Trustees discussed required revisions to local policy FFG (student welfare: child abuse and neglect) that were prompted by new state laws and debated the effect of those laws on the Cypress‑Fairbanks ISD Police Department’s investigative role.

A trustee who spoke during the policy discussion said the changes to local policy FFG are required by recent Texas legislation — specifically HB 1106, HB 1151 and SB 571 — and expressed concern that the statutory revisions remove ISD police from the list of agencies that can initially receive reports of suspected abuse, which could delay investigations. “The revisions to local policy FFG are required by new state laws that were passed this spring, specifically HB 1106, HB 1151, and SB 571,” Trustee Julie said, and she added concern that the change “removes the ability for Cypress Fairbanks ISD police to investigate these allegations.”

General Counsel provided clarification referencing Chapter 261 of the Texas Family Code and the Texas Open Meetings Act provisions discussed elsewhere in the meeting. Counsel said the statutory change revised the list of state or local law enforcement agencies that may initially receive reports and that the list, as revised, does not explicitly include ISD police departments. Counsel said that in practice, local law enforcement agencies that respect and trust an ISD police department may refer matters to the ISD department for investigation because agencies can refer matters to overlapping jurisdictions; counsel identified that process as likely to occur with agencies that have confidence in CFISD police.

Trustees and district leaders emphasized support for the ISD police. “We do trust and believe in you,” one trustee told district officers. Superintendent and board participants also emphasized that superintendents do not interfere with criminal investigations and that ISD police chiefs operate independently regarding investigations.

Separately, trustees debated whether review of revised board operating procedures (BOP) could properly be discussed in closed session under the Texas Open Meetings Act. A trustee asked whether a closed‑session discussion of BOP was permissible; General Counsel answered that the Open Meetings Act permits closed sessions for “private consultation with the board’s attorney” (Tex. Gov’t Code §551.071) and for matters that involve the “duty” of a public officer (Tex. Gov’t Code §551.074), and said those exceptions would allow the board to review duties of public officials and consult counsel in closed session when appropriate. The trustee asking the question stated she would like outside counsel to advise the board on whether prior closed sessions had complied with the Open Meetings Act and formally requested advice on that point.

Discussion at the dais included repeated requests for transparency: one trustee asked that, if the board approves the revised BOP on Monday, a signature page be posted publicly listing which trustees signed the procedures. Other trustees said the governance committee had discussed the BOP language and had reached consensus on the presented changes. The governance committee’s substantive BOP recommendations included (1) enhanced guidelines on trustee requests for data and information, ensuring superintendent engagement for information requests and requiring newly created information requests to come from committees or the full board; and (2) prohibiting board members from recording private conversations with trustees, the superintendent, district staff or community members without the other parties’ knowledge and consent.

No final vote on the revised board operating procedures occurred at the work session; the item was scheduled for the regular meeting on Monday, Sept. 8, and some items (including personnel‑related recommendations) were set to be discussed in closed session as permitted by law.