Okay, good evening. This meeting is now convened at 05:09PM. I would like to ask everyone to please silence all cell phones. The form of the Board members is present in the Board Auditorium. Our first order of business tonight is to hear from speakers to agenda items. Public comment during school board meetings will only be available to those persons who have signed up to speak prior to the meeting, time per current protocol, verbal and other disruptions by persons during the school board meeting are not acceptable as they inhibit the board's ability to conduct business and the public's ability to observe those
processes. Persons who participate in such behavior will be given one warning and if the behavior is reviewed, they will be asked to leave the meeting. We have two registered speakers who will be limited to two minutes each per Board policy. We ask that you stay on topic and refrain from naming individuals, especially students as their identity is protected under law, but you may name your own child. I ask that you please respect our procedures and the other speakers when you have completed. So let's go ahead and bring up the first speaker. Who is the first speaker? I don't have that list.
Sure. Come on. Go ahead. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. You're the steward. There it is. You're perfect. Thank you. Absolutely. I'm Nealy Stewart. I'm here to just clear up a few things. Through public info request, we found the full survey results to the family, sentiment survey that Floyd said to show a majority of the parents were happy with HISD. The real numbers prove that he has cherry picked his data and does not fit the narrative. And he suppresses the ones that he doesn't like. Miles then lied to city council last week. This year is not especially bad because of deportation rates, and not everywhere is facing enrollment declines.
In fact, Durham stands to lose $154,000 worth of funding because of the number of students pulled out to go to private schools. And that's just the number we know about this year. There are more that we don't know about, and there will continue to be. Enrollment is flat in NYC. They've lost 100,000 students since the pandemic, but not 70,000 in one year. LA has no reports of massive 100,000 students decline in one year. But Chicago does have two to 3% per year, but HISD is more than double that at 6.6%.
I Googled it. HISD high teacher turnover is largely due to the introduction of the high pressure NES model that has led to low teacher morale, a loss of autonomy for educators, and a high pressure work environment resulting in the significant number of teachers leaving the district. Perfect example, this year at Durham, we have had one kinder, one first, three third, one fourth grade teacher, and a librarian. With a teaching staff of 32, that comes out to 21.875% teacher turnover rate. And that's just for the first two months of school. So now I'm not talking to any of you, I'm talking to your subconscious.
Whether you like it or not, it can hear me. So when you're trying to fall asleep, listen to that little voice that is talking to you, or the one that won't let you go back to sleep at night, in the middle of the night. You know this is wrong. Once his contract is up in 2027, if he stays that long, because remember he bailed for the mountains before when it wasn't going his way, he's out, he's gone, he's got his paycheck, and now his bonus. And who is going to be left here? You. Thank you. Next up, Cal Tucker. Not here, okay. We will now conduct the hearing scheduled for this meeting. The purpose of this meeting is to consider the recommendations of the independent hearing examiner
in the matter of Kaylee, Gallier, Special Education Department Chair, Stevenson Middle School. Hearings involving complaints against district employees are to be held in closed session unless the employee who is subject to the hearing request hearing requests 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 Texas Government Code Section 551,071. If the Board member wishes to seek the advice and counsel, please tell me. For the record,
Christopher, Christopher, yes, I'm sorry? That's right. Yes, is representing, Mescalier, is present in the room. Myra Chickering with Rogers, Morrison and Grover, LP represents the administration and is also present. And Kadasha Woods, HISD General Counsel is also present. Would you want a closed or open session? Open. Open it is. Okay. Okay. The issues for the school board are whether to accept, reject or change the independent hearing examiner's findings of fact, conclusion of law and proposal based on a review of the record.
We may reject or change a finding of fact, if after reviewing the record of the proceedings before the hearing examiner we find it is not supported by substantial evidence. If we reject the Independent Hearing Examiner's recommendation or make any changes, we must state the reason and legal basis in writing. This trickery, you'll proceed first. You'll be allowed to make a ten minute presentation to the Board followed by a ten minute presentation, by Mr. Drutko. Would you like to divide your time or Okay. You may begin.
Good afternoon, mister Campo, members of the board. I am joined here today by Margaret Randall, the principal of Waltrip High School, who formerly served as the principal of Stevenson Middle School, where Cali Gallier worked. It is really unfortunate that we are here today. And in fact, it's the last thing that Margaret Randall and I want to be doing, participating in a hearing that could result in the termination of miss Gallier's contract, which is the recommendation before you today. This situation could have been avoided entirely.
As you will hear, Miss Randall did everything she could to prevent this outcome. But nevertheless, we are here. To be clear, this case has nothing to do with miss Gallier's day to day performance or her effectiveness in her position as the special education department chairperson of Stevenson. No, this termination is instead based on something much more basic. A deliberate failure to follow the directives of her supervisor. And let me be clear. We are not talking about a failure to follow directives to turn in paperwork, or a failure to follow the sign in,
sign out procedures. In those situations, you would see an opportunity for remediation. Rather, this case involves a willful, defiant decision to deviate from the explicit directives of the principal and the assistant principals. In other words, rank insubordination. The incident in question which resulted in the termination recommendation occurred on 10/02/2024. And on that day, a sensitive ARD meeting was taking place in special education office at Stevenson involving a student,
MJ, with whom miss Gallier had previously been involved in a serious altercation the prior semester during the 2324 school year. And as a result of that prior incident, miss Randall determined that it was imperative to maintain separation between the student and miss Galliet at all times. Miss Galliet concurred in that determination and even collaborated with miss Randall to develop a stay away, no contact agreement, which was supposed to be addressed with MJ and her mother during the October 2
ARD meeting. As part of that arrangement, miss Randall and miss Galliet agreed that the special education office would serve as an MJ free or student free safe space for miss Galliet, with one significant exception. Miss Randall expressly informed miss Galliet that the SPED office, the Special Education office, would be the site of this particular October 2 ARD meeting with, MJ and her mother and a number of other individuals. Miss Gallia knew that the meeting was taking place that day and knew that MJ
and her mother would be in attendance. Nevertheless, upon returning to campus from a field trip, respondent intentionally entered that office while the meeting was still in progress. And she did so despite being informed in the hallway before entry by assistant principal Lequenia Scott that the meeting was not over and was directed not to enter. Ignoring miss Scott's directive, miss Gallier unlocked the door and entered. She entered the room despite knowing that the meeting was taking place and that MJ
would be present. She entered the room despite having been directed just moments before in the hallway to not enter. And she was told that that was a specific directive. She entered the room, and then, despite being told by Ms. Randall to leave, she stayed and lingered for a few minutes. Although she initially left the meeting, the evidence demonstrated that she inexplicably returned a second time, again pausing to linger before she left. Now, the evidence will show that miss Gallier's conduct left the ARD participants dumbfounded.
And by deliberately entering the office despite explicitly being directed to stay away, miss Gallier exhibited an intentional disregard for her supervisors. This is the kind of conduct which, as I said, is not remediable. Her actions does do not reflect that she understands or appreciates administrative authority. She intentionally undermined campus leadership. And in so doing, she effectively destroyed the trust that miss Randall was attempting to build with the family. Now I cannot stand here today and say I totally agree with this hearing examiner's
factual findings and reasoning. In fact, I absolutely disagree with much of the recommendation. He rejected what I believe is credible evidence that miss Gallier ignored additional directives on the day in question that she received from miss Randall. And he even went so far as to suggest that miss Randall somehow contributed to the situation by not holding the ARD meeting in a different location. We disagree. And we would point out that a portion of the recommendation is at direct odds with the findings of a TEA investigator who investigated the incident involving miss Gallier and
MJ from the prior year. Notwithstanding all of that, I would submit to you that mister Beringer, the hearing examiner, ultimately reached the right conclusion. He concluded as a matter of law, and I quote from page 16 if you wanna follow along. And conclusion number seven, the district proved good cause by a preponderance of the evidence that miss Galliet failed to follow the directives of, assistant principal Scott to not enter the art meeting. And finding I'm sorry. Conclusion number eight. The district proved by good cause,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that miss Gallier's failure to perform the duties, in the scope of employment that a person of ordinary prudence would have done under the same or similar circumstances. Under the same under these circumstances, a personal of reason a person of reasonable prudence would not have risked their professional position by defying the directives of the assistant principal, Scott. And based on that conclusion, the hearing examiner went on to find, notwithstanding some of those other things I mentioned, that in fact, the, he concluded that the district had proven,
sufficient evidence of good cause and has recommended to this board that her contract be terminated. And that is a recommendation, the ultimate recommendation that I would ask you to uphold today. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Trudico, you can, make your presentation to the board now. Thank you, thank you for, for hearing this today. I, my good friend Ms. Chickering glosses over a lot of the facts that are so important in this decision today, that I need to go back and talk a little bit about them. Miss. Callie Gollier is how you pronounce her name. Gollier had been a faithful,
loyal and exceeds expectation teacher for the Houston Independent School District for seventeen years. In the record, not every one of her performance evaluations are in the record and not one time had she ever been less than exceeds expectations in that time. In the almost forty years that I've been doing this, that's one of the few times that we've seen a teacher that every time was exceeds expectations. Not one time had Cali Gallierville ever been written up for anything before this day,
before this time. The serious altercation that Ms. Chickering glossed over was a physical assault on miss Callie Gollier by the student MJ when miss Gollier responded to a call for help when when MJ attacked another teacher in the hallway and miss Gollier responded as the as the, person closest to come and assist. She has been trained to, as the head of the of the department,
trained in holds by CPI, took over the situation and the child broke loose, attacked her, ripped her hair out and and caused her to bleed and was charged with assault, convicted of assault and had to wear an electronic monitor on her ankle. That's the altercation that Ms. Chickering glossed over for you. This was not just a simple altercation in the hallway between a teacher and a student, this was a actual physical serious assault,
a crime that took place in the hallway because this lady was doing her job and got assaulted for it. What the hearing officer found as a result of that, that Ms. Chickering has such objection to, and I'd like to read it for you, I never do this, but I'm gonna read this because it's so important on page 13. In this examiner's opinion, Principal Randall failed to act reasonably as a reasonably prudent principle in the areas of her intent to exclude respondent from entry into the SPED office during the sensitive ARD
meeting. She only gave a directive once, once she saw respondent had already entered the SPED office. In attempt to correct her obvious error of the situation, she failed to act reasonably in her selection of meeting locations, times, or by not ensuring respondent was off campus on the day of the ARD meeting. It appears that Principal Randall was choosing a more convenient office to, convenient office to conduct the sensitive ARD over the needs and requests of both students,
mother and respondent. What that means is, she held the ARD meeting in Ms. Gollier's office. And after she had already said to her, your office is your only safe place on campus. When you have a problem with MJ, you get to go to your office that is your safe place. And instead of holding it in her conference room, she held it, the ARD meeting, in her office and took away the only place she has on campus to go. Why is that important on this day?
Miss Gollier had been gone all day long at a at a at a field trip, had not been on campus, got back at lunch time, all she wanted to do was get her lunch. She was in that office for fifty seven seconds. The hearing officer goes on, HISD is the largest school district in the state of Texas and HISD attorneys have continuous access to facilities to conduct large meetings off campus, Hattie Mae White, HISD's council's office and on campus that can accommodate all participants and requirements of the TEA decision and
standards to conduct the IEP, especially due to the nature and circumstances surrounding these types of situations. Alternatively, the meeting could have been done in the morning as respondent was out on a field trip till 1PM. Or the meeting could have been held after hours or respondent could have been directed to take the rest of the day off and a substitute could have taken her place. All of these scenarios are reasonable accommodations that could have protected both the student and respondent in the demands of the mother. If only just one of these was implemented,
then the incident would not have occurred and Cali Gallia would not be sitting here today. She'd have her job. She'd be doing it today. Principal Randall, Principal Randall's decisions, statements and actions contributed to the error of events that occurred on 10/02/2024, knowing that the possibility existed that the student and respondent could encounter each other on campus regardless of the meeting when they arrived or exited the building or the meeting itself, I mean if the stay away agreements were so important knowing that respondent had at
least three encounters between September and October without a meeting without the meeting, why would you take the extra precautions as a leader, Principal Randall failed both the mother and the respondent? And then he goes on to say that that fifty seven seconds is enough to terminate a teacher of seventeen years with a spotless record, seventeen years of exceeds expectations, Seventeen years of doing everything you have asked her to do. You have the power.
You have the power to reject this, to modify it. You can modify this, put her on probation, and give her a job back. Fifty seven seconds is not enough. It's not enough to end a career that's as good as this one. Respondent collaborated with the principal in drafting the proposed stay away agreements. The collaboration is indicative that she was not resistant to direction and or determined to do things her way. Respondent responded to to the response call to assist in the handling of a violent
and aggressive student and was assaulted in doing it. Principal failed to recognize respondent's trauma from the incident of February 22. What more do you want from a professional employee than what Callie Galyer did on that day? She did everything that was asked of her and fifty seven seconds, ladies and gentlemen, is not enough, not enough to end this career. Through a lapse of judgment and resistance occurred for fifty seven seconds by not following AP Scott directives does not really warrant
the termination of a seventeen year employee when the decision maker, Principal Randall, failed on so many levels. Respondent is a highly trained HISD employee, specifically in special education, and has seventeen years of experience. Respondent has no negative marks on her history. In fact, she has high marks. And then he went on to say that that one fifty seven second lapse in judgment was enough to end this career. Now I ask you, is that enough? Is that enough? You have the power to do the right thing,
you have the power to reject this recommendation, and at least at a minimum put her on probation, give her a chance to show you that seventeen years is worth more than fifty seven seconds. And I ask you to do that. Thank you. Thank you. Miss, Chagrin, do you wish to make a rebuttal? I think you have, a little over three and a half minutes of customers. Yeah, somewhere in that neighborhood. Mhmm. Excuse me. Miss Gallagher, we agree. She was a loyal, long term employee of Houston Independent School District, and she had good appraisals.
I said that from the very get go in my introductory remarks. That's not the issue here. The issue is following the chain of command. And at the time, the stay away agreement was drafted. And, miss miss Gallagher was a part of that process. She was told. It was made very clear that on this particular day, that office is not your safe space because we have this ARD meeting, which is gonna start in the morning, and we have a lot of people attending. Now, the hearing examiner sort of,
goes off in a note, and and mister Tritico read from that section saying there could have been a building some other building that could have housed the meeting, or they could have done it on some other day or some other location. The fact remains is that the principal made in her mind an evaluation, a reasonable evaluation of the options and determined that it was gonna be held in that department chair in the department office. And she put, Ms. Gallier on notice that that was gonna take place. At that point, as the hearing examiner correctly notes,
a prudent person, if they wanted their lunch, but they knew that their lunch was in a room where there was a meeting being held that they were off limits to, could have asked the assistant principal, Hey, my lunch is in that office. Could you go get it? She could have texted someone, Can you go in and get the lunch? But instead, she heard the directive from the assistant principal, ignored that direction, and willfully entered the office area in in violation of that direction. Now, again, there's much of this recommendation that I I can't support and that I disagree with.
But I'm not gonna stand up here and suggest that you start changing findings of fact. What mister Tridico failed to do, and it's it's very important, he came up here and said, you know, you need to we agree with the recommendation, but I want you to reach a different conclusion of law. In order to do that, he would have to demonstrate to you that the hearing examiner's, conclusions of law, one or more of them, were clearly erroneous. And he hasn't done that. If you look at the hearing examiner's recommendation, he cites the proper legal standards.
He cites the commissioner's decision in the Cox case, and I quote from that, an employee does not get one free chance to defy a clear directive. Every employee knows that defying a supervisor's instruction that is neither illegal nor immoral can lead to serious consequences, including termination. That is consistent with the recommendation, and that is consistent with his decision to recommend. Thank you. Board members, is there any questions? Anybody have a question? Okay. I have one Mr. Chairman. Sure, go ahead. Yeah. I mean, a lot of this turns on those fifty seven seconds,
in the classroom and then some period of time outside of the classroom. What what was how long was that period of time outside the classroom before the fifty seconds started? So so it's not a classroom. It was her it was the special education office. Right. The office. Yeah. And so and I wanna make sure I understand your question. Miss Gallier was coming back on campus from the field trip and was coming in through the hallway and ran into the assistant principal who had exited the arb. And I don't know how I don't remember off top of my head how long it
had been from the time this the AP left the yard, not long, and ran into her in the hallway, and she's and asked is it over? And that's when they that's when the the conversation occurred. And she said, I need to get my lunch. And that's the fifty seven seconds occurred immediately after that. Okay. Or shortly after that. Okay. So there was a, it wasn't sort of a mistaken entry into the room. There was a there was knowledge that the meeting was happening and then Right.
The AP said it's almost over or something to that effect. Okay. Any other questions? Go ahead. It's a it's a it was a in my it's my recollection, my roommate member as well. It was a former classroom that was turned into an office. Right. And is it, multiple teachers office or just, I believe it was just Ms. Collier's. Okay. I don't disagree with that. Okay. And then the mode of communication for the, for her initially finding out this meeting is happening and you should not be there, how did that happen? It was oral discussion, but then also that there was a written communication as well.
And that's that's in the petitioner's exhibits. And if I may just respond, follow-up to, Mr. Gore's question. If you, refer to petitioner's exhibit before before Ms. Galliard entered the, Special Education office. And one more follow-up to that too. Ms. Galliard ran into her secretary in the hallway also who had been in to get her lunch And she told her that she had just gone in to get her lunch. If I may respond to that. The secretary was not the one who was a party to the stay away agreement,
and the secretary was not the person who was told this is not your safe space on this particular day. That was miss Galliard. Okay. Thanks. I you know, it's interesting. I'm just trying to understand the state of mind upon entering the room. That seems to be important. Like, are people in and out of the room? Is there a clear understanding that this is not sort of a this is a closed meeting. It is clear, and then the the decision was made to enter the room. Right? By its nature, an armed meeting is a private, confidential meeting. And the only people that are supposed to be in there are people that are
participating in the meeting. And again, we have video. I don't know that you have the time or the interest in looking at it, but there's actually video of the period of time that she was in there and you can see the other people in there including the student and the student's mother. Any other questions? Okay. So, is there a need for the board to go to the boardroom and discuss this? No? Okay, great. Alright, so, we will then, let's see, I have to do this. The Board is relocating to the Board Conference Room at 05:05 forty
pm. We will then be in closed session. So the Board will now recess to closed session of 05:51 of Texas Government Code Open Meetings Act, subsection 551.004 through 551.089. And should the Board's final action voter decision of any matter considered, the closed session be required. Final action vote will be taken in the open meeting by notice this notice or reconvene the public meeting at a subsequent public meeting in the with public notice thereof.
So So let's go to that meeting. Is there any further discussion? Okay. Do I have a motion? I do. I move that we adopt the decision and recommendation of the independent hearing examiner, adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law recommended by the independent hearing examiner, and terminate, Cali Gallier's employment with the district effective immediately. Is there a second? Okay. We have a second. Board members please vote. The Board has voted three, in favor and one abstention. A letter notifying both parties of the action of the Board shall be prepared and signed by the Executive Director of Board Relations as soon as possible.
This hearing is concluded at 05:53PM. Thank you. We're good to go for the next one? Okay. The purpose of this meeting is to consider the recommendation of the independent hearing examiner in the matter of Kudu Urit Aluubi, NES teacher at Milne Elementary School, docket number 261LH082025. The parties of it entered a stipulation requesting the Board adopt a recommendation of the independent hearing, examiner, Natalie, Barletta that the, appeal be dismissed due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Do I have a motion to adopt the decision and recommendation of the independent hearing
examiner and dismiss this appeal? Yes. I make a motion to adopt the decision and recommendation of the independent hearing examiner and dismiss this appeal. Okay. There's a motion and a second. Any questions or comments to discussion? If not, please vote. The motion, passes four-zero. A letter notifying both parties that the action of the board should be prepared and signed by the Executive Director of Board of Relations as soon as possible. The hearing is concluded at 05:55PM. Okay. Our next one, The purpose of this meeting is to, consider the recommendation of the independent hearing examiner in the matter of
Lashonda Love, teacher at High School Ahead Academy. Hearings involving complaints of 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 this hearing, the Board may go into closed session to consult with its attorneys under the terms of the Texas Government Code Section 551.071. If any Board member wishes to seek advice from counsel, please tell me. For the record, Lashonda Love is present, Selena Vincent of Thompson and Horton,
LP represents the administration is present. Kashwood, HISD, General Counsel is also present. Mr. Lev, do you wish you continue in open session or closed? Open session, okay. Okay, the, issues before the school board are whether to accept, reject or change the independent hearing examiner's finding the fact conclusion of law and proposal based on review of the record. We may reject or change a finding of fact if after reviewing the record of the proceedings before the hearing examiners, we find it is not supported by substantial evidence.
We will if we reject the independent hearing examiner's recommendation or make any changes, we must state the reason and the legal, basis in writing. Ms. Vincent, you will proceed first. You can, go ahead, you'll have ten minutes. If you want to split up your time, you can. Okay. Okay. You may. Plan to be really efficient with your time. The district has no objections or qualms with the hearing examiner's recommendation. In fact, we fully support it and ask that you accept it. It is based on a proposed non renewal of miss Love.
Miss Love's, proposed non renewal was based on, six factors that were listed in the notice of proposed non renewal. The hearing examiner found five of them. Found that the district had proved by preponderance of the evidence five of the factors. As you know, for a non renewal, under the policy for a non renewal, we only have to prove one of the policy reasons, to non renew Ms. Love's contract. And the three that the hearing examiner found were that the district had proved by preponderance of the evidence after Ms.
Love appealed the notice of her non renewal, the district, proved deficiencies pointed out in observation reports, appraisals or evaluations, supplemental memorandum or other communications. You have before you in the record hundreds of pages of documentation of miss Love's deficiencies and, her reported, violations of policy. There's conferences of summary. There's memos of concerns that are in the record that were presented to the hearing examiner, where she ultimately found that the district had proved by a preponderance of the evidence
that those deficiencies did exist. We were also able to prove, failure to comply with board policies and administrative regulations. And what the evidence showed is that miss Love fell to input attendance, in a timely manner. And this was a very disruptive, as you can imagine, to the school. It was the high school, head academy. And her lack of failure to, put in her attendance, prevented the the district from complying with regulations and rules or the school from complying with those regulations and rules. Miss Love also failed to,
input her student grades. So much so that report cards were delayed. She had a repetitive problem of timely inputting student grades. So the hearing examiner in the findings finds that those facts were approved. That information again is in the record before you. And then most easily and obviously is that there was a reduction force where miss Love's position was eliminated. She is a math or was a math intervention specialist. In a May 2024 RIF,
that position was eliminated and approved by the board. She was the only math intervention specialist at the High School Ahead Academy, which meant that the district or the school didn't have to apply the criteria. It meant that, unfortunately, Ms. Love's position was gonna be eliminated. We could have proceeded on the non renewal based on that, issue alone, just that her position was eliminated. But because in fact we had these other issues with Ms. Lovett's performance, we went ahead and included those. And I will just, you know, point to this recommendation because as you can see,
or as I've stated, we have no issues with it. The hearing examiner didn't find three of the reasons, that we proved them by a preponderance of the evidence, but we only needed one. And we don't take issue with her findings. And so you'll see on let's see. Again, I don't wanna waste your time. So I think I'm gonna refer you to page 12 of the hearing examiner decision, and it says let me start with 11. Petitioner HISD has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent Love's term contract should not be renewed based on at least one board policy stated in the notice
of non renewal. One of the reasons was a riff, and HISD has proven by repondors of the evidence that there was a riff of Love's position within HISD. The next page 12. Additionally, in considering the totality of respondents' performance in the twenty twenty three-twenty twenty four school year, the evidence and testimony revealed the following issues. And then there's a very large paragraph that covers almost all of page 12 that lists out her deficiencies. And again, they were, pointed out in observations, reports, evaluations, appraisals. And, finally on page 13,
HISD is proven by our partners of the evidence that Love failed to comply with board policies or administrative regulations. As discussed above, Love's failure to timely input student grades and attendance affected the entire school. So the conclusion was, in fact, that petitioners met its burden of proving by preponderance of the evidence that under respondent's term contract and in accordance with state law, the district has followed the statutory procedures for non renewal, found that there were no policy violations, which she had her due process, had her hearing, received her notice on time,
and that there is a preponderance of evidence to support that respondent has violated one or more of petitioners' pre established reasons for non renewal. That's on page 14. And the hearing examiner's recommendation is that the board of trustees of Houston ISD adopt the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and further recommends that respondent's term contract with HISD be non renewed. So I'm asking you that based on the evidence before you, the record, and the independent hearing examiner's recommendation that you accept that rec and adopt that recommendation. Thank you.
Thank you. Miss Love, you, may make your presentation forward. You have ten minutes or less. On 05/13/2024, I attended a conference for the record with my former principal, Megan Landesay. Annette Randall was a witness in which she informed me that my position was eliminated due to budget cuts, and high school ahead of the academy would no longer have the position here for math interventionists. She explained that this was the official conference for the record. She explained the previous conversation was just a courtesy so that everybody understood it. During the TEA hearing examiner, Linda Sey confirmed that this was the only reason for the reduction in portion.
You can see that on pages one ninety nine through two zero five of the TEA hearing document. Legislator say also expressed on page two zero four that she did not know why anything other than rip was included in the documents sent by the h HISD board. Leticia Lindner say I mean, Leticia Mendez also confirmed this fact as well during her testimony hearing testimony. On May 29, I had an in person meeting in which Lindner say presented an official notice of non renewal from the HISD board, which included other reason reasons other than reduction in force.
On June 6, I filed a written appeal in in accordance with all applicable policies and laws. On 06/13/2024, HISD board proceeded with nonrenewal of my contract despite having filed an appeal with TEA in violation of state law. I have evidence that TEA sent my appeal to the appropriate parties. I also did not receive notice of the scheduled board, hearing in violation of the text and o Texas Open Meetings Act and legal due process. On June 17, I was assigned some school at, Burbank Middle School and was was unable to go to work for two four days
until reinstatement. This was after attending orientation on June 2024. I have a text from Yolanda Marshall, which was the principal at Burbank at the time, stating that HR had informed her that I had a resignation on file, and it it's been processed. For clarity, no such at no such time have I resigned, and that has not been entered into the record by any involved parties. Subsequently, I received an email from Jasmine Stivers stating my reinstatement was completed on 06/20/2024. This is a clear case of retaliation as I was pending appeal.
On June 22 on 06/27/2024, HISD reversed this decision by withdrawing the action of June 13. Again, the board did not send prior legal notification of these hearings in violation of the Texas open meeting phase. I did not receive notice of this board decision until June 20, 07/23/2024 via email more than a month via mail, sorry, more than a month later. The board is required to give ten days notice of this decision. However, according to my employee compensation history,
I was reinstated June 7, which is which is inconsistent with the communication from the board. Former, senior executive director for employee relations, for human, resources, Marcy Baez, admitted to this wrongdoing on page two forty and two forty three. On June, while working at Burbank Middle School, I received a message from my former teacher lead, Latisha Mendez, asking to meet. I responded I can meet after class. At that meeting, Mendez presented me with a letter from HISD board that they had entered a final
order to not renew my twenty twenty three twenty twenty four term contract, actually, on 05/23/2024. This is in violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act, which states I must be given three days notice of the hearing. The letter stated that I had previously received notice of the, nonrenewal proposal, which is false. The later the letter also stated that I had an opportunity to contest proposed nonrenewal within the time frame allowed by law, which is also false. I told her, and her in this case is Leticia Mendez, that I didn't feel comfortable signing the document.
Alright? She then called high school ahead and, Megan Lendersay, my former principal, tried to force me to to sign. This bullying and harassment at the direction of Lendersday went on for approximately eighteen minutes. Shortly after, on 06/29/2024, I received a compensation letter for work assignment to High School Ahead Academy. I filed a workplace, bullying bullying complaint on 09/26/2024 with with HID employee relations regarding an incident, and HID has refused to investigate it for over a year. It's worth noting that Mende has stated in her hearing that I that we had
an applicable work relationship previously, although she wasn't able to meet with me a lot because I had a class during math PLC time. And as a matter of fact, during this, during this this incident, this bullying incident, Leticia Mendez mentioned, when she first got there, she gave me a hug. We sat down. We had no issues. I just wanna point that out. Alright? Alright. So, and so speaking of amicable relationships, miss Lendersay also gave me a most helpful award, prior to, during that 2023, 2024, year at the end. However,
as she stressed this point, I missed alright. However, during the TEA hearing exam, the HRD Selena Vincent continued to interrupt me when I was trying to ask Mendez questions related to feeling uncomfortable during the interaction. Throughout the entire hearing, attorney Vincent continued to object and request that I move on. You can find evidence of that abuse of power if you look through the document and for the word object. It was spoken there a lot of times. Alright? Moving on. On 07/03/2024, when a and this is just a series of events. Some of them kinda mesh because the date it happened and the date I got
notification are completely different, but I just did it by the date that it that the event occurred just so y'all can keep up. Okay. So on 07/03/2024, when inquiring about my final escrow payout, Rakesha Stewart Woodard, who is an employee, services specialist, informed me that there was no indication in HISD system that I was laid off or resigning. I have evidence, and I've included that, and I included in my hearing as well. So as you can see, the dates, they kinda mix because, miss, we're saying that no policies were violated. That's not true.
Alright. So now it is impossible for the board to have both entered a final nonrenewal order to fire me on 05/23/2024 and that the proposal for nonrenewal was also pending as of that same day. Then subsequent subsequently firing me again on June 13. They're reversing that decision on June 3 June 27, all without giving notice. Alright? Additionally, I did file another workplace bullying complaint with, HIZ, employee relations on 05/21/2024 regarding emails sent from a former colleague involved in the case
in, that has not been investigated either. Alright? On June on 07/27/2024, Adrienne Moore called me to notify me that I was being temporarily reassigned to the HILT, which is the Houston Education Learning Center, by Marcy Baez. A fact confirmed during Baez' testimony. I remain there from 08/01/2024 to 05/07/2025. Since that time, I have been assigned home duty duty where I remain today. Alright? Our policy states that the the district shall use the teacher's consecutive, appraisals for more than one year when making employment decisions.
At the time of my proposed non proposal for nonrenewal on May, 2024. All of my all of my evaluations were either proficient one or proficient two. I only became a developing teacher rated, a developing rated teacher on June 2027, which is outside of the appraisal period to be considered. It had to be '20 May, 2024, moving, going backwards. But for some reason, it was included in, as evidence to to support that I was deficient. Alright? And this was done I became a developing rated teacher the same night that the
board reversed the June 13 non renewal decision. And if you look closely at the summative rating that was submitted, it's not signed because I had no knowledge of the meeting until I began to look for my documents for these proceedings. And you're I'm I'm I'm allowed to have, a meeting to discuss those to discuss my evaluations. It's board policy. Unfortunately, I have been in limbo since 10/15/2024, which is the first available board meet board hearing following receipt of the findings of the TEA hearing examiner. I have been denied my right to address the board for approximately eleven minutes in
violation of Texas and Education laws, federal title nine laws, the Texas constitution, and the US constitution. The Texas education code states the meeting must be held no later. And when I say the meeting, I mean the board meeting that I'm just now having today. The meeting must be held no later than the twentieth day after the date that the president of the board receives the examiner's hearing rev the the hearing examiner's recommendation and the record of hearing, which was September. Even as I'm presenting this case, I wasn't given the TEA hearing examiner's transcript until this morning,
Monday, June 20, second twenty twenty five. In in conclusion, the board did not take appropriate action in accordance with chapter 21 of the education code and policy DFD DFD. Therefore, I am requesting that the non renewal be modified or rejected in the interest of justice. Thank you. Miss Nitzen, do you have a rebuttal? Sure, I'll just respond to a couple of points. I do have a signed notice of proposed non renewal from miss Love on May 29. We also have a, certified slip showing we attempted to send it to her by certified mail,
but it was unclaimed. No one would claim it. I also have the principal here for high school head academy, and and I think miss Love just tested or stated she refused to sign and received the notice of non renewal. And the hearing examiner, as you find in his decision, he says that she did receive notice. So there as I stated before, there was no finding of any policy violation with respect to the notice. Again, you know, she points out that there were some things we alleged that the hearing examiner didn't find. We don't we we I we agree with her to that point. With respect to a hearing before the board,
I believe you just became aware of and received notice of the hearing examiner's decision. So that timeline started when you received that notice. I'm happy to answer any other questions. I think the rest of the stuff is kinda ancillary to, the hearing examiner's recommendation and, the findings and conclusion and the notice of non renewal, as we said, although she testified that she did receive, you know, these development ratings, All we have to show is the non renewal. And we prove that and more. I'm sorry, the program change,
the reduction force for program change. Thank you. Any questions for my colleagues? Okay. Is there a need to go and do, closed session? I'm sorry? No, there's no other rebuttal with your time. Thank you. Okay. Did she have time left? No? Okay, good. Alright. Okay, so, if there are no other discussions or questions, do I have a motion? I move. K. We have a motion to second. You have to read the motion. No. You have to read the motion. Number eight. I think it whatever motion you're gonna read, which is here. I move that we adopt the decision and recommendation of the independent hearing examiner,
adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law recommended by independent hearing examiner and non renewing Lashonda Love's term contract. Okay. There's a motion and a second. Okay, members please vote. The board has voted four in favor, so the motion passes. 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 06:16PM. Okay. Are the parties, here for the next meeting which is the purpose of this meeting is to consider the dispute filed by James Perkins,
former Director of Central Division Facilities Operations. Okay. Hearings involving complaints against district employees are to be held in closed session unless the employee, who is the subject of the hearing requests an open hearing. If both parties request an open session, during the course of this hearing, the Board may go into closed session to consult with its attorneys under the terms of the Texas Government Code Section 551.071. If any Board member wishes to seek advice from counsel please let me know. For the record, Hector Merlis with the Texas Support,
personnel employees is representing James Perkins is present. Miles LeBlanc is HISD's Assistant General Counsel is representing the Administration is present. Katasha Woods, HISD's General Counsel is also present. Do you wish you to go and close or open session? Open session. Open session, okay. Okay, the issues before the school board are whether board policies and administrative procedures are correctly applied, to the agreement and whether the administration has violated those policies and procedures. Mr.
Perkins, you, your representative will proceed first, and will be allowed to make a ten minute presentation to the Board followed by a ten minute presentation by Mr. LeBlanc. Present presentations must be based on the Level two hearing transcript. You may reserve part of your ten minutes for rebuttal to the matters presented by Mr. LeBlanc. Both sides will be able for questions from the Board and their representatives. You'll proceed first. So, how would you like to divide your time? Seven and three. We'll let you know when you get to seven. Okay, you may begin.
Good evening, Board President, new Board Members. My name is Hector Morales. I'm the President for the Tech Support Personnel Employees Union. I'm here representing today Mr. Perkins. We come to you today, I've argued many, many times in front of the Board, Mr. Campos and his heart and all. I ask you weigh in only the evidence and the exhibits that have been presented to you to weigh in the decision that's going to be made. Mr. Perkins has been with HISD over thirteen years, blemish record, no reprimands, no write up. His evaluations are excellent. This all occurred because Mr.
Perkins spoke very freely and honestly and they're making him the scapegoat and now they're trying to hold him accountable for what he said and what was stated. So this all occurred on 08/19/2024, when a team's meeting occurred at 5PM. Only thing Mr. Perkins said was at this meeting to warrant where we're at today is doctor Luz Martinez, who was the superintendent of the central division, who's no longer with HIC, had a meeting.
She stated at the meeting by saying, glad everyone can attend. She stated why was the AC not working in the central area. Mister Ray Winkler was the senior executive director stated that my client, mister Perkins, can answer that question. Knowledge, experience in that whole field. He said, no disrespect to anyone. We need more manpower to address the problem that mister Miles has cut us so short and so understaffed. That's why we're here today, Because Officer Jolivette,
Mr. Salazar, stated off the record that we're not supposed to question anything the superintendent says. So if he's asked to speak freely in why we're having problems, A. C. Chillers at school campuses, and he speaks freely, and honestly, he's being terminated for that. I think we live in a country that we should be allowed to speak freely and speak honestly when we need help. Why should a thirteen year veteran be punished for just saying that mister Miles,
our superintendent, cut us way short? I mean, I understand if he did something very vulgar, something that he broke or something that he did that would warrant his termination. I can respect that. But Mr. Perkins has a blemish record, has never violated any Board policy, has never been reprimanded. If you look at Exhibit eight, which is a very important exhibit, and if you could just check and see if you have it in front of you, it's the employee exhibit. Mr. Perkins filed for unemployment. HISD fought him for not to receive it.
If you look at it, it basically says we can pay you benefits. Your employer, we considered, was not misconduct. So they terminated him for misconduct. But a Texas government agency overruled HISD and stated, We can now compensate you unemployment because what HIS did to you was unlawful. So if a government agency can rule in Mr. Perkins favor, You as the board today can override the decision that HISD did unjustly to mister
Perkins. Great employee. Great human being. The administration is going to argue, well, he did A, B and C. But my argument has always been, show the exhibits, show the documentation, what he violated to warrant determination. If he's told to speak freely in a Teams meeting, and what we need to do to fix the problem, he does that. I'm sure it's hindsight twenty twenty, but if he had to do it all over again, honestly, I think Mr. Perkins would have just kept his mouth shut and said, yes, sir, yes, sir, yes, sir. But if you're asked to speak freely and he does speak freely,
why would it warrant termination? It doesn't make sense to ruin a gentleman's career that's been with HISD over thirteen years. Some of you are fairly new. Mr. Perkins used to be in charge of the grounds department. Excellent. Never had a problem with any of our school campuses. Now it's hard to get our schools cut. Hard to get the grass cut. You have to fight tooth and nail to find someone to come cut it. Mr. Perkins did such an excellent job that he got promoted to the role that he's in now. And for him to speak honestly, truthfully and freely,
you recommend termination? It's not right. I don't think we live in a country where we can speak freely and then we have some consequences by saying, You know what, Mr. Perkins? You're not allowed to question our superintendent. I think you and each one of you here today should honestly say, do we challenge him or do we speak freely? Thank you. Mister Locke, you can begin. Go ahead. Good evening, everyone. This grievance turns on a simple question. What kind of behavior should be expected from HISD employees? HISD Board Policy DH Local, which you will find behind administration exhibit five,
sets forth a number of employee standards of conduct, including at page two of the policy the following specific employee responsibilities. One, relating to colleagues and supervisors with respect, courtesy and in a professional manner and two, following the the directives of the supervisor. Now at all times relevant to this grievance, James Perkins was employed as a Facilities One director. In that capacity, he was responsible for managing the maintenance and custodial operations team for the central division,
which amounts to 80 plus schools. Mister Perkins had an important leadership position at the district, one that required him to adhere rigorously to employee standards of conduct set forth in board policy DH local. If for nothing else than to serve as a role model or a model of behavior for all those HSD employees who reported to him. Unfortunately, on multiple occasions, not just the one that mister Morales talks about,
he failed to live up to those employee expectations. In the transcript, there is testimony from Eugene Salazar, formerly senior executive director of maintenance, who was mister Perkins' supervisor at the time of his filing of this grievance, about the inappropriate behavior of mister Perkins at a meeting convened on 08/19/2024 to address severe damage caused to district facilities by the derecho that struck in May 2024 and
by Hurricane Barrow that swept through Houston in July 2024. Mister Salazar testified at the level two hearing that a video conference was convened to address damage to district facilities in general and Furr High School in particular, with the objective of ensuring that repairs were completed in a timely manner. Starting on page 32 of the level two hearing transcript, mister Salazar testified that mister Perkins was a participant in the video conference.
Mister Perkins was asked what was needed to effectuate repairs. His response was, to paraphrase, that superintendent Miles should invest in hiring more people, rather than cutting staff. Mister Perkins expressed concerns about the lack of manpower and resources he thought was required to effectuate the needed repairs. Moreover, he stated that he wanted to speak to to, superintendent Miles directly to express his concerns. Mister Salazar emphasized in his testimony the insubordinate and unprofessional tone of mister Perkins' remarks,
which he described as aggressively confrontational. Mister Perkins' remarks were particularly inappropriate because they were uttered at a meeting that included high level district officials, including chief operations officer Alicia Jolivet. Mister Salazar testified that he texted mister Perkins to tone it down. Miss Joliette also asked mister Perkins to tone it down during the meeting. Furthermore, mister Salazar testified that Daniel Solis, who is currently deputy chief of schools and at the time relevant for this grievance
was executive director of support, reported to him on 08/01/2024 that he and Ray Winkler, formerly senior executive director of support, had to address with mister Perkins his unprofessional tone in communicating with central division administrative staff. On 08/20/2024, mister Perkins was called into a meeting with mister Salazar to discuss his conduct at the August 19 video conference.
The meeting between mister Perkins and mister Salazar was memorialized in a memo that is administration exhibit two. In that memo, mister Salazar makes it clear to mister Perkins that the behavior he exhibited at the August 19 meeting and on at least one other occasion at the central division would not be tolerated. Mister Salazar states in the memo that mister Perkins expressed regret about his conduct. Finally, on 08/20/2024,
mister Salazar sent mister Perkins home with pay and told him to stay off district property until a conference for the record was scheduled. On 09/11/2024, mister Salazar directed mister Perkins to attend a conference for the record on September 13 to discuss his employment at the district. That notice is in the transcript binder at Administration Exhibit 3. At the conference for the record, mister Salazar reviewed mister Perkins' employee conduct shortcomings and cited the specific sections of board
policy DH Local, which he violated, all of which is memorialized in Administration Exhibit 4. In four bullet points in the conference for the record summary, mister Salazar not only recounted his inappropriate conduct during the August 19 video conference and with central division administrators, but also discussed mister Perkins' refusal to follow a directive from mister Salazar to remain off district property. Mister mister Perkins ignored the directive and attempted to have an unplanned meeting,
on 09/11/2024 to discuss his employment at the district with the superintendent, specifically that he wanted his job back even though he had not yet been terminated. In the final bullet point, mister Salazar reminded mister Perkins of a meeting held on 06/06/2024 during which his performance expect expectations were discussed, which is memorialized in a memo in the transcript at Exhibit 1. Next to each bullet point discussing mister Perkins' transgressions in the conference for the record
summary, mister Salazar cites the specific section of board policy DH Local that he violated. Violations of DH Local by an HSD employee can result in termination. Mister Perkins documented misbehavior resulted in his termination from the district, which is documented in administration exhibits, number six and seven. His blatant violations of HISD standards of conduct cannot and should not be commonest. So let's now focus on mister Perkins' first requested memory,
which is that he be reinstated to his former position or any other position equal to his former salary that he be and that he be made whole. The facts surrounding mister Perkins' termination as well as HISD board policies do not support granting this remedy. Basically, we are here today at this level three grievance hearing because on August 19 and on 09/12/2024, mister Perkins chose to ignore established district policy governing employee conduct as well as clear
directives from his supervisor. The takeaway from all of this is that mister Perkins was aggressively insubordinate and generally behaved in an inappropriate manner for an HID employee. Mister Perkins' second requested memory is that there be no repercussions or retaliations against him or anyone else who testifies on his behalf. The level two hearing examiner granted this remedy, and, of course, the HISD administration does not object to that ruling. Finally, at the level two hearing, mister Perkins, through his representative Hector Morales,
argued that the determination by the TWC on August 15 that mister Perkins was eligible for unemployment compensation is somehow dispositive of this grievance, which is plainly incorrect. The administrative procedures of the TWC relating to unemployment compensation are wholly separate and apart from the employee grievance procedures outlined in HIC Board Policy DGBA local. They bear no relation to one another. This is a misleading and spurious argument that should not be taken seriously.
In closing, when I was in elementary school in the sixties, HISD students received conduct grades on report cards. One of the conduct categories was work and play well with others. Well, I don't know what conduct grade mister Perkins received while he was in school, But as an adult working in an administrative capacity at HISD, he earned a u for unsatisfactory. Mister Perkins forfeited his Because of his behavior, and I ask that you oppose the number Thank you, mister Morales. I have asked and I've argued.
I know two of you are fairly new to weigh in only that's presented to you. The video is very important. The team's meeting that he's accused of his behavior, the administration would have presented to you as an exhibit and they didn't because his behavior was not unprofessional. His behavior was very, very professional, very caring of the employees working under his staff under his supervision. They would have presented it at level two if his behavior was very unprofessional.
They didn't. I requested it under the open records request and miraculously, they didn't wanna give it to me. They don't have it. How can you not preserve a team's meeting with technology now? If it was so awful, his behavior, I promise you, mister LeBlanc, as good as he is, would have showed it to you on the video. His evaluation would have showed a you unsatisfactory. Mister Perkins did not attend the u, Miami University, because I thought that's what he was talking about.
Because mister Perkins is a great, excellent man, and everybody loved working under his supervision. I've asked many times, and two new fellow members, I ask you and ask the administration why they did not present that video to you today. Why is it not on the screen to show his behavior? Because they like to fabricate stories to influence you to vote in their favor. You today can overrule that decision and put a stop to it.
I'm glad that I was here to witness a couple of hearings that you guys asked questions. The last few hearings that I've been, this board has not asked any questions. I'm very proud of you guys to do that, and I hope that after this one that you can ask mister Perkins or ask me any questions that I'll be open. That'd be a honestly, the answer for you. But I've asked guys way in only to the exhibits, way into the evidence. Ask the administration why didn't you present the level two hearing so you can see and say, mister Perkins. I would have even told mister Perkins, miss Burbs, that was unsatisfactory behavior.
Very unsatisfactory. But I know mister Perkins would have will. He would never never do that kind of thing. But when you're asked to speak freely, and you're saying, hey. We're way understaffed. He had 80 campuses that he was responsible for. Everyone else that was in his role, they had 50. So why would you give someone that doesn't know what they're doing more campuses than the other individuals? It's the burden of them to show, yes, he did wrong. Yes, he violated board policy, but they didn't. They're banking
on what they're saying to you today to weigh in a decision to uphold the level two hearings officer's decision. But you today can overrule that decision or ask them, if it was so awful, why did you not submit the team's hearing as exhibits? Or why didn't you give it to mister Morales when he requested it under the open records request? So I can have you guys see it and you determine whether his behavior was unacceptable. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions from my colleagues?
Questions? Okay. Is there a, the parties have completed their presentations and it's now time for the board members to make our decision on the issues before us. Any other discussion? Do we need to go to closed session? Okay. Alright, then, do I have a motion? Sure, I'll make the motion. I move that we deny all requests of relief not previously granted by the level two hearing officer and uphold the decision of the level two hearing officer. Is there a second? Okay, we have a motion and second. Any other discussion? If not, please vote. The board has voted four, four-four and zero against. A letter notifying both parties of the action of the board shall be prepared and
signed by the executive director of the board relations as soon as possible. This hearing is concluded at 06:41PM. With no other matters on the agenda, I will, the meeting is now adjourned at 06:41PM. Thank you.