Midland ISD board upholds administration's level-2 decisions after grievance alleging Open Meetings Act failures

A Midland Independent School District community member told trustees on Thursday that the district's Dec. 16, 2025 board meeting raised serious transparency and legal concerns because the presiding officer participated remotely and could not adequately see other trustees during official actions.

Ray Denajos, the grievant, presented a level-3 consolidated grievance and said the record and screenshots show the presiding officer participating from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, while stating during the meeting that he could not see or hear other trustees. "This grievance is about governmental transparency, procedural integrity, and whether this board complied with the Texas Open Meetings Act while conducting official board business that continues to affect this district today," Denajos told the board.

The grievance centered on whether provisions of the Texas Government Code that govern video-conference meetings were applicable and whether the district's public notice and procedures met the statute's transparency safeguards. Denajos argued that because the presiding officer appeared not to have full visibility of voting trustees, the public could not be confident that votes and deliberations were transparent.

Mark Daley, the board's attorney, summarized the administration's position and the written record, pointing trustees to two level-2 decisions in the packet (Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 7). Daley said the administration asked the board to uphold the level-2 rulings and explained that the subsections cited in the grievance (Texas Gov. Code 551.127(c) and (e)) apply to state agencies or governmental bodies that extend into three or more counties and therefore were not applicable to Midland ISD, which operates within a single county. Daley also noted that the level-2 record includes written determinations and photographic screenshots considered in the review.

Trustees asked Denajos and counsel multiple questions about the meaning and scope of the three-county rule, whether two-way audio and video had been maintained, and whether the screenshots in the record showed the presiding officer was not visible while votes occurred. Denajos said the screenshots and the record supported his concerns and asked the board to take corrective actions, including stricter compliance for future remote participation and reconsideration of leadership actions taken during the Dec. 16 meeting.

After asking questions, the board went into closed session to consult with legal counsel under the Texas Government Code provisions cited on the agenda. When the board reconvened in open session, one trustee moved to reaffirm and uphold the level-2 decisions; the motion was seconded and the board voted in favor, 4-0.

The board did not grant the remedies requested in the grievance at this meeting; the motion on the floor affirmed the administration's prior level-2 findings and denied overturning them. The meeting adjourned shortly after the vote.

The record referenced by trustees includes Exhibit 3 (timeliness determination) and Exhibit 7 (a multi-page level-2 written decision), plus screenshots noted on pages 25-26 of the grievance record. The board's action was procedural: trustees opted to uphold the prior administrative determinations after legal consultation rather than order new remedies or vote to reopen decisions made following the Dec. 16 meeting.