Education Recap Aug 2024

Summary of July and August Humble ISD School Board Meetings

By Audra Deaver

August 19, 2024

KARW – Education Chair

HCRP Precinct Chair 0459

https://precinct0459hcrp.org

Humble ISD conducted two school board meetings since my last Education update.

• July 23rd General Meeting
• August 13^th General Meeting

In this summary, I will address both school board meetings and give a quick Title IX Biden Administration Expansion update.

 

May 14, 2024 General School Board Meeting Recap

The Board voted to place Superintendent Fagen on administrative leave.  4-2; Trustees Dixon and Sitton voted No; Trustee Holmes Abstained.

July 23, 2024 General School Board Meeting

I highly recommend for full and accurate verbal context, watch the video.  However, here are some items for the voting public to consider.

The Title IX investigation of the sexual harassment complaint against Trustee Scarfo, by former Athletic Director Troy Kite (husband of Superintendent Fagen) was completed. The board voted 6-1 to release the report pending appeal and redaction; Trustee Sitton voted No.

During the July board meeting the board voted to terminate Dr. Fagen as Superintendent.  This vote passed 4-3; Dixon, Holmes and Trustee Sitton voted No.

What does that mean, exactly?

The July board vote to terminate Dr. Fagen was a “proposed” termination.  Apparently, board trustees elected by the public to manage their school district’s (1) employee must, by law, propose termination to the person they employ.

Here are the next steps:

• Walsh Gallegos to provide written notice to Superintendent of proposed (mid-contract) termination “deal”.
• The Superintendent has 15 days to

1. Accept the proposed termination aka deal or
2. Make an appeal to the Texas Education Administration (‘TEA’).

• If the proposed termination is not appealed by the Superintendent, then the agenda item comes back to the board to make a final determination via board vote. Obviously, this would save the district more legal fees.
• If the Superintendent rejects the proposed termination, it gets appealed to the TEA under a due process mini trial. This ensures more legal fees.
  21. Appeal Process – The appeal process can take up to 105 days where the TEA appoints a certified TEA examiner who calls for a hearing. That TEA led hearing allows the superintendent due process to make her appeal.  Both the superintendent and the Board are represented by separate legal counsel.  After the hearing, the TEA examiner makes written recommendations and findings of fact based on Texas Education Code, Chapter 21. That report goes before the board.
  22. Final Board Vote – After the Board receives the TEA examiner’s report, the board must vote again. Terminate or not terminate.
  23. It’s important to note if the TEA examiner recommends the Board’s proposed termination be upheld, the superintendent’s certification in the state of Texas would likely be pulled and further denied.
  24. We can also assume that because the appeal process is considered due process, her salary will remain unchanged during this appeal process which could take up to 105 days before the board has the final action item vote.

August 13, 2024 General School Board Meeting

As a recap, remember during the July Board meeting, the Title IX investigation report regarding Troy Kite vs Trustee Robert Scarfo was released.  This report obtained through an open records request [2024.07.30 Lurie Letter w-docs.pdf] fully exonerates Trustee Scarfo where all claims were legally dismissed.  You may also benefit from reading Justin Lurie’s [Summary of Final Determination & Evidence of Title IX Claim Exec. Dir. UIL Kite against School Board President Scarfo].   Mr. Lurie’s summary contains a timeline of events for the full story regarding Trustee Robert Scarfo and pertinent lawsuits, grievances, and appeals.  All of which seem to reveal intent, in my opinion.

Given the high level of contention this Board currently faces regarding leadership, it is no surprise the minority voting block continues to push back however possible.   We’ve seen verbal push back from the Dais consistently from Trustees Dixon and Sitton.

AGENDA ITEM – Action Item from Closed Session 4B.  Consider and take possible action regarding employment of Superintendent, including proposed termination.

Discussion of Action Item 4B is one example of contention worth noting.  At the beginning of the meeting, Action Item 4B was passed over by President Chris Parker.  Instantly, a point of order regarding Action Item 4B by Robert Trustee Sitton was raised. Before discussion could occur and as advised by legal counsel, Parliamentarian Marques Holmes makes the motion.   Trustee Dixon seconds the motion and comments by Trustee Sitton ensued where he says something very close to…  we have an action item – on an action that was already taken last month.  So again, why do we keep putting items on the agenda when there is no action to be taken?

Board President Chris Parker follows with, “Ms. Spaulding, can we go back into closed session?”  Recess was called at 7:44pm and by 8:03pm the meeting reconvened when promptly Parliamentarian Marquis Holmes makes a motion to withdraw Action Item 4B; the regular business of the board finally continues.

I highly recommend for full and accurate verbal context, watch the video [July Board Meeting Video Link].  However, here are some items for the voting public to consider.

1. Closed Session Procedures: Discussions in closed sessions (executive sessions) are meant to be confidential (mainly regarding employees, contracts, safety, individual students, or Board members), but any actions or decisions that arise from those discussions are voted on in a public session. This ensures transparency and accountability.
2. Agenda Requirements: Texas Open Meetings Act require that any action to be taken by a board must be included in the meeting agenda. If the board is planning to vote on something that arose from a closed session, it should be explicitly listed on the agenda. This helps ensure that the public is aware of and can participate in the decision-making process.
3. Board Dynamics: It’s clear that Mr. Trustee Sitton’s actions discussed above could be seen as disruptive or retaliatory, especially if he is perceived as trying to obstruct or delay the process. His invocation of a specific Texas Code 55.1074 suggests he might be trying to make a procedural argument to support his position, but the key issue remains whether such clarifications are indeed genuine or just theatre to create false impressions to the public.
4. Timing and Process: According to legal counsel there is a specific 15 day timeline for Dr. Fagen to accept or appeal the termination decision, once notified by Walsh Gallegos legal firm in writing.  Given the ongoing legal expenses at hand, it makes sense that the board would need to address it in a timely manner if Dr. Fagen accepts or appeals during the time between the agenda publication and board meeting. This could explain why Item 4B was included on the agenda—it’s about meeting deadlines, following legal requirements and saving taxpayer money.  Again, Mr. Trustee Sitton is fully aware of this situation but chooses to interrupt and use deceptive tactics designed to confuse or sway public perception.  Regardless, public trust is diminished because of his actions.

During the August board meeting both Justin Lurie and Richard Stoisits spoke about the district’s legal battles and drew clear distinctions on how specific Board members are voting.  Both call for immediate resignations.  Please visit video marks 0.10:09, and 0.19:25, respectively. [August Board Meeting Video Link]

For the past two years, addressing legal issues and board conflicts has involved careful negotiation and compromise.  Once resolved, I am confident it will lead to more effective governance and a renewed focus on the district’s primary goals.  We are all hopeful for a swift and positive resolution so that the district leadership can concentrate on what matters most for the students’ well-being and educational achievement.  Good Luck to all students and teachers out there! You are what matters most!

Title IX Biden Administration Expansion

Good News! Before the August 1^st deadline for school districts to implement Biden’s Department of Education rules, several injunctions occurred halting the expansion.  If you tend to geek out on legal speak, you can certainly do that by going to the Citizens Defending Freedom’s Title IX Toolkit – Texas Legal Updates page [HERE] and learn all about the last few months of updates in our favor!

Please keep in mind, until school boards have specific policies in place to protect girls in sports and/or locker rooms – they are not protected.  School boards are the last line of defense on many issues, this one is no different.

Having said that, I am of the opinion Humble ISD, having a Conservative majority, should be proactive regarding gender identify issues, protecting females, and respecting the authority of parents. For example, look at Katy ISD’s school policy adopted in 2023.  Although the official board policy cannot be found online, this is their current policy (in name only) regarding this issue.  “FFJ-Student Welfare: Parental Authority and Gender Fluidity Matters”.  This Texas Tribune articledated May 2024 links to the draft Katy ISD gender policy.  We cannot be certain what version was approved at the August 28, 2023, general board meeting but the minutes indicate it passed 4-3.  The same voting numbers we are seeing in Humble ISD now.  The Katy ISD Board policy page has a disclaimer that the official policy is maintained in hard copy format at the district offices.

The recent court injunctions regarding the Title IX Biden Administration expansion overrule the Texas Tribune’s article warning readers the Department of Education is out for blood and investigating districts such has Katy ISD.  Now we can consider those threats null and void!  We won!

~Until next time, Audra Deaver