Okay. Good afternoon. This meeting is now convened at 02:05PM. I would like to ask everybody to, please silence your cell phones. A quorum of the board, members, is present and, in the auditorium. They are from my right. Cassandra, Andy. We have Michelle Cruz Arnold. We have, let's see, to my left now, Adria Moloney. And we have, Rolando, Martinez, and Adam Rovan. Adam, good to see you. Good to see you. Hello. Okay. Our first order of business, we don't have speakers, so I'm gonna move on from that. Let's see. I'm gonna go to this one here.
Okay. Gotta help me. I've done one of these before. Okay. This is a procedure, we're gonna have a procedure to cons to, consider the dispute resolution of Carla Lewis. This is a level two, dispute hearing. For the per purposes of this meeting, to is to consider the dispute filed by Carla Lewis, a former grants administrator in the external funding grant development office of the Houston Independent School District. Hearings involve complaints against district employees are to be held in closed session unless the
employee who is subject to 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 section five five one point zero seven one. If any board member wishes to seek advice of counsel, please, make this request, to me. For the record, miss Lewis, is present. Miles Bradshaw, Bradshaw Law representing the administration is present. Natasha Wood, HIC general counsel is also present.
Miss Lewis, do you wish to continue in open session or closed session? Open session. Okay. Great. Okay. The issues before the school board are whether board policies policies and administrative procedures were correctly applied to the agreement and whether the administration has violated those policies and procedures. Miss Lewis, since you've asked the board to hear this matter, you will proceed first. You will be allowed to make a ten minute presentation to the board followed by a ten minute presentation by mister mister Bradshaw. Miss Lewis, you may reserve part of your ten minutes for rebuttal to matters,
presented by mister Bradshaw. Both sides will shall 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 we're gonna run this hearing? Miss Lewis, would you like to divide your time, in making your presentation? I plan to use the full ten minutes, but if there's time remaining Okay. Okay. Well, there you go. That works. Okay. Miss Lewis, you can you may begin. Am I to use this mic or probably up here so everybody can see you. That'd be great. Let me know when I'm ready. Go ahead. Alright. Good afternoon,
board members. My name is Carla Lewis. I'm a dedicated educator with thirty years of exemplary service in the Houston Independent School District, and I stand to refute the false claims levied against me that led to my wrongful termination. What you have heard, are hearing, or will hear from my former former manager is an example of a big lie theory, and the theory is that, if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you can even come to believe it yourself. So they hope that I would believe it and go away willfully. They are hoping today that you will be leveraged to believe this big lie once
again to gain your acceptance fueled by some keywords that you'll hear, missed deadlines, auditable, offered support, and unsatisfactory performance. I stand as a victim of workplace retaliation, false accusations, and an unjust termination. What happened to me is not just unfair. It's a deliberate abuse of power. For thirty years, I maintained an unblemished record. The latter half of my career has been spent working with federal grants. And for the last nine years of my career, I worked with private nonprofit schools participating in federal grants with HISD. I regularly went over and beyond the call of duty to ensure that HISD and
the schools received the best of my work. So poor performance is not a part of my work history in any role that I served through the years of many superintendents and reorgs. My work and contributions can be validated by many people within TEA, including the state PNP ombudsman and HISD department heads and members, if a formal investigation had been done prior to my termination, giving them protection, to remain anonymous. However, I could not call on these individuals for statements as it would jeopardize their jobs as a conflict of interest or create, strained workplace relationships.
That leaves us relying on the personal feelings of three individuals who purposely aligned their actions and made allegations against me that were false contradictory and designed to let set me up for failure even while their actions violated multiple, legal protections, including which I only have time to name, retaliation under title seven of the Civil Rights Act, denial of due process under HISD policy and t a Texas labor laws, breach of contract and good faith employment practices, defamation and damage to professional reputation. Now the history of retaliation began long before I submitted my written response to Pam
Evans' claims in 2023. It started when I spoke truth to the untruths of my supervisors, and that was the bottom line of my written response. In May of twenty twenty two, I requested time off to attend a general conference for my church. This was not a small local conference. It was a national conference where governing legislation was proposed and voted on for the entire Christian Methodist Episcopal Church. We were also electing bishops to replace retiring or deceased bishops who headed the denomination, and bishops would be the equivalent of popes in the Catholic,
churches. Pamela Evans denied my request to attend twice and then imposed excessive unjustified requirements to discourage me from taking leave. When I successfully completed all extra tasks, I was finally granted permission to attend, but was later targeted with unfounded write ups in micromanagement. I was subjected to escalating scrutiny and baseless disciplinary actions, including my first ever write up in HISD history on February 1722, vacation requests subjected to excessive requirements on 05/02/2022,
and then the second write up occurred on June of twenty twenty two. To counter Pam's many claims that those write ups to counter Pam's many claims from those write ups, there was no evidence. I requested my badge activity report to confirm my claims against the tardiness. However, HISD denied that request, hereby preventing me from defending myself with solid evidence. I even appealed to the attorney general's office, but they upheld HISD's decision. Know that the allegations used against me were false, contradictory, and designed to set me up for failure. Here are some examples of the false accusations of tardiness.
Pam falsely accused me of being late and then failed to provide any documentation to support her claim at the time of the review. No sign in sheets. No anything. At the second review, she even asked me what time was I supposed to report, something that I would think she would clearly have known. Angela Brooks Brooks accused me of being late when I had written proof and a witness to confirm my presence, yet she asked me to change my time on the time sheet because I came in thirty minutes late. I told her I would not change my time because that was not true. Charlene Alexander also accused me of lying about my arrival time, and I contacted her by phone, Alexander also accused me of lying about my arrival time, and I contacted her by phone about arriving late due to heavy traffic.
Over a little over that discrepancy, she gave me the option to deduct the time or be written up. Choosing to deduct the time was a better option for me. Both Shirlene and Angela attempted to coerce me into falsifying a sign in sheet to match their false claims. Another example, exaggerated negative evaluations. Though I was marked as developing in two areas for two years in a row, I was also marked effective or highly effective in all other 10 plus areas. I suggest that this is not indicative of poor performance. I was never placed on a growth plan,
passed every compliance review with an audit, upload, submission, etcetera on behalf of HISD. I successfully managed three federal grants and all requirements for nine years. Within that time, four federal grants and all requirements for two of those years because there was a third a fourth grant added. Requirements for two of those years because there was a third a fourth grant added. Know that I am the only grant administrator for this program. There were also blatant differences made for individuals having the same or similar responsibilities. Another example, placing blame for the ESSER spreadsheet debacle, I was blamed for an auditable spreadsheet delay,
yet the spreadsheet was not an official auditable document. The process was time and labor intensive that was proposed for completion. There were sudden last minute changes imposed on me by supervisors, yet despite those those obstacles, I repeatedly met the important deadlines mentioned for January, February, and March. This was not a performance issue. It was a setup. Another example, my supervisors claimed that weekly meetings were necessary to help me manage my workload. In reality, these meetings began in about 2016 for a different reason altogether and continued on to
discuss all things PNP, but somehow morphed in the twenty twenty two, twenty three school year to take control of the grant with wrong intentions. The meetings were intended to be excessive and disruptive, and control my actions unnecessarily, inconsistent and contradictory as Angela Brooks and Charlene Alexander created confusion with changing and conflicting expectations. Their actions created a hostile work environment, more harassment and acts of retaliation, differences in behavior and treatment with counterparts with the same work. The consequences of this retaliation was great.
There wasn't just a wrongful termination. This was a deliberate attempt to destroy my career and livelihood. I was marked ineligible for hire, permanently damaging my reputation, a violation of defamation laws. My financial livelihood was put at risk. My supervisors even kept some of my property, refusing to return them, subjecting subject subjecting the district to a lawsuit. Again, this was not about bad performance. This was about retaliation. I respectfully asked this board of managers to cure my service record of the information from external funding, which is 300 pages in my service record.
I asked immediately to be reinstated for the lost years and fund the cost to restore payments for my TRS, to fully restore my past wages and related benefits, to institute reform and lead a call to action for the review of HISD's termination processes. In my final words, I want to remind you that these changes charges are from supervisors who just began their first year management roles for external funding and their first deep dive into the work of federal grants and PNP schools. Here's the heart of the matter. I did believe in HISD. I still do. I believed in its mission, its leadership, and its commitment to fairness.
I ask you to do what my supervisors did not, and that is act with integrity. Thank you. Thank you. Mister Bradshaw, you may, begin your presentation. Thank you, President Campo, and good afternoon, board members. So miss Lewis was a a grants administrator for HISD. Her supervisor, is my representative here today, Pamela Evans, and give me a second on this title because it's kinda long, senior executive director, ESSER, yeah, other funding, titles one, two, and four, and grant development departments. And I think it's important for you to know,
you know, what this department was doing. And what they were doing is they they were in charge of of of the grants that come through HISD, from submitting applications for those grants to then receiving those funds, monitoring the the expenditure of those funds, at the campus level, department level, and following those funds, making sure that documentation is is, of course, solid, and it is auditable by TEA, and others. And so funds like, the ESSER funds, which were from COVID nineteen for three school years,
and, and they also work with budgeting for the schools to to make sure that they can get what they need. In addition, they also miss Lewis herself would go out and inspect at campuses to see that, okay, this campus had funding for a new computer, you know, here, and and and it's there, and it's accounted for, and it's working, etcetera, etcetera, things like that. So it it was very important an important job because all the money was tied to all those requirements. And so, you know, money was tied to all those requirements. And so and and being auditable, of course, it was important. Just as an as to give you an example, the ESSER funds,
that was HISD received $1,200,000,000 in ESSER funds, and and tied to those funds were there were 15 specific assurances that that anyone who received those funds had to make. One of those assurances was specifically tied to, the the private nonprofit schools that miss Lewis worked with specifically. That was her her specific area, in addition to some others. And so so it was a very important area. And this and it's correct. I'll get back to it in a minute. The ESSER spreadsheet, in this case was kind of the camel that or the camel,
the straw that broke the camel's back in this case, was this ESSER spreadsheet. But before we get into that, let me just give you a few other background, facts. Miss Lewis is an Atwill employee. She has no contract. In terms of due process, as she calls it, her due process, as she calls it, her due process is limited to what's in your policies for an at will employee. And, essentially, the the law and the policy on that is that an at will employee can be terminated for any reason as long as it's not an illegal reason. Now miss Lewis claims retaliation, but she she ties it.
She says that, when she got a March 2023 write up, she she wrote a response to it. And then, and then a week or two later, she was fired. And so her claim is that the administration retaliated against her for responding to an employment concern that her her, supervisor had. So I'm not sure that's concern that her her, supervisor had. So I'm not sure that's really a viable legal retaliation claim, but nonetheless, that's that's what it is. And and regardless of that, there there were reasons for the actions that were taken, and it wasn't anything that just came up suddenly.
It was something, that had been going on for a couple years. And the proof is in the exhibits. Her her evaluation from the the previous school year, 2122, showed that there were two areas she was developing in. And that, and those both had to do with time management, meeting deadlines, and that was the sort of the theme, just as miss Lewis said. That was the theme of of the concerns that the her supervisors had. And so and also wanted to point out that, miss Evans has, was miss Lewis's supervisor as far back as 2010.
And so she knew her well, that she didn't just make this up suddenly. She had got gotten good reviews in the past, but this was catching up to her, and it had something had to be done. One thing that you should always ask, I think, as a as a board is is did the employee get support? In this case, I would say yes. Her her later or sorry, her immediate supervisor, miss Alexander, and she both took a time management course together, Ms. Alexander testified in the lower level that when they would offer Ms. Lewis help, she would say, I don't need help. I can do it myself. There was also TEA training available on on how to handle these grants,
and they also encouraged her encouraged her to go out and find other trainings, than they would pay for them if she needed them. And that's all in the record. So so from really from February of twenty two, the issue about timely completion of work became a a constant. It seemed like every so often, there were there were meetings, there were where they had to talk about it, where she received coaching on it. And they also set up weekly meetings, weekly check ins, to to help her push things along and make sure progress was being made.
Now in the ESSER spreadsheet that I mentioned earlier, that was, that was the thing that really ended up, being too much to to to handle. And the thing about the ESSER spreadsheet is it contained a wealth of information that was tied to these grants, this, this ESSER grants. And so it had to be complete, it had to be accurate, and it had to be confirmed, like after, you know, toward the end of the project, it had to be confirmed that, through vendors that these these amounts of money are correct,
that the equipment was actually purchased, not just thought about purchasing it, things like that. Well, initially, they set a what really was a target date of 11/17/2022 in which to complete the ESSER spreadsheet. That target date got moved to 01/17/2023, which came and went. It got pushed then to February, and now it's a deadline. And it's a deadline imposed by the administration because other projects and other people trying
to finish projects are being held up because these deadlines are not being met. The March 7 deadline was not met, and it was March 9 when, the, you know, the big memo came out, that sort of added up all the prior meetings and other memos and evaluations, and said that, this is too much, and there's a conference summary that shows that, that she was going to be terminated. And so this was not a secret. It was a serious concern. And it was then two things happened right after March 9. One, that's when miss Lewis made her response that she claimed she was retaliated for.
And and the day before, I believe it was March 8, there's an email as exhibit three, is when miss Evans contacted HR and said, I need a documentation review to consider employment action for this employee. And so to say it was retaliation, just doesn't fit the timeline. And the actual termination recommendation, I kinda got ahead of myself. The termination recommendation was not until April, in early April, April ninth. And so and and really as of that date, the ESSER spreadsheet still was not completed and confirmed as being accurate.
So, you know, I will give, you know, some of certainly due respect to miss Lewis. She she did serve the district for thirty years, I believe it was, and she had good years. And but the truth is the district was working with her on this management issue that that wasn't getting better, and they worked with her for a long time, for two years. And and finally, it got to the point where something had to be done. And so, we would ask that you would and I think you had a few minutes, a minute and a half left. Miss Lewis, if you wanna say anything.
Okay. Go ahead. Alright. In terms of that auditable, spreadsheet, it is not auditable. We turned it in on a on an audit before. It came back with a finding. The the federal inventory is the fixed assets inventory, which has all the tracking numbers and also help prepare that, and we pass the audit once we submitted that. Also, when you say any reason or no reason for a termination, they gave reasons. They said missed deadlines, and I refuted those missed deadlines with you. Also, the retaliation is clear that it started prior to the first product was in April. The last one ended. The termination was in April.
It was a plan for a year because you have to have a year's documentation to terminate me. So there was a pattern, and I have other examples, but in ten minutes, I could not give them all. When he referenced the help and the support, Charlene Alexander laughed and talked through that entire training. There were three people present, me, Charlene, and Salisa. She criticized the trainer. She asked me for my notes to write the report and the summary of it because I was busy taking notes. She offered coding on the calendar with different colors. That for me is very distracting. I have too many appointments on there. That was not gonna work for me. And she also suggested moving my emails out of my inbox to the side and
having them by years. I did that, but I keep about two years, honestly, of emails in my inbox because I have to go back and see what was written, how it was sent, when the time was, and things like that. So they're just models for me. And she also made a comment, I think, in there about, I sent five emails to schools. Will the schools participate in different grants? One, two, three, one, two, four, or ESSER. I don't send a blanket email because then you're gonna get all the emails back that tell, I don't participate in that grant. Is that for me? That can't happen. The reason the email sent was sent late.
The server was down for the private schools. They I didn't see the documents I attached. The documents that we created, the person who created them didn't see them when we went to the website where they're loaded. The email says that the documents are there. I use professional judgment that it would not be wise to send it the first day or the second day because because the emails weren't there. And then finally, I just sent it with the attachments on it. Thank you. Are there any, questions from my colleagues? Board, members to, make our decision on the issues before us. We need to supply only the facts presented in the transcript to the applicable policy
or law, and make a decision. If there any if there's any dispute between, miss miss miss Lewis and the administration as to what the policies and or procedures mean, then it's the board's responsibility to determine the meaning of the 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 the administration or the position of miss Lewis, we may find accordingly. Is there any discussion? Okay. Do we need to go to the, go to the boardroom to discuss this? Okay.
The board is relocating to the Board Conference Room at 02:30PM on February 13. So we are thank you. The board has now reconvened in the Board Auditorium, at, 02:35, PM. So do we have a motion? Go ahead. Thank you, President Kempeau. I move that we deny all requests of relief remedies not previously granted by the level two hearing officer and uphold the decision of the level two hearing officer. Okay. We have a motion. Please vote. How are we doing on voting? Here we go. Okay. Okay. Five four, the motion passes.
Five five, for the motion. No. No opposed. Thank you. Thank you, miss Lewis. Okay. Our our next, item is a procedure to cons the dispute resolution of, mister Harold. How do you say? Egboon? Egboon? Mister Harold Egboon? Nice to nice to see you. Okay. Alright. Sorry about the pronunciation of your name. Okay. The purpose of this meeting is to consider the dispute filed, by Harold Egboon. Is that correct? Egboon? Egboon. Egboon.
Okay. Got it. A former teacher at Madison High School. Hearings involve complaints involving complaints against the district employees are to be held in closed session unless the employee who is subject to the hearing requests an open hearing. The if the parties request an open session during the course of the hearing, the board may go into closed session to consult with its attorney under the terms of Texas Government Code Section 551.071. If any board member wishes to seek advice, of counsel, please make the request known to me. For the record,
we have Harold E. Boonie, in present. We have Mike, Miles Bradshaw of Bradshaw Law representing the administration. Katasha Wood, HAIC, general counsel is also present. Do you do you, want to stay in open session or closed session? Open? Okay. Okay. The issues, before the school board are whether board policies and administrative procedures were correctly applied to the agreement and whether the administration has violated those policies and procedures. Since you've asked the board, to hear this matter, you you will proceed first,
and, you will be allowed to make a ten minute presentation to the board, followed by a ten minute presentation by Mr. Bradshaw. You may reserve part of your ten minutes for a rebuttal of matters presented, by Mr. Bradshaw. Both sides shall be available for questions for the from the board after the respective presentations. After deliberation, the board will render its decision. Are there any questions regarding how we're going to do this? All good? Okay. How would you like to divide your time? Would you like to divide your time at at the beginning and then after mister Bradshaw's suite speaks?
You have ten minutes. You can separate that time or just use the whole ten minutes. Okay. Okay. If you have some left, we'll leave it for later. So you may begin once you come up to the podium here so people can see you. There you go. Okay. My name is, mister Bune Herrod, teacher for Madissey High School between 2022 and 2024. I teach photography, ceramics, and art media. First, I must raise objections to the transcript I I got. It doesn't represent what
we discussed. A whole lot is missing, and the exhibit tender does not in any way reflect I mean, does not show what happened. So I read out my gradients which I sent to your office. I've been traumatized by the action of miss miss Machin and mister Edgar Contreras, my principal. I cannot bear the burden of a supervisor's incompetence and abuse of office that borders on intimidation, emotional bullying,
mallevolence, discrimination, among other unethical practices. Ad initial, miss Ma Chen displayed crass ignorance of what it takes to run my three courses. She allotted me a Cubicle Room 1 5 12 that could barely contain 20 students to do photography, art media, and ceramics. No storage, no dark room, no light studio. I sometimes I have about 35 students in one of my eight classes, yet she gave me that room. I had to plead to explain to her that it was mission impossible for me
to operate as an artist. Coach Damien, my fellow artist, the AP drawing painting specialist, added his voice before she gave me a slightly bigger space. The that I shared, miss, with miss William. There is death of basic facility till date, and she told me emphatically in our meeting that dark room for photography or studio is not feasible with a brutal finality that harboring is thought could be an infraction. I understand her predicament, but what I do not understand is her subjective rating of my performance as if
she met the standard requirement for decent operations. I'm struggling to to establish the causes and place the department on a firm footing. Unfortunately, the confirmation. So I continue. My supervisor provided low capacity laptop for animation. I knew they do not know what it takes. My request for a suitable laptop with a graphic card was not honored. The laptop they gave me stalls most times in my class due to lack of adequate space, I I had to improvise with two laptops. When I told her I was operating under severe constraints,
it was as if the three courses they asked me to run was an afterthought. I've attached documents to my grievance that, unfortunately, I have copies I've printed out some three copies of my grievance because all through the grievance stages, they've not made any reference to the documents. Okay? I advocated for softwares and throwing wheels from the school to the district. Finally, I got four throwing wheels in year twenty twenty three twenty four under new principal Lee,
miss Lee Tanisha, who understood the importance of throwing wheel in ceramics. Miss Lee left since last year. I struggle for basic need from software to tools. You can see the multiple correspondences I attached, but all miss Machen was wanted was just my exit without any justification. In spite of the challenges and limitation, the students' work were outstanding. I have a video of my students' work if you were interested in seeing it. The Houston ISD visual art curriculum specialist for high school,
miss Bona Chander, who saw our twenty twenty three end of year art exhibition proudly announced other district arts teachers at our PD meeting that Madison art exhibition was robust. She made me a facilitator in a district wide summer art camp. Because she saw the quality of what I was doing at Madison. She was so impressed. She's here. She's in this building. So she directed, brought students from all over the district for me to show show them how we do some of those stuff in photography and digital
art because she saw it at our exhibition. The show head at Madison, miss, Machen, my supervisor, did not see that she all she needed was my exit with a subjective grading for reasons best known to her. So I don't want to bore us. I've taken great account of tools, stolen cameras where were have been reported missing and recovered. Last year, intuitively, I counted and discovered one of my 13 cameras got missing over the weekend without a clue. Should I keep quiet or report the loss?
I choose to look stupid doing the right thing and reported a loss. Imagine my disbelief when miss Machia, my supervisor, revealed that she took the camera from my store without any permission or apology. Yet, she would accuse me of not monitoring students when she's fully aware that I monitor both men and material in my custody. I believe she would be probably annoyed I did not fall into her puppy trap. Do I have to be traumatized or taught a lesson for being too accountable? I hold students accountable for their refusal to learn.
And in an instance, they run to have tentative quest for turning down her personal request in October. She would accuse me of not monitoring students. Somehow, evidence are abound that she has resolved to make three points right from the inception of Amani Ten yet to be recommended or confirmed. She made three point her benchmark. Mark. Wasseba I do is just three 20% over hundred. That's 20% is her benchmark for me for reasons best known to her.
But, unfortunately, fortunately, I have two other supervisors who gave me these are my other supervisors. They all gave me proficient. Two different supervisors who have observed me teach, gave me proficiency I mean, proficiency rating in my classes. I have no issue with teaching at I passed all my my course subject at a sitting. I my test of teaching sitting. But to for miss Machen, I'm not qualified to be a teacher. She made it impossible. And, I don't know what the problem is.
Is. These are supervisors who have seen me from beginning of a class to the end. They all returned me proficient. Miss Ma Chen has never seen me from beginning of any class to the end of any class. She has never done any full formal observation, yet she felt comfortable rating me 20 over hundred throughout the duration of my two years for no reason. Okay? So I continue. After turning down her fundraising request in October, she dropped my grade in her next quarter observation to two points.
She gave me a zero for the space she gave me for being unsafe. She gave me the space. She knows it's not adequate. She knows it's not good enough. When they brought, whiteboard for teachers, I couldn't take one because I had no space to accommodate it. And yet she would turn around to rate me, give me any any grade because she doesn't want me to to teach in this. I don't know. So she gave me a zero for the shared quarter space she allotted to me, being unsafe, even with my usual sitting arrangement in parts.
See the document. I attached it. Recently, she saw my keyboard on the board. My I met my ass to them watching a video tutorial replicating same at their own pace, making it their own. Bestie went to write there. There was no differentiation. For the first time, I had to write her and ask Yes. That's ten minutes. Thank you. Mister Bradshaw, you make make your presentation to the board. The documents, I believe, are already in the record, correct? Yeah, we have the documents here in already, in the record. Mister Ebony, the the record is limited to what we all presented at Level 2.
If you remember, and you presented some exhibits afterwards by email, those are in the record. They are in the record. That was emailed to you before the hearing. So, so the the issue in this in this grievance is the principal's recommendation regarding mister Egbonnet's ACP certification. That's the issue in the grievance. And, the principal, mister Edgar Contreras, is here with me today. He's he's the Madison High School principal. He's been there since December of twenty three. Prior to that, he had four years as principal at Fondren Elementary School.
Mister Egbonnet has been an ACP intern, at, at Madison High School for the past two school years. And what happened is in December of twenty three, during the Christmas holiday, his certificate expired. And so, it needed to be either renewed or or dropped, I guess. And so the ACP program contacted the principal and said, hey, I need a recommendation from you. And what the law says, it's actually in the law how these these folks are are certified. It it states, and I'm quoting from the administrative code,
and it's exhibit 9.2. An internship is successful when the candidate demonstrates proficiency in each of the educator standards for the assignment, and the field supervisor and campus supervisor recommend that the candidate should be recommended for a standard certificate. So here, the campus supervisor, excuse me, is mister Contreras, and the field supervisor is someone through the program that comes and checks in on them from time to time, and gives them an recommend approval, two,
to recommend another year in the ACP program, and then reconsider at the end of that year. Or three, to not recommend certification. And in this case, the principal, did not certification. And he didn't do it just haphazardly. Now granted, he had just started as principal at at the at the campus. So what he did is first thing he did is he asked mister Egwene, can you pro I you know, I'd be happy to do this for you. Can you provide, some student work samples? Whatever information you'd like me to consider. And and he sent some information in.
And then mister Contreras went about, talking to his other appraisers, his other administrators on the campus who had observed his classroom. He looked, of course, at his personnel file to see about his evaluation and so on. And that information, is what supported his decision ultimately. And keep in mind, this is a discretionary decision by the principal. If if the if this principal he he's given his opinion, based on documentation, etcetera, and the the program even requires, if you're going to say no to certification, you have to send us documentation that supports it.
He did that, and they didn't object. They didn't say, oh, we can't do that. You know? So point being, it's a discretionary, judgment. Now, his T test evaluation from 'twenty two-'twenty three, the prior school year, was below proficient. Under that system, proficient was 2.5 to 3.5. And he had a 1.67 in instruction and learning environment, and that was in the developing category. The issue with mister Egbeney's classroom was something that was very consistent, and four other administrators, in addition to his appraiser,
went in, doing spots or other checks and saw the same campus, is is, the front row will be filled with students. That's a nonnegotiable at the campus. Seems pretty easy to do. I'm not a teacher, but, mister Egbonnet was directed to do this by the executive director from the district office who came by and saw this. He immediately sent an email to him and said, hey. Fill up that front row. You know, directed him, on all these issues. That was in October of twenty three, and it example of of what the issues were, as I mentioned,
it was Sandra Doria who was the executive director who who who saw that no one was sitting in the front row. There were, in the record, there's 11 spots, spot observations, some of them by his appraiser, appraiser, miss Marchand, who he who he talks about. And the ratings in those spots were from between two and five when proficient is eight or better. So he he never got proficient under HISD standards. HISD standards. And the law requires that to get approval, they must demonstrate proficiency.
So he he just didn't do it. And I think, you know, with again, giving some credit to mister Egbeney, he everyone agreed that he knew the content. He was a very good artist. He was very good at some, media type things with photography, with ceramics, those sorts of things. No one doubted that, but the classroom instruction was was poor. I mean, it was not good. So mister Egbonnet was given support as an ACP intern. The, the school campus partnered him with another mentor teacher. That was a mister Hunter. And mister Hunter was there for him for the whole school two school years,
I guess. His appraiser, miss Marchand, of course, did walk throughs, did feedback, did on the spot coaching from time to time. Sent him to a peer observation to go see a observation to go see a teacher, that this is how you do it. And he wrote up, you know, his notes from his peer observation to send the record. You read his notes, and it, it, I think he was paying attention. He was writing down some stuff that made sense. But he wasn't implementing in his classroom. And that, addition, on January of the school year, right before mister Contreras had to make his recommendation, he he did what he called the gallery walk, where, all the teachers were informed and educated on all the t test requirements,
you know, the MRS strategies, the the NES way, which is the NES campus. And including, mister Egbonnet. And so he wanted to make sure everyone had been told this is the standard, and there's no doubt about it anymore, because everybody already knew that. But he did it again. And mister Contreras himself, from from when he got there in December to the time he made his recommendation, he testified that he observed his class four times, and saw the same things. Heads down, nobody in the front row, kids are scrolling on their phones, looking at TikTok.
So they lack student engagement. And and I asked mister Contreras at the end of the the testimony. I said I said, why didn't you just give him the second option? You know? The second option, which is give him one more year. And I wanna read to you what he said, because I think he it really sums up the case. It's on page 54 of the transcript. Mister Contreras, principal Contreras stated, quote, I've been in education since 02/2007. I have worked with many ACP candidates, several from Texas teachers region four, which was this one. There is a will and skill situation here.
Mister Egbonnet is clearly an expert in his craft of fine arts. He knows his content. However, in our school and in education, you have to be able to convey that information to students. Implement best practice so students can learn and acquire information and be successful. Unfortunately, he is not showing me that he has the will to take feedback and apply that. So it is going to be very difficult for him to be successful. And if he has already had two years to do that, I have enough data that I wouldn't see a different outcome. These are or excuse me. There are definitely more candidates out there that are able to do that.
So we ask that you uphold the level two decision. Thank you. Thank you, mister Prachar. Are there any questions for my colleagues? Sir, I need you to use your microphone so they can hear you in the on the recording. The recommendation happened on the January 5, the just the first week of school, and all what the observation they're talking happened after. He came to to my class, called me zero over a hundred for no reason after to justify himself. He brought another Spanish teacher who knows nothing about art.
He scored me zero over a hundred. Those are the exhibits they've turned at to make me look incompetent. How bad could a teacher be to score a zero? I appreciate that. We have we have, the record. The parties have completed their presentations, and and now it's time for board members to make our decision 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. And if there are any dispute if there's any dispute be between mister Ebune and
the administration as to what the policies, and procedures mean, that is the board's responsibility to determine the meeting or application of the policies and procedures. The record of level two hearing must support any actions we take. That is, the record if the record supports the position of the administration or the per, the position of mister Ebune, we may find accordingly. Is there any discussion? Shall we move to the boardroom? So the board is going to relocate to the Board Conference Room at 03:02PM on February 13.
Okay. The special meeting of the school board of the Houston Independent School District is now reconvened in open session. The time is 03:08PM. Do I have a motion? President Campo, I move that we deny all requested relief remedies not previously granted by the level two hearing officer and uphold the decision of a level two hearing officer. K. We have a motion in a second. Members, please please vote. Okay. We have, five, yes and zero opposed, so the motion passes. Thank you. You. Let's see. Just the one here. Okay. Good. At this time,
the board will recess to closed session under chapter five five one of the Texas government code open meetings act subsections five five one dash, zero zero four through five five one dash, zero eight nine. Should board final action, voter decision on any matters considering the closed session be required, such final action, vote, or decision shall be taken at the open meeting conveyed, by by this notice upon the reconvening of this public meeting or at a subsequent subsequent public meeting of the board,
upon notice thereof. The board has recessed to close session at, as of, 03:10PM February thirteenth twenty twenty five. Okay. Good afternoon. This meeting is reconvened at 03:42PM, on February 2025. We have been joined by board member Mendoza. Paula, thanks for being here. Okay. Are we ready to consider items, from the closed session? Somebody have a motion? There we go. Yes, president Campbell. 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 authorize the superintendent or designee to provide notice of the same. That the board approves suspensions without pay for continuing term and probationary contracts and authorize the superintendent or designee to provide notice of the same, that the board voids term, probationary, and performance contracts and authorizes superintendent or designee to provide notice of the same, that the board approves withdrawals of contract recommendations, and that the board approves issuance of final ordinance on contract terminations and non renewals as discussed in closed session effective February 2025.
Okay. Is there any questions or comments? Hearing none, please vote. Okay. The motion passes. I guess that's seven yes and two absent. Okay. We will now adjourn this meeting, of the board and we will have another one at 05:00. Thanks.