The Magnolia Independent School District Board of Trustees on April 17 voted to deny a Level 3 appeal from an employee identified in the record as Mr. Brown, concluding the grievance was not filed within the 15 district-business-day deadline established by Board Policy FNG (Local).

The issue before the board was narrowly limited to timeliness. Assistant Superintendent for Administration Ben King told trustees, “Was mister Brown's complaint filed timely according to MISD board the answer is no. It was not.” King said the district’s local record shows the incident occurred on Oct. 21, 2024, and that Mr. Brown filed a Level 1 complaint 24 district business days later, exceeding the 15-business-day limit the policy requires.

Mr. Brown told the board he first learned of the Oct. 21 incident on that date and described efforts to obtain guidance and grievance forms from district staff. He said he emailed the board on Nov. 4 and again on Nov. 13, and that a grievance form was provided to him later in November. “So if we’re talking about timeliness, whatever happened behind closed doors, whatever happened to me seeking guidance from my superiors got squashed somewhere,” Mr. Brown said during public comment.

King and his written presentation to the board said the Level 1 dismissal was upheld at Level 2 and that the only issue properly before the board at Level 3 was whether the initial filing met the timeline in Policy FNG (Local). King reiterated that while timelines “are strictly enforced when it comes to the grievance process,” the district may still investigate or address concerns raised outside the grievance time limit as part of administrative action.

After a brief period in closed session to consult legal counsel under Texas Government Code chapter 551.071, a trustee moved to affirm the administration’s prior dismissals and deny the appeal and requested relief. The motion was seconded and trustees voted in favor; the chair announced the motion passed. The board’s action upheld the dismissals on procedural grounds and did not reach the underlying merits of Mr. Brown’s complaint.

The meeting record shows the board limited its consideration to the local record and the question of timeliness. No additional documents or witness testimony were accepted during the hearing, per the board’s stated procedure. The board adjourned after concluding the appeal.