(crowd chattering)
-: If I could get everybody's attention,
we've got a lot of excitement going on here,
and a lot of things to do, and the first thing
I'd like to do, though, is all of
our elected representatives, I mean,
we usually don't get as much,
as many elected representatives here.
We want to make sure and recognize all of you,
to stand with the board, so I'd love
all of the board members to come in the center
of the circle if you would, both the new board members,
the ones we're going to be swearing in
as well as all the board members, just gather in the circle.
And if all of our representatives,
I know I saw Representative Allen and I'm not sure,
and of course obviously, Senator Taylor is here.
And I'm not sure who all else has come.
Yes, Speaker Bonnen is here.
-: His brother, Dr. Bonnen is a State Rep.
-: Okay.
-: And then there's a number of...
-: Dr. Bonnen I think is here.
And Thompson.
I just would like all the elected representatives
to stand in here with all of our members.
And the commissioner.
We're just going to take a quick picture.
(crowd chattering)
Members, this is quite an honor
to have so many people come out today
and celebrate with us, the coming in
of three new members and coming back
of four more members, we're very excited about this day.
We've really been looking forward to it.
Thanks for being here for us.
And so now we're going to have the swearing in ceremony.
We're going to, I'd like to welcome...
Like to definitely welcome Senator Taylor
and all of our representatives that are here.
And I want to make sure I name all of them.
Do you have that list of everybody?
Fantastic.
Senator Taylor, Representative Alma Allen,
Representative Greg Bonnen, and Representative Thompson.
So honored to have all of you here with us today.
And I would like to call on Gina Perez for the invocation.
Ms. Perez?
Perez: Yes.
-: Invocation. (laughs)
(no audio)
-: Good morning.
For--
(no audio)
This work?
I've very honored to do the invocation today,
because many of you may already know this,
but Aicha not only is my--
(no audio)
A former protege, and I'm so very proud of you
for being here this morning,
so thank you for allowing me to do this for you today.
If you will all join me, please.
Heavenly Father,
we gather here today in fellowship to do Your work.
We come to this place from different towns, homes,
backgrounds, and walks of life.
United in the idea of what is,
of doing what is best for Texas students and families.
Father, we ask that, in this new year,
a year of new beginnings and new faces,
that you point us all in the direction of Your will.
We ask You, Father, that You renew our faith
in the work we do, and that You grant us
wisdom in the choices we make.
And that You soften our hearts
in times of dissent and disagreement.
Calm our minds so that we
can truly hear one another and have a better understanding.
Let us not be stubborn or unwilling to listen
to all of your children.
Even with those we disagree.
Remind us every hour of every day
why each of us are here in service.
We ask this in Your Holy Name, Amen.
Bahorich: ...call on Member Hardy to give the pledges.
-: Yes, would the audience please stand?
I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic, for which it stands.
One nation, under God, indivisible
with liberty and justice for all.
Remain standing for the Texas flag.
Honor the Texas flag.
I pledge allegiance to thee.
Texas, one state under God,
one and indivisible.
Thank you.
-: I'd like to welcome Senator Taylor,
if you would, to come to the podium.
And I'd like to ask the seven recently elected members
to come to the center of the circle.
-: Thank you, Madam Chair.
We gather today on a great day
of celebrating elections and re-elections.
And I'm honored to be invited to be here
to do the swearing in of our folks, today.
(no audio)
Yeah, we had the same deal
with the School Finance Commission,
these things just get tired and they turn off.
By the way, I'm especially glad
to be able to get here today.
It's quite difficult, as you might imagine,
to get here from the capitol.
Thanks for the heads up on that.
I didn't know if y'all even wanted us
to come or not, after all.
But once I climbed the fence and people quit yelling at me--
(laughter)
Things went well.
But anyway, I'm just honored to be here today.
We are working on great things in education.
And this body, in conjunction with our legislature,
the governor, and our commissioners here as well today,
we are in the middle of great things for Texas,
and I'm excited about the things
that are going to be happening this session.
And I'm excited to work with you,
and I hope you'll follow the example
of the School Finance Commission,
it was a very diverse group, just as you have here.
But we had one common goal.
And that was to work for the children of Texas
and improve the educational outcomes
of 5.4 million students.
That's our charge and I hope you'll take that to heart
and work together where we can to make sure
we move this state forward
in our educational outcome for all of our kids.
And with that, let's do the oath of office.
If you would, raise your right hand.
In the name and by the authority
of the State of Texas, I, state your name--
(inductees speaking)
Do solemnly swear or affirm.
(inductees repeating)
That I will faithfully execute the duties of the office.
(inductees repeating)
Of member of the State Board of Education.
(inductees repeating)
Of the State of Texas.
(inductees repeating)
And will to the best of my ability.
(inductees repeating)
Preserve, protect, and defend.
(inductees repeating)
The Constitution and laws of the United States.
(inductees repeating)
And of this state.
(inductees repeating)
So help me, God.
(inductees repeating)
Congratulations.
(applause)
-: ...didn't know if you had any other remarks
that you'd like to add or if that sums it up for you?
-: Well, that pretty well sums it up,
but I just really am excited.
I think you'll see a lot of horsepower, momentum,
and just energy towards making these incredible changes
in our school finance system,
which if you're not aware,
only happens about every four years.
So this is a crucial time and to get this done
during this session is very important for our state
and for our future, and I just really appreciate
y'all's willingness to step up in a very difficult role
that you have, but it's so important
what we do for these kids.
At the end of the day,
people ask me all the time, is this fun?
I wouldn't describe all of it as fun,
some of it's funner than others.
But at the end of the day when I look back,
the things that we accomplish make it all worthwhile,
and I hope you have the same experience
here on the Board of Education.
Thank y'all very much.
Bahorich: Absolutely.
Thank you for coming.
-: Thank you all.
(applause)
Bahorich: Thank you so much.
-: Let me know when I can help.
-: Absolutely.
And I'd like to point out,
I believe Representative Middleton has come in to the room,
I just wanted to point out that he's here to visit with us.
Any other representatives or senators that have come?
(indistinct responses)
Yes.
-: ...you know is a--
Bahorich: Absolutely.
-: Show support and appreciation for your work.
-: Thank you, Representative Hinojosa.
Thank you so much.
Any others, did I miss any others?
Wonderful, well, we feel very uptown today
with this many people coming (laughs)
to participate with us today in this exciting event.
So thank you so much for coming.
I'd like to also, we've got a tight timeline,
we're just going to take a quick ten-minute break
to grab lunch, this in the alcove right here.
And set up and then we're going to ask the mariachi band
to go ahead and get in here
and get ready and we will all be able to enjoy that.
A very special presentation with them today.
And then Ruben Cortez, Member Cortez is going
to introduce them here after we take this short ten minutes.
Just to grab lunch here.
(people chattering)
-: Well good morning, everybody!
If I can get your attention,
we have a special treat for the board
and for all of those that are joining us today
as we took our ceremonial oath of office.
We have the mariachi from Edcouch-Elsa,
Mariachi Juvenil Azteca.
For those of you that aren't aware,
mariachi just became a UIL activity a few years ago.
And Edouch-Elsa established this program back in 2005
and it's quickly gained notoriety and recognition
not only across the state but across the nation
as one of the premier mariachi ensembles.
Along their countless accolades,
there are the Grand Championship Awards
that Mariachi Juvenil Azteca has shared the stage
with artists such as Mariachi del Sol Mexico,
Mariachi Vargas de Tecalitlán.
Their captivating show music has earned them
performances around the state as well as
presentations in California and in Florda.
This year, Mariachi Juvenil Azteca was selected
to perform at the National School Boards Association
Conference in Philadelphia.
I believe they will be the first ever mariachi ensemble
to perform at the National School Boards Association
Conference, if I'm not mistaken.
And in 2018, Mariachi Juvenil Azteca was awarded
the coveted title of Mariachi State Champions
for 5A Division in the Texas Association
of Mariachi Educators.
Most recently, Mariachi Juvenil Azteca
was crowned national champions
at the 24th annual Mariachi Vargas Extravaganza
in San Antonio, Texas.
Mariachi Juvenil Azteca is under the direction
of head director Marcos Garcia
and assistant directors Manuel Farrar and Michael C. Dodd.
And we have some other attendees from the district,
but I'll recognize them after you hear
from these amazing students
who I'm very proud of and I'm very happy
that we have La Machina in the house
to perform at such an amazing time for us.
Thank you guys.
I hope you all like what you hear.
(uptempo mariachi music)
(Spanish language singing)
(applause)
-: Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf
of the entire school district,
thank you for the opportunity to be here
and showcase these wonderful talents.
It's not often that we get to come play
for such prestige, and we're very honored
and very privileged to be here.
My name is Marcos Garcia, I'm the director
of the Mariachi, and I'm
the proud, proud director of these students.
They've worked tremendously hard
to get to where they are today.
We have a ten-year program that we've built,
like flowerbeds, and I'm very proud of the outcome
and the quality that we have today.
We want to dedicate this next song to a good friend of ours,
Mr. Ruben Cortez, he shared with me
that he had a go-to song, a very special song
for him that was his chicken soup for the soul, he said.
And we said, yeah, we can do that,
even though it's not traditional mariachi,
we can accomplish anything at Edcouch-Elsa.
So this song is dedicated to him,
it's entitled Reckless Love.
(uptempo mariachi music)
♪ Before I spoke a word, You were singing over me ♪
♪ You have been so, so good to me ♪
♪ Before I took a breath, You breathed Your life in me ♪
♪ You have been so, so kind to me ♪
♪ Oh the overwhelming, never-ending, reckless love of God ♪
♪ Oh it chases me down, fights 'til I'm found, leaves the 99 ♪
♪ I couldn't earn it and I don't deserve it ♪
♪ Still You give Yourself away ♪
♪ Oh the overwhelming, never-ending, reckless love of God ♪
♪ When I was your foe, still Your love fought for me ♪
♪ You have been so, so good to me ♪
♪ When I felt no worth, You paid it all for me ♪
♪ You have been so, so kind to me ♪
♪ Oh the overwhelming, never-ending, reckless love of God ♪
♪ Oh it chases me down, fights 'til I'm found, leaves the 99 ♪
♪ And I couldn't earn it, and I don't deserve it ♪
♪ Still You gave Yourself away ♪
♪ Oh the overwhelming, never-ending, reckless love of God ♪
(applause)
-: This next selection, we dedicate it
to all the teachers at our district this year,
and turned out to be a hit on social media,
so we're gonna share with you guys,
it's an oldie but goodie by the title of Stand By Me.
(uptempo mariachi music)
♪ When the night has come ♪
♪ And the land is dark ♪
♪ And the moon is the only light we'll see ♪
♪ No I won't be afraid, no I won't be afraid ♪
♪ Just as long as you stand, stand by me ♪
♪ So darlin', darlin', stand by me ♪
♪ Oh stand by me ♪
♪ Stand, stand by me, stand by me ♪
♪ If the sky that we look upon ♪
♪ Should tumble and fall ♪
♪ Or the mountains should crumble to the sea ♪
♪ I won't cry, I won't cry, no I won't shed a tear ♪
♪ Just as long as you stand, stand by me ♪
♪ And darlin', darlin', stand by me ♪
♪ Oh stand by me ♪
♪ Oh stand, stand by me, stand by me ♪
♪ And darlin', darlin', stand by me ♪
♪ Oh stand by me ♪
♪ Just as long as you stand, stand by me ♪
♪ And darlin', darlin', stand by me ♪
♪ Ooh stand by me ♪
♪ Oh stand ♪
♪ Stand by me ♪
(applause)
-: Thank you very much, thank you.
This next selection is one that we like to brag
about our great state of Texas.
Everywhere that we go, we tell everybody
that we are the greatest state in the nation.
So this is a little tribute
to our Lone Star State, it's called our Lone Star Medley.
(upbeat mariachi music)
(medley tune, "The Eyes of Texas")
(medley tune, "The Yellow Rose of Texas")
(audience claps in time)
(medley tune, "San Antonio Rose")
(applause)
-: Thank you so much for the applause,
we have one last song,
this is our award-winning show song
that we won our national title.
We take a lot of pride in that
because we did beat the 6A champs
and the 4A champs at that one,
and we are the current reigning 5A champs.
So we brag to everybody how good the program is,
but we can't have this without you guys
starting from the top down,
so we appreciate everything you do,
our board of trustees, our superintendents, amazing support.
These guys give us everything that we ask for.
And we do ask for a lot.
But we are very blessed to have that support.
And we can't do this without you,
so thank you for everything that you do
for our education system.
It's truly a blessing to come
and share what we do down here at the bottom with you guys.
Okay, so this is our award-winning song,
it's a tribute to Vera Cruz,
and you're going to see a lot of showing off.
We have tremendous instruments and vocalists in our group,
so you'll see the violin section,
the trumpet section, everybody taking a little piece
of the pie and show off.
And this is a tribute to Vera Cruz.
(uptempo mariachi music)
(singing in Spanish)
(applause)
-: Wow, what an amazing, amazing performance.
You know,
Marco, I don't know, and it wasn't on my sheet here,
but remember when I was with you guys
at the district early last year.
You all had the number one vocalist, is that true?
Marco: That's correct as well.
-: The number four vocalist?
Number seven?
And the number 26?
Is that right?
-: Out of 25 entire vocalists
in a separate competition, we had four finalists,
so there were four of 25 vocalists,
and then we did bring back the best in the nation vocalist,
so it's the Best in the US they call it.
With Natanya Flores.
(applause)
And we also have brought back second overall
in the high school, and that was Anisa Solis.
(applause)
-: It's clear to see why you guys
are the number one ranked mariachi in the country.
You guys, I'm very proud of you guys,
(applause)
I love coming over when you guys invite me.
I posted a video of them on my social media page
early last year, I had lunch with them in San Antonio
after they performed at the Gonzalez Convention Center.
And they had already hit over 100,000 likes,
it was a video from what you all did
at your performing arts center there at the school district.
So very proud of this group.
And you left me breathless, man, when they played that song.
I listen to it every morning,
I listened to it this morning
on my way to the gym, it's a good way to start my day.
I think this is a good way with that song, Reckless Love,
to begin our first session of this new Board of Education,
so I'm very, very proud of you guys.
And I have something that I want
to just present to you guys.
And I want to recognize all those others
that are in attendance here from Edcouch,
we have our superintendent,
Mr. Cavasos, Ron Cavasos.
(applause)
We have our assistant superintendent
from Edcouch-Elsa, Mrs. Francis Rocha.
(applause)
I believe our principal didn't make it, right?
But our principal for the campus at Edcouch High School
is Jorge Gutierrez, but with us today we have two
of my good friends that serve on the board there,
Mr. Tony Barco, long time friend, and Chris Morales--
(applause)
Thank you guys for continuing to invest in this program
and all the other programs that La Machina
has in the delta area, very, very proud of you guys.
And we also have our executive director from Region One,
Cornelio Gonzales was here a minute ago,
I think he had to leave.
But I have this certificate of special recognition
from the Board of Education that I'd like to present to you,
Marcos, on behalf of all of us
and for your students in participation today.
Thank you guys very much.
-: Thank you very much.
(applause)
I hope you liked it.
(applause)
-: That concludes our ceremony for the swearing in
of our members, and I'm going to take
just a very quick five-minute break
at this point to allow folks to leave
if you'd like to, 'cause we are about
to talk about something super exciting
and that is the review and adoption
of State Board of Education rules.
Members, we'll go ahead and begin with our business
of review and adoption of the State Board of Education
operating rules, I did not understand why the room cleared.
Because this is going to be
a compelling conversation, I am sure.
So. (laughs)
Yeah.
Okay, members, let's go ahead and get back together.
(gavel strikes)
All right, my intention, members, is to,
and I am so grateful for all of you
who submitted the rules to Debbie last Friday
so we can send it out to give notification to everyone,
so we both have time to think about the rule changes
and if they agreed or disagreed,
hopefully that'll help us move along.
'Cause as you know, we need
to get out of here at 2:30, and it's driving me...
(no audio)
So I have to look at my clock,
so keep us on track for 2:30, if you would.
And to make sure, so we need to get through the,
if you'll look at the agenda,
we've gotta get through the adoption,
review and adoption of the rules
and the election of State Board officers
and the announcement of membership of committees,
hopefully by 2:30 today,
so we'll try our best to get through there,
and anything lingering we will continue
first thing tomorrow if we didn't get through
all of those agenda items.
Yes, so Ms. Ratcliffe?
-: Good morning, board members and welcome,
especially, to our new friends in circle.
We are about to start the operating rules,
but during the break, I also put
your committee preference sheet on your table
so if there's a lull in the action
and you want to go ahead
and write down your top two choices,
feel free to go ahead and do that to speed us along later.
-: And I would like just to interject,
if you don't really care between a committee,
like one committee and another committee,
put one or two, one or two,
and that makes us know that you don't care really,
this is not necessarily your first
and this is not necessarily your second.
So if you don't really care among the committees,
that would be helpful.
Just for the officers to look at.
Does that make sense to everybody?
You can put one or two, whatever,
for your first two choices.
-: And now as we start the operating rules,
if you're following along on your electr--
I have yours, yes.
If you're following along on your electronic agenda,
it's on page SBOE-3 and if you're using your bookmarks,
you go to the bookmark called State Board of Education,
June 28th, and then click on that,
and today's agenda will download.
Will drop down.
And this actual item is called
Review and Adoption of SBOE Operating Rules.
You also have on your desk, in case you,
we all need a slower transition,
you have a printout of what was in your agenda
which are the staff proposed changes.
Another document called Draft Amendments
to State Board of Education Operating Rules,
that's what members are likely to propose later today.
So most of the, it looks like a lot of changes,
most of them are cleanup related
to technology or staffing changes.
So we'll go ahead and start, the first one
is found on SBOE-3, it's simply a date change
to reflect what we hope will be adoption
of the rules later today.
And then I believe,
we thought we'd walk through it by sections.
And then I believe Mr. Maynard
actually has the next amendment and that's--
Exactly, 1.2-E.
Bahorich: 1.2-E.
Does everybody know where we are?
-: And that deals with the ad-hoc committees.
Bahorich: Yes.
Maynard: Madam Chair, are you ready for that?
Bahorich: Yes, why don't you go ahead?
Maynard: Yeah, members, in section 1.2-E,
the amendment is to strike
the word shall and insert the word may.
-: And everybody can see the rationale there,
is there any, if there's no objection?
We'll go ahead and accept that change.
All right, moving on.
And I believe you've got 1.2-F.
Maynard: And that, yeah,
I've actually got the next eight, I think, so--
Bahorich: Okay.
-: My second amendment is to insert
the word the chair or commissioner may request
Attorney General, request the Attorney General
to issue an opinion under Texas government code 402.042.
-: And everybody can see the rationale there.
Any objection to that amendment?
Just to make it clear in rule.
Yes, Mr. Cortez?
Cortez: What is it currently to request,
what is the process currently, any one of us can ask?
(indistinct audio from Maynard)
Bahorich: Yeah, Mr. Maynard,
you looked into this, go ahead.
-: Yeah and so, just to clarify that, you know,
I know that from time to time
that there have been questions
about an Attorney General opinion.
As it turns out, the government code
specifies who can request that.
I just thought that it would be useful
to go ahead and to capture that piece
of the government code to put it in our rules
to keep someone from having to consult
another document to go find out what that is.
-: So we're just adding that to our rule as a clarification.
Any objection to that amendment?
Hearing none, the amendment is adopted.
Is that--
Ratcliffe: I believe the next amendment
would deal with seating.
-: 2.1.
Oh.
Ratcliffe: Well, 1.3.
-: Oh, I see 1.3, yeah.
-: Madam Chair.
I'm going to make
this motion on behalf of the Chair of the State Board.
And because this is a motion dealing with seating,
I thought that if I had the opportunity to make this motion
that that would sort of by default
make me the Chairman of the Board.
Because it has to do with seating.
(indistinct speaking)
Bahorich: Ta-da, done.
Okay.
-: All right.
The amendment is to insert the words
and vice chair after chair, and after the word districts,
the seating for the remaining 13 members
will be rotated annually at the first board meeting
of the calender year.
Bahorich: I think everybody can see the rationale.
There.
Does everybody have the sheet
that has all the rationale and everything on there?
(indistinct responses)
Six of this document that has the,
at front says Draft Amendments
to the State Board of Education Operating Rules.
Just to be sure, yes, Dr. Ellis.
Ellis: I would consider also if the board
is willing to have the secretary stay
in the same area as the other members of the leadership.
-: So that would be amending an amendment,
any second to that amendment?
Second?
Any discussion on that particular amendment?
So it would keep the chair, vice chair,
and secretary in the same position.
Hearing none, okay.
That amendment is adopted.
Any other change to the...
To the, yes, Mr. Cortez?
Cortez: So...
I guess it's my understanding that,
I guess, prior to my arrival, at least on this board,
this had been attempted before.
At least that's my understanding by Member Bradley.
And that the community complained
because they didn't know where we were seated
and that's why we're now by number.
So that when they're out there,
they can see, okay, that's one, two, three, so on, so forth.
So, and I just want to point that out,
and I know the last two times
that we've gone through this process
this has been brought up as well.
And that seemed to be I guess
what we kept coming back to was
that this experiment had failed in the past.
Which is why it went to this.
When we arrived, and we arrived at the same time.
So just throwing that out there.
-: Right, just as a point of clarification
that was really a seniority thing
that was tried before that we picked seats by seniority.
And you're right, that did fail.
But this is still, the idea,
this idea is to maintain the order but rotate the order.
So that everyone gets an opportunity
both every three years as explained
in here to have both the best seats
and the worst seat every three years.
And the in-between seat every three years.
Yes, Mr. Allen?
Allen: Is this going to be the room change now,
does that mean we're going to stay
where we are for the next three years?
And then a little change?
-: (laughs) No, it'd be rotating at this meeting.
If this adopts--
Allen: It's going to click one time?
-: So tomorrow we would click a new rotation.
Allen: Click one time?
-: Yeah, click one time, and it would stay for a year.
Allen: So that means I would go from here to here?
-: You would go from here to...
Let me see, you are right now.
Ratcliffe: There should be a chart on your desk.
Allen: We added something different a minute ago
in the conversation, we moved the secretary
in a stationary position as well,
so this is inaccurate, the drawing anymore.
(people chattering)
Right, so what I'm saying is now...
I would be, no, I wouldn't be where Ellis is at.
(people chattering)
-: It would be rotating in sections.
Allen: If this stays?
-: Yeah, right.
That's right.
In sections, still maintaining the order,
but rotating in sections.
Allen: No, I would rather stay
where I'm at for the next three years
and then make a change.
Bahorich: (laughs) Yeah.
-: So I don't know, I don't know a reason why,
again, we did prior to that
the seniority was voted in before--
Bahorich: Right, before it was changed back to order.
-: Senior members got to choose their seating.
And that was in relationship to what goes on
in the capitol and what have you.
And then so I don't know from the maker of this amendment
what's the advantages to this or,
'cause this sequential order
and what we're having now is always been
just a simple concept, but what are the advantages
to making this change?
-: Well, if you look at the rationale right there
on page six, I don't know if you see that
in the middle of the page there.
Says that this change will enable all members
to have the benefit of sitting in the best,
the okay, and the worst seats over a three year
rotation period while still maintaining
the seating in the district order.
And, you know, I would maintain
that just because you're districts 12 and 13
that our new members here are occupying,
should not mean you always have your back to the testifiers.
And just because you're in districts 12 and 13.
So the idea is that everyone would have an opportunity
to rotate around the circle over a three-year time period,
and everyone would get both the opportunity to sit where,
with their backs to the windows,
the back to the press and backs to the testifiers,
so that we all kind of share equally,
both in the good seats, the so-so seats,
and the ones that are not that great.
Allen: The thing that, I just
never knew we had good seats.
I didn't know we had good seats,
I didn't know we had so-so seats,
I didn't know we had bad seats.
I just didn't know that.
Bahorich: (laughs) Yeah.
-: I didn't know that.
So (laughs)
So I guess I've been here in the good seat
for a long time, I don't know.
So, but I guess.
You say in three years we would make the whole circle?
Bahorich: Make the whole circle.
-: So we'd move every six months or something?
Bahorich: No, no.
Once a year.
Just in January.
(indistinct speakers)
Right.
-: Every--
-: You'd move in January every year, but in sections.
The chart shows, do you see that chart right here?
Allen: I'm not that good, Donna, I see the chart.
(laughter)
-: See the chart right there,
so it kind of shows where the arrow where one starts,
district one starts and then it goes around.
Allen: Mkay.
All right, I'm--
-: You see that, over three years.
Allen: I've got the concept, I still find it,
if it makes it fair for everybody
to have their backs turned, not turned, that's fine with me.
But I still think we should start where we are.
Bahorich: Yeah.
-: But the new members in the circle
so they're not going to see it as good, bad, or indifferent.
Just happy to be in the circle.
-: (laughs) Until we told 'em it was bad.
They have a bad seat.
Yeah.
Any other discussion?
I thought, Pat, did you have your hand up?
I thought you had your hand up, no.
Allen: I didn't want to take my--
-: I'll explain the reasoning, yeah.
Gotcha, gotcha.
Okay, right now, the amendment would say,
with the exception of the chair, vice chair and secretary,
the seating of the board will be
by State Board of Education districts.
The seating for the remaining,
would be 12 members in this case.
The amendment would say 12,
'cause we just passed the secretary one.
12 members would be rotated annually
at the first board meeting of the calendar year.
Any member with a special need
may exchange a seat with another board member
who is in agreement with that exchange.
All those in favor, say aye.
(multiple responding)
All those opposed say no.
Allen: No.
-: Okay, why don't we just hold our hands up.
All those in favor, let's just hold our hands up.
Male Speaker: The windows caucus is opposed to it.
-: Yeah, the windows caucus is opposed. (laughter)
All those in favor, raise your hands.
How many is that?
Okay.
All those opposed, raise your hand.
Okay, the motion carries.
All right.
Okay, next one.
Let's move on.
Next one, Mr. Maynard, keep up with this here
so I don't skip whatever's might be next.
Or is it staff?
Ratcliffe: There are some other amendments
potentially coming that deal with 1.2,
but they also impact the resolution at the end, so...
-: Oh, maybe wait?
Ratcliffe: Yeah.
-: Until we get that, okay.
That'd be fine.
So, okay.
Ratcliffe: And we're moving to chapter two
and on 2.1, it's been suggested that we add,
this deals with if there's not a quorum
at the board meeting,
to add the words "shall be recessed"
and add "or adjourned" just so
we are covering our legal options there.
-: Any objection to that change.
Hearing none.
2.1 on page SBOE-5 on the main document
that staff put together for us.
Okay.
All right.
Yes?
Mr. Mercer?
Okay, go ahead.
-: The question was, it's a technical thing,
but it's only if someone calls a quorum on it, is that true?
And we could have three members here
but no one calls a quorum call,
we'd keep on going, just a point of technical thing.
-: I don't think that's actually accurate for us,
if you're meeting as the full board,
we need eight more board members present.
To conduct business.
-: And I would add as a point of parliamentary note
that the chair has an obligation
if she notices that a quorum
is no longer present to notify the body of that fact.
And to take no further action.
-: All right.
What's the next one?
-: It's on SBOE-6, it's at the middle of the page, 2.6-B.
And that's updating the language
dealing with video conferencing,
there've been some statutory changes there,
so we're just now reflecting
what the statute you fall under.
Bahorich: Any objections to that change?
Hearing none.
Amendment's adopted.
Ratcliffe: At the bottom of that page,
we're going to amend our proposal on C,
that very last sentence there,
we're just now suggesting adding noise makers.
Bahorich: Flags and noise makers.
Ratcliffe: Well...
Bahorich: Flags?
Ratcliffe: I think after our conversation Friday
that we probably shouldn't include flags.
That would be my recommendation.
It's certainly up to you.
Bahorich: Yeah.
-: There was a concern that it might raise
a First Amendment issue.
Was some advice we got from legal counsel last week.
-: I think, you know, perhaps what we do,
maybe in the rules that we kind of post up here,
that kind of talk about respecting others that,
you know, you don't want things in front of people.
Like I noticed we had a couple of hearings
where very large flags, you know,
could obstruct the view of a lot of people,
and so that was why the original thought
was that you would include flags, 'cause they're very big.
The ones that were brought in here.
And...
Yes.
Mr. Rowley?
-: Yeah, so well, it seems to me
if we're talking about First Amendment issues,
signs and placards would be just as germane
on a First Amendment speech issue
as would a flag, perhaps even more so.
Because sign and placard pretty much
has a speech connotation to it.
But perhaps what we might consider doing
in this amendment is stating the purpose of saying no signs,
placards, flags, noisemakers or other objects
of a similar nature which might distract
from an orderly proceeding of a meeting,
then at least we have a rational basis
other than just impairment of free speech.
But I'll defer--
Bahorich: I'll let Chris speak first.
Go ahead.
-: I think the conversation on Friday
was towards certain flags.
For example, can you keep out
a Confederate flag, a Nazi flag?
Well, you can't just decide which flags
you want to keep out.
If you're starting to make distinctions,
you can have the French flag
but not the Confederate flag,
then you get in a free speech problem.
I think as written this is okay 'cause it's content neutral.
It's no signs, no matter what content,
no placards, no matter what content,
no flags, no noisemakers.
I think you can do that if this is what you wish to do.
Bahorich: Okay.
-: I would not offer that amendment then,
I mean, because I don't think we're raising the issue
of First Amendment if it reads
an absolute ban on those items.
And we can all understand for the purpose
of orderly conduct and not distracting
other audience members.
(laughter)
Bahorich: Yes, Mr. Cortez.
-: You know, while I recall the instance
that we're, I guess, trying to reference,
and while I necessarily didn't agree with it,
I just don't think that we should limit it.
I think just by putting the word flag in there,
I mean, if somebody walks in here with a Texas flag
or US flag, and I just, I don't see an issue with it.
Obviously my preference would have been
not having had that one flag
that was in here at one time, but it was.
And I thought the meeting flowed smoothly,
it was no big fight that broke out.
You know, so I don't know, I would just object.
I mean, obviously the noisemakers, I get it.
But the flags.
Bahorich: Yeah.
-: Whether we like it or not,
I mean, I think people should be able
to express what they want to express.
-: Mr. Ellis hasn't spoken, so Dr. Ellis.
-: Along those same lines,
I would agree to the extent
that I'm not necessarily sure which way is the proper way,
but I think it just needs to be one way or the other.
If you have it where, as long
as it's not affecting the meeting or creating a controversy,
then it falls upon the board chair
to decide if it's creating an issue.
So whether we have or don't,
I think it needs to be just none at all
or to be permissive for all.
But not necessarily where if it's causing a distraction,
'cause that's going to get very arbitrary
on what's causing a distraction or not.
Bahorich: Yeah.
Yes, Mr. Rowley.
Oh, okay.
-: Well, I think it's more,
it's a safer approach with regard
to our rules if it's an absolute prohibition
instead of a decision made on the part
of the chair or the board or anyone else.
And to speak to Member Cortez's point,
actually it was an issue,
because I went over to address it,
as you'll recall to try to work the deal out
and we wound up, it wound up being okay,
but I had a number of people
come approach me and said that's offensive to me.
And I would rather you get that out of here.
Yeah, and so I went over to try to address it.
So I think in that instance it was disruptive.
And I think it would have been more difficult to say,
you know, the nature of that flag
is such we don't want it in here.
I think it would have been
much more constitutionally protected
had we said we don't allow signs,
placards, noisemakers or flags.
And so I would speak in favor of the amendment, personally.
Bahorich: Any other discussion?
Yes, Ms. Perez?
-: If it makes it easier we could bring it in alignment
with our audience or our member
of the audience participation rules
which reads no signs, placards,
or other objects of similar nature
or meaning a visual displays.
No posters, props, signs, placards,
or other visual displays.
If you're wearing a lapel pin, fine.
If you're bringing in something that's the size
of what you put on a flagpole at your school,
it's distracting and if you're sitting
in front of the audience, no one behind you can participate.
And it does bring it in alignment with our audience rules.
-: What is that one, where is that one,
'cause we should have those two, where is it?
Oh.
Oh, I see.
-: Because very clearly the incident
that we're all referencing without referencing it,
was the gentleman who came in with a Confederate flag
on his walker prior to attacking
all of the districts one through four.
And it was clearly a visual display.
And if we're not going to allow
some visual displays then
let's not allow any visual displays.
We don't want posters, we don't want signs.
We don't want those kinds of distractions.
He may do that in his house but this is not his house,
this is the people's house
and I don't think that that added any value to his rant.
-: Yes, Ms. Cargill.
-: Just to clarify, all of that is allowed,
just right here in the lobby.
You know, they can certainly,
it's just in a business meeting not appropriate,
but it is allowed in the lobby
and out front and everywhere else.
-: Right.
Yes, Mister--
Rowley: So, will they be notified
when they sign up for public comment,
will all of this be told to them
in advance of when they sign up?
Ratcliffe: They are, it is in the rules,
and then if we anticipate that kind of activity
we put a poster out on the table outside the doorway.
With the rules.
Cortez: Yeah.
Member Rowley convinced me with his...
Bahorich: Any other discussion?
All those--
-: He had me at hello.
-: All those in favor of amending to no signs,
placards, flags, noisemakers, or other objects
of a similar nature shall be permitted
in the audience gallery area.
All those in favor say aye.
Multiple: Aye.
-: All those opposed say no.
All right, okay, let's move on.
-: I believe we have an amendment for--
Bahorich: On E?
-: 2.6-C, to back up just a little bit,
dealing with cell phones.
And it's on page seven of your--
Bahorich: Oh, yes.
-: Handout with board member amendments.
Bahorich: I should have probably marked this
on each of our, where all these are.
Kay, go ahead, I don't know who's making that.
Can you go ahead?
Dr. Ellis?
-: Yeah, I think this was probably written
at a time when cell phones were newer,
maybe not ubiquitous as they are now.
I think we all use the cell phones
as part of transacting our business
on the board and communication.
I don't see a place and time where the board chair would,
where the board would restrict the members
from using cell phones during meetings,
so if that's the issue I would make a motion
that we take that C out.
Bahorich: I think that's correct.
Is there any objection?
Hearing none, amendment--
-: The next amendment is on SBOE-7.
And this deals with prohibiting supporters
of people testifying from gathering here behind the podium.
The thought is it just makes it difficult
to tell who the next speaker is.
It can certainly, the supporters can still stand up
in the audience or wave their hands
but to try to avoid a jam up right here.
-: Is there any objection to that addition?
Hearing none.
Amendment carries.
All right, what's our next.
-: It's 2.9-A and B.
I think Mr. Maynard has...
Bahorich: Mr. Maynard?
-: Amendment...
-: Madam Chair, you can see the rationale on this one,
but the motion is to strike the language,
at least one week prior to the posting deadline
for the board meeting at which the resolution
is to be considered, and insert not less
than four weeks before the Monday,
I'm going to change this just a little bit.
The Monday of board meeting week.
Bahorich: Oh, yeah.
Okay.
-: During which the resolution is to be considered.
-: And everybody can see the rationale there.
It's kind of a convoluted thing that we say now.
So this is trying to bring some clarity
to that particular amendment.
Any objection?
Hearing none.
-: The next amendment is on the main packet, it's on SBOE-10.
Maynard: Madam Chair,
I have, there's one more in that section.
-: Oh, okay.
Bahorich: Oh, I'm sorry.
-: And on 2.9-B, strike the board
made by unanimous consent pass a congratulatory,
commendatory, or other non-substantive resolution
without the notice required by this section,
and insert titles for congratulatory,
commendatory, or other non-substantive resolutions
shall be submitted by the timelines prescribed
in this section with resolution text
following at a date and time consistent
with the staff's pre-meeting preparation timeline.
So, somebody speak to the issue,
so actually the posting deadline,
whether it is a resolution dealing with policy
or whether it is a congratulatory resolution
of some kind, the posting deadline is actually the same.
The difference is that any time that we have a resolution
dealing with policy, there's really two purposes.
One is posting and production by the staff,
the other one is to allow the board itself
to have some time to reflect and to consider
the content of that particular resolution.
In the case of a sort of a non-substantive
congratulatory resolution, that's probably
not terribly controversial,
the staff at the very least needs the title for that,
because they have to post it
and then as long as whoever's doing that
gets the text to them in some sort of time
where they can get it into production, it's fine.
That's the idea.
-: So what...
In that instance, so, if we had a school
in our district that won a blue ribbon,
we could submit language, send a resolution
as member of the State Board,
on behalf of the State Board,
in the congratulatory sense to that entity
or in situations like that, is that what they enable us--
Right now we can't do that, right,
we can send a certificate, but we can't,
I don't think we do resolutions, 'cause they have a process.
-: Right, so if you were going to do a resolution,
or propose a resolution for a, you know,
somebody in your district and that sort of thing,
that's a congratulatory, it still has to be posted.
And so what it would require you to do is that,
well, you have to notify, it has to get on the agenda.
The agenda has to be approved by the board
and it has to be posted by the staff.
So you still need to do that four weeks out.
As far as the actual text of that,
as long as you get it into the staff at a time
that works in their production schedule it's fine.
-: But that particular resolution is an example
that I just made.
It doesn't have to be read on the Friday morning.
Are you allowing for, is your language
allowing for that sort of thing,
or does every resolution have to be read
on the Friday morning up there?
-: Let me try to clarify that.
This language would deal with resolutions
that are being adopted by the whole board.
If you were doing something as an individual member,
it wouldn't come under this rule.
This is if we were adopting a resolution
like you do on Friday.
-: And just for my clarification,
and maybe I'm misunderstanding,
but I was always told that individually
in our own district we weren't able to do resolutions.
Just certificates and that sort of thing.
And so I like where you're going with it,
but having the opportunity to issue a resolution
to somebody who won some big accolade
or award or recognition, I think that would be important,
but without bogging the board making sure
it had to be read on a Friday.
-: This is only dealing with things before the board.
Resolutions before the board
that the entire board would be behind.
Maynard: Madam Chair?
-: It would be read on a Friday.
-: We don't have a process for what I...
Maynard: Madam Chair?
Bahorich: No, well, we do, but it's individually.
-: But not as a resolution.
-: Not as a resolution that the entire board considers.
Maynard: Madam Chair?
-: Currently.
Yes, Mr. Maynard?
-: Yeah, if I could just add,
just to answer your question,
how legislators normally handle that
during the interim is that they issue
a proclamation rather than a resolution.
And so if you as a board member
wanted to issue a proclamation proclaiming something,
you know, that can be done
without any sort of action whatsoever.
-: Right.
Yeah, they have standard language
and things that they do, yeah.
But again, that's individual board members.
With any kind of recognition.
Any other questions about that particular item?
Any objections?
Hearing none.
We'll go ahead and make that amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Maynard.
Is that, is he at the next one, or...
-: I believe the next one is on SBOE-10.
And it's a staff recommendation,
it deals with deleting registration by fax.
I haven't gone back to count the months,
but I'd say over the past year
I'd estimate we got no more than five submissions by fax.
And so we think it's time to go ahead
and delete fax, they'd still be able
to register online, by phone, or in person.
Bahorich: Telegrams, yeah. (laughs)
-: We don't take telegrams.
Bahorich: Any objections?
Okay.
-: SBOE-10.
And right at the very top of the page, the first--
Female Speaker: The top page numbers are all different...
-: 2.10-B1.
-: Any other discussion on that?
Okay.
Yeah, go ahead and--
-: In my district there are quite a few people
who just simply don't have access to wi-fi
and if they want something in writing
and they want a read receipt or return receipt,
faxes is the only option.
And so I don't know why we would want
to eliminate that large portion of Texas
and eliminate their ability
to send something in writing that they know was received.
And if it's only five in a year,
I mean, if those five, or is it cumbersome,
is it difficult to monitor,
does it cause a problem with staff?
-: It's not difficult to monitor,
they come in to our computer just like an email,
we just looked at it as a way to save a little money
if we got rid of the fax line.
But it's not a whole lot of money,
so if you want to keep it we certainly can.
-: All right members, all those in favor
of eliminating the fax as an option to register, say aye.
All those in favor say nay.
All those opposed, yeah, sorry.
All those opposed say no.
(multiple responses)
Okay, we're not changing it.
We'll keep the fax line.
All right.
-: The next change is right below that,
we're suggesting striking number two,
before we went to an online registration system,
there would be typically four offices
that would take public registration
depending on what committee they wanted to testify before.
Now our office handles them all.
And so we don't need that sentence anymore,
and then we'd renumber after that.
-: Any objection to that change?
Hearing none.
All right.
-: The next change is on that same page,
C-2, and you're going to see a similar change
proposed multiple places throughout the document.
Now when people sign up to give public testimony,
your standard time is three minutes.
But as you know, for the last ten or 15 years,
probably at least, if you have large crowds
like you had with social studies,
we tend to take the time down to two minutes per person
as part of an effort to hear everybody that signed up.
And so we thought it might be better
if we had a consistent time and then
if they needed more time, it's probably easier
to award more time than to take time away from the public.
-: So this would be an attempt to have a standard time
that's more in keeping with our practice.
And then we could add time if we needed to,
and as you know, members, you can always extend
a testimony by asking questions
and that sort of thing of the testifier.
So it always does extend the time
if needed for any particular testifier.
Yes, Mr. Mercer.
-: Thank you, Madam Chair, members,
I understand the point of this,
but I have to vote against this.
I just can't handle people driving across
from El Paso to Valley and tell 'em
thank you for being here, you only get two minutes to talk.
People who wait here all day and wait
to come back from lunch and we give 'em two minutes,
I'd rather keep it at three.
If we decide in a meeting with a large crowd
to change that the opposite way,
I can understand, but I prefer,
I would be embarrassed to tell someone
thanks for driving all this way on your own time,
you get two minutes.
I would speaking against the motion
and I'd rather keep it three, thank you.
Bahorich: Any other discussion, yes Ms. Cargill?
-: On the other hand, as a former testifier,
because I came and testified to the board
before I ran for science textbooks,
and I mean I had my speech down
to two minutes and 59 seconds
with a science experiment in it.
Involving a magnet.
And so, if I had done all that, you know,
two minutes 59, and then I was told two minutes,
I would have been freaking out,
so I understand totally what you're saying,
but I think I'd rather be told the two minutes
and get more than walk in and be told no, you don't have.
Anyway, the three minutes.
Bahorich: Yes, Mr. Rowley.
-: I agree with Member Mercer on this.
I think three minutes is,
the big issue is us asking questions
and making our speeches and statements
during testimony time, if we could refrain from doing that.
One more minute of testimony is not going to make
a dramatic difference, so I personally am in favor
of three minutes worth of testimony.
It's pretty tough to say anything in two minutes.
As a lawyer, politician, former pastor,
I couldn't do anything in two minutes.
(laughter)
As I just evidenced by this comment
that would take me two and a half minutes.
So.
Male Speaker: Where do we,
do we have other rules in terms of X number of speakers
per topic or you get certain number of minutes total?
-: We do have that as a could, you know,
where you set the limit, I mean,
we have that in our rule where you can set the limit,
but we've just not done it.
-: The reason I ask is that I think
most ISD school boards have--
-: Yeah, they do, that's true.
I mean, I think hearings at HISD that I listen to,
they're a minute, you know, for hearings
and I think a lot of local trustees are two minutes.
Or at least I've heard...
Okay, let's go ahead and take a vote on this,
all those in favor of modifying it to two minutes
as our standard time limit
that would be in our rules, say aye.
(multiple responses)
All those opposed say no.
(multiple responses)
All those, let's hold our hands up.
All those in favor of changing it
to two minutes as the standard time limit, raise your hands.
All those in favor of, or not in favor
of that, raise your hands.
All the, opposed.
Great, okay, so motion is defeated.
All right.
Moving on.
-: Chair, how does that affect
when the Chair does make it two minutes?
-: Yeah, I mean, I think we just keep it
as standard practice we've been doing.
-: Or could, if we think it's a controversial,
or one that we think a lot of people
are going to come talk about,
could it say it on the online registration?
-: So Madam Chair?
It's Monica.
So I'm not sure that it's clear that with,
for the last several years,
for all of your items where you are going
to have a large number of testifiers,
it has been two minutes.
And notice was provided in advance in all of the postings.
So this really came from,
because the items already have lots of folks
who want to come testify,
they have been two minutes for the last several years.
That creates some confusion,
particularly in your smaller committees,
when the question becomes,
should it be two minutes or three minutes?
So this was an attempt to standardize
that because that is a decision that the chair
has been able to and has made
and for all of your items where you've had
any number of testifiers
that would be significant, it's been two minutes.
-: What I've seen at some of the local ISDs
now have language that says if you have in excess
of 30 testifiers or 40 testifiers,
then it'd be a modified time,
and then they'll be told in advance,
that way there's, it doesn't happen
the minute they arrive in here.
I'd be amenable to something like that
where we can put language in there
where if we know, you know, if we've got over 50,
you know, but if you've got ten,
why are we going to tell them two minutes, you know.
But if there's a certain number
and we know it's going to carry on
for ten hours, then maybe--
-: If you'd like to make an amendment right now,
I mean, we've voted on this.
-: So Madam, parliamentary question to point of order,
we already voted on this issue,
we've already debated and voted on this,
why are we discussing now?
-: (laughs) 'Cause Ms.--
(no audio)
Okay.
So we're going to go ahead and keep on going.
Okay, what's the next...
-: The next amendment is on SBOE-11 D-1,
when you had a printed agenda,
your information pages were yellow.
Now as an electronic agenda,
they're just white, so we're saying
strike the reference to yellow pages.
-: Any objection to that amendment?
Hearing none.
Next.
-: It's D-2 on that same page.
It sounds like we ought to skip
the first proposal and stick with the three minutes.
Bahorich: Right.
-: There is another amendment that says,
that just tries to clarify some language
that it would, it's proposed as a responses
to questions from board members
shall not be counted against the time allotted
for oral public testimony.
-: Any objection to that clarification,
we think that sentence is worded better.
Any objection?
Yes, Ms. Perez?
-: Testimony invited by board members,
does this mean we're not inviting people anymore?
Because that's what's stricken.
(indistinct responses)
-: Right.
So it says responses to questions
from board members shall not
be counted against the time allotted.
But what's stricken is testimony invited by board members.
So are we saying we're not inviting testimony?
We're striking it, so is that what we're doing?
-: We're trying to say what this sentence
was supposed to get, 'cause I've had this conversation,
I said I don't even know what this is talking about.
And Debbie said that as she recalled,
this sentence was about that
you're not going to count against the testifier
that questions that a board member asked,
that that's part of the two minutes,
she said that it didn't say that.
But that was the intent.
-: Madam Chair, I don't think that's right.
The intent of that language as currently written was,
there are times for example,
your text review advisors that used
to be expert reviewers for example
were considered invited testimony
as opposed to public testimony,
and this language intended to say,
if you have certain folks who have been invited,
that it wouldn't count against that 30 minutes.
That's what the original language,
this talks about 30 minutes will be allocated
for oral public testimony excluding questions
and the sentence as currently written
was put in there so that if you had folks,
like your text review committee members,
workgroup members, or advisors,
those individuals would not count against that 30 minutes.
So this adjustment is actually changing
the meaning of what was originally intended.
-: No adjustment needed.
Yeah, just going back to the original.
Any objection to that?
Yes, Mr. Rowley.
-: Clarifying question in that regard,
so I guess for Monica so,
there are currently in our rules
the ability or a restriction of oral public testimony
on any particular item to be limited to 30 minutes?
-: So your rule currently says that 30 minutes
are to be allotted, I have not known
this board to ever stick to the 30 minutes,
but you are correct, that this rule
would establish 30 minutes for public testimony on an item.
-: And is that only for meetings of the full board?
Or is it also meetings of the committee of the board?
So is the general meeting, is that--
-: Yeah, it's at the beginning of each Friday meeting.
Ratcliffe: Yes, Friday.
-: Friday but not Tuesday or Wednesday, okay.
Female Speaker: That would not apply to public hearings.
(no audio)
-: Any other, any objections to that,
we're withdrawing that amendment.
Okay.
Hearing none.
-: I believe the next amendment is on SBOE-12,
and I think Mr. Maynard has one.
On B.
-: Madam Chair, the motion
then is to strike established by agency officers
responsible for the subject matter
and insert set out in section 210-B.
I can speak to the motion.
Bahorich: Yes.
-: Essentially we had a conflict in the rules
is that on one place it said that the staff
basically did that and didn't we,
in the rules itself we had registration procedures,
and so we needed to strike that
and just reference that section of the rules.
-: This is again some clean-up.
Any objection to that change?
Hearing none.
All right, next.
-: The next amendment is on the bottom of SBOE-12,
it's 2.13, it deals with public comments
regarding proposed rule-making.
And Monica may want to comment on this one.
Bahorich: Yeah, Monica, why don't you bring that up?
-: Yes, so the Texas register
requires that you have a 30-day public comment period.
Historically, because you don't meet that frequently,
we continued to receive and summarize comments
for you all the way up to the board meeting.
There have been instances where this
has proven problematic where you get
very lengthy comments when we're already
down here in the meeting.
I think one of the examples that many folks remember
is that a multi-page document recommending
a variety of additional amendments
when you were doing science streamlining that
it was difficult for any of you
to really seriously consider and so
we felt like if we set out in the rule
and started to provide notice that there will be
a deadline for those comments,
that would enable us to be able to get all,
gather all that information and get it
to you and give you at least a little bit
of time to consider them before
you're actually sitting in the meeting.
It will still be more than the required 30 days,
and so we just felt like this would be helpful
for everyone because there are times
I'm sitting here in the meeting and comments are coming in,
and there's no way for us to get them to you,
and then I think you get feedback that,
well, why didn't you respond to my comment?
So that's the purpose of this adjustment.
-: Any other discussion on that one?
Hearing none.
Amendment is adopted.
Next one?
-: The next is on SBOE-3, it involves G.
And some changes I believe Dr. Ellis wanted to consider.
13.
-: Should be at the bottom of SBOE-13,
and this is also a clean-up of time from way begone,
when we actually would need reimbursement
for telephone calls and for fax fees,
and I don't think anyone is at their hotel
being charged for telephone calls or for fax fees.
So I would recommend deletion of one and four.
-: Anyone, any more discussion on that one?
This is kind of keeping up with the times.
All those in favor?
Say aye.
(multiple responses)
All those opposed say no.
Motion's adopted, all right.
-: The next amendment is on SBOE-15, it's 3.2-B.
It's just updating the language
that references our division.
-: Any objection to that amendment?
Again, a lot of clean-up this time which is good.
Hearing none.
Amendment is adopted.
All right, next.
-: May have an amendment on SBOE-17.
Bahorich: 17?
Yes, Mr. Cortez, I think that one is you.
-: Sure.
Yeah, I have, I do have an amendment.
On section 33-C, I would like to insert
the word charter revision and charter amendment.
After having spoken with, well,
I'd like to, we can talk about it,
I guess once I get a second.
Oh, and also on the resolutions part,
I want to add on number three,
right after application it'll say
comma revision and amendments.
The commissioner...
(indistinct responses)
Okay.
Sure.
One at a time.
Bahorich: Why don't you speak to that?
Okay.
So it appears after having spoken with counsel
that the laws are in kind of conflict with one another.
But, you know, my concern has always been,
I bring it up at our committee often,
is that we're not really using
the full authority that's granted to us.
I know that the commissioner has granted
over 400 charter amendments in the last six years.
And so it's really where the growth occurs
is when the commissioner awards an expansion amendment
or student growth amendment,
and I'm not saying that they're unwarranted
or that we shouldn't do it, I'm just saying
that if that's part of our authority and we have it,
we shouldn't give it away to the commissioner,
we should take advantage of it and have an opportunity
for people to come and talk to us
about how it could impact their communities
and their neighborhoods and I think it's an opportunity
for us to, you know, do something
that the legislature took away from us as well.
And when they come through this amendment process,
they don't even post it on the TEA website,
I mean, it's, I've never seen it, I've looked for it.
I think it gives an opportunity
for more transparency in this process.
And you know, the fact that it's not even on TEA website,
something that is deeply concerning to me,
and so I think Von can,
or Chris can speak to the fact
that there's conflicting rules and so it's unclear legally.
But we could do this if we wanted
to and take back that authority
because the legislature needs to clean this language up.
Bahorich: Yes, I don't know Chris or Von,
did you want to speak to this first
and then I will call on Mr. Rowley.
-: So you've experienced this in the past with,
and we've had dialogs on this
in another section regarding the setting of standards
on tests, you have a section of code that describes,
that has a list of one through 32 items
of what are the powers and authorities of the state board.
In there it has, for instance,
a thing that allows the state board
to set the standard on assessments,
later on the legislature changed that.
In the other sections of the code
and removed that and we've had AG opinions
that have gone through that have asserted
that the commissioner is the one
that sets the standard but you still have
that old language that occasionally once
every other year or so I have
a conversation with someone on that.
Similarly, there was a time
when the state board was
the major decision body on charters.
And so you had that in your list of authorities.
And then there was legislation
that passed that moved that over to the commissioner.
But and then removed, made the state board a veto body.
So when that law changed,
it did not go back and remove the authority
for looking at amendments from that list
that I was just referencing.
So we have a similar situation there.
So you have one piece of the law
that seems to suggest one set of authority
and then in the statute that covers amendments
it's all commissioner authority.
-: Yes, Mr. Rowley?
-: So I have a question.
While I agree with the sentiment of the amendment,
I have a question with regard
to the language and how we go about implementing this rule.
Because it goes on to say that prior
to consideration of the charter
by the board under section 12.101 B-0,
how do we, if we are not allowed
to consider expansion amendments,
which is what we're talking about here,
expansion, how do we provide an evaluation
prior to that consideration
when we don't even get to consider that?
I just have a question,
if we change the language of the rule,
how is that interpreted, and I'll submit that to legal.
-: Actually, the citation to 12.101 B-0,
I don't think is on point.
B-0 talks about the granting of a charter, not the revision.
What makes a lot more sense
is perhaps a citation to 7.102 C-9
that does talk about revision.
But there's another section that's 12.114, revision.
And there's a couple things to notice about the section.
A revision of a charter of an open enrollment
charter school may be made only
with the approval of the commissioner.
And then C, not later than 60th day
after the date that a charter holder
submits to the commissioner a completed request
for approval for an expansion amendment
as defined by commissioner rule
including a new school amendment,
the commissioner shall provide
to the charter holder written notice
of approval or disapproval of the amendment.
It seems to me that 12.114 is giving
the commissioner pretty much sole power
on the amendment or revision.
Now, there is certainly a bit
of a conflict and we don't have
an Attorney General opinion on that.
We don't have a court opinion on that.
But generally you will, if there's a conflict,
the later adopted provision holds
and the significant changes were made
to 12.114 in 2001 and 2013,
while the other provision
was pretty much the same since '95.
Rowley: So, follow-up question.
-: Let me just say one thing before you do a follow-up.
The thing that I am struggling
with most probably is the fact
that this is under the acceptance of gifts
and or grants for charter school evaluation.
That this rule change would be
under the acceptance of gifts,
and so I'm not quite understanding,
we wouldn't get a gift to do a charter amendment revision.
I mean, that's what I'm a little struggling with.
Cortez: I only added charter revision
and charter amendment.
-: Right, but I'm saying--
-: All that language is already there.
-: Right. -: I didn't touch anything.
But I know who created this simply adding--
-: Well, we did when, what was it, I don't know.
It would have probably been four years ago.
That we did, you know,
on the committee on school initiatives
and then it was passed by the board,
this whole acceptance of gifts and or grants
for charter school evaluations
'cause the question was, could a foundation,
if they wanted us to review a charter
before it got approved, could they give us
a gift in order to do that,
we didn't have any rules in place.
These rules were passed, this is part
of that rule of how you would do evaluation
under those circumstances and so
I don't understand the applicability
of putting those particular two amendments
and revision in there as it applies
to this particular section which is
about accepting gifts by the board to review a charter.
-: I don't understand either, but this
is where it has to go because
it says accepting of gifts
and or grants for charter evaluation.
So that's the logical place for us to put it.
And it seems that even though
some of these statutes are in conflict with one another,
the one that I'm citing in 7.102 C-9
does grant the SBOE the authority.
And I believe that until the legislature
cleans that up that we should not give up
our authority to the commissioner.
I think all of us received a letter from TASA
where the superintendents groups that are in town today,
we're gonna go see later on this afternoon
wrote us a letter saying,
hey, we're not saying don't approve these.
We're saying we need more time
when they're in our communities
and I think by taking this back
into our wheelhouse that we'll give them
more time to know that they're coming
because right now TEA does not even post them
on their website when they grant an expansion.
Bahorich: But what I'm saying is--
-: I'm just trying to be as transparent as possible.
-: Yeah, I'm trying to understand the connection, though.
Under the gift, this evaluation only happens
under a gift being given.
And so that's why--
Cortez: I didn't write the language, Madam Chair.
I don't know--
-: Madam Chair?
If you wanted to pursue this
you would probably want it both
in the acceptance of the gift but then also on SBOE page 25.
Under Committee on School Initiatives item three.
Where it says review an evaluation
of charter school applications.
You would probably add a similar reference there.
Bahorich: Now that makes more sense.
-: I wouldn't mind adding it there, too.
If that's necessary.
Yeah.
And I have it on committee of school initiatives,
but we haven't gotten to that part yet.
You wanted to split 'em up.
I have it in both.
-: We're not going to get a gift to evaluate an amendment,
so that's what I'm a little confused
about sticking it in there, so yes, Ms. Perez-Diaz.
-: Think it's just for clarity and consistency
across the board as we, you know,
as I hope that we were able to add it
to the initiatives piece.
It reads clearly and again consistently
across all language that pertains
to the expansion of charter schools.
-: Yes, Dr. Ellis and then Ms. Perez, and then Ms. Roth.
-: Question for legal.
12.101 B-0 refers to new applications.
And I think, and correct me if I'm wrong,
are you bringing this up under the context of an amendment?
(indistinct response)
So--
Bahorich: Yeah, fix the, we need to fix the amendment.
-: Is this telling us that we have the ability
to provide our report to
the Committee of School Initiatives
on a new charter proposal?
As written?
-: Under the gift, right?
If we got a gift, we have a duty
to do something under a gift,
we have to provide an evaluation.
Am I not understanding this correctly?
Ellis: Does it have anything to do with--
-: So I think the language that you have
before you modifies your current procedures
for acceptance of a gift and it would require
reporting of that gift.
If it was in connection to review of a charter revision.
Or amendment.
I think this is part of a package
that the board member is offering
that incorporates as a whole the board
reviewing charter amendments and to your procedures.
So this is just a piece of that.
Bahorich: Yes, Mr. Rowley and then...
(speaking indistinctly)
-: Okay, well I move to amend
the submission by striking
where it says section 12.101 B-0,
and inserting section 7.102 C-9.
102 C-9.
If there's a second to that I'll speak to it.
Okay.
Can I speak to that just quickly?
Yeah, so 7.102 C-9 is where
we get our authority to even grant
a charter or actually now veto a charter,
so we might as well have this
refer to the appropriate section.
-: Okay, technically, you are amending language
that does not touch, think of it
like three year olds who don't want their food
to touch, you always want your secondary amendment
to touch the primary amendment.
If it doesn't touch, then it's either
out of order or you can without objection
take up a non-touching amendment.
Does that make sense?
Rowley: Like to mix all my food together to eat it.
-: I understand, but that's because
you're more evolved than a three-year-old.
(laughter)
Rowley: Thank you for that, I appreciate that.
Bahorich: So to be clear,
Mr. Rowley, you want to change--
-: It needs to be no objection to that--
Bahorich: Right, but I mean,
you're adding, let's make sure
that we say exactly what the--
-: 7.102 C-9 in place of 12.101 B-0.
-: Is there any objection to making that clarification?
Hearing none.
Okay.
All right.
Yes?
Cortez: So does that help, legal?
I mean, does that clean it up,
'cause I know we had a lot of conversations about this--
-: What you've done is you've now referenced it
to a section that says you approve
charter applications which I would say you don't,
under chapter 12 the commissioner does.
And that you approve revisions to amendments.
So it is the more appropriate citation
for what you are pursuing,
I just have to warn you
that I think that citation is outdated.
And--
Cortez: It's there.
-: I would also have to,
I should also tell you that now I am,
we may be less than your best legal advice
since we work for the commissioner
and you are currently discussing a provision
that argues you're different.
So with that, as long as you understand,
I will continue to provide you advice
if you want to continue to hear from me,
but on this I will point out
that I work for the commissioner
and what you're pursuing is a challenge
versus your two different authorities.
Cortez: So Von, but I'm--
-: Well, yeah, I mean, you just may,
like I think the member here.
-: I'm only referring to revisions and amendments,
not new charters, I understand what our role
is on the new charter and we only have the veto authority.
But it seems broad, it seems that we have
that authority in 102 C-9.
So--
-: The citation to 7.102 C-9
includes two things of authority,
the board may grant an open enrollment charter
or approve a charter revision.
So it references two lines of authority, the first one--
Cortez: Which one?
-: Here's the citation for it, right here.
Bahorich: Go ahead, Von, sorry.
-: Oh, no, I was...
Bahorich: Oh, you finished?
Oh.
-: So I understand Von's point,
I guess what I want to understand better is,
so I'm looking at the Texas Education Code
where it reads, does this mean,
I mean, so I guess this, essentially
the Texas Education Code is outdated.
It needs to be updated.
And so who, where can we fix that?
Okay.
-: Yeah, the legislature can fix it,
what you would see similar
if you look at section C-5 and 7.102,
this was, the analogy I was using to another experience
that you'd had is that at one time
this board set the passing standard on tests,
the legislature changed that in chapter 39
and gave that to the commissioner,
didn't repeal this reference,
and then we had an AG opinion that came down
and decided no, as Maska had said earlier,
the later in law, when in conflict,
the later one passed is the one that rules.
So using that same analogy, you would have,
the legislature has said the board doesn't approve
but has a veto authority and that the board,
that the commissioner is the one that approves
revisions to charters.
And they did not change this section.
-: Okay, so if I may speak in favor
of my colleague's proposal,
primarily because right now if an ISD wants to expand,
they have to pass a bond and there's plenty,
there's the time and opportunity for taxpayers
to go before their trustees to speak
for or against the agreement to increase their taxes,
pass a bond for new buildings.
However, when we're talking about the expansion of charters,
the minimal and only requirement
is an impact statement that trustees review,
but that there is nothing that can be
actually be done about that.
When we're talking about this revision,
which would include expansion,
this does require the posting,
this does give notice to the public,
this does give the public an opportunity
to speak for or against and as it currently stands,
public does not have that opportunity.
It's simply forced upon them,
we're hijacking their tax dollars
and they have absolutely no representation.
This amendment would give them
at the very least an opportunity
to represent their best interest.
And we have taken that away from them.
-: Yeah, and Ms. Perez-Diaz, you know,
when you talk about the ability to be able
to take out and clean it up, when Mr. Byer
mentioned the other, the cut scores,
I was one who brought up that question and I think,
and I asked the same question, why don't we clean this up?
But correct me Mr. Byer if I'm wrong,
just like when we do a teacher revision,
if we open up this chapter for revision,
we may just want to be cleaning up these two things
but there's no promise that someone
in the legislature might want to clean off
a few other things with that.
Now--
(laughter)
You open the barn door,
and let a few things out and a few can come in also.
So if I understand right,
I think what the purpose is is
we're wanting input to the commissioner
on charter revisions which
we don't have any authority on that we're hearing.
Would it be appropriate for this body
to have a communication with the commissioner
to find out if there's an avenue
where he would accept feedback from this board, what's that?
It's the avenue that doesn't exist, I think currently.
But to take a true avenue, an avenue that would,
you know, if he would be open to that,
to say that we would like to have input
on the front end, on the back end veto,
and he may or may not be open to that,
but to have a discussion to set up
a path of what my colleague is recommending.
-: Yeah, so you certainly could work
with the commissioner depending upon how
he would like to do that, could set up a process.
I would just remind you under his authority
in 12.114, he has 60 days to make a decision.
So whether that lines up with an ability
to get feedback from you based upon your meeting schedules,
would depend throughout the year.
So.
-: I do want to make sure that it is posted,
actually, the amendments and revisions,
I think Heather's back here,
Heather, how do we find it,
is it under the charter school, where is that?
The charter amendments and revisions?
Heather: Madam Chair, I've got it pulled up.
-: Okay.
-: It's on the charter school page,
down under other resources,
there's a link for applications,
amendments, and boundaries, and when you click on that
it shows every charter
and then all of the various documents.
-: Okay.
So I just want to make sure
that there is public notice about that.
So I just want to make sure that folks knew
that you could, it is on the website.
I think Ms. Cargill, and then Ms.- yeah.
-: No, I just want to reiterate what Dr. Ellis said,
I mean, we can't vote to have authority
on something over which we have no authority.
That just doesn't make any sense.
And we're putting the agency in a bind of,
you know, like you said you're speaking
for the commissioner and such,
but I think it'd be a great idea
to have a discussion with the commissioner
about different avenues so that the public can be heard.
Like Ms. Perez said.
So.
I can't vote for something over which
we have no authority in the fir--
(no audio)
-: Well, the problem with that
or the issue that I have with that
is that amendments are posted
after they're approved,
so where is the opportunity for public comment?
Where is the opportunity for taxpayers
to come in and voice their concerns?
Whether their concerns are in support or not?
They are simply not given the opportunity
to hear the discussion, to be part of the discussion,
to speak for, there's absolutely no representation.
And it's one thing to say that it's posted on the page,
but it's quite another to say it's only posted
after they've been approved.
So once again, we're going back
to the taxation without representation,
we're not even allowing them to know about it
in advance and telling them when it's going
to be heard and giving them the opportunity
to speak for or against.
We're simply telling them thank you for your tax dollars,
this is how we're going to use them.
-: Yes.
-: And if I could add, in 7.102 C-9,
it does give us authority.
But in 12.114 it doesn't.
But on the 102, it talks about
new charter and charter revision.
On 114, it talks about new charter
and we only have veto authority.
While they both come together,
my new language is only specific
to the revision and the amendment,
because I understand that we only have
veto authority on 114.
So I'm trying to be as clear as possible
because I understand what the language
in the other section says.
But until the legislature cleans it up,
I believe that we do have that authority.
And they haven't disagreed other than to say
if you do this, you know, we put ourselves
in conflict with one another perhaps.
When we're having these conversations.
But that doesn't mean that we are not allowed to.
And so long as it is our authority,
we should not be giving up more
of our authority to anybody else.
When we're always fighting for additional authority
and somehow we get stripped of this authority.
We have an opportunity to take it back, we should.
-: Let's go ahead and vote on that amendment and--
Roll call?
Yes.
We can do that.
So on the evaluation of charter revision,
adding the language charter revisions
or charter amendment to 3.3-C under the acceptance of gifts
and grants for charter school evaluation,
and go ahead and, I don't know who's reading roll call.
Ratcliffe: I can do that.
-: Okay, Debbie.
-: Ms Perez?
Perez: Yes, I vote in favor...
-: Mr. Cortez?
Cortez: Yes.
-: Ms. Perez-Diaz?
Perez-Diaz: Yes.
-: Mr. Allen?
Allen: Yes.
-: Mr. Mercer?
Mercer: No.
-: Ms. Bahorich?
Bahorich: No.
-: Dr. Robinson?
Robinson: Yes.
-: Ms. Cargill?
Cargill: No.
-: Dr. Ellis?
Ellis: No.
-: Mr. Maynard?
Maynard: No.
-: Ms. Hardy?
Hardy: No.
-: Ms. Little?
Little: No.
-: Ms. Davis?
Davis: Yes.
-: Ms. Melton-Malone?
Melton-Malone: No.
-: And Mr. Rowley?
Rowley: Yes.
-: Seven yes and eight no.
Nos.
-: Now what's the next one?
-: And we're down to our last four or five amendments.
Bahorich: Okay, right.
-: And just to give you a time check, it's now 1:52.
-: Yeah, so we need to...
I think the rest of them were just clean-up things, right?
Ratcliffe: Yes.
I would say so.
-: Where, what's the next one?
-: The next one is on SBOE-21,
where we've suggested striking the phrase
mandatory 30 days because that's a phrase
I'm told is technically not accurate
the way it's used there.
-: Any objection?
Hearing none.
All right, next.
-: The next one is on SBOE-23,
and this deals with when the proposed amendments
to TEKS come in on second reading.
You know, we have a rule that
where you turn them in early so the public
has a chance to look at them,
the deadline is a little tricky
because it's five p.m. or two hours
following the adjournment,
we're suggesting just a cleaner new deadline
because when those get posted to the website
it involves three different divisions of the agency.
So we're trying to coordinate with a lot of people
after hours to post those whereas
if it was a noon deadline it'd be simpler
and typically you have your amendments ready by then.
-: Any objection to moving that back
so we don't have to involve so many departments after hours?
Hearing none.
Perez: I have a question.
-: Yes.
Yeah, yeah.
-: Okay, so, when Ms. Hardy and I were working
on many social studies streamlining amendments,
that was in response to our Tuesday meeting,
and after our vote on Tuesday
we received several public comments
about this is in conflict with that,
this would clean up this,
this would be a better streamlining, et cetera.
Personally, I was sending things at 4:59.59,
at the very last second.
Voting in favor of something like this would have,
would eliminate the ability to do that or it would not?
-: No ma'am, so if you think about the way
your meetings are scheduled and recognizing
that you might do something differently,
the day before the final vote
is when you have your other committees.
So what you just described, you actually needed
to get those amendments into us sooner,
what we're saying is this would essentially
say everything would be in by noon on Thursday
when presumably you would have had Committee
of the Full Board on Tuesday or Wednesday,
so actually I think gives you more time
and it makes it possible for us
during the workday on Thursday
to get that information posted so that
by the time everybody gets here on Friday
there would have been an opportunity
for folks to review anything
that you were going to consider.
So I think originally we were trying
to account for a variety of possibilities
and then we got ourselves a little bit confused
about what this language really meant.
And so when we just took a step back to think about it,
noon on Thursday seems reasonable
because I think there have been a couple of instances
where you might have carried over
into a Thursday but that's very rare.
Maynard: Madam Chair.
Bahorich: Yes, Mr. Maynard?
-: And just a clarification,
when that particular rule was written,
we used to have our other committee meetings
earlier in the week and then we did
the Committee of the Full Board on Thursday.
Bahorich: Right.
-: So it was kind of written with that in mind.
Bahorich: With that in mind.
-: But then when we changed our meeting schedule,
it kind of fouled that one up just a tad.
-: Yeah.
So there's just, the bottom line
is we're trying not to have to involve staff
after hours when we can turn this
in on noon before the second and final vote.
Any other comments?
Yes, Ms. Cargill?
-: I just want to say something in response to Ms. Perez.
Or not in response but,
so let's say we have a very late meeting on Wednesday,
this happened with the social studies.
The first opportunity, and then you know,
we have our committee meetings on Thursday.
And I can't stay up 'til three
like some of you spring chickens can with a full brain.
So really the first chance we had to work
on those amendments from the public
was Thursday afternoon after our committee meeting,
so now that goes away.
I know but this would go away,
'cause they'd have to be in by noon.
-: So it wouldn't, depending on your consideration
of those amendments, because the last sentence
talks about amendments,
the rule may be suspended by a two thirds vote.
So you've still given yourselves an out,
but this would just,
anything that we have by noon
on that Thursday we would be more confident
in being able to get it posted for you.
-: I'm just trying to be realistic
about getting something, I mean it's extreme,
we're not always going to have
these late night things, but--
-: So on those late nights I think
you could by two thirds vote suspend this.
-: Before we leave, we could take care of that?
(inaudible response)
Okay, I'm fine as long as there's a way out
for those of us that don't function at three a.m.
Very well.
-: Yeah, I would speak in favor of the amendment,
number one it gives you more time
than what we've had before.
It was five o'clock p.m. the night
of the Committee of the Full Board.
Yes it does.
Yeah.
By five p.m. or two hours following the adjournment
of the committee of the full board,
that would have been on Tuesday or Wednesday.
And so it would have been by five o'clock then.
As it is now, it's moved to noon the next day
and it can be suspended by two-thirds vote,
but I personally want us to,
as much as possible try to achieve getting,
receiving those amendments
and them being posted for public viewing
and public comment before five o'clock
on Thursday or eight a.m. on Friday or whenever it was,
and I understand that was kind of an emergency situation,
but personally I felt like some of that amendment process
in social studies was a little bit rushed
and we didn't have the opportunity for public comment.
Not that we didn't make good decisions on it.
But still I think that the public ought to know
as much in advance as possible what it is
we're going to be considering on Friday amendments.
And so I would at least need it by noon on that day
and then if there's an exigent circumstance,
we can vote on two thirds by two thirds
and change that but so I'm in favor.
-: One of the issues I believe that caused
our last minute 'til three in the morning work,
whether it was me alone or not,
was that we started a meeting on Tuesday
when that kind of meeting should have began on Monday.
Right?
Because if we had more time,
that's the kind of adjustment
that we should probably be considering,
I'm not saying in lieu of this,
I'm saying in conjunction with this.
When we know that we're going to have
quite a bit of public comment,
testifiers, several amendments, proposals,
we need to add a day to our meetings
and that in conjunction with this
would go a very long way in alleviating
your three o'clock nightmare. (laughs)
-: Any other questions?
All those in favor of changing it to back to noon
on the day prior to the final vote
on the adoption of TEKS for the filing
of amendments on second reading, all those in favor say aye.
(multiple responses)
All those opposed say no.
Motion is adopted, okay.
-: The next amendment is on SBOE-24,
we propose striking language
for a committee that the authority
for has been repealed and moved to another agency.
-: Again, this is clean-up.
Any objection to that amendment?
Hearing none.
Any other?
Is that it?
-: I think Mr. Maynard has an amendment
related to the resolution and probably Mr. Cortez too.
Bahorich: Okay.
Maynard: Madam, we've got one on 4.2 as well.
Yeah, it's actually the one before that,
Debbie, that's under my amendment number six.
Relates to 4.2 A.
And to include the school and board
in our distribution of agendas.
-: That's pretty obvious. (laughs)
Any objection to that amendment?
Hearing none.
Okay.
Maynard: All right.
-: Next.
-: And then, okay, here's the resolution piece.
And chair, I know that we amend,
on the last page, and it gets a little bit difficult
because there's a section there that says resolution
and it's not really assigned to a section,
but it says, so I'm proposing
that we strike this language
that specified in the operating rules
of the State Board of Education
the board may from time to time define
by resolution the areas of oversight
for each committee as may be necessary.
I move to strike that language.
And then to move those areas of oversight
into 1.2-A, Committees of the Full Board,
and then C, by inserting in the areas of oversight
after in 1.2-A, and then finally in D,
add a new subsection B that reads,
amendments to areas of committee oversight
reflecting new or changing board responsibilities
may be made during the board's
periodic operating rules review
or by means of resolution addressing
the change of responsibilities
should such change occur between operating rule reviews.
And then re-letter the subsequent subsections.
Speak to the motion?
-: Yes, Mr. Maynard.
-: So, when I was going through this
is that when you read this
and I had this conversation with counsel,
it appears that the areas of oversight
are sort of almost a separate document
tacked onto the back, and I don't know
if there is, what the history of that was exactly.
And then it also is referencing a provision
in the rules that didn't exist anymore
because it says is that,
as specified in the operating rules
of the State Board, well,
it doesn't really say that anywhere
as I read through the whole thing.
And so what I'm proposing to do
is to move this into the section
about committees to where we name the committees
and also deal with the areas of responsibility
at the same time and that way we don't have
a separate document, therefore that we can look
at these as part of our normal rule revisions
rather than having a separate resolution
as what appears to be in the rules currently.
But also then to put a provision in there
that would enable us that if the legislature
comes back and changes our responsibilities somehow,
that we can actually change that by means
of resolution without opening up the whole rule document.
-: Any other questions?
Or any objections to those?
Mr. Cortez?
-: How do we do it now, I mean,
have we had to do those resolutions
that you're talking about?
I don't think we have.
-: Yeah, we haven't changed the standing committees so.
Cortez: Were you talking about
what the responsibilities--
-: Right, if we wanted to amend...
Right.
And we can just amend by resolution and,
you know, make it simple.
Any other questions about that?
The only question I would have is,
I do kind of like the one pager at the end
because it does list 'em and the way
we'll have it now by inserting it in the rules
it'll probably end up on two pages,
is there a way that we could, you know,
still put it like an addendum or something
that just shows the board duties
pulled out just by themselves like they are now,
'cause they are.
It's just weird it says resolution at the top.
-: I would think we can do that unless Lonnie can think--
Bahorich: Just an exhibit.
-: Of a yeah, almost just a separate link
on the webpage with the rules.
-: Yeah, just an exhibit, it's just so nice
to have it all on one page that you can kind of look at.
Anyway.
Just adding an exhibit or something.
So.
Any objections to those rule changes?
Hearing none.
All right.
Yes?
-: And also then, I have one other amendment
to the Committee on School Finance,
Permanent School Fund, and to add to that list
oversight of the Permanent School
Fund Bond Guaranty Program.
-: Yeah, that should have been in there.
That's a good catch.
Any objection to adding that obvious change?
Hearing none.
Okay.
And I think Mr. Cortez, you had one more.
-: On the committee of school initiatives.
On number three.
I believe it's SBOE page 25.
Review and value, review and evaluation
of charter school applications, comma,
I want to insert revisions and amendments.
And then it'll continue on as written,
the Commissioner of Education proposes to grant.
-: Is there any objection
to adding that into the instruction?
Committee on School Initiatives.
(indistinct response)
So work that this Committee
on School Initiatives would undertake.
Any objections to adding that language?
Hearing none.
All right.
Any other changes to the rules?
Okay.
So.
Okay, do I have a motion here?
An actual motion motion?
Hold on.
Yeah, why don't you, Mr. Rowley?
-: Madam Chair, I move that we adopt
the amendments to the operating rules as proposed.
-: All those in favor say aye.
(multiple responses)
All those opposed say no.
Rules as amended have been adopted.
All right.
Now members, we're going on, moving on
to the election of State Board of Education officers,
and Mr. Maynard you told me you had a nomination.
-: Madam Chair, I would like to nominate
for vice chair of the board,
is that the position we're going to do first?
Bahorich: Yes, mm-hmm, we'll do vice chair
and then do secretary.
-: I would nominate Marty Rowley.
Bahorich: Do we need a second for that?
-: No there's no--
Bahorich: Okay.
Marty Rowley, okay.
-: Can I speak to my nomination?
Bahorich: Yes, please do.
-: Yeah.
Madam Chair, I just, we've just had the honor
of working with Mr. Rowley over these last few years
and he's smart, he's articulate, he's prepared.
I appreciate the fact that he is fully engaged
in the work out in his district.
He is in tune with always what's going on.
He's a just in terms of representation of the board,
I think he does a great job.
Just as a side note, I'm told by a senator
from up in the Amarillo area
that he's very generous on the golf course.
(laughter)
So I've heard that he coughs up
a lot of money on the golf course.
So if anybody wants to golf with him, so.
-: That's funny.
The floor is open for other nominations for vice chair.
Yes.
Allen: I'd like to nominate Ruben Cortez for vice chair.
-: All right, Mr. Allen, would you speak to that nomination?
-: I want to...
I believe that Mr. Cortez,
I consider it would be a promotion at this time,
he's served on the board and I'm trying to look
at some advancement in the Democrat side of the board,
and I think that Mr. Cortez has served as well as secretary.
I think two terms as secretary,
would be more deserving to operate
in a vice chair's position
and show some elevation to the Democratic side of the board.
-: Any other comments of either,
or any other nominations, could be other nominations.
Rowley: Madam Chair?
-: Yes.
Rowley: Do you need a motion to close nominations?
-: Yes.
Rowley: No, or can the board just close nominations?
-: If we don't have further nominations
nominations are closed.
-: Okay, if there are no further nominations,
the nominations are now closed.
And how do we do this, do we pass papers around,
do we hold, what's the, how do we do this with the...
Is it...
Well, it's never secret with the board, but.
Ratcliffe: Yeah.
-: But I mean--
Ratcliffe: I think it's been a voice vote
when it has happened.
Bahorich: For and against the first person,
and for and against the second person?
That's the way you've done it before?
Wait a minute, for and against each separate person?
Ratcliffe: Yeah.
(indistinct conversation)
Bahorich: Why would you do for and against?
(indistinct conversation)
Maynard: Parliamentary query?
Bahorich: Yes, Mr. Maynard?
-: Yeah, and we have done that in the past
where we voted for and against and was always
kind of curious about that,
because I don't recall
that really being a feature of Robert's.
It would seem like to me
that if we have to do a public vote...
Well, or that I think that every vote here
that we take is a public vote.
But if you did it by, could we not do it
by roll call and each member
then would state who they're voting for?
Ratcliffe: That'd be the simplest.
(indistinct conversation)
-: Madam Chairman, just as a point of education,
Robert's does say that when you are having elections
in a mass meeting that you vote first for
and then against and then in order to advance
to a candidate that you are in favor of,
you must first vote to defeat the ones
who are nominated earlier in the process.
-: But if there are only two...
-: Correct, correct.
I don't say it's a good process.
-: Okay.
-: I just say that it's Robert's process.
-: I think thought that I guess I would speak
in favor of Mr. Maynard's way of doing this
because it would be much quicker I think.
So can we go ahead and do roll call and then...
(indistinct response)
Yeah, we could do that.
As long as we don't get confused.
As long as we don't get confused,
that's the important thing.
Okay, so I'm going to do it,
let's do it in alphabetical order.
Just to keep us straight.
So if we have competing nominations
for secretary we'll do the same thing.
Alphabetical order.
Okay?
We're, so Mr. Cortez will be one.
You will say when your name is called
you will say one if you're going to vote for Mr. Cortez.
If you are going to vote for Mr. Rowley, you would say two.
As your name is called.
Does that make sense?
Does everybody got that clear?
We're doing alphabetical order.
Cortez and then Rowley.
Cortez is number one.
Rowley's number two.
Ready for the roll call vote?
Okay.
Ratcliffe: Okay, Mr. Allen?
Allen: One.
Ratcliffe: Ms. Cargill?
Cargill: Two.
Ratcliffe: Mr. Cortez?
Cortez: One.
Ratcliffe: Ms. Davis?
Davis: Two.
Ratcliffe: Dr. Ellis?
Ellis: Two.
Ratcliffe: Ms. Hardy?
(inaudible response)
Ms. Little?
Little: Two.
Ratcliffe: Mr. Maynard?
Maynard: Two.
Ratcliffe: Ms. Melton-Malone?
Melton-Malone: Two.
Ratcliffe: Mr. Mercer?
Mercer: Two.
-: Ms. Perez?
Perez: One.
-: Ms. Perez-Diaz?
Perez-Diaz: One.
-: Dr. Robinson?
Robinson: Two.
-: And Mr. Rowley?
Rowley: Two.
-: All right.
Vote I had was seven to four,
is that what, did I get it right?
Ratcliffe: I've got eight to four.
-: Eight to four?
Ratcliffe: Yes.
-: Eight to four.
Okay.
Mr. Rowley, congratulations on your achievement
of being vice chair again, so once again, congratulations.
All right, nominations are now open
for the secretary of the board, yes.
Mr. Maynard, or Ms. Cargill.
Okay.
-: Madam Chair, I'd nominate
for secretary Ms. Georgina Perez.
Bahorich: Ms. Perez, do you want
to speak to Ms. Perez and then we'll take other nominations.
-: I was asked to do that but I'm happy to do that.
During the time that Ms. Perez
has been on the board she has certainly shown herself
to be passionate, to be articulate, to be diligent.
The degree of follow-through is always extraordinary.
And I'm proud to serve with her
and I think that she's doing an extraordinary job
representing her constituents
and representing the work of this board.
-: All right.
Let's go ahead and have any other nominations,
let's go ahead and do that, yes.
Yeah, Mr. Cortez, why don't you go ahead?
-: Well, I agree with everything that you just said, Tom.
I would like to nominate Marisa Perez
for a lot of the same reasons
you just mentioned about my colleague Georgina
which I agree about.
But in addition to that,
she does have more seniority,
has been here several years,
came in the same class that we came in.
I think that her work
over these last several years has demonstrated.
Her leadership speaks for itself.
And I think we'd be lucky
to have either one of these ladies
represent us as secretary on the board.
And nothing against Ms. Perez,
again I think we'd be in good hands either way.
I'm surrounded by amazing women here as you can see.
Bahorich: Yes. (laughs)
-: When I get concern I go to my left,
I go to my right, and I always get good counsel
whichever way I look, so.
But just on the basis of seniority
I would nominate Marisa Perez-Diaz.
-: So we've got two nominations
and any other nominations for secretary of the board?
Hearing none, there's no objection,
nominations are now closed.
And so we're going to do the same thing again.
On, although I didn't leave,
does anybody else want to speak
for either one of the members?
Oh, I already did that.
Okay, all right.
Let's go ahead and vote.
And Marisa Perez, she's number one.
And Perez, this gets confusing.
Perez is number two, all right.
So Marisa Perez will be number one, right?
Is everybody clear?
And Gina Perez will be two.
I want to make sure everybody knows.
(indistinct responses)
Cortez: Diaz--
-: All right, let's do this.
Okay.
Cortez: Perez is--
-: Marisa is one, Gina is two.
Marisa is one, Gina is two.
Is that clear?
Okay.
All right.
Let's go ahead and do the roll call.
Ratcliffe: Mr. Allen?
Allen: One.
-: Ms. Cargill?
Cargill: Two.
-: Mr. Cortez?
Cortez: One.
-: One. (laughs)
Ms. Davis?
Dr. Ellis?
Ellis: Two.
-: Ms. Hardy?
Ms. Little?
Little: Two.
-: Mr. Maynard?
Maynard: Two.
-: Ms. Melton-Malone?
Melton-Malone: Two.
-: Mr. Mercer?
Mercer: One.
-: Ms. Perez?
Perez: One- two!
(laughter)
Two please!
-: Okay.
Ms. Perez-Diaz?
Perez-Diaz: One.
-: Dr. Robinson?
Robinson: Two.
-: Mr. Rowley?
Rowley: Two.
-: Ms. Bagorich?
-: I didn't vote last time,
I'm not voting this time either. (laughs)
Okay.
Okay, I show eight to four?
Eight to four?
Okay, eight to four, congratulations, Ms. Perez, Gina Perez.
You are our next, our new board secretary.
Okay.
We've got a few minutes,
so it's possible that we might be able
to put the committees together,
do we have all of the handouts.
Actually, I only have Sue, Pam Little,
Keven Ellis, Pat Hardy, and Aicha Davis on handouts.
Who's gonna collect, so...
(indistinct conversation)
Yep.
(indistinct conversation)
Okay members, I think we're going
to make our deadline at 2:30, here.
No.
Okay.
Are we ready?
I've asked Mr. Rowley to go ahead
and make the committee announcements.
Really appreciate a lot of the members put,
you know, one or two, I mean,
they really were not that picky
about the committees that they were on, which is great.
Greatly appreciated.
All right, Mr. Rowley.
-: Yeah, and so the methodology that we employed was,
we went on the basis of seniority
and gave members their first choice,
essentially based on seniority,
and I think it worked all the way through.
So on the PSF Committee it is Ms. Hardy,
Mr. Mercer, Mr. Allen, Chair Bahorich, and Mr. Maynard.
Okay.
Committee on Instruction is Ms. Melton-Malone,
Ms. Perez, Ms. Little, Ms. Davis, and Mr. Rowley.
And then Committee on School Initiatives is Ms. Cargill,
Dr. Ellis, Ms. Perez-Diaz, Dr. Robinson, and Mr. Cortez.
There you are.
So the committees will elect their chairs.
Bahorich: On Thursday, right?
-: On Thursday.
And then actually the board rules say
that the chairs appoint the vice chair.
But you can choose to elect that.
-: The committee chair appoints a vice chair.
And you can, you may or may not wish to do so.
As, if you are the chair of that committee.
-: One final point, typically officers of the board
are not eligible or did not typically serve
as chair or vice chairs of committees.
That's just kind of the standing protocol.
Female Voice: But is it written rule?
It is written?
Bahorich: Yeah, it's written.
Right.
Any other discussion, I think we did a great job
of trying to get through all of that,
now we'll be able to just work
on the people's business starting first thing on Tuesday.
Members, thank you so much,
and we will see you Tuesday morning
at the regular nine o'clock.
Nine o'clock.
Meeting's adjourned.
(gavel strikes)