Good evening. This meeting is now convened at, is that clock right again or wrong again? What's that? So we'll use a real time, which is 05:04PM. I would like to ask everyone to please sign us their cell phones, quorum of the Board members is present in the auditorium. We usually first order of business here is from speakers. We do not have anybody registered here today. So we will now conduct the hearing scheduled for this meeting. Please note that we'll be we will not be conducting the hearings scheduled for Alicia Lewis and Tyrone
Shealy as the Lewis case was postponed and the Shealy case was settled before today's meeting. Okay. I guess our first one is this, the purpose of this meeting is to consider the recommendation of the independent hearing examiner in the matter of Cynthia Cornell, nurse, Fondren Middle School. Hearings involving complaints against the district employees are to be held in closed session unless employees who are subject to the hearing request an open hearing. If both parties request an open session during the hearing, the Board may go into closed session to consult with its attorneys under the terms
of Texas Government Code Section 551.071. If any Board member wishes to seek advice of counsel, please let me know for the record. We have Christopher Tridico of Tridico Law representing Cynthia Cornell and Cynthia Cornell is present. We also have Myra Chickering of Rogers, Morris and Grover LLP representing the administration, also present and Natasha Woods, HISD's General Counsel is also present. Mr. Tridico, would you continue in open or closed?
Open. Open it is. Okay. The issues, before the school board are whether to accept, reject, or change the independent hearing examiner's findings of fact, inclusion of law, and 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.
Ms. Trickering, you'll proceed first. You'll be allowed to make a ten minute presentation to the Board following a ten minute presentation by Mr. Trudico. Okay? You may how would you like to divide your time? Are you okay. We'll just let you go forward. So go, you may begin. Let's go. Is that clock do we have a timer at all? They will put the timer on. So why don't you put the timer on? I think the timer will show generally usually they put it on, right? Oh, yeah, go ahead. Yeah. Thanks. And you get ten. Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead. That's a great deal. They'll put it on when you start.
Okay. Good evening, mister Confer, members of the board. I'm joined tonight by principal Lakia Jackson, and we are asking you to uphold and accept the recommendation of the hearing examiner, Jacqueline Coleman, in its entirety, and to adopt her determination that Cynthia Cornell's probationary contract be terminated for good cause as generally recognized and applied in similarly situated school districts. By way of background, Cynthia Cornell was a first year school nurse at Fondren Middle School during the previous school year.
And when I say a first year school nurse, I don't mean new to HISD. When she was hired, miss Cornell had never served as a school based nurse before in any educational setting, public or private. And in fact, the majority of her past experience consisted of working in nursing homes and other long term health care facilities, primarily in administrative roles. So she brought no practical experience to the position at Vaundra. Now miss Cornell was not the only new nurse that HISD onboarded in August 2025.
She was one of multiple new nurses across the district, all of whom received extra training and professional development in addition to the professional development that all HISD nurses participate in before the beginning of the school year and then throughout the school year. In the West Division alone, where Fondren Middle School is located, there were 18 new nurses during the 2425 school year out of 61 campuses. And as the evidence, showed during the hearing, the problems that miss Cornell experienced,
were were unique to her. None of the other new nurses in the West Division, experienced the kind of difficulties that she did. The Board of Nursing recognizes school nursing as an independent practice. School nurses are responsible for running a comprehensive school health management program and to function autonomously in doing so. And one of the rather obvious functions of a campus based nurse is, of course, the triage of student and staff based medical issues. This includes providing urgent care and,
administering medication, a fever, a bloody nose, prescription drugs, whatever. That that falls within that category. And the nurse is expected to provide both prompt and compassionate attention and care. Some of the other key roles performed by school nurses may be a little less obvious. One of the biggest responsibilities involves vaccination compliance and health screenings. School nurses are responsible for tracking campus vaccine compliance and more importantly, making sure that campuses meet the state vaccination compliance targets.
Now this is especially important on campuses like Fondren, where the student population is primarily of lower economic status and includes a large number of immigrant students. Most of the students at Fondren Middle School are if they are not uninsured, they are at least underinsured. So they do not have access to regular health care. On those campuses, the the nurse is not only tracking compliance, but she is or he is working to boost compliance in order to meet the state compliance deadline.
And that compliance deadline, as the evidence showed, was, 95% completion on each campus by December 1. Now despite all the training and support that miss Cornell received from the health and medical staff services department, West Division nurse coordinator Shalonda Edwards, and principal Jackson, miss Cornell never came close to meeting compliance expectations. Part of her problem was very simple. She was locked out of the state's vaccine tracking day base after the first month
of school because she didn't access it. Even after her access was restored, the situation did not improve. And Fondren closed the calendar year, and that would be December 2024 at only 45%, significantly below the 95, percent compliance rate that's been established by the state. And even by the end of the school year, Fondren had reached only 80%, far short of the 95%, expectation. Now rather than accept personal accountability for the,
poor immunization compliance on her campus, She deflected responsibility, insisting that she was too busy focusing on her other, nursing duties, and and that frankly was not supported by the evidence. The vaccine rates aside, miss Cornell failed to, meet the district's expectations and the expectations of her supervisors in a myriad of different ways. She failed to meet the state mandated deadline for hearing screenings. She failed to get along with her coworkers, and she was often inattentive to the medical needs of students,
something about which principal Jackson received multiple complaints. Additionally, the hearing examiner concluded that miss Cornell unlawfully provided student records to her union representative and her attorney in violation of the Family Educational Rights Privacy Act and HISD board policy. Now apart from her performance related difficulties and the FERPA violation, miss Cornell also violated the district's attendance expectation and leave policies and went into unpaid leave status on April 24 due to her excessive absenteeism.
Even after that date, miss Cornell accrued additional hours of unpaid leave in violation of HISD, board policy DEC eight regulation, putting her at twenty four hours or three days of unpaid leave as of 06/04/2025. At that point point, miss Cornell was treated similarly to any other employee in a unpaid status. She was recommended for termination. Now in October, the parties participated in a two day evidentiary hearing. And following that hearing,
the hear hearing examiner concluded that the board that the district proved by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of good cause as generally recognized and applied in similarly situated school districts, thus warranting the termination of her probationary contract. She determined that HISD was justified in seeking miss Cornell's termination based on her performance deficiencies, her failure to fulfill her duties and responsibilities as a school nurse, and her excessive absences without approved lien.
In the end, Cynthia Cornell failed at virtually every aspect of her job. That is unfortunate, but school nursing was clearly not a good fit for Cynthia Cornell. The students at Fondren deserve more from their school nurse, and it is for that reason that we ask that you uphold the hearing examiner's recommendation in all respects. Thank you. Thank you. Mister Tridico, you can make your presentation to the board now. Thank you and thank you for hearing this. I agree with one thing that Ms. Chickering said and only one that,
that's a rarity that we agree on anything. That Ms. Cornell, it was the first time that this very experienced nurse had ever been a school nurse that she had never done it before. And that's a key factor here in this case that she had never practiced school nursing. And it is a highly specialized field. What Ms. Chickering didn't tell you was that there was a lacking of training and support. She said Ms.
Chickering told you that there was training and support and that evidence just doesn't show that. What it does show is that Ms. Jackson, despite her testimony, can't recall ever having a meeting with miss Cornell to discuss the importance of getting vaccines, up uploaded and and done quickly. She can't recall sending a memo detailing the importance of it. Ms. Jackson's poor memory continued and she couldn't recall if HISD Health and Medical sent her any information about vaccine rates before the first benchmark in October. I don't recall seems to be a popular answer for Ms.
Jackson. I can't I find she can't recall any of that. Ms. Jackson's lack of memory throughout the hearing showed that she didn't help Ms. Cornell at all. Knowing that when she started, she had never stepped foot on as a school nurse. She didn't meet with her about vaccines, vaccine rates, setting up a clinic to have vaccines until December 3. Why is December 3 an important date?
Because that's two days after they were supposed to meet the benchmark of 95. They had a benchmark in October, a benchmark in November, not one time did she meet with her until December 3. And then started complaining, and then said I want a daily update. Where were the daily updates in September? Where were the meetings in September? Where was the assistance in September? Health and medical didn't show up until November. Knowing that she had never stepped foot on a school campus, had never seen the program that HISD was implementing that year,
She had never worked with this program before, had never done any of the things a school nurse does. This this nurse was learning on the fly, on the job. And Ms. Chickering dares to say that that was substantial assistance in learning this job and getting this done. There was no assistance to her to learn this until after the 95% was supposed to be reached. And then Ms. Jackson says, let me help you with this.
Let me work on this with you. The whole time, miss Jackson's mother works at a hospital who could have set up a vaccine clinic for her in September. Not one time did she offer that assistance ever. Not once. These, the problems that Ms. Cornell was met with is a learning curve that could have been dealt with the day she walked onto that campus. They have at at HISD every year, health and medical has a two day
seminar for the nurses. But what I know now, after having represented not one, but two nurses in the last three years from Fondren Middle School that miss Jackson has fired because they didn't meet their vaccine rates. So that's three years in a row now that Fondren Middle School has not met its vaccine rates, and the same principal has testified that it was the nurses' fault that they didn't meet their vaccine rates.
Three years in a row now at the same school, but it's not always the nurses' fault. It couldn't be it couldn't be miss Jackson. It couldn't be the leadership. It must be the nurse. It must be it must be the nurse. Couldn't be health and medical not not giving assistance. It must be the nurse. Isn't it time to look at something else? Is it time to look at somebody else? Why did miss Jackson not go and offer assistance till after that benchmark? Because it gave her a cover. It gave her a cover. It's not the nurse. It's not the brand new nurse who doesn't know the system,
the process, how to do it. It was those who did not offer her that assistance. She did everything she could do to get this job done right. And the absences that she picked up, Ms. Chickering glossed over the fact that the reason she picked up those absences was because it was a workers' comp situation when she was injured by a student when on the job and she ran out of days going to therapy that was ordered by the doctor workers' comp doctor. And your system that you put in place does not offer assistance for someone who's
injured on the job doing your job, working for you. There's no grace. Again, I've argued this before. There's no grace for someone doing your work. There was no time. The evidence showed in the record there's no time for her to go after work. There was no appointments after work. She had to go when the doctor set the appointment. There was no other time to go, and you fired her for that. Is that right? Is that just? Is that fair? Is that what this is about? I was told that the Board was going to look at these absences in a
different fashion. This is the time to look at that. When someone was injured on the job and the workers' comp doctors cannot see her after work, when is she to be treated? Does she skip does she skip the appointments? Does she skip medical treatment so that she can keep her job? Is that what it's is that what she's supposed to do? Does she trade medical treatment, health care treatment, so that she can keep her job? I ask you is that is it that important? Is it that important?
What I'm asking you to do is if you want to accept the findings of fact conclusions of law and then give her another contract for probation. Now Ms. Chickering is going to tell you that you can't do it that way, but you can. Okay? You can. You can do that. You can accept it, and then you can reject the recommendation and give her another probationary contract. You can do that. And knowing that she was a first year nurse, knowing that the record supports that she did not get the assistance necessary,
and knowing that she was injured on the job and could not go to the doctor, but anytime during but during the day, what else was she to do? So going back, if you're gonna pretend that you're deliberating and come on out and do what you've been doing all year long, then go ahead and fire her. Thank you. Thank you. Miss Chickering, do you wish to make a rebuttal like you have like, two and a half minutes? Alright. I do. You do. I I do would like to make a rebuttal. And you do. Thank you. I I don't agree with mister Trudico's statement that a lack of training and support,
was the, justification for us being here tonight. In fact, the hearing examiner does not agree with that statement. And in fact, if I could ask you to turn to her recommendation, if you look at some of these findings of fact, they squarely dispute what mister Tridico just told you. All nurses in the West Division, including miss Cornell, were required to attend monthly virtual nurses meetings. That's finding number 44. 45, all school nurses, including miss Cornell, were required to attend an initial training in the form of a new nurse new
nurse orientation, which was held the first week of August. That's number 45. And number 46, all new school nurses were also required to attend weekly new nurse training courses every Tuesday from eight to 10AM. 50 responded attended a mandatory training which addressed vaccination requirements and ways to improve vaccination compliance rate. Number 52, school nurses, including miss Cornell, were sent weekly updates, which contained information regarding vaccination compliance rates and upcoming immunization clinics.
It goes on and on and on. It it is just simply not true to suggest that miss Cornell's problems, her failures were can be attributed to a lack of training. The other thing he didn't mention is that she was be attributed to a lack of training. The other thing he didn't mention to you that the evidence established is that she was assigned a mentor as are all new nurses. And he overlooks the evidence from miss Edwards, the nurse coordinator, who testified that she didn't have these kind of concerns, and and issues arising with any of the other school nurses new school nurses.
They received the same training she did, and they were able to perform their job functions. Again, the real problem here is that, Nurse Cornell simply did not want to accept the responsibilities and spent most of her time trying to deflect accountability onto someone else. The job expectation of a school nurse is that the nurse functions autonomously. Even new nurses are expected to function that way. And as the evidence clearly indicates, that's just not something miss Cornell either could do or wanted to do.
And one other thing I wanna point out, mister Trittico focused primarily on miss Jackson. He he overlooks the evidence that was established that miss Jackson even assumed the responsibility of doing weekly call outs to parents whose children were not in compliance. Between miss Edwards and miss Jackson, they provided an extra level support that was not provided to the other new nurses. And and yet those other newer nurses Thank you. Are there any questions from my colleagues? Yeah, go ahead. Thank you.
I have a question around the finding of fact number 47 that says, all school nurses including respondent were expected to achieve an immunization compliance rating of ninety five percent on their campuses by 12/01/2024. This compliance deadline is established by the state. My question is, is that, expectation also included in the job description? I understand it was also communicated in trainings, but is that clear in a nurse's job description? I feel that the nurse's job description is not in the evidence. Okay. Thank you.
Any other questions? We're good? Okay. The parties have completed their presentation, so it's now time for the Board members to make our decision on the issues before us. Is there any other discussion? We need to go back. Okay, great. The Board will now recess to closed session under Chapter five fifty one of Texas Government Code of Meetings Act, subsection 551.004 through 551.089 should board final action, vote or decision on any manner considered in the closed session be required. Such final action, vote or decision shall be taken at the open meeting convened by this notice upon
the reconvening of the public meeting or at a subsequent public meeting of the Board upon notice thereof. The Board, has recessed to closed session at 05:29PM, 12/18/2025. Okay? Okay. The Special Meeting of the School Board of the Houston Independent School District is now reconvened in open session at 05:34PM. I do have a motion. Okay, let's see. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Please vote. It was a motion. You got to read the motion. Sorry. It wasn't up there.
Go ahead and read the motion. Sorry. 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 Cynthia Cornell's one year probationary contract. Okay. There's a motion. Please vote. The motion passes. Letter notifying both parties of the action of the Board shall be prepared in Saibed, the Executive Director of the Board of Relations as soon as possible. The hearing is concluded as at 05:35PM. Party is here for the next one. Okay, everybody ready?
Okay. Okay, great. The purpose of this meeting is to consider the dispute filed by Brionne Gilbert, former employee, Transportation Department. Hearings involving complaints against district employees are to be held in closed session unless the employee who is the subject of the hearing requests an open hearing. If both parties request an open session during the course of this meeting, the Board may go into closed session to consult with its attorney under the terms of Texas Government Code Section 551.071. If any Board member wishes to seek the advice of counsel, please let me know.
For the record, Cecilia Edwards of Shmeika Lewis with People's Choice Association Union are present, Brionne Gilbert is present, Izzy Anderson with Spalding, Nichols, Lamp and Langolis representing the administration is present. Natasha Woods, HISD's General Counsel is also present. Ms. Edwards, Ms. Lewis, do you wish to continue an open session? Okay, fine. Let's go open. Okay. The only issue not granted by the level two hearing officer and the appeal before the school board is whether the district termination of Ms.
Gilbert's employment due to excessive absences was made in accordance with Board policies and administrative procedures. Ms. Edwards, Ms. Lewis, you'll proceed first. You'll be allowed to make a ten minute presentation to the Board followed by a ten minute presentation by Ms. Anderson. Presentation must be based on the Level two hearing transcript. You may reserve ten minutes of your time for rebuttal. Both sides should be available for questions after the presentations. Ms. Edwards and Ms. Lewis, you, what how would you like to divide your time? Okay.
You may begin. Good evening, President. Where are the board members? How many board members do we have now? Nine. Nine? Where are they? Okay. They never hear. Okay. The board's policy Mhmm. I'm I'm sorry? Our district board policy says that we have a committee now, and the committee is composed of three board members. Okay. Good evening, president of the board and board members. My name is Cecilia Edwards. I'm the president of People's Choice Association Union. I appear before you this evening to raise a matter of significant concerns regarding the treatment of one of our members, miss Verona Gilbert,
the district handling of her complaint. On 03/24/2025, miss Gilbert met with her manager, miss Sandra Robinson, to formally report ongoing harassment, including allegations of sexual harassment and bullying in the workplace. Miss Gilbert followed district expectations by reporting her concerns and management in good faith. Despite the seriousness of these allegations, no investigation was initiated nor miss Gibbard advised of any protection measures or follow-up actions by the district. After the meeting, miss Gibbard is recommended for termination.
On 04/07/2025, the district terminated her employment stating that she had too many absences. However, miss Robinson admits that miss Gilbert absences was approved in advance by her. They were late related to medical reasons, and they were supported by documentation from her physician, which she submitted to the district. The order of events raises serious concerns when an employee reports harassment and is terminated shortly thereafter based on absences that were previously approved and medically documented,
it demonstrates retaliation and failure to comply with established employment and anti harassment standards. Miss Gilbert was never given written documentation or verbal warning about absences, which further proves that the district actions was retaliatory. This matter demands careful review by this board. Employees must be able to report harassment without fear of averse employment action. Allegations of harassment, especially sexual harassment, must be quickly and thoroughly investigated pursuant to the district policy and the law.
We respectfully request that the board review the district's handling of miss Gilbert's complaint, determine why an investigation was not conducted, clarify why the approved and documented medical leave was used as grounds for termination and ensure that employees will report misconduct are protected. In conclusion, we're asking the board to do the following. One, reinstate miss Gilbert and allow miss Gilbert to go to another motor pool to provide her with a safe working environment. The union remains committed to working together with the district to ensure fair treatment and
compliance and safe work in a safe workplace for all employees. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. You may begin. Thank you, Missy Anderson. Pleasure to be here with you today. The matter before you today is very simple. It deals with miss Gilbert, a bus driver who had excessive absences. Miss Gilbert had so many absences that at one point, she went into an unpaid status. As you have seen in the record, both behind tab two and immediately towards the front of the record,
you see two different hearing officers weighing in on the issues before you today. Now to be clear, all but two things have been granted, by the lower division, hearing officers. The only thing that continues, in question here is whether the district should overturn miss Gilbert's termination, and if so, which should be allowed to be transferred to a different motor pool. Again, as you will see, doctor, Rauls did an excellent job in documenting his decision. He did a thorough job in,
reviewing the documents submitted by both parties and, concluding on the various allegations of policy violation. I'm gonna start out with the first one, which is this, notion that the, district terminated miss Gilbert because she raised a complaint. First and foremost, the complaint that were raised, and as evident in the record were investigated by miss Shonda Robertson and also mister Raul Banda. It is surprising to me that miss Edwards questions why things were not investigated.
Perhaps she meant more investigated, but either way, I wanna point to you that behind the administration's exhibit tab number three, there is a letter from miss Edwards asking the district to cease and desist, when mister Vanda, had reached out to her, requesting some additional time so further investigation of the matters that she was bringing herself could be investigated. And in return, we received this letter to cease and desist. So, either way, the administration did in fact investigate and the findings are clear and documented in the
hearing officer's letter when he cites, the various points that he investigated and that ultimately he found that there was no harassment, bullying, or prohibited conduct, in play. And that perhaps there were some, personnel, tensions, but that, nothing else was was going on there. There had been no violation or failure to, excuse me, investigate the matter. Moving on to the point of her excessive absences. As you will see in the record, starting with, a transcript page, I believe it's 47, you will note miss Viltron testified of the process that is very common and well,
established at the district and that is the ERDR reviews that are executed where the department will review the absence of whatever matter is being reviewed by HR. But in this particular case, miss Beltran was testifying as to the review for excessive absences that was conducted. Miss Gilbert happened to be one of the various employees that were reviewed for their absences, and it was in fact determined that she had too many absences. You will see in the record again behind tab seven,
there's the HR notice, that that explains that to miss Gilbert. The hearing officer notes in his decision that by January 21, miss Gilbert was already in violation of the district's attendance policy. Tab number four also provides for you an absence report. So that is pretty straightforward and and simple. The other allegation that is in the record, it was in in regards to the in regards to, the complaint. And and if you'll note even in miss Edwards' exhibits,
I believe is exhibit number or letter e, which, documents a bullying report handwritten by miss Gilbert that dated March 6. The the violation of the policy had happened long before that. And I think that the district has been pretty clear, consistent in, reviewing those violations and executing terminations as a result of that. This is no different. At no point was anything other than her excessive absences considered taken into consideration for
the decision to ultimately terminate her employment. So the decision today is really, in accordance with what the district has done consistently, and we ask that you uphold the hearing officer's decisions in their entirety or in his entirety for level two. The decision was rooted in a careful analysis of the board policies, Texas employment law, and the documented evidence before you. I am ready to take any questions if you have any. Okay. Was there did we have extra time for you to rebut? Do you want to do that?
Yes. And there was some additional time. I didn't see what how much? Okay, go ahead. You're up then for rebuttal. Yeah. And there you go. Thank you. First of all, she stated that administration exhibit number three was a cease and assist by People's Choice Association Union, and it was, but it had nothing to do with the investigation. If you look at it, it's it's that it's telling them to not throw away her level two and don't deny her the right to go to level two, so I don't know what she's talking about. Another thing is some of her, her absences that she incurred was because miss Chandra Robertson told her not to come
in until they investigate towards the end. She made multiple complaints, multiple complaints about sexual harassment. Anybody putting your hands on you and touching you in a manner that you don't like and you tell the, administrators that you don't like it and it's unwarranted and unwanted is sexual harassment. And they did not investigate that. They did not pull her in. They did not talk to her, her witnesses, and you have no documentation of an investigation. So it's one thing for the administration to come up here and say, hey. We investigated. Anybody can write down. Any perpetrator is not gonna admit that they done wrong. That's why we come to you guys. You have a right to not make a decision today.
You have a right to go back and look. Go back to call the administrators. Let us see the documentation. Let us see the trail where you investigated, where you looked into her complaints. You're not gonna find that. You know why? Because they're lying. But every time they come in front of you, you smile just like the other attorney told you, and you say we go back and we listen, and you don't. You don't go back. So nobody has any justice that come before you because you don't actually look into it. Your job is to sign with administration. They're never gonna get justice. Every time we come before you, it's gonna be unjust for any employee that worked at the district. Your job is to make sure that the employees have a good working condition and
that they're not subjected to unlawful actions. And you so far this year, you have not done a great job. Now I don't know if it's because your superintendent likes it. He supports your decision to do this, which is why you never do it, but you don't have to make a decision today. It's been other board level board hearings we've been to, and the board has chosen, you know what? We're not gonna make a decision today. We'll make it the next time. We're gonna go and we're actually gonna look into some things. You have a right to do that. This is one of the cases. She said, according to the law, she's a lawyer, according to the law, if a complaint happens and you make a complaint about unlawful action and you suffer
adverse action within thirty days of that complaint, that's automatically considered retaliation. And she cannot show you where they did not recommend termination after she made her complaints. The the absent days that they said she she missed, that she was absent, she's already told you. I missed days because of medical reasons. Not only she missed because of medical reasons, she literally asked miss Robinson, could she miss? And and she said yes. She approved those dates. How can you then turn around and use those same dates that you approved as a subject, as a reason for terminating her? She didn't say, hey. If you miss these days,
you're gonna be, subjected for termination. Maybe she could've worked it out with the doctor, go another time or take time off at another time. She didn't give her the opportunity. What happened to progressive disciplinary action? She was never warned. Hey. You're getting too even as a teacher, they tell teachers, hey. You you don't wanna miss this many days or you you're getting close to your, the number that you don't, that you can miss. Why are not why the drivers are not get afforded the same opportunity? Well, first of all, we know she wasn't afforded the opportunity because, number one, it's all a lie. They're covering it up. They terminate her because they didn't like her because she made several complaints about the
harassing and bullying nature that was over there at that terminal. And, again, you don't have to take my she even turned in a voice recording. And if you listen to that again, I know you haven't taken time to listen to that because you don't, but you have the right to do so today because I'm informing you that it's a part of the record. It's an exhibit that you can go home. You can study it at your own time, your own pace, and come up with your own conclusion, not just be robots for the district that terminates every employee that come before you. Thank you. It used to be we've been doing this for twenty six years, and I always at least the board had
justice. The board listened, and it went by facts. Not just sit here and live like zombies and do do whatever the district, the Mike Miles tell you to do. It's an insult to the district. It had core values. Do you have any? I don't think so because you hadn't had none all year. You're fired every teacher came before you, every other employee. It's really sad that you're not listening. Like, they what'd you go back there and what did you go back there and do? Whole hands? Because you weren't there, what, three? I had to went to the restroom, they still wasn't there. It's a shame. It's appalling. But I hope the parents hear this one day,
that they take this district back, and they make the board members that sit there and they vote for to have respect for the people and employees. And make sure that administration, if they're if they're falsifying government documents, they're held responsible. If they're not following the board policy, they're held responsible. But that's not happening now. So we ask you to go back and look at the evidence, and that's why we should be here. You looking at evidence. If you listen to the USB, you're gonna clearly hear miss Gilbert telling miss Robinson that she's tired of being sexual harassed. She don't wanna be touched.
She is clearly a victim in this, but you sit there and you fire her anyway. It's a sad day. Then you have the same attorneys. The attorney in the hearing, she told the hearing officer what to do the whole entire time. He did not conduct the hearing on his own. And I guarantee you about the documentation, I don't think he even filled out the documentation. She did both. Not only she represented the administration, she gave his rebuttal in the hearing office, which is unethical. So I'm asking you today for the first time are you looking at the minutes? I still have a minute. So you can't wait till I finish.
Right? But so it's it's a joke and it's not, when I came to the board, I respected the board members because they were fair. They listened. They went by facts. They heard the exhibits. You didn't do that. And did did anyone of you hear the USB? Because if you did, you would know for a fact that she did complain to her before this happened. So I don't care what what she gets up here in line saying, it's not true. It's not true. And you know, like you said, you heard that you you heard their USB and if you did, you know for a fact that she told miss Robinson.
So why why are we here? You know, we shouldn't be here. If she said that the hearing officer did, came to the conclusion because he did all the all the homework and he he listened and he investigated. That's not true because we wouldn't be here today. It's untrue. But today is the day if you can hear that USB and you can give the right answer that she should not be terminated and she should be because if it was your daughter, if she was your sister, your mother, would you like someone to grab it? Are there any questions from my colleagues? Anybody have any questions? No? The parties have completed their presentations.
It's now time for the Board members to make our decisions on the issues before us. Is there any discussion? Okay. Do I have a motion? Motion and second, please raise the motion. I move that we deny all requested relief not previously granted by Level two Hearing Officer and uphold the decision of the Level two Hearing Officer. Okay. Is there any other discussion? If not, please vote. Motion passes. Voting is closed. A letter notifying both parties of the action of the Board should be prepared and signed by the Executive Director of the Board of Relations as soon as possible. This hearing is concluded at 05:57PM.
Okay. Do we have everyone we need here? Okay. The purpose of this meeting is to consider the recommendation of the independent hearing examiner in the matter of Tiana Spencer, teacher at Lovett Elementary School. Hearings involving complaints against district employees are to be held in closed session unless employee who is the subject of the hearing requested open hearing. If both parties requested open session during 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 the advice of counsel, please let me know. For the record, Tayana Spencer is President Ashley Yee is Assistant General Counsel representing the Administration's President, Katasha Woods, HISD General Counsel is also present. Ms. Spencer, do you wish to continue in open or closed? Open? Okay. Issue before the school boards are whether to accept, reject or change the independent hearing examiner's finding of fact, inclusion 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 recommendation or make any change, we must state the reason and legal basis in writing. Ms. E, you are you will proceed first. You'll be able to make a ten minute presentation to the Board followed by a ten minute presentation by Ms. Spencer. You can come up again if you want to split your times, let us know. Okay. You may begin. Thank you, sir. Good evening, President Campo, Board members. Joining me today, I have Dawn Thompson.
And miss Thompson is the principal at Lovett Elementary School. We are here tonight asking this board to modify the independent hearing examiner's conclusions of law as proposed in the administration's motion and ultimately reject her recommendation. Now with every during the year or middle of the year termination for a teacher, regardless of their probationary or term, the administration must establish by the preponderance of the evidence good cause for that termination. In this case, miss Spencer's twenty twenty five, twenty twenty six probationary contract was proposed for termination based on her excessive absences during
the 2425 school year. Her excessive absences were undisputed at the hearing. This hearing examiner found in her own findings of fact that Ms. Spencer had a total of 13.5 absences with 3.5 of those days being unpaid or docked days. Her absence history report can be found on the administration's exhibit number six. Miss Spencer had also testified and admitted herself that she was aware of her unpaid status and accrued three point five dog days and that she exhausted all of her
personal leave. Her admissions can be found on pages one fifty six and one fifty seven of your transcript. Additionally, miss Icomooka, who is our director of leave administration, had also confirmed that she did not have any sort of carryover days from prior school years, nor did she apply for or was she approved for any protected leave. Her testimony can be found on pages thirty one and thirty four of your transcripts. So for good cause for excessive absences being undisputed and established the sole question to be addressed with whether the district could terminate a teacher's contract based on conduct from
the prior school year. And the decisions from the Commissioner of Education, specifically in Goodfriend v Houston ISD, and from this hearing examiner's own analysis affirmatively indicates that the districts can. The commissioner has declined to impose an absolute bar on termination actions based on prior years' conduct and has stated that the Texas Education Code does not limit contract actions to conduct occurring solely within the contract year. Rather, this limitation on the use of conduct occurring during the prior year is based on
a doctrine or the principle of waiver. So if the school district does not have full knowledge of the teacher's actions or has begun to take action against the teacher, the district has not waived its right to take action against the teacher's contract. Here, this hearing examiner found that the administration did not have full knowledge of Ms. Spencer's excessive absences until May 19 when employee relations received the absenteeism report. Ms. Spencer was already issued her 20 five-twenty six contract on May 16,
and by this time, the first May board meeting already occurred on May 8. So once employee relations received this absenteeism report, the administration initiated its termination process. We requested the file review on May 22. We conducted the file review on June 4, and we held a conference The record with Ms. Spencer on June 4. Excuse me, on June 5. And it was only after our internal protocols were followed with Ms. Spencer finally placed on the next available board agenda, which was for June 12 for termination.
This hearing examiner found that the administration was diligent and in the process of acting when following its internal protocols and did nothing to suggest an intent to waive its right to take action against Ms. Spencer's contract. But at the hearing, the administration had also introduced Ms. Spencer's failure to adhere to the campus' attendance protocols. And when she failed to sign in and sign out 109 times throughout the school year. The Hearing Examiner found that Ms. Spencer's violations were regular,
they were voluminous, and that she should have been disciplined or at least undergone internal protocols for termination prior to the expiration of her probationary contract for the twenty four-twenty five school year. Therefore, based on this reason, the hearing examiner concluded that the administration was barred from terminating the Spencer under the doctrine of waiver. And I completely agree. If the administration's only good cause reason was based on Ms. Spencer's failure to sign in and sign out, the Administration should be barred and we should be stopped from terminating Ms.
Spencer. However, the Administration is not limited to providing just one good cause reason for termination, but can bring several reasons that are independent of each other. And this language is also included in all the termination notice letters that we send out to teachers after the board approves termination. And Ms. Spencer's letter can be found on exhibit number one. In this case, despite the hearing examiner finding that the administration did not waive its right to terminate Ms. Spencer's contract based on her excessive absences,
she nevertheless places a blanket waiver on the administration. The good cause reasons brought forth for termination are separate, independent reasons in which the analysis is not codependent on each other. Meaning, if waiver is found for one good cause reason and not the other, it does not constitute a waiver of all good cause reasons presented. At these appeal hearings, the hearing examiners make findings of fact, but you as the Board make the ultimate determination on whether these facts warrant termination. And to do that,
the Board can rely on the undisputed facts in the record. This administration is not asking you to change any findings of fact in this case, but asking the Board to apply the correct standard and analysis based on the undisputed evidence in the record to find that the termination is appropriate because the district did not waive its right to terminate based on the good cause reason for excessive absences. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Miss Spencer, you may, make your presentation to the board. Hello. Hello. Alright. Just, okay, sorry.
Good evening, chair and members of the board. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak this evening. I recognize the seriousness of this proceeding, and I want to begin by acknowledging the board's responsibility under Texas law to to review the independent hearing examiner's recommendation carefully and deliberately. I want to be clear at the outset of this purpose of my remarks. I am not here to argue a motion, nor am I here to minimize the importance of district policy. I'm also not here to retaliate testimony or attempt to refrain evidence that has already been heard and weighed. Instead, I am here to address three things. First, the legal framework that governs the review under chapter 21 of Texas Education Code.
Second, the specific finding conclusions reached by the independent hearing examiner after full evidentiary hearing. And third, the limits placed on the board's authority when those findings were supported by substantial evidence. This case arises under chapter 21 sub subchapter f of the Texas Education Code, which governs provisionary contract terminations and establishes the role of an independent hearing examiner. The independent hearing examiner expressly concluded, and I quote, the independent hearing examiner has jurisdiction of the subject matter pursuant to chapter 21,
chapter f of the Texas Education Code. That conclusion is important because chapter 21 creates a structured process designed to ensure fairness and consistency. Under Texas education code 21.259 c, the board may reject a change of finding of fact only if that finding is not supported by substantial evidence. That statute does not say that the board may reject findings if it disagrees with nor does it permit rejection based on alternative interpretations of the same exact evidence. Texas courts have repeatedly explained that substantial evidence means that Mayor Suntilla is not authorized
rewing testimony or assessing credibility. This limitation is intentional. In Montgomery Independent School Districts versus Davis, the Texas Supreme Court established that when substantial evidence exists, the board must defer to the hearing examiner's findings. The independent hearing examiner in this case conducted a full evidentiary hearing on 10/01/2025. She heard live testimony, reviewed documentary evidence, evaluated credibility, and issued written findings of fact and delusions of law. Importantly, the examiner did not disregard the district's evidence. She expressly acknowledged the governing legal standards,
including Texas Education Code 21.104 a, which allows termination of a provisionary contract for good cause as determined by the board. She also correctly identified the district's burden under Texas Education Code 21.256 h, which states the district bears the burden of proof by preponderance of the evidence. The examiner applies that burden. She acknowledges that the excessive absences may, under certain circumstances, constitute good cause. She cited commissioner precedent in the district's policy regarding attendance requirement,
except she did not minimize those standards. What the examiner did, however, was examine how the district responded to those issues, how enforcement occurred over time, and whether termination was legally available given the district's own actions. After reviewing the entire record, the hearing examiner reached a controlling legal conclusion that governs this case. She stated, and I quote, although HRD provided by preponderance and the evidence of the respondents violated board policy Deitch local, the district is a stop from terminating respondents current provisionary contract of employment based on
a violation of her prior provisionary contract due to waiver. This finding is crucial. It reflects legal analysis, not factual oversight. The examiner found that the campus the examiner found that through various means, campus leadership had access to attendance record and was well aware of violations that could have possibly occurred throughout the school year. There was no corrective action nor discipline that was taken before the new provision and contract was issued and signed. This sequence matters legally. The examiner did not excuse policy violation. Instead, she correctly concluded that the termination was not legally available because the district's action constituted
waiver. That conclusion is supported by the commissioner's precedent and is well within the examiner's authority. Based on that analysis, the examiner issued a clear recommendation. After due consideration of the evidence, it is hereby recommended that sufficient grounds do not exist to support the termination of a response probationary contract. Under Texas Education Code 21.259, the board's authority is constrained. The statute does not permit rejection of findings simply because the administration disagrees with the outcome or believes a different penalty would be more appropriate. Chapter 21 does not allow this.
When substantial evidence supports the examiner's finding, and here it does, the board must defer. I also would need to address the procedural posture of this case because the timeline is not incidental and it is not governed by statute. The independent hearing examiner issued her findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation on 10/27/2025. This date is not disputed, and it is not reflected and it is reflected clearly in the record. Under Texas education code 21.258, under the hearing examiner's recommendation, once the one independent hearing examiner's recommendation is issued,
the board is required to meet and consider that recommendation within a statutory time frame. That stat that statute does not provide discretion to delay or consideration indefinitely, nor does it permit the district to wait weeks beyond the prescribed period before taking action. In this case, more than twenty calendar days, approximately fifty four at this point, elapsed following the issuance of the recommendation on October 27 before this matter before this matter was scheduled for board consideration. That delay places today's proceeding well outside the statutory window contemplated by chapter 21. This delay is undisputed and is documented in the procedural record.
While the Commission of Education has indicated that the review of this violation must occur after the final board decision, it is nonetheless essential that for the record reflected today, I need to explicitly state the timing accurately and transparently to you all. Accordingly, I want the record to clearly reflect that I object to the board's proceedings outside the statutory timeline required by Texas Education Code 21.258, and I expressly preserve this procedural violation for further review. Can I save the rest of my time? I'm sorry? Can I save the rest of my time? No.
The the under this procedure, we don't have, a rebuttal time, do we? I'd like to Can you save time? No. Repro is only to, the administration on this. Right. The the procedures are just so you don't have the ability to read to read so you can keep talking to me for three minutes. Okay. Alright. I'll keep going. In this case, I really just want to explicitly state out to the board that I do understand, the position that has been applied to many teachers this school year via, really bored videos that I have watched. And I do understand that in my position,
I am not unique in any way, shape, or form. I understand that with this particular proceeding, attendance alone is enough for the board to say, you know, we will terminate. And I understand, I accept because I do get that my next steps are my next steps. However, I do want the board to truly understand here today that administration at Lovett Elementary School was well aware before the May 19 date about the days that was taken. These days were, talked about when my I was getting hired. I got married. And then the other days that I was taken was because I had a medical
procedure, at the beginning of the school year. And, unfortunately, those days wrapped to the way they were. Regardless of those days, I'm not in any way, shape, or form here to argue that I did not take those days or that they were not valid valid or they were not sound. My biggest complaint is what it really has been the entire time, which is just the timeline. And how I felt as if the policy was not really being adhered to, I was notified on the last day of school that I had a conference for the record the day after the last day of school. And I was not even notified of the, I guess, result of that conference of the record and if my contract would be terminated or
not until July 2. And then from there, I completely went in with the TA process. I respect the process. I don't have any issues or quarrels about it. But then after I did my due diligence of going through the TA process and meeting with the independent hearing examiner and thinking, I guess not really that would be the end of it. I guess, this the naivety. But thinking that that would be sound, I still received later that after the independent hearing examiner saw the case and understood where I was coming from, understood where the board or where HISD was coming from, sided, I guess,
with my calls. And then from there, I was told right then and there from TA and then from policy that HISD had twenty calendar days to make that decision. And that was in November, And here we are in December, and that's really my one of, I guess, another timeline, things that, is really conflicting to me. Again, I understand the process. I respect the process. I understand the position I'm in today as far as no teacher that I have seen with any type of attendance, issues that have come before the board has gotten,
I guess, sided with. I don't know if that's really the correct terminology to really use in this particular case. I get that, and I understand that. But I just want to explicitly state before you all that, well, I don't really you know, this is an unfortunate situation. So again, I respectfully ask the board to adopt the independent hearing examiner's recommendation and allow my provisionary contract to remain in effect consistent with both law and the record before you. In addition, I respectfully request that the board deliberate this matter in open session as contemplated by the Texas Education Code and the principles of transparency that govern public employment decisions.
Open deliberation ensures that the basis of the board's decision is clear, documented, and accessible for purposes of review. And if this needs to be, I guess, extended outward. If the board chooses not to adopt this recommendation, I respectfully preserve all procedural as substantial. Objections, including objections related to waivers, statutory compliance, and timing of this procedure for Thank you. Thank you. Z, go ahead and, Thank you, sir. I'll be brief. I'd like to start off by saying that this hearing examiner found in her own findings of fact and in her own recommendation that there was good cause for termination
regarding her excessive absences. And so I'd like to read off on page 16 of her own recommendation where she says that accordingly, the evidence supports a finding of a good cause for termination of respondents twenty twenty five, twenty twenty six contract based on our actions during the twenty twenty four, twenty twenty five contract in violation of HISD board policy DEC eight, and the district's actions were timely and consistent with applicable law and policy. And because miss Spencer also mentioned timelines, this hearing examiner also mentioned timelines as well where she states that this timeline demonstrates
that HISD acted diligently and did not waive its right to pursue termination. Even if the absenteeism report could have been generated earlier, the district was required to follow its internal protocols, including file review and CFR. The evidence shows that HRISD did not condone respondent's conduct and took timely action consistent with its policies. It is unfortunate today that miss Spencer was clearly aware of HRISD's board policy regarding absenteeism, yet deliberately decided to violate it. And we are here today due to that fact. Miss Spencer's argument regarding the statutory deadline that she brings up today is completely outside
the scope of this hearing, not within the transcript or the scope of the independent hearing examiner's realm at the TA appeal hearing matter. With that being said, Ms. Spencer kind of goes back and forth by mentioning section twenty one point two five seven and twenty one point point two five eight regarding the board to consider the hearing examiner's recommendation within the twenty calendar days. The correct citation for that would be the Texas Education Code, 21.258, not two five seven. Additionally, miss Spencer misleads this board to believe that,
not not meeting this deadline results in the hearing examiner's decision to, have her decision binding as of today, which is not the case. Nowhere in the Texas Education Code does it say that if the district fails to meet this deadline, the repercussions of that would be the hearing examiner's recommendation be binding on the administration. So with that being, considered, the administration would ask that you modify the independent hearing examiner's conclusions of law as mentioned in its proposed motion and reject this hearing examiner's recommendation.
Thank you. Are there any questions? Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Okay, We will the parties have completed their presentation. It's now time for the Board members to make our decision on the issues before us. The Board will now recess to closed session under Chapter five fifty one of Texas Government Code of Meetings Act Section 551.004 through 551.089. Should Board final action vote or decision or any matter considered in the closed session be required, such final action vote or decision shall be taken at the open meeting convened covered
by this notice upon the reconvening of the public meeting or at a subsequent public meeting of the Board upon notice thereof. The Board has recessed to close session at 06:20PM on 12/18/2025. This special meeting of the school board of the Houston Independent School District is now reconvene in open session at 06:33PM. Do I have a motion? Yes. I move that the board adopt the hearing officer's finding of fact and conclusions of law except for conclusions of law number 15 and that the Board adopt the conclusions of law,
rationale, and recommendations set forth in petitioner's proposed motion and that the Board terminate the contract of Tianna Spencer effective immediately. Okay. Please vote. Okay, the motion passes two, yes and one nay. A letter notifying both parties of the action of the Board shall be prepared and signed by the Executive Director of Board Relations within ten days. The letter shall include the findings of fact, conclusion of law of the school board and any grant of relief obtained. Furthermore, the letter shall state the reason and legal basis for the rejecting or changing the
findings of fact or conclusions of law proposed by the independent hearing examiner. This hearing is concluded at 06:35PM. With no further business to discuss, this meeting of the Board is adjourned. The time is 06:35PM on 12/18/2025.