Katy ISD meeting fills with competing public comment over trustees' posts about local Pride event

Dozens of speakers pressed the Katy Independent School District board of trustees during public comment on Oct. 27, 2025, sharply divided over recent social‑media posts by trustees Mary Ellen Cozella and Morgan Calhoun and their public criticism of a private Pride event that resulted in the event's cancellation by the venue.

Speakers who opposed the trustees’ posts urged the board to investigate whether the trustees violated board ethics and district policy or created a hostile climate for LGBTQ students and families. "Their false claims about Katy Bridal caused panic leading to last minute changes in our venue," Jesus Nieto, a community organizer and Katy Pride board member, told trustees. He asked the board to pursue a public reprimand or censure and to require constitutional, diversity and inclusion training for trustees and district leadership.

Other commenters defended the trustees’ actions as appropriate protection for children. "Trustees Cozella and Calhoun deserve commendation, not censure, for their actions," said Neil Stratton, who told the board he supported the trustees for "standing up for the children of Katy ISD." Several speakers framed their remarks as parental‑rights or child‑safety concerns and asked the board to support trustees who raised alarms about advertised activities at the private event.

Multiple public speakers cited specific consequences of the dispute: they said the venue Typhoon Texas canceled a privately contracted event after social‑media attention. Several commenters asked the board to apply the same standards it applies to staff social media conduct to elected trustees, noting teachers have been disciplined for online posts that reflect on the district.

Trustees and the board’s legal adviser repeatedly referenced board policy BED local on public comment procedures during the meeting; other commentators invoked the Texas Education Code and federal civil‑rights law, including Title IX and First Amendment concepts, in urging remedies ranging from censure to training. "When trustees invoke the name of God to justify exclusion or intolerance, they misuse both their platform and their principles," one speaker said, urging a policy review.

Board members did not take a disciplinary vote on the trustees during the Oct. 27 meeting. Several trustees and counsel told the public that complaints about trustee conduct or alleged policy violations could be referred to the policy committee or addressed through formal grievance channels. A number of speakers asked for an ethics review and public censure; supporters asked the board to commend the trustees instead.

The discussion threaded through the remainder of the public‑comment period, with many individuals on both sides of the issue using personal testimony, references to social‑media posts, and appeals to legal and constitutional standards. The board did not announce any immediate staff‑level investigations or formal disciplinary action against trustees during the meeting.

The board later proceeded to scheduled business, including academic and financial presentations, and took formal votes on consent items and a Level 3 employee grievance unrelated to the public‑comment dispute.

Clarifying details: speakers repeatedly asserted that Typhoon Texas canceled a private event after online pressure; board staff and counsel noted that trustees are elected officials and that the application of staff social‑media rules to trustees is not an automatic or settled process. Specific requests from public commenters included a) a formal ethics review or censure of the two trustees, b) publication of any findings, and c) mandatory trustee training on constitutional and inclusion obligations.

Ending: The dispute dominated the Oct. 27 public‑comment docket, and trustees signaled the matter would be considered further through policy committee review or other district processes rather than by immediate discipline at that meeting.