DALLAS – After voters granted Dallas Independent School District nearly $3.5 billion in bond funding, the district proposed a policy update that would limit public participation at school board meetings. The policy update will likely be up for a vote at the December 17 meeting.

According to a discussion proposal on the November 5 agenda, audience participation on agenda items would be limited to two minutes. Currently, the maximum time for each speaker is three minutes. There will also be adjustments to how many minutes are allocated if there are more than 30 speakers. In order to comply with the time limit, speakers’ time at the microphone will be adjusted to fit. Overall, the total time for registered speakers on agenda items is limited to an hour. If an agenda item is pulled ahead of or at the time of the meeting, no one will be able to speak on that topic. 

The total time for registered speakers to address agenda items on a public hearing agenda will be limited to 30 minutes, and speakers will have two minutes each. If a speaker goes off topic from the agenda item at a public hearing, his or her microphone will be turned off.

Chief of Staff Dr. Pamela Lear stated at the November 5 meeting that these changes are to “align policy” with the statute passed in September 2019, TEX. GOV’T CODE § 551.007, that says the board should adopt “reasonable rules” that will allow stakeholders and the community to speak.

“So this policy does align with that statute,” Lear said. "We believe it’s the duty of the board to carry out the operational functions. So we believe refining or adjusting BED (LOCAL) will allow the board to do that.”

During the public forum, a speaker cited HB 2840 to assert that this update to the policy was “illegal and unethical,” and a “great way to lose support from parents.” DISD Superintendent Dr. Michael Hinojosa said these comments were a “hyperbole,” and told board members to take control of their meetings. 

Here are Dr. Hinojosa’s full comments from the meeting, when he took the time to address the board before Lear went over the proposed changes:

“This policy does not violate the law. Ramona would not let me put it on there be violated the law. In fact, it honors every intent and spirit of the law. And the hyperbole that we have heard is insulting. And in fact, Dr. Lear has given you five other examples. And we're modeling it after the city of Dallas. We're modeling it, — I’m modeling it, not we, I am — after the city of Dallas, after these other school districts which say that this is not a public meeting, this is a meeting of the board that’s held in public. This is your meeting. You need to take control of your meeting, so you can do the business of the board. Now, you're still going to have an hour of speakers and they still get two minutes, if you adopt this policy. But this is nothing but good governance. This is nothing but you taking control of your destiny. And you may not agree with it, but I just couldn't pass this opportunity to tell you that this is what your job is: governance and oversight.”

Dallas ISD parent Barry Jacobs, whose wife Nancy Rodriguez is headed to a December runoff for Lakewood’s District 2 race, was outraged when he saw the district’s proposal. He said the speakers' time is essential for making voices heard and shouldn’t be shortened.

Barry Jacobs outside of his Lakewood home discussing the proposal. (Spectrum News 1)

"Look, going and hanging out at school board meeting for four hours so that you can have three minutes to talk to the trustees is not a particularly pleasant experience. I’ve seen parents there who have, you know, five kids in tow because they don't have childcare, but they still care enough to go out there and take the effort to say their three minutes’ worth. It’s just astonishing to me that the district would care so little about that person that they want to shut that off, or even limit it. I mean, we should be reaching out to the parents, members of our community for more input, not less,” Jacobs said.

For Jacobs, it goes without saying that he wants this measure to fail, saying any trustee who doesn’t have the time to listen to his or her constituents should resign.

“They give lip service to the notion that I want parental engagement. Well, parental engagement means listening to people. It means allowing people the opportunity to come say their peace,” Jacobs said. "We absolutely need a direct line from the public to the trustees, it should not be abridged. If anything, it should be expanded. At the end of the day, you know, nothing has been as effective in terms of getting things done as rounding up 35 parents, going down to the school board and having them all speak. And believe me, they listen to that.”

Jacobs said he doesn’t think it’s coincidental a measure like this was proposed in the same week the largest school bond issuance ever in Texas, according to data from the Texas Bond Review Board, was approved. Many outspoken community members on social media were against this policy update as well, saying it’s marginalizing for taxpayers who just voted to approve billions of dollars to fund infrastructure and technology improvements. Proposition A gives $3.2 billion in funding for repairs and upgrades to a large chunk of campuses, with Proposition B giving $270 million to purchase upgraded district technology.

"We've got our money. Now we don't need to listen to you,” Jacobs said. "I can't express how outrageous that is.”

Jacobs also spoke to how he views the Dallas ISD school board is skewed, saying “well-heeled individuals” that put massive amounts of money into the school board races have control.

"Some of those don't even live in Dallas. They've, in my view, they've captured — and we're talking about a dozen, maybe two dozen people — they have captured control over our school district. And they're implementing provisions and policies that are, at best, experimental. They're making a laboratory of our schools and our kids. While their kids are, you know, not subject to this stuff.”

Jacobs did say that, “in fairness,” the proposal seemed to have originated from the district and not the board members, but he implores the trustees to not approve the policy update.

“It was sponsored by Pam Lear, who's Dr. Hinojosa’s chief of staff. I cannot imagine what they were thinking it. This should never have even been brought forward. And, again, the two trustees who spoke on the matter last night were absolutely opposed to it,” Jacobs said. “I hope that the other seven trustees have the same sentiment. It would not surprise me if there were some who were supportive of it, but this just has to fail."

District 3 Trustee Dan Micciche posted to Facebook his thoughts about the proposal, saying he won’t be supporting it.

DISD District 6 Trustee Joyce Foreman was very vocal about this policy update proposal before the November 5 meeting, posting the documents to Facebook for her constituents to view if they hadn’t yet seen the agenda item. In her post, she said she will be fighting against it. Foreman was fired up in the meeting, and her full statement addressing the policy update is below:

"So I'm just gonna start out by making a statement, Dr. Hinojosa. I don't need anybody around this horseshoe telling me what my job is. I know my job, and I do my job. So I don't appreciate that, I know my job. I have a real concern that we are trying to limit the public. So, me personally, there was an effort by this administration to make sure I didn’t speak. This administration, to make sure I didn't speak, right Ramona? Why are we trying to limit people? You just got $3.5 billion from the public. Why would you want to limit them? How often do we have 30 speakers? It's only when we have hot issues.

And this policy goes on to limit them even more. Because you can pull an item from the agenda, and they will not be allowed to speak on it. You just had a situation where all the trustees but me, cause I get the binder, didn’t have a document. So if you pull an item an hour before the meeting, guess what, they don't get to speak. Do you think that's fair? No, it's not. They're here addressing concerns. If we would only take the time to listen to them. It doesn't mean we have to do what they say, it’s listening to them, understanding that they have some concerns. They care about this district, and we act like we don't want to hear. I'm not gonna support it. I don't care who else supports it. These are your constituents that you're gonna be telling that they can’t speak. The people who vote for you. Is that what you’re gonna do? Tell them that they can’t speak? …that's not right. Excuse me for being angry, but that's right.

Let's go on just to talk a little bit more about the problem with pulling it from the agenda. Then you added an additional part on page 205. Under speakers at public hearings, ‘speakers must limit remarks to the specific subject matter being considered by the board,’ or you can cut their mic off. If they tell you they’re gonna speak to an agenda item and they don't speak to it, you can cut their mic off. What’s fair about that? I think is relatively heartless. And I'm not going to be supporting anything that would limit the speakers. What I would suggest, if you've got speakers on specific items, talk to them before they sign up to speak or after they sign up to speak and see if they're willing to listen to what you have to say. But trying to limit them, just like you tried to limit me, is not right. Absolutely not right.”

After Foreman spoke, DISD District 5 Trustee Maxie Johnson passionately spoke out against the proposal as well, saying that one point, he was on the opposite side of the table speaking out as a parent and a PTA dad. He said it was tough to limit comments to just a three-minute time period and he vehemently opposes limiting the time to just two minutes. Johnson called it “suppression,” and said the board is "better than this." His full remarks are below:

"I’m a pastor, so scripture says, ‘who much is given, much is required.’ That’s text. We've been given much around this, but I'm talking to my colleagues now. If we cut off the voice of our community, we're missing them. We've been given a lot, so we ought to listen to them. I cannot support this because it's silencing the voices of not only parents, but kids. How do I know? Because not too long ago, a year and a half, almost two years, I sat on the opposite side of this table coming down here fighting for South Oak Cliff High School… and do you know how hard it was to try to cram all of the stuff into three minutes that we was feeling emotionally? Three minutes. Kids came here and talked for three minutes. Do you know how hard it was for the kids to put their emotions and how they [were] really feeling and the truth and facts on a piece of paper for three minutes? And it still wasn't enough time to get things done.

It took four years just to get stuff done over in the black community. Let's just be honest, black kids was fighting for a new school, a new high school. Unless I'm mistaken, we still ain't got a brand new high school. Not built from the ground up in the black community. Maybe the Hispanic community, in the white community, but not in the black community. We get renovated schools. But the kids [were] speaking about that. So now you're saying that we cannot allow our parents, community, to have three minutes to talk to their board who they elected? That’s suppression… I can't support this. And my community is outraged. And I'm outraged. We talk about accountability and transparency, but we're gonna shut the mouth of the people that voted for us?

I saw the comments on Facebook and all that. I didn't say anything because I already know in my heart I couldn’t support this. And I'm surprised that the administration is even bringing this to the table. As Trustee Foreman said, ‘they vote for us, they elected us to be their voice.’ But there are times when we need to listen to them, and they need to come address not just their trustee but other trustees. Trustee Mackey, you’ve been in my community. You see some of the things we deal with… you see some of the things that go on, three minutes cannot, a minute cannot discuss that. We need to take time to listen to the kids that come down here… We may not agree all the time, but our community wants us to listen to them. And I guarantee you — take it from someone that was on the opposite side of the table that was coming down here. And my son came down, you know how nervous he was to speak for three minutes? But it was necessary and he kept saying ‘Dad, I can't get all this out, I don't know how to do it.’ I said speak from your heart. We're limiting kids. Not just grownups, kids. And I want to call on my board colleagues to really think about this because I believe we're really better than this. I respect every trustee on this board. And this is not political speech, this is from my heart because I was there. Don’t cut our kids off, don’t cut the voices of the community off. We need them and they need us to listen.”

The Dallas ISD administration later issued this statement:

“Dallas ISD administration has pulled a proposal to increase efficiency in its public participation process at board meetings. The recommendation was presented to the Dallas ISD Board of Trustees during its regularly scheduled briefing earlier this month.

The proposal was intended to update the board's public speaking policy BED (Local) by implementing new time limits for agenda items that would allow speakers to continue exercising their right to make public comment, while also allowing the board to efficiently maintain the flow of government. A second reading of the policy was expected during the board’s upcoming Dec. 3 briefing. The policy has been pulled from the agenda.”