If the board had been monitoring data to begin with, we would not have had to hear Ann Williams and Rick Moreno’s election campaign speech about school turn around tonight. If the two of you had not failed the district for the last 12 years which you have been voting yes to everything given to you by district administrators and had HD Chambers been monitoring data like he is paid to do we might actually be an A district without all the fluff, spin, and campaign speeches.
QUESTIONS:
This year Trustee Jennifer Keys has been live streamed into two board meetings, Lily Truong conference called into two committee meetings, and Natasha Butler conference called into one committee meeting. So why is the district comfortable in quoting the bare minimums of laws when our community ask that board meeting be live streamed for the public each month.
Alief School Board Policy BE (Local) and BE (Legal) states Alief school board meetings will be held on the third Tuesday of each month. Why are there never any notifications to the public when the meetings are not going to be held during the times stated in the districts written policies?
Why did the district spend an entire school year and summer break telling the public about the funding components of House Bill 3 but never once discussed the accountability mechanisms written in the bill to hold the school board and the district accountable to the public beginning September 01, 2019?
Why is Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources Elizabeth Veloz-Powell contacting Damon Barone asking if he will voluntarily withdraw his conflict of interest grievance for Trustees Darlene Breaux and Lily Truong.
Why is the School Board and Superintendent Chambers overzealous about constantly doing the bare minimum? Yet you all work so hard to mislead the public and try to hold us to a higher standard than you hold each other.
On the district’s website regarding the accountability rating Superintendent Chambers stated that 90% of the district’s campuses received A’s, B’s, OR C’s. What that looks like without the HD Chambers spin factor is the district’s campuses EARNED 24 C’s, 10 B’s, 4 A’s, 3 D’s, and 1 F.
During the September 04, 2018 school board meeting Superintendent Chambers stated that he had not been monitoring data as it related to the academic performances of our schools because he was focused on high school graduation rates. One has to wonder if HD Chamber was monitoring data would Alief ISD be in the position that it is in now, and would the district have to resort to calculated misleading public messages and continuous campaigns by Superintendent Chambers to try and discredit the TEA accountability rating while promoting the HD Chambers self-assessment of his leadership.
Why were all of Alief’s six improvement required elementary schools clustered on the east side of the district?
How is it that the district and Superintendent Chambers continue to get more of our tax money each year, but we continue to get less education, less accountability, less governance, and less of the truth from the board and the leadership at 4250 Cook Road?
The board has routinely made it a point to throw jabs at the leadership of HISD. But HISD now has a higher TEA rating than Alief ISD. When can the public expect Alief’s leadership to become as critical of themselves as they have been about HISD?
We routinely hear the board reference the mission statement, board goals, and the vision statement but I question what these call for actions mean to each board member individually because what I see you all do and what I hear you say never matches up. It is important to remember that the devil was once an Angel, so he too knows how to quote the Bible like anyone else.
How long does it take for the district of innovation to get the cameras in the board room fixed so that we can have proper board meeting footage to access for years to come.
ALIEF SCHOOL BOARD POLICY BED (Legal)
BOARD MEETINGS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
United States Constitution:
A district shall take no action abridging the freedom of speech or the right of the people to petition the board for redress of grievances. U.S. Const. Amend. I, XIV
A board may confine its meetings to specified subject matter and may hold nonpublic sessions to transact business. When the board sits in public meetings to conduct public business and hear the views of citizens, it may not discriminate between speakers on the basis of the content of their speech or the message it conveys. Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 828 (1995); City of Madison v. Wis. Emp. Rel. Comm’n, 429 U.S. 167, 176 (1976); Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968)
A board may create a limited public forum for the purpose of hearing comments from the public so long as:
1. The board does not discriminate against speech on the basis of viewpoint;
2. Any restrictions are reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum; and
3. The board provides alternative paths for expressing categories of protected speech that are excluded from the forum.
Fairchild v. Liberty Indep. Sch. Dist., 597 F.3d 747 (5th Cir. 2010)
Texas Constitution:
Citizens shall have the right, in a peaceable manner, to assemble together for their common good and to apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances or other purposes, by petition, address, or remonstrance. Tex. Const. Art. I, Sec. 27
Public Comment:
As long as the requirements of the Open Meetings Act are satisfied and the right of citizens to apply to a board for redress of their grievances is not abridged, the board need not provide a public forum for every citizen wishing to express an opinion on a matter. Reasonable restraints on the number, length, and frequency of presentations are permissible. A board may limit the number of persons it will hear on a particular subject and the frequency with which they may appear, so long as the regulation does not abridge constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom of speech and to petition, nor unfairly discriminate among views seeking expression. Atty. Gen. Op. H-188 (1973)
Alief School Board Policy BED (LOCAL)
Board Meeting Public Participation
Limit on Participation:
Audience participation at a Board meeting is limited to the public comment portion of the meeting designated for that purpose. At all other times during a Board meeting, the audience shall not enter into discussion or debate on matters being considered by the Board, unless requested by the presiding officer. The presiding officer may limit the length of patron presentations and the number of patrons addressing the same subject.
Public Comment:
At regular meetings the Board shall allot a limited amount of time to hear persons who desire to make comments to the Board. Persons who wish to participate in this portion of the meeting shall sign up with the presiding officer or designee before the meeting begins and shall indicate the topic about which they wish to speak. No presentation shall exceed five minutes.
Board’s Response:
Specific factual information or recitation of existing policy may be furnished in response to inquiries, but the Board shall not deliberate or decide regarding any subject that is not included on the agenda posted with notice of the meeting.
Complaints and Concerns:
The presiding officer or designee shall determine whether a person addressing the Board has attempted to solve a matter administratively through resolution channels established by policy. If not, the person shall be referred to the appropriate policy (see list below) to seek resolution:
Employee complaints: DGBA
Student or parent complaints: FNG
Public complaints: GF