McALLEN — A bitter debate over who should be allowed on the Hidalgo County Head Start Policy Council raged for weeks before its members terminated the former executive director, who called them the “worst policy council” she had ever worked with.
Teresa Flores, the former director, has already said she plans to sue.
Flores’ administration removed elected parent representative Sasha Espinoza from the council in early August, saying Espinoza no longer met requirements to serve.
The council voted to reinstate that parent after a good deal of fighting later that month, and last week Espinoza joined a majority of the council in voting for Flores’ termination.
A roughly $40 million a year organization aimed at breaking “the cycle of poverty and illiteracy,” the program is administered under the loose auspices of Hidalgo County.
The Head Start Policy Council is made up of five community representatives appointed by county commissioners and the county judge, along with six parent representatives, who are elected by parents in the program and supposed to be parents themselves. They serve one-year terms, from October to October.
The council reached a state of obvious dysfunction during the fight over Espinoza’s temporary removal and Flores’ termination.
There was shouting. Crying. Raised voices, hand-clapping and table slapping.
One representative resigned in the middle of a meeting directly before Flores’ termination. A push to have another representative removed for his behavior narrowly failed.
The battle began during the council’s August 17 meeting, when Espinoza delivered an emotional address asking to be reinstated to her seat.
Espinoza said at the time she hadn’t made her mind up over re-enrolling her daughter but was leaning toward pulling her out mainly because Espinoza had “lost confidence in the program as a whole.”
“And being on this council has really opened my eyes to certain situations and how these situations are being held and not being paid attention to,” she said.
Prior to her removal, Espinoza said she was pushing for a climate survey of program members. She complained of administrators calling around about her child’s enrollment status and said she considered hiring a lawyer.
In September, in the process of being fired, Flores would allege that Espinoza was a disgruntled, unsuccessful applicant for a job with the program who joined the council with an ax to grind against the executive director.
The Monitor asked Espinoza to respond to that comment via the organization’s lawyer, but did not receive a reply.
On August 24, the council met to discuss Espinoza’s reinstatement.
The group’s bylaws say parent representatives “shall have children currently enrolled in the center they represent,” but don’t spell out what happens when a child ages out of the program or is withdrawn.
Speaking to The Monitor Friday, Ric Gonzalez, the group’s attorney, said the situation with Espinoza presented a novel problem.
“Usually, when a parent rep pulled their child out, it usually happened in the school year, so that was an easy situation,” he said. “That parent then forfeited their position on the policy council because they no longer had a child enrolled. The difference this time was this lady pulled their child out after the school year.”
Flores and Vice Chair Abraham Padron contended that those bylaws justified the removal of parent representatives with no child enrolled. “By allowing somebody who doesn’t have a child enrolled, we are cutting the opportunities for anybody else in that area to be selected,” Padron said.
Gonzalez, at the time, said he agreed the bylaws prevented Espinoza from being allowed to serve, and said the council could seek an amendment from the county commissioners court to amend those bylaws.
Throughout the eligibility arguments, Council Chair Avelina Peña Segovia argued that there’s a fundamental problem with the group’s bylaws. She described them as too vague and a cause of “chaos.” Segovia also complained about the council being inappropriately constrained by administration and a tyrannical executive director.
“I don’t know if the complete and total investment of really looking out for this program is found right now in administration,” she said.
In a split decision, the council voted to allow Espinoza to serve out her term and request clarification on eligibility from the regional Head Start Office in Dallas.
Gonzalez declined to comment Friday on whether the council violated its bylaws by reinstating Espinoza before receiving clarification on eligibility or a bylaw amendment from commissioners court.
Gonzalez said he was also not aware of how many other parent representatives on the council may also have no child enrolled, although several of them voiced concerns over serving because they may be ineligible on those grounds.
Tensions boiled over during the August 24 meeting when Segovia became visibly frustrated over administration and legal counsel’s advice.
“I want someone in here that has no vestment, that doesn’t get paid by anybody here at Head Start, that has the neutral, that has — nothing. Just comes in here to just do a job, to just tell me,” Segovia said, voice raised, at times gesturing wildly and clapping her hands. “What can I do, what can’t I do. That’s all I want. Because that’s not what I’m getting.”
Displeased with Flores and Gonzalez’s reaction to that tirade, Segovia got out of her chair, stomped away from the table and returned in a moment with two bottles of water.
Espinoza’s return to the board did not bode well for Flores’ employment evaluation, set to occur just three weeks later. Her vote gave the pro-termination faction a majority.
Flores seemed to know she had a problem. By all appearances, she walked into that meeting knowing she’d be fired and asked that she be evaluated publicly.
“This whole process is faulty. Not faulty because I don’t do my job, because this is not about my job. This is about personal vendettas and political motivations,” she told the council.
The council did vote to terminate Flores in a 4-3 vote and voted to recommend her dismissal to the Hidalgo County Commissioners Court.
Flores told representatives that she’d have her revenge, threatening them with “piles and piles of information.”
“And do not be surprised if you’re the subject of an investigation, because I think that in this group, more than in any other group, there is suspicion of violation of the open meetings act,” she said. “Which means that you have been meeting outside this meeting to get together.”
Gonzalez told The Monitor he was not aware of any open meetings act violations.
The decision to terminate Flores was hardly unanimous. At one point in executive session Barbara Knouase, another parent representative penned a resignation letter and walked out of the meeting.
Knouase later told The Monitor that she was uncomfortable with the push to oust Flores and with serving on the increasingly political council.
The actual reason for Flores’ termination remains disputable. Flores herself speculated that her enemies on the council want to get a friend in as director, or want to be director themselves.
Segovia said she had two reasons for the dismissal: Espinoza’s removal and Flores alleging a confidentiality violation against Community Representative Azalia Rios, who also voted in favor of the termination.
Padron, who voted against the termination, said he could see two legitimate complaints against the director that cropped up over the summer: a rat infestation at one facility and an incident involving a child.
The council discussed the rodents at length and the program says that problem has been addressed.
The other incident remains hazy. Gonzalez told The Monitor that it resulted in at least two resignations and was reported to the Texas Department of Child Care Licensing, which chose not to investigate
Padron said he felt both of those issues had been addressed, and that the council lacked grounds to terminate Flores and was making a grave mistake in doing so.
“I think you have made a financial decision today that is going to cost the Hidalgo County money,” he said. “I believe that Ms. Flores probably has some sort of legal recourse in this, I do believe that. I don’t believe that she has been terminated with cause.”
