[Hearings on December 18, 2025.]
[00:00:03]
>> GOOD EVENING. THIS MEETING IS NOW CONVENED AT, IS THAT CLOCK RIGHT AGAIN OR WRONG AGAIN? WHAT'S THAT? SHALL WE USE THE REAL TIME, WHICH IS 5:04 PM.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK EVERYONE TO PLEASE SILENCE THEIR CELL PHONES.
FORUM OF THE BOARD MEMBERS IS PRESENT IN THE AUDITORIUM.
WE USUALLY FIRST ORDER BUSINESS HEAR FROM SPEAKERS.
WE DO NOT HAVE ANYBODY REGISTERED HERE TODAY.
WE WILL NOW CONDUCT THE HEARING SCHEDULED FOR THIS MEETING.
PLEASE NOTE THAT WE'LL NOT BE CONDUCTING THE HEARING SCHEDULED FOR ALICIA LEWIS AND TYRONE SHERRY, AS THE LEWIS CASE WAS POSTPONED AND THE SHERRY CASE WAS SETTLED BEFORE TODAY'S MEETING.
I GUESS, OUR FIRST ONE, IS THIS THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF CYNTHIA CORNELL, NURSE AT FRANK WRIGHT MIDDLE SCHOOL.
HEARINGS INVOLVING COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE DISTRICT EMPLOYEES ARE TO BE HELD IN CLOSED SESSION UNLESS EMPLOYEES WHO ARE SUBJECT TO THE HEARING REQUEST AN OPEN HEARING.
BOTH PARTIES IF BOTH PARTIES REQUEST AN OPEN SESSION DURING THE HEARING, THE BOARD MAY GO INTO A CLOSED SESSION TO CONSULT WITH ATTORNEYS UNDER THE TERMS OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071.
IF ANY BOARD MEMBER WISHES TO SEEK ADVICE OF COUNSEL, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
FOR THE RECORD, WE HAVE CHRISTOPHER TRITICO OF TRITICO LAW, REPRESENTING CYNTHIA CORNELL AND CYNTHIA CORNELL'S PRESENT.
WE ALSO HAVE MYRA CHIARIN, OF ROGERS, MORRIS AND GROVER LLP, REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION, ALSO PRESENT, AND NATASHA WOODS, HISD GENERAL COUNSEL IS ALSO PRESENT, MISS TRITICO, WOULD YOU CONTINUE AND OPEN OR CLOSED?
>> OPEN. IT IS. THE ISSUES BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD OR WHETHER TO ACCEPT OR REJECT OR CHANGE THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSION 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 EXAMINER, WE FIND IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
IF WE REJECT THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION OR MAKE ANY CHANGES, WE MUST STATE THE REASON AND LEGAL BASIS IN WRITING.
MISS CHICKERING, YOU'LL PROCEED FIRST.
YOU'LL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD FOLLOWING A 10 MINUTE PRESENTATION BY MR. TRITICO.
HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO DIVIDE YOUR TIME? WELL JUST LET YOU GO FORWARD.
>> IS THAT CLOCK, DO WE HAVE A TIMER AT ALL?
>> THEY WILL PUT THE TIMER ON.
WHY DON'T YOU PUT THE TIMER ON? I THINK THE TIMER WILL SHOW GENERALLY.
USUALLY THEY PUT IT ON. GO AHEAD.
>> THANKS. YOU GET 10. [LAUGHTER]
>> HE'LL PUT IT ON WHEN YOU START.
>> GOOD EVENING, MR. CAMPO, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
I AM JOINED TONIGHT BY PRINCIPAL LUKIA JACKSON, AND WE ARE ASKING YOU TO UPHOLD AND ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER, JAQUELINE COLEMAN, IN ITS ENTIRETY, AND TO ADOPT HER DETERMINATION THAT CYNTHIA CORNELL'S PROBATIONARY CONTRACT BE TERMINATED FOR GOOD CAUSE AS GENERALLY RECOGNIZED AND APPLIED IN SIMILARLY SITUATED SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, CYNTHIA CORNELL WAS A FIRST YEAR SCHOOL NURSE AT.
FONDREN MIDDLE SCHOOL DURING THE PREVIOUS SCHOOL YEAR.
WHEN I SAY A FIRST YEAR SCHOOL NURSE, I DON'T MEAN NEW TO HISD.
WHEN SHE WAS HIRED, MISS CORNELL HAD NEVER SERVED AS A SCHOOL BASED NURSE BEFORE IN ANY EDUCATIONAL SETTING PUBLIC OR PRIVATE.
IN FACT, THE MAJORITY OF HER PAST EXPERIENCE CONSISTED OF WORKING IN NURSING HOMES AND OTHER LONG TERM HEALTHCARE FACILITIES, PRIMARILY IN ADMINISTRATIVE ROLES.
SHE BROUGHT NO PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE TO THE POSITION AT VONTRA.
NOW, MISS CORNELL WAS NOT THE ONLY NEW NURSE THAT HISD ON BOARDED IN AUGUST 2025.
SHE WAS ONE OF MULTIPLE NEW NURSES ACROSS THE DISTRICT, ALL OF WHOM RECEIVED EXTRA TRAINING AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN ADDITION TO THE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT THAT ALL HISD NURSES PARTICIPATE IN BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF THE SCHOOL YEAR AND THEN THROUGHOUT THE SCHOOL YEAR.
IN THE WEST DIVISION ALONE, WHERE FONDREN MIDDLE SCHOOL IS LOCATED, THERE WERE 18 NEW NURSES DURING THE '24-'25 SCHOOL YEAR OUT OF 61 CAMPUSES.
[00:05:06]
AS THE EVIDENCE SHOWED DURING THE HEARING, THE PROBLEMS THAT MISS CORNELL EXPERIENCED WERE UNIQUE TO HER.NONE OF THE OTHER NEW NURSES IN THE WEST DIVISION EXPERIENCED THE DIFFICULTIES THAT SHE DID.
THE BOARD OF NURSING RECOGNIZES SCHOOL NURSING AS AN INDEPENDENT PRACTICE.
SCHOOL NURSES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR RUNNING A COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL HEALTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND TO FUNCTION AUTONOMOUSLY IN DOING SO.
NOW ONE OF THE RATHER OBVIOUS FUNCTIONS OF A CAMPUS BASED NURSE IS, OF COURSE, THE TRIAGE OF STUDENT AND STAFF BASED MEDICAL ISSUES.
THIS INCLUDES PROVIDING URGENT CARE AND ADMINISTERING MEDICATION.
A FEVER, A BLOODY NOSE, PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, WHATEVER, THAT FALLS WITHIN THAT CATEGORY.
THE NURSE IS EXPECTED TO PROVIDE BOTH PROMPT AND COMPASSIONATE ATTENTION AND CARE.
SOME OF THE OTHER KEY ROLES PERFORMED BY SCHOOL NURSES MAY BE A LITTLE LESS OBVIOUS.
ONE OF THE BIGGEST RESPONSIBILITIES INVOLVES VACCINATION, COMPLIANCE, AND HEALTH SCREENINGS.
SCHOOL NURSES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR TRACKING CAMPUS VACCINE COMPLIANCE, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, MAKING SURE THAT CAMPUSES MEET THE STATE VACCINATION COMPLIANCE TARGETS.
NOW, THIS IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT ON CAMPUSES LIKE FONDREN, WHERE THE STUDENT POPULATION IS PRIMARILY OF LOWER ECONOMIC STATUS AND INCLUDES A LARGE NUMBER OF IMMIGRANT STUDENTS.
MOST OF THE STUDENTS AT FONDREN MIDDLE SCHOOL IF THEY ARE NOT UNINSURED, THEY ARE AT LEAST UNDER INSURED, SO THEY DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO REGULAR HEALTHCARE.
ON THOSE CAMPUSES, THE NURSE IS NOT ONLY TRACKING COMPLIANCE, BUT SHE OR HE IS WORKING TO BOOST COMPLIANCE IN ORDER TO MEET THE STATE COMPLIANCE DEADLINE.
THAT COMPLIANCE DEADLINE, AS THE EVIDENCE SHOWED, WAS 95% COMPLETION ON EACH CAMPUS BY DECEMBER 1ST.
NOW, DESPITE ALL THE TRAINING AND SUPPORT THAT MISS CORNELL RECEIVED FROM THE HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT, WEST DIVISION NURSE COORDINATOR SHALONDA EDWARDS, AND PRINCIPAL JACKSON, MISS CORNELL NEVER CAME CLOSE TO MEETING COMPLIANCE EXPECTATIONS.
PART OF HER PROBLEM WAS VERY SIMPLE.
SHE WAS LOCKED OUT OF THE STATE'S VACCINE TRACKING DATA BASE AFTER THE FIRST MONTH OF SCHOOL BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T ACCESS IT.
EVEN AFTER HER ACCESS WAS RESTORED, THE SITUATION DID NOT IMPROVE AND FONDREN CLOSED THE CALENDAR YEAR, AND THAT WOULD BE DECEMBER OF 2024 AT ONLY 45%, SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW THE 95% COMPLIANCE RATE THAT'S HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE.
EVEN BY THE END OF THE SCHOOL YEAR, FONDREN HAD REACHED ONLY 80% FAR SHORT OF THE 95% EXPECTATION.
NOW, RATHER THAN ACCEPT PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE POOR IMMUNIZATION COMPLIANCE ON HER CAMPUS, SHE DEFLECTED RESPONSIBILITY, INSISTING THAT SHE WAS TOO BUSY FOCUSING ON HER OTHER NURSING DUTIES, AND THAT FRANKLY WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.
THE VACCINE RATES ASIDE, MISS CORNELL FAILED TO MEET THE DISTRICT'S EXPECTATIONS AND THE EXPECTATIONS OF HER SUPERVISORS IN A MYRIAD OF DIFFERENT WAYS.
SHE FAILED TO MEET THE STATE MANDATED DEADLINE FOR HEARING SCREENINGS.
SHE FAILED TO GET ALONG WITH HER CO WORKERS, AND SHE WAS OFTEN INATTENTIVE TO THE MEDICAL NEEDS OF STUDENTS, SOMETHING ABOUT WHICH PRINCIPAL JACKSON RECEIVED MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS.
ADDITIONALLY, THE HEARING EXAMINER CONCLUDED THAT MISS CORNELL UNLAWFULLY PROVIDED STUDENT RECORDS TO HER UNION REPRESENTATIVE AND HER ATTORNEY IN VIOLATION OF THE FAMILY EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS PRIVACY ACT AND HISD BOARD POLICY.
APART FROM HER PERFORMANCE RELATED DIFFICULTIES AND THE FRPA VIOLATION, MISS CORNELL ALSO VIOLATED THE DISTRICT'S ATTENDANCE EXPECTATION AND LEAVE POLICIES AND WENT INTO UNPAID LEAVE STATUS ON APRIL 24TH DUE TO HER EXCESSIVE ABSENTEEISM.
EVEN AFTER THAT DATE, MISS CORNELL ACCRUED ADDITIONAL HOURS OF UNPAID LEAVE IN VIOLATION OF HISD BOARD POLICY DEC 8 REGULATION, PUTTING HER AT 24 HOURS OR THREE DAYS OF UNPAID LEAVE AS OF JUNE 4TH, 2025.
AT THAT POINT POINT, MISS CORNELL WAS TREATED SIMILARLY TO ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE IN UNPAID STATUS.
SHE WAS RECOMMENDED FOR TERMINATION.
NOW, IN OCTOBER, THE PARTIES PARTICIPATED IN A TWO DAY EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
FOLLOWING THAT HEARING, THE HEARING EXAMINER CONCLUDED THAT THE DISTRICT PROVED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF
[00:10:03]
THE EVIDENCE THE EXISTENCE OF GOOD CAUSE AS GENERALLY RECOGNIZED AND APPLIED IN SIMILARLY SITUATED SCHOOL DISTRICTS, THUS WARRANTING THE TERMINATION OF HER PROBATIONARY CONTRACT.SHE DETERMINED THAT HISD WAS JUSTIFIED IN SEEKING MISS CORNELL'S TERMINATION BASED ON HER PERFORMANCE DEFICIENCIES, HER FAILURE TO FULFILL HER DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AS A SCHOOL NURSE, AND HER EXCESSIVE ABSENCES WITHOUT APPROVED LEAVE.
IN THE END, CYNTHIA CORNELL FAILED AT VIRTUALLY ASPECT OF HER JOB. THAT IS UNFORTUNATE.
BUT SCHOOL NURSING WAS CLEARLY NOT A GOOD FIT FOR CYNTHIA CORNELL.
THE STUDENTS AT FONDREN DESERVED MORE FROM THEIR SCHOOL NURSE, AND IT IS FOR THAT REASON THAT WE ASK THAT YOU UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION IN ALL RESPECTS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. MR. TRITICO, YOU CAN MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD NOW.
>> THANK YOU, AND THANK YOU FOR HEARING.
I'M GOING TO AGREE WITH ONE THING THAT MISS CHICKERING SAID AND ONLY ONE AND THAT'S A RARITY THAT WE AGREE ON ANYTHING.
THAT MISS CORNELL, IT WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT THIS VERY EXPERIENCED NURSE HAD EVER BEEN A SCHOOL NURSE, THAT SHE HAD NEVER DONE IT BEFORE.
THAT'S A KEY FACTOR HERE, IN THIS CASE, THAT SHE HAD NEVER PRACTICED SCHOOL NURSING.
IT IS A HIGHLY SPECIALIZED FIELD.
WHAT MISS CHICKERING DIDN'T TELL YOU WAS THAT THERE WAS A LACKING OF TRAINING AND SUPPORT.
MISS CHICKERING TOLD YOU THAT THERE WAS TRAINING IN SUPPORT, AND THAT EVIDENCE JUST DOESN'T SHOW THAT.
WHAT DOES SHOW IS THAT MISS JACKSON, DESPITE HER TESTIMONY, CAN'T RECALL EVER HAVING A MEETING WITH MISS CORNELL TO DISCUSS THE IMPORTANCE OF GETTING VACCINES UPLOADED AND DONE QUICKLY.
SHE CAN'T RECALL SENDING A MEMO DETAILING THE IMPORTANCE OF IT.
MISS JACKSON'S POOR MEMORY CONTINUED AND SHE COULDN'T RECALL IF HISD HEALTH AND MEDICAL SENT HER ANY INFORMATION ABOUT VACCINE RATES BEFORE THE FIRST BENCHMARK IN OCTOBER, I DON'T RECALL.
SEEMS TO BE A POPULAR ANSWER FOR MISS JACKSON.
MISS JACKSON'S LACK OF MEMORY THROUGHOUT THE HEARING SHOWED THAT SHE DIDN'T HELP MISS CORNELL AT ALL.
KNOWING THAT WHEN SHE STARTED, SHE HAD NEVER STEPPED FOOT ON A SCHOOL CAMPUS AS A SCHOOL NURSE.
SHE DIDN'T MEET WITH HER ABOUT VACCINES, VACCINE RATES, SETTING UP A CLINIC TO HAVE VACCINES UNTIL DECEMBER 3.
WHY IS DECEMBER 3RD AN IMPORTANT DATE? BECAUSE THAT'S TWO DAYS AFTER THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO MEET THE BENCHMARK OF 95%? THEY HAD A BENCHMARK IN OCTOBER, A BENCHMARK IN NOVEMBER AND NOT ONE TIME DID SHE MEET WITH HER UNTIL DECEMBER 3RD, AND THEN STARTED COMPLAINING, AND THEN SAID, I WANT A DAILY UPDATE.
WHERE WERE THE DAILY UPDATES IN SEPTEMBER? WHERE WERE THE MEETINGS IN SEPTEMBER? WHERE WAS THE ASSISTANCE IN SEPTEMBER? HEALTH AND MEDICAL DIDN'T SHOW UP UNTIL NOVEMBER.
KNOWING THAT SHE HAD NEVER STEPPED FOOT ON A SCHOOL CAMPUS, HAD NEVER SEEN THE PROGRAM THAT HISD WAS IMPLEMENTING THAT YEAR.
SHE HAD NEVER WORKED WITH THIS PROGRAM BEFORE, HAD NEVER DONE ANY OF THE THINGS A SCHOOL NURSE DOES.
THIS NURSE WAS LEARNING ON THE FLY, ON THE JOB.
MISS CHICKERING DARES TO SAY THAT THAT WAS SUBSTANTIAL ASSISTANCE IN LEARNING THIS JOB AND GETTING THIS DONE.
THERE WAS NO ASSISTANCE TO HER TO LEARN THIS UNTIL AFTER THE 95% WAS SUPPOSED TO BE REACHED, AND THEN MISS JACKSON SAYS, LET ME HELP YOU WITH THIS.
THE WHOLE TIME MISS JACKSON'S MOTHER WORKS AT A HOSPITAL WHO COULD HAVE SET UP A VACCINE CLINIC FOR HER IN SEPTEMBER.
NOT ONE TIME DID SHE OFFER THAT ASSISTANCE EVER.
>> NO ONCE. THE PROBLEMS THAT MS. CORNELL
[00:15:05]
WAS MET WITH IS A LEARNING CURVE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH THE DAY SHE WALKED ONTO THAT CAMPUS.HEALTH AND MEDICAL HAS A TWO DAY SEMINAR FOR THE NURSES.
BUT WHAT I KNOW NOW AFTER HAVING REPRESENTED NOT ONE BUT TWO NURSES IN THE LAST THREE YEARS FROM FONDREN MIDDLE SCHOOL THAT MS. JACKSON HAS FIRED BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T MEET THEIR VACCINE RATES.
THAT'S THREE YEARS IN A ROW NOW THAT FONDREN MIDDLE SCHOOL HAS NOT MET ITS VACCINE RATES, AND THE SAME PRINCIPAL HAS TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS THE NURSE'S FAULT THAT THEY DIDN'T MEET THEIR VACCINE RATES.
THREE YEARS IN A ROW NOW, AT THE SAME SCHOOL, BUT IT'S ALWAYS THE NURSE'S FAULT.
IT COULDN'T BE THE LEADERSHIP.
COULDN'T BE HEALTH AND MEDICAL, NOT GIVING ASSISTANCE.
ISN'T IT TIME TO LOOK AT SOMETHING ELSE? IS IT TIME TO LOOK AT SOMEBODY ELSE? WHY DID MS. JACKSON NOT GO AND OFFER ASSISTANCE TILL AFTER THAT BENCHMARK BECAUSE IT GAVE HER COVER? IT'S NOT THE BRAND NEW NURSE WHO DOESN'T KNOW THE SYSTEM, THE PROCESS, HOW TO DO IT.
IT WAS THOSE WHO DID NOT OFFER HER THAT ASSISTANCE.
SHE DID EVERYTHING SHE COULD DO TO GET THIS JOB DONE RIGHT, AND THE ABSENCES THAT SHE PICKED UP, MS. CHICKERING GLOSSED OVER THE FACT THAT THE REASON SHE PICKED UP THOSE ABSENCES WAS BECAUSE IT WAS A WORKERS' COMP SITUATION WHEN SHE WAS INJURED BY A STUDENT WHEN ON THE JOB, AND SHE RAN OUT OF DAYS GOING TO THERAPY THAT WAS ORDERED BY THE WORKERS COMP DOCTOR.
IN YOUR SYSTEM THAT YOU PUT IN PLACE DOES NOT OFFER ASSISTANCE FOR SOMEONE WHO'S INJURED ON THE JOB, DOING YOUR JOB, WORKING FOR YOU.
AGAIN, I'VE ARGUED THIS BEFORE.
THERE'S NO GRACE FOR SOMEONE DOING YOUR WORK.
THE EVIDENCE SHOWED IN THE RECORD, THERE'S NO TIME FOR HER TO GO AFTER WORK.
THERE WAS NO APPOINTMENTS AFTER WORK.
SHE HAD TO GO WHEN THE DOCTOR SET THE APPOINTMENT.
THERE WAS NO OTHER TIME TO GO, AND YOU FIRED HER FOR THAT. IS THAT RIGHT? IS THAT JUST? IS THAT FAIR? IS THAT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT? I WAS TOLD THAT THE BOARD WAS GOING TO LOOK AT THESE ABSENCES IN A DIFFERENT FASHION.
THIS IS THE TIME TO LOOK AT THAT.
WHEN SOMEONE WAS INJURED ON THE JOB AND THE WORKERS COMP DOCTORS CANNOT SEE HER AFTER WORK.
WHEN IS SHE TO BE TREATED? DOES SHE SKIP THE APPOINTMENTS? DOES SHE SKIP MEDICAL TREATMENT SO THAT SHE CAN KEEP HER JOB? IS THAT WHAT SHE'S SUPPOSED TO DO? DOES SHE TRADE MEDICAL TREATMENT, HEALTH CARE TREATMENT SO THAT SHE CAN KEEP HER JOB? I ASK YOU, IS IT THAT IMPORTANT? WHAT I'M ASKING YOU TO DO IS IF YOU WANT TO ACCEPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND THEN GIVE HER ANOTHER CONTRACT FOR PROBATION.
NOW, MS. CHICKERING IS GOING TO TELL YOU THAT YOU CAN'T DO IT THAT WAY, BUT YOU CAN. YOU CAN DO THAT.
YOU CAN ACCEPT IT, AND THEN YOU CAN REJECT THE RECOMMENDATION AND GIVE HER ANOTHER PROBATIONARY CONTRACT.
YOU CAN DO THAT, AND KNOWING THAT SHE WAS A FIRST YEAR NURSE, KNOWING THAT THE RECORD SUPPORTS THAT SHE DID NOT GET THE ASSISTANCE NECESSARY, AND KNOWING THAT SHE WAS INJURED ON THE JOB AND COULD NOT GO TO THE DOCTOR, BUT ANYTIME BUT DURING THE DAY.
WHAT ELSE WAS SHE TO DO? GO ON BACK.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO PRETEND THAT YOU'RE DELIBERATING AND COME ON OUT AND DO WHAT YOU'VE BEEN DOING ALL YEAR LONG THEN GO AHEAD AND FIRE HER. THANK YOU.
[00:20:05]
>> THANK YOU. MS. CHICKERING, DO YOU WISH MAKE A REBUTTAL? I THINK YOU HAVE 2.5 MINUTES?
>> I DO, I WOULD LIKE TO A REBUTTAL.
>> THANK YOU. [LAUGHTER] I DON'T AGREE WITH MR. TRITICO'S STATEMENT THAT A LACK OF TRAINING AND SUPPORT WAS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR US BEING HERE TONIGHT.
IN FACT, THE HEARING EXAMINER DOES NOT AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT.
IN FACT, IF I COULD ASK YOU TO TURN TO HER RECOMMENDATION.
IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THESE FINDINGS OF FACT, THEY SQUARELY DISPUTE WHAT MR. TRITICO JUST TOLD YOU.
ALL NURSES IN THE WEST DIVISION, INCLUDING MS. CORNELL, WERE REQUIRED TO ATTEND MONTHLY VIRTUAL NURSES MEETINGS.
THAT'S FINDING NUMBER 44, 45, ALL SCHOOL NURSES, INCLUDING MS. CORNELL, WERE REQUIRED TO ATTEND AN INITIAL TRAINING IN THE FORM OF A NEW NURSE ORIENTATION, WHICH WAS HELD THE FIRST WEEK OF AUGUST.
THAT'S NUMBER 45. NUMBER 46, ALL NEW SCHOOL NURSES WERE ALSO REQUIRED TO ATTEND WEEKLY NEW NURSE TRAINING COURSES EVERY TUESDAY FROM 8:00 TO 10:00 A.M, 50, RESPONDENT ATTENDED A MANDATORY TRAINING WHICH ADDRESSED VACCINATION REQUIREMENTS AND WAYS TO IMPROVE VACCINATION COMPLIANCE RATE.
NUMBER 52, SCHOOL NURSES, INCLUDING MS. CORNELL, WERE SENT WEEKLY UPDATES, WHICH CONTAINED INFORMATION REGARDING VACCINATION COMPLIANCE RATES AND UPCOMING IMMUNIZATION CLINICS.
IT IS JUST SIMPLY NOT TRUE TO SUGGEST THAT MS. CORNELL'S PROBLEMS, HER FAILURES CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO A LACK OF TRAINING.
THE OTHER THING HE DIDN'T MENTION TO YOU THAT THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED IS THAT SHE WAS ASSIGNED A MENTOR AS ARE ALL NEW NURSES, AND HE OVERLOOKS THE EVIDENCE FROM MS. EDWARDS, THE NURSE COORDINATOR, WHO TESTIFIED THAT SHE DIDN'T HAVE THESE CONCERNS AND ISSUES ARISING WITH ANY OF THE OTHER NEW SCHOOL NURSES.
THEY RECEIVED THE SAME TRAINING SHE DID, AND THEY WERE ABLE TO PERFORM THEIR JOB FUNCTIONS.
AGAIN, THE REAL PROBLEM HERE IS THAT NURSE CORNELL SIMPLY DID NOT WANT TO ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITIES AND SPENT MOST OF HER TIME TRYING TO DEFLECT ACCOUNTABILITY ONTO SOMEONE ELSE.
THE JOB EXPECTATION OF A SCHOOL NURSE IS THAT THE NURSE FUNCTIONS AUTONOMOUSLY.
EVEN NEW NURSES ARE EXPECTED TO FUNCTION THAT WAY.
AS THE EVIDENCE CLEARLY INDICATES, THAT'S JUST NOT SOMETHING MS. CORNELL EITHER COULD DO OR WANTED TO DO.
ONE OTHER THING I WANT TO POINT OUT, MR. TRITICO FOCUSED PRIMARILY ON MS. JACKSON, HE OVERLOOKS THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT MS. JACKSON EVEN ASSUMED THE RESPONSIBILITY OF DOING WEEKLY CALL OUTS TO PARENTS WHOSE CHILDREN WERE NOT IN COMPLIANCE.
BETWEEN MS. EDWARDS AND MS. JACKSON, THEY PROVIDED AN EXTRA LEVEL OF SUPPORT THAT WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE OTHER NEW NURSES AND YET THOSE OTHER NEW NURSES.
>> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES? YEAH, GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION AROUND THE FINDING OF FACT NUMBER 47 THAT SAYS, ALL SCHOOL NURSES, INCLUDING RESPONDENT WERE EXPECTED TO ACHIEVE AN IMMUNIZATION COMPLIANCE RATING OF 95% ON THEIR CAMPUSES BY DECEMBER 1, 2024, THIS COMPLIANCE DEADLINE IS ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE.
MY QUESTION IS, IS THAT EXPECTATION ALSO INCLUDED IN THE JOB DESCRIPTION? I UNDERSTAND IT WAS ALSO COMMUNICATED IN TRAININGS, BUT IS THAT CLEAR IN A NURSES JOB DESCRIPTION?
>> THE NURSE'S JOB IS NOT IN SCRIPT EVIDENCE BUT I CAN TRY TO ANSWER THAT, BUT I'D BE RESPONDING WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
THERE ARE MULTIPLE PLACES IN EVIDENCE INCLUDING THE TRAINING DOCUMENTS FROM THAT PARTICULAR TRAINING SESSION WHEN COMPLIANCE WAS DISCUSSED, AND IT CLEARLY SETS OUT THE OCTOBER DEADLINE OR NOVEMBER DEADLINE TO DECEMBER 1 DEADLINE.
THERE'S ALSO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO SHOW THAT 95% TARGET DEADLINE WAS COMMUNICATED IN MULTIPLE OTHER COMMUNICATIONS [INAUDIBLE]
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YOU GOOD? THE PARTIES HAVE COMPLETED THEIR PRESENTATION, IT'S NOW TIME FOR BOARD MEMBERS TO MAKE OUR DECISION ON THE ISSUES BEFORE US.
[00:25:04]
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? WE NEED TO COME BACK. GREAT. THE BOARD NOW RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION UNDER CHAPTER 551 OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE OPEN MEANINGS ACT SUBSECTION 551.004 THROUGH 551.089.SHOULD BOARD FINAL ACTION VOTE OR DECISION ON ANY MATTER CONSIDERED IN THE CLOSED SESSION BE REQUIRED, SUCH FINAL ACTION VOTE OR DECISION SHALL BE TAKEN AT THE OPEN MEETING CONVENED BY THIS NOTICE UPON THE RECONVENING OF THE PUBLIC MEETING OR AT A SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC MEETING OF THE BOARD UPON NOTICE THEREOF.
THE BOARD HAS RECESS TO CLOSE SESSION AT 05:29 PM DECEMBER 18, 2025.
THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE HOUSTON ISD SCHOOL DISTRICT IS NOW RECONVENED IN OPEN SESSION AT 5:34 PM.
PLEASE VOTE. WHAT IS THE MOTION? GOT TO READ THE MOTION. SORRY. IT WASN'T UP THERE.
GO AHEAD AND READ THE MOTION, SORRY.
>> I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER, ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RECOMMENDED BY THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER AND TERMINATE CYNTHIA CORNELL'S ONE YEAR PROBATIONARY CONTRACT.
>> THERE'S A MOTION PLEASE VOTE.
A LETTER NOTIFYING BOTH PARTIES OF THE ACTION OF THE BOARD SHALL BE PREPARED AND SIGNED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE BOARD RELATIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
THE HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT 5:35 PM.
PARTIES HERE FOR THE NEXT ONE.
SOMEBODY READY? GREAT. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE DISPUTE FILED BY BRION GILBERT, FORMER EMPLOYEE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.
HEARINGS INVOLVING COMPLAINTS AGAINST DISTRICT EMPLOYEES ARE TO BE HELD IN CLOSED SESSION UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF THE HEARING REQUESTS AN OPEN HEARING.
IF BOTH PARTIES REQUEST AN OPEN SESSION DURING THE COURSE OF THIS MEETING, THE BOARD MAY GO INTO, OR CLOSED SESSION TO CONSULT WITH ITS ATTORNEY IN 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, CECILIA EDWARDS OF SHAMEKA LEWIS WITH PEOPLE'S CHOICE ASSOCIATION UNION ARE PRESENT.
BRION GILBERT IS PRESENT, IZZY ANDERSON WITH SPALDING NICHOLS LAMP AND LANGLOIS, REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION IS PRESENT, NATASHA WOODS HITS GENERAL COUNSEL IS ALSO PRESENT.
MS. EDWARDS, MS. LEWIS, DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE AN OPEN SESSION? FINE.
MAKE SURE IN THE RIGHT PLACE, SIR.
>> THE ONLY ISSUE NOT GRANTED BY THE LEVEL 2 HEARING OFFICER AND THE APPEAL BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD IS WHETHER THE DISTRICT TERMINATION OF
[00:30:02]
MISS GILBERT'S EMPLOYMENT DUE TO EXCESSIVE ABSENCES WAS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOARD POLICIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES.MISS EDWARDS, MISS LEWIS, YOU'LL PROCEED FIRST.
YOU'LL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A 10 MINUTE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD, FOLLOWED BY 10 MINUTE PRESENTATION BY MISS ANDERSON.
PRESENTATIONS MUST BE BASED ON THE LEVEL 2 HEARING TRANSCRIPT.
YOU MAY RESERVE 10 MINUTES OF YOUR TIME FOR REBUTTAL.
BOTH SIDES SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AFTER THE PRESENTATIONS.
MISS EDWARDS AND MISS LEWIS, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO DIVIDE YOUR TIME? YOU MAY BEGIN.
WHERE ARE THE BOARD MEMBERS? HOW MANY BOARD MEMBERS DO WE HAVE NOW?
>> OUR DISTRICT BOARD POLICY SAYS THAT WE HAVE A COMMITTEE NOW, AND THE COMMITTEE IS COMPOSED OF THREE BOARD MEMBERS.
>> GOOD EVENING, PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD AND BOARD MEMBERS.
I'M THE PRESIDENT OF PEOPLE'S CHOICE ASSOCIATION UNION.
I APPEAR BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING TO RAISE A MATTER OF SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS REGARDING THE TREATMENT OF ONE OF OUR MEMBERS, MISS VERONA GILBERT.
THE DISTRICT HANDLING OF HER COMPLAINT.
ON MARCH 24, 2025, MISS GILBERT MET WITH HER MANAGER, MISS SHANDRA ROBINSON, TO FORMALLY REPORT ONGOING HARASSMENT, INCLUDING ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND BULLYING IN THE WORKPLACE.
MISS GILBERT FOLLOWED DISTRICT EXPECTATIONS BY REPORTING HER CONCERNS AND MANAGEMENT IN GOOD FAITH.
DESPITE THE SERIOUSNESS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS, NO INVESTIGATION WAS INITIATED, NOR MISS GILBERT ADVISED OF ANY PROTECTION MEASURES OR FOLLOW UP ACTIONS BY THE DISTRICT.
AFTER THE MEETING, MISS GILBERT WAS RECOMMENDED FOR TERMINATION.
ON APRIL 7, 2025, THE DISTRICT TERMINATED HER EMPLOYMENT, STATING THAT SHE HAD TOO MANY ABSENCES.
HOWEVER, MISS ROBINSON ADMITS THAT MISS GILBERT ABSENCES WAS APPROVED IN ADVANCE BY HER.
THEY WERE RELATED TO MEDICAL REASONS, AND THEY WERE SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTATION FROM HER PHYSICIAN, WHICH SHE SUBMITTED TO THE DISTRICT.
THE ORDER OF EVENTS RAISES SERIOUS CONCERNS WHEN AN EMPLOYEE REPORTS HARASSMENT AND IS TERMINATED SHORTLY THEREAFTER BASED ON ABSENCES THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AND MEDICALLY DOCUMENTED.
IT DEMONSTRATES RETALIATION AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ESTABLISHED EMPLOYMENT AND ANTI HARASSMENT STANDARDS.
MISS GILBERT WAS NEVER GIVEN WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION OR VERBAL WARNING ABOUT ABSENCES, WHICH FURTHER PROVES THAT THE DISTRICT ACTIONS WAS RETALIATORY.
THIS MATTER DEMANDS CAREFUL REVIEW BY THIS BOARD.
EMPLOYEES MUST BE ABLE TO REPORT HARASSMENT WITHOUT FEAR OF ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION.
ALLEGATIONS OF HARASSMENT, ESPECIALLY SEXUAL HARASSMENT, MUST BE QUICKLY AND THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED PURSUANT TO THE DISTRICT POLICY AND THE LAW.
WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD REVIEW THE DISTRICT'S HANDLING OF MISS GILBERT'S COMPLAINT, DETERMINE WHY AN INVESTIGATION WAS NOT CONDUCTED, CLARIFY WHY THE APPROVED AND DOCUMENTED MEDICAL LEAVE WAS USED AS GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION, AND ENSURE THAT EMPLOYEES WHO REPORT MISCONDUCT ARE PROTECTED.
IN CONCLUSION, WE'RE ASKING THE BOARD TO DO THE FOLLOWING: ONE, REINSTATE MISS GILBERT AND ALLOW MISS GILBERT TO GO TO ANOTHER MOTOR POOL TO PROVIDE HER WITH A SAFE WORKING ENVIRONMENT.
THE UNION REMAINS COMMITTED TO WORKING TOGETHER WITH THE DISTRICT TO ENSURE FAIR TREATMENT AND COMPLIANCE AND A SAFE WORK PLACE FOR ALL EMPLOYEES.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.
PLEASURE TO BE HERE WITH YOU TODAY.
THE MATTER BEFORE YOU TODAY IS VERY SIMPLE.
IT DEALS WITH MISS GILBERT, A BUS DRIVER, WHO HAD EXCESSIVE ABSENCES.
MISS GILBERT HAD SO MANY ABSENCES THAT AT ONE POINT SHE WENT INTO AN UNPAID STATUS.
AS YOU HAVE SEEN IN THE RECORD, BOTH BEHIND TAB 2 AND IMMEDIATELY TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE RECORD, YOU SEE TWO DIFFERENT HEARING OFFICERS WEIGHING IN ON THE ISSUES BEFORE YOU TODAY.
NOW, TO BE CLEAR, ALL BUT TWO THINGS HAVE BEEN GRANTED BY THE LOWER DIVISION HEARING OFFICERS.
THE ONLY THING THAT CONTINUES IN QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER THE DISTRICT SHOULD OVERTURN MISS GILBERT'S TERMINATION, AND IF SO, WHICH SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE TRANSFERRED TO A DIFFERENT MOTOR POOL.
[00:35:01]
AGAIN, AS YOU WILL SEE, DR. ROWLES DID AN EXCELLENT JOB IN DOCUMENTING HIS DECISION.HE DID A THOROUGH JOB IN REVIEWING THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY BOTH PARTIES AND CONCLUDING ON THE VARIOUS ALLEGATIONS OF POLICY VIOLATION.
I'M GOING TO START OUT WITH THE FIRST ONE, WHICH IS THIS NOTION THAT THE DISTRICT TERMINATED MISS GILBERT BECAUSE SHE RAISED A COMPLAINT.
FIRST AND FOREMOST, THE COMPLAINT THAT WERE RAISED, AND AS EVIDENT IN THE RECORD, WERE INVESTIGATED BY MISS SHANDRA ROBINSON AND ALSO MR. RAU BANDA.
IT IS SURPRISING TO ME THAT MISS EDWARDS QUESTIONS WHY THINGS WERE NOT INVESTIGATED.
PERHAPS SHE MEANT MORE INVESTIGATED.
BUT EITHER WAY, I WANT TO POINT TO YOU THAT BEHIND THE ADMINISTRATION'S EXHIBIT TAB NUMBER 3, THERE IS A LETTER FROM MISS EDWARDS ASKING THE DISTRICT TO CEASE AND DESIST WHEN MR. BANDA HAD REACHED OUT TO HER REQUESTING SOME ADDITIONAL TIME SO FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF THE MATTERS THAT SHE WAS BRINGING HERSELF COULD BE INVESTIGATED.
IN RETURN, WE RECEIVED THIS LETTER TO CEASE AND DESIST.
EITHER WAY, THE ADMINISTRATION DID IN FACT INVESTIGATE AND THE FINDINGS ARE CLEAR AND DOCUMENTED IN THE HEARING OFFICER'S LETTER WHEN HE CITES THE VARIOUS POINTS THAT HE INVESTIGATED AND THAT ULTIMATELY HE FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO HARASSMENT, BULLYING, OR PROHIBITED CONDUCT IN PLAY, AND THAT PERHAPS THERE WERE SOME PERSONNEL TENSIONS, BUT THAT NOTHING ELSE WAS GOING ON THERE AND THERE HAD BEEN NO VIOLATION OR FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE THE MATTER.
MOVING ON TO THE POINT OF HER EXCESSIVE ABSENCES.
AS YOU WILL SEE IN THE RECORD, STARTING WITH TRANSCRIPT PAGE, I BELIEVE IT'S 47, YOU WILL NOTE MISS BELTRAN TESTIFIED OF THE PROCESS THAT IS VERY COMMON AND WELL ESTABLISHED AT THE DISTRICT, AND THAT IS THE ERDR REVIEWS THAT ARE EXECUTED, WHERE THE DEPARTMENT WILL REVIEW THE ABSENCE WHATEVER MATTER IS BEING REVIEWED BY HR, BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, MISS BELTRAN WAS TESTIFYING AS TO THE REVIEW FOR EXCESSIVE ABSENCES THAT WAS CONDUCTED.
MISS GILBERT HAPPENED TO BE ONE OF THE VARIOUS EMPLOYEES THAT WERE REVIEWED FOR THEIR ABSENCES, AND IT WAS, IN FACT, DETERMINED THAT SHE HAD TOO MANY ABSENCES.
YOU WILL SEE IN THE RECORD AGAIN, BEHIND TAB 7, THERE'S THE HR NOTICE THAT EXPLAINS THAT TO MISS GILBERT.
THE HEARING OFFICER NOTES IN HIS DECISION THAT BY JANUARY 21ST, MISS GILBERT WAS ALREADY IN VIOLATION OF THE DISTRICT'S ATTENDANCE POLICY.
TAB NUMBER 4 ALSO PROVIDES FOR YOU AN ABSENCE REPORT, SO THAT IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND SIMPLE.
THE OTHER ALLEGATION THAT IS IN THE RECORD, IT WAS IN REGARDS TO THE COMPLAINT.
IF YOU'LL NOTE EVEN IN MISS EDWARDS EXHIBITS, I BELIEVE IS EXHIBIT NUMBER OR LETTER E, WHICH DOCUMENTS A BULLYING REPORT HANDWRITTEN BY MISS GILBERT, THAT'S DATED MARCH 6.
THE VIOLATION OF THE POLICY HAD HAPPENED LONG BEFORE THAT.
I THINK THAT THE DISTRICT HAS BEEN PRETTY CLEAR, CONSISTENT IN REVIEWING THOSE VIOLATIONS AND EXECUTING TERMINATIONS AS A RESULT OF THAT.
AT NO POINT WAS ANYTHING OTHER THAN HER EXCESSIVE ABSENCES CONSIDERED TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE DECISION TO ULTIMATELY TERMINATE HER EMPLOYMENT.
THE DECISION TODAY IS REALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT THE DISTRICT HAS DONE CONSISTENTLY, AND WE ASK THAT YOU UPHOLD THE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISIONS IN THEIR ENTIRETY OR IN HIS ENTIRETY FOR LEVEL 2.
THE DECISION WAS ROOTED IN A CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF THE BOARD POLICIES, TEXAS EMPLOYMENT LAW, AND THE DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU.
I AM READY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.
>> WE HAVE EXTRA TIME FOR YOU TO REBUT? DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT?
>> THERE WAS SOME ADDITIONAL TIME.
I DIDN'T SEE, HOW MUCH? GO AHEAD. YOU'RE UP THEN FOR REBUTTAL.
>> FIRST OF ALL, SHE STATED THAT ADMINISTRATION EXHIBIT NUMBER 3 WAS A CASE AND ASSIST BY PEOPLE SORT ASSOCIATION UNION,
[00:40:03]
AND IT WAS, BUT IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR INVESTIGATION.IF YOU LOOK AT, IT'S TELLING THEM TO NOT THROW AWAY HER LEVEL 2 AND DON'T DENY HER THE RIGHT TO GO TO LEVEL 2, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT.
ANOTHER THING IS SOME OF HER ABSENCES THAT SHE INCURRED WAS BECAUSE MISS SHANDRA ROBINSON TOLD HER NOT TO COME IN UNTIL THEY INVESTIGATE TOWARDS THE END.
SHE MADE MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS, MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS ABOUT SEXUAL HARASSMENT.
ANYBODY PUTTING YOUR HANDS ON YOU AND TOUCHING YOU IN A MANNER THAT YOU DON'T LIKE, AND YOU TELL THE ADMINISTRATORS THAT YOU DON'T LIKE IT AND IT'S UNWARRANTED AND UNWANTED IS SEXUAL HARASSMENT.
THEY DID NOT INVESTIGATE THAT.
THEY DID NOT PULL HER IN, THEY DID NOT TALK TO HER WITNESSES, AND YOU HAVE NO DOCUMENTATION OF AN INVESTIGATION.
IT'S ONE THING FOR THE ADMINISTRATION TO COME UP HERE AND SAY, HEY, WE INVESTIGATE, ANYBODY CAN WRITE DOWN.
ANY PERPETRATOR IS NOT GOING TO ADMIT THAT THEY DONE WRONG.
THAT'S WHY WE COME TO YOU GUYS.
YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO NOT MAKE A DECISION TODAY.
YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO GO BACK AND LOOK, GO BACK, CALL THE ADMINISTRATORS.
LET US SEE THE DOCUMENTATION, LET US SEE THE TRAIL WHERE YOU INVESTIGATED, WHERE YOU LOOKED INTO HER COMPLAINTS.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO FIND THAT. YOU KNOW WHY? BECAUSE THEY'RE LYING.
BUT EVERY TIME THEY COME IN FRONT OF YOU, YOU SMILE JUST LIKE THE OTHER ATTORNEY TOLD YOU AND YOU SAY, WE GO BACK AND WE LISTEN AND YOU DON'T.
YOU DON'T GO BACK, SO NOBODY HAS ANY JUSTICE THAT COME BEFORE YOU BECAUSE YOU DON'T ACTUALLY LOOK INTO IT.
YOUR JOB IS TO SIDE WITH ADMINISTRATION.
THEY'RE NEVER GOING TO GET JUSTICE.
EVERY TIME WE COME BEFORE YOU, IT'S GOING TO BE UNJUST FOR ANY EMPLOYEE THAT WORKED AT THE DISTRICT.
YOUR JOB IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE EMPLOYEES HAVE A GOOD WORKING CONDITION AND THAT THEY'RE NOT SUBJECTED TO UNLAWFUL ACTIONS AND SO FAR THIS YEAR, YOU HAVE NOT DONE A GREAT JOB.
NOW, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S BECAUSE YOUR SUPERINTENDENT LIKES IT, HE SUPPORTS YOUR DECISION TO DO THIS, WHICH IS WHY YOU NEVER DO IT, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION TODAY.
IT'S BEEN OTHER BOARD, BOARD HEARINGS WE'VE BEEN TO, AND THE BOARD HAS CHOSEN, WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE A DECISION TODAY.
WE'LL MAKE IT THE NEXT TIME, WE'RE GOING TO GO AND WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO LOOK INTO SOME THINGS. YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THAT.
SHE SAID, ACCORDING TO THE LAW, SHE'S A LAWYER, ACCORDING TO THE LAW IF A COMPLAINT HAPPENS AND YOU MAKE A COMPLAINT ABOUT UNLAWFUL ACTION AND YOU SUFFER ADVERSE ACTION WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THAT COMPLAINT, THAT'S AUTOMATICALLY CONSIDERED RETALIATION.
SHE CANNOT SHOW YOU WHERE THEY DID NOT RECOMMEND TERMINATION AFTER SHE MADE HER COMPLAINTS.
THE ABSENT DAYS THAT THEY SAID SHE MISSED THAT SHE WAS ABSENT, SHE'S ALREADY TOLD YOU, I MISSED DAYS BECAUSE OF MEDICAL REASONS.
NOT ONLY SHE MISSED BECAUSE OF MEDICAL REASONS.
SHE LITERALLY ASKED MISS ROBINSON, COULD SHE MISS? SHE SAID, YES, SHE APPROVED THOSE DATES.
HOW CAN YOU THEN TURN AROUND AND USE THOSE SAME DATES THAT YOU APPROVE AS A REASON FOR TERMINATING HER? SHE DIDN'T SAY, HEY, IF YOU MISSED THESE DAYS, YOU'RE GOING TO BE SUBJECTED FOR TERMINATION.
MAYBE SHE COULD HAVE WORKED IT OUT WITH THE DOCTOR GO ANOTHER TIME OR TAKE TIME OFF AT ANOTHER TIME.
SHE DIDN'T GIVE HER THE OPPORTUNITY.
WHAT HAPPENED TO PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINARY ACTION? SHE WAS NEVER WARNED.
EVEN AS A TEACHER, THEY TELL TEACHERS, HEY, YOU DON'T WANT TO MISS THIS MANY DAYS OR YOU'RE GETTING CLOSE TO THE NUMBER THAT YOU CAN MISS.
WHY DO DRIVERS ARE NOT AFFORDED THE SAME OPPORTUNITY? FIRST OF ALL, WE KNOW SHE WASN'T AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE NUMBER 1, IT'S ALL A LIE.
THEY TERMINATE HER BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T LIKE HER BECAUSE SHE MADE SEVERAL COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE HARASSING AND BULLYING NATURE THAT WAS OVER THERE AT THAT TERMINAL AND AGAIN, SHE EVEN TURNED IN A VOICE RECORDING.
IF YOU LISTEN TO THAT, AGAIN, I KNOW YOU HAVEN'T TAKEN TIME TO LISTEN TO THAT BECAUSE YOU DON'T, BUT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO SO TODAY, BECAUSE I'M INFORMING YOU THAT IT'S A PART OF THE RECORD.
IT'S AN EXHIBIT THAT YOU CAN GO HOME.
YOU CAN STUDY IT AT YOUR OWN TIME, YOUR OWN PACE, AND COME UP WITH YOUR OWN CONCLUSION, NOT JUST BE ROBOTS FOR THE DISTRICT THAT TERMINATES EVERY EMPLOYEE THAT COME BEFORE YOU. THANK YOU.
>> WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR 26 YEARS AND ALWAYS AT LEAST THE BOARD HAD JUSTICE.
THE BOARD LISTENED, AND THEY WENT BY FACTS.
NOT JUST SIT HERE AND LOOK LIKE ZOMBIES AND DO WHATEVER THE MIKE MILES TELL YOU TO DO.
IT'S AN INSULT TO THE DISTRICT.
DO YOU HAVE ANY? I DON'T THINK SO, BECAUSE YOU HADN'T HAD NONE ALL YEAR.
YOU FIRED EVERY TEACHER CAME BEFORE YOU, EVERY OTHER EMPLOYEE.
IT'S REALLY SAD THAT YOU'RE NOT LISTENING.
WHAT DID YOU GO BACK THERE AND DO? HOLD HANDS? BECAUSE YOU WASN'T THERE WHAT THREE. I HAD WENT TO THE RESTROOM.
THEY STILL WASN'T THERE. IT IS A SHAME. IT'S APPALLING.
BUT I HOPE THE PARENTS HEAR THIS ONE DAY THAT THEY TAKE THIS DISTRICT BACK AND THEY MAKE THE BOARD MEMBERS THAT SIT THERE AND THEY VOTE FOR, THEY HAVE RESPECT FOR THE PEOPLE AND EMPLOYEES, AND MAKE SURE THAT ADMINISTRATION IF THEY'RE FALSIFYING GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS, THEY'RE HELD RESPONSIBLE.
IF THEY'RE NOT FOLLOWING THE BOARD POLICY, THEY'RE HELD RESPONSIBLE.
BUT THAT'S NOT HAPPENING NOW, SO WE ASK YOU TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE, AND THAT'S WHY WE SHOULD BE HERE, YOU LOOKING AT EVIDENCE.
IF YOU LISTEN TO THE USB, YOU'RE GOING TO CLEARLY HEAR MISS GILBERT TELLING MISS ROBINSON THAT SHE'S TIRED OF BEING SEXUAL HARASSED.
SHE IS CLEARLY A VICTIM IN THIS, BUT YOU SIT THERE AND YOU FIRE ANYWAY.
>> IT'S A SAD DAY. THEN YOU HAVE THE SAME ATTORNEYS.
[00:45:04]
THE ATTORNEY IN THE HEARING, SHE TOLD THE HEARING OFFICER WHAT TO DO THE WHOLE ENTIRE TIME.HE DID NOT CONDUCT THE HEARING ON HIS OWN.
I GUARANTEE YOU BY THE DOCUMENTATION.
I DON'T THINK HE EVEN FILLED OUT THE DOCUMENTATION. SHE DID BOTH.
NOT ONLY SHE REPRESENTED THE ADMINISTRATION, SHE GAVE HIS REBUTTAL IN THE HEARING OFFICER, WHICH IS UNETHICAL.
I'M ASKING YOU TODAY FOR THE FIRST TIME. ARE YOU LOOKING AT THE MINUTES? I STILL HAVE A MINUTE. YOU CAN'T WAIT TILL I FINISH, BUT SO IT'S A JOKE AND IT'S NOT.
WHEN I CAME TO THE BOARD, I RESPECTED THE BOARD MEMBERS, BECAUSE THEY WERE FAIR.
THEY LISTENED. THEY WENT BY FACTS.
YOU DIDN'T DO THAT. DID ANYONE OF YOU HEAR THE USB? BECAUSE IF YOU DID, YOU WOULD KNOW FOR A FACT THAT SHE DID COMPLAIN TO HER BEFORE THIS HAPPENED.
I DON'T CARE WHAT SHE GETS UP HERE AND LIE AND SAY? IT'S NOT TRUE. IT'S NOT TRUE.
YOU KNOW LIKE YOU SAID, YOU HEARD YOU HEARD THE USB, AND IF YOU DID, YOU KNOW FOR A FACT, THAT SHE TOLD MISS ROBINSON. WHY ARE WE HERE? WE SHOULDN'T BE HERE. IF SHE SAID THAT THE HEARING OFFICER CAME TO THE CONCLUSION BECAUSE HE DID ALL THE HOMEWORK AND HE LISTENED AND HE INVESTIGATED.
THAT'S NOT TRUE BECAUSE WE WOULDN'T BE HERE TODAY. ISN'T TRUE.
BUT TODAY IS TODAY FOR YOU CAN HEAR THAT USB, AND YOU CAN GIVE THE RIGHT ANSWER THAT SHE SHOULD NOT BE TERMINATED.
BECAUSE IF IT WAS YOUR DAUGHTER, IF SHE WAS YOUR SISTER, YOUR MOTHER, WOULD YOU LIKE SOMEONE TO GRAB IT [NOISE]?
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES? YOU MAY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO. THE PARTIES HAVE COMPLETED THEIR PRESENTATIONS IS NOW TIME FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS TO MAKE OUR DECISIONS ON THE ISSUES BEFORE US.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? YOU GO BACK? DO I HAVE A MOTION? I GO TO MOVE.
>> MOTION IS SECOND, PLEASE RAISE THE MOTION.
>> I MOVE THAT WE DENY ALL REQUESTED RELIEF NOT PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY LEVEL 2 HEARING OFFICER AND UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE LEVEL 2 HEARING OFFICER.
>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES.
VOTING IS CLOSED. LETTER NOTE FINING BOTH PARTIES FOR 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 5:57 PM.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF TIANA SPENCER, TEACHER AT LOVETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
HEARINGS INVOLVING COMPLAINTS AGAINST DISTRICT EMPLOYEES ARE TO BE HELD IN CLOSED SESSION, LESS EMPLOYEE WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF THE HEARING,
[00:50:02]
REQUEST AND OPEN HEARING.IF BOTH PARTIES REQUESTED OPEN SESSION DURING THE HEARING, THE BOARD MAY GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSULT WITH ITS ATTORNEY UNDER THE TERMS OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071.
IF ANY BOARD MEMBER WISHES TO SEEK THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
FOR THE RECORD, TIANA, SPENCER IS PRESENT.
ASHLEY IS ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION'S PRESIDENT KATASHA WOODS, HIT GENERAL COUNSEL IS ALSO PRESENT.
MISS SPENCER, DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE OPEN OR CLOSED? OPEN.
ISSUE BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARDS OR WHETHER TO ACCEPT, REJECT OR CHANGE THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDING OF FACT, CONCLUSION 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 EXAMINER, WE FIND IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
IF WE REJECT THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION OR MAKE ANY CHANGE, YOU MUST STATE THE REASON AND LEGAL BASIS IN WRITING.
MISS EU, YOU WILL PROCEED FIRST.
YOU'LL BE ABLE TO MAKE A 10 MINUTE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD, FOLLOWED BY A 10 MINUTE PRESENTATION BY MISS SPENCER.
YOU CAN COME UP AGAIN IF YOU WANT TO SPLIT YOUR TIME, JUST LET US KNOW.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. GOOD EVENING, PRESIDENT CAMPO, BOARD MEMBERS.
JOINING ME TODAY I HAVE DON THOMPSON, AND MISS THOMPSON IS THE PRINCIPAL AT LOVETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
WE ARE HERE TONIGHT ASKING THIS BOARD TO MODIFY THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINERS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AS PROPOSED IN THE ADMINISTRATION'S MOTION AND ULTIMATELY REJECT HER RECOMMENDATION.
NOW, WITH EVERY DURING THE YEAR OR MIDDLE OF THE YEAR TERMINATION FOR A TEACHER REGS OF THEIR PROBATIONARY OR TERM, THE ADMINISTRATION MUST ESTABLISH BY THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, GOOD CAUSE FOR THAT TERMINATION.
IN THIS CASE, MISS SPENCER'S 2025 2026 PROBATIONARY CONTRACT WAS PROPOSED FOR TERMINATION BASED ON HER EXCESSIVE ABSENCES DURING THE 24/25 SCHOOL YEAR.
HER EXCESSIVE ABSENCES WERE UNDISPUTED AT THE HEARING.
THIS HEARING EXAMINER FOUND IN HER OWN FINDINGS OF FACT THAT MISS SPENCER HAD A TOTAL OF 13.5 ABSENCES WITH 3.5 OF THOSE DAYS BEING UNPAID OR DOC DAYS.
HER ABSENCE HISTORY REPORT CAN BE FOUND ON THE ADMINISTRATION'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 6.
MISS SPENCER HAD ALSO TESTIFIED AND ADMITTED HERSELF THAT SHE WAS AWARE OF HER UNPAID STATUS AND ACCRUED 3.5 DOG DAYS AND THAT SHE EXHAUSTED ALL OF HER PERSONAL LEAVE.
HER ADMISSIONS CAN BE FOUND ON PAGES 156 AND 157 OF YOUR TRANSCRIPT.
ADDITIONALLY, MISS IKAMOPA, WHO IS A DIRECTOR OF LEAVE ADMINISTRATION HAD ALSO CONFIRMED THAT SHE DID NOT HAVE ANY SORT OF CARRYOVER DAYS FROM PRIOR SCHOOL YEARS, NOR DID SHE APPLY FOR OR WAS SHE APPROVED FOR ANY PROTECTED LEAVE.
HER TESTIMONY CAN BE FOUND ON PAGES 31 AND 34 OF YOUR TRANSCRIPTS.
FOR GOOD CAUSE FOR EXCESSIVE ABSENCES, BEING UNDISPUTED, AND ESTABLISHED THE SOLE QUESTION TO BE ADDRESSED WITH WHETHER THE DISTRICT COULD TERMINATE A TEACHER'S CONTRACT BASED ON CONDUCT FROM THE PRIOR SCHOOL YEAR.
THE DECISIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, SPECIFICALLY IN GOODFRIEND V HOUSTON ISD, AND FROM THIS HEARING EXAMINER'S OWN ANALYSIS AFFIRMATIVELY INDICATES THAT THE DISTRICTS CAN.
THE COMMISSIONER HAS DECLINED TO IMPOSE AN ABSOLUTE BAR ON TERMINATION ACTIONS BASED ON PRIOR YEARS CONDUCT AND HAS STATED THAT THE TEXAS EDUCATION CODE DOES NOT LIMIT CONTRACT ACTIONS TO CONDUCT OCCURRING SOLELY WITHIN THE CONTRACT YEAR.
RATHER, THIS LIMITATION ON THE USE OF CONDUCT OCCURRING DURING THE PRIOR YEAR IS BASED ON A DOCTRINE OR THE PRINCIPLE OF WAIVER.
IF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT DOES NOT HAVE FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE TEACHER'S ACTIONS OR HAS BEGUN TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE TEACHER, THE DISTRICT HAS NOT WAIVED ITS RIGHT TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE TEACHER'S CONTRACT.
HERE, THIS HEARING EXAMINER FOUND THAT THE ADMINISTRATION DID NOT HAVE FULL KNOWLEDGE OF MISS SPENCER'S EXCESSIVE ABSENCES UNTIL MAY 19 WHEN EMPLOYEE RELATIONS RECEIVED THE ABSENTEEISM REPORT.
MISS SPENCER WAS ALREADY ISSUED HER 25 26 CONTRACT ON MAY 16, AND BY THIS TIME, THE FIRST MAY BOARD MEETING ALREADY OCCURRED ON MAY 8TH.
ONCE EMPLOYEE RELATIONS RECEIVED THIS ABSENTEEISM REPORT, THE ADMINISTRATION INITIATED ITS TERMINATION PROCESS.
WE REQUESTED THE FILE REVIEW ON MAY 22.
WE CONDUCTED THE FILE REVIEW ON JUNE 4TH, AND WE HELD A CONFERENCE FOR THE RECORD WITH MISS SPENCER ON JUNE 4TH,
[00:55:02]
EXCUSE ME ON JUNE 5TH.IT WAS ONLY AFTER OUR INTERNAL PROTOCOLS WERE FOLLOWED WAS MISS SPENCER FINALLY PLACED ON THE NEXT AVAILABLE BOARD AGENDA, WHICH WAS FOR JUNE 12TH FOR TERMINATION.
THIS HEARING EXAMINER FOUND THAT THE ADMINISTRATION WAS DILIGENT AND IN THE PROCESS OF ACTING WHEN FOLLOWING ITS INTERNAL PROTOCOLS, AND DID NOTHING TO SUGGEST AN INTENT TO WAIVE ITS RIGHT TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST MISS SPENCER'S CONTRACT.
BUT AT THE HEARING, THE ADMINISTRATION HAD ALSO INTRODUCED MISS SPENCER'S FAILURE TO ADHERE TO THE CAMPUSES ATTENDANCE PROTOCOLS, AND WHEN SHE FAILED TO SIGN IN AND SIGN OUT 109 TIMES THROUGHOUT THE SCHOOL YEAR.
THE HEARING EXAMINER FOUND THAT MISS SPENCER'S VIOLATIONS WERE REGULAR, THEY WERE VOLUMINOUS, AND THAT SHE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCIPLINED OR AT LEAST UNDERGONE INTERNAL PROTOCOLS FOR TERMINATION PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF HER PROBATIONARY CONTRACT FOR THE 24/25 SCHOOL YEAR.
THEREFORE, BASED ON THIS REASON, THE HEARING EXAMINER CONCLUDED THAT THE ADMINISTRATION WAS BARRED FROM TERMINATING MISS SPENCER UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF WAIVER, AND I COMPLETELY AGREE.
IF THE ADMINISTRATION'S ONLY GOOD CAUSE REASON WAS BASED ON MISS SPENCER'S FAILURE TO SIGN IN AND SIGN OUT, THE ADMINISTRATION SHOULD BE BARRED AND WE SHOULD BE STOPPED FROM TERMINATING MISS SPENCER.
HOWEVER, THE ADMINISTRATION IS NOT LIMITED TO PROVIDING JUST ONE GOOD CAUSE REASON FOR TERMINATION, BUT CAN BRING SEVERAL REASONS THAT ARE INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER.
THIS LANGUAGE IS ALSO INCLUDED IN ALL THE TERMINATION NOTICE LETTERS THAT WE SEND OUT TO TEACHERS AFTER THE BOARD APPROVES TERMINATION.
MISS SPENCER'S LETTER CAN BE FOUND ON EXHIBIT NUMBER 1.
IN THIS CASE, DESPITE THE HEARING EXAMINER FINDING THAT THE ADMINISTRATION DID NOT WAIVE ITS RIGHT TO TERMINATE MISS SPENCER'S CONTRACT BASED ON HER EXCESSIVE ABSENCES, SHE NEVERTHELESS PLACES A BLANKET WAIVER ON THE ADMINISTRATION.
THE GOOD CAUSE REASONS BROUGHT FORTH FOR TERMINATION ARE SEPARATE, INDEPENDENT REASONS IN WHICH THE ANALYSIS IS NOT CO DEPENDENT ON EACH OTHER.
MEANING, IF WAIVER IS FOUND FOR ONE GOOD CAUSE REASON AND NOT THE OTHER, IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF ALL GOOD CAUSE REASONS PRESENTED.
AT THESE APPEAL HEARINGS, THE HEARING EXAMINERS MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT.
BUT YOU AS THE BOARD, MAKE THE ULTIMATE DETERMINATION ON WHETHER THESE FACTS WARRANT TERMINATION.
TO DO THAT, THE BOARD CAN RELY ON THE UNDISPUTED FACTS IN THE RECORD.
THIS ADMINISTRATION IS NOT ASKING YOU TO CHANGE ANY FINDINGS OF FACT IN THIS CASE, BUT ASKING THE BOARD TO APPLY THE CORRECT STANDARD AND ANALYSIS BASED ON THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO FIND THAT THE TERMINATION IS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THE DISTRICT DID NOT WAIVE ITS RIGHT TO TERMINATE BASED ON THE GOOD CAUSE REASON FOR EXCESSIVE ABSENCES.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.
>> THANK YOU. [NOISE] MISS FENSTER, YOU MAY MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD.
>> SORRY. GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK THIS EVENING.
I RECOGNIZE THE SERIOUSNESS OF THIS PROCEEDING, AND I WANT TO BEGIN BY ACKNOWLEDGING THE BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TEXAS LAW TO REVIEW THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION CAREFULLY AND DELIBERATELY.
I WANT TO BE CLEAR AT THE OUTSET OF THIS PURPOSE OF MY REMARKS.
I AM NOT HERE TO ARGUE A MOTION, NO AM I HERE TO MINIMIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF DISTRICT POLICY.
I AM ALSO NOT HERE TO RETALIATE TESTIMONY OR ATTEMPT TO REFRAIN EVIDENCE THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN HEARD AND WEIGHED.
INSTEAD, I AM HERE TO ADDRESS THREE THINGS.
FIRST, THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK THAT GOVERNS THE REVIEW UNDER CHAPTER 21 OF TEXAS EDUCATION CODE.
SECOND, THE SPECIFIC FINDING CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER AFTER A FULL EVIDENTIARY HEARING, AND THIRD, THE LIMITS PLACED ON THE BOARD'S AUTHORITY WHEN THOSE FINDINGS WERE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
THIS CASE ARISES UNDER CHAPTER 21 SUBCHAPTER F OF THE TEXAS EDUCATION CODE, WHICH GOVERNS PROVISIONARY CONTRACT TERMINATIONS AND ESTABLISHES THE ROLE OF AN INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER.
THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER EXPRESSLY CONCLUDED AND I QUOTE," THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER HAS JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 21 SUBCHAPTER F OF THE TEXAS EDUCATION CODE.
THAT CONCLUSION IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE CHAPTER 21 CREATES A STRUCTURED PROCESS DESIGNED TO ENSURE FAIRNESS AND CONSISTENCY.
>> UNDER TEXAS EDUCATION CODE 21.259C, THE BOARD MAY REJECT OR CHANGE A FINDING OF FACT ONLY IF THAT FINDING IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
THAT STATUTE DOES NOT SAY THAT THE BOARD MAY REJECT FINDINGS IF IT DISAGREES WITH NOR DOES IT PERMIT REJECTION BASED ON ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE SAME EXACT EVIDENCE.
[01:00:05]
TEXAS COURTS HAVE REPEATEDLY EXPLAINED THAT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE MEANS THAT MAYOR SANTILLA IS NOT AUTHORIZED RE-WEIGHING TESTIMONY OR ASSESSING CREDIBILITY.THIS LIMITATION IS INTENTIONAL.
IN MONTGOMERY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS VERSUS DAVIS, THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT ESTABLISHED THAT WHEN SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE EXISTS, THE BOARD MUST DEFER TO THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS.
THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER IN THIS CASE CONDUCTED A FULL EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON OCTOBER 1ST, 2025.
SHE HEARD LIVE TESTIMONY, REVIEWED, DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, EVALUATED CREDIBILITY, AND ISSUED WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
IMPORTANTLY, THE EXAMINER DID NOT DISREGARD THE DISTRICT'S EVIDENCE.
SHE EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGED THE GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARDS, INCLUDING TEXAS EDUCATION CODE 21.104A, WHICH ALLOWS TERMINATION OF A PROBATIONARY CONTRACT FOR GOOD CAUSE AS DETERMINED BY THE BOARD.
SHE ALSO CORRECTLY IDENTIFIED THE DISTRICT'S BURDEN UNDER TEXAS EDUCATION CODE 21.256H, WHICH STATES THE DISTRICT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF BY PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.
THE EXAMINER APPLIES THAT BURDEN.
SHE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE EXCESSIVE ABSENCES MAY UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES CONSTITUTE GOOD CAUSE.
SHE CITED COMMISSIONER PRECEDENT IN THE DISTRICT'S POLICY REGARDING ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENT, EXCEPT SHE DID NOT MINIMIZE THOSE STANDARDS.
WHAT THE EXAMINER DID HOWEVER, WAS EXAMINE HOW THE DISTRICT RESPONDED TO THOSE ISSUES, HOW ENFORCEMENT OCCURRED OVER TIME, AND WHETHER TERMINATION WAS LEGALLY AVAILABLE GIVEN THE DISTRICT'S OWN ACTIONS.
AFTER REVIEWING THE ENTIRE RECORD, THE HEARING EXAMINER REACHED A CONTROLLING LEGAL CONCLUSION THAT GOVERNS THIS CASE.
SHE STATED AND I QUOTE, "ALTHOUGH HISD PROVIDED BY PREPONDERANCE AND EVIDENCE OF THE RESPONDENT'S VIOLATED BOARD POLICY -LOCAL, THE DISTRICT IS A STOPPED FROM TERMINATING RESPONDENT'S CURRENT PROBATIONARY CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT BASED ON THE VIOLATION OF HER PRIOR PROBATIONARY CONTRACT DUE TO WAIVER.
IT REFLECTS LEGAL ANALYSIS, NOT FRACTURAL OVERSIGHT.
THE EXAMINER FOUND THAT THROUGH VARIOUS MEANS, CAMPUS LEADERSHIP HAD ACCESS TO ATTENDANCE RECORD AND WAS WELL AWARE OF VIOLATIONS THAT COULD HAVE POSSIBLY OCCURRED THROUGHOUT THE SCHOOL YEAR.
THERE WAS NO CORRECTIVE ACTION NOR DISCIPLINE THAT WAS TAKEN BEFORE THE NEW PROBATIONARY CONTRACT WAS ISSUED AND SIGNED.
THIS SEQUENCE MATTERS LEGALLY.
THE EXAMINER DID NOT EXCUSE POLICY VIOLATION.
INSTEAD, SHE CORRECTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE TERMINATION WAS NOT LEGALLY AVAILABLE BECAUSE THE DISTRICT'S ACTION CONSTITUTED WAIVER.
THAT CONCLUSION IS SUPPORTED BY THE COMMISSIONER'S PRECEDENT AND IS WELL WITHIN THE EXAMINER'S AUTHORITY.
BASED ON THAT ANALYSIS, THE EXAMINER ISSUED A CLEAR RECOMMENDATION.
AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT SUFFICIENT GROUNDS DO NOT EXIST TO SUPPORT THE TERMINATION OF A RESPONDENT'S PROBATIONARY CONTRACT.
UNDER TEXAS EDUCATION CODE 21.259, THE BOARD'S AUTHORITY IS CONSTRAINED.
THE STATUTE DOES NOT PERMIT REJECTION OF FINDING SIMPLY BECAUSE THE ADMINISTRATION DISAGREES WITH THE OUTCOME OR BELIEVES A DIFFERENT PENALTY WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE.
CHAPTER 21 DOES NOT ALLOW THIS.
WHEN SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE EXAMINER'S FINDING, AND HERE IT DOES, THE BOARD MUST DEFER.
I ALSO WOULD NEED TO ADDRESS THE PROCEDURAL POSTURE OF THIS CASE BECAUSE THE TIMELINE IS NOT INCIDENTAL AND IT IS NOT GOVERNED BY STATUTE.
THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER ISSUED HER FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND RECOMMENDATION ON OCTOBER 27TH, 2025.
THIS DATE IS NOT DISPUTED AND IT IS REFLECTED CLEARLY IN THE RECORD.
UNDER TEXAS EDUCATION CODE 21.258 UNDER THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION, ONCE THE ONE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION IS ISSUED, THE BOARD IS REQUIRED TO MEET AND CONSIDER THAT RECOMMENDATION WITHIN THE STATUTORY TIME FRAME.
THAT STATUTE DOES NOT PROVIDE DISCRETION TO DELAY OR CONSIDERATION INDEFINITELY NOR DOES IT PERMIT THE DISTRICT TO WAIT WEEKS BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD BEFORE TAKING ACTION.
IN THIS CASE, MORE THAN 20 CALENDAR DAYS, APPROXIMATELY 54 AT THIS POINT, ELAPSE FOLLOWING THE ISSUANCE OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON OCTOBER 27TH, BEFORE THIS MATTER WAS SCHEDULED FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION.
THAT DELAY PLACES TODAY'S PROCEEDING WELL OUTSIDE THE STATUTORY WINDOW CONTEMPLATED BY CHAPTER 21.
THIS DELAY IS UNDISPUTED AND IS DOCUMENTED IN THE PROCEDURAL RECORD.
WHILE THE COMMISSION OF EDUCATION HAS INDICATED THAT THE REVIEW OF THIS VIOLATION MUST OCCUR AFTER THE FINAL BOARD DECISION, IT IS NONETHELESS ESSENTIAL THAT FOR THE RECORD REFLECTED TODAY, I NEED TO EXPLICITLY STATE THE TIMING ACCURATELY AND TRANSPARENTLY TO ALL.
ACCORDINGLY, I WANT THE RECORD TO CLEARLY REFLECT THAT I OBJECT TO THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS OUTSIDE THE STATUTORY TIMELINE REQUIRED BY TEXAS EDUCATION CODE 21.258, AND I EXPRESSLY PRESERVE THIS PROCEDURAL VIOLATION FOR FURTHER REVIEW.
CAN I SAVE THE REST OF MY TIME?
>> CAN I SAVE THE REST OF MY TIME?
>> NO. UNDER THIS PROCEDURE WE DON'T HAVE A REBUTTAL TIME, DO WE? IF YOU SAVE TIME?
>> NO, REBUTTAL IS ONLY TO THE ADMINISTRATION ON THIS.
[01:05:04]
>> THE PROCEDURES ARE JUST SO YOU DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO REBUT.
YOU KEEP TALKING IF YOU WANT FOR THREE.
>> I KEEP GOING. IN THIS CASE, I REALLY JUST WANT TO EXPLICITLY STAY OUT TO THE BOARD THAT I DO UNDERSTAND THE POSITION THAT HAS BEEN APPLIED TO MANY TEACHERS THIS SCHOOL YEAR VIA REALLY BOARD VIDEOS THAT I HAVE WATCHED.
I DO UNDERSTAND THAT IN MY POSITION, I AM NOT UNIQUE IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.
I UNDERSTAND THAT WITH THIS PARTICULAR PROCEEDING, ATTENDANCE ALONE IS ENOUGH FOR THE BOARD TO SAY, WE WILL TERMINATE, AND I UNDERSTAND I ACCEPT BECAUSE I DO GET THAT MY NEXT STEPS ARE MY NEXT STEPS.
HOWEVER, I DO WANT THE BOARD TO TRULY UNDERSTAND HERE TODAY THAT ADMINISTRATION AT LOVETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WAS WELL AWARE BEFORE THE MAY 19TH DATE ABOUT THE DAYS THAT WAS TAKEN.
THESE DAYS WERE TALKED ABOUT WHEN I WAS GETTING HIRED, I GOT MARRIED.
THEN THE OTHER DAYS THAT I WAS TAKEN WAS BECAUSE I HAD A MEDICAL PROCEDURE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SCHOOL YEAR.
UNFORTUNATELY, THOSE DAYS RIGHT TO THE WAY THEY WERE.
REGARDLESS OF THOSE DAYS, I'M NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM HERE TO ARGUE THAT I DID NOT TAKE THOSE DAYS OR THAT THEY WERE NOT VALID OR THEY WERE NOT SOUND.
MY BIGGEST COMPLAINT IS WHAT IT REALLY HAS BEEN THE ENTIRE TIME, WHICH IS JUST THE TIMELINE AND HOW I FELT AS IF THOUGH POLICY WAS NOT REALLY BEING ADHERED TO.
I WAS NOTIFIED ON THE LAST DAY OF SCHOOL THAT I HAD A CONFERENCE FOR THE RECORD THE DAY AFTER THE LAST DAY OF SCHOOL.
I WAS NOT EVEN NOTIFIED OF THE, I GUESS RESULT OF THAT CONFERENCE OF RECORD AND IF MY CONTRACT WOULD BE TERMINATED OR NOT UNTIL JULY 2ND.
THEN FROM THERE, I COMPLETELY WENT IN WITH THE TA PROCESS.
I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES OR QUARRELS ABOUT IT.
BUT THEN AFTER I DID MY DUE DILIGENCE OF GOING THROUGH THE TA PROCESS AND MEETING WITH THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER AND THINKING, I GUESS NOT REALLY THAT WOULD BE THE END OF IT.
I GUESS IS THE NAIVETY, BUT THINKING THAT THAT WOULD BE SOUND, I STILL RECEIVED LATER THAT AFTER THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER SAW THE CASE AND UNDERSTOOD WHERE I WAS COMING FROM, UNDERSTOOD WHERE THE BOARD OR HISD WAS COMING FROM, SIDED, I GUESS WITH MY CALLS, AND THEN FROM THERE, I WAS TOLD RIGHT THEN AND THERE FROM TA AND THEN FROM POLICY, THAT HISD HAD 20 CALENDAR DAYS TO MAKE THAT DECISION, AND THAT WAS IN NOVEMBER, AND HERE WE ARE IN DECEMBER.
THAT'S REALLY MY ONE OF ANOTHER TIMELINE THINGS THAT IS REALLY CONFLICTING TO ME.
AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS, I RESPECT THE PROCESS.
I UNDERSTAND THE POSITION I'M IN TODAY AS FAR AS NO TEACHER THAT I HAVE SEEN WITH ANY TYPE OF ATTENDANCE ISSUES THAT HAVE COME BEFORE THE BOARD HAS GOTTEN SIDED WITH.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S REALLY THE CORRECT TERMINOLOGY TO REALLY USE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
I GET THAT AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I JUST WANT TO EXPLICITLY STATE BEFORE YOU ALL THAT, I DON'T REALLY KNOW, THIS IS AN UNFORTUNATE SITUATION.
AGAIN, I RESPECTFULLY ASK THE BOARD TO ADOPT THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINERS RECOMMENDATION AND ALLOW MY PROBATIONARY CONTRACT TO REMAIN IN EFFECT CONSISTENT WITH BOTH LAW AND THE RECORD BEFORE YOU.
IN ADDITION, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD DELIBERATE IN THIS MATTER IN OPEN SESSION AS CONSULTED BY THE TEXAS EDUCATION CODE AND THE PRINCIPLES OF TRANSPARENCY THAT GOVERN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS.
OPEN DELIBERATION ENSURES THAT THE BASIS OF THE BOARD'S DECISION IS CLEAR, DOCUMENTED, AND ACCESSIBLE FOR PURPOSES OF REVIEW, AND IF THIS NEEDS TO BE EXTENDED OUTWARD.
IF THE BOARD CHOOSES NOT TO ADOPT THIS RECOMMENDATION, I RESPECTFULLY PRESERVE ALL PROCEDURAL OR SUBSTANTIAL OBJECTIONS, INCLUDING OBJECTIONS RELATED TO WAIVER, STATUTORY COMPLIANCE, AND TIMING OF THE PROCEDURE FOR.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. I'LL BE BRIEF.
I'D LIKE TO START OFF BY SAYING THAT THIS HEARING EXAMINER FOUND IN HER OWN FINDINGS OF FACT AND IN HER OWN RECOMMENDATION THAT THERE WAS GOOD CAUSE FOR TERMINATION REGARDING HER EXCESSIVE ABSENCES.
I LIKE TO READ OFF ON PAGE 16 OF HER OWN RECOMMENDATION WHERE SHE SAYS THAT ACCORDINGLY, THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A FINDING OF A GOOD CAUSE FOR TERMINATION OF RESPONDENTS 2025, 2026 CONTRACT BASED ON HER ACTIONS DURING THE 2024, 2025 CONTRACT IN VIOLATION OF HISD BOARD POLICY DC8, AND THE DISTRICT'S ACTIONS WERE TIMELY AND CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE LAW AND POLICY.
BECAUSE MISS SPENCER ALSO MENTIONED TIMELINES, THIS HEARING EXAMINER ALSO MENTIONED TIMELINES AS WELL WHERE SHE STATES THAT THIS TIMELINE DEMONSTRATES THAT HISD ACTED DILIGENTLY AND DID NOT WAIVE ITS RIGHT TO PURSUE TERMINATION.
EVEN IF THE ABSENTEEISM REPORT COULD HAVE BEEN GENERATED EARLIER,
[01:10:01]
THE DISTRICT WAS REQUIRED TO FOLLOW ITS INTERNAL PROTOCOLS, INCLUDING FILE REVIEW AND CFR.THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT HISD DID NOT CONDONE RESPONDENTS CONDUCT AND TAKE TIMELY ACTION CONSISTENT WITH ITS POLICIES.
IT IS UNFORTUNATE TODAY THAT MISS SPENCER WAS CLEARLY AWARE OF HISD'S BOARD POLICY REGARDING ABSENTEEISM, YET DELIBERATELY DECIDED TO VIOLATE IT, AND WE ARE HERE TODAY DUE TO THAT FACT.
MISS SPENCER'S ARGUMENT REGARDING THE STATUTORY DEADLINE THAT SHE BRINGS UP TODAY IS COMPLETELY OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS HEARING, NOT WITHIN THE TRANSCRIPT OR THE SCOPE OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S REALM AT THE TA APPEAL HEARING MATTER.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, MISS SPENCER GOES BACK AND FORTH BY MENTIONING SECTION 21.257 AND 21.258 REGARDING THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION WITHIN THE 20 CALENDAR DAYS.
THE CORRECT CITATION FOR THAT WOULD BE THE TEXAS EDUCATION CODE 21.258 NOT 257.
ADDITIONALLY, MISS SPENCER MISLEADS THIS BOARD TO BELIEVE THAT NOT MEETING THIS DEADLINE RESULT IN THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO HAVE HER DECISION BINDING AS OF TODAY, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE.
NOWHERE IN THE TEXAS EDUCATION CODE, DOES IT SAY THAT IF THE DISTRICT FAILS TO MEET THIS DEADLINE, THE REPERCUSSIONS OF THAT WOULD BE THE HEARING EXAMINERS RECOMMENDATION BE BINDING ON THE ADMINISTRATION.
WITH THAT BEING CONSIDERED, THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD ASK THAT YOU MODIFY THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AS MENTIONED IN ITS PROPOSED MOTION AND REJECT THIS HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU.
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.
THE PARTIES HAVE COMPLETED THEIR PRESENTATION.
IT'S NOW TIME FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS TO MAKE OUR DECISION ON THE ISSUES BEFORE US.
THE BOARD WILL NOW RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION UNDER CHAPTER 551 OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE OPEN MEANINGS SECTION 551.004-551.089.
SHOULD BOARD FINAL ACTION VOTE OR DECISION OR ANY MATTER CONSIDERED IN THE CLOSED SESSION BE REQUIRED? SUCH FINAL ACTION OF VOTER 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 THEREOF.
THE BOARD HAS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 6:20 PM ON DECEMBER 18, 2025.
THIS SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IS NOW RECONVENED IN OPEN SESSION AT 6:33 PM.
>> I MOVE THAT THE BOARD ADOPT THE HEARING OFFICER'S FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, EXCEPT FOR CONCLUSIONS OF LAW NUMBER 15, AND THAT THE BOARD ADOPT THE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, RATIONALE, AND RECOMMENDATIONS SET FORTH IN PETITIONER'S PROPOSED MOTION, AND THAT THE BOARD TERMINATE THE CONTRACT OF TIANA SPENCER EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
THE MOTION PASSES TWO YES AND ONE NO.
A LETTER NOTIFYING BOTH PARTIES OF THE ACTION OF THE BOARD SHALL BE PREPARED AND SIGNED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF BOARD RELATIONS WITHIN 10 DAYS.
THE LETTER SHALL INCLUDE THE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSION OF LAW OF THE SCHOOL BOARD AND ANY GRANT OF RELIEF OBTAINED.
FURTHERMORE, THE LETTER SHALL STATE THE REASON AND LEGAL BASIS FOR THE REJECTING OR CHANGING THE FINDINGS OF FACT OR CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PROPOSED BY THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER.
THIS HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT 6:35 PM.
WITH NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO DISCUSS THIS MEETING OF THE BOARD IS ADJOURNED.
THE TIME IS 6:35 PM ON DECEMBER 18, 2025.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.