AISD Concerns
On the Arlington Independent School District (AISD) Board of Trustees website, the Board proudly proclaims that “school board members are “guardians of the public trust.” As elected officials with the title of trustee – to be guardians of public trust is truly a noble and appropriate goal of the Board. However, the Board must understand that trust is a two-way street. The public cannot trust the Board unless the Board also trusts the public with the truth. The public cannot fully trust the Board and hold them accountable unless the public is fully informed and has full access to all truthful information. From the public’s perspective, the “trust cycle” is simple: the Board must be fully transparent, which leads to truth, which leads to the accountability of the Board.
The trust cycle begins and ends with taxpayers (voters). The primary responsibility of the elected Board is to be responsive to taxpayers’ questions and concerns. Voters cannot hold the Board accountable for their actions if the Board conceals the truth by refusing to provide truthful and responsive answers to voter’s questions.
Based on my personal experience, AISD has not been a “model of transparency”. When I send an email with a substantive question to an AISD administrator/employee or to the Board—I receive no response. For example, on 11-18-22, I sent an email to then Chief Academic Officer Steven Wurtz requesting the name of the administrator in charge of a particular AISD department. That same day, I received an email response from AISD General Counsel Dennis Eichellaum – telling me that all AISD administrators were too busy to respond to my inquiries-and were unable to speak with me on the phone, meet with me, or answer my emails. Later that same day, I emailed attorney Eichelbaum and asked him if AISD sent the same “we are too busy” email response to all public inquiries – or just in response to my email. Attorney Eichelbaum ignored my email – confirming that attorney Eichelbaum’s “we are too busy” email was targeted against me and only sent to me to avoid answering my questions.
AISD Grievances Procedures Explained
Given the lack of responsiveness from AISD administrators, filing a written grievance is the only sure way of compelling AISD to issue a decision letter and, thus respond in some fashion to my concerns. However, before filing a grievance – I always first send an email to the appropriate AISD administrator or to the Board directly with a 10-day (business days) deadline to respond to my question(s). I informed AISD that I can extend this deadline if AISD requests additional time to respond. Sending this email demonstrates that I made a good-faith effort to resolve the problem informally. If the AISD administrator or the Board ignores my email (current AISD practice) – I then file a formal grievance in which I “grieve” (complain) about AISD’s refusal to respond to my email questions.
Given the lack of responsiveness from AISD administrators, filing a written grievance is the only sure way of compelling AISD to issue a decision letter and thus respond in some fashion to my concerns. However, before filing a grievance – I always first send an email to the appropriate AISD administrator or to the Board directly with a 10-day (business days) deadline to respond to my question(s). I informed AISD that I can extend this deadline if AISD requests additional time to respond. Sending this email demonstrates that I made a good faith effort to informally resolve the problem. If the AISD administrator or the Board ignores my email (current AISD practice) – I then file a formal grievance in which I “grieve” (complain) about AISD’s refusal to respond to my email questions.
The AISD grievance policy is found at www.aisd.net, then link to the Board of Trustees and search for “grievance procedures”. The AISD Public Grievance policy allows any member of the public to file a written grievance with AISD. Be forewarned, the grievance process can be very tedious and time-consuming. The AISD grievance process is set up with four levels – Levels I, II, III (Superintendent) and IV (the Board). At each level, a hearing is scheduled. The grievant appears at the hearing and makes a 10-15 argument to support your grievance. If the grievance is denied, the grievant has the option to appeal to the next Level. The hearing officer for both Level I and II normally records the hearing. Level III (Supt.) is normally not recorded by AISD. If you want to be sure your hearing is recorded, you should use your own recorder.
AISD requires you to use AISD grievance forms (found on the AISD website) with blank spaces that you must complete for every grievance filed. If you run out of space on the AISD form–you can attach a separate document providing additional information. For every grievance I have filed, I include my sworn affidavit, along with attached exhibits. If you want to view any of the ten grievances I have filed, scroll down. If you have a question about a specific, please reach out to me. It is likely that my grievances (with my sworn affidavit) are too long and detailed for your taste. No problem at all filing a shorter grievance – just be sure that the basis of your grievance is clear and you give a clear summary of what evidence you have to support your grievance.
None of my filed grievances have been granted. However, the actual benefit of filing a grievance is to compel AISD to file a written response letter denying the grievance. The denial of a grievance sends a clear public message. For example, AISD denied my grievance, objecting to AISD’s arbitrary decision to ban observers from attending grievance hearings. When the Board denied this grievance, the Board sent this message: “Even though the AISD grievance policy does not address the issue of observers, the Board is perfectly fine with AISD hearing officers deciding their own to ban observers ordering them removed from a public grievance hearing.”
Read More
Three Steps to Accountability
- Transparency leads to Truth…
- Truth leads to Accountability…
- Accountability in both the near term and/or long term
Ultimate Goal: Accountability of AISD
Based on my personal experience, AISD has not been a “model of transparency”. When I send an email with a substantive question to an AISD administrator/employee or to the Board—I receive no response. For example, on 11-18-22, I sent an email to then Chief Academic Officer Steven Wurtz requesting the name of the administrator in charge of a particular AISD department. That same day, I received an email response from AISD General Counsel Dennis Eichellaum – telling me that all AISD administrators were too busy to respond to my inquiries-and were unable to speak with me on the phone, meet with me, or answer my emails. Later that same day, I emailed attorney Eichelbaum and asked him if AISD sent the same “we are too busy” email response to all public inquiries – or just in response to my email. Attorney Eichelbaum ignored my email – confirming that attorney Eichelbaum’s “we are too busy” email was targeted against me and only sent to me to avoid answering my questions.
Grievance 1
Filed 11-9-22
Summary of Grievance
What guidance does AISD provide to teachers on how to respond to students with the following questions:
- I’m a girl, but I think I‘m really a boy, what should I do?
- I’m a boy, but I think I’m really a girl, what should I do?
- Since I really identify as a girl – is it OK for me to use the girl’s restroom and locker room?
- I am same-sex attracted, what should I do?
- Should an AISD teacher inform the student’s parents about these conversations?
AISD Response
Initial response – provided a “document dump” of a large volume of documents and claimed the answer to these questions was in the documents. When I challenged them and asked them to identify the specific document with page and paragraph number – AISD then quickly changed their position and claimed that “AISD never answers hypothetical questions.”
Jarvis comment
This is a dishonest and unserious response to my questions. AISD knows that all AISD policies are developed to anticipate and address hypothetical questions/situations. Failure to provide policy guidance in this sensitive area is a failure of leadership – and allows thousands of AISD teachers to subjectively and individually decide how to handle these student questions. Without written policy guidance to teachers, the result is total confusion and conflicting actions from different teachers. I told AISD that if a principal called AISD with questions about how to handle an active shooter situation – AISD would answer those questions. AISD would not respond to the principal with a question, “Do you have an active shooter in the building right now? If not, call us back when you do – AISD never answers hypothetical questions.” Either AISD has no policy guidance for teachers (reflecting a massive failure of management responsibility) or AISD provides secret policy guidance to teachers in these situations that AISD has chosen to conceal from the public. AISD is either failing to support teachers with clear guidance or AISD is concealing this guidance from parents and taxpayers. Why does AISD not have a clear policy that parents should be informed about any such sensitive conversations between their children and teachers? The AISD’s position reflects a betrayal of their position of public trust to both parents and taxpayers. AISD’s lack of transparency in this area also undermines public confidence in the integrity of AISD. On 6-8-23, the AISD Board of Trustees denied my grievance by stating the AISD “never answers hypothetical questions.”
Grievance 2
Filed 11-28-22
Summary of Grievance
I asked AISD to provide the names and contact information for AISD employees who provided any Equity and/or Social Emotional Learning (SEL) instruction within AISD. SEL training relates to transgender-related topics. Equity relates to race relations training.
AISD Response
Initial response – AISD provided a 42-page AISD employee spreadsheet (with nearly 1000 employee names) that did not identify which section the employee worked in – and only identified the employee by title (manager, coordinator, director, etc.). I contacted AISD and explained that the spreadsheet was worthless to me since the spreadsheet failed to list the section each listed AISD employee worked in. When I asked AISD to identify the section each AISD employee worked in (equity, SEL, etc.), AISD initially refused to do so. Only after proceeding to a Level III grievance hearing before AISD Superintendent Cavazos on 3-29-23 -did AISD agree to provide the requested information. At that point, I agreed to withdraw this grievance.
Jarvis Comment
AISD should have produced this information for me based on my initial simple document request. Instead, they sent me a worthless spreadsheet. When I explained to AISD that the spreadsheet was not responsive and would not allow me to identify which section the employee worked in (SEL, equity) – AISD refused to provide me with the requested information. Instead, AISD closed their file and refused to provide additional responsive information. Rather than be responsive to my initial document request, AISD forced me to spend hours of my time filing a formal grievance for Level I, Level II, and Level III grievance hearings. Finally, during the 3-29-23 Level III grievance hearing – AISD Superintendent Cavazos finally agreed to provide me with responsive information. Why did AISD deliberately stall and make me wait three months to receive this information?
Grievance 3
Filed 1-3-23
Summary of Grievance
I asked AISD (Dr. Steven Wurtz) to provide the names and contact information for AISD employees who provided any Equity and/or Social Emotional Learning (SEL) instruction within AISD. SEL training relates to transgender related topics. Equity relates to race relations training. I filed a grievance based on unlawful retaliation when AISD General Counsel Dennis Eichelbaum sent me a targeted email on 11-18-22, which was intended to and did in fact obstruct my access to information from AISD administrators.
AISD Response
Initial response – On 11-18-22, AISD General Counsel Dennis Eichelbaum sent me an email (on behalf of Dr. Wurtz) informing me that all AISD administrators had an overwhelming schedule and simply were too busy to respond to any of my inquiries. Attorney Eichelbaum told me that due to their busy schedules, I should not be surprised if AISD administrators had no time to meet with me, speak with me on the telephone, or respond to any of my emails. Upon receipt of the 11-18-22 email, I responded that same day to attorney Eichelbaum. I asked Mr. Eichelbaum if he sent emails identical to the content of the 11-18-22 email to all inquiries to members of the public – or did he only target me with this email. Attorney Eichelbaum did not respond to my email.
Jarvis Comment
During the grievance process, I requested that the hearing officers interview attorney Eichelbaum to determine if my suspicions were correct – that Eichelbaum’s 11-18-22 email was a targeted email, sent only to me. None of the hearing officers conducted a serious investigation of my retaliation charge. Any serious investigation would have required attorney Eichelbaum to show AISD that Eichelbaum sent the same email to other public inquiries. The hearing officers were not interested in the truth, or they would have interviewed and pressed Eichelbaum on that point. The fact that no hearing officers asked the attorney this obvious question proved that this was in fact a targeted email sent to retaliate against me for filing a grievance against the AISD Legal Office (see Grievance No. 2)
On 6-8-23, the AISD Board of Trustees denied Grievance #3 without comment or explanation.
Grievance 4
Filed 4-5-23
Summary of Grievance
From 11-29-22 through 3-3-23, I was allowed to have citizen observers at Level I and Level II AISD grievance hearings. On 3-8-23, at my first Level III grievance hearing before AISD Superintendent Dr. Cavazos – citizen observers were banned. I asked Dr. Cavazos to identify his authority for banning observers since the issue of observers is not addressed in the AISD grievance policy. Dr. Cavazos did not identify his authority for banning observers – he repeated his demand that my observer leave the hearing. Since only the AISD Board of Trustees can amend AISD policies, this unilateral ban of observers by a senior AISD official was a lawless act. Since the AISD Superintendent should be required to comply with AISD policies, and not unilaterally make up his own policies, I filed a formal public complaint/grievance based on this lawless conduct by Dr. Cavazos.
AISD Response
Following my Level I grievance hearing, hearing officer Aaron Perales claimed that Dr. Cavazos was within his authority to excuse individuals who were identified as an “observer” and not as a “representative.” Mr. Perales did not explain the basis or source of this so-called authority – since the issue of observers is not addressed in AISD Grievance Policy, GG (LOCAL)-X.
Jarvis Comment
The banning of observers by the AISD Superintendent was a lawless act, not authorized by the current AISD written policy. Only the Board of Trustees can adopt or amend AISD policies. To allow senior AISD officials to unilaterally and without authority amend or “add to” the current AISD policy is a lawless act.
On 6-8-23, the AISD Board of Trustees denied Grievance #4 without comment or explanation.
Grievance 5
Filed 5-15-23
Summary of Grievance
On 3-29-23, I participated in a recorded (and transcribed) Level III grievance hearing. Also present at this hearing were AISD General Counsel Dennis Eichelbaum and AISD Superintendent Marcelo Cavazos. During this hearing, attorney Eichelbaum twice referred to citizen observers of AISD grievance hearings as “minions.” The second time attorney Eichelbaum used this insulting and demeaning word to describe AISD citizen observers, I objected by saying: “I strongly object to you referring to citizens who have a concern and an interest in the grievance process – to describe them as “minions.” How dare you, sir! You show such utter lack of respect for our citizens and taxpayers!”
AISD Response
At no time during or after the 3-29-23 grievance hearing did attorney Eichelbaum, Superintendent Cavazos, or the Board contact me with any expression of regret or apology for Eichelbaum’s extremely demeaning words describing AISD citizen voters. Since this grievance was consolidated with three other grievances at a Level IV AISD Board of Trustees grievance hearing on 6-8-23 – AISD never issued a response in the form of a decision letter. However, AISD Trustee Justin Chapa made several comments before the Board voted on the four grievances. In one of his comments. Trustee Chapa made a comment that possibly was offered in reference to Grievance #5 (insulting “minions” comment). Trustee Chapa stated: “We expect that AISD representatives conduct themselves with professionalism and courtesy.” The entire seven-member Board then voted unanimously to deny this grievance.
Jarvis Comment
For the General Counsel of AISD to use such insulting and disparaging comments about AISD citizen taxpayers is completely unprofessional and unacceptable conduct by the top AISD attorney paid with AISD tax funds. I believe that the Board’s decision to close the 6-8-23 grievance hearing to the public was motivated in part by the Board’s desire to conceal the misconduct of AISD General Counsel Eichelbaum from AISD parents and taxpayers.
On 6-8-23, the AISD Board of Trustees denied Grievance #5 without any specific reference to the insulting comments made by attorney Eichelbaum.
Grievance 6
Filed 7-17-23
Summary of Grievance
On 6-8-23, prior to announcing their unanimous vote to deny all four grievances – Trustee Chapa stated that a grievant must show a “violation of law or policy” before the Board can grant a public complaint/grievance. In this grievance, I asked AISD to state what basis of authority did Trustee Chapa have to support his claim that every grievant has a burden of proof to show a “violation of law or policy” to have a grievance granted. The grievance form asked me what relief I was requesting. In response, I stated that if the “violation of law or policy” was not a correct statement of the grievance law – then I would like a rehearing on the grievances heard on 6-8-23.
AISD Response
When I mentioned that I was requesting a rehearing, AISD stated that I was “appealing the grievance Level IV hearing. AISD then stated that since AISD does not have jurisdiction to handle appeals, I must take my grievance to the Texas Education Administration (TEA). AISD then told me that my grievance filed on 7-17-23 was “completed”.
Jarvis Comment
I made a public information request to TEA for data on how often TEA sides with grievants on appeals. The data I received show that 90-95% of the time, TEA sides with the school district and denies any appeals from a grievant. Since it is unlikely that TEA will reverse any school district denial of a grievance – I decided to not pursue Grievance # 6.
Grievance 7
Filed 7-24-23
Summary of Grievance
On 7-17-23, I filed Grievance #7 using the same factual basis as Grievance #6 – but I removed any reference to a “rehearing” or “appeal” in my grievance. By removing any reference to a requested appeal or rehearing – I made it clear to AISD that I wanted to simply file a grievance (not appeal).
AISD Response
Although I had removed any references to a request for a “rehearing” or an “appeal” – AISD falsely claimed that Grievance #7 raised the same objections and concerns about the Level IV denial decision. AISD then stated that Grievance #7 would not be set for a hearing because it was “not a proper grievance.”
Jarvis Comment
Grievance #7 was not filed to complain or object to the Level IV decision to deny all four grievances on 6-8-23. Grievance #7 was simply asking for AISD to provide me with the authority of Trustee Chapa’s statement that a grievant “must show a violation of law or policy.” I cannot find the phrase “violation of law or policy” in the AISD grievance policy. AISD has refused to answer my question and provide me with any authority to support Trustee Chapa’s claim that a grievant must show a “violation of law or policy” to have a grievance granted.
Grievance 8
Filed 8-2-23
Summary of Grievance
On 8-2-23, I filed Grievance #8 because AISD unlawfully refused to set a grievance hearing on Grievance #7. I informed AISD that their refusal to set a hearing for Grievance #7 was a violation of Texas state law. Section 11.1511(b(13) of the Texas Education Code states: “The board shall by rule adopt a process through which district personnel, students, parents or guardians of students, and members of the public may obtain a hearing from the district representative and the board regarding a complaint.
AISD Response
AISD has refused to set a hearing on Grievance #8.
Jarvis Comment
By refusing to set a hearing, AISD is guilty of an ongoing violation of Section 11.1511(b)(13) of the Texas Education Code.
Grievance 9
Filed 8-14-23
Summary of Grievance
On 7-24-23, I emailed the Board and Superintendent Wurtz and asked how I could propose four amendments to the current AISD Public Complaints (Grievances) Policy. AISD informed me that my proposed amendments would be submitted to the AISD governance committee for consideration. I then asked AISD Asst. Superintendent Michael Hill to give me some sort of estimate of how long I would need to wait to receive a response from the AISD governance committee – as to whether they accepted or rejected my proposed amendments. I asked for a general estimate – would it be days, weeks, months, or years before I received a response? Dr. Hill refused to give any sort of general estimate. Since I thought it was unreasonable to require an AISD taxpayer to wait months or years for a response from the AISD governance committee, I filed this grievance.
AISD Response
Grievance hearing held on 8-25-23. I received a decision letter dated 9-5-23 from Dr. Hill. In that decision letter, Dr. Hill stated that “Based on the information presented at the grievance conference, a request to amend any policy cannot be honored through the grievance process. Local policies require an action by the Board to be adopted, revised, or repealed. Relief sought is denied.”
Jarvis Comment
No information was presented at the grievance conference that supported Dr. Hill’s claim that a request to amend any policy cannot be honored through the grievance policy. While I agree that the Board must take final action to adopt, revise, or repeal any AISD policy. Dr. Hill has presented no authority to support his claim that the AISD grievance process cannot be used to request that the Board consider revisions or amendments to the grievance policy.
Grievance 10
Filed 9-6-23
Summary of Grievance
On 7-27-23, I received documents from the AISD Legal Office identifying three training sessions provided by AISD dealing with LGBTQ-related issues. On 8-10-23, I sent an email to AISD Interim Superintendent Dr. Steven Wurtz and to the Board asking them to answer two questions: How can I view lesson plans, hand-outs to students, related to these training sessions? Does AISD provide any guidance to AISD counselors on how they should counsel students about LGBTQ issues? In my 8-10-23 email, I gave Dr. Wurtz and the Board a deadline of 8-18-23 to respond to my questions and explained that I planned to file a grievance if they failed to respond to these two questions by 8-18-23. Per AISD policy, I must file any grievance within 15 working days after the action that gave rise to my complaint. The action was AISD failing to respond on or before 8-18-23.
AISD Response
On 9-11-23, I received an email from Mr. Scott Kahl, head of the AISD Human Resources Department. Mr. Kahl stated that Mr. Boals (AISD paralegal) responded to my request for records on 7-31-23. Mr. Kahl claimed that the action that gave rise to my complaint was Mr. Boals’ response to my document request on 7-31-23. Since my grievance was not filed within 15 working days of 7-31-23, Mr. informed me that my grievance filed on 9-6-23 was “not timely as filed on 9-6-23 and thus this grievance is dismissed.”
Jarvis Comment
The basis of my grievance was the failure of Dr. Wurtz or the Board to respond to my deadline of 8-18-23 – not the action of Mr. Boals on 7-31-23. My grievance filed on 9-6-23 was filed well within 15 working days of the “action that gave rise to the complaint”- which was the failure to respond to my questions by 8-18-23. I will appeal this wrongful dismissal of my grievance. However, I will not be surprised if AISD denies my appeal – as AISD has no interest in answering any of my questions.
Grievance 11
Filed 9-28-23
Summary of Grievance
On 9-28-23, I submitted four requests/questions to the Board: a) provide current contact information for AISD officials responsible for training in areas related to equity and gender identity training; b) asked the Board of they have rescinded or approved attorney Eichelbaum’s 11-18-22 email to me denying me access to all AISD administrators since they were “too busy” to communicate with me; c) asked the Board to identify any non-AISD parties providing training to AISD employees or students about equity and transgender issues; and d) I asked AISD to provide the legal or policy authority which supports the statement of Trustee Chapa at the 6-8-23 hearing that a grievant must show a “violation of law or policy” to prevail in a grievance hearing.
AISD Response
On 9-11-23, I received an email from Mr. Scott Kahl, head of the AISD Human Resources Department. Mr. Kahl stated that my grievance was dismissed as “untimely, moot or already decided.” Mr. Kahl supported his position as follows: Question #1 was already stated in a prior grievance filed on 1-3-23 relating to AISD conduct on 12-4-22 and was decided at the 6-8-23 consolidated hearing; Question #2 (dealing with Eichelbaum’s 11-18-22 email) was also decided at the 6-8-23 hearing; Question #3 was resolved by information provided from the AISD website; and Question #4 (dealing with Mr. Chapa’s burden of proof standard) was also decided at the 6-8-23 hearing.
Jarvis Comment
In response to Question #1, Mr. Kahl specifically referred to a grievance I filed on 1-3-23. The focus of this grievance filed on 1-3-23 was AISD attorney Eichelbaum’s unlawful retaliation against me – and had nothing to do with AISD’s failure to answer any of my questions.
In response to Question #2, Mr. Kahl claimed that the issue of attorney Eichelbaum’s 11-18-22 email was resolved by the 6-8-23 hearing. That statement is not true. The Board only denied my charge of unlawful retaliation grievance at that hearing. At the 6-8-23 hearing, the Board did not address the totally separate issue raised in Grievance #11 – which was what status did the Board give to Eichelbaum’s 11-18-22 email. In other words, has the Board rescinded or adopted the content of Eichelbaum’s email as official AISD policy?
In response to Question #3, Mr. Kahl claimed that documents answering these questions could be found on AISD’s website. However, the documents Mr. Kahl referred to were Title IX training materials for teachers. These Title IX materials did not specifically address training materials for students relating to equity and transgender issues, which were the basis of my questions.
In response to Question #4, Mr. Kahl (once again) wrongly interpreted my question about Trustee Chapa’s burden of proof statement as an attempt to appeal or contest the Board’s denial of all four of my grievances at the 6-8-23 Level IV hearing. I was simply asking for legal/policy authority to support Mr. Chapa’s statement – so I would be prepared to deal with this so-called new burden of proof at future grievance hearings. On 10-20-23, I appealed Mr. Kahl’s wrongful dismissal of my Grievance #11. On 11-2-23, a hearing was conducted on my appeal.
Grievance 12
Filed 10-03-23
Summary of Grievance
On 9-22-23, I submitted five questions to the Board relating to Texas Senate Bill (SB) 763, which approved the use of chaplain counselors (paid by the state of Texas) within all Texas school districts. Although SB 762 was effective on 9-1-23, each school board has up to six months to take a record vote on whether to use paid chaplain counselors with their school district. Six months from the effective date of SB 763 – would be at the end of February 2024. AISD informed me that the Board would not take a record vote on whether to use chaplain counselors until January or February of 2024 – so I withdrew this grievance as prematurely filed.
Grievance 13
Filed 10-30-23
Summary of Grievance
On 10-09-23 and 10-10-23, I sent emails to the Board requesting answers to nine (9) questions. In each question, I asked the Board to identify the specific AISD administrator(s) who can provide me with information about what training, instruction, and assistance AISD provides to teachers and/or students related to the following nine subject matters: 1) abortion; 2) race relations (equity); 3) same-sex attraction; 4) gender identity and/or confusion; 5) the use of “preferred pronouns” in person or in emails used by teachers and students – and “Does AISD ever encourage a gender-affirming policy to any students desiring to change their gender identity?”; 6) transgender life choices; 7) transitioning to a different gender from birth gender, including any discussions about puberty or hormone blockers and possible transition surgery options; 8) AISD policy on the use of restrooms and locker rooms in AISD schools by students who identify as a gender different from their biological gender/sex at birth; and 9) the range of counseling services AISD offers to students who have questions related to any of the nine subject matters listed above.
AISD Response:
Unknown – as no grievance hearing has been set or decision letter issued.
Grievance 14
Filed 11-01-23
Summary of Grievance
On 10-09-23, I emailed the Board asking them to increase the time limit for speakers during the public comment period for non-agenda items. The current maximum per speaker is two minutes. I asked the Board to set a maximum total of 30 minutes for all speakers, and a maximum of 5 minutes for individual speakers. If the number of speakers exceeded 6, the maximum for each speaker would be reduced proportionally (for 10 speakers, each speaker would receive a maximum of 3 minutes). The Board ignored my 10-9-23 email and missed my deadline to respond by 10-20-23, so I filed a formal grievance on 11-1-23.
All parents and taxpayers have a right to expect elected officials to timely provide truthful and responsive answers to their questions. I want to both encourage and equip parents to be engaged in the serious work of seeking and demanding truth in and from government at all levels (not just public schools but also city and county governments).