Good? Okay. Good afternoon, everybody. The meeting is now convened at 02:08PM. I would like to ask that everyone please silence your cell phones. Mr. Campo is absent this afternoon, so I will be presiding. A quorum of the board members is present in the auditorium there for my right on the platform. Cassandra Ozan Bandy, Michelle Cruz Arnold, Jeanette Garza Lindner, myself, Audrey Momonai, Rolando Martinez. And I don't think we have anybody here by Zoom today. Our first order of business is to hear from speakers to agenda items, but there are no speakers registered today. So we will conduct the hearings that are scheduled for this meeting.
The first scheduled hearing is the procedure to consider the dispute resolution of Selena Robinson, who is a teacher at Park Place Elementary School and formerly of Furr High School. Hearings involving complaints against district employees are to be held in closed session unless the employee who is the subject of the hearing requests an open hearing. If both parties request an open session during the course of this meeting, the Board may go into closed session to consult with its attorney under the terms of the Texas Government Code Sections 551.071. If any Board member wishes to seek the advice of counsel at any time,
please make this request known to me. For the record, Kimbal Urrutia, thank you. With the Houston Federation of Teachers representing Selena Robinson is present, Myra Chickering of Rogers, Morrison Grover representing the administration is present and Catasha Woods, HISD General Counsel is also present. Mr. Urethia, sorry, do you wish to continue in open or closed session, sir? Closed session. Okay. Thank you. If there are any parties who are in this room who are not involved in this particular hearing, I'm asking She's with you. The employee has to agree. Okay. Alright.
And so, there's nobody in the room. The employee has agreed that there's nobody in the room that, is not involved in this matter. The board will now recess to closed session under chapter five fifty one of Texas government code open meetings act subsections five fifty one point zero zero four through five fifty 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 the open meeting covered by this notice upon the reconvening of this public meeting or at a subsequent public meeting of the board
upon notice thereof. The board has recessed a closed session at 02:11PM on 03/20/2025. Okay. The board has now reconvened in the Board Auditorium in closed session at 02:53PM. Is there any further discussion at this time? Okay. Do I have a motion? Oh, I'm sorry. This meeting is, reconvened in open session. The time is 02:53PM. Is there a motion? Yes, ma'am. Let me say, first of all, mister Robinson, thank you for your time and taking the time. It was difficult, to really make a decision based on the fact that we didn't have any memos reference.
There wasn't sufficient documentation for me, to really understand the argument behind the request. And so for that reason, I move that we determine that we have stopped, looked, and listened, and that we take no further action on this matter. Sorry. Can you pause for that? Sure. Make sure we get the light sorry. Spoke. It was May we reopen for the motion? Can we hear the motion again, please? Yes, ma'am. I move that I move that we determine that we have stopped, looked, and listened, and then we take no further action on this matter. Is there a second? Okay. We have a motion by mister Martinez and a second by doctor Arnold.
Is there any further discussion? Okay. Seeing none, please vote. The board has voted five in favor of the motion, which was a motion to determine that we have stopped, looked, and listened, and that we take no further action on this matter. A letter notifying both parties to the action of the board should be prepared and signed by the executive director of board relations as soon as possible. The hearing is concluded at 02:55PM. Thank you. Who is that? Which is that? I'm sorry. Mister Holland. Mister Holland. Okay. Okay. So couple minutes and y'all get your people together. Okay.
Thanks. Sure. We're gonna take a ten minute break until two I'm sorry. 03:07PM. Okay. It is 03:08PM. We are ready to begin after a short recess. The purpose of this meeting is to consider the dispute filed by Errol. Is that right? Errol Holland, a former teacher at Sharpstown High School. Hearings involving complaints against district employees are to be held in closed session unless the employee who is the subject of the hearing requests an open hearing. If both parties request an open session during the course of this hearing, the Board may go into closed session to consult with its attorney under the terms
of the Texas Government Code, Sections 551.071. If any Board member wishes to seek the advice of counsel, please make this request known to me. For the record, Kimbal Yurutia with the Houston Federation of Teachers representing Errol Holland is present. Corey Rush with Spalding Nichols Lamp Lingloy representing the administration is present. And Katasha Woods HISD General Counsel is also present. Mr. Juridiah, would your client or you like to continue in open or closed session? Open session.
Okay, very good. 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. Mr. Holland, since you have asked that the Board hear this matter, your representative will proceed first. He'll be allowed to make a ten minute presentation to the board followed by a ten minute presentation by Mr. Rush. Mr. Eruitya, you may reserve part of your ten minutes for rebuttal to matters presented by Mr. Rush, and both sides should be available for questions, by the Board during the presentations.
After deliberation, the Board will render its decision. Are there any questions about the way that the hearing will be conducted? No? Okay. Mr. Uruitya, how would you like to divide your time? Mr. Holland is going to give a presentation. So whatever remaining time is left, he or I will go up there and conclude. Okay. Thank you very much. Sir or Mr. Holland, you're welcome to come up to the podium and begin. Good afternoon. The purpose of me filing a grievance is to clear my name. I've lived as a man of principles and integrity. Death comes before dishonor. I have made an impeccable reputation at Shawstown High School and the surrounding community for
seven years. That was all taken away by the actions of principal Carter. Although I have moved on from the district, I only seek to clear my name and my reputation as an educator. I witnessed principal Carter use excessive force in a situation that was not called for. There were two students arguing in the hallway. One student was in my class. The other was not supposed to be there. I was standing in between the students, and no punches had been thrown. They were standing several feet apart. As principal Carter came over, the situation took a drastic turn. In order for the students to attack each other, they would have had to literally go through me.
What I can remember is that Carter threw a student against the wall and on the ground and to where the students sustained several injuries. This was a previous student of mine and also had special needs. As someone that actually worked at HISD alternative school and is CPI trained and who also practiced martial arts for years. In my valid opinion, the situation was completely escalated by principal Carter. By law, I had to report with eyewitness. The camera in the hallway caught all of this. I was also informed by a female student the same day that principal Carter went
into her back pocket and snatched her cell phone while she was in custody outside of school when her cell phone had absolutely nothing to do with the situation. The police camera of the school officer also recorded this incident as well. The evaluation that was given was false because he had previously given me my end of the year evaluation before the situation occurred. The day or two after he was investigated by HISDPD, he immediately came in my class and did at least a two hour observation. I'm sorry. He scored me the worst the worst scores I had ever received as an educator.
I had previously had several walk throughs by several different administrators the same year and was all scored high. I'm sorry. Oh, this was an act of retaliation carried out by principal Carter. He also scored an evaluation when he walked in my classroom, and I had no technology working at the time. The Wi Fi was completely down. I explicitly explained this to him, and any normal admin would have came back another time and disregarded the walk through. I didn't find out that he actually scored that walk through until I had my second grievance a few months ago.
I had absolutely no prior knowledge of that walk through, yet another instance of retaliation. In closing, the actions of principal Carter are unbefitting of rebefitting as a principal and an educator. The Straubstown campus and community deserves better. As someone that has been in the managerial position at a corporate corporation before, the amount of complaints and the amount of staff that has been lost due to one administrator would have warranted an immediate investigation. And based on those findings, the correct actions should be taken. If this is the quality of principles that are being placed in these positions,
that means the fish is rotten from the head down, and I dread for the students and the community at large. I have witnessed Carter not only berate and degrade students, but I have witnessed and heard him do the same to staff as well. In my honest opinion, he was not vetted properly before given a position, or he was placed in the position based off of someone he knows and not actual merit. The district can continue to sweep his actions under the rug, but like nuclear waste, it can is going to eventually leak out of the container and contaminate everyone in the surrounding area. Thank you,
sir. And you all will, retain the rest of your time. Yes, sir. Good afternoon, Board of Trustees. My name is Corey Rush. I'm privileged to represent the administration in connection with this level three hearing. First and foremost, I want to start by saying that in your, grievance finder in the record before you behind the administration's Exhibit C from Level two, which has a base stamp of page nine on the bottom, nine, That is the, letter from the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services that ruled out physical abuse on behalf of,
Mr. Cotter. What? I'm sorry. You said Exhibit two? It's behind the Exhibit C of the administration's exhibits in Level two. Got it. And it's, page number zero zero nine on the bottom. Thank you. So I just want to make that very clear. We're in open session. We just heard a lot about an altercation. That was ruled out that Mr. Cotter engaged in any sort of physical abuse by the investigating agency. So I want to make that abundantly clear, even though that's really not all that relevant to the issue before you, when we're talking about the removal of an observation form, The contention here,
as it was in level two, is that this the scores that mister Holland got, on his spot observations and appraisals were somehow retaliatory. Retaliation is one of the earliest things that we learn as human beings. You know, you push me, I push you back. You yell at me, I'm gonna yell back. You tell on me, I tell on you. It's as toddlers, retaliation is something that happens. Right? We we react, and then we guard against it. We learn, no, you don't do that. You don't do that. And, eventually, it can become illegal. And when it's illegal,
that's when you have a retaliation claim that can suffice to do something like remove an appraising document. Retaliation, though, requires three things, and it's all about timing. You have to have engaged in some sort of activity that's protected, number one. You have to have suffered something, number two. And then there has to be a causal link between those two things. But for me complaining about some sort of a wrongful action, I would not have suffered the consequence I did. That's how baseline retaliation claim works.
Unfortunately for Mr. Holland, the timeline doesn't work for him to claim that the observations that he received, spot observations especially that he received during the school year from Mr. Kotter, were retaliatory. And that's because if you look in the record, starting when Mr. Cotter became Mr. Holland's appraiser in February of twenty twenty four, the first spot observation you see on February, twenty second, twenty twenty four, which is on the twenty third page behind Exhibit C, he scored a one, one, and two on the three observation domains.
So not exactly stellar scores, right? Well, then you go to the next one, March fourth, 20 20 four. This one is zero zero zero. What's important about the zero zero zero appraisal rating is that is a full month and a half before this student altercation occurred. The February 1 is a full two months before the student altercation occurred in the hallway. So I say this, and you can go to the next one, and it's similar, two one zero, so on and so forth, because the appraisal ratings,
these spot observation ratings were consistent prior to the incident that mister Holland reported that he believes he was retaliated against for reporting. So the story does not work. The story does not work. He was consistently rated the same before and after the incident with the student. The appraisal or the spot observation walk through, walk through form following the altercation, that was reported to CPS that mister Cotter was cleared from any physical abuse in
the investigation, these scores are consistent with a two zero zero. So in terms of the issue that is actually before this board, whether or not there was any sort of retaliatory motive sufficient to justify the removal of the, observation that occurred after April sixteenth of twenty twenty four, The answer to that is no. The level two decision got this exactly right, that there is not any evidence of a retaliatory motive sufficient to remove that observation. And the issue that,
mister Holland wants to bring up and for the most part, and talk about the culture and whatever at Sharpstown High School has literally nothing to do with the issue before you. That was just a soapbox moment, I guess. But in terms of what the level two decision, decided, what the hearing officer decided at level two, this board should affirm it. There is absolutely no legal justification to remove the observation, which was done based on mister Cotter's professional judgment as the campus administrator and assigned, appraiser for mister Hall mister Holland.
Thank you very much. I'll see my time back. Thank you. Mister Giritillo? As administration just said, timing is important, but I do wanna go back to something real quick. Mister Holland did explain to you that one of the early observations he received, which was all zeros, he had no working technology. And as he clearly said, a good administrator would have walked in and noticed that there's no working technology. So instead of giving all zeros, the first step an administrator should have probably done is make sure there's working technology. So but he received all zeros for no working technology. So timing. Timing is right. He's right. There is a pattern to retaliation.
All I ever hear on a daily basis there's four things that we at the Union Hall always hear. Retaliation is always one of them. And we always start, how do you have retaliation? Tell me how it began. But here, I wanna look at some dates. April 16 was the incident with the children in the hallway. There was a fight. As he just explained, mister Carter slammed the kid and then took a took a phone out of the kid's pocket. If that was a teacher, by means, that teacher would have been removed. Second date, April 17, the investigation by CPS or the state investigating mister Carter. That means he mister Carter had to speak with somebody from the state about the
incident. Yes. He was cleared. April 18, the evaluation. Timing. Boom. Sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth. Again, all zeros. Mister Harlan in none of the exhibits, other than the exhibits that the administration presented, showed that mister Harlan ever had all zeros. Anytime did the administration ever present anything that shows that mister Harlan's career at Sharpstown and or any other school just any other school in HIST, did he have low scores? He had low scores because he had no technology, zero zero zero. He had low scores because he made a report to the state,
zero zero zero. Timing. Retaliation in the hands of the administration is always their decision. It's your decision. You can view it that way or you can view the fact that the administration has provided nothing else to show that mister Harlan deserved all zeroes other than he had no work in media and that he made a complaint. Mister Harlan, do you have anything? We have three minutes. Do you have anything else? All right. We're good. Thank you. Any questions from my colleagues? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Oritia, can you explain which exhibit you're referring to when you say all zeroes and no
working technology? Actually, I'm referring to the statement that administration just said. Administration, when they presented their case, simply said that one of the other, yeah, one of the other memos that they used in their exhibits present to the district or present in the level two grievance is that he had another evaluation, which they went to. Mister Holland, in his presentation, summarized it, and he said that he received all zeros in that one. If it's not an exhibit here It is. It's administration c. Administration c at 21. On the right hand side? Can somebody answer a question for me? Maybe mister Cotter.
When these, walk through forms get put in, are they you can't mess around with them. Right? They're permanent. Yes, ma'am. And are they input at the time that's reflected on the document themselves? So for example, when I'm looking at this administration c at twenty one, that would have been inputted Where's the and, maybe your counsel can show you. But on 03/04/2024 at 08:34AM? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Okay. You get your answer. Ad Audrey, when you say input, do you mean in the system? Because I think that's the time frame for when it actually occurred.
Yeah. So I guess my question is, is it once you input the formal walk through form I don't I don't know what your interface looks like. But whenever you do that, which I'm assuming is what where you place these zeros or whatever number you're gonna put in there, the date stamp that's on this HISD form that we're looking at at administration C at page 21, that that date and time stamp, is that reflective of the date and time when the information was put into the system, or is that the date and time when the evaluation got done?
So that's the date and time where we the date and then the time that the observation starts. Okay. And then when do you is there a design is there an identification in this document that it would confirm that it was closed out or otherwise final on that day. It it won't populate until you submit it. Okay. Oh, this won't populate until you submit it. Correct. Yes, sir. Okay. We just wanna also note that that particular sorry. Just particularly that that evaluation, mister Harmon actually did not see it until the level two grievance. So that first one when the media,
which they presented saying that that was again, he said there was another one before it. He actually Mr. Holland never even saw that evaluation until the actual level two grievance. Okay. I think that answered my questions. Anybody else? I do have a question, Mr. Carter. At what point, do you present the results of the observation with principals? Whenever I'm sorry, with the teacher. Whenever we submit, the teacher gets a prepopulated email with the results immediately. Okay. Now, mister Udita, or mister Holland, there's several evaluations that occurred prior to the incident,
prior to the last, evaluation. I mean that had been zero one and then was zeros, but the other one was four points. At any point did you have a discussion with Mr. Carter about retaliation prior to the incident with regards to the other evaluations? No, sir, I didn't. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? All right. The parties have completed their presentations. It is now time for the board members to make our decision on the issues before us. We must apply only the facts presented in the transcript, the applicable policy or law and make a decision. If there are any disputes between Mr. Holland and the administration as to what the policies and or procedures mean, then it is the board's responsibility to determine the meaning or application of policies and
procedures. The record on the level two hearings must support any action we take that is if the record supports us position of the administration and the position of Mr. Holland, we may find accordingly. Is there any discussion? Okay. If nobody has a motion at this time, we can go to, the boardroom for further discussion, but I'll take a motion if there is one. Okay. Oh, I have a motion. What's your motion? I move we deny requested relief remedies not previously granted by the level two hearing officer and uphold the decision of the level two hearing officer. Is there a second? I have a motion that we deny all requests of relief and remedies not previously
granted by the level two hearing officer and uphold the decision of the level two hearing officer and a second by Mr. Martinez. Is there any further discussion? Is any board member request that we go into the boardroom? Seeing none, please vote. Voting is closed. Five in favor. The board has voted, for the motion to deny the grievance. 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 03:28PM. Thank you. Oh, okay. We'll take a five minute break.
03:35. Alright. We are back. It is 03:36. Are we ready? We're all good. Okay. The purpose of this meeting is to consider the dispute filed oh, sir. I'm sorry. I got your last name. Can you say your first name for me? Chid. Chid? Chid is fine. Chid. Okay. Chid Occhio Corier? Okorie, mhmm. Okay. He's a teacher at Chavez High School. Hearings involving complaints against district employees are to be held in closed session unless the employee who is the subject of the hearing request an open hearing.
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 this request known to me. For the record, Kimbal Urukia with the Houston Federation of Teachers representing Mr. Ochoa Corier, is is present. Myra Chickering, Rogers, Morrison, Grover representing the administration is present and Catasha Woods, HISD General Counsel is also present. Mr. Uretia, would you like to continue in open or closed session?
Open session. Okay. Thank you, sir. The issues before the School Board are whether Board policies and administrative procedures were correctly applied to the Grievant and whether the administration has violated those policies and procedures. Mr. Ochiokurier, since you asked the Board hear this matter, your representative will proceed first. Mr. Urukia will be allowed to make a ten minute presentation to the Board followed by a ten minute presentation by Ms. Chickering. Mr. Yurutia, you can reserve any part of your ten minutes for rebuttal to matters that are presented by Ms. Chickering and both sides should be available for questions from the Board after their respective
presentations. After deliberation, the Board will render its decision. Are there any questions about how this will proceed? Okay, good. Mr. Riarutia, how would you like to divide your time? Chidi will have he has a presentation he's going to present and then if there's any remaining time, then I'll go up and follow-up if there's anything. Okay. I'm sorry? One, yes. Okay. We'll reserve any extra time. Yes? Okay. Perfect. Mr. Occhio Grae? Yes, sir. Please go ahead. I thank I thank the board for the opportunity to address the following six items that I believe are important to this case. Item item one,
district council argues that spot observations are not subject to appraisal statutes and regulations. The following two sentences are council statements from the level two transcript, which states, quote, in fact, t test doesn't even address spot observations. What they're looking for is different, end quote. Contrary to this assertion by district council, various statutes and regulations specifically address spot observations. Spot observations are called walkthroughs in these policies, which expressly stipulate that spot observations are subject to appraisal policy.
Examples of policies that address walk through on spot observations are Texas education code chapter 21.352 paragraph c one and chapter 19 of the Texas Administrative Code section one fifty point one zero zero three paragraph b four. Clearly, decisions made in this case under the assumption that spot observations are not subject to provisions of law need to be reviewed for errors, including those errors that we have identified. Item two, I would like to review three common causes of defamatory information in appraisal reports.
One, failure of an appraiser to examine appropriate sources of evidence as required by policy. Two, an appraiser indicating that a teacher did not perform a task which the teacher, by law, is exempt from performing. Three, the school or district failing to provide a resource which it is required by law to provide so that a teacher can perform a task. Subsequently, the school or district implies that the teacher is to blame for nonperformance when the resource is not provided. Examples of such resources are time to perform the task and instructional materials.
Regarding the amount of time necessary to perform teacher duties, I submitted detailed information showing that both the TEA and myself found that the time required to complete work greatly exceeded the time provided to teachers, which is in clear violation of law. A conservative estimate of unpaid work required above contract hours was four months. Four months of unpaid work done at the teacher's expense during evenings, weekends, and holidays when teachers are not on duty. As acknowledged by the appraiser at the level two hearing,
the appraiser took some action to reduce defamatory information in future appraisal reports subsequent to rebuttals that I submitted. However, the previous appraisal reports were not corrected. Item three. District council argued at the level two hearing that the issue of unlawful workloads and related statutes were not raised on the initial grievance form, and therefore, they need not be considered. Even if this assertion were true, an employee may still submit additional information at the level one and or level two hearings as provided in DGBA local,
which is a district policy on grievances. However, the assertion that unlawful workloads and related policies were not raised as an issue is untrue. The grievance form cited the Texas Educators Code of Ethics, standard 1.7, with respect to the obligation of the district to follow laws and policies. Additionally, one of the requested remedies on the grievance form was for the district to comply with its own policies and with state law in the appraisal process. Over 70 pages of documents submitted at level one listed various laws and policies at
issue. I have here a copy of the email evidences submission of the documents. Item four. There is no evidence that district officers have reviewed the documentation submitted. District council appears to be unfamiliar with the submitted documents as evidenced by statements at the level two here. Instead of specifically addressing the issues raised, it appears that the hearing officers are simply filling out similar template documents and sending to the grievance. Item five, district council and the hearing officers take the position that requesting a second appraisal is
the only option for addressing errors in an in an initial observation report. This position is contrary to express provisions of law. Texas education code chapter 21.352 paragraph c provides that a teacher may write a rebuttal as an alternative to requesting a second appraisal. The HIZ t test handbook describes this rebuttal as an appeal. The Texas chapter 73 anti defamation law also provides that a person who is the subject of libel may request a retraction from the publisher in writing.
A rebuttal serves this purpose and, therefore, is an appropriate method for requesting corrections to an appraisal report. Item six. District council claims that the HIZ appraisal appraisal process has a self correcting mechanism because only the highest rated spot form for each month is factored into a teacher's summative rating. This proposed self correcting solution is problematic because teachers, including in this instance, are often observed only once per month. Hence, there is no additional spot form to correct any errors.
Even when there is more than one spot form in a given month, the highest rated spot form may still contain errors. Additionally, the lower rated sport forms with factual errors are still present in the record without correction, thus exposing the teacher to defamatory harm. The correction form that the hearing officer's claim exists was not found by the appraiser when attempting to make corrections as evidenced in submitted emails. District council argues that because the teacher was rated as distinguished, it is not necessary for the district to correct factual errors in the record that
may be harmful to the teacher in this or another school district. This view is contrary to anti defamation law. Thank you. Thank you very much. Miss Chickering. Good afternoon, and thank you again for your time today. I am pleased to be joined here today by Chavez principal Marlon Martinez and doctor Pollock Crawford, assistant principal at, Chavez. During the level two hearing and again today, you have heard, much about the appraisal process, t test, and the spot process. And and I think it's important in this particular,
case more than anything else to focus primarily on the fact that we're dealing with a teacher who is rated as distinguished. If you look at the end of the year appraisal that he received, he received distinguished in every category. So I find myself wondering, as I did during the level two hearing, what relief can be affected here? He received the top rating. And, the objections he has with regard to the way the spots were conducted ultimately had no impact, no negative impact whatsoever on his final appraisal.
There are teachers out there, and and there was a lot of discussion about this during the level two hearing, that that, they allege, the grievance alleges and HFT alleges that people have had their, their have been recommended for termination, have been recommended for non renewal as a result of, low spots. And it's true that if you have consistently low recommendation at some point for termination or non renewal of your employment. But, again, in this situation, we're dealing with someone who received very high spots almost from the very beginning and
had the highest level rating that he could possibly have across every domain in his final appraisal. So I find it, again, strange that the person that is bringing this complaint forward and that is complaining about the spots and the way they're implemented is somebody who actually was not negatively impacted. And I wanna talk a little bit about the distinction between SPOTS and the t test observation. They have an entirely different purpose. Specifically, the purpose of the SPOT,
the way it was implemented, was to provide on the spot real time coaching and feedback. Unlike a formal appraisal, spots are much shorter in duration, generally fifteen to twenty minutes. They provide feedback regarding what the supervisor sees on in a limited window. They're essentially a a snapshot of what's going on in the classroom at during that ten to fifteen I'm sorry. Fifteen to twenty minute period that the appraiser, the evaluator walks in and and is standing in the classroom.
They are more frequent as well. They are conducted at least once a month and typically more than that. And because of that, because of the frequency of the spots, they're essentially self correcting. If a supervisor or an evaluator doesn't see a particular element or characteristic during a visit, perhaps resulting in a lower score on that day, the process self corrects when the supervisor returns for a later visit and is able to capture that characteristic. So to walk you through some of these documents,
if I could ask you, charter first to turn to exhibit four, please. This is administration exhibit four is the formal observation that was conducted for mister Ochi Okorie. And as you'll see, this fully complies with all the requirements of TTEST. And then if we turn to administration exhibit five, this is the end of the year conference reflecting his final appraisal. And as you'll see on page one of that document, only the six highest spots for the year are computed into the end of the year appraisal.
And if you go to the far right hand side of the page, you'll see the dates of those spots. Well, mister Ochi Okouri, a had more than six spots conducted. And if you turn to now, finally, administration exhibit thirteen and fourteen I'm sorry. Fourteen and fifteen. You will see, for example, that administration exhibit 14 is a spot that was conducted on March 27 at 01:13PM. Unlike most of the other spots you received that year,
this one, for some reason, was low. Low generally, but certainly low in comparison to the other spots that he'd received. It's only a total of three. The following day, doctor Crawford came in. So this is three twenty eight administration exhibit 15. The following day, you'll see that he received a 13. So and I hate to do all this flipping back and forth, but if you now return to administration exhibit five, you will see sorry. Let me get back here. Apologize. Just trying to get back to the right
page. If you turn back to page one of the administration exhibit five and you come across when you're looking to see which of those two scores was calculated into his final end of the year appraisal, you'll see it was the second one, the high one. The other one got thrown out. So in that sense, these spot forms are essentially self correcting. The fact that, you know, he does or does not submit rebuttals, if if the administration ultimately determines that they don't agree with the points made in his rebuttal,
even even then, the fact that he got one low one is not gonna ultimately have a significant impact on the end of the year appraisal as illustrated by this particular example. So I'm I'm gonna be quite candid here. Let's turn to administration exhibit seven. I believe part of the problem in talking about appraisals and observations and spots is due to the fact that last year's form, last year's spot form says formal walk through form t test.
That's a problem. And and, unfortunately, that probably caused a lot of confusion on the part of a lot of employees, but that has been fixed. If you look at the current spot form that's in use, it says, and I quote, formal walk through form. There there is it it's I'm sorry. That was what it said last year. Currently, it says spot observation form. It doesn't reference t test. So if even if you find that there were some, missteps or errors perhaps made in in terms of communicating with mister Occhio Correier or
or his understanding of the differences between spot forms and the observation forms last year. That's already been corrected. The administration has already addressed that concern to make it very clear that spots are distinguishable from the formal t test observation that was that's conducted every year. It lasts at least sixty minutes. In the end, this is a situation where we have an employee who, by all measures,
is exemplary. He's distinguished. And there is no evidence that that was presented either at levels one or level two that anything, with regard to the use of the spot forms last year in his case was, in conflict with either HISD bill and policy or state law or state administrative regulation. And I'm happy to answer any questions that the board might have. Thank you. Mister Yurutia? Yes. The administration is very correct. He is a distinguished he's one of your best teachers. He filed a grievance last year because of one observation,
one spot as was was as has been presented to y'all. And to one of your best teachers, he viewed that as a possibility that if he went anywhere else, that one spot, that characteristics of those five minutes in that classroom will impact his career. And as the administration said, in the level two, HFT did bring this up, multiple times, is that that could happen to anybody. This is your distinguished teacher. A year later, maybe if the grievance procedure would move a little quicker, we could have been in here within a timely manner, but we are almost over thirteen months later for this grievance.
But your distinguished teacher, your best, has raised a concern, the defamation of character, defamation of your professional skill in the classroom takes five minutes to harm you. And in those five minutes, a principal can walk in. You can have amazing scores as Chidi had had all year, but within five minutes, that can harm you. And currently Chidi, what were you saying? In the HRISD manual, the spot observation is still under walk through. It's still a walk through. So when you go somewhere, that's what the teachers in your classrooms are thinking about. They're not seeing all these spot observations.
They're seeing six every spot observation every day. They're thinking, my god. I got a one. I got a zero. I got a two. In their heads, they're thinking I'm gonna leave this campus. I'm gonna go somewhere else. But all they've seen is this and believing I'm being burned. My career is over. I can't get a job now because how do I turn in my walkthroughs? How do I submit my observations? And it did. It took your best to follow grievance, a confusing grievance for everybody. I would say even for HFT because we were like, this is an association. We should do this as an association. But he did it on his own because he wanted to bring attention,
and he believed that bringing the attention would get it to you guys sooner. So you will see that there's a problem here. There is a problem with the way we are doing our spot observations and the way that sometimes this principal, I know, she's been around for a while, but not every principal has been around as long. And they're using these spots because they're not really sure what they're supposed to be doing. They have a pressure on them, so you're walking in and you're just giving scores. That is these people's character. That is his character. That one observation was his character, and he took it personally even though he's one of the best.
And I want you to think about that as we move forward because you get to see me now, because all my grievances will be coming, that this is part of the process. So I'm glad that he filed this grievance. I'm glad we got to sit here, and I'm glad, Myra, as long as I've known her, we were both on the same page. We're a little confused on what we were presenting at the time, but he makes a good point. It's their character. It's a defamation of character. He broke down the penal code law on what it looks like. So if you go out and you say something about somebody, they can come after you. I do believe that's the same within your employer. Your employer can't just simply give you five minutes and say,
oh, this is who you are in these five minutes each month. I'm not sure that's what the HRIC wants, but that is what you're being presented almost monthly or weekly about how great evaluations are. But it is this. This is your best. And he had a concern and he filed a grievance and he wanted to come speak to you thirteen months later. So other than that, we rest. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions by my colleagues? No. Does anybody have a motion? I have a question. Sorry. Yes, Mr. Martinez. So maybe I'm confused as well, to be honest with you. There's not a clear indication to me that what is the actual ask here.
If the changes have been made to the observation form, as stated by Mr. Chickering, spot form, excuse me, not observation form, if those things have been made and everything that has been requested has already been done, even if it's, I understand, it took thirteen months, So what is the actual ask today then? If the changes have been made that you requested, what exactly are you asking from the Board? Okay. The changes have not been made. So what I explained was that the appraiser going forward on some of the issues, did, mix, on new, on new appraisals. On some of those, new new appraisals,
she did make some changes to accommodate what I described in the in the rebuttals. However, not all the changes were not all the changes were made. And also in previous, appraisals, the spot forms were not corrected. So the old ones were not, they did not go back and make the corrections. So those errors are still those factual errors are still there in the old appraisal forms. For the newer ones, a few of the changes were made, but not all of them. Somebody can answer this question, maybe principal. What happens with the old form, that spot form? I know it doesn't get calculated as part of your the math.
We were looking at that exhibit a minute ago. But the original spot form that's then replaced by a new number, what happens to that form? Does it remain in the file? They don't get replaced, and I'm not sure if I'm answering the question correctly so you can dig deeper. So what he is stating is last year, we didn't have access to make changes directly to the form as appraisers. We actually had to contact someone and say, hey. We made a mistake. Can you help me? Correct. This year, we actually have full access if we make the changes within ten day window.
If a teacher submits a rebuttal and submits artifacts or documentation to support, you know, the the evidence or the case, then we do have access to make the changes. The average score, it's because we are required to do more than one, and that's because we're coaching teachers. And so even if a teacher, you know, does not do well on one spot, you know, we do expect and we are required to go in and continue to follow-up with the teacher as we coach the teacher because the goal is that we're improving the
the feedback. I think we're looking at exhibit thank you very much. That is helpful. We're looking at exhibit five, administration exhibit five, which had I think miss Chickering was pointing out that that exhibit reflects that these the the lower scored, and I'm not gonna have the date, but I think it's maybe administration number 15, had a lower score. But what was utilized in the end of your conference sheet that where I'm looking at with the spots on exhibit five has the higher of the two. That's correct. And so my question is, what happens to that The alert.
Earlier number that's not utilized, obviously, in this calculation, but it's somewhat somewhere in the file or something? We don't know. If I if I can respond, based on my own experience in other situations, I I think at some point, they become almost locked in and unavailable because I've had times where time has passed, and I've tried to access spots, obviously, not in this case, but in other situations where they they weren't available anymore.
And I can't answer I don't want I don't want speculation. So if you don't know the answer, it's fine. Yeah. In in terms of but in terms of what sort of follows the employee, if you will, that's gonna be the the, end of the year appraisal. And I I believe, and I don't wanna mistake here, but I believe that if you open a personnel file, for example, you are not going to see all the spots in there. The personnel files I see from the spots from the prior year are not in
the personnel file. I can, however, find the formal appraisals from the prior year. So they are pulled in into that document, but but they're not an attachment per se to that document. So as a practical matter, I don't know How a future employer would even know if there was a lower spot included in the bunch because it's not reflected on the end of the year appraisal document. I don't know if that addresses what you were getting at.
Yes. It does. Okay. May may I may I address that? Do you know the answer to my question? Yes. Okay. Yes. So, chapter 21 of the Texas Education Code says that another school district can request any appraisal document, the the district is required the current district is required to give it to them. Okay. Alright. So just as a follow-up to that question, and even I guess from a principal perspective and then from an administration perspective, is the spot form considered an appraisal document? I'm going to say no. I mean, I'm not it's
it's a box store? Yes. It yeah. It's part of the appraisal system. It it's part of the process. It's a component of the process. Yeah. And I'm I'm my understanding is that when we were talking about the appraisal, that would be the the final document. But, Okay. I'm gonna adjourn us 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 vote or decision on any matter considered in the closed session
be required, such final action vote or decision shall be taken at the open meeting covered by this notice upon the reconvening of this public meeting or subsequent public meeting of the board upon notice thereof. The board has recessed to closed session at 04:04PM on 03/20/2025. Are we ready? Are we back? Okay. Great. The parties have, completed their presentations, and it is now time for the board members to make our decision on the issues before us. We are back at 04:18PM. We must apply only the facts presented in the transcript to the applicable policy or law and make a decision.
If there is any dispute between Mr. Occhio Corriere and the administration as to what the policies and or procedures mean, then it is the board's responsibility to determine the meaning or application of the policies and procedures. 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 Mr. Ochi Okorie, we may find accordingly. Is there any further discussion in open session? No. Okay. I have a motion by miss Ozan Bandy. Yes. I move that we determine that we have stopped,
looked and listened and that we take no further action on this matter. We have a second by Doctor. Arnold. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, please vote. The motion passes five in favor to determine that we have stopped, looked and listened and then we take no further action on this matter. 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 04:19PM. Are we leaving this open, we're going to close session? Okay. At this time, the Board will recess to close session under Chapter five fifty one of Texas Government
Code, Open Meetings Act subsections 551.004 through 551.089. And, sir, before you leave, the board appreciates your work for the kids of HISD. Thank you very much for all that you've done for them and all the good work that we can see through the spot observation forms that we had in the record. Thank you. Should board final action vote or decision on any matter considered in the closed session be required, such final action vote vote, or decision shall be taken at the open meeting covered by this notice upon the reconvening of this public meeting or to subsequent public meeting of the board upon notice
thereof. The board has recessed to closed session at 04:20PM on 03/20/2025. Okay. We're back, from closed session at 04:53PM. I will take a motion coming out of closed session. Yes, please. I move that the Board approves the closed session personnel agenda including specifically that the Board approves proposed terminations non renewals of continuing term performance and probationary contracts and authorizes superintendent or designate to provide notice of same that the board approves suspensions without pay
for continuing term and probationary contracts and authorizes superintendent or designee to provide notice of same that the board voids term, probationary, and performance contracts and authorize the superintendent or designee to provide notice of same, that the Board approves withdrawals of contract recommendations and that the Board approves issuance of final orders on contract terminations and non renewals as discussed in closed session effective 03/20/2025. Okay. We have a motion by Ms. Linder and a second by Doctor. Arnold.
Is there any discussion? Seeing none, please vote. The board, motion passes five in favor. Any other motions? Okay. Seeing none, this meeting is adjourned at 04:55PM. We are going to take a ten minute break, and we'll start the board meeting at 05:05PM. Thank you.