EPISD board to take up superintendent's status — again
EL PASO, Texas (KTSM) — After a five-hour marathon meeting to discuss the employment status of Superintendent Diana Sayavedra, the El Paso Independent School District Board of Trustees is scheduled to take up the topic again in a special meeting on Tuesday, June 3.
The meeting will be held at 4 p.m. Tuesday at the EPISD Administration Building, 1014 N. Stanton St.
The agenda for the meeting said they will consult with legal counsel concerning issues relating to the superintendent's duties, responsibilities and employment status.
Any action will be taken in public session either at this meeting or at a future meeting, the agenda said.
Possible actions listed included: discussion and action to approve a voluntary separation agreement with the superintendent; discussion and action on the superintendent's duties, responsibilities and employment status; and discussion and action to appoint an interim superintendent.
It is not clear if there are enough votes to end Sayavedra's tenure as superintendent.
El Paso ISD board takes no action on superintendent after marathon meeting
During an emotionally charged meeting on May 27, the board discussed Sayavedra's employment status and possible future with the district for five hours, before adjourning and not taking action shortly after 10:30 p.m.
Speaker after speaker defended Sayavedra, who has led the district since January 2022 and received a five-year contract extension last year.
Some also warned that such a move would destabilize the district and force it to spend money on a buyout.
The district is estimating that it is facing a $17 million shortfall for the 2025-26 school year.
After hearing public comment, the board went into executive session for about two hours, came back out and heard more public comment.
Briefly, the board discussed the superintendent in public session and that's when sparks flew among the board.
Trustee Daniel Call said that new Board President Leah Hanany was leading the effort to oust Sayavedra 'not because of poor performance or scandal, but because she wouldn't bend the knee' to Hanany.
Call also said that during the board's last search for a superintendent, Hanany advocated for a candidate who was a 'crony' and that is what she was seeking to do again, if she was successful in ousting Sayavedra.
Hanany made a brief statement before adjourning the meeting without the board taking any action.
Hanany accused Call of lying and violating a non-disclosure agreement from the superintendent search. She said she would not violate that same agreement and said that made defending herself impossible.
Also, during the past week, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) confirmed that a complaint had been filed against Hanany.
TEA: Complaint filed against EPISD board president
'TEA can confirm that a complaint has been filed and is currently under review. As is the case for all complaints submitted to the agency, the complaint is reviewed to determine what next steps, if any, are necessary,' reads part of TEA's statement.
All this comes after the shape of the EPISD board was drastically altered after the May 3 school board election.
Two incumbents — Israel Irrobali and Isabel Hernandez — were defeated for re-election. Newcomers Mindy Sutton and Robert Osterland were elected in their place.
Also, Hanany and fellow incumbent Jack Loveridge were elected to new terms. Loveridge, who had been appointed to his seat after Josh Acevedo was elected to the City Council, was elected to a term in his own right.
When the new board met for the first time, Hanany was elected the new board president and Loveridge as vice president.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
30 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Bankruptcy Was Good for 23andMe
Sometimes a public company has a controlling shareholder who wants to take it private by buying out all of the other shareholders, and that's always messy. 1 The controlling shareholder will to some extent be negotiating with herself: She will want to buy the company for a low price, but the company's shareholders will want to get a high price, but she's the controlling shareholder and can vote for the low price. There are standard solutions to the problem, but they are only partial solutions: In the past few months, I have written a few times about 23andMe Holding Co. as an illustration of these problems. 23andMe is a publicly traded genetic testing company that was once worth about $6 billion, but it has now fallen on hard times. Its founder, Anne Wojcicki, owns about 49% of the voting power of the stock, making her effectively a controlling shareholder. She offered to buy all the stock she didn't own, to take the company private and fix its problems 'outside of the short term pressures of the public markets.' But the board of directors, whose job was to find an 'actionable proposal that is in the best interests of the non-affiliated shareholders,' didn't think her offer was good enough.
New York Times
30 minutes ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: Trump-Musk Alliance Dissolves as They Hurl Personal Attacks
Pinned President Trump and Elon Musk's alliance dissolved into open acrimony on Thursday, as the two men hurled personal attacks at each other after the billionaire had unleashed broadsides against the president's signature domestic policy bill. While meeting with Friedrich Merz, Germany's new chancellor, in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump broke days of uncharacteristic silence and unloaded on Mr. Musk, who until last week was a top presidential adviser. 'I'm very disappointed in Elon,' Mr. Trump said. 'I've helped Elon a lot.' As the president criticized Mr. Musk, the billionaire responded in real time on X, the social media platform he owns. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,' Mr. Musk wrote. 'Such ingratitude,' he added, taking credit for Mr. Trump's election in a way that he never has before. Mr. Musk had been careful in recent days to train his ire on Republicans in Congress, not Mr. Trump himself. But he discarded that caution on Thursday, ridiculing the president in a pattern familiar to the many previous Trump advisers who have fallen by the wayside. What started as simply a fight over the domestic policy bill sharply escalated in just a few hours. Within minutes of one another, Mr. Trump was making fun of Mr. Musk's unwillingness to wear makeup to cover a recent black eye, and Mr. Musk was raising questions about Mr. Trump's competency as president. The public break comes after a remarkable partnership between the two men. Mr. Musk deployed hundreds of millions of dollars to support Mr. Trump's 2024 presidential campaign. After Mr. Trump won, he gave Mr. Musk free rein to slash the federal work force. And just last week, Mr. Trump gave Mr. Musk a personal send-off in the Oval Office. The president praised Mr. Musk as 'one of the greatest business leaders and innovators the world has ever produced' and gave him a golden key emblazoned with the White House insignia. Mr. Musk promised to remain a 'friend and adviser to the president.' But now Mr. Musk, who has left his temporary role, has turned into the most prominent critic of a top presidential priority. Mr. Musk has lashed out against the far-reaching policy bill in numerous posts on X. He has called it a 'disgusting abomination,' argued that the bill would undo all the work he did to cut government spending and hinted that he would target Republican members of Congress who backed the legislation in next year's midterm elections. Mr. Trump on Thursday said Mr. Musk's criticism of the bill was entirely self-interested, saying he only opposed the legislation after Republicans took out the electric vehicle mandate, which would benefit Tesla, Mr. Musk's electric vehicle company. (Mr. Musk has previously called for an end to those subsidies.) The president also downplayed Mr. Musk's financial support for him during the campaign, arguing he would have won Pennsylvania without Mr. Musk, who poured much of his money and time into the critical battleground state. Mr. Musk also on Thursday rebutted Mr. Trump's statement that Mr. Musk 'knew the inner workings of the bill better than anybody sitting here.' 'False, this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!' Mr. Musk wrote, sharing a video of Mr. Trump saying he was disappointed in Mr. Musk.
Forbes
31 minutes ago
- Forbes
Supreme Court Sides With Catholic Group In Tax Exemption Dispute Over Non-Religious Activities
The Catholic Charities Bureau provides services to the poor, the disadvantaged, the disabled, the elderly and children with special needs. In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Catholic organization qualifies for a tax exemption even though its operations were not primarily religious. The decision overturned a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling. Under Wisconsin law, certain religious organizations may be exempt from paying taxes, including unemployment compensation taxes. This is similar to laws in other states that provide exemptions based on specific criteria. In other words, tax-exempt status for federal income tax purposes doesn't always translate to state income or other tax exemptions. In this case, Wisconsin law exempts any 'church or convention or association of churches' an services provided '[b]y a duly ordained, commissioned or licensed minister of a church in the exercise of his or her ministry or by a member of a religious order in the exercise of duties required by such order.' The exemption also covers nonprofit organizations 'operated, supervised, controlled, or principally supported by a church or convention or association of churches,' but only if they are 'operated primarily for religious purposes.' Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. (CCB) and four related organizations sought an exemption because they are separately incorporated from the Diocese, but claim federal tax-exempt status under the Roman Catholic Church's group tax exemption (this 'umbrella' treatment is common in the tax-exempt world). The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied the exemption, finding that CCB and the related organizations were not 'operated primarily for religious purposes because the charitable services went beyond theology. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, finding that drawing those lines violated the First Amendment. The Catholic Charities Bureau has, it says on its website, provided 'services to the poor, the disadvantaged, the disabled, the elderly and children with special needs as an expression of the social ministry of the Catholic Church in the Diocese of Superior' for more than 100 years. Today, CCB boasts more than 50 programs serving more than 10,500 people—services are not limited by race, color, national origin, or religion. That apparently innocuous distinction was one of the arguments used by the state against CCB. The organization's activities did not qualify as 'typical' religious activities because they serve and employ non-Catholics. The state also found that CCB does not 'attempt to imbue program participants with the Catholic faith,' and its services to the poor and needy could also be provided by secular (non-religious) organizations. Congress enacted the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) in 1935 to provide benefits to unemployed workers. The FUTA tax rate is 6% on the first $7,000 paid to employees during the year and is paid by all employers unless they qualify for an exemption. Notably, FUTA exempts church-controlled religious organizations 'operated primarily for religious purposes' from paying unemployment tax, the result of an exemption granted by Congress in 1970. Since then, 47 states have adopted language that is identical to, or nearly identical to FUTA's language. FUTA tax may be offset by credits of up to 90% for state unemployment taxes paid—all states have complementary statutes that impose, at a minimum, the coverage mandated by federal law. This tax is only paid by employers, not employees. The tax funds unemployment programs. (CCB noted in its petition that employees have separate unemployment coverage. Wisconsin bishops previously created the Church Unemployment Pay Program (CUPP) 'to assist parishes, schools, and other church employers in meeting their social justice responsibilities by providing church funded unemployment coverage.') CCB applied for an exemption under state law. The Department of Workforce Development determined that CCB and its sub-entities were not primarily operated for religious purposes and denied the exemption. CCB appealed, and after a hearing, the administrative law judge reversed the decision. However, the Labor and Industry Review Commission reversed the reversal (stay with me), finding that the exemption turns on an organization's 'activities, not the religious motivation behind them or the organization's founding principles.' Since CCB provided secular (non-religious) services, the Commission concluded that they do not qualify for an exemption The matter went to court (outside of the administrative channels) and ended up in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which held on March 14, 2024, that CCB's 'activities are primarily charitable and secular' and not religious, which means it would not qualify for the exemption. CCB filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court in May of 2024. Parties do that when seeking a review of the case—typically, it's in response to another court decision. In that petition, CCB noted that in the 1980s, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in two cases (St. Martin Evangelical Lutheran Church v. South Dakota and California v. Grace Brethren Church) to determine whether the imposition of state unemployment taxes on certain religious organizations under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) and related state statutes violated the First Amendment. But, CCB argued, while those cases were resolved, the Court expressly declined to answer the First Amendment questions, resulting in a split among courts. If the Supreme Court decides to hear a matter, it's called a grant of certiorari—by practice, at least four justices must vote to hear the case to be granted cert. Usually, cert is granted in a case of considerable importance or one involving a split. A split happens when courts disagree on a matter of federal law, reaching different conclusions about its application—that's what CCB argued happened here. In its petition, the questions presented by CCB were: The state argued that no split of authority existed on the constitutional question and further contended that the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision does not directly conflict with the decisions of any federal circuit or state high court. The Supreme Court disagreed with the state, granting certiorari in December of 2024. The scope of the case was, however, limited to Question 1. (Does a state violate the First Amendment's Religion Clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state's criteria for religious behavior?) Dozens of amici curiae briefs were filed before the decision. When it comes to legal issues before the Supreme Court, those with an interest or expertise in the subject but who aren't a party to the litigation may also file briefs to explain their point of view. These briefs are called amicus briefs and are filed by a party known as an amicus curiae, which translates to "friend of the court.' The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Wisconsin Supreme Court's interpretation of the statute violated the First Amendment by discriminating against religious organizations based on their methods of religious expression. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the Court, 'A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination.' She went on to write that CCB would, under the state's interpretation, qualify for the exemption 'if they engaged in proselytization or limited their services to fellow Catholics.' However, CCB's Catholic faith, however, bars them from doing exactly that. That means, she explained, that eligibility for the exemption 'ultimately turns on inherently religious choices.' While the state argued that the exemption was intended to draw stark theological lines, Sotomayor went on to write that the exemption 'functions at an organizational level, covering both the janitor and the priest in equal measure.' The Court acknowledged the importance of the government maintaining 'neutrality between religion and religion.' But, Sotomayor wrote pointedly, 'There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one.' With that, the Wisconsin Supreme Court case was overturned. The news was welcome by the Diocese. 'At the heart of Catholic Charities' ministry is Christ's call to care for the least of our brothers and sisters, without condition and without exception,' said Bishop James Powers, Bishop of the Diocese of Superior. 'We're grateful the Court unanimously recognized that improving the human condition by serving the poor is part of our religious exercise and has allowed us to continue serving those in need throughout our diocese and beyond.' 'Wisconsin shouldn't have picked this fight in the first place,' said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, who represented CCB. 'It was always absurd to claim that Catholic Charities wasn't religious because it helps everyone, no matter their religion. Today, the Court resoundingly reaffirmed a fundamental truth of our constitutional order: the First Amendment protects all religious beliefs, not just those the government favors.' The Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Justice Sotomayor delivered the unanimous opinion for the Court, while Justices Jackson and Thomas filed concurring opinions. The case is Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc., v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission (No. 24–154).
