Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the District Split topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Voices erupt against proposed Keller ISD split as residents demand a vote
Summary
Dozens of parents, teachers, students and longtime residents used the board's public-comment period to urge trustees to stop a proposed district 'reshaping' (split), call for greater transparency and request a community vote; speakers alleged possible violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act and questioned tens of thousands in outside legal fees.
Dozens of residents and educators told the Keller ISD board on Feb. 27 they oppose the district "reshaping" plan and demanded the question be put to a public vote. Michelle Testerman told trustees that public records suggest possible violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act and the Texas Public Information Act and asked for resignations.
"Recent public records suggest that the Board members may have violated multiple laws and regulations including potential breaches to the Texas Open Meetings Act and the Texas Public Information Act," said Michelle Testerman during the audience-with-individuals segment. Other callers described heavy legal spending, redacted invoices and an appearance of secret discussions about a split.
A string of speakers — teachers, students and longtime residents — framed the split as a threat to programs and community unity. A Carpentry of concerns included projected legal costs, changes to shared campus uses and uncertainty for staff. Several student speakers urged trustees to consider the impact on programs that helped them earn college credit or advanced coursework.
Trustees did not take substantive action on the split at the meeting; the board's public-agenda protocols limited each speaker to one minute, and several speakers asked explicitly that any detachment be placed on an election ballot. Members of the audience repeatedly asked for more transparency and for the board to explain whether discussions had occurred off the public record.
Why it matters: The public comments signal sustained community resistance to a policy the board describes as a financial and operational option. Multiple speakers tied their objections to fiscal questions and trust in governance, elevating the issue beyond a technical boundary change to one bearing reputational and electoral consequences.
What the board said: The chair and administration repeatedly stressed the board's duty to analyze finances and confirmed that an independent forensic audit by RSM was completed and posted to the district website. No trustee motion to put a split to a public vote was presented or passed at the meeting.
What’s next: Residents asked for clearer timelines and a vote; trustees said they would continue studying legal and financial options and updating FAQs posted by the district.
