Los Fresnos Consolidated Independent School District and Michael L. Williams, Commissioner of Education v. Jorge Vazquez, 03-14-00629-CV

Background

Jorge Vazquez, a Los Fresnos CISD teacher, was proposed for nonrenewal after multiple student complaints and three administrative investigations collected 33 written statements from 17 students describing inappropriate comments, bullying, and an unsuitable video.
The school board held a § 21.207 nonrenewal hearing where administrators testified live and the board admitted the prerecorded student statements over Vazquez’s hearsay objections; Vazquez testified in his own defense and offered exhibits.
The Commissioner of Education upheld the board’s nonrenewal decision, finding the student statements admissible under the liberal administrative hearsay framework (Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.081) and sufficient as substantial evidence.
On judicial review the Travis County district court reversed, holding the student statements were inadmissible hearsay and that, absent live student testimony, there was not substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s decision.
Amicus TASB LAF argues for affirmance: prerecorded student statements should be admissible in § 21.207 hearings because (1) the State has a compelling interest in protecting children from the trauma of testifying, (2) excluding such statements undermines efficient school administration and student safety, and (3) the statements are sufficiently trustworthy and probative to satisfy hearsay purposes.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are prerecorded student statements admissible in § 21.207 nonrenewal hearings?	Vazquez: the student statements are inadmissible hearsay and cannot be used as substantial evidence.	Commissioner & LFCISD: administrative hearings permit liberal consideration of hearsay (Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.081) and district rules admitted the statements; they are trustworthy.	The district court held the statements inadmissible; the Commissioner had held them admissible and sufficient—this brief urges reversal of the district court and affirmation of the Commissioner.
Does the State interest in protecting children justify admitting out-of-court child statements in administrative proceedings?	Vazquez: (implicit) protections against hearsay are necessary; live testimony ensures reliability.	TASB LAF: protecting children from testimonial trauma is a compelling state interest that supports hearsay exceptions in administrative settings.	Amicus argues the State’s compelling interest supports admission; the Commissioner adopted that view.
Do prerecorded student statements satisfy the reliability/probativeness goals of the hearsay rule?	Vazquez: live testimony is preferred for reliability.	TASB LAF: statements made near the events, in private administrative interviews, often are more accurate and less intimidating than later live testimony.	Amicus contends the statements are at least as reliable as delayed live testimony and may be more probative.
Would excluding student statements harm school operations or student safety?	Vazquez: excluding hearsay protects due process rights of teachers.	TASB LAF: exclusion forces students to testify publicly, wastes district resources, makes nonrenewals harder to prove, and may leave dangerous teachers in classrooms.	Amicus argues exclusion would impede efficient school governance and endanger students; the Commissioner relied on similar policy reasoning.

Key Cases Cited

Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (U.S. 1990) (state interest in shielding child witnesses from trauma can justify alternatives to in‑court testimony)
Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1990) (recognizing compelling state interest in protecting minors)
Briggs v. State, 789 S.W.2d 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (upholding constitutionality of child‑hearsay statutes)
Gonzalez v. State, 818 S.W.2d 756 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (court allowed child hearsay even when statutory requirements not strictly met)
Marz v. State, 953 S.W.2d 321 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997) (affirming admission of child statements not strictly meeting statutory form), aff’d, 987 S.W.2d 577 (Tex. 1998)
Dodd v. Meno, 870 S.W.2d 4 (Tex. 1994) (agency statutory interpretation entitled to deference in substantial‑evidence review)
Gilder v. Meno, 926 S.W.2d 357 (Tex. App.—Austin 1996) (same principle of deference to Commissioner in teacher appeal context)
State v. Oakley, 356 S.W.2d 909 (Tex. 1962) (hearsay rule’s purpose tied to reliability and truth‑telling)
Ex Parte Morales, 212 S.W.3d 483 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006) (recognizing heightened state interest in protecting children in schools)