Do you think the SMCISD Board should implement a stricter vetting process for district volunteers, that includes vetting for extreme views regarding populations like LGBTQ or undocumented students?

Members of the SMCISD Board of Trustees discussed the fate of local political figure Naomi Narvaiz's place on the SMCISD Student Health Advisory Council (SHAC) after hearing comments from the public Monday night.


Controversy over several tweets and retweets from Narvaiz's Twitter account drew a capacity crowd to the district's central office, where the board ultimately decided to keep the SHAC intact but disavowed hate speech and bigotry.


People on both sides of the Narvaiz issue were allowed to speak during the 30-minute public comment period. Those who spoke in favor of Narvaiz voiced concerns about her right to free speech and her personal beliefs, while those who spoke against her cited her publicly expressed viewpoints, particularly toward undocumented immigrants and the LGBTQ community, as cause for concern. A motion to remove all members of the SHAC and reopen the application and vetting process failed.

Yes, the school district serves all students regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or documentation
71% (166 votes)
No, volunteers should be able to serve on committees, even if they express extreme political views.
30% (69 votes)
Total votes: 233


The ignorance and bigotry displayed by Ms. Narvaiz are embarrassing. We need science-based, educated judgement being made ESPECIALLY when it comes to health of our students. This isn't about religion or politics or whatever else similar. It is about taking the best care of students possible.

This is a case of legal right vs ethical conduct. It is every American's legal right to freely express their view points. No question about it. However is it ethical for a council member to use their personal point of view to reflect their participation in a public position? Regardless of a person's view they should be about to have a high level of emotional intelligence surrounding their thoughts. If you are in a public position, shouldn't your thoughts be logical enough to realize that your actions reveal your character. I also think that the poll only gives the voter two options which are not exactly all the possible responses, it leads people to answer the question incorrectly.

All volunteer or appointed members of any SMCISD commission should be held to the same high standards as teachers, staff, and students. Different political opinions are fine. Hate speech is not!

Freedom of speech unless its hate speech toward children should be accepted.

I’m very disappointed with the school boards decision to ignore their responisibities in this debacle.
Although I think it is healthy to have divergent views on any committee or in any group, I think expressing those views in a hateful and bullying manner on social media is reprehensible.

The SHAC advises the school board on matters regarding students’ health and well-being, and the board is responsible for the health and well-being of ALL students. Allowing someone who has openly expressed hatred toward groups represented in our district’s student population is unconscionable. There must be a vetting process that screens for people who openly express hatred toward any of our students.

I find it abominable that there are people serving on the school board who tweet out vulgar things about lgbt people, as well as people of Islamic faith. We need someone who is capable of serving all students, instead of pandering to extremist political and religious ideology.

The ignorance in some of these comments is astounding. This is an advisory committee, not a board position. The committee does not make decisions that would single out a group of students, but makes decisions about the whole population. Is removing a volunteer really worth the expense that the district would face when they are sued for discrimination? What no one has addressed, is the fact that we have not held board members to federal and state election laws, or even up to the standards which people are demanding of volunteers. We still have a board member who does not reside in his district, and never has, which is in violation of a court ruling. The same board member was arrested for harassing a member of the community and being drunk in public - an offense that a teacher would be fired for. Why is there this selective outrage over one member of the community and not another?

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Are you human?
Enter the characters shown in the image.

San Marcos Daily Record

(512) 392-2458
P.O. Box 1109, San Marcos, TX 78666