[00:00:02] GOOD EVENING. THIS MEETING IS NOW CALLED TO ORDER AT 5:00. [Hearings on August 27, 2026.] I WOULD LIKE TO ASK EVERYONE TO PLEASE SILENCE ALL CELL PHONES. A QUORUM OF THE BOARD MEMBERS IS PRESENT IN THE AUDITORIUM. I AM BOARD MEMBER EDGAR COLON, AND I WILL PRESIDE OVER TONIGHT'S MEETING. I AM JOINED BY BOARD MEMBERS KAREN DUFFY AND MARTY GOOSEN. 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 THE SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THEY INHIBIT THE BODY'S ABILITY TO CONDUCT BUSINESS AND THE PUBLIC'S ABILITY TO OBSERVE THOSE PROCESSES. PERSONS WHO PARTICIPATE IN SUCH BEHAVIOR WILL BE GIVEN ONE WARNING, AND IF THE BEHAVIOR IS REPEATED, THEY WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE MEETING. WE HAVE FOUR REGISTERED SPEAKERS WHO WILL BE LIMITED TO TWO MINUTES EACH PER BOARD POLICY. WE ASK THAT YOU STAY ON TOPIC AND REFRAIN FROM NAMING INDIVIDUALS, ESPECIALLY STUDENTS, AS THEIR IDENTITY IS PROTECTED UNDER LAW. BUT YOU MAY NAME YOUR OWN CHILD. I ASK THAT YOU PLEASE RESPECT OUR PROCEDURES AND THE OTHER SPEAKERS AND END YOUR COMMENTS PROMPTLY WHEN YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED AND THE TIMER RINGS. SPEAKERS, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM IN YOUR NUMBER ORDERED AND STATE YOUR NAME AND TOPIC. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? I DON'T BELIEVE ANY SPEAKERS HAVE SIGNED IN. ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS WHO SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT HERE. SPEAKERS GOING ONCE. SPEAKERS GOING TWICE. WE SHALL PROCEED. THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. WE WILL NOW CONDUCT THE HEARINGS SCHEDULED FOR THIS MEETING. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF LAKEISHA MENIFEE, TEACHER, AT FONDREN MIDDLE 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 HEARING, THE BOARD MAY GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSULT WITH IT'S 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, JAMES FALLON OF THE LAW OFFICES OF JAMES FALLON IS REPRESENTING LAKEISHA MENIFEE, WHO IS ALSO PRESENT. LAKEISHA IS ALSO PRESENT. ASHLEY YI HISD, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION, IS PRESENT, AND CATOSHA WOODS HISD GENERAL COUNSEL, IS ALSO PRESENT. MISS MENIFEE, DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE IN OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION? OPEN SESSION. OPEN SESSION. IT IS. THANK YOU. THE ISSUES BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD ARE WHETHER TO ACCEPT, 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 YI, YOU WILL PROCEED FIRST. YOU WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD, FOLLOWED BY A TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION BY MR. FALLON. MISS YI YOU MAY RESERVE PART OF YOUR TEN MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL TO MATTERS PRESENTED BY MR. FALLON. BOTH SIDES SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD AFTER THEIR RESPECTIVE PRESENTATIONS. MS. YI, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO DIVIDE YOUR TIME IN MAKING YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD? EIGHT MINUTES FOR THE PRESENTATION. TWO MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL. THANK YOU SO MUCH. MS. YI YOU MAY BEGIN. ALL RIGHT. [00:05:07] GOOD EVENING, BOARD MEMBERS. JOINING ME TODAY I HAVE LAKIA JACKSON. AND MISS JACKSON IS THE PRINCIPAL AT FONDREN MIDDLE SCHOOL. AND WE ARE HERE TONIGHT ASKING THIS BOARD TO UPHOLD THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS MISS MENIFEE'S REQUEST FOR A CHAPTER 21 APPEAL HEARING FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. THE FACTS HERE ARE STRAIGHTFORWARD. MISS MENIFEE HAD RECEIVED A WRITTEN NOTICE BY THIS BOARD PROPOSING THE TERMINATION OF HER PROBATIONARY CONTRACT IN A LETTER DATED JANUARY 16TH OF 2026. NOW, UNDER THE TEXAS EDUCATION CODE SECTION 21.253 A, A TEACHER MUST FILE A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR A HEARING UNDER CHAPTER 21, SUBCHAPTER F, WITH THE COMMISSIONER NO LATER THAN THE 15TH DAY AFTER THE TEACHER RECEIVES WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION. MISS MENIFEE CLAIMED THAT SHE RECEIVED HER LETTER ON FEBRUARY 12TH OF 2026 WHEN SHE PICKED IT UP AT THE POST OFFICE. SO 15 DAYS FROM THIS DATE WOULD HAVE GIVEN HER A DEADLINE OF FEBRUARY 27TH, 2026. BUT SHE DID NOT REQUEST FOR A CHAPTER 21 HEARING BY THIS DEADLINE. IT WAS NOT UNTIL APRIL 17TH, 2026, APPROXIMATELY SEVEN WEEKS AFTER THE STATUTORY DEADLINE HAS PASSED, THAT MISS MENIFEE REQUESTED FOR HER CHAPTER 21 HEARING. NOW, MISS MENIFEE ATTEMPTS TO AVOID THIS DEADLINE BY POINTING TO A DIFFERENT FILING THAT SHE HAD MADE EARLIER ON FEBRUARY 19TH, WHICH WAS A PETITION FOR REVIEW THAT SHE HAD DIRECTLY FILED WITH THE COMMISSIONER UNDER TEXAS EDUCATION CODE SECTION 7.057, WHICH CONCERNED HER GRIEVANCE. BUT THIS FILING DID NOT PRESERVE, NOR DID IT INVOKE HER CHAPTER 21 JURISDICTION. IT DID NOT REQUEST THE APPOINTMENT OF AN INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER, AND IT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY PROCEDURES THAT GOVERN A PROPOSED TERMINATION UNDER CHAPTER 21. MORE IMPORTANTLY, SECTION 7.057 EXPRESSLY DOES NOT APPLY TO CASES GOVERNED BY CHAPTER 21, SUBCHAPTER G, AND THE COMMISSIONER HAS RECOGNIZED THIS DISTINCTION IN THE FILINGS IN HENDRIX V DALLAS ISD AND ALSO IN NASSAR V HURST EULESS BEDFORD ISD, EXPLAINING THAT THE TERMINATION OF AN EDUCATOR DURING THE CONTRACT TERM MUST PROCEED THROUGH THE PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED UNDER CHAPTER 21. NOW, FOLLOWING A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CONCERNING HER SECTION 7.057 PETITION. MISS MENIFEE HAD ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THESE TWO FILINGS. JUDGE BUTCHER SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT A SUBCHAPTER F HEARING IS NOT INITIATED THROUGH AN AMENDED PLEADING IN SECTION 7.057 APPEAL, BUT THROUGH A SEPARATE REQUEST FOR A HEARING FILED WITH THE COMMISSIONER. AND YOU CAN FIND THE ALJ'S ORDER IN EXHIBIT G. NOW, THIS SEPARATE CHAPTER 21 REQUEST AGAIN WAS NOT MADE UNTIL APRIL 17TH, WELL AFTER THE FEBRUARY 27TH STATUTORY DEADLINE. AND SO MISS MENIFEE THEREFORE CANNOT USE HER TIMELY SECTION 7.057 FILING TO CURE HER TIMELY, UNTIMELY CHAPTER 21 REQUEST THROUGH AN AMENDMENT. AND EVEN ASSUMING THAT THIS AMENDMENT WAS OTHERWISE PERMISSIBLE, THE COMMISSIONER DECISIONS HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT A PARTY CANNOT USE AN AMENDMENT FILED AFTER THE STATUTORY DEADLINE TO CIRCUMVENT THE LEGISLATURE'S MANDATORY PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS. THE LEGISLATURE HAS SPECIFICALLY CREATED PROCEDURES AND DEADLINES FOR CHAPTER 21 HEARINGS, SO A TIMELY FILING UNDER A DIFFERENT STATUTORY PROCEDURE THEN, CANNOT SUBSTITUTE A TIMELY CHAPTER 21 HEARING REQUEST THAT THE LEGISLATURE EXPRESSLY REQUIRES ALLOWING THIS AMENDMENT, THEN WOULD EFFECTIVELY ERASE THAT STATUTORY DEADLINE AND CREATE JURISDICTION WHERE NONE EXISTS. FOR THESE REASONS, THE ADMINISTRATION RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THAT THIS BOARD UPHOLD THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISS MS. MENIFEE'S CHAPTER 21 REQUEST FOR A HEARING FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. THANK YOU. AND I'LL RESERVE THE REST OF MY TIME. THANK YOU. MR. FALLON YOU MAY MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD. PLEASE REMEMBER THAT YOU HAVE TEN MINUTES. THANK YOU SO MUCH. [00:10:02] I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE MYSELF. MY NAME IS DOCTOR LAKEISHA MENIFEE. MR. FALLON WILL BE REPRESENTING ME. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO JUST SAY THAT I AM A VETERAN EDUCATOR. I'VE BEEN AN EDUCATOR FOR 20 PLUS YEARS. I'VE BEEN A TEACHER. I'VE BEEN A PRINCIPAL. I'VE WORKED ALONGSIDE MR. COLON AS A CHIEF ACADEMIC OFFICER AT THE VARNETT PUBLIC SCHOOLS. PRIOR TO EVEN WORKING AS A TEACHER AT FONDREN MIDDLE SCHOOL, I ALSO HAD A GRANT FROM THE TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY, WHERE I PROVIDED A AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM AT FONDREN MIDDLE SCHOOL, AND THE STUDENTS AT FONDREN MIDDLE SCHOOL WON A DRONE COMPETITION. THEY WON SECOND PLACE IN A DRONE COMPETITION. I HAVE A PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF SUCCESS. I'VE ALSO. I KNOW THAT THE BOARD TOOK OVER HISD BECAUSE OF CERTAIN SUCCESSES AT WHEATLEY HIGH SCHOOL, AND I WAS A DEAN OF INSTRUCTION AT WHEATLEY HIGH SCHOOL, AND WE WERE ABLE TO ACHIEVE MATHEMATICS SUCCESS AT WHEATLEY HIGH SCHOOL. I WANT TO SAY I WAS THE FIRST DEAN AT WHEATLEY HIGH SCHOOL TO ALLOW THEM TO WIN. I MEAN, EARN INCENTIVE MONEY FOR THEIR MATH SCORES. I'VE ALSO SERVED AS A SCIENCE COACH AND I'VE WRITTEN CURRICULUM FOR HISD, THE SCHOOLS THAT I'VE WORKED WITH IN HISD, THEY'VE ALL RECEIVED AT LEAST 20% SCIENCE INCREASE IN THEIR SCORES FOR THEIR SCIENCE SCORES OVER THE TIME THAT I'VE WORKED WITH THEM, I HAVE A PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF SUCCESS. IN ADDITION TO THAT THE RATIONALE FOR THE TERMINATION I'VE SUBMITTED DOCUMENTATION TO SAY THAT THOSE THINGS NEEDED TO BE EVALUATED. AND IN ADDITION TO THE THINGS THAT MISS YI HAS STATED THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT WAS STATED IN TERMS OF WHAT THE HEARING OFFICER STATED AND THE RATIONALE FOR THINGS THAT WOULD BE DENIED. I WANT TO SAY THAT THOSE THINGS NEED TO BE REEVALUATED FOR THE RECORD. I WON'T AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT SHE STATED, THAT THIS IS WHAT THE HEARING OFFICER STATED, AND I WOULD CHALLENGE AND ENCOURAGE THE BOARD TO GO BACK AND REQUEST THAT THEY EXAMINE THE RECORDINGS OF THOSE MEETINGS, BECAUSE I CANNOT CONFIRM EVERYTHING THAT MISS YI JUST STOOD HERE AND SAID FOR THE RECORD. AND WITH ALL OF THAT BEING SAID, I WILL YIELD THE REST OF MY TIME TO MR. FALLON. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, DOCTOR MENIFEE. MS. YI. MISS WOODS, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I'M JAMES FALLON. IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU THIS EVENING. THIS CHAPTER 21 APPEAL IS UNLIKE OTHER CHAPTER 21 APPEALS THAT YOU WILL SEE. THIS IS REALLY AN APPEAL BASED ON A RULING MADE BY THE HEARING EXAMINER IN THE CASE. AND SO HE ISSUED A RULING IN RESPONSE TO HISD'S PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION OTHERWISE KNOWN AS A MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. AND SO, YOU KNOW, BUT BEFORE I BEGIN THAT, YOU GOT A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO DOCTOR MENIFEE. BASED ON THE ITEMS IN THE RECORD, I CAN TELL YOU A COUPLE OF THINGS ABOUT HER OTHER THAN WHAT YOU'VE HEARD. SHE'S A 24 YEAR EDUCATOR. SHE'S HAD 15 YEARS OF EDUCATION IN LIFE SCIENCE CLASSROOM AND SHE SPENT NINE YEARS IN ADMINISTRATIVE LEADERSHIP. SHE'S BEEN IN HISD PRIOR TO THIS MOST RECENT ROUND. SHE WAS IN FROM 2003 TO 2012. BUT HERE, RECENTLY, SHE CAME BACK IN THE DISTRICT UNDER A PROBATIONARY CONTRACT FOR THE 25-26 SCHOOL YEAR. SO THAT'S HOW WE GOT HERE. AND SO SHE RECEIVED A NOTICE OF NON-RENEWAL. ACCORDING TO THE RECORD, ON FEBRUARY 12TH, THE NORMAL PROCEDURE WOULD BE TO FILE IN A PORTAL ON THE TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY AND MAKE A REQUEST FOR A HEARING EXAMINER WHERE THE REQUIREMENTS ARE TO MAKE THAT REQUEST AND TO PROVIDE A COPY OF YOUR NOTICE LETTER. DOCTOR MENIFEE AT THE TIME WAS NOT REPRESENTED BY A LAWYER, SO SHE FILED HER OWN APPEAL. AND SO WHEN SHE FILED IT, SHE FILED USING THE PORTAL SHE USED, OR SHE ATTACHED A COPY OF HER NOTICE OF NON-RENEWAL. BY THE WAY, SHE RECEIVED IT ON FEBRUARY 12TH. HER FILING WAS ON FEBRUARY 19TH, SO FILED WITHIN A TIME PERIOD THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN WITHIN THE 15 DAYS. IT WAS WITHIN THE 15 DAYS. AND IT WAS A DOCUMENT CALLED AN APPEAL FOR REVIEW. SO BUT DOCTOR MENIFEE, BEING A SMART WOMAN, BUT NOT BEING A LAWYER DID NOT ASK IN A DIRECT WAY FOR A CHAPTER 21 HEARING EXAMINER. AND SO OUR JOURNEY BEGINS WHENEVER SHE FILED, SHE FILED REFERENCING 7.057 OF THE EDUCATION CODE. WHEN IT GOT TO TEA, IT GOT DIVERTED OVER INSTEAD OF TO A HEARING EXAMINER TO A PERSON WE CALL AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, [00:15:03] AN ALJ. SO EVEN AT THE TEA LEVEL, YOU DON'T GET AWAY FROM A BUNCH OF LETTERS TO DESCRIBE EVERYTHING YOU'RE DOING. BUT WE LEAVE THE IAG THEY PUT HER AWAY FROM THE IAG INTO THE ALJ, AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE HAD THE CASE PENDING UNTIL APRIL 17TH, AND THEY HAD A PRETRIAL CONFERENCE IN THE MATTER. AND AT THE TIME THAT THE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE OCCURRED, IT WAS BROUGHT TO DR. MENIFEE'S ATTENTION THAT THAT FILING WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO GET HER A HEARING EXAMINER. SO SHE TURNED AROUND THAT DAY IMMEDIATELY AND FILED WITHIN THE SAME PORTAL, SOMETHING THAT DIRECTLY ASKED FOR AN INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER. SO ONCE THAT WAS FILED, THE TEA GRANTED THE REQUEST FOR A HEARING EXAMINER. AND THEN WE HAVE THE PROCEEDINGS. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE REVIEWING. SO ALL THAT'S JUST PROCEDURALLY HOW WE GOT HERE. SO I'VE GOT FOUR MINUTES LEFT. LET ME TRY TO GET THROUGH THIS QUICKLY BUT ALSO EFFICIENTLY. HISD LAWYERS FILED THE PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION, SAYING, HEY, APRIL 17TH IS AN UNTIMELY FILING. OUR RESPONSE IN SOME IS THIS DR. MENIFEE WAS PRO SE. SHE DIDN'T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF LAWYER SHE MET WITH SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTE. SHE FILED WHAT SHE FILED HER APPEAL FOR REVIEW WITHIN THE 15 DAYS. SHE ATTACHED A COPY OF THE NOTICE LETTER. WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED IS THE TEA SHOULD HAVE SENT IT TO A HEARING EXAMINER BECAUSE IT WAS FROM ALL THOSE THINGS TOGETHER THE TIMING OF IT, COUPLED WITH THE ATTACHMENT OF THE NOTICE LETTER, SHOULD HAVE BEEN AT LEAST ENOUGH OF AN INDICATION TO THEM TO PROVIDE TO REFER TO A HEARING EXAMINER. BUT THEY DIDN'T DO THAT FOR WHATEVER REASON, THEY CHOSE TO DEAL WITH IT WITH THE ALJ, AND THAT DECISION DELAYED DOCTOR MENIFEE FROM UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY WANTED IT FILED A DIFFERENT WAY. SO THERE ARE I'M HERE ARGUING THAT THERE ARE STRONG EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS IN THIS CASE THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. THE JUDGE REJECTED THOSE ARGUMENTS. WE WROTE A BRIEF. WE HAD SOME ARGUMENT. THE JUDGE REJECTED THOSE ARGUMENTS. AND SO THAT IS WHAT I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER. DOCTOR MENIFEE JUST WANTS HER DAY IN COURT, AND SHE WANTS TO HAVE SOMEBODY LOOK AT THE FACTS OF THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE CASE. AND SHE WAS NEVER ABLE TO GET THAT BECAUSE OF A FILING THAT WAS MADE BY HER BEFORE SHE WAS REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY. AND SO THERE'S MANY INSTANCES IN THE LAW WHERE A PRO SE DEFENDANT IS GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT IN CASES. AND SO THAT IS ESSENTIALLY OUR EQUITY ARGUMENT. WE WOULD LIKE FOR YOU BOARD MEMBERS TO CONSIDER THOSE FILINGS. IT IS MY POSITION THAT HER ORIGINAL FILING WAS SUFFICIENT UNDER THE LAW TO BE THE KIND OF REQUEST THAT SHOULD HAVE GIVEN HER A CHAPTER 21 HEARING. BUT THAT DECISION WASN'T MADE UNTIL AFTER SHE FILED A SECOND TIME IN APRIL. AND THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MS. YI DO YOU WISH TO MAKE A REBUTTAL STATEMENT? YES, SIR. JUST BRIEFLY. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY JUST TWO POINTS HERE. FIRST, WE ARE NOT HERE AT THIS HEARING TO CONTEST THE MATERIAL FACTS OF HER UNDERLYING REASONS FOR TERMINATION, THAT BEING INSUBORDINATION AND EXCESSIVE ABSENCES. THAT IS NOT WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY. THAT WOULD HAVE AGAIN GONE THROUGH THE CHAPTER 21 HEARING PROCESS AND IN DISAGREEMENT WITH MR. FALLON. I DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS A DIFFERENT CHAPTER 21 REQUEST FROM ANY OTHER REQUEST THAT ANY OTHER TEACHER HAS FILED WITH THE TEA. EVERY OTHER TEACHER HAS FILED AND A REQUEST THROUGH THE PROPER PROCEDURES WITHIN THE STATUTORY DEADLINES THAT ARE GIVEN TO THEM THROUGH OUR NOTICE HEARINGS. AND SO JUST BRIEFLY, I'D LIKE TO JUST READ THE FIRST PART THAT WE INCLUDE IN OUR BOARD NOTICES WHEN IT COMES TO TERMINATIONS, TO ALL OF OUR TEACHERS. AND AT THE VERY SECOND PAGE WHERE IT SAYS APPEAL PROCEDURE, WE DO STATE THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 21.251 ET SEQ OF THE TEXAS EDUCATION CODE AND HISD POLICIES DFCA LEGAL DFD LEGAL AND DFD LOCAL. YOU ARE HEREBY ADVISED THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROTEST THE PROPOSED TERMINATION BY SUBMITTING A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR A HEARING TO THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION. THE NOTICE IS CLEAR. THE STATUTE IS CLEAR. MISS MENIFEE DID NOT FILE A TIMELY CHAPTER 21 REQUEST. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NO. NO. I'M SORRY. YOU USED YOUR TIME. [00:20:02] SORRY. THE PARTIES HAVE COMPLETED THEIR PRESENTATIONS, AND IT IS NOW TIME FOR BOARD MEMBERS TO MAKE OUR DECISIONS ON THE ISSUES BEFORE US. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. WHAT PROMPTED THE APRIL 17TH FILING? OKAY. WHAT PROMPTED IS WHEN WE DID HAVE A MEETING OF. OH. YEAH. WHEN WE HAD THE PREHEARING CONFERENCE WITH THE ALJ THE QUESTION WAS BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE TIMELY FILING. AND IN THAT CONFERENCE ATTORNEY YI DID MAKE THE STATEMENT. YES. DOCTOR MENIFEE DID SUBMIT HER INFORMATION ON TIME. THEREFORE, THE ALJ GAVE ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESUBMIT THE DOCUMENTS. SO, ATTORNEY YI ADMITTED IN THAT CONFERENCE THAT I SUBMITTED IT ON TIME. SO THEREFORE, I WAS EXTREMELY CONFUSED HOW ALL OF A SUDDEN IT WASN'T SUBMITTED ON TIME AFTER THE FACT. THAT'S WHY I INITIALLY WHEN I STOOD UP, I SAID, I ENCOURAGE THE BOARD TO GO BACK AND GET THE RECORDING OF THAT FEBRUARY MEETING, BECAUSE ATTORNEY YI DID SAY THAT I SUBMITTED THE INFORMATION ON TIME IN FEBRUARY. SO THAT'S WHAT PROMPTED ME TO SUBMIT THE APRIL 17TH FILING. AYE. YEAH. THAT'S WHAT PROMPTED ME TO SUBMIT THE APRIL FILING, BECAUSE SHE DID AGREE THAT I SUBMITTED IT ON TIME. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO. THANK YOU. WILL THE BOARD WILL NOW RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION UNDER CHAPTER 551 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE. OPEN MEETINGS ACT. SUBSECTIONS 551.004 THROUGH 551.089. SHOULD BOARD FINAL ACTION, VOTE OR DECISION ON ANY MATTER CONSIDERED IN 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 AT A SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC MEETING OF THE BOARD, UPON NOTICE THEREOF, THE BOARD HAS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 5:22 P.M. ON AUGUST 27TH, 2026. THANK YOU. THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IS NOW RECONVENED IN OPEN SESSION. THE TIME NOW IS 5:34 P.M.. DO I HAVE A MOTION? YES. 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 DISMISS THIS MATTER FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER DUFFY AND A SECOND BY BOARD MEMBER GOOSEN. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE VOTE. VOTING HAS CLOSED. THE MOTION PASSES. THE BOARD HAS VOTED 2 FOR 0 AGAINST ONE ABSTENTION. A LETTER NOTIFYING BOTH PARTIES OF THE ACTION OF THE BOARD SHALL BE PREPARED AND SIGNED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF BOARD RELATIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THIS HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT 5:36 P.M.. THANK YOU. WE'RE MOVING NOW ON TO THE NEXT HEARING. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF MARIA DEL ROSARIO RODRIGUEZ, TEACHER, GROSS ELEMENTARY. 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. [00:25:10] IF BOTH PARTIES REQUEST AN OPEN SESSION DURING THE HEARING, THE BOARD MAY GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSULT WITH ITS ATTORNEY. UNDER THE TERMS OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.071. IF ANY BOARD MEMBER WISHES TO SEEK THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. FOR THE RECORD, MARIA DEL ROSARIO RODRIGUEZ IS PRESENT. AMIR ROOHI, HISD ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION, IS PRESENT AND CATOSHA WOODS HISD GENERAL COUNSEL, IS ALSO PRESENT. MS. RODRIGUEZ, DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE IN OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION? OPEN SESSION. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THE ISSUES BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD ARE WHETHER TO ACCEPT, REJECT OR CHANGE THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND PROPOSAL BASED ON A REVIEW OF THE RECORD. WE MAY REJECT OR CHANGE A FINDING OF FACT IF, AFTER REVIEWING THE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HEARING 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 THE LEGAL BASIS IN WRITING. MR. ROOHI, YOU WILL PROCEED FIRST. YOU WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD, FOLLOWED BY A TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION BY MS. RODRIGUEZ. MR. ROOHI, YOU MAY RESERVE PART OF YOUR TEN MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL TO MATTERS PRESENTED BY MS. RODRIGUEZ. BOTH SIDES SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD AFTER THE RESPECTIVE PRESENTATIONS. MR. ROOHI, DO YOU HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO DIVIDE YOUR TIME IN MAKING YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD? I'D LIKE TO RESERVE TWO MINUTES. OKAY. EIGHT MINUTES FOR PRESENTATION, TWO MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL. YOU MAY BEGIN. GOOD AFTERNOON. TODAY I'M JOINED BY TRACIE HART-JACKSON, WHO IS CURRENTLY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF INSTRUCTION, BUT WHO AT THE TIME OF THIS OCCURRENCE WAS THE PRINCIPAL AT GOOSE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. THE ADMINISTRATION IS HERE TO ASK YOU TO UPHOLD THE TEA INDEPENDENT HEARING OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION TO RENEW MISS RODRIGUEZ'S 25-26 TERM CONTRACT. MISS RODRIGUEZ WAS NON-RENEWED FOR GOOD CAUSE SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF HER EXCESSIVE ABSENCES AND HER FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE DISTRICT'S ATTENDANCE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. THIS VIOLATES MULTIPLE HISD ATTENDANCE POLICY. I'M SORRY. VIOLATES MULTIPLE INCLUDING BOARD POLICY DH LOCAL EXHIBIT 18 IN YOUR PACKET THAT STATES THAT YOU MUST FOLLOW HISD ATTENDANCE POLICIES STANDARD 1.7 EXHIBIT 19 IN YOUR PACKET THAT STATES AN EMPLOYEE MUST COMPLY WITH WRITTEN LOCAL BOARD POLICIES AND DEC8 REGULATION WHICH IS EXHIBIT 21 IN YOUR PACKET FOR APPLYING FOR TO QUALIFY FOR FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE, ASSAULT LEAVE, TEMPORARY DISABILITY LEAVE OR THE SUPPLEMENTAL SICK LEAVE BANK. AS HISD'S ASSAULT AND ANALYST KELSEY GAGE EXPLAINS ON PAGE 20 OF THE TRANSCRIPT, YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU STARTING ON LINE 16, MISS RODRIGUEZ'S DOCTOR STATED THAT SHE WAS APPROVED TO GO BACK TO WORK ON DECEMBER 22ND OF 2025. MISS RODRIGUEZ THEN PROVIDED ANOTHER DOCTOR'S NOTE THAT ALLOWED HER TO RETURN TO WORK ON JANUARY 8TH, 2026. MISS RODRIGUEZ DID NOT RETURN TO WORK AFTER EITHER DATE. SHE CONTINUED TO ACCUMULATE UNPAID DAYS, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM HER ABSENCE HISTORY REPORT IN YOUR PACKET UNDER EXHIBIT THREE, SHE ACCUMULATED 34 DAYS, 24, 34 UNPAID DAYS AFTER SHE WAS GIVEN THE ALL CLEAR FROM HER DOCTOR. MISS RODRIGUEZ FURTHER CLAIMED THAT SHE WAS INJURED AT WORK AND THAT WAS WHY SHE DID NOT COME BACK TO WORK. AS YOU CAN SEE ON PAGE 25 OF YOUR TRANSCRIPT, MS. RODRIGUEZ WAS DENIED ASSAULT LEAVE BECAUSE HISD DID NOT RECEIVE THE PROPER DOCUMENTATION FROM MISS RODRIGUEZ. AS YOU CAN TELL FROM THE TRANSCRIPT, HISD TRIED NUMEROUS TIMES AND NUMEROUS METHODS TO OBTAIN THE NECESSARY PAPERWORK TO TRY AND SEE IF SHE QUALIFIED FOR ASSAULT LEAVE. ALL TO NO AVAIL. UNDER BOARD POLICY DEC LOCAL AND DEC8 TEACHERS ARE ALLOTTED FIVE STATE PERSONAL LEAVE DAYS AND FIVE LOCAL PERSONAL DAYS AT THE BEGINNING OF EVERY SCHOOL YEAR. IMPORTANTLY, ACCORDING TO DEC8, REGULATION. REGARDLESS OF THE AMOUNT OF LEAVE IN AN EMPLOYEE'S LEAVE BANK, NO EMPLOYEE MAY BE ABSENT FOR MORE THAN 15 DAYS PER FISCAL YEAR. [00:30:02] EMPLOYEES MAY NOT USE UNPAID, MAY NOT USE UNPAID DAYS, AND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO DISCIPLINARY ACTION UP TO AND INCLUDING TERMINATION ONCE THEY EXHAUST ALL PAID LEAVE DAYS. MISS RODRIGUEZ ACCUMULATED 46 TOTAL ABSENCES, 36.5 OF WHICH WERE UNPAID. AND AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THESE UNPAID DAYS WERE NOT PROTECTED BY FMLA OR ANY OTHER KIND OF PROTECTED LEAVE. THIS IS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF DEC8 REGULATION. MISS RODRIGUEZ WAS GIVEN MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO APPLY FOR THE VARIOUS LEAVES AND PROTECTIONS THAT HISD OFFERS WHEN SHE DIDN'T PROVIDE THE CORRECT PAPERWORK HISD REACHED OUT TO GET THE PAPERWORK. HISD DIDN'T RECEIVE ANYTHING, NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES WE ASKED FOR IT IN ANY WAY THAT WE ASKED FOR IT. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE INDEPENDENT HEARING OFFICER FOUND IN HER CONCLUSIONS OF LAW THAT HISD CORRECTLY IDENTIFIED THAT MISS RODRIGUEZ WAS INELIGIBLE FOR FMLA ASSAULT LEAVE, OR TEMPORARY DISABILITY. I SHOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT MISS RODRIGUEZ KNOWS THE PROCESS TO APPLY FOR AND GET FMLA BECAUSE SHE HAD BEEN APPROVED FOR SAID LEAVE THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE INDEPENDENT HEARING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE DISTRICT MET ITS BURDEN TO NON RENEW MR. RODRIGUEZ'S CONTRACT AND FOUND THAT THE DISTRICT PROVED BY THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT MR. RODRIGUEZ VIOLATED HISD POLICIES AND HAD GOOD CAUSE TO TERMINATE MR. RODRIGUEZ'S TERM CONTRACT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OF HER TERM CONTRACT AND THE TEXAS EDUCATION CODE, SECTION 21.211. THEREFORE, THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD ASK THIS BOARD TO UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MS. RODRIGUEZ. YOU MAY MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD. PLEASE REMEMBER, YOU HAVE TEN MINUTES. GOOD EVENING, BOARD MEMBERS. I HOPE YOU'RE DOING WELL TODAY. MR. ROOHI, HAPPY TO SEE YOU AGAIN. AND TO TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT MYSELF, I'VE BEEN WITH HISD FOR CLOSE TO 25 YEARS. I STARTED AT WAYNE, WESTBURY AS A TEACHER ASSISTANT AND BECAME A SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER. OKAY. THROUGHOUT MY YEARS AND HISTORY WITH HISD, I HAVE NUMEROUS ACCOMPLISHMENTS AT. WHEN I WAS AT, I. WHEN I OBTAINED MY FIRST TEACHING POSITION WAS AT WAYNE [INAUDIBLE] ELEMENTARY AS A SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER. AT THAT TIME, I HAD GREAT SUCCESS WITH STUDENTS AND TEACHERS AND WITH PARENTS. I THEN MOVED ON TO MIDDLE SCHOOL. WE DID THAT WHEN I STARTED AT WESTBURY AS A TEACHER ASSISTANT, SPECIAL EDUCATION I SAW KIDS COMING IN, LACKING SOMETHING, LACKING THE UNDERSTANDING OF HOW TO OBTAIN THE TOOLS NEEDED TO BE A FANTASTIC CITIZEN FOR THIS COUNTRY. SO I SAID, LET ME LOOK. SO I STARTED LOOKING. MY FIRST POSITION WAS AT ELEMENTARY AND I SAID, NO THESE TEACHERS ARE VERY CONSTANT WITH THEM. LET ME MOVE. I WENT TO MIDDLE SCHOOL AS A CO-TEACHER AND RESOURCE TEACHER WHILE I WAS THERE MY STUDENTS NOT ONLY PASSED THE STAAR TEST IN MATH ENGLISH, SOME OF THEM EVEN PASSED THE STAAR TEST ON MATH, ENGLISH, SCIENCE, AND SOCIAL STUDIES. THEY DID 100% 360 TURNAROUND. ALSO, DURING A COUPLE OF MY STUDENTS EXIT THE SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAM WHEN EVERYONE WONDERED, HOW DID THIS HAPPEN? IT WASN'T ONLY MYSELF. OF COURSE, IT WAS A WHOLE TEAM WORKING TOGETHER TO GET THESE STUDENTS TO GO AND DO WHAT THEY NEEDED TO DO. COVID CAME AND GUESS WHAT? WE CAME BACK. TELL ME WHICH STUDENT PASSED THE STAAR TEST WITH FLYING COLORS. MY STUDENTS MASTER IN MATH. DO YOU THINK A TEACHER LIKE ME WOULD DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT? NOT ONLY THAT. FINE. I WENT TO RIGHT NOW, I'M JUST. I WENT TO THE OTHER SCHOOL AFTER THAT. AFTER DD, I WENT TO PATRICK HENRY AND PATRICK HENRY I DIDN'T STAY THE WHOLE YEAR BECAUSE I WAS ALREADY RETIRING. SO AT THAT TIME, I DID RETIRE AT THE IN JANUARY 1ST. AND DURING MY RETIREMENT DURING THEM AT PATRICK HENRY, THERE WAS A CASE FOR ONE STUDENT [00:35:03] THAT THEY GAVE IT TO ME AND SAID, MISS RODRIGUEZ, THIS IS THE LAST STROKE. WE ARE GOING INTO ATTORNEYS. WE NEED TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO WITH THESE STUDENTS. TWO MONTHS. THIS CASE HAS BEEN DRAGGING FOR THREE YEARS. TWO MONTHS. I SAT AT THE TABLE WITH MISS BASIL AND HER TEAM AND THEIR ATTORNEYS AT THE DESK. GUESS WHAT HAPPENED DURING THAT TIME? I SAVED HISD FROM HAVING A LAWSUIT. I SAVED THEM TWO MONTHS. AND I PROVED THAT THIS CHILD COULD DO WHAT NOBODY THOUGHT THAT HE COULD DO. THAT'S WHAT I DID. FROM THERE THAT'S WHEN I RETIRE. THEN THE STATE OF TEXAS SAYS WE NEED TEACHERS. THEY CONTACT ME. I CAME AND I THOUGHT BY BEING BACK I STARTED OCTOBER 17TH OF 2021 AND I THOUGHT, OKAY, I RETIRED AND THE STATE OF TEXAS IS SAYING, COME BACK. I SAID, YES, THEY WERE GOING TO PAY ME BOTH MY RETIREMENT AND MY SALARY. YOU QUOTED IT WRONG. I DIDN'T GET NO MONEY. I GOT MY SALARY, BUT I DIDN'T GET MY RETIREMENT. BUT DID I SAY ANYTHING? NO. I CONTINUE WORKING BECAUSE I KNEW THE STATE NEEDED ME. NOT ONLY THAT, I WENT AND GOT HIRED AT WAINWRIGHT ELEMENTARY AS A TEACHER OF RECORD STAR TEST 2.0 WITH A WRITTEN COMPONENT. FIRST YEAR AFTER COVID. GUESS HOW MY STUDENTS DID. AND I GOT SICK AT THE END. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I HAD SURGERY IN JUNE OF THAT YEAR. ABOVE DISTRICT LEVEL 70.5. DO YOU THINK I WANTED TO BE ABSENT? NO. I JUST WANTED THE TIME TO BE ABLE TO RECOUP AND BE ABLE TO DO WHAT I'VE DONE EVERY SINGLE YEAR FOR HISD. AND FROM YOU GUYS. NOTHING. NOTHING. WHEN I WAS ACROSS, I WAS HIRED AS A LIFE SKILLS TEACHER. YOU WOULD THINK THAT THE CLASSROOM WOULD HAVE COMPUTERS WILL HAVE LAPTOPS, WILL HAVE THE TOOLS THAT ARE NEEDED. THERE WAS NO NOTHING FOR ME TO TEACH THE STUDENTS LIFE SKILLS. THERE WAS NO BLENDER, NO MICROWAVE, NO DISHES, NO MANIPULATIVES, NOTHING. AND THEN YOU HAVE A CLASSROOM OF THOSE TWO BUILDINGS. ONE WINDOW, TWO BATHROOMS, NO EXHAUST SYSTEM. THE CONDITIONS WERE IMPROBABLE FOR A LIFE SKILLS CLASSROOM. I HAVE NO EQUIPMENT. I DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A COMPUTER FOR MY OWN TO TAKE HOME AND WORK, BECAUSE THE ONLY COMPUTER THAT WAS THERE WAS FOR ME, FOR THE SYSTEM THAT WAS ON TIME RIGHT THERE. I HAD NONVERBAL STUDENTS, KINDERGARTEN. I DID NOT HAVE A CURRICULUM GIVEN TO ME IN ORDER TO DO MY WORK. I HAD NOTHING BUT WHAT DID MS. RODRIGUEZ DO? NON-VERBAL STUDENTS. WHEN I WENT BECAUSE OF MY DISABILITY. UNFORTUNATELY. WHAT HAPPENED. THEY WERE ABLE TO WRITE THEIR NAMES. THEY WERE ABLE TO ADD ONE DIGIT. THEY WERE ABLE TO ADVOCATE EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO TALK. THEY WANTED TO LEARN. AND WHEN I WAS DISABLED, I WAS SENDING INFORMATION IN. AND HERE I AM. I HAVE NO CURRICULUM. ONE MONTH LATER, A MONTH LATER, I GOT UNIQUE. TAKE IT. I HAVE NOT DONE UNIQUE SINCE WHAT, 2008. SO I HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO HADN'T MANIPULATED MY WORK WITH THE SYSTEM. AND YET, NOT ONLY DID THEY GIVE ME THE WRONG SYSTEM BECAUSE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE INITIAL AND NOT INTERMEDIATE. [00:40:10] YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES LEFT. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. I GOT INJURED. I HAD NO ASSISTANT IN THE CLASSROOM. THE ONLY ONES THAT SAW WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE KIDS. I DID MY BEST. AND UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN I WAS AT TANGLEWOOD. WHAT HAPPENED? I GOT INJURED. I WAS ATTACKED FROM BEHIND, AND THE DOCTOR STATED I NEEDED TO BE OUT OF THE SYSTEM OR I NEEDED TO BE SOMEONE THERE AT ALL TIMES. WHAT DID I HAVE? NOTHING. DID I WANT IT TO BE OUT? NO I DIDN'T. I WAS DIAGNOSED, UNFORTUNATELY, WITH PTSD. IT'S AN INJURY THAT IS NOT UNDER THE WORKER'S COMP, ESPECIALLY FOR HISD, WHICH I UNDERSTAND, BUT EVEN TO DATE, BECAUSE OF THE INJURY THAT I SUFFERED AT HISD THREE MILLIMETERS HERNIATED DISC, I WAS ATTACKED ONCE, I WAS HURT AGAIN AND THEN I WAS ATTACKED AGAIN. I ONLY NEEDED TIME TO RECOUP AND DO WHAT I DO BEST MY JOB. I HOPE YOU TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AND LET ME KNOW, BECAUSE TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, I DO NOT KNOW. I'M HUMBLE. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME. THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE WITH HISD, AND I HOPE YOU HONOR WHAT I'VE DONE FOR THIS SCHOOL AND OUR KIDS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MR. ROOHI. DO YOU WISH TO MAKE A REBUTTAL STATEMENT? YES. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. THANK YOU. SO WE'RE NOT HERE BECAUSE OF THE VARIOUS THINGS THAT MR. RODRIGUEZ HAS TALKED ABOUT. WE'RE HERE BECAUSE OF ABSENCES. AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, HISD GAVE HER AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO APPLY FOR THE VARIOUS LEAVES AND PROTECTIONS THAT HISD PROVIDES ALL OF OUR EMPLOYEES. SHE DID NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THOSE OPPORTUNITIES. I SHOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE REASON THAT SHE DIDN'T GET FML THIS YEAR WAS BECAUSE SHE HAD GOTTEN FML LAST YEAR, BECAUSE WE DO GIVE IT WHEN IT IS ACTUALLY APPROPRIATE. AND AGAIN, AND I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT MISS HART-JACKSON MADE THE TERMINATION RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE OF ATTENDANCE. BECAUSE NOT BECAUSE OF HER PERFORMANCE, BUT BECAUSE OF ATTENDANCE, WHICH WE MADE CLEAR ALREADY. WE OBVIOUSLY GAVE HER NUMEROUS OPPORTUNITIES TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE VARIOUS LEAVES AND PROTECTIONS THAT HISD HAS AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE EMPLOYEES. I SHOULD ALSO POINT OUT JUST REALLY QUICKLY IN TERMS OF HER NOT HAVING AN ASSISTANT, SHE DID HAVE AN ASSISTANT. THEY HAVE A 30 MINUTE LUNCH, WHICH IS THE ONLY TIME THAT SHE WOULDN'T BE WITHOUT AN ASSISTANT. AND EVEN THEN, OUR PRINCIPAL SENT IN SOMEONE THERE ABOUT TEN MINUTES INTO THE ASSISTANTS LUNCH. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY MISS RODRIGUEZ WAS TERMINATED BECAUSE OF HER ABSENCES. NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE TRIED TO GIVE HER THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE PROTECTIONS THAT HISD PROVIDES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NO, YOU YOU USED ALL OF YOUR TEN MINUTES. NO, NO, YOU USED ALL OF YOUR TIME. YOU USED ALL OF YOUR TIME ALREADY. THANK YOU. SORRY. THANK YOU. THE PARTIES HAVE COMPLETED THEIR PRESENTATIONS, AND IT IS NOW TIME FOR BOARD MEMBERS TO MAKE OUR DECISION ON THE ISSUES BEFORE US. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? NO. OKAY. THERE'S NO NEED TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION. SO DO I HAVE A MOTION? I HAVE A MOTION. I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER, ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BY THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER, AND APPROVE THE ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL TO TERMINATE MARIA DEL ROSARIO RODRIGUEZ DETERMINED EMPLOYMENT. THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND? THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER GOOSEN AND A SECOND BY BOARD MEMBER DUFFY. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE VOTE. VOTING HAS NOW CLOSED. THE MOTION PASSES. THE BOARD HAS VOTED THREE, FOR 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. [00:45:09] THIS HEARING HAS CONCLUDED AT 5:57 P.M.. THANK YOU. WE WILL NOW PROCEED WITH OUR NEXT HEARING. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE DISPUTE FILED BY KIIRAH WASHINGTON FORMER CURRICULUM DESIGNER, OFFICE OF ACADEMICS 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 THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTIONS 551.071. IF ANY BOARD MEMBER WISHES TO SEEK THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. FOR THE RECORD, KIMBAL URRUTIA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS IS REPRESENTING KIIRAH, WASHINGTON. IS THAT CORRECT? THANK YOU. AND MISS WASHINGTON IS ALSO PRESENT. THANK YOU. DANIELLE RAMIREZ WITH MONTE AND RAMIREZ LLP REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION, IS PRESENT AND SO IS CATOSHA WOODS HISD, GENERAL COUNSEL. MR. URRUTIA DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE IN OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION? I'D LIKE TO BE IN CLOSED SESSION. CLOSED SESSION. AS YOU MAY REMEMBER, AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, I CALLED FOR PUBLIC SPEAKERS. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THOSE SPEAKERS ARE HERE NOW, SO WE ARE GOING TO ALLOW THEM TO SPEAK. PUBLIC COMMENT DURING SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS WILL ONLY BE AVAILABLE TO THOSE PERSONS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK PRIOR TO THE MEETING TIME, PER CURRENT PROTOCOL. VERBAL AND OTHER DISRUPTIONS BY PERSONS DURING THE SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE, AS THEY INHIBIT THE BODY'S ABILITY TO CONDUCT BUSINESS AND THE PUBLIC'S ABILITY TO OBSERVE THOSE PROCESSES. PERSONS WHO PARTICIPATE IN SUCH BEHAVIOR WILL BE GIVEN ONE WARNING, AND IF THE BEHAVIOR IS REPEATED, THEY WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE MEETING. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE HAVE TWO REGISTERED SPEAKERS WHO WILL BE LIMITED TO TWO MINUTES EACH PER BOARD POLICY. WE ASK THAT YOU STAY ON TOPIC AND REFRAIN FROM NAMING INDIVIDUALS, ESPECIALLY STUDENTS, AS THEIR IDENTITY IS PROTECTED UNDER LAW. BUT YOU MAY NAME YOUR OWN CHILD. I ASK THAT YOU PLEASE RESPECT OUR PROCEDURES AND THE OTHER SPEAKERS AND END YOUR COMMENTS PROMPTLY WHEN YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED AND THE TIMER RINGS. SPEAKERS, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM IN THE NUMBER ORDER AND STATE YOUR NAME AND TOPIC. MISS SMITH, IF YOU CAN CALL OUR FIRST SPEAKER, CASSIDY OSSIOBI, FOLLOWED BY ALAN TICER. GOOD AFTERNOON. SO I'M HERE TO DISCUSS THE CASE FOR MR. DONALD TAYLOR. I WANTED TO START OFF TO SAY THAT HISD HAS NOW CLEARED. MR. TAYLOR HAS NOW MADE CLEAR THAT MR. TAYLOR'S TERMINATION IS NOT BASED ON ANY WRONGDOING INVOLVING THE STUDENT INCIDENT THAT ORIGINALLY CAUSED HIM TO BE REMOVED FROM DUTY. THE DISTRICT INVESTIGATED THAT INCIDENT, AND AT THE LAST HEARING, HISD STATED THAT THE BASIS FOR TERMINATION WAS SOLELY MR. TAYLOR'S ALLEGED FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN AN INVESTIGATION. THINK ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS. HISD ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT MR. TAYLOR DID NOTHING WRONG IN THE UNDERLYING INCIDENT, YET HE SHOULD STILL LOSE HIS JOB BECAUSE OF WHAT WAS AT MOST A BREAKDOWN IN COMMUNICATION. THAT RAISES A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION. WHY WOULD AN EMPLOYEE WHO KNEW HE HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG, INTENTIONALLY REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN AN INVESTIGATION THAT COULD CLEAR HIS NAME? MR. TAYLOR DID ATTEMPT TO PARTICIPATE. HE ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT MR. [00:50:03] BANDA, HIS SUPERVISOR, AND THAT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REFUSING TO COOPERATE AND FAILURE IN COMMUNICATION. MR. TAYLOR SHOULD NOT LOSE HIS LIVELIHOOD OVER MISCOMMUNICATION, ESPECIALLY WHEN HISD IS NO LONGER ALLEGING THAT HE COMMITTED ANY WRONGDOING IN THE VERY INCIDENT THAT TRIGGERED THE INVESTIGATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MR. PRESIDENT. THANK. GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE HISD SCHOOL BOARD. MY NAME IS ALAN TICER AND I'M HERE THIS EVENING REPRESENTING TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEES OF HISD. I'VE BEEN DRIVING A SCHOOL BUS FROM HISD OUT OF THE BUTLER TERMINAL FOR THE PAST 24 YEARS. PREVIOUSLY, WE CHOSE OUR BUS ROUTE EACH YEAR FROM A SENIORITY LIST BASED ON OUR YEARS OF SERVICE. THIS YEAR, HOWEVER, THE DISTRICT HAS GONE TO WHAT THEY CALL A METRIC SYSTEM, WHICH PUTS SENIORITY AS THE LAST CONSIDERATION. WE ARE GIVEN 30 HOURS OF SCHOOL YEAR PAID TIME OFF. THIS IS PRIMARILY TIME TO USE FOR ILLNESS OR PERSONAL BUSINESS DURING SCHOOL TIME. THE CURRENT METRIC SYSTEM COUNTS 40% FOR ATTENDANCE, 30% FOR PREVENTABLE ACCIDENTS OR DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS, 10% FOR MID-YEAR EVALUATION, AND 10% EDUCATION. AND LASTLY, 10% BASED ON SENIORITY. THE METRIC SYSTEM PENALIZES AN EMPLOYEE WHO USES THEIR PAID TIME OFF, WHICH IS PROVIDED TO COMPENSATE THEM WHEN ILL OR WHEN THEY NEED TO BE OFF FOR PERSONAL REASONS. BECAUSE THE DISTRICT COUNTS 40% FOR ATTENDANCE, THEY ARE INDIRECTLY ENCOURAGING THEIR DRIVERS IN ATTENDANCE TO COME TO WORK WHEN ILL. IF SAFETY IS THE DISTRICT'S PRIMARY CONCERN, THEN IN MY OPINION, ATTENDANCE SHOULD NOT REPRESENT 40%. THIS LEAVES EMPLOYEES WITH THE UNFAVORABLE OPTION TO COME TO WORK ILL, WHICH IS CONTRADICTORY TO THAT CONCERN. AS A DEVOTED 24 YEAR HISD EMPLOYEE, I'M ASKING THE SCHOOL BOARD TO GIVE MY DEVOTED COWORKERS AND ME OUR SENIORITY BACK AS IT HAS BEEN IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS. THANK YOU FOR TAKING TIME TO HEAR OUR CONCERNS. THANK YOU. WE'RE NOW GOING TO PROCEED WITH OUR NEXT HEARING. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE DISPUTE FILED BY DONALD TAYLOR, BUS ATTENDANT 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 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, CECILIA EDWARDS WITH PEOPLE'S CHOICE ASSOCIATION UNION REPRESENTING DONALD TAYLOR. DONALD TAYLOR IS PRESENT. DONALD TAYLOR IS ALSO PRESENT. DANIEL RAMIREZ WITH MONTY AND RAMIREZ LLP REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION, IS PRESENT CATOSHA WOODS HISD. GENERAL COUNCIL IS ALSO PRESENT. MISS EDWARDS, DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE IN OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION? OPEN. THANK YOU. THE ISSUES BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD ARE WHETHER BOARD POLICIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES WERE CORRECTLY APPLIED TO THE GRIEVANT, AND WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATION HAS VIOLATED THOSE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. MR. TAYLOR, YOU WILL PROCEED FIRST. YOUR REPRESENTATIVE WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD, FOLLOWED BY A TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION BY MR. RAMIREZ. MISS EDWARDS, YOU MAY RESERVE PART OF YOUR TEN MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL TO MATTERS PRESENTED BY MR. RAMIREZ. BOTH SIDES SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD AFTER THEIR RESPECTIVE PRESENTATIONS. MISS EDWARDS, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO DIVIDE YOUR TIME IN MAKING YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD? TEN. TOTAL OF TEN. FOUR AND SIX. MS. EDWARDS YOU MAY BEGIN. YOU MAY BEGIN. I'M SORRY. OKAY. [00:55:09] OKAY. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THIS STATEMENT REGARDING THE TERMINATION OF MR. DONALD TAYLOR. AFTER REVIEWING THE DECISION AND THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED, WE RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION THAT MR. TAYLOR FAILED TO COOPERATE WITH THE INVESTIGATION AND THAT HIS TERMINATION WAS JUSTIFIED. FIRST AND FOREMOST, MR. TAYLOR DID NOT REFUSE TO COOPERATE WITH HISD. HE WAS WILLING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE INVESTIGATION. HE REQUESTED UNION REPRESENTATION BEFORE PARTICIPATING IN AN INVESTIGATIVE MEETING, BECAUSE HE BELIEVED HE HAD THE RIGHT TO HAVE REPRESENTATIVE PRESENT A REPRESENTATIVE PRESENT. MR. TAYLOR ALSO ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT MR. RAUL BANDA, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION, WHO WAS HANDLING THE INVESTIGATION. MR. TAYLOR MADE A CALL BUT MR. BANDA DID NOT RETURN HIS CALL. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT ACCURATE TO CHARACTERIZE MR. TAYLOR AS SIMPLY REFUSING TO COOPERATE WITH AN INVESTIGATION. THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT MR. TAYLOR ATTEMPTED TO COMMUNICATE AND WAS WILLING TO ADDRESS THE MATTER, WHILE ALSO REQUESTING REPRESENTATION. MR. TAYLOR DID NOT RECEIVE A TEXT, HE DID NOT RECEIVE A MISSED CALL AND HE TRIED CONTINUALLY TO CONTACT MR. BANDA. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IN THE LEVEL TWO HEARING, IT STATED THAT MR. BANDA ATTEMPTED TO TEXT MR. TAYLOR AND IN THE LEVEL TWO HEARING PRESENTED, WE PRESENTED DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THAT HE NEVER RECEIVED ANY TEXT MESSAGE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE SUMMER FROM MR. BANDA. WE ALSO DISPUTE THE WAY THE UNDERLYING INCIDENT INVOLVING THE STUDENT HAS BEEN CHARACTERIZED. MR. TAYLOR'S POSITION IS THAT THE ONLY THING HE SAID TO THE CHILD CONCERNING THE ISSUE WAS IF YOU WANT TO RIDE THE BUS, YOU MUST KEEP YOUR CLOTHES ON, STOP TAKING YOUR CLOTHES OFF OR YOU WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO RIDE THIS BUS. THAT STATEMENT WAS MADE IN THE CONTEXT OF AN INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR ON A SCHOOL BUS. MR. TAYLOR WAS ADDRESSING THE CHILD'S BEHAVIOR AND EXPLAINING THAT THE CHILD NEEDED TO REMAIN PROPERLY CLOTHED IN ORDER TO RIDE THE BUS. MR. TAYLOR DID NOT MAKE A SEXUAL STATEMENT TO THE CHILD, NOR DID HE INTEND ANYTHING INAPPROPRIATE. THE FACT THAT THE CHILD'S PARENTS BECAME UPSET ABOUT THE STATEMENT DOES NOT BY ITSELF ESTABLISH THAT MR. TAYLOR'S THAT MR. TAYLOR ENGAGED IN ANY MISCONDUCT. THE COMPLETE CIRCUMSTANCES NEED TO BE CONSIDERED. WE HAVE ALSO SUBMITTED DOCUMENTATION THAT CALLS INTO QUESTION THE FACTUAL BASIS OF THE ALLEGATION, INCLUDING DOCUMENTATION CONCERNING WHETHER THE STUDENT WAS ACTUALLY ON MR. TAYLOR'S BUS, WHICH WAS ROUTE 1628 DURING THE RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES. THAT EVIDENCE CANNOT SIMPLY BE DISREGARDED. IF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE EMPLOYEE CONTRADICTS THE ADMINISTRATION'S CHARACTERIZATION OF THE INCIDENT THE EVIDENCE MUST BE CAREFULLY EXAMINED BEFORE A PERSON'S EMPLOYMENT AND REPUTATION ARE TAKEN AWAY. THERE IS ALSO SERIOUS CONCERN REGARDING SOME OF THE PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY ADMINISTRATION. WE DISPUTE THE AUTHENTICITY, SORRY AND ACCURACY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT APPEAR TO CONTAIN WORDS, STATEMENTS OR ANNOTATIONS THAT WERE ADDED TO THE IMAGES. THOSE WORDS, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT APPEARS IN THE ORIGINAL SURVEILLANCE RECORDING A SELECTED OR ALTERED PHOTOGRAPH SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE ORIGINAL VIDEO. WE THEREFORE REQUEST THE HISD PRODUCE AND REVIEW THE COMPLETE ORIGINAL, UNEDITED SURVEILLANCE VIDEO, INCLUDING THE PORTION BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER THE ALLEGED INCIDENT. IF THE DISTRICT MAINTAINS THAT ITS PHOTOGRAPHS ACCURATELY REPRESENT WHAT OCCURRED, THEN THE DISTRICT SHOULD BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE ORIGINAL SOURCE OF EACH PHOTOGRAPH, EXPLAIN WHO CURATED OR ANNOTATED IT, AND SHOW WHERE THE CORRESPONDING STATEMENT OR CONDUCT APPEARS IN THE ORIGINAL RECORDING. THE ORIGINAL VIDEO SHOULD SPEAK FOR ITSELF. ANOTHER IMPORTANT ISSUE IS THE DISTRICT'S CONCLUSION THAT MR. TAYLOR FAILED TO COOPERATE. THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN EMPLOYEE REFUSING TO COOPERATE AND AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS WILLING TO PARTICIPATE, BUT ONLY REQUESTS REPRESENTATION AND ATTEMPTS TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE INVESTIGATOR. MR. TAYLOR DID NOT SAY THAT HE WOULD NEVER PARTICIPATE. HE WANTED HIS REPRESENTATIVE PRESENT AND HE ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT MR. BANDA. THE DISTRICT ALSO NEEDS TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN AN ALLEGATION, AN INVESTIGATION, AND ACTUAL PROOF OF MISCONDUCT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MR. RAMIREZ YOU MAY MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD. PLEASE REMEMBER, YOU HAVE TEN MINUTES. THANK YOU. I HAVE A PRESENTATION FOR THE BOARD. GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF HISD TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT MR. TAYLOR WAS PROPERLY TERMINATED BASED ON AN INVESTIGATION THAT WAS ATTEMPTED BY THE DISTRICT, BUT MR. TAYLOR SIMPLY DID NOT COOPERATE OR INTERACT WITH THE DISTRICT. WHEN THE PRESENTATION GOES UP, I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU SNAPSHOTS OF THE BUS INTERACTION, AND THEY'RE TELLING US THAT IT'S NOT RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE TERMINATION, BUT THEY TALK ABOUT IT AND IT IS RELEVANT TO SOME EXTENT. [01:00:03] BUT HERE, THE INTERACTION BETWEEN THE STUDENT AND MR. TAYLOR WAS THE TRIGGERING EVENT. THEY ARE RIGHT. THAT'S NOT THE BASIS FOR THE UNDERLYING TERMINATION. BUT WHEN HISD ATTEMPTED TO INVESTIGATE THAT COMPLAINT AND THAT STUDENT INTERACTION, MR. TAYLOR SIMPLY JUST DID NOT RESPOND AND COOPERATE, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE SHOULD HAVE IN THAT SITUATION. SO THAT IS THE CRUX AND BASIS OF THE TERMINATION. HERE'S A PHOTO. AND THAT'S MR. TAYLOR IN THE BACK. THERE'S SOME DISCUSSION WITH SOME KIDS. HE'S LEANING OVER TALKING TO SOME KIDS. HE LET SOME KIDS PASS. AND YOU'LL NOTICE IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, THERE'S THREE BOYS IN THE BACK. HE LETS TWO BOYS PASS. THEN HE'S HOVERING OVER ONE KID OVER HIS SEAT. AND HE'S HOVERING OVER THE KID WHERE THE KID IS LEANING BACK AND EVENTUALLY HE LETS THE KID GO. THIS IS WHAT TRIGGERED THE SITUATION. WE KNOW THAT THEY DISAGREE, ALLEGEDLY THAT THERE'S ANOTHER VIDEO OR THIS IS NOT THE KID. IT'S SOMEWHAT OF A RED HERRING. THIS TRIGGERED THE INVESTIGATION THAT LED TO HIS TERMINATION. THERE'S ALSO ALLEGATIONS THAT WE MIGHT HEAR IN RESPONSE THAT MR. TAYLOR WAS UNAWARE OF THIS INVESTIGATION. AND THAT'S SIMPLY INACCURATE. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE DAY AFTER THE INCIDENT, MR. TAYLOR'S SUPERVISOR SPOKE WITH HIM. THE DAY AFTER THE INCIDENT HE WAS PUT ON CLEAR NOTICE ABOUT THIS INCIDENT AND HE SUBMITTED A STATEMENT TO IT. THEREAFTER, THE DISTRICT APPOINTED MR. BANDA, WHO'S SITTING HERE TODAY, TO INVESTIGATE THE MATTER, AND HE DID TRY TO INVESTIGATE. AND LET'S LOOK AT WHAT HE DID. HE ALSO LOOKED AT THE VIDEO. HE DETERMINED THAT THERE COULD BE SOME MISCONDUCT. BUT THAT'S WHY HE WANTED TO GIVE MR. TAYLOR A CHANCE TO RESPOND. HE WANTED TO INTERVIEW MR. TAYLOR TO IDENTIFY WHAT, IF ANY, CONDUCT OCCURRED AND GIVE MR. TAYLOR A CHANCE. THAT WAS HIS OPPORTUNITY THAT HE FAILED TO COOPERATE WITH. THERE'S TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD WHERE MR. BANDA, AT THE LEVEL TWO STATED HE OBSERVED THE VIDEO. IT PROMPTED HIM TO CALL MR. TAYLOR AND QUESTION HIM ABOUT THE INCIDENT. WHETHER THERE'S ANY ALLEGATION, WHETHER THE SCHOOL CONTACTED HIM OR NOT. THE EVIDENCE IS JUST OUTRIGHT CLEAR. MR. TAYLOR PROVIDED HIS OWN CELL RECORDS FOR CALL RECORDS, AND ON JULY 16TH IS THE DAY THAT MR. BANDA CALLED MR. TAYLOR SHOWN ON HIS CELL RECORD. AND HE TALKED TO HIM THAT DAY, AND HE APPRIZED HIM ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION AND THE NEED TO INTERVIEW HIM. MR. TAYLOR SAID, EXCUSE ME. MR. TAYLOR HIMSELF, IN THE LEVEL TWO HEARING, SAID YES. MR. BANDA CALLED ME ON JULY 16TH AND WHEN HE CALLED ME, HE SAID, I NEED YOU TO COME IN TO GIVE A STATEMENT ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED. CLEAR NOTICE ONCE AGAIN, NOT SIMPLY THE DAY AFTER, BUT DURING THE INVESTIGATION BEING TOLD TO COME IN. MR. BANDA'S TESTIMONY CORROBORATES THAT. HE SAYS, I TOLD HIM THAT FOR HIM TO CALL ME BACK AND SO WE COULD SET UP AN APPOINTMENT FOR HIM TO COME IN, IN PERSON, SO WE CAN GO AHEAD AND PROCEED WITH THE INVESTIGATION. SO I MAKE THESE POINTS BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT MR. TAYLOR HAD NOTICE OF SOME ISSUE THAT OCCURRED ON THE BUS. THAT TRIGGERED AN INVESTIGATION WHERE HIS SUPERVISOR TALKED TO HIM THE NEXT DAY. AND MR. BANDA WAS ASSIGNED AN INVESTIGATOR AND SPOKE TO HIM BY PHONE, ASKING MR. TAYLOR TO COME IN, IN PERSON TO CONDUCT AN INTERVIEW TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED. AFTER THAT CALL, MR. BANDA DID TEXT HIM. THEY STATED THAT THERE WAS NO RECORD OR THEY SUBMITTED RECORD TO SHOW NO TEXTING. WE DISAGREE. WHAT THEY PROVIDED IN THE LEVEL TWO WAS A CALL LOG OF CALLS, AND I SHOWED YOU A RECORD WHEN MR. BANDA CALLED HIM. WHAT THEY DIDN'T PROVIDE IS A LOG SHOWING TEXTS, WHICH IS DIFFERENT REGARDLESS IF THEY AGREE TO DISAGREE. THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE. BUT REGARDLESS, AFTER THAT CALL ON JULY 16TH, ON JULY 18TH, 2025, MR. BANDA SENT THIS LETTER CERTIFIED MAIL AND BY EMAIL TO MR. TAYLOR'S ADDRESS. WHAT WE'VE NOT HEARD YET, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO HEAR IN REBUTTAL IS THAT, OH, THE DISTRICT SENT IT TO THE WRONG ADDRESS. THAT'S MY OLD ADDRESS I HAD MOVED. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO HEAR IN REBUTTAL. BUT THAT'S BESIDES THE POINT. AND THAT'S MR. TAYLOR'S RESPONSIBILITY. PURSUANT TO THE DISTRICT'S POLICY, WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE OVER 20,000 EMPLOYEES. WE CAN'T CHASE EVERY EMPLOYEE TO ASK THEM TO UPDATE THEIR ADDRESSES. THIS IS THE EMPLOYEE'S OBLIGATION PURSUANT TO THE POLICY AS SHOWN HERE. IF AN EMPLOYEE HAS A DIFFERENT ADDRESS, IT IS THEIR SOLE OBLIGATION TO UPDATE THE DISTRICT, NOT VICE VERSA. SO IF YOU HEAR ANY ARGUMENT THAT WE SENT IT TO THE WRONG ADDRESS, IT'S SIMPLY BECAUSE OF MR. TAYLOR'S FAILURE TO UPDATE HIS RECORDS. SO LET'S LOOK AT A SNAPSHOT IN RELATION TO THE INVESTIGATION. MR. TAYLOR FAILED TO REPLY TO MR. BANDA AND LET ME GO BACK TO THE LETTER. ONE THING I DID NOT FOCUS ON. IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAST SENTENCE, IT'S HIGHLIGHTED. [01:05:03] IT SAYS PLEASE CONTACT MY OFFICE AT THIS NUMBER BY A DEADLINE AUGUST 4TH, 2025 TO SCHEDULE A MEETING SO WE CAN PROCEED TO CLOSE THE CASE. THAT DATE PASSED AND HE NEVER CONTACTED HIM. THAT WAS THE DEADLINE THAT WAS GIVEN TO MR. TAYLOR AND HE NEVER RESPONDED. BECAUSE OF HIS FAILURE, MR. BANDA DECIDED TO ISSUE A CONFERENCE SUMMARY IN RELATION TO WHAT TRANSPIRED AND NOTIFIED HIM THAT YOU DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE INVESTIGATION. YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR AN ARGUMENT THAT WE NEVER GOT THE LETTER. WE HAD A WRONG ADDRESS. WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THAT. BUT WHAT I FIND VERY CURIOUS IS MR. TAYLOR RECEIVED A LETTER ON SEPTEMBER 19TH AND THE TERMINATION NOTICE ON SEPTEMBER 20TH. BUT FOR SOME REASON HE'S SAYING HE NEVER RECEIVED THE LETTER ASKING HIM TO SHOW UP IN PERSON. WE HEARD SOME ARGUMENT IN RELATION TO OBLIGATIONS THAT THIS WAS NOT INTENTIONAL, THAT HE WANTED TO COOPERATE OR WHATEVER THAT ARGUMENT IS. THE POLICY OF THE DISTRICT DOESN'T REQUIRE FOR MR. TAYLOR TO INTENTIONALLY AVOID AN INVESTIGATION. IF YOU READ THE POLICY, IT SAYS ANY EMPLOYEE WHO FAILS TO COOPERATE WITH SUCH AN INVESTIGATION OR TO PROVIDE COMPLETE INFORMATION MAY BE SUBJECT TO TERMINATION. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED HERE. THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATION. HE FAILED TO COOPERATE, AND HE DID NOT PROVIDE THE INFORMATION THAT WE'RE SEEKING. IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT. AND THERE IS AN OBLIGATION WHEN THE DISTRICT CONDUCTS AN INVESTIGATION FOR AN EMPLOYEE TO COOPERATE, IN ORDER FOR THE DISTRICT TO GIVE MR. TAYLOR A FAIR CHANCE AND FIND OUT WHAT, IF ANYTHING, HAPPENED. AND HE DID NOT COOPERATE. SO HE FORCED THE DISTRICT'S HAND TO LEAD THAT DETERMINATION. AND IN RELATION TO MR. TAYLOR'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE POLICY, HE TESTIFIED THAT HE KNEW ABOUT THIS POLICY. HE SIGNED THE HANDBOOK. SO THERE'S CLEAR KNOWLEDGE THAT HE HAD TO COMPLY WITH IT. SO IN CONCLUSION, 24 HOURS AFTER THIS INCIDENT, MR. TAYLOR KNEW ABOUT THE BUS INCIDENT WITH THE STUDENT AND WE COULD ARGUE ALL DAY ABOUT WHAT TRANSPIRED OR NOT. HE SUBMITTED A STATEMENT, A SUPERVISOR TOLD HIM THAT TRIGGERED MR. BANDA TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION. HE TALKED TO HIM BY PHONE. HE TEXTED HIM. HE SENT HIM A CERTIFIED LETTER ASKING HIM TO SHOW UP FOR AN INTERVIEW. AND MR. TAYLOR, FOR WHATEVER REASON, JUST DIDN'T DO IT. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE DISTRICT HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS AND REQUIRE EMPLOYEES TO COOPERATE AND COMPLY WITH THAT POLICY. AND THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN HERE. AND THAT LED TO THE TERMINATION. I'LL MENTION THIS BRIEFLY. I DON'T WANT TO FOCUS ON IT WHOLLY, BUT THE WHOLE ADDRESS SITUATION WAS MR. TAYLOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO UPDATE HIS ADDRESS. WE COMPLIED WITH OUR REQUIREMENTS, AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, HE DID RECEIVE TWO OUT OF THE THREE LETTERS. EVEN IF IT WENT TO THE WRONG ADDRESS. SO HISD IS REQUESTING THIS BOARD TO DENY ALL REQUESTED RELIEF OF MR. TAYLOR AND UPHOLD THE LEVEL TWO DECISION. THANK YOU. MISS EDWARDS, DO YOU WISH TO MAKE A REBUTTAL STATEMENT? YES. YOU HAVE, I BELIEVE, SIX MINUTES. THE FACT THAT A COMPLAINT WAS MADE DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY ESTABLISH THE COMPLAINT WAS TRUE. AN INVESTIGATION BEING OPEN DOES NOT ESTABLISH MISCONDUCT, AND AN EMPLOYEE REQUESTS FOR REPRESENTATION SHOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY BE TREATED AS REFUSAL TO COOPERATE. THE EVIDENCE MUST ESTABLISH WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. WE ALSO ASKED THAT THE DISTRICT POSITION CONCERNING MR. TAYLOR'S UNEMPLOYMENT CLAIM BE CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH THE OVERALL RECORD. IF THE DISTRICT REPRESENTED THAT MR. TAYLOR COMMITTED MISCONDUCT, THAT THOSE REPRESENTATIONS SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THIS GRIEVANCE. WE'RE NOT ASKING THAT MR. TAYLOR BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY SIMPLY BECAUSE HE IS A VETERAN OR BECAUSE HE HAS GOOD, GOOD REPUTATION, A GREAT REPUTATION. WE'RE ASKING THAT THE DISTRICT CONSIDER THE WHOLE PERSON THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE TERMINATION OF HIS EMPLOYMENT BASES ON UPON DISPUTE ALLEGATIONS. MR. TAYLOR IS A MILITARY VETERAN WHO RETIRED WITH HONORS. HE IS A RESPECTED MEMBER OF HIS COMMUNITY AND OUTSTANDING GENTLEMAN WHO HAS SPENT HIS LIFE SERVING OTHERS. HIS HONORABLE SERVICE DOES NOT PLACE HIM ABOVE THE RULES, BUT HIS RECORD OF CHARACTER AND HISTORY ARE RELEVANT WHEN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE EXTREME PENALTY OF A TERMINATION IS APPROPRIATE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE FACTUAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE TERMINATION REMAINS DISTRIBUTED. DISPUTED IT IS DEEPLY CONCERNING THAT AN ALLEGATION OF THIS NATURE COULD CAUSE A RESULT OF DESTRUCTION OF A PERSON, EMPLOYMENT, REPUTATION, LIVELIHOOD. WHEN THERE IS QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE UNDERLYING FACTS, THAT COMPLETENESS OF THE INVESTIGATION, THE PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE AND THE REQUEST FOR THE UNION REPRESENTATION AND EMPLOYS ATTEMPTS TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE INVESTIGATOR. WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THE DISTRICT NOT TO ALLOW AN ALLEGATION TO BECOME A FINDING OF SIMPLE BECAUSE IT WAS REPEATED DURING AN INVESTIGATION. [01:10:07] WE ASK THAT THE ORIGINAL EVIDENCE BE REVIEWED. THE COMPLETE VIDEO BE EXAMINED. THE DISPUTED PHOTOGRAPHS ARE AUTHENTICATED AND DOCUMENTATION CONCERNING THE STUDENT'S PRESENCE ON ROUTE 1628. BE CONSIDERATE. AND MR. TAYLOR ATTEMPTS TO COOPERATE AND OBTAIN REPRESENTATION. BE FULLY EVALUATED. MOST IMPORTANTLY, WE ASK THAT THE DISTRICT LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE FAIRLY AND OBJECTIVELY. MR. TAYLOR DESERVES AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE FACTS HEARD, NOT MERELY THE ALLEGATION AGAINST HIM. FOR THOSE REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT HISD REVERSE THE TERMINATION. REINSTATE MR. DONALD TAYLOR TO HIS POSITION AS A BUS ATTENDANT AND EQUIVALENT POSITION, RESTORE HIS BACK PAY BENEFITS AND CORRECT OR REMOVE DISCIPLINARY RECORDS THAT ARE BASED UPON INACCURATE AND UNSUPPORTED FINDINGS. BASICALLY, WE FURTHER REQUEST TO COMPLETE REVIEW OF ALL CONDUCT INVESTIGATION, INCLUDING THE HANDLING OF MR. TAYLOR'S REQUEST FOR UNION REPRESENTATION, HIS ATTEMPT TO CONTACT MR. BANDA, AND CONCERNS REGARDING AUTHENTICITY AND COMPLETENESS OF THE EVIDENCE RELIEVED UPON THE ADMINISTRATION. THIS IS NOT SIMPLY ABOUT EMPLOYEE LOSING THE JOB. IT'S ABOUT WHETHER IN PERSON, CAREER, REPUTATION AND LIVELIHOOD SHOULD BE TAKEN AWAY WITHOUT RELIABLE EVIDENCE AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND HIMSELF. MR. TAYLOR WAS SERVED HIS COUNTRY HONORABLY. HE HAS SERVED HIS COMMUNITY. HE HAS BEEN OUTSTANDING GENTLEMAN, AND HE DESERVES NOTHING LESS THAN A FAIR AND COMPLETE REVIEW OF THE FACTS BEFORE SUCH A SERIOUS DECISION IS ALLOWED TO STAND. WELL, HE DID TRY TO CONTACT MR. BANDA IS NOT FORTHCOMING. HE'S NOT TRUTHFUL. WE GAVE THEM THE PHONE RECORDS TO PROVE THAT HE NEVER CALLED HIM BACK. HE REFUSED TO RETURN THE CALL. HE ACTUALLY SENT THAT DOCUMENT TO THE WRONG ADDRESS ON PURPOSE. LIKE HE SAID HE HAD THE CORRECT ADDRESS. IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK IN THEIR EVIDENCE, THEY NEVER SUBMITTED HIS STATEMENT BECAUSE THAT'S UNTRUE. YOU KNOW, THEY DIDN'T DO THEIR JOB DILIGENTLY TO INVESTIGATE. THEY SOLELY SAID IN THE UNEMPLOYMENT HEARING THAT HE, THE ONLY REASON THEY TERMINATED BECAUSE HE DIDN'T PARTICIPATE IN A HEARING. WHICH IS UNTRUE. THE CHILD. NOTHING HAPPENED TO THE CHILD. THE CHILD WAS TOLD TO KEEP HIS CLOTHES ON. THAT'S MERELY WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY. EVEN IN THE HEARING, THEY SAID THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHY HE WAS SENT HOME. BUT THEY SAID HE DIDN'T. HE REFUSED THE INVESTIGATION. MR. BANDA WAS. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW, THAT HE WAS DEMOTED. AND IT WAS SOME I'M SURE SOME PART OF WHAT'S GOING ON NOW. SO THEY. SO ADMINISTRATION DID TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION. WE'RE ASKING YOU TO RECONSIDER MR. TAYLOR'S POSITION AND GIVE HIM AN OPPORTUNITY. AND EVEN IF YOU SAY WE'RE GOING TO WAIT AND WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AND LISTEN, YOU COULD DO THAT WITHOUT EVEN MAKING A DECISION TODAY UNTIL YOU REALLY ASK THEM FOR THE VIDEO TO PROVE. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THEY WROTE THEIR OWN WORDS ON IT. IT'S NOT EVEN WHAT WAS SAID IN THE SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS. HE JUST WROTE, THEY JUST WROTE A STATEMENT ON IT, BUT THEY HAVE ACTUAL VIDEO. YOU CAN GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE VIDEO, THE MR. BANDA, IF YOU ASK HIM, HE INTERVIEWED THE DRIVER. THE DRIVER SAID HE'S SEEN NOTHING. HE SAW NOTHING THAT WAS INAPPROPRIATE. OKAY. THAT'S WHY HE DIDN'T ASK THE DRIVER TO WRITE A STATEMENT BECAUSE HE KNEW. I SAT IN THAT MEETING WITH THE DRIVER, AND SO HE DIDN'T EVEN USE THE DRIVER'S STATEMENT BECAUSE HE'S ON THIS WITCH HUNT ABOUT RECOMMENDING TERMINATION FOR MR. TAYLOR. HE'S UNLAWFULLY AND WRONGFULLY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. YES WE HAVE. I BELIEVE YOUR TIME IS UP. DO WE HAVE, LIKE, 30S? SOMETHING LIKE THAT. OKAY. GO AHEAD. TWO MINUTES. THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A FEW POINTS. I KNOW THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE DISTRICT MADE A FEW ARGUMENTS. ONE SAYING THAT HE WASN'T COOPERATIVE WITH THE INVESTIGATION, BUT HE ALSO SHOWED A DISPLAY OR A SLIDESHOW OF PHOTOS THAT DON'T REALLY TELL THE STORY OF WHAT TRANSPIRED THAT DAY. TO SHOW PHOTOS AND JUST CREATE A SCENARIO WITH NO EVIDENCE IS IMPROPER. AND IT'S NOT JUST IT'S NOT JUSTIFIED, AND IT DOESN'T ALLOW JUSTICE FOR MR. DONALD TAYLOR. MR.. SECOND OF ALL, MR. TAYLOR NEVER STATED HE WAS NOT AWARE. THAT'S COMPLETELY FALSE. HE WAS AWARE OF HIS INVESTIGATION. HE WAS IN CONTACT WITH MR. BANDA. HE NEVER SAID THAT HE WOULDN'T BE A PART OF IT. AND THAT'S JUST PLAIN AND SIMPLE. TO ARGUE MISCOMMUNICATION. WHETHER SOMEONE GOT A CALL. HE'S HERE TODAY. MONTHS THREE, 4 OR 5. HOWEVER MANY MONTHS IT'S BEEN LATER. CLEARLY HE WANTS HIS JOB AND WILLING TO PARTICIPATE. THIS PERSON THAT YOU EXPLAINED, THAT YOU DESCRIBE, WHO WOULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN INVESTIGATION, WOULD NOT BE SITTING BEFORE THE BOARD ASKING FOR HIS JOB BACK. THAT'S TRUE. MY THIRD POINT IS THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DISTRICT STATED THAT WE DID NOT SUBMIT A TEXT MESSAGE. [01:15:01] LOGS THAT SHOW THE TEXT MESSAGES IN EXHIBIT F OF THE EXHIBIT E AND F. WE SUBMITTED PHONE CALL RECORDS AND WE ALSO SUBMITTED TEXT MESSAGE RECORDS FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE. JULY. ALMOST. YEAH, THE MONTH OF JUNE AND JULY AND A LITTLE BIT OF MAY. BUT YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE WAS NEVER AN INCOMING TEXT MESSAGE FROM ANY NUMBER ASSOCIATED WITH MR. BANDA OR WITH HISD. THERE WERE MANY FABRICATIONS IN THIS ENTIRE REPRESENTATION. TO STATE THAT HE WAS NOT COOPERATIVE TO ALSO STATE THAT MR. BANDA CALLED HIM AND TEXTED HIM WITH NO PROOF. AND WE'VE GIVEN PROOF THAT HE HASN'T. IT SAYS A LOT. AND HE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN TERMINATED. AND THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES? NO. THE PARTIES HAVE COMPLETED THEIR PRESENTATIONS, AND IT IS NOW TIME FOR BOARD MEMBERS TO MAKE OUR DECISIONS ON THE ISSUES BEFORE US. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IS THERE ANY TO GO INTO? NO. CAN WE PROCEED? OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. SO 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. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER DUFFY AND A SECOND BY BOARD MEMBER GOOSEN. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE VOTE. VOTING HAS NOW CLOSED. THE MOTION PASSES. THE BOARD HAS VOTED THREE, 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 7:19 P.M.. WITH NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO DISCUSS, THIS MEETING OF THE BOARD IS ADJOURNED. THE TIME IS 7:20 P.M. ON AUGUST 27, 2026. THANK YOU, EVERYBODY FOR COMING. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.