001THE FOLLOW-UP MEETING OF THE BOARD OF JUSTICE FOR THE FOURTH ANNUAL MARGINAL SCHOOL DISTRICT IS BEING HELD TODAY, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 2025, BEGINNING AT 12 P.M., PSJA ISD ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, ROOM 334, AT 601 EAST KELLY IN FAR TEXAS. THIS MEETING IS NOW IN ORDER. 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. Gracious and loving God, we come before you today with gratitude for the opportunity to serve our students, educators, and community. Grant us wisdom and discernment as we make decisions that will shape the future of our schools. May our discussions be guided by integrity, fairness, and shared commitment to the success of every child. Bless our teachers, staff, and families with strength
002and perseverance, and may our work here tonight reflect the values of service, equity, and excellence. In your name we pray. Amen. Yes, counsel. Counsel, the public comments. Yes. Because we have two public comments, Christina Young and Mr. Sedna, Isaac Sedna. So we'll be using the microphone that's on this side for the public comments. So if Ms. Young is present here today. My name is Eric Flores. I'm the board counsel here for PSJA ISD. You're going to have three minutes to speak. We ask that you keep it professional. There not be any name calling or any disrespect. Any sort of disruption to the quorum, I will issue a warning. After the warning, there is potential removal from the side just for disruption, things like that. Any questions for me? No, sir. Okay. You may proceed. Good
003afternoon. I am Christina Young, president of PSJAFT. I understand that this is an internal process, but I'd like to address one part of today's resolution that pertains to employees, particularly teachers. Stir an employee on rest during a vote on staff salaries and demanding reconsideration despite having voted in favor of the raise. There are several concerns with this statement. Firstly, according to Robert's rule of order, anyone who voted in favor of a motion that passed can make a motion to reconsider. In fact, only those that voted for it can make a motion to reconsider. Had Trustee Gutierrez voted against it, she wouldn't have been able to. One reason to reconsider would be if the person has obtained new information or new perspective based on new information. This new realization in this situation could have been the
004realization that all staff, particularly teachers, did not get the 3% all others say like administration did. One trustee, a then school board president, even posted on social media on August 19, 2024, I am elated to announce that we have approved a 3% pay raise across the board. That is untrue. as at that meeting there were two votes, the first to give everyone 3%, which unanimously passed. Then legal said, wait, let's vote on this, which was a fat rate, equating to 2.32% for teachers at midpoint. So after that lady, a.k.a. Trustee Gutierrez, and I quote the recent article in the advance, spoke to certain people, a.k.a. received emails from our organization, which all of the then trustees received, and she was the only one who spoke up, she tried to right the wrong. so there wouldn't
005be employee unrest. Disagreements or clarifying questions about processes are natural and essential in any democratic space. Characterizing questions such as harmful, inappropriate, risk shutting down, the kind of honest dialogue democratic leadership depends on. First, what we've seen and through our work to resolve issues is there has now been an increase to over 70 grievances. Trustee Gutierrez has raised fair and measured questions despite the fact that they may keep the board late into the evening, which I hope still continues forward no matter what. Questions based on lack of clarity and rooted into a commitment to transparency and accountability, especially when it comes to staff raises and not in any form to create employee unrest. To suggest otherwise feels not only disproportionate but also potentially harmful to a cultural principle's engagement. We should be cautious about framing
006inquiry as attack. Doing so can discourage necessary conversation and undermine the openness that is foundational. We at Texas AFT urge us all to engage with one another in ways that invite clarity. If you are going to pass this resolution, We request that the employee unrest of raises be removed because it is both invalid and inappropriate. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Mr. Isaac Sedna. Mr. Sedna, I saw you sitting there in the audience. Same rules apply. Yes, sir. You'll have three minutes. I'll give you a one-minute kind of warning and then 30 seconds. You may proceed. Good afternoon. My name is Isaac Sedna, proud owner of the Trophy House and longtime vendor for PSJA ISD for nearly 10 years. On January 27, 2025, during a public board meeting attended by community members and broadcast viewers
007at home, Trustee Gutierrez made several statements regarding my business that were not only inaccurate, but deeply misleading. While I understand that board members have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the district, it is equally important that this responsibility is carried out with honesty, integrity, and respect for the people who serve this community, including its vendors. During that meeting, Trustee Gutierrez asked the board president, quote, what is the name of your trophy company that is doing this order? This line of questioning appeared to be a deliberate attempt to suggest a conflict of interest that simply does not exist. For the record, I am the sole owner of the trophy house. No member of my family, including Diana Serna, has any ownership or financial involvement in my business. Additionally, I never placed a
008bid for the order that Ms. Gutierrez was referencing. The implications made were not only untrue, but damaging. In a further attempt to build on this false narrative, Trustee Gutierrez referenced my late father, who passed away over seven years ago and made an inaccurate statement about my mother allegedly requesting to do business with the district upon joining the board. That statement was not only factually incorrect, but deeply hurtful on a personal level. I'd like to be clear. The Trophy House has done business with PSJA ISD continuously for nearly 10 years, well before Trustee Gutierrez joined the board. I have purchased orders and invoices dating back to verify. So her claim that the Trophy House had not done business with the district for 10 years is simply false. These misrepresentations have not only affected my business's reputation,
009but have also called into question the integrity of my family, which is something I take very seriously. What's most disheartening is that since that meeting, Trustee Gutierrez has made no attempt to correct the record or offer an apology. As vendors, we take pride in the work we do for PSJA ISD and its students. We uphold professionalism and integrity in every order we fulfill. It's only fair that board members uphold these same values when addressing the public. That is why, as a longtime vendor and invested community member, I respectfully support the censure of Trustee Gutierrez. Accountability matters, and our community deserves that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sena. Any discussion? Go ahead. So, I'm sure it did not apply because I have several questions on several of the items. Can I have discussion, Madam President, on
010the public comments? We're going to move on to... No, we can have discussion on public comments. Okay. I'm asking a direct question to the Madam President here. We're moving on to the next item here? Yes. Okay. Madam President, this time I would ask you as the chair of the board to suspend the board policy to allow more time than the time that is allotted in the policy. That's fine. All right. That being said, you may now recognize somebody off the floor. I will make a statement. There is an item here, this one item in regard to censorship. that the conversation and any of the questions or responses be professional, that they be respectful. We are all leaders of the community, and we are all portraying an image to our students. So, therefore, I ask that
011we act in a professional manner and that we have a fruitful discussion. Okay. Ms. Gutierrez? Yes. So I'm going to start. I'm going to go one by one. I'm going to start with the first one. Announcing a purported request by other trustees for a special meeting without confirming any actual agreement. I refute this one, and I'd like to take it out because I did check with the other board members. And for the record, I send an email. on behalf of myself, Cynthia Gutierrez, Griselda Quintanilla, Ramona Barron, and Ricardo Rodriguez, to request a meeting to review an item that we had passed the prior week. to which I had new information, not the information that we had in front of us at the time. As we've talked about several times, I found several documents that were
012not brought to the table, and it was way prior last year to this vote. So I had a conversation with Ramona Barone and Ricardo Rodriguez. They had agreed. At noon on a Monday that we had the meeting, they did not disagree. They agreed that we were going to request this meeting after I spoke with Ben Castillo, our attorney. Ms. Quintanilla was present here at this building when that happened. So we sent the email in good faith that they were still on board with this meeting. So after I requested on behalf of all four, Mr. Castillo sent me an email saying that these two board members, Ramona Barron and Ricardo Rodriguez, after all, didn't want to be part of that. So I requested the meeting still happen on behalf of Ms. Quintanilla and myself. So it's
013not, this is inaccurate and it's misleading because they did have a chance to let us know at noon in person when we saw them at the meeting. And I get that they changed their mind, but then this item should not be here because it was not the way it's portrayed. Then, so I like to strike it out. I received that evening a call from Mr. Rodriguez apologizing. He said that they had spoken with Dr. Elias earlier in the morning before that meeting and that it had just slipped their mind or they didn't think it was relevant to let me know when we saw them in person at noon. So I took his apology and we moved on. So that item, I think it should be striked out. So I'll move on to the next one.
014Announcing that a trustee's husband sought district business, knowing the trustee's husband had been deceased for years with the intent to embarrass and unsettle the trustee. With the intent to embarrass and unsettle that trustee is inaccurate, and it's an implication that is untrue. So what I said at the meeting verbatim, Mr. Flores, was... I told President Serna, you told me that if it was okay for the company, and it's verbatim, that your husband had, that had not done business with the district, if it was okay to start doing business after you became board member. I never said. I never mentioned any invoices in that meeting. As Mr. Serna just said, I never referenced any bids because we were not approving any bids. We were approving the vendors, a list of vendors. All I asked, and I
015said it at the meeting, and I can forward it to you if you haven't seen it. I said, for transparency, for transparency, why are you abstaining? It says here, Mr. Serna says that it was, that there's no conflict of interest. Obviously, there would have been, and that's why she abstained, as she should have. So that's what I asked. What's the name of the company, which is what people wanted to know. The invoices that Mr. Serna published on his social media show that indeed. Trustee Serna's husband owned this company prior, as I mentioned in that meeting. And then Mr. Serna, Mr. I don't know his first name, Chuck, or I don't know if that's his name, then... either became owner or took over the company, but that's not what I question. So that should be striked
016out because in no way it has been misconstrued and it was publicly placed on the advance news. It's being misleading and it's a defamation of my character. So I like to have that one striked out as well. Do I continue or do I stop for others? I can... No, I would like to move. Okay. Go ahead. No, you don't give her the go-ahead. I'm saying that you go ahead and continue, please. Number three. Stirring employee, oh, by the way, still with two, with intent to embarrass and unsettle the trustee. I never do anything personal. I ask the questions that people are asking. What is the name of the business? Now, the invoices show, yes, that Mr. Serna, the late Mr. Serna, had done business with the district and then his son. What people wanted to
017know and the information that now I have. is what was the impact of Miserna, and it's the question that she made to me, what was the impact of Miserna becoming a board member onto that business? So according to Open the Books, 2019, 2020, 21, and 22, the company was making an average of about $1,500 or $1,600 per year. And on 23 and 24... after Ms. Serna became president, the company has been, and again, according to Open the Books, because I cannot request records because I don't get them. It has doubled to $4,500, $4,600. So that's the question that people had, and that's what I was referring to. I was not referring to any bids, so let's not misconstrue and lie about this. I asked about the company that she mentioned. She answered. It was clear,
018and I moved on. Number three. stirring employee unrest during a vote on staff salaries and demanding reconsideration despite having voted in favor of the race and understanding the district's constrained budget. So that is also misleading, Mr. Flores, and if you watch the meeting and all of that, yes, everyone thought, or at least the board members that I spoke with, the day of the convocation last year was then President Carlos Villegas. I mentioned it to Ms. Yolanda Castillo there at the convocation. I spoke with Jesse Zambrano and Jorge Zambrano briefly, and then I tried to explain to Ms. Serna, but then the event started, so she said, we'll talk about it after, which we did not. I did not want to, I did not decry to, or stir unrest. People were unrested because our teachers got
019less than the 3% that we thought we had given. All I did was send a text in separate occasions to two members at a time, members that are no longer here as well, asking to reconsider. There was... There is misleading information that I wanted, and it's circulating from Mr. Villegas' Facebook, that I wanted to do away with a stipend. The loyalty stipend, there were a lot of staff that were upset because any absence, whether it was excused or not, would... not allow the staff member to take that stipend. So what I was saying, if nobody is getting that, and it's a few millions that we can use to raise that 2 point whatever percent to a 3%, I would like for you guys to reconsider. I did speak with Dr. Elias. His response was, well,
020last year, the teachers got more than everyone else. So next year, we'll see. And so... I sent the text. I spoke with Dr. Elias. Nothing came of it. Moving on. The next one as well, publicly decrying the revita of an insurance. I am sorry, Mr. Flores. I have no idea what you're talking about. That one is vague. I'm sorry to interrupt you. So you keep addressing me like if this is a resolution. Or that I am your audience here? I'm not your target audience. No, no. Right? Your points, and I say this because... Right, and they're going to decide, but my question here is... They're going to decide that. Right. But who wrote this? The attorneys? That would be correct, right? Okay. But this is information, we don't populate this information from the sky, right?
021Right. So, again, your target audience is your members of the board. As Board of Council, we do not decide anything. Right. So I would just ask that you just... But my question is to you because you drafted this. So the other ones are directed at everyone. So I didn't personally draft this, right? So if you have any legal questions, let me answer your legal questions. Right. It's a legal question. Okay. My legal question is, what is this referring to? Publicly decrying the rebate of an insurance contract? Despite full knowledge of the board's legitimate reasons to terminate, what vendor did we terminate? Again, you're asking a factual question. You're asking who was terminated. Who from them can answer? And this is why I said in the beginning of the meeting, in order to facilitate fruitful discussion,
022if you have questions, you may ask either Dr. Aliyah, Superintendent of Schools, as well as the administration that's here on those questions. If you have a legal question, for example, what does the contract look like? What is the term? What is the termination period? That would be an appropriate legal question. Okay. So you may ask questions, right? To them. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Dr. Elias, so what is publicly? Oh, by the way, before I continue, on the number two announcing the trustee's husband sought district business, that happened. Before, even if you wanted to censure me for that, it happened before the censure was lived into our policies. So that was before that happened. And then on this one, publicly, Dr. Elias, decrying the rebate of an insurance contract despite full knowledge of the board's legitimate reasons
023to terminate the prior vendor to imply corruption and... I guess, erode public trust. So what is that one referring to? The claims that you continue to make on that there's corruption and that there is, the process was done wrong for the insurance. Okay, but which one specifically? Because it says here that we terminated the prior vendor and publicly decrying publicly where? And I always say, in meetings for transparency. If we are going to, if we're doing a processing correctly, it's my perception and I say it. But what I'm asking is, what is the specific publicly decrying the rebid of an insurance contract when we have legitimate reasons to terminate the prior vendor? Which one is that? What's specific? I don't recall right now. So then how do we have things here? Are you referring to...
024I didn't write this, so that's why I'm telling you I don't recall. Thank you, Dr. Elias. So who would be able to answer these questions? Because before you continue, Dr. Elias, and thank you for saying that... I don't have the power to censure... Right, no, I understand. That's why I'm asking you questions. So I did not write this. I didn't put this together. So publicly decrying the rebid, and I'm going to say here, let's threat lightly. Because if this is referring... to four and a half years ago when there's something we can discuss and we did not terminate the prior vendor. We went for bids, new bids. So we need to threat lightly with that because we did not terminate. And if it's four and a half years ago, can we then censure anybody from
02510, 15 years ago? So we need to be very careful. So I would like to have that striked out unless there's a specific, because this sounds very specific, terminating the prior vendor. We've never terminated a vendor. I know that there was, when I came on the board, that Ms. Barron, Mr. Rodriguez, Ms. Serna, and Ms. Castillo, and Ms. Quintanilla were not on the board yet. And again, this is the second time on this censure that it's before we adopted that censure. She has the floor. When are we going to be able to give any input? When she passes. So that one... Hold on. Is there a question? I was going to say, can we establish... Yeah, the proper decorum. Yes, because I know we're just letting her speak, which is fine. I have her. I'm
026hearing her side. Sorry, I'm doing the same thing. I'm hearing her side, but nobody's answering her questions. I want to hear. the other people's side, or if I have questions, to clarify from her or from those that are... So can we establish the pattern, please? Madam President. I have something to say. Do you have something to say first? Typical decorum, right? When the Madam Chair recognizes somebody, they have the floor until it is passed. If anybody has questions throughout the process, write them down. Let's hope that you don't lose the thought. And when Ms. Gutierrez is done, whether putting on her case of her, whether she believes or doesn't believe, or whatever the case may be and her questions, then Madam Chair Serna will then recognize somebody else. to either ask questions, to make additional
027points, but what we don't want going on is going back and forth in your typical ping-pong and nobody's point is heard. Right? Okay. Madam President, at this point... So she continues. I have apology instructions. I'm writing some stuff down. I'm going to go ahead and respectfully let her to go ahead and plead her case, and after that I'm ready to speak. Correction. I'm not pleading a case because we're not in court. So publicly decrying, that one is we've never gone for a prior vendor. And number five, and again, if it's what I'm referring to, we cannot discuss it because of the reasons only one other board member here knows. We cannot discuss it publicly, and I had nothing to do with that. Number five, attempting to instigate conflict between two trustees and rather than de-escalate,
028actively fueling dispute. Dr. Elias, since they tell me that you're the person that can answer, do you know what this is referring to, attempting to instigate conflict between? There's two statements, but I'm not going to go back to the other one. My statement... verbatim is that you may ask questions to people, for example, Dr. Elias. That does not infer or imply that he has those answers. Your target audience is not anybody from the administration, legal counsel, or the superintendent of schools. We do not vote on this item. Your fellow colleagues on the board will vote. Ms. Serna then would be the person to answer. Okay, Ms. Serna, since you're board president, attempting to instigate conflict between two trustees and rather than deescalate, actively fueling the dispute. So what is this one referring to specifically? What
029is the date? What is the event? Who were the trustees? I think, again, for transparency and for putting it here, I would like to know. Who did I instigate a fight amongst? And when's the date? And so thank you for the comment, Mr. Flores. I'd like an answer for four and five since you're board president, and I'm sure you would have seen this document prior. So when did I publicly decry the revend of an insurance because we terminated a prior vendor? And when did I attempt to instigate conflict between two trustees? I don't wish to answer. She's asked one question, and she's going back to decrying whatever. Well within the rights to either ask questions or not answer the questions. That is perfectly fine. I just want to remind you that the... Hold on. And
030we're also not going to have undertoning of like scoffing. We are well above professionals. Everybody who is here, right? What did I say that was perceived as... The comment's not addressed towards you, Ms. Gutierrez, at all, right? So if you have a question, you're more than welcome to ask the question. If that person doesn't have an answer, they don't have an answer. Right, but I haven't even, she said she didn't have an answer. It was a general comment not directed at you, if that makes sense. So I ask those two, four and five. I disagree with both because they're vague. And what I was going to remind you that the judge said that we need to be specific and we need it to be fair. And for the record, I was never given any ask
031for policy. We're going to follow policy. I was never given any written notice, any verbal warnings of any kind. So number six, interfering with administrative actions by communicating directly with a community member. That's emphasis, it's not sarcasm. Directly with a community member about a bus accident and making assertions. without full knowledge of the facts, thereby potentially jeopardizing the district's legal defense. I object to that one. Whoever can answer or can say something because our job as board members is to listen to the community. I was called about us being featured on Telemundo. about a gentleman and it's public record so a gentleman that was that claimed that one of our buses caused damage to his property so I listened to him I send a text to dr. Elias and directed him to look into it
032on that chat all of the other board members are are included and so As I should, I directed this to Dr. Elias. And then a couple of weeks later, I followed up. The gentleman said he hadn't heard from anybody. I did not have any communication or any, I did not make assertions because I did not make any claims or any promises. I just asked to look into it, and I never got a response about it. But I can communicate with the community members. That's how we find out what's going on, guys. When somebody calls us and tells us there's something, especially when we're featured on TV, because we are not paying for what allegedly happened, which I'm not saying that did. But I am within my right to send the information to Dr. Elias and
033have him look into it. which is what I did. I did not call transportation. I did not call Claudia at public communications. I asked Dr. Elias to look into it in a text that all of the other board members were part of. Number seven, so I disagree with that one. And number seven. disregarding established graduation protocols by personally deviating from administration instructions during diploma presentations and student interactions, making the ceremony about herself rather than celebrating students. Okay, so I was still under the temporary restraining order, which required that nothing was done to exclude me, to attack me, etc., etc., etc. So the day before graduation, we, I'm assuming all of us, received a schedule for who was going to stand and who was going to sit at what times. For the past over 100 years,
034all board members have stood to shake the hand of every single student who passes through the stage. This year, we received a schedule. I called to ask, and I was told I cannot communicate about that with the attorneys because there's a pending litigation, so my attorney communicated with them. This was... Communicated with who? With the attorney. Okay. With the attorney, attorney to attorney. So then on the day of graduation, of said graduation, so the schedule, I was scheduled for the second half of every graduation, not a true rotation. Because a true rotation, I would have been on the first part and then the second and et cetera. So I was on every second graduation to begin with. But on the first graduation we attended, I respected the protocol. I did not step up to the
035stage when the students were passing for the first half. As a matter of fact, I got off the stage. I got off the stage. I was not standing there. When it was my turn, I went up, as was the protocol that was given to us. Ms. Quintanilla stayed for that second half. And I stayed. Everyone stayed. And all of the next ones, everyone stayed. You can censure me, but there's no reason to do it when I was not the one that broke the protocol. And I'm not accusing Ms. Quintanilla. We've talked about it. And I did not break it. I did not stand. When I wasn't supposed to I got off the stage and if you look at the videos it can prove that so with that I refute every single one of these allegations
036and Before I yield the floor because I may not get it back again. I'm gonna say something guys Iran and Israel are fighting We had a flooding going on Our constituents were suffering in their homes with flooded houses. We held a special call board meeting when, in fact, we had a prior regular meeting prior to March 28 when we gave the insurance contract for that special meeting. We had a meeting on March 10. We could have included the insurance there, but we also had a meeting on the 14th of April, 14 days later. So we called when all of our schools were closed. When all of our schools were closed. And our staff and our constituents and our students, everyone was worried about their homes, their property. We were holding a special call meeting to
037give insurance. Like I said, Iran and Israel are fighting. We have to deal with budgetary problems. We have to deal with shootings in schools, with the recently passed legislation for the vouchers. We have so many things going on in our community. And here we are with seven things that I've already told you are not true. I do not really care about the censure. It does nothing to me. Because 16,000 or the almost 16,000 people that voted the first time and the second time, despite all five board members writing a post on Facebook against me. That tells me that I'm doing what's right. You can choose to censure me today, but you're not censuring me. You're censoring every staff member that is no longer going to feel comfortable coming to you or a community member that
038will no longer feel comfortable. You have cut the time that we ask questions per your comments because we cannot stay until 11 at night because it's too late. I will stay a whole night, two, three days if necessary to clear something for our staff and our students. And if I'm going to be censured for that, well, so be it. What I will say is I will fight nail and teeth to the two-year ban, which is laughable because one, it's not enforceable. And second, Because it's ridiculous, guys, that we're wasting, that we have wasted six weeks that I had to litigate when I was never, ever told that I was doing anything wrong. Because I vote and I ask questions and I go home. And it's no longer personal. Because I never think about you other
039than the moments when we're asking questions. I go home and I live a happy life. I have my own problems to deal with. And I don't care about what you guys say about me. Because I'm not here to be popular. I'm not here to ask questions, to bring attention to myself. Some of us here have families that are dealing with chronic illnesses. With terminal illness as yet for six weeks, we have wasted our energy on this censure. On seven things that I can show you videos, I can show you documents that are not true. I would sit here embarrassed and I would apologize if there was anything here that I agreed with. But all of the questions that I have ever made. have been on behalf of the best interest of the students and the
040staff. And I will continue to answer the phone because that's what I was elected for. Last week I lost my brother-in-law. I have not been able to mourn him because I have been dealing with this. All of you have something that you guys are going on with, yet you think this is more important than the world almost ending. censoring me. What you're censoring is the people that are out there. And what you will censure too is all those board members and other school districts who will fear asking questions. So go ahead and censure me. That is fine. Do not take any items that you don't want to take out or you don't feel you want to take out. But I urge you to be careful because you're setting a precedent and you're setting a precedent
041with things that are untrue. So when you vote, just like we've always voted, vote your conscience. If you feel I did all of these things that I just provided information proof and I still, if you have questions or you have any doubts that I can provide you with. That's videos. That's... documentation so I have nothing else to say because there's really nothing else to say censure me but tonight and the rest of your life when you go home and you look at yourself when nobody's watching when the voters are not there and you look at the darkness darkness inside of you Think about what you did today because this is not about Cynthia the board member doing this This is about you disliking what I stand for This is a personal vendetta. It's a political
042vendetta and this will not get you reelected let next year Thank You. Mr. Flores. Hey, maybe get us yielding the floor Having having heard Dr. Gutierrez and I'm sorry Does the mic need to be on? I've been fighting a cough, and I don't know if I'm... It's on. You can hear me? Thank you. So I've heard her side, and I can attest to a lot of the things that she said are correct. But what I'm hearing from Dr. Elias, from the board president, from our school attorney, is that... You cannot provide any additional explanation or you will not provide additional explanation so that my vote, you're asking for my vote as well as the rest, but if history proves right, since none of you ever answered my phone calls, unless you call me by accident,
043right? You don't call me. You don't share any of this information. I know nothing except for what's written in these three pages. And the advance, what you all chose to put out publicly before even this meeting. So in other words, you were stating your case prior to this. So if I'm supposed to just vote on what is on these three papers, I will need more clarification. And if history serves right, I know you're doing this because you already have the votes. You've done this continuously the community and just like Dr. Gutierrez said her close to 16,000 voting Constituents are watching and they're very interested because they already know what the intent and the purpose of this meeting is and While for whatever reason you are targeting her What is so if I don't vote your
044way am I going to be next I know because all the others already in line or Such as like what was told by a next board member that told me that one of you told them that every time I would request something on the board agenda, you all were going to mess with it so that you could teach me a lesson, right? So I'm aware of all of that. And I see now that at first I didn't want to believe, but now I do believe based on the actions, behavior. towards me and it has not been professional at all times in and out of the boardroom and so I want to just to be on the record and ask for each one of these and I will start. Announcing a purported request by other trustees
045for a special meeting without confirming any actual agreement intended to create the appearance of an urgent crisis. The only crisis I can recall was that flooding. And we still had a board meeting, okay? So I want to know what is the policy for requesting a board meeting because if she could not have done it, I could not have done it. I know we need, there's a process. So we couldn't do it alone. So why is it being held against her when there is an actual protocol and it was followed? Madam President, because you are, your role. And I have to say, and I have to admit, as another board member, you have failed in your role as president in leading this board. If it had gone to this point, it is because you lack that
046leadership experience. Every time you're asked a question, you look at either Dr. Elias or you look at the school attorney. You should be able to answer without any hesitation anything that is asked of you, and yet you hide between these two gentlemen. So I want to know what is, in your eyes, the proper protocol to request a board meeting. I really don't want to engage with you. I really don't want to engage, but I can tell you that you did it. You called a meeting. Two people can call a meeting, and you did. So what is your question? So then you said, so this is correct. She had every right to call a board meeting. She followed protocol. She called a meeting. You called a meeting. I'm asking the board president, or are you now?
047Now you're going to answer for her. Madam Chair. I was going to give you a clarification, but... I'm asking the Madam President. She is the president of this board, and she should be familiar with all our board operating procedures, and she should be able to answer without looking at notes, without looking at the superintendent or anybody else. What is the proper protocol for calling a board meeting? She's answered the question, right? She's given you her answer. This isn't cross-examination. We're not in court. I'm not a lawyer. So I'm asking a question. What you're doing is you're cross-examining. I don't know what that term is, sir. I'm not a lawyer. I'm asking a question. No, I don't have. She just answered your question. I'm not going to engage with you because I'm not speaking to you.
048I'm just making a comment. What is the proper protocol? I'm not going to engage with you. Okay. So for the community to hear, Madam President has chosen not to answer, but her first clarification was that she did follow protocol. She had every right to call that board meeting. Thank you. Announcing that a trustee's husband sought district business, knowing the trustee's husband has been deceased for years with the intent to embarrass and unsettle that trustee. I know that as office holders, we have to develop thick skin, Madam President. And there has been a lot, a lot. of social media harassment, bullying, that I know is coming from here because it's information that has been discussed within the board or even in our executive board meetings, and somehow it makes it to social media by close friend
049of yours and almost son of yours, right, because he calls you pops. And yet, you know what? We have to develop thick skin about it. His opinion, personal opinions. That's what we're here for. I mean, we have to hear it. We have to take it. I've been taking it since I got elected from all of you, but yet we need to continue doing our job. I just feel that this is not a place. She should not be punished because she hurt your feelings. And you explained, and you actually told me that on May 6th. That you felt she had crossed the line when she brought up your your did ECS husband whom I know I knew too and I agree with you it might have gone beyond but at the same time we are professionals
050and Some of things we just got up put it behind us it and and when I look at the data that she has presented Because it is available online and the business your son's son-in-law's bits, whoever business it is has doubled since you've been on the board. And good for them, right? But I just don't think she should be held responsible for, or you're punishing her in this way just because she hurt your feelings and you don't want her to hurt your feelings at another board meeting. Especially when I've seen you get physical with her in an executive session. So I think that would cause more harm than what she said. Are you going to remind her about no comments, underhanded comments? Did you hear something? Yes, I did. Well, then just call it out.
051I just did. Okay. But you're asking me to call something out that I didn't hear. No, he was calling me out. It was actually me. My voice is hoarse, so my whispering sounds louder. Okay. Stirring employee unrest, number three, during a vote on staff salaries and demanding reconsideration. I think... The rep from AFT, President, clarified that already, so I'm not even going to go there. It seems that it was a misunderstanding, not just on her part, but I think Mr. Villegas was quoted as actually putting it on social media. And it was. A year ago. Over a year ago. And so now, like I said, it was clarified already. I think Christina did a very good job of explaining that miscommunication. publicly decrying the rebate of an insurance contract. Again, can anybody tell me? I
052mean, I hear that you're letting her assume that it's something that happened three, four years ago, and I just want to confirm, is it something that is that old, Madam President? I wasn't here four years ago. Thank you. So then when did this publicly decrying the rebate of an insurance happen? Does anybody here know? Did anybody in this room have anything to do with putting this resolution together? Madam President. Madam Vice, I mean, Sir Vice President. Mr. Rodriguez, you've been very quiet. Did you have, as Vice President, were you involved in drafting this resolution? As a Secretary, at some point you have to sign off. Ms. Barron, were you present or have anything to do with this draft? Nothing. So I take it it's coming just from Madam President. Mr. Villegas, did you have any
053role? I've got some things she'll say. I'll answer in a minute. Okay. I didn't write the, I didn't have anything to do with writing. Is that what you're asking? Does that leave you, Ms. Castillo? She's still questioning people. She's not commenting. Okay. So nobody knows what the rebate of an insurance contract is about so far. And yet everybody here is ready to vote, right? The only concern that I've had with an insurance contract has been that one time that we had that meeting on the day of the flood. And it was to that I know that I had something to say about that. And the contract was given. It was given out in open and during open meeting to Bob Trevino. And I did have a concern with that. because Bob Trevino did do a
054campaign contribution to three of our board members that are here now. And that was led by you, Madam President. While we were not elected at the time, you were, and you brought him to the table. So I think if you're going to hold her responsible for something like this, then maybe we need to put your name on that as well. Because if she's guilty, then you're guilty. And we I dare say we may all be guilty. We still have money in that account that we haven't closed so attempting to instigate conflict between two trustees and Rather than de-escalate actively feeling the dispute again I don't know if this is something that happened during the past six seven months that I've been on the board I have not heard Even after there were already existing board
055operating procedures with the prior board, then we adopted ours on February 17th. There is a conflict and resolution portion of it, Madam President, that I have yet to see you implement, especially prior to this censorship. Even in my own, I mean, there was an incident that was brought up by the superintendent in an also executive session, totally violating. Open Meetings Act, which, by the way, we've done on more than one occasion. And bringing up something also about a social media post, nada que ver with what was on the table. But yet, it seems that you all have a pattern of trying to humiliate, embarrass those that don't agree with you, or don't fall in line, right? Or don't just copy your vote. So, I have not seen... And I don't know who these two trustees
056are. So therefore, how can I be expected to vote? And if none of this, and if this is, we're supposed to just vote on two trustees. I think we need to be clear on this before any vote is given. And anybody who does vote on this, let the community know. They're voting blindly because how can we vote based on this? Interfering with administrative actions by communicating directly with a community member. I know and I have learned from Dr. Gutierrez that, and I've always expressed, anytime I communicate with the public regarding something that may be potentially a grievance or a lawsuit, I communicate with Dr. Elias on this. And that's something that has been kind of also. echoed by Dr. Gutierrez to say anytime something like I say, hey, you know, this person contacted me regarding
057this, and she kind of tries to guide me the right way. So I know that her heart is in the right place, and unfortunately I don't know if yours is at this point, but you really have to consider your actions because they are being seen. If there is one time that you are being transparent, it is right now. And you're showing just how petty and how intimidated you are by Dr. Gutierrez. Because that's what it is. You're intimidated by her. It takes all of you to take one person to knock her down a notch. And I have to agree with Dr. Gutierrez. This is so trivial. Sad really that I that I am part of this board at this point at this point in time This regarding established graduation protocols for personally deviating from administration
058instructions the administration answers to the superintendent the superintendent Answers to the board and whether he likes to hear it or not The board is his supervisor We're not equal partners. We're not. We are here to guide him. He is here to do his job as a superintendent, to provide us with the information requested, which I agree with Dr. Gutierrez. I think we're on day, what is it, Dr. Elias? I requested some information on an MOU that I found online. with your picture with a director of the school that Dr. Castillo went to visit this past couple of weeks, that when Dr. Gutierrez saw it, she doesn't recall it coming to the board. So I know you're not going to answer this now, but it's all over media, not to mention that director who Dr. Castillo
059shared with me, I'm sorry, Ms. Castillo shared with me, was her cousin. There is a conflict of interest there, so you are going after Dr. Gutierrez for something like this, but I don't see you taking any action on the fact that the superintendent committed the school district to an international partnership with the director that happened to be a cousin to Ms. Castillo, who sometime in March-April was fired due to harassment. This is... This is so insane that you all are trying to do this to another board member on such petty things. And I understand that other members, other board members in other school districts have been censured, but they have, there is public recordings, there's public records such as, you know, DWI. Those are things. And yet, here we are, seven bullets. And nobody participated
060in putting this resolution together and nobody has any evidence other than I mean, you know, the attorney here, if this would hold, you know, water in court at all. So I'm going to stop you there. Okay. I'm pretty sure you were standing in the same courtroom that I was there, right? And the judge said that. Along with a quorum. Yes. I didn't interrupt you. Would you allow me to finish? Go ahead, sir. Okay. So let's not get into the legalese of censorship. If you agree or disagree with it, state that. Okay. Thank you. So for that reason, going all of seven, and I've said my piece, I will be abstaining from voting. You don't need it. You already have it. You know it. But I will not take part in this mockery of a censor,
061of a board member. Thank you. You yield the floor? I yield the floor, Madam President. Mr. Villegas? I've got a few things to say. And it's not about Madam President. I want to make sure legal understands that I'm coming back from flashpoints that were addressed a little while ago, and that's all I'm going to say. But I have a collective memory of some things. First of all, I don't dislike anyone on this board. I may have an issue with the behavior, or like has been said a little while ago, the perception up there about how I think about some members of the board. My perception, just like I heard a little while ago that there was a perception regarding the bidding process. Well, whether there is nothing there or not, just the mere fact that
062you can throw it out into the community, that perception also does damage to board members. And I, for one, can refute that there has not been one instance in the last six or seven years where there has been any mistrust in the way the board handles our insurance needs, whether it's the carrier or whether it's the agent of record. In fact, we've had board members recommend to committees... what we need to do to select our next agent of record and also what company gets certain products. Never had any problem with that. We voted on it, we went on. This last one, because you mentioned Bob Trevino, and somebody said a little while ago, thread lightly. You mentioned Bob Trevino, Ms. Quintanilla? All I can say is you all need to thread lightly if you think
063that there's been any malfeasance that has been done because I will defend it to the end. I didn't get any campaign money from Bob Trevino. My sole purpose for Bob Trevino was what the community was clamoring for, and especially a lot of our staff, that we wanted to have agent of records that were here in the center of FAR, and we did that with Puro Aseguro as we did with Bob Trevino. That was all. I'm not through, Ms. Gutierrez. No, no, no. I'm not raising my hand. So all I can say is we need to be careful. Because I've got legal counsel that has been guiding me and make sure that nobody gets into trouble. That's all I'm going to say. Regarding the defamation of character, it defames me because I know somebody spoke a
064little while ago. Somebody spoke a little while ago and you alluded to and cited where... All we were trying to make happen is an issue on the pay raises for the teachers. We voted on that. There was a consensus vote on that. We go through that process every year. We voted for a loyalty stipend that included giving a mere stipend to all of our salaried employees. That's what we voted for. When we alluded to a text that went on, On social media, it was a text. It was a text I received from Mrs. Gutierrez telling me we can do away with a loyalty stipend. Well, I didn't want to do away with a loyalty stipend because we have a lot of maintenance people, custodians, and bus drivers, and cafeteria workers, and all of those people
065that deserve that money. We voted for it, and we're suggesting that maybe we can do away with it. I've got that on my phone. So I wanted to just go ahead and say that. Regarding the rotation at the commencement exercises, that's not something that the board comes up with. That is something that our superintendent, along with his partners in administration, decided that it would be better for us to facilitate a quicker pass-through for our graduates, and at the same time, So we can rest a little bit because we've got 500 kids coming in through graduation at one time and we don't only have one graduation, we have several. But that protocol was established when we started DLAC. We started rotating our members. So it wasn't anything that was arbitrary at the time for... for the
066commencement exercises is something that Dr. Elias and his administration and with an announcement by each and every one of the campuses at the time commencement was going to start. So that's why we did it. So, you know, this thing keeps coming back on this trip to Mexico. I just don't understand it. It's not insane, Ms. Quintanilla, and it's not petty. You go to conferences. He goes to conferences. I go to conferences. We get stipend for those conferences. We're expected to learn something and to bring it back and apply it here so we can become better board members. That's all that she did. It's a cultural exchange of learning. Having served on the city commission for eight years, we had sister cities. where we went to Mexico to engage in cultural exchanges. And I learned from
067that. They came over here and they learned from that. So that's all that was. But to keep harping on our trustee, Yolanda Castillo, going over there, because it doesn't matter that where she went and the delegation that went had a cousin over there that was a superintendent, had nothing to do with that. It's the way she represented the district. in the manner she represented the district and the information she's ready to share with us. So all I can say is none of this is petty. And, you know, you said something a little while ago that is potentially damaging, that this lady attacked her. I saw the opposite. I didn't see her attack her. So I refute what you said. And secondly, I want to say one other thing that was said. You've got to take
068it. You've got to take what? that you can have your family brought in, degraded and humiliated and disrespected. We got to take that? I disagree with you. Okay. You're back. Madam President, for the record, Ms. Quintanilla, I will respond to your comment. I'm sorry, Jackie. It's about the censorship. Legal. Okay. Well, you mentioned. The Senate is not on the. Well, you mentioned. Because you mentioned it. You mentioned it. Yes. They just think it was. Okay. Yes. So. Can I answer it legal? No, because it's not on the agenda. This is a comment that she was. That Ms. Quintanilla made. She's allowed to respond. We're not deliberating right now. She's allowed to respond to that. But that's not on the agenda. Legal. As long as I'm able to. Okay. Look. So just because a question comes
069that's not verbatim on the agenda, you're then implying that it's in violation of some sort of open meeting act? I just want to get the clear. I want to get the question clear. Every time I ask those questions, legal shuts me down and says, no, it's not on the agenda. So it cannot be discussed because I'm not being sanctioned for that. I'm not going to go back what happened to whatever opinion you got months or weeks ago. Right? Before we even started this conversation, I asked Madam President to suspend any rules so that we can have a fruitful conversation. That's something that I also told the judge in your case, right? That there would be appropriate deliberation being had here. Right so now to come back and try to limit somebody else's comments is equally
070unfair what you have imputed this afternoon No, because you said they can disagree with that. No, I'm doing my legal opinion as to whether somebody or you comment on a comment that somebody you said about the time frame not about Breaking all the the policies that's not on this agenda and my understanding has always been and I have been stopped from making any comments because that's not i'm not being censured for for that if they want to bring it up in another a different then that's a whole different topic my opinion on that i have a big opinion on that i'm not going to give it but the protocol was the time that's what we requested not to break up then if we can break all protocols then we can all talk at the same
071time we need to be very specific mr floyd mary president please continue MS. QUINTAÑA MENTIONED A SPECIFIC SITUATION THAT SHE WANTS TO ANSWER TO. IF SHE BROUGHT IT UP AND IT WASN'T ON THE AGENDA, SHE DID BRING IT UP. ONLY IF I'M ABLE TO CLARIFY AFTER SHE JUST ADMITTED. GO AHEAD AND CLARIFY. A YEAR AGO, I HAVE A COUSIN IN MEXICO, CORRECT, TLAZCALA, MEXICO. HE REACHED OUT TO ME AND ASKED IF WE WOULD BE INTERESTED IN A CULTURAL EXCHANGE PROGRAM. WHEN I READ HIS PROPOSAL, I thought it was an incredible and a good thing for our students, for our community, for our PLJA school district. I brought it to Dr. Elias. He looked at it, and that was my involvement in that. His team took over. They carried on. It wasn't a vendor. There was
072no money paid. The students and the staff from that university, from that program, came and visited in November. We were asked to go visit by that institution, which we did. And for clarity, the district did not pay my expenses to go, nor did I get any compensation for my stay or meals. and I stand strong and solid to say that it was a very good, it still is a very good cultural experience, and they want to replicate what we do, and I think that is more power to us. I think that's very good that we're trying to help and assist. and show other people and expose what we're doing for the good of children, for the good of students, for the good of another community, another country. That was my involvement in this program. That's
073all I did. It goes right along with our mission and vision. OF ALWAYS CREATING AND EXPOSING OUR STUDENTS TO OTHER CULTURES. IT ALSO GOES ALONG WITH OUR DUAL LANGUAGE PROGRAM. AND SO I STILL SAY THAT IT IS A GOOD THING. AND SO THAT'S ALL I DID, AND I WILL CONTINUE TO DO IT IF I'M GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY. JUST WANTED TO EXPLAIN TO YOU THAT. That's all I did. Do you yield the floor? I will. Okay. You have spoken before. You've yielded the floor. I'm talking to the four of you. You've yielded the floor, so the discussion is done with that, unless you have something to say. Yes, I just basically want to clarify. There's two points here, but I'll go ahead and answer to one. Ms. Gutierrez, and this is number one. It's announcing a
074proposed request by other trustees for a special meeting. I felt that when you did your presentation that you were talking about the island one, okay? The island, the South Padre Island one. We did have dinner with you, if you recall, Rick and I and his wife. We did speak. Ms. Quintanilla was not present during that time. We did talk about this trip, okay, that you're referencing to. We did talk about this trip. And, yes, based on the information that you were providing to us, we were not clear on whether or not we had made the right decision. Okay? But one thing that I recall, and there will be nothing out there, is that we ever agreed to come back and do a special meeting. AT LEAST I'M SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, AND MR. RODRIGUEZ CAN SPEAK
075FOR HIMSELF. WE NEVER AGREED, LET'S GO BACK, LET'S DO THIS. WE SAID, WHY WAS IT THAT WE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THIS? AND WE FELT THAT BECAUSE YOU HAD MADE THE MOTION AND IT WAS SECONDED, THAT WE WERE FINE. BUT ONCE WE GOT THERE, YOU QUESTIONED A WHOLE BUNCH OF STUFF THAT LED US TO RETHINK. But never was any discussion whether we were there and there was mention that we were on our way back and we agreed. We didn't even travel together, okay? We didn't even travel together. So I just wanted to clarify that, that that's why I called the council when I heard about it and said, no, no, sir. I am out of this because there was never an agreement. There was never an agreement. There was only a discussion regarding that. And, yes, it
076left us questioning some things, but never did we come back. We came back. We clarified that through our superintendent and said this is where we stand. That was what I wanted to clarify. Now, the other one that I'll touch a little bit on, you mentioned that for 100 years we've had these graduations where everybody stood up front. I wasn't here 100 years ago, but I was here 18 years ago on this board. I was here 18 years ago, and there was already alterations of board members going up. Especially when kids back then, kids used to ask for special board members to give them diplomas. And we did alternate there. But there was always two or three of us at a time. And then we said, and so like I said, I don't know when we
077stopped doing that and that now we want or we wish to be all seven plus administrative staff plus the superintendent. I mean, to me, it was too many of us, you know. And so I thought that the recommendation from the superintendent was good enough and we would reflect back to what we used to do. But I just wanted to make that clear that I don't know when this happened where everybody was on board. Okay. You yield the floor? Yes. Okay. He's the only one that has not hit the floor. We're not going to go back to anybody. I made it very clear that, are you yielding the floor? She said yes. Are you yielding the floor? Yes. They both said yes. He's the only one that hasn't gone. Am I wrong in? Madam President, if
078you recognize Mr. Rodriguez, allow him to speak for the first time. We did. It wasn't a meeting. It was just an informal invitation to go have dinner. And I. I accepted for the sake of having a unified board. In the meeting, we were just talking about different things. Right before we were going to be excusing ourselves, because my wife wasn't feeling well, this was the other started mentioning about this trip. And she was telling us all this information and stuff. Okay, it was just a conversation. In no time did I ever say that we want this being posted or brought back for a meeting. Secondly, the other point I want to make is that The phone call that I, when I called Dr. Gutierrez was to explain to her why I was disagreeing on being
079placed on the agenda, my name being placed on the agenda. And I was, and it was just a conversation with me telling her that this is why I disagree and this being brought back. And which was after I sat down with Dr. Lias, he explained to me all the facts. which when I compared them with the information that Dr. Gutierrez gave me, there was a lot of missing parts. Ms. Gutierrez didn't tell me everything. So that's why it was very important that when me and Ms. Barron went to speak to Dr. Elias, we realized that we weren't given all the facts. SO THAT'S WHY WHEN I FOUND OUT THAT OUR NAMES WERE PLACED ON THIS AGENDA, I WAS, OF COURSE, I WAS A LITTLE UPSET. AND I IMMEDIATELY CALLED ILLEGAL, AND I ALSO CALLED DR.
080ELLIS, LETTING HIM KNOW THAT IN NO WAY DID I AGREE TO BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA OR TO BRING BACK THE MEETING. YOU WEREN'T REQUESTING THE MEETING. Okay. I believe everybody has gotten a chance to speak. Did you want to say anything? Madam President? No. I have a... Well... I have a... No. May I speak, Griselda? Do you see me saying it? No. I'm going to make a motion. Oh. We were done with the discussion. We had way over two minutes. We didn't even apply that protocol, and I agreed with it, and I stand by it. But now, you know, everyone has had their say, and now... I'd like to make a motion that we approve the resolution as recommended. There's a motion. I second it. There's a motion and second. All those in favor
081of approving the resolution for censure, raise your right hand, say aye. I'll oppose. One abstention. Motion carries. I'd like to also recommend, is this, that's all the business we have? Yes. I'd like to recommend that we adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor? Raise your hand. Say aye. I'll oppose. I'm sorry, what? So you oppose? Do you oppose? Why do I oppose? No, I'm saying, do you oppose to adjourn? You didn't vote. I'm calling for a vote. Oh, okay. So I didn't see that we voted. I was putting my stuff in. They raised their hands. She said no. And you? No. Okay. All right. 5-2. Meeting is adjourned.