Good evening. This meeting is now convened at 05:02 P. M. I would like to ask everyone to please silence all cell phones. A quorum of the board members is present in the auditorium. I'm Board Secretary, Paula Mendoza, and I will preside over tonight's meeting. I am joined by Board Members Michelle Cruz Arnold, Marcos Rosales and Marty Goosen. Speakers to the agenda items. Our first order of business is is to hear from speakers to agenda items. However, there are none. No one has registered to address the Board this evening. We will now conduct a hearing scheduled for this meeting.
Please note that we will not conduct a hearing scheduled for Michelle Tolbert as it was rescheduled before tonight's meeting. We will also not conduct a hearing for Chanel Williams as that appeal has been resolved. Okay. The purpose of this meeting is to consider the dispute filed by Timothy Fields, former employee, HISD Police Department. Hearings involving complaints against district employees are to be held in closed session unless the employees who is the subject of the hearing request an open hearing. If both parties request an open session during the course of this hearing,
the Board may go into closed session to consult with attorneys under the terms of the Texas Government Code, Sections 551.071. If any Board member wishes to seek the advice of counsel, please tell me. For the record, Christopher Tritico with Tritico Law representing Timothy Fields is present. Timothy Fields is also present. Andrew Francis with Spalding Nichols Lamp. Sorry for the pronunciation. Lang Langlos? Langlaw. Langlaw, representing the administration is present. Katasha Woods, HISD general counsel,
is also present. Mister Tridico, do you wish to continue in open or closed session? Open, please. The issue before the school board are whether board policies and administrative procedures were correctly applied to the grievance and whether the administration has violated those policies and procedures. Mister Fields, your representative will proceed first. Mister Tritico will be allowed to make a ten minute presentation to be to the board followed by a ten minute presentation by Mr. Francis. Presentations must be based on the Level two hearing transcript. Mr. Trittico, you may reserve part of your ten minutes for rebuttal to matters presented by Mr.
Francis. Both sides shall be available for questions from the Board after their respective presentations. Good afternoon. Thank you for for hearing us today. Tim Fields is the former Chief of Police at Lamarque Independent School District, having lost that job when TEA shut the district down and the police department went away. And so he had to go find another job landing here at, the Houston Independent School District. And he was had the rank held the rank of sergeant. The issues that are before you today, you'll find in your exhibit binders,
there's several grievances. This grievance today is primarily about the termination. If you grant the termination, then you can go back and decide if you're going to give him his days back from his vacation. But right now, I'm not concerned about vacation time, I'm concerned about his job. Concerned about the loss of a job because a man had the guts and the integrity and temerity to speak up and speak out and file agreements against his supervisor for doing for violating policy and violating the rights of his coworkers at HISD. He was fired after he showed a tape of his co worker disrobing in a
car at a campus. Not just any co worker, his supervisor. This is a supervisor that he had a relationship with. He'd been separated from his wife and he and his supervisor engaged in a relationship, a relationship that they both agreed to engage in. This but this was not just any coworkers, his direct supervisor. When he and his wife patched things up, Sergeant Fields broke it off with his supervisor, said I've gotten back together with my wife, I can't see you anymore. That did not sit well with his supervisor. Typically, in situations like this,
the complaint is about a power imbalance, isn't it? We're worried about situations where a supervisor is in a relationship with someone they supervise, exercising their control and their power over that person. And we do everything we can to protect the person who is who is not the supervisor, but the other person, the person who is a lower rank, the secretary, the the associate, the person who doesn't have the power in the relationship and typically that's a lady, isn't it? That's not the case here.
Tim Fields being a man, he was the one who was not protected. The lady in this situation, the supervisor, the person with all the power, the person with all the rights, the person with the ability to take action against Tim Fields was protected. When all this came out, five years after the fact or three years after the fact, by the way, she was allowed to retire with honors. Tim Fields was fired. Does that seem fair? Does that seem right? Is that the way we treat people in a power imbalance situation? What the evidence shows is that Tim Fields was at his duty station at a
school when his his supervisor pulled up in a car. He didn't know she was coming. He turned on his, camera on his phone to protect himself. He kept that quiet, kept that to himself for a very long time until he was ordered to go to an HR meeting. In that HR meeting, he was told that this is a confidential meeting. What's said in here stays in here. He was given something in writing that said that. This is a confidential meeting. What you say in here stays in here. It's just between us and HR, you and HR.
The HR director then took his information that he had given in confidence with assurance, taken that and told the chief of police, violated his confidence, violated the rights of an employee of this district, violated every tenant of HR, and told the chief of police what he had said in the meeting, that he had the tape. He had a tape. They then turned it around and said he violated the supervisor's rights by tape recording her disrobing.
He didn't ask her there. He didn't ask her to come and come to his workplace. She's the one who pulled up. She's the one who disrobed. He tape recorded he he recorded that to protect himself, and this district used it against him and fired him for it. It's wrong. It's backwards, and it is not the way we act. It's not the way we protect people in an empower, imbalance situation, but it is what you have done. And if you don't do something today, there's more there's more consequences for this. The administration is gonna claim in a minute that,
this is not about that. It's about other issues. It's about him not not showing up when when one of his officers was, was in a situation and got injured. But what the record clearly shows is that not only did he check-in with that officer who told him that she was not injured, he was at an HR meeting that he was ordered to be at. And in the evidence before you is the sign in and sign out sheet that shows he was at that HR meeting the entire time that incident was going on. And better than that, he had another sergeant who agreed to take over the situation and ensure the integrity
of the investigation and made sure that that officer was okay. When he got out of the meeting and found out what was going on, he immediately checked on everything, checked on the officer, and took over the situation. It's everything you would expect of one of your sergeants to do, yet they turn it around again and use it against it. If you care to do the right thing, if you care to do the job that you were sworn to do, and I hope you will, I hope that this board will at some point start protecting the employees of this district.
I haven't seen it yet. I have not seen this board one time vote in favor of an employee. Not one board member vote in favor of an employee. So I hope that at some point, you'll start taking the oath you took seriously and look at these cases before you go in the back, pretend to deliberate, and come out, and in lockstep, vote to fire employees after years of dedicated service. This man did nothing wrong. Tim Fields did nothing wrong. He went to an HR meeting that he was told was was confidential,
told them what happened, and this district turned it around and used it against him and fired him for an incident that occurred over three years prior to the date of his of of this of the investigation that resulted in his termination. It's wrong what happened. It's wrong what's been going on, and you need to do something about it today. Thank you. Thank you. Mister Francis, you may make your presentation to the board. Members of the board, thank you for having me today. It's, actually a pleasure to be here in front of you representing the administration. To begin administration presentation this evening,
I wanna make one point unmistakably clear. We are here today because of officer Fields' own choices and conduct. Officer Fields has attempted to shift responsibility to others and suggest that various individuals were somehow out to get him, but the record does not support that narrative. To the contrary, as the evidence will show, clearly, the responsibility for officer Fields' demotion and termination rests solely with officer Fields. Over the course of my presentation, I will briefly walk you through the record and show you that the evidence overwhelmingly
supports both officer Fields' demotion and his termination and that HISDPD acted fully within board policy at each step of the process. So first, we'll touch on the termination of mister Fields. The complaint that was lodged against mister Fields by police chief Shamar Garner alleged that officer Fields violated these two policies or sorry, police directives. First, it it alleged that he violated police directive four two zero zero zero one, which is conduct and authority,
personal conduct. And you can find this policy on page two thirty seven of the local record. It states in pertinent part that employees shall always exhibit professional conduct and shall not engage in any activity, including unlawful activity that would degrade or bring disrespect to the employee or the department. He was also alleged to have violated HISD PD directive four two zero zero zero one, conduct and authority sound judgment. And that can be found on page two thirty eight of the local record. And I I just wanna make sure there's two separate local records.
So the local record that I'm speaking on is dated 11/11/2025. And that directive states in pertinent part that employees are expected to ex exercise sound judgment at all times. Employees' behaviors should be limited to conduct that is reasonable and prudent, and no employee shall commit any act or on duty or off duty in an official or private capacity that may bring the department reproach, discredit, or embarrassment. I bring those up to you because the record clearly will show that officer Phil's
actions with regards to the video that he took of another officer violating both of those policies. Clearly. His conduct clearly was of such that if I had gotten out, it could've caused a major embarrassment to not only the police department, but to this district. And I'll explain further. So if you go to page two zero four of the local record, you'll see a memorandum that was sent from, assistant chief Latricia Rogers to chief Shamar Garner on 05/24/2024. And in that memo,
chief Rogers notified chief Garner that on 05/21/2024, Christina Lewis from HISD's employee relations department reported to chief Rogers that officer Fields showed miss Lewis a video of officer Fields engaging in inappropriate sexual conduct on district property with a fellow sergeant back in the year 2020. Based off of that report, chief Garner went on to file a complaint with the internal investigation department, which officer Fields received on 05/30/2024.
Next, I wanna point your direction to page two seventeen and two eighteen of the local record, which is Christina Lewis's sworn statement that she provided during the internal affairs investigation into the allegations against officer Fields. Christina Lewis is the investigator for is an investigator for HISD's, intern, employee relations department. And in her sworn statement, she asserted that officer Fields showed her a video which he recorded with his own cell phone in order to confirm that he and fellow,
he and his fellow officer had a previous romantic relationship. In addition, miss Lewis stated that the video showed officer Fields walking out of Stevenson Middle School onto the campus' parking lot to approach his fellow officer who was sitting in her private vehicle. And that video went on to show that that his fellow officer lift lifted her dress while sitting in the front seat to show sergeant Fields, who was standing outside of the car, her genitalia. Miss Lewis also asserted that officer Fields reported to her that sergeant Lopez also showed
her breast while she was sitting in the car, but that was not visible on the video. Notably, officer Fields later refused to provide miss Lewis with a copy of the video when requested. Next, I wanna show you page two twenty of the local record, which is officer Fields' own written statement that he provided during the internal affairs investigation of these allegations. And at the bottom of page two twenty in the last paragraph, you will see that officer Fields himself admits that the encounter between he and his fellow sergeant occurred while he was on duty at the assigned campus.
In the middle of the next page, on page two twenty one of the local record, you'll see that officer Fields also admits that he started the recording of video encounter with this fellow sergeant in the campus' parking lot at which time the fellow sergeant exposed her breast and exposed her genitalia to them. I say fellow sergeant because at the time that he showed this video, they were both ranked as sergeants. Okay? So I think it's very important to highlight that because I know we're bringing up allegations that she was in charge and that at the time,
he seemed pressured to go out there, but it needs to be clear. He was on duty at the time when he took this video at a middle school campus with children at the school on duty. He made the personal choice to go out and walk to the fellow sergeant while she was in her private vehicle. It wasn't a call for duty. It wasn't her in a squad car asking for assistance. She pulled up in a private vehicle, not dressed, not in uniform, and asked them to come outside. He chose to do that. On the video,
it shows that they're talking and discussing their romantic relationship between each other, which this then prompts her to then go into exposing herself in front of him. Not to trap him, but this is a cordial conversation. Okay? Next, I wanna point your direction to the investigation summary that was, provided that was, drafted and completed at the end of the internal affairs investigation into these allegations. Allegations. And these are on page two twenty five. You'll see that captain Rawls' investigation summary sustained that the allegation that,
officer sorry. Captain McCall's findings found that the allegations against officer, Fields were sustained. It found that the, evidence showed that officer Fields did video record sergeant Lopez lifting up her dress and exposed her breasts to him while he was on duty and working at the Stevenson campus. It also shows evidence that he disclosed the video to employees relations without notifying the police department of his existence. And I think it's important for me to highlight that even mister Fields' counsel today
explained that this video was taken back in 2020. He waited an entire four years to disclose this video to the employee relations department when there was a complaint ongoing between him and the fellow sergeant. So it wasn't that he felt violated and he needed to disclose this video. It was in response to an current investigation that was going on that had to do with him and the fellow sergeant. At that time, four years later, he then discloses that this video.
And I think it's very important for me to highlight that this was on the heels of, officer Fields being demoted in a couple months before the termination. And the demotion was really based on there was a call on February 13 from his direct report that she had been injured in trying to apprehend a suspect on the campus. When she made the call, initially, no answer. Then she calls on dispatch and at that time, officer Fields then responds to the call. He asked her, are you okay? But he never shows up to the campus.
Matter of fact, in the local record you'll see on page one ninety five in the investigative summary, you'll see that it was sustained that the evidence found that officer Fields was called at a 11:25, made contact with the officer at 11:25, and then at 12:34PM, then informed his supervisor that he wasn't available to take calls because he had a meeting with HR. One thing I wanna make clear is that they noted that he,
was ordered to go to HR, but HR is not in his line of command. Only orders that he should be following is in the chain of command of Thank you, sir. Mr. Tridico, you have two minutes. Thank you. I'd like to point out just a few things in the two minutes I have left. The existence of the video from 2020 to 2024 and the fact that it was kept secret is proof that Sergeant Fields was not trying to harm anybody, he was trying to protect himself. Had he been trying to harm
the district, the department or what's her name? Sergeant Lopez. Sergeant Lopez, then he would let that video out immediately. He kept it quiet, kept it to himself and used it only in defense of himself when the time when it was necessary to defend himself. That is not a violation of of the, personal conduct policy or the sound judgment policy. And to suggest that at the time and by the way, at the time that this happened in 2020, he was not a sergeant. He was an officer.
He was in a subordinate position to Lopez, sergeant Lopez. She was his direct supervisor. And she called him and ordered him to come out and meet with him meet with her. He didn't know until he got out that he she was in her per personal vehicle. But it would not have mattered, would it? Had she disrobed in a in a HIST squad car or her personal vehicle, he would not have known he could not have known that that was going to occur until he got to the car after he'd been ordered to be there. This is again, they turn it around, turn it around, turn it around, and try to blame the subordinate for the supervisor's conduct.
She's the one who disrobed. She's the one who drove to his work location. She's the one who called him outside to come outside and meet with her. What about that suggest that he was the one in at fault? Nothing. He didn't do anything wrong. The simp the facts are clear and simple. He was abused by a supervisor and Thank you, mister Tridico. Alright. Do we have any questions from our board members? Mister Tridico, can you point us where in the record it establishes, that he was an officer, not a sergeant in 2020? And and I'll ask,
you, mister Francis, to provide the countervailing point. I don't I I can't give you a record sight. I I know what I know, but I can't tell you today off the top of my head. You understand we make decisions on what's on the record and what not what you know. Oh, what? Tell me. No. No. I'm not asking for an answer. I'm asking for something in the record that establishes Let me see if I can let me see if I can send the record. Hang on. Give me a second. I'll pass. I'll give you the opportunity to point out mister Francis' where in the record it establishes that he was a sergeant at the time.
The flip side of the question. No. At at the time of the video recording in 2020, he was a police officer. Okay. So at at the time of the recording in 2020, sergeant Lopez was a sergeant and mister Fields was an officer? Yes. Okay. And so your point of them being both being sergeants, that was later in the 2324 time frame. When he when he brought the video forth. Okay. During an investigation into contention between him and sergeant Lopez Okay. Is when he he was a sergeant at that time.
Okay. I understand. Thank you. Nope. They they stipulated to I'm stipulated that to the first part. To the first part of his statement that he was an officer at the time. Alright. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions? Okay. Would the board members like to deliberate in closed session? Well, if we if there's no further questions, unless you want to go to closed session, we're going to go ahead and vote. I'll entertain a motion. Okay. All right. The Board will now recess to closed session under Chapter five fifty one of Texas Government Code Open Meetings Act, Subsections 551.004
through 551.089. Should Board final action, voter decision or any matter considered in the closed session be required, such final action, voter decision shall be taken at the open meeting covered by the notice upon the reconvening of this public meeting or at a subsequent public meeting of the Board upon notice thereof. The Board has recessed to closed session at 05:28 p. M. On May 28. All right. We will now reconvene in open session. This special meeting of the School Board of the Houston Independent School District is now reconvene in open session. The time is 05:55 p.
M. Do I have a motion? Yes, Trustee Mendoza. I move that we deny all requested relief not previously granted by the Level two Hearing Officer and uphold the decision of the Level two Hearing Officer. All right. We have a motion on the floor. Do I have a second? Yes, I second. Thank you. In order to vote, we may need to log back in. All right. We have a motion on the floor and a second. Please vote. All right. Motion passes four-zero. All right. The Board has voted for against, zero sorry, for and zero against.
A letter notifying both parties of the action of the Board shall be prepared and signed by the Executive Director of Board Relations as soon as possible. This hearing is concluded at 05:56PM. Thank you. All right. We're going to go ahead and continue. Are both parties ready? Yes. Yes. All right. Procedure for Dispute Resolution Hearing No. One, Michelle Williams. Purpose of the meeting. The purpose of this meeting is to consider the dispute filed by Michelle Williams, former employee, Benbrook Elementary School. Hearings involving complainants against district employees are to be held in closed session unless the
employee who is the subject of the hearing requests an open hearing. If both parties request an open session during the course of this hearing, the board may go into closed session to consult with its attorneys under the terms of the Texas Government Code, Sections 551.071. If any Board member wishes to seek the advice of counsel, please tell me. For the record, Gianna Ortiz with the Ortiz Law Firm representing Michelle Williams is present. Michelle Williams is also present. Ellen Spalding with the Spalding, Nichols, Lamp, Langlas representing the administration is present and Catasha Woods,
HISD General Counsel is also present. Ms. Ortiz, do you wish to continue in open or closed session? Thank you. All right. The issues for determination. The issues before the school board are whether board policies issues with determination. The issues before the school board are whether board policies and administrative procedures were correctly applied to the grievance and whether the administration has violated those policies and procedures. Missus Williams, your representative will proceed first. Miss Ortiz will be allowed to make a ten minute presentation to the board followed by a ten minute presentation by missus Spalding.
Presentations must be based on the Level two hearing transcript. Ms. Ortiz, you may reserve part of your ten minutes for rebuttal to matters presented by Mrs. Spalding. Both sides shall be available for questions from the Board after the respective presentations. Miss Ortiz, how would you like to divide your time in making your presentation to the board? Six minutes and four minutes is rebuttal. Alright. Six minutes and four minutes is rebuttal. Miss Ortiz, you may begin. Good evening, trustees. Thank you very much. My name is Gianna Ortiz, and I represent Michelle Williams, teacher at Benbrook Elementary until last month.
This grievance is not complicated. It's not political. It is very straightforward and very simple. It begins with your board policy, DGB local. DGB local provides that the superintendent or provided until August 2025 that the superintendent shall meet with union leaders four times a year. The reason is simple. It's stated in in policy to facilitate communication between employees of the district and the superintendent who is then duty bound to share that information with you as trustees.
In the spring of twenty twenty five, it became clear to miss Williams and to others that those meetings were not occurring as they are mandated to do under board policy DGB local, and she brought a grievance. She brought a grievance in April 2025 arguing about the failure of the superintendent to attend and a consult consultation meetings. Shortly thereafter, the district reached out to her and others and scheduled a consultation meeting for May 28. So she dropped that grievance because the it appeared that the consultation process would resume.
On May 28, she and other union leaders met with district officials. They were the district officials were called out of the room saying Mike wants to see you, and he did not attend that meeting. So she filed an amended grievance, a new grievance. 06/23/2025, arguing that the superintendent was not complying with your policy requiring him to attend consultation meetings with the union leaders. The. But before filing her grievance, she reached out to you. She reached out to the superintendent's office,
and she made every effort to resolve these concerns informally. The district does not and cannot dispute that the consultation meetings were not occurring. The district does not and cannot dispute that Mike Miles did not attend the meeting on May 28 because he didn't. The district argues that it doesn't matter because now the poly policy has changed. But that's not how your policy applies to everyone else in this district. Everyone in this district is bound to follow your board policies in effect at the
time of the events. Like, if I get stopped speeding today on I 45 on my way back to Dallas and they change the speed limit tomorrow, it doesn't mean I wasn't speeding the day before. And here, your superintendent did not follow the policy. The level two decision doesn't really even deny the fact that your superintendent was not following the policy. The level two decision just says that he or the administration, those subordinate to him, comply with the intent of the policy.
But there is no intent of the policy other than what you all wrote or your predecessors wrote in the policy that was in effect in April when she filed her first grievance, in May when this consultation meeting was scheduled and the superintendent failed to appear, and in June when she filed her grievance about that failure to appear. And that policy is clear. The intent of that policy is that the superintendent shall attend those meetings, and the superintendent shall do so four times a year. And the superintendent shall report back to you all on what is learned and on
the relations with the unions and the employees of this district. After the grievance was filed, the board amended its grievance its DGB local policy to make those meetings discretionary, but that doesn't change the fact that it was mandatory at the time your employee failed to comply with your policy. So this grievance is ultimately about accountability because teachers in Houston ISD, and miss Williams knows this as well as any of them, are disciplined every day for failures to follow policy,
for failures to follow directives in every aspect of their work. The superintendent you all should not hold the superintendent to a lower standard than he purports to hold his employees. You had a policy in place. He failed to comply with it, and miss Williams is asking for very simple relief, acknowledgment of that fact, which the level two hearing officer failed to do even though the facts are undisputed and in black and white in violation of your policy. She's asked for assurance against retaliation,
but she's already been retaliated against. And by the way, I incorporate all the statements and the documentation that was presented throughout the grievance process, including at level one and level two as if I'm fully say saying it and setting it forth here in because I don't have time to restate all of that. But she has a position on retaliation, and that's water under the bridge. But we reserve that argument and all others available to her in this and the termination process. And I also object to the fact that you have waited to schedule this board hearing until she is a former employee on appeal to the commissioner about her employment.
And that's a purposeful delay designed to discredit her because you don't have another way to do that. And maybe it's the superintendent who's doing that, but someone and we object. And we ask for a restoration of meaningful dialogue between Thank you, miss Ortiz. Miss Spalding? Good evening, madam chair and members of the board. I'm disappointed that we're spending your time and money today arguing about a policy that no longer exists for several reasons. One, the policy no longer exists. Two, the action that miss Williams complains about was,
as you see in the level two decision, a consistent practice over a decade at times. And three, as I will explain as we go further, miss Williams' own exhibits destroy her argument that superintendent Miles did not comply with policy. Let me start by making one thing clear. The administration, this district believes that engaging employees and obtaining input from employees has always been and continues to be important in HISD. This is not the first time I have been in front of this board of
managers discussing our consultation policy, and I will say again what I said before. In HISD, we agree that employees having a voice has a positive impact on student achievement and school improvement. In HISD, we agree that employees should have a voice in the policies of the district. But here we are talking about only one form of engagement, a consultation policy. And as was discussed in the testimony at level two, there are many other ways that employees and family members and community can engage.
As pointed out at level two, there are district advisory committees made up of district families, employees, and business owners. There's the teacher advisory council. There's the principal advisory. There's the family sentiment survey. And then and in addition, specific areas like gifted and talented have their own committees that provide input. It's also important to note that consultation is not required by law. Indeed, HISD is one of the very few districts in the state of Texas that has even had a consultation policy. And even though there is no law that requires consultation,
let alone requiring the superintendent to attend consultation, this grievance is about miss Williams wanting you to believe that superintendent Miles has violated policy all because he did not come to a consultation meeting. But let's talk about that that consultation meeting on 05/28/2025, and that's what this grievance is about. It's about the 05/28/2025 consultation meeting. Superintendent Miles wasn't there. It's not disputed. Three of his senior staff officials were there. Your general counsel,
your chief of staff, and your chief of public affairs and communications, as well as two other senior level employees. Miss Williams says that superintendent Miles not coming was a violation of HISD policy. She says he has violated a duty. She says it was not an option. She says he does not have discretion to unilaterally refuse to uphold HISD policy. Let's discuss that. We're talking about one meeting in this grievance that he did not attend. And first, this is really moot because that policy doesn't even exist anymore unless we're here trying
to hold the superintendent in a bad light, and I think that's what miss Williams is trying to do. Why? This policy was amended on 08/14/2025. At the time of the May 28 meeting, the policy was already in flux. There was already a draft being made to change this policy where consultation would be discretionary by the superintendent and not mandated in your policy. So all of this talk about whether he violated board policy DGB less than two months before it was amended is now meant.
Second, as your level two hearing officer found, looking at history and looking at precedents, there have been times in the past in the in the last decade, long before superintendent Miles was here, where the superintendent did not attend consultation. Rather, senior level officials attended consultation, and that is what happened here. There's no argument that there was a meeting. There was indeed a meeting, and miss Williams' own exhibits talk about the topics that were talked about in that meeting. Those topics were things like health insurance rates,
student discipline, teacher assault, level two hearing officer selection, custodial supplies and equipment, reductions in force, teacher evaluation and retaliation. It seems like a very robust discussion was had. Now all of that said, not only is it moot, not only was there a meeting where there were topics that were discussed, but miss Williams seems really hung up on the fact or what she alleges is a fact that superintendent Miles violated board policy DGBA by not attending because this old
policy says the superintendent shall meet with employee organizations at least four times per year to receive input and feedback. Her argument from level two and what you heard from her today is that because he did not come himself and rather five members of his senior staff came, his lack of attendance was a clear violation of board policy DGBA. She said it over and over again at level two. She said it over and over again to you today. In fact, miss Williams' counsel's own words from the level two hearing were,
doctor Castro, I think this is very cut and dry. The policy says what it says in black and white. You are expected to follow policy. And, unfortunately, I'm afraid she did not read her own exhibits. Because miss Williams' own exhibit, her exhibit 10, is HISD board policy BJA local. It's a policy as much as DGB is a policy. And it says, exhibit 10, BJA local says on the bottom of page three of three, quote, to the extent permitted by law, the superintendent may delegate responsibility to other employees of the district,
but shall remain accountable to the board for the performance of all responsibilities delegated or otherwise. So in other words, unless it violates a law, your policy clearly states that anytime the superintendent has a duty, the superintendent can delegate that duty as long as he reign remains accountable to you. So here, when when the superintendent delegated the duty to attend consultation to five other senior employees,
he was acting within policy. He didn't break policy. He was acting within his delegable duties according to your policy, BJA local. Now I will admit, old policy DGB can be somewhat confusing. It sometimes says the superintendent shall. It sometimes says the superintendent or designee shall. It was confusing, and it's been amended. However, whether or not it was confusing is not important because what is being alleged to you today is that superintendent Miles violated the policy,
and he clearly did not because your policy, whether it was written very clearly or not very clearly, clearly allowed him to delegate his duties to somebody else. Now this argument should not be a surprise to miss Williams. This is the language in her exhibit, BJA local, that she put into the exhibit notebook. She submitted that policy to you. So in closing, I will agree with what her counsel said at level two. This is cut and dry. The policy says what it says in black and white, and what it says is the superintendent had the right to delegate this duty.
There was no policy there was no policy violation. Once again, board members, we are here because HISD has done something miss Williams doesn't like, not because HISD has done something wrong. There was no retaliation. There was no argument about retaliation presented to you today. Everything that has happened, as you have heard, throughout these processes has been based on your policy and your requirements and the requirements of the superintendent. And for that reason, we ask that you find that your superintendent did not violate policy.
Instead, he complied very clearly with board policy BJA local. And please uphold the level two decision. Thank you for your time. Thank you, miss Faulding. Miss Ortiz, you have four minutes remaining. Thank you. And I think that the idea that miss Williams' own exhibits destroy her position is a really optimistic view and a really hail Mary attempt to get you all to ignore what is in your policy, DGB local, that was in effect at the time period at issue, period.
There's an open records request in our exhibits where we asked for any communications about the meeting, about updating the board about the meeting, and the district said it had none. There is no evidence, and no one has ever argued that the superintendent delegated it. That's a Monday morning quarterback review of the exhibits because that's not what happened. And miss Williams was in the room when Mike called the administration out to tell them this was not gonna go this way. So we know it was not delegated,
and we know how it went in the past. And miss Williams will tell you about that when she stands up in a moment. There are so many arguments that the administration makes to you, and I will just say this. They are very creative distraction attempts from what is very simple, a violation of the policy. There is nothing confusing. There is nothing destructive about a topic list with administrators that your superintendent failed to attend. There is no evidence that he remained accountable to you in this regard.
And in fact, we asked for those records, and there was nothing provided. The district responded to me that there are no such records. So there is no evidence that he delegated this, that he updated you, and that's an additional violation of your board policy, DGB local. The policy says what it says. I said that over and over, and I'll say it again. He violated the policy, and we ask that you reinstate communication between the unions and the superintendent despite his stated aversion to working together with
employee organizations as stated in our agreements, and this is about more than just the May 28 meeting. It's about his failure for months to comply with your policy. Thank you. Mister Miles does not want to be held accountable. Miss Spalding, every time she comes up here to present, it's about what I don't like and we constantly present policy. It's not about what I like or what I don't like. It's about accountability. Everybody in Houston ISD seems to be held accountable except for him. You all don't hold him accountable.
At that meeting, he was not there And it was imperative for him to be there because he has a choke hold on his administration, and they are not allowed to make any decisions without him. That's what happened at the meeting. Oh, we'll tell the superintendent about we'll tell him. There was nothing of substance that came from that meeting. That's why it was important for him to be there. In the past, I don't know what happened. But what I know happened that day was that he was not there.
It was not a productive conversation. Nothing took place. It was chaos just as it is in this district. He should have been there, the policy stated, and he wasn't. Thank you, miss Williams. Alright. Thank you. Board members, do we have questions? Questions from the colleagues? The parties have completed their presentations, and it is now time for the board members to make decisions on the issues before us. If there are any discussions, please let me know now. Any discussions or questions from the board members? Okay. If not, I will entertain a motion.
I move that we deny all requested relief not previously granted by the level two hearing officer and uphold the decision of the level two hearing officer. Do I have a second? Second. Alright. I have a a motion and a second. Please vote. The board the board has voted. The motion passed. Four yeses, zero against. A letter notifying both parties of the action of the board shall be prepared and signed by the executive director of board relations as soon as possible. The hearing this hearing is concluded at 06:20PM. You'll give us just a second. If you're both ready,
we'll just move on to the next. Ladies, are you ready to proceed? Ms. Ortiz? Are you ready to proceed on the next year? Thank you. Procedure for dispute resolution hearing two, Michelle Williams. Purpose of the meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to consider the dispute filed by Michelle Williams, former employee, Benbrook Elementary School. Hearings involving complaints against district employees are to be held in closed session unless the employee who is the subject of the hearing requests an open hearing. If both parties request an open session during the course of this hearing, the Board may go into closed session to consult with its attorneys under the terms
of the Texas Government Code, Sections 551.071. If any Board member wishes to seek the advice of counsel, please let me know. For the record, Gianna Ortiz with the Ortiz Law Firm representing Michelle Williams is present. Michelle Williams is also present Ellen Spalden with Spalden, Nichols, Lamp and Langos, representing the administration, is present. Natasha Woods, HISD General Counsel, is also present. Ms. Ortiz, do you wish to continue in open or closed session? Thank you. All right. Issues for determination. The issues before the school board are whether board policies and administrative procedures were correctly
applied to the grievance and whether the administration has violated those policies and procedures. Mrs. Williams, your representative, will proceed first. Ms. Ortiz will be allowed to make a ten minute presentation to the board followed by a ten minute presentation by Ms. Spalding. Presentations must be based on the Level two transcript hearing hearing transcript. Ms. Ortiz, you may reserve part of your ten minutes for and rebuttal to matters presented by Ms. Spalding. Both sides shall be available for questions from the Board after the respective presentations. Ms. Ortiz, would you like to divide your time?
We have six minutes to start in the fourth quarter. All right. Ms. Ortiz, you may begin. Good evening, trustees. Miss Williams, as you know, is a veteran HISD mathematics educator with at least sixteen years of service to the district. She has taught math, algebra, math interventionist, and presents nationally on issues of math and curriculum and teaching. This great grievance challenges the validity of her evaluation and the use by this district of map data as teacher appraisal measure for educators serving high achieving and gifted students.
The core issue is simple, that the HISD, in crafting her evaluation, used growth metrics in a manner that penalized her and penalizes other teachers and students who are already performing at exceptionally high levels. She was also reassigned to a struggling third grade math class in October after two grading cycles had already passed. And she was judged by the work done by another teacher on her evaluation. So we're objecting for the record to the fact that the district has delayed this
grievance, which was originally filed in April 2025, we're talking about her evaluation of over one year ago. The level three appeal that we're bringing to you today was Filed in October 2025, over six months ago. But the district administration and or this board has waited until now until after it voted to terminate her contract even though she won her hearing on her employment to discredit the issue. But this issue regarding her performance evaluation has nothing to do with the termination.
In other words, the termination does not moot any issue related to a performance evaluation, and the commissioner has held that. So we object to the delay, and I also incorporate all of the arguments and documents made at level one and level two as if I am fully making them for you here again. So the evaluation incorporated student growth data attributable to its substantial part to instruction delivered by someone else before she ever even assumed responsibility personally, personally, though. She testified that many of her students began the year already performing above grade level,
including students in the ninety eighth percentile. The district's use of math scores, though, targets those and requires those children to continue demonstrating extraordinary and unrealistic growth beyond their already advanced performance levels, basing well, as a result, the high achieving students were labeled high proficiency but low growth, and teachers, including miss Williams on this evaluation, are penalized. The students themselves are denied incentives and growth recognition, and that's in our exhibits
that these children were not allowed to go to parties and, you know, pizza events because they didn't show sufficient growth. And that's not a failure of the children, and that is not a failure of their teacher. That is a failure of your model and the way that you're using MAP scores to incentivize in a way that does not appropriately gauge and measure progress either for those kids or for their teachers. So some of these kids cried, and miss Williams testified about this because they failed to hit artificial growth targets.
She testified that she had to explain adult issues, like how your progress is being measured to eight and nine year olds because they believed they had failed, when in reality, they were already advanced students. Let that sink in, board. Evaluating your teachers using such metrics violates 21 dot three five two of the Texas Education Code and the commissioner's rules on educator appraisal. So the district and and also in the grievance record is a failure of the district to support those gifted students. And as you know, the law provides that you need to provide services to special populations,
including emergent bilinguals and special education and gifted and talented. And miss Williams, in this grievance, has testified that students were not receiving meaningful differentiated instruction. The district was not allowing that, and teachers lacked adequate GT training opportunities. The district relied on worksheets and packets as enrichment aligned with GT standards and policy, but that does not serve those children. So even NWEA, who creates the MAP test guidance, warns district to consider whether teachers serving unusually high achieving student populations
that that using MAP data for evaluation may not be accurate. So the makers of that test have cautioned Houston ISD and other users against using MAP testing for such measures, but your district does it anyway. And war and warnings have been ignored. So miss Williams has repeatedly raised concerns in focus groups before you here and directly with district leadership. She's been ignored. She's been retaliated against. She's asking that you grant this grievance, fix this issue for teachers and students who continue to be a part
of what you have here. Thank you. Thank you, miss Ortiz. Miss Spalding? Good evening again, madam chair and members of the board. The administration is asking you to uphold the level two decision and deny miss Williams' complaint. And, yes, this complaint seems to be, once again, a situation where miss Williams does not like the way HISD is doing things, and so she claims HISD is violating the law, but there is no violation of the law here, as I will explain. First of all, it's very important to note that in the DGBA grievance process,
the grievant has the burden burden of proof. That means that if the grievant is alleging something, such as a violation of law or a violation of policy, the grievant must share with you not only the law or the policy that they believe is being violated, but how, why it is being violated. They can't just throw up laws and throw up policies and say that's a violation. The grievant has the burden of proof to drill down and to tell you why is something you're doing a violation of law or policy.
And that hasn't happened here. Here, she believes, miss Williams does, that the policy was violated. She believes the law was violated. She gives you some laws to look at, but she can't point to a specific act or a specific provision of the policy and explain to you how that specific act violated a specific policy because there is no violation of law. Her evidence seems to be that she did not score as high as she thinks she should have on her MOI evaluation because of the use of math data,
which HISD did use to measure student achievement, and because HISD did not properly account for gifted and talented students. And she goes on to allege that HISD does not provide the curriculum support and professional development for these gifted and talented students. Miss Williams believes, therefore, as part of her grievance, that you should throw out her twenty twenty four-twenty 25 evaluation and the twenty twenty four-twenty 25 evaluations of all educators in the Houston Independent School District. Again, what she's really telling you is she disagrees with her scores.
She disagrees with the way the ratings were done. She disagrees with the data that was used to to rate her, but she has not provided you any violation of law or policy in you doing so. And she makes five confusing but somewhat related arguments. First, she says that there was incorrect data used to score her, causing her to have a lower score because she took over the class after the year had begun. The testimony in the record is that she took over the class midway through the second six weeks, not after the second six weeks,
but that doesn't matter. The fact is she did take over the class late, and she believes, therefore, she should not be held accountable for that student data. At the level two hearing, HISD responded to that and said, no. There's been no violation of TTEST rules here. HAISD's rule, which is a very clear rule, is that a student is attributed to a teacher if the teacher has had that student as teacher of record for sixty days. Miss Williams took over in mid October. She likely had these students for sixty days by her mid year evaluation. However,
if she disagreed, HISD also has a process for appeal, and she could have appealed, and that would have gone to the Department of Performance Management, who has a process to review appeals, and there is no evidence in the record that she did that. So she does not prove and gives you no evidence that her scores were wrong in any way or that any violation of law or policy occurred in giving her her scores. Second, she complains that the use of NWE MAP data as an indicator of student achievement violates state law which requires alignment to course standards.
And again, her argument is she doesn't agree with the use of MAP data because she cannot point to a violation of any law or any policy. It's her opinion that it is not the best indicator of student achievement. It's her opinion that it is not best for special populations. But she has provided you no violation of law or policy. And at the level two hearing, the administration responded with its reasoning for using NWE map data despite miss Williams' objection. The administration responded that the use of map data is objective,
it is aligned to state policy, and it is permissible. And why does HISD like to use map data? Because HISD can really dig into the data to look at student performance, student achievements, and student outcomes. How? Well, MAP tests are taken three times a year, at the beginning of the year, the middle of the year, and the end of the year. Therefore, HISD gets good repeated data on each student each time they take one of these MAP assessments. In addition, MAP, as you know,
is a nationally normed test which increases the rigor and the reliability and gives you a very large sample. So the evidence is that MAP is an appropriate norm referenced diagnostic instrument for student growth, even if Ms. Williams disagrees. There's been no violation of T TESS rules, no violation of state law. Third, Ms. Williams complains, as you heard, that she believes that GT students in HISD were not served in accordance with law and policy.
And at the level two hearing, HISD responded to that with facts and with evidence that HISD complies with Texas law and HISD policy regarding GT GT training, professional development, implementation, and evaluation. Miss Lippitz, executive director of school choice and special programming, presented about multiple different manners in which HISD serves services GT students. HISD schools can select the model. One model is during tier one instruction to go deeper into the curriculum. Another model is GT extension opportunities as examples.
As for professional development for teachers, Ms. Lippitz talked about the professional development provided through asynchronous training, through additional six hours of training, and then additional opportunities. Ms. Lippitz further stated that the district GT coordinator at every campus with a GT student, and the Gates Committee, comprised of parents of GT students, which meets once per semester, as well as all annual evaluations being public. So while miss Williams is telling you she doesn't like the way that HISD is servicing GT students,
she is presenting you no law or policy that HISD is violating in the manner in which you heard the facts and evidence of of how she serve of how HISD services GT students. Fourth, she complains about a lack of transparency in scores. There's no violation of law or policy in any compilation of the scores for, her, or any other t test during the 2425 school year. HISD wants to be transparent with teachers,
but HISD has used cut scores, and cut scores are based on student and teacher performance, so they cannot be given until students and teachers perform, and we know what those scores are. HISD gives them when we can, but not giving them when Ms. Williams wants them to be given is not a violation of law or policy. Finally, once again, Ms. Williams complains to you that she has been retaliated against. And at the level two hearing, as you can see, HISD responded that there is no evidence of any form of retaliation.
Miss Williams has provided you none. She's provided you evidence of what she doesn't like and how she doesn't like things done, but she's provided you no evidence of a violation of law, no evidence of a violation of policy, and no evidence of retaliation. At the end of the Level two hearing, Ms. Williams summed up her argument by stating, In HISD, the students are not being taught. They're not being supported. And it doesn't matter what demographic they belong to, all of them are being shortchanged by the administration. And I'm sorry, but the plain facts just do not support her argument.
That is the opinion of one, now former, teacher in this district. The evidence supports exactly the opposite in HISD. HISD students are being taught, they are being supported, and they are continuing to exceed and achieve under this administration. We ask that you uphold the level two decision. Thank you for your time. Thank you, miss Balding. Miss Ortiz, you have four minutes remaining. Thank you. I'd like to start where miss Faulding left off, and there is no evidence of retaliation. And what a joke. You have waited six months to schedule this just for that line,
just for that line that she is now a former teacher so that you can take the wind out of these very powerful sails, out of this very powerful voice, So that you can look at the news at night, and the superintendent can look at the news at night and say, well, that's just a former teacher now. Or when she appears at board meetings, you can write her off as just a former teacher. Shame on the administration for suggesting that, that she's not suffered retaliation because she absolutely has. Why do you think this is the third time I'm here with you?
Why do you think this is the fourth time that Michelle has been through this gauntlet? I object to the argument about appealing the midyear issue that was not raised in the level two hearing. And, you know, the other arguments are just are are basically based personal attacks on miss Williams. And I understand that your administration is glad now that she's a former teacher, but I request that you refrain from personally attacking her because she gave many, many years to this district, and she fought hard to continue to do so.
Thank you. Miss Williams. With all due respect, miss Spalding has never taught a day in her life. She's an attorney. In chapter one fifty, the commissioner rules state that growth should be measured by the standards of the grade level. She misrepresented that. My students were being required to show growth, not at third grade because they came in higher than third grade. And then they were penalized when they didn't show growth in fourth,
fifth, and sixth grade. I have taught secondary mathematics, which she stated. Also, EHBB local says that 100% of gifted and talented funding should go to the schools. We had none. None. Also, in a EHBB local, it states the district shall provide an array of learning opportunities for gifted and talented students. The violation of policy was worksheets. Miss Spalding stated that there was no violation. She ignored the fact those were in the record. We presented the violation of policy,
and this school district continues to violate policy. These children are not being taught. Absolutely not one of them are being taught because they're using things methods that are not supported by research, which our teaching standards require. But at the end of the day, there are six six weeks in the school year. I teach math. Miss Faulding doesn't understand that there are three weeks in the first semester. I was already I came at two,
six weeks. There was one left. So, therefore, that was not my data. Data is collected in December. I came in October. I'm pretty sure she can do the math there. Thank you, miss Williams. Alright. Both miss Williams, miss Ortiz and miss Faulding have presented. Are Are there any questions from my colleagues? No questions. All right. The parties have completed their presentations, and it is now time for the Board members to make our decision on the issue before us. One more time. Is there any discussion? If there is none, I will entertain a motion. I have a motion. I move that we deny all requested relief not previously granted by the level two
hearing officer and uphold the decision of the level two hearing officer. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second. Please vote. Voting is closed and the motion is passed. The Board has voted all for the motion. A letter notifying both parties of the action of the Board shall be prepared and signed by executive director of board of relations as soon as possible. This hearing is concluded at 06:43PM. With no further business to discuss, this meeting of the board is adjourned. The time is 06:43PM on 05/28/2026.
Thank you.