001All right. Good afternoon board members, Dr. Cruz, district staff. Time is 5:20. This is the 5th day of November, 2025. I call this special meeting of the United Independent School District Board of Trustees to order. May the trustees present, please announce their name for the record. >> Present. >> Alisa Flores Olivos present. >> Danielle Martinez present. >> Javier Monttoayo present. that the record show that a quorum of board members is present, that this meeting has been duly called, and that notice of this meeting has been posted in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Act. Agenda item two, pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible. Honor the Texas flag and algiance to the Texas one state under God one
002and indivisible. >> Thank you. >> Uh public comments. Agenda item number three. >> We have no public comments, sir. >> Thank you. Agenda item four. Um a conduct board conduct board policy GF local level three appeal hearing for Victor Vasquez June 2nd, 2025. Level three appeal. >> Sure. Okay. So, is the Grieman present? Is he going to >> uh Yes, sir. And he did appoint uh he did appoint a representative. I believe Mr. Isma is also present who will serve as his representative. And uh >> Okay, great. >> Okay, I'm going to read the uh kind of the way this is going to go down. So, if anybody has any questions, let me let me finish and then we can we can review the questions. So this is a level three grievance appeal appeal hearing
003for Victor Vosquez. A community complaint brought pursuant to board policy GF local filed on April 28, 2025 and appealed to level three on June 2nd, 2025. This hearing is conducted today before the United Independent School District Board of Trustees. My name is Javier Montayor. I will be presiding over the hearing. May the board members who are present uh for this hearing state their names for the record. Rudy Gonzalez, >> Alisa Flores, Daniel Martinez. Uh, for the record, I ask the grievant and his representative to please introduce themselves. >> Thank you. All right. For the record, may the district administration and their representative in attendance for this hearing please introduce themselves. >> Dr. Haru, superintendent. >> And this is uh Himer Garcia, general counsel. And we also have Mr. Petales from general counsel's office who will
004serve as a representative for the administration >> and other sheer offic. >> Thank you. All right. The board district administration and the grievant have been provided with an approximately 91 page local record. The grievance is being conducted in accordance with board policy GF local the district's policy governing community complaints. The board will impartially listen to a presentation from both agreement and the administration. The procedure for this hearing is as follows. Only one person may speak at a time. All participants shall conduct themselves with courtesy and respect for others. The grievant will present first, followed by district administration. Each party will be afforded 15 minutes to present their case. However, additional time may be granted at my discretion. If additional time is granted, the agreement, the administration will be allowed at an equal amount of time.
005Board members may not be questioned by either party. And following both presentations, the board may ask clarifying questions before deliberating close session pursuant to the Texas Government Code sections 551.071. Before we begin, does either side have any questions? >> All right, grievant, you may proceed, Mr. Vasquez, go ahead. Okay, here's the detail analysis about the letter titled second warning regarding the disruptive behavior issued by United ISD on the 22nd, April 22nd by Herado Cruz. Yeah, I want you guys to keep tracking the dates so you understand the process. Okay, so the event the event occurred on March 26 in the UAD football field in the sack, right? And it caused the jab. So kind of weird that the event was later reclassified by the district as no public event. If you look the legal term
006of a no public event, you will see what I'm talking about. However, however, photos and witnesses statement clearly show that parents and family members were present taking pictures both inside the event and outside the event uh on the football field. This mean the event was open to the public, right? Technically was open to the public. I know inside the the so [clears throat] the the available evidence strongly suggest the super the superintendent Dr. Herardo Cruz is secrete director executive director special education Lara de los Santos associate superintendent Rebecca cos Morales work together work together to create and justify the April 22nd 2025 warning letter. So it's kind of weird. Um the event happened on March 26, but in April 3rd, Medina Soraniano sent an email describing the the March 26 event, even admitting that I
007was respectful, respectful, and calm. The email was forward to uh to Los Santos and but not incident report investigation and open was open at that time. [clears throat] on April 14 25 Santo emailed Morales and here by the email right here I'm gonna read it say please review the attached statement submitted to me by one of my clerks she described the incident while she was assistant at the interest of the job activity at the sack she was approached by Victor Vasquez she brought this concern to me and to Mr. Gutterz. I asked her to submit a statement. And the the weird thing about it, she she asking uh Morales, please guide me as to what what else I need to do. Please guide me as to what else I need to do. The thing about
008this email, it doesn't have to be reply for Morales. It was cut in half right here. Just just omitted just one part, right? We all of us have to print out emails in the past. You know how it comes out, right? Somebody sending emails cuz somebody replied. So it mean they reply this email. [clears throat and snorts] It showed that administrator web coordinated their action to pursue discipline discipline not conducted an independent or fair review. So on April 17, Mr. Los Santos super under supervision as Joseph Lopez to a statement right here. The statement of Mr. Look at this right here. So, kind of weird. The statement say he appeared to have been he appeared [snorts] to have a reporting device on his chest similar to this one I have here on the table. Um
009on the chest I don't know if he was on because he was a distant far uh distance away from us basically about the distance from me and M. Martinez. That's the distance he was talking about. In his statement directly the disapproves assumption that I was recording despite this clear evidence, the administration went ahead and issue a warning letter. Anyway, uh predetermined [snorts] predeterminate intent on April 22nd warning letter mirrors mirrors. Miss Orianiano emailed almost exactly repeated emotion and unverified uh phrases such as uncomfortable and unsafe. This show the district relied on the subjective opinion instead of investigation providing that the letter was planned planned in advance rather than based on the facts. Right? It was more suggestive than not objective. Why retaliation? All the administrator were fully aware of my public advocacy and going appearances
010through parents united. They coordinated action appear to be intentional attempt to retaliate intimidate and silent taxpayer existing law this lawful right to question and oversee the digital operation. So when when you when you when you sit and read the statement I'm talking about Miss Soraniano and Mr. Uh, Lopez. So, versus Lopez, right? She says, "I notices his mic and a phone out recording." And she said after that, she say, "I'm assuming recording." Yes. Here's the mic, the tripod. And Mr. Lopez said he appeared to have a device in his chest. I don't know. I don't know if it was on. He was talking the camera I had in my chest. Both witness admitted they didn't know recording occurred. We don't know the word. Um, she said he was respectful and calm, but she was uncomfortable.
011Uncomfortable. Uncom uncomfortable. [snorts] >> Uncomfortable. >> And Lopez said he was in the distance away from us. And a uh Meno say the event was full of children's and family. And Lopez said he described it checking braces a large crowd and parents as soon as I get was in the beginning because I got there around 10:45. He said 10:30 but it was about 10:45 because it I think was over by 11 knowledge it was a public event. Uh when you check what Mr. the um Dr. Cruz wro say in his letter, "You had a microphone. You have a you have a phone and a microphone outweigh question the district employee. This is an unauthorized recording took place district property during district business hours and an event that was not open to the public." So basically
012both witnesses they basically originate the the the warning letter contradicted both witnesses statement with the Soriano admitted. I'm assuming keep recording and Lope said I don't know it was on. There's no evidence that recording occurred. No evidence basically. Dr. Cruz say at the event that was not open to the public but both witnesses right so uh Soraniano and Lopez describe an event full of childrens and family. The Jab program is a community event therefore policy or not public events. clause does not apply. Basically, JK doesn't talk about no public's events. Uh, Dr. Cruz, your conduct, your conduct made the district employee feel uncomfortable, unease, and most important, unsafe. Uh, subjective claim, right? I guess the motion was was Miss Siana was saying not the policy violation. It's not a policy violation because the it had
013to be objective misconduct, not feelings. The witness admitted she admitted I was respectful, responsible and calm when I was talking to her. Right. Your constant uh Dr. Cruz you constant constant question of this district employee impitted the employee from focusing their attention to their job duty safety of their many students and parents attendees at the event. So contra the ev the evidence that Soriano documented or it was about five questions and not constantly questioning Lopez confirmed I was at the distance and there was no interference of safety. I asked three questions when I got there and then she approached me and asked two more questions. That's it. That was the whole event. So it's kind of weird that everybody when it when it was done everybody's taking pictures outside. We know how the sack is
014is located, right? We know we had a lawsuit or you guys have a lawsuit or in court because you know thousands of car drive through the drive through the sack. So I never went inside the s I want to inside the the football field. I was outside like everybody else, right? Because I don't have a braces to get in. I ask simple questions and that's it. I think right now the district has a has a mentality that just my only my presence in some location make make people feel uncomfortable, harassed, unsafe. I don't know why but that's the way this is going. So that's what I'm challenging that this this uh this uh warning letter because it's is is not based on fact. It's a basis assumption emotion and basically both witnesses say they don't
015know it was reported or not. So if you look the time frame on the 26 the event on the third uh she uh los Santo asked for a for an email from Soraniano on the 14th. She sent an email to Mrs. uh Morales on the 17 Lopez submitted another another statement and I got the letter sometime it was it was dated on the 22nd but they got a couple days later on the 22nd or April [snorts] almost month like that. So So that's my point. I don't know how time you left. If I have any I'm going to save it. I guess >> uh you have 4 minutes and 55 seconds. I think I'm going to say those one minute. >> All right. >> Okay. Uh, administration. >> Good evening, members of the board. I'm
016here to present the district's administrative response to the level three grievance filed by Mr. Vasquez against Superintendent Guz. This grievance was processed under board policy FMG local and is now before the board following the issuance issuance of a level two decision dated May 28th, 2025 by Miss Laya Benvidas. Mr. Vosque's grievance originated from a warning letter as discussed that was issued by Dr. Cruz on April 22nd, 2025 following an incident at the March 26th, 2025 YAPS event at the UISD Student Activity Center. Mr. Vasquez alleged that the warning letter violated his constitutional rights. misapplied misapplied district policy and constituted retaliation for protected activity. For clarity, the event at issue is YAPS. That stands for the young athletes program for students. YAPS is a UISD invitationonly program for students. It is held on secured district property
017during business hours and is not open to the general public, which is why the recording restrictions applied under GKA local uh in this matter. Because the grievance was filed against a superintendent, it began at level two so that a record could be established by the designated hearing officer. A level two hearing was held on May 8th and Mr. Vosquez appeared and confirmed that his written complaint uh contained his full presentation. The level two hearing officer, Miss Benavas, reviewed all the evidence carefully and issued a detailed level two decision denying all the requested remedies. The level two decision is in your packets on page 49. The district stands by the decision and denies that any legal or constitutional violations occurred. The warning letter issued by Dr. Guz was a lawful and appropriate administrative warning. It was
018not a disciplinary sanction. It was not an exclusion order. It was not a punishment. It was issued in response to documented behavior that created unease and concern among district staff during a sponsored a school sponsored event attended by children and families. At the [snorts] YAPS event, M. Vasquez was observed holding a recording device and questioning a district employee about entrance access and law enforcement presence. The employee reported feeling uneasy, uncomfortable, and unsafe as a result of this interaction and the questions that Mr. Vasquez was asking. Her statement is on page five of your local record in which she said, "He made me feel very uneasy and unsafe given that I didn't know his intention and it is an event full of children and families." The employee stated that Mr. Vosquez asked her whose police unit
019was parked at the entrance, adding to her uneasiness in that situation. Those feelings were not unreasonable given the circumstances. particularly because the event was not open to the public and it was hosted during business hours and conducted on secured district property. Only the parents and the involved students were invited to attend. Superintendent Cruz acted within his authority under Texas Education Code section 37.105 and under board policy GKA local which expressly permit the district to reject unauthorized recordings and to take reasonable measures to protect staff and students from disruptive conduct. The letter merely placed Vasquez Mr. Vasquez on notice that future disruptive behavior could result in limited access, but it did not bar him [snorts] from district property or deprive him of any rights. To be clear, it would be completely unreasonable to conclude that a
020Texas school district cannot place a third party on notice that continued disruptive behavior on school district property may lead to consequences as permitted by state law. There was no due process violation because the letter imposed no exclusion or sanction. Due process protections apply when a life, liberty, or property interest is at stake and none of those interests existed here. Dr. Cruz acted under proper authority pursuant to the law and the statute allows school officials to issue warnings or deny access to individuals whose conduct is disruptive or threatening. A warning letter is simply a preventive measure, not an exclusion. Board policy GKA local allows the district to prohibit recordings on district property during business hours and protect student priv privacy and operational security. In this matter, the superintendent correctly applied GKA local because the apps event
021was not open to the public. And importantly, Dr. Cruz's actions were motivated by real documented employee safety concerns. The district has an obligation under law and policy to maintain a safe working environment for its employees, to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment, and to prevent intimidation on its campuses and its facilities. These district employees are human beings with feelings and emotions. It is not unreasonable to feel scared if an unknown person is asking how to gain entry onto district property while a person is asking at the same time about active police presence. Accordingly, the April 22nd letter to Mr. Vasquez served as a measured goodfaith effort to document prior interactions, provide clear expectations for future conduct and avoid escalation. It was a warning, not a restriction, and its issuance was guided by the district's duty
022to protect student staff and operations. At level two, Mr. Vasquez sought several remedies including withdrawal of the letter, a cease and desist order against alleged retaliation, a formal due process hearing, a referral of Dr. Cruz to ESPEC, and a public apology. Each of these requests was properly denied. The lawful warning letter was supported by credible employee statements and issued under lawful authority. There is no evidence of retaliation, no deprivation of due process, and no basis for disciplinary referral or an apology. In summary, the grievance process, which includes today's presentation to this governing body, has afforded Mr. Vosquez a full opportunity to be heard. His rights have been fully preserved at every level, and just because he agrees with the level two decision, it does not render the decision invalid. [snorts] The district remains committed to
023safety and respectful engagement with all members of the public, but it cannot disregard conduct that causes staff members to feel unsafe or impede district operations. In response to his claim that it was a public event, I would like to clarify that it was an invitationonly event. And we're not here because of his photography. We're here because he made a district employee feel unsafe. It's a It's that simple. And that is a lawful reason to issue a warning. It was just a warning. This matter did not require any further investigation. It was only a warning and none of Mr. Vosquez's rights were taken away. For these reasons, I ask on the administration's behalf that you uphold the level two decision in its entirety and deny the requested remedies. Thank you for your attention. [snorts] >> Does
024the board have any questions of either of the agreement or the >> rebuttal? >> No, sir. We don't have rebuttals. Not part of the process. I'll give you a minute if you want to respond. >> Okay. Yes. >> But you're not going to get the the full four minutes you want. >> No, no, no. It's okay. I just want to say one thing. Just read the statements and what he wrote of the letter. doesn't even make sense. >> Okay. >> Any response to his response? >> No response. >> Okay. Does any of the board members have any questions for Mr. Vasquez or the administration? >> No, I don't. >> For the record, Michelle Molina is also present. >> Present. Yeah, I I reviewed the full packet already. >> No, no questions at this point. >>
025I have a question. Was law enforcement or security involved? Um, with all of this, were they called? >> No, I believe they were not. They were not called. No, but there was a security and police presence at the event. >> Okay. And were there statements that were asked for from other parties or it was just >> No, just from these two individuals who witnessed and saw Mr. Vasquez there at the event. >> Okay. And so what is classified as disruptive behavior? because it does say here in the letter that it was disruptive. Would it be like him going to the employee or >> um talking to the employee uh distracting the employee from their their job duties and making sure that the door is properly secured and of course the invited individuals with the appropriate
026bracelets are able to get in. >> Okay. >> I have a question. Are you are you done? >> Um >> Mr. Ros, you indicated that you felt this was retaliation. >> Yes. Uh why do you feel it's retaliation? >> Apparently just my presence make people uncomfortable. >> That's subjective or objective? >> Mine. Oh, that's all. Subjective. It's my personal opinion. It's not objective. Just >> Okay. So, you filed a grievance because subjectively you felt that your presence makes people feel uncomfortable. >> I file agreement because the lies >> because what I said what I said there I didn't do. So if an employee says that she feels uncomfortable, would that be subjective or objective? >> Subjective. >> So okay, pretty much on the same level as what you felt. >> Okay. >> And why do
027you feel that your presence makes people feel uncomfortable? >> Why do you subjectively feel that way? >> I don't know. Besides like every time I go to a place now, I'm hearing that in my past uh warning letter, I make people I never met before claim I were harassing her. It was just a question. >> So people >> I had one question. It was harassment. >> Okay. So people I guess in your past have made subjective. >> No, that's the the first letter they send me. >> Okay. Is that the first time you hear >> the first the first warning letter? Yeah. >> Okay. But you haven't been limited as far as >> your camera use. In fact, I've seen you in in in the at the board meetings at the sack. I've seen you
028here using your camera freely. Uh, you haven't been limited in any shape or form? >> No. >> And that day, were you recording? >> No, I wasn't. >> Okay. >> I that I never had my phone connected to the to the mic. That's what I'm saying. One say I have the mic, the other one say, what is it? The the the body camera. So, they both they don't know. They don't know get the story straight. And so, uh, in regards to Mr. Ross's comment about the email, right, that it says that it's missing. Was there a reply back from anybody or >> I believe there was a reply covered by the attorney K privilege. We can talk about that in deliberation. >> Okay. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. >> But that is why uh has
029a big gap. Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. >> Because we at that point >> for confidentiality. >> Yes, ma'am. Redacted. It redacted under the attorney client privilege which only the board can wave. So, um, that's that's probably why the uh the gap is there. And I had to I had to [clears throat] guess because I I >> Yes. >> Okay, that's fine. >> All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Vuscus. Um, and administration on this one. We're going to move to the second grievance um with Mr. Pettis. So, so at this time, the board will hear the second grievance. Uh following that presentation, the board will consider this grievance um both grievances and deliberate in close session pursuant to Texas government code section 551.071. Uh this is a level three grievance appeal hearing for Victor Vasquez, a
030community uh complaint brought by brought pursuant to board policy GF local. Mr. Pettis, I think if you want to move closer so you can kind of participate here. U this was this grievance was filed against the superintendent and Mr. David Pettis on July 28, 2025 in appeal to level three on September 2nd, 2025. This hearing is conducted today before the United Independent School District Board of Trustees. My name is Jav Montayor and I will be presiding over this hearing. May the board members present for this hearing please state their names for the record. Gonzalez Michelle Flores Daniel Martinez mayor. For the record, I asked a grievant and his representatives to introduce themselves for the record. >> Victor Vasquez, >> uh, district administration Cruz, superintendent, >> uh, UISD board council Garcia, president, uh, Pedro Morales from
031our office will be presenting the administrative response and I believe also Mr. David Pettis, who was one of the respondents, is here on his own behalf. >> Thank you, Mr. Bennett. Okay. U so board policy GF local allows a district to consolidate these complaints arising from related events or seeking similar remedies into one proceeding. Since both grievances stem from the same facts and circumstances because they involve the same remedies, the district consolidated the grievances at level two in accordance with board policy GF local. The board, the district administration and the grievant have been provided with an approximately 86 page local record. The grievance is being conducted in accordance with board policy GF local the district's policy governing governing employee complaints. The board will impartially listen to a presentation from both the grievant and administration. This
032procedure is as follows. Only one person may speak at a time. All participants shall conduct themselves with courtesy and respect for others. The grievant will present first followed by district administration. Each party will be afforded 15 minutes to present their case. However, additional time may be granted at my discretion. If additional time is granted to the grievance, the district administration will be allotted equal time. Board members may not be questioned by other party. Following both presentations, the board will ask or can ask clarifying questions before deliberating close session pursuant to the Texas Government Code section 551.071. Mr. Vosquez, are you clear with that? Any questions? >> No. >> Uh, district administration, any questions? >> No, sir. >> All right. Uh, Mr. Vosquez, go ahead. >> So, let's go back in history, right? December 16, 2021.
033Uh, it was an agenda agenda action items approved of addressing public comments not to be limited to current agenda items and it was sponsored by Mr. Feliz, Miss Alisa Alo and Mr. Hav Mayor. So, go back in those days. Uh Alisa is sponsored the the the item say we are safe in place. It is people right. A taxpayer has the right to come in here and disagree with us. Right. Oh this is from the transcript transcript from that that um that meeting. They have the right to come here and tell us they don't like us or what or want to replace us. There's the right. They don't they do not however have the right to respect us. But being said, we cannot censor anyone. You Mr. Morttomayor say I'm a I'm I'm about transparency. Everything
034on the top of the table. We are a government entity. We represent taxpayer. Whether it's not an agenda is not is an what is in our agenda or not is open to the is open government. Uh former uh trustee Frank Castillo say no one stopping anyone from making comments is their right but never let let it be said that we will we will tolerate personal attack. We will tolerate personal attack. Uh Morina we are here to censor attack not censor people on the comments. We are here to respect everybody. So that motion was uh by Oliver, second by Mr. Rodriguez and it was carried out unanimously, right? So it was clear the intent was to spand this freedom of speech. I guess you guys can agree with me, right? Encourage taxpayer accountability, transparency, the distration
035between legitimate criticism and personal insult and preventing uh censorship critiques. Right. Um and basically the deb local say speaker or other who use insult, profane, threat, abusive language during the board meeting should be ruled out of order by by the pre uh preceding officer and also say no electionary should be permitted in behalf or against an individual running for political office. So guess what on July 23rd 2025 during the regular regular UAD board meeting David Perez he introduced himself as a 26 year employee for UID a president of the United Classroom Teacher Association CTA and took the podium and made some comments and basically he didn't mention my name is true he didn't mention parents United is true but he gave a lot a lot of details so everybody there can figure out who he's
036talking about. It was a lot of details. He mentioned he didn't mention Pammy by her name. He didn't mention Mr. Mr. uh is my ring by his name. But anyway, it was uh uh what had to do something that happened outside the district be brought inside the district, right? That's that's what that's what he was doing. So, B state is uh censioning allocate groups, right? most critical are the US administration refers to us parents united uh and two member have been banned like I say very specific who they were banned everybody knew what he was talking about so and before he called me names we call hypocrit we were present well there was Mrs. Olivero Mr. Monttoayori Mr. Gonzalez and um Garcia, we were present that day in the morning to the superintendent. He turns
037around and he waves at me. That's on video. You guys go there. You guys are witness. So he was mocking me, right? He went like this and then he call me hypocrite like I was hypocrite. And now it's kind of weird that when I see this statement, it looked like my allegations, they took my allegation until here. That's what Victor Bosque wrote about that day. Answer it. So basically when I'm looking at his statement, he basically everything that I said he's answering. I don't know that's common practice or he's supposed to talk about a specific what happened that day whether his knowledge because I I when I'm reading his statements I notic it that he um that he doesn't mention uh 26 years as your employee. He left that out. Kind of weird, right? So
038the thing is why he changed his mind now and now he tried to hide behind that he never said it. I went to the board and never said I was a border patrol and I got sent two letters to my job. Um in this case um Meyers was taking a video and Tro and Truman call attention to the board that somebody was taking a video and and he's the one right Trump Troman the one with the the board out of order out of order. You know how that went right? So why when it happened to a civilian like me, another taxpayer sitting there, it's a guy comes up bringing attention, something going on. He was going what he was saying until he started the personal attack. So now he say he say he never he
039never well basically he never say he was a uh a district employee. I think Mr. uh one of the one of the question that Mr. Well imply Mr. Garca uh what's the name? My guy told him like, "Oh, are you you out of the contract?" That's what he said. So basically, I think he helped him out to say like, "Well, I was out of the contract. I was not working for USD." But he say 26 years as UAB employee. I never said that in the border patrol. We only border patrol as we work after we're not working our days off days off. We're not a border patrol agent. you know, I be catching people in our days off. I'm going to, you know, so we only work for show when we work. But I got
040sent two letters to my job and I got a warning letter. Well, now two warning letters and this and this guy didn't get anything. So there was scandals in the in the in the board. So that's what the reason I I uh uh I filed agreements against him as superintendent because this was there. He never bought the tension. He's supposed to enforce the policy and he did just didn't do anything besides Mr. uh Garcia didn't do anything either. Let him finish. Not even the board corrected him and said you out of order or say something you know I'll send him a letter but nothing happened to him. So I think the board the board trustee visa and Mr. um Dr. Cruz had the standard when it comes to people >> myself. I'm sorry. Did you
041say me? >> No. No. >> It comes to him. >> I did say me. I said Dr. Cruz. So that's the reason I'm I'm sitting here today. Um I keep um I reading his statement statements is all just like you know um I don't want to say the work is but it looked like he back off big time and basically he just going to say just apologize but that's it. But I guess he not he's too pride. He know he made a mistake and now he's just trying to play back that he never that he never said he not represent the district when he said it. He never say actually he never say like breakable. I'm here today as a taxpayer. He never say that. He just say oh his title making him feel like
042he's above his ego and I actually say by the time I'm talking I'm I'm talking as a taxpayer. Why is it fair that he claims now on his statement and it claims on the on the respond of the um on the agreements? >> Okay. >> So I'm done. >> It still has six minutes. >> Six. >> You sure you're >> Yeah. >> Well, let me ask let me do it this way. Does Does the board have any questions for Mr. Vosquez first on this on this complaint? I'm not clear. What is it that you're asking the board to do with regards to your claim against Mr. >> I am I'm asking the superintendent didn't took action, >> right? >> What is it that you think he said that was >> that was you were there
043too, Mr. Uh >> well, I'm asking you. >> Oh, he said he he turns around when when he was speaking. He mocking me went like this in front of everybody. It's on video and he also called me hypocrite. >> But what is it? What is it that you're seeking? Like I know right now in your statement you mentioned that you've gotten to two warning letters, right? And that you got two warning letters to your >> job place, right? And you you're mentioning that there's a double standard. So I think what Mr. Montayota is trying to ask you is what is it that you're seeking? >> What's your remedy? >> At least he should get a a warning letter, too. >> Okay. You say you were publicly defamed. When you say you were publicly defamed, your
044image was was ruined. >> Of course, because he was saying >> you lost you lost uh what followers on Parents United. What was what what are the damages that you're that you're telling me that you were defending? >> Let me see. I wrote it. Basically, he said um he tried basically to silent me uh discredit me and continue exercise his rights when he keep talking about >> I'm reading it here. I was publicly defamed. Yeah, >> that's the first part. >> Yes. >> And then I was and politically targeted. >> Exactly. He know he he used to follow parents United. >> Okay. >> And he know I'm running for the board. >> So he know by intentions. So he mentioned that in the board. Yes. I suggested. Yeah. But he mentioned that in the board
045in the the board that day. >> But he had knowledge. He knows. >> Okay. So you're running for the board. Yes. >> And you were politically targeted. Did he say something about you? I don't remember. I don't remember that. And I got to go back and read the audio transcript on this, but what did he say about you that politically targeted you? >> He specifically say it's a it's a year from now >> for the election date. >> Okay. >> That's what he said. Something basically something will happen from now until the election. There was a long way to go. >> Okay. >> As a federal employee, >> yes. >> Do you feel like your code of conduct is held to a higher standard than civilians? >> Yes. Okay. And you've been there to many
046meetings, sir. Other UISD employees have gone to the podium. They have harshly criticized us. >> Yes. >> In my opinion, wrongly criticized us. But why didn't you come before us and ask us to reprimand them? They they were disorderly as UISD employees in public comment and they were not on summer break. I like to >> Why is he different from the other employees? >> Him? >> I didn't get no other employee criticized me at all. >> Remember the or policy established no personal attack. >> I agree. >> But you're saying there's like a code of conduct or something. >> No, I'm not. >> It would apply to you and everyone. >> Exactly. So when when I do stuff or I well when I claim I did stuff, I get a warning letter. I got two
047eyes of uh letters sent into my job. Not one, twice. Him, he criticized me on the board. Nobody say anything. He walks away. I follow the grievance and they tried to clear him out like saying that he was not on the contract saying that he was uh uh and he claimed he never said basically he didn't spoke as as a as a USD employee. Do we normally interrupt people when they're at the podium? >> No. I should let them finish. >> So, we weren't gonna stop him. He has a right just like anyone else to come up and speak. >> But did isn't it true though? Because I'm going back. >> Yes. >> Isn't he called you a hypocrite? >> Yes. >> Because of your because I believe from what I remember you blocked him
048from participating in your parents united page. It's got nothing to do with the board. had nothing to do with had nothing to do with the district. Had nothing to do with his >> with his his activities or his conduct as an employee. >> He may have said, if I remember correctly, that you violated his constitutional rights to free speech because you blocked him from participating in your parents united page. And I'm assuming that you've made comments in the past about free speech and like you've done here in your in your complaints and because now you blocked him that you're a hypocrite. Is am I correct? So >> that's in general. >> That's what he said. Basically what he say I have a question. >> Well you don't question. >> No no no. Okay. But let
049me see my comments. >> Okay. Say your comments. So let's if we open this door and that's mean next time people can go now to the board meeting talk about the weather how they went to the job uh they were doing at the board meeting besides you know because supposedly when I read about the what happened when you open the for not quenda it was it everybody were there understand it was something related to the district not outside the district >> you know and it's tamount to the lady who got up here last last Friday or two Fridays ago and and said that the elections were coming and that the uh you know that uh that we're all you know should be removed. Uh, and I think you posted you posted on your page as
050well. And so it's but you know those are comments that the public makes that the board has no control over that. And I don't I don't know and and I guess we have to deliberate but I guess it has to rise to the level of of a political attack is what you're asking the board to to make that finding for you. >> Right. >> Probably. >> Yeah. >> Well, I'm asking that is that what you want us to do? >> I'm asking to that do what is purpose to do to everybody? You send letters. Send him a letter. >> Well, give us a give us give us what your resolution to this case is. >> What is your what what do you think? How is this going to get resolved in your mind? >> What
051I'm thinking is that a double standard right for less. I got letters. >> Well, I know what the problem is, but tell us how you want it resolved. >> Well, you want to apologize, Mr. >> No. Over here. Over here, Mr. Bus. Just I'm asking you a letter. >> I don't want to make this a big deal, but I'm saying like he apologized. Well, we take it. We die right here. >> District money is kind of making it a big deal. We're paying our attorney. You You criticize us for paying our attorneys too much money. Yet, you've given them the most business in this community. >> Even right now today, we're paying >> one >> two attorneys for being here and for all the work that went into this report. You gave them a paycheck,
052sir. >> Yeah. But the employee, the one who initiated, both of them, not me. Let me just ask I have a question for legal. Legal the statement that he made from December 2021, right? >> Um can you explain on that? Do you do you have that? I I I don't have the specific revision but I can read from the local packet exactly what beed local states now and as it was in application during that day which is just simply at regular board meetings and board workshops the board shall permit public comment regardless of whether the topic is an item on the agenda posted with notice of the meeting. >> Okay. So it would be safe to say that Mr. Perez could give that public. >> Mr. Perez or any other attendee at a regular board
053meeting based on the black letter of the beed local policy would be able to give comment regardless of whether the topic is an item uh on the agenda posted with notice as long as it's >> not vulgar and and there's yes there's separate provisions here. one regarding electioneering and again this is just in response to your question not your public comment >> but the electioneering provision just and it is on your on page 81 of your packets from be local no electioneering shall be permitted on behalf of or against an individual running for political office and no literature pertaining to any form of electioneering shall be permitted during the meeting and then regarding uh profanity or disruption the board shall not tolerate disruption of the meeting by members of the audience. Speakers or others who
054use insulting, profane, threatening, or abusive language during any board meeting shall be ruled out of order by the presiding officer. And then it goes on to to explain the warning process. >> And so what would be considered as electioneering? Just for the record, um what Mr. Pettis said, would that be considered electioneering? >> Well, can I add to that? Because nobody's filed to run yet. We're still a year away from filing for candidacy. So anyone today can say, "I'm running." I could say I'm running today and then maybe I don't run. So, how could we how could we say this is political when nobody's even filed? My position's not even up yet. I'm still in my position. >> Let me ask let me get to the question. >> So, it could be on the record
055um in case this is asked, right? Just so we can know what is considered electionary. I know Mr. Pettes did say there's a lot of time between now and the elections of next year. Correct. Would that be considered electioneering? >> My legal opinion, no it would not. >> Okay. And can when somebody comes up and says elections are coming up, you all should all be removed. >> Yeah. >> Is that considered electioneering? >> I mean, if it's if >> Well, if his statement is, then that statement is too. >> Then then yes, it applies. We don't have Dober standard. So, it's >> You could argue that it is electioning because it is it is against an individual running. >> All right. Let me I think Miss Molina has a question. Mr. Go ahead. >> You
056had a question first. Go ahead. >> No, no, I'm good. He answered. He answered. So, Mr. Vasquez, I'm finding it very very difficult here because we talk about assumptions. We're talking about feelings. We're talking about how how that made you feel, how you feel that was against you. Well, we there's other candidates out there. There's other people that have said they want to run for office, but again, no one has filed. There's a lot of people that have said any something. But we're looking at the facts, black and white. We're looking at exactly what transpired. The reality is that even our employees are subject to to uh their first amendment rights, uh freedom of speech, to all of it. At any given time, give me one second. Do not talk over me. Now, at this
057point, there's no mention of Perry tonight. >> At this point, there's no mention of an individual name. You're just assuming you could have been talking about anyone else. and and that is a fact and you're basing this grievance off of midi. That's a reality. Those are my comments. And we haven't I'm so sorry. >> We haven't heard from Mr. Pettis yet, >> but I'm going to go with Mr. Montto again. We're assuming because he hasn't spoken yet. >> His assumption that he went up there because of something you did to him outside of United. you >> that's what I remember. >> You silenced him on your transparency page and then he got upset and now you're he came and said, you know, that that wasn't right and you got upset and now we're here. That
058>> and I I don't even know about that situation. >> Oh, you have somebody employer UAD. They identify and sell 26 year working for UAD criticizing a taxpayer. That's it. criticizing a tax that's what you're >> criticizing a taxpayer or your platform >> your platform >> both I'm a taxpayer in a platform too platform is different >> I'm both >> you can't you can't claim coverage coverage as an individual and then coverage as a journalist as a journalist >> he called he called me hypocrite he called the platform he called me >> well who shut him out did you shut him out or did your platform shut him out >> again >> did your parents >> something had to do with the case >> well that's what he's asked I think that's the complaint Mr.
059Let's just I mean [snorts] I'm I'm trying to narrow it down. I've asked you I've asked you several different ways. What is it that what relief is it is that you want? You said you want a letter. >> I said okay. >> You got an employee that criticized >> you. >> Oh citizen. >> Okay. >> Right. A citizen. >> That's what taxpayer you know >> end at the board meeting and nothing was done. >> Order that he finished his statements and not even a letter he gets. So again, it's a feeling because it's it's black and white and what was recorded a name of a person, a name of an organization, a candidate, advocacy group. Nothing was mentioned. That's that's a reality. I mean, it's you're we're basing this off of a fee. >> We
060might have to play the the the the video so you can see when he turns around and waves. >> So let's just >> How much how much >> Maybe he's waving. Let's just say Mr. I don't think I don't think we've ever interrupted anybody when they have the termin unless it's vulgar language. I'm pretty sure someone would say something. >> Just for clarification, I have interrupted if there is like blatant election. >> Let me do this >> in the past. But I believe I interrupted on one individual because he or she stated that he was they were running for the board and please vote for them. >> Okay. Okay. So, we see there's >> but I believe that person was still allowed to complete their comments and then and then >> but before we get
061to further district, you need to give me your your your response and then and then Mr. Pettis >> let me just get them then y'all can ask all the questions and we can deliberate. >> Go ahead. >> Mr. Pett and I are going to share the 15 minutes and he's going to go first. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> Good afternoon members of the board, administration, members of the audience. My name is David Bettis. I am a 26-year employee of United ISD. I am president of the United Classroom Teachers Association. I am a parent. I am a taxpayer. And I am a citizen. But I ask you, why am I here? Grievance. Grievances are against employees. I spoke at that meeting not as an employee. and I made it very clear that I was speaking as
062a citizen. This shouldn't even be happening. But we're here. Okay. I uh did my and you have my statement from the from the uh level two which I think was very complete and detailed. But from the level two decision, I would like to raise some points. The complaint says that I abused my position as a teacher in my remarks in their documentation. They conveniently left out that my remarks were made as a private citizen taxpayer. Please see page seven of your packet. Their characterization of how I identified myself is an error and patently false. You board members were there and and witnessed my my introduction. You may also refer to the video of the meeting. This false and misleading accusation reflects negatively on their credibility in this whole grievance. It also undercuts their contention of
063abuse of my position as a teacher. Also, my position as a teacher or UISD employee absolutely does not preclude my first amendment right to address the board about any concerns or statements. Many teachers and employees as as was discussed have addressed the board in their capacities as USD personnel without any problems. The complaintant is very well of uh very well aware of this again calling into question their motives. Number two, the complaintant is an error that I was specific in my remarks on page 15 of your packet. I challenge anyone to find in my remarks a specific reference to any person or group. You will not find anything anywhere again a false accusation calling into question their motives and their credibility. It is most disturbing that the complaintant has a lack of knowledge of board
064policy regarding the subject matter at board meetings and workshops. This is another attempt to censor me and deny my first amendment rights. They are well aware of what topics can be discussed. However, they falsely contend the remarks were off topic and not on the agenda. Page four. They were reminded of the policy on page 31 of the packet by the hearing officer. I am also concerned with their lack of knowledge as to who presides over the board meetings and alleging that the superintendent is the presiding officer, which they are not. Pages 48 and 49. I am deeply offended that the complaintant identifies me as an algebra 2 teacher. Page 49. For the record, I am a CTE teacher in business. I had previous I've had a previous 20-year career in banking. I am very familiar
065with organizations with organizational charts and the role of the CEO. Let's pretend and the board right here. The superintendent the CEO does not tell the board what to do. The board is over the president. I mean the CEO and the superintendent, however you want to classify it. I am deeply offended. Uh on page 49, the complaintant cites a non-existent administrative code. I'm not sure of the motivation for this. Probably AI. Again, the complaint alleges that I accepted gifts or other compensation. What is this? This is an attempt to interfere with my free speech rights and soil my reputation. This is outrageous. Again, probably AI. As mentioned on page 49, the hearing officer came to the conclusion that the complaintant supplemental claims have no merit. I believe this whole grievance has been a complete waste of
066time, UISD resources, and with all due respect, an uh uh unnecessary waste of council's time costing the district unnecessary expense. I would like to conclude my remarks with two quotes about free speech. One by the late Charlie Kirk who gave his life was murdered for first amendment rights and he said and I quote, "Free speech is not just saying what you want to say but is having to hear things you don't want to hear." The second quote is from a fictional character, Captain Jeanluke Beicard from Star Trek: The Next Generation. But he said, "The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied changes all irrevocably." I respectfully ask that the board uphold the level two decisions. Thank you. And Mr. Morales still has about nine and a half minutes. >> Thank you.
067>> Good evening, members of the board. I'm here again um to present the district's administrative response in the second grievance. Uh Mr. Vosquez alleged that a community member, Mr. David Pettis, used public comments for retaliatory, defamatory, and politically charged remarks and that Dr. Cruz failed to intervene or enforce board policy ped local. He further argued the district lacked jurisdiction to resolve the complaints locally and demanded referral to outside agencies. Um I'd like to reiterate that the district has full authority under board policy GF local to receive here and resolve public grievances while state agencies may investigate matters under their own jurisdiction. Nothing in the law removes the district's authority or requires referral of this local grievance to any other agencies. With respect to Superintendent Cruz, enforcement of decorum and meeting management during public comments primarily
068rests with the presiding officer of the board andor the legal counsel. To be fair, the superintendent is participating in the meeting and like all other participants, he can intervene in instances of severe disruption or to address an imminent health or safety threat. But here, Dr. Cruz's decision to allow the presiding offer officer to manage the public comment was consistent with both law and practice. Regardless, even assuming for the sake of argument that Dr. Cruz was the primary enforcer of decorum at the meeting, Mr. Pettis's comments were nowhere near the level of insulting, profane, threatening, abusive, or disruptive that would warrant uh intervention from anyone. In fact, with respect to Mr. Pettis, the record reflects that he spoke during the public comment portion as a citizen, parent, taxpayer, not as a representative of the district. His
069brief remarks did not violate policy beed local and did not amount to electioneering, personal attack or disruption. At level two, Mr. Vasquez, he sought numerous remedies. For the purpose of this presentation, I will only speak of a few key determinations by the hearing officer. Uh first, there was no violation by uh Dr. Cruz or Mr. Pettis of board policy beed local. The district does retain full jurisdiction to resolve this grievance locally. The superintendent had no duty to interrupt the public comment or silence the speaker and two assurances were granted in the level two just to reaffirm that anti-retili anti-retaliation protections are already existing in board policy. Now Mr. Vosquez has submitted a level three rebuttal that repeats similar arguments and includes additional claims about bias and due process. I will respond to those. First, he
070alleged a lack of neutrality because the level two hearing officer was a subordinate of the superintendent. This conclusionary allegation ignores the fact that board policy GF local expressly authorizes the superintendent to designate a designate to hear public complaints. Mr. Mike Gasa was therefore properly assigned under policy and there was no indication that he had any bias or lacked neutrality. Second, Mr. Vasquez argued that the district cannot investigate itself. This argument misstates both policy and practice because every school district in Texas, not just UISD, is required by law to process grievances locally. This grievance process is not a self-investigation. It is a structured administrative review and it ensures that a written record, an opportunity to be heard, and an opportunity to appeal the board are made. The district has followed this process faithfully and that's why
071we're here tonight for the level three grievance. Third, Mr. Vosque has claimed that the district misstated its authority under board policy GF local. the district did not because policy expressly governs that complaints by members of the public are to be heard under policy GF local and it authorizes a local resolution of those complaints. So while a tea and aspect may investigate another context, the law does not transform every grievance, disagreement or board meeting comment into a state enforcement matter um just because the grievant requested it. Nothing in the grievance created any legal duty to refer this matter to an outside agency. Fourth, Mr. Vasquez has alleged a breach of duty by the superintendent for not interrupting public comment. This argument is is misplaced because expecting the superintendent to override the board president or police every
072single speaker would likely violate the same standards of meeting the quorum that Mr. Vasquez invokes himself as well as any other community member that uses public comment. Finally, Mr. Vasquez claims a due process violation because his grievances were consolidated and because many of the remedies were denied. consolidation under board policy GF local was proper because it allows complaints of similar nature to be heard together for efficiency and consistency. Mr. Tervasquez has likely misunderstood the meaning of due process which can be a confusing term. In actuality, he was afforded the same opportunity to present his case as any other agreement has or would and the written response responded to every single one of his requested remedies. The fact that most of his remedies were denied simply reflects that evidence and policy did not support his claims.
073but it is not a lack of process. Moreover, Mr. Vasquez was not clearly denied any life, liberty, or property by the consolidation of his grievances. The very fact [snorts] that we're here today with the opportunity to present this grievance to you, the board of trustees, is further proof that he has not been denied any due process. In some, the level two decision was lawful, impartial, and grounded in policy. The district acted within its authority. It applied beed local correctly and addressed all the issues raised. There was no evidence of bias or retaliation or any deprivation of Mr. Vosque's rights. For these reasons, the administration respectfully recommends that the board upholds the level two written response in its entirety and denies the requested remedies with the understanding that existence existing policy based assurances remain in effect.
074Thank you for your attention. >> All right. Any questions for either of the parties? Miss Miss. >> Um yes, I had one question. So Mr. Vasquez, let's just say, let's suppose, right, if the board, right, would have stopped or would have said, you know, out of order while Mr. Bettis was giving his public comment, would have that would have that changed anything for you? >> Of course. >> Okay. But again, right, as a board, we always do allow people to give their three minute. On many occasions, I wish I could have yelled out of order, but out of respect for people's freedom of speech and transparency, we let him proceed because it doesn't have to be, you know, you say here not related to agenda item. You yourself in the beginning of this grievance read,
075he could come here and talk about the carnival if he wanted to. Doesn't have to be related to the agenda item. So, you're correct. >> Any other questions? >> Um, I have a question for Mr. Bettis. Right. Uh, Mr. Perez, um, I've seen you at many meetings, right? And I haven't seen you recently, right? Um, >> I've been there. >> Oh, I I haven't seen you. But, um, what I guess what was the reason for giving your public comment? I know >> you just the issue of First Amendment rights being cut off. I'm being cut off, but but looking at the history of of of UISD, a lot of people have been able to express their first amendment rights. And I and I encourage that. I'm not here to chill anybody's rights, to silence anybody.
076In fact, I encourage it quite the contrary to what was being claimed against me. I'm not here to to to stifle anybody. Okay? And I've seen I've seen meetings, you know, Mr. you know, Miss Molina and whatever and you sit there and take it. Okay. But again, nowhere did I say anybody's name, any particular organization. Okay. But is my first amendment right like like you said, I could have talked about the weather if I wanted to. That's that's I mean it's broad but first amendment rights and speaking you know. >> Well I think he says David that you waved at him. >> I'm sorry. >> He says that you waved at him >> and so >> back you know. So >> well I think well well you you didn't mention it but I think Mr.
077Vosquez in filing his grievance >> pretty much to this to this issue. >> So I but I I'm sorry. Even if he did, >> he could talk about whatever he wants. >> Sure. >> So, but but okay. So, Mr. Pettis, I'm I've never met you. Um >> I I just want to affirm something because I'm having very difficult time with this grievance the way it's presented. >> Just to confirm, did you mention specifically a person's name or any organization's name at any point? >> No. Like I [clears throat] told you in my remarks, I challenge you to hear to, you know, that I said Juan Martinez, uh, Aggies United or whatever. I I never said anything like that. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. I have a question for council. >> If if he had mentioned
078the name, is that something we would have had to have intervened because it's an open it's a it's an open forum for comments. In my in my opinion, my legal opinion, no. I don't believe so. Unless, again, his comments rose to the level of profane, threatening, abusive, or disruptive conduct, uh, in my experience, many people's names are mentioned during, >> but I don't want to talk I don't want to open up a Pandora's box that we can just get in there and and people just start talking about, hey, you know, city and county government and things are just unrelated, completely unrelated to to the district business. uh not I think the the purpose of that change was not necessarily did they have to be on the agenda as an item but certainly you know we'd
079like to the public comment should be tailored to discuss district some district business or district event or or you know something going on within within the USD you know >> maybe that maybe we need to revision >> you can the policy it's a local policy so it's subject to revision at any time upon the wishes of the board >> I have a question Mr. Pettis, but your comment uh was I guess in defense per se of UISD operations, right? >> Yes. First amendment at at at board meetings, you know, I mean, first amendment in general, but I did mention, you know, I've been to many board meetings and I've seen many people speak about a a variety of issues. So, I did tie it wasn't like I'm talking about I'm I'm talking about the weather.
080You know, the weather has nothing to do with UISD. I could talk about it technically right now, but >> unless it's a football game or something that >> Yeah. But but my thing was about first amendment rights and and making sure that people's rights are not chilled and encouraging people to come to the board meetings and speak whether it's something like I said from Charlie Kirk, maybe something you don't want to hear. >> Okay. But it did stem from being blocked from the Did it stem from being blocked from? >> You have to read my You have to read my statement. >> Okay. You have to read my statement and it's and it's in there. But >> I am not naming any specific person or any specific group. >> Okay. >> Um I I just
081have one last question, Mr. Velasquez. Um, you know, I want to be fair regardless if it's you, not you, anyone who would be sitting here. Is there something that we're missing here? Because it's clear the reality is that you were not mentioned. Your organization was not mentioned. You're basing this agreements off of a feeling and assumption. Is there anything else that just to wrap this up that you you want to add that that >> what I'm saying he said it was 26 years he represent himself as a district employee of the district he spoke everybody knows parents united is he did enough he gave enough description to Pat Meyers and um is exactly I say he didn't mention any name but he was very targeting and he didn't he didn't went like this I'm going
082to put the video today he went to turns around and goes like this to me. You know, he know he was talking about me. I was the only one back over there. You see me all the time by myself. So who back over there? He's waving at me. >> I'm not I'm not being like like thinking. >> And there was no one else sitting in that area. >> No, I don't remember. It was somebody else there with that day, but I know it was me. >> Then he makes remark, but he doesn't he doesn't remember. is fine because I know um I don't I don't want to insult him but I'll put the I put later on today the the the video so he can see it again and uh and make comments on it
083so you can see was actually what happened. He identified himself as a 26 year employee UAZ and went in and I ramped attacking. >> And so I I'll just say this as my last comment um from what I'm getting right. I think this is stemming from your a feeling right that you're hurt or maybe you're upset at the fact that you're a border patrol and you received letters to your employment. However, >> he is an employee of UISD and he didn't receive a warning. Am I I think that's your issue here, right? >> Anybody witness it? >> Okay. So, I have a question for Superintendent Dr. Cruz. Uh you sent those two letters to his employer. >> I recall sending one letter. >> One letter. I think one was done by the previous to you.
084Um if that had been if m if if Mr. Vasquez had been an employee of HB or and I don't want to say maybe I shouldn't have said a name any other a store or something that's non-federal >> would you have sent that letter >> no you sent it because he's he was a federal employee employee who abides by a code of conduct >> right >> should conduct themselves in a professional capacity with decorum >> right that's the per that was why his employer got that letter >> correct >> okay so UI SD is not federal. It's not a federal. It's not. We're We're local government. We're not No, that's Web County. We're just a school district. We're not a federal entity. We don't have that code of conduct that you had, sir, as an
085as a as an officer. >> That's >> representing the federal government. >> Okay, let's let me deliberate. We're going to we're going to go to close session. The time is currently 6:31. In accordance with the Texas Government Code, section 551.071, the board will discuss items 5A. No action will be taken in close session. So, do y'all want to do it here or do you all want everybody to get out or we want to make that? >> We can. >> It's up to you guys. >> Yeah, sure. >> Okay. Agenda item number six, open session. The board has reconvened from close session. We are now in uh open session. The time is 6:50. For the record, no action was taken in close session. Uh, agenda item 6A, possible action regarding Victor Vosquez's June 2nd, 2025 board
086policy, uh, GF local level three appeal. >> Uh, yes, members of the board, the recommendation regarding that item is to uphold the level two decision in its entirety. >> All right. Is there a motion? >> Motion second. >> There's a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Motion passes. Agenda item 6B, possible action regarding Victor Vasquez's September 2nd, 2025 board policy, GF local consolidated level three appeal. >> Yes, members of the board for that item, the recommendation is to uphold the level two decision in its entirety. >> All right. Is there a motion? >> Motion. >> Second. >> There's a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Motion passes. Agenda item seven. Ajournment. We are
087now journ.