Keller school board now plans to keep public out of a meeting to discuss proposed split
READ MORE
Keller ISD controversy
Read our reporting on the possible plan to split Keller ISD into two districts.
Expand All
The Keller school board has apparently decided to talk about a controversial proposal to split the district behind closed doors instead of during a public meeting that had been scheduled for next week.
The board’s president, Charles Randklev, announced on Thursday that a specially called open meeting will now be an executive session closed to the public.
“The Keller ISD Board of Trustees will hold a special executive meeting on January 16th to discuss the possibility of reshaping our district,” he wrote in a Facebook post. “Our North Star has and always will be our students and educators.”
Keller is the fourth-largest district in Tarrant County and is considered one of the most desirable for its quality of schools. It has more than 34,000 students, including many living in the cities of Fort Worth, Colleyville, Haltom City, Hurst, North Richland Hills, Southlake, Watauga and Westlake. While some of its schools serve wealthy neighborhoods, others are in lower-income, working class communities.
Every district school in Keller, Colleyville and Southlake received an “A” rating from the state in 2022, the most recent accountability scorecard, while only three Fort Worth campuses earned the highest mark.
A detailed post on the Keller ISD Families for Public Education Facebook page described a scenario that would involve creating two school districts, Alliance and Keller.
‘We will have these discussions internally’
The board had intended to talk about the proposal, which only became public this week and triggered a firestorm of criticism, during a public meeting Jan. 16, according to a scheduled live stream on the district’s YouTube page that has since been taken down.
“An idea of this magnitude requires significant legal analysis therefore we will have these discussions internally as a board and we will present a plan in an open and transparent manner when we have information to share,” Randklev wrote.
Parents have expressed opposition to the proposed split on social media, saying it could potentially harm their children’s education.
“We are unsurprised that they’re holding this meeting in private,” said Laney Hawes, a parent of four Keller ISD students and co-founder of the nonprofit advocacy group Keller ISD Families For Public Education, in a text message. “Every part of this plan has been devised in secret — it’s obvious they have never intended to involve or ask for input from the community. We believe this and all other previous meetings have likely violated the open meetings act but the board is using the broad ‘consulting with an attorney’ exemption as weak cover to circumvent the law and keep these conversations hidden from the public.”
The comments on Randklev’s post were overwhelmingly against the lack of transparency in the decision to close the meeting off to the public.
“Please do not make a hasty decision that will affect so many people for such a long time,” wrote Candy Hentzen, who lives in Keller, according to her profile. “This should not be a political decision and should be made only after a detailed, transparent and open process determining what would be best.”
“You are using nothing but deception and dark of night shady meetings to push an agenda, not even looping in your fellow board members if they live on the wrong side of the tracks,” said Brad Fox, whose profile also states he is a Keller resident.
Concerned parents have said they suspect the board to take advantage of what they will argue is a loophole in the Texas Education Code that allows a new district to be created without a public election if the board approves a resolution to initiate the process, as opposed to a petition signed by 10% of registered voters in the district.
Education lawyers said that while the code does not explicitly state an election is required in the case of a resolution, the Texas Code Construction Act requires “harmonization” of statues when interpreting the law, which would require an election in both cases. An election would need at least 25% voter turnout in order to approve the creation of a new district.
After a Star-Telegram reporter sent emails to each school board member, two posted public statements on social media on Thursday saying they were caught off guard by the proposal.
One of those was board Secretary Joni Shaw Smith. When asked about the decision to discuss the issue in closed session, she stated her desire to hear from the public.
“My goal is to continue to conduct any conversation regarding this topic in public,” she said in an email. “I believe it would be a mistake to move forward with any plan, and especially a resolution, without not only continued discussion among the board as a whole and with district input, but also without robust public involvement.”
One Keller teacher who commented on Randklev’s post did not explicitly disagree with the decision to call an executive session, but did say that she and other educators do not feel like district administration has their backs.
“I am an educator in Keller ISD. I certainly do not feel supported,” wrote Shane Anderson, who teaches AP U.S. History in the district, according to her Facebook. “Many other fellow teachers feel the same. I have written several times to our administrators but their hands are tied by the decisions made by Keller. Educators and staff have taken the brunt [of] solving this budget crisis. We are overworked, underpaid, without adequate time to plan, prepare, or be available for our students. Keller will [lose] talent because of the decisions that have been made this year. We raise our voices but are continually not heard.”
Not all comments on Randklev’s post opposed splitting the district in two.
“Very beautifully said!” wrote Stephanie O’Dell, whose Facebook does not state where she lives. “I can’t begin to imagine the workload it takes to sustain a district that is ever growing. No district alone should consist of 9 cities and 42+ campuses. My personal thought is that by doing this, it’s setting districts up to not only succeed but to flourish!”
Randklev did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Trustee Heather Washington declined to comment on the decision to close the meeting off to the public. The other trustees did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment.
The Texas Attorney General’s Office did not immediately respond to a voicemail left on its Open Government Hotline requesting clarification about the executive session adhering to the Texas Open Meetings Act.
A still unidentified person or group on Thursday created a parody Facebook page for “Alliance ISD,” the name concerned parents believe the board has chosen for the new district. The group posted on Friday that they were selling T-shirts, hoodies and mugs emblazoned with the mock district’s name and icon.
Open meetings lawyers say public comment is required by law
The executive session and agenda have not been posted on the district’s website, but any meeting to discuss the matter must include a chance for the public to weigh in on the proposal, according to Bill Aleshire, an Austin-based attorney with the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas.
“They have to meet in public before they can discuss it in executive session and they have to state what provision of the Open Meetings Act allows them to discuss that in secret,” Aleshire said, adding that the law requires public comment at an open meeting.
The Open Meetings Act states that a “governmental body shall allow each member of the public who desires to address the body regarding an item on an agenda for an open meeting of the body to address the body regarding the item at the meeting before or during the body’s consideration of the item.”
The executive session can only cover legal advice from an attorney, not the pros and cons of splitting the district, Aleshire said.
“Legal advice from their lawyer isn’t the same thing as whether it’s a great idea or a bad idea to split the district,” he said.
The board must also be specific about what legal issue they will discuss in the meeting, according to Joe Larsen, a Houston-based First Amendment lawyer who sits on the board of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas.
“Legal analysis about what? About the legality of it?” Larsen said. “You can have your lawyer in there, but what are the legal issues? Because there doesn’t seem to have been any discussion of any legal issues until there became a legitimate public interest in this.”
Both attorneys agreed that this issue holds significant public interest, which demands a more transparent process.
The district still has time to publish an official notice of the meeting at the district’s administrative offices and its website. The notice must be posted at least 72 hours before the meeting and include the agenda the board plans to discuss. Randklev’s Facebook post does not constitute official notice of the meeting as stipulated by the Open Meetings Act.
While he saw no such offense as of yet, Aleshire said not adhering to the notification process stipulated by law would constitute a crime.
“Anyone who participates in calling or participates in the illegal meeting commits a criminal offense,” he said. “It’s serious business.”
A governing body must also cite which statute of the Open Meetings Act they are using to justify a closed meeting. Section 551.071 of the law allows for a closed meeting to get legal advice.
“They are restrained to discuss in executive session only the attorney’s advice and not the merits of the issue itself,” he said. “That would be a crime.”
Kelly Shannon, executive director of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, said that anyone participating in a closed meeting has the right to tell the public if they see anything like this in an executive session.
“They have a First Amendment right of free speech to come out and talk to you or anybody else about what happened in that closed session,” she said.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
This story was originally published January 10, 2025 at 10:41 AM.
