What to watch: The Midland ISD Board of Trustees will meet on Wednesday, May 13, to consider a public complaint claiming a December 2025 board meeting violated the Texas Open Meetings Act because then-board president Brandon Hodges presided remotely from Philadelphia.

The complaint asks the board to declare the meeting noncompliant and re-approve all actions taken that night, including the election of 2026 board officers. The appeal follows district leadership’s earlier ruling that the meeting complied with state law.

The big picture: The complaint centers on whether a board president can preside over a meeting from out of state and whether the meeting met legal requirements for members to see and hear one another.

Texas law generally allows school boards to meet by video as long as members are visible, audible, and the public has access. There is one exception: if a district spans three or more counties, the presiding officer must be physically present. Midland ISD is located in one county, so that requirement does not apply.

Catch up quick: The complaint has moved through multiple filings under the district’s grievance process.

  • Feb. 17: The complainant first filed a grievance arguing the December meeting violated state law because the presiding officer was participating from Philadelphia.
  • Feb. 25: The district dismissed the complaint as untimely under its 60-day policy.
  • Feb. 25: The complainant filed the initial grievance again.
  • March 2: The complainant filed a grievance challenging the district’s dismissal of the prior grievance, arguing that state law requires a decision on the merits even if it missed the deadline.
  • March 4: The complainant filed a third grievance, arguing that the December meeting may not have met Texas Open Meetings Act video requirements after Hodges said during the meeting, “I can’t see y’all” and “I cannot see anyone there.”
  • March 27: The district issued a written ruling finding the December meeting complied with state law
  • March 30: The complainant filed a final appeal to the board, which the board will hear on May 13

What they’re saying: The complainant argues the meeting may not have complied with state law because the meeting notice listed Midland as the location, while the presiding officer was out of state, and because his inability to see the board at times raises questions about whether the meeting maintained the required two-way communication.

The district reached the opposite conclusion. In its March 27 ruling, the district said Texas law focuses on whether members can communicate in real time, not whether a participant had a perfect view at all times. The district found that board members could see and hear one another throughout the meeting, even when the presiding officer’s view on the screen was limited at times.

The ruling also noted that the law does not require the presiding officer to be physically present in a single-county district such as Midland ISD.

What’s next: If the board denies the appeal on Wednesday, the complainant can appeal to the Texas Commissioner of Education within 45 days.