Judson ISD board censures Trustee Jose A. Macias, imposes access and training restrictions

The Judson ISD Board of Trustees on a special meeting evening adopted two resolutions that censure Trustee Jose A. Macias and impose new sanctions and compliance requirements, the board announced after reconvening from closed session.

The board’s presiding officer read a resolution the board said documents a pattern of misconduct by Trustee Jose A. Macias that includes "abuse of official capacity," "misuse of official information," hostile work environment, retaliation, harassment and "oppression," and cites potential criminal statutes, according to the text read into the record. The resolution ordered public censure, mandatory training, temporary ineligibility for officer positions and limits on campus access and staff contact. "This censure is about protecting our employees," the presiding officer said while explaining the board’s rationale for the measure (Chair, S1).

Why it matters: Trustees said investigators reviewed emails, social‑media posts, videos, sworn statements and other documentary evidence and concluded Macias’s conduct harmed employees, disrupted operations and put confidential information at risk. The board said its actions are intended to uphold governance standards and protect students and staff; Trustee Macias disputed those findings and said the matter remains subject to litigation.

What the board adopted

- Resolution centering Trustee Jose A. Macias (agenda item 4c): The board’s text recounts alleged conduct and cites Texas statutory provisions; it imposes a public censure, requires completion of training referenced to district policy within 90 days with proof of completion, declares ineligibility for board officer positions for one year and includes a one‑year prohibition from entering district property and from initiating contact with district staff (with exceptions for superintendent or board president and for conducting board business). The resolution also directs referral of investigative findings and supporting documents to appropriate law enforcement agencies for review.

- Resolution finding noncompliance (agenda item 4d): The board adopted a follow‑up resolution that finds Trustee Macias failed to comply with prior corrective measures (adopted April 23, 2026) and court‑imposed conditions. The text imposes additional restrictions, clarifies procedures for limited campus visits (requests through the superintendent three business days in advance, with the option of a cabinet member or board officer present), requires completion of specified training hours within set timeframes, and requires a written acknowledgment of receipt and intent to comply within 10 calendar days. The resolution again authorizes referral of materials to law enforcement or court review.

Trustee responses and debate

Trustee Jose A. Macias responded on the record, disputing the board’s characterization of his conduct and saying the actions are politically motivated. Macias said the disputes are being litigated and that he intends to pursue relief in court. He also offered a public challenge: he said he would resign only if "Ms. Ryan" resigned as well, and said he planned to continue serving and press accountability claims in other forums (Jose A. Macias, Trustee).

Other trustees pushed back on Macias’s characterization. A trustee who participated in the motion argued the board was enforcing policies to protect employees and students, saying investigators reviewed documentary evidence and witness testimony and that the board had a duty to act when conduct threatened staff safety and governance integrity. Several trustees sought to clarify the scope of the new prohibitions — particularly the line about "initiating contact with district staff" — and the chair reread the relevant language to ensure the record reflected the exceptions and limits included in the resolution.

Votes and next steps

The board announced votes on the items after debate. The motion to adopt the censure resolution carried 4 to 2. The subsequent resolution finding noncompliance and imposing additional sanctions also passed 4 to 2. Earlier in the evening the board had voted to proceed on related closed‑session matters (agenda items 4a and 4b) with votes announced as 4 yes, 1 no and 1 abstention.

Both adopted resolutions direct staff to refer investigative findings and supporting documents to appropriate law‑enforcement authorities for review of any potential criminal violations mentioned in the texts. The resolutions also include procedural requirements for any limited campus access that may be permitted under court orders or board direction. The meeting adjourned at about 9:18 p.m.

Claims and disputes recorded in the meeting remain subject to ongoing litigation and investigation; the board’s actions reflect formal governance decisions taken in open session following a closed‑session review and were memorialized in the motions the board read and voted on.