Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Action topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Austin ISD board advances proposed termination of athletic director identified as E.N. after closed-session review
Summary
After more than two hours of public comment largely defending the coach, the Austin ISD board voted to approve a proposed termination for the athletic director identified by the initials E.N. The decision triggers a process allowing the employee to request a due‑process hearing.
The Austin Independent School District board approved a motion late Thursday to propose the termination of a professional employee identified in the agenda as E.N., the district’s middle‑school athletic director. The motion (moved by Secretary Foster and seconded by Trustee Hunter) passed with five trustees voting in favor and one abstention from Trustee Quintana.
The vote came after an extended public‑comment period in which dozens of parents, teachers and students urged the trustees not to remove the coach. Commenters described a long record of mentoring and leadership, and several speakers called for a fuller, unbiased investigation before any final action. Crystal Chilcolt, a Communities In Schools program director, and multiple parents described the coach’s role supporting students and the community.
Secretary Foster acknowledged the volume of public input but said the board’s deliberation would be governed by evidence and the matters before them. “For all of the public comment that we received … the decision has to be made on other factors than what we heard today,” Foster said on the dais.
Board counsel summarized the procedural effect of the trustees’ vote: approval of the motion does not terminate employment immediately but “effectively proposes the contract termination” and triggers the employee’s right to request a full due‑process hearing. If E.N. requests that hearing, the board will receive additional evidence and make a final determination at a later date.
The board took the vote after a closed executive session. Trustees offered very little public discussion on the merits immediately before the roll call; the board’s public remarks emphasized adherence to statutory process and the limits on discussion about personnel matters in an open meeting.
The district’s agenda identified the item as “proposed termination of professional employee during a term contract.” The administration has not provided additional public detail about the evidence reviewed in closed session; the counsel’s remarks made clear the formal process for next steps should the employee request a hearing.
