I can see how it would seem that way based on the snippets here or even in that Facebook group, if you are a part of it. People can throw around whatever they want, but when asked for details by someone who is currently running for the board, in an effort for transparency, it's basically crickets.

There is a LOT of animosity still left here, unfortunately, from the original zoning for CSHS. I've had kids in the district since 2011, and I've paid a lot of attention over the years, served on all the PTO's and and several district wide committees, under several different superintendents. All I can say is that things are just very different now, and not for the better, especially noticeable this school year. They say that teacher retention is so great, but that doesn't explain why we have teachers in tears over how many students are assigned (high school level specifically) or why class sizes are rising in elementary. The implementation of curriculum mandates (state mandates, local implementation) has been poor, and morale is lower than I've ever seen in my time paying attention. There are many factors in this, for sure, but I want the school board to be asking tough questions, not just going along with what they are handed by central office.

Not quite that cut and dry.
I've connected the dots and they say PURPLE PRIVILEGE is coming BACK.

This is just weird. There is something going on and Field looks like he's running interference. Field asks for public posts from a former trustee when he should understand as a candidate a former trustee can't just respond freely due to executive sessions. Then later in the thread Field said he spoke with Martindale and Martindale can't speak freely either due to executive sessions.

Something did happen. I'd like to know since it involves our tax dollars.

Good morning. I had purposely stayed off this thread until now, but I'll bite. Here's a (very brief) timeline that might be more helpful than a couple random screenshots.

1) someone posted under an anonymous name in a group Facebook page with strong allegations towards Mike Martindale. They were filled with specific details.

2) as a potential board I hadn't heard of any of them, and I was very concerned about what they wrote and understanding it better so that I knew what I was walking into.

3) I spent many hours finding publicly available information to corroborate their allegations. I used that information to ask them a few simple yes or no follow up questions which they declined to answer (even anonymously).

4) I posted a summary of what I had been able to find publicly available (it wasn't a lot but enough to confirm what they had posted was not entirely true with many questions still outstanding). I also noted I had filed an open records request for more info including their original open records request.

5) Suddenly their original documentation appeared in my inbox anonymously. But wasn't the hundreds of pages they said they had. It was three documents totaling 17 pages.

6) I used that with the public information I could find to corroborate what I could. Still a lot of outstanding questions. Asked for the rest of the documents and was denied.

7) district said I would have open records by October 27th so now we wait.

As it relates to the screenshots above (clearly a tiny piece of a much larger puzzle as you can now see), both the original anonymous poster and a board member had publicly commented that the board at the time did not know about the events Mike was accused of being responsible for. I found that difficult to believe and quickly proved it wrong through old board minutes.

So when this person appeared in the comments of one of my posts saying I had never talked to them (which was true) and they would be happy to meet privately, I responded that I was happy to meet privately but it was also good to build public trust if they could share anything publicly (say for example that the statement the board didn't know about these things wasn't entirely true since they were in old minutes). Of course I would never expect them to share from an executive session which was the very thing the anonymous poster might have done. We'll know in a few days when we get the open records request.

I spent dozens of hours researching all of this because I want to be the best trustee I can be. That means understanding what's happened before now. I think transparency and truth matter and not just parts of the truth.

Either of you or anyone else is welcome to reach out to me anytime here or on my cell or email which all are all easy to find online.

I have loved this community a very long time and look forward to giving back in this new way.

Chris, it would be good for us to know what your relationship with Martindale is and have you endorsed him. And if you have, when did you do so.

I met Mike when he was superintendent, and I was advocating for the TRE bond to raise teacher's salaries. We hadn't talked in several years since he retired until he decided to run for school board.

I have not endorsed him (or anyone else). The day he filed to run I shared his post on social media with the following words:

"I first got to know Mike when he was the superintendent and I was working on the 2022 TRE Bond to help raise teacher's salaries in CSISD. I have a lot of respect for him and the experience he's built over 33 years as an educator, and I am excited that he's also running for the board alongside me (and not against me!)."

I did not consider that an endorsement, but after speaking to several friends I respected I realized how it could have come across like that. In the last 2 1/2 months I haven't posted about Mike or any other candidate until this most recent conversation.

I understand there are a lot of people who are supporting both Mike and me which I think has created the perception there is some secret collaboration. There's not, and I don't know how else to say it. I do respect him for the reasons I wrote above. Not sure what else to say.

Honestly, I dont really give a damn about the drama.

Can anyone tell me which candidates are-

1. the most fiscally conservative?
2. the most socially conservative?

doubledog said:

---

The incombants are

Jeff Horak
Kimberly McAdams

For those who remember our last bond, bond, bond until it passes board.

---

That was a good thing the board did.

CS78 said:

---

Honestly, I dont really give a damn about the drama.

Can anyone tell me which candidates are-

1. the most fiscally conservative?
2. the most socially conservative?

---

They should allow party affiliation in school board elections.

Anyone saying that political leanings aren't important has their head stuck in the sand.

thats an understatement