Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

OK, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM AND WE HAVE A LOT OF PROCEDURAL THINGS TO READ, SO WE'LL GO

[1. Notice and Return]

[00:00:06]

AHEAD AND GET STARTED.

THE TIME IS NOW 3:01 P.M.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

WELCOME TO THE CALL BOARD MEETING OF THE DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES.

PLEASE STAND AND JOIN US FOR A MOMENT OF SILENCE AND REMAIN STANDING FOR THE

[2. Moment of Silence and Pledge of Allegiance]

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND SALUTE TO THE TEXAS FLAG.

I THINK WE CAN ALL.

WE CAN ALL STAY SEATED SINCE WE'RE IN FRONT OF THE CAMERAS.

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

AND NOW THE TEXAS FLAG.

AS PART OF THAT, AS PART OF THE PROCEDURE, SO IF WE CAN HAVE AT LEAST FIVE TRUSTEES PUT THEIR CAMERAS ON THEM, LOOKS LIKE WE NEED ONE MORE.

AND KARLA SAYS SHE'S UNABLE TO.

I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND READ THE GOVERNOR'S PROCLAMATION, THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THAT.

SORRY ABOUT THAT.

THE FOLLOWING TRUSTEES ARE PRESENT.

TRUSTEE, FLORES, TRUSTEE, MARSHALL, TRUSTEE GARCIA, TRUSTEE CARREON, AND I'M PRESENT, THAT MAKES FIVE OF US.

I DO KNOW THAT TRUSTEE HENRY WILL BE JOINING SHORTLY, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT TRUSTEE FOREMAN WILL BE JOINING AS WELL.

WE'RE ALSO JOINED BY OUR SUPERINTENDENT OF MICHAEL HINOJOSA.

THIS MEETING WILL BE AVAILABLE SIMULTANEOUSLY IN SPANISH ON SOCIAL MEDIA, THROUGH DALLAS ISD, IN ESPANOL, ON FACEBOOK AND THROUGH THE DISTRICT'S WEBSITE.

TRUSTEE FLORES, WOULD YOU PLEASE MAKE THE ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT A TRANSLATOR? SURE, I'LL BE GLAD TO.

OK, THANK YOU.

AND THEN THE GOVERNOR'S PROCLAMATION, AS SUMMARIZED ON MARCH 16TH, 2020, GOVERNOR GREG ABBOTT GRANTED A REQUEST BY ATTORNEY GENERAL KEN PAXTON TO TEMPORARILY SUSPEND A LIMITED NUMBER OF OPEN MEETINGS, LAWS TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO ALLOW TELEPHONIC OR VIDEO CONFERENCE MEETINGS IN RESPONSE TO THE CORONAVIRUS COVID-19.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THOSE SUSPENDED RULES, WE CERTIFY.

THE FOLLOWING.

NOTICE OF THIS MEETING HAS BEEN POSTED ONLINE FOR AT LEAST 72 HOURS.

WE HAVE A QUORUM IN ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING.

EITHER PHYSICALLY OR TRUSTEES ARE IN PRESENCE, ARE IN ATTENDANCE SIMULTANEOUSLY THROUGH VIDEOCONFERENCE OR VIA ZOOM WE ARE MEETING BY USE OF ZOOM MEETING SOFTWARE APPLICATION, WHICH ALLOWS TWO WAY COMMUNICATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO HAVE FOLLOWED THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE MEETING.

NOTICE TO REGISTER TO SPEAK DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION WILL BE ALLOWED TO ADDRESS THE BOARD FOR THREE MINUTES AND PHYSICALLY PRESENT OR UNMUTED FOR THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

ALL OTHER MEETING PROCEDURES WILL ADHERE TO BOARD ADOPTED PROCEDURES TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE.

AN AUDIO RECORDING OF THIS MEETING IS BEING MADE AND WILL BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.

WE APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE FOR UNFORESEEABLE DIFFICULTIES AND ASK FOR YOUR PATIENCE AS WE NAVIGATE UNPRECEDENTED CONDITIONS.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE SUSPENDED LAWS, PLEASE CALL THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AT (888)672-6787 OR BY EMAIL AT TOMA@OAG .

TEXAS.GOV OUR MEETING NOW CALLS FOR THE PUBLIC FORUM SEGMENT OF OUR

[00:05:04]

MEETING.

HOWEVER, I WAS INFORMED THAT WE DID NOT HAVE ANYONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK AT THIS SPECIAL MEETING.

WE ALSO HAVE IN CASE WE NEED IT AS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR, THE ABILITY TO RETIRE TO CLOSED SESSION.

AND I BELIEVE WE ARE NOT GOING TO GO TO A CLOSED SESSION AT THIS POINT, BUT WE'LL BE ABLE TO RETIRE TO CLOSED SESSION IF WE NEED TO.

SO THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM FIVE A.

[5. Action Items]

WHICH ARE THE ACTION ITEMS. ITEM 5A IS APPROVE THE RESOLUTION OF THE DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL BOARD OF TRUSTEES REGARDING LOCAL OVERSIGHT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION OF THE DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES REGARDING LOCAL OVERSIGHT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

IN ORDER FOR US TO BE ABLE TO DISCUSS IT, WE'LL NEED A MOTION.

MOVE TO APPROVE.

I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION AND WE WILL HAVE SOME DISCUSSION.

DR. HINOJOSA HAS ADDRESSED SOME OF THESE ISSUES IN PRIOR MEETINGS, AND I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE SOME THAT THIS LEGISLATION HAS BEEN MODIFIED OVER TIME.

SO WE HAVE DAVID THOMPSON AVAILABLE TO YOU TO GIVE US AN UPDATE IN THAT REGARD AND THE WAY THE LEGISLATION CURRENTLY STANDS.

SO, DR.

HINOJOSA, IF YOU'D LIKE TO START OR IF YOU'D PREFER TO HAVE DAVID GIVE US AN UPDATE AS TO WHERE THINGS STAND I'D LEAVE IT TO YOU.

YEAH, I PREFER TO START.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, FOR GIVING ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE THE LATEST VERSION ON THIS ISSUE.

THIS IS HOUSE BILL 3270 AND THE COMPANION SENATE BILL 1365.

THESE HAVE MADE THEIR WAY THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE.

AS YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A COURT CASE IN WHICH PRECIPITATED A LOT OF THIS CONVERSATION.

AND SO THERE HAVE BEEN ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED.

AND I WANT TO COVER ABOUT THREE THINGS THAT ARE IN THE RESOLUTION.

AND THEN I WANT TO ASK DAVID THOMPSON TO TALK ABOUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS BEEN ALLEGED AS A RESULT OF THIS LEGISLATION THAT HE IS AN ATTORNEY COULD PROBABLY COVER A LOT BETTER THAN I.

BUT WHAT THIS WOULD ALLOW IS THIS BILL OR THIS COMBINATION OF BILLS AS THEY WORK THEIR WAY THROUGH THE PROCESS, WHICH IS NOW GETTING VERY LATE, WOULD GIVE THE THE COMMISSIONER AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS, BUT ALSO THE COMMISSIONER WOULD MAKE DECISIONS THAT WERE NOT APPEALABLE AND FINAL AND NOT SUBJECT TO THE TEXAS COURTS, AS WAS THE CASE IN HOUSTON WHEN THEY APPEALED AND THE COURTS RULED THAT IN FAVOR OF THE HOUSTON SCHOOL DISTRICT.

AND IT ALSO GOES ON TO GIVE THE COMMISSIONER BROAD DISCRETIONARY ITEMS OVER REMOVING THE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE SUPERINTENDENT AND ALSO TAKING UNSWORN STATEMENTS AND ALLOWING PEOPLE TO JUST FILE A COMPLAINT AND NOT HAVE TO FACE THE PERSON THEY'RE COMPLAINING AGAINST.

THERE'S ALSO A SEPARATE BILL, SENATE BILL 215, THAT BY PAUL BETTENCOURT THAT WOULD ALLOW THE FOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, TO NOT ONLY HAVE OVERSIGHT OVER THE TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY, BUT ALSO OVER INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, WOULD HAVE SUBPOENA POWER.

SO THE ONE THING I WANT DAVID THOMPSON TO ADDRESS IS THAT AS WE WERE TALKING TO THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR AND WHAT CAME UP AT THAT MEETING WAS THAT.

THE COURT CASE STRIPPED ALL ACCOUNTABILITY, AND WE DISAGREE WITH THAT ASSESSMENT, AND SO I WOULD LIKE AT LEAST DAVID THOMPSON TO TALK ABOUT THAT PORTION OF IT OR ANY OTHER PORTION BEFORE WE TURN IT OVER TO YOU GUYS FOR YOUR QUESTIONS.

COUNSEL, IF YOU WILL TAKE IT FROM HERE.

I HAVE A POINT OF INFORMATION, MR.

[00:10:01]

CHAIR, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

AND DR.

HINOJOSA, YOU JUST REFERENCED THE COURT CASE, WHICH I BELIEVE GAVE RISE TO A LOT OF THIS DISCUSSION, WHICH I THINK YOU'RE REFERENCING THE COURT CASE BETWEEN HOUSTON ISD AND THE TEA AND I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND, AS IT RELATES TO MR. THOMPSON AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO MR. THOMPSON, HE'S BEEN A GREAT ALLY AND ADVISER TO THE DISTRICT.

BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT MR. THOMPSON IS REPRESENTING HOUSTON ISD IN THAT CASE.

IS THAT ACCURATE? THAT IS NOT CORRECT.

OUR LAW FIRM DOES REPRESENT HISD ON MANY ISSUES, WE ARE NOT COUNSEL OF RECORD IN THAT LAWSUIT, AND HAVE NOT BEEN INVOLVED IN THE LAWSUIT.

THAT YOU HAVEN'T BEEN INVOLVED IN ANY PART OF IT TO DATE? I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE LAWSUIT, BUT WE'RE NOT, OUR LAW FIRM IS NOT REPRESENTING HOUSTON IN THE LAWSUIT.

OK, THANKS FOR THAT CLARITY.

DR.

HINOJOSA, I ASSUME YOU'VE COMPLETED YOUR OPENING REMARKS AND YOU WERE GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO MR. THOMPSON.

YEAH, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO DAVID, BUT I STRONGLY RECOMMEND THE BOARD CONSIDER ADOPTING THIS RESOLUTION AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT WITH THE URBAN COUNCIL AND THE TEXAS SCHOOL ALLIANCE.

BUT I'LL LET DAVID THOMPSON TALK ABOUT THAT PIECE AND ANY OTHER PIECE HE WANTS TO COVER BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN QUESTIONS FROM BOARD.

THANK YOU.

MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, IT'S GOOD TO BE WITH YOU BY ZOOM TODAY.

JUST A COUPLE OF QUICK COMMENTS AND THEN OBVIOUSLY WE'LL BE HAPPY TO RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

HOUSE BILL, 3270 AND SENATE BILL 1365 DID GROW OUT OF A LAWSUIT BETWEEN HOUSTON ISD AND THE COMMISSIONER.

BUT THE BILLS APPLY TO ALL SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN TEXAS.

SO I THINK THAT'S THE FIRST POINT TO MAKE CLEAR IS, IS THESE ARE OF GENERAL STATE WIDE APPLICABILITY.

AND JUST AS A POINT OF REFERENCE SO FAR IN THE LAWSUIT, THERE ACTUALLY BEEN FOR COURT DECISIONS, THERE'S BEEN ONE TRIAL COURT DECISION ON A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION.

THERE HAVE BEEN TWO WRITTEN DECISIONS BY THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AND THERE'S BEEN ONE DECISION BY THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS.

ALL FOUR OF THOSE DECISIONS HAVE RULED IN FAVOR OF THE DISTRICT AND AGAINST THE COMMISSIONERS.

SO WHEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THE CASE, THERE ACTUALLY MULTIPLE CASES.

BUT IN ALL FOUR OF THOSE, THE AGENCY IS NOT PREVAILED TO DATE IN ANY OF THOSE.

AND SO I THINK THE STATE'S JUDICIAL LANDSCAPE AND TO BE VERY CLEAR, TO GO TO A POINT DR.

HINOJOSA MADE NOTHING IN THE LITIGATION WOULD CHANGE THE POWER OF THE COMMISSIONER.

TO EXERCISE VARIOUS AUTHORITY AND IMPOSE VARIOUS SANCTIONS.

THE ISSUES IN THE LAWSUIT ARE PURELY PROCEDURAL.

THE ISSUE IN THE LITIGATION IS WHETHER THE AGENCY CORRECTLY FOLLOWED THE PROCEDURES IN STATUTE BEFORE IMPOSING SANCTIONS.

IT IS NOT A CHALLENGE TO THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY OF THE DISCRETION OF THE COMMISSIONER TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS.

AND THAT'S LITERALLY THE THE THE ISSUES ARE PURELY PROCEDURAL IN NATURE, NOT ULTIMATELY SUBSTANTIVE.

WITH REGARD TO THE BILLS, SENATE BILL 1365 HAS PASSED OUT OF THE SENATE.

IT WAS APPROVED ON FRIDAY AND PASSED OUT OF THE HOUSE PUBLIC EDUCATION COMMITTEE.

IT IS CURRENTLY IN CALENDARS IN THE HOUSE.

HOUSE BILL, 3270 PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE IN THE HOUSE ROUGHLY A MONTH AGO, MADE ITS WAY TO THE FLOOR LAST WEEK, DIED ON A POINT OF ORDER LAST THURSDAY AND WAS RECOMMITTED TO COMMITTEE.

AND I DO NOT EXPECT TO SEE HOUSE BILL 3270 AGAIN.

I BELIEVE THE ACTION, IF THERE IS ANY, WILL BE ABOUT THE SENATE BILL 1365.

NOW, REMEMBER THAT THE ISSUES IN THE LITIGATION ARE PROCEDURAL.

SO WHAT THE BILLS ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO IS TO REVERSE THOSE PROCEDURAL DECISIONS BY AGAIN FOUR DIFFERENT COURTS AT THIS POINT.

AND I WILL JUST MENTION A COUPLE OF THE CHANGES THAT HAVE HAPPENED AS THE BILL HAS MOVED THROUGH THE PROCESS, BUT A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT HAVE NOT CHANGED.

[00:15:04]

AGAIN, REMEMBERING THE BILL IS IS APPLICABLE TO ALL DISTRICTS.

IT DOES ALLOW THE COMMISSIONER TO CONDUCT SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS ON A WIDE RANGE OF SUBJECTS, NOT JUST VIOLATIONS OF LAWS OR RULES, BUT JUST MORE BROADLY, ANYTHING THAT THE COMMISSIONER DETERMINES IS APPROPRIATE TO INVESTIGATE.

HE WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE AND HE HAS THAT AUTHORITY UNDER CURRENT LAW.

SO, AGAIN, IT IS NOT A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE.

DURING THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION.

THIS IS, THINK, OF A DA INVESTIGATING A POTENTIAL CRIME.

THE INVESTIGATORS CAN RELY ON HEARSAY.

THEY CAN RELY ON RUMORS.

THEY COULD RELY ON ANONYMOUS STATEMENTS BY VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS.

THAT IS THE CURRENT PRACTICE.

AND AGAIN, THAT'S PART OF THE CONCERN.

THE AGENCY ULTIMATELY CAN IMPOSE A PENALTY WITHOUT HAVING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.

SO THERE IS NEVER AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE DISTRICT, EITHER UNDER CURRENT LAW, UNDER OR UNDER THE PROPOSED BILL, TO KNOW WHO THE COMPLAINANTS ARE, EVEN WHO THE WITNESSES ARE.

THERE'S NO OPPORTUNITY TO CONFRONT WITNESSES OR PRESENT YOUR OWN EVIDENCE IN A FORMAL HEARING.

THEY DID ADD A LIMITED REVIEW TO ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, BUT IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THAT IS AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING OR REVIEW BY THE IDENTITY OF ALL WITNESSES OR INFORMANTS CONFIDENTIAL.

ONE THING THAT THE BILL DOES, REMEMBERING THAT THE ISSUES IN THE LITIGATION ARE PROCEDURAL, IS IT SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS THE AGENCY TO IMPOSE ALL OF THE SANCTIONS, INCLUDING REMOVING A SUPERINTENDENT, APPOINTING THE BOARD OF MANAGERS, ET CETERA, WITHOUT HAVING TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES OF LAW.

IT ACTUALLY GIVES THE AGENCY ADVANCE PERMISSION NOT TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES IN STATUTE.

I'VE ASKED NUMEROUS MEMBERS IF THEY'VE EVER SEEN A PROVISION LIKE THAT ANYWHERE IN STATUTE.

AND EVERYONE HAS SAID NO.

SO IT LITERALLY SAYS NOTWITHSTANDING OR REGARDLESS OF ANY REQUIREMENT APPLICABLE TO THE ACTIONS THAT ARE PROVIDED IN THE CHAPTER, THE AGENCY CAN EXERCISE THE VARIOUS POWERS AND ULTIMATELY IMPOSE THE SANCTIONS.

SO I THINK THAT'S AND I WILL SAY THIS, REPRESENTING MANY DISTRICTS AROUND TEXAS AND FRANKLY, HAVING SERVED AS GENERAL COUNSEL AT TDA.

THE AGENCY HAS HAD FOR MANY YEARS, FOR MANY DECADES, WILL CERTAINLY CONTINUE TO HAVE AND NEEDS TO HAVE BROAD POWERS TO INVESTIGATE MISCONDUCT THAT MIGHT OCCUR AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.

BUT IN A RULE OF LAW SYSTEM, THERE HAVE TO BE CLEAR PROCEDURES THAT PROVIDE APPROPRIATE DUE PROCESS.

CURRENTLY, AND UNDER THIS BILL, A BOARD OF MANAGERS COULD BE IMPOSED, A BOARD COULD BE REMOVED, A SUPERINTENDENT COULD BE REMOVED WITH LESS DUE PROCESS THAN ONE TEACHER WOULD RECEIVE IF HIS OR HER CONTRACT WERE BEING NON RENEWED.

WITH LESS DUE PROCESS THAN ONE STUDENT WOULD RECEIVE IF THEY WERE BEING SUSPENDED FOR A WEEK.

WITH LESS DUE PROCESS THAN ANY OF US WOULD RECEIVE IF WE WERE CONTESTING A TRAFFIC VIOLATION.

AND FRANKLY, I'M JUST GOING TO SAY, I THINK THAT'S INAPPROPRIATE.

I BELIEVE IN THE COMMISSIONER AND THE AGENCY HAVING BROAD DISCRETIONARY POWERS, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE NEED TO BE APPROPRIATE PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS AND APPROPRIATE DUE PROCESS BEFORE AT LEAST SOME OF THOSE MORE SEVERE SANCTIONS ARE EXERCISED.

SO THE BILL DOES PROVIDE FOR A LIMITED IT APPEARS TO BE A NON EVIDENTIARY APPEAL TO SOA.

IT DOES SAY THAT THE WITNESSES OR INFORMANTS WILL CONTINUE TO BE SECRET.

SO I'M ASSUMING THAT MEANS THERE WILL NEVER BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW OR EXAMINE ANY OF THE EVIDENCE THE AGENCY IS RELYING ON.

AND THE DECISION IS FINAL AND NOT APPEALABLE.

THOSE ARE SOME FAIRLY UNIQUE PROVISIONS THAT HAVE KIND OF CROPPED INTO THE EDUCATION CODE IN THE LAST DECADE OR SO.

[00:20:01]

THEY'RE NOT UNIQUE TO THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION AND CERTAINLY NOT TO OUR CURRENT COMMISSIONER.

BUT I DO, I REFER TO THOSE PROVISIONS.

THE FINAL AND NOT APPEALABLE PROVISIONS ARE THE BULLY ON THE PLAYGROUND PROVISIONS.

LITERALLY, WHAT THEY MEAN IS THAT THE AGENCY ALWAYS WINS, WHETHER THEY'RE ACTUALLY, WHETHER IT IS ACTUALLY RIGHT OR NOT.

AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME LIMITED JUDICIAL REVIEW.

AGAIN, EVEN ONE INDIVIDUAL TEACHER OR ONE INDIVIDUAL STUDENT WOULD HAVE SOME OPPORTUNITY FOR LIMITED JUDICIAL REVIEW.

SO THEY'VE MADE A FEW CHANGES IN THE STATUTE IN THE LAST WEEK, FRANKLY, IN RESPONSE TO CRITICISMS THAT THEY'VE BEEN RECEIVING.

BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE THE BILLS AS THEY CURRENTLY STAND APPROPRIATELY ADDRESS THOSE MOST SERIOUS ISSUES REGARDING APPROPRIATE DUE PROCESS.

I'LL STOP THERE AND SEE IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS.

TRUSTEE PICK MY DAUGHTER UP FROM SCHOOL.

THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION, DR.

HINOJOSA AND MR. THOMPSON FOR OPENING THE FLOOR TO TRUSTEES FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

EITHER DO THAT.

TRUSTEE MARSHALL, EITHER RAISE YOUR HAND OR CLICK THE RAISED HAND PART OF THE APP.

I GOT YOU NEXT MR. MARSHALL.

OK, SO THANK YOU, DAVID AND DR.

HINOJOSA, FOR YOUR COMMENTS, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND KIND OF THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THIS BILL AND HOW IT'S PROGRESSED.

AND I THINK AT THIS POINT, WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT 1365 SINCE 3270 WAS KILLED.

BUT WITH THE PROGRESSION OF THIS BILL, THE TIMING OF THE RESOLUTION THAT WAS PUT FORTH FOR OPEN MEETINGS, PURPOSES FOR OUR BOARD, THIS PARTICULAR MEETING AND THE RESOLUTION THAT YOU'RE ASKING US TO PASS TODAY WERE BOTH WRITTEN AND POSTED PRIOR TO FRIDAY'S CHANGES IN THE SENATE BILL.

IS THAT CORRECT? I BELIEVE THAT'S ACCURATE, BUT LET'S DOUBLE CHECK.

BECAUSE THERE I MEAN, THE WORDING IN THE RESOLUTION AT THIS POINT IS ACTUALLY FACTUALLY INACCURATE.

I MEAN, THERE'S WORDING IN THERE TO THE EXTENT OF, YOU KNOW, NO APPEALS PROCESS.

AND DAVID, YOU JUST MENTIONED THAT THERE WERE SOME CHANGES LAST FRIDAY.

AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THOSE CHANGES WERE PRETTY SUBSTANTIVE.

AND WHILE WE MAY ALL AGREE THAT THE COMMISSIONER MAY HAVE OVERREACHED INITIALLY IN HIS WORDING OF THE BILL, YOU'RE RIGHT, DAVID, THAT HE RECEIVED FEEDBACK ON THAT AND HAS NOW ADOPTED IN GOOD FAITH A COMPROMISE BETWEEN THE TEA AND THE AUTHORS OF THE BILL AND KEY SENATE LEADERS THAT ACTUALLY DOES HAVE AN APPEAL PROCESS.

AND YOU MENTIONED THAT SORT OF IN PASSING.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT SECTION 2.19 ACTUALLY HAS LANGUAGE THAT WAS ADDED LAST FRIDAY THAT SAYS A CHALLENGE UNDER THE SECTION TO A DECISION BY THE COMMISSIONER DESCRIBED BY SUBSECTION A IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS.

SO CURRENT RESOLUTION IS LITERALLY FACTUALLY INACCURATE.

WELL, LET ME LOOK AT THE RESOLUTION.

AND I DID NOT WRITE THE RESOLUTION.

WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT, BUT I WON'T.

I DO WANT TO GO THROUGH THE SPECIFIC REPRESENTATIONS THAT ARE MADE IN THE WHEREAS CLAUSE .

YOU ARE RIGHT AND I DID SAY THERE IS A LIMITED SOA REVIEW, BUT IT IS NOT AN EVIDENTIARY REVIEW.

AND THAT'S THE REAL KEY.

IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR RESOLUTION, CAN THE AGENCY STILL RELY ON UNSWORN, ANONYMOUS INFORMATION AND HEARSAY IN THEIR INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS? THE ANSWER IS STILL YES.

NUMBER 1, IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO NO QUESTION OR CHALLENGE THE COMPLAINANT? THE ANSWER TO THAT IS STILL NO.

IT WAS NO PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENTS ON FRIDAY.

THAT IS STILL NO.

IS THERE AN IMPARTIAL DECISION MAKER? MAYBE IN A VERY LIMITED SENSE SINCE THERE IS AN APPEAL TO SOA BUT SOA'S JURISDICTION IS VERY, VERY LIMITED.

SO I WOULD PROBABLY REVISE THAT STATEMENT VERY SLIGHTLY.

AND THEN NUMBER THREE, IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ANY JUDICIAL REVIEW, EVEN IF THE COMMISSIONER ACTS CONTRARY TO STATUTE? THE ANSWER TO THAT IS STILL NO.

AND THAT WAS NOT CHANGED BY THE AMENDMENTS LAST WEEK.

[00:25:05]

SO I WOULD PROBABLY SLIGHTLY REVISE THE NO IMPARTIAL DECISION MAKERS SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE IS A LIMIT.

I APPRECIATE THAT THAT ADDED CLARITY.

BUT I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THE LANGUAGE IN THE BILL THAT I KNOW YOU ORIGINALLY TESTIFIED IN FAVOR OF HOUSTON ISD AND THE CAPITAL ON IT,YOU TESTIFIED AGAINST THE BILL? I DID TESTIFY AGAINST THE BILL.

YEAH.

AND I THINK YOU'RE ALSO YOU KNOW, I STILL HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFICULT TIME WITH THE ADMINISTRATION'S DECISION TO BRING YOU FORWARD TO SUPPORT THIS.

AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I KNOW YOU'RE CONTRACTED TO DISD, BUT YOU ALSO WORK WITH HOUSTON ISD AND.

YEAH.

AND SO I CAN APPRECIATE THAT YOU HAVE A PERSPECTIVE ON THIS BILL.

AND I KNOW THAT THAT PERSPECTIVE IS ROOTED IN LOTS OF HISTORY AND LOTS OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE EDUCATION SYSTEM IN TEXAS.

BUT YOU ALSO WERE CONTRACTED WITH A PARTY WHO HAS A VESTED INTEREST IN THIS SITUATION.

SO I'M TRYING TO PARSE OUT SOME FACTS HERE.

AND I THINK THAT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT YOUR OPINION ON SOME OF THESE FACTS, THAT THERE'S BOTH OPINION AND FACT, MIXED IN THERE TOGETHER, BECAUSE YOUR ORIGINAL COMMENTS, YOU SAID THERE WAS NO REVIEW PROCESS.

AND THE FACT IS THERE IS A REVIEW PROCESS AND YOU THEN LATER REFERENCED THAT THERE WAS A REVIEW PROCESS ADDED.

BUT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT YOUR RHETORICAL DISTINCTIONS OF LESS DUE PROCESS THAN A TEACHER OR LESS DUE PROCESS THAN A STUDENT, THAT MAY HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE RHETORIC TWO WEEKS AGO.

BUT IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE RHETORIC NOW BECAUSE THERE IS ACTUALLY A REVIEW PROCESS IN PLACE AND IT'S AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S LESS OR MORE DUE PROCESS THAN A TEACHER WOULD HAVE UPON TERMINATION.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE WE'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF THE BILL.

BUT THE MEAT OF MY COMMENTS ARE MORE FOR YOU, DR.

HINOJOSA THAN FOR MR. THOMPSON.

I THINK YOU WERE HERE, YOU AND I SORT OF JOINED DISD AROUND THE SAME TIME AND HINOJOSA VERSION 2.0.

AND SHORTLY AFTER OUR ARRIVAL, WE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE TEA THAT WAS PRETTY THREATENING.

AND I KNOW THAT LETTER WAS SENT TO MANY OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS AROUND THE STATE.

AND THAT LETTER BASICALLY SAID THAT WE HAVE A CERTAIN.

OF SCHOOLS THAT WERE PERVASIVELY UNDERPERFORMING AND WERE RATED F FOR IMPROVEMENT REQUIRED BY THE STATE AND I THINK AT THAT TIME THAT NUMBER WAS AROUND FORTY SIX OR FORTY SEVEN SCHOOLS.

AND AS A RESULT OF THAT LETTER, I MEAN, I WAS INVOLVED IN CONVERSATIONS WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE INITIALLY EXPRESSED OUR FRUSTRATION THAT WE WERE BEING THREATENED BY THE COMMISSIONER, BUT THEN WE QUICKLY ACTED TO RIGHT THE SHIP AND TO TO IMPLEMENT SOME PRETTY AGGRESSIVE POLICIES THAT I THINK WAS VERY STUDENT CENTERED THAT ADDRESSED THOSE SCHOOLS.

AND WE WENT DOWN.

I THINK THAT SOMETIME LAST YEAR, JUST THREE.

SO AND I'VE TALKED A LOT PUBLICLY ABOUT GOING FROM FORTY SEVEN UNDERPERFORMING SCHOOLS DOWN TO THREE.

I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE AS A BOARD OF YOU, AS A SUPERINTENDENT, ARE ALL VERY PROUD OF.

AND I KNOW THAT OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS LIKE GARLAND AND RICHARDSON AND FORT WORTH AND MANY OTHERS FOLLOWED SUIT WITH OUR ACE PROGRAM.

AND ACTUALLY THOSE SUPERINTENDENTS WILL POINT TOWARDS THE LETTER THAT THEY GOT AS BEING EITHER ENOUGH TO PUSH THEIR BOARD IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION OR AT LEAST POLITICAL AIR COVER TO GET THE CONVERSATIONS THAT THEY COULD COPY DISD PROGRAM AND ELIMINATE SOME OF THEIR UNDERPERFORMING SCHOOLS.

SO MY QUESTION IS IN THE CONTEXT WHERE WE'VE EMERGED AS SORT OF THE STORYLINE IN TEXAS EDUCATION CIRCLES, AS A SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT TOOK THAT ACCOUNTABILITY INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE BY THE TEA AND AND SAID, YEAH, YOU'RE RIGHT.

WE AGREE THAT THESE UNDERPERFORMING SCHOOLS, WHICH PREDOMINANTLY ARE ATTENDED BY POOR BLACK AND BROWN KIDS, THEY WERE PERVASIVELY UNDERPERFORMING AND WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

AND I THINK THAT FOR US TO GET INVOLVED IN A DISPUTE BETWEEN HOUSTON ISD AND THE TEA ABOUT WHETHER HOUSTON SHOULD DO THE SAME THING THAT WE DID IS NOT A GREAT LOOK FOR US.

I THINK WE SHOULD BE CELEBRATING THE FACT THAT THAT ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM ENCOURAGED US TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND ENCOURAGED GARLAND AND RICHARDSON AND FORT WORTH AND MANY OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO DO THE RIGHT THING, AND I WOULD HOPE IT WOULD ENCOURAGE HOUSTON TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

BUT INSTEAD, THEY'VE PURSUED A, YOU KNOW, AN ARGUMENT ON THE COURTS TO UNDERMINE THAT ACCOUNTABILITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND TO NOW DO SO POTENTIALLY FOR THE REST OF THE STATE.

AND, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T IMAGINE WHY WE WOULD WANT TO REMOVE THE TEETH FROM AN ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM THAT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE SHOWS IS WORKING NOT ONLY IN OUR

[00:30:01]

DISTRICT, BUT IN SEVERAL OTHERS.

SO I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHY THIS RESOLUTION IS COMING FORWARD IN THAT POLITICAL CONTEXT WHERE WE'RE ESSENTIALLY, IF WE WERE TO PASS THIS RESOLUTION, INSERTING OURSELVES INTO A DEBATE BETWEEN HOUSTON ISD AND THE TEA.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION.

IT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION.

IF THIS WERE A BRACKET BILL THAT IT WOULD ONLY APPLY TO HOUSTON, THEN YOUR ARGUMENT WOULD BE VERY VALID.

WE SHOULDN'T BE GETTING INTO SOMEBODY ELSE'S BUSINESS.

BUT THIS BILL APPLIES TO EVERY DISTRICT IN TEXAS UNDER THOSE VERY BROAD PARAMETERS.

AND YES, IN FACT, WE WENT FROM FORTY SIX TO WE'VE GOTTEN EVERY SCHOOL OFF OF IT.

UNFORTUNATELY, A FEW OTHERS HAVE COME ON AND WE'RE VERY AGGRESSIVE AND WE MAKE NO EXCUSES THAT WE GET SCHOOLS OFF.

HOWEVER, THE WAY THIS BILL IS WORDED, THEN THIS WOULD APPLY TO ANY DISTRICT IN TEXAS.

AND IT'S NOT JUST FOR ACCOUNTABILITY OR GOVERNANCE OR FINANCES.

BASICALLY, IT COULD BE JUST A NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS THAT PEOPLE WOULD HAVE THAT WOULD ALLOW THIS BILL THEN TO KICK IN.

SO IT OPENS IT UP FOR EVERYBODY ELSE.

AND SOMETIMES YOU NEED TO MAKE A DECISION ON WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT AND WHAT YOU THINK IS WRONG.

AND I THINK THIS IS OVERREACH.

AND I DON'T AGREE WITH THE PREMISE OF THE BILL.

AND THAT'S WHY I TALK TO THE BOARD PRESIDENT AND THE VICE PRESIDENT AND SUGGESTED THAT WE PUT THIS ON AS AN ACTION ITEM FOR THE BOARD.

DO YOU THINK THAT.

TRUSTEE FOREMAN? THANK YOU I'M SORRY THAT I WAS LATE GETTING ON, BUT I'D LIKE TO MAKE A FEW STATEMENTS JUST LISTENING TO THE PREVIOUS STATEMENTS.

ONE OF THEM IS THE PREMISE THAT DALLAS ISD ONLY USE THE ACE PROGRAM TO GET THE LOW PERFORMING SCHOOLS OFF.

ISN HAD MORE LOW PERFORMING SCHOOLS THAN ACE AND EFFECTIVELY WORKED TO GET LOW PERFORMING SCHOOLS AND THAT FORTY SIX, IF WE REMEMBER CORRECTLY.

I WAS AROUND LONG BEFORE HINOJOSA 2.0 AND I CAN REMEMBER.

THE OVERREACH THAT THE NOW TEA COMMISSIONER, MIKE TO TAKE OVER THE DALLAS ISD SCHOOL BOARD AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WHEN HE WAS A BOARD MEMBER.

AGAIN, I BELIEVE THIS IS ALSO AN OVERREACH.

AND IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT HOUSTON ISD.

IT'S ABOUT WHAT CAN HAPPEN TO ANY ISD WITHIN THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU HAVE LARGE DISTRICTS LIKE DALLAS WHO COULD HAVE ONE SCHOOL OR HAVE A NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS.

AND THEN THE COMMISSIONER CAN, IN FACT, BEGIN A PROCESS TO TAKE OVER.

THAT IS NOT WHAT WE NEED.

AND WHAT WE NEED IS TO HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT HOUSTON.

SO I'M SUPPORTING THE RESOLUTION.

THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT HOUSTON.

THIS IS ABOUT WHAT CAN HAPPEN TO ANY ISD.

AND YES, DALLAS DID A GREAT JOB IN REMOVING MANY OF THE SCHOOLS FROM LOW PERFORMING, BUT WE'VE HAD MORE TO COME ON.

SO THAT IS CYCLICAL.

AND I ALWAYS HATE TO HEAR WHEN PEOPLE SAY, OH, IT'S JUST THE BLACK AND BROWN CHILDREN, THAT'S WHAT DISD IS MADE UP OF, BLACK AND BROWN CHILDREN, THE MAJORITY.

AND I AM TIRED OF HEARING THOSE KINDS OF STATEMENTS THAT CHILDREN DESERVE BETTER RECOGNITION FOR WHAT THEY DO AND WHAT THEY CAN DO.

AND EVERY TIME WE SPEAK FROM A NEGATIVE PERSPECTIVE, WE SPEAK ABOUT BLACK AND BROWNS.

I'M TIRED OF THAT.

THAT'S WHO WE ARE.

THAT'S WHO THE DISTRICT IS.

AND THAT'S WHO WE NEED TO BE LOOKING UP TO THESE CHILDREN.

I DON'T WANT THE COMMISSIONER OR ANY COMMISSIONER, NOT JUST ANOTHER COMMISSIONER.

I DON'T WANT THAT KIND OF HEAVY HANDEDNESS OVER THE DISTRICT.

AND BY THE WAY, THE COMMISSIONER HAD OTHER OPPORTUNITIES TO DO THINGS WITHIN HIS AND THAT COULD HAVE CLOSE WHEATLEY.

HE DIDN'T CHOOSE TO DO THAT.

HE COULD HAVE CLOSED WHEATLEY.

HE DID NOT CHOOSE TO DO THAT.

THE OVERREACH WAS TO TAKE OVER THREE HUNDRED AND SOMETHING SCHOOLS JUST BECAUSE HE COULD.

DO I BLAME HOUSTON FOR FIGHTING BACK? NO, I DO NOT.

DO I THINK THE SUPERINTENDENT, DR.

HINOJOSA AND I, WE HAVE A LOVE HATE RELATIONSHIP.

BUT HE'S RIGHT ON THIS.

AND I'M BEHIND HIM100 PERCENT.

WE CAN'T AFFORD TO LET THE COMMISSIONER HAVE THAT KIND OF POWER.

THAT'S MY OPINION.

THANK YOU, TRUSTEE FOREMAN.

[00:35:02]

OTHER TRUSTEES HAVE COMMENTS? TRUSTEE MICCICHE? TRUSTEE FLORES AND JOHNSON IN THAT ORDER.

THANK YOU.

I APPRECIATE THE DIALOG HERE.

I DO FULLY SUPPORT THIS RESOLUTION TO THE EXTENT THAT WE NEED TO CLARIFY ONE OF THE WHEREAS CLAUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE BILL HAS A LIMITED APPEAL.

RIGHT.

SO I CERTAINLY WOULD WOULD SUPPORT THAT THAT KIND OF AMENDMENT OR CHANGE TO THE RESOLUTION.

AND JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS ABOUT OUR OWN FACTUAL HISTORY.

WE ADOPTED THE ACE PROGRAM IN 2015 AND WE VISITED WITH THE COMMISSIONER IN CHRISTMAS OF I THINK IT WAS 20169.

IT MIGHT HAVE EVEN BEEN 2017 ACTUALLY WASN'T THE COMMISSIONER, IT WAS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER.

AND WE MET WITH A BUNCH OF OTHER SCHOOL BOARDS BUT ACE CAME AT LEAST A YEAR AND A HALF BEFORE THE MEETING THAT WE WERE REQUIRED TO ATTEND WITH OTHER SCHOOL BOARDS THAT HAD SCHOOLS THAT WERE IN THE ACADEMICALLY UNACCEPTABLE CATEGORY AT THAT TIME.

SO THE ORDER, I THINK, IS IMPORTANT.

WE WERE ALREADY DOING WHAT WE COULD AND TRYING NEW THINGS TO IMPROVE OUR SCHOOLS.

IT WASN'T BECAUSE WE GOT CALLED TO A REQUIRED MEETING.

THE OTHER THING I THINK IS THE PROCEDURAL ASPECTS, I THINK MR. THOMPSON MADE IT MADE IT QUITE CLEAR THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S POWER, THE ACCOUNTABILITY THAT THE COMMISSIONER IS ABLE TO IMPOSE REMAINS THE SAME.

SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT REDUCING ACCOUNTABILITY OR NOT HAVING ACCOUNTABILITY.

WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE PROCESS, WHETHER DUE PROCESS IS GOING TO EXIST AND TO ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE FACT THAT ALL OF THESE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS ARE NOT GOING TO BE AVAILABLE IF THIS BILL PASSES.

IT'S SHOCKING AND IT'S ESPECIALLY SHOCKING IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE A LAWYER.

SO I WOULD URGE ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS RESOLUTION IN THE HOPES THAT WE WOULD DISCOURAGE THE THE LEGISLATURE FROM PASSING THIS BILL.

AND IN A SENSE, THIS IS A HIGHLY PARTISAN BILL AS WELL.

AND IF IT PASSES, IT APPEARS THAT IT WILL PASS BY A VERY, VERY SMALL MARGIN.

AND THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LOCAL SCHOOL BOARDS AND THE THE TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY THAT IS BEING DONE TO, QUOTE, FIX A PROBLEM THAT EMERGED IN THOSE HOUSTON LAWSUITS.

I HOPE THAT THE REASON THE AGENCY LOST THOSE CASES WAS THEY WEREN'T FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURES.

THE RESULT HERE AS TO IF THIS BILL PASSES, IS TO ELIMINATE THE PROCEDURES OR DRAMATICALLY REDUCE THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS.

SO, AGAIN, I'M SUPPORTING THE RESOLUTION, SUPPORT WHAT DR.

HINOJOSA AND MR. THOMPSON HAVE SAID.

THANK YOU, TRUSTEE MICCICHE.

AND TRUSTEE FLORES AND JOHNSON, IF Y'ALL MIND IF I HOP IN FRONT OF YOU REAL QUICK, I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG I'LL BE ABLE TO GET HIM OUT OF HERE FOR SCHOOL, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE I GO AHEAD.

SO IF YOU HAVE OBJECTIONS, TRUSTEES FLORES AND JOHNSON, THANK YOU.

SO I'M GOING TO START WHERE FIRST LET ME START BY SAYING I FULLY SUPPORT THIS RESOLUTION.

I APPRECIATE YOU SPEAKING PUBLICLY ABOUT IT IN MULTIPLE SETTINGS.

I'M IN FULL SUPPORT OF IT.

WHEN YOU REACHED OUT TO ME ABOUT IT, I WAS HAPPY TO WORK WITH TRUSTEE MICCICHE AS WELL, TO PUT IT BEFORE OUR BOARD SO WE CAN HAVE THIS DISCUSSION.

I WANT TO START WITH TRUSTEE MICCICHE FINISH.

HE TALKED ABOUT THE PARTISAN NATURE OF IT.

I'M GOING TO GO A BIT FURTHER.

I DON'T THINK IT'S JUST A REPUBLICAN DEMOCRAT ON THIS.

THERE ARE A LOT OF REPUBLICANS THAT ARE SUPPORTING THE STANCE WE'RE TAKING.

SO IT'S PARTISAN IN THE SENSE THAT EVERYONE THERE WILL BE VOTING FOR IT, EXCLUDING MAYBE ONE, WELL THAT BILL'S DEAD.

THAT IS GOING TO BE OF A CERTAIN DEMOGRAPHIC.

BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE THAT I HEAR IS, IS ACCOUNTABILITY AND POWER.

NO, NONE OF THAT HAS CHANGED.

[00:40:02]

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, MR. THOMPSON, DOES ANY POWER AUTHORITY FROM THE COMMISSIONER CHANGE? THE COMMISSIONER STILL, WITH THIS BILL OR WITHOUT THIS BILL, HAS THE SAME SUBSTANTIVE POWERS IN THE LITIGATION, WOULD NOT CHANGE THE COMMISSIONER'S SUBSTITUTIVE POWERS.

IT'S SIMPLY ABOUT THE PROCEDURAL.

PROCEDURE, WE'LL GET TO THE PROCEDURE AND PROCESS THE PROCEDURE THAT HAS OCCURRED BEFORE.

THERE'S BEEN MULTIPLE COURT CASES ALL THE WAY UP TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT.

IS THAT CORRECT, MR. THOMPSON? THERE HAS BEEN ONE DECISION BY THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT SO FAR, AND IT RULED WITH THE COMMISSIONER.

WHAT WERE THE NUMBERS? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE? HOW THE JUDGES VOTE.

THE SUPREME COURT VOTED EIGHT IN FAVOR OF HOUSTON ISD, ONE JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE HECHT DISSENTED, BUT IT WAS AN EIGHT TO ONE DECISION AGAINST TEA.

SO AGAIN, THE ACCOUNTABILITY REMAINS.

THE PROCESS IS THE ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE CLEAR AND DISTINCT WHEN PEOPLE ARE SAYING THAT THERE'S NOT THE SAME ACCOUNTABILITY, THAT WE RECEIVE THESE LETTERS BACK IN THE DAY AND THAT PUT THIS ACCOUNTABILITY.

THAT KIND OF PLACE STILL IS GOING TO REMAIN FOR DAY AND DO WHAT'S BEST FOR KIDS ANYWAY.

BUT IT'S STILL GOING TO BE THERE.

AND WHAT IS GOING TO CHANGE IS THE PROCESS.

LET'S TALK ABOUT PROCESS.

WE HAVE A LOT OF ATTORNEYS ON THIS BOARD, MICCICHE, CARREON, MYSELF, FLORES.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE AN ATTORNEY TO UNDERSTAND DUE PROCESS.

IF I RUN A STOP SIGN AND GET A TICKET, THEY HAVE TO TELL ME WHAT I DID.

I GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND MYSELF.

MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR CAN'T SAY I JUST ROBBED THEIR HOUSE AND TAKE ME TO COURT FOR THAT.

AND ME GET CONVICTED.

THERE ARE PROCESSES.

TRUSTEE CARREON YOU DID EVIDENCE IN LAW SCHOOL.

WE DID CIVIL PROCEDURE IN LAW SCHOOL.

THERE ARE CERTAIN DUE PROCESS RIGHTS THAT WERE AFFORDED TO CITIZENS AND THE FACT THAT A BILL IT'S ALMOST A FENCE OF ELECTRICITY, MICCICHE SAYS ATTORNEY IS GOING TO REMOVE THOSE PROCESSES FOR ELECTED BOARDS IS PROBLEMATIC.

AND I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY WHY YOU GET SOME OF THE DECISIONS YOU GET.

BUT IT'S VERY, VERY TOUGH FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND.

HOW YOU CIRCUMVENT THOSE THINGS AND WE TALKED ABOUT THE REVIEW PROCESS, SO THERE USED TO BE THE FINAL AND UNAPPEALABLE LANGUAGE THAT WAS IN THERE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE WE HAVE LIVES, THAT STUFF HAPPENED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT LAST WEEK.

I MEAN, IT'S CONSTANTLY GOING ON AND TURNING IN SESSION.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE AFTERNOON, AT 2:00 P.M.

IN THE AFTERNOON.

THERE'S A LOT OF DEALS BEING BROKERED.

SO IT'S TOUGH FOR US TO KEEP UP WITH THAT.

SO WHETHER OR NOT THE FINAL AND NON APPEALABLE LANGUAGE IS STILL IN THE BILL OR NOT, IT WAS, THAT SPEAKS TO THE INTENT OF WHAT'S HAPPENING FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE.

AND WE TALK ABOUT FINAL AND NON APPEALABLE, THERE IS STILL A REVIEW PROCESS THAT IS CORRECT.

I SAW TRUSTEE MARSHALL MENTIONED THAT AND MR. THOMPSON CONFIRMED THAT.

BUT A REVIEW PROCESS IS A LOT DIFFERENT.

IF I HAVE A REVIEW PROCESS WHERE I HAVE TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OR HAVE TO PRESENT SWORN TESTIMONY, OR I CAN'T INCLUDE HEARSAY, MEANING IT'S ALSO I JUST CAN'T SAY I DID IT AND THEN I'M, YOU KNOW, IN TROUBLE FOR THAT.

THAT'S A LOT DIFFERENT THAN ME JUST GOING TO SOMEONE WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SAY WHETHER THEY'RE RIGHT OR WRONG.

THAT DUE PROCESS AT ALL LEVELS, CIVIL WAR, CRIMINAL LAW, IT'S ALL THERE FOR A REASON.

WE BELIEVE IN DUE PROCESS, WHICH IS WHY THAT STUFF GOT REMOVED, BUT STILL SLIDE IT IN AND PUT IN A REVIEW PROCESS THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THOSE IS NOT SUFFICIENT.

I WOULD NOT WANT TO BE A DEFENDANT IN THIS TYPE OF SITUATION.

IT'S NOT FAIR.

EVERYONE DESERVES THE RIGHT TO REALLY HAVE REAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED AGAINST THEM.

NOT AN INVESTIGATOR THAT I HIRED THAT GOES IN THERE AND TRIES TO FIGURE STUFF OUT AND THEN COMES BACK AND PRESENTS EVIDENCE.

MAYBE NOT THE LAST THING I REPRESENT A DISTRICT IN A CITY HISTORICALLY THAT HAD TO FIGHT FOR JUST ELECTED OFFICIALS.

WE HAD TO FIGHT FOR A SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS, INCREDIBLY HARD.

ALL THE WAY TO THESE SAME COURTS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW.

SO THE IDEA THAT, YOU KNOW.

YOU HAVE THIS AUTHORITY, YOU HAVE THIS PROCESS, BUT YOU CIRCUMVENT THE PROCESS BECAUSE YOU LOST, FRANKLY, AND THEN YOU TURN AROUND AND HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REMOVE BOARDS AND MANAGERS.

I MEAN, ELECTED BOARDS ACROSS THE STATE.

NOT ONE SCHOOL IN HOUSTON, BUT ALL ACROSS THE STATE IS PRETTY PROBLEMATIC FOR MYSELF AS WELL.

I DON'T I JUST CAME THROUGH AN ELECTION.

IF I MAKE DECISIONS AS A TRUSTEE THAT PEOPLE DON'T LIKE, THEY HOLD ME ACCOUNTABLE.

I HAVE TO DEFEND THAT IN PUBLIC.

IF THEY DON'T LIKE IT, THEY REMOVE ME.

IF THEY LIKE IT ENOUGH, THEY KEEP ME HERE.

AND THAT GOES FOR ALL OF US.

THEY VOTE FOR US AS ELECTED OFFICIALS.

THAT GIVES OUR COMMUNITIES VOICE.

OUR COMMUNITY, THE DISTRICT THAT I REPRESENT? DOESN'T HAVE A VOICE AT THE GOVERNOR'S LEVEL.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF MY DISTRICT, THE GOVERNOR DOESN'T WIN ON THOSE DEMOGRAPHICS.

SO I'M SILENCING A GROUP THAT WORKED HARD TO HAVE REPRESENTATION BY GIVING THAT AWAY, AND WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO KEEP IT OR GIVE IT AWAY, BUT WE HAVE

[00:45:02]

THE ABILITY TO MAKE A STATEMENT SAYING THAT WE DON'T AGREE WITH THIS AND IT'S NOT OK.

AND I REALLY HOPE THAT'S POWER STILL THERE.

BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FOLLOW A PROCESS, DUE PROCESS THAT WE ALL BELIEVE IN.

AND THEN THIS FINAL AND UNAPPEALABLE WHICH IS SHIFTED TO A REVIEW PROCESS, A REVIEW PROCESS DOESN'T MATTER IF THERE'S NOT FIDELITY WITHIN THAT PROCESS.

AND THE LAST PIECE, YOU KNOW.

I DO AGREE THAT IF SCHOOLS ARE STRUGGLING, THERE NEEDS TO BE INTERVENTIONS THAT COULD BE HEAVY INTERVENTIONS, BUT YOU'RE TAKING A SLEDGEHAMMER AND KILLING THE ANT.

AND WE HAVE TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY SCHOOLS IN DISD.

TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY SCHOOLS.

I JUST SAT OUTSIDE OF ONE TO PICK UP MY DAUGHTER.

WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THAT SCHOOL BECAUSE ONE ON THE WEST SIDE OR THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE NORTH SIDE IS STRUGGLING? AGAIN, GOING BACK TO WHAT DR.

HINOJOSA SAID EARLIER.

THIS CAN BE A CONCERN THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED, BUT NOT BRACKETING BY CITY, NOT BRACKETING BY THESE ISSUES THAT MIGHT COME UP, WHETHER IT'S FRAUD OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE, THERE'S WAYS THIS COULD HAVE BEEN LIMITED AND NARROWLY DRAFTED TO ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS THAT WE ALL CARE ABOUT.

LET'S JUST HAVE A BROAD PAINT BRUSH AND SAY ALL ACROSS THE STATE OF TEXAS, WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS IN THIS WAY AFTER LOSING THESE CASES.

TO ME, THIS IS HIGHLY PROBLEMATIC.

AND, YOU KNOW, OTHERS WILL DISAGREE.

BUT I PLAN ON SUPPORTING THIS RESOLUTION.

AND THE RESOLUTION IS LATER ON THE AGENDA OF CRITICAL RACE THEORY, WHICH IS ALSO BEING ATTACKED.

IS ANOTHER THING I PLAN ON SUPPORTING, SO I'LL BE QUIET THEN AND TRUSTEE MICCICHE CAME OUT TO ASK YOU 15, 20 MINUTES.

RUSTY FLORES IS NEXT, FOLLOWED BY TRUSTEE JOHNSON.

OK, SO SORRY, I WAS WAITING FOR DAN TO RECOGNIZE ME, BUT I'LL GO AHEAD.

THANKS, DAN.

THANKS, JUSTIN.

I THINK THAT THIS IS FAR MORE COMPLICATED AND IT'S NOT AS YOU KNOW, IT'S EASY TO KIND OF CREATE THESE POSITIONS WHERE IT'S LIKE, WELL, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE EITHER, YOU KNOW, AGAINST, YOU KNOW, RACIAL EQUITY OR NOT.

YOU'RE NOT FOR RACIAL EQUITY OR FOR THIS OR YOU'RE NOT FOR THIS.

WELL, I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE MORE NUANCED.

I MEAN, WE HAVE TO GO TO, YOU KNOW, THE BASIS OF THE YOU KNOW, GOING BACK TO THE REASON WHY WE'RE HERE TALKING ABOUT THIS TASB RESOLUTION, WHICH IS REALLY WHAT IT IS.

YOU KNOW, I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF TASB RESOLUTIONS, MOSTLY BECAUSE TASB REPRESENTS MOSTLY SCHOOL DISTRICTS WITH FIFTEEN HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE HUNDRED STUDENTS.

AND WE FALL FAR OUTSIDE OF THAT KIND OF BAILIWICK.

SECOND, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULDN'T BE YOU KNOW, I CAN'T SUPPORT A RESOLUTION WHEN THE RESOLUTION IS NOT CORRECT.

AND YOU'VE BEEN SITTING HERE FOR HOURS AND TRY TO DEBATE THE LANGUAGE.

AND I UNDERSTAND PERFECTLY UNDERSTAND STUFF HAS CHANGED SINCE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THE POSTING REQUIREMENTS.

BUT, A, I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF TASB RESOLUTIONS, AND B, I BELIEVE IN ACCOUNTABILITY AND I'VE RUN ON ACCOUNTABILITY SINCE 2005 AND 2006 AND 2009 AND 20145 AND 2018 AND AGAIN IN 2021.

AND, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T CHANGE WHAT YOU DON'T MEASURE AND WHAT YOU MEASURE PUBLICLY CHANGES FASTER.

I'VE SAID THAT A THOUSAND TIMES.

PEOPLE WHO KNOW I SAY IT AND REPEAT WHAT I SAY BY NOW.

AND SO ACCOUNTABILITY IS IMPORTANT.

BUT IT'S ALSO WE ALSO HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THAT ACCOUNTABILITY IS PUT TOGETHER.

AND SO THIS CASE, FOR EXAMPLE, LET'S LOOK AT THE ISSUES IN THE INJUNCTION, THE FAMOUS INJUNCTION, THE WHOLE REASON WE'RE HERE AND THIS BILL EXISTS IS BECAUSE MORATH, THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, TRIED TO TAKE OVER THE HOUSTON ISD BOARD AND THEY TOOK HIM TO COURT, WHOEVER IT WAS THAT TOOK THEM TO COURT.

AND MORATH LOST ON THREE PROCEDURAL ISSUES.

RIGHT.

THE INJUNCTION WAS ON THREE PROCEDURAL ISSUES.

THE FIRST ONE WAS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE COURT SAID, WELL, MORATH DIDN'T HEAR THE APPEAL PERSONALLY.

RIGHT.

THAT HE HAD AN UNDERLING, YOU KNOW, THE LANGUAGE IN THE BILL CLEANS THAT UP.

THIS AS WELL.

OR HIS DESIGNEE.

SO THEY SAID, WELL, HOUSTON ISD CAN'T BE TAKEN OVER BECAUSE THE PERSON MORATH, THE STATUTE SAYS THAT THE PERSON COMMISSIONER HAS TO ADHERE TO THIS APPEAL AND HE DIDN'T.

THEREFORE, YOU LOSE.

THE SECOND ONE WAS THEY HAD TO DO WITH HARVEY.

RIGHT.

SO THEY HAD BEEN FOUR YEARS THE SCHOOL THAT WAS INVOLVED, WHEATLEY, I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT KIND OF SCHOOL IT IS, YOU KNOW, IT HAD BEEN FOUR YEARS, YOU KNOW, UNACCEPTABLE.

AND THEN HARVEY CAME ALONG AND HISD SAID, WELL, WE NEED A RESET.

RIGHT? YOU CAN'T HOLD US ACCOUNTABLE FOR THAT OTHER YEAR.

SO THEY GOT AN EXTRA YEAR AND THEY STILL DIDN'T TURN THE SCHOOL AROUND.

AND BUT THE COURT SAID NO, THAT THEY SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO A RESET.

AND THE FINAL THING IS THAT THEY SAID THAT MORATH AND SO THEY LOST ON THE FACT THAT THEY SAID, WELL, MORATH, YOU KNOW, APPOINTED THE CONSERVATOR THE WRONG WAY.

YOU KNOW, THEY APPOINTED A CONSERVATOR FOR THAT SCHOOL TO TRY TO HELP THAT ONE

[00:50:03]

SCHOOL.

AND THE COURT SAYS, WELL, NO, THE STATUTE SAYS YOU HAVE TO APPOINT THE CONSERVATOR FOR THE WHOLE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

SO ON THESE THREE PROCEDURAL GROUNDS, I MEAN, JUST WHEN YOU HEAR THEM, YOU'RE LIKE, REALLY? THAT'S WHAT IT WAS? WELL, THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT'S WHAT THE STATUTE SAID.

AND SO THE COURT SAID, WELL, ON THESE THESE KIND OF TECHNICALITIES, YOU KNOW, THE COMMISSION DIDN'T GET TO TAKE OVER HISD.

SO THIS BILL FIXES THAT.

AND SO I THINK THAT THERE'S, IT'S TOTALLY APPROPRIATE FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS, YOU KNOW, DOING POLICY WORK TO DECIDE THAT THESE ARE CHANGES THAT MUST BE MADE TO THE BILL IN ORDER TO CORRECT THESE SITUATIONS THAT THE COURT FOUND OTHERWISE.

RIGHT.

SO IT'S REALLY, YOU KNOW, FROM A LAWYER'S POINT OF VIEW, BECAUSE WE SAID, WELL, WE'RE LAWYERS.

HOW CAN WE SUPPORT THIS? WELL, I'M SAYING WELL.

THE COURTS BLOCKED THE LAW AND SAID THERE WERE THESE ERRORS IN THE LAW, THESE PROBLEMS WITH THE LAW, THE LEGISLATURE MEETS IN THE NEXT SESSION AND SAYS, WELL, LET'S FIX THE LAW.

SO THAT'S COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE.

AND I SEE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.

THEN ON THIS QUESTION OF IT BEING FINAL AND UNAPPEALABLE, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE OF THE BILL.

SO OF COURSE PULLED UP THE LANGUAGE OF THE BILL AND IT SAYS IT'S VERY CLEAR IN THIS TITLE OF AN ORDER DECISION TO TERMINATION IS DESCRIBED AS FINAL OR UNAPPEALABLE.

RIGHT.

SO IT'S ONLY THAT SMALL CATEGORY OF THINGS.

THEN IT SAYS THAT NO INTERLOCUTORY OR INTERMEDIATE APPEALS DECISIONS MAY BE REACHED.

IT MAY BE APPEALED.

RIGHT.

SO IT'S ALL THE LITTLE BETWEEN STUFF THAT THEY'RE SAYING, WELL, THAT'S NOT APPEALABLE.

BUT IF THE STATUTE SAYS THIS AND THE LEGISLATURE ALSO BEING ELECTED OFFICIALS AND BEING POLICY MAKERS ARE WANTING TO PUT THIS THING TOGETHER.

NOW, IF AT THE END OF THE DAY SOMEBODY CHALLENGES THIS AND IS FOUND TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THAT WOULD BE FOR A COURT TO DECIDE.

BUT I THINK MR. THOMPSON TOLD US THAT THERE ARE OTHER LAWS THAT ARE SIMILAR TO THIS, THAT THAT THERE ARE CONTEXTS WITHIN THE TEXAS CODE, THE BIG CODE, NOT JUST THE EDUCATION CODE THAT IN WHICH.

THERE ARE ORDERS THAT THEY SAY ARE NOT APPEALABLE, SO I'M NOT SEEING KIND OF A COMPELLING REASON TO, YOU KNOW, SUPPORT A TASB RESOLUTION, WHICH IS REALLY A FIGHT BETWEEN HISD AND THE LEGISLATURE AND THEIR ELECTED LEGISLATORS, WHICH ARE OF THE HOUSTON AREA TYPE FOLKS.

I'M JUST NOT SEEING A COMPELLING REASON FOR ME AS A TRUSTEE IN DALLAS TO INJECT MYSELF INTO THEIR DISPUTE.

THE OTHER THING AND THE FINAL THING I WANT TO COMMENT ON SO LONG WAS THE PROCEDURAL TO THIS THIS QUESTION ABOUT, WELL, IS IT UNAPPEALABLE? YOU KNOW, IS IT HORRIBLE? WELL, THERE ARE OTHER PARTS OF THE LEGISLATURE THAT ALLOW IT, IS FINALLY THIS VERY SERIOUS LANGUAGE THAT I FOUND REALLY INTERESTING.

AND HAVING WORKED ON, YOU KNOW, THE EQUITY RESOLUTION AND OUR OF COURSE, OUR POLICY, OUR BOARD POLICY ON EQUITY, IT'S REALLY INTERESTING THAT THAT THIS NEVER EXISTED IN LEGISLATION BEFORE UNTIL NOW.

AND IT SAYS THAT THE COMMISSIONER MAY NOW INVESTIGATE TO DETERMINE IF AN ACADEMIC PROGRAM OFFERED BY SCHOOL DISTRICT IS PROVIDING STUDENTS THE QUALITY EDUCATION TO WHICH STUDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO.

AND THEY CAN INVESTIGATE THE PROPORTION OF STUDENTS IN EACH DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP PARTICIPATING IN THE PROGRAM, I.E., OUR KIDS BEING LEFT OUT.

THE COMMISSIONER WOULD NOW HAVE THIS AUTHORITY TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER CERTAIN DEMOGRAPHICS OF KIDS ARE BEING LEFT OUT.

THE PROPORTION OF STUDENTS IN EACH DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP PARTICIPATING IN THE PROGRAM, WHETHER AN EXCESS NUMBER OF STUDENTS ARE PARTICIPATING IN A PARTICULAR PROGRAM OR BEING EXEMPTED FROM STATE REQUIREMENTS.

I MEAN, THIS IS ALL ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY.

THIS IS ABOUT DEMOGRAPHICS.

THIS IS ABOUT CERTAIN KIDS, WHETHER ALL STUDENTS HAVE EQUITABLE ACCESS TO THE PROGRAM, INCLUDING ADVANCED LEARNING OPTIONS.

THESE ARE EXACTLY THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IN DALLAS ISD ABOUT GIVING ACCESS TO OUR STUDENTS AND THEIR DISTRICTS THAT ARE NOT DOING THIS.

AND I BET YOU THERE ARE PLENTY OF DISTRICTS THAT AREN'T DOING THIS.

AND AT SOME POINT, EVEN OUR SCHOOL DISTRICT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN DOING THE BEST THAT WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN.

I THINK THAT THESE ARE POWERS THAT THE COMMISSIONERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO.

AND I WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE IT, BECAUSE THAT PUTS ACCOUNTABILITY.

IT PUTS A FOCUS ON GOING BACK TO WHAT DUSTIN SAID IN HIS, WHAT TRUSTEE MARSHALL SAID IN HIS COMMENTS.

I MEAN, I HAVE CERTAINLY FELT AS A TRUSTEE, SO I'LL JUST SPEAK FOR MYSELF.

I HAVE FELT THAT THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION HAS THE POWER.

TO OVERSEE, TO SEE WHAT WE'RE DOING, TO HAVE THAT KIND OF OVERSIGHT AND EVEN TO TAKE OVER A SCHOOL BOARD, WHETHER IT'S US OR HOUSTON OR FILL IN THE BLANK, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

YOU HAVE WILMER HUTCHINS, I WAS AROUND WHEN WE TOOK OVER WILMER HUTCHINS WHEN THEY FINALLY FAILED.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT PERSONALLY, THAT MADE A BIG DIFFERENCE IN MY EMPHASIS IN

[00:55:03]

MAKING SURE THAT WE HAD THE RIGHT KINDS OF GOAL PROGRESS MEASURES, THAT WE DID THE RIGHT KIND OF TRAINING, THAT WE WENT DOWN TO HOUSTON AND DID REFORM GOVERNANCE, THAT WE FOLLOWED UP ON THE REFORM GOVERNANCE.

SO I THINK THAT THAT ALL THOSE THINGS THAT WE HAVE DONE, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO OR NOT? OF COURSE, IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR KIDS.

BUT WE ALSO KNEW THAT IF WE DIDN'T TURN THOSE SCHOOLS AROUND, THE COMMISSIONER WAS GOING TO COME, WHETHER IT'S MIKE OR SOMEBODY ELSE WAS GOING TO COME KNOCKING ON OUR DOOR.

SO I PERSONALLY FELT COMPELLED AND CONTINUE TO FEEL COMPELLED BY THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSIONER DOES HAVE EXISTING POWERS.

IT SOUNDS TO ME FROM WHAT DAVID THOMPSON SAID, A LOT OF THOSE ARE EXACTLY THE SAME.

AND THESE NEW INVESTIGATIONAL POWERS AND ABILITY TO INVESTIGATE STUFF A LITTLE MORE GRANULARLY, CERTAINLY FOR OUR DEMOGRAPHIC OF KIDS, IS GOING TO MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE FOR KIDS.

SO I'M NOT FEELING TERRIBLY COMPELLED ABOUT THIS RESOLUTION.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT, TRUSTEE JOHNSON.

BEFORE I ASK A QUESTION, I WANT TO.

BECAUSE I'M LISTENING TO THE DIALOG ANY TRUSTEE THAT WANTS TO GO BEFORE ME CAN, BECAUSE I WANT THEM BEFORE I SPEAK, I WANT TO MAKE SURE I HAVE EVERYTHING GOING ON.

IF I CAN KIND OF DIGRESS AND YIELD MY TIME TO SOMEONE ELSE TRUSTEE HENRY.

AND THEN I COME BACK LATER SAID, OK.

DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE COMMENTS IN THIS FIRST ROUND? I HAVE COMMENTS, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE FLYING AROUND.

IF TRUSTEE JOHNSON AND TRUSTEE MARSHALL GOES YOU WON'T GET A SECOND ROUND SO THAT'S ON YOU.

SECOND ROUND.

THAT'S FINE.

TRUSTEE MARSHALL, GO AHEAD.

THANK YOU.

I APPRECIATE IT.

SO I'VE SEVERAL COMMENTS I WANT TO MAKE.

BUT FIRST, I JUST WANT TO COMMENT A LITTLE BIT ON THE POLITICS OF THIS.

THERE'S BEEN SOME COMMENTS MADE THAT THIS IS A PARTISAN BILL AND THAT THERE'S A PARTISAN SPLIT HERE.

AND I WANT TO DISPEL THAT.

YOU KNOW, THE ORIGINAL BILL, 3270, WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN BY A DEMOCRATS.

SO THIS IS NOT A PARTISAN BREAK OUT.

NOW, I WILL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, YOU KNOW, AS THINGS ALWAYS DO, THEY CHANGE ON THE HILL AS ONE BILL PASSES.

AND CERTAINLY THE DYNAMIC WITH THE TRANSGENDER BILL AND A CRITICAL RACE THEORY THAT WE'LL TALK ABOUT LATER HAVE CREATED A FURTHER PARTISAN DYNAMIC ON THIS BILL AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

BUT I JUST WANT TO BE, YOU KNOW, HONEST AND TRANSPARENT ABOUT WHAT THAT THE PARTISAN DYNAMIC IS.

THIS ISN'T A REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRATIC ISSUE.

THIS IS ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY AND WHETHER THE TEA SHOULD HAVE AUTHORITY TO HOLD SCHOOL DISTRICTS ACCOUNTABLE.

AND I BELIEVE THEY SHOULD.

THE SECOND THING I WANT TO CALL OUT, POLITICALLY SPEAKING, IS THAT HOUSE BILL, 3270 WAS ACTUALLY KILLED BY REPRESENTATIVE ALMA ALLEN, WHO KILLED THE BILL IN THE HOUSE ON A PROCEDURAL ISSUE.

AND IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT HER DAUGHTER IS ON THE HOUSTON ISD SCHOOL BOARD AND WOULD BE REPLACED BY A BOARD OF MANAGERS IF TEA WERE TO WIN THEIR SUIT.

SO POLITICS IS CERTAINLY AT PLAY THERE AND SHE HAPPENS TO BE A BLACK DEMOCRAT.

I WILL ALSO TELL YOU THAT THE IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT A BOARD OF MANAGERS.

TRUSTEE MARSHALL, I DON'T KNOW.

GO AHEAD.

IF YOU WERE GOING TO OPEN THAT, THEN THAT'S GOING TO OPEN A CAN OF WORMS. IF WE TALK ABOUT.

I DON'T FEEL THAT I DID OPEN THAT PRESIDENT HENRY.

IT'S BEEN SEVERAL COMMENTS MADE ABOUT THE PARTISAN NATURE OF THIS BILL.

ALSO, JUST WANT TO CALL OUT THAT IN THE EVENT THAT THE TEA COULD EXERCISE AUTHORITY TO REPLACE A BOARD OF TRUSTEES WITH A BOARD OF MANAGERS, THAT'S A TEMPORARY SITUATION.

AND AFTER THREE YEARS, THEY ARE REMOVED.

SO THIS ISN'T ABOUT DISENFRANCHISEMENT.

THERE'S ALSO A LOT OF ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE THAT THIS IS PROCEDURAL AND NOT AN ACTUAL CHANGE IN POWER.

BUT I JUST WANT TO CALL OUT THAT THAT'S VERY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IS IN THIS RESOLUTION.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE PARAGRAPHS IN THE RESOLUTION THAT THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH SAYS, THE 87TH TEXAS LEGISLATURE IS CURRENTLY CONSIDERING LEGISLATION THAT WOULD GREATLY EXPAND THE POWER AND AUTHORITY OF AN APPOINTED POSITION OF COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION WITH THE TEA.

THE NEXT PARAGRAPH SAYS THIS HOUSE BILL WOULD GIVE THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION BROAD DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS ON SCHOOL DISTRICTS, EFFECTIVELY SUBSTITUTING HIS OR HER JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF LOCAL VOTERS.

THE TWO PARAGRAPHS DOWN, IT SAYS, THE BILLS WOULD EXPAND THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSIONER.

THREE PARAGRAPHS BELOW THAT.

IT SAYS IT WOULD GRANT THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE ACCOUNTABILITY SANCTIONS OVER SCHOOLS ACROSS THE STATE BY RECLASSIFYING STATE ACCOUNTABILITY RATINGS.

I MEAN, IT'S AWFULLY CONVENIENT THAT IN THIS MEETING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CLAIMING THIS IS ABOUT DUE PROCESS AND IT DOESN'T GIVE ANY EXTRA POWER TO THE COMMISSIONER.

BUT IN THE VERY RESOLUTION THAT WE ARE VOTING ON, THERE ARE SEVEN DIFFERENT INSTANCES WHERE IT SAYS WE ARE GIVING THE COMMISSIONER ADDITIONAL POWER IF THIS BILL IS PASSED.

SO WHAT I DON'T BELIEVE THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE PROCEDURAL NATURE OF DUE PROCESS.

WHAT THIS IS, IS A DEBATE OVER ACCOUNTABILITY.

AND THAT'S WHY THIS RESOLUTION IS WORDED.

AND WITH ALL THIS INFLAMMATORY LANGUAGE THAT SAYS WE'RE GIVING THE

[01:00:01]

COMMISSIONER ALL THESE NEW POWERS, IF WE'RE NOT GIVING THE COMMISSIONER THE NEW POWERS, THEN WHY IS THAT IN THE RESOLUTION THAT WE'RE VOTING ON? THE REASON IS BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY.

AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY, IT'S A VERY STRANGE THING TO ASK SUPERINTENDENTS AND SCHOOL BOARDS WHO WOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE BY THIS BILL, WHETHER OR NOT THEY LIKE THE ACCOUNTABILITY.

ALMOST ANYBODY YOU ASK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE IS GOING TO SAY NO BECAUSE IT'S EASY TO KEEP DOING WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

BUT I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A POSITION THAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF KIDS, WE'VE GOT TO SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW, IT MAY BE HARD TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE AND IT MAY BE PAINFUL AND WE MAY NOT LIKE IT, BUT IT'S STILL THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

AND, YOU KNOW, I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT ANYBODY ON THIS BOARD OR THE SUPERINTENDENT THINKS THAT THE PASSAGE OF THIS BILL WOULD PUT THIS IN ANY IMMEDIATE THREAT OF A TAKEOVER.

I THINK THE SIMPLE REALITY IS THAT IT WOULDN'T.

I DO HAVE A QUICK QUESTION, THOUGH, ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE ADMINISTRATION IS FAMILIAR WITH THE SITUATION IN KEMP ISD RIGHT NOW.

SUPERINTENDENT? NO, I'M NOT VERY FAMILIAR WITH THAT.

I READ ONE ARTICLE, BUT I REALLY DON'T KNOW ANY SUBSTANCE.

WELL, IT WAS LITERALLY IN THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS THIS MORNING, AND IT TALKS ON AND ON ABOUT HOW THE TEA IS UNABLE TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION BECAUSE OF THEIR CURRENT ABILITIES OUTLINED IN LAW.

THAT'S WHY THERE'S BRACKETED LANGUAGE IN THIS BILL THAT GIVES THEM ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY, IS BECAUSE IN KEMP ISD THERE'S WIDESPREAD CORRUPTION AND BRIBERY GOING ON ON THE SCHOOL BOARD.

AND THE TEA CAN'T ACT ON IT BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE POWERS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THIS BILL.

SO I THINK IT'S ASKING A LOT FOR OUR SCHOOL BOARD TO TAKE A POSITION ON THE CORRUPTION GOING ON IN KEMP ISD WHEN AND TO TAKE A POSITION ON THE DEBATE BETWEEN HOUSTON ISD AND THE TEA WHEN WE'RE NOT PRIVY TO ALL THE RULES THAT ARE ALL THE EVIDENCE OR WHATEVER IS HAPPENING IN THOSE PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENTS.

THERE'S ALSO BEEN SOME COMMENTARY THAT THIS LAWSUIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE NARROWLY CONSTRUED, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT TASB OR THE TEC OR THOMPSON AND HORTON OR ANYBODY ELSE OFFERED ANY AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SATISFACTORY TO ALLOW THIS BILL TO CONTINUE.

AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE THOSE ORGANIZATIONS ARE JUST OPPOSED TO ACCOUNTABILITY.

AND THERE'S BEEN COMMENTARY THAT THE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS IS NOT SUFFICIENT DUE PROCESS.

BUT THAT'S THE SAME PROCESS THAT EXISTS TODAY FOR CHARTERS AND OTHER REGULATORY ISSUES.

SO IT SEEMS THAT WE'RE OK WITH THAT AS AS A CHECK ON DUE PROCESS AND IN MANY RESPECTS, BUT WE'RE NOT OK WITH IT IN THIS RESPECT.

AND SO, LOOK, THE BOTTOM LINE FOR ME IS THAT THOSE OPPOSED TO THIS BILL ARE OPPOSING ACCOUNTABILITY.

AND I JUST CAN'T SUPPORT THAT.

THE TEA DATA SHOWS THAT BLACK STUDENTS ARE SIXTY NINE PERCENT MORE LIKELY TO BE EDUCATED ON AN F RATED CAMPUS.

THIS TOOL IN THE TEA'S TOOL BELT ALLOWS THEM TO FORCE TRUSTEES AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO TAKE DRASTIC ACTIONS.

THAT'S WHAT WE DID AT DADE.

IT'S WHAT WE DID AT TITCHE.

TITCHE WAS FAILING FOR 11 OUT OF 13 YEARS.

IT WOULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, AND THE THREAT OF TEA INTERVENTION PROMPTED US TO TAKE ACTION.

AND NOW IT'S A BLUE RIBBON CAMPUS.

I MEAN, THE POINT IS, WHEN ACCOUNTABILITY METRICS ARE IN PLACE, SCHOOL DISTRICTS WILL TAKE ACTION.

AND I THINK OUR SCHOOL DISTRICT IS MADE UP OF TRUSTEES THAT GENERALLY VOTE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF KIDS.

BUT THERE ARE ELEVEN HUNDRED SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN THE STATE AND I CANNOT SAY THE SAME THING ABOUT EVERY ONE OF THEM.

SO I THINK THE TEA, HAVING THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERY REAL AND VALID THREAT, GIVES TEETH TO THE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM AND ALLOWS THOSE SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO BE PROMPTED TO MAKE BEST INTERESTS THAT ARE IN THE, EXCUSE ME, MAKE DECISIONS THAT ARE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF KIDS.

SO I HOPE WE CAN ALL SWALLOW THE BITTER PILL AND SIGN UP FOR ACCOUNTABILITY BOTH ON OUR BEHALF AND FOR OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS BECAUSE OUR KIDS NEED IT.

THANKS.

THANK YOU, TRUSTEE MARSHALL.

TRUSTEE FOREMAN? AND THIS IS ROUND TWO, CORRECT? THIS ROUND TWO.

YES.

OK, THANK YOU.

I DON'T LIKE TO CLARIFY A COUPLE OF THINGS.

IT WAS BROUGHT UP THAT A DEMOCRAT WHO IS DUTTON AND WHO CHAIRS THE HOUSE EDUCATION COMMITTEE.

HE'S BEEN ON THE HOUSE EDUCATION COMMITTEE FOR THIRTY TWO YEARS.

DUTTON WAS UPSET.

I WENT TO AUSTIN TO TESTIFY AGAINST THIS BILL.

DUTTON WAS UPSET BECAUSE WHEATLEY, WHICH WAS HIS HIGH SCHOOL IN HOUSTON, WAS STILL LOW PERFORMING AND NOTHING HAD HAPPENED WITH THAT SCHOOL.

SO HE CAME FORWARD WITH THIS BILL.

THAT'S HIS ADMISSION.

AND AS DR.

ALMA ALLEN.

WHO, IN FACT OBJECTED TO DUTTON'S POSITION FROM DAY ONE.

SO JUST BECAUSE HER DAUGHTER IS ON THE HOUSTON SCHOOL BOARD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HER OBJECTION, I BELIEVE, TO WHAT THE BILL THAT DUTTON BROUGHT FORTH.

I DON'T THINK AND I FIND IT DISRESPECTFUL TO SAY THAT ANY MEMBER OF THIS BOARD

[01:05:05]

DOES NOT BELIEVE IN ACCOUNTABILITY.

WE MIGHT WANT TO GET THERE A DIFFERENT WAY.

BUT I THINK EVERYBODY BELIEVES IN ACCOUNTABILITY AND TO AGREE THAT THIS IS NOT A GOOD BILL DOES NOT MAKE ME NOT AGREE WITH ACCOUNTABILITY.

I ALSO WANT TO TAKE EXCEPTION WITH THE FACT THAT 69 PERCENT OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN CHILDREN ARE IN F RATED SCHOOLS.

THAT'S NOT HAPPENING IN MY DISTRICT AND I HAVE SOME PREDOMINANTLY AFRICAN-AMERICAN SCHOOLS.

WE NEED TO STOP MAKING THOSE KINDS OF STATEMENTS.

BECAUSE THAT, IN FACT, MAKES CHILDREN BELIEVE THEY CAN'T DO BECAUSE YOU'RE PUTTING THEM IN THAT KIND OF POSITION, I DON'T LIKE THEM.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT THIS BILL DOES EXPAND THE POWERS OF THE COMMISSIONER.

WHILE WE, IN FACT, OUR LARGE DISTRICT.

AND MANY OF TASB'S DISTRICTS ARE SMALL, GUESS WHO THIS AFFECTS THE WORST? THE LARGER DISTRICTS BECAUSE YOU CAN HAVE ONE LOW PERFORMING SCHOOL IN A SCHOOL DISTRICT OF TWO HUNDRED.

AND THE COMMISSIONER TAKES OVER OR YOU CAN HAVE ONE LOW PERFORMING SCHOOL DISTRICT IN A DISTRICT OF FIVE SCHOOLS AND THE COMMISSIONER COULD STILL TAKE OVER.

I DON'T WANT CLARIFICATION RIGHT NOW.

MULTIPLE SPEAKERS] THAT'S WHAT YOU SAY.

SO LET ME JUST, THAT'S WHAT I HEARD.

MAYBE I CAN'T HEAR WELL.

TRUSTEE FOREMAN YOU HAVE YOUR TIME.

OK, SO I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO BE CLEAR THAT THERE ARE ISSUES IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.

AND THE FACT IS, IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER IS IN A POSITION TO ADDRESS MANY OF THOSE SITUATIONS, AS WE CURRENTLY SEE IT.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CHARTER SCHOOLS AND THEIR DUE PROCESS, IT IS NOT THE SAME AS YOUR ISDS.

I KNOW THAT FOR A FACT, A CHARTER SCHOOL CAN, IN FACT, GO UNDER AND GO UNDER ANOTHER NAME NEXT WEEK AND STILL BE A CHARTER SCHOOL, ISDS CANNOT DO THAT.

I.E., KEMP NO LONGER KEPT DALLAS.

KEMP AUSTIN NOW.

YOU ALSO HAD THE SAME THING WITH THE CONSOLIDATION OF OTHER CHARTER SCHOOLS IN THIS AREA.

SO WE HAVE TO BE REALLY, REALLY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN WE BRING UP THESE ISSUE AND PARTICULARLY ON THE PARTISAN ISSUE.

YES, A DEMOCRAT BROUGHT IT FORWARD, BUT GUESS WHAT? HE'S THE CHAIR OF THE HOUSE EDUCATION COMMITTEE.

HE'S FROM HOUSTON.

HE HAD AN AX TO GRIND.

AND IT'S NOT RIGHT FOR US NOT TO WORK WITH THE SUPERINTENDENT AND MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T GET CAUGHT UP IN A SITUATION LATER ON DOWN THE ROAD WHEN MANY OF US MIGHT NOT EVEN BE ON THIS SCHOOL BOARD.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT MOST OF YOU.

I HEAR END.

MUCH LONGER, NOT NECESSARILY A TRUSTEE, BUT I'VE BEEN HERE MUCH LONGER THAN ANYBODY SITTING AROUND HERE, AND I CAN TELL YOU IT'S BEEN UP AND DOWN WITH THIS DISTRICT.

I'M THROUGH.

THANK YOU, TRUSTEE FOREMAN.

TRUSTEE MICCICHE? TRUSTEE MICCICHE? SORRY.

THANK YOU.

JUST A COUPLE OF COMMENTS.

FIRST, WE ARE NOT INJECTING OURSELVES INTO THE HOUSTON ISD LAWSUIT.

WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER OR WHETHER THE AGENCY TAKES OVER HOUSTON ISD IS IS COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM THESE CHANGES THAT ARE IN THE BILL.

PRESUMABLY, THE COMMISSIONER WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO TAKE OVER HOUSTON ISD IF THE PROCEDURES WERE FOLLOWED.

AND WE WOULD HAVE, WE HAVE NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT THAT.

THIS IS, WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE WITH THIS BILL WAS TO CHANGE THE RULES SO THAT THERE ARE NO PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE.

WE'RE FOR ACCOUNTABILITY.

WE'RE ALSO FOR DUE PROCESS, ACCOUNTABILITY PLUS DUE PROCESS.

AND WE WERE ABLE TO TURN DADE THAT AROUND.

WE WERE ABLE TO TURN TITCHE AROUND WITHOUT THESE, WITH THE EXISTING LAW.

WE WITHOUT A REMOVAL OF THE DUE PROCESS PROVISIONS THAT ARE EMBODIED IN THIS PROPOSED LEGISLATION.

SO I THINK THAT THE ARGUMENT THAT YOU'RE AGAINST ACCOUNTABILITY.

[01:10:06]

IF YOU ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ELIMINATING THE DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS IS REALLY DISINGENUOUS.

WE ARE IN FAVOR OF ACCOUNTABILITY, ABSOLUTELY IN FAVOR OF ACCOUNTABILITY, BUT WE ARE ALSO IN FAVOR OF HAVING THE DUE PROCESS THAT EXISTS UNDER THE CURRENT LAW.

AND JUST THE THING ABOUT THE HIGHLY PARTISAN NATURE OF THIS IS THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD GOVERNANCE AND STATE TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY, IT SHOULDN'T BE DONE ON NARROW PARTISAN GROUNDS, EVEN IF IT IS.

I'M NOT SAYING IT'S EXCLUSIVELY PARTISAN, BUT IF YOU IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, IT IS IT IS HIGHLY PARTISAN.

AND TO MAKE FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, IT SHOULD BE DONE WITH A BROADER CONSENSUS RATHER THAN ON A VERY NARROW, HIGHLY PARTISAN BASIS.

I SUPPORT THIS RESOLUTION.

THERE'S NOTHING I HEARD IN THIS DISCUSSION THAT PERSUADES ME OTHERWISE.

AND I REITERATE THAT THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THERE'S ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE SYSTEM.

WHAT THESE PROPOSALS DO IS REMOVE DUE PROCESS AND REMOVING DUE PROCESS IS WHAT EXPANDS THE POWER OF THE COMMISSIONER.

AND IF WE GO BACK TO THE REMARKS THAT MR. THOMPSON SAID.

THAT THE REMOVAL OF THE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS TO LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE, INTERVIEW THE WITNESSES, THOSE ARE HIGHLY PROBLEMATIC FOR ME AS A LAWYER.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, TRUSTEE MICCICHE.

I'M GO AHEAD AND GO NOW AND THEN I'M AT THE PASS THE CHAIR TO YOU AS I CONTINUE TO LISTEN IN.

YOU KNOW, I KEEP ECHOING TRUSTEE MICCICHE, BUT I CAN'T EMPHASIZE ENOUGH.

IT'S THE CHARGE OF THIS BOARD, PARTICULARLY THAT I FEEL LIKE THE POSITIVE WORK WE'VE DONE SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THE BOARD THREE YEARS.

AND EVEN BEFORE THAT, THERE'S NOT LIKE ACCOUNTABILITY.

WE PUT THEY PUT EXTRA ACCOUNTABILITY ON THEMSELVES.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU ON THIS BOARD IS A BELIEVER IN ACCOUNTABILITY.

SO I WILL RESPOND AND TAKE OFFENSE TO THAT TYPE OF COMMENT ABOUT IN SUPPORT OF THIS RESOLUTION IS AGAINST ACCOUNTABILITY.

AND IF SOMEONE DOESN'T BELIEVE THAT, LOOK AT OUR TRACK RECORD IN THIS DISTRICT.

LOOK AT HOW WE TREAT ACCOUNTABILITY OF EACH OTHER ON ACADEMICS, RACIAL EQUITY WITHIN THE ACADEMICS, AND NOT JUST ONE TYPE OF CHILD, BUT ALL OF OUR DIFFERENT CHILDREN, ESPECIALLY EDUCATION THING.

WE BELIEVE IN ACCOUNTABILITY.

I HAVE TWO KIDS IN THIS DISTRICT.

I'M GOING TO HOLD ACCOUNTABLE FOR MY OWN KIDS.

BUT IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT MY KIDS, IT'S ABOUT ALL OF OUR KIDS.

AND THERE'S ANOTHER THING THAT I DIDN'T.

KIND OF TOOK ISSUE WITH WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE SHIFT TO THE BOARD OF MANAGERS, I ACTUALLY DIDN'T KNOW THAT IT WAS ONLY THREE YEARS AND I SHOULD HAVE DONE MY DILIGENCE, BUT THREE YEARS WITHOUT ELECTED OFFICIALS IN A CITY THAT'S DISENFRANCHISEMENT.

AND, YES, THAT MIGHT NEED TO HAPPEN IN SOME PLACES, BUT WE NEED TO TAKE THAT VERY, VERY SERIOUSLY.

IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TAKING AWAY SOMEONE'S VOTE FOR A MONTH, FOR A WEEK, FOR A YEAR OR TWO YEARS, AND DANG SURE, FOR THREE YEARS, THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME DUE PROCESS.

THE COMMUNITY THAT I REPRESENT DESERVE SOME PROCESS AS BAD AS DISD, WE'LL NEVER BE THERE, RIGHT.

BUT IF WE EVER GET TO A POINT WHERE THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT TAKING OVER THIS DISTRICT, THERE SHOULD BE SOME DUE PROCESS, BECAUSE AT THE END OF THAT LINE, IF IT IS GOING TO BE TAKEN OVER, LIKE WHAT'S HAPPENING IN HISD, YOU'RE TAKING AWAY THE VOTE OF A LARGE, THE WHOLE CITY FOR THREE YEARS.

THAT'S FUNDAMENTALLY AN ISSUE.

AND IT'S NOT THAT I'M NOT AFRAID OF THAT TYPE OF ACCOUNTABILITY, BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE ME THAT TYPE OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND IF THAT'S THE TEETH, THEN THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME DUE PROCESS BEFORE THOSE TEETH GET LASHED INTO A COMMUNITY THAT HISTORICALLY IN THIS CITY HAD TO FIGHT JUST TO GET SOMEONE AT THE TABLE, JUST TO GET SOMEONE IN THE SEAT THAT WE ALL SERVE IN OR IN CITY COUNCIL, ET CETERA.

SO.

THE IDEA THAT THREE YEARS, THAT'S JUST KIND OF MIND NUMBING TO ME, AGAIN, FINE WITH ACCOUNTABILITY, LOVE IT.

BUT THREE YEARS OF THAT, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, I FIND HIGHLY PROBLEMATIC.

AND AGAIN, I PLAN ON FULLY SUPPORTING THIS.

I KNOW THERE'S BEEN COMMENTS ABOUT THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OF THE RESOLUTION OF THOSE OF YOU THAT FOLLOW THE LEGISLATURE, WHICH YOU ALL KNOW IT'LL CHANGE BY THIS AFTERNOON.

IT'S PROBABLY CHANGE SINCE WE'VE BEEN HAVING THIS CONVERSATION.

[01:15:02]

SO THE RESOLUTION IS DRAFTED, GIVEN THE BEST INFORMATION AT THE TIME, WE HAVE TO POST 72 HOURS IN ADVANCE THE WAY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE LEGISLATURE WORKS AND IT MEETS EVERY OTHER YEAR.

STUFF IS CHANGING BY THE SECOND RIGHT NOW.

BY THE SECOND.

SO FOR US TO HAVE A RESOLUTION THAT PERFECTLY MATCHES WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IN THIS VERY MOMENT OR EVEN YESTERDAY, WE CAN'T DO THAT AND MEET THE OPEN RECORDS AND OPEN RECORDS ASPECT AT THE SAME TIME.

SO, YOU KNOW.

THE LAST THING I WANT TO SAY ABOUT SESSION IS EVEN THOUGH SOME ONE OF THESE BILLS HAS DIED, DOES NOT MEAN THAT TYPE OF LANGUAGE CAN'T GET INTO ANOTHER BILL.

SO KEEPING THAT LANGUAGE ON THIS RESOLUTION IS NOT SAYING THIS IS WHAT IT MIGHT BE TODAY, BUT IT'S A MESSAGE SAYING THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO PUT THIS IN OTHER BILLS WE ALSO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH.

THE BILL AS DEAD, THE LANGUAGE IS NOT.

THERE'S STILL THE SENATE EQUIVALENT OF THE BILL.

PEOPLE ARE GOING TO, THEY'RE GOING TO EXCHANGE.

THEY'RE GOING TO TRASH IT AND DO WHATEVER THEY CAN TO GET WHATEVER LANGUAGE THEY CAN IN WHATEVER BILL.

AND THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN UNTIL THEY IN SESSION AT THE VERY LAST SECOND.

SO, YOU KNOW, YEAH, IT MIGHT NOT PERFECTLY MATCH, BUT THERE'S NO WAY AS A BOARD LIKE OURS, IT'S GOING TO BE ABLE TO KEEP UP WITH THE FAST PACE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING AT TEXAS.

LEGISLATURE RIGHT NOW.

IT'S NOT POSSIBLE.

SO I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE LANGUAGE.

I WISH WE COULD KEEP UP WITH THEM, BUT WE'RE NOT ABLE TO DO THAT.

BUT I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE SEND A MESSAGE IF WE AGREE ON THAT THESE ARE THINGS THAT ARE PROBLEMATIC FOR THE REASONS THAT MANY OF OUR COLLEAGUES HAVE ALREADY STATED.

I WANT TO THANK ALL MY COLLEAGUES FOR THEIR CONCERN.

IT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR ME TO HEAR JUST SOME NOTES AND SOME THINGS THAT I'VE ACTUALLY READ AND IN LISTENING TO WHAT'S BEEN SAID.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'M CONCERNED, AS I THINK I SEE A PEACE STILL ON MR. THOMPSON THREE YEARS WITH OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS, THAT SEEMS TO BE DISENFRANCHISEMENT, DISENFRANCHISEMENT TO MAKE.

CAN YOU CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT? AM I READING THAT CORRECTLY? IS THAT REALLY WHAT THIS IS SAYING, THREE YEARS WITH OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS? IF THE COMMISSIONER APPOINTS A BOARD OF MANAGERS AND THE COMMISSIONER HAS APPOINTED BOARDS OF MANAGERS IN THE PAST IN A VARIETY OF CIRCUMSTANCES, FOR THREE YEARS, THE BOARD OF MANAGERS WOULD EXERCISE THE POWERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SAID THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES TECHNICALLY STILL EXISTS.

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES SIMPLY HAS NO POWER.

ALL POWER LIKE EMPLOYMENT, SETTING THE TAX RATE, ET CETERA, IS TRANSFERRED TO THE BOARD OF MANAGERS FOR A THREE YEAR PERIOD.

SO IF THE TRUSTEES DON'T HAVE A POWER, THAT MEANS OUR COMMUNITY DO NOT HAVE VOICES CORRECT.

DAVID, CAN YOU CLARIFY FOR HIM THAT THAT'S EXISTING LAW? THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS BILL IS.

CORRECT.

YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD POINT TRUSTEE MARSHALL.

AND I SAID THIS EARLIER OF MY CONCERNS WITH THIS BILL I'VE WORKED WITH 13 COMMISSIONERS.

AND I'VE BEEN GENERAL COUNSEL I STRONGLY DEFEND THE ROLE OF THE TEA TO HAVE INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY, BUT I DO BELIEVE IN DUE PROCESS.

AND THE COMMISSIONER, CURRENTLY TRUSTEE MAXIE, HAS THAT AUTHORITY TO APPOINT A BOARD OF MANAGERS FOR THAT THREE YEAR PERIOD.

AND THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS NEW IN THIS BILL THAT IS AN EXISTING AUTHORITY THAT WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER BY EITHER THE HOUSE BILL OR THE SENATE BILL.

WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE MANAGERS, WHERE DO THE MANAGERS COME FROM? DO THEY COME FROM THE COMMUNITY? THE STATUTE REQUIRES THAT A MAJORITY OF THE BOARD OF MANAGERS, IF POSSIBLE, LIVE WITHIN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WHERE THEY ARE SERVING AS MANAGERS, BUT YOU CAN HAVE MEMBERS OF A BOARD OF MANAGERS WHO DON'T EVEN LIVE IN THE DISTRICT THAT THEY ARE APPOINTED TO BE OVER.

BUT AGAIN, AND I WANT TO KEEP QUALIFYING.

THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS NEW IN THIS LEGISLATION THAT'S EXISTING LAW.

BUT MY ONLY POINT WOULD BE THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF REASONS WHY IT'S APPROPRIATE TO HAVE SOME DUE PROCESS BEFORE YOU IMPOSE THOSE SERIOUS STATE SANCTIONS.

AND THERE ARE OCCASIONS WHEN THOSE ARE GOING TO BE NECESSARY AND THEY HAVE BEEN USED.

SO WE HEARD HE'S LOST THREE PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING THIS MATTER.

THERE ARE 4.

OK, AND THEN IT IS ONE OF THE CONCERNS FOR ME IS REMOVING THE DUE PROCESS.

[01:20:06]

EXPLAIN MORE ABOUT THAT WHEN YOU ARE SAYING AND REMOVE DUE PROCESS AND THE LOST PROCEEDINGS THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE.

WELL, AGAIN, UNDER UNDER CURRENT LAW WHEN THE COMMISSIONER CONDUCTS INVESTIGATIONS.

HIS INVESTIGATORS CAN RELY ON THAT'S EXISTING LAW WHEN THE AGENCY MAKES A DECISION THE ARGUMENT IS WHETHER THAT IS FINAL AND TRULY NON APPEALABLE, WHETHER THERE'S NO JUDICIAL REVIEW.

AND SO, I MEAN, THE ELEMENTS OF DUE PROCESS IS SOMETHING THE COURTS HAVE ALWAYS SAID THE ELEMENTS OF DUE PROCESS ARE KNOW THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR THE EVIDENCE AGAINST YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ON YOUR OWN BEHALF AND HAVE AN IMPARTIAL DECISION MAKER.

THOSE ARE KIND OF THE, YOU KNOW, GOING BACK TO THE FERGUSON 5TH CIRCUIT DECISION AND OTHERS OVER THE YEARS.

THOSE ARE SOME OF THE KEY ELEMENTS OF DUE PROCESS.

SO THIS BILL ELIMINATES THAT.

THE BILL DOES NOT ELIMINATE.

SOME OF THOSE ARE EXACTLY THE WAY THE LAW IS NOW, WHAT THESE BILLS DO.

AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THE BILL ACTUALLY SAYS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THE LITIGATION IN THE COURT CASE WAS OVER, DID THE AGENCY FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES? AND AT LEAST SO FAR, THE COURTS HAVE SAID THE AGENCY DID NOT APPROPRIATELY FOLLOW ALL OF THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THESE BILLS DO IS IT SPECIFICALLY GIVES THE AGENCY ADVANCE PERMISSION TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURES OF STATUTE.

OK.

THANK YOU.

THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAD, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

TRUSTEE FLORES I BELIEVE YOU WERE NEXT.

TRUSTEE FLORES.

YOU KNOW, I LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT.

MY APOLOGIES, I MEAN, I JUST AM STILL VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH STATING IN A RESOLUTION THAT ALL THESE POWERS ARE BEING GRANTED TO TO THE COMMISSIONER WHEN THOSE POWERS ARE NOT BEING GRANTED TO THE COMMISSIONER.

WHETHER IT'S IN CURRENT VERSION OR THE FUTURE VERSION OR THE PASSED VERSION, OR IT CAN BE ADDED TO TO SOMETHING ELSE.

I'M JUST NOT COMFORTABLE IN SIGNING OFF AND SUPPORTING SOMETHING THAT THAT IS CURRENTLY FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND COULD BECOME FACTUALLY INCORRECT OR MAY STILL BE FACTUALLY INCORRECT.

AND I'M ALSO VERY UNCOMFORTABLE GETTING INTO A FIGHT BETWEEN HISD AND THEIR LEGISLATORS.

I JUST AND FRANKLY, AS I SAID, YOU KNOW.

THESE TASB RESOLUTIONS JUST GIVE ME PAUSE, YOU KNOW, THEY SEND YOU THIS ONE SIZE FITS ALL RESOLUTION WHERE THE INFORMATION IS NOT CORRECT AND I'M JUST NOT COMFORTABLE SIGNING OFF ON SOMETHING THAT'S JUST NOT CORRECT.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, TRUSTEE FLORES.

TRUSTEES ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

TRUSTEE MICCICHE ARE YOU AVAILABLE TO CHAIR THE MEETING? TRUSTEE MICCICHE.

EDWIN IS ON THE CAMERA AS SECOND VP IF YOU NEED HIM.

WANT ME TO TAKE OVER JUSTIN I'LL BE GLAD TO.

YES TRUSTEE FLORES GO AHEAD.

TRUSTEES, ANY OTHER.

SO THIS IS THE SECOND ROUND.

DO ANY OF THE OTHER ON ONLINE WANT TO CHIME IN ON THE SECOND ROUND? OK, WELL, THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION.

HOLD ON TRUSTEE FLORES I'M BACK.

OKAY TRUSTEE MICCICHE IS HAVING CONNECTION ISSUES TO TRY TO GIVE IT A MOMENT.

PRESIDENT HENRY, WHILE WE'RE WAITING ON TRUSTEE MICCICHE TO RECONNECT, I HAVE A MOTION IF YOU'D ENTERTAIN IT.

[01:25:03]

BUT I MOVE TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM PENDING THE CORRECTION OF THE PARAGRAPHS THAT I READ EARLIER, SINCE THERE ARE MANY, MANY PLACES IN THIS RESOLUTION THAT TALK ABOUT THE BILLS GRANTING ADDITIONAL POWER TO THE COMMISSIONER AND ACCORDING TO THE SUPERINTENDENT AND MR. THOMPSON, AND EVERYONE SEEMS TO AGREE THAT THAT LANGUAGE IN THE RESOLUTION IS INACCURATE AND THAT THIS IS MORE OF A PROCEDURAL ISSUE THAN IT IS A GRANTED.

SECOND.

MOTION BEEN MADE BY TRUSTEE MARSHALL SECONDED, BY TRUSTEE FLORES.

TRUSTEES IS THERE DISCUSSION.

BUT MY ONLY DISCUSSION TRUSTEE HENRY IS I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THOSE AMENDMENTS SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE THE NOTATION THAT MR. THOMPSON MENTIONED EARLIER, THAT THERE IS ACTUALLY NOW A REVIEW PROCESS SINCE LAST FRIDAY'S AGREEMENT IN THE SENATE.

SO THAT SHOULD ALSO BE CHANGED ON THE RESOLUTION.

JUST GOT TO MAKE SURE IT'S FACTUALLY ACCURATE IF WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON IT.

TRUSTEE HENRY, BUT IF I MAY ALSO CHIME IN ON IT FOR A SEC.

I MEAN, JUST TO CLARIFY THAT THAT THIS VOTE IS FOR THE MOTION TO POSTPONE SO SOMEBODY VOTES IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO POSTPONE THEIR VOTING ON MOTION, YOU KNOW, MOVING TO POSTPONE, NOT ON THE MAIN MOTION.

I THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE A VOTE ON THAT MOTION.

LOOKS LIKE TRUSTEE HENRY MAY HAVE GOTTEN DISCONNECTED.

DAN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU OR EDWIN WANT TO TAKE OVER.

OK, I THINK I'M BACK ON, IT LOOKS LIKE TRUSTEE HENRY IS TRYING TO BACK ON AS WELL.

SO IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION TO POSTPONE? BUT I'LL JUST SAY THAT I'M GOING TO OPPOSE THE MOTION TO POSTPONE.

THERE IS NO REALISTIC WAY FOR US TO CONTINUE TO AMEND OUR RESOLUTION AS THINGS CHANGE IN THE LEGISLATURE.

AND THEY COULD CHANGE IT BACK AS TRUSTEE HENRY HAD INDICATED EARLIER.

THIS IS JUST A STATEMENT OF THE POSITION OF THE DALLAS ISD BOARD ON PROPOSED LEGISLATION THAT HAS BEEN INTRODUCED INTO THE LEGISLATURE.

WE ARE NOT ABLE TO CONTINUALLY AMEND EXPRESSING OUR THOUGHTS ON THE PARTICULAR BILLS THAT WE'VE CITED AS THEY EXISTED.

AT THE TIME WE POSTED.

SO I'M OPPOSED TO THE MOTION AND AGAIN, I'M SORRY THAT MY INTERNET CONNECTION IS UNSTABLE, SO IF YOU'RE HEARING AN ECHO LIKE I AM, I APOLOGIZE.

MY ONLY QUICK COMMENT, DAN, I DON'T KNOW WHO'S CHAIRING RIGHT NOW, BUT IS THAT DAN.

DAN IS CHAIRING THE MEETING.

OK, ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD DUSTIN.

MY ONLY QUICK COMMENT IS WHETHER MY AMENDMENT IS NOT ABOUT THE EVOLVING NATURE OF POLITICS AND WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE LEGISLATURE.

MY AMENDMENT IS THAT THERE ARE LITERALLY FIVE, PLACES IN THIS RESOLUTION THAT FACTUALLY SAY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE SUPERINTENDENT AND MR. THOMPSON TOLD US THAT THIS RESOLUTION SAID.

SO IF WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO REFLECT WHAT WE WERE TOLD BY THE SUPERINTENDENT AND MR. THOMPSON, WHICH IS THAT THIS IS A PROCEDURAL ISSUE, NOT THAT THESE BILLS GRANT ADDITIONAL POWER TO THE COMMISSIONER, WHICH THE RESOLUTION SAYS THEY DO,

[01:30:03]

AND THE DISCUSSION HERE SAYS THEY DO NOT.

SO I JUST WANT TO GET IT FACTUALLY ACCURATE.

IT'S NOT ABOUT EVOLVING POLITICS.

THANKS.

YES, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

IN MY BRIEF RESPONSE THAT ECHOES WHAT YOU MENTIONED BEFORE, THAT THAT IS TO MIRROR WHAT THE CURRENT STATE OF ANY OF THESE BILLS ARE CURRENTLY GIVEN, THE SESSION IS INCREDIBLY ACTIVE RIGHT NOW.

AND THE SECOND PIECE, AND I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR DR.

HINOJOSA OR MR. THOMPSON, BUT I THINK WE'RE GETTING INTO SEMANTICS A LITTLE BIT.

AND THE LANGUAGE IN THE RESOLUTION IS TALKING ABOUT EXPANDING POWERS.

IF YOU REMOVE DUE PROCESS, YOU ARE IN FACT GIVING SOMEONE MORE POWER.

IF A COP PULLS ME OVER AND I'M NOT ABLE TO HIRE A LAWYER, I'M NOT ABLE TO GO TO COURT AND I'M NOT READ MY MIRANDA RIGHTS I HAVE EFFECTIVELY LOST NEARLY ALL OF MY POWER SO I CAN SEE HOW IT COULD BE INTERPRETED, HOW TRUSTEE MARSHALL HAS MENTIONING IT.

BUT I ALSO CAN SEE HOW IT COULD BE INTERPRETED AS REMOVING DUE PROCESS KEEPS AUTHORITY REMOVING DUE PROCESS EMPOWERS INDIVIDUAL AND GIVES THEM ADDITIONAL POWERS THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE BEFORE.

I THINK MR. THOMPSON EARLIER REFERRED TO IT AS THE BULLY ON THE PLAYGROUND.

SO, AGAIN, I'M AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT.

I THINK THE RESOLUTION I'M WILLING TO SUPPORT IT WITH THE LANGUAGE, AS IS TO REITERATE THIS DISCUSSION AROUND POWER.

REMOVING DUE PROCESS FROM ANY PROCEDURE DOES INCREASE THE POWER OF THE AUTHORITY.

TRUSTEE HENRY CAN I.

I KNOW WE GOT TO VOTE ON THIS MAY I ASK A QUESTION, PLEASE.

YES, TRUSTEE MICCICHE IS THE CHAIR RIGHT NOW.

GO AHEAD TRUSTEE JOHNSON.

WHAT STOPS THE TEA FROM FOLLOWING THESE PROCEDURES.

IS THAT A DAVID THOMPSON QUESTION, MR. THOMPSON? I'M LISTENING TO THE PROCEDURE I'M HEARING THE BULLY ON A PLAYGROUND SCENARIO WHAT STOPS TEA FROM FOLLOWING THIS PROCEDURES CONCERNING THIS.

I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY IMPEDIMENT TO TEA FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURES IN STATUTE, AND IN FACT, THEY'VE DONE SO IN OTHER CASES, SO.

I DO NOT VIEW ANY OF THE PROCEDURES CURRENTLY IN LAW AS PARTICULARLY ONEROUS, BUT THEY ARE IMPORTANT.

BUT I GUESS I WOULD DEFER THAT MORE TO TEA, I'VE NOT HEARD TEA SAY THAT ANY OF THE PROCEDURES ARE CREATING AN ISSUE OR A REASON THAT THEY COULD NOT FOLLOW THOSE PROCEDURES.

BUT I GUESS I WOULD DEFER TO THEM ON THAT.

OK, THANK YOU.

TRUSTEE FLORES.

BUT SO, DAVID TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT ON THAT COMMENTARY, BUT I MEAN, THE ISSUES IN THE HOUSTON CASE WERE PROCEDURAL AND THIS BILL WOULD ADDRESS THOSE PROCEDURAL ISSUES.

SO WHY WHAT'S WRONG WITH, YOU KNOW, FIXING THE CHALLENGES THAT TEA RAN INTO.

I MEAN, AGAIN, THIS IS WHERE I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING IF THEY'RE GOING TO FIX THIS ISSUE, THAT MORATH DIDN'T PERSONALLY LISTEN TO THE APPEAL.

I MEAN, IF HE HAD TO PERSONALLY LISTEN TO EVERY APPEAL FROM EVERY SCHOOL DISTRICT, I MEAN, HE'D SPEND 60 HOURS A WEEK LISTENING TO APPEALS.

I MEAN, NOT BEING ABLE TO HAVE A DESIGNEE AS WE DO IN ALL OUR POLICIES.

SUPERINTENDENTS ARE DESIGNEES.

IS THERE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT? SOME OF THE CHANGES IN THIS PROPOSED LEGISLATION, TRUSTEE FLORES ARE PROBABLY THINGS WE COULD WORK WITH, THE ONES THAT ARE MOST TROUBLESOME TO ME.

AND THERE WERE OTHER PROCEDURAL ISSUES IN THE LITIGATION.

FOR EXAMPLE, CURRENT STATUTE SAYS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER MOVES FORWARD TO EXERCISE SANCTIONS, KIND OF THINK HOW YOU WOULD WITHIN THE DISTRICT IN TERMS OF PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE, SO TO SPEAK.

ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER AND THE STATUTE IT'S VERY CLEAR, IT SAYS COMMISSIONER SHALL ORDER THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CAMPUS IMPROVEMENT PLAN, IT'S UNDISPUTED THE AGENCY NEVER DIRECTED THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CAMPUS IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR

[01:35:01]

WHEATLEY HIGH SCHOOL FOR THE ONE HIGH SCHOOL THAT KIND OF INITIATED THE LEGISLATION.

SO THERE ARE PROCEDURAL THINGS LIKE THAT THAT ARE NOT PARTICULARLY ONEROUS, TEA CERTAINLY COULD, YOU KNOW, COULD FOLLOW THE STATUTE THE ONE THAT IS MOST TROUBLESOME TO ME AND IT IS ON THE BORDER BETWEEN A PROCEDURAL FIX AND A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE IS LITERALLY A STATUTE THAT GRANTS TEA BLANKET AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS WITHOUT, EVEN IF THEY DON'T FOLLOW ANY OF THE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS IN STATUTE.

AND I HAVE ASKED NUMEROUS LEGISLATORS.

HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THAT IN ANY OTHER LAW? AND EVERYBODY HAS SAID NO TO DATE.

SO.

RIGHT.

CONSEQUENCES.

RIGHT.

BUT THIS RESOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THAT SPECIFIC ISSUE.

IT'S ABOUT THESE POWERS, THESE ALLEGED POWERS THAT WE'VE NOW DISCUSSED AREN'T REALLY GIVEN TO THE COMMISSIONER.

SO IF WE POSTPONE THIS WORKED ON A NEW RESOLUTION THAT ADDRESSED YOUR ISSUE.

I MEAN, THAT TO ME MAKES A LOT MORE SENSE THAN BASICALLY FOLLOWING, YOU KNOW, FOLLOWING THE TASB PAPER AND VOTING FOR A RESOLUTION.

THAT'S JUST NOT CORRECT.

SO THAT'S MY CALL.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS, WE ARE VOTING ON THE MOTION TO POSTPONE BY TRUSTEE MARSHALL SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.

TRUSTEE MICCICHE IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAD SOME TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES WITH JOE AND KARLA.

THEY BOTH GOT KICKED OFF THE CALL.

I SEE KARLA IS BACK ON, OK, GREAT.

I'M BACK ON.

AND JOE.

I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE WHAT HAPPENED WITH JOE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A SCHEDULING CONFLICT AS WELL.

ALSO.

SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO POSTPONE THE RESOLUTION WE WILL GO BY DISTRICTS.

TRUSTEE FLORES.

YES.

YES.

TRUSTEE MARSHALL.

TRUSTEE MARSHALL IS YES.

TRUSTEE MICCICHE IS NO.

TRUSTEE GARCIA.

YES.

TRUSTEE JOHNSON.

NO.

TRUSTEE FOREMAN.

NO.

TRUSTEE HENRY.

NO.

ALL RIGHT, AND WE DO NOT HAVE TRUSTEE MACKEY AND TRUSTEE CARREON PRESENT, SO THE VOTE IS FOUR TO THREE MOTION FAILS.

YES.

NOW BACK TO THE MAIN MOTION THIS IS ON WHETHER TO SUPPORT THE RESOLUTION OR NOT, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION.

TRUSTEE FLORES.

I'M SORRY, ARE WE VOTING, TRUSTEE MARSHALL.

NO.

FOR DISTRICT THREE, I'LL VOTE YES.

TRUSTEE GARCIA.

ABSTAIN.

TRUSTEE JOHNSON.

YES.

TRUSTEE FOREMAN.

YES.

TRUSTEE HENRY.

YES.

OK, THE MOTION CARRIES.

FOUR VOTING YES TWO VOTING NO AND ONE, ABSTAINING.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, EVERYONE.

THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS THE RESOLUTION CONCERNING WHAT HAS BEEN CALLED THE CRITICAL RACE THEORY PROPOSALS THAT ARE BEING MADE IN THE LEGISLATURE AND I KNOW THAT DR.

LEAR WAS GOING TO HAVE TO LEAVE BEFORE SHE HAD A CHANCE AS OUR CHIEF OF RACIAL EQUITY TO SPEAK ON THIS.

DR.

HINOJOSA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS RESOLUTION? ITEM FIVE B? YES, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

TRUSTEE MICCICHE.

THIS I NEED TO APOLOGIZE TO THE BOARD BECAUSE THIS ACTUALLY I WAS NOT ON TOP OF

[01:40:03]

AND IT SOMEHOW WORKED ITS WAY THROUGH BOTH CHAMBERS.

AND LUCKILY WE HAD A COMMUNITY MEMBER THAT BROUGHT IT TO OUR ATTENTION RECENTLY.

AND THIS CRITICAL RACE THEORY IS SOMETHING THAT IS SPREADING THROUGH MULTIPLE STATES AND IT HAS ALREADY PASSED AND BEEN SIGNED BY SEVERAL GOVERNORS AND IS BEING DEBATED TODAY.

I JUST GOT A TEXT FROM OUR LOBBYIST THAT IT'S GOING TO BE VOTED ON TODAY.

AND THIS WOULD GUT OUR MANY OF THE ITEMS THAT WE CARE SO MUCH ABOUT IN THE RACIAL EQUITY POLICY THAT THE BOARD PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

AND IN A LOT OF THE TRAINING, THE BOARD HAS PARTICIPATED.

MY SENIOR TEAM HAS PARTICIPATED IN AND EVEN WE WOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM HIRING EXTERNAL CONSULTANTS TO HELP DO THE TRAINING.

SO AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT HOW, YOU KNOW, THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE SOME COURSES, THE MASTER SCHEDULES.

WELL KNOW, THAT IF A LAW PASSES BY A CERTAIN THRESHOLD, IT GOES INTO EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

IF IT DOESN'T, THEN IT GOES INTO EFFECT SEPTEMBER ONE.

BUT FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, IT WOULD HAVE A HUGE IMPACT ON US.

AND THIS NOT TO GET INTO THE QUAGMIRE OF SOME OF THE OTHER DISCUSSIONS OF THE PREVIOUS ONE, BUT THIS DOES APPEAR TO BE VERY PARTISAN, ALTHOUGH NOT UNANIMOUSLY.

SO I'M VERY PROUD OF THIS DISTRICT, NOT ONLY IN STYLE, BUT IN SUBSTANCE OF WHERE WE'VE GONE WITH OUR RACIAL EQUITY INITIATIVE.

AND MANY OF THAT HAS BEEN DUE TO THE VERY STRONG, COMMITTED DIRECTION AND LEADERSHIP OF THE SCHOOL BOARD.

AND THIS IS SOMETHING YOU SHOULD BE VERY PROUD OF AND IT IS VERY MUCH IN JEOPARDY AT THIS POINT.

I DON'T KNOW IF DAVID THOMPSON IS STILL ON, BUT HE'S PROBABLY BEING CALLED AT THE CAPITOL RIGHT NOW.

BUT ANYWAY, I'LL JUST FRAME IT THERE AND I'LL TURN IT BACK TO TO THE BOARD CHAIR AT THIS TIME DAN MICCICHE AND WE WILL BE GLAD TO ANSWER.

DR. LEAR IS TRAVELING, UNFORTUNATELY.

BUT WE DO HAVE OTHER STAFF MEMBERS WHO ARE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

SO DAN I'LL TURN IT BACK TO YOU, SIR.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, SUPERINTENDENT HINOJOSA.

I SEE THAT MR. THOMPSON IS BACK ON THE LINE.

WOULD YOU CARE TO COMMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR RESOLUTION? EXCUSE ME, PRESIDENT OR MR. MICCICHE, WE DON'T HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT.

OH, THANK THANK YOU.

APPRECIATE THAT.

DO I HAVE A MOTION TO PLACE THIS RESOLUTION ON THE FLOOR? THE RESOLUTION.

SO MOVED.

I SECOND TRUSTEE HENRY.

SECONDED BY TRUSTEE HENRY, THANK YOU.

NOW, MR. THOMPSON, WOULD YOU PLEASE CONTINUE YOUR COMMENTS.

TRUSTEE MICCICHE AND OTHER TRUSTEES I HAVE READ YOUR RESOLUTION, BUT I WILL DEFER TO Y'ALL BECAUSE I KNOW THIS RESOLUTION WAS DEVELOPED SPECIFICALLY FOR DISD, GIVEN YOUR EXISTING POLICIES AND SOME OF THE COURSES AND PROCEDURES YOU WERE OFFERING.

I KNOW I'VE HEARD CONCERN FROM OTHER DISTRICTS ABOUT, FRANKLY, WHAT THE IMPACT OF THE BILLS WOULD BE.

AND YOUR SUPERINTENDENT ALLUDED IF YOU KNOW, IF THE BILLS SIMPLY IMPEDE THE TEACHING DIFFICULT AND POTENTIALLY CONTROVERSIAL BUT IMPORTANT SUBJECTS, THEN THAT'S GOING TO BE TROUBLESOME, I THINK, FOR MANY DISTRICTS IN THE STATE.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE ARE STRUGGLING WITH IS WHAT ACTUALLY IS THE IMPACT OF THESE PROPOSED BILLS AND HOW WILL THEY AFFECT THE INSTRUCTIONAL PROCESS IN DISTRICTS.

OK, THANK YOU, MR. THOMPSON.

A BOARD DISCUSSION QUESTIONS.

I HAVE A QUESTION DAN.

TRUSTEE MARSHALL.

YEAH, I HEAR A LOT OF PARTISAN BANTER ABOUT CRITICAL RACE THEORY, BUT IT SEEMS TO MEAN SOMETHING DIFFERENT TO EVERYBODY YOU TALK TO, WHICH IS STRANGE BECAUSE IT'S ACTUALLY ROOTED IN HISTORY AND ORIGINATED WITH SOME LEGAL WRITINGS FROM DERRICK BELL AND ALAN FREEMAN AND OTHERS.

BUT I DON'T GET THE SENSE THAT THAT'S THE MANNER IN WHICH THE TERM IS USED BY FOLKS ON BOTH ENDS OF THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT, AND I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S ANY CONSENSUS DEFINITION, IF YOU WILL, OF WHAT THE TERM MEANS TO FOLKS

[01:45:03]

IN AUSTIN.

I KNOW THAT'S A VAGUE QUESTION, DAVID.

TRUSTEE MARSHALL, I THINK YOU ARE RIGHT ON POINT.

I DON'T THINK THE TERM IS DEFINED IN THE BILL.

IT OBVIOUSLY DOES HAVE AN ORIGIN IN SOME ACADEMIC WRITINGS.

BUT I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE CONCERN ABOUT THE BILL IS EXACTLY WHAT DOES THAT EXTEND TO? AND I WANT TO MAKE AN OBSERVATION HERE IF YOU THINK ABOUT HISTORY.

HISTORY IS FIRST, FACTS.

BUT IT IS SECOND A POINT OF VIEW ABOUT THOSE FACTS, AND IT IS THIRD.

HOW DO WE SYNTHESIZE THOSE FACTS INTO A CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF OUR SITUATION TODAY? AND THAT'S THE WHAT IS THE THERE ARE VERY DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW AROUND CERTAIN EVENTS, AND FACT, IN AMERICA AND IN TEXAS HISTORY.

AND THE CONCERN I'VE HEARD EXPRESSED, IS IF THIS SIMPLY IMPEDES THE THE STUDY OF CONTROVERSIAL BUT IMPORTANT ISSUES THEN WE'RE NOT DOING OUR SCHOOLS, OUR STUDENTS, OUR TEACHERS ANY FAVORS, BUT THE LACK OF THE DEFINITION AND THE LACK OF A COMMON AGREEMENT AROUND SOME OF THOSE KEY TERMS, I THINK YOU HAVE GOTTEN RIGHT TO THE HEART OF WHAT SOME OF THE ISSUES ARE.

YEAH, BECAUSE UNLIKE THE DISCUSSION WE JUST HAD, I WOULD AGREE THAT THIS ISSUE IS HEAVILY, HEAVILY PARTISANIZED.

AND WHEN YOU HEAR FOLKS ON THE FAR RIGHT TALK ABOUT THIS, THERE IS A TERMINOLOGY USED THAT THAT I WOULD ABSOLUTELY DISAGREE WITH.

RIGHT.

WHICH IS THAT IF WE'RE TEACHING CRITICAL RACE THEORY, IT MEANS THAT WE'RE TELLING ALL OF OUR STUDENTS THAT WHITE MEN ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY TERRIBLE THING THAT HAPPENED IN THE WORLD AND THAT EVERY WHITE MAN IS A RACIST.

AND WE'RE ATTACKING THE CHARACTER OF EVERY WHITE PERSON THAT EVER LIVED.

I THINK THAT'S WRONG.

I THINK THAT IF YOU ASK PEOPLE ON THE FAR LEFT OF THE DEBATE, THEY WILL TELL YOU THE OPPOSITE.

AND I THINK THAT'S NOT RIGHT EITHER.

AND SO WHEN PEOPLE TALK TO ME ABOUT WHETHER WE'RE TEACHING CRITICAL RACE THEORY IN DISD SCHOOLS, I TELL THEM, NO, WE'RE NOT.

WE'RE HAVING A HEALTHY DIALOG AND A HEALTHY DISCUSSION ABOUT HISTORY AND ABOUT FACTS AND ABOUT HOW OUR SOCIETY GOT TO WHERE IT IS TODAY AND HOW THERE ARE INSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS TO OPPORTUNITY FOR BLACK AND BROWN KIDS.

AND IF WE NEED TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION BY TEACHING AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY IN OUR SCHOOLS, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING.

NOT SOMETHING THAT IS BLAMING THE WHITE MAN FOR EVERY PROBLEM THAT'S EVER EXISTED, AS SOME FOLKS ON THE VERY, VERY FAR RIGHT WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE.

SO TO ME, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN AGREED UPON DEFINITION OF WHAT CRITICAL RACE THEORY IS, I DON'T KNOW HOW ANYBODY IN GOOD CONSCIENCE CAN BE IN FAVOR OF A BILL THAT BANS ANY DIALOG ABOUT RACE.

AND SO THIS RESOLUTION IS ONE THAT I WILL ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT.

THANKS.

AND DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? DAN.

I SAW TRUSTEE FLORES, AND TRUSTEE FOREMAN.

SO JUST VERY QUICKLY, I MEAN, I'M VERY PROUD OF THE WORK THAT WE'VE DONE WORKING TOWARD RACIAL EQUITY IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

I'M VERY PROUD OF OUR RESOLUTION ON THIS BOARD AND OUR POLICY AND THE WORK THAT WE'RE DOING UNDER DR.

LEAR.

AND I'M 100 PERCENT SUPPORTIVE OF IT.

AND WE NEED TO CONTINUE THAT WORK.

IT'S A STRUGGLE.

IT'LL CONTINUE TO BE A STRUGGLE FOR A LONG, LONG TIME.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH MR. THOMPSON AND TRUSTEE MARSHALL THAT THE CRUX IS HOW DO YOU DEFINE THIS THING? I MEAN, WE DON'T KNOW.

I'M COMPLETELY AGAINST TEACHING CRITICAL RACE THEORY IN OUR SCHOOLS IF THAT MEANS VILIFYING ANY GROUP.

I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW.

DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING SAID THAT WE SHOULD JUDGE PEOPLE BASED ON THE CONTENT OF THEIR CHARACTER, NOT THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN, AND I TRULY BELIEVE THAT WITH EVERY OUNCE OF MY BEING AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERY KID HAS THE SAME OPPORTUNITY.

AND THAT'S WHY WE TALK ABOUT, EQUITY, NOT EQUALITY.

AND SO I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS RESOLUTION.

I LIKE RESOLUTIONS THAT ARE WRITTEN FOR US, NOT FOR THE MASSES, NOT FOR THE THE CROWD.

[01:50:01]

SO I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS RESOLUTION.

TRUSTEE FOREMAN.

DAVID, COULD YOU TELL ME WHO ACTUALLY BROUGHT FORTH THIS RESOLUTION? AND I'M GOING TO DEFER TO YOUR SUPERINTENDENT.

THIS WAS DEVELOPED WITHIN THE DISTRICT AND THIS IS YOUR RESOLUTION, SO SUPERINTENDENT HINOJOSA.

SO WE BROUGHT BEFORE THE RESOLUTION.

I THINK YOUR QUESTION WAS WHO BROUGHT? DR. HINOJOSA.

YES.

ACTUALLY, I TALKED TO JUSTIN HENRY AND WE BROUGHT THE RESOLUTION TO THE BOARD AFTER WE FOUND IT.

BUT WHO PROPOSED THE BILL? I DON'T KNOW.

IT WAS BURIED IN SOME BILL THAT I'M NOT EVEN FAMILIAR WITH.

SO WE FOUND OUT ABOUT IT FROM A COMMUNITY MEMBER.

SO WE DON'T KNOW WHO BROUGHT FORTH THE BILL.

WELL, IF YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT THE BILL, I CAN LOOK THAT UP.

WHILE Y'ALL ARE DISCUSSING.

LET ME LOOK THAT UP QUICKLY.

OK.

AND THEN I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE A COUPLE OF STATEMENTS REGARDING RACE AND HISTORY.

OH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I TALK ABOUT ALL THE TIME IS IT'S HIS STORY BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES THE HISTORY OF AFRICAN-AMERICANS AND NATIVE AMERICANS AND LATINOS IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM.

I AM A STRONG SUPPORTER OF PEOPLE KNOWING THEIR HISTORY AND BEING ABLE TO ACT ON KNOWING THEIR HISTORY, BECAUSE I BELIEVE ONE'S HISTORY ACTUALLY HELPS TO DEFINE ONE AS THEY BECOME VERY PROUD OF WHO THEY ARE.

SO THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT I WILL SUPPORT THIS.

AND THE CRITICAL RACE THEORY IS SOMETHING THAT I DO NOT SUPPORT AT ALL, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING IN OUR ISD'S FOR YEARS.

AND FINALLY, WE WERE GETTING ON THE RIGHT TRACK.

AND I DO THANK THIS BOARD FOR UNDERSTANDING THE IMPORTANCE OF RACIAL EQUITY AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH THE WORK IN RACIAL EQUITY.

DID YOU FIND IT DAVID.

SO I GUESS HE DIDN'T FIND IT YET.

WHEN HE FINDS.

YOU FIND IT.

OK, WE'LL COME BACK.

I'M CLOSE I'LL BE BACK IN A MINUTE WITH IT.

OK.

OK.

ANYONE ELSE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OK, I'LL JUST CLARIFY ON THE EVOLUTION OF THIS RESOLUTION.

I ACTUALLY DID THE FIRST DRAFT OF IT AFTER A DISCUSSION THAT DR.

HINOJOSA HAD IN ONE OF OUR PRIOR BOARD MEETINGS, AND I THEN SENT IT OVER TO DR.

LEAR AND DR.

LEAR'S OFFICE MADE SOME CHANGES AND IT WAS POSTED AND TRUSTEE HENRY REVIEWED ALL ITERATIONS OF THE DRAFT.

AND YOU WILL NOTICE THAT WE DON'T USE THE WORDS CRITICAL RACE THEORY IN HERE.

AND WE ACTUALLY DIDN'T REFER TO ANY SPECIFIC BILLS IN THIS LEGISLATION, WE'RE OPPOSED TO ALL BILLS THAT WOULD DO THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE ENUMERATED DOWN IN THE RESOLVED SECTION AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF THE RESOLUTION, AND ANY BILLS THAT WOULD DISCOURAGE TEACHERS FROM DISCUSSING CURRENT EVENTS IN SOCIAL STUDIES COURSES PROHIBIT STUDENTS FROM RECEIVING COURSE CREDIT FOR PARTICIPATION IN ACTIVITIES AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT ENCOURAGE CIVIC ENGAGEMENT AND SO FORTH.

SO THIS IS A GENERALIZED RESOLUTION.

TRUSTEE MICCICHE AND YOU ARE RIGHT YOUR RESOLUTION STATES MORE BROADLY, BECAUSE AT THIS POINT IN THE SESSION, THE LANGUAGE COULD BE AMENDED ONTO FOR A VARIETY OF BILLS.

SO I THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE.

I THINK THE BILLS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION, ARE SENATE BILL, 2202.

AND LET ME FIND THE COMPANION HOUSE BILL, 3979 AND HOUSE BILL 4093.

AND SENATE BILL 2202 HAS PASSED THE SENATE, AND IT IS PENDING IN THE HOUSE PUBLIC EDUCATION COMMITTEE.

[01:55:02]

I UNDERSTOOD MR. THOMPSON BEFORE THIS MEETING THAT THAT THOSE PARTICULAR BILLS THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT WERE UP FOR A VOTE TODAY, I BELIEVE.

LET ME LOOK.

YEAH DAVID COULD YOU ALSO LOOK TO SEE WHO THE AUTHORS WERE.

YEAH, THE.

I GOT A TEXT FROM LUANN AND SAID THEY ARE ON THE AGENDA FOR THE DAY.

RIGHT.

THE SENATE BILL, SENATE BILL 2202 IS BY SENATOR CREIGHTON.

AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF COAUTHORS BETTENCOURT, CAMPBELL, HALL, PAXTON, SCHWERTNER AND SPRINGER.

HOUSE BILL 3979 IN THE HOUSE IS BY REPRESENTATIVE TOTH.

T O T H.

AND THEN HOUSE BILL FORTY NINETY THREE IS BY REPRESENTATIVE WHITE.

LET ME SEE WHERE THOSE TWO ARE TODAY.

I BELIEVE YOU'RE RIGHT.

WHEN I WAS ON THE HOUSE BILL 3979 IS ON THE CALENDAR FOR TODAY.

OK.

THANK YOU, MR. THOMPSON.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BEFORE WE CALL THE VOTE.

AND NOT SEEING ANY WE WILL CALL THE VOTE AGAIN IN DISTRICT ORDER, TRUSTEE FLORES.

I VOTE YES.

TRUSTEE MARSHALL.

YES.

I VOTE YES FOR DISTRICT THREE.

TRUSTEE GARCIA.

YES.

TRUSTEE JOHNSON.

YES.

TRUSTEE FOREMAN.

YES.

TRUSTEE CARREON.

JOE, I'M NOT SURE YOU'RE UNMUTED.

I DON'T KNOW IF HE CAN HEAR US, DO WE WANT TO SEND A TEXT IN THE CHAT? YEAH, JOE, IF YOU CAN HEAR US, RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU'RE VOTING YES.

GO AHEAD TRUSTEE.

YES.

OK, THEN, TRUSTEE HENRY.

YES.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

MOTION CARRIES.

EIGHT ZERO.

OK, THANK YOU.

THAT'S ALL WE HAVE ON THE AGENDA.

THANK YOU, EVERYONE.

THE TIME IS NOW 4:59.



* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.