[I. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:08]
THE MEETING WILL COME TO ORDER ON FEBRUARY 9TH, 2026 AT 5:31 P.M. RISD PROVIDED NOTICE OF THIS MEETING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT. A QUORUM IS PRESENT.
TODAY, WE WILL HEAR TWO GRIEVANCES THAT HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED INTO ONE GRIEVANCE. THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF 11-2 GRIEVANCE DECISION FILED UNDER BOARD POLICY DGBA LOCAL. BY OFFICER RONNIE FULTS. TODAY, WE WILL CONSIDER THE LEVEL 3 GRIEVANCE OF OFFICER RONNIE FULTS UNDER BOARD POLICY DGBA LOCAL EMPLOYEE COMPLAINTS. OFFICER FULTS'S GRIEVANCE IS RELATED TO THE DENIAL OF HIS LEVEL 2 GRIEVANCE. THE FOLLOWING BOARD MEMBERS ARE PRESENT. VANESSA PACHECO, ERIC EAGER, REGINA HARRIS, I AM RACHEL MCGOWAN, BOARD VICE PRESIDENT, AND I WILL SERVE AS THE CHAIR OF THE MEETING. A QUORUM OF THE BOARD IS PRESENT. ALSO PRESENT IN THIS MEETING ARE OFFICER RONNIE FULTS, GRIEVANT, TESSA HEINEN, GRIEVANCE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, TABITHA BRANHAM, SUPERINTENDENT, DR.
MATTHEW GIBBONS, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, CATHERINE LONG, RISD EXTERNAL LEGAL COUNSEL, GILBERT GARCIA, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL. DR. CHRISTOPHER GOODSON, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES. DR. TERRY HARRIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES. MICHAEL JASSO, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF OPERATIONS. CEDRIC INGRAM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF SAFETY AND SECURITY. JEFF WILSON, DIRECTOR OF SAFETY AND SECURITY. LETICIA MCGOWAN, GENERAL COUNSEL. GARY GUTIERREZ, BOARD MANAGER. AND THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUALS PRESENT THAT WERE NOT LISTED. IF YOU CAN, JUST COME TO THE MICROPHONE IF YOU'RE NOT AT THE TABLE ALREADY AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD. THANK YOU.
KYLIE WALL, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL, LAKE HIGHLANDS ELEMENTARY. EMILY FORT, PRINCIPAL, LAKE HIGHLANDS ELEMENTARY. JENNY BATES, AREA SUPERINTENDENT OF THE LAKE HIGHLANDS LEARNING COMMUNITY.
AND SIR, YOU. THANK YOU. NICK HEINEN. WE ARE MAKING A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD IN THIS LEVEL 3 GRIEVANCE APPEAL. THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE BEING RECORDED TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE RECORD.
WHEN SPEAKING, PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT THE MICROPHONE IS TURNED ON. I REQUEST THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS AVOID TALKING WHEN OTHERS ARE SPEAKING, SO THAT THE RECORD WILL ACCURATELY REFLECT THE PROCEEDINGS.
PLEASE ENDEAVOR TO MAKE YOUR VERBAL STATEMENTS AS CLEAR AND COMPLETE AS POSSIBLE. REMEMBER THAT THE AUDIO RECORDING WILL NOT REFLECT GESTURES OR ANY OTHER FORM OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION.
THE RECORDING OF WHAT IS PRESENTED HERE TODAY, TOGETHER WITH THE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THIS GRIEVANCE, WHICH HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE BOARD AND SUBMITTED INTO THE RECORD, THE DISTRICT'S DGBA COMPLAINT POLICY, OTHER APPLICABLE POLICIES, AND THE AGENDA FOR THIS MEETING WILL CONSTITUTE DISTRICT'S RECORD OF THE GRIEVANCE HEARING. THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE GRIEVANCE PRESENTATION AND NOT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING. THERE WILL BE NO PRESENTATION OR CROSS-EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES. THIS PRESENTATION WILL BE CONDUCTED AS FOLLOWS.
OFFICER FULTS OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE WILL PRESENT REMARKS TO THE BOARD. THE GRIEVANCE WILL HAVE 10 MINUTES TO MAKE HIS PRESENTATION.
PLEASE INDICATE IF OFFICER FULTS OR MS. HEINEN WILL BE PROVIDING TODAY'S REMARKS TO THE BOARD ON BEHALF OF THE GRIEVANCE. I WILL BE PROVIDING THE REMARKS TODAY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. AFTER THE GRIEVANCE PRESENTATION, THE ADMINISTRATION'S REPRESENTATIVE, MS. CATHERINE LONG, WILL PRESENT THE ADMINISTRATION'S RESPONSE.
MS. LONG WILL HAVE ALSO 10 MINUTES FOR HER PRESENTATION.
OFFICER FULTS, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO RESERVE UP TO TWO MINUTES OF YOUR 10 MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL, PLEASE TELL ME HOW MUCH TIME YOU WOULD LIKE TO RESERVE.
AT THIS TIME, WE'RE NOT GOING TO RESERVE ANY TIME. SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME. I WILL.
AT THIS TIME, CAN I CLARIFY ONE THING THAT YOU SAID? ARE WE BOTH ABLE TO SPEAK TODAY? IS HE ABLE TO SPEAK ON HIS OWN BEHALF AS WELL AS ME, OR CAN ONLY I SPEAK ON HIS BEHALF IF I SPEAK AT ALL? I BELIEVE IT'S ONE
[00:05:01]
OF YOU. AND YOU CAN RESERVE TWO MINUTES OF YOUR TEN MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL. OKAY. LET ME RESERVE TWO MINUTES, THEN.OKAY. SEE HOW IT GOES. MS. GUTIERREZ, WOULD YOU PLEASE KEEP THE TIME? PLEASE NOTE THAT MS. GUTIERREZ WILL HOLD UP A SIGN TOWARD THE END OF YOUR PRESENTATION TO MAKE YOU AWARE OF YOUR REMAINING TIME. THE BOARD HAS RECEIVED THE DOCUMENTS IDENTIFIED THROUGH THE DOCUMENT SUBMISSION.
PROCESS, AND THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE ADMITTED INTO THE RECORD.
ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE RECORD FOR THIS GRIEVANCE? BOARD MEMBERS MAY ASK SUCH QUESTIONS OF THE PARTIES AS WILL AID THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF THE GRIEVANCE OR ADMINISTRATION'S RESPONSE. I WOULD REQUEST, HOWEVER, THAT BOARD MEMBERS REFRAIN FROM INTERRUPTING OR ASKING QUESTIONS UNTIL THE PARTIES HAVE COMPLETED THEIR PRESENTATIONS. SO THAT WE CAN MAINTAIN AN ACCURATE RECORD OF THE TIME USED BY EACH PARTY. AS A REMINDER, BOARD MEMBERS, WHEN YOU ARE ASKING A QUESTION, PLEASE TURN ON YOUR MICROPHONE. WHEN RESPONDING TO A QUESTION FROM A BOARD MEMBER, PLEASE ALSO MAKE SURE YOUR MICROPHONE IS TURNED ON. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF THE HEARING? OFFICER FULTS OR MS. HEINEN, YOU MAY PROCEED WITH THE LEVEL 3 GRIEVANCE PRESENTATION. WELL, I TURNED MY MICROPHONE OFF TO START, SO THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO BEGIN. THANK YOU FOR GIVING US YOUR TIME TODAY.
WE ARE HERE WITH UTMOST CONCERN ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE EXPERIENCED OVER THIS PAST YEAR, AND I SAY WE, BECAUSE I'VE BEEN PRO BONO REPRESENTING OFFICER FULTS SINCE AUGUST ON THIS MATTER.
SO I WANT TO VERY QUICKLY WALK THROUGH FIRST THE CONDUCT.
THAT KIND OF GOT THIS ALL STARTED. AND SHOWED THAT THERE WAS A LEGITIMATE SECURITY CONCERN THAT WAS COMMUNICATED TO OFFICER FULTS. EMPLOYERS, AS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE. AND IF YOU LOOK AT OUR GRIEVANCE, IT RECITES THAT THERE WAS AN OFF, THERE WAS AN OUTSIDE OF THE SCHOOL DAY INCIDENT, I THINK ON PREMISES, BUT POSSIBLY RIGHT ON THE BORDERLINE OF A PLAYGROUND KIND OF PREMISE LINE, THAT WAS AFTER HIS DUTY HOURS, THAT OFFICER FULTS WAS NOTIFIED OF THE DAY FOLLOWING WHEN IT OCCURRED. AND THAT IS ALSO SHOWN IN THE DISTRICT DOCUMENT 5-0, WHERE YOU CAN SEE THAT SCREENSHOT OF THE FACEBOOK TEXT MESSAGE THAT WAS RECEIVED FROM THE. FROM PRINCIPAL WILLIS TO OFFICER FULTS, SHOWING THAT THAT HAD HAPPENED, GIVING HIM NOTICE THAT IT HAD HAPPENED SO THAT HE WOULD KNOW THAT IT HAD HAPPENED.
AFTER THAT POINT, THEY ASKED OFFICER FULTS TO INCREASE VISIBILITY BY CREATING A PATROLLING SCHEDULE, AND HE WAS VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT REQUEST. BECAUSE HIS HIS BACKGROUND IS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, HE WORKED FOR THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.
AND FIRST THING THEY ALWAYS TELL YOU IS, DON'T TELL PEOPLE WHERE YOU ARE. THEY KNOW WHERE YOU'RE NOT. AND SO HE WASN'T COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. AND SO I WANT TO LIMIT KIND OF THAT SECURITY CONCERN FOR OUR CONSIDERATION, JUST BECAUSE OF TIME CONSTRAINTS TO THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF IT. THAT PIECE OF IT IS ACTUALLY CONFIRMED BY THE DISTRICT DOCUMENTS THEMSELVES AS WELL, THAT, IN FACT, HE WAS ASKED TO CREATE A PATROLLING SCHEDULE, OR SOME SORT OF SCHEDULE OF CADENCE IS THE WORD THAT IS WRITTEN DOWN IN MIKE YASSO'S INTERVIEW NOTES WITH PRINCIPAL FORT AFTER OUR LEVEL ONE HEARING. WHEN SHE WAS... THAT'S THE ONE AND ONLY TIME I KNOW OF THAT. SHE WAS INTERVIEWED BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE ONLY NOTES WE HAVE FROM HER. AND THAT IS IN DISTRICT DOCUMENT 6G.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE'S ADDITIONAL CORROBORATING SUPPORT THAT THE DISTRICT, IN FACT, ALSO HAD THIS UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PRINCIPAL WAS REQUESTING THIS.
BECAUSE IN DOCUMENT 6L, YOU'LL SEE THAT.
IN THE INTERVIEW WITH JEFF WILSON, THE DIRECTOR OF SAFETY AND SECURITY, HE INFORMED PRINCIPAL FORT THAT THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE TO GIVE OUT.
CLEARLY SHOWING THAT THE QUESTION HAD BEEN POSED, HE GAVE THE ANSWER, AND THEN ALSO RECITED TO MADHYA THAT THAT HAD BEEN THE CASE. SO I JUST WANT TO KIND OF ESTABLISH THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE AT LEAST A LEGITIMATE SECURITY CONCERN HERE. AND WHAT HAD BEEN TRAINED, HAD BEEN TRAINED, WAS VERY LITTLE AT THE TIME THAT THAT OCCURRED.
BUT ULTIMATELY, THERE WAS A SINGLE TRAINING THAT IS GIVEN TO OUR ELEMENTARY SECURITY GUARDS. I'VE LEARNED A LOT DURING THIS PROCESS. AND THAT SINGLE TRAINING OCCURRED OVER A WEBEX. PRESENTATION BY CEDRIC INGRAM, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF SAFETY AND SECURITY, AND THE DIRECTOR OF SAFETY AND SECURITY, JEFF WILSON. IT IS A 64, 70-PAGE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION, WITH THE FIRST 15 THAT MOSTLY SAY, DON'T, PUSH, SEND. BUT ON PAGE 46 OF DISTRICT DOCUMENT 50, JUST TITLED TRAINING DOCUMENT, BUT IT IS, IN FACT, YOU'LL SEE A READOUT OF THE WEBEX PRESENTATION.
[00:10:01]
IS THE DISTRICT INSIGHT STRUCTURE. AND AS YOU'LL SEE HERE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SAFETY AND SECURITY, AND WHERE OFFICER FULTS FITS IS, IT'S DOWN HERE. AND THEN WE SEE THE CAMPUS LINE OF INSIGHT, RIGHT? FIRST, GO TO YOUR ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS.GO TO YOUR PRINCIPAL. THAT MAKES SENSE. WELL, HERE'S OUR PROBLEM. WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH OUR PRINCIPAL'S INSTRUCTIONS.
AND SO WHAT DOES HE DO? HE CALLS DIRECTOR JEFF WILSON AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CEDRIC INGRAM, RIGHT? AND SAYS, HEY, WE HAVE A SECURITY PROBLEM HERE. WHAT HE IS MET WITH, THOUGH, IS NOT QUESTIONING AND CURIOSITY. HE'S MET WITH JUST JUDGMENT, BECAUSE WHAT COMES TO BE FOUND OUT THROUGH THIS PROCESS, AND REALLY THROUGH THE GRIEVANCE PROCESS ITSELF.
IN MY LEVEL. ONE HEARING WITH MIKE YASSO WAS THAT THERE WERE NO WRITTEN STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES BEING GIVEN OUT TO OUR ELEMENTARY SECURITY GUARDS WHO ARE CARRYING GUNS ON OUR CAMPUSES, THE ONLY TRAINING MATERIALS.
WAS THIS WEBEX PRESENTATION TO WHICH THEY DID NOT HAVE A WRITTEN COPY EVER GIVEN TO THEM, EVEN IF IT WAS SUFFICIENT. AND I WOULD ARGUE IT WASN'T, BUT FOR TIME LIMIT STAGES. SO WHAT WE HAVE IS WE HAVE FOUND OUT, IS THAT. AFTER THIS HAPPENS, CEDRIC AND JEFF COME DOWN AND THEY COME TO MEET WITH THE PRINCIPAL TO TALK OVER WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE, RIGHT? AND THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME NOTES ON HOW THIS CONVERSATION HAPPENED, BUT NONE CONTEMPORANEOUS.
ABSOLUTELY NO RECORDS WERE MAINTAINED OR KEPT BASED ON THAT CONVERSATION, AND NO EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS RIGHT THEN WERE TAKEN. HOWEVER, AFTER THE FACT, THERE ARE MULTIPLE WRITINGS FROM BOTH CEDRIC AND JEFF.
THAT THE BEHAVIOR OF OFFICER FULTS WAS SO INAPPROPRIATE AS TO BE PROBLEMATIC, SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC, AND THAT HE NEEDED TO APOLOGIZE UNTIL SHE WAS SATISFIED. AND THAT CAN BE HEARD ON THE AUDIO RECORDING IN THE GRIEVANCE FILE OF WHEN THEY CAME TO VISIT.
BRENT FIELD, AND THAT IS, I'LL FIND IT IN A SECOND. WHEN HE STILL SAID, NO, I WON'T PUBLISH THIS. I WON'T JUST DO THIS. CEDRIC AND JEFF SHOW UP, AND YOU CAN HEAR THAT INTERACTION IF YOU WANT TO HEAR THE WAY THAT WE'RE TALKING TO OUR EMPLOYEES IN RISD. YOU CAN DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT IT MEETS SOME LEGAL THRESHOLD OR NOT, BUT WE ALL KNOW THAT'S NOT WHY WE'RE HERE, RIGHT? WE'RE HERE TO IMPROVE HOW WE ARE OPERATING IF THERE'S ANY REASON TO BE WORRIED ABOUT IT. AND WHAT THEY ARE LARGELY DOING AT THAT POINT IS THEY ARE TRYING TO SOLICIT A RESIGNATION FROM HIM OR MAKE HIM APOLOGIZE EVEN MORE. TO THIS PRINCIPAL. NOW, WHAT'S ODD ABOUT IT IS THAT WHAT WE FIND OUT IS THAT THEY REFUSED TO MEET WITH OFFICER FULTS.
ON AUGUST 21ST, 2025, DISTRICT DOCUMENT 55, WHICH IS THE WALL FALSE TEXT MESSAGE, PAGE 3 TO 4, SHOWS THE FACT THAT THEY ACTUALLY WERE IN COMMUNICATION THE DAY AFTER THIS. CONVERSATION WENT AWRY, AND ONCE THEY WERE IN CONVERSATION, HE SAID, LET, I'M SORRY THAT THAT GOT OFF IN THE WEEDS. OKAY, NOW I WANT TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT TO ALL OF THE ADMIN. AND SHE SAID, OKAY, AND THEN THROUGHOUT THE DAY JUST KEPT PUTTING OFF THIS MEETING, PUTTING OFF THIS MEETING. WHAT'S INTERESTING IS, THOUGH, IS THAT THE TEXT MESSAGES THAT ARE INCLUDED HERE ARE SEEMINGLY REDACTED SLIGHTLY BECAUSE SHE SILENCED ALL NOTIFICATIONS AFTER. HE SAYS, SOUNDS GOOD ON THE COPIES THAT WERE PROVIDED ELSEWHERE, SO I'M NOT 100% SURE WHY.
THOSE ARE NOT CLEAR, BUT THEY NEVER, IN FACT, MEET WITH HIM. NEVER AGAIN. THE ADMINISTRATION NEVER TALKS TO HIM AGAIN. OKAY? AT THIS POINT, OFFICER FULTS FILED A GRIEVANCE. BECAUSE THE ESCALATION OF BEHAVIOR BY CEDRIC AND JEFF CONTINUES TO GO MORE AND MORE TO WHERE HE'S GETTING REGULAR VISITS.
AND THIS IS WHERE WE HAVE A NEW CHARACTER ENTERING, JEROME WILSON. AND JEROME, AT THIS POINT, IT'S UNCLEAR TO BOTH OFFICER FULTS AND, I MEAN, MYSELF, TO BE QUITE HONEST. WHAT EXACTLY HE DOES FOR THE DISTRICT? BECAUSE HE'S NOT THE DIRECTOR, HE'S NOT THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HE CARRIES THE SAME TITLE AS YOU, OFFICER FULTS, WHO IS THIS GUY? HOWEVER, HE'S THE ONE ON THE OTHER AUDIO RECORDING IN THE GRIEVANCE FILE WHO IS DOING ROUNDS WITH OFFICER FULTS IN THE MORNING. WHO SAYS. WE HAVE 38 DIFFERENT SECURITY SYSTEMS OPERATING ON OUR CAMPUSES RIGHT NOW. IT JUST DEPENDS ON WHO THE PRINCIPAL IS. AND TO THAT, I RAISE A SERIOUS QUESTION OF, ARE WE TRAINING OUR PRINCIPALS TO BE GENERALS? THEY MAY NOT BE PREPARED TO BE ORDERING SOMEBODY WITH A GUN SAFELY AROUND.
BUT ALSO, I WORRY ABOUT IF ANY POLICE DEPARTMENTS EVER HAVE TO, GOD FORBID, ANSWER ANY CALL AT ALL ON OUR CAMPUSES. WE WANT IT TO BE VERY CLEAR WHAT OUR STANDARD PROTOCOLS ARE, SO THAT THERE'S NO CHANCE THAT THE POLICE OFFICERS ARE CONCERNED. THAT WE MIGHT HAVE AN ARMED PERSON DOING SOMETHING ROGUE, OR WHAT THEY JUST MIGHT THINK IS BEST INTEREST. OKAY, THANK YOU FOR THAT. CAN YOU TELL US WHAT IS THE REMEDY THAT YOU ARE
[00:15:02]
SEEKING? YES, AT THIS POINT, OFFICER FULTS DID REGRETTABLY HAVE TO RESIGN HIS POSITION BASED ON HOW HE FELT HE NEEDED TO DO FOR HIS OWN SELF.FROM THE DISTRICT. AND HE DID SO ON, I'M SORRY, THIS IS A LONG STORY FOR EIGHT MINUTES, AND I REALLY DO APOLOGIZE. I TALK FAST, BUT NOT THAT FAST. HE ACTUALLY RESIGNED ON. FEBRUARY 2ND IS WHEN HE RESIGNED AND DR.
CHRIS GOODSON ACCEPTED THAT VIA EMAIL AT 5 P.M. THAT DAY OF HIS RESIGNATION. AND THAT WAS AFTER THE FAILURE OF INFORMAL SETTLEMENT. SO BECAUSE OF THAT, MANY OF THE REMEDIES THAT ARE RECITED IN THE GRIEVANCE FORMS ARE NO LONGER REALLY APPLICABLE. BECAUSE HE'S NO LONGER A CURRENT EMPLOYEE.
HOWEVER, WHAT WE WOULD ASK FOR IS AN APOLOGY FOR HOW OFFICER FULTS HAS BEEN TREATED, BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE DISTRICT'S OWN DOCUMENTS REFLECT THAT. IT. DOESN'T LOOK RIGHT, EVEN IF IT'S NOT NECESSARILY ALL THE WAY TO ILLEGAL IN EVERY DIRECTION, BUT ALSO THAT THERE IS A REAL, HONEST, FAIR, ABOVE-BOARD INVESTIGATION INTO THIS GRIEVANCE PROCESS, WHICH I DIDN'T EVEN GET TO START TO DESCRIBE BECAUSE EIGHT MINUTES IS SO FAST.
THANK YOU FOR THAT. THE ADMINISTRATION MAY NOW PROCEED WITH ITS PRESENTATION. THIS IS A BIT OF AN UNUSUAL GRIEVANCE BECAUSE IT'S AN GRIEVANCE FILED UNDER DGBA LOCAL, WHERE YOU'RE DEALING WITH AN EMPLOYEE COMPLAINT.
OF SOME IMPACT ON THE TERMS, CONDITIONS, OR PRIVILEGES OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT. AND MR. OFFICER FULTS DID RESIGN, AND HIS RESIGNATION WAS ACCEPTED EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 2ND, 2026.
BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS IS OSTENSIBLY A GRIEVANCE ABOUT SECURITY, I WOULD POINT OUT TWO SPECIFIC THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, WHEN EXHIBIT, 6G WAS REFERENCED. WHICH IS A COPY OF NOTES FROM A MEETING WITH ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL AND PRINCIPAL EMILY FORT AND ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL KYLIE WALL FROM LAKE HIGHLANDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. SHE READ THAT TO YOU WRONG IN HER PRESENTATION. THIS WHOLE THING STARTED BECAUSE.
OFFICER FULTS ALLEGED THAT THE PRINCIPAL AND ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL DIRECTED THEM TO CREATE A WRITTEN SCHEDULE AS TO WHEN HE WOULD BE MONITORING CERTAIN AREAS OF THE CAMPUS.
AND HE FELT THAT COULD BE A SECURITY THREAT IF IT GOT OUT.
AND IN THE PRESENTATION JUST NOW, THEY SAID THAT THE PRINCIPAL AND ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL ADMITTED THAT IN THE INTERVIEW. I WAS LIKE, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? BECAUSE THE NOTES SAY EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. THE NOTES FROM THE INTERVIEW SAY, DID YOU REQUEST OFFICER FULTS TO CREATE A PATROL SCHEDULE WITH SPECIFIC TIMES AND LOCATIONS? IF SO, WHAT WAS THE INTENDED PURPOSE OF SHARING THIS SCHEDULE WITH THE PTA? DID NOT REQUEST A SCHEDULE. THAT WAS THE RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION, NOT AN ADMISSION THAT THEY HAD DONE IT. ASKED IF THERE WAS A CADENCE OF SPECIFIC TIMES, HE WENT OUT TO MONITOR DOORS.
AND ALL THREE TIMES. A GRIEVANCE HEARING OFFICER HEARD THAT, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE PRINCIPAL AND ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL WERE DOING? YOU'RE AT THE BACK OF THE SCHOOL, NEAR THE X. OFFICE TOO OFTEN.
AND WE NEED TO SEE YOUR PRESENCE ON THE CAMPUS, SO CAN YOU AT LEAST GIVE US AN IDEA OF WHEN YOU'RE ACTUALLY MONITORING THE CAMPUS? THIS IS NOT A GRIEVANCE ABOUT SECURITY, THIS IS AN ISSUE. WHERE THE ADMINISTRATION WAS AT LAKE HIGHLANDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, WAS TRYING TO MAKE SURE THE SECURITY OFFICER WAS DOING HIS JOB MONITORING THE CAMPUS. THE SECOND POINT THEY BRING OUT IS THIS IDEA OF TRAINING.
BUT THAT IS VERY INTERESTING BECAUSE IN ONE OF HIS GRIEVANCE HEARINGS, OFFICER FULTS SAID HE WAS PROVIDED NO TRAINING. AND THE HEARING OFFICER NOTED THAT THEY WENT OUT AND DID AN INVESTIGATION AND FOUND THAT TRAINING WAS PROVIDED. AND THE FAILURE OF OFFICER FULTS TO BE CANDID IN THAT GRIEVANCE HEARING REGARDING HIS TRAINING REALLY UNDERCUT HIS CREDIBILITY WITH RESPECT TO EVERY OTHER ALLEGATION HE WAS MAKING.
BECAUSE THEY HAVE EMPHASIZED THESE TWO POINTS, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE RECORD WAS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR ON THOSE TWO SIGNIFICANT ISSUES THAT ARE NOW BEFORE THE BOARD.
BUT WHAT I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO FOCUS ON, SINCE THIS IS EMPLOYEE GRIEVANCE, IS THE WAY YOUR ADMINISTRATION TREATED OFFICER FULTS AS AN EMPLOYEE, WHICH WAS PROPER. AND IF YOU LOOK AT EVERY STAGE OF THE GRIEVANCE HEARINGS, THEY GRANTED. MUCH OF HIS RELIEF, IN PART, AND ONLY DENIED THAT, WHICH COULDN'T BE GRANTED OR WAS NOT WARRANTED BY THE INVESTIGATION THAT WAS CONDUCTED. MR. HOSSO CONDUCTED AN INVESTIGATION, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT IN HIS GRIEVANCE HEARING DECISION.
DR. GOODSON CONDUCTED A SIGNIFICANT INQUIRY AND WROTE A VERY LENGTHY GRIEVANCE HEARING.
[00:20:01]
THEN ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT HAYES CAME BACK TO KIND OF DO A DO-OVER BECAUSE THERE WAS A GRIEVANCE FILED ABOUT DR.GOODSON, SERVING AS THE LEVEL TWO HEARING OFFICER. AND THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT DID ANOTHER THOROUGH INVESTIGATION.
AND THOSE ARE VERY DETAILED DECISIONS AS TO WHAT THEY FOUND OUT.
IN HIS GRIEVANCE, OFFICER FULTS REQUESTED A SECESSION OF RETALIATION. THAT WAS GRANTED IN PART ALREADY BEFORE COMING BEFORE THE BOARD. ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF RETALIATION, AND THEY HAVE PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE OF RETALIATION, THEY NOTED THAT RETALIATION IS PROHIBITED BY POLICY. AND THERE WOULD BE NO FURTHER RETALIATION FOR OFFICER FULTS FILING THE GRIEVANCE OR FOR ANY OTHER SUCH ACTIVITY.
HE REQUESTED A CAMPUS REASSIGNMENT. THE DISTRICT GRANTED A CAMPUS REASSIGNMENT.
HE WAS TRANSFERRED AND ALLOWED TO STAY AT O'HENRY. THROUGHOUT THE PENDENCY OF THE GRIEVANCE. HE ASKED FOR THERE TO BE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF IMPROPER DIRECTIVES, BUT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE, AND THEY PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE TODAY. IN FACT, THE EVIDENCE THEY CITE FLATLY CONTRADICTS THAT THERE WERE ANY IMPROPER DIRECTIVES, SO THERE'S NO BASIS TO HAVE AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF IMPROPER DIRECTIVES. THEY ALSO REQUESTED WRITTEN JOB SECURITY ASSURANCE. OFFICER FULTS WAS AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE.
THE GRIEVANCE HEARING OFFICERS ROUTINELY, REPEATEDLY FOUND THAT. THE ONLY WAY THAT THERE'S SURE, UH, EMPLOYMENT ASSURANCES AT FERNET WILL EMPLOY IS IF YOU'RE ACTUALLY A CONTRACT EMPLOYEE UNDER CHAPTER 21.
IN WHICH OFFICER? FULTS WAS NOT? AND THEREFORE, THE DISTRICT COULDN'T GRANT THAT RELIEF WITH RESPECT TO POLICY CLARIFICATION AND TRAINING.
EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO INDICATION THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING WRONGFUL OR VIOLATION OF LAW OR POLICY THAT WAS GRANTED IN PART. MR. HOSSOW MADE SURE THERE WAS ADDITIONAL TRAINING OR ADDITIONAL DIRECTIVES AND CLARIFICATIONS PROVIDED WITH RESPECT TO ANY MISCONCEPTIONS OR MISCONSTRUCTIONS THERE WERE WITH POLICIES. AND THEY ALSO ASKED FOR THE RESPECT FOR LEGAL REPRESENTATION, WHICH WAS DENIED BECAUSE THEY WANTED LEGAL REPRESENTATION TO BE AVAILABLE IN ANY GENERAL EMPLOYMENT CONFERENCE, WHICH IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW, NOT REQUIRED BY YOUR POLICY.
AND EVEN THE DIRECTIVES OF THE TEXAS CLASSROOM TEACHERS ASSOCIATION AND THE AMERICANS PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL, THEIR DIRECTIVES SAY.
YOU'RE NOT ENTITLED TO REPRESENTATION AT A ROUTINE PERSONNEL MEETING BECAUSE THAT COULD SHUT DOWN ANY DISTRICT.
IF AT EVERY TIME A SUPERVISOR NEEDED TO TALK TO AN EMPLOYEE ABOUT THEIR PERFORMANCE, YOU HAD TO MAKE SURE A LAWYER COULD BE PRESENT. WITH RESPECT TO AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION, THAT WAS GRANTED, AND EACH HEARING OFFICER CONDUCTED AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION. AND WITH RESPECT TO THEIR REQUEST TO REMOVE NEGATIVE RECORDS, THE NEGATIVE RECORDS ARE PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS THAT EVEN PREDATE THE ISSUES. AND THEY SAID THAT THEY ALL HAD SPECIFIC REASONS FOR NEGATIVE PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS, SO THEY DENIED THE REQUEST TO REMOVE THOSE RECORDS. THEY ALSO REQUESTED MONITORING AND OVERSIGHT WHEN OFFICER FULTS WAS MEETING WITH HIS SUPERVISORS. THE DISTRICT HAD ALREADY DONE THAT BECAUSE THEY WERE ALLOWING HR REPRESENTATIVES TO BE PRESENT.
DURING THOSE CONVERSATIONS, TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING WAS GOING, UM, BETTER. SO I REALLY DON'T.
UNDER. I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY WANTED TO PRESENT THESE ISSUES TO THE BOARD. BUT WITH RESPECT TO AN EMPLOYEE GRIEVANCE UNDER GGBA LOCAL, THEY HAVE NOT SHOWN THAT OFFICER FULTS WAS IN ANY WAY TREATED IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW OR POLICY. THE ONE THING THEY RAISE IS ALLEGATIONS THAT HE MAY HAVE BEEN PRESSURED TO RESIGN PREVIOUSLY. THAT'S NOT WHAT THE RECORDINGS OR THE EVIDENCE SHOWED. OFFICER FULTS GAVE VERBALLY HIS TWO WEEKS NOTICE AROUND AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER TO HIS SUPERVISOR.
THEY WERE JUST CHECKING BACK IN TO SEE IF HE WAS REALLY RESIGNING IN TWO WEEKS. AND WHEN HE SAID NO, THEY WITHDREW IT. HE REMAINED EMPLOYED. THEY TRANSFERRED HIM AT HIS REQUEST. AND SO THERE'S SIMPLY NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.
THAT THEY DID ANYTHING EXCEPT FOLLOW UP ON OFFICER FULTS'S OWN WORDS TO THEM THAT HE WAS GIVING TWO WEEKS NOTICE BACK IN AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE LEVEL ONE AND THE LEVEL TWO DECISIONS, THEY'RE VERY THOUGHTFUL, WELL-REASONED, THEY GRANTED SOME OF THE RELIEF WHEN WARRANTED, AND THEY DENIED THE OTHER PARTS THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT. THIS IS NOT A SITUATION WHERE YOUR ADMINISTRATION DIDN'T WORK WITH OFFICER FULTS, DIDN'T TRY TO COOPERATE WITH HIM, THEY DID EVERYTHING BY THE BOOK. AND OFFICER FULTS'S GRIEVANCE DOESN'T SHOW ANY ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS ACTION, ANYTHING THAT WAS A VIOLATION OF LAW, ANYTHING THAT WAS A VIOLATION OF POLICY. THEREFORE, HE HASN'T MET HIS BURDEN. AND THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD ASK THAT
[00:25:01]
YOU AFFIRM THE LEVEL TWO DECISION OF ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT HAYES AND DENY OFFICER. THANK YOU FOR THAT.MS. HEINEN, YOU MAY PRESENT ANY REBUTTAL TO MATTERS RAISED BY THE ADMINISTRATION'S RESPONSE.
I WILL DO SO. I AM A LARGELY NOT REBUT COUNSEL BECAUSE I HAVE TWO MINUTES. SO I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO DR. GOODWIN'S PERFORMANCE HERE. SO AS WE HAVE A SAFETY AND SECURITY LEGITIMATELY REPORTED. WHETHER IT'S A CADENCE OR IT'S A SCHEDULE, WE CAN PLAY THOSE SEMANTIC GAMES AS LAWYERS EVERY DAY. WE ALL KNOW THAT'S TOO CLOSE. IF JEFF WILSON SAID, NO, WE'RE NOT DOING THAT. OKAY.
THEN TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. AND THEN WHAT HAPPENS IS THEY REALIZE, HEY, HE'S NOT GOING TO JUST WILLINGLY RESIGN. WHEN HE SHOWED UP, BY JUST WILLINGLY SHOWING UP FROM A PHONE CALL FROM JEROME, CALLING HIM DOWN HERE TO MEET WITH DR. HARRIS. SO WHAT THEY DO IS THEN LATER THEY PAPER ANOTHER MEETING. TO HAPPEN THE DAY FOLLOWING OUR LEVEL ONE HEARING WITH MIKE YASSO. BUT SEE, WHAT'S ODD ABOUT THAT, AND THAT'S THE SURVEILLANCE FOOTAGE THAT'S IN THE RECORD, IS THAT AT THAT PARTICULAR MEETING, DR. GOODSON PARTICIPATED DIRECTLY, WHILE OFFICER FULTS WAS STILL THERE.
BUT EVEN MORE BIZARRELY, IS THAT AFTER HE LEAVES, EVERYONE THINKS THEY'RE PACKING UP. AND THEN, ALL OF A SUDDEN, HARRY PICKS UP HIS PHONE DOWN HERE. AND HE CALLS.
AND THEN HERE COMES CHRIS GOODSON. AND CHRIS GOODSON CONTINUES THE MEETING, WHICH HE EXPLAINS TO BE A ROUTINE DEBRIEFING.
NOW, MY PROBLEM WITH THIS IS. I MADE IN THE RECORD AN OBJECTION TO HIM BEING OUR LEVEL TWO HEARING OFFICER, BASED ON JUST HIS KNOWN PARTICIPATION IN THIS HR MEETING, BECAUSE I WAS SITTING IN THE HALLWAY OUTSIDE WHEN THIS TOOK PLACE, NOT INSISTING ON BEING IN EVERY MEETING BY ANY MEANS, LIKE COUNSEL HAS IMPUTED UPON ME, BUT RATHER BECAUSE IT WAS CLEAR THAT DISCIPLINARY ACTION RELATED TO THE GRIEVANCE WAS BEING DISCUSSED. OKAY. INSTEAD, DR.
GOODWIN DID THIS. I WANT TO POINT OUT, HE'S NOT HOLDING A PEN OR PAPER. THERE ARE NO RECORDS OF THIS MEETING.
THERE'S NO RECORDS OF WHAT HE SAID IN THIS MEETING. THERE'S NO RECORDS OF WHAT HE SAYS IN HIS LETTER. THERE'S NO RECORDS AT ALL, EXCEPT FOR HIS HEARING DECISION, EXCUSE ME, AND THEN HIS ONE MEMO IN SUPPORT OF HIS POSITION FOR OUR SECOND GRIEVANCE. WHAT HAPPENED HERE IS WE HAD AN OPERATION MEETING COLD. THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF OPERATIONS IS NOT CHRISTOPHER GOODSON. THAT'S MIKE YASSO.
AND THAT'S WHY THIS IS RELATED TO SECURITY, BECAUSE BY MANIPULATING THE EMPLOYEE GRIEVANCE PROCESS, IT MADE A SHAM OF DUE PROCESS, SURE ENOUGH, AND THAT'S EGREGIOUS AND ILLEGAL. BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT, IT KEPT MIKE YASSO FROM KNOWING THAT THERE WERE NO WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES GIVEN TO OUR GUARDS. AND THEN YOU GO EVEN FURTHER IN HIS LETTER, WITH ABSURDITIES, LIKE, IT'S OKAY TO GIVE AMMUNITION WITHOUT TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION ON SHOOTING.
OKAY, THANK YOU FOR THAT. DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR EITHER PARTY? I DON'T KNOW IF YOU NEED THAT OR NOT. IT'S JUST FAR ENOUGH. I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS, BASED ON ALL THE DOCUMENTS THAT I READ AND STUDIED. SO, THE FIRST FEW QUESTIONS ARE IN REFERENCE TO YOUR SCOPE OF JOB DUTIES. AND I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE, BECAUSE IT WAS PRETTY PREVALENT IN THE DOCUMENTS I READ. YOU MENTIONED BEING ASKED TO DO... SCREENING PARENTS WHO SMELL LIKE MARIJUANA. SO AFTER YOU WERE ASKED TO DO THAT, WHAT WERE YOU TOLD TO DO IN THE SITUATION? YES, OFFICER FULTS WAS TOLD TO NOT PERMIT THEM ENTRY, EVEN FOR RETRIEVAL OF THEIR OWN CHILDREN. AND IN FACT, I BELIEVE NOW, AFTER SEEING MORE OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE DISCLOSED IN THIS PART OF THIS GRIEVANCE PROCESS IN THE DISTRICT RECORD, THAT ACTUALLY, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A MISCOMMUNICATION. BECAUSE IN THE YEAR PRIOR, PRINCIPAL FORTE HAD... GIVEN INSTRUCTIONS TO NOT ALLOW AT LEAST ONE CERTAIN PARENT OR SOMETHING TO ENTRY. AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT WAS LEGITIMATE OR NOT. I HAVE NO IDEA. BUT I BELIEVE THAT THAT COULD HAVE BEEN A MISUNDERSTANDING BETWEEN EVERYONE. HOWEVER, HE WAS ALSO TOLD TO, FOR EXAMPLE, SETTLE ANYTHING DOWN BEFORE IT GETS TO THE FRONT DESK. SO, BEYOND, THE SCOPE OF DUTIES EXPANDS EVEN BEYOND THAT PARTICULAR UNCONSTITUTIONALITY. AND IN REFERENCE TO THAT AS WELL, SO REGARDING CALMING PARENTS OR CALMING PEOPLE DOWN, KIND OF EXPLAIN TO ME. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE IN THAT AND YOUR NORMAL SECURITY OFFICER JOB? SURE, SURE. I MEAN, IN AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, OF COURSE, WE ALL HAVE, WELL, NOT WE ALL, BUT I HAVE KIDS IN OUR ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS. AND SO I KNOW THAT SOMETIMES I CAN
[00:30:01]
BE EMOTIONAL, RIGHT? WE CAN HAVE TIMES THAT WE ARE NOT NECESSARILY CALM, BUT WE'RE NOT UNSAFE. WE'RE NOT IN ANY WAY DISRUPTING NORMAL OPERATIONS. WE'RE NOT IN ANY WAY DOING ANYTHING INAPPROPRIATE. WE'RE JUST NOT NECESSARILY KIND OF CALM THAT SOMEBODY ELSE WANTS US TO BE ABOUT OUR OWN CHILD. AND SO THIS WAS A WAY TO MANIPULATE IT INTO A SITUATION WHERE. HE'S NOT ABLE TO USE HIS INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AS THE MAN CARRYING THE GUN. AND CHARGED WITH THE SAFETY AND SECURITY ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THAT PARTICULAR BEHAVIOR POSES A SAFETY AND SECURITY THREAT.AND RATHER, TOLD IT DOES BY SOMEBODY ELSE WHO'S NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OUTCOME OF WHATEVER ACTIONS MAY OCCUR FROM HIM INTERVENING. SO THAT'S JUST A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IS TRADITIONAL SCOPE OF SECURITY POSITION. WELL, THE SCOPE OF THE POSITION IN THE TRAINING MATERIALS IS SPECIFICALLY, THE SOLE PURPOSE IS THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF THESE CAMPUSES. AND UP TO AND INCLUDING, IT SAYS IN THEIR TRAINING MATERIALS, DON'T OPEN DOORS, YOU'RE NOT THERE TO BE DOING COUNSELING SERVICES. YOU CAN DO THINGS LIKE LECTURES IN THE LIBRARY, SORT OF THING ABOUT SAFETY, THINGS LIKE THIS, SO LONG AS IT DOESN'T INTERFERE WITH SAFETY AND SECURITY. AND SO, AGAIN, ADDING ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES ARGUABLY ALSO TAKES THEM AWAY FROM CHECKING DOORS, SEEING WHAT'S GOING ON AROUND THE REST OF THE ENVIRONMENT. RIGHT, GOTCHA. OKAY, UM, I THINK THAT'S IT FOR NOW, I'LL LEAVE IT UP TO MY COLLEAGUES IF I COULD.
BECAUSE OF THE LENGTH OF THE RECORD, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER THE TRUSTEES JUST A SHORT SHEET OF MY CITATIONS TO THE ALLEGATIONS THAT WE MADE IN THE DISTRICT DOCUMENTS.
ONLY I PROVIDED IT TO TO COUNSEL OVER THERE ALREADY. I JUST, I DON'T WANT THERE TO... YEAH.
I'VE TOLD Y'ALL TO MAKE SURE THE MIC WAS ON AND I FAILED TO DO IT. SO I JUST GAVE A COPY TO MS. LONG TO TAKE A LOOK AT. IF YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS, MS. LONG, PLEASE INDICATE SO. ALL OF THESE ARE THE REFERENCES TO DISTRICT DOCUMENTS IN THE CENTER THERE. YOU'LL SEE YOUR CITATIONS FROM HOW THEY ARE ORGANIZED. I FOUND THE RECORD TO BE VERY CONFUSING PERSONALLY AS I TRIED TO READ THROUGH IT AND I LIVED IT. AND SO AS I WAS DOING IT, I WAS PULLING WHERE THE REFERENCES WERE. I THINK THAT, TRUSTEES, I KNOW THAT Y'ALL ARE ABLE TO GET WHATEVER INFORMATION Y'ALL WANT FROM DISTRICT WHEN I'M NOT AROUND ANYWAY. SO, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER SUITS Y'ALL, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS WAS, AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN ABOUT SAFETY AND SECURITY.
BECAUSE WHAT GOT MY ATTENTION ABOUT CHRISTOPHER GOODSON IS THAT. IF SOMETHING AS BIG AS ELEMENTARY SECURITY COULD FALL THROUGH THE CRACKS BY BEING SHOVED DOWN AS EMPLOYMENT ISSUES.
IN THIS WAY, RIGHT, THEN WHAT ELSE HAS FALLEN THROUGH THE CRACKS? AND I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR. THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT SAFETY AND SECURITY FOR BOTH OFFICER FULTS AND MYSELF. I DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE CLAIM OF THE CITED SUPPORT. IF THE COLUMN NOTES COULD BE REDACTED.
I'M HAPPY TO DO SO. AND THAT SHOULD NOT BE PART CONSIDERED.
THAT'S CERTAINLY FINE. I DIDN'T MEAN TO SUPPLEMENT A BRIEF.
OKAY. THANK YOU. I ACTUALLY DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR DR. GOODSON. HI. SO, DR.
GOODSON, FOR ME AND MY COLLEAGUES, COULD YOU JUST TELL ME WHAT YOUR ROLE IN THAT MEETING WITH MR. FULTS AND DR. HARRIS WAS? AS THE MEETING WAS HAPPENING, THERE WAS A POINT IN THE CONVERSATION, WHERE, APPARENTLY, MR. FULTS SAID HE WOULD NOT COMMUNICATE WITH JEFF AND CEDRIC. HEARING THAT, DR. HARRIS BECAME CONCERNED BECAUSE HAVING A SAFETY OFFICER WHO WOULD ONLY COMMUNICATE UNLESS IT WAS AN EMERGENCY, TO CLARIFY. HAVING AN EMPLOYEE BASICALLY SAY THEY'RE NOT GOING TO COMMUNICATE WITH THEIR SUPERVISORS OUTSIDE OF AN EMERGENCY WAS A BIG CONCERN. DR. HARRIS PAUSED THE MEETING, AND HE CAME TO TALK TO ME BECAUSE THAT CHANGES THE NATURE OF THE CONVERSATION.
NOW WE'RE HAVING TO FIGURE OUT, OKAY, IS THIS PERSON REFUSING TO DO THE JOB? AND BY SAYING, I'M NOT GOING TO TALK TO MY SUPERVISORS UNLESS IT'S AN EMERGENCY, IT'S A CRITICAL POSITION, AND THAT'S NOT REALLY APPROPRIATE. SO HE CAME TO ME AND WANTED ME TO SIT IN ON THE MEETING BECAUSE THIS WAS A DIFFERENT PART. THE CONVERSATION KIND OF CHANGED.
AND SO I WENT IN TO JUST KIND OF UNDERSTAND WHERE THINGS WERE. THAT'S WHEN I SAW YOU IN THE HALLWAY. WHEN I CAME IN, I SAT DOWN, AND DR. HARRIS RESUMED THE MEETING, AND HE SAID, CAN YOU GO AHEAD AND SAY AGAIN, KIND OF EXPLAIN YOUR STANCE ON WHETHER OR NOT, HOW YOU'RE GOING TO COMMUNICATE OR NOT WITH JEFF AND CEDRIC. AND AS MR. FULTS BEGAN, HE SAID THAT HE WOULD ONLY COMMUNICATE WITH THEM IF IT WAS AN EMERGENCY AND THEN OTHER WORK-RELATED ISSUES.
[00:35:02]
AND SO THAT WAS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT HE FIRST STATED. AND SO, AFTER THAT, COMMENT WAS MADE, DR. HARRIS CLARIFIED, AND I LEFT THE ROOM. THEY WENT AHEAD AND FINISHED THE MEETING.AFTER THE MEETING WAS OVER, I DID GO BACK INTO THE ROOM TO DEBRIEF WITH THEM BECAUSE WE WERE DEALING WITH THE PERSONNEL MATTER.
IT'S NOT VERY TYPICAL THAT I'M CALLED INTO A MEETING LIKE THAT. AND SO WHEN I EXPERIENCED WHAT I EXPERIENCED, I WANTED TO GO BACK AND TALK TO THE GROUP. DO YOU FEEL, OR DO YOU THINK, THAT YOUR PRESENCE IN THAT ROOM CREATED ANY TYPE OF BIAS IN YOUR DECISION? ABSOLUTELY NOT. THANK YOU. I JUST CALLED THE TRUSTEE'S ATTENTION THAT THE ACTUAL RECORDING OF THAT MEETING IS IN THE RECORD ALREADY. SO WHAT WAS JUST CHARACTERIZED, I WOULD FIND TO BE A MISCHARACTERIZATION OF BOTH. WHAT OFFICER FALL SAID I JUST WANTED, I'M SORRY, I JUST WANTED TO CALL THAT, THAT WAS IN THE RECORD. OKAY, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS? WELL, I HAVE ONE. CAN YOU KIND OF TELL ME A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE RELIEF THAT YOU ARE SEEKING TODAY? JUST TELL ME ONE MORE TIME EXACTLY WHAT YOU ALL ARE SEEKING. YES, MA'AM.
REALLY, IT'S THAT OFFICER FULTS REALLY WAS WRONGLY TREATED BY THIS DISTRICT THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS. AND AN APOLOGY, JUST GENUINELY, TO KIND OF LET THIS HAVE CLOSURE FOR HIM AS HE MOVES ON WITH HIS LIFE. THE SECOND IS AN INVESTIGATION INTO HOW THIS INSIGHT AND HOW DR. GOODSON'S PARTICIPATION POTENTIALLY INTERFERED WITH OPERATIONS IN A WAY THAT WAS VERY DANGEROUS.
FOR OUR WHOLE DISTRICT. THAT INVESTIGATION IS THE OTHER THING THAT WE'RE ASKING THE TRUSTEES TO REALLY SEE THROUGH FOR US AS A REMEDY. AND WHEN YOU SAY AN APOLOGY, IN WHAT FORMAT ARE YOU SEEKING THIS APOLOGY? I WOULD TAKE IT RIGHT NOW IN CONFIDENCE, JUST TO OFFICER FULTS SITTING HERE RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN MADE YET. THANK YOU.
OKAY, THANK YOU. THE LEVEL 3 GRIEVANCE PRESENTATIONS ARE NOW CONCLUDED. I WILL INSTRUCT THE BOARD MEMBERS REGARDING THE PROPER PROCESS OF REACHING A DECISION IN THIS CASE. NOW THAT THE BOARD HAS HEARD THE APPEAL, THE BOARD HAS MULTIPLE OPTIONS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING. NUMBER ONE, THE BOARD MAY VOTE TO GRANT THE GRIEVANCE, WHICH MEANS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT OFFICER FULTS SHOULD BE GRANTED THE RELIEF REQUESTED IN THE GRIEVANCE. NUMBER TWO, THE BOARD MAY VOTE TO DENY THE GRIEVANCE, WHICH MEANS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT. OFFICER FULTS... IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF REQUESTED.
THROUGHOUT ITS DECISION-MAKING PROCESS, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE GRIEVANCE PRESENTATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSE PRESENTED THIS EVENING AT THIS MEETING, AS WELL AS THE DOCUMENTS IN THE RECORD. WE MAY NOT CONSIDER ANY STATEMENT, RUMOR, OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WE MAY HAVE HEARD OUTSIDE
[II. ENTER CLOSED MEETING]
OF THIS HEARING. THE BOARD WILL NOW EXCUSE ITSELF TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL IN CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 552.071. OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT. NO DECISIONS OR DELIBERATION WILL BE MADE DURING THIS CONSULTATION. THE GRIEVANCE AND ADMINISTRATION MAY REMAIN IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM. OKAY,[III. RECONVENE]
WE HAVE RETURNED FROM CLOSED SESSION AND RECONVENING INTO OPEN SESSION AT 6:50 P.M.NO ACTION WAS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION. IS THERE A MOTION REGARDING THE GRIEVANCE? YOU KNOW, BASED ON AFTER LOOKING AT THE INFORMATION, AND, YOU KNOW, THE PRIMARY FUNCTION HERE WAS BEING ASKED TO PATROL. AND WE READILY HAD OUR COUNCIL, GRIEVANCE COUNCIL, READILY ADMIT THAT THAT WAS IN THE JOB DESCRIPTION. SO BASED ON THAT, I MOVE THAT WE AFFIRM THE LEVEL TWO. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. THERE HAS BEEN A MOTION TO DENY THE GRIEVANCE APPEAL, AND IT HAS BEEN PROPERLY SECONDED. THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. MOTION PASSES 4-4. SORRY. ZERO. SO SORRY, GUYS. IT'S BEEN A LONG NIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THIS PUBLIC VOTE SHALL... SERVE AS A VERBAL NOTICE OF THE BOARD'S DECISION.
RISD'S GENERAL COUNSEL WILL FOLLOW UP WITH WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION OF THE BOARD'S DECISION TO THE GRIEVANCE. THIS GRIEVANCE HEARING IS NOW CONCLUDED. THE BOARD MEETING IS ADJOURNED AT 6:51 P.M.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.