Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student‑advisory‑member topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board deadlocks on creating a student advisory member task force after public support from students and educators
Summary
After students, parent groups and the El Paso Teachers Association urged the board to add a non‑voting student advisory member, trustees failed to pass a motion to create a task force to draft a process; vote tied 3–3.
Public commenters and student leaders urged the El Paso ISD Board of Trustees to create a non‑voting student advisory member position on the board so students would have an ongoing, formal mechanism to provide input on policy discussions.
Several student speakers and youth advocates addressed the trustees. Jacob Lozano, a junior who currently serves on a student advisory board in another district, told trustees student representatives “offer a viewpoint that school administration simply cannot” and said a student member “can hold adults accountable for the decisions that affect us.” Norma Delarosa, president of the El Paso Teachers Association, urged trustees to appoint a student advisory member and asked the board to design a process that allows meaningful engagement rather than a symbolic seat.
Trustees discussed the legal and procedural implications. General counsel and staff reminded the board that Texas Education Code contains a specific provision (section 11.0511) that governs student trustee positions in certain circumstances — notably, the code language cited in the meeting applies to districts operating under a campus turnaround plan and includes required policy elements such as term length, vacancy procedures and removal processes. Trustees asked staff to research legal constraints and similar models in other Texas districts before adopting a process.
Trustee Leah Henani moved to create a task force and bring a proposed process and procedures back to the board in August; Trustee Jack Loveridge seconded the motion. During roll call the motion failed 3–3. Board members who spoke voiced differing views: Trustee Alex Cuellar expressed support for a task force and highlighted the value of student input; Trustee Daniel Call opposed a task‑force approach and said the board’s agendas and public comment provide other means for student input.
The board did not adopt a timeline or formal process at the meeting. Several trustees said they want a deliberate, legally reviewed plan before establishing a new advisory structure.
Ending: The board heard strong public support for student representation, but a motion to create a drafting task force failed on a 3–3 tie. Staff and trustees said legal review and a fuller proposal will be necessary before any non‑voting student position could be established.
