##VIDEO ID:https://houstonisd.granicus.com/player/clip/339?view_id=1&redirect=true## Okay. So, good afternoon. This meeting is now convened at 01:06PM on, January 28. This is the, hearing meeting of the school board. I'd like to ask everyone to silence your cell phones. Quorum of the board is present in the board of the auditorium. They they are from my right of the platform, Cassandra Zumbandy. We have Michelle Cruz Arnold, Jeanette Garza Linder, myself Rick Campo, and Adam Ravon. We've gotta squeeze together. Okay. I don't think we have anybody via Zoom. Correct? Okay. Nobody via Zoom? Alright. Our first order of business is to hear from speakers, to agenda items. Public comment, during school board meetings will be only available to those persons who have signed up to speak prior to the meeting time, per current protocol. Verbal and other disruptions by persons during the school board meetings are not acceptable, as they inhibit the board's ability to conduct business, and and the public's ability to observe those processes. Persons who participate in such behavior will be given one warning, and if the behavior is repeated, they will be asked to leave the meeting. We have three registered speakers today, who will be limited to two minutes each per per board policy. We ask that you stay on topic and refrain from naming individuals, especially students, as their identity is protected under law. But you may name your own child. I ask you to please, respect the procedures and, that other speakers, and that other speakers, and that and your comments, promptly, when time has expired. The first speaker, is, is Board of Education trustee Savant Moore. Good to see you. Thanks for being here. Good afternoon. You know, I like to be funny. This is the first time I get to speak longer than a minute in about two years. Congrats on president. I'm here to speak on the importance of honoring the employee consultation process policy and reinstate a monthly consultation with our teachers. Our practice upheld by the past two superintendents and a cornerstone of trust between leadership and educators. If we truly care about our students, then we must care about the teachers who work tirelessly in their classrooms every day to turn their potential into productive citizens. When leadership consults with teachers it improves outcomes for students. Teachers bring real world knowledge of what works and what doesn't in the classroom. It fosters unity and trust. Regular dialogue sends a powerful message to the teachers, parents, and the entire Houston community that the district values collaboration over conflict. It shows leadership and accountability. By meeting with educators, we demonstrate to the nation how adults can work together in urban education to tackle these challenges. I urge you to honor this policy and commit to regular consultations. The union represents 6,000 teachers. Isn't it easier for you to meet with the union president once a month so that we can mitigate all the issues and we can stay out of the news negatively? And lastly, I like to advocate for the teacher, Rebecca. Rebecca is a good teacher, and statistics will show you when there's a black teacher in the classroom with black students, those students excel they, excel well. And there cannot be any targeting. It's like, why we continue to fire black women teachers? That does not look good on the district. So I would advise you to retain her as an employee for this district. God bless you, and god bless HISD. Thank you. Next speaker is Jackie Anderson. Would you where is Jackie? There you are. Come on up. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. And thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of consultation. Just a little history of consultation for board members who may not be aware. HISD had an election in which HFT won with the 97% of employee vote to be the voice for, its employees. It's professional employees because the other, non, nonprofessional or the HESP union also won, but I'm just wanna address, the HFT side. We worked in collaboration with the district, under two administrations, and we did not have to have our laundry aired in the media. That's not our desire. Our desire is to sit down with the district in collaboration because we believe that the only way for true outcomes, positive outcomes to happen for our students is to have that collaboration. We bring a perspective that you may not be aware of, that the HISD administration may not be aware of. They bring a perspective that we not may not be aware of. And when we sit down at the table to have those discussions, we both lead in agreement. We have done that well and with integrity. With two administrations, we are simply asking asking that we resume consultation with integrity. We it is not our desire to be adversarial. It is not our desire to cause chaos or confusion. We work with these students. We work with these teachers, and we want to continue to work with the district in a manner that is professional, above board, where we bring our points of view to the district and decisions made or acted upon with knowledge from both sides. We are simply asking to be at the table in a professional manner. Thank you. Thank you. We will hear from our next speaker via Zoom. So would you, Melissa Yarbrough, and would you turn your, speaker on and you can begin. Yes. Thank you. I'm speaking on the agenda item regarding Rebecca Williams. I have known miss Williams professionally as a colleague at Navarro Middle School for two and a half years. I have only ever heard teachers and students speak highly of her. One of my top students who was a stickler for order, she would correct my classroom calendar if it was February 1 and I still had January up. This student, when she was in seventh grade came back to tell me, her old sixth grade teacher, how much she loved Miss Williams and was learning so much in her class. When I would hear Miss Williams personally talk about her classes, I could tell that she is an expert in her content and that she cares deeply about the students and their achievement. No other administrator had any problem with with Ms. Williams and never heard a I can only deduce from this and from Principal Lopez's increasingly hostile behavior toward Miss Williams that her termination is a result of his own personal grievance against her. And if they try to chalk this up to a compliance issue which I'm guessing they are. When I told Principal Lopez in August of twenty twenty two, And teacher not using the script than an unqualified one using it. But I wonder why did I get leniency while miss Williams got bullied in a termination hearing. It seems like you would be wise to keep Miss Williams to keep Miss Williams as an employee and find a better, more qualified, and, better principal with management skills for Navarro. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So that, concludes our speakers, and we'll move then into, the hearings. The first hearing, today, let's get started with, the, procedure for dispute resolution hearing, Houston Federation of Teachers. The purpose of this meeting is to consider the dispute filed by the Houston Federation of Teachers, HFT. Hearings involved involving complaints against district employees are are to be held in closed session unless the employees, who are subject to the hearings request an open hearing. If both parties request an open open session, during this hearing, the board may go into closed session to consult with its attorneys under the terms of the Texas government code, section five fifty one-seventy one. 70 one. If any board member wishes to seek the advice of counsel, please, make this request known to me. For the record, Christopher Tridico is, with with, Tridico, Raney LLC is representing the HFT, and is present, correct? Ellen Spalding, with Spalding, Nichols, Lamp, and Lingolis is represented the administration, and representing the administration is Katasha Woods, HIST general counsel, is also present. So closed session or open session? Open, please. Open? Okay, great. That's good. Page eight. Okay. Okay. So the, the issues before the school board are whether the board policies and administrative procedures are correctly applied to the agreement, and whether the administration has violated those policies and procedures. Mister, mister, Chitko, you, will be allowed to men, to, make a ten minute presentation to the board followed by a ten minute presentation by miss Spalding. You can reserve your, ten minutes, or part of your ten minutes for rebuttal. Both sides are available for questions, from the board, from the respective participants. After deliberation, the board will render a decision. Is there any questions on how this is going to go? No. Okay. Great. And how would you like to divide your time? I'd like to reserve three minutes or whatever I happen to have left. Okay. Okay. You can begin. Thank you, board members for hearing this this grievance. This is a very important grievance, that HFT filed, over a year ago now. And I'd like to talk with you a little bit about the history of of consultation. I I am enjoying, I have enjoyed thirty eight years now of representing the Houston Federation of Teachers. When I first started representing the Houston Federation of Teachers, Joan Raymond had just been hired as the superintendent of schools here at, Houston Houston Independent School District. Has been a very, very important part of of what the Houston Federation of Teachers has done for teachers, the entire time that I have been their lawyer. The coming out of consultation has been some of the most important things, innovations that the district has found has seen. The creation of community schools and wrap around specialists came out of came out out of consultation. Development of teacher evaluation system. When HISD wanted to leave the system that the state had approved, it was HFT that sat down with the superintendent in consultation and said, we will help you. And they worked together to form formulate a new system that HISD used for years. That came out of consultation. Bond elections that have passed in consultation, a partnership was formed with the Houston Federation of Teachers and other groups to support a bond election passed because of consultation. Chapter 21 of the Texas Education Code started in in HISD. It was my idea. And the board adopted that through consultation, a system that was fairer, a system of independent hearing officers that started right here in this district that the legislature later later adopted, started when we came up with an idea and took it through consultation, and this board adopted that. And later, the legislature adopted it. They didn't give me credit for it, but that's okay. But that system started through consultation in this district. That's the system that you took away. The policy said the primary purpose of consultation is to establish, maintain, and facilitate communications with employees of the district. It is the desire of the district that the consultation be meaningful to both the district and the employees' elected representatives. This is what the what the policy said says now. The board and its administrative personnel may may consult with employees with respect reasonable rules, regulations, and agreements to provide for such consultation, but they shall limit or they shall limit or they shall limit or they shall limit or they shall limit or they shall limit or they shall limit or they shall limit or they shall limit or they shall limit or they shall limit or they shall superintendent of schools has met with Jackie Anderson one time. And in that meeting, he told her to stop talking bad about him in the media. That's it. That's the only meeting they've had. It had nothing to do with the management of the schools. It had nothing to do with the with the employees, wages, hours, or conditions of employment. Not one meeting has been had had since the date this policy was passed in 02/2021. Is that what you intended? Did you intend when you pass this policy that there will be no meetings at all, no consultation at all with your employee representatives? With your employees? Did you intend to take away everything that the employee groups have done for the past forty years, did you intend to take away the ability of the employee groups to forge the types of agreements that have been been that that have been done for the past forty years, like independent hearing officers, like new systems to evaluate teachers that that better teachers' ability to educate the children of this district. Like wraparound specialists that help underprivileged children in this district. Thousands and thousands of children that make their lives better, that help their parents. Is that what you intended? If that's what you intended, then deny this grievance because it has no meaning if that's what you intended. But if you did not intend to take away the ability of the employee groups to make the lives of the children better and make the lives of the employees better, then grant this grievance and go back to a system that just once a month says the superintendent will sit down with the employee groups and the elected representative of those employee groups and listen, because that's all it meant. The the the policy didn't say that you have to do anything but listen. But out of that listening came all of those things in the last forty years that made this district a great district and made the lives of 225,000 kids better and make the lives of a 25,000 employees better. And I think that's what you want. I hope it is. I hope it is. I thank you for your time. Good afternoon, mister president and members of the board. The administration is here today asking you to uphold the level two decision. And truthfully, it's unfortunate that this is a grievance because the truth is we agree on a lot. We agree that employees should have a voice in the policies of the district. We agree that employees having a voice has a positive impact on student achievement and school improvement. But what we disagree with is the half. HFT believes that the old policy that pretty much makes them the only employee organization at the table for professional employees and set strict rules on the board and on the administration for how consultation must go, they believe that's the way talking should look. H I HFT's argument is that has worked for thirty years. The administration disagrees and believes the old policy, DGB, which is administration exhibit seven, was restrictive and exclusive. In fact, leaving many employees and employee groups and their voices out, making it harder to effectuate change in the school district. Let's start by looking at the old policy. Again, administration exhibit seven. And if you do, you'll see there's a lot of red tape that has to happen before a policy can be changed. Monthly meetings were absolutely required. An agenda had to be prepared before the meeting. The superintendent or the member or member of cabinet had to attend. Minutes had to be taken. Minutes had to be distributed. There was an election required to determine which employee group would have the exclusive voice, and the election process was intricate to be run by an independent auditor, and the cost of the election were borne by the district. And a world and in a world where this district is attempting to bring about improved outcomes for students, that is not an efficient way to make policy. The new policy was adopted by the board in August 2023 after a workshop and opportunities for debate, deliberation, and comments. Does it cancel consultation? No. It does not cancel consultation. In fact, the word consultation is the first word in the policy. The policy, the new policy as redlined, is behind administration exhibit two. This policy makes clear that in contrast to the old policy, a method for consultation shall be provided to all employees, whether members of large, small, or no employee organizations. It dictates that the superintendent shall meet with the employee organizations at least four times a year to receive input and feedback, feedback, but there's not just one employee organization at the table. And very clearly, it makes clear that the district views consultation and communication as an effective way to achieve the goals and objectives of the district. It says consultation shall be continuous throughout the school year and shall be as comprehensive as administratively feasible. Consultation was not canceled. Consultation as it existed, where there And I think what superintendent Miles said about about this new policy and the reasons for change at the August 3 board workshop is very important to repeat here. At hour 03:05, superintendent Miles says in response to the old policy, and I'm paraphrasing a bit, This also tied the district's hands in a couple of ways. In the macro sense, it gave preference to one or two groups for input, and, really, we should be getting input more broadly. So input is important. So this generally says we can get input from any source we want, any group. It does not eliminate the DAC. We still have the DAC. We will still have principal groups and teacher groups, but we're not tied to having to go to a couple of employee groups to change anything significant. That doesn't make sense at all in an effect in an effective organization. Only one employee group per area is allowed to participate in consultation. It is restrictive. We are trying to open it up. At the same time, this policy is written to where if I want to do anything major, you know, we had to waive it in order to do the NES programs. We have to wait to get consultation with these groups, and that is not the way a good organization should run. We will have plenty of opportunities for different groups to have input. It is also important to know that HISD is one of the very, very few school districts that has a consultation policy at all. In fact, it is important to note also that consultation is not a legal requirement of the state of Texas. Section 11.151 of the Texas Education Code states the board, as a body corporate, has the exclusive power and duty to govern and oversee the management of the public schools of the district. The board and only the board is the policymaker for the district. That is what the Texas Education Code says. It doesn't say you have to have consultation. It doesn't say you have to have a specific form of consultation. It says the board makes policy. And in reading the Texas Education Code and interpreting the Texas Education Code, it is our opinion that the board should not be constrained by a restrictive consultation policy before setting policy. So under the law, if HISD didn't wanna have consultation, HISD could have canceled it altogether and been much like 1,000 other school districts in the state of Texas. But rather, it is clear that the administration wants to talk to employees. And I wanna read to you again one provision of the policy that is very similar to the old policy, and it says the district views consultation and communication as an effective way to achieve the goals and objectives of the district. And finally, what I think board of managers member Campos said at hour 02:57 in the same meeting that I quoted superintendent Miles from is also very important. He said, and I think that's the thing I want to make sure everybody understands. And I want to make sure that when most of these policies, whether they be money or they be personnel or they be consultation or whatever they may be whatever they may are, it's all about making our system more efficient so that we can deliver services to kids faster, better, and in a smart way. Okay? That's what all these policy changes are, and that is your job. That is what you are trying to do. You are trying to improve student outcomes by effectively and efficiently delivering service to students. Restrictive policies don't do that. Policies that make the board do way more than the Texas Education Code allows or requires don't do that. Policies that give only one employee group, basically, a seat at the table don't do that. So this change, and no disrespect to the Houston Federation of Teachers and what they do for their members, but this was a needed change. And it still gives h gives HFT a seat at the table. It's just not the only seat at the table. The hope is that HFT and all employee groups and parent groups and principal groups will continue to provide valuable input. The policy needed to be changed. It was indeed changed, and we ask that you deny the grievance. Thank you for your time. Thank you. My my good friend, miss Spalding, said that this new policy gives HFT a seat at the table. Unfortunately, the table was put in the parking lot. That's the problem with the new policy, is there is no consultation left. Miss Spalding didn't miss Spalding spent her ten minutes talking about how this new policy still allows for consultation. What she didn't cite for you was one time in the last year that there has been any consultation because she can't because there hasn't been. There's been no consultation. Not only with HFT, there's been no consultation with any employee, not any employee group, not any principal group, not any individual employee. There has been zero consultation. And so you change the policy to say that there can be consultation, but there's not any consultation. And that's why we're asking you to grant this grievance and go back to a system that had consultation, that had results, proven results for the for the not only for the employees, but for the students of this district. That was a better system. Now miss Faulding read off a laundry list of things that she said were requirements of for the board that that bogged this system down, an election. You have an election every year. Minutes. Do you take minutes? The is there a minutes of this meeting? Every time you have minutes. It doesn't bog this board down to have minutes. The things that she cited for you are not things that bogged this board down. They're things that this everything she cited are things that this board does every meeting. It's not a burden to do the things that missus Faulding said the policy required to be done. There's no burden to have consultation, and that consultation does not burden this board because the consultation policy said that the board did not have to act on the things that came out of consultation. It was just policy recommendations to the board. But when you have a consultation with the employees that make agreements with the superintendent, you have buy in by your employees. And when you have buy in, you don't have people going out on the news who are going out and saying negative things. You have everybody coming together, together coming together to do things that are bet in the betterment of this district, and that old policy worked. It worked, and it bettered things for this district. From the wraparound specialist to people going in and buying in for your bond elections, to chapter 21 that made it better for every teacher in the state of Texas. It was a better policy, and it worked. And I ask you to grant it. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions from any of my colleagues? Anybody have questions? Go ahead. Just wanna clarify. So I'm I'm reading through the policy again, and I I wanna make sure I understand the grievance itself. The grievance is that there has been no consultation. Is that the grievance? Well, so the the grievance, it's been so long since we argued these agreements. I had to go back and figure out what we are what we did. The grievance was for the the cancelation the the change of the policy. We wanna go back to the old policy and and that there's been no consultation. But there's two there's two prongs here. The old the the change of the policy, and we wanna have consultation back, and that there's and and that since the policy was changed, there's been no consultation at all. Got it. Okay. Okay. Was there another question? Any other questions? Okay. Okay. The parties have completed their presentations. Now it's time for the board members to make, our decisions on the issues before us. We must apply only the facts presented in the transcript to the applicable policy or law and make a decision. If there's any dispute between, record, The record, of the level two hearing must support any action we take. That is, if the record supports the position of the administration or the position of HFT, we may find accordingly. Is there any discussion at this point? Would you like to go to if there's not and we need a closed session? Okay, great. The board, will now recess to a closed session of chapter five five one of the Texas Government Code Open Meetings Act, subsection five five one dot zero zero four through five five one dot zero eight nine. Should the board final action, vote or decision on any matter considered in the closed session be required, such final action, vote, or decision shall be taken, at the open meeting convened by the notice, under the reconvened reconvening of this public meeting, or at a subsequent public meeting of the board upon notice thereof. The board has recessed to close session at 01:38PM on January 28. At, 01:53, PM on January 28. Okay. So, is there a motion that came out of the session? I guess we need to get to, on the floor here on your computers. Right? Did we reconvene? Okay. Yes. I have a motion. I move that the board deny the grievance and uphold the decision of the level two hearing officer. Is there a second? Is there a second? Somebody's trying to second. Okay. We have a a motion and a second. Let's go ahead and vote then. Any questions or comments? Okay. Go ahead. Just one comment. The seeing that this grievance was was referencing a policy issue and not a meeting issue. I I do think that the policy meets, what we wanted and intended it to do. I understand though that it can be challenging in implementing any new policy. So it's important though that, we we take that into consideration, and know that while appreciating the history of the consultation, the consultation isn't removed. It's still there, in the policy. And for that reason, I I support the fact that that we made the change and it is supposed to do it's it should do what we intended to do, and that's that's the expectation I think that I have going forward. Okay. Any Okay. Motion passes, five four. Zero against, sir, abstaines. Thank you. K. The next are we ready to go? I'm sorry? What do we need to do? Are we ready to go with the next one? Okay. Great. Okay. The the, next item, is the next meeting we're gonna do is the, purpose of the meeting is to consider, and the dispute filed by, Andrascia Riggs, a teacher, Forest Brook Middle School. Hearings involve hearings involving, complaints against district employees are held in closed session unless employee who is subject to the hearing requests an open hearing. If both parties request an open session, during the hearing, the board may go into a closed session to consult advice of counsel, please, make that request known to me. For the record, Julie Leahy, known to me. For the record, Julie Leahy, with the Texas, Classroom Teachers Association, representing, Padrecea, Griggs, is present, correct? Yes. Okay, good. And we have Ellen Spalding with Spalding, Nichols, Lamp, and Langolis, representing the administration. And, and representing the administration is from President Katasha Woods. HRD's general counsel, is also present. Miss Leahy, do you wish to continue in open session or closed session? We would like to continue in closed session, please. Okay. We're in closed session. So, if any parties are not involved in this hearing, you must leave the auditorium at this time. Yes. The board will now recess to closed session under chapter five five one of the Texas government code Open Meetings Act, subsection five five one dot zero zero four through five five one dot zero eight nine. Should board should board final action, vote, or decision on any matters considered in the closed session be required, such final action, vote, or decision shall be taken at the open meeting covered by this notice upon the reconvening of this public meeting or at a subsequent public meeting of the January 21. So, has now recessed to closed session at 01:58PM on January 28, 2025. Now reconvene in open session at 02:47PM on 01/28/2025. Is there a motion? Yes. I move that the board deny the grievance and uphold the decision of the level two hearing officer. Okay. Is there on the floor? Get is there a second? You need to click on on the floor for your computers to be able to do that. Okay. We have a a motion and a second. Any discussion? Okay. Go ahead and vote. Okay. We have, four yes and one no. The motion passes. Thank you. Okay. We have the next item, correct? Thank you. What's that? Yeah. We have a closed session later too. Yes. We we won't? Why? No. No. We don't. What? Or you have a hard stop at 03:15? Should we do it? Can we get this done in half an hour or twenty minutes? Okay. Let's do that. But we have the and there we have the Let's go through. Let's go ahead and start and see if we can get done. Okay. If we need to get the if we need to not do the closed session okay. Okay. Everybody ready here? Okay. Okay. The purpose of this meeting is to consider, the recommendation of the independent hearing examiner examiner in the matter of Rebecca Williams, former teacher at Navarro Middle School. Hearings involve complaints against district employees to be held in closed session session. If both parties request an open session during this hearing, the board may go into closed session to consult with its attorney under the terms of the Texas government Code Section 551.071. If any board member wishes to seek the advice of counsel, please make the request known to me. For the record, James Fallon of James T. Fallon, the third LLC, is representing Ms. Williams. And he is present, correct? Okay, good. And Myles Bradshaw, of Bradshaw Law is representing the administration. And, Katasha Woods of AJIC's general counsel is also present. Mister Fallon, do you wish to continue in open or closed session? Oh, we prefer open. Open. Okay. Okay. Okay. The issues before the school board are whether to accept, reject, or change the independent hearing examiner's findings of fact, conclusion of law, and proposed proposal based on, on a review of the record. We may reject or change a finding of fact. We may reject or change a finding of fact if after review, reviewing the record of the proceedings before the hearing examiner, we find it is not supported by substantial evidence. If we reject the independent hearing examiner's recommendation or make any changes, we must state the reason, and, legal basis for the writing. Miss Bradshaw, you will, proceed first. You'll be allowed to make a ten minute presentation to the board, followed by a ten minute, presentation to mister Fallon mister Fallon. You may reserve, ten minutes part of your ten minutes for rebuttal. Would you like to split your time? I will reserve, three minutes of my ten minutes for a rebuttal. Okay. Let's see. Okay, mister Bradshaw, you can begin. Good afternoon, president Campo, board members. What we have, this case is a teacher non renewal case where miss Rebecca Williams, who was a seventh grade Texas history teacher at Navarro Middle School, she was either unable or unwilling to meet the teaching standards of the NES model. That's kind of the case in a nutshell. Of course, there are many exhibits, many witnesses testified, and so on. And the hearing officer ultimately found in the school district's favor that there was, in fact, by a preponderance of the evidence, good cause. There was also deficiencies as shown in, appraisals and other memoranda, and that miss Williams failed to fulfill her duties as a teacher. Those are your policy reasons for which she was non renewed. We're asking, of course, that you adopt the findings and conclusions of the hearing officer and recommend the non renewal of her twenty three twenty four contract. Mister Alejandro Lopez is our principal at Navarro. He's in his third year now as principal. And prior to that time, he had six years in HISD as either a principal or an assistant principal. And during the 2324 school year, Navarro was was not an official NES campus. However, the principal adopted the NES curriculum, included it in, the campuses, what they called the playbook, and and the idea was to become an NES campus, which they today are. For the this school year, they are now an NES campus. And so, that was apparently the issue with miss Williams. She wasn't, like I said, able or willing to to make the changes necessary. And one important fact of about Navarro is is that 57% of the students, that came to Navarro were emergent bilingual. That in other words, they were arriving there, having to learn a new language, going from Spanish to English. And so because of that, and of course, every student deserves consistency in the classroom, but especially with those students, they needed consistency, and the NES model was was really, well suited for those students. And miss Williams simply wasn't willing to adopt that model in the way that she was expected to. So the evidence in the case, as you you know about spot observations, that's where the the evaluators come in. And during the school year, she had 54 spot observations by five different administrators, and and 47 of those, 54, were below proficient. And to me, that's, you know, that's really the the main crux of the evidence that every her own appraiser, the principal, other APs who were there, who went in at different times, all saw the same deficiencies. Those deficiencies annotations, where they they say, okay. If the students go this way on this issue, I'm gonna do this or that. In other words, go through it internally as it's being taught so that they can adjust for for Spanish only speaking students or for special ed students or or others that aren't learning at that moment. She wasn't doing that. Ultimately, she was given coaching, of course, on the spot coaching. She was given knee to knee sessions. The PLCs were there. And finally, I think the hearing officer summed it up especially well in finding number 61, on page 14 of your record. He said, quote, miss Williams did not consistently use strategies and meet other requirements, such as lessen internalization as reflected in her reflected by both her appraiser and her principal. And so ultimately, he found that there was enough evidence that she was not cutting it at Navarro, and there was adequate reason to to to, to non renew her contract. So we ask that you adopt the findings of the hearing examiner. Thank you. Okay. Mister Fallon? Mister Campo, members of the board, it's good to see you this afternoon. I've I've had the chance, the unique opportunity to meet you as a group a handful of times in cases like this, a chapter 21 non renewal. And so, I enjoy having a a dialogue that goes from case to case. I try to have a way of talking that's professional, respectful, critical when it needs to be, but also open to some back and forth. So one of the things that I thought would be useful in this case, in my time here, is before we even really dig into this, is this idea of what the board is able to do in a case like this. Right? There are the procedures that are outlined in chapter 21 of the Texas Education Code, but when I come up and I've got a case where the hearing officer has found that they have met their burden of proof, therefore, they have authorized a non renewal, there are cases whenever I think that, there's more to it than that. Whenever I can come in here and I can say, I think you should do something other than fire this person. And, again, you give me my reasons. But I want you to know I'm not crazy in doing that. This board's been going on for a long time. I've seen different boards do different things. But just I want it real clear, that when we come to you with these kind of cases, the board's not a court of precedent. Right? When you go back and you talk to your lawyers in closed session, you know, I don't know what's said. But I you know, y'all deliberated a few times in closed session on my cases and in cases that I think were pretty extreme. You probably may remember some of them. And and so I don't know what's said, but I I can imagine what can be said. And, if you make a decision in a case like this, you're not establishing precedent. You're deciding based on the facts that you're looking at with this case. It applies to no other case. If I ask in this case, like with miss Williams' case, what I'm asking for is, you know, look at the facts and say, look. I'm not gonna I'm not gonna let this person go. There's reasons. That applies just to missus Williams. And so, you know, the second thing that goes along with this, this is my board empowerment speech, ladies and gentlemen. The the second thing to consider is that while there are mechanisms if you were to decide to rule against a hearing officer, overrule, or give a different outcome, yeah, it could be appealed, but effectively, it's not appealable. And you would say, well, why is that not appealable, mister Fallon? And I wrote it down here. It's because you don't pay your lawyers to appeal your decisions. So in in fact, from our perspective, whenever I come in front of you with a case where, the the decision's been made by the judge, he listened to the facts of the case, he's made a decision, he's found they've met their burden, the preponderance of the evidence for a non renewal, and I say, yes. But let's consider another outcome. You have that power. I just wanted to say that, in the event that you deliberate over this case or any other case, and you go back and your lawyers tell you something different than that. Because what I'm telling you is a true statement because I've seen boards do it many times. So let's talk about missus Williams' case. So yes. Missus Rebecca Williams. She is an HISD teacher. She's been in public education for fifteen years since 02/2008. Started out as a substitute teacher. She came into HISD in 02/2016 and taught, sixth grade world cultures. And then since the 02/1718 school year to present, she's taught Texas history. That's gonna be significant. So Texas history is not a history is not a STAAR tested area. Right? And in middle school curriculum, it's kind of an odd little island of of skill sets that that end up not being tested, so it ends up not having the same kind of, curriculum written for it, it ends up not having the same kind of, curriculum written for it. Like, for example, when you go into NES alignment, it it it is different. Right? And, yes, well, how's it different? Well, in our situation, and and I borrow during the 2324 school year. Let's remember here that NES was adopted, according to the record, just two weeks before school started. Right? So this is a a significant change if you're an educator, and you've gotta roll out a new curriculum, and particularly if you're in seventh grade Texas history, where the curriculum really has to be particularly if you're in seventh grade Texas history where the curriculum really hasn't been adapted to what you teach. Right? It's not the normal thing. And the kind of things that sound like no big deal but that are a big deal are, you know, the class times. If you're getting lesson plans given to and then when they talk about this internalization, or she's given lesson plans in a, in a PowerPoint presentation, she's expected to annotate those lesson plans. To some extent, she's expected to annotate those lesson plans. To some extent, she's having to rewrite lesson plans. Right? Because they're giving her lessons that are in units that are, I believe, ninety minutes, and her class is seventy five minutes. Right? That sounds like a small thing. But imagine when you have to then parse that out over the course of your semester simultaneously staying aligned. And so they ask you to do this, they ask miss Williams to do this, and they criticize her and ultimately move to non renewer based on this. They they don't really give her great direction on how they want it annotated. Right? Telling you exactly. They just give you something, say I need you to annotate this. This isn't your new lesson plans, and I wanna know that you can internalize it because I wanna see your notes on the annotations. Then they'll tell you what they're looking for. They just consistently criticize you for it. So the the these are the things, we talk about the spot scores that they have criticized her for, but the reason why I think I would like for you to consider something other than that with this teacher, with missus Williams, is because well, let me add, you know, some strikes here. You know, I think miss Williams had some strikes going against her. She was moved to be terminated. I think the recommendation was on February. Right? It's pretty early in the year. The majority of them were in May, you may recall. Right? Why so early in the year? Nobody was hitting kids. There wasn't that kind of misconduct. Why so earlier in the year? I'm a tell you there's four strikes going against her. Miss Williams filed a grievance against her principal due to his aggressive treatment. Her allegations was were in the grievance that he was, that the communication was bad between the two of them. And the the kind of example that I would point to is the fact that in the hearing, he presented the hearing officer with a growth plan. Right? That's what you give an employee when you expect some growth and work on certain areas. Had never given it to her before. So he puts her on a growth plan, doesn't give it to her, and then later on down the road in our hearing, presents it to her then. When we file a grievance based on a lack of communication and aggressive manners of of management, that's what we're talking about. Strike one. Strike two, she had been, outspoken at the Asia ISD school board and has spoken to you guys several times about the lack of alignment in the NES curriculum with with her Texas history class. Right? Let's see. She had also given press interviews, strike three. And then strike four, she was her campus union representative. So she got the fast track on September 27 and was recommended for non renewal. And so, you know, I have to give some weight to doctor Montgomery. So doctor Montgomery was her evaluator during the 2223 school year. I'm at the speed up, so I hope you don't mind. He's a PhD, very well qualified, been in public education for twenty three years. And so his evaluation was positive. He gave her, passing scores. She was competent teacher according to his evaluation. And in the and he came and testified, and this is what he said about her. He describes her, miss Williams, as a passionate teacher with classroom management control. In fact, the evidence supported that to the extent that they were giving. They eradicated the ISS student class in the middle school. Didn't have that anymore. And so what did they do with those kids? They stuck them in miss Williams' class. So that's how well they thought of her classroom management, that they can take the kids that are being punished for their behavior. And while you're expected to do your Texas history curriculum, we also need you to watch these three to seven kids every day in different and make sure, you know, different kids, different days, make sure their curriculum gets implemented, and keep them under control while you also do your regular stuff. So doctor Montgomery testified that that was something that impacted her planning period. It impacted her pacing of her material, which is why he ultimately testified that he stands behind the evaluation that he gave her as a proficient teacher, despite the fact that she received low spot scores. So he gave her a proficient rating, and he said that she's extremely knowledgeable in the content area that she teaches. According to him, she's able to tie it to real world situations that are pertinent to the students. She absolutely knows the information. Unsolicited two people joined us at the beginning of this meeting and spoke on her behalf. That's his teacher. Right? Why is it that some people can say to their principal, I'm not following that NES curriculum. It doesn't work in my classroom, and she's not fired. But this one is. Why? Why is that? So I I I get frustrated, and I wanna make sure that I'm appropriate in expressing my frustration when people are just they're like, it's a gotcha. Right? They don't like you for some reason and you're out. Can't make a mistake. And go back and look through any teacher, any employee's curriculum they've done over the last year and say that, that, that, and you're out. When the administration makes those kind of mistakes, we are asked to bear with us. We ask you to bear with us when we get around to consultation. Right? The the issue with the contracts last week or the week before. Right? That's a huge, huge thing. And I understand asking for forgiveness and patience in the community as we implement our contract procedures and all the things in the district. But then you you have to have some pressure valve for the employees who are the front line doing these things, and you have to listen to the doctor Montgomery and the other teachers in the building that say, well, wait a minute. She's a good teacher in her content. Why are we firing her over her lesson plan annotations? So I would ask that you Mister Bradshaw? I'd like to respond to some of the, some of mister Fallon's arguments about, first of all, saying that doctor Montgomery, her appraiser, gave her a proficient evaluation. Well, her her evaluation was was proficient, and it the only reason it was proficient is because she had a waiver from the prior school year. As you know, if you get a, a proficient in a prior year, you can you can waive being part of the evaluation process. That's the only reason. Doctor Montgomery object. The record reflects that he testified that he stood behind that evaluation in the hearing. He looked at that evaluation exhibit, and he testified at the time of the hearing, and he stood behind the evaluation. Noted. He also wrote her four memos during the course of the school year from August, September, October, and in February saying she was neglecting her duties. She wasn't doing all these things. And if you don't get better, you're gonna get terminated. The same doctor Montgomery that he's talking about, who, by the way, oddly enough, was let go, at the end of the school year. And he did his darndest, I'll give it to him, to try to help, miss Williams in that hearing. But in the end, when he was under cross examination and under oath, he couldn't deny the fact that he was the one who did 36 spots, and only eight of them were above proficient. He was the one who wrote four different memos, lengthy memos, two pages long, about all the different things she wasn't doing. She wasn't prepared for class. She wasn't teaching bell to bell, that that they were giving her what giving her what what are called knee to knee sessions where they would sit down and work with her for an hour on a on a lesson plan. Show her, here's how you annotate. Here's how you do it. And, by the way, all the teachers have to turn these in every Thursday. Did she do that? No. She didn't turn them in every Thursday. He had to write her up five different times for not turning in, the lesson plan annotation. So it became clear that because she wasn't doing these annotations, there was no internalization, and it showed in the classroom. And and every other teacher had to do it just like, everybody else in this district. Due respect to miss Williams, one one assistant principal said she had good knowledge of Texas history, and that's great. But she wasn't teaching it to her kids effectively and under the model that she was required to. And under your policies, under district requirements, that's what you have to do. Not only only that, I would also point out that, you know, this wasn't brand new. If you look at the evidence, exhibit 55 are her evaluations from the last six years. In 2021 and '21, '20 '2, both, she was below proficient. So this wasn't anything new. And not only that, but there were there's two exhibits in there where in prior school years, she was written up for not turning in her lesson plans. So, let's see what else. I think I've said everything that I wanted to say, and we ask that you adopt the hearing examiner's findings and and approve the non renewal. Thanks. Okay. Any questions from, my colleagues here? What's that? No. I don't he did. Yep. Okay. So the parties have completed their presentations. It's now time for the board members to make our decision on issues before us. We must either adopt the finding of facts, conclusion of law, and recommendation of the, hearing examiner, or reject or change the hearing examiner's findings of fact and conclusion of law and propose a grant of relief. If we find that substantial evidence does not support a finding of fact, then the finding may be rejected or changed based on the record, and exhibits presented before the hearing examiner. Furthermore, should we determine that the hearing examiner did not correctly interpret the applicable HISD board policies or administrative procedures and or state and or federal law, we may reject, we may reject, or change the hearing examiner's conclusion of law. The conclusion of law may also be changed or rejected if a finding of fact that supports the conclusion of law has been found by us not to be any action we take must be supported by the record presented, to the independent hearing examiner. Is there any discussion? Texas government code, open meetings, point zero zero four through, five five one point zero eight nine. Should board final action vote or decision on any matter considered in the closed session be required, such final action, vote, or decision shall be taken, at an open meeting, covered by this notice upon the reconvening of the public meeting or at a subsequent public meeting of the Board upon proper notice thereof. The Board is, recessed into closed session at 03:13 p. M. On 01/28/2025. Now reconvening open session at 03:17 p. M. Do I have a motion? So we're going to move. Yes. I move that we adopt the decision and recommendation of the independent hearing examiner that Rebecca Williams contract be non renewed, adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of the law of law recommended by the independent hearing examiner, and non renew Rebecca Williams employment with the district. Is there a sec I have a fur a motion, and a second. Any questions or comments? If not, please vote. We have a second by, Cassandra Bandy. Okay, the vote is, four yea and one abstention. The motion passes. Thank you. We are now, now, we'll take a motion to adjourn. We'll be adjourned. We we are not having another executive session, so this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.