[* Portions of this meeting are without audio *] [00:00:06] IT IS 5:30 ON FEBRUARY 12 TO 2026, AND THIS CALLED BOARD MEETING OF THE ROUND ROCK INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT OF TRUSTEES IS CALLED TO [A. CALL TO ORDER] ORDER. IN ATTENDANCE, WE HAVE TRUSTEE LANDRUM, TRUSTEE WEIR, TRUSTEE ROSS, TRUSTEE WEI AND TRUSTEE CUERO AS TRUSTEE ZÁRATE IS RUNNING LATE AND WILL BE JOINING US LATER. PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE. WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, SO WE WILL BE GOING ON TO AGENDA D. [D. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION] THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS TO CONSIDER THE LEVEL THREE COMPLAINT OF NICOLE CIMO, PURSUANT TO DGBA LOCAL. I WILL ASK IF THE GRIEVANT IS REPRESENTED BY ANYONE AND IF SO, WOULD THE REPRESENTATIVE PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? IN ORDER TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE RECORD, AN AUDIO RECORDING OF THIS PROCEEDING IS BEING MADE. PLEASE AVOID TALKING WHEN OTHERS ARE SPEAKING SO THE RECORD WILL REFLECT THE PROCEEDINGS ACCURATELY. THE FOLLOWING BOARD MEMBERS ARE PRESENT. TRUSTEE CUERO, TRUSTEE LANDRUM, TRUSTEE, ROSS. TRUSTEE WEI, TRUSTEE WEIR AND AGAIN, TRUSTEE ZÁRATE WILL BE HERE SHORTLY AND TRUSTEE MARKUM IS ABSENT. I AM MELISSA ROSS, BOARD VICE PRESIDENT, AND A QUORUM IS PRESENT. I WILL NOW INSTRUCT THE PARTIES REGARDING THE PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE LEVEL THREE GRIEVANCE PRESENTATION. THE GRIEVANT WILL PRESENT THE LEVEL THREE GRIEVANCE TO THE BOARD. I WILL ASK THE BOARD MEMBERS NOT TO INTERRUPT DURING THE PRESENTATION. WHEN THE GRIEVANT OR HER REPRESENTATIVE HAS COMPLETED THE PRESENTATION, THE ADMINISTRATION MAY MAKE A REPLY. THIS IS NOT A FORMAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING, SO THERE WILL BE NO CALLING OF WITNESSES OR CROSS-EXAMINATION. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE NOT TO BE QUESTIONED. I WILL ASK THE PARTIES TO PLEASE LIMIT YOUR PRESENTATIONS TO TEN MINUTES FOR EACH SIDE. THE GRIEVANT MAY DIVIDE HER TIME ALLOCATION AS SHE WISHES, BUT IT SHALL NOT EXCEED TEN MINUTES IN TOTAL. FINALLY, I CAUTION THE PARTIES THAT THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER ONLY THOSE ISSUES AND DOCUMENTS INCLUDED IN THE MATERIALS SUBMITTED BY THE PARTIES, WHICH WERE SENT TO THE BOARD MEMBERS FOR REVIEW. THE GRIEVANT AND THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE BEEN PROVIDED WITH A COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS SENT TO THE BOARD MEMBERS. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF THE HEARING? OKAY. SO WE HAVE A TIMER HERE. AND I THINK THEY WILL PUT IT UP ON A WEBSITE. SO ON THE SCREEN. TESTING. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. YES. OKAY. WAIT. THE ONE ON THE LEFT IS THE MUTE, EVERYONE? I THINK SO, YEAH. THANK YOU. AND IF YOU PUSH THAT, THAT MUTES EVERYBODY ELSE'S MICROPHONES. OKAY. YOU'RE JUST GOING TO BE PUSHING THIS ONE. THE ONE THAT SAYS PUSH HERE, BY THE WAY. JUST LETTING YOU KNOW. JUST TRY THAT NOW, TRY TO TURN YOURS ON, MICHAEL. YEAH. SO. OKAY, PERFECT. BUT NOW TRY TO TURN IT ON, MICHAEL. YEP. SO. AWESOME. IF YOU NEED TO SHUT US UP YOU PUSH THAT ONE. AND IF YOU DON'T. THANK YOU, TRUSTEE WEIR, FOR FINDING OUT ABOUT THE MICS. ALL RIGHT. THE GRIEVANT MAY NOW PRESENT THEIR LEVEL THREE GRIEVANCE. ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, TRUSTEES. MY NAME IS NICOLE CIMO. THIS IS MY 10TH YEAR SERVING IN ROUND ROCK ISD. DURING THAT TIME I HAVE SERVED AS A CLASSROOM TEACHER, TALENTED AND GIFTED SPECIALIST, AND I AM CURRENTLY IN MY FOURTH YEAR AS THE INTERNATIONAL [00:05:09] BACCALAUREATE COORDINATOR FOR THE PRIMARY YEARS PROGRAM AT SPICEWOOD ELEMENTARY. IN THIS ROLE, I LEAD PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, GUIDE CURRICULUM PLANNING ACROSS ALL K-5 TEAMS, OVERSEE IB PROGRAM EVALUATION TO MAINTAIN CERTIFICATION AND SUPPORT CAMPUS WIDE INSTRUCTIONAL EXCELLENCE. I CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THIS DISTRICT AND THE WORK THAT WE DO FOR STUDENTS. I'M HERE TONIGHT REGARDING A COMPENSATION CHANGE THAT OCCURRED AFTER MY CONTRACT BECAME BINDING, AND AFTER I HAD ALREADY BEGUN PERFORMANCE FOR THE 25-26 SCHOOL YEAR. THIS GRIEVANCE IS NOT ABOUT DISAGREEMENT WITH HOUSE BILL 2. IT IS NOT ABOUT TRA ELIGIBILITY. AND IT IS NOT ABOUT REQUESTING SPECIAL TREATMENT. IT IS ABOUT CONTRACT INTEGRITY, TIMING AND GOVERNANCE PROCESS. HERE IS THE TIMELINE. ON APRIL 2ND, 2025, I ACCEPTED MY TERM CONTRACT UNDER THE CLASSIFICATION OF TEACHER FOR THE IB COORDINATOR POSITION. ON JUNE 3RD, 2025, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES APPROVED THE 25-26 COMPENSATION PLAN. THAT PLAN WAS PUBLICLY SHARED ON JUNE 11TH. AT THAT TIME, IB COORDINATORS REMAINED ORGANIZED UNDER THE TEACHER SALARY SCALE. ON JUNE 29TH, THAT WAS THE FINAL DAY EDUCATORS COULD RESIGN WITHOUT PENALTY FOR THE FOLLOWING SCHOOL YEAR. ON JULY 1ST, THE DISTRICT SIGNED MY CONTRACT. ON JULY 15TH, I BEGAN WORKING MY CONTRACT DAYS FOR THE 25-26 SCHOOL YEAR UNDER THE COMPENSATION PLAN APPROVED BY THE BOARD ON JUNE 3RD. ON AUGUST 8TH, 18 FULL WORKING DAYS INTO MY CONTRACT, AND THREE WORK DAYS BEFORE THE STUDENTS RETURNED TO CAMPUS, I WAS INFORMED THAT IB COORDINATORS HAD BEEN MOVED TO A NEWLY CREATED SALARY SCALE TITLED PROFESSIONAL CAMPUS SUPPORT. THIS CHANGE ALTERED THE SALARY SCALE UNDER WHICH I HAD SIGNED MY CONTRACT AND BEGUN PERFORMANCE. I WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT TWO PROVISIONS FROM MY TERM CONTRACT. SECTION TWO IN MY TERM CONTRACT STATES, THE BOARD SHALL PAY EMPLOYEE ACCORDING TO THE COMPENSATION PLAN ADOPTED ANNUALLY BY THE BOARD. THE COMPENSATION PLAN ADOPTED BY THE BOARD ON JUNE 3RD PLACED IB COORDINATORS UNDER THE TEACHER SALARY SCALE. SECTION 19 STATES NO AMENDMENTS TO THIS CONTRACT SHALL BE BINDING UNLESS REDUCED TO WRITING AND SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES. I DID NOT SIGN AN AMENDMENT. ADDITIONALLY, BOARD POLICY REQUIRES THAT ANY NOTICE BE SUFFICIENTLY FORMAL AND SPECIFIC TO GIVE EDUCATORS MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO DECIDE WHETHER TO CONTINUE EMPLOYMENT. BY AUGUST 8TH, THE OPPORTUNITY NO LONGER EXISTED. THE PENALTY FREE RESIGNATION WINDOW CLOSED ON JUNE 29TH, AND I HAD ALREADY BEGAN FULFILLING MY CONTRACTUAL DUTIES. I WILL NOTE THAT DURING MY LEVEL TWO GRIEVANCE MEETING ON OCTOBER 27TH, HR PUT FORWARD THE OPTION FOR ME TO CHANGE MY ROLE TO CLASSROOM TEACHER WITHOUT PENALTY IF I WISH. WHILE I APPRECIATE THAT FLEXIBILITY, THAT OPTION WAS OFFERED MONTHS AFTER MY CONTRACT BEGAN AND AFTER THE COMPENSATION STRUCTURE HAD ALREADY BEEN CHANGED. THIS ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT ROLE PREFERENCE. IT'S ABOUT WHETHER THE COMPENSATION STRUCTURE UNDER WHICH I BEGAN PERFORMANCE MAY BE ALTERED AFTER THE FACT. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE DISTRICT'S POSITION HOUSE BILL 2 CREATED INVOLVED NEW DEFINITIONS AND FUNDING MECHANISMS RELATED TO THE TEACHER RETENTION ALLOTMENT. HOWEVER, MY GRIEVANCE IS NOT LIMITED TO TRA ELIGIBILITY. THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU IS THIS. ONCE A CONTRACT HAS BEEN EXECUTED, ONCE THE COMPENSATION PLAN HAS BEEN ADOPTED AND ONCE PERFORMANCE HAS BEGUN, MAY THE SALARY SCALE UNDER WHICH THAT EMPLOYEE IS WORKING BE ALTERED WITHOUT WRITTEN AMENDMENT AND WITHOUT MEANINGFUL NOTICE? THE DISTRICT HAS STATED THAT MY COMPENSATION WAS NOT REDUCED BECAUSE I RECEIVED A 1% INCREASE OVER MY PRIOR YEAR PAY. [00:10:03] RESPECTFULLY, THE ISSUE IS NOT COMPARISON TO LAST YEAR'S COMPENSATION. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE COMPENSATION STRUCTURE IN EFFECT AT THE TIME MY CONTRACT BECAME BINDING WAS SEQUENTIALLY REVISED AFTER PERFORMANCE BEGAN. EDUCATORS MAKE LIFE DECISIONS BASED OFF OF SIGNED CONTRACTS AND ADOPTED COMPENSATION PLANS. HOUSING, FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS AND FAMILY PLANNING RELY ON THE STABILITY OF THOSE AGREEMENTS. THE INTEGRITY OF DISTRICT GOVERNANCE DEPENDS NOT ONLY ON WHAT IS PERMISSIBLE, BUT WHAT IS PREDICTABLE. THIS GRIEVANCE ASKS YOU TO FOLLOW TO CONSIDER THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS. THE BOARD ADOPTING A COMPENSATION PLAN. THE DISTRICT EXECUTED MY CONTRACT UNDER THAT PLAN. THE RESIGNATION WINDOW CLOSED. I BEGAN MY CONTRACT. THEN THE SALARY SCALE CHANGED. SEQUENCE MATTERS. FOR THESE REASONS, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE FOLLOWING. FIRST THAT MY DAILY RATE BE REINSTATED TO THE RATE IN EFFECT WHEN MY CONTRACT BECAME BINDING AND PERFORMANCE BEGAN CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPENSATION PLAN ADOPTED ON JUNE 3RD, 2025. SECOND, EITHER REINSTATE IB COORDINATORS UNDER THE TEACHER SALARY GUIDE OR PLACE THE ROLE ON A COMPENSATION SCALE THAT REFLECTS ITS INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP RESPONSIBILITIES. THIRD, THAT THE DISTRICT PRACTICE BE CLARIFIED TO ENSURE THAT FUTURE COMPENSATION CHANGES DO NOT TAKE EFFECT AFTER CONTRACT START DATES WITHOUT WRITTEN ACKNOWLEDGMENT. THAT WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH CONTRACT CLAUSE 19 AS WELL AS BOARD POLICY. TRUSTEES, THIS REQUEST IS NOT ABOUT RESISTING CHANGE. IT IS ABOUT ENSURING THAT CHANGE OCCURS WITHIN A FRAMEWORK THAT HONORS EXECUTED AGREEMENTS AND PRESERVES TRUST BETWEEN THE DISTRICT AND ITS EDUCATORS. I AM PROUD TO SERVE THIS DISTRICT AND MY GOAL IS NOT CONFLICT, JUST CLARITY. I RESPECT THAT YOU UPHOLD THE COMPENSATION STRUCTURE, OR I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU UPHOLD THE COMPENSATION STRUCTURE IN PLACE AT THE TIME MY CONTRACT BECAME ACTIVE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. AND THE ADMINISTRATION MAY NOW PROCEED WITH ITS REPLY. GOOD EVENING, VICE PRESIDENT ROSS, TRUSTEES, DOCTOR NICHOLS. MISS CIMO HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR WHY WE'RE HERE TONIGHT. WHAT SHE'S LOOKING FOR IS AN INCREASE IN HER DAILY RATE, WHICH IS BASICALLY COMMISERATE WITH WHAT WE ARE PAYING OUR CLASSROOM TEACHERS WITH SIMILAR EXPERIENCE. SHE DOES WANT THE RECLASSIFICATION OF THE IB COORDINATORS BACK TO THE CLASSROOM TEACHER SCALE OR ANOTHER SCALE, AND A FORMAL ASSURANCE THAT THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER CONTRACT CHANGES AFTER ANY SORT OF START DATE. THIS BOARD AND THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN UNFAILINGLY SUPPORTIVE OF ADVOCATING FOR FAIR COMPENSATION FOR ALL ROUND ROCK ISD EMPLOYEES, WHETHER THEY BE IN THE CLASSROOM, WHETHER THEY BE IN A BUS, IN A WAREHOUSE, OR BEHIND A DESK. I AM SURE THAT WERE THERE ADEQUATE FUNDING AVAILABLE, YOU WOULD PREFER TO GIVE MISS CIMO AND ALL OF THE OTHER DEDICATED CAMPUS SUPPORT PROFESSIONALS A PAY RAISE LIKE OUR CLASSROOM TEACHERS GOT. UNFORTUNATELY, GIVEN THE CURRENT FINANCIAL SITUATION, THAT IS SIMPLY NOT A POSSIBILITY. EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS FOR THE 25-26 SCHOOL YEAR WERE APPROVED BY THE BOARD ON APRIL 17TH, 2025. MISS CIMO ACCEPTED HER EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT ON APRIL 22ND, 2025. AT THE TIME THAT SHE SIGNED HER CONTRACT, THE DISTRICT HAD NOT APPROVED ANY COMPENSATION PLAN FOR THE UPCOMING SCHOOL YEAR. AS WE WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION WHEN SCHOOL FUNDING WAS THE CENTRAL ISSUE, APPROVAL OF ANY COMPENSATION PLAN WAS ENTIRELY CONTINGENT ON ANY PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE THAT WE WERE SEEKING FROM THE TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY. AS A RESULT, IT IS CLEAR THAT MISS CIMO COULD NOT, NOR DID NOT DETRIMENTALLY RELY ON ANY PARTICULAR SALARY SCHEDULE AND MAKING HER DECISION TO SIGN THE CONTRACT. [00:15:05] AND THAT'S WHEN THE CONTRACT BECAME BINDING. AS YOU KNOW, THE BOARD DID APPROVE THE COMPENSATION PLAN ON JUNE 3RD. AS YOU'LL REMEMBER, THE VERSION APPROVED BY THE BOARD ON THAT DATE REMAINED CONTINGENT ON THE PASSAGE OF HOUSE BILL 2, WHICH INCLUDED SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT IF HOUSE BILL 2, IN ITS CURRENT VERSION, WAS SIGNED INTO LAW, THEN ELIGIBLE TEACHERS WOULD BE PAID ON THE TEACHER SALARY SCALE AN ADDITIONAL $610 FOR THOSE WITH 1 TO 2 YEARS EXPERIENCE, ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES WITH 3 TO 4 YEAR EXPERIENCE WERE GOING TO RECEIVE ANOTHER $2,500 IN THE GENERAL PAY INCREASE. AND ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES WITH 5 OR MORE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WOULD RECEIVE THE 5000 GENERAL PAY INCREASE. IF YOU LOOK IN YOUR PACKETS ON PAGES 70 TO 71, YOU WILL SEE THAT THIS WAS CLEARLY SET FORTH FOR THE BOARD, THESE WERE FOR TEACHERS AND THEY WERE FOR ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES UNDER SENATE BILL 2. ON JUNE 3RD, THE BOARD VOTED, AND IT WAS VERY CLEARLY AND PUBLICLY BASED ON THE LANGUAGE STATING THAT THE HOUSE BILL 2 MONEY WOULD ONLY BE PROVIDED TO TEACHERS THAT WERE PAID ON THE TEACHER SALARY, NOT CAMPUS SUPPORT PROFESSIONALS PAID ON THE TEACHER SALARY. FURTHER, THE LANGUAGE NOTED THAT HOUSE BILL 2 COMPENSATION INCREASE WAS ONLY FOR EMPLOYEES FOUND TO BE ELIGIBLE UNDER HOUSE BILL 2. FURTHER DURING THE COMPENSATION PRESENTATION, THE LANGUAGE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD ALSO INDICATED THAT HOUSE BILL 2 COMPENSATION CONSIDERATIONS DID NOT INCLUDE SUPPORT POSITIONS AND THE SPECIFIC TEACHER COMPENSATION ALLOCATION. THE LANGUAGE PRESENTED ON JUNE 3RD STATED THAT ALL OTHER ELIGIBLE STAFF WOULD RECEIVE AN INCREASE OF 1% IF HOUSE BILL 2 WAS PASSED. MISS CIMO WAS NEITHER AN ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEE UNDER HOUSE BILL 2 NOR A CLASSROOM TEACHER ON THE TEACHER'S SALARY. THAT IS NOT IN DISPUTE. WE'RE NOT HERE TONIGHT TO DISPUTE WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A BETTER PLAN. BUT SINCE HOUSE BILL 2 PROVIDED A CLEAR DEFINITION OF THE TEACHER ROLE, A DEFINITION WHICH MISS CIMO'S CURRENT POSITION DOES NOT MEET, HER POSITION WAS CLASSIFIED AS A SUPPORT STAFF PERSON POSITION, ELIGIBLE FOR THE 1% MIDPOINT INCREASE APPROVED BY THE BOARD. BASED ON WHAT WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD, MISS CIMO´S DAILY RATE FOR THE 25-26 SCHOOL YEAR WAS INCREASED BY 1%. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE HEARD TONIGHT WAS THAT THERE WAS A REQUEST THAT THE SALARY BE INCREASED AS THE BOARD HAD APPROVED AT THE TIME HER CONTRACT BECAME BINDING. AT THE TIME HER CONTRACT BECAME BINDING, IT WAS 1% LESS THAN IT IS NOW. THE PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PAY INCREASE THAT WAS PROVIDED TO OVER A HUNDRED OTHER CAMPUS SUPPORT PROFESSIONALS WHO WERE NOT CLASSROOM TEACHERS, MOVING HER POSITION FROM THE TEACHER SCHEDULE IN 2025 TO A DIFFERENT SCHEDULE IN 25-26 DID NOT RESULT IN ANY REDUCTION OF HER PAY FOR THE 25-26 SCHOOL YEAR. IF YOU LOOK ON PAGE 66 OF THE BOARD PACKET, YOU WILL SEE THAT HOUSE BILL 2 INCLUDES LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWS DISTRICTS TO ADJUST TEACHER COMPENSATION FOR THE 25-26 SCHOOL YEAR TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OUTLINED FOR TEACHER COMPENSATION INCREASES THROUGH THE TEACHER RETENTION ALLOTMENT, INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY EXISTING CONTRACT. COMPENSATION WITH TRA FOR ELIGIBLE POSITION IS CONSIDERED SEPARATE FROM ANY CONTRACT. IN OTHER WORDS, THIS GUIDANCE, PLUS THE GUIDANCE THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE TEA WHICH WE RECEIVED. WHICH I BELIEVE IS SET FORTH ON PAGE 55 OF YOUR PACKET, CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO BREACH OF HER CURRENT CONTRACT, BECAUSE ANY SORT OF INCREASE BASED ON HOUSE BILL 2 WAS NOT CONSIDERED PART OF THE CONTRACT. THE ADMINISTRATION FULLY DISCUSSED WITH MISS CIMO AS SHE HAS SAID TONIGHT THAT THE DEFINITION AND HOUSE BILL 2 DID NOT MATCH. [00:20:01] THEY DID OFFER HER OTHER OPTIONS SUCH AS MOVING BACK TO A CLASSROOM. THIS WOULD NOT ONLY HAVE ENABLED HER TO GET THE TRA ADJUSTMENT, BUT IT WOULD ALSO POTENTIALLY HAVE MADE HER ELIGIBLE FOR TIA SALARY INCREASES. AND SHE DID NOT CHOOSE TO ACCEPT THOSE OPTIONS. AND WHILE THE DISTRICT COULD HAVE INVOLUNTARILY REASSIGNED HER, THERE WAS NO NEED OR PUSH TO DO THAT. THERE IS NOTHING THAT THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD HAVE LIKED BETTER THAN TO GIVE ALL OF OUR PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT STAFF AN INCREASE IN SALARY. THAT WAS NOT POSSIBLE. BUT THIS IS NOT A CONTRACTUAL BREACH. AT THE TIME THE CONTRACT WAS SIGNED, THE ONLY THING THAT HAD BEEN APPROVED BY THE BOARD WAS THE 24-25 SALARY SCHEDULES. AND MISS CIMO IS GETTING MORE THAN THAT. UNDER THE LAW, THAT IS WHAT IS REQUIRED. NOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT SHE WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO HAVE THE ADDITIONAL MONEY THAT WAS PROVIDED TO OUR CLASSROOM TEACHERS. AND GOODNESS KNOWS, BOTH YOU AS WELL AS THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT ALL OF OUR EDUCATORS IN THAT MANNER. HOWEVER, WE DON'T HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY THAT WE HAD HOPED FOR IN FUNDING. AND SO, ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE GOING TO ASK THAT YOU DENY MISS CIMO'S GRIEVANCE TONIGHT AND LET US MOVE FORWARD FROM HERE AND HOPEFULLY WE WILL HAVE BETTER FUNDING DECISIONS FROM LATER LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS. JUST AS A FINAL THOUGHT, ONE OF THE POINTS THAT WAS MADE TONIGHT IS THAT THE DATE FOR RELEASE FROM CONTRACTS WITHOUT PENALTY HAD ALREADY PASSED. I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY REQUEST AT ANY TIME TO RELEASE FROM HER CONTRACT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THE LEVEL THREE GRIEVANCE PRESENTATION IS NOW CONCLUDED. I'LL ASK IF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE GRIEVANT OR THE ADMINISTRATION. AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE BUTTONS, SO JUST GIVE ME GRACE AS I LEARN THIS THING. THANK YOU. EVEN THE PEOPLE THAT GOT PULLED OFF OF THAT? OR WAS THAT PART OF THE CONTRACT CHANGED? NO, MA'AM. RIGHT NOW, I BELIEVE, AND I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF FOLKS FROM HR THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO SHARE SOME INSIGHT ON THAT. BUT I THINK TRADITIONALLY THEY EITHER SAY TEACHER ADMINISTRATOR. BUT LET ME GET SOME CONFIRMATION ON THAT. SO NOTHING COMPARES TO THE PAY SCALES THAT. AND I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO HOLLER LIKE THAT. THAT'S USUALLY THE PRACTICE WITH DISTRICTS. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. TRUSTEE LANDRUM. FIRST I WANT TO SAY, MISS CIMO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR DEDICATION TO OUR DISTRICT. TEACHERS ARE A VALUED COMMODITY, AND WE COULD NOT EXIST WITHOUT WONDERFUL, STRONG TEACHERS AND STAFF AND SUPPORT ANYWHERE FROM OUR CUSTODIANS TO OUR ADMINISTRATORS. THANK YOU. PUBLIC EDUCATION IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS HAS BECOME A HARDER AND HARDER ENVIRONMENT TO WORK IN, AND WE'RE ASKING OUR EMPLOYEES TO DO MORE WITH LESS, AND THEY CONTINUE TO RISE TO THAT REQUEST. SO THANK YOU, LET ME JUST SAY THAT FIRST. ALSO, I EXTREMELY UNDERSTAND YOUR FRUSTRATIONS IN THIS, AND I WILL SAY THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE STATE LEGISLATURE TAKES AWAY LOCAL CONTROL. [00:25:02] THEY MADE DECISIONS AFTER WE'VE ALREADY MADE DECISIONS AND THEY SIGNED IT INTO LAW, AND WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO ABOUT IT. IT'S UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE THEY DON'T WORK IN THE EDUCATION WORLD, AND THEY'RE MAKING DECISIONS FOR US. I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR ADMINISTRATION. IF WE WERE TO. I KNOW ONE OF MISS CIMO'S REQUESTS IS TO RECLASSIFY ALL IB COORDINATORS UNDER THE TEXAS SALARY GUIDE. I'M NOT A LAWYER. I DON'T MEAN TO BRAG, BUT I'M NOT A LAWYER. BUT IF WE WERE TO RECLASSIFY IB COORDINATORS, WOULD THAT BE A VIOLATION OF STATE LAW IN WHAT THEY HAVE LAID OUT, BECAUSE OF THE STRICT REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY HAVE PUT ON WHAT THE DEFINITION OF A TEACHER IS, WOULD THAT BE A VIOLATION OF STATE LAW? YEAH. WE WE WILL NOT. HOW CAN I PUT THIS? THERE WOULD BE NO FUNDING FROM THE STATE IF WE MOVED IB COORDINATORS INTO A. TRIED TO PAY THEM LIKE CLASSROOM TEACHERS. THERE WOULD BE NO FUNDING FROM THE STATE. FROM A STANDPOINT OF, IS IT ILLEGAL TO MOVE THEM TO A TEACHER SALARY? I SUPPOSE WE COULD PAY THEM COMMISERATE WITH TEACHERS, BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT OVER 100 EMPLOYEES WHO. LET ME CLARIFY MY QUESTION THEN. IF WE WERE TO MOVE THEM AND RECLASSIFY THEM IN OUR INTERNAL SCALE, WOULD THAT AUTOMATICALLY TRIGGER ADDITIONAL FUNDING FROM THE STATE? AND BECAUSE WE CHOSE TO RECLASSIFY THAT? NO, MA'AM. OKAY. SO IF WE DID RECLASSIFY THEM, IT WOULD BE IN NAME ONLY BECAUSE IT WOULD COME WITH NO ADDITIONAL FUNDING FROM THE STATE? THAT IS WHAT I WAS SO TRYING DESPERATELY TO GET TO AND NOT EXPLAINING IT WELL, YES. THERE WOULD BE NO ADDITIONAL FUNDING. WHATEVER WE CHOOSE TO CLASSIFY ANY OF OUR EMPLOYEES IS NOT DETERMINATIVE FOR THE STATE. THEY WOULD LOOK AT THIS FROM INDEPENDENTLY, AND IF THE EMPLOYEE DID NOT MEET THEIR DEFINITION, WE WOULD NOT GET FUNDING FOR IT. OKAY. AND THE LAST THING THAT I'LL SAY IS, IN THE LEGISLATURE'S NARROW SIGHTED DECISION MAKING THIS. I BELIEVE THAT THIS PITS OUR EMPLOYEES AGAINST EACH OTHER IN THE WAY THAT THEY STRUCTURED THIS SALARIES AND THE PAY RAISES THAT THEY OFFERED. IT'S NOT FAIR. IT'S NOT RIGHT. I DON'T THINK THAT ANYBODY IN OUR SYSTEM HAS ANY VALUE. WE COULD NOT RUN A SCHOOL WITHOUT OUR CUSTODIANS. WE COULD NOT RUN A SCHOOL WITHOUT OUR LIBRARIANS. WE COULD NOT RUN OUR SCHOOL WITHOUT OUR TEACHERS, WITHOUT OUR PARAPROFESSIONALS. ALL OF US WORK TOGETHER IN A COORDINATED MACHINE TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN, AND TO FOCUS ON OUR PRECIOUS CHILDREN THAT ENTER OUR DOORS EVERY DAY. SO IN THEIR NARROW MINDED. AND IT SOUNDS GOOD, MAYBE IT WAS FOR A POLITICAL GAIN. I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY DECIDED TO JUST SAY TEACHERS ONLY, BUT WE CAN'T DO THIS WITHOUT REWARDING EVERYBODY IN OUR SYSTEM. AND I THINK IT'S REALLY UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK BACK IN THE HISTORY OF. AT LEAST WHILE I'VE BEEN ON THE BOARD AND TRUSTEE WEIR HAS BEEN ON THE BOARD THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME THAT WE HAVE, WE HAVE REWARDED ALL OF OUR EMPLOYEES. EXCEPT FOR THE SUPERINTENDENT. WE HAVE REWARDED ALL OF OUR EMPLOYEES WITH THE SAME PERCENTAGE PAY RAISE ACROSS THE BOARD EVERY YEAR BECAUSE WE CAN'T DO THIS INDIVIDUALLY WITHOUT ONE OTHER GROUP OF US. SO I THINK IT'S VERY UNFORTUNATE THAT THE STATE LEGISLATURE PUT US IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS THAT REALLY PITS OUR EMPLOYEES AGAINST EACH OTHER. BUT THANK YOU AGAIN FOR BEING HERE TODAY. I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW, BUT I'LL LET AND SEE IF ANYBODY ELSE DOES. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES. OKAY. SO AGAIN, THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE TRA ALLOTMENT. THIS IS ABOUT MY SALARY SCALE BEING NEWLY CREATED AND ANNOUNCED TO ME ON AUGUST 8TH. I STARTED MY CONTRACT JULY 15TH. STUDENTS WERE COMING THREE WORKDAYS AFTER AUGUST 8TH. THERE WAS NO ALTERNATIVE SALARY SCALE IN EFFECT ON JUNE 3RD, ON JUNE 11TH, ON JUNE 29TH, ON JULY 15TH WHEN MY CONTRACT STARTED. IT'S SOLELY ABOUT THAT. [00:30:06] AND I APPRECIATE YOUR THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS TONIGHT, I DO. BUT PLEASE UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE AT HAND. IT'S THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS. THANK YOU. I JUST HAVE ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION THEN TOO. SO IT WAS VERY CONFUSING FOR US AS A BOARD, EVEN AS WE WERE VOTING AND NOT KNOWING WHAT WE WERE HONESTLY VOTING ON AT THE END BECAUSE OF THE LEGISLATURE. WERE YOU FOLLOWING OUR VOTES AND HOW WE HAD TO STRUCTURE THEM SO THAT IF THE LEGISLATURE CHANGED THINGS FOR US, WE HAD. THAT WAS PART OF OUR MOTION THAT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE TO DO WHATEVER THE LEGISLATURE SAID. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW HR. I DIDN'T SEE IN HERE HOW MUCH COMMUNICATION THERE WAS TO STAFF OR HOW ANY OF THAT WAS CONVEYED TO YOU. I WAS NOT COMMUNICATED ANYTHING THAT THERE WOULD BE A POTENTIAL CHANGE OR ANY NEWS REALLY UNTIL AUGUST 8TH, OR MAYBE IT WAS AUGUST 6TH WHEN I RECEIVED THE NOTIFICATION THAT WE'D HAVE A ZOOM CALL, AND THEN IT CAME TO OUR ATTENTION. OKAY. THERE'S A CHANGE, BUT THERE WAS NOTHING IN OUR SCOPE OF AWARENESS, NOTHING DIRECTLY COMMUNICATED TO US BY HR. SO WE WERE RESUMING BUSINESS AS NORMAL. I WILL ALSO ADD THAT IB COORDINATORS HAVE BEEN ON THE TEACHER SALARY SCALE SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME, SO OVER 20 YEARS. SO THAT IS WHERE WE HAD ALWAYS BEEN SLOTTED AND WE WERE NOT INFORMED OF ANY CHANGE THAT WAS ON THE HORIZON. AND I KNOW, YOU WEREN'T THE ONLY GROUP OF POSITIONS THAT WAS TAKEN ABACK BY ALL THAT THAT HAPPENED. SO I APPRECIATE YOU CLARIFYING. SORT OF MAYBE THAT COMMUNICATION WAS NOT WHAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE OUR DISCUSSIONS AMONGST OURSELVES IN PUBLIC, UNLESS THERE IS ANY NEED FOR US TO SEEK BOARD COUNSEL. IS THERE ANY REASON WHY ANYBODY WOULD VIEW THAT WE NEED TO SEEK BOARD COUNSEL? I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR BOARD COUNSEL. CAN WE GO IN THE BACK JUST REAL QUICKLY, THE FIVE OF US TO MEET WITH BOARD COUNSEL? PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 551.071, 551.074 AND 551.082, THE BOARD WILL NOW DISCUSS, DELIBERATE AND CONSIDER THE LEVEL THREE GRIEVANCE. NO. SO DELIBERATE AND CONSIDER THE. NO. WELL. THE BOARD WILL SEEK BOARD COUNSEL. NO. WELL SHE'S GOT TO READ IT SPECIFICALLY, WERE THOSE THE RIGHT CODES? YES. THAT WAS THE CORRECT CODE. AND YES, TO CONSULT WITH BOARD COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. DO I NEED TO RESTART OVER? MAYBE JUST FOR THE RECORD, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. YES. OKAY. PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 551.071, 551.074 AND 551.082, [E. (The Board reserves the right to enter into closed session on any agenda item as permitted by the Texas Open Meetings Act, Section 551.071 et. seq.)] THE BOARD WILL SEEK GUIDANCE FROM BOARD COUNSEL REGARDING THE LEVEL THREE GRIEVANCE FILED BY NICOLE CIMO. ALL RIGHT. AND WE ARE IN CLOSED SESSION AND WE WANT TO GO IN THE BACK= OKAY. AND WE ASK THAT YOU PLEASE CLEAR. OR WE'LL GO IN THE BACK. IT IS 6:04 AND WE'RE NOW IN CLOSED. OH, OKAY. THANK YOU. I NOW WILL INSTRUCT THE MEMBER. NO. WRONG PAGE. [00:37:14] THUS LEAVING THE DECISION OF THE LEVEL TWO IN PLACE. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.