Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Trustee Bone,
“I can’t win with you” is an idiom that I believe all English speakers are aware is an idiom.
I have forwarded you Deputy Commissioner Cottrill’s contact information. You may contact him directly regarding your questions. I will provide his contact information to any trustee that wishes to have it.
I will see you at 12:30.
Trustee Bone,
1. As to whether I improperly delegated my responsibilities to negotiate, I will say that your accusations are false and misleading as to what has transpired.
May 21st, the Board authorized me to negotiate. I used the previous superintendent’s contract as a starting point, made the changes that I felt were best for the district and checked with Board Counsel that it was legal and appropriate to make the changes. On June 2nd in an attempt to include more board members I asked Trustees Harrison and Weston to review the first draft. Trustee Weston suggested that you, Trustee Bone be asked to do the review. I then asked you and Trustee Harrison to review the first draft, explaining that the conversation was only to be between us to avoid quorum issues, and the contract would be presented to the full Board on the 10th. On June 3rd you and Trustee Harrison offered edits. On June 6th Trustee Harrison responded again and offered her thoughts on the edits. On Monday, June 7th the edits were finalized and Board Counsel sent the proposed contract to Dr. Azaiez’s attorney for review. On June 9th the full board was provided a copy of the contract and it was reviewed at the meeting on June 10th. On Friday, June 11th, the 21st day following the sole finalist designation, Dr. Azaiez and his attorney were provided a second proposed draft based on the comments/edits from the June 10th meeting. On Saturday, June 12th they provided their feedback and I, as Board President, as authorized by the Board, finalized the negotiated edits of the second proposed contract. The Board was provided that version on June 12th.
2. Board Counsel has been a part of this process from day one, advising and assisting the Board. Never, not once, did you or any other trustee raise a concern about his assistance or the cost of his assistance. Even on Thursday when the contract was discussed, you raised no concerns, monetary or otherwise, about Board Counsel’s involvement to me or the full Board as a Board Corporate. To do so now is disingenuous. Are you really suggesting that Round Rock ISD not utilize an attorney to review a mulit-year contract when the candidate for the position is utilizing an attorney?
Trustee Bone,
The motion approved by the full Board was “The Board President be authorized to negotiate a proposed contract with the superintendent finalist subject to Board approval …” The word negotiate clearly contemplates a discussion between two parties, not just me talking to myself.
As is my practice, I tried to be as inclusive as allowed by law even though the motion did not require it. In fact, you were one of the two trustees that had access to the contract during the negotiations, prior to the full Board seeing it on Thursday. You did not raise any issues at that time. You agreed to assist in the process.
This contract negotiation is standard practice in the State of Texas for superintendents. The contract was not done incorrectly, therefore there is nothing to correct.
If the full Board feels we need to discuss these concerns tomorrow we can.
Trustee Bone,
I think you need to go back and review the material for the budget meeting on Thursday. I don’t think you understand what this meeting is about, even though it is the last of numerous meetings on this topic. This is a meeting to approve the Round Rock ISD budget for next year. We are not setting the tax rate at this meeting. Please review the previous meetings and the numerous times that Dr. Adix said that the tax rate will be set in September. The meeting on Thursday must have assumptions in the budget regarding the tax rate, which is why at every meeting Dr. Adix has listed the tax rate for both M&O and I&S in the assumptions portion of the presentation. When we vote on a budget on Thursday we will be confirming the assumptions of the tax rate. We will approve a budget based on what a majority of trustees believe they are willing to vote on in September for the tax rate.
In September the tax rate hearing will be properly posted and the community properly notified per state law.
If you need further clarification in order to be prepared for the budget meeting on Thursday, please contact Dr. Presley.
I did not post the entire email as I did not want to be disrespectful to another Board.
I can’t win with you Trustee Bone. Either I don’t share enough information with the full Board or I share too much.
Trustee Weston asked me several questions. I could have answered with my own information; I could have referenced all the articles to be found on the internet about the situation in Donna ISD. I did not think she would find those satisfactory, so I contacted Deputy Commissioner Cottrill. After speaking to him, I could have simply answered Trustee Weston. Given how many times I have been criticized, particularly by you, for not providing the entire Board with the same information I felt I should inform the whole Board with the answers I was planning to give to Trustee Weston.
The Deputy Commissioner is not a friend. He is over Governance for TEA. When RRISD lost our LSG coach it was my responsibility to discuss the situation with him and try to secure a new LSG coach for our district. As part of that process he gave me his contact information. He did not have to respond to me on a Saturday.
You will have an opportunity to say whatever you need to say to the Board and the public tomorrow.
In response to various emails from the community and one trustee I wanted to remind the entire Board that all Board members were informed about the situation with Donna ISD and the conservator.
The Donna ISD conservator was appointed in 2017 by TEA due to a forensic audit showing financial mismanagement by the former superintendent and 2 board members who were illegally appointed to the Board. All this information has been available to the public for years and can easily be found online. It predates Dr. Azaiez being hired at Donna ISD.
TEA Deputy Commissioner Jeff Cottrill confirmed today, Saturday June 11, 2021, that the conservator has never had to direct Dr. Azaiez or his administration on decisions or activities that he and his administration were not already pursuing. According to Deputy Commissioner Cottrill the conservator has worked alongside Dr. Azaiez, but all the administrative decisions were made by Dr. Azaiez and all the progress in the district is due to the outstanding leadership of Dr. Azaiez.
The conservator was there to resolve the issues of the forensic audit and has only stayed due to additional issues completely unrelated to Dr. Azaiez.
Dr. Azaiez is considered by TEA to be an exemplary leader. TEA has full faith in Dr. Azaiez’s abilities to be superintendent at RRISD, as do I.
The topic of virtual for the fall semester next year was discussed last night during the called Board meeting on the budget. I hope everyone reading this will take the time to watch the video.
Medically Fragile is a SPED term defined by TEA, so I think we need to be careful about using terms correctly. For those that have chronic and serious illnesses or injuries we already have Homebound services. The definition and the services already available to this group of students is on the Round Rock ISD website. Parents should look under the A-Z directory, under H for Homebound services.
There is not enough data on the number of students or families that may have chronic health issues or be immunocompromised and who may need a virtual option in the fall. And we don’t have a definition, as far as I know, as a district for which chronic health issues medically need virtual. That would be a medical professional, Brandy Hafner, question to answer.
I don’t want us to put so much pressure on our new superintendent to be a miracle worker and be able to come into the district in the middle of summer and expect him to be able to come up with a virtual option. That is not a fair position to put anyone in as they start a new job.
I also don’t want this discussion to get everyone or anyone’s hopes up too high. We do have fund balance, but we are also moving back into recapture. So even though we will get ESSR funds from the federal government, the state will be taking almost an identical amount in recapture.
I think there is a desire on the part of the Board, after last night’s discussion, to do all we can to help our families. And the survey that will go out on Monday will be very helpful to that discussion. But again, a survey is not a promise; it is to inform a discussion between the Board and the administration. The discussion will happen on June 10th.
Again, please go back and watch the meeting from last night for more details.
Trustee Vessa,
Thank you for thinking of ways to help with enrollment and to help make life a little easier for family members serving as caregivers in our community.
I support your idea, not as an enrollment idea but as a way to help families in RRISD and outside RRISD. I would imagine it’s a small number of people, but just like grandparents; aunts and uncles and cousins are often called on to help family members with child care. A person living and voting within the Round Rock ISD community who is going to pick up a child from another district for after school care at their home, in the RRISD footprint, is providing a valuable service to everyone involved. That child will be playing at the park with RRISD students after school and probably will be attending scouts and other afternoon/evening activities with the RRISD students who live near their family caregiver. To me this is more of a service to our community members than it is a boost in our enrollment to allow that child to be in school at the RRISD campus near their caregiver (provided there is space on the campus).
These are hard times for some members of our community and if we can make it easier for children in our area to have better access to childcare provided by a member of their family who lives in the RRISD footprint, then I’m all for it.
Thank you for starting this discussion. This is amazing work and will be so helpful to our community once it is approved!
I had a few thoughts and questions:Page 1 – I agree that 4 years seems long, maybe 3 like the SHAC would be better. I agree with Trustee Weston that Trustees should approve as we are in essence asking these people to be our proxy on this committee.
Page 2 – How will trustees be approved by the Board? Will we have nominations and vote like we do for officers if there are more than 2 people wanting to serve? Is there some requirement for Trustee attendance at the meetings like there is for the 14 members?
Page 3 – #8 – Why only 5 votes and not a majority? What actions are you envisioning that might only need 5 of 14 people to approve?
Page 4 – The 3rd Tuesday of the month for staff and Board members means 2 meetings that 3rd week every month. Maybe not an issue, just something to think about.
Quorum is needed to make decisions but then only 5 people are needed to approve some actions. I am just feeling like this needs more detail or explanation. Maybe we could go with a majority of those in attendance for all decision making.
Page 5 – goes to my voting question above from page 3. Are the Tier 1 changes the “actions” you envision on Page 3 duties #8 that only require 5 votes? The Tier 2 changes require 8. I’m guessing it takes 8 for Tier 3 but that is not stated. Does that leave the 5 votes as the rule for this category?
Trustee Weston,
The agenda item request was made in writing to me and Dr. Presley according to Board policy. Specifically the request was to amend the April 15th agenda to include a closed session item to add:
1) Appointment of new Board PresidentAs I stated this is not a proper request. There is no appointment of Board President in a closed session. I was trying to clarify what I could actually post on an agenda per state law and our policy. You are correct and we can post for closed but must take action in open. Or we could post for open session discussion and action only, no closed.
The reason I felt I needed to include this request in my Board President’s Update is that I agree with you, our April meeting is already very full, but the request was specifically for the April 15th meeting. My response to Trustee Bone would be to deny for April and add this item to the May agenda.
Trustee Bone also stated in her formal email that for me to decline her request for April 15 would not be an appropriate use of my Presidential powers. Since the next time that I could offer Trustee Bone an opportunity to seek support for the agenda item is in fact the April 15 meeting, I did not want there to be any doubt that I was willing to honor this request. I do feel the May agenda is the better time to discuss, but again, I felt I was put in a situation where I could not deny this item for April 15 without being accused of inappropriate behavior. This is the only way that I felt I could honor Trustee Bone’s very specific request for April 15 and stay within our policy and state law given the fact that the agenda must be set 72 hours before our meeting.
If there is another Trustee that wishes to specifically add this to April 15 then we can adjust the agenda tomorrow prior to 5pm and add it. If there is not another trustee wanting to specifically add this to Thursday’s agenda then I will formally respond to Trustee Bone that we will add this to the May agenda.
Thank you Dr. Bone for starting this discussion.
We will need to get clarification from the search firm, but my sense is that when we list these groups, (give them to Ray & Associates) the groups will be getting a special invitation to engage, but not necessarily their own, individual meeting with the consultants. Some of these groups may be combined when they give their feedback on the search.
When we say Chamber of Commerce I want to make sure we include Austin, not just Round Rock. We also should include city council members from both Austin and Round Rock. And the county commissioners, both Williamson and Travis that are elected to serve the areas that overlap with our district.
I agree with Trustee Weston that Booster and other parent groups (Round Rock Dyslexia Group, Round Rock Black Parents, etc.) should all be invited to contribute, as well as PTA and PIEF. I also agree that we need a broad selection of students to provide feedback. Thank you for your comments on the student groups Trustee Weston.
I love the idea of non-profits that serve our students and families. Thank you for including that Dr. Bone. I wonder how we find the contact information for those groups. Maybe our social workers can assist in creating that list for the consultants. I would like to include those Pre-K providers who are part of RRock Ready.
Also service organizations like Lions, Rotary, El Amistad, Undoing Racism. I know I’m missing some from various other communities and areas of our district. I will try to find the business cards I was given in 2018 during that campaign for more service organizations in the area, both Austin and Round Rock.
In 2013 there were open invitation stakeholder meetings at all 5 of the comprehensive high schools. I’m not sure how that would look this year and how parents and community members in each feeder pattern could be heard most effectively. But I think it’s key to have at least 1 open invitation opportunity for each feeder pattern to provide feedback on the search.
Per policy BBE (Local), the Board gets to interpret its policies.
“The Board has final authority to determine and interpret the policies that govern the schools and, subject to the mandates and limits imposed by state and federal authorities, has complete and full control of the District.”I have handled this matter per policy in the manner of previous board presidents, including last summer when Trustee Chadwell had a request that did not make the agenda. As Trustee Vessa pointed out, please see June 4, 2021 at the 2 hour, 32 minute for the precedent for how consensus was reached. I will also point out that you yourself were in an agenda setting with me and Trustee Feller where a requested item by Trustee Vessa was not put on the agenda after there had been discussion regarding the item when she brought it up in a meeting during the request for future agenda items. You did not have an issue with the policy at the time that Trustee Vessa’s request was denied. This is exactly the steps she would have been asked to take had she wanted to continue to push for her request to be added to a future agenda.
Consensus of the Board of Trustee has never been reached by silence.
I would like to be clear that you did not have a second trustee on March 4, 2021 specifically agree and ask that it be included on the agenda. The only trustee who responded after you said you hoped that someone else wants to talk about this issue was Trustee Weston. I will refer you to the 2 hour, 53 minute, 17 second mark of the meeting where she says, “I’m interested in that as well, but don’t know if it needs to be an agenda item or if we can just ask our district to look at that to make sure everybody has access. So I don’t know Amy if you that that can happen successfully offline. I’m open to that as well. I think it need to be addressed.” At which point I asked Dr. Presley about the weekly board update and he replied that he could include it. I specifically waited until after he had given us the administration’s information in writing, per the meeting, before I denied your request. At which point I let you know that you could ask for board consensus.
I spoke with board counsel on Tuesday after our legal update to see if it was permissible for me to ask for future agenda items at the end of our meeting today since it was not on the agenda. The answer was yes, and I am fully prepared to give you the opportunity today to ask for full board consensus.
It has always been my practice to include those trustees who are doing agenda setting in the conversation about what goes on the agenda (see my note above when you were included in an agenda setting that denied another trustee’s request.) I will ask the full board if they wish to cease the practice of generally proposing agenda items at the end of the meeting unless they’ve submitted written requests to the Superintendent and me first and instead interpret the policy where I make all the decisions before it goes to Step 2 of the policy. In the meantime, I ask that we defer discussion on this further until today’s meeting.
As you have said before, board members should abide by policy and following policy is good governance.
Our local policy, BE (Local), was developed by TASB, was reviewed by the legal department, is common policy for hundreds of school districts across the state, and has not been ruled as violating any law by any court or AG opinion.
There are a couple of TASB publications that address this process. The one you’ve cited “Juggling More than One Role as Board Member” advises a board member does have a right to place an item on the agenda for discussion by the entire board at “a subsequent, properly posted board meeting”. There is no requirement that the item be placed on the next agenda.
Another TASB publication, “Roles and Responsibilities of Individual Board Members” advises that there can be a procedure like BE (Local):
Placing an Item on a Future Agenda
For districts using TASB Policy BE (Local), local policy permits a single board member to request that an item go on the agenda for an upcoming meeting. In planning an agenda, the superintendent and board president must ensure that all trustee requests appear on the present agenda or are scheduled for a future agenda. No item may be removed from an agenda without the permission of the requesting trustee. The attorney general has noted that a board cannot adopt a procedure that has the net effect of precluding individual board members from placing an item on the agenda.
A board president or superintendent who chooses to delay or deny a board member’s request should consult with the board member about the request. If a board member believes that his or her item is being improperly kept off the board’s agenda, the board member may raise the issue during a board meeting. Because the item does not appear on that board meeting’s agenda, the board is not permitted to discuss the merits of the matter; the board is permitted to vote, however, on whether to place the item on a future agenda. Tex. Gov’t Code Sec. 551.042.TASB’s policy guidance is that a process can delay or deny a request and still permit the matter to be raised to the board as a whole.
As for Attorney General Opinion DM-228, the Attorney General acknowledged that a board can establish a procedure for board members to get items on agendas so long as the procedure does not have the “net effect” of precluding a board member from placing an item on an agenda. The current policy does not have this net effect because it allows a board member to submit a proposal for an agenda item for the Board’s consideration at the end of a board meeting.
I also found subsequent AG opinion DM-473 (1998) regarding a City of Dallas rule that required 5 members (one-third) of the city council to place an item on the agenda. Specifically, this AG opinion determined that the City was authorized to adopt reasonable rules of procedure for its meetings as long as they are not inconsistent with the constitution, statutes, or city charter provisions. The AG found no basis for finding the rule invalid under the Open Meetings Act or inconsistent with the constitution, general laws, or city charter provisions.
Similarly, the Round Rock ISD Board of Trustees has adopted a procedure for placing an item on an agenda, in accordance with all AG opinions and state law, not to mention the guidance TASB consistently provides statewide.
RRISD board policy BE Local:
The following applies for placement of items on the agenda:
1. When a Board member requests that a subject be included on the agenda for a meeting, the request shall be made in writing to the Board President and the Superintendent. The Board President shall reply with an approval or a denial in writing. If the Board President approves the request, the Superintendent shall include the requested subject on the agenda. If the request is denied by the Board President, the Board member may bring the request to the entire Board using the provisions at item 2, below.
2. Upon the call for future agenda items at the conclusion of Board meetings, items shall be placed on the agenda only if a consensus of the Board agrees to place the item on the agenda.Per board policy BE Local
The following applies for placement of items on the agenda:
1. When a Board member requests that a subject be included on the agenda for a meeting, the request shall be made in writing to the Board President and the Superintendent. The Board President shall reply with an approval or a denial in writing. If the Board President approves the request, the Superintendent shall include the requested subject on the agenda. If the request is denied by the Board President, the Board member may bring the request to the entire Board using the provisions at item 2, below.
2. Upon the call for future agenda items at the conclusion of Board meetings, items shall be placed on the agenda only if a consensus of the Board agrees to place the item on the agenda.Dr. Presley told the Board that not a single principal wanted to facilitate a prom. To me it is a very slippery slope for the board to force a principal to facilitate an off campus event against their will. Additionally, our policy on school functions, Board Policy FMD (Regulation), would seem to apply. It says: “All social functions which are school-sponsored shall be under the direction of the principal as assigned by the Superintendent. All school-sponsored social events must be reviewed and approved by the principal before they are held. “
The district has never been involved in Prom, or Homecoming, or Project Grad for that matter. There has not, to my knowledge, ever been district taxpayer money spent on these events.
I am officially denying the request to put the Prom discussion on the agenda. Per board policy BE Local your next step, should you wish to continue, is: “Upon the call for future agenda items at the conclusion of Board meetings, items shall be placed on the agenda only if a consensus of the Board agrees to place the item on the agenda.” A consensus is not defined in our policy. The only other instance in my time on the board, and during my presidency, that this policy section was invoked by a trustee, a consensus was defined as a majority.
