Hey, are Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Hey, heat. Hey, heat. I'm so freaking sweet. Oh, okay. The world
Again, hey. I want you. I don't know. Are you a I am with you. are
hey yeah Hey, hey, hey, hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Good evening. I'm calling this meeting
to order. The time is 5:33 p.m. In accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 55, Chapter 551, this meeting is officially open with a quorum present. I do want to acknowledge that Trustee Jackson is joining us virtually. Can you hear me?
Great. Great. Um, and at this time we will hear public comment addressing items on the agenda. Let me remind you that because of restrictions by the Texas Open Meetings Act, board members may not engage in a
verbal exchange about a subject that has not been posted. We will listen and take notes, but the board is prohibited from responding to any inquiries made during a board meeting on any topic not posted on the agenda. However, the board may reply with one, a statement of specific factual information given in response to
the inquiry. two, recitation of existing policy in response to the inquiry, or three, direct the person to visit with staff about the issue. No presentation may exceed three minutes unless the speaker has prior approval for additional time because of the use of a translator. Speakers who require the
assistance of a translator are permitted double the allotted time of speakers who do not require the assistance of a translator. Speakers, when your name is called, approach the podium by going to the back of the room down the stairs and coming up the sidewall on your right. As soon as the speaker begins speaking, the
time clock will begin. We have two speakers tonight. Will be Kelly Decker followed by Kelly Moreno. Hi, Kelly. Go ahead. Thank you. Thank you for having me. Uh, Kelly Decker. I'm a parent to three kids in the Heights Pyramid. I have two boys at Monig and a
girl at Ridgely Hills. I came to talk about Monig and I'll start with repeating that this school's never been an F-rated school to me or my family or to my friends that are here. When I spoke last, Fort Worth ISD was making a great investment in Mig and I'm very
happy to report that the investment continues. Dr. Lovado, under your leadership, Dr. Molinar, um has been like water in a desert. I think if you check the MAP scores from today, you're going to see a direct improvement over just a handful of
months. So, thank you again. Um, I was at the meeting when the consultant reported on how many schools to close and I recall him saying how hard it is for schools to live in anticipation of closing and it didn't make sense to me until I saw
Monig on the chart on your agenda, their enrollment chart. So, my comments are hypothetical. I'm not asking that the school be closed. I'm not saying that the school shouldn't be closed. But I'm asking for you when you consider your um need to close more schools. That you
keep some data points in mind about our school. Um, if I can make it through the end of the list without being cut off, the point is that I that I want to make is that days of VA and a school can probably coast to a closing date. I
worry about Monik. And I want to ask you to prioritize the least of our children and to put them first. We've had four principles in four years. We love our current
principal. Nice work, Miss Stumm. We are incredibly racially segregated at Monik. That has led to a um unhealthy rivalry between our pyramid. We've had a number
of like other schools that you're going to be looking at, a lot of people choosing not to go there and go to other schools. That has kind of been a cycle that's been hard to get out of. I worry about the lack of cheerfulness and bringing these kids together. Should
we drop off a middle school? If there's a way you can make it cheerful, that would be great. Um, we have true homelessness. Our students are truly homeless. They're
not just poor. The Las Vegas Trail bus routes are not easy. I don't know how the bus routes are going to take Las Vegas Trail children to another middle school. They're already struggling to get them to Monik.
Um we have other other serious poverty issues. We have students that we know of that we've met. Lovely. Okay. >> Thank you. Next up, our final speaker, Kelly Moreno.
evening. I'm here um to ask you to beg you to implore you that as you were looking at the progress plan for the facilities master plan to please reconsider closing days of Alla. Desavala
is a model for everything you guys are attempting to do. In the midst of all the takeover, in the midst of all the upheaval that the that the district is has right now, the problems that it has, Days of Ollet is doing everything right. It is a school full of kids of low
income and minorities and yet they're succeeding despite all of their problems. You have all of the schools that are doing well and they're expected to do well and devala is far all the data shows it is far outstripping its expectations. This should be a model for
success. This is what we need to do. Poverty is not destiny and devala is showing it. Thank you. >> Thank you for sharing your thoughts this evening. Next we will move to presentations and I will turn it over now to Dr. Mulliner. >> Thank you, President Martinez. We have
our deputy superintendent, Kelly Spencer, here who's going to be doing our facility master plan, strategic plan progress update. Um, this evening, you'll get to hear about the projections and then our current state of enrollment and then a review of our facility master plan.
>> Thank you, Dr. Molinar. Uh, good evening, uh, President Martinez and board of trustees. The purpose of tonight's presentation is to provide an update to the district's master facility plan, which is a key component of priority 4 of the district's strategic plan.
Um, as a reminder to stakeholders, in September of 2023, trustees approved a resolution calling for a master facility plan study. The district spent approximately 18 months collecting and evaluating data focused on educational programming, the condition of our
facility, enrollment history and trends and right sizing opportunities. Trustees emphasized the importance of the master facility plan with priority four of the strategic plan followed by the adoption of a comprehensive 5-year
facilities master plan that utilized the data to address operational efficiencies throughout the district. uh last May. This evening, we'd like to provide you with an update regarding the implementation of the plan. Um in 2425
school year, um SS Dillow and Eastern Hills Elementary closed at the end of that school year with students successfully transitioning to their new campuses this school year. The SS Dillow campus is being permanently retired with demolition scheduled to begin next week.
The district has entered into a memorandum of understanding with the city of Fort Worth and the site will be utilized as a community park until such time the property or the school site is needed again in the future for district use. Kirkpatrick Elementary, Nash
Elementary, Riverside, ALC, and Brisco Elementary will close at the end of this school year. Um any action required for the future of the facilities will be brought to the board at a later date. However, in the spirit of transparency, the slides indicate current plans for
the future. Uh, please note that the greatest lesson learned during this process has been that things are constantly changing and we must adapt and be flexible in order to effectively address any of those changes. Um, the facilities master plan is designed to be
actionable uh based on any changes in our data and to best meet the needs of the district. This was evidenced um earlier this year when we added Western Hills Primary to the list of campuses uh that will consolidate with its Western Hills elementary counterpart um
following this school year. Um I would like um to emphasize as well although not necessarily included um in this plan but with the facilities master plan it also is designed to be a roadmap for how we address um the condition of existing
facilities specifically those that students will be transitioning into. Um, in next week's agenda, there is an item specific to Western Hills Elementary where we will be asking trustees uh to pro approve um considerable improvements
for that campus. There are other um other things happening on other campuses that will require future approval or do not require approval that will be happening on other campuses that will be receiving students next year.
Last Thursday evening, uh we hosted a meeting for Brisco students and their families where they were provided information about the campus that they will be attending next year. After a brief whole group presentation, students transitioned to campus specific
locations where they met their new principal for next year and received um a brief presentation about what they can expect uh when they come next year. But we're also invited to an open house that will be held um in March specifically
for these campuses. So Morningside Elementary, Carol Peak Elementary, and Vanzant Gwyn Elementary will host an open house uh for students who will be attending their campuses next year so that students and their families can visit and see uh the campus in person
and meet other staff members and other students as well. Um on the chart here you see um other consolidation meetings that will be happening throughout the month of January and February where we will provide similar information to students and families on the closing
campuses regarding uh where their students will attend next year. They will also have the opportunity to meet the principles from those campuses. But also in the chart at the bottom, you see the dates for the open houses where those receiving campuses will hold an
openhouse event where students and families can again visit the campus and meet additional staff and potential students. On this slide, it highlights subsequent years included in the adopted facilities master plan. We continue to monitor
enrollment trends um across all of these campuses and throughout the district to ensure operational alignment and efficiency and ultimately improved student outcomes. Again, the plan is intended to be actionable and flexible as additional recommendations or
revisions may be necessary as we continue to evaluate the data throughout um the upcoming years. Enrollment projections have been updated based on historical data and enrollment trends. looking at um what enrollment is
this year. This year's official enrollment um based on our snapshot date is 67,641 with a projection uh for 2627 of 65,217
and a 5-year enrollment projection for the 203021 or excuse me 2031 school year of 60,155 students. Um there are some assumptions that of course are made um in these
numbers including um additional charter schools that are coming into our boundaries. Um the potential we now have a list of approved schools that will be accepting vouchers. So there's um minimal um impact to
projections that are included here. So these again will be constantly monitored each year and updated once we have official enrollment numbers to see what actual impact is. I think it's important to point out um in this slide uh we continue to hear
commentary in our community about the anomaly of the city of Fort Worth being one of the fastest growing cities um in the nation. However, we continue to experience enrollment decline and I think it's important to remind our stakeholders that we are one of a dozen
school districts within the city of Fort Worth um as well as students attending charters in private schools. Um, additionally, as noted, we are monitoring birth rates in Tarant County and those have continued to decline uh
which also aligns with declining enrollment trends. In this slide, in an effort to visualize the impact of the plan consolidations, um each bar on this slide indicates current enrollment or 2526
enrollment at a district elementary campus. Um the 14 bars in red represents campuses that will close at some point over the 5-year time period. The 29
green bars represent campuses that will receive additional students as a result of campus consolidations and closures, thereby increasing operational efficiency and moving those campuses, although not visually depicted in this graph. But those that are green will
increase enrollment, moving them closer to to or above an enrollment of 500 students by the 2930 school year. We will continue to monitor all campuses with um campus enrollment with an emphasis on any campus with an
enrollment under 500 students. Uh for purposes of this presentation, we took a deeper dive into comparative data specific to middle school enrollment. This slide looks at average middle school enrollment across Tarant County
middle schools. Um although we have the highest middle school enrollment in Tarant County, we rank 10th out of 11 in average school enrollment with an average of 620 students enrolled across our comprehensive or across our middle
school campuses. Um you see the average across Tarant County is 836. I do think it's important to point out and you see here um now highlighted in orange these are are districts in Tarant
County that are considering or have approved a consolidation plan as well. So this is happening consolidations and closures are happening across Tarant County. On the next slide, you see the same data
um across Texas urban school districts. Uh the available data indicates an average middle school campus enrollment of 724 students across these urban districts with Fort Worth ISD again being below average with 620.
um this slide as well. There are eight of these Texas urban school districts um that have are considering school consolidations or have an approved consolidation plan. Uh
I do want to point out as well um Dallas ISD and San Antonio ISD's numbers um are smaller than ours. they do have a larger number of choice programs uh which have low enrollment which does impact that
average size as well. And then here we took a look at um according to data in forecast 5 um what the average enrollment of similarsized middle school campuses is um across the
state of Texas. And in this comparison the average size of middle school campuses is a 103 students um and again significantly higher than our average of 620. You see again here um the campuses with similar size that have approved a
consolidation plan or are considering campus consolidations. This slide details our current pyramid structure with 13 comprehensive high schools. Presently eight of the pyramids have one comprehensive middle school and consolidations forthcoming in the north
side and polytenic pyramids. The changes that are forthcoming will improve our operational efficiency at the middle school level with the consolidation of Elder Middle School and Kirkpatre Middle School with the North Side community receiving a brand new
middle school campus and the consolidation of Morningside Middle School and William James Middle School with the Polytenic community receiving a brand new middle school campus. Additionally, MLAN sixth grade center is scheduled to consolidate with MLAN Middle School when a portion of the
current campus is newly constructed for a targeted enrollment capacity of 1,200 students. So again, the bars depict uh three closing campuses with three replacement receiving campuses where we
will see enrollment increases as well. We will continue um as stated to monitor enrollment data. We will continue to have middle school campuses um above the um enrollment projections or below the enrollment projections, excuse me. Um so looking here at the Arlington Heights
pyramid, specifically at Mig Middle School, where in official enroll enrollment for the 2526 school year is 440 students. And we see that looking back um historically from the 2728 excuse me 27 excuse me 2017 2018 school
year uh that we have cons continued to see decline in enrollment on that campus. Um looking at Daget Middle School uh this year's official enrollment is 333 students across sixth 7th and eighth
grades. Um you see here the enrollment a little more sporadic over time but this year is the lowest enrollment uh that we've seen over the last several years at that campus. Um I did want to share an update uh with trustees this evening um specific to
bond 2021. We have received a um recent geotechnical report that has identified additional scope of work that is needed at Daget Middle School. We have paused that project pending the additional um collection of information um which
essentially means our architect and our general contractor is reviewing the geotechnical report and collecting additional data in order to help us make um a decision about how to best move forward. um looking at what our options are based on that information, we will
one correct uh via construction or we may need to consider relocating the program to a campus. I included that in tonight's presentation because it could be impactful to our facilities plan as the program may need to relocate to one
of the campuses that is scheduled to close. As I said at the beginning of the presentation, if we've learned anything, things are constantly changing. Um and so this is something that we are evaluating currently to see if there any changes need to be made um as we move
forward in how we are utilizing existing facilities to best meet the needs of our students. So that concludes uh the update for this evening, but I am happy to answer any questions that trustees may have. Dr. Ryan
Miss Spencer, you said Daget Middle School. Did you mean Daget Monosuri? >> Oh, on the last slide. I'm so sorry. Yes. Thank you for that correction, >> Dr. Rodriguez. Yes. So, um I'm apologize for being late and missing the beginning of this
presentation, but my question is this current board, the decisions we make when the new board is placed, are they going to be able to change decisions that were already made by the elected board?
>> I'm going to defer that question to Dr. Molinar. I think um as an administration we will of course make additional recommendations based on the data that we have uh to the board of managers just as we would to the board of trustees um
and make those recommendations in the best interest of students as to decisions that have already been made. Dr. Molinar if you have a comment. It is my understanding if it's necessary to make a different recommendation um it would require a board of vote whether
it's current trustees or a board of managers. If it's something that's already been on an agenda and approved it would have to be brought back to have a new um agenda item to change that vote and approval.
>> Trusty Lance. Thank you, President Martinez. Um, on the Daget Monuri, is the community informed of what's happening? I know we received some emails and you responded to some of the emails or to all of the emails, but is the community at large informed of
what's happening. >> So, we when we paused the project, um, I met with the principal of the campus as well as the executive director. He did provide information in a um email communication that goes out to his um
campus community to let them know that the project had been paused while we were evaluating um the results of that report. >> So by next meeting we'll know the outcome of this report or this um >> yes. So um we anticipate that we will
have that information very soon so that we can make um an informed decision about the recommendation. If the recommendation um lends itself to be for the program to move to another campus, we of course will um meet with campus
and f the campus stakeholders and families to let them know what the recommendation will be um if they're going to be any changes. >> Okay. Thank you. Our next our next meeting is next Tuesday evening. We may not have by that time. >> So that's Yeah. So just for
clarification, it would have to be a February board meeting. We will not have the information back for next Tuesday. >> Thanks, >> Trusty Dar. Thank you, President Martinez. Um I am not an engineer, nor do I claim to be one. What exactly does
a geotechnical study? >> It evaluates the condition of the soil and whether or not the buildings are moving. >> Okay. Thank you. >> President Martis, I just want to reiterate that the any recommendations
about Daget Monasuri is not discontinuing the program. The recommendations put forward would be after we receive the study back and um recommendations around um that study if we can still move forward with the project or need to move the program to a
different location. I think there's some misconceptions that the program that one of the recommendations is that we would close Dagot Monastery program down and that is not a recommendation that we are currently um considering moving forward
to the board of trustees. Thank you. Trusty Jackson, did you have any questions? No. Okay. Seeing no others, then we will move on to our next
presentation, our item four, Lonear Governance, and again turn it over to Dr. Mulliner. We want to welcome back our Lonear Governor's Coach, Ben Mackey, who is continuing our work with LSG. And I'll
turn it over to him. Welcome back, Mr. Mackey. Happy New Year. >> Thank you so much. Happy New Year. It's good to be with you all. Um, first I want to just say thank you for having me. I know especially with everything happening, the fact that this board continues to stay committed to doing uh what it believes is in the best interest
of students and moving forward with Lonear Governance uh says a lot about each of you all. So I thank you for engaging and continuing to engage as we go forward and I look forward to the conversation. So we have four items on the agenda, some of which are followup from last time um and others are new. So
I will just take them in order unless president you want to go in a different order here. Um but the first one I believe if I'm remembering correctly is the board operating procedures. And so, as a quick reminder, we spent pretty substantial time discussing board operating procedures back in October, if
I'm remembering now. Um, adjustments were made based on the feedback of this board. The board reviewed um the updated notes and kind of sent revised changes to me individually which were incorporated. It was discussed in November and there were a number of
questions which I know we'll have a a run through those just to refresh everybody. And I know the purpose of the November meeting, we kicked it back to a workshop to continue to workshop through some of the questions still to answer. So I think um we don't have to just stick with the questions asked before, but I invite anybody to bring up
anything else. But I would love to start with those questions that were asked and see where the board uh had landed on some of these. The first one um and I believe it was raised by Dr. Ryan was around um asking trustees to decide
around conflicts of interest. Um and so there is language in the um consideration board operating procedures about recusing um themselves from votes when businesses before the board by an entity or
organization that has previously made campaign contributions to those trustees. Um so that was one that I know this board wanted to come back and talk about, but that's going to be an open question uh to discuss around the conflict of interest language. I'm happy to read the conflict of interest language if you don't have it before you
as well. Um, but that's one I would love to start there and just open the question around the conflict of interest language if anyone had any thoughts or considerations since we last had this. Trusty D. Um, Ben, can you remind us
what page that's on so I can pull that up, please? >> Sure can. Uh, it is on page eight and I can just if it would be helpful I'm happy to read unless y'all have it
specifically the area um that was talked about in this area said a trustee shall recuse themselves from deliberation and voting on any item before the board involving a vendor contractor contractor, consultant, or organization that have met that have met
the requirements above regarding conflict of interest or has within the preceding three years made a campaign contribution of $250 or more in aggregate to that trustes campaign. And in those instances, the trustee shall publicly state the reason for recusal and abstain from participation,
discussion, or vote on the matter. Trusty Dar. Thank you. Um, I support this decision. I feel like there's some other things that need to be in place before we can agree to that as a board, such as um some significant changes to campaign
finance and fundraising. Um, there are entities in Fort Worth that contribute to many campaigns and if we had to recuse oursel over $250, it could leave an issue on the table
without a quorum to vote for it, which is of concern to me. Um, I also don't want to find us in a position where as um a community we only have people who can
afford to run for office who are independently wealthy. um because they are not and and whether you do or do not accept a campaign donation is a public it's a private decision that um that is an individual
decision and that's not in question here. That's not that's not where I'm going with this. But um I I I want to ensure that um anything we're putting in this operating procedure or anything that's put into policy makes it
equitable for all of not just the sitting trustees but anybody who chooses to run for public office. Um it's expensive to run for public office and we are running for a public office that does not pay anything. So um
and and speaking for my family, we don't we are not independently wealthy and cannot afford to pay for a an election. So that's I I I I understand the reasoning behind this. I support the reasoning behind this. I'm I'm not sure
that our um elections are currently structured and our campaign finance is currently structured to where we can abide by this at this time. >> Thank you. Any other thoughts on this, >> Dr. Rodriguez?
>> Yes. Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought in the last legislative session that law firms and other entities are not able to donate to
uh trustees over $250. Um, I think that's statewide and it's only referring to school board members, but if if that's the case, this would be fine because they're not going to give over $250. But Dr. Molinar, I don't know
if you have some clarity on that new legislation. I um I do believe you're correct, but I would have to pull it up to verify. So, I'm going to defer to legal. She's she's looking that up. Dr. >> If that's the case, I'm sorry. If that's
the case, I'm okay with approving >> this board operating procedure. >> Okay. What council is looking that up? Dr. Ryan, >> I just wondered because there's certainly ways to hide this through packs and people will do that and it's
really nice that the legislature can make this effective just for school boards instead of themselves because they're raking in all the money from people that are paying them to screw school districts around. Thank you. >> All right, we can Any other thoughts here?
I hear a lean to striking it, but waiting on the legal opinion on that. But again, these are your board operating procedures, so I want to defer to to y'all. >> Jesse Phillips. >> Yeah, I don't you know, not so fast on the leaning to strike. Yeah. Um, and I
only said I mean, not saying it wouldn't be the case, but one to Dr. Rodriguez point if that is the law anyway then that that takes care of that and should be and if in fact it is not which it probably
is um then the discussion should be about what should the language be because there needs to be some language so yes so that's why the pause on striking may be more amending than striking I would I would hope Yeah.
All right. So, I hear maybe amend. Does anyone have any spec? Well, we can wait until we get the results of this legal search. We can come back to that one in a second. I've made a few notes here that maybe amending, maybe striking, depending on legal considerations here.
Um, we will circle back to that. The second one was around um putting a time limit per round of discussion. So what was in this and discussed before was that during the discussions on any item each trustee has 10 minutes to ask
and talk about whatever they want to related to the item and that each trustee has an opportunity to speak before any trustee has a second opportunity to speak for another 10 minutes and that it had those two 10-minute rounds. Um though the note
there is that if this was a high priority item and the board wanted to, the board has the purview to always wave its own operating procedures and add extra rounds if it so wanted. But I know there was um some folks noting that that was something they wish to consider
striking. So, opening that back up for conversation around the right way to structure any sort of discussion to allow for all voices to speak um and put some sort of limit on that if it is what the board wishes for.
>> Dr. Ryan, >> I've been on the board for about 5 years and I've never known anybody to talk for more than 10 minutes on anything. I I just don't see the need for having it in there. Don't mind having rounds to go
back so everybody can be heard, but putting a a time limit on it uh I think is unnecessary because everybody up here can say what they need to say in the time they got to say it. You might be the only board in all the state of Texas that I've seen that can do that. So, congratulations.
But just real quick, Dr. R, I want to make sure I understand it. So, you are saying you would support the rounds, but wouldn't want to put a time the a limit on the number of rounds or the time limits that each person speaks in the rounds?
>> I I don't mind a time limit in the rounds, but just the number of rounds needs to go on till everybody's through. Gotcha. Okay. >> Trusty Phillips. >> Yeah. And Ben, where's the specific language we talking about with that one?
>> Now, let me find it for you. Uh it is on page 15. Each board member shall be allocated 10 minutes of discussion time during each agenda item. The board shall have up to two rounds of discussion item per item. >> Okay. And this is and this is revised
language is not the current language in the >> correct. The current language has no um it the current language has no specifics around rounds or numbers. does mention that the president will not recognize a member to speak a second
time until everyone has spoke a first time. >> Okay. Yeah. I mean, so yeah, that original language in which you speak um sounds sufficient to me. I don't know. I mean, so this is because I'm wondering
if we're like trying to almost trying to find a problem because to Dr. R's point. I at least in in my time here on the board, I haven't really had an issue of thinking um someone was speaking too long or out
of turn or um so I mean I do understand having something to be able to fall back on as far as that's what the policy procedure board operating uh procedures would be. Um yeah, I want to encourage the discussion. It seems like the way that
is currently been going is going well. It seems like the current language in which you just stated is sufficient language to me. I don't know if this um yeah, I don't know if this is creating a new procedure for something for a procedure that's not currently at least broken. Doesn't mean it won't break in
the future, but doesn't seem to be currently broken at the moment. At least in my opinion. Yeah, that that makes sense. I will say I think the general coaching is that the time to put processes in place is when you do not need it. It is never the time to put
processes in place when you need it because then it becomes its own big challenge and issue in that instance. And so I mean functionally what it sounds like and from my watching of your board meetings for the last six months. >> Sure. >> You know I I actually what I think
functionally this might mean for you is that somebody is keeping time and will remind the president if you hit 10 minutes. But I don't think that would have happened thus far. But what it would functionally mean that if someone is going on for 10 minutes they would get a reminder and then we'll come back to you in the next round. But you know,
the only thing I would pass to you is that the time to put processes in place is when you do not need them. Trusty Dar, thank you. Um, I need a little clarification. Um, I I believe
can perhaps somebody can confirm that the state board of education has a policy similar to this or a a a protocol similar to this where they have 10 minutes to ask a question and then they move to the next person asking a question. And I was watching a state
board of education meeting one time and I noticed that um the there was a board member who was asking a question, the person who was expected to answer
the question repeatedly asked for clarification until the 10 minutes were up so that then that person did not have to answer the question. So is the 10 minutes like legitimately me talking or does that
also include the answer from staff that we would be receiving? Because if the answer from staff is 6 or 7 minutes, which it could be and sometimes needs to be, then that do are you following me on that one? So, I feel
like there's a there needs to be um I I don't I don't want to stifle the discussion because I feel the discussion is important and um and you're absolutely right that the time to put a policy in place is not when you need the policy or put the protocol in place is
not when you need the protocol. But um but sometimes we have some very healthy conversations at this dis that the public needs to be aware of and needs to hear and we need to have because we cannot have them in executive session. So we have to have them out here.
>> Yeah. I I will say so three points to kind of answer what I've seen related to your question. Ultimately you all will have to decide on what the procedure is. Um number one is it is probably much more common than not especially for larger organizations to have some sort of rules of decorum about how long they
speak whether you go to the state board of education all the way to the US congress has limits on that and multiple rounds etc. >> Um the second thing is the most common that I have seen has been the question and the responses are counted in the 10 minutes hence 10 minutes as opposed to
five minutes of talking time etc. I haven't seen many doesn't mean they're not where it's amount of time that the trustee is talking but maybe that's something to consider. Um I think what to your point is what I think happens most commonly in the districts that I
have seen this happen is that if a conversation is happening and going that's fine the president might say let's move on to the next person often times what I see is no I would love to hear the remainder of that answer and then so on and so forth. It is a lot of different ways. I think ultimately what
this actually does again nothing stops this board from spending as much time as you want to even with this language on discussion. It is simply requires five of the nine members to wave the policy and continue discussion. And I think that that that is the key
difference is what's the threshold for continuing discussion. What if I get it when it's a meaningful topic and people agree that it's meaningful topic. What this is actually controlling for is when people don't agree that it's a meaningful topic and one person wants to talk for a longer time about something.
Um because at as soon as you get five people to say this is a meaningful topic, we're going to spend as much time as we want to spend on discussion here. There's nothing in this policy that stops that. >> So does the 10 minutes include the response that we get as well? >> The way this is written, it would, but it doesn't have to.
>> Okay. It was in it was interesting watching that state school board meeting because not one answer was given to that question because the person in question just kept asking for clarification. >> Dr. I would note that not necessarily not
having a time limit doesn't make it any more likely that you'll get answers. >> That's true. >> Good point. >> Dr. Ryan, >> then I would go if it is dependent on five members, the majority of the board to continue the discussion and that's
the tyranny of the majority and it's not, you know, this isn't a regular democracy. It's a republic and I it would carry over to this board. Uh, I've watched too many times on the state board where it's run by a certain click
and they've rejected very common sense or very good uh, educational programs because their group didn't want it and I doesn't doesn't have a need to be here for the
majority to sit there and do that. I we all get along. we're going to be fine. And uh just don't need to go on and make it a uh majority reason for our continuing discussion. >> Council, if if we could go back to
>> real quick before we go back to the last one, I'm curious. I I am, you know, this is the board operating procedure. It's not Ben's operating procedure. So, I'm curious, what is this board want to do with the language that I put forth? >> Can I give him an answer?
>> Yes, doctor. >> Thank you. I'm on any discussion needs to go on. I'm willing to sit there and go in rounds and just continue until all discussion is is ended on whatever the topic is.
>> Okay. So, specifically what that would look like is striking the number of rounds in here. Maybe leaving the 10 minutes that everyone gets to speak before the next round begins, but no limit on the number of rounds. Is that am I hearing you correctly? Okay. Any other thoughts? I see some nod. >> Trusty Phillips.
>> Oh, yeah. No, that was it. Not. That's precisely what I was going to say. It seemed like the sticking point was the number of rounds. So, I think I think that's precisely. >> Same. Yeah. Same. Yeah. >> All right. Same. >> Trusty D. I think that's a good compromise.
>> All right. Thank you. Um All right. So, now we will circle back to the conflict of interest um legal counsel. So, I just want to share um I think what everyone was thinking about is House Bill 210 effective September 1st, 2025
establishes a new criminal offense for a vendor who bids on or receives a contract from a district while having a certain prohibited relationship. Um, and the prohibitive relationship, one of the pieces is a board member has received or been promised a gift or in a gift or
inind services from the vendor valued at over $250. So then that becomes a criminal offense for the vendor. clarifying question. In your reading of a gift or inind service, does that include a campaign contribution or is
that separate? >> That's an interesting comment. I probably say a conservative vendor would would leave it at we're not going to take the chance at someone else interpreting it differently. It does not specifically speak to campaign
contributions and and the law just says that piece about the value debt greater than 250 speaking from a vendor's perspective. All right. All right. So, does that change anyone's thoughts related to that conflict of interest provision regarding
a vendor or organization with business before the board? >> Dr. I think we can move forward with the language that you have if it's I don't want to be offense for getting a campaign donation.
So, >> I'm I'm good with the language you have now. All right. >> Oh, is it the vendor then? Oh, okay. It's okay. >> It is the vendor. >> All right. So, I'm hearing now that that
law pretty much controls for this, it's fine for this to stay. All right. Look at us. Um the next one was around um multiple trustees to add an item to the agenda.
Um in previous in your current policy it is any trustee can add an item to the agenda. Um so this one includes requiring multiple people to add any item to the agenda that isn't normally on the agenda. The concern raised at the
last meeting in November was around does that create a violation of open meetings if I have to go seek others to join me in adding that to the agenda. Um I think Dr. Dr. Molinar, I don't know if you I think you got a legal advice on that. Do you know if that's the case and was that
shared with the board? Are you able to summarize what that question response was? >> I'm going to let legal she gave she gave me the advice so I'm going to allow her to restate that. Um,
I believe that in seeking someone to add an item, the board would not be in violation of the open meetings act so long as there is no discussion as to the merit as to why you know do you agree anything like that. It
would truly be I'm asking for topic A to be added. It's almost like will you second that to be added and nothing else. And that was my guidance is that so long as the board
does not engage in any discussion, deliberation, anything beyond I am seeking for this topic to be on. Would you, Trusty Phillips, would you agree to have that on?
And I would not have any other discussion about that. >> Thank you. I know that was one of the concerns that was raised um but would love to open it back up to the board. Currently, the language is again on page 10 is around if three board members make a written request to the superintendent's office to add a
particular item to an upcoming agenda, the president will ensure that the item is added within the next 30 calendar days. Only the members who added the agenda may remove it with unanimous agreement. >> Dr. Rodriguez. >> Yes. Listen, I just want to clarify just
because you agree to add it to the agenda does not mean you agree or disagree with the aisle. That >> is correct because you are not speaking on the merits. You are not voting. You are merely saying I will add my name to add that topic.
>> In fact, you could be completely against the item or the thought of the first person, but there should be no discussion about that. in order to not violate the open meetings act. >> Dr. Ryan,
>> I just think this is unnecessary. As much as I I'm aware, there's been one time that the president's been asked to put something on the agenda in the last four and a half years that I've been here. and um after she checked into it,
she graciously turned me down. So I and I'm fine with that. So I don't think we need to change that. So what I understand so I think a quick clarification on this point is we're talking about two different things. I don't think anything precludes any
individual trustee from asking the president to put something on the agenda. the president is always able to add something to the agenda that is part of their purview. So that that can still have this is not procluded of that. I think what this is aiming to control for is if to your point about the tyranny of
the majority is that you know if I ask the president and the president just doesn't like that agenda item and they refuse to put that on any time. There is no amount of things that we can do aside from getting five people um to make a motion to do something like that. I mean you really can't even get it on the agenda. So what this is saying is if you
get the three trustees to say we want this on the agenda, the president no longer has a say on whether it stays on the agenda or not, it must be added to the agenda. So these are actually two separate things. The what you were referring to couldn't still happen. Individuals can make requests to the
president or superintendent frankly um to add things to the agenda. I wouldn't recommend always asking your superintendent to put things to the agenda, but board members can do what board members do. So that is a separate item from these three which would require the item be added to the agenda.
Trusty Dar I think this is another example of it's not a good idea to wait until you need the policy or protocol to create the policy or protocol. And um the way you just worded it, Ben, with um that I
can I can ask President Martinez to put something on agenda and if she chooses to do so and Dr. with the with Dr. Molinar involved in that process, then it goes on the agenda. It took one person. However, if I say, "President Martinez, I want to make
sure that we have rice at every meal during lunchtime." and she says, "Well, that's stupid, but I get two of my colleagues to go along with me, then we can get that on the agenda." Does that make sense? So, >> yeah, you can get the agenda on for a discussion. >> That's right. Exactly. >> Right. Because I think under your
current, and I'll ask this question generally, if four of you all agreed we wanted something on the agenda and you ask President Martinez to put on the agenda and she vehemently does not want to, is there anything that requires that to go on the agenda? >> I don't think so. I think I think your
president can essentially keep it off which is great trusting the president. That's why you choose the president that you choose but at a certain point I'm not even sure I wouldn't know. I would defer to legal minds much harder than me. What if what if all eight except the president wanted on the agenda? Is there a avenue to getting it on the
agenda other than like declining everything and voting everything down? And so it just creates that opportunity that creates clarity to get something on the agenda, but it also doesn't and so to Dr. Ryan your point, there's I see massive
challenges when any individual can put something on the agenda and nobody can stop it. In the current system, if the president stop it, there's a backs stop there. This gives some ability for trustees in the minority to add something to the agenda and requiring
that there actually be enough to believe that this is a meaningful discussion at the board level as opposed to that's my pet project and so I just want to talk about it then I would think there needs to be within the
description that we've got something that says any board member can request an item to go on the agenda to the president. If she refuses or the president refuses, they can get two other board members and
force it to be on the agenda. >> Okay. Any other thought? I I mean I think you can add I think it's also implicit in your policy that that already happens. You can add language to make that more specific, but >> well, but then attorneys get involved and they always mess things up that I
try to do. >> Any other thoughts, questions? I don't know if legal would want to respond. >> Trusty Phillips. >> Yeah. So to Okay. cuz I I think I I think I like that language. I'm trying to I guess I'm trying to parse because
you you were doing a really good job, Ben, of kind of getting to the heart of why the language would even need to exist or whatever the case, which uh was definitely helpful. Um, is is is that the particular goal, I
guess, is if that language is to occur there, because I know you said about implicit, which makes sense, but if that language does to incur to occur there that a request can be made to the president and if denied then to I mean, does that
get to the heart of the matter? Because I guess I think like I say you were going somewhere really good with what the heart of the reasoning is there. Does that does that take away from what the heart of the matter would be? >> I think the the general lens to consider this is creating clarity for all board
members about how this happens. Uh-huh. >> A common refer. So in your previous edition, there was what you have is any board member can request that a subject be included on the agenda.
The board president shall ensure that any topics the board or individual board members have requested to be added to the agenda are either on the agenda or scheduled for deliberation at an appropriate time in the near future. So I actually think what Dr. Ryan you
described is not actually what your policy says. The way your current policy reads is any board member can suggest to the president what should be on the agenda and the board president is required to put that on the agenda now or at an appropriate time in the near
future whatever that may mean. Um maybe a president can say that's there's no appropriate time ever. I don't know that. But that's where you get into this clarity and people start to feel some sort of way about well I think it's an appropriate time now but the board president doesn't agree that there's an appropriate time now and where who's
right in policy and often times the policy just isn't clear on it. So the goal of this is to create much clearer delineations that there's no questions. It just is three people send the written request. It goes on the agenda in the next 30 days. There's no gray area in
that. Whereas right now leaving things like deliberation at an appropriate time in the near future, whatever that means, you know, it's a lot harder to do. So I think this is aiming to one clarify and two, what I would coach against is
having a setup, especially a larger district where you have nine trustees and nine trustees that get along really well currently and don't have much of an issue and are willing to hear no. Where I do see issues is that when one individual member can put as many things that they want on the agenda on their
own to talk about whatever they want to, it causes so much distraction from the reason that you all are actually here and have said you're here, which is are kids learning or not? No, >> I think that makes all the sense in the world. And so with that with the proposed language that Dr. Ryan was saying, does it does that add the clarity that would be
needed? I mean, I know that's more of an opinion question, but kind of asking you there. In my I'm not a lawyer. I will defer to your lawyers. In my reading of it, it is very specific that you make the written request, three trustees, president will ensure that it is added to the agenda in the next 30
calendar days. So very specific about timeline and will on that. We could add the language as Dr. Ryan mentioned it. Any trustee is free to ask the president to add something to the agenda, but it is the president's discretion whether or not to add it.
>> Right. Unless a trustee is presented with >> three trustes. >> Two with with two other trustees. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. So I mean that yes that the language that's being suggested in that realm I know it has to be >> clear I mean you know cleaned up but
again the heart of the matter what you're saying there. I think that's what I can get down with. >> Yeah. And basically what what this would do is there is president's discretion up until the point that three trustees have asked something to be added to the agenda. Now it gets added to the agenda. Yes, there we go. Indeed.
>> All right, it sounds like we got to a agreeable place on that. Any other thoughts there? Dr. Mullen, feel free to chime in at any point. >> I was just going to ask you to repeat that one more time just um so everyone understands the final recommendation. >> I will put some language to it and send it back
to you all. But again, you all own the language. Feel free to run it through legal counsel, make your decisions. But what I'm understanding to be is that we can add some language says any trustee may petition the president to add something to the agenda, but it is the president's discretion whether to put
anything on the agenda. But if three board members make a written request to the superintendent's office that an agenda item be added, it will be added within the next 30 days. Okay. All right. We got to got to a good place there. Um Okay. Okay. And the last
one is that this was a minor adjustment that already made. The request was to incorporate a revision to align with current practice around questions being received eight days, eight calendar days in advance. So I think that is our current practice and so it is around just making sure that it conforms with what you all currently do.
All right, those are the ones that were raised at the last meeting. Thank you all for that. Um, anything else in the board operating procedure people want to talk about? >> Jesse Phillips. Yeah, I just the last one you just mentioned, I just want to if you could point out where that specific language is again.
>> Sure thing. Hold on. It is on page 11. >> 11. >> So, board materials, release timeline, and trustee questions. So, you'll receive the agenda and all supporting documentation at least 10 days in advance of the schedule meeting. Um the
idea is that you review the c the material, send out and compile all questions and send to the administration by the eighth calendar day before the meeting and if those cal if those are received then the team will compile responses and provide answers to the trustees within two days of the
scheduled meeting. That said there nothing precludes a trustee if you have a question late. You just can't assume that the administration will have a written response for you two days before the meeting. >> Absolutely. Okay, I'm with it. Thank you. >> All right. The version I'm looking at says fifth
calendar day. >> Yes, that's going to be an adjustment to 8th. That was the that was original one. >> All right. Okay. >> I wanted to have this discussion before I sent you back the next edits to this. >> All right. So, with that, I will make those
adjustments. I will highlight where those are. um you will receive those back and then it is in your court to review, go through um and then make any consideration of adoption in the future um with that. But thank you all for engaging. That was a lot. I know the board operating procedures is a lot of
work. So thank you. All right. Um I don't have the agenda in front of me. Can someone remind me what is the second piece of our agenda? I believe it is self- constraints. >> Self- constraints. >> All right. I I do remember my memory works still. Um all right. So, who can remember and this is going to be a
question I would like responses. What are what's the purpose of constraints? And you all set some constraints back in November. What are the purpose of constraints? >> Guard rails. Go ahead. >> What's that? Sorry. >> Guard rails. >> Guardrails. What are the purpose of guardrails? >> To make sure we're keeping the main
thing the main thing. >> All right. We keep the main thing the main thing. And we have these guardrails that help us do that. But what are they? What are they? parameters to ensure that we are doing what we're supposed to be doing
and not doing other things. >> Okay. So, they are really the not doing of other things. We have these priorities that we have set. You all set some pretty rigorous priorities back in November. Guard rails whether superintendent, you set some guardrails on the superintendent. superintendent
achieve these goals that we set out but not at the expense of these other things if I remember correctly operational efficiency effective staff etc. So you're saying to the superintendent, go make sure that these goals are achieved but not at the expense of these other
things that we value. Tonight we're going to talk about board self- constraints because while we've given the super it's very um meaningful to give the superintendent their goals and the constraints on their authority, it is also a worthwhile exercise for the
board to put constraints on its own authority. We just talked about an operating manual that gave you like 150 different ways of working in all kinds of various scenarios whether it's in a complaint or whether it's in a board meeting etc. Board self- constraints
aims to identify 1 2 3 4 five areas that this board really wants to put out of bounds for itself and look at it regularly. Um raise your hand. Do do you all have board self- constraints currently?
I see some nods. No, >> we have in the past, but they are old and need to be revisited. >> All right. Um, you do currently have three in your board operating procedures, but if this board hasn't revisited them, then it really isn't this boards. So my it is my
recommendation that we we can look at each of those and I'll remind you what they are in case you don't um remember what that what they are. They are
all right. It's going to load. Your current board self constraints are sorry. All right. Number one, you have three of them. Number one is the board shall not spend less than 50% of time during its board authorized public meetings focused
on student outcomes. The board shall not give or appear to give operational advice or instructions to district staff. And the board shall not behave in a manner that erodess trust and respect among the team of 10 are your three current ones.
So I will first just open it up. You know, I'm sure some of y'all were on the board at some point when those have been discussed or set. Others are newer and haven't seen those before. My first question to you all is, you know, what are your thoughts and reactions to those
three as three critical things that this board is putting rules on itself to make sure it adheres to so as not to distract from the mission of the district? Does anyone have any thoughts or reaction to those three? Those are on page of your current borrowed operating procedures if you have access to that on page 12.
The board shall not spend less than 50% of time of board meetings focus on student outcomes. The board shall not give or appear to give operational advice or instructions to district staff. And the board shall not behave in a manner that erodess trust and respect among the team of 10. Um, go ahead,
Trusty Phillips. >> Yeah. Um, definitely the the first two. Um, no, I'm still in agreement with and kind of talking the conversation about the
heart of the matter, right? It really attempts to keep that superintendent work, superintendent work, board work, board work. It helps us to maintain and focus on the main thing we're supposed to be focusing on. So, um, wholeheartedly, you know, would love to see one and two
remain. Um, I agree with three. The language of three just seems so subjective. >> Um, again, we can talk about the heart of the issue is that we want people that are going to represent well, that are
going to have the cordiality, that going to have civility, you know, and be able to help govern the district. But there I don't know the language as of yet. And that's why we're in the workshop. I guess we workshop it, right? there. But the language of that is just so very subjective because it really takes into
account any behavior I can deem, you know, worthy behavior or behavior that's detrimental just on my whim and then >> attempt to address in some way. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. The issue you're lifting up here is it's what does that mean? Yeah. This
is probably should be a standard way of being in general. So, >> we should always strive to do this. Um, and I think that's a great observation here is if there is something to control for and just like superintendent constraints, these are things that are top of- mind right now. So these change
over time based on the needs of the board. Um, and so I think this is a really good one unlike the board operating procedures where the best time to put something in place is when you don't need it. Self- constraint should be thing around the things that are top of mind for this board. If this board doesn't need this one, it doesn't make
as much sense to keep it uh just for the future because you could do that for everything. But thank you for sharing that. Any other thoughts before I put you in a little partner work? >> Dr. Ryan, good. >> Can you give me a description of student outcomes? What are we looking at with student
outcomes? >> What are student outcomes? >> Does anyone remember what student outcomes are? How we define student outcomes? >> Anything they they know or can do. >> Anything a student knows or is able to do. So it's anything related to student
outcomes of what a student knows or is able to do. Not to be confused with things that help us achieve student outcomes. So let's uh talk for an example. You all prior to this had a very critical and important topic to look at the facilities plan that you all
are implementing. Is that student outcomes or is it adult outcomes? >> Adult. adult facilities are necessary but they are not sufficient for creating student outcomes and so it aims to separate those so I think and while I can't speak to the board that adopted this and exactly what they meant my
assumption is because it was in the framework of lonear governance this is referring to what students know or can able to do understanding where that is happening in our system and where it is not was that responsive to your question >> no
to some extent it does if I'm a student at school and it's too cold or too hot because the board didn't address HVAC issues within that 50% of the time, so they didn't do it or the buses weren't running on time or the food was bad or non-existent. So, all those other
outcomes incredibly impact students. >> I mean, we had a gentleman, one of our teachers this last year going, "We got a bus that keeps coming in at the end of first period." So the kids missed all that instruction and we're going to hold them responsible for that instruction
even though they weren't here. So I mean and and we've taken steps to fix that, but those things come up and and and they have an impact on student outcomes. >> I fully agree. Everything you do has an impact on student outcomes, but HVAC is
squarely not student outcomes. This board could choose to focus all of its meeting focused on HVAC issues, believing truly in the heart of hearts, and I agree with you that if a building doesn't work in Texas with HVAC, it's going to be very difficult for kids to learn. So, this board can spend a lot of
time making sure HVAC is perfect in every school. What does that tell you about whether or not your kids can read? It doesn't say a lot about what can read, but since the states focused on the scores that come out of the test,
if they're they can't respond right because they weren't in that class to get the information, uh they're sitting there sweating like crazy because the heat's on and it's it's June or or May,
>> then it directly impacts what happens on the test, which is what the state says were totally responsible for. Period. >> Yeah. So, I think what I heard in your answer is you're right. HVAC does not tell me how kids can read or not. It might be important, but it doesn't tell
me. If I receive a bunch of reports on HVAC, it doesn't tell me if I can read or they can read or not. Is that Did I hear you correctly? >> It's not telling me, but at the same time, it has that impact on it. And if we want those scores to go up, >> I agree. >> We got to make everything work.
>> I agree. Everything has an impact on whether scores go up. Our facilities, our food, our HVAC, our teacher retention, our compensation schedules, staff satisfaction, all of this has an impact on whether scores go up. But none of it tells us if scores are going up.
And I think the heart of this one, and again, if this is not a value of this board, this board will not set it. And that's your purview to decide. Um, but I think what this board is saying is it doesn't even spend don't spend time on those other important issues. Those are really important. It spends spend at
least half of your time focused on whether or not students are learning based on the student outcomes which implies there's another half a time that's spent on presumably other very critically important things. I would assume a board doesn't want to spend a lot of time on things that are not important. >> So
>> yeah, sorry. >> Um Ben, my question is um we are adopted Lonear Governance. for obviously using the the framework. The framework already says the board invests at least half of its time improving student outcomes. It
also says the board evaluates but does not interfere as far as the constraints. Are we looking for something more narrow than that? >> That is totally up to you. I I would again posit this with which would be what are the most important things for
this board to avoid doing so that it can accomplish its priorities that it has set. Some of those might be broad, some of them might be very specific. Um, I would reflect on how we currently operate today and what we have seen with boards recently and our fears and
whatnot going forward and kind of put those things in place that govern our behavior to allow us to continue to focus on the main thing, the main thing which I if I remember back to your November meeting, you all adopted your goals and your constraints. So I am defining your main thing as those things that you said are the most important
there. Um, but your the wider you are or the more specific you are is totally a function based on how you all want to define it. >> Okay, Trusty Phillips, go ahead. >> Yeah, thank you, President Martinez. Yeah, and it was to Dr. Ryan, it was
just that clarification of not that we wouldn't speak about those other things that are absolutely important like you're mentioning. is just making sure that the focal point of the time period in which we are doing the governance work is about those things of student outcomes and kind of to trusty president
Martinez uh point a moment ago it's just it it's if we're implementing this particular governance model with fidelity then we would align with that and this helps us to make sure that we stay in alignment. >> Yeah. The the the way that I would think about these are just like there's a
whole lot of things that Dr. Molar, our team are legally required to do as it relates to student outcomes. You've got to teach all the TEICs in every single class that you have. Like that's if you have a class in Texas, you got to teach the TEICSS as long as it's a a course. That doesn't mean that every single TE is an a specific priority. And so what
the board essentially did by setting your goals the way you did is you prioritize them. You elevated them to the forefront. You're not saying by adopting your goals that science is not important. You are saying these are the things that are the most important for us to get right today. And in the same way, that's kind of what the board self-
constraints are is what are those things that this board has to get right today that will allow us to accomplish what we want to accomplish. And it is truly as general as that I there's no right answers to this. This is what the board wants to focus on that knows that, you know, these are our pitfalls. When we go
down this path, we get taken far away from what we said was important. I don't know those. Only you all know those. So, with that, unless there's any other thoughts here, I'm going to put y'all in uh groups. We'll have three trustees here. We'll have um Dr. Mullenar, you
can join President Martinez and uh Trusty Dar. And then we'll have Trusty Lubanos and Trusty Lynch come up with you've got three here that were from the past. You can choose to keep those, adjust them, make them more specific, make them broader, make them whatever. and then identify if there are any other
areas that would come top of mind to you in terms of thinking about board or individual board member behavior in that. Um I'm going to give you all about 5 10 minutes. I'll walk around and see if you'all have any thoughts. Um feel free just to chat amongst yourselves and kind of start to put down one, two, or
three of them together that you agree with and then we'll go through a process to see where we've got any overlap and whatnot. Any questions before we begin? All right. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey.
Hey. Hey. Oh, come on. Oh. Hey. Hey. Are you feel you? Hey. Hey. Hey. I
love you. I love you. Heat. Heat. N. Sorry. Hey. There we go. more. We should
Heat. Heat. kind of cool. Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey. All right, I think we are all set. unless anyone else needs more time and if we can share the screen.
So it looks like some good discussion, some good stuff here. Um I'll try to zoom in so everyone can see it and I will also read it. Oh wow, that's it's behind you though and it's bigger behind you.
Um and it's on your screen in front of you. So we had six up here. The first three are the ones you already have and we've discussed. So, two of them I've heard a lot of folks say like we should probably keep something like that or maybe adjust a little bit. First one around
dedicating the board or board members shall not dedicate less than 50% of public meeting time to student outcomes. Second one, board or board members shall not give or appear to give operational advice or instructions to district staff. Um the more broad one is shall not behave in a manner that erodess trust
and respect among the team of eight. And then we have three new ones that got proposed also. So board or board members shall not weigh in on personnel decisions of the district. Board or board members shall not act in a manner contrary to board operating procedures.
And board or board members shall not go without hosting at least two community meetings in a 12-month period. So, with that, I would like to pause and open up the floor to see if anybody has any questions or thoughts about these generally um or see any that they would
propose totally eliminating, not even considering, andor combining that might be doing more or less the same thing. So, would love to open that out and then we'll do our multi- voting to see which ones rise to the top. >> Trusty Phillips.
>> Yeah. So, um yeah, I really really love these. So my suggestion is uh and I know the conversation we were having within our group is the elimination of four the behave in a manner that erodose trust and respect among the team of 10 and
simply replacing it with um that better language in my opinion of act in a manner and contrary um to board operating procedures. I think that takes care of that and it makes it um less objective and more enforcable and accountable. And then
with the other ones that were from other groups that were suggested, I really appreciate and yeah, I like those actually very much. >> All right. And I think I heard that from most groups about being okay with deleting number four given that it is super vague and
generally should be true in most interactions regardless. Is there anyone that dissents with removing that one entirely? No. All right. Well, then gone. Um, any other thoughts, questions, or clarifications on what any of these
mean? >> I I would just add that potentially you could combine three and four into one. >> Three and four. They'll give operational advice or instructions to district staff and combine weigh in on personnel decisions. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, that does sound like personnel is
a more specific realm of operational advice, which I'm saying there is absolutely value in being specific. So, >> I just I just meant you could potentially add that line into number three. >> All right,
other thoughts? We have a question on on three now. Uh when it just says give advice >> or instruction, I certainly don't want to give staff any instruction about what to do, but I've been asked for advice on what did you do when you were a
principal? What did you do when you were a band director? What did you do when you were a head of fine arts? And you know, so I don't mind giving that advice. I don't want to give unsolicited advice to people but >> uh I certainly I'd leave it just I don't
want to give instruction >> because not going to do that. >> So that is a good question for the board. I couldn't speak to what they meant by that and whether that would qualify if you asked for advice like you'd feel almost negligent not to
respond with advice. Um, but I think what part of this is trying to control for is sometimes folks will ask for advice because they feel like they have to ask for advice. I'm not saying that's the case in your situation, but I know that as a principal myself and a board member came by, I would certainly ask
for advice. Like it just was a thing to do. So, you know, only the board can decide that. I will note here. It sounds like it's a good thing to dive into around is operational advice too broad or should it be unsolicited operational advice as opposed to being asked? U
maybe we could add that word. I also I heard no quibble with the idea of instruction. I also heard from another group mention directives as well. Um so I think we could probably do some things with the language here. Um would love to get other folks to weigh in on that and if anyone any thoughts about adding
in personnel decisions into this line as Kevin had mentioned. So I'll make another one here and start to add some of the things I heard and you all can decide what you like. Yeah, I'm just going to simply state
that I'm in agreement with um that as we're contriving the language that the language of three and four could be inclusive of one another. It seems like that's a pretty easy combination. >> Okay. Um and then of course I would invite Dr.
from Molenar if you have any thoughts from a operational perspective you're the one that your staff is the one receiving any kind of thoughts questions etc often times maybe hopefully not from this board but would be the ones receiving it if you have any thoughts on language that makes sense what doesn't make sense
on line number four because you just simply put including personnel decisions at the end. Yeah. So then that one would then read, "Board or board members shall not give or appear to give directives,
instructions, or unsolicited operational advice to district staff, including around personnel decisions." All right. How do we feel about that? A little bit more meaty than it was originally, but a lot clearer, I think.
So then, if I'm understanding this correctly, we're actually now down to four. Any other thoughts, questions, feedback, clarification, suggestions on any of these four?
All right, real quick, Ben. Um, so I'm absolutely on board with um number five, the community meeting aspect. Uh but for the group that suggested it um what I guess during your discussion what did community meeting I
guess entail? How are we defining that? >> We're looking at page 29 on the the framework from um advocacy and engagement. So looking at that um and I think we do we might want to put
something in there. I'm just looking at for one preparing to focus number one the board has a two-way communication system in place for board members at least once per year listen for and discuss the vision and values with the students and then also with staff and community members. So that's kind of
where we came up with that one. Um >> absolutely >> and then you'll see approaches and meets also includes community hosted a community meeting to discuss progress towards student outcome goals. Yep. So >> yeah, that's awesome. I mean then that
way it just gives that clarity that we know whether we did it or not based upon the definitions that we have there. So that's perfect. Yeah. So, should we add something in there? Go without hosting at least two community meetings >> with including two-way
communication or >> maybe we should two-way communication meeting. >> A two Okay. Go without go without hosting at least two two-way communication community meetings. Punctuation is going to be real
important here. um in a 12-month period. >> Yes. Let me write what you said exactly. Go without hosting at least two two-way communication community meetings within a 12-month period
>> with at least two board members. >> Happens for the win. What did you say? It is a recommendation that you do it with at least two board members because as I always say if it's a single trustee holding it, it is a campaign event. >> Oh yeah, we could do that. I mean, so
maybe then you could replace all of this, you know, go without hosting at least two LSG qualifying community meetings. And you can even astric that and say it's like this is the definition of what this means that it includes two-way communication
multiple trustees or president and it's consistent around the district. I like that. All right. Thank you all. Any other thoughts, questions? Do we feel good about these four? All right. Great. So then what next
steps would be here is I will you know you can marinate on if any of the language needs to be adjusted any slightly but I'll turn these around and send these back to y'all. You all can consider adoption at a future meeting as well and then we can get yours updated.
All right, moving on. Now we are going to move into my favorite part of this work which is board monitoring. So, as of November, you all adopted um goals and guard rails or constraints and are going and we can stop sharing
this by the way. I think we're good here. Um you're going to begin in January. I believe you adopt it in November and if I'm everything is correct, you're going to start to actually see progress towards those goals and constraints beginning this month. Um
monitoring when we talk about monitoring and lonear governance, we mean something very particular. What we don't mean is looking at data generally because so often and I have felt this way as an individual trustee I think I suspect many have felt this way whether in board life or other life is sometimes
there is just a deluge of information and we always get new information and don't actually spend a lot of time circling back on the most important information and making progress there and so goal monitoring is the way in which this board can expect the
administration to share progress towards those goals. goals, not this month, not next month, but over the next five years, consistently every single year, every single month, monitoring particular aspects of what you all have said is most important. It is the single
behavior that a board can do that will change organizational action to focus on it. And if you think about it, we all know this intuitively. What the board spends time on, administration and staff spend time on. I've never seen a board um or school system where that is different. And so that's what monitoring
allows you to do is to really start putting your money where your mouth is. You have said these are the priorities of our school system. You can say it all day long, but it's what you do about it and your doing is encompassed in these meetings. So where you spend your time in these meetings is where staff is going to spend their time trying to answer questions and understand it is
just the way of the world. So you have in front of you a couple pages. I think it's like four or five pages long. We're going to have three conversations about this. I'm going to ask you all to read an element of it. Does everyone have this page, the effective goal monitoring? Great. What we're going to do is we're going to keep the same groups you just
had. I'm going to give you all about four minutes to read silently the first page. We're only staying on the front of the first page. Read silently. And when you're done reading the front of the first page, talk to your group that you were just with about what stood out to
you on that page. And then we'll come back together in about four minutes. Thank you. And as you finish, reading. Feel free to start talking with your neighbors about what stood out on this first page about effective goal monitoring.
Heat. Heat. N. Heat. Heat. N. down. Down. feel feel me feel me feel me. Feel
the feel. Heat. Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey. Heat. Heat. Hey people All All right, let's bring it back together. These two sections are about what is goal monitoring and how is goal
monitoring beneficial? Who will be the first to share what stood out and what are you thinking about or talking about based on this first page? >> Can you repeat yourself? >> What stood out on these first two pages? >> Just focus and predictability.
>> Focus and predictability. Where are you looking at here? Were you looking somewhere particular? >> Um, if if your goals are clear and and you know when you're going to be measuring or reviewing certain aspects of those goals, it's it's predictable about, you
know, what you should expect to see and and uh everybody's on the same page. >> Yeah. So a to be clear about what I'm looking at and to be predictable in when I'm looking at that gives me a good expectation as a trustee. Why is it important that goal monitoring is
predictable? I heard someone else another group mentioned predictable as well. Why is that important? >> I I think you can make you know use numbers. You can make numbers look any way you want. And so I think it's important that everybody knows what
they're expecting to see and how they're expecting to see it because you can change populations, time frames, you know, who's included, who's not included. I mean, you can do anything you want to make it look the way you wanted to, which is challenging. >> Yeah. >> There is this element, and what you're
really speaking to here is this element of trust. Is the number I'm looking at, is it what I think I'm looking at? Is it showing up when I expect to see it? Um, and that works both ways. You know, every board that I've worked with, the
board and the superintendent both wanted the best for kids. There's often times just a difference in perspective on how we look at this. And so when you have a predictable time that hey, in August we measure third grade reading, there's no surprise for the superintendent that hey, third grade reading is going to be
measured there. Similarly, board members know that it's coming up and aren't asking for it sooner or and the superintendent oftenimes in that instance feels like why are they asking about this? Is there something they're trying to do a gotcha on, etc. And so that predictability helps get to what I hear you mention there is this idea of
trust. >> Trusty, >> I think predictability indicates that there's a plan >> and and if you don't have a plan, then you're you're fire shooting arrows at a moving target constantly. And so with
when there's a plan in place, there should be predictability because you know what you're going to talk about this week, how what the data is going to look like. It's going to be in the same format as it was the last time. So we can see where the growth is, that kind of thing. But it indicates that there's there's a plan and there's intentionality.
>> Yeah. It gives a plan, intentionality. If it's predictable, we're actually getting comparative data as opposed to a standalone set of data that we maybe never see again until the next thing comes out and looks totally different. Thank you. What else stood out on this first page?
I'll add another one and that is that these reports are really a it's at the very bottom paragraph a micro assessment of the superintendent. We're not just looking at the superintendent's performance once a year. Every time we get a report, we're
evaluating what's working, what's not working, and how the superintendent is responding to that. >> Yeah, exactly. It's not about just wait until the end of the year, we see where it is, and then give the superintendent an evaluation, which frequently is fraught with recency bias and what I happen to remember and how I felt over
the last two months as opposed to what was happening last August. It is giving you insight every single thing. And it's not just about the superintendent, but the superintendent as the steward for what you have set out are the goals of the district. It's the entire district's report card and the superintendent is charged with achieve helping the system
achieve those goals. So, thank you for that. All right. Now, we are going to move into there's four ingredients for effective monitoring. So, this is going to take a little bit longer, but it's the next uh four pages. So, it they're listed ingredient one, two, three, and
four. So take about 10 minutes to read through each of these four ingredients on the next four pages um single-sided so front back front back and then we will come back together and talk about those and then our last segment will be around what to do when you actually
start to receive this monitoring Heat. Heat. down. Hey As you finish going through ingredients one, two, three, and four to effective monitoring. First ingredient being effective monitoring calendars. The second being
effective monitoring reports. Third being effective superintendent participation and the fourth being effective board member participation. Begin to talk with your neighbors about what's standing out to you as you read through these pages. Yeah.
Yeah. As you're finishing, feel free to go ahead and start those conversations with your neighbor. What is standing out about any of the four ingredients? Heat. Heat. Turn away.
Heat. Heat. Take about another minute. All right, we'll bring it back together. So, there are four ingredients for effective monitoring. First, you've got to have a effective monitoring calendar. Then, you got to have the effective report. And then it would make sense if we're going to be monitoring this
together that there needs to be effective superintendent participation as well as effective board member participation. Love to open the floor up. Um what stood out from any of these pages? Just let us know which ingredient you're talking about and then tell us what stood out there.
>> And ingredient number three, I just highlighted the good, the bad, and the ugly. Like the data is the data. >> Yeah. Good, the bad, and the ugly. Why is it important to do the good, the bad, and the ugly? >> Well, we're looking at everything. I mean, we're just um like I said, not
hiding the data, not sugar coating it, looking at really understanding where we are and if we're on track or off track. >> Thank you, Jesse Dar. >> I think it's really important to um to to look at all of that. I mean, we we
can't just focus on the the data, the the poor data because then you're missing the good stuff that's going on, too. And there's people working really hard for that good stuff. >> But you can't ignore the data that you want to ignore and just focus on the good stuff because then you're not
making the progress that needs to be made. >> Yeah. >> And Yeah. That I just it's it tells the whole picture. You can't Photoshop the data. >> Yeah. What Let's think beyond this board. Forget a board. I mean this board or the community at large, what would be your response if every single meeting we
showed you all of the great data that is happening at Fort Worth ISD and there was never any bad or ugly data? What would be your first reaction as a board member? What do you think your community's reaction would be? >> What's that, Dr. Rodriguez? >> That we're lying or we're trying to hide something.
>> Yeah, >> because everything's not good. >> Yeah. Is there any district where everything is good? No, absolutely not. That is not the nature of this work. Uh Trusty Lynch. >> No, I was just going to make a comment. I think the the calendar um allows the
superintendent and her team to focus on the goals. Um whereas when that calendar is not established, you've got nine people that decide on a Tuesday that they want to know about X that they can, you know, request something and kind of take them away from Yeah. >> doing the real work.
>> Yeah. um or now by your board of operators agents three trustees want to put something on the calendar go against it um but back to so both of these are really important points number one is if you only show the good data >> you lose trust you don't gain trust with
that people see through that they know that that's not the reality and if you only show the bad data only focus on the bad data what happens in that instance You lose your staff. >> You lose your staff. You lose morale. People doing really good work and actually having great bright spots that just aren't being highlighted because we're choosing to focus on the others.
It is the most freeing and transparency trust building thing to just be able to say what it is and expect that not everything's perfect all the time and it's okay. The question is, it's just not okay to not have any
plan to what to do about it. And then to the calendar, yeah, it's predictable. It helps us focus if the administration I'll ask this question to you, Dr. Molinar. What's going to be the difference in how you and your staff prepare and what you
share at the meeting if you know four months ahead of time that this is the report we'll be giving in January versus it's 12 days before the board meeting and three trustees just requested this new presentation about this particular thing. What's going to be the difference
in terms of how your staff operates in both those situations? You know, for us it's the ability to be able to also um organize our work time. You know, that's doing reports and compiling reports is addition to the
daily work. Even though the data is accessible, you still have to compile that >> and um that takes a team of people as well. And then as you see in ingredients um one and three um especially ingredient one is having those
aggressive um strategies. So to go back to why be transparent with your data, good or bad, why would you allow a superintendent, her team or his team to change strategies around instruction if you're not being honest about if the
data needs those aggressive strategies to be changed. Um, so that's to me very important. But being able to have that calendar allows us time to make sure that we're adhering of course to um what that smart goal is, putting it in track,
putting in the template, but then we um like our board received already the board report for next week to be able to ask questions and be able to absorb that. So all of that. So when you're saying the board monitoring calendar, we work almost a month beforehand
to prepare that. But then even a board agenda is months before what you're going to see next Tuesday night, we start it in November putting together into the correct templates. So it is really balancing our our workload as
well. >> When the agenda gets posted and everything that's there, that's only the tip of the iceberg. It's all of the other work that has gone into this. >> Now, if a board if three members of the board require the day before and it gets on a meeting the day before that there's going to be a report, will the superintendent have a report to share on
that item? >> Y'all shaking your heads? No. But y'all don't know superintendents. They will have something to share. They will absolut they will have they'll stay up all night. They will have something to share if that's requested. And that's the reality of this. But all of that time and that lack of sleep of getting
to prepare that thing is for the board. It's not influencing what's happening in the system. In fact, it's actively taking away people's focus and attention from what is happening in the system. And the reason to have this monitoring calendar is so that there's no no surprise. We can plan months in advance for this. We can get all the data and
not just for the board, but it gives me the opportunity as a superintendent to work with my team about actually using that data in all of our schools. So, it's not just data for the sake of it or for data for the board, but it's actually the data that we are using dayto-day and now we are packaging it for you and the wider community. Thank
you. What else? What else stood out in this? We haven't heard from my group over here to the left. We're talking about just what stood out during this. >> Yeah. What stood out on any of these four ingredients? >> Of the four ingredients. Yeah. I mean, it was it was the
the totality of the clearly show. Um, and just and I'm not sure if somebody had said that part already, but anything that we're getting when it comes to these reports and everything, we should already be able to make some assessment
to be able to read through and see what it is we're talking about. And of course, the superintendent or the staff person that's um, you know, elaborating, adding more context to it will be helpful. But the report itself should be clear enough to us to be able to know immediately, are we on the right track?
always pushing in the right direction and or not. >> Yeah. What are those four things that are always going to be clearly shown on these reports or should be? >> So the goal, the data, the interpretation, >> the data, the interpretation. What do I mean by the interpretation?
>> Clearly show the superintendent's current view of the system performance relative to the goal. >> Yeah. Why is that important? Why is it important that the superintendent say, "I think this data, the way I see it right now, says we're on track or we're off track to our goal." Why is that important? Can't you just get that from the data yourself?
>> Yeah. Um it's that that ownership, that accountability aspect and the ability to pivot if if clearly it's known that it's not going in the direction. >> Yeah, it definitely it creates an ownership. The superintendent's got to put their name on it and say, "Yeah, my team and I have looked at this. We
believe we are on track or we are off track." And there are times when the numbers don't say everything, and I think everyone knows this is that I might get 100% mastery in a class, but what happens if half the class was gone? Like, does that telling me I'm on track or not? Probably not. You need
that insight from the superintendent. And the last thing, and probably the most important thing, is the evidence and the plan. What are we doing about this data? Not generally, here's what we've been doing, but what are we doing based on this new data? Because there's no point in looking at data if we don't adjust based on that data that we're learning.
Thank you. Anything else stood out on these pages? All right, we'll move to the last segment here about monitoring data. I'm not going to ask you to read anything right now. I'm going to walk through something, but I would like for you to close your eyes and imagine and I'm going to ask you to write something down with me.
Next month, what are we monitoring this month? What's the topic? >> Do you know off the top of your head, Dr. Molinar, what's the student achievement topic for this month? >> Yes, sir. Benchmarks. >> Benchmarks. So benchmarks in reading. >> Mhm. Reading and math, >> right? >> Mhm.
>> So imagine you've just heard you can make up all the data, everything you saw, all the things. Write down one question that you might ask in two weeks from now. You've just received a bunch of data and information, the superintendent's progress. We're on track here. We're off track here. Here's what we're doing
about it. Write down one question you might ask the superintendent. Take a few minutes and we are going to have everyone share out your question that you might ask based on this data. Give me a thumbs up when you have your question. Any question in the world that
you might ask after seeing a monitoring report about math and data. Okay. I got three thumbs up. All right. All right. Dr. Mullen, you don't have to write a question. You'll be answering the questions.
All right, everyone got a question? All right, I'm gonna ask you to just share with me your question. Um, we'll start on this side, Dr. Ryan, if you don't mind, and we'll go around. Just share me the question. What's a question you might ask after receiving some ELA and math benchmark data? >> What specifics are you engaging in to
improve problem areas and problem schools? >> All right. What specifics am I engaging in to improve problem area and problem schools? >> Um, to the superintendent specifically, what is this what is this data telling her? All right. What's the day telling her? Great.
>> Are you seeing improvements with the uh economically disadvantaged students in math and reading? >> Yeah, are we seeing improvements with economically disadvantaged students in math and reading? >> Where are we seeing the most growth and why? >> Okay, thank you.
>> As a result of this data, what changes are being implemented? >> All right. Thank you. What can we do different to improve the data on the rooting and then math? >> All right, Trusty Lynch, bring us home.
>> Um, is this the data you expected and or hope to see? >> All right. >> And why? >> Oh, sorry. >> And why? >> All right, Dr. You're going to have your work cut out for you on uh in two weeks. But what um I I asked you to start this way
because there are two different things that differentiate effective monitoring versus some of the traps of monitoring. The first differentiation is about what types of questions there are. We'll talk about
and this is where I'll give you after you go through your monitoring, you work through it this month, I will always send you all a summary of here's what I noticed, here's what I saw and you all can reflect on and think about how to make any adjustments going forward. And there are reasons the reasons these adjustments and things that I'll suggest
to you is not just because we think they're good. It's but because they are demonstratively more effective in moving your school system to action. The first is around the types of questions that there are. We talk about three types of questions. If you want to follow along with me, it is on the next page.
The first type of question are technical questions. These are about how something is measured. Um things like which students took this test? How does how do the students respond? Do
they take this on paper or on a computer? How many students took this test? What particular standards does this measure? All of these are technical questions. They are about the actual data we're seeing and how that data came to be, whether it's testing or
otherwise. How are you counting maintenance reports? When do you decide a maintenance report is closed? These are all technical questions talking talking about how something is measured. The second type of question are tactical questions. These are about how something
was done. How did you engage the parents? Did you talk to principles uh when you unveiled this? Um how did principles how were they asked to look through the data? These are all things about how the superintendent or their team have done some work. We call these
tactical questions oftentimes squarely in a superintendent's lane, but it's also very important that a board understands that sometimes. The last type of questions are strategic questions. And so these are really
trying to understand how this data and what I've learned align with our vision for what's happening. The goals and the guardrails or constraints as you have set them out. Don't misunderstand me. All of these questions, if you have them as a board member, it is your duty to ask them and
understand them. There is no bad question here. But there are more effective questions to actually move your school systems. And so what and I'll demonstrate this to you and I think and I'm not I you can reflect on your questions to determine was it a
technical question? Was it about how something was measured? I actually didn't hear many of those from y'all. Was it a tactical question about how something was done? I heard a few of those. And then there was I I heard a few strategic questions about how this data aligns with what we are aiming for
and how we're going to get there. And the reason I say there are more effective questions is if I ask the superintendent how many students took this assessment, superintendent is definitely going to give me an answer. Will that change anything about what happens in the school system based on that question? Will that illuminate
anything about how the system is adapting based on this data? What do y'all think? Thoughts? saying will will something change depending on the number of students? >> If I as if the question I asked is how many students took this assessment?
>> Does the response to that question whatever that would be 550 students took it? Does that response give me any insight into how the school system is adapting or changing based on the data received? >> Good. How >> if there was expected number of students
that should have taken a test and it did not meet that mark. >> So maybe underneath it if there is some expectation of this but does the question itself how many students took it 550 took it does it if that is the only question I learned does that give me any insight into whether the school
system has learned anything is taking action with this? >> No. >> No. maybe still important, maybe would help you understand that um but that won't help you understand action being taken. Tactical questions about how something was done. How were teachers
trained before giving this assessment or how were parents engaged about the work to be done? You'll also get a response. We went out to parent groups. We had we engaged the PTAs, etc., etc., etc. It's about how something was done leading up to this. You'll get some information.
Will that help you understand any changes the district is making based on the data received and what we've learned >> based on the context? No. >> No, it won't. Knowing how something happened does not give you any insight into what is going to happen. The very
different things. And the third one is strategic is I heard some of these around what did we learn from this data and what are we doing about it in the lowest performing areas. Now you're actually illuminating change. You're identifying a trend and the superintendent and their team are going to talk to you. Yeah, we saw our data
was lower than we expected in these two schools and therefore we're going to do X, Y, and Z. Now you've illuminated change and adjustment based on the data. And again, it's not always just where it's low. It's what did we learn? Maybe there's a school knocking it out of the park. what are they doing and how can we move that forward and so that's why I
say that these questions you you need to understand them if you don't have the answers you can't engage with strategic question but there are more effective questions than others and it's why in your operating procedures you have this way to be able to send questions in advance and get them I would encourage this board to to look at those
monitoring reports in advance and if you have technical or tactical questions those are the best questions to send in advance I can know exactly how many students have taken what the distinctions were between economically disadvantaged and otherwise. And that way when I come to the meeting instead
of spending time at the meeting and asking this is how it will go. I'll say what's the difference between economically disadvantaged students and our general population. If the data isn't readily available, it's crazy to expect your superintendent to have memorized these things. They're going to say, "We'll get back to you and we'll share that with you soon." And that's the end of that conversation. That
conversation now goes away. If you get that data in advance, now you see the data and you look at it and now you can say, "Wow, we've really overperformed with this group. What are we learning from it?" Now you can go a step deeper in the conversation. So that is why we distinguish between technical, tactical,
and strategic questions. And so I'll ask you just to take a second. We're not going to do a quiz, but reflect on the question you wrote. Do you think it fell under technical, tactical, or strategic as terms of a question? So take a second, think about your question.
And are there any questions about technical, tactical, or strategic questioning? Feel good about that? That will be the first thing we'll talk about. I will actually when I when we walk through your um monitoring, I'll be keeping notes on how many technical questions there are, tactical and strategic. And
the goal over time is to get more and more answers to technical and tactical and advance and spend more and more time about what do we learn, what are we doing about it. The second differentiation is about current versus future performance. So also reflect on the question you
wrote. Is your question about the data that you saw or is your question about what will you do regarding the data? Write down if your question is about current or future performance
and be ready to raise your hand whether it's current or future performance. All right, raise your hand if your question was about current performance, the data that we saw. I see one hand, two hands, three hands, four hands. Okay, feels like people are all right.
So, raise your hands if your question is about current. It's not about what we're doing. It's about what the data is that we saw. Oh, okay. Five hands. Raise your hand if it's about what? Sorry. Current performance. Raise your hand if your question was about future performance.
One. All right. Great. Two. Um, you need to know both of these. But it is my coaching that before you start asking questions about what are we doing about it and are we doing this and are we doing that and all these kind of things, those questions aren't going to
give you any value until you actually truly understand truly what's happening in your system today. And so it is our recommendation that you actually first spend a lot of time really making sure you understand really clearly the data the differentiation in your reports and
what it is saying about your current performance. And only once you understand that does it make sense to start figuring out what we're doing next. I think it's a very common trend that oftentimes I mean most board members I know are problem solvers. they want to get things done
and so you have a tendency and I have a tendency to jump to what are we doing about it, what's coming next, how are we going to do this going forward, etc. Those are all valuable questions but they are infinitely more valuable if you actually understand what is happening currently. So you can make sure that those what are we going to do actually
aligns with the data because otherwise if you ask the what are we doing superintendent is going to give you a very meaningful response and people like oh cool that sounds good you have no bearing on whether or not the data is actually saying that that is a problem and so it's important to know the data
and understand where the root causes are so you could ask why why are you doing that doesn't sound like it aligns to our issues here you're going to continue to do this strategy at all schools but this data is clearly telling telling us that there are seven schools that are struggling more than anything else. So help me understand why we are talking
about all schools instead of what's happening in these seven. Those are what become possible when you understand what's happening currently. In the absence of that, it's going to be a lot harder to really understand specifically if the strategies that are being put to place are helping you address your highest needs. So those will be the two
coaching areas that is essentially I don't I don't expect going back to our conversation about superintendent uh or board self- constraints. Something tells me this board is not going to have much of an issue maintaining cordiality and actually asking for inquiry. So I expect
for most of our time to be spent on these two elements. Any questions about monitoring either the current versus future performance or the different types of questions? All right. Well, I'm going to look forward to the next two weeks. It's
going to be fun. Um, so with that, if there's nothing else here, we will move on to our last item, which is self evaluation. You have the integrity instrument. It is the sheet that has the differing charts of different colors. Thank you to everyone who responded and
sent your scores in advance. What I would love to do is go through each of the areas where there was significant disagreement by the board. and talk about those and kind of norm on that. Does everyone have the integrity instrument in each of those? Yes. Great.
All right. So, the first one was around vision and goals. 100% of people who responded agreed and I agree with you that Fort Worth ISD schoolboard absolutely meets focus at 12 here. You've adopted student outcome goals. They challenge the organization, require
adult behavior change, are influencable by the superintendent, and are the superintendent's first priority for resource allocation, and you used a lot of root cause analyses and comprehensive needs assessments, etc. to prioritize them. Um, everyone agreed on that. So, I don't want to spend a lot of time unless
people have thoughts or questions about that. So, let's move it on uh to the second one is about progress measures. Um if we can go to the next one. Scroll
down please. Perfect. So this is about the goal progress measures. Um and I would love um most people agreed most people put a 12 here. I had a couple people put a four here. Would anyone that put a four
want to share why they might have chosen a four instead of a 12? Or anyone like to just make the case about why it is a 12 and not a four or a 15 etc. Give and no one is sharing. I will let you all talk to your partner and decide
whether you believe this is a four or a 12. And then we'll come back together in about a minute, minute and a half. And remember, the way this works is if you check any of the boxes in the first column, you stay there. But if the first column is good, then you move to the second column.
If you check all of them, then you move to the next column. But if you don't check all of them, your score is the column before it. So, you've got to check everything in the column before you get those points. So, go ahead, talk to your partner, decide which one of
these you are and why. 1 4 12 15. You're certainly not a zero. All right, let's come back together. What did people agree on? Who wants to make a case for 124 151? Where would you put Fort Worth ISD based
on this chart? >> Four. >> Four. Why? which um and actually that's a change from what I sent you um because we have not Trusty Martinez and Dr.
Merlin reminded me we have not done our annual student group targets yet. >> Yeah, >> I missed that. >> All right, anyone else? So there's one note for four. And the one note I would remind though if it is a if we are missing
something in the column we go back to the column before and we get the points before >> we get the one >> we would get the one in that instance. Um but let's see if anyone else agrees disagrees etc. Are we missing anything else etc. >> Well I just wanted to get clarity on
what are we saying that we that was being we saying we don't have an annual target for our students. >> Um that's correct. When we adopted the board goals, the subgroup targets were not adopted. We put I sent those to everyone last week as a draft um for the
targets. >> The subgroup targets, >> the other student groups that we agreed to monitor. >> Okay. All right. >> All right. So now I hear one based on
the fact that we are missing annual student group targets. Um, do we have everything else in four? Do we have three or GPMs for each student outcome goal? Yes. Um, do all GPMs have a population,
a deadline, a baseline, and annual targets. >> Once we adopt a group. So, that will actually get us a lot of these things here. Yep. All right. Any other questions? So, it seems like we're a one, but it seems like we'll be very quickly to a four or 12 very shortly
once those get adopted. and not uncommon. It takes some time to put those targets together. All right, let's move on to the next one. Um, vision and goals three, which is around constraints. Most everyone agreed nine here. I'm going to put you
on the spot, Trusty Dar. You said three. Any particular reason why you said three and not nine? >> We haven't adopted board self- constraints. >> All right. So, we hadn't adopted board self- constraints looking back to the last three months.
Anyone that had nine want to argue with her about why it should still stay a nine? >> Oh, but really it should be zero. >> Why? >> Because we don't have constraints. >> You do have So, where are you reading
that? >> We had super what said the board does not have constraints under zero. We've adopted super I mean is that just constraints in general? >> Yeah, that means like any constraints at all. >> Okay. Well, then we haven't adopted board self- constraints. So then that's why I said three.
>> Yeah, that's a little confusing. Thanks for that feedback. All right. So, all of my nines agree that we're at three because we didn't adopt board self- constraints. And I could when I was looking at this, I think you could score it either way because technically your board does have self- constraints. You just haven't set
them. So, I could see an argument for nine because you had them. You haven't paid attention to them in a while. Now, you're going to reset them. But this makes sense. All right. So, it sounds like we are good with a three because this board had not looked at them and sent them.
It's a long way up from zero last time. All right. Let's look at uh constraint progress measures. There was a wide variety here. Um, so we can go to the next one.
I had a few ones, a few threes, and some nine. No, no here. Oh, the next one. Sorry. Scroll down. Yeah, I had some ones, twos, and fours here. So, who Let's Let's actually take
some time working with your group. Where would we fit here based on our constraint progress measures? Go ahead and talk to your groups. Take about a minute and a half. Decide where you would add it. I had people all over the map on this one. Bless you.
Give me a thumbs up when you've decided on the place. We got a decision. No, not yet. All right. Where are we here in the discussion? Where do we think we are based on this? >> Go ahead, Trusty Dar or Trusty Martinez.
>> We heard it. Yeah, we agree. We're at one. >> We're at one. Okay. Why not two? >> We don't have annual targets. >> Don't have annual targets. Okay. Any other group want to agree, disagree? Trusty Lynch, >> I was going to make an argument that we're a zero. >> Why?
>> Um because some of our constraints aren't things that you can update multiple times a year because there's not data to update them multiple times a year. Oh, interesting. Um, do you have any particular ones in top of mind for you?
>> We're talking about DNF campuses. >> I think DNF campuses move to be a goal. >> Okay. >> So, I that might be the case, but if it >> Okay, if that's the case, I'm might be looking at an old draft. >> Your guardrail progress measures are percentage of teachers and campus
administrators retained, percentage of TIA designated teachers, average number of days from job posting to accepted offer. You had ones around student and family engagement around percentage of students enrolled in visual and performing arts student participation rates in Fort Worth after school. Then you had a few
around operational alignment percentage of budget allocated to strategic priority percentage of budget not directly aligned to at least one of the strategic priorities and some measures around transportation transportation and technology. My apologies. So,
does that change yours if DNF campuses is not there? >> Yes. >> All right. So, we're back to A1 because we don't have annual targets. Anyone else? >> Yes, I was going to ask. So, we So, we have constraints. We don't have according to y'all annual targets. >> Mhm. >> And then once we get those, we will be
moving forward. Okay. >> All right. >> So, a one there. And where looking at this would we think we can be in the next quarter? for the next time we do this. I would assume annual targets would two or four or five. What do you all
>> What's that? >> Four. Four. >> Four. I'm hearing four. I like it. All right, let's move on to the next one. Um, progress and accountability one.
I had a whole range of things. I had from 0 to 12 shared with me here. So, talk with your folks. Decide where you fit on this one. Progress and accountability. Are you 0 1 4 12 15? Go ahead and take a few minutes. Give me a thumbs up when you are done and you've
determined where you're at. All right, let's come back together. All right, let's start on this end. What do we What do we decide on? >> Zero. What about here? Zero. And this group. >> Zero. Okay. And the reasoning why? What's the next step we're going to do?
>> Monitoring calendar. >> All right. We got to have a monitoring calendar. It seems like we're also we got we got our goals and guardrails. Seems like we know what we're monitoring. It's just a matter of putting it out there and what we're going to hit and doing that. So, that should also be a pretty quick one. tracking time
>> and tracking time. Um, and I will note this is something that I am doing personally for y'all right now. I haven't we haven't we haven't gotten to monitoring yet, so I haven't worried about sharing it or whatnot, but that is over time will become your joy. Um, all right. And then where's our target? Where do we want to be over the next
quarter? Any thoughts? I feel like we can be a 12 or a 15. I I mean I feel I feel like and I just don't have any data to support it that we are spending at least more than 25% of our time in board meetings talking
about student outcomes. We may even be spending more than 50% of our time. I just don't have any data to support that. And if we have a time tracker, then I feel like we could get to at least 12. At least 25%.
>> I like it. 12. Any any disagreement with 12? Set the bar high. I like it. All right, next one. Progress and accountability two. This is another one. This one actually most everyone rated
this one a one. I'm going to put you on the spot, Dr. Ryan. You said two. You gave everyone more credit than they gave themselves. Do you want to talk about any reason why you said two and not number one? And then we'll ask the ones if they have any thoughts
>> because I like all the rest of the members on my school board. >> I like everyone. So, I'm going to give them a two, but not a four. Y'all I don't like you enough to give you a four. Right. >> Um All right. Anyone who has ones would like to say why a one and not a zero or
not a two. We don't have a monitoring calendar that goes with the goals that we adopted. >> Yeah, we don't. >> Go ahead. So that leaves us at a one. >> Yeah, we don't have that third bullet point on approaches focus which says evaluates the superintendent in part on the results of progress towards the
goals and constraints and we using it from the monitoring reports and the monitoring calendar. We haven't started that yet. We've definitely y'all definitely look at data. Look at all kinds of data. The purpose here is about focusing in on now what you have said is the most important data. All right. Um so keeping with that the
one note I would say here is and this is a question um do you all feel and I don't know this is a question for you all that third bullet point in number one do you all feel like you understand what the superintendent's implementation plan is to make progress towards student outcome
goals and that is a true qu like that is that is the line that a board has to draw do you feel comfortable in understanding the work and progress that's happening there. Seems like everyone said yes to that, but I just want to make sure because that's definitely the usually the squishiest one for boards.
I see nods. All right, great. One. Um, and is there any where would you want to grow by the next quarter? Can we get to a four without completing the first year of this process? >> Why do you say that?
>> Because it says the board receives at least annually a report on the average cost of staff time spent on governance using the staff use tracker. >> That's true. You would need to get that. I mean, theoretically you could get a report, but you'd have to have that data. So, >> yeah,
>> be a more challenging one. So, I'm hearing two All right. Uh, home stretch, uh, processes, systems, and processes. Another one. Congratulations. I had people score everything from a zero to a 12. Talk to your neighbor. Where do we
fall here? Talk to your neighbor. Take about a minute and a half. Talk. Go ahead. >> Real quick question though. So on that on that last one. >> Yep. Um, so, so if we saying two, what we're saying is that we're going to do a self evaluation and a superintendent
evaluation within the next quarter. Uh, let's, let's let me pull that back up if we can go back up to that one. Um, so the board performs a self-ealuation. Yes, you're doing that right now. So, that one will be you've already
completed that one. >> Okay. performed a self-evaluation no more than 45 days prior to the superintendent's most recent evaluation. When's the next superintendent evaluation? Is that on the calendar? >> When does that usually happen for for
Worth ISD? >> September. >> Yeah. So, it's moved. >> Yeah. All right. So, that one Yes. >> So, maybe we can't make that until the next time if we keep the same superintendent evaluation process, >> right? So like so I mean kind of to trusty dog's point a moment ago like one
is pretty much the highest we could achieve on that particular goal until certain time benchmarks are >> yep >> okay >> all right so adjusting it back to a one trusty dar or anyone else do you have any thoughts about that it seems like this is one that's just
time bound until next year all right thank you for pointing that out and raising the question back to systems and processes talk to your neighbor decide where your board falls falls based on the last three months of data here. Take about a minute and a half. Give me a thumbs up when you and your partners have decided where you
fall. raise your hand if you need more time. I see no hands. All right. Who will be the first brave group to share? Would you all decide where do we fall here and why? >> Yeah. For clarity purposes, we're with this language, we're not This is talking about not having six board meetings in a
month, correct? >> Yeah. So, if you had six or more board meetings in a month, >> you would check that box and now you cannot move forward >> and that would be bad. Gotcha. Yes. Absolutely. I don't think you all have done that. >> Correct. >> But I know a lot of boards that have, >> right? Okay. And so I know we're I know we're
receiving monitor room reports. Superintendent does a great job of doing those reports. We talk, one of the things we've been hung up on is kind of those targets, but we're talking about annual targets versus deadline targets. Is that semantical language or is that talking about annual targets? Because
we've decided we don't have annual targets on certain things yet. Does that eliminate the deadline target language? >> Where were you where are you looking? Are you talking about number two on the red? >> Number two. Yeah. Under one. >> Yeah. So you would need compared to
previous annual targets or you would need to be able to your monitoring report show where you are compared to your targets. >> Let me ask you another question first. Have you received a monitoring report? >> The superintendent presentations.
>> How do we define monitoring report? we've included in the reports the um other adopted targets. Um and then as soon as we flipped over and they adopted the new goals, we've included those in reports as well.
>> Gotcha. Um so this is what I would coach you all to think about in in Lonear governance, but just in general whenever once you you can't really have monitoring reports on your priorities until you adopt your priorities. So you adopted your priorities in
November. You couldn't have had monitoring even if you were monitoring. You were definitely monitoring a lot of meaningful stuff. Not saying that it's just not your priorities. So in December, did you begin monitoring progress towards your goals or constraints that you put forth explicitly?
Yes. No. >> No. Um because that report did not have any new data related to the GPMS. So this would be our first one coming up next week. Got it. that is uh specific to the GPM alignments. >> Got it. So with that information board,
where would we land? Zero. And that's right. You're going to move fast pretty fast here. Now you have your priorities. Now you're going to start your monitoring reports. But I think that's a key distinction. I think what what I see a lot is you have a lot of good reports and deep reports. A lot of boards do, but until you specify your
priority, it's hard to monitor your priorities. And so that's kind of where we got here. So we are at zero. And where do we want to be by the end of the next quarter knowing you're starting monitoring this month? >> I think we can meet at four because this the policy we haven't done the policy
diet. >> Mhm. >> And that's that's big. >> Yeah. And I mean like and that's a confusing thing about this rubric. If you look at four, you've accomplished both things on four already. You just don't have the monitoring reports yet. So it'll be easier to get there.
Um, all right. At zero today, going to four. Let's go to the next one. Advocacy and engagement. It seemed like everybody agreed on this one except for one. And so, um, Trusty Dar, I will ask just if
you had any thoughts about why you put zero on advocacy and engagement versus one on this. Well, I don't like to be the outlier, but um >> I love it. >> I just I wasn't convinced that we had a two-way communication system in place.
>> Um where because we're not listen where we listen for and discuss the vision and values of our students and where we listen for and discuss the vision and values of the staff and community members. What I mean, >> yeah, >> we don't have one. >> It's a great question of the board. So,
anyone that scored one, any thoughts or responses or do you agree? >> Definitely say I agree and I think that's what we were putting in place within that constraint. >> Yeah. >> About ensuring that we have to under the definition that we set up. >> All right. So, now I hear a shift and
agreement that it's zero. We might have elements of this, but we're just not fully there yet. Anyone else disagree? All right. And then to the last one, synergy and teamwork. I had some zeros here. I had one one and
some threes. So go ahead, talk to your team. The last one we've got, >> where are we and where do we want to be in the next three months? Go ahead and talk to your partners. >> No, two years old. >> Yeah. still talks about my daughter
being in high school for whatever reason. I don't know. But >> yeah, >> we have no problem with corn. raise your hand if you need more time. All right, where we land? Who will be the first to share? Which group? Where did we land?
So, we were saying zero, but just for the purposes of we have board operating procedures, but we're cleaning up the language. >> So, technically, we do have it. It's not like it's not there, but >> now with the formulation of new language, when we adopt that, that'll be
this board's iteration of a true board operating procedure. So, until that is adopted, which will be soon, then we haven't crossed that one yet. All right. So, they're saying zero because we haven't adopted new board operating
procedures. Does anyone disagree? Agree. Agree. Agree. All right. Um, y'all are hard on yourself. I feel like you could definitely make the case that you have board operating procedures that have been adopted. A lot of boards don't. Um, but this is not about the right or wrong
answer. That's not the point of this exercise in the first place. It's about what you all are using to think about what you want to accomplish. So based on that, if we agree that, you know, we haven't adopted our own, so we're going to give us a zero until we adopt them, where do we want to be the next time
this comes around in April? Any thoughts about that? Where'd we'd like to end up? Okay, I'm going to play the year card again. Can we affirm that at least every two years it has reviewed all policies governing board governing board
operating procedures if it hasn't been two years? >> Affirms that at least every two years it has been reviewed all policies governing board operating procedures. Um, so that would mean what what that would mean for this board if you all wanted to do that would be you adopt your board operating
procedures and now you make sure to look at the because the board operating procedure is a compilation of your policies. So you would look at those policies and see if any of those policies need to be updated in the coming 3 months. That's a question if the board wants to do that. And if it's not a priority of the board in the next three months, then I would not say that
we're going to do that in the next three months either. But that's what it means is that at least every two years you review BE local and make sure BE local matches what you want it to be which is about how your board meetings run and so on and so forth. >> Then when is when are we expecting the board operating procedures to be on an
agenda for us to vote on? >> That is your decision. Um >> February >> I would assume it's too soon for January. So the soonest is probably February. >> February. >> February. >> February. Okay.
So, what I'm hearing is maybe not even one yet. We got to have some other priorities first like the monitoring calendar and the student annual targets and we'll get those right and then we'll come down here and do this kind of clean this stuff up later on. Is that more or less accurate? Love it. Congratulations on your
infinite increase over last time uh where this board like most boards scored zero. Uh you are now at a strong 18 and I think there's an argument to be made that you could probably go a little higher than some of those in some of these areas. So, congratulations. What will happen next? cuz I will compile all of that. Oh, go ahead. >> Can before can we speak a little bit
about committees, >> please? Let's speak about committees. >> Um cuz I know we paused them. So here board members serve on committees formed by the superintendent or staff unless serving is required by law. So we
currently have committees that are not superintendent or staff driven. So with that one, we would need to revise our committees. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And I think we talked a little bit about this in board operating procedures
the first time because I think it does touch on that. But again, the purpose of a board committee is to, as this mentions, inform the board. What gets dangerous is when you're meeting about operational elements with staff and this board members naturally because you're
being asked all these questions about curriculum and all these other things that board members it is your right to make sure that what you adopt matches the vision but to get involved in the weeds of that is where the challenge comes in there. So, um, that's true. If that's the case that we have board members serving on staff
committees and giving input on operational decisions, which goes against your recently talked about self- constraints, that would be an area to look at potential revision of. >> Yeah. And then the other thing just wanted to note like when you get to number three, um, the expectation that information provided to one board member
is provided to all board members, that also comes into factor when we have committees. >> Yeah. I don't know about you, but I think that's one of the things that I think about the most is like if it's it's important enough to get board member input on, I dang well want to see that with the rest of the colleagues
rather than wait. But that's me personally. But that's something to think about there in terms of that one information provided to all. >> I do have a question on on number one or for preparing to focus. >> Yep. >> Agrees that a board officer's role is to
advise the board, not to advise the staff. and we changed one of our deals to unsolicited advice because I've been in committee meetings where they've gone what do you think about so- and so how would you proceed how should we proceed
so they're asking for advice >> yeah so I will tell you a little bit of the reasoning here is staff will generally ask for advice because that is a power dynamic involved in there sometimes they legitimately want your
advice, that's great. But advice from a board member is almost indistinguishable I from a command. Like I don't know if you're truly advising me and I can decide not to listen to it or if it's you're advising me and I know you really care about it. So to kind of control for that, this is one is that first of all,
you pay the superintendent and all of the staff who have their doctorates and masters and educational expertise and a a ton of years of experience doing this work to make those decisions. The purpose of this is to allow them to make those decisions. And as the board, even
if I'm an educator on the board, I'm not the educator in the district, it's my role just to make sure that the superintendent and their team have done their homework and this makes reasonable sense that it'll help us accomplish our goals and and go on that. And so that's really what the heart of this is is around
creating conditions where staff can make the educational recommendations and the board looks at them through the lens of are those going to help us get us closer to our goals or not. not to make the decisions or give advice to staff because just given the power dynamics,
board member advice is always taken with a different tone than another staff member's advice or someone who is a mentor but not related to the organization. So that's the reasoning for this. Um it's really hard to distinguish that but and you this is
aims to push back against systematizing where all like trust or trustees might become accustomed to I expect in these committee meetings to be asked for my advice on this and that's a dangerous place to be in >> also think about the board's role is to
represent community values so we would know that best. So sometimes staff may ask about what we what our community is saying about a certain thing. Um so that that kind of is a little muddy.
>> Yeah. And again I think overall this is talking about not individual trustees and like that's part of the reason why it's not even about advice. It's about why you were legally charged with setting priorities. Like the law doesn't tell the superintendent to set priorities. The law says the board sets the priorities for the district. What
this is talking about is what's the purpose of a committee? And a committee's role, a smaller group of the whole, is to advise the whole board, not to advise the staff outside of the board's purview is really what that's getting to. That's a great conversation. Thank you all for engaging. Any other thoughts,
questions, ideas, responses here? >> I do have one. Has Lonear governance been revised and changed lately? uh that's in the middle of a pretty big refresh right now. I don't think they're finalized with that, but I know I think we talked about some of these things
like um a lot of things around what does and doesn't count for time use tracking. Um changing the entire language around con I think constraints are no more. I think it's now becoming guard rails and some of these other elements, but I don't know that process is finished yet. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome.
I had one other comment about I know we talked about this in our training but around the reg um student recognitions and whether those count towards student outcomes and I think we um said if it's related specifically to student outcomes that what we're doing the recognitions
for. Um but I was able to have some communication with community and get some feedback on that and um I think that student recognitions at board meetings are still very important. Yeah. >> Yeah. That's y'all's purview entirely.
And again, if you go back a few slides to what the heart of this is is you set priorities. The entire coaching is around spend the majority of your time, 50% on what you have said as the priority. Put your actions where your words are. That still leaves 50% of the
time for whatever else you deem important. There are other really important things that you need to attend to. The heart of this is never about only talk about the goals that you set and ignore everything else. That is not the coaching. That would be a terrible practice. But it is worth putting in front of a board to think that if you
said something's your priority, you should spend the majority of your time on your priorities and then fill in the other time with the other things that you find very important. That's really what the coaching is. So that that's exactly the conversation to have. Like I do think regardless, you know, you might
want to continue to have these celebrations, etc. That's your purview, your community's purview. Um I would also encourage you to also add celebrations around what you have said are your priorities as well. You can do both of those. So, but that's totally a board's purview.
All right, with that, um thank you all. What I will take this I will put it into the format and send it back to you and you all will have that um for probably February adoption um for this quarter. But congratulations on significant growth. So with that, I'll turn it back to you, president.
>> Thank you. Um, thank you board for engaging that. We are now at this time at agenda item 5A, the level three grievance of Kimberly Jenkins, which requires meeting in close session as authorized under chapter 551
of the Texas Government Code, sections 551.071 and 071 and 074. Will the parties involved in this process please come forward at this time? The time is now 8:46 p.m. The date Tuesday, January 13, 2026. We will now
recess and convene for executive session as authorized by chapter 51 of the Texas Government Code under sections 551.071074. Heat. Hey, Heat. Heat. Heat. N. Heat. Heat. N. All right. Heat.
Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. N. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey. Heat. Heat. Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. N.
Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey, Heat. Heat. Heat. N. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. All right.
Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey, heat. Hey, heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. N. Heat. Heat. Cry Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. N. down. Hey Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. N. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. N. Heat.
Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey everybody.
Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat up here.
Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey. Heat. Heat. N. Heat. Heat. N.
Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. N. Heat. Heat. Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey, hey, hey. Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. daddy. Down. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.
Heat up here. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey, hey, hey. Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat. Heat up here. Heat. Heat. Heat up here. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey.
Oh, heat. Heat. Heat. Yeah. Oh yeah. Hey. Oh. Oh.
Are you I don't Heat. Heat. I don't want you. I am you. Heat. Heat. N. Heat. Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey.
I'm crazy. Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey. Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey.
Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Ow. Hey, hey, hey. How we go? Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey,
hey, hey. Oh. Oh. Oh. I feel so good. I feel so good.
Feel so good. I feel so good. I feel so good. I feel so good. I feel so good. I feel so good.
I feel so good. Heat. Heat. Heat. And it feels so good. And it feels so good. Heat. Heat. Heat. Good. When you're feeling down, want to come
my way. going to lift you up. Let me hear you say, "Yeah, we're living on love." Yeah, we're living. Yeah, we're living on love. Yeah, we're living on love. Yeah, we're living. Yeah, we're living on love. Oh, oh, we're going to
take you higher. Oh, oh, we going to lift you up. Oh, oh, we're going to take you higher. Oh. Oh. We're going to lift you up.
When you hit the ground, don't you lose your way. Got to get back up. Let me hear you say, "Yeah, we're living on. Yeah, we're living. Yeah, we're living on Yeah, we're living on. Yeah, we're
living. Yeah, we're living on. Oh, we going to take you higher. Oh, we going to lift you up. We going to take you higher. Oh, oh, we
going to lift you up. Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Oh yeah, yeah. We're going to take you higher. We're going to lift you up. Oh, we're going to take you higher.
We're going to lift you up. We're going to take you take out you going to take you take you out. It's Oh. You take me higher.
You take me higher. Come on. You take me higher. You take me higher. You take me higher. Higher. You take me higher. You take me higher. You take me higher.
Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. The rest is yet to heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat. N. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. N. Heat. Hey, Heat. Heat. Heat. N. in accordance with the opens meeting law. Nope. In accordance with the open meeting law,
the board opened the meeting at 5:32 p.m. with the quorum present. Recess to open session convenes executive session adjourned executive session and now reconvene open session at 10:16 p.m. with the quorum present. We are at action item 7A, board deliberation and
render decision if any on the level three grievance of Kimberly Jenkins. Do I have a motion? I move to uphold the level two grievance and direct staff to change Dr. Jenkins salary to reflect her position in 2026 2027 and moving forward.
>> Do we have a second? Trusty D. Any discussion? Please move to voting. Motion fails. 43. >> It passes. >> Oh, wait. Sorry. Motion passes. 43. Sorry. Motion.
The time is 10:17 p.m. and this meeting is adjourned.