-: Alright,
so we will do that and I will welcome everyone to the
July 2nd, 2020 meeting of the Texas state Board of
education.
And I am going to ask a member of Barbara Cargill to bring us
the invocation and lead us in the pledges.
-: Okay, so we'll start with the invocation.
And I'd like to start by reading a couple of Bible verses
from Philippians four, 12, and 13.
And those verses say, I know what it is to be in need.
And I know what it is to have plenty.
I have learned the secret of being content in any and every
situation, whether well fed or hungry,
whether living in plenty or in want,
I can do all this through him who gives me strength.
So just a couple of words about that.
I think right now we're seeing a lot of discontent and with
the pandemic and all the unrest in our country gets hard to
process why some things are happening, and we,
I know I tend to wallow in the why, you know, why this,
why that that's, I know that's normal,
but what I'm having to focus on is just trusting that God
never makes a mistake and he knows what we're going through.
And he knows the why.
And sometimes he uses hard times today to prepare us for
what he wants us to do tomorrow.
And so I have to keep that in mind and that he will work
everything out for good because his work and his word stands
and never changes, so the question is,
how do we respond when we feel like our hearts are breaking?
I know listening to many of our testifiers the other day,
you know,
my heart broke for listening to many of their stories.
And I just have to trust that God will hold it together and
that he will work personally with those he loves and he
loves everyone.
So he's our source of strength and our security.
And he trains us for any challenge and sustains us and can
be trusted, so with that, let's pray, dear Lord,
we may never fully understand how you're working through
difficult experiences and situations,
help us to process everything that we're facing today and
help us to process it through the filter of your lab,
not through our lens, which is finite,
but through your lens, which is infinite.
And through lab, we know that you love us,
but sometimes we try to figure things out on our own without
looking to you for strength and perseverance and through
your perspective.
So our mess with your strengths today,
father guide us as we continue to make decisions on behalf
of the children of Texas.
And we ask these things in.
-: Your name, amen.
So now they'll say the U S pledge and we'll give staff a
minute to put the pledge up on the screen,
but you may stand or stay seated.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America.
Are we on?
Yes, your honor.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I thought I lost you, all right.
Let's let's start over, sorry.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the Republic for which it
stands one nation indivisible with Liberty and justice for
all.
Now we'll say the pledge to the Texas flag.
Okay.
Honor, the Texas flag.
I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God one and
indivisible.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Cargill.
Very, very wise and timely words there.
Next we'll move to roll, call roll call.
So we'll staff, please call the roll.
Mr, Cortez here.
That is the asks here.
Mr, Allen.
Mr. Mercer, Mrs. Bahorich here.
Dr, Robinson here.
Mrs, Cargill here.
Dr. Ellis, Mr.
Maynard
here, Mrs.
Little Ms.
Davis, Mrs.
Milton Malone here.
And Mr. Rowley, here
Ms. Martinez.
Quorum is present.
The first business to be considered is approval of minutes
of the State Board of Education meeting from
April 17th, 2020.
I would ask members if there are any corrections to the
minutes hearing none,
there are no corrections in the minutes approved.
-: Thank you.
We'll now move into public testimony.
Ms. Martinez, do we have some testifiers.
-: Yes.
-: So I did send you by email the list of testifiers for this
morning.
If you'll give me one moment,
we will let them into the meeting while she is doing that
I'll remind members, and also those that are,
are viewing that during public testimony, these are,
will be on items that are not on our agenda.
So we are prohibited from discussing with a testifier any of
the items that are being discussed,
other than asking clarification questions or directing them
to appropriate staff.
So I do want the testifiers to be aware that we will not,
we're not able to engage in a discussion with them because
this is not items that are posted on our agenda.
-: Okay.
So the first testifier is Natanya Patel.
You may unmute.
-: Again, when you're ready,
you will have three minutes and will receive notification at
the 30 seconnd mark to wrap up your remarks.
Alright, thank you.
Good morning, Board members.
My name is and I'm a proud graduate of the Texas public
school system.
I would like to begin by thanking each one of you for all
the hard work that you guys have done within the past couple
of years.
I know the important work that you guys have been doing by
implementing the Mexican American history and the African
American history elective courses in Texas schools.
And that is a step in the right direction,
even though the creation of this courses is important and
they're vital steps, I think that we must do more.
I urge you to further your efforts and implement an
anti-racist curriculum for American history courses.
The recent tragedies effect afflicting the black community
have made it painfully obvious that our country continues to
oppress its black citizens and perpetuate racial disparities
by disregarding large portions of black history,
we have failed to properly equip our youth with the
knowledge and resources needed to combine individual
insistence,
cinematic racism in our society in order for a country to
improve and to be a safe, equitable place,
equitable place for all citizens,
we have to acknowledge our deeply anti-black past as well as
the repression that continues today.
And I believe that this begins in the classroom,
our petition was sent to each one of you,
and we believe that it is feasible because we adjusted
existing takes guidelines can include the minimum
requirements of what any informed citizen in the
United States, you know, about our nation's history.
Let's remember that black history is American history.
We can not continue to push a politicized distortion of
history of the history of slavery and civil rights movement.
When scholars and educators proposed revisions to this teak
standards in 2010,
their suggestions were disregarded due to the personal
religious and political beliefs of SPLU members.
Now's the time for TEA for you to correct history and to fix
the past wrongs that have been committed.
The Texas freedom network released a report in 2018,
which reviewed the TEKS social studies standards and
concluded that Texas students leave their classrooms without
a sound understanding of the origins of important issues
that sadly continue to divide her division.
This makes resolving serious problems,
particularly on matters regarding regarding race and
discrimination, more difficult today.
To me,
this was deeply troubling and almost heartbreaking because
when I see that in my own state going on,
it makes it feel as if
with a $46.5 billion 45,
$46.5 billion in the permanent school fund of Texas.
There shouldn't be any excuse that people are willing to do
the work in implementing an anti-racist curriculum.
Curriculum timelines have been pushed forward before,
and I believe that they must be pushed forward once again.
The next time the curriculum will be reviewed is in 2023.
However,
it will be implemented at an even later date that it's
important that we,
that we go ahead and review this immediately and add it to
the agenda.
Thank you.
-: Next is Claudia Devante, Ventura.
Hello, I'm steamed chairman Ellis and Board members.
Good morning, I am Claudia Debona Ventura,
and I'm also a proud graduate of the Texas public school
system.
My teammates and I have started a petition regarding the
implementation of an anti-racist teak standards that
currently has over 11,000 signatures.
Despite the amount of signatures,
we have only received five responses from SPLU members and
only two members have taken the time to speak with us.
The current TEAC standards ignore our nation's racist
history and the present day consequences of our past racial
violence, slavery, and Jim Crow.
For example,
Texas students are not taught about the full depth of the
civil rights movement in the United States,
which was as diverse and its leadership goals and
philosophies as the American revolution,
black female activists, such as Septima Clark,
who courageously fought for the infringement and
franchisement of black citizens are erased by history books
that choose to instead highlight Confederate generals,
military prowess, for example,
portraying Confederate leaders,
such as general Thomas Stonewall Jackson as effective
political leaders downplays their trees into the nation.
And the role in upholding a system of white supremacy.
Additionally,
the TEKS make language leaves too much room for individual
teachers to teach to the personal biases.
As an example, TEKS high school,
social studies standard nine.
He asked teachers to compare and contrast the approach taken
by the black Panthers with the nonviolent approach
of Martin Luther King Jr.
allowing teachers the freedom to emphasize one approach
as more socially acceptable or effective,
as opposed to two coinciding and complimentary efforts at
securing civil rights for black Americans.
If we place high expectations on our standards,
we must meet these standards ourselves.
It is not enough to be racist.
We have to actively be anti-racist groups,
such as the daughters of the Confederacy have continuously
influenced local and state officials for years to teach a
racist version of history.
In order to reverse decades of racism in our educational
system, we must be anti-racist.
Our curriculum is the building blocks of society.
And until all students can fully understand the
repercussions of our history and how they impact us today,
we have not done enough and can not stop in our efforts to
improve Texas education for all of our children.
2023 is far too late to begin reviewing the social studies
curriculum.
By then thousands of students will have been taught a vague
inaccurate narrative that very often excludes black
Americans.
It is in your hands to ensure that our future leaders and
professionals are equipped with the essential skills and
resources needed to address ongoing discrimination and
racism in our society.
Because of this,
I ask that you add this issue to your September agenda and
strongly consider moving up the revision timeline for the
social studies take standards, thank you very much.
Next is Anne Kita, Jeff.
Hello.
My name is Ankita jet and I'm also a proud graduate of the
Texas public school system regarding the implementation of
an anti-racist curriculum.
I was greatly disappointed by the lack of Board responses to
our petition,
because this is an issue that the SPOC can no longer ignore
as one of the most powerful state borders of education in
the country.
You have the opportunity and duty to create positive change.
As you know,
the Texas curriculum influences textbooks that are
circulated nationwide.
So you have the power to properly educate children in Texas,
as well as across the country,
black and POC children in Texas need to know that their
history is just as important as white history Board member
Cargill said to us in response to our outreach,
that we should trust our social studies teachers to
integrate appropriate lessons and use TEKS as the baseline,
while adding the impact of current events.
While we know Texas teachers work tireless tirelessly to
provide a great education for their students,
it is not enough to expect teachers only sprinkle in lessons
of black history when public acts of police brutality demand
attention in the classroom.
These lessons must be part of the baseline curriculum,
especially when white history has been prioritized and
regarded as the baseline curriculum for years.
This generation of students is very passionate about
creating a more just unprejudiced world.
And they often turn to social media to educate themselves on
current events and black history,
because they're simply not getting this information in the
classroom that is unacceptable.
It is your moral duty to this state and nation to prepare
our students to become effective citizens and leaders.
And this requires us to be inclusive, honest,
and objective by implementing an anti-racist curriculum,
Texas students and schools will be empowered to foster
anti-racist and inclusive environments where students of all
backgrounds can thrive in the past.
The Texas SBOs has earned a very notorious reputation due to
its members,
blatantly adding their racist views to the history TEKS
review process,
such as explicitly stating that the cause of the civil war
was state's rights and not slavery.
This was eventually corrected, however,
it's a prime example of how imperative it is to adjust our
curriculum in a timely manner to remove any possibility of
objective history, facts being misrepresented.
We urge that you address this issue in your upcoming meeting
and strongly consider moving up the revision of the teak
social studies review.
We are at a critical point in deciding our country's future.
We can either choose to acknowledge the role that education
and state Boards have played in perpetuating institutional
racism and choose to do better,
or we can continue miseducating and white washing history.
The choice is yours and the eyes of this nation are upon the
Texas State Board of Education.
And the final testifier is Michael Shepherd.
-: Thank you very kindly for the time.
I'll get straight to the point, I have two topics first,
starting with comments on the social study,
TEKS Chapter one 13,
that which is being implemented this particular school year.
Sorry, if you can not see me, sorry.
Okay, great.
But this particular school year one or two requests
consideration for the TEKS to be amended,
to include gradual instructions on race relations,
as well as racial equality.
I think that it can be incorporated into three of the
strands that you currently have on the teach,
that being history, culture and citizenship.
I think
the teaching on there will serve two purposes, one,
it gives it prepares our students that that will be
tomorrow's leaders and to creating a equal opportunity,
as well as respect for diversity, and then secondly,
this discussion can move from the school to the home and
then prayerfully to the neighborhood.
We certainly have a lot of parents today.
Younger parents that are,
are don't know how to articulate race relations and racial
equality to their, the young kids.
They're asking questions that they're not totally prepared
to answer.
So I think the partnership between the school and the home
will, will reinforce that at home,
as well as improve relations, racial perspectives that need,
that need to be improved at home as well.
And then, and then secondly,
hopefully this conversation can spill over into the
neighborhood through small group discussions by way of the
school sponsoring it.
This can be done through principal coffees or town halls,
et cetera, but it will,
it will enable Frank honest open discussions when we started
at school.
And then it goes to the home advanced spills over into the
neighborhood.
And then secondly,
my one or two as a parent and the CFP ISD for over 12 years,
I am very appreciative to Senate bill 30,
that being the community safety education act.
And I know that it went into implementation this past school
year don't know how given the COBIT and whatnot.
I noticed spring probably impacted as some,
but I wanted to comment briefly on the flashing lights
video.
I reviewed it and sorry, I viewed it
30 seconds.
Okay, flashing lights video.
Just wanted to ask that it be considered to include content
on improper interaction from our peace officers and give the
students suggested guidelines on what should they do if
they're in that situation, the video is great,
but it just lacks content on that to enable the instructor
to teach from a more holistic view in light of the climate
that we live in, so would ask that
the video be updated to include suggested guidelines for
that, thank you very much.
Thank you.
And like I said,
we are not able to have a discussion on this item.
I would ask, I think all four of the testifiers.
I still do see them in the room here to reach out to me
specifically about some of these questions.
I wouldn't make a comment that we have hundreds of not
literally thousands of emails coming up into this meeting on
a variety of different topics.
So I do apologize for not being able to communicate back all
those, but four.
-: Of you have made an effort to be here and please reach out
to me specifically,
and I'll respond back to you at that point in time.
Okay.
That does that conclude public.
We will then move onto item number one on our agenda,
which is the approval of the Consent Agenda.
So the next business and order is the approval of the
Consent Agenda.
This will begin on page 21 of your Board book.
Please take a minute to review the items on the consent
agenda.
And I would ask if there's anyone at this point in time that
would like to remove an item from the Consent Agenda,
you may say, so
Item six, polled, may we ever request for item number six,
which is a review of the bond guarantee program,
charter capacity.
-: I wouldn't like to pull the approval of legal counsel for
the bond guarantee program for discussion, please.
-: I believe that's item number seven approval
of selection of legal counsel
for bond guarantee program was outlined in.
Kip says PSF in authorization for contract execution by the
Commissioner of education or any other items.
So hearing none,
the Consent Agenda with items, number one, two, three, four,
five, eight is adopted.
And at this point in time,
we will ask staff to we'll take them in the order that they
were brought.
Number five adopted report of the status of the bond
guarantee program, we'll discuss that one first.
They taught at item six, you mean, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
It was item six review of the bond guarantee program.
Charter capacity.
Yeah,
I had just a couple of questions if staff or somebody can,
it could answer them or, or answer them later,
but as any entity conducted an evaluation of the risk of
charter bond default in light of the situation with Koa that
we're in now and is now really a good time to open a PSF up
to more exposure.
-: I believe we've got Mr.
Timmons and some of his stuff on the line or in the meeting,
hopefully they can.
And Newton and address your question.
Can you hear me?
-: Yes, sir.
Thank you.
-: So the rating agencies continually assess all the risks to
the bond guarantee program.
And we've had several discussions with the rating agencies
since the COVID activity and inform them of,
of what TEA was seeing, so that has continually,
continually been assessed.
And
I think they have all the last time they reviewed
the bond guarantee program.
They all reaffirmed the AAA rating.
Now they have not all reaffirmed since covet took part to
place, but we've had discussions with them.
So the evaluation has not been done since Cova took place.
And that means their concern is that, you know,
we're hearing a lot of parents that are gonna withhold,
you know, have their kids say at home and,
and how that went in.
You know,
the attendance at the charter schools were for possible
default leaving us, you know, exposure.
And they're pretty significant.
Well, we've,
we've had discussions with two of the rating agencies and
they,
they do formal assessments on their own schedule when,
when they believe there's a risk and they,
the rating agencies always have the option of putting any
issuer on credit watch if they choose to, so they've,
they've had discussions with us, but have not chosen to
have not chosen to make any changes.
Just reminder.
-: Yeah.
Mem Robinson,
I think it's a fair question to ask, and,
and just so everybody understands,
what we're talking about is is that the statute
requires the State Board of Education to increase capacity
in, in increments of about 20%, unless we,
unless we vote to take action to stop that from happening,
they had said soon is that even though that we may increase
the capacity, you know, keep in mind that each,
each bond guarantee on a,
on a charter school is taken on an individual, but that's,
and so, you know,
so we're not talking about generally the mom and pop know
startup type of charter schools, generally, these are,
you know, big, you know,
financially stable charter schools that have a lot of
financial strength.
And, and just because we, we increase the capacity,
it doesn't necessarily mean that we, we automatically,
you know,
grant those guarantees that each one of them were taken on
an individual basis.
And so there's,
there hasn't been any evidence that suggests that, that,
that we need to slow that down.
Okay, is there any other further discussion on this?
Mr.
Chair can be made immediately aware of any major changes in
enrollment numbers or details, PSF backed charter bonds.
And if there is a default,
can SPO you revisit this expansion of capacity.
I don't know that if you,
I don't know on the weekend we can back up.
I don't know the weekend, we can revisit it.
I think we can slow it down on the next step.
I don't know that I don't know that you can,
you don't want you to increase the capacity, you know,
can you rescind that, that,
that expansion or, or,
or go back and re reconsider that question?
I don't,
I don't really think that the statute contemplates that.
I don't think that we could probably,
I don't think we can do that.
-: Yes, I do have a question.
Thank you.
So yesterday I was,
I was listening to the meeting and member Mercer made a
really,
he made a statement that I'm a little confused by it.
He said that the PSF also guarantees bonds for ISD.
So can you walk me through what happens if a district were
to default or if, and if a charter were to default,
how much does the PSF pay for ISD is how much does the PSF
pay for charters?
-: Mr. Kevin?
I said, that's a good question.
You know, there, there wasn't, there was a time when, when,
when when the State Board of Education was not even,
you know, the first lien holder on these things,
and we did manage to fix that legislatively, but,
but that's on charter schools, you know,
that's exactly why we have a charter school reserve fund.
And so the reserve fund, you know,
how that is that that a charter school is going to,
because of the bond guarantee,
the charter school realizes a certain savings and a
percentage of those savings has to ask to be paid into the
reserve fund.
And now we have it for that, that is actually paid upfront.
It's basically a, a form of bond insurance.
And, and so if at any time, and then we do have a default,
the reserve fund is there to that in the reserve fund is,
is, is paid for, by the people who use the program.
The reserve fund is there as a backup to make sure that the
permanent school fund will be made hope, the related to ISD.
You know, we've been doing this since now.
Let's see
the voters approved the bond guarantee program in November
of 1983.
We've been guaranteed bonds since the spring of 84.
There's never been a default.
And there probably never will be because an ISD is a
governmental subdivision where the taxpayer and so,
you know, that's fundamentally,
that's what special makes an ISD in the charter school,
very different one from the other that, you know,
charter school doesn't have a tax place.
They are an entity that, that you're theoretically could,
could go out of business.
And that's why we have a reserve fund and essentially ensure
those bonds with that reserve fund.
Are there any other questions on this matter?
-: Yes, so if I understand Mr.
Maynard, you, you said that there,
the reserve fund is charters paying savings
into back into the PSF, select like an insurance for them,
because they can essentially go out of business if they,
if they're because their only revenue stream is enrollment.
So their enrollment goes down, their reserve funds kick in,
and that's their insurance,
because ISD is have to find the money.
The PSF doesn't guarantee the funds for the ISD,
but the reserve fund guarantees the money for the charter.
Did I get that right?
-: The reserve fund,
the reserve fund would only come into play if there was a
default.
-: But the reserve fund is only and only be used
for a charter.
I just don't have a reserve fund, that's right.
Did I get it right?
-: That is correct, that's how the law is written
When patent line launched on there.
The reason for the passes of this, again,
I guess the easy question is,
have we ever had the faults in public school and if we ever
had any faults, no.
Right.
Have we ever had a default in charter school?
-: No.
The reason for their fund was to ensure passage,
it was unique.
And I shared yesterday.
We've been criticized as a state Board.
We made the criteria if you are,
if you're one of the 1200 ISD,
if you're a number one in the state for fiscal
responsibility, if for number 1200 or state,
if you pass a bond, we back you up to support you.
We've done that either the best or the weakest,
but the charters do not have a tax base, they don't do that.
So to ensure passage, we did two things.
And Mr. Mayor, please, if I'm wrong, incredibly,
we did two things, we made
the qualifications so high and only
the strongest financial starters get a charter to pass that
this has only been a few years old.
We made it the qualifications so high,
it only the strongest we've been criticized as a state Board
because not all charters can do this only the strongest
charters.
And that is not a requirement in other public schools.
And we also asked for this fund that even with the strongest
charter, they invest in a fund.
If they should default, they pay it.
I think the public schools, they default, we pay it,
you know, and it has not been a diff fault, but again,
to ensure passage of this, which is unique,
what I call the one.zero,
because I think there'll be a $2 zero in the future, again,
we did two things.
We made the qualifications so high that only the most
qualified financially strongest charters could even qualify.
And they set aside a fund that even they, if they,
if they defaulted,
there was a fun there to help pay for that.
If I'm wrong Holland or Tom, please correct me.
But again, that was doing sure passage.
And those two things are unique to charters.
-: Right?
To clarify,
we're not all has property.
It has a cap rolls things that can be solved for a default.
Someone, in fact, they have their own insurance by
to fall.
Also.
-: Also as a member,
Robinson was talking about during this particular time of
Colby Cole, Vicki, if it affects the economic life.
-: It's not.
-: Fair in a sense what we listened to Mr.
Timmons in his presence.
-: Sensation, where we felt that.
-: Bring any home to the portfolio, so as we listened to our,
our, our advisors, as we listened to our executive director,
they gave us some assurity and that we were in a good place
and moving forward and having an audit.
-: 20%, we certainly would.
-: Revisit that again.
And when that time comes again in a couple of years,
but we feel very confident that we want to have no loss to
the fund begin again, cause as the other member said,
it's extremely difficult to qualify.
And then during this time of COVID,
that that bar is even going to go high.
And so we were not afraid to have an automatic role of 20%.
And I would chime in also as I went back and watched the PSF
committee last night,
there was a pretty robust discussion on that issue.
I didn't see Mr. Meyer pop on there.
Did he have,
did you have any comments on the specifics if folks wanted
to look in section 45 dot Oh six,
one of the education code contemplates is a mechanism for
reimbursement of the funds.
If I default word to take place in the PSF or the reserve
fund has to issue bonds,
it authorizes the Commissioner to essentially intercept
state funds that are owed to the school district or charter
school and to pay back the PSF and the reserve fund for
school districts,
the Commissioner's office also authorized to order them to
set a sufficient tax rate to, to make payments.
If Ms. Kay can fall.
Hold on just a second, Jenna.
-: Thanks, you.
-: Okay, as we get to after we finish this discussion,
my question is about how we adopt this.
We go through the normal motion and second and adoption
two items individually.
Right?
-: This is posted on your materials as a report.
So I don't know if there was a motion.
I have to go back and look at the minutes from that
committee, I was not expecting y'all to go here today.
So give me a minute and I'll come back.
-: I want to check with that ear that looks like number six
we're talking about now is or review,
but seven might be different cause that's an approval.
So Mr. chairman, Mr.
Binder.
Okay.
-: Okay, thank you.
Okay.
So I want to make sure that I'm a hundred percent this,
so thank you.
Remember Alan for explaining it the way that you did.
So there's a reserve fund.
Should there be a default and it's made very clear.
Remember Hardy, thank you.
There's never been a charter default.
I don't believe there's ever been an ISD default either,
but we do have a reserve fund just in case.
So how much is in the reserve fund to cover this $2 billion
in guarantees?
-: Or do you want to answer that?
Or Mr. Killen's
reserve fund today is about 35 billion.
And just to clarify, one thing, any payments,
the permanent school.
-: Fund makes are only made on the next amount owed.
So if an interest payment is due, we don't cover the whole
debt issuance over the life of it.
We just cover the current payment that's due.
And so it is about 35 billion,
35 million in the reserve fund.
-: So I want to make sure I understood, Mr. Timson,
thank you for your patience and helping me understand this.
The, the next payment due is 35 million, right?
And that's in the reserve fund.
-: If 35 million was the next payment,
they defaulted that would come from the reserve fund.
That would be the first call.
If it exceeded that, then it would either move to,
well, the permanent school fund would make the payment,
but we also have the claim on any real estate assets.
So for clarification, Mr. Timmons, for example,
if I bought a car and I defaulted on a car and had a $500 a
month note in this scenario,
charter guarantee fund would start making payments on that
note, but not pay off the entire car.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
-: So like gap insurance.
Okay.
So we think that 35 million in reserve is a good start for
2 billion in guarantees.
That's that's what we're saying.
-: That that's what statute put in place
to be the first call.
If it exceeds that then the permanent school fund would,
would take that call or the next portion above 35 million.
-: Okay, thank you for that clarification.
Another question, can I ask my question now?
Or do you want to go through the other questions members
with other questions?
Thank you.
So in, in doing my research,
trying to understand that because ISD have property and they
are a taxing entity, they do not solely
depend on enrollment for a revenue stream where as we're
charters only rely on enrollment for their revenue stream,
what is the threshold required for each bond to ensure
timely payments?
-: The each bond before they get the guarantee has
to be rated triple B by the rating agencies.
So that's the first standard to get the guarantee,
if the charter school determines they don't have the funds
to make the payments that is when they'd make the claim.
We don't have any control over their decisions on when
they've, they've got enough funding to make the payments.
-: Okay.
And so you, I think you said in, in
in the last answer that if a charter cannot pay it back,
the State Board of Education or,
or the state has the ability to, to take the real estate,
just like the ISD.
So that that's also part of how they cover their bond.
-: With ISD.
The permanent school fund would have the first claim on next
payments from the state with charters.
We do have the additional protection of,
of any real estate assets that they own
question.
Any other questions?
-: Yes, sir.
Thank you, my concern is because they're,
they solely rely on enrollment and we don't know what August
is going to look like for any school district or, or,
or charter operator.
Do we have some kind of,
of review in August a review in September?
Is there something that tells us there's a red flag here?
Is there something that, that some kind of,
of oversight and protection that we have should enrollment
numbers be dramatically lower than,
than what they did back in, in may?
When, when,
when the evaluations on bond defaults were performed,
Well,
the State Board of Education re receive any kind of report
on potential red flags or occurring red flags after a school
is back in session for the fall.
-: I believe those are all issues that are assessed by the
agency of the PSF office is, is not involved in,
in the ongoing.
-: Assessment of individual charter schools.
This brings into the same point you're making Ms. Perez.
But, you know,
as we talk about the uncertainties of what's going on in the
fall and where students are going to be,
where they're going to be at home,
or they're going to be in classroom there's if they
participate in learning remotely from home,
they're still enrolled in a district,
whether it's a charter or ISD, so it's not a funding issue,
whether they either now, if they completely disenrolled,
that would be another issue, but I don't think that's,
what's being contemplated here shortly.
All right, any further questions, miss betters?
-: Is there a continuing disclosure requirement?
Does the agency bring that to the SBO since,
since the charters would be reporting to the agency and the
PSF office doesn't control that, or does it monitor that?
And TEA is responsible for that monitoring is there is every
continuing disclosure report and does TEA bring that to our
attention?
So, Ms. Bettas,
it sounds like that may be a question we need to ask of the
charter staff who are not with us today.
If you wouldn't mind sending me an email,
I'll get it to the right staff member to get your response.
Thank you, Monica questions.
Thank you.
-: Yeah, I'm going to go next.
I had, yeah.
Michelle is Jerry Ellis.
So you know how this, just to clarify how this,
this work in committee, essentially, we,
we chose to take no action, there was no one, there,
there was no motion to home.
The statutorily mandated expansion in,
so some of the committee took no action.
And so
I would suppose that the recommendation from the committee
is to take the more techno action.
So Ms. Kay, does, is there,
is there any further action that needs to happen for this
sport?
Okay.
Or.
-: There is.
Not as I understand the program,
which I won't freely can stuff I knew nothing about before
this conversation started, so I'm not an expert,
but it was an automatic thing that was going to happen that
the bond levels were going to be changed automatically.
So if there's no desire to change that automatic process,
there would be no action for the Board to take.
You could formally say, we're not going to take any action,
but that's the same as taking no action.
-: At all.
Are there any other comments or questions on this item?
Hold on Mr. Cortez maximum dr.
Robinson.
Thank you, yeah, my hands been up for, for a bit.
So what's the amount of money that we're talking about.
This is 20% an increase is how much in available money for
new facilities for charter schools?
Yeah, my first wife,
the 20% increase is about 1.1,
5 billion increase in capacity or charters.
How much do they currently still have available
currently have 1.9 billion available still available?
Yes.
And we want to add another billion plus plus to that pot of
money.
And we have 35 million.
-: Yes.
-: Timmins,
which you say is the first call in the event of any default,
right?
It's correct, and then after that,
the PSF takes the hit on any additional money outside of
whatever the replay that if they're able to be liquidated or
pulled off to another ISD or charter,
we would take the hip for the difference at the PSF, right.
X's taxpayers would take that hit on the PSF.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
With the clarification that we do have claim on real estate.
And just to clarify the standards,
the SPOC may decline or reduce the face in amount for a
year,
if one SPOA determines that increasing the charter capacity
would likely result in a negative impact on bond ratings for
school districts or charter districts seeking the guarantee
or two, one or more guaranteed charter bonds default.
So those are the two standards that were established in
statute.
It seems more I think about it and the uncertainty of the
times that we're currently living in,
they still have 1,000,000,009 available.
Why are we going to make another billion and a half
available for facilities?
When you have the Commissioner of education,
for those of you that were on that call, that he made.
-: Where he made the big announcement,
where the federal government's giving over a billion
dollars, that's supposed to go directly to as,
but the Commissioner is making a choice not to give it to
these school districts,
but to keep it reimbursed them at a rate of 75%,
not a hundred percent, but 75%,
Because they want to make sure that they don't take a hit in
the next biennium, the way they did in 2011,
when they cut $5.4 billion from public education.
For me approving something like this is a little scary,
because I think all of us know the uncertainty that is going
on in Texas schools, public charter, private, or otherwise.
And if we're talking about a new brick and mortar,
and you mentioned it, Mr.
Ellis said, doesn't have to do anything with, with school,
not occurring, school's still going to occur.
If, if a school offers an online program, you know, this,
they, they can take this,
these kids from big geographic regions,
particularly in the charter schools,
when they ask for these, these larger geographic,
they don't necessarily need to have a brand new brick and
mortar facility to get this done.
It seems irresponsible,
or this body to give them another billion five when they
still have almost 2 billion left with these uncertain times.
And I don't think that I could support,
and I don't think it would be prudent of this Board.
I think it'd be reckless.
And they're responsible of this Board to do and take this
action at that time.
Not knowing because we have no way of knowing what this
could cause a district that might need to take a bond or how
their ratings may be impacted in the future, there is no,
no,
I don't know crystal ball that will tell us what's going to
happen.
They talk about synchronous and asynchronous systems,
but with what's going on right now and with the Governor
rolling back some of his own requirements after he
prematurely opened up Texas, we don't know if,
if the he's gonna shut schools down in the first month of
school because this mass outbreak or because of
rightfully so,
me hearing that teacher organizations may go on strike as a
result of, of Texas,
potentially putting them in harm's way them and,
and our kids, you know, as a re as a result of of,
of our Commissioner, not mandating face coverings of,
of our students at the behest of, of this Governor.
And so all of these things and this uncertainty that is
going on in this state gives me to implore all of you to
say,
let's put a pin in this item until we know what is happening
in the fall, and maybe take it up, not in September,
but in November.
And if we see that school and public education is going in
the right direction, then we re we revisit it in November.
We'll know, by then,
very clearly what's happening across the state.
I'm not saying don't do this because clearly some of you
want to, I'm saying,
let's just table it until November until we know what the
first few months of this next academic school year might
look like.
Mr. Miner did want to respond to that.
But I do want to call some members that we are talking about
a review of the bond guarantee program for capacity.
I think we're getting a little bit outside into just a
bigger discussion about church in general.
And the other point that's brought up is whatever future
capacity is going to come up in the fall with our students,
there's been no discussion about this enrolling students
from schools,
which would lead to a decrease in funding for schools.
It's a matter of where the educational really educational
will take place, which would apologize.
And maybe you misunderstood what I did say it that way.
Maybe I'm maybe I said it incorrectly.
What I'm referring to is when we give this new money to an
charter school, to, to build a new facility,
when they qualify through the PSF program,
that's been enacted
the amount of time that they give that ISD.
When they build this facility,
generally isn't enough time for them to do what they need to
do with their contract employees,
as opposed to an ISD that has an at will employee.
And so you've got this ISD that might have this new charter
under this new bond under this bond guarantee,
open up the facility a few miles away,
and they'll lose a couple hundred students.
And that school district has all of these employees under a
term contract.
And they may have school school employees that don't have a
physical classroom or enough students to be taught.
And so the burden on those traditional ISD,
because that charter opens up right next to it,
can't create that this financial volatility that I'm
referring to that might trigger some things that Mr Timmins
is talking about.
If they ever need to go out and get any kind of bond for
upgrading their facilities or modernizing their facilities
or doing anything of that nature.
And so those are the types of things that I refer to you.
And Mr.
Cortez also do want to point out that the bond guarantee
program does not give charters funds to build new brick and
mortars, where they're doing some pay less interest,
but the PSF is not giving those just trying to,
so I'm going to call him Mr.
Chairman, if I want to make them, I mean, we're not,
we're not giving anybody.
-: Money, we're only,
only guaranteeing the bonds in the bond guarantee them,
enables them to pay a lower interest rate and,
and keep in mind that, you know,
they still have to meet all the criteria and the benchmarks
on that are extremely high.
But also I would just, just remind the Board as, as that,
you know, Mr.
Timmins has,
has given us with the statutory criteria or in terms of,
of denying that expansion, and there are, there are two,
and none of those things have come into play.
You know, there's not a no, there, there's not
the potential of our, of our writing being reduced.
And neither have there been any defaults, those are,
those are the two reasons that authorized this,
this Board to deny that expansion,
none of those things have happened.
And so for us to, to,
to deny that expansion would be contrary to what's written
in the law.
I saw a, and it will pop up there.
And for the Board members who don't often go to the PSF
committees and watch these discussions,
Chuck is our fiduciary council of the Board for district
council, do you have any comments to this
point I was gonna make?
And Mr. Maynard made the point as well,
in terms of just from a fiduciary standpoint,
obviously following
what's authorized under the legislature for your,
your powers to make any decision with respect to this.
And he said, as he stated,
the two standards were there not to be a determination that
he preached in the capacity would result in a negative
impact of the bonds and Mr.
Timmons and provide information to the committee that that
would not be the case.
And there also what had to be a default,
and that hadn't been the case either, so as Mr.
Maynard point out there's statutory limitations as to the
ability of the SBA to take any action with respect to this
matter.
-: Mr. Timmons, how can you be certain that.
-: Please go through the chair if you'd like to.
-: I didn't really, I wasn't finished with my questioning,
but Mr. Kimmons,
how can you be sure that next year,
next school year or middle of next school year,
or towards the end of next school year,
we may not have an issue around
what Mr. Campbell and Mr.
Chairman Mainer are referring to with
the guarantee or the volatility of the guarantee of,
of other ISD.
-: Well, certainly we can guarantee that analysis.
Certainly we can never guarantee the future risks.
We rely heavily on the rating agencies,
who are the primary organizations, external organizations,
responsible for assessing the risk.
And they are
the language relates to would likely result in a negative
impact on the bond ratings.
The ratings are created by the rating agencies.
So we have ongoing discussions with the rating agencies to
review how they are assessing the risks.
And
all three of them have assumed continue the continual
phasing of the 20%.
But obviously we can't can't guarantee the future.
Right?
And so that,
because we can't guarantee the future and because they
already have almost $2 billion still available to them,
why is there a rush today to give them another one and a
half billion dollars just seems,
it seems reckless behalf of this body.
And I just, I can't support it.
And I would just ask that at the time that you take the
vote, Mr. chairman,
that it'd be a roll call vote because I think Texans deserve
to know what we're doing and the actions that we're taking
with the money that we're entrusted to protect and
having the amount of debt that already exists on the charter
side, having 2 billion available still,
and adding a billion and a half more with the uncertainty
that we're living in today.
It's, it's a scary thing for me.
And I think Texans deserve to know what we're doing with
their money in the event that something goes wrong in the
future, they can look back at this moment and realize,
you know, who supported something like this viral?
So he popped up.
Yeah, I just would wanting to point out then under,
under the statute that the increases are contemplated to
start September 1st of each year.
So they apply to the state fiscal years that began on
September 1st.
Is there any other questions?
I think Dr. Robinson has his hand up also and Mr.
Alley, you know, follow dr.
Robinson, Mr.
Mercer and Mr. rally.
So was this accidentally put in the Consent Agenda,
Consent Agenda, something was voted on.
So if we're not voting on it and it was not meant to be in
the Consent Agenda, is that right?
So, dr.
-: Robinson,
I believe oftentimes you'll have items on your agenda that
are posted to allow you to take action,
but you don't always take action, so I think if,
if there had been action taken,
then that would have been what would have ended up on the
Consent Agenda, just don't know that in advance.
-: So we're not voting on this.
-: There is nothing before you to vote on at this time.
-: Correct?
It wouldn't, it should've just been a discussion item.
-: Not necessarily, so when, when we prepare your items,
if there's a chance that you need to take action,
we have to post it as action.
Just because you're posted as action doesn't mean that you
have to take action, but if it was posted at discussion,
then you wouldn't be able to take action.
I think that, and not to speak for him, he can correct me,
but I think a fairly standard protocol for many of the PSF
items is if they're posted as action,
they're also written such that they would go on the consent
agenda,
but this is all we have to anticipate because we don't
always know what you will or will not do when we're
preparing the agenda.
-: That's the point that this agenda that we have before us
today was posted prior to the meeting yesterday.
Mr. Mercer, thank you, Mr.
Chairman and member just a, a cup of tea, I think too.
And it should maybe help me out on this,
but we get a list of the bond guarantee by ISD is everyone
knows because we,
because we have stopped the legislator from raising the
fund, and again,
even this last year that there was a talk of take another
three to $5 billion.
But because we've done that the people who rate are fun,
because we stopped the Raiders,
the radar gave us the highest number, and because of our,
our fund being Hartland in great shape,
we're able to provide a,
I think the best interest rate possible, all of our ISD.
This is a statement because of that,
because we've stopped people from taking money out of the
fund and that's for all of them, now we get a list, Holland,
every myth and Holland shuck, every session, every ISD,
I think it's a two to three to one, you know, we, we,
many of the bonding power we have,
what percentage of all the bonds we have out now,
or are public charter schools versus charter schools.
I'm going to guess like 95% of 5% or 98 to 2% the bonds we
guarantee now what percent of public schools and what
percent are charters, just a good, a good guest.
You are correct, the vast majority is ISD.
It probably is about 95, 96%.
So, we are very prudent in protecting our PSF fund.
What are the requirements?
We have the financial requirements, the threshold,
they have to meet the qualify for our,
for our bond guarantee, but for the 96%.
-: They're there.
-: Certain requirements in terms of debt outstanding,
but we're guaranteeing about 85 billion in ISD debt.
And as,
as has been mentioned previously in the 37 years of the bond
guarantee program, there's never been a single default,
but to do we had to did it,
did they have the promise to 96%?
Plus I promise is certain financial,
a certain rating that they'd done so well before we
guarantee their bond.
We have a test that we give them before we guarantee you,
and I'm going to do, I know we go ahead.
I'm sorry for the highest fees,
the requirements are that they be have passed voter approval
and certain limits on the debt, outstanding.
They are not required to have a,
a rating by a rate rating agency.
That's a standard that applies to the charter schools only
because the 96 very important that each charter school have
that rating.
The 96% plus would have no rating.
We've had never had a default before percent or less who,
who we do require them to have this financial rating, right?
Is that's a true statement.
It's like a 96% plus we don't have this financial
requirement, never had a before.
Now the question is now for this 4%.
And we do have a financial requirement that,
that that's the conversation now is at 4%, is that true?
Chuck and Paul, am I wrong about that?
Or that's correct.
Now the vast majority of ISD do have a rating,
but they're not required to anything else, Mr.
Mercer, As we do well,
I'm just going down that road because talking by now,
I'll lead into this.
The savings we have for the public school is like
$150 million a year.
We save on interest that goes back to the classroom and the
charter schools, these,
the charter school again, were criticized the highest rated,
even qualify, they're saying we saved $12 million a year.
I want to stop.
Make sure we understand that we're talking about a very
small percentage of the whole thing.
And a small percentage has,
has to have the highest financial rating even qualify it.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Mr.
Mercer, before rotten aside, I think we had one last one,
the stir rally.
Oh yeah, a.
-: Couple of questions I have first off procedurally and this
is directed toward Monica, I think.
So.
Is it the recommendation of the public school fund committee
to take no action on, on this item, right?
-: Yes, sir.
That's correct.
-: But then since it's now,
before the Board can a motion be made from the floor that we
take action, so as to, I guess,
to not move forward with the 20% additional set aside for
for the charter school reserved fund.
-: So I'm going to answer the first part of that,
and then I'll let Holland end or Vaughn provide
clarification just because there was an,
a recommendation out of committee doesn't mean that you
couldn't offer a motion at this time.
So that is something that would be allowable in terms of
what, with respect to this specific agenda item,
what type of emotion you could offer,
I will defer to Holland and Vaughn.
-: Do you want to answer that question?
Yeah, I mean, I think what's what's before he is what,
what we've laid out if by September 1st by statute inning
and the legislative required to increase comes up,
you have this Board has the option to stop that if it,
if it sees one of two tasks or both tests get, get tripped,
so you would need an affirmative vote there to stop the
increase, otherwise by statute it happens.
So there need to be a motion here to stop it, to,
to delay the increase.
And then we'd want some discussion about how you met those
tests.
So for clarification,
we can only vote in the affirmative to stop this.
If one of those two triggers were met statutorily,
is that correct?
That the statute authorizes you to reasons to stop this,
or even for inquiry Mr. Ryder?
You know, my inquiry, I guess,
to the parliamentarian to maybe legal counsel is,
is the motion using in conflict with statute is about a
order.
-: Would be like
what violate state laws of question.
-: Okay.
Mr, buyer, let me ask you then.
So the two statutory triggers are what, again,
The statutory triggers are the Board determines that
increasing the charter capacity by the amount provided by
one would likely result in a negative impact on the bond
ratings provided by one or more nationally recognized
investment rating firms for school district or charter
district bonds,
for which a guarantee is requested under this Subchapter or
one or more charter districts,
default on payment of maturing or matured principal or
interest on a guaranteed bond resulting in a negative impact
on the bond ratings provided by one or more nationally
recognized investment rating firms for school districts or
charter school district bonds for which guarantee is
requested.
And so then the reason the reasoning we would have to,
to conclude what we look at inclusion we would have to reach
would be that if we took actions to Western negate,
the 20% increase that it would negative,
negatively affect one of a rating from one of the rating
agencies would likely result in result and a negative rating
from some rating agency, right?
Yeah.
So then if we thought, well,
there's already enough money in there. 1.9 billion.
And, and so that's the basis for our decision,
or if we're concerned about the effect that COVID might have
on, on future enrollment for charters bond,
can you give us a legal opinion as to whether or not either
of those two grounds would qualify a statutorily there's not
really a legal determination of what would likely impact
that is a policy choice that this Board is going to have to
make and defend to critics of its decision.
Well, it sounds to me that's, I mean,
the question is whether or not we would violate statute,
that seems to be a legal question,
whether or not we would violate the statute,
if the basis for our determination,
it would let me finish if the basis for our determination is
that we already think there's enough money in there now.
And we think that COVID would have such a detrimental impact
that we want to wait and see.
-: So.
-: First of all,
I apologize for interrupting and didn't mean to do that
second, what I can,
what I can give you advice on a y'all can,
can take a vote and you have the authority
to vote how.
-: However you would like the question is how would,
how would that vote stand up to legal challenge?
So you have to have your decisions,
can't be arbitrary and capricious.
So you would have to have a reasonable connection to the
statutory basis.
And so you would need to establish that there's a reasonable
connection, that whatever reasons justify your vote,
that it would likely impact the vote or the rating agencies.
The second one I would advise,
it seems pretty clear if there hasn't been a default.
So I don't know.
It's hard for me to see how you would reasonably do that.
I don't know enough about how rating agencies make their
determination.
It,
maybe you could say the impact of enrollment would likely
impact that, i, I don't know.
I think what you've been provided though,
is that so far they haven't taken those actions and those
that impact is likely known by those ratings.
So, but I don't know anything about how,
how rating agencies make those determinations, okay.
-: Final question, Mr.
Chair, and then I'll feel so Mr.
Timmons,
as our professional staff consultant on this issue in the
event that we approved at 20%, they are,
we take no action on the 20% increase and enrollment in
charter schools takes a dip and the 20, 20,
20, 2021 school year, in your opinion,
would that negatively impact the ratings from one or more of
our rating agencies?
No, we have not received indication from the rating agencies
that that would result in a negative impact.
Okay.
So even in anticipation of there being a dip because of
coven or whatever other reasons, in your opinion,
if we take no action here,
is it going to negatively affect that rating?
No.
Thank you.
Give me that again.
And I would just clarify the point just because there was a
decrease in attendance at either an ISD or charter that is
not detrimental to the funding of the district because the
child is not disenrolling, they're just making,
they're moving their educational place to,
to home versus a synchronous or asynchronous,
not just rolling those students.
Mr, Cortez,
do you have anything else that you want to add that hasn't
already been addressed?
I did, I just,
I just wanted to go back to the point that Mr.
Timmins made earlier is that the has.
-: No way of guaranteeing this.
This is simply his opinion and the unlikelihood that,
I mean, or the rehab qualities,
none of us have ever gone through a global pandemic like
this, and we are unsure of what could happen.
And so the idea that, that we can likely conclude that,
that won't for me gives,
gives us the ability to say that we can take action and
stop this increase and review it at a later time.
Mr, Cortez discussed that point.
Do you have anything that we need to discuss?
Well, no, I would,
then I would just make a motion that we take action.
Okay, what is your, go ahead and state your motion.
And then we take action on this item.
Hold on just a second.
What if you would like to make a motion?
What I would need you to do is to present the motion.
And I think what we will do at that point is I'll take a
break and discuss this with our parliamentarian and legal
staff to,
to discuss with the emotional order or if it's conflict with
statutes.
And then we can decide to take up that motion from there.
So if you have a motion to make the motion at this point
would be an order.
Okay,
well then I would move that we take action because of the
uncertainty that COVID-19 is causing.
And let me see if I can help take action to
take action to do it was said to you.
You told us that if we took no action,
then the increase becomes effective, September 1,
if we take action, then we say no to the 20%.
That's the way to say no to the 20%.
That's what you're asking to take action on, and that's
COVID-19 global pandemic.
Okay, so we have emotion there.
What I'm going to do is take a break here and I'm going to
discuss this motion with our parliamentarian and legal
staff, and then we will get back.
And so we do have a motion a second, so no one go too far.
Cause this should take just a few minutes.
Give everyone a few minutes to get back on the lawn here.
Alright, one, two, three, four.
I think we got pretty much everyone, Mr. Mercer,
are you there?
So turn on your video, please.
Everyone was working.
So I believe so.
Okay, I'll, we'll call us back together.
So after consultation with our parliamentarian,
I'm going to deem those in order this motion in order.
But I would like to make a couple of other points after
speaking with legal staff for clarification,
this is a legislature who said that this increase will
happen.
Absence action by us.
And it gives us two triggers to take that action,
to stop the increase that the legislature has to happen.
So before we take the vote or have any other discussion on
the motion for Mr. Cortez, I would ask,
is there a clarification for when a question comes from the
legislature on why we took this action?
What's one of those two specific triggers that the
legislature has granted us, that this motion was based on.
Are you asking me Mr. chairman?
I'm asking the maker of the motion, okay.
And that would be me.
So the first, the first section of that statute,
where it says that Mr. buyer,
you want to read it one more time?
Not the second,
not the second trigger, just the first trigger.
Yes, sir.
The Board determines that increasing the charter capacity by
the amount provided by subsection would likely result in a
negative impact on the bond ratings provided by one or more
nationally recognized investment rating firms for school
district or charter district bonds,
for which a guarantee is requested under this subject.
So it is my contention, dr.
Ellis,
that this could likely result in that as a result of this
global pandemic and this uncertainty in the markets given
what's happened to not only our fund, but,
but markets all across the world.
And while I value Mr. Timmins, as our advisor on this,
he has also stated that he has no way of guaranteeing this
while he believes that that may not be the case.
He is not.
-: Certain that that will be the case,
but that's likely resolve that, it could happen give,
in my opinion, us the authority to take this action.
And again, we're not handicapping the charter schools,
they already have $2 billion still available.
I'm just saying because of the uncertainty in our state,
which is our main focus.
-: So miss take this action at this time.
The question I asked,
I want to clarify is that you are saving on the first of
those two triggers that you have Mr. buyer read.
So that's essentially, I want this for two reasons.
I want it, you know, they talk about legislative intent.
This is SPOD intent.
I want this on the record of why we are taking this vote for
the intent to be on the record.
And then also for my purpose of, of taking a vote of,
if I agree with that issue, Mr.
Maynard, I saw your hand.
I would just, I would just ask the maker of the motion.
I mean, we,
we've kind of heard in the circular argument for a period of
time, but he is still yet to provide any evidence which,
which bond rating agency do you think is going to downgrade
as Mr. Cortez.
And what would evidence specific evidence do you have?
Other than that, there may be declining enrollment,
but you have no evidence of declining enrollment.
So which bond rating agency do you think is going to
downgrade us and you know,
who have you talked to that knows anything about this that
is provided that, that evidence, Mr.
Cortez, would you like to respond to that?
-: I haven't talked to any of the bond rating agencies, Mr.
Maynard.
But if you turn on the news today,
you're going to see businesses all over this country,
filing for bankruptcy or just shuttering their doors,
businesses all across town.
That means economies everywhere are taking the hit.
If,
if even right now on construction sites all over the state
in charter schools or public schools, you've got,
you've got limited crews working on these sites because of
social distancing requirements.
So the fact that they still have $2 billion, they're there,
they're still in good shape, again, I'm not,
not trying to take more money from them.
If they're owed this money,
then at some point they're going to get it.
But I'm saying they shouldn't get it today.
Because as Mr Timmons said himself,
he can't guarantee that the likelihood of this being
impacted is going to be there, and for me,
if his unlikeliness to guarantee that is there,
that that should be sufficient for us.
But I mean, clearly you.
-: You want to try and get me the record, Mr.
Cortez, answer his question, Mr.
Minor.
-: Do you have any additional questions?
You know,
we have to honor the rule of law and what the statue says,
and there has been no evidence.
And is that anything that's being said is a bond rating and
there's no evidence for it, okay.
I've got miss Penn has, and then Mr.
Mercer.
-: So if you can help me please, Mr.
Maynard, or perhaps Mr.
Timmons.
I just want to make sure that I'm clear when we're saying
that they're the ratings agencies gave good ratings.
This was in may.
And that in may the ratings that are,
that we're using now to guarantee this increase this 20%
increase in capacity,
took in to consideration the potential for lower enrollment,
the potential for teachers not returning out of fear
or whatever those, those ratings took.
Those two factors into consideration.
And we consider them to be valid today.
-: So the writing agencies continually rewrite the fund.
Each of the three major rating agencies rate the fund about
once a year on their own schedule.
And whenever they have questions or concerns,
they reach out to us and their writings are valid until
they, they make a change.
So yes, they, they, when they went over,
if they have concerns,
they will reach out to us ask questions and they can either
give a different rating or put you on credit watch.
But their writing is valid until they choose to change it.
-: Breaking and writings were dated May 1st, is that right?
I just want to make sure my notes are correct, please.
-: No, they've, they've all been,
the writings are all different times for each of the three.
-: Okay, okay.
And we don't have any reason to suspect that that the
ratings agencies have raised any red flags and they have not
reached out for two to advise of your office or tea,
but they have any concern with the ratings that were
provided on whatever schedule they had in the past.
-: Two of them have reached out to ask some questions,
but they have not raised any red flags or issued formal
concerns or those questions
about operating virtually impact on the portfolio.
Most of the questions related to the actual.
-: Portfolio performance during the March April time period,
but they are ask questions about expected cash flows.
So just normal inputs into their analysis.
-: Okay.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Mr. chairman Holland,
you may remember if not a made the yield to,
but recently this Board agreed on the PSF on value,
the guaranteed bond ratio, the ratio we have.
Do you remember what that number is now using?
Our PSF fund is leverage leverage.
We can guarantee X amount of bond, a bond guaranteed,
right?
It is a little above three times.
And the hard cap that that is the operative camp for us is
117 billion, that's the IRS limit.
So there's not 117 billion in our PSF fund,
but because of the qualifications, the laws we have,
which are probably very,
very conservative compared to the rest of the nation, we,
if we had a 35 billion in our fund available,
we can guarantee you 117.
In my point,
is this so the increase for the charter schools and then to
a fund they contribute to is on overall total of what amount
is then what happens?
Is that a dollar more,
we're talking about the total guarantees about 85 billion.
I mean the increase, I'm sorry.
The, the charter schools did increase discussion amendment.
Mr, chairman Ellis can tell me what the increase were.
The question now there's an increase of was at 1.2 billion
for charter schools, is that where debating right now?
-: Yes, it's a little under 1.2 billion,
but it's not a cash.
If someone mentioned cash, we're not talking about cash.
We're talking about a God Byron TEA of a three and a half,
three to three and a half times the members,
you understand what I'm saying?
I'm not talking about $1.2 billion cash.
We're talking about a bond guarantee that might be maybe
300 million to, you know, what,
whatever else I'm not clear about that
Mr. Chairman, Alison in chairman Maynard,
you see where I'm going?
I want to make sure we're not talking about a cash flow.
We're talking about a bond guarantee.
That's based on at least three X or minimum with reacts.
I'll stop there to enlist confusion on that, okay.
Mr. Maynard, was that a Twitch or a handrail?
Okay, so I don't see any other hands raised.
I want to ask Ms. Kay,
that to make sure that she is clear on exactly what dr.
Robinson had his hand up, okay.
Dr, Robinson.
I think that there's, there's a lot of uncertainty.
I don't think that.
-: We're, I'm not sure why we're even debating that part.
And there's a lot of, I mean,
governmental entities are taking a big hit are gonna take a
real big hit.
And so, you know, the just overall,
financially speaking for us to be putting more money into
the bond guarantee program while for charters,
while this is unfolding.
I mean, if y'all want to,
if we can table it to later in the fall or something like
that, but I think now the level of uncertainty is definitely
reason enough, and I respectfully disagree with Mr.
Ma member Mainer that, you know, he does,
none of us know that everything's going to be fine six
months from now, and there's, there's definitely reason.
Objective reason.
The thing that, you know,
a lot of parents might decide to homeschool their kids.
And what you were talking about earlier,
chairman Ellis is that, you know,
the kid is not enrolled if they were withdrawn that that
charter or that IST loop does lose that money.
So there's just a lot of uncertainty.
And I don't understand why I think it's appropriate to
share, usually consider a question,
putting this extra money in on, I do have a question on dr.
Robinson's point right there, you know,
we are theoretically, if we, if, if we take no action here,
when would that increase going to affect that?
I hear you say it was September one.
That's correct.
Okay, so to dr.
Robinson's point, if we table this,
that we'll put it past our next meeting at what's point on
September one, because we've taken no action.
If I'm understanding correctly,
the 20% increase will go into effect because we took no
action in our next meeting would not able,
it would not be until after that September one trigger date.
So, and this, I don't see any other hands raised.
I would just speak to this, my point to this.
I don't feel that the law says that we have the authority to
take action here, if we think there's uncertainty,
we have it, if it says,
if we feel this will impact our credit rating,
we've had our PSF staff and council tell us that there is no
indication from our credit rating for credit rating people,
that that's going to be the case.
So I see no other hands raised, I want to check with Ms.
Kay, to clarify that she has the motion that's on the floor.
-: Thank you, sir.
Actually, Ms.
Martinez is,
is your reporter and she did a better job than I did.
She wrote that what the motion made was to move this COE,
take action to say no to the 20% increase because of the
covet, nice.
Okay.
-: Okay, so we have the motion.
We had it seconded.
I was just clarifying what the motion is.
So next we will move to the vote.
-: I would just want to make sure it's a roll call vote.
-: Okay, we have had a roll call, vote requested,
and a roll call vote will be granted.
So staff, I would ask you call the roll.
-: That is a parliamentary.
If you would please K explain to everybody what their vote
by saying yay or nay, exactly what that signifies.
Please.
You're on mute, Kay?
You got the video, didn't get
didn't get the microphone, thanks, Monica.
The motion of before you is for the state Board
to say no to the 20% increase.
So vote in favor is a vote against the 20% increase a vote
against this motion would allow the statutory requirement to
be fulfilled and for the 20% to go into effect.
Does that answer your question
back to you just to make sure that I'm clear if you don't
mind Ms. Cruz, if I vote, no.
The effect of that with the effect of that would be to
permit the statutory requirement to go forward.
And the Von guarantee program capacity would be increased by
20%.
No, I vote.
Yes, in favor of the motion to stop the 20% in automatic
increase.
Correct, Ms.
Cruz, thank you.
-: Is there anyone?
I heard a voice.
I've gotten this from Mercer with those Androids.
Let me make a point.
I know I was asking the other day they use zoom hands.
It's easier for me.
And I've been doing actual fiscal raised hands this morning.
Let's just go back to your zoom hands.
It just makes it easier for me.
It actually gives me a list of who raised her hand.
And so go ahead, Mr.
Marshall, I got two points.
I'll make the motion, I hand again,
a no vote says yes to want to continue with the increase,
right?
And a yes means no,
we want to stop the increase, right?
This kind of negative, now here's
does this impact is this is this limited just to the
increases with the bond guarantee is not just tar charter
schools, it's all schools.
So is this limited just to the charter schools,
it could be effected by COVID all schools.
It's just charter schools.
So this is out.
-: If only the charter schools will not get the increase.
So if I want to continue that to treat everybody the same,
I would vote, no,
if I want to say no only charter schools will be impacted.
I vote, yes.
Is that it?
Yes, kind of backward thinking again,
if I want to keep the same program to all public and private
school and charter schools, I vote.
No, if I want to penalize only charter schools I vote.
Yes, is that correct, sir?
That is correct.
And I am going to award Mr. Allen,
the award for raising a zoom here next.
So he gets to be called on next.
I simply wanted to know that if we are to,
if this was to go forward and we did that,
and the increase did not take place.
What is the next time that this would be visited by Mr.
Timmons or Mr. Minor?
Do you have that answer or Mr. bar,
the phase in has been a five year phase and a 20% per year.
So unless the Board preferred to do it sooner,
we would automatically do it next summer for the final 20%
phasing.
And the reason I asked that question is,
cause that was some caveat to the conversation about some
concept of delay in terms of not waiting a full year before
we be visited again,
but he just dropped off with this motion.
We either gonna do it or we not.
And then wait that entire year in order to revisit it again.
So this motion does not allow us to revisit it within any
given time other than the annual cycle.
That is correct, I think if we took it up earlier,
we'd actually be taking out next year's 20% increase.
We could do that earlier in the calendar year,
but this 20% will have already taken place.
-: Okay, Mr. Cortez?
-: Yes, Mr. Chair.
I just want her to speak to the comments of member Mercer.
As I read the item, it says review of bond guarantee,
program charter capacity.
So it's not that we're singling somebody out.
This is the way your PSF agenda item.
So I'm not trying to single anybody out, sir.
So if you're gonna,
if you're going to talk that kind of information,
make sure it's factually accurate because I'm not trying to
Mr, Cortez you've responded to him.
You've made your point there, I think we're past the bait.
We have the motion and I've asked for the roll call vote.
So we will go ahead and do that
Favor of the motion, Mr. Cortez.
-: Yes.
-: Mr. Allen.
-: No.
-: Mr. Mercer.
-: No.
-: Mrs. (mumbles).
-: No.
-: Dr. Robinson.
-: Yes.
-: Mrs. Cargill.
-: No.
-: Dr. Maner.
-: No.
-: Ms. Hardy, Ms. Little, Ms. Divas.
-: Yes.
-: Mrs. Melton Malone.
-: No.
-: Mr. Rowley.
-: No.
-: Dr. Ellis, would you like to register a vote
five in favor nine against the motion fails.
-: Okay, Ms. Kay, does that close out that auto.
-: Unless someone else wishes to make a different motion?
-: I have a question about that, Mr.
Chair, go ahead, Mr.
Ella.
So Ms. Cruz,
is it necessary for us to have a motion to take no action?
-: I don't believe so, sorry.
This is something that,
from what I understand of the statute will happen
automatically and that you only need to take action.
If you wish to do something different, take action.
Then it will go ahead and be funded.
-: Alright, so we had, that will conclude that item.
We had Ms. Pettis
asked for another item to be removed off consent,
and that was item number seven.
Ms, Perez,
do you want to speak to that before we have staff make any
presentations?
-: Yes, sure.
Ellis, thank you.
The reason that I asked for this item to be removed from
consent is because of
my understanding that there's only one firm that applied or
submitted their qualifications to,
to be legal counsel for the bond guarantee program.
And this one firm, other than,
than I do not believe that selecting from a pool of one is
best practice for, for any submitted any RFQ or RFP.
But in addition to being only one firm,
this particular firm is not hub certified.
And so I have a few questions about
RFQ RFPs, hubs, certifications requirements of,
for there to be certified firms, when.
-: I'm doing this kind of work, et cetera, staff,
would you like to make any comments to that?
I will lead off this area is highly,
highly specialized and complex dealing with federal
regulations, and
there are relatively few firms that,
that have the expertise necessary to perform this function.
We knew from, from day one,
that there would be a very limited response.
That was the expectation just because of the high level of
specialization.
And I think at that point, if Mr.
Campbell is on, he can further address
just the highly technical specialized nature of this role.
-: Right?
-: Sure, I'd be happy to.
Yeah,
I guess the specialization that's needed here is specific to
tax regulations relating to the increase in the capacity of
the bond of the bond guarantee program.
The council that would have to be specialized and qualified
for this needs to have that tax expertise also needs to be
kind of LinkedIn and connected with the treasury department
and in Washington to be effective in that capacity.
You know, my firm Jackson Walker,
we're the fourth largest law firm in Texas.
And we did not respond to the RFP because we didn't feel
like we had that, that capability or, or,
or expertise in that regard.
So that, that goes to the point of there being a minimal,
minimal affirms that are going to be qualified to best serve
the permanent school fund.
So when you say that there are minimal firms,
does that mean only firms in Texas or Texas based firms are
the only ones that are allowed to submit their quality
occasions.
And for this particular RFQ,
I believe that my differs to,
to some of the folks involved in
in the purchasing contract.
But I think of the attorney general,
I believe requires that at least there's lawyers who are
licensed to practice in Texas, that are members of the firm,
that's correct.
But many of the firms we deal with are nationwide firms,
but do have attorneys that are licensed in Texas.
So when I.
-: Was going through the firm's
qualification submission,
I noticed that when they talk about
subcontracting,
they are planning to do all of the work themselves.
They're not even planning to subcontract with a hub
certified firm, is that typical?
And the reason I'm asking that is because it's my
understanding, and again, please correct me when I'm wrong.
But that if, if we, if sub heard of,
if hubs certified firms never get this experience,
then they can never qualify to ever do this work with us.
Is that right?
-: Well, this invitation was sent out to hub firms that are
registered, it was sent to a list of about 50 firms or 50
individuals or firms that are listed on the Texas CMB L.
So they, these firms were invited to take part.
Typically we saw law firms,
don't subcontract worker.
It has been our experience that they typically do the work
themselves rather than subcontracting.
-: Is there, is it,
is it possible that the RFQ deadline can be extended so that
when we, as a Board make a recommendation or accept the
qualifications that we're choosing from more than a pool of
one.
-: This RFQ had a hard deadline, this course,
this RFQ was approved by the Board,
and it has a hard deadline.
So any submission that was not received by the due date
could not be accepted.
Your other questions are going to, if not.
-: I do have a couple of more questions.
And so is it possible to put any kind of contingency that
particularly in this time,
when we're trying to increase equity,
that we asked this one firm to make a good faith effort and
locate identify Texas certified hubs for subcontracting
opportunities, because we can't extend the RFQ.
We can't increase from a pool of one.
They're not hub certified, it's an annual renewal, is it,
can we ask for a good faith effort to look to for them to
locate and provide for.
-: For the use of,
of women owned and veteran owned and minority owned sub
contracting opportunities.
This Ben is,
it's my understanding that that is expectation of everyone
who applies for any contract that they make that good faith
effort if they are going to subcontract,
but they don't have to subcontract.
Right?
And so when I'm looking at this RFQ,
they're planning to, to self perform,
meaning they're not going to subcontract.
So my question then becomes, can we ask,
can we implement the contingency that they do?
Because this is not a hub certified firm.
And we are also selecting from a pool of one.
And I find it just difficult to tell taxpayers that we did
our best effort in select in our selection process when we
have only one to select from,
and then we have no contingency plan for them to increase
hubs certified subcontract opportunity opportunities.
I don't believe that that's something that you could recall.
I don't think you can require somebody to subcontract.
-: Do you have any other costs with Ms. divas?
No, sir.
-: My first question is Mr.
Tim has mentioned that it's a hard deadline.
I know that earlier in the week,
we decided to extend a deadline in reference to publisher.
So my question, I guess, is for staff,
what makes a hard deadline hard?
If we were just able to extend one with publishers,
why is this deadline so hard that it can't be,
this can't be extended?
That's my first question, Ms. Davis,
with respect to the publisher deadline, that was,
that was in a contract.
So you extended a deadline that had nothing to do with a
contract or contracting processes.
The agency has to follow and adhere to very stringent
requirements with respect to contracting, and so
I stepped in here just because I want to make sure that it's
clear that it's not just the PSS staff that has to follow
those lots of rules.
Every agency program has to do that when we are going
through the procurement process.
And so that's that's the distinction.
So the deadline that was set for the publishers,
what was that?
That was in your proclamation.
Okay.
So it was a problem you have not yet gotten to see you don't
enter into a contract with publishers until after you adopt
their materials, so you haven't,
you haven't gotten to that stage in the process, well,
technically we haven't developed a contract with them either
yet halfway, but,
but you didn't issue a request for qualifications or
requests for proposals to publishers.
You issued a proclamation, which is different, right?
-: Right, I understand that this is an RFQ or an RFP.
I don't remember which, and,
and falls under those procurement guidelines.
That is very different from your proclamation, so
it can not, or RFQ deadline is hard.
It can not be extended for any reason.
I believe that's correct.
My understanding is they would have to start the process all
over again.
Have an RFQ has ever been extended or no,
that's never happened.
Not that I'm aware of.
-: I think the Board has to set the rules at the beginning.
This is a does fall within the state procurement standards.
And the Board sets the rules.
We have had RFQ that have been open-ended at the back end
for investment purposes, but when,
when a hard deadline is set, as Monica said,
the only option is to start over again from scratch.
This is a little different because this contract,
since it's legal contract is controlled by the office of
attorney general, so all actions are coordinated with them.
-: And as she just stated, and it's not,
you're not aware of any that have started have been
extended, they've all started over.
If that case has happened.
-: We are not aware of any that have been extended after the
hard deadline, okay.
-: And my second question,
how many hub contracts do you guys have right now?
-: Okay.
-: Kathy, are you on, do you.
-: Yes, I am.
Normally we see activity in the technology space.
When we have hired technology consultants that are DIR
approved, women owned businesses,
we've spent a significant amount of money in the past with
those types of firms at the present moment,
we don't have any of those consultancies underway.
So we're not spending money in that category,
but every procurement,
every competitive procurement that we issue has all of the
language in the RFP or RFI that solicits and invites the
vendors to focus on the idea that if you're a hub,
get in the game, if you can subcontract,
please do subcontractor hub.
So every one of our solicitations is trying to focus the
vendor community on this concept of your active contracts.
You don't have any that belong to hubs a lot, no,
not at the moment because a lot of our contracts,
our data subscriptions,
and we're subscribing to firms that provide wall street,
investment data, and those are not hubs.
Do you have any hubs that are being subcontracted?
At least I can't answer that question, I'm sorry,
but the TEA contracting division has a hub coordinator and
that, that part of the office I'm sure could give you the
specifics what this, and this is my last question.
So there are no health contracts.
We don't think there's any hub sub contracts,
the discussion of diversity and making sure that these
opportunities are actually there, did that,
is that intentional?
Like, do you guys ever intentionally have conversations
on how you can, you know,
expand diversity and expand who is getting access to this
information?
Cause I guarantee there are firms of color who can do at
least some of the work.
I know this last contract was very extensive and I've even
asked around myself and it was very, very,
it was in a small few pool of folks who could pull that off.
It may have been some that are outside of Texas,
but necessarily not in Texas,
but is that conversation intentional about how you're going
to start utilizing hubs and allowing these firms of color to
have access to some of these contract opportunities were not
really posted for that.
I'm sorry, Mr.
Rowley, I didn't hear you.
I think the point was,
I don't think you were posted anything.
-: Okay.
-: Let's definitely answer that question.
Okay.
I would just reiterate what I said previously.
Every procurement we do, we lift this up.
We can't make vendors come and re respond.
We deal with those that have responded.
And I can say this about the law firm that is been lifted up
as part of this RFQ, that particularly with our law firms,
we do have a line of questioning to dig into the diversity
makeup of their firm and how they promote people and how
they promote women and people of color and other
nationalities.
So it is a subject that is important when we're hiring the
law firms.
So this law firm definitely has responded to that question
to help us understand just exactly how diverse they are as a
firm.
What can I ask if it's important?
Where does it fall in your rubric of when you're selecting
people?
What percentage and your rubric does that usually fall
under?
If it's of importance?
Well, we deal with what is submitted to us in terms in these
procurement processes, so if,
if nothing comes in that meets that category,
then we have to deal with those firms that did respond.
So if it's there in front of us,
we would pay attention to it.
We are going to choose service providers who provide the
best value to the state of Texas.
And that is in accordance with the comptroller's procurement
guidelines, but that is your objective.
When you are shopping in the marketplace,
that you are to make decisions that bring forth the best
value.
-: So this item is specifically for this or a queue
and it's does relate to hubs.
But if we're talking about that in a bigger perspective
outside of this particular proposal,
I think we're getting outside of Arkansas.
Any other questions, Mr. writer?
-: Alright, Mr. Mader.
-: Yeah, Mr. chairman.
And I would just because,
check Campbell is here and he's our fiduciary counsel and he
is part of a law firm.
I just asked this question to Mr. Campbell.
So, so we, we, we, we post these opportunities.
These are, these are fused on, on the website and,
and I'm assuming that, that all law firms,
regardless of what their status is,
or non hub have access to those websites and people within
those law firms do regularly visit those that the
dude to do work for the state,
visit that website on a pretty regular basis.
And they look at those jobs and they, they,
they determined whether or not they've got the extra piece
for the bandwidth professionally to, to handle those jobs.
Would that be,
can you kind of maybe speak to how that process works and
yes, the sort of enlighten everybody?
Cause
I think what I think what I get the sense of is that people
think that
this happened under a rock somewhere and that nobody knew
about, can you, can you speak to that a little bit?
Well, I mean,
I can attest that it all kind of governmental postings from
the state of Texas I'll put on,
I believe that electronic business,
I don't know the exact name of the website,
but there's an electronic business website that RFPs and
RFPs are put on and broken down by legal services.
And a lot of larger law firms included we'll have services
that we pay for that kind of monitor those.
And if there are areas of expertise that match with what our
firms provides, we'll, we will respond.
In addition,
we'll receive solicitation separately from organizations as
well, governmental organizations,
and respond to those as well, but yeah,
so there's something that we, we monitor
for those opportunities.
Yeah, and Mr.
Chairman, let me just say this as that, I don't, I don't,
I don't discount the concerns that are being expressed.
You know, we would certainly like to have a,
have a competitive bid process where you have multiple firms
and we would have really loved to have had the opportunity
to, to consider, you know, a wider array of, of firms,
including firms that are, that are classified as hubs.
But the fact of the matter is, is that
the piece of work that we're,
that we're putting out in this particular process is,
is very, very highly specialized.
And the number of firms out there that really have the
capacity to do it,
or the expertise to do it is pretty small, you know, how,
how many, you know, how many public funds are,
are there out there that guaranteed, you know,
local bonds and then
and then there's a process that we have to go through to
expand capacity, we've got to work with with the IRS,
possibly Congress,
which means is that any firm that's doing that probably
needs to have some presence in Washington, D C as well.
And so every time that you add a, add a filter, you, you,
you begin to narrow the number of firms that really have the
capacity to do the work and will say, this is that,
you know, and I think that
Ms, divas is asking the question just in terms of the
commitment.
And I would just reiterate what,
what we did earlier in the week, in terms of,
of our carve out related to emerging managers, you know,
we did a $350 million carve out specifically for emerging
managers, you know, we don't,
when it comes to managers or the permanent school fund is
not allowed to consider huts,
then the law doesn't allow us to do that.
But what we can do is that by,
by implementing this strategy in emerging, you know,
manager,
carve out that all the data suggests to us when we did that,
that we wind up with a lot more firms that are minority and
woman owned.
And, and that's why we did that.
And so, so we do have a commitment to that.
And as far as the law allows us to do that,
I would just say on this particular item, you know,
the odds of us, you know, you know,
finding another firm to apply for it is not very good.
I think that this is a, this is a long process,
but it's also an important process that,
and I would say that it's,
it's not something that we need to delay, you know,
given the length of time, it takes for us to do that.
And then this thing can take up, you know,
four or five to complete.
And in the meantime is the we're on a,
on a trajectory at some point to exhaust our capacity to
guarantee local school district bonds, and so I would just,
I guess my message to the Board is that, well, that,
that we, we do have a, a demonstrated,
we are working toward for diversity.
We are working toward engaging people vendors within the
permanent school fund
who reflect the diversity of our nation.
It just so happens on this particular one, it's very,
very difficult to do that
and if we've got a qualified candidate, I think we,
I think that rather than going back and starting that
process over and potentially in danger,
the process I would,
I would encourage the Board to go ahead and,
and improve this particular contract,
understanding that we do have other initiatives out there to
address these concerns.
Mr, Allen.
-: I want to say agreed with judginess position on having one
applicant is not a best practices concept,
and anybody to say that you only had one applicant and
whatever our efforts were to secure those applicants.
We wanted to really look at our own process because we did
not get a pool of applicants to consider it.
And when that occurs, you do want to look at your processes.
So we were talking earlier about how we actually get this
information out,
how others actually can respond and where it goes.
And so I think we're going to have to take a deeper dive in
terms of what our efforts are in terms of how we communicate
with some of those hubs and effectively.
Cause I don't know the numbers that get 25 others.
So since we talked about this extensively yesterday,
we asked Mr. chm as these very same questions.
And so I have a tendency to Lynn lean towards his expertise
and his explanation of why he is confident and moving with
the one applicant, and he began to talk about his,
his confidence in this from being able to do the work that
they'll be requested to do, also,
I think we talked about this,
this particular contract being $150,000 a year for the next
and over the next five years, so in our, in our,
in our system as really relatively small,
I know we were talking about it,
but it's relatively small in a sense of the word of what we
normally do.
And so that's why I was thinking it wouldn't be something
that would be subcontracted out or looking for someone else
to do the work because it's really relatively small, and,
and that sense of where, so we, we asked Mr.
Timmons to explain, explain to us yesterday,
why he felt he was confident.
And I thought he did a good job of doing it.
-: Mr. I haven't spoken.
-: Yet two comments.
I support a member, divas is asking about it.
I want to move forward, but maybe I'm not making an item,
but maybe in the future,
because it was also a question that came from the finance
committee or public ed, and we,
maybe we need to go ahead and present, i, you should,
that you have a presentation to the Board.
And in the future in September,
just our proxy to ensure we are looking deed the
historically underserved businesses that we are working with
them,
but just the thought I cannot make an item and that's the
Board of grooves, but I'll want to move forward with this,
but maybe in the future,
we could have our presentation go through our process if
done,
before it makes sure that we are addressing historically
underserved businesses, and secondly, I want to thank Mr.
Robinson from his area.
My staff just gave me one of my favorite birthday dishes of
coconut shrimp, and I'm sure my coconut shrimp came from Mr.
Robinson's area, so thank you, sir.
-: Thank you, chair Ellison.
So
I have a couple of things that I heard and I just want to
make sure that I'm understanding correctly.
And I want everybody to understand why I'm doing this.
Part of it is obviously because I want more hubs to be part
of our process, I want more public participation.
That's reflect of not only our classrooms,
but our state and our changing nation.
And looking at this particular firms website, they,
they clearly have an interest, a very, you know,
a stated interest in, in their commitment to racial equity.
And so I think that before we execute the contract,
the State Board of Education does have the flexibility to
ask that this vendor make a good faith effort in identifying
appropriate hubs because much to member Maynard's point,
it's quite difficult for any other firms to build capacity.
If, if we can not require more than self-performing and,
and to, I guess, support my colleague member Davis,
it's it kind of feels like it's like, we're in a catch 22.
You can't get the experience because you don't have the job,
but you can't get the job because you don't have the
experience.
And so coming from the perspective of a classroom teacher
and going back to, we are only with a pool full of one,
right?
I can not submit a request to buy a box of pencils with only
one quote I have to support.
I have to provide at least three to show that the at least
three, right,
I have to show that this is the best one of three.
And I can't even, I can't even do that now.
And with this particular qualification that was submitted,
there's no contingency,
there's no requirement from the state Board that there will
ever be any partnering that there will ever be any
subcontracting.
And I don't disagree with you remember Alec that, that,
you know, $150,000 for the permanent school fund,
it may not sound like a lot.
And comparatively speaking for your,
for the permanent school funds work $150,000 annually.
Isn't a lot times,
five years is potentially half a million dollars still from
the perspective of the permanent school fund,
not a large amount, however, when we're talking about hubs,
that is a large amount,
and this is a very lucrative opportunity for firms that
could potentially be subcontracted.
And we're not even asking.
And I can't understand why we're not even putting a
contingency that we absolutely can do because the contract
has not been executed that this one firm that submitted
qualifications,
because they're the one firm that has the capacity to do
this.
We're not even requiring them to build capacity with hubs.
We're not even requiring them to identify hubs certified
firms that they could potentially build this capacity for.
And I just, in this time,
I just cannot understand why we're not doing
it just feels perfunctory at this point.
That is the bare minimum that we could ask for.
And we're not even asking for that, and again, as,
as a classroom teacher, this would not be acceptable in
with my purchasing clerk as an, as a Board member,
this would not be acceptable on a Board to choose from a
pool of one, and I just you know,
in a state of 27 million people,
I just cannot believe that one is the best we could do.
-: I don't see any other hands raised.
Ms. Kay, are you there?
Can you help me walk through this?
Wasn't actually an action item, correct?
That was pulled off consent.
So what's our next step on this?
-: So the next step would be the chairman
of the committee that
would be Mr. Maynard would make a motion,
a recommendation from the committee because the committee
still has their recommendation to bring forward.
And then the Board can either adopt or not that
recommendation.
-: Mr. Miner bird for that.
Okay.
-: Thanks, three of your second set of minutes.
-: Not,
I fell to grab that other set of minutes.
-: I've got it pulled up.
If it'd be helpful for me to just share my screen.
-: Oh, that would be nice.
-: You should be able to see it now, they're under number.
-: Alright, Mr. chairman,
on behalf of the committee on school finance and in
permanent school fund and move it to the state Board of
education approved the selection of the legal counsel for
the bond guarantee program,
as outlined in RF Q seven zero one dash 20 there's
zero six for the permanent school fund,
and often an authorization and authorized contract execution
by the Commissioner of education.
We have a motion, do we have a second?
-: Perfect parliamentary motion is actually the language down
below that came from the committee.
You've read the title of the.
-: Okay.
Okay, so let me, if you will allow the withdrawal,
my motion and the restraint on behalf of
the committee on school financing, permanent school fund,
the move at the State Board of Education approved DLA Piper,
LLP for the bond guarantee,
program capacity and tax counsel scope and legal services
authorization for contract execution by the Commissioner of
education.
-: Yes ma'am, yes, sir.
Thank you, Ms.
Cruz, is this the appropriate place or time to,
to ask that here, where we're saying,
we recommend that the State Board of Education approved can
language be inserted here with the contingency,
that there is at least a good faith effort to build capacity
with hub certified firms to be performed by DLA Piper.
Lop is this,
can this be done because we have not executed the contract
yet?
Can we make that part of this motion part of this contract?
Okay, as always, I'm happy to provide parliamentary advice.
You have other experts who provide you legal advice.
So I am telling you, my motion is amendable,
whether or not those amendments that you wish to make or
something that you can do within the wane of the government
procurement processes is, is outside my scope of expertise.
But yes, from a parliamentary perspective, this motion.
-: Alright.
Any further comments or questions on that in this business
here?
-: Yes.
If the maker of the motion, it finds this amenable.
-: Amenable or amendable.
-: I will, the maker of this motion accept my request.
-: You know, you know, if you,
if you want to make the amendment, I guess,
I guess my only question that
and I think before we do that is to go back to legal
counsel, and I'm not, I know that we, we put out a few,
isn't it is it, is it, is it permissible to,
to add after we've gone through the process?
And that really was not part of the RFQ is,
is that even to add that contingency at the end,
is that something that falls within the contracting
guidelines by the state?
I think what we need to do here, we don't have,
there's no friendly amendments, so Ms.
Perez, if you would like to amend the motion, you may do.
So, and then we could have legal staff or PSS staff have a
discussion if that's specifically worded
is proper or is okay,
but you have a specific amendment you had or meant that you
would like to make to the motion.
-: I believe so, yes.
And I would ask Ms. Cruz for her assistance here, please.
I imagine that the new language would say by perhaps now no
longer unanimous consent,
the committee recommends that the State Board of Education
approved DLA Piper, LLP for the bond guarantee,
program capacity and texts, texts, council,
scope of legal services and et cetera, et cetera,
with the contingency that they heard,
that they perform good faith efforts to subcontract or build
capacity with hub certified firms.
-: Okay, and I don't, when we're on split screen,
I can't see everyone.
So I just ask anyone to speak up if they have a second,
if they're seconding that motion we have, okay.
So we have a motion and a second.
So to Tom's point prior,
would PSF staff or legal staff like to speak on,
I guess whether that's proper?
-: Well, I think a thing is, I don't know.
So, I mean,
that's something we probably have to check with the AIG as
to whether would it would, it would upset the original RFQ.
You have,
you have a little bit of room within what you've said to
negotiate your contract, but for instance, I mean,
I think we could ask, but there's no, like if they say no,
then I guess the result would be,
we couldn't enter into the contract.
Any other comments from NSF or legal staff from
hearing none.
It occurs to me that, you know,
if this is what we want to do,
this is what we don't want to do necessarily is again,
we don't want to delay the process.
And, and I'm wondering, and I don't know how
how the maker of
the amendment feels about this is that,
that rather than making it part of the motion,
because once you make it for the motion, then,
then you create some legal requirement that in other words,
if they, if we make it a contingency,
man, then I would assume then that it would also create a
requirement that they do some sort of documentation on this.
And it requires additional work on their part,
which means when you're dealing with,
with attorneys probably additional costs,
what would it be more prudent than is to ask the
Commissioner to rather than, than, than a contingency,
that for the Commissioner to encourage the firm to do that,
rather than making it a contingency in creating the
possibility of additional hours, additional work,
visual documentation, and additional cost to the taxpayer.
And, you know, maybe that's in the ask him that to the Von.
And, and so in other words,
and then I guess my question to legal is,
is that if we make it a contingency, that, that, that,
that creates additional requirements that were not part of
the original RFQ, but, you know,
it's part of a Board motion that would require some sort of
action by by the firm.
I'd like to make a point of clarification here,
if I could please.
So, so.
-: I'm not asking that the contract now go into some kind of
negotiation or pre-contract negotiation.
I'm simply asking that they perform a good faith effort.
They still aren't required to contract or subcontract with a
hub.
So I'm not sure where the additional cost is being passed on
to the taxpayer here.
I don't believe that that's what I'm asking for.
And, and so in part of their RFQ,
they submitted that there'll be self-performing that,
that even that's not changing.
And so for them to make a good faith effort to build
capacity with the hub still does not require them to
contract with a hub.
I think,
I think we're really asking for minimum good faith effort
here.
And, and based on there, DLA Piper, his own webpage,
I can't imagine that this would be something that they
wouldn't agree to, I mean, they,
they make a very clear statement on the 5th of June under
flooring, their own commitment to racial equity.
I can share their web with, if you want to do that.
And so I don't think that asking them for a good faith
effort would, would, would result in them backing out of,
of this RFQ.
-: You want to respond to that?
I guess, I guess my question is contingency contingent.
What does that mean?
How would that then be expressed,
demonstrate based on that contingency,
Mr, Cortez?
I mean, I guess the way, the way I understand it is
and I get your concerns, Mr.
Where she's talking about the word contingency,
but everything that follows does all we have,
all we're asking is that they make a good faith effort.
So I understood it as Georgina,
as member of bed has described it.
And I personally don't see again, if they do it,
if they don't do it,
we're just simply asking for them to consider this moving
forward, despite the fact that they are not a hub,
that if they contract with anybody that they consider
contracting with with them.
So I don't think it changes
anything from what was put out in
the original RFP.
I think it's just us asking them to please give this
consideration.
-: If you contract with somebody.
-: Mr. chair, Matt.
Thank you, sir.
If the word contingency is perhaps a deal breaker,
I would say that number one, member Maynard,
I think it is absolutely acceptable to have the Commissioner
strongly encourage,
but maybe we can say that they engage in a good faith
effort, and does that make it more acceptable?
-: So your tendency,
what to engage or how would you add that now,
what you have Ms. Pettis on your amendment is with the
contingency that they perform good faith efforts to build
capacity with hub certified firms.
-: Perhaps we can revise that to say with,
but they engage in a good faith effort.
-: Or with the request that they perform a good faith effort.
-: Is that acceptable to you remember Maynard with,
with the inclusion that,
that the Commissioner provide strong encouragement?
-: I don't think it's up to Mr. Maynard again,
there's not friendly amendments, it's the question is when,
what amendment do you want to make?
-: I accept the revision that you're presented chair Ellis
and I but I would like to hear from member Maynard,
if he is as the maker of the motion,
if he is comfortable with that.
-: Oh, for K and just Ms. Perez,
please clarify if this is correct with the request would
replace with the contingency.
-: You might want to ask if there's any.
-: To so that I'm seeing none.
And I think the sped has asked Mr. Maynard,
his thoughts on it, and then I'll call him.
I don't know that it, I mean, I think that it, any time,
the weekend we can affirm, you know, our, our commitment to,
to inclusion and diversity, I think it's a good thing.
And, you know,
I don't think that we just need to create a,
I guess what I'm saying is we don't need to bait and switch
where we, when we put out an RFQ and then, then after,
after, after the fact,
then we start to add a bunch of things to it.
But, but I think that that's a pretty fair assessment, like,
well, you know, and in the course of doing that, the Board,
a commitment to racial.
-: Racial, diversity, diversity of gender,
that sort of thing,
and we would just hope that you conduct your business in a
way that reflects that and reflects their,
their own commitment to equity that they they've expressed
on on the forefront,
which I don't think initially an issue with that.
I started to call on Mr. Cortez,
just so I can keep track of everyone.
And then I've got this Cargill.
-: Okay, so you just called on me.
-: Mr. Cortez had raised his hand earlier.
He didn't have, you'll be after Mr. Cortez.
I thought I had already made my comments, did I not?
Was I speaking and not turn off my mute button?
If you have nothing?
I was just, I mean, I'm fine with the changes
that Ms. Pettis is making.
I thought it was also fine with contingency because they
will just, you know, they make an attempt, we're not,
we're not forcing this upon them.
And so it doesn't change the net effect of what the proposal
said, and so I was just agreeing with the member better and
whether she goes with her original language or this other
language, I'm good with this.
I've got Ms. Cargill.
-: Yeah,
my only concern and I don't know if Von or whoever can come
in on this because I answer RFQ and PS with my professional
development work, my consulting.
And so, you know, first of all, does this set a precedent?
And then second of all,
does it affect the fact that they've already answered that?
You know,
even though we're just gently encouraging or whatever,
I'm not sure what the language has ended up being if you'll
read that again in a second, Mr. chair,
but just want to make sure we're not setting a precedent of
going back and adding things that,
because this has already been answered.
So I don't know if Bon or someone who deals with contracts
can answer.
-: It's not,
I think your problem is I did not anticipate having a deep
in the weeds discussion on contracting law and I'm not the
appropriate person for that, cause,
cause I don't know when we get down to,
to that level of detail, generally,
like we can negotiate a contractual terms that were within
the framework of, of the RFQ.
If if I understand the intent here, it is
really to go back in.
And when we negotiate the contract to make clear to the law
firm,
that we would like them to seek out hub opportunities under,
under the contract, and they should a good faith effort.
-: In doing that.
And I mean, if, if I just had to guess that,
I think you're okay, I just don't know what we do.
If they say no,
Mr, chair, can you, would you read that?
What the language is right now, please?
It is
the amendment is with the request that they perform good
faith efforts to build capacity with pubs certified farms.
Any more questions Ms. cargo, before I go to the sorority,
I have to find my button.
We don't know if that's already required in state contracts
or do we have someone we can ask?
Is that not already required?
We're going to install it again,
but I'll take his point that we didn't have someone on
contract here, right?
Yeah, sorry to put you on the spot.
That's okay, I think what we've said is when we,
when we go out, we, every con every RFQ requires a, a hub.
So I mean, that's part of
just contracting practices for every state, every contract,
every state agency, every state contract know RFQ.
They, they have to respond with a plan.
All right, that's all.
I think with respect to the current RFQ,
there wasn't indication.
I believe by the firm that they're going to self self
perform.
And we're not as Mr. Timmons indicated earlier,
most legal counselors are going to self perform and not
subcontract, I think the language though,
that's been submitted, just requests, a performer,
good faith effort to build capacity.
It doesn't require such contracting.
So the point of it being not inconsistent with what they
provided in their response, it's probably appropriate in my.
-: Okay, before I do that, one more hand raised let's Mr.
Mercer and Mr. chairman, I've got three screens.
Can you hear me?
I guess I hope I got ya.
I never want to forget that the lessons were learned
learning, I want to go back to this story.
What is this about our Rubik's?
Cause we need to look at our rubrics in the future because
whatever my term, whatever weight we have Bahamas weight,
we look at that weight and make sure it's appropriate for
where the world wants to move.
So we want to forget that and measure my years of contract.
And I know at the very end, whenever you change,
whenever you have someone say, Oh, we're choosing dr.
Ellis, by the way, we have a change,
the contractor would be all smiles because whatever change
we have would just be added to the already the quote or bid
they had on there.
Having said that, if I listened to what Mr.
Campbell, just Chuck, it just said, I think it's a general.
They've got it, they may do it in house.
But if it's a gentle reminder to know, Ms.
Perez is telling him, Hey, if you go outside and look,
we asking you,
you a B be diligent and look at historically underserved
businesses, so I believe the way it's stated now,
the softer language, not contingent,
but we're asking you to look at it.
I could accept that amendment.
Thank you, Mr.
Mercer, I don't see any other hands raised.
So I think the next,
our next step is to take a vote on this.
Pedis is amendment to the main motion.
Is that correct?
Ms. Kay.
Kay?
Are you there?
Can't see you.
I have responded and said yes, sir.
All right, so that being said, we'll take the vote.
And I would ask all those in favor of miss Petter says
amendment as documented on the shares screen.
Please do so by raising your hand,
I'm sorry, I'm having a really hard time counting folks.
Keep your hands raised.
-: What a roll call, vote.
Be more helpful here.
No, just give me a moment.
Okay.
So I believe I see 12 in favor.
-: Please, lower your hands and all those opposed.
Please do the same by raising your hand.
-: I believe I see one against.
-: Okay.
So the motion passes and I do believe that brings us back to
the main motion, so if everyone's ready,
we will take the vote on the main motion as amended.
Ms. Martinez.
You just told me when you're ready.
Go ahead.
Okay, all those in favor of the main motion as amended,
please show by the raising of your hand.
-: See 13 in favor.
-: All those opposed, please lower your hands,
all those opposed, please show.
So by raising your hand.
-: One against.
-: Okay, the motion carries and the motion is passed,
and I believe that should conclude the Consent Agenda.
All right.
And that will actually move us to item number two today.
Video,
the full proposed new 19 TAC Chapter 61 school district,
Subchapter B special purpose districts,
60 one.one Oh one applicant ability of state law for special
purpose school districts, and I believe I have Mr.
Rowley to call on this.
Okay, so we're,
we're talking about the recommendation from the Board then?
Correct.
Okay.
I didn't know, that was the first one.
Are
are we not voting on the recommendations with regard to the
PSF matters also now.
-: Mr. Rally,
would it be helpful for me to pull it up on the screen for
you?
But I thought we.
-: Were, there were other agenda items that we recommended
that had to do with the distribution rate and
and then also whatever it was about the allocation.
-: So we just completed the Consent Agenda.
That was all consent, so as Dr. Ellis said,
we are now just getting to item number two committee of the
full Board, okay.
-: Yeah, well, I didn't,
I didn't know that those stayed on consent.
So sorry about that.
-: That's okay, so.
-: So this is on check me on this Monica,
but it's on page five of the committee,
the full Board minutes, official agenda item number two,
I believe and recommended the State Board of Education
approved for first reading and filing authorization proposed
new 19 TAC Chapter 61 school districts.
Subject B special purpose school districts sanctions
61.101 applicability of state law for special purpose school
districts as amended by the committee, the full Board.
All right, we have the motion as presented.
Is there any objection?
Any further discussion?
Okay, so I'm sorry.
There was no objection, so the motion passes,
but correct with Skype.
-: That will work, yes.
Okay.
-: Thank you, members.
We'll move to item number three.
And I believe that was all we have for the committee of the
full Board, right?
I think so.
Okay.
Now we will go into the committee of instructions and
we're going to start with item number three,
which is proposed amendments to 19 TAC Chapter 74 curriculum
requirements of Chapter, a required curriculum,
74.1 essential knowledge and skills and 74.3 description of
a required secondary curriculum, and I'll call them.
-: Before you do chairman.
I just want to remind Board members that if their cameras
are off, they will be shown as absent for these votes.
-: Thank you.
-: How's are on and they're not visible.
-: If their cameras are on and they're not visible.
I'm also marking them as absent for the vote.
Yes.
Give me just a minute.
Lost my place here.
-: Alright.
-: First one is
proposed amendments to 19 TAC Chapter 74 curriculum
requirements, subject, or a required curriculum,
74.1 essential knowledge and skills and 74.3 description of
a required secondary curriculum.
It's refers to reading and following authorization.
And on behalf of the committee on instruction,
I moved at the State Board of Education approved for first
reading and falling off the proposed amendments to 19 TAC
Chapter 74 curriculum requirements, Subchapter,
a required curriculum,
74.1 essential knowledge and skills and 74.3 description of
a required secondary curriculum as amended.
Is there any discussion on the subtle,
just go ahead and vote, I think that's probably a better,
I would ask those in favor of this motion.
Please show by raising your hand,
You can lower your hands, that's 14 in favor,
all those opposed, please do.
So all those opposed, please show by raising your hand,
There is a majority in favor in the recommendation is
adopted, but I'll move us on to item number four,
which is proposed new 19 TAC Chapter one 20 other central
knowledge and skills, so Chapter eight character traits.
-: Yes.
Thank you, Mr. chair,
on behalf of the committee on instruction that the state
Board of education approved for first reading and following
authorization proposed new 19 TAC Chapter one 20 other
essential knowledge and other essential knowledge and
skills, subject character traits.
And can I say something real quick?
We, I think we all pretty much felt that this was kind of
redundant because our teachers do this every day,
all day long.
They start in the morning and they teach character traits
from the time the kids get there until the time they leave.
So, but this just makes it totally official.
So we want to thank the teachers because we know they're
already doing this.
Thank you for that note.
Is there any discussion on steam as hard as hand
that the teachers are already expected
specifically,
I'm telling you,
but I saw
the legislature because we had to have a separate document.
How we're going to solve this Meltem alone.
Would you like for me to address that?
-: Yes ma'am please.
-: So I think there are two things Ms. Hardy,
to your point about your belief that everything is in the
social studies.
As I explained to the committee on instruction yesterday,
we took a much more conservative and literal approach to
identifying where that is in the standards.
Because as many of you have have said before,
you've got really good teachers out there will know to do X,
Y, or Z.
That doesn't mean that everybody is.
And so while I can absolutely appreciate that you would have
social studies teachers who would take the language and
identify where that could be incorporated.
It's not in your standards.
And there is a statutory requirement that you put it in your
standards.
So the alternative is you open up those subjects and change
your standards, which
my understanding from the committee on instruction,
that was not your desire.
We offered this alternative approach,
which the committee of the full Board agreed to add a
previous meeting and in terms of what you can do or what we
can collectively do to help teachers understand that this is
not an in addition to what we discussed with the committee
on instruction yesterday,
is that we can use the text guides to help teachers to make
those connections.
I also liken this to the incorporation of the English
language proficiency standards.
It's a separate set of standards in your administrative
role, but they don't,
they're not taught separate and apart from the content.
And so we do believe that that's a way that we can help
teachers who don't already have that understanding to
understand where and how they can make those connections
with the content that they're already.
And I appreciate that.
I realized your hands are tied with whatever anyway,
but the fact is we have
this as a separate whatever.
I'll also say, if they taught those courses,
like they're supposed
to teach social studies, for example.
And
I appreciate what I find it.
We have to go to this extent already.
Well, again,
your alternative is to reopen the social studies standards.
-: Raising your hand or clapping to Ms. Hardy.
-: I am clapping to Ms. Hardy because I agreed.
And yesterday I think I tried to force Monica to note my
begrudging support to this because our teachers are already
doing this,
but we have ultimately no choice because this is a statutory
requirement, but it also sounds like we're telling teachers,
Hey, you're not doing your job.
So here's some more work so that you can check a box of
compliance for what you're already doing.
Okay, any other comments or questions I've got Ms.
Little, I totally agree with Ms.
Perez,
and I think this is redundant and that we're asking our
teachers do it.
I plan to follow up with some of my curriculum directors and
see how this is being presented to them to make sure that
they are interpreting this as something that they're
already,
and don't take this as something additional that they have
to add.
And I would encourage my Board colleagues to do the same.
-: Thank you.
Alright, any other discussion on this matter.
-: The vote.
So I would ask all those in favor.
Please do so by show it by showing your hand,
raising your hand.
-: Okay.
-: Again, a very begrudging agreement.
I see 12 in favor, 13 in favor, you may lower your hands.
-: And all those opposed, please do.
So by showing your hand
in
there is a majority in favor and the recommendation was
adopted, and that will move up to number five,
which is proposal proposed approval of innovative courses.
And I'm back to Ms. Melton, Milan.
-: I thank you.
On behalf of the community on instruction,
I knew that the State Board of Education approved for a
period of five years,
the following innovative courses that do not fall within any
of the subject areas of the foundation or enrichment
curriculum advancement via individual determination,
avid level one, advanced via individual determination,
avid level to advancement via individual determination,
avid level three advancement via individual determination,
avid for path college slash career one path
college slash career two path college slash career three
path college slash career career for peer assistance and
leadership pal one and peer assistance and leadership pal to
and approved for a period of two years and a new course
titled civic discourse.
-: All right, members, you've heard the motion.
Is there any discussion on this motion?
And then Ms. Hardy again,
please do so by raising your zoom hand just helps.
It helps me keep up with everything.
-: Thank you, and then my mountain alone,
just out of curiosity, who, who,
what district is presenting the civil discourse course of
Ms, Ramos?
Can you, yes.
Ma'am an application that comes from a district.
It's an application that's coming from an entity called day
of unity.
They have piloted the course in a district here in the state
of Texas, as well as outside of the state of Texas.
Fantastic, do you know which district by chance?
No, but I can look it up and send that to you.
Thank you.
-: Alright, Ms. Hardy.
-: You're muted, Pat.
-: Mr. Ramos.
-: So avid is approved as a state innovative course,
which allows students to earn elective credit for
graduation.
My understanding is it was once only available a local
credibly, I think she's asking, what are you asking?
Why is it on the agenda?
Because that's been around for so long, it's a renewal.
-: Okay.
-: So they have to renew.
So as you can see the there's a period of time for the
approvals, we do bring these back to you periodically.
And so it's just up for renewal,
make some minor adjustments to the course to update it.
And so they, they also submitted it for that,
But after the Epic.
-: Okay.
-: That's a course that is offered.
That is actually an application from a school district.
And I can look up exactly which district that is, but it is,
it's somewhat similar to avid in nature in that it's
preparing students for college readiness,
teaching them study skills and things of that.
-: Mr. rally's hand raised.
Let's see it lower, do you still have a question?
Alright, so I see no other hands raised here.
So you remember, as you have heard the motion,
so we will go ahead and vote.
I would ask all those in favor.
Please do so by showing your hand.
-: You may lower your hands 14 in favor.
-: And any of those posts, please do.
So by showing your hand,
there is a majority in favor and the recommendation is
adopted.
And I think the last one for Ms.
Melton mom's group is item number six,
which is the update regarding orgo.
I'll call them Ms. Melton alone.
-: All right, thank you.
As you remember, in our last meeting,
we assessed them a fine of $113,494.
And that was because they made changes in their books and
did not bring it to us for approval.
So we penalize them that amount of money.
It was due June, June 4th, fourth, excuse me.
And we received it may the fourth and I'm sorry,
it was due June 1st, and we received it on may the fourth.
It was deposited in the instructional materials fund and
disperse the schools accordingly.
And in,
in our September meeting Vaughn and his staff are going to
bring back some recommendations to us
that we hope can be a plan in the future to deter our
textbook companies and people that want to,
to make changes without.
-: Letting us approve them first, i,
it will be something to deter them from doing that.
We have several options and they're going to look at all the
options and bring us back what they consider to be our best
options.
And we will bring that to you at the next meeting and decide
on what we would like to do as we amend our process.
Monica or Sally, do you have anything to add?
No, ma'am you said it well.
And just to note that members, that is,
there's not a motion here.
This is just an update from the committee, right?
Okay, that's all we have in this Meltem alone.
And I will now move to the committee on school finance,
permanent school fund item number seven,
proposed amendments, 19 TAC Chapter one to nine, budgeting,
accounting, and auditing.
So Chapter B, Texas education agency audit functions.
What am I not 23 school district,
independent audits and agreed upon procedures.
And I'll call them just from meeting Mr.
Chairman on behalf of the committee,
I move that the State Board of Education approved for second
reading and final adoption proposed amendment 19,
the Chapter one Oh nine, budgeting,
accounting and auditing Chapter B,
Texas education agency audit functions one Oh 9.23 school
district independent audits and agreed upon procedures and
make an affirmative finding that immediate adoption of 19
PAC Chapter one Oh nine, budgeting,
accounting and auditing Subchapter B,
Texas education agency audit functions 3.23 school
districts, independent audits,
and agreed upon procedures is necessary and shall have an
effective date of August 31st of 20, 20.
Sorry about that, members.
You have heard the motion, I didn't know.
This does require to vote.
Is there any further discussion on this motion?
All right, hearing none,
we will do a vote so we can count the two thirds.
I want to ask all those in favor.
Please do so by showing a raising of your hand,
Your hands, that's 14 and favor and all those opposed.
Please show by raising your hand.
There are two thirds in favor in the recommendation is
adopted, and that will move us on to item number eight,
which is a review of proposed revisions,
19 TAC Chapter two 32 general certification provisions.
And this is I'm sorry,
that just make note that that was the last item for Mr.
Mader, I was thinking of realism.
Thank you, Mr. Hayner, so now we're onto that credit for Ms.
Cargill, this is item number eight,
review of proposed business,
19 TAC Chapter two 32 general certification provisions.
And I'll call on this cargo.
-: So members on the committee on school initiatives minutes.
This is on page one.
So the committee recommends to that the state Board of
education take no action on the proposed revisions to 19 TAC
Chapter Chapter two 32 general certification provisions.
-: Right members you've heard the motion.
Is there any further discussion on this item hearing none.
I'll ask all those in favor.
Please do so by showing the raising of your hand.
-: May lower your hands 14 and 15.
-: All those opposed, please show by raising your hand.
So none there is a majority of the favor and the
recommendation is adopted.
-: So just one quick announcement, Mr.
Chair,
that the charter school interviews are scheduled for the
week of July 27th.
I think the 27th through the 29th and staff is very busy
reviewing the applications that have moved forward to the
interviews.
And it looks like that they will be helped by zoom.
So Heather told me today she will be getting the interview
schedule tests as soon as they have it pulled together.
-: The clarification that will be that's depending on the
Commissioner making his decisions, oh,
I'm sorry that that's before that's okay, I'm thinking of.
-: It's already, yeah.
They've already told,
told us we're going to go to the interview phase,
but then yeah, before the Commissioner makes this decision.
Right, right.
Okay.
-: Sorry about that.
Are there any other reports from the committee chairs?
I thing none of this does get us at the conclusion of our
agenda.
Are there any other reports of other state Board of
education members regarding agenda items,
any educational activities,
concerns in individual districts or any other personal
information that any member would like to share as we
conclude the meeting?
-: Well, we probably should say something to Mr.
Mercer being that it's his 30th anniversary of his 35th
birthday.
-: Absolutely a happy birthday in case we forget it's it's
written behind them right there.
So I think kudos to your staff, Mr.
Mercer,
for getting that display behind you learned a new spelling
word, I can spell Emmy DeCare.
Medicare.
I can quickly just quick things, I wanted to an attaboy.
-: To chairman Rowley.
I was reviewing things from last time from this time and
Marty, I'll be very honored.
I was watching the time that you kind of brought us back
together, last session.
He even says you now, so in September,
I'll be presenting you the coveted,
a Mercer or hurting cash award, Marty.
I'm thinking of her in that one, Marissa,
I want to talk about Rafa and I had a conversation going
about our love for coffee, Cuban coffee.
And, and how do I need to get off of coffee?
And, but tell Rafa he was right a Monday with 262 testifiers
Monday was a bad day to get up coffee, okay.
Yeah, absolutely.
Two more things to Mr. robins.
Robinson, dr.
Robinson, my staff gave you my covered it.
I love coconut shrimp, but next time I'm in the Gulf coast.
If you take me out,
I need to know what does the coconut shrimp look like?
Is that part of the evolution process?
Maybe we should put in our biology, a coconut shrimp.
What does that look like?
She's got some good coconut shrimp.
Well,
what'd they look like in the Gulf of Mexico there a coconut
tree Farrell's coming off.
Okay.
In about three weeks, I get a new promotion.
I'm very proud of going to Colorado Springs.
I'll be promoted to grandfather, so I'm very happy,
very happy about it, and one last thing, seriously,
y'all know how you know, just my prayer.
I'm much, I love praying in a serious,
I've been praying for years that God would restore my hair.
The good news is that God answered my prayer to restore
here.
The bad news is, well, there you go.
Okay.
Thank y'all have a blessed summer points on that.
Congrats for being a grandpa.
I am against anyone getting off a coffee and I am also very
thankful that we have our vice chair there to keep us in
line, he does.
It does a great job, Mr.
Ms, Cargill.
-: No, I was waving my whatever for Ken's comments.
-: Do we have any other comments from any members?
I am seeing none, so a couple of closing thoughts from me,
number one,
and I know I don't want to just sound repetitive,
like I'm saying it just to stay at, but thanks to the staff.
This is an incredible undertaking to get all these people
together with the technology on top of what they had to do
to prepare for our meeting in a normal setting, so again,
I'm not just saying that to continually say that I have a
great appreciation for all the staff,
not just those who are on the call with us,
but those behind the scenes as well.
So I do want to stay in that and then last.
-: Thank you for, for saying that.
And I just,
I want to make sure that Board members know Jessica Snyder
and Steve Wilder who have been with you,
but not on camera have been doing yeoman's work in trying to
facilitate all of these committee meetings virtually
it's challenging to do in person it's even more challenging
to do by zoom.
And I would say additionally challenging because they're
trying to tackle three subject areas all at the same time.
So I just want to make sure that you all know all of these
documents, all of this information that you're getting,
the two of them are, are, are,
if it weren't for the two of them,
none of that work would be happening.
And so I want to make sure you know,
where all of that work is coming from.
-: Mr. chair, Mr. Rowley.
-: Yeah.
Monica enter typical fashion is deferring a deflecting,
the praise to her staff, which is appropriate,
but we all should note as well, that,
that she is caring about two additional positions,
at least until she has time to fill Debbie Radcliffe's
position, she's been doing that.
And she and Lenny, I want to affirm them.
They've done a fabulous job in Monica, particularly she,
she won't typically receive that praise for herself,
but that she has been carrying a great deal of
responsibility and has done it flawlessly as usual.
So kudos to her absolutely great point.
And then my last point is just to thank all 14 of my other
members here for all the work they have done this week,
specifically really almost say just about Monday and
Tuesday, I mean, those were two really incredible days,
16 hours of testimony from all aspects across spectrums of
viewpoints and just, it was nothing but respect and,
and from all sides from those testifying,
from those listening, from the questions,
I was very proud to be part of this,
this Board and the testimony that we were part of on Monday.
And then additionally, during our discussion on Tuesday,
I think we have some,
some really good discussions and I was proud to be a part of
and looking forward to where this is going again.
That was just discussing.
We have first reading and second reading.
So a lot more work to make these processes specifically for
these three subjects that we're reviewing even better as we
move towards that for tests.
Thank you that Jerry Ellison,
I just wanted to commend DEA staff for this week,
that marathon meeting,
we had to start start our first day ending at 1:00 AM and
then being bright eyed and bushy tailed the next day.
I just want to commend them on helping us through all of
that, and.
-: As we're wrapping up,
I know that this will be the last time we need prior to the
return of schools, and so on a more personal note,
I just wanted to urge some of you, I mean,
this is just my opinion and how I feel, but, you know,
I'd like to urge some of you to maybe impress upon our
Commissioner and those of you that have access to the
Governor to maybe require that,
that our schools at least meet the minimum requiring for
phase openings under the CDC guidelines,
before we can determine any in-person instruction for our
schools, you know,
that we're able to give districts at the local level,
the flexibility that they need for reopening decisions
on, you know, which would include input from educators,
educated organizations, as importantly,
as parents and local health officials, as you all know,
we had to cancel our meeting in Austin because of the
shelter in place requirements, it was originally,
we were going to come in,
but we're going to do all the days at tea.
Then we went to two days a TA to all zoom and we all
canceled them.
So given that it's such a fluid situation with this,
you know,
I'd also like to at least request that maybe those of you
that agree with,
with what I'm suggesting that we impress upon our
Commissioner and the Governor, that,
that the idea that students and faculty be mandated to wear
some type of face coverings,
if they're going to come in and teach schools,
you know, because the last thing that we need,
and then you all heard,
and I didn't get to finish my questioning of the
Commissioner because of the limited time and all of us had
questions, but you know, there's a lot of,
a lot of people who have reached out,
I'm sure to each of you,
as they have to me about the concerns that they have,
parents who feel uneasy in this in this
time, I mean,
you've seen it everywhere as businesses is closed.
And so I plan on sending a letter to the Commissioner and to
the Governor outlining some concerns that I have.
And I would hope that if you guys are getting similar
concerns that maybe you do the same thing.
I think that if enough of us do it,
there is a proper and safe way to ensure that the over
700,000 employees in our schools and the over 5 million
students that we represent can be brought back in some safe
fashion.
I don't want to get into we're discussing a specific item
posting for more,
just giving you all my thoughts as we're closing up.
This is how I've been feeling this in a very stressful
situation that we're dealing with Statewide.
And I wanted to share my thoughts with you guys to impress
upon you that if any of you,
any of the 14 remaining members feel as I do that,
please use your voice.
Why is the reaching out to our Commissioner and to the
Governor should get your thoughts.
We were calling miss Melka Malone.
-: Thank you, Mr.
Chair, in addition to kudos to staff for all that they do.
I think we need to give you a hand because you kept the
meeting moving smoothly on Monday and didn't allow, I mean,
you're the one who set the mood for the whole meeting.
And so we appreciate you and we appreciate you keeping
things running and moving and just helping us have a good
meeting, thank you.
-: Ms. Milton Malone,
but I think it's credit to the team all the way around.
So all right, members, I see no other hands raised,
so y'all have a great holiday weekend coming up.
We've got the fourth and I'm looking forward to everyone's
spending some time with family and remembering that,
and we will see each of you very soon meeting is adjourned.