[Hearings on August 20, 2026.]
[00:00:03]
GOOD EVENING, THIS MEETING IS NOW CONVENED AT 5.03 P.M. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK EVERYONE TO PLEASE SILENCE ALL CELL PHONES. THE QUORUM OF THE BOARD MEMBERS IS PRESENT IN THE AUDITORIUM.
I AM BOARD VICE PRESIDENT ANGELA LAMONT FLOWERS AND I WILL PRESIDE OVER TONIGHT'S MEETING.
I'M JOINED BY BOARD MEMBERS PAULA MENDOZA, EDGAR COLON, AND KAREN DUFFY. WELCOME. OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO HEAR FROM SPEAKERS TO AGENDA ITEMS. PUBLIC COMMENT DURING SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS WILL ONLY BE AVAILABLE TO THOSE PERSONS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK PRIOR TO THE MEETING TIME PER CURRENT PROTOCOL.
VERBAL AND OTHER DISRUPTIONS BY PERSONS DURING 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 BEHAVIOR IS REPEATED THEY WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE MEETING. WE HAVE ONE REGISTERED SPEAKER WHO WILL BE LIMITED TO TWO MINUTES PER BOARD POLICY. WE ASK THAT YOU STAY ON TOPIC AND REFRAIN FROM NAMING INDIVIDUALS ESPECIALLY STUDENTS AS THEIR IDENTITY IS PROTECTED UNDER LAW BUT YOU MAY NAME YOUR OWN CHILD. WILL HIC ELECTED TRUSTEE PLACIDA GOMEZ PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE. WELCOME.
PLEASE STATE YOUR AGENDA TOPIC.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I WANT TO MAKE A QUICK RECORD ABOUT WHAT WAS MCREYNOLDS MIDDLE SCHOOL BECOMING SECONDARY DIET PROGRAM AND I'M NOT HERE TO PROTEST THE FACT THAT DIET PROGRAM EXISTS OR I'M NOT HERE TO DEMAND THAT NO STUDENT EVER BE PLACED THERE. I LEARNED ABOUT THIS A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO AT A COMMUNITY MEETING AND WHAT PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW AND WHAT I WANT TO KNOW ARE WHAT ARE THE STUDENT OUTCOMES FOR STUDENTS WHO ARE ATTENDING THESE DIET PROGRAMS. WE NEED TO KNOW THE ACADEMIC DATA, RECIDIVISM NUMBERS, WHAT'S CAUSING STUDENTS TO BE PLACED THERE AND WHETHER STUDENTS ARE BETTER OFF AFTER SPENDING TIME THERE. I LOOKED AT EVERY AGENDA PACKET OVER THE LAST YEAR, DID A CONTROL FIND FOR A DIET AND I FOUND A COUPLE OF MEETINGS JANUARY AND JUNE WHERE THERE WERE 241 MENTIONS OF DIAP WHICH WERE ALL IN THE STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT WHICH DETAILED YOU KNOW HOW STUDENTS ARE GOING TO BE PLACED IN DIAP BUT NOTHING ABOUT STUDENT OUTCOMES NOTHING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT STUDENTS ARE BETTER OFF AFTER HAVING ATTENDED. OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS I CAN'T RECALL THE DISTRICT DOING A ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS FOR WHAT'S WORKING AND WHAT'S NOT WORKING IN DIAP AND I'M NOT SAYING THIS FROM A PLACE OF JUDGMENT. I'VE SPOKEN AT ALMOST EVERY SCHOOL BOARD MEETING OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS AND THIS IS MY FIRST TIME BRINGING THIS UP SO I'M EVERY BIT AS CULPABLE AS THE NEXT PERSON. I'M WORRIED THAT WE TREAT THESE STUDENTS AS OUT OF SIGHT OUT OF MIND AND THESE ARE THESE PARTICULAR STUDENTS ARE THE ONES WHO NEED THE MOST SUPPORT. I'M ALSO CONCERNED THAT DIAP CAN BE A PLACE FOR STUDENTS TO LEARN FROM THEIR PEERS MORE INNOVATIVE WAYS TO MISBEHAVE. SO I'M GOING TO INSIST ON ASKING ABOUT OUTCOMES.
I DON'T HAVE THE POWER YET TO SIT BEHIND THE DAIS AND ASK POINTED QUESTIONS THE DISTRICT HAS TO ANSWER BUT I WILL SOMETIME OR ANOTHER OR PERHAPS SOMEBODY ON THE BOARD OF MANAGERS WILL BEAT ME TO IT WHICH WOULD BE FANTASTIC. I'M NOT ASKING THE DISTRICT FOR A REPORT THAT SHOWS THAT YOU'VE PERFECTLY SOLVED THE PROBLEM OF REACHING OUR MOST TOUGH TO REACH STUDENTS BUT I JUST HAVE TO KNOW THAT YOU'RE WORKING ON IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC COMMENT. WE WILL NOW CONDUCT THE HEARING SCHEDULED FOR THIS MEETING. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE HEARING FOR OUR ELASTOR GAINS WILL NOT BE HELD TODAY. PROCEDURE TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER OF THE MATTER OF DAVID ESPINOZA, PURPOSE OF THE MEETING. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER AND THE MATTER OF DAVID ESPINOZA, TEACHER, HOUSTON MSTC HIGH SCHOOL.
HEARINGS INVOLVING COMPLAINTS AGAINST DISTRICT EMPLOYEES ARE TO BE HELD IN CLOSED SESSION UNLESS EMPLOYEE WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF THE HEARING REQUESTS AN OPEN HEARING. IF BOTH PARTIES REQUEST AN OPEN SESSION DURING THIS HEARING THE BOARD MAY GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY UNDER THE TERMS OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071. IF ANY BOARD MEMBER WISHES TO SEEK THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL, PLEASE TELL ME.
FOR THE RECORD, OMER KHAWAJA WITH KHAWAJA LEGAL SERVICES REPRESENTING DAVID ESPINOZA IS PRESENT.
DAVID ESPINOZA IS ALSO PRESENT.
MYRA CHICKERING WITH ROGERS MORRISON-CROVER REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION IS PRESENT.
KATASHA WOODS, HIC GENERAL COUNSEL IS ALSO PRESENT. MR. KHAWAJA, DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE AN OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION? THANK YOU. YES, SIR.
THE ISSUE BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD OR WHETHER TO ACCEPT, REJECT, OR CHANGE THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND PROPOSAL BASED ON THE REVIEW OF 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 NOT SUPPORTED
[00:05:01]
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.MS. CHICKERING, YOU WILL PROCEED FIRST. YOU WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A 10-MINUTE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD FOLLOWED BY A 10-MINUTE PRESENTATION TO MR. KHAWAJA. MS. CHICKERING, YOU MAY RESERVE PART OF YOUR 10 MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL TO MATTERS PRESENTED BY MR. KHAWAJA. BOTH SIDES SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD AFTER THEIR RESPECTIVE PRESENTATIONS. MS. CHICKERING, WOULD YOU LIKE TO DIVIDE YOUR TIME IN MAKING YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD? THANK YOU. MS. CHICKERING, YOU MAY BEGIN.
MADAM VICE PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, I AM JOINED HERE TODAY BY DR.
TANYA WEBB, THE PRINCIPAL OF HOUSTON MATH SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY CENTER HIGH SCHOOL, AND ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES, MATTHEW HENRY. WE ARE HERE TODAY TO ASK THAT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THIS HEARING, YOU VOTE TO ADOPT THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION AND NON-RENEW MR. DAVID ESPINOZA'S CHARM CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT.
LET ME SAY, IT BRINGS US NO JOY TO ASK THAT YOU TAKE THIS ACTION. HOWEVER, THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE CLEARLY SUPPORTS A CONCLUSION THAT MR. ESPINOZA WAS SIMPLY NOT DOING THE JOB HE WAS CONTRACTED TO DO. HE WASN'T TEACHING. THINK ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A TEACHER. A TEACHER IS NOT JUST SOMEONE WHO UNLOCKS THE CLASSROOM DOOR AND LETS THE STUDENTS IN. IT IS SO MUCH MORE THAN THAT.
IN FACT, THE DISTRICT'S EMPLOYEE VALUE PROPOSITION EXPLICITLY STATES THAT TEACHERS ARE THE MOST CRITICAL COMPONENT OF THE DISTRICT'S TRANSFORMATION. SO WHAT EXACTLY DOES THAT MEAN? ONE DEFINITION I FOUND DESCRIBES A TEACHER AS A PROFESSIONAL EDUCATOR WHO HELPS STUDENTS ACQUIRE KNOWLEDGE, COMPETENCE, AND VALUES. BEYOND INSTRUCTING ACADEMIC SUBJECTS, TEACHERS GUIDE PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT, ACT AS MENTORS, AND FOSTER CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS. THAT'S ONE DEFINITION.
AT NAHISD, THE EXPECTATIONS FOR TEACHERS ARE HIGH, ESPECIALLY ON THOSE CAMPUSES DESIGNATED AS NAS CAMPUSES LIKE HOUSTON MSTC. AND FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS, THE FOCUS, AS YOU ALL KNOW, HAS BEEN ON PROVIDING STUDENTS WITH BELL-TO-BELL INSTRUCTION.
THE INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL REQUIRES A HIGH LEVEL OF TEACHER ENGAGEMENT THROUGHOUT EACH CLASS PERIOD. NOW ON THE SURFACE, MR. ESPINOZA WAS PERFORMING SATISFACTORILY.
HIS APPRAISALS FROM THE 2023-24 AND 2024-25 SCHOOL YEARS WERE PROFICIENT, AND HIS SPOT SCORES WERE ALSO IN THE PROFICIENT LEVEL.
BUT THE EVIDENCE FROM THE HEARING DEMONSTRATES THAT OUTSIDE OF THESE APPRAISALS AND SPOT OBSERVATIONS, MR. ESPINOZA WAS FAILING TO FULFILL HIS CONTRACTUAL DUTIES. RATHER THAN DOING WHAT HE WAS HIRED TO DO, TO TEACH, MR. ESPINOZA EFFECTIVELY OFFLOADED HIS RESPONSIBILITIES TO A FEW SELECT STUDENTS WHO WOULD FLIP THROUGH ASSIGNED INSTRUCTIONAL SLIDES AND ASSIGN GRADES FOR THE DAILY DOLS, DEMONSTRATION OF LEARNING.
THESE SELECT STUDENTS WOULD THEN DECIDE WHICH OF THEIR CLASSMATES WOULD MOVE ON TO THE LEARNING CENTER, ALL THINGS THAT MR. ESPINOZA SHOULD HAVE BEEN PERSONALLY DOING.
SO WHAT WAS MR. ESPINOZA DOING? INSTEAD OF DIRECTLY INTERACTING WITH HIS STUDENTS THROUGHOUT THE CLASS PERIOD, THE EVIDENCE FROM THE HEARING SHOWS THAT MR. ESPINOZA SPENT MOST OF HIS TIME STANDING IN THE DOORWAY OF HIS CLASSROOM OR IN THE HALLWAY DISENGAGED. NOW IF I CAN DO THIS, I'M GOING TO REFERENCE YOU TO EXHIBIT 21, WHICH IS A 40-MINUTE VIDEO, WHICH I'M GOING TO ATTEMPT TO FAST FORWARD THROUGH.
IN THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND CORNER, YOU CAN SEE AN ADULT FIGURE STANDING IN A DOORWAY.
AND AS I SCROLL THROUGH THIS, I WANT YOU TO KEEP AN EYE ON THAT DOORWAY AND THAT INDIVIDUAL.
[00:10:03]
I ASK YOU TO PULL THE MICROPHONE CLOSER.GOT IT BETTER? IF I SCROLL THROUGH THIS ENTIRE VIDEO, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 40 MINUTES LONG, YOU SEE MR. ESPINOZA STANDING IN THE HALLWAY THE MAJORITY OF THE TIME, WHICH IS IN FACT SOMETHING HE ACKNOWLEDGED DURING THE HEARING. I DO NOT HAVE TIME TO REVIEW ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, BUT I DO WANT TO UNDERSCORE WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU AS THE MOST PROFOUND TESTIMONY OF THE ENTIRE HEARING, THE TESTIMONY OF ROLAND AND GABRIELLA, TWO OF MR. ESPINOZA'S FORMER STUDENTS.
IN THE RECORD, I AM REFERRING SPECIFICALLY TO FINDINGS FOUND ON PAGES SIX AND SEVEN OF THE RECOMMENDATION.
THEY DESCRIBED HIS CLASSROOM AS, AND I QUOTE, VERY CHAOTIC. THEY TESTIFIED THAT STUDENTS WERE NOT REALLY DOING WHAT WE WERE MEANT TO BE DOING IN THE CLASSROOM, JUST A LOT OF KIDS BEING IN CHARGE OF THEMSELVES, UNQUOTE. BOTH TESTIFIED THAT THEY WEREN'T LEARNING IN MR. ESPINOZA'S CLASS.
ROLAND TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS STRUGGLING, AND THAT'S HIS WORD, AND EVEN SENT AN EMAIL TO HIS COUNSELOR REQUESTING TO BE REMOVED FROM MR. ESPINOZA'S CLASS AND PLACED INTO, AND AGAIN HIS WORDING, ANY OTHER AOT, ART OF THINKING TEACHER THAT THERE COULD HAVE BEEN. THE HEARING EXAMINER DETERMINED THAT THE TESTIMONY OF THESE TWO STUDENTS AND THE OTHER WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED DURING PETITIONER'S CASE WERE MORE CREDIBLE THAN MR. ESPINOZA AND THE WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED ON HIS BEHALF. AS THE FACT FINDER, THAT WAS ULTIMATELY HER DECISION TO MAKE. NOW, IN A MINUTE, I SUSPECT THAT MR. KWAJA IS GOING TO COME UP HERE AND URGE YOU TO EITHER REJECT AND OR MODIFY THAT RECOMMENDATION. I BELIEVE HE'S GOING TO ASK THAT YOU CHANGE SOME OF HIS FACTUAL FINDINGS.
IT IS NOT ENOUGH, HOWEVER, FOR HIM TO DRAFT UP A REDLINED, A SET OF REDLINED CHANGES AND CITE EVIDENCE TO THE RECORD THAT HE BELIEVES WILL SUPPORT MR. ESPINOZA'S POSITION. AS BOTH THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT AND THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION HAVE HELD, THE HEARING EXAMINER IS THE FINDER OF FACT, AND THE BOARD CANNOT CHANGE THE EXAMINER'S FACTUAL FINDINGS SO LONG AS HER FINDINGS ARE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AND THAT MEANS MORE THAN A MERE SCINTILLA.
NOT ONCE ARE WE GOING TO HEAR FROM MR. KWAJA AN EXPLANATION OF HOW HEARING EXAMINER COLEMAN'S FINDINGS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. I BELIEVE WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET INSTEAD IS SIMPLY AN ALTERNATE VERSION OF THE WAY TO LOOK AT THE FACTS, BUT THAT ULTIMATELY DOESN'T MATTER ACCORDING TO THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT. IF THE DISTRICT IS TRULY COMMITTED TO LIVING UP TO ITS STATED VALUES AND CORE PRINCIPLES OF PROVIDING HIGH-QUALITY, BELL-TO-BELL INSTRUCTION, THEN I WOULD URGE YOU TO ADOPT THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THEIR ENTIRETY, AND I WANT TO BRING UP JUST VERY BRIEFLY ANOTHER ISSUE THAT YOU SEE REFERENCED IN BOTH THE RECOMMENDATION AND THAT I ANTICIPATE MR. KWAJA WILL MENTION, AND I BELIEVE HE'S GOING TO UNDERSCORE THE FACT THAT THE ADMINISTRATION AMENDED THE ORIGINAL NOTICE LETTER.
THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THAT PREVENTS THE DISTRICT FROM CHANGING AND ADDING TO THE INITIAL REASONS. THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR A NON-RENEWAL ARE FOUND IN TEXAS EDUCATION CODE SECTION 21.206 AND PROVIDE THAT NOT LATER THAN THE 10TH DAY BEFORE THE LAST DAY OF INSTRUCTION IN A SCHOOL YEAR, THE BOARD SHALL NOTIFY IN WRITING EACH TEACHER WHOSE CONTRACT IS ABOUT TO EXPIRE AND WHETHER THE BOARD PROPOSES TO RENEW OR NON-RENEW THE CONTRACT. UP UNTIL ABOUT 30 YEARS AGO, PARDON ME, BEFORE MORE THAN 30 YEARS AGO, A DIFFERENT PROCEEDING VERSION OF THE EDUCATION CODE PROVIDED THAT ALL OF THE REASONS HAD TO BE STATED IN THAT NOTICE, BUT 30 YEARS AGO LEGISLATURE AMENDED THE EDUCATION CODE AND GOT RID OF THAT REQUIREMENT, AND SO NOW THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT IN THE EDUCATION CODE THAT ALL OF THE REASONS BE STATED, AND IN FACT, HISD BOARD POLICY, DFBB LOCAL, SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE SUPERINTENDENT TO GIVE NOTICE TO THE EMPLOYEE OF ADDITIONAL REASONS IN ADDITION TO THOSE THAT WERE INITIALLY STATED.
I WOULD ASK AT THIS POINT THAT YOU AGAIN TAKE THE RECOMMENDATION AND YOU VALUE THOSE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT ARE CLEARLY SUPPORTED
[00:15:03]
BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AND I'LL RESERVE THE REST OF MY TIME FOR MY REBUTTAL.THANK YOU, MR. KAWASHA. YOU MAY MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD.
I'M A PETITIONER, COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT, DAVID ESPINOSA.
SO I'D LIKE TO RESERVE FIVE MINUTES FOR MY REBUTTAL.
I'M TRYING TO MAKE IT IN THE NEXT FOUR AND A HALF MINUTES.
DON'T GET TO RESERVE TIME. YOU JUST HAVE TO PRESENT FOR THE 10 MINUTES.
ALL RIGHT. WELL, SO GOOD EVENING. OMAR KWAJA, PRESENTING FOR DAVID ESPINOSA, A SIX-YEAR-OLD HISD TEACHER.
YOU'VE JUST HEARD THE DISTRICT'S CASE. WE LOOKED AT THE VIDEO. THERE'S A NUMBER OF OTHER VIDEOS THERE IN THE RECORD. I WELCOME THE BOARD'S ATTENTION IN REVIEWING THEM.
JUST TO BE SURE, MR. ESPINOSA WAS STANDING OPENLY AND NOTORIOUSLY IN THE CORRIDOR.
NOBODY TRIED TO STOP HIM FOR 40 MINUTES. THERE WAS A DISTRICT VISIT HAPPENING AT THE TIME, AND HE WAS INSTRUCTED TO DO THAT BY MR. HAMILTON, WHICH WAS AN ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL OVER THERE. IT'S IN THE RECORD. YOU CAN FIND MR. HAMILTON'S CONTRADICTORY TESTIMONY ALL OVER THE PLACE, AND YOU CAN ALSO FIND MR. ESPINOSA'S NON-CONTRADICTORY AND VERY CREDIBLE TESTIMONY OVER THERE AS WELL. I INVITE YOU TO LOOK AT THE RECORD, MAKE SURE THAT THE CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS MADE BY THE HEARING OFFICER WITHOUT CITING TO THE RECORD ONCE ARE IN FACT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT IS CONTRADICTORY TO THE FINDING DOES NOT SUPPORT A SUBSTANTIAL RECORD FINDING.
TO CONTINUE WITH MY PRESENTATION, WHAT YOU DID NOT HEAR IS A SINGLE GROUND THAT SURVIVES A RECORD ARREST ON.
BEFORE THE BOARD REACHES WHETHER MR. ESPINOSA DID ANYTHING WRONG, THERE ARE TWO THRESHOLD DEFECTS THAT REQUIRE DISMISSAL ON THEIR OWN. I'LL TAKE THEM FOR THE FIRST. FIRST THRESHOLD IS THE DEFECT OF NOTICE. A TEACHER IS ENTITLED TO KNOW THE REASONS HE MUST DEFEND A REASONABLE TIME BEFORE THE HEARING. THE APRIL 10TH NOTICE GAVE MR. ESPINOSA POLICY CODE NUMBERS AND NOTHING ELSE.
NO DATE, NO INCIDENT, NO NAMED STUDENT, NO DESCRIBED ACT.
THOSE ARE JUST BASES. THOSE ARE JUST GROUNDS. THEY'RE NOT YOU DID THIS, YOU DID THIS, YOU DID THIS.
THEY SAY YOU DID NOT OBSERVE A, B, OR C POLICY. NO FACTUAL ALLEGATION IS A NOTICE DEFECT.
A NOTICE BROAD ENOUGH TO COVER ANY CONCEIVABLE FAILING IS IN THE COMMISSIONER'S WORDS IN KELLY V. MARTIN, MARLIN, TOO BROAD TO BE MEANINGFUL. THAT DEFECT IS NOT CURABLE BY THE HEARING THAT FOLLOWS.
IT VOIDS THE PROCEEDING ON THE GROUNDS ALONE, ON THOSE GROUNDS ALONE THAT NON-RENEWAL SHOULD NOT BE SUSTAINED. THE SECOND THRESHOLD QUESTION IS THE SHIFTING GROUNDS IN THE INCOMPLETE RECORD.
SECOND PROCESS, TWO PROBLEMS COMPOUND A NOTICE DEFECT. THE TWO GRAVEST GROUNDS, FALSIFICATION AND MISREPRESENTATION WERE NOT IN THE APRIL 10TH NOTICE AT ALL. OUTSIDE COUNSEL ADDED THEM ON MAY 19TH AFTER THE CASE WAS DOCKETED AND AFTER MR. ESPINOSA FILED AN EEOC CHARGE WITH NO BOARD VOTE.
THAT IS A RETALIATION IF I'VE EVER HEARD OF RETALIATION, THAT IF I CHOOSE TO PURSUE MY RIGHTS UNDER A CHAPTER 21 HEARING, GUESS WHAT? WE'RE GOING TO STACK UP. THE DISTRICT'S OWN LETTER CALLS THE ORIGINAL MISSION INADVERTENT. GROUNDS BOLTED ON MID-PROCEEDING CANNOT SUPPORT A NON-RENEWAL.
AND THE RECORD IN FRONT OF YOU IS INCOMPLETE. ON JULY 14TH, BEFORE THE DEADLINE, WE SERVED OUR PROPOSED FINDINGS AND WRITTEN CLOSING ARGUMENT ON THE HEARING EXAMINER AND COPIED DISTRICT COUNSEL.
THEY WERE EXCLUDED FROM THE RECORD BEFORE YOU.
IN FACT, I HAVE, I CAN PASS OUT THE EXCLUDED ELEMENTS FROM THE RECORD THAT WERE PASSED TO THE HEARING EXAMINER.
SHE DID NOT TAKE THEM INTO ACCOUNT. THOSE THAT HAVE ACTUAL CITATIONS TO THE RECORD, TO THE TRANSCRIPT THAT YOU WILL READ.
AND YOU WILL SEE THAT, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY SHOULD NOT HAVE EXCLUDED IT. I THINK THAT NON-RENEWAL SHOULD NOT BE SUSTAINED ON THAT BASIS ALONE. THEY WERE EXCLUDED FOR THE RECORD, NEVER CONSIDERED. HER RECOMMENDATION SIGNED 17 DAYS LATER, ADOPTS A DISTRICT'S SUBMISSIONS AND EMITS HOURS.
AND IT ACTUALLY ADOPTS THE REDACTIONS MADE OR THE EMISSIONS MADE FROM THE DISTRICT'S SUBMISSION ENTIRELY, ENTIRELY. IT ALMOST AS THOUGH THE DISTRICT WERE STANDING OVER HER SHOULDER DURING THIS PROCESS. THIS IS NOT A FAIR PROCESS. IT REQUIRES DISMISSAL OF THIS NON-RENEWAL PROCESS.
YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO VOTE ON HALF A RECORD. THOSE SUBMISSIONS ARE IN YOUR PACKET AT TABS B AND C. I HAVE THOSE.
[00:20:01]
I CAN PASS THOSE ON. THERE'S A PATTERN UNDERNEATH THESE CHARGES. THE BOARD SHOULD SEE.ON THIS CAMPUS, SAFETY AND HALLWAY COVERAGE WERE PUSHED ONTO TEACHERS AND STRETZ'S ADMINISTRATIVE TEAM. THE VERY WORK A RESOURCE OFFICER OR DEDICATED STAFF WOULD ORDINARILY DO WITHOUT TRAINING, WRITTEN SUPPORT, WRITTEN DIRECTION OR SUPPORT WAS BEING DONE BY MR. ESPINOSA AND THE ADMINISTRATION. THEY WERE WANDERING THE HALLWAYS. THEY WERE BEING ASKED TO MONITOR THE HALLWAYS, DO THRESHOLDING. WHY? BECAUSE THE RESOURCE OFFICERS WERE NOT ON THE SCENE, WHICH HAS RESULTED IN MANY, MANY, MANY INSTANCES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST STUDENTS, OF THE ABSENCE OF RESOURCE OFFICERS AND INSTRUCTORS BEING ASKED TO DO THE JOB.
ADMINISTRATORS AND SAFETY OFFICERS HAS CAUSED PRESSURE THAT HAS CAUSED THE FEELING THAT INSTRUCTORS ARE NOT BEING SUPPORTED, THAT THEY'RE IN FACT BEING ASKED TO DO THINGS THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE DOING.
THEY CAN'T EVEN CONDUCT DISCIPLINE UNDER POLICY, BUT GUESS WHAT? THEY'RE EXPECTED TO NEVERTHELESS KEEP THE DOOR OPEN AND CHILDREN ARE WALKING IN AND OUT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS BOARD LOOKS AT THE RECORD FOR THAT EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT'S NOT GOING TO APPEAR IN THE EXCLUDED RECORD THAT IS BEFORE IT. NOT ADMINISTRATORS.
A TEACHER APPRENTICE, A LEARNING COACH WAS SENT TO ESCORT STAFF AND INTERVIEW STUDENTS WITH NO SHOWING OF ANY QUALIFICATION TO DO IT. THERE'S NO WRITTEN PROTOCOL IN THIS RECORD FOR WHEN A STUDENT GOES TO THE TEAM CENTER OR WHEN A REFERRAL IS REQUIRED. MR. ESPINOSA WAS EXPECTED TO MANAGE SAFETY. HE WAS NEVER TRAINED OR RESOURCED TO MANAGE AND THEN CHARGED WHEN IT WENT WRONG. WHEN HE REPORTED THAT HE WAS BEING THREATENED BY STUDENTS, THEY WENT AFTER HIM. THEY DIDN'T OFFER HIM THE SUPPORT THAT HE NEEDED.
THIS IS A FAILURE OF THE DISTRICT'S OWN LEADERSHIP, NOT HIS. PRINCIPAL WEBB'S LEADERSHIP, NOT HIS.
PRINCIPAL WEBB, WHO WAS ALLOWING HER HUSBAND TO COME USE THE FACILITIES AND FELT SOME KIND OF WAY WHEN PEOPLE WERE LOOKING AT HER AS SCANT, THINKING THEY WERE GOING TO TELL THE DISTRICT.
MR. ESPINOSA DIDN'T TELL THE DISTRICT, BUT SOMEBODY DID.
IF THE BOARD REACHES MERITS, THE SAME RECORD THAT FAILS ON PROCESS FAILS ON PROOF.
THE DISTRICT'S OWN WITNESSES REFUTE THE FINDINGS. YOU'LL HEAR THE EXAMINER'S FINDINGS ARE ALL DEFERENCE. THEY ARE WHEN THEY RESOLVE A GENUINE CONFLICT, NOT WHEN THE FINDING IS CONTRADICTED BY THE VERY WITNESS DISTRICT CALLED TO PROVE IT. THE FALSIFICATION FINDING SAYS, MR. ESPINOSA HAD A STUDENT WRITE A FALSE EMAIL, BUT ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL HAMILTON, THEIR WITNESS, TESTIFIED THAT HE ASKED FOR THAT EMAIL. WRITE ME A STATEMENT. IT'S IN THE RECORD.
THE EMAIL THE DISTRICT CALLS FALSIFIED IS THE ONE ITS OWN ADMINISTRATOR DIRECTED THE STUDENT TO WRITE. YOU WON'T FIND THAT IN THE HALF A CASE THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, BUT YOU WILL FIND IT IN THE FULL SUBMISSION THAT WILL BE PRESENTED. THEN THERE HAS BEEN AN EMAIL TO YOU AS WELL.
THE INVESTIGATION IS NO STRONGER. ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL MARTINEZ LED IT AND ON CROSS CONCEDED THAT THE VIDEO SHOWS NO COERCION STANDING ALONE.
COULD NOT SAY WHO COLLECTED OR DATED SEVERAL OF THE STUDENT STATEMENTS AND ADMITTED THE STUDENT CAME TO MR. ESPINOSA'S ROOM ON HER OWN. AN INVESTIGATION WHOSE OWN LEAD CANNOT VOUCH FOR HOW ITS INVESTIGATION WAS GATHERED IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL. THEY GATHERED A BUNCH OF STUDENTS. THEY HAD NO SHAME. THEY CALLED THESE STUDENTS PARENTS RIGHT BEFORE THEIR HEARING. HEY, CAN THIS STUDENT COME? CAN THEY TESTIFY? GUESS WHAT? WE ATTEMPTED TO SUBPOENA THE SECRETARIES THAT TOLD US THAT INFORMATION.
IT WAS SUPPRESSED THAT WE WERE NOT ALLOWED TO BRING IN AND WE WERE NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO BRING IN THE CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS WHO WOULD BE ABLE TO AUTHENTICATE ALL THE EXHIBITS THAT WERE PUT INTO THE RECORD WITHOUT AN OBJECTION RIGHT AT THE TOP OF THE HEARING.
THAT IS DEFAMATION. THAT IS NOT HOW THESE SHOULD BE HANDLED.
THESE HEARINGS SHOULD BE HANDLED BECAUSE THE HEARING EXAMINER SHOULD BE OBSERVING THE RULES OF EVIDENCE AS SET BY TEXAS AND THEY ARE NOT. YOU CAN LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING FOR WHY THAT IS HAPPENING. IF THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME IT'S HAPPENED, I BET YOU IT'S HAPPENING AS A MATTER OF COURSE.
UNTESTED PAPERWORK. AND CONSIDER HOW THE DISTRICT'S CASE GOT INTO EVIDENCE. BEFORE A SINGLE WITNESS WAS SWORN, ALL 58 EXHIBITS CAME IN ONE BLOCK WITH NO ONE TO AUTHENTICATE THEM. NO ONE.
WE OBJECTED AND OFFERED A CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS, BUT IT WAS OVERRULED. WHEN WE OFFERED OUR VIDEO, IT WAS EXCLUDED FOR THE VERY AUTHENTICATION DEFECTS THE DISTRICT'S 58 EXHIBITS WERE EXCUSED FROM.
EVERY KEY FINDING TRACES TO THE UNAUTHENTICATED PAPERWORK.
EVERY SINGLE THING. HOLD THE DISTRICT TO ITS OWN STANDARD AND THE EVIDENCE IS GONE. AND THE TWO PEOPLE AT THE SENATE, THE STUDENT WHOSE STATEMENT ANCHORS THE THEORY AND THE DR. SCOTT WHO TRANSMITTED THE SUBSTANTIATION, NEVER TESTIFIED AND NEVER FACED ONE CROSS-EXAMINATION QUESTION.
SIX YEARS PROFICIENT APPRAISALS, PRAISED BY HIS OWN PRINCIPLE IN FRONT OF THE FACULTY, AND THE CASE THAT CHANGED ITS THEORY TO REACH HIM AND LEFT HALF ITS RECORD BEHIND. WE ASKED THE BOARD TO DISMISS FOR NOTICE AND PROCESS VIOLATIONS.
I MEAN, HERE WE ARE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ALLEGATIONS OF CROSS-EXAMINATION, ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ALLEGATIONS OF COURSE STATEMENTS. SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT A COUPLE OF OTHER
[00:25:01]
THINGS THAT THEY STACKED UP.OH, HE WAS STANDING IN THE HALLWAY. THEY'RE EXPECTED TO STAND IN THE HALLWAY WHEN THE DISTRICT COMES FOR ITS ROUTINE VISITS. THEY ASKED TO DO THAT BY THE AP.
MAYBE THEY STOPPED NOW, BUT THEY WERE DEFINITELY BEING ASKED TO DO THAT. WE ASKED THE BOARD TO DISMISS FOR THE NOTICE AND PROCESS VIOLATIONS OR ON THE MERITS TO REJECT THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND RENEW MR. ESPINOSA'S CONTRACT.
AT MINIMUM, REMAND FOR A HEARING ON A COMPLETE, PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED RECORD THAT DOES NOT EXCLUDE RESPONDENTS' BASES FOR NOT SUSTAINING RON.
THANK YOU. MS. CHICKERING, DO YOU WISH TO MAKE A REBUTTAL STATEMENT? DUE PROCESS RIGHTS ARE NOT IMPLICATED IN THIS PROCEEDING. THIS IS A NON-RENEWAL, NOT A TERMINATION. AND THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION IS HELD TIME AND TIME AGAIN, THAT AS A RESULT, DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS DO NOT APPLY IN THE CONTEXT OF A NON-RENEWAL PROCEEDING.
I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS THAT RIGHT OFF THE TOP. AND REGARDING THIS RED HEARING THAT MR. ACUAJA FLOPPED UP ONTO THE, IN FRONT OF THE BOARD TODAY, IN TERMS OF WHAT WAS EXCLUDED OR NOT EXCLUDED FROM THE RECORD OR WHAT THE HEARING EXAMINER BASED HER RECOMMENDATION ON.
JUST TO BE CLEAR, IN ADVANCE OF TODAY'S HEARING, THE BOARD SERVICES OFFICE TRANSMITTED TO THE BOARD AND THE PARTIES THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION ALONG WITH THE HEARING RECORD, WHICH CONSISTS OF THE PARTY'S RESPECTIVE EXHIBITS AND THE TRANSCRIPT. THAT'S ALL THE BOARD EVER CONSIDERS. NOTHING ELSE.
NOT EXTRANEOUS EMAILS, NOT THE PARTY'S VARIOUS FILINGS IN ADVANCE OF THE HEARING, JUST THE HEARING EXHIBITS, THE HEARING TRANSCRIPT, AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS. AND THAT WAS DONE HERE.
MR. ACUAJA MAKES MUCH OF THE FACT THAT, OH, MR. ESPINOZA DISAGREES WITH SOME OF THE FINDINGS IN THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION. AND THAT WELL MAY BE, YEAH, HE DID TESTIFY TO A LOT OF THINGS THAT CONTRADICTED WHAT THE DISTRICT'S WITNESSES TESTIFIED TO. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT FINDING A FACT, NUMBER 80, ON PAGE 16, RESPONDENT'S TESTIMONY WAS NOT CREDIBLE AND IN SOME RESPECTS CONFLICTED WITH HIS PRIOR STATEMENTS.
THE FINDER OF FACT FOUND THAT MR. ESPINOZA WAS NOT CREDIBLE.
AND THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME. I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MY COLLEAGUES? DO I HAVE A MOTION? DO WE NEED CLOSED SESSION? YES? OKAY. THE BOARD WILL NOW RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION UNDER CHAPTER 551 UNDER TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, SUBSECTION 551.004 THROUGH 551.089.
SHOULD BOARD FINAL ACTION VOTER DECISION ON ANY MATTER CONSIDERED IN THE CLOSED SESSION BE REQUIRED SUCH FINAL ACTION, VOTER DECISION SHALL BE TAKEN AT THE OPEN MEETING COVERED BY THIS NOTICE UPON THE RECONVENING OF THIS PUBLIC MEETING OR AT A SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC MEETING OF THE BOARD UPON NOTICE THEREOF. THE BOARD HAS RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION AT 5 31 P.M.
THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IS NOW RECONVENED IN OPEN SESSION. THE TIME IS 5 39 P.M. DO I HAVE A MOTION? I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE VOTE.
THE BOARD HAS VOTED 4-4 AND 0 AGAINST.
A LETTER NOTIFYING BOTH PARTIES OF THE ACTION OF THE BOARD SHALL BE PREPARED AND SIGNED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF BOARD RELATIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
THIS HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT 5 40 P.M.
PROCEDURE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION HEARING HERNAN ARREGO. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE DISPUTE FILED BY HERNAN ARREGO, FORMER COORDINATOR ONE NUTRITION SERVICES.
HEARINGS INVOLVING COMPLAINTS AGAINST DISTRICT EMPLOYEES ARE TO BE HELD IN CLOSED SESSION UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE WHO IS SUBJECT AT THE HEARING REQUESTS AN OPEN HEARING. IF BOTH PARTIES REQUEST AN OPEN SESSION
[00:30:02]
DURING THE COURSE OF THIS HEARING, THE BOARD MAY GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSULT WITH ITS ATTORNEY UNDER THE TERMS OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 5 5 1.071. IF ANY BOARD MEMBER WISHES TO SEEK THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL, PLEASE TELL ME.FOR THE RECTOR HECTOR HECTOR MORELIS, TEXAS SUPPORTS THE PERSONNEL EMPLOYEES LOCAL ONE REPRESENTING HERNAN ARREGO IS PRESENT.
DANA RAMIREZ WITH MONTY AND RAMIREZ REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION IS PRESENT.
KATASHA WOODS, HISD GENERAL COUNSEL IS ALSO PRESENT. MR. MORELIS, DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION? OPEN. THANK YOU SIR.
THE ISSUE BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD OR WHETHER BOARD POLICIES AND ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES WERE CORRECTLY APPLIED TO THE GRIEVANT AND WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATION HAS VIOLATED THESE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
MR. ARREGO, YOU WILL PROCEED FIRST. YOUR REPRESENTATIVE WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A 10 MINUTE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD FOLLOWING BY A 10 MINUTE PRESENTATION BY MS. PHIPPS.
MR. MORELIS, YOU MAY RESERVE PART OF YOUR 10 MINUTE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD.
FOLLOWING BY A 10 MINUTE PRESENTATION BY MS. PHIPPS.
MR. MORELIS, YOU MAY RESERVE PART OF YOUR 10 MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL TO MATTERS REPRESENTED BY MS. PHIPPS. BOTH SIDES SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD AFTER THE RESPECTIVE PRESENTATIONS. MR. MORELIS, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO DIVIDE YOUR TIME IN MAKING YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD? CAN YOU HEAR ME? WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, MS. STACEY KAPESKI, MY COLLEAGUE, IS GOING TO ARGUE THE ORAL ARGUMENTS TODAY. SHE'S REQUESTING ALL 10 MINUTES WITH NO REBUTTAL. THANK YOU.
GOOD EVENING. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, HERNAN UREGO'S TERMINATION WAS NOT THE RESULT OF EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT. IT WAS THE RESULT OF RETALIATION.
RETALIATION CARRIED OUT THROUGH LEADERSHIP MISCONDUCT AFTER EMPLOYEES QUESTIONED THE DISPARITIES INSIDE NUTRITION SERVICES.
WHEN COORDINATORS ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT PAY DISPARITY IN DISTRICT VEHICLES, INSTEAD OF ADDRESSING THE CONCERNS, LEADERSHIP RESPONDED WITH TERMINATION. HERE ARE THREE EXAMPLES. ON SEPTEMBER THE 5TH AND 6TH, 2024, FELICIA MAYS CORBIN SENT GROUP TEXT MESSAGES TO THE TEAM AND A PRIVATE EMAIL TO JENNIFER BUSH AND KEITH LEWIS ASKING FOR THE CLARITY ON WHY DISTRICT CARS WERE REMOVED.
12 DAYS LATER, FELICIA WAS TERMINATED. ON AUGUST THE 28TH, 2024, AFTER MEETING WITH DEPUTY CHIEF BETTY WIGGINS, I MET WITH HR DIRECTOR MONICA PALMER. I ASKED MONICA IF THE EMAIL BETTY REQUESTED, IF I SENT IT, IF I WOULD BE AT RISK, AND MONICA TOLD ME THAT SHE WOULD REVIEW MY DRAFT, WHICH SHE DID. SHE REVIEWED THE DRAFT, MADE A RECOMMENDATION, AND ADVISED ME TO SEND IT.
ACTING ON MONICA'S ADVISEMENT, ON SEPTEMBER THE 9TH, I SENT BETTY THE EMAIL THAT SHE REQUESTED. IT OUTLINED PAY DISPARITIES, DISTRICT VEHICLES, AND DEGREE REQUIREMENTS.
SIX MINUTES LATER, BETTY BREACHED CONFIDENTIALITY BY FORWARDING MY EMAIL TO JENNIFER BUSH, WHO THEN CIRCULATED TO SENIOR STAFF, INCLUDING THE TWO INDIVIDUALS NAMED IN MY COMPLAINT.
SHE VIOLATED DBA LOCAL, AND 23 DAYS LATER, I WAS TERMINATED.
ON SEPTEMBER THE 9TH, 2024, HERNAN DIEGO SPOKE WITH 10 COLLEAGUES ABOUT A PETITION TO REQUEST A MEETING WITH LEADERSHIP TO DISCUSS TRANSPARENCY, PAY DISPARITIES, AND DISTRICT VEHICLES. EIGHT OF THE COORDINATORS HE SPOKE WITH SIGNED THE PETITION IN SUPPORT TO DECLINE. THE PETITION NEVER LEFT HIS HANDS, WAS NEVER CIRCULATED, AND WAS SHREDDED WITHIN TWO HOURS, LONG BEFORE LEADERSHIP EVER KNEW IT EXISTED.
23 DAYS LATER, HERNAN WAS TERMINATED. NONE OF THE ACTIVITIES THAT I JUST NAMED FOR YOU GAVE GROUNDS FOR IMMEDIATE TERMINATION OR TERMINATION AT ALL.
UNDER DIA LEGAL AND TEXAS LABOR CODE CHAPTER 21, ALL THREE ACTIONS WERE PROTECTED ACTIVITIES. LEADERSHIP COVERED UP THE RETALIATION BY MANIPULATING THE EVIDENCE AND COMBINING ALL THREE INTO ONE SINGLE FALSE CASE OF COORDINATED MISCONDUCT.
THEY USED HERNAN'S PETITION AS THE GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION.
THEN THEY PULLED THE FALSE CLAIMS OF PRESSURE AND REPEAT CONTACT FROM FELICIA'S TEXT MESSAGES, AND THEY APPLIED THOSE TO THEIR EXHIBITS TO LOOK AS IF THEY WERE PETITION-RELATED MISCONDUCT.
THEN THE LEADERSHIP DECIDED THAT THEY WERE GOING TO CLAIM TO HAVE THE PETITION, WHICH THEY DID NOT. SO SINCE THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE PETITION, THEY TOOK THE ATTACHMENT THAT I SENT WITH BETTY'S EMAIL, AND THEY USED THAT AS THE EXHIBIT.
THEY RELABELED IT EXHIBIT ONE, COORDINATOR'S RESPONSIBILITY, AND THEY SUBMITTED IT AS EXHIBIT FOUR, MAKING THE BOARD THINK THAT THEY HAD THE EXHIBIT.
[00:35:01]
THIS FALSE NARRATIVE WAS BEING DRIVEN BY THE SAME TWO INDIVIDUALS I NAMED IN MY COMPLAINT, KEITH LEWIS, DIRECTOR TWO, AND CCM CHANDRA BLACKWELL. DURING THEIR INVESTIGATION, LEADERSHIP VIOLATED DIA LOCAL BY FAILING TO INTERVIEW ALL KEY WITNESSES.THEY NEVER INTERVIEWED THE EIGHT COORDINATORS WHO SIGNED, FELICIA, HERNAN, OR ME. THEY ONLY INTERVIEWED THE TWO COORDINATORS WHO DECLINED TO SIGN, SHELBY DEWITT AND CURTIS JOHNSON. WHEN THOSE TWO INTERVIEWS REVEALED NO MISCONDUCT, THEY ENLISTED TWO ADDITIONAL WITNESSES WHO WERE NOT PRESENT, HAD NO FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE, AND HAD NO CONTACT WITH HERNAN.
YET BOTH FALSELY CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PRESSURED AND REPEATEDLY CONTACTED, AND THEIR FALSE STATEMENTS PROVIDED THE MISCONDUCT LEADERSHIP CREATED.
THE FIRST INDIVIDUAL, FIDEL MCGUIRE, STATED THAT SHE WAS OUT SICK ON THE 9TH WHEN THE PETITION WAS DISCUSSED. HER STATEMENT WAS GUIDED BY PRESCRIPTIVE QUESTIONS WRITTEN BY CHANDRA BLACKWELL. SHE NEVER MENTIONED HERNAN, THE ONLY PERSON THAT HAD THE PETITION, YET CLAIMED REPEAT CONTACT ON THE 5TH AND 6TH, WHICH WERE DAYS BEFORE THE PETITION EVEN EXISTED. HER OWN WORDS SHOWED THAT THE PRESSURE SHE DESCRIBED CAME FROM THE GROUP TEXT MESSAGING, NOT THE PETITION. THE SECOND INDIVIDUAL, KAREN ROBERTS, APPROACHED THE COORDINATORS ON THE MORNING OF SEPTEMBER THE 10TH, ASKING WHO HAD SIGNED THE PETITION. KAREN THEN FALSELY CLAIMED THAT THE PETITION WAS PRESENTED TO HER THAT MORNING, WHICH WAS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN SHREDDED THE DAY BEFORE.
HERNAN WASN'T THERE THAT MORNING, SO HER CLAIM THAT HE CONFESSED NEVER HAPPENED. SHE TOO CLAIMED TO BE CONTACTED ABOUT THE PETITION DAYS BEFORE IT EXISTED, AND HER REFERENCE TO MY EMAIL, AN EMAIL THAT ONLY SENIOR STAFF HAD COPIES OF, SHOWS THAT HER STATEMENT WAS DIRECTED BY LEADERSHIP. CTM CORY KYMAK FALSELY CLAIMED THAT CHEVY DEWITT REPORTED THE PETITION TO HIM ON SEPTEMBER THE 9TH. KAREN ROBERTS STATED THAT SHE REPORTED THE PETITION TO HER SUPERVISOR ON SEPTEMBER THE 10TH, YET LEADERSHIP CLAIMED THEY ONLY LEARNED ABOUT IT AFTER COORDINATORS REPORTED HARASSMENT, BUT CHEVY DEWITT'S STATEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER THE 16TH SHOWS THE OPPOSITE. HER STATEMENT BEGINS WITH, AND I QUOTE, THIS EMAIL IS FOLLOWING UP ON A CONVERSATION WE HAD THIS MORNING WITH YOUR REQUEST TO EMAIL THE DETAILS OF THE CONVERSATION THAT I HAD WITH HERNAN. THIS PROVED THAT LEADERSHIP KNEW ABOUT THE PETITION, MET WITH THE WITNESSES FIRST, AND THEN DIRECTED THEIR STATEMENTS, WHICH IS WHY THREE OF THE FOUR STATEMENTS ARE DATED SEPTEMBER THE 16TH.
THESE ACTIONS DEMONSTRATE TIMELINE AND EVIDENCE MANIPULATION, WITNESS COACHING, AND RETALIATION DISGUISED AS MISCONDUCT.
EMPLOYEE RELATION INVESTIGATOR BRIANNA TURNER MET WITH HERNAN 17 DAYS AFTER THE PETITION HAD BEEN SHREDDED. SHE REFUSED TO DISCLOSE THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING, VIOLATING DIA LOCAL AND PREVENTING HIM FROM BRINGING REPRESENTATION.
THE REPORT ALIGNED PERFECTLY WITH LEADERSHIP'S FALSE NARRATIVE.
IT STATED, HERNAN DENIED KNOWING ABOUT THE PETITION AND LATER CONFESSED, A FALSE ALLEGATION WITH NO SUPPORT AND EVIDENCE.
BECAUSE THE STATEMENT WAS TYPED, EMAILED, UNSIGNED, AND UNVERIFIED, IT COULD HAVE BEEN CREATED BY ANYONE. LEADERSHIP KNEW THAT THE DOCUMENT THEY SUBMITTED WAS NOT THE PETITION, THEY KNEW THE MISCONDUCT WAS CREATED, AND THEY KNEW THAT I WASN'T AT THE LOCATION ON THE 9TH OR THE 10TH, SO I COULDN'T HAVE ASKED ANYBODY TO SIGN THE PETITION.
YET THEY TERMINATED HERNAN AND ME, CLAIMING THAT WE WERE PRESSURING COLLEAGUES TO SIGN A PETITION, DISRESPECTFUL TO COLLEAGUES, AND MISUSED DISTRICT TIME.
THEN THE HISD ATTORNEY ADDED NEW ALLEGATIONS OF CREATING AN UNCOMFORTABLE, UNPROFESSIONAL WORK ENVIRONMENT, CLAIMS THAT NO WITNESSES EVER MADE. THOSE CLAIMS CONFIRMED THAT THE PROCESS WAS ENGINEERED TO RETALIATE, NOT TO INVESTIGATE. ON OCTOBER THE 3RD, 2024, WE REQUESTED ALL EVIDENCE. LEADERSHIP WITHHELD EVERY DOCUMENT FOR MORE THAN FOUR MONTHS AND PRESENTED THEM DURING THE LEVEL TWO HEARING, VIOLATING DGBA LOCAL'S TIMELY DISCLOSURE RULE.
NEITHER BREONNA TURNER OR THE FOUR WITNESSES APPEARED AT THE HEARING TO VERIFY THEIR STATEMENTS, ELIMINATING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR HERNAN TO FACE HIS ACCUSERS. ADDING TO THIS VIOLATION, THE HEARING OFFICER WAS JENNIFER BUSH, WHO HAD PARTICIPATED IN THE TERMINATION DECISION.
THIS CREATED A CONFLICT THAT MADE AN IMPARTIAL HEARING IMPOSSIBLE. IN CONCLUSION, LEADERSHIP ORCHESTRATED AND MANIPULATED EVERY STAGE OF THIS PROCESS, INCLUDING THE TIMELINE ITSELF.
THEY VIOLATED HISD'S POLICIES AND THE PROCEDURES AND THE STANDARDS THAT GOVERN THIS DISTRICT DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES.
EVERY VIOLATION YOU HEARD TODAY, EACH ONE WAS CREATED AND DIRECTED BY LEADERSHIP, AND IT ALL POINTS TO ONE CONCLUSION. THESE TERMINATORS,
[00:40:01]
THESE TERMINATIONS WAS RETALIATION, NOT MISCONDUCT.KEITH LEWIS CALLED THE CASE A SLAM DUNK, SAYING THAT THE BOARD WOULD AUTOMATICALLY SUPPORT LEADERSHIP'S DECISION WITHOUT REVIEWING ANY OF THE EVIDENCE. WE URGE YOU TO PROVE THAT THIS IS NOT THE CASE. BUT BEFORE YOU VOTE, PLEASE LOOK AT EXHIBIT 4 THAT WAS HANDED OUT TO YOU.
LEADERSHIP CLAIMED IT WAS THE PETITION, BUT THE DOCUMENT IS CLEARLY TITLED, COORDINATOR'S RESPONSIBILITY.
IT'S A JOB DESCRIPTION, NOT THE PETITION. THIS CASE RESTS ON A DOCUMENT LEADERSHIP NEVER HAD, NEVER SAW, AND NEVER KNEW THE CONTENTS OF.
THEIR DECISION TO INSERT A FAKE DOCUMENT SHOWS HOW COMPETENT THEY WERE THAT NO ONE ON THE BOARD WOULD REVIEW ANY OF THE EVIDENCE. IN LIGHT OF LEADERSHIP'S MISCONDUCT, INCLUDING INSERTING A FAKE DOCUMENT, WE'RE ASKING THE BOARD TO ENFORCE THE SAFEGUARDS GUARANTEED TO DISTRICT EMPLOYEES AND REINSTATE ALL THREE EMPLOYEES WHO WERE WRONGFULLY TERMINATED THROUGH A PROCESS LEADERSHIP MANIPULATED.
YOUR DECISION TODAY WILL DETERMINE WHETHER HISD STANDS BEHIND ITS POLICIES OR SEND THE MESSAGE THAT RETALIATION IS ACCEPTABLE.
YES, GOOD EVENING, MADAM VICE PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
I HAVE A PRESENTATION THAT SHOULD BE UP, BUT I DON'T SEE IT UP IN RELATION TO THE DISTRICT'S POSITION.
HERE IT IS. SO, AS NOTED, THE ISSUES BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD ARE WHETHER THE BOARD POLICIES WERE FOLLOWED IN THIS SITUATION AND WHETHER THE TERMINATION OF THE GRIEVANCE, MR. WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND, WAS PROPER. AND THE RECORD DOES ESTABLISH THAT.
WHAT WE HEARD RIGHT NOW WAS MR.'S REPRESENTATIVE SPEAK ABOUT NOT ONLY HIS TERMINATION, I THINK, MAYBE A MINUTE OR TWO, BUT THE REMAINING EIGHT MINUTES WERE RELATED TO THE GRIEVANCE REPRESENTATIVE'S OWN TERMINATION AND SOMEONE ELSE'S TERMINATION. I'M NOT EVEN SURE WHO THAT IS.
THE LENS OF THIS BOARD SHOULD FOCUS ON WHETHER OR NOT MR.'S TERMINATION WAS PROPER. AND LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT. HE WAS AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE. THANK YOU.
AND BASED ON THAT, THE DISTRICT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO TERMINATE HIM BASED ON HIS OWN CONDUCT SO LONG AS POLICY APPLIES. AND THAT'S WHAT THE LENS IS HERE TODAY. AND LET'S LOOK AT HIS CONDUCT, NOT HIS COLLEAGUE'S CONDUCT OR HIS OTHER COLLEAGUE'S CONDUCT. WE HAVE TO FOCUS ON HIS CONDUCT.
WHAT HE DID WAS BASICALLY APPROACH OTHER EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE WORKFORCE WHILE ON THE CLOCK AND NOT DOING HIS JOB DUTIES AND ASK THOSE EMPLOYEES TO SIGN A PETITION TO INCREASE WAGES AND ALSO TO ASK FOR VEHICLES FROM THE DISTRICT FOR THEIR JOB PURPOSE.
THAT, IN ITSELF, CREATED AND MADE EMPLOYEES UNCOMFORTABLE.
EMPLOYEES, EXHIBITS FIVE THROUGH EIGHT OF THE DISTRICT, BASICALLY CAME TO THE DISTRICT AND ASKED FOR SOME HELP BECAUSE THEY FELT UNCOMFORTABLE, THEY FELT PRESSURED, AND THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO. THAT TRIGGERED THE SUPERVISOR TO ASK EMPLOYEE RELATIONS TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON. THAT WAS STEP ONE, AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED HERE.
IN RELATION TO AN ALLEGATION THAT THESE STATEMENTS OR THERE'S NO INVESTIGATION WAS CREATED AND ARE FAKE IS IMPROPER. AND THE ALLEGATION THAT WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE THESE STATEMENTS CAME FROM IS NOT TRUE. IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE EXHIBITS, EXHIBITS FIVE THROUGH EIGHT, THEY'RE EMAILS FROM THE ACTUAL EMPLOYEES WITH THEIR EMAIL SIGNATURE WITH THE DISTRICT EMAIL ADDRESS.
THEY ARE ACTUAL AND REAL RECORDS.
THEY ARE ACTUAL AND REAL RECORDS. SO THE INVESTIGATION WAS STARTED BY EMPLOYEE RELATIONS.
IF YOU LOOK AT THIS SLIDE, THIS IS WHERE NOT ONLY MR. OREGO'S CONDUCT WENT THE WRONG WAY, BUT HE EVEN STEPPED ADDITIONAL, HE ENGAGED IN ADDITIONAL MISCONDUCT, WHICH WAS HE LIED DURING THE INVESTIGATION. AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE DIDN'T HEAR AT ALL BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT. SO WHEN EMPLOYEE RELATIONS WAS SIMPLY LOOKING INTO WHETHER OR NOT MR. OREGO WAS MAKING EMPLOYEES UNCOMFORTABLE, WHETHER HE WAS ASKING EMPLOYEES TO SIGN A PETITION AND JUST APPROACHING EMPLOYEES WHILE ON THE CLOCK AND INSTEAD OF WORKING ON HIS DUTIES, HE WAS WORKING ON OTHER ISSUES.
HE LIED DURING THE INVESTIGATION. HE STATED HE DID NOT HAVE A COPY OF THE PETITION. HE STATED HE DID NOT KNOW WHO STARTED THE PETITION. HE STATED HE DID NOT TALK TO ANYONE ABOUT THE PETITION OR SEND IT TO ANYONE. AND HE SAID HE NEVER ASKED AN EMPLOYEE TO SIGN THE PETITION. I'M NOT SURE WHY HE SAID IT, BUT THAT'S HIS CONDUCT, NOT THE DISTRICT'S MISCONDUCT.
THAT'S HIS OWN CONDUCT THAT SUPPORTS THE TERMINATION. AND FOR SOME REASON, AFTER EMPLOYEE RELATIONS CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATION, MR. OREGO, ON HIS OWN VOLITION, CONTACTED THE EMPLOYEE RELATIONS INVESTIGATOR AND ADMITTED THAT
[00:45:01]
HE LIED DURING THE PROCESS.THOSE ARE THINGS THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE NEVER TALKED ABOUT BECAUSE THEY NEVER WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS TERMINATION IS ABOUT.
KEEP IN MIND THAT WHEN HE DID CALL BACK, AND THIS IS EXHIBIT NINE OF THE DISTRICT, HE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE WAS ACTING IN CONCERT WITH MS. KOPESKI AND MS. MAYS-CORBIN IN RELATION TO THESE ISSUES. NOW, I THINK IT'S A RED HERRING IN RELATION TO WHETHER A PETITION WAS EVER PRINTED, WHETHER IT WAS TYPED, WHETHER IT WAS A TEXT. THAT'S REALLY A RED HERRING BECAUSE DURING THE ER INVESTIGATION, MR. OREGO DENIED EVERYTHING.
NOW, WHETHER HE HAD THE PETITION FOR A MINUTE, OR A SECOND IS REALLY IRRELEVANT.
IT'S BASICALLY HE WAS MAKING EMPLOYEES FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE.
THEY COMPLAINED. HE WASN'T TERMINATED AT THAT POINT. ER CONDUCTED AN INVESTIGATION BASED ON THE EMPLOYEE'S REQUEST AND SUPERVISOR'S RECOMMENDATION.
DURING THE INVESTIGATION, HE LIES, AND THAT SUPPORTS THE TERMINATION. SNAPSHOT HERE, THESE ARE THE TWO POLICY PROVISIONS THAT SUPPORT HIS TERMINATION. HE HAS EMPLOYEE RESPONSIBILITIES LIKE ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE IN THE DISTRICT. HE'S GOT TO TREAT OTHER EMPLOYEES WITH RESPECT AND NOT FOCUS ON HIS PERSONAL BUSINESS, BUT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S BUSINESS WHILE HE'S ON THE CLOCK. AND THEN SECONDLY, THE REGULATION AS TO INVESTIGATIONS, IF I OR ANYONE ELSE OR ANYONE WHO'S AN EMPLOYEE WHO'S EVER INVESTIGATED, RULE NUMBER ONE IS THAT YOU HAVE TO BE TRUTHFUL. AND UNFORTUNATELY, TO MR. OREGO'S DETRIMENT, HE WAS NOT TRUTHFUL. AND BOTH ACTIONS, BOTH POLICY VIOLATIONS OCCURRED, AND THAT IS WHY THE DISTRICT TERMINATED HIM. AND IN CONCLUSION, THERE WAS A LOT SAID ABOUT TWO OTHER EMPLOYEES.
IT'S NOT RELEVANT OR PROPER TO HEAR THOSE ISSUES, THAT GRIEVANCE OR THOSE GRIEVANCES.
I'M NOT SURE IF THEY'RE MOVED LIVE OR THERE'S ANOTHER HEARING, BUT THE HEARING TODAY IS ABOUT MR. OREGO'S MISCONDUCT AND THE POLICY VIOLATIONS HE ENGAGED IN ON HIS OWN VOLITION, INCLUDING MAKING EMPLOYEES FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE AND INCLUDING NOT BEING TRUTHFUL DURING THE INVESTIGATION. AND FOR THAT REASON, WE ASK THAT THE LEVEL TWO BE UPHELD AND DENY ANY REINSTATEMENT OR RETURN TO EMPLOYMENT. THANK YOU. DO YOU WISH TO MAKE A REBUTTAL STATEMENT? MR. OREGO NEVER LIED TO ANYBODY ABOUT ANYTHING. HE TOLD THE TRUTH. HE TOLD THEM THAT THE DOCUMENT HAD BEEN SHREDDED AND THEY PRETEND THEY PROCEEDED TO PUSH AND TRY TO SAY THAT HE KNEW. NONE OF THE EMPLOYEES THAT WERE INVOLVED NEVER REPORTED ANYTHING TO THE ADMINISTRATOR. THE ADMINISTRATORS WENT TO THE EMPLOYEES AND ASKED THEM TO GIVE A STATEMENT THAT'S SHOWN IN THE DOCUMENTS.
IN ADDITION, THE REASON WHY THE OTHER TWO EMPLOYEES WERE INVOLVED AND BROUGHT UP IN THIS CASE IS BECAUSE THE DISTRICT COMBINED THOSE THREE CASES TOGETHER AND MADE THEM ONE CASE.
THEY USED EVIDENCE FROM THE OTHER TWO CASES AND COMBINED IT WITH THAT ONE CASE. SO THAT'S WHY THOSE OTHER CASES WERE BROUGHT UP. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES? YES.
THE BOARD WILL NOW RECESS TO CLOSE SESSION UNDER CHAPTER 551 OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE OPEN MEETINGS AT SUBSECTIONS 551.004 THROUGH 551.089. SHOULD BOARD FINAL ACTION, VOTE, OR DECISION ON ANY MATTER CONSIDERED IN THE CLOSED SESSION BE REQUIRED? SUCH FINAL ACTION, VOTE, OR DECISION SHALL BE TAKEN AT THE OPEN MEETING COVERED BY THIS NOTICE UPON THE RECONVENING OF THIS PUBLIC MEETING OR ITS SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC MEETING OF THE BOARD UPON NOTICE THEREOF. THE BOARD IS RECESSED TO CLOSE SESSION AT 6.01 P.M. ON AUGUST 20TH, 2026. THIS SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IS NOW RECONVENED IN OPEN SESSION. THE TIME IS 6.08 P.M.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? I MOVE THAT WE DENY ALL REQUESTED RELIEF NOT PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE LEVEL TWO HEARING OFFICER AND UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE LEVEL TWO HEARING OFFICER. DO I HAVE A SECOND? NOT RESPONDING.
[00:50:02]
FROM BOARD MEMBER COLOGNE AND A SECOND BY BOARD MEMBER MENDOZA. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE VOTE IF WE CAN.AYE. THE BOARD HAS VOTED FOUR, FOUR AND ZERO AGAINST. A LETTER NOTIFYING BOTH PARTIES THAT THE ACTION OF THE BOARD SHOULD BE PREPARED AND SIGNED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF BOARD RELATIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THE HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT 6.09 P.M.
PROCEDURE TO CONSIDER THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IS IVAN GUTIERREZ.
MR. IVAN GUTIERREZ IS A NO-SHOW TO THE HEARING. THEREFORE, WE WILL DISMISS THE THE MOTION.
EXCUSE ME. DISMISS THE GRIEVANCE.
PROCEDURE TO CONSIDER THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION OF MARK DOSTERT.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE DISPUTE FILED BY MARK DOSTERT, TEACHER, CHALLENGE HIGH SCHOOL.
HEARINGS INVOLVING COMPLAINTS AGAINST DISTRICT EMPLOYEES ARE TO BE HELD IN CLOSED SESSION UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF THE HEARING REQUESTS AN OPEN HEARING. IF BOTH PARTIES REQUEST AN OPEN SESSION DURING THE COURSE OF THIS HEARING, THE BOARD MAY GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSULT WITH ITS ATTORNEY UNDER THE TERMS OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 551.071. ANY BOARD MEMBER WISHES TO SEEK THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL, PLEASE TELL ME.
FOR THE RECORD, MARK DOSTERT IS PRESENT, MILES LEBLANC REPRESENTING ADMINISTRATION IS PRESENT, AND KATASHA WOODS, HISD GENERAL COUNSEL IS ALSO PRESENT. MR. DOSTERT, DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE AN OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION? THANK YOU, SIR.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION. THE ISSUES BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD ARE WHETHER THE BOARD POLICIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES WERE CORRECTLY APPLIED TO THE GRIEVANCE AND WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATION HAS VIOLATED THOSE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
MR. DOSTERT, YOU WILL PROCEED FIRST.
YOU'LL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A 10-MINUTE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD FOLLOWED BY A 10-MINUTE PRESENTATION BY MILES LEBLANC. MR. DOSTERT, YOU MAY RESERVE PART OF YOUR 10 MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL TO MATTERS PRESENTED BY MILES LEBLANC. BOTH SIDES SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD AFTER THEIR RESPECTIVE PRESENTATIONS. MR. DOSTERT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO DIVIDE YOUR TIME IN MAKING YOUR PRESENTATION? YES, SIR, YOU MAY BEGIN.
GOOD EVENING, MS. DUFFY, MR. COLON, MS. FLOWERS, MS. MENDOZA. THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THE FOUR OF YOU TODAY. MY NAME IS MARK DOSTERT. I'M AN 11TH GRADE ENGLISH TEACHER AT CHALLENGE EARLY COLLEGE HIGH SCHOOL. I HAVE BEEN TEACHING THERE SINCE THE FALL OF 2019.
THIS IS MY 26TH YEAR TEACHING AN HISD. THIS COMING FALL, I AM GOING TO RECEIVE ONE OF EIGHT OUTSTANDING TEACHERS
[00:55:03]
OF THE HUMANITIES AWARDS FROM HUMANITIES TEXAS. I'M HAPPY TO SHOW YOU THIS LETTER IF YOU CARE TO LOOK AT IT. WE DO GREAT WORK AT CHALLENGE EARLY COLLEGE HIGH SCHOOL.WE ARE RIGHT BY, WE ARE IN THE HCC CAMPUS AT 59 IN THE WEST LOOP. THIS PAST YEAR, WE PUT STUDENTS FULL RIDE INTO RICE, COLUMBIA, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, VANDERBILT, ETC. WE DO REALLY GREAT WORK THERE. THE STUDENTS ARE VERY APPRECIATIVE. I CAN SHOW YOU SOME OF THE LETTERS THAT THEY HAVE WRITTEN IN RECENT YEARS, THANKING ME FOR THE CLASS, THANKING ME FOR WRITING THEM SCHOLARSHIP LETTERS. WE WORK REALLY HARD.
AND AS A DUAL CREDIT TEACHER, WE WORK EVEN HARDER BECAUSE WE DO THE WORK OF A HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER AND AN HCC PROFESSOR.
SO THE DUAL CREDIT PROGRAM ALLOWS CERTAIN CLASSES AT THE HIGH SCHOOLS TO COUNT FOR HCC CREDIT. MINE IS ONE OF THEM. MINE COUNTS AS ENGLISH 1301 AND ENGLISH 1302.
HCC PASSES ALONG AN ADJUNCT FACULTY RATE TO EACH ONE OF US DUAL CREDIT TEACHERS.
THAT RATE RIGHT NOW IS AROUND $2,800 PER CLASS. IN THE FALL OF 2019, AND AS WELL AS THE FALL OF 2020, FALL OF 2021, FALL OF 2022, AND FALL OF 2023, THE FIRST YEAR OF THE STATE TAKEOVER, WE RECEIVED 100% OF THAT FACULTY ADJUNCT RATE, WHICH I CONCEDE I WAS A LITTLE BIT SURPRISED THAT IT WAS THE WHOLE 100%.
I REALIZED THE STUDENTS DO HAVE TO TAKE THE TSI TEST TO QUALIFY TO TAKE A COLLEGE CLASS.
WE DO HAVE WONDERFUL LIAISON STAFF LIKE ALMA WEBER. SO I WAS A LITTLE BIT SURPRISED THAT WE RECEIVED THE WHOLE 100%.
BEGINNING WITH FALL OF 2024, WE RECEIVED A 28% PAY CUT.
INSTEAD OF RECEIVING WHAT WAS THEN THE CURRENT FACULTY ADJUNCT RATE, ABOUT $2,750, IT WAS REDUCED TO $2,000. WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY NOTIFICATION.
IT WAS JUST YOU HAVE A 28% PAY CUT IN YOUR DUAL CREDIT STIPEND.
AGAIN, I'M A TEACHER. I DON'T HAVE THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES TO HIRE A $500 AN HOUR ATTORNEY TO DO ALL OF THE LEGAL DETECTIVE WORK TO SEE IF THAT POLICY WAS CHANGED LEGALLY. I DON'T HAVE THAT, BUT I FEEL THAT I FEEL A MORAL INJUSTICE THAT ALL OF US, ROUGHLY 75 OF US, WOULD RECEIVE SUCH A SUBSTANTIAL PAY CUT.
FOR ME, THAT IS AMOUNTED TO $8,000 THAT FIRST YEAR, $8,000 LAST YEAR, AND THEN $8,000 THIS COMING YEAR. THE DUAL CREDIT AMERICAN HISTORY TEACHER AT MY CAMPUS, HE WAS OUT $9,600. SO THIS IS A LOT OF MONEY FOR A TEACHER. I'M VERY THANKFUL FOR HISD HEALTH INSURANCE, BUT TO HAVE THIS BASAL CELL CARCINOMA SINGLE CANCER CELL REMOVED FROM MY HEAD LAST WEEK, IT WAS $2,100. ONE OF THE TEACHERS AT NORTHSIDE TOLD ME THAT HE IS USING THIS DUAL CREDIT MONEY TO PAY OFF THE LOAN THAT HE TOOK OUT TO EARN THE MASTER'S DEGREE TO BE ABLE TO TEACH DUAL CREDIT. SO IT IMPACTS US. IT IMPACTS US GREATLY. AND SO I'M SIMPLY ASKING THE BOARD OF MANAGERS, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH, AND IF YOU WOULD PLEASE USE THE POWER, THE INFLUENCE THAT YOU HAVE TO ASK THE COMPENSATION DEPARTMENT TO RECONSIDER THIS 28% PAY CUT.
I UNDERSTAND IF IT ISN'T POSSIBLE FOR US TO RECEIVE THE WHOLE 100%, BUT I WOULD JUST ASK YOU TO CONSIDER, IS 28% NOT AN EXTREME AMOUNT? BECAUSE THIS HAS AN INCREDIBLE IMPACT ON US.
THAT IS MY REQUEST, THAT YOU WOULD DO THAT AND PASS ALONG OUR CONCERNS TO THE OTHER BOARD OF MANAGERS. TEACHERS ARE THE GREATEST RESOURCE IN EDUCATION TO KNOW, IT ALSO, AND AGAIN, THIS IS HCC MONEY. SO WE'RE NOT ASKING, I'M NOT ASKING FOR MY $8,000 BACK FROM THE HISD BUDGET TREASURY.
[01:00:03]
IT'S COMING FROM HCC. HCC IS GIVING THE MONEY TO HISD TO THEN GIVE TO US. AND AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND THE COSTS OF THE PROGRAM. THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE TSI TEST, THE DUAL CREDIT LIAISON STAFF LIKE MS. WEBER, I CAN SEE. BUT IN A DISTRICT WHERE A LOT OF PEOPLE MAKE WELL OVER $175,000, WHERE THEY'RE APPARENTLY, IF I'M CORRECT, THERE IS $231,000 AVAILABLE FOR THE SUPERINTENDENT'S PERFORMANCE BONUS. TO ME, THAT SAYS THE DISTRICT IS IN GREAT FINANCIAL SHAPE. SO IF THE DISTRICT IS IN THIS LEVEL OF FINANCIAL SHAPE, HOW IN THE WORLD SHOULD TEACHERS BE TAKING THIS LEVEL OF PAY CUTS? SO THANK YOU FOR HEARING OUR CONCERNS, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TONIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. DOSTER. MR. LEBLANC, WOULD YOU, YOU MAY MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD, SIR.I GUESS WE'RE EVENING. GOOD EVENING. THIS GRIEVANCE TURNS ON A SIMPLE QUESTION.
WHO DETERMINES WHAT STIPEND AMOUNT AN HISD EMPLOYEE IS PAID? SHOULD THE EMPLOYEE DECIDE THE AMOUNT OF THE STIPEND? ALTERNATIVELY, SHOULD ANOTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION DECIDE HOW HISD WILL PAY STIPENDS TO DISTRICT EMPLOYEES? OR IS THAT RESPONSIBILITY, IS THAT DECISION THE RESPONSIBILITY OF HISD ADMINISTRATION IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE DISTRICT BUDGET APPROVED BY THIS BOARD? WELL, THE ANSWER, OF COURSE, IS THAT HISD ADMINISTRATION MAKES THAT DECISION, NOT THE EMPLOYEE NOR ANOTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION.
BUT MARK DOSTER OBJECTS TO THAT COMMON SENSE NOTION IN HIS GRIEVANCE. BASICALLY, MR. DOSTER ASSERTS THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO BE PAID THE FULL AMOUNT OF A STIPEND PAID TO HISD BY HOUSTON CITY COLLEGE, WHICH WAS FORMERLY KNOWN AS HOUSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE. FOR DUAL CREDIT CLASSES, HE TAUGHT AT HCC AS AN ADJUNCT INSTRUCTOR DURING THE 24-25 SCHOOL YEAR.
HOWEVER, IN HIS GRIEVANCE, WHAT MR. DOSTER FAILS TO ACKNOWLEDGE OR TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IS THAT HISD ADMINISTRATION ADOPTED AN EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION PLAN FOR THE 24-25 SCHOOL YEAR THAT CAPS THE AMOUNT OF STIPENDS PAID TO DISTRICT EMPLOYEES.
ULTIMATELY, MR. DOSTER WAS PAID THE STIPEND AMOUNT THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE. LET'S REVIEW THE FACTS IN DETAIL.
CHRISTINA WHEATLEY-RODIGER, FORMERLY HISD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF POST-SECONDARY PROGRAMMING, AND BRITTANY KAGAN, FORMER HISD DIRECTOR OF COMPENSATION, WHO IS SEATED TO MY LEFT, TESTIFIED AT THE LEVEL TWO GRIEVANCE HEARING HELD LAST OCTOBER THAT MR. DOSTER TAUGHT FOUR DUAL CREDIT COURSES IN THE FALL SEMESTER OF 2024.
ADMINISTRATION EXHIBIT NUMBER NINE IN THE TRANSCRIPT SHOWS THAT HCC PAID HISD $2,790 PER COURSE, WHICH AMOUNTED TO A TOTAL STIPEND AMOUNT OF $11,160. MR. DOSTER ALSO TAUGHT FOUR DUAL CREDIT COURSES IN THE SPRING SEMESTER OF 2025.
HCC PAID HISD $2,790 PER COURSE, EXCEPT FOR ONE COURSE FOR WHICH THE STIPEND AMOUNT WAS $2,650.
ACCORDINGLY, THE TOTAL STIPEND AMOUNT FOR THE SPRING SEMESTER WAS $11,020. SO FOR BOTH SEMESTERS OF THE 24-25 SCHOOL YEAR, HCC PAID HISD A TOTAL STIPEND AMOUNT OF $22,180 FOR THE EIGHT DUAL CREDIT COURSES MR. DOSTER TAUGHT OVER THAT TIME FRAME.
HOWEVER, THE HISD COMPENSATION PLAN FOR THE 24-25 SCHOOL YEAR, WHICH IS INCORPORATED IN THE LEVEL THREE BOARD GRIEVANCE HEARING TRANSCRIPT IN EXHIBITS FOUR AND FIVE, SPECIFICALLY STATES AT EXHIBIT
[01:05:02]
FIVE THAT HCC DUAL CREDIT STATEMENTS ARE CAPPED AT $2,000 PER COURSE. THAT MEANS MR. DOSTER WAS ENTITLED TO BE PAID $8,000 FOR THE FOUR COURSES THAT HE TAUGHT DURING THE FALL SEMESTER OF 2024 AND $8,000 FOR THE FOUR COURSES THAT HE TAUGHT DURING THE SPRING SEMESTER OF 2025. AND IN FACT, FOR THE 24-25 SCHOOL YEAR, HE WAS PAID THE FULL $16,000 THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE PURSUANT TO THE HISD COMPENSATION PLAN.WITH RESPECT TO MR. DOSTER'S STIPEND PAYMENT DEMAND FOR THE 25-26 SCHOOL YEAR, WHICH TRACKS HIS DEMAND FOR THE 24-25 SCHOOL YEAR, THE SAME RESTRICTIONS APPLY.
HIS STIPEND FOR THE 25-26 SCHOOL YEAR WAS ALSO CAPPED AT $2,000 PER COURSE. NOW LET US REVIEW A FEW OF THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY MR. DOSTER TO THE HISD COMPENSATION PLAN STIPEND CAP.
FIRST, CONTRARY TO WHAT MR. DOSTER ASSERTS IN HIS GRIEVANCE, THE DUAL CREDIT PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN HISD AND HCC FOR THE 24-25 SCHOOL YEAR DOES NOT OVERRIDE THE HISD COMPENSATION PLAN. HOWEVER MUCH THE GRIEVANT WOULD LIKE THAT TO BE SO.
IN FACT, THE LANGUAGE OF THE DUAL CREDIT PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN HISD AND HCC, WHICH IS INCORPORATED IN THE LEVEL THREE GRIEVANCE HEARING TRANSCRIPT AT ADMINISTRATION EXHIBIT NUMBER SEVEN, SPECIFICALLY SAYS IN SECTION F, UNDER HCC RESPONSIBILITIES, THAT IT IS HCC'S RESPONSIBILITY TO COMPENSATE DUAL CREDIT INSTRUCTOR, ADJUNCT INSTRUCTORS, DIRECTLY OR DISTRIBUTE FUNDS TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT BASED ON THE NUMBER OF COURSES AND ENROLLMENTS SO THAT THE SCHOOL MAY PROVIDE STIPENDS TO INSTRUCTORS IN ACCORDANCE WITH HCC'S FACULTY SALARY RATES. THE KEY WORD IS MAY.
THE CONTRACTUAL LANGUAGE IS NOT OBLIGATORY. HISD IN ITS ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION HAS CHOSEN TO CAP THE DUAL CREDIT INSTRUCTOR STIPENDS AT AN AMOUNT LESS THAN WHAT WAS PAID BY HCC, WHICH THE DISTRICT HAS EVERY RIGHT TO DO.
SECOND, THE CAP STIPENDS WERE NOT A MYSTERY OR A SURPRISE TO ANY OF THE HISD TEACHERS WHO SERVED AS DUAL CREDIT INSTRUCTORS AT HCC DURING THE 24-25 SCHOOL YEAR.
ADMINISTRATION EXHIBIT THREE INCLUDES THE MARCH 2024 EMAIL DISTRIBUTED TO ALL HISD EMPLOYEES BY THE HISD CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER, WHICH INCORPORATED A LINK TO THE COMPENSATION PLAN.
FURTHERMORE, ADMINISTRATION EXHIBIT 10 INCLUDES A COPY OF MR. DARDSTER'S HISD DUAL CREDIT INSTRUCTOR AGREEMENT FOR THE SPRING 2025 SEMESTER, WHICH HE SIGNED ON JANUARY 10, 2025. THAT AGREEMENT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT HE WOULD BE PAID A STIPEND PURSUANT TO THE HISD COMPENSATION MANUAL, WHICH IS SYNONYMOUS WITH THE HISD COMPENSATION PLAN.
LASTLY, GRIEVANCE CAST ASPERSIONS AGAINST THE DISTRICT BY QUESTIONING HOW THE DISTRICT UTILIZED THE EXCESS AMOUNT REMAINING AFTER THE CAP STIPENDS WERE PAID TO ADJUNCT INSTRUCTORS.
THIS ISSUE WAS ADDRESSED IN DETAIL IN AN APRIL 2025 BOARD REFERRAL INCORPORATED IN THE BOARD TRANSCRIPT AT ADMINISTRATION EXHIBIT EIGHT. IN THE REFERRAL, MS. WHEATLEY ROEDIGER ADDRESSES SEVERAL ISSUES RELATED TO HCC STIPEND PAYMENTS FOR THE EDIFICATION OF THE BOARD. WITH RESPECT TO THE DISPOSITION OF EXCESS STIPEND AMOUNTS, SHE WRITES, ANY EXTRA FUNDS LEFT OVER FROM HCC REIMBURSEMENT OF STIPENDS IS USED FOR OTHER DUAL CREDIT PURPOSES.
FOR EXAMPLE, HCC TSI BOOT CAMPS, DUAL CREDIT INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS, AND SO FORTH.
GIVEN THE FOREGOING FACTS, I ASK THE BOARD TO UPHOLD THE LEVEL TWO HEARING OFFICER RULING, WHICH ONE DENIES GRIEVANCE REMEDY NUMBER ONE REQUESTING THAT HE BE PAID THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE STIPEND PAID BY HCC FOR
[01:10:02]
THE FALL AND SPRING SEMESTERS OF THE 24-25 SCHOOL YEAR AND UPHOLDING THE AMOUNT PAID TO MR. DOSTRITT PURSUANT TO THE HISD COMPENSATION PLAN AND TWO DENIES GRIEVANCE REQUESTED REMEDY NUMBER TWO SEEKING PAYMENT OF THE FULL STIPEND AMOUNT PAID BY HCC FOR THE 25-26 SCHOOL YEAR AND UPHOLDING THE AMOUNT PAID TO MR. DOSTRITT PURSUANT TO THE HISD COMPENSATION PLAN.I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION AND CONSIDERATION.
THANK YOU, SIR. MR. DOSTRITT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A REBUTTAL? YES, THANK YOU. THE ONLY REBUTTAL I WOULD MAKE IS I DON'T DOUBT THAT THE EMAIL, MARCH 2024, THAT MR. LEBLANC SAID WENT OUT, BUT FOR A DUAL CREDIT TEACHER TO HAVE KNOWN THAT THIS POLICY WAS CHANGED, YOU WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE SCROLLED THROUGH THE ENTIRE MANUAL.
IN OTHER WORDS, DUAL CREDIT TEACHERS RECEIVED NO NOTIFICATION. WE REGRET TO INFORM YOU THAT YOU'RE GOING FROM 2750 TO 2000. IT WAS JUST THIS BIG DOCUMENT, THE COMPENSATION MANUAL, AND IT'S A NUMBER OF PAGES IN.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT PAGE IT'S ON, BUT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO REASON FOR ANY OF US TO SCROLL THROUGH. OH, HAS IT CHANGED? HAS ANYTHING CHANGED? NO. SO I WOULD OBJECT TO MR. LEBLANC'S WORD THAT THERE WAS NO SURPRISE, THAT IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN A SURPRISE, BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE HAD OPENED THE DOCUMENT, THE COMPENSATION MANUAL, AND SCROLLED THROUGH IT. AND WHEN YOU RECEIVE THE COMPENSATION MANUAL, I DON'T THINK ANYONE IS ASSUMING YOU'RE GOING TO RECEIVE A PAY CUT.
OH, I NEED TO LOOK THROUGH AND SEE IF I'VE RECEIVED A PAY CUT.
THOSE THINGS YOU EXPECT TO BE DELIVERED TO YOU A LITTLE MORE DIRECTLY, A LITTLE MORE PERSONALLY, A LITTLE MORE OBVIOUSLY. SO THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, SIR. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES? 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 DISCUSSION? DO WE NEED TO GO TO CLOSED SESSION? DO I HAVE A MOTION? I MOVE THAT WE DENY ALL REQUESTED RELIEF NOT PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE LEVEL TWO HEARING OFFICER. AND UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE LEVEL TWO HEARING OFFICER. AND DO I HAVE A SECOND? I HAVE A SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER COLON AND A SECOND BY BOARD MEMBER MENDOZA. IS THERE A DISCUSSION? PLEASE VOTE. VOTING HAS CLOSED. THE MOTION IS PASSED. THE BOARD HAS VOTED FOUR, FOUR AND ZERO AGAINST THE MOTION. A LETTER NOTIFYING BOTH PARTIES OF THE ACTION OF THE BOARD SHALL BE PREPARED AND SIGNED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF BOARD RELATIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THIS HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT 6 33 P.M. THANK YOU. WITH NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO DISCUSS, THIS MEETING OF THE BOARD IS ADJOURNED. THE TIME IS 6 34 P.M. ON AUGUST 20TH, 2026.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.