTAND. 
          >> [INAUDIBLE]. 
          >> I UNDERSTAND. WE APPRECIATE THAT. 
          >> [INAUDIBLE] HEARING OFFICER ONE OF THE PERSON THAT SAID THAT SHE [INAUDIBLE]. 
          >> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT. 
          THANKS FOR BEING HERE. LET'S SEE. 
          I'VE GOT A CLOSED MEETING HANG IN. 
          WAIT A MINUTE. I HAVE TO ACTUALLY ADJOURN THE MEETING. 
          WITH NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO DISCUSS THIS MEETING, THE BOARD IS ADJOURNED. 
          THE TIME IS 9:03 PM, OCTOBER 23RD, 2025. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.