Brittany Kelley
KYLE — Hays CISD may return to aspects of its former grievance policy, followed by the board of trustees approval to exempt the district from Texas Education Code (TEC) Chapter 26A and 26.011 at its Sept. 28 meeting.
According to Human Resources director Christina Courson, the Chapter 26A Grievance Policy was adopted as part of Senate Bill 12, which provided several protections for parents and their rights. Among other changes, this included a 60-to-90 day filing window for grievances. The district has amended their policies for FNG — parent/student complaints — DGBA — employee complaints — and GF — public complaints — to adhere to this change. However, Courson noted that this extended timeline has raised several concerns for staff, as it delays the resolution of disputes, taxes administrative capacity and causes evidence to “become stale,” since video footage is lost after 30 days and memories fade. It also allows evidence to be submitted throughout the entire escalation process.
“Right now, somebody could technically file a grievance on something that was a year ago. That’s passed the 60 [and] 90 days, but the new law requires us to still hear it. We can’t dismiss it based on untimeliness and we still have to address the substance of the concern. That creates an issue. If it was a year ago, the person [may] not even be employed here anymore and we definitely don't have clear memories of what happened at that time,” explained the director, adding that staff also does not have the capacity to complete what is required.
The district’s previous policy dictated that complaint forms must be filed within 15 days of the individual knowing of the complaint. Additionally, all evidence must be presented within the Level One conference, rather than throughout the duration of the investigation to other levels, which is allowed by Chapter 26A.
Following these state-mandated policies takes away local control, said Courson, which is the entire purpose of being a District of Innovation (DOI). DOIs were created in 2015, after the 84th Legislature passed House Bill 1842 to provide public school districts more local control on certain provisions of TEC and allowing the same flexibilities as charter schools.
The district and board is exercising its right as a DOI to file an amendment to its grievance policy to better fit its needs, said Courson. The exemption would apply to Chapter 26A, Section 26A.001 Grievance Policy; Section 26A.002 Timelines for Filing and Appeal; Section 26A.003 Posting of Procedures and Forms; Section 26A.004 Testimony Before State Board of Education; and Section 26.011 Grievances.
“The net effect is that 26A shifts us from a more efficient, timely resolution-oriented model, to a longer one that increases the administrative burden at a time when we’re all doing more with less,” she said at the Sept. 21 meeting. “So, this would be a return to [some of] the process[es] that the district used successfully, prior to Senate Bill 12.”
If approved, the amendment would provide an exemption and the district and the board could look at returning to a similar grievance policy held in the past. The Local Innovation Strategy & Plan, according to agenda documents, states that the district’s previous policy provides an opportunity for grievances to be solved through informal means. This, in turn, allows to sometimes bypass the grievance timelines, since the resolutions can be prompt, permitting for more transparency, responsiveness and engagement.
The future policy, if approved by the board at a later date, would still provide every core protection, she explained, as there would be notice, an opportunity to respond, a hearing, an appeal, a level three board hearing and a written decision. What primarily changes is the timeline structure, filing deadlines and whether evidence is capped at the first level, which is consistent with judicial practices, said Courson.
“The ask is to please approve this exemption from 26A and 26.011. Not because we don’t want to be accountable. We’ve always been accountable, but we want local control over our grievance policies,” concluded the director.
Trustee Courtney Runkle had a slew of questions that she prompted prior to the Sept. 21 meeting, including: How many grievances has the district had for the 26A requirements to create an issue; why do we believe the person whose decision is being challenged should be the person deciding whether that decision was appropriate; can counsel explain exactly what the district is exempting themselves from; and what protection does a parent lose by allowing them 30, 60 or 90 days to initiative a grievance.
“I had hoped I would have had these questions answered prior to tonight’s meeting, so that I could review them and feel a little bit better about this,” said Runkle. “I hear what you’re saying; Chapter 26A was put into place to expand parental rights, one of which I very much am in support of. I do recognize that this may put some strain on our staff, so I really want to understand all of these things before I make a decision.”
Courson noted that the trustees did not yet have to vote, as it wasn’t required until the Sept. 28 meeting, which would provide time to get the questions answered. She also added that the amendment emphasizes the district’s ability to address parent concerns in a timely manner, when the evidence still exists and those involved are still employed.
“In short, our amendment doesn’t take away parents’ rights; it holds all to a higher standard of response to make sure that we create a resolution in a timelier manner,” said Courson.
Suggesting considering more about the process was Geoff Seibel, who stated that this is an opportunity to look at what the state is trying to do with the law and how Hays CISD’s policy aligns or misaligns with it. He shared that the state policy seemed to be more vague, which could mean that the district may need to look at its policy and perhaps provide a less structured approach, as a parent may try to file a grievance, but be cut off by time.
In response, Courson stated that the “beautiful thing about policy is that we can always amend it.”
She also stated that the district is working on a more centralized system, which will enable the district to track grievances and analyze them.
At the Sept. 28 meeting, Hays Educators Association member Addison Keller took to the podium to speak in support of the local policy, though added that the timeline for a grievance should start only once the individual filing could have “reasonably known about the problem.”
Superintendent Eric Wright explained that an attorney asked the board to consider the DOI amendment, due to the implications of not having timely grievances and the potential lack of video evidence with the new state policy, sharing that, “They saw a lot of glaring issues with it.”
“I’m voting no on [the proposed] amendment 22, but I want you all to understand why. I understand the purpose behind the amendment. I understand the desire for local control and I understand the concern that the grievance process created by Chapter 26A can take longer than what Hays CISD previously used,” said Runkle.
Although the protections for families would still be in place with the amendment, she stated that her concern lies within the time limit. Currently, state legislation cites an up to 90-day window to file a grievance, while the district policy is 15 days, she said. The language also prevents new evidence being added to the complaint after the first level. She feels it’s important to allow information to be entered into record, if needed. Finally, Runkle shared that the board would not be expected to respond to grievances, as the level two administrative decision can be upheld.
“The response I received to my questions, or lack thereof, was that we are simply being asked to approve the DOI amendment, so our previous grievance policies can remain in place and that additional administrative procedures or potential policy edits can be discussed after the amendment passes. I respect that position, but I reach a different conclusion about the sequence. I don’t believe we should exempt ourselves from these protections first and then, decide later which protections we want to put back,” emphasized Runkle.
Trustee Esperanza Orosco stated that she will be voting in favor of the amendment, as she has both filed a class action grievance against a district and has represented multiple employees, she “understand[s] how the process works and our administration really has worked hard to make it a fair and equitable system.”
The amendment was approved 6-1, with Runkle dissenting.
Although the amendment is approved, there are still several steps to go through before the grievance policy is formally changed, said Courson. Despite this, she noted that staff is recommending returning to most of its former policy.
Following the meeting, Courson sent the amendment for approval to the Texas Education Agency, which has confirmed receipt. Next steps include creating a policy that deviates from the Senate Bill requirements, receiving approval and recommendation from Policy Pals — the subcommittee that reviews policy proposals — and bringing it back to the board for final approval.
The Hays CISD Board of Trustees held a special meeting Oct. 6 and will continue its regular schedule Oct. 19.
