001Test test test. >> [music] >> testing. Testing. Just want to make sure you can hear us. >> I I can hear you. This is Mark. Can y'all hear me? >> Yes, sir. >> Thanks. >> Okay. We're not The meeting doesn't start till 5, though, right? Yes, sir. So, you can go ahead and go mute. >> Okay. >> [music] >> Good. Good evening. The time is now 5:00 p.m. on May 13th, 2026. I'm now call the special meeting of the Northland Independent School District Board of Trustees. This meeting has been posted in compliance with the Texas Open Meetings Act and I certify that the pro provisions of the Texas Government Code Chapter 551 have been met. We have a [clears throat] quorum. We're missing Mr. Hodes, Mr. Hernandez, and Mr. Freeze. So, there's [clears throat] four
002board members present. We do not have anybody for public forums. So, the next item on the agenda is to hear the consolidated grievance appeals from Mr. Reagan and your host. The board's attorney, Mark Dway, will explain the procedures for the appeal. I'm assuming you want to do this in open session. Mr. Anyway, you're up. [snorts] Thank you, Mr. President. Can everyone hear me? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Um, I'm just going to read through the the procedures here uh and then ask the Mr. to present his grievance. Um [clears throat] this item on the agenda is uh going to be conducted in open session and um we will now begin the level three appeal of the consolidated grievances of Reagan in office. Um Mr. Do you have anyone who's going to be representing you or
003will you be representing yourself? I'm representing myself. Okay. Thank you. Um, I will now ask each trustee if he or she is able to be partial and arrive in a decision on this appeal based solely upon information presented this evening uh and contained in the record which has previously been provided to the board. Uh, any board member not able to be impartial should say so and asked to be excused. Um and uh and so Mr. President, you hear from any trustees are asking to be excused based on their u be? No certain requesting refusals. Um I'll go ahead and go through the procedures. Um the the uh the reading party uh will be provided 15 minutes to make a presentation. Uh and then uh since this agreements deal with board issues um and procedural issues
004not going to be a administrative response per se, but I will u summarize the administrative decisions that the administration is asking the board to uphold. Um and then if the board so chooses, it may go into close session to uh seek legal counsel about the minutes. If uh and that's at the board's discretion, um also after the presentations of the level two decisions and the level three appeal, the board may ask questions regarding the grievance. Uh are there any questions about the the procedure for this grievance appeal? Who's going to keep the time? Um, if you'd like, I can keep the time and then give you like a a 2 minute long warning. Does that sound Does that sound okay? That works. Okay. Um, no questions. Then I will go ahead and let me set
005my timer and u once I get that going, Mr. Print to go >> Mr. We are being recorded right and we're live. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thanks. >> So the technical recordings working? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. All right. Mr. May present your appeal on your consolidated level three cases. All right. Good evening. Uh my name is and I'm regarding my level three uh appeal concerning the December 16th 2025 board meeting and the district of my grievances related to that meeting. Uh I want to begin by being very clear that this is about personality conflicts politics or disruption. This is about transparency, procedural integrity, and whether this board complied with the Texas Openings Act while conducting official business that continues to affect this district today. The district 16 was not insignificant. During that meeting it
006officers established it culture I'm sorry structureed official governance actions that influenced every subsequent meeting there afterward and that matters because legitimate questions about comply with the meetings act. There's also legitimate questions about the validity and integrity of actions from that meeting. The concerns raised in this are specific and observable from the record itself. Those concerns include the presiding officer participating remotely from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania location of the participation statements indicating significant limitations and two-way communication and visibility in official proceedings and votes and the validity of the current board leadership and subsequent school board meetings. The record contains statements made by president. I can't see I can't see all and references to the meeting raised hands status. These were hypothetical concerns raised after the fact. These things proceedings while those actions were actively occurring. witness the presiding
007officer repeatedly stating that he could not adequately see the board during a video conference meeting involving official governmental action that should concern every member of this board. Texas code section 55127 governance meetings conducted by video conference under the Texas meetings act or Texas openings act conference meetings maintain effective two-way audio and video communication so participants can hear and observe one another through official proceedings. The statute also contains transparency requirements concerning the location and participation of the presiding officer. Specifically, section 55127C states that a government body three or more times may conduct a video conference meeting if the officer is physically present at a location open to the public. Section 551.1274 requires notice of location officer will be physically present during the December 16th meeting. The presiding officer president Hodgees stated that he was participating from
008Philadelphia. However, even the operating operates within county and does not appear to constitute a governmental body extending to more counties as contemplated by section of the statute. raises legitimate concerns whether the district properly relied upon section 55127 to authorize participation by the presiding officer and the condition upon the statute to authorize participation public and transparency safeguards should also apply. Governmental bodies should not be permitted to selectively apply only portions of a statute that expand governmental authority while disregarding the procedural safeguards designed to protect public transparency and accountability. The act exists to ensure public confidence and governmental proceedings. The legislature did not create confidence provisions merely for convenience. Those provisions were accompanied by safeguards intended to ensure that the public can fully observe, understand, and trust governmental decisionm. At level two, the district itself acknowledged that
009the presiding officer could not consistently view all board members and visibility limitations existed due to screen configuration and presentation view. The district further acknowledged that trustees verbally confirmed the votes because of those invisibility limitations. Those findings are not demonstrated that these concerns were legitimate and substantial. This grievance is not frivolous. It was grounded in obser observable facts documented conditions and the public's right to transparent and legally compliant proceedings. This is exactly why the Texas Open Meetings Act exists. Not simply to ensure that meetings technically occur, but to ensure that governmental decisionm is visible, understandable, and trustworthy to the public. Public confidence is damaged when citizens watching board president repeatedly state during official proceedings that he cannot adequate adequately see participants during votes and deliberations. And despite those documented concerns, the district ultimately concluded there was
010no violation. Respectfully, I disagree with that conclusion. I also want to address the district's handling of the grievance process itself. This policy global clearly states at each agreements review process the district shall issue a decision on the merits of the concern raised in agreements not withstanding procedural errors. Despite that language agreements was dismissed solely on time grounds before the district partially reverse course at level two and address portions of the merge that initial dismissal was inconsistent with the district's own adopted policy and this matter because procedural safeguards only mean something if the district applies them consistently and thoroughly. This appeal is larger than we need. This appeal concerns whether the district whether I'm sorry. This appeal concerns whether the public can trust the transparency of their proceedings. This appeal concerns whether district grievance procedures are
011applied consistently. This appeal concerns whether governmental bodies are willing to correct procedural failures when legitimate concerns are raised. I also believe it's important to recognize the significance of the actions taken from this December 16th meeting. This was the meeting which the board selected its officers establish the board leadership structure. subsequent meetings, committee appointments, agenda control, governance procedures, and actions flow from decisions made during that meeting. If the December 16th meeting did not fully comply with open meetings act and conference requirements, then there are legitimate concerns regarding the integrity of subsequent actions taken under that leadership structure. This is not an extreme position. This is a logical consequence of governmental procedural law. To be clear, I'm not sitting here asking for symbolic statements or vague reassurances. I'm requesting meaningful corrective action. Therefore, I respectful request acknowledge
012the legitimacy of the current concerns raised regarding video conference communication and visibility barriers. Reference strict compliance with the Texas Openings Act. Ensure future video conference meetings maintain uninterrupted two-way communication and full visibility of participants. Ensure future meeting notices clearly disclose the location and participation status of remotely participating presiding officers when required by law. Maintain a complete and accurate administrative record of the of the screen process. We consider we vote the board officer and executive committee selections made during the December 16th meeting and reconsider, ratify or validate subsequent government actions mater from the leadership structure established during the meeting which includes all decisions made from January. to today. If the foundational meeting itself is procedurally defective, then actions formed from that meeting deserve to renew public scrutiny and validation. My goal is accountability. My goal is
013restoring public trust by ensuring that official board actions occur through meetings that are unquestionably transparent, procedurally sound, and legally compliant. This public deserves confidence that board governance is conducted openly, properly, and in full compliance with Texas law. Thank you. Mr. Thank you, Mr. U. How much time does he have left? >> Um 4 minutes and 42 seconds. Um, so what I'd like to do is just point the board to the the decisions uh that are in the packet that the board has already received in review. There are two level two decisions that the administration is is asking uh be upheld. Uh the first is a decision that can be found as exhibit 3 from page seven of the record uh dealing with timeliness and was issued uh by Messi. And um and what that decision
014shows is that um that the grievance was not timely filed under existing local policies and there was a a assertion by Mr. also brought the concern up to uh to an outside authority and that did not uh did not timeline. [music] administration was asking at that level that determination [music] made all the agreements was not timely and then there was a determination made as that he be given a as you say earlier a a decision on the merits uh and uh and and so that was uh it was considered and also that the the timeliness issue be revisited And so that was done and you'll find that decision at exhibit 7 um pages 23 through 28 and you'll see a fivepage written decision um and that appeal was conducted by Roberto and Mr. issued a
015decision. Um this issue um it talked about the the alleged um [clears throat] difficulty with [music] business there's some good discussion of that and I'll I'll just leave that to you. requested remedies, granted some of them, denied some of them, but uh did not make a finding that there was a violation of that section that Mr. cited, which was uh openings act, which is Texas government code 551.127 C and E. And the reason state administration was that that that those sections apply to governmental bodies either state agencies uh or governmental bodies that are located in three or more counties. So that those sections C and E that were cited as being violated don't apply to MISD and u the the regular rules for video participation um such that a quorum has to be present in
016the um and the main location uh that those those were complied with so on um I just wanted commend you and point to you where those are in the letter and let you know that that is what the administration was asking uh to be upheld. Um and at this time if the uh trustees have any questions that they might have to uh um uh to understand agreements, you can ask them now. And if if one or more trustes or wants to go to close session and seek legal advice about making a decision uh you have the opportunity to do that based on the posting uh it's not required but uh but that's available to the board if the board so wishes. So are there any questions um about the agreements for administration or Mr. Mr.
017I can do [snorts] a reminder what the law says about the three counties or more on Zoom. Uh there's a section called video conference call. Uh and the very first section says except as otherwise provided by this section the chapter is not prohibited by holding an open or closed meeting by video conference call. So that's the general rule that the this chapter does not prevent um uh video or um conference calls. Uh section C of which was violated states that a meeting of a state governmental body uh or a governmental body that extends into three or more counties meeting conference call only if the member body presiding over the meeting is physically present at one location of the meeting that is open to the public during the p during the open portions of the meeting.
018So that was uh the one that was cited as being uh violated. And then E uh says that conference call must specify a location of the meeting. The location where a government body will be physically present and specify the intent to have a present at that location. uh except the notice [music] of the meeting to be held by conference call under subsection C referring back to that other section that only applies to state and entities that are in three or more counties location body presiding will be physically present. So um C really doesn't deal with a school district that is only situated in one county and then E uh the part about presiding officer only refers back to that same section C. So it was rule level two that that does not u uh the
019[laughter] the the grievance alleging violation of those sections were not applicable to to that particular December MISD meeting. So, I know it's it's been six months. I've done a lot in the last 6 months. Remind me, we had, I believe, six people present in public. One of six that Mr. is there's a photograph in there. I see six people and then the president vacant. So that's I wasn't at that meeting, but I'm uh that's the uh that's an image that you can find on page 25 of your record. All votes were taken in public. I don't I don't recall going to executive session in that one or taking action outside of public view. Oh, >> okay. I just just trying to make sure I got all the facts straight here. Anybody else? So there's there's
020nothing in the law that said that the presiding officer has to be in person. >> Not for ISD for uh for a state agency, >> right? Three or more counties. >> Yeah. We you can have an open meeting in more than one location, but the public has to be able to be present at this u at the location where the pres the presiding officer is uh if it's one of the has three or more counties or a state agency. >> Um so um the law requires that when a participant is speaking their face be visible and their voice audles to other participants. Uh, was Mr. Hajes ever not visible while speaking? I know he said he couldn't see us or or hear or see us, but was he ever not visible to to the public?
021And that is addressed in Mr.'s videos um [clears throat] response. Um I also included two uh screenshots in my grievance where he was not physically visible. Was he speaking when your screenshots were taken? Was he Was he talking? Uh I I don't believe he was talking. This is Mr. Mr. He is a decision on March 27th. He uh on page page 26 of your record. in in his uh determination he writes the law requires that when a participant speaking their face be visible and their voice audible so that other to the other participants the standard was met as the trustes camera was on and his voice was audible throughout his participation [laughter] and that's at the bottom of page 26 okay thank you and I think you already said it but we did have a
022quum in the main the main place correct Right. Cuz I do see six of us on >> my I don't think we've ever held a meeting without a quantity. >> Yes, sir. If you look at the bottom of page 25, you can see photographic evidence of uh the f the six trustees um at the dis um and then the board president's chair vacant in the middle. >> Perfect. Thank you. Page 25 in the record. Anybody else? [sighs] Mr. No, you have 4 minutes and 42 seconds left. If you would like your time. I just want to reiterate that um I I believe regardless of the uh whether it's a three county agency or not, the uh two-way communication is uh mandatory whether it's a three countywide agency or a single um school district that's within
023one county. Let me ask you this. Do you think there's a possibility that Mr. Hodgeges just couldn't see the board even though there was a two-way line of communication? Do you think that's a possibility or you think it was just malicious? >> Uh, I don't think I stated that it was malicious at all. Well, well, I understand that, but we're at a grievance hearing. So, I'm just wondering, is there a possibility that there was a two-line communication? Cuz I can see that. Mr. Booker, will you raise your hand real quick? I know he just raised his hand, but I can't see it on that screen. So, uh, I heard that accountability, public perception. I just do you think there's a possibility that he just couldn't verify the votes? >> Like the screen was too small
024for him to see cuz like he said I can't see myself on that screen back there. I I don't understand the point of that because the point of the governmental the point of transparency is to be able to uh and the point of having to communication is so that there's uh Mr. es he can clearly see who's voting, who's not voting. Um, and if he's relying on on somebody telling him what the votes are. I mean, that's not very transparent. I mean, y'all could be a conspiracy and and lie to him. Uh I mean as you know for example I'm not saying that that y'all would do something like that but uh out of the act of transparency and the spirit of the Texas Open Means Act uh having two-way communication if it wasn't important
025it wouldn't be in the law. So it's obviously there for a reason. Do you think there's a possibility that that law was written for transparency for the public? >> I believe that law was written so public and government entities have a rule book to follow that they should follow presentation with questions. If you have anything else to present, uh, [clears throat] just go away. No, I don't. Okay. Um, so you got Mr. You got your decision in front of you showing the screenshots from the board meeting and the reasoning as to why the the administration's determination was that it was not violated. So, um, if the board needs to, uh, deliberate and seek further advice, you can do that in close session or or if you're ready to make a motion, you can do do
026it that way, too. >> I think we'll go I think we'll go to close session. So, I'll take it from here. All right. Next item on the agenda. Agenda item five, close session in accordance with the government code section 551. Texas Government Code section 551.071 consultation with the board's attorney regarding complaints under board policy rule. Texas Government Code section 551.074 conduct a pair of community member complaints against the public officers or employees pursuant to board policy GF local. The time is now 5:29 p.m. The board go into close session. The time is now 5:50 p.m. and the board is reconvening in open session. [sighs] Do I have a motion coming out of close session? >> I move to reaffirm and uphold the level two decisions. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> It
027has been motioned and seconded to uphold the level two group. >> All those in favor raise your hand. Motion passes 40. The time is now 5:51 p.m. and this meeting is adjourned.