Return to Intro Page


Was Keller ISD’s District Split Planned in Secret? A Deep Dive Into the Evidence


Remarks in Red by Chris Coker (KISD Trustee)


I am not here to determine whether a law was broken. That is for the courts to decide. But the law is the lowest possible standard for public officials. Elected leaders should not just aim to avoid committing a crime—they should be held to a much higher bar. The real question is whether they betrayed the trust of the people they were elected to serve and whether they upheld their duty to represent the interests of the public.

When I first heard the claim that Keller ISD board members may have been working behind closed doors to push a district split without public input, I was skeptical. A decision of this magnitude—one that affects taxpayers, students, teachers, and the future of the entire district—should require open discussion, transparency, and an opportunity for public engagement.


Yet, the rumors were troubling.


Some claimed that plans were already being carefully coordinated behind the scenes and that the public would only be informed once the effort was too far along to stop. Others argued that nothing had been set in motion, and that board members were merely gathering information when a premature leak caused chaos.


I wanted to separate fact from speculation.


So, I started asking questions. I also turned to Facebook to find out what questions the community wanted answered.


My first phone call was to Keller ISD Board President Charles Randklev to hear directly from him. To my surprise, he not only agreed to speak with me, but also invited Trustee Micah Young to join the conversation. What followed was a three-hour meeting where they answered every single question I had.


I was not looking to prove anyone right or wrong. I was looking for the truth, and I did not hold back.


If this was all a misunderstanding, then the public deserves to have the record set straight. But if Keller ISD officials were actually working to advance this effort without meaningful public input, then the split itself is not the most pressing issue.


The real issue is whether the people in charge of our school district believe they are accountable to the public at all.


To set the stage, the bare minimum requirement for transparency is for board discussions and action items to be properly posted on the meeting agenda for public disclosure.


Now, let’s examine the rumors, lay out what the public knows, and go deeper into the additional information I uncovered through my conversation with the trustees and extensive research.


Let’s look at the facts…

 

  • On January 6, 2025, the first public mention of the split surfaced not through official board communication, but through this Facebook post. The author, Amber Jacobs, shared the information in a Facebook group run by well-known KISD whistleblower Laney Hawes. Who dramatizes everything to spin against any conservative official. 


I actually requested that we look into 4 districts when I was informed of the idea..  I grew up Midway ISD, we were one 5A high school (that was the largest at the time) and it was very singularly focused on the direct community.  

  • Rumors began circulating over the next two days
  • Then on January 9th both at exactly 4:59pm, Keller ISD trustees Joni Smith and Chelsea Kelly posted on facebook to confirm many of the rumors This was this was cleary orchestrated to create drama
  • At 6:54 PM on January 9, Keller ISD School Board President Charles Randklev also addressed the situation in this Facebook post. Below are the most relevant parts of his statement: my statement was not included at all




  • Let's break it down… "Continue" discussing internally suggests discussions had already been happening.
  • The phrase "The board will act accordingly" could indicate that at the January 16th meeting, the board planned to return from closed-door/executive session and vote. This statement could indicate January 16th of 2026 for anyone knows.  This is fear mongering and clearly did not happen. It would have to have been on the agenda to even think about arguing this.


Statements from this recording of the January 16, 2025 Board meeting:

  • KISD Trustee Chelsea Kelly: 
    • “I was blindsided with a resolution to split Keller into two districts…” there clearly wasn't a resolution, there was an idea.
    • “It was set to be voted on today [jan 16] with no time for discussion, community input or planning. Clearly not true, as we had discussions and it was not put on the agenda to vote.  We can’t help if she doesn’t answer the phone or bother to make a phone call for clarification.
    • “We strongly believe this topic does not meet the requirements of a closed session discussion” Any discussion that requires consultation with an attorney about legal matters is privileged.
    • “It was presented by Charles [Randklev], John [Birt], and Micah [Young] presented it and the lawyer explained it.” this is true
    • “It felt like a decision that was already made behind closed doors” Nobody can control how someone feels, but the board requires 4 votes for anything, so feelings of one or two don’t matter.  We act as a body corporate.  The frantic emotions are what caused all this drama for no reason.
    • “I had no role in forming the resolution” There clearly was no resolution.
    • “We 100% were told by Charles that today we were supposed to vote for this resolution to split” The 16th was a potential date to discuss a resolution on the dais but even I wasn’t on board with that.  I was very clear with both Joni and Chelsea that there was no way a vote on the 16th was ever going to happen.  They seemed to understand that, until they got dramatic on the dais,  AND IT WASN’T EVEN ON THE AGENDA!


  • KISD Trustee John Birt:
    • “Obviously Trustee Kelly and I attended two different sessions of the same executive… legally called executive session. The information presented was a consideration to the other four members of the board at which time, uh, obviously a couple were blind sided” well, we were all blindsided
    • “We both attended the same executive session with council legal. It was a legal meeting for the express purpose…*excuse me*...of sharing legal conf*… information related to a conceptual proposal.” true


  • KISD Trustee Joni Shaw:
    • “If Chelsea and I had not come forth January 8th, I can tell you we would be sitting here right now voting on a resolution as an item.” 100% incorrect.  We didn’t have anywhere close to enough data to do that.


  • Superintendent Tracy Johnson
    • At the same January 16th meeting, Superintendent Tracy Johnson offered her resignation signaling that she believed it was imperative for her to make immediate comments prior to the executive session they were about to walk into. This was the first time she stated any concern about the idea to my knowledge.  In fact, she seemed to think it was a good idea when it was presented to us all.


Financial Reports Ordered and Discussed Without Public Disclosure 


  • It was later revealed in this KISD board meeting video clip that a forensic financial audit report, the “RSM report,” was ordered in May of 2024 and completed in early November. This was primarily to audit past admin and it proved to be quite valuable in identifying the gross negligence of past spending. 
  • The RSM representative presented something in executive session, but he is unable to recall exactly which meeting it was.  It was the same report to my recollection
  • Trustee Birt confirms the information was presented in an executive session. Correct
  • In this video clip of a KISD board meeting, the Moak Casey representative claims he was hired to complete his revenue analysis of splitting the district in October 2024 Correct, they wanted him to identify revenues based on the realistic meets and bounds requirements set by the state.  There were two options.  (Tribal feeder pattern alone or tribal feeder pattern and timber creek).
  • In this KISD video clip the Moak Casey representative says he “gave some school finance 101 presentations to the board in late October” Correct, this was to better understand the “Omar” spreadsheet that everyone uses for school finance.
  • In this KISD video clip Trustee Joni Shaw confirms she heard from a TEE representative, received a school finance 101 presentation from Moak Casey on November 13th, had several conversations, then asks him specifically when he was given the order to do the revenue analysis on a potential split. I can’t speak to what Joni says, only what I have been involved in. 
  • The Moak Casey report cost over $60,000, while the RSM report cost over $90,000. We have to hire third party firms.  That is common practice in all audits in all forms of business.
  • Board policy requires any expenditure over $25,000 to be placed on the agenda for board discussion and approval, yet none of the agendas from May onward mention these reports. They were forensic audits to ensure the admin wasn’t doing anything weird.  This is common practice.


The Texas Open Meetings Act and Agenda Transparency


  • The Texas Open Meetings Act clearly states what must be posted on an agenda, what is allowed to be discussed in executive session, and the limitations of Rule 551.071, which describes limitations of private attorney consultations.
  • Page 49 of the Open Meetings Act Handbook provides further clarification on how closed meetings and attorney consultations should be listed on an agenda.
  • Over and over, KISD agendas simply stated “consultation with an attorney” without specifying details.
  • Just to give you an idea, here’s what a typical KISD Executive Session agenda item looks like example: (12/19/24 KISD):



  • Here’s how an executive session statement should be worded for clarity:

Anytime the board feels they are meeting about something that could potentially be “contemplated litigation” (which we are seeing today).  It qualifies for attorney client privilege 

Information Discovered Outside Board Meetings


  • KISD Joined Texas for Excellence in Education on September 18, 2024. The fee was $24,000. The district joined to save on CFO costs.
  • The KISD board discussed possibly having a meeting on January 8th or 9th, but Trustee Joni Shaw was going to be out of town, so they rescheduled for January 16th. Not true, it was rescheduled due to the ice, and it was the 10th.  
  • A group SMS text message from January 6, 2025, revealed through open records requests, shows Charles Randklev reaching out to Alan Blaylock and Nate Schatzline about the split. I am not familiar with this, but it would make sense at this point.
  • Multiple sources confirmed that Randklev discussed the split privately with various people between December 19 and January 9, and many believed he intended to bring it to a vote on January 16. What sources?  I’m very transparent, I expect you to be the same.


Lawsuits


  • There are two lawsuits that merged into one that addresses this information directly:
    • Matthew Mucker https://www.kisd-lawsuit.com/filings
    • This lawsuit was later strengthened by a second lawsuit filed by renowned attorney Dee Kelly Jr., supported by a nonprofit backed by one of the top neighborhood HOAs in Tarrant County. This effort was organized by Cary Moon, a respected former Fort Worth City Councilman. The lawsuits were merged due to their similar claims. There is no proof of any harm, therefore there is no remedy,  it’s a waste of money.  I feel sorry for the people that invested in this nonsense.  The attorneys will walk away with money, and everyone else will be disappointed.  


The Other Side of the Story


  • In my three-hour conversation with KISD Board President Charles Randklev and Trustee Micah Young on February 12, I asked them directly about these issues. Most of my questions were directed at Randklev.
  • Randklev explained that closed-door discussions were necessary because the board was investigating suspected financial mismanagement under the previous district leadership. true
  • Rather than relying on internal KISD staff, they sought third-party financial reports to ensure transparency and credibility in their findings. true
  • According to Randklev, the board needed to discuss possible litigation concerning suspected malfeasance within the prior administration, which justified handling these matters privately. true
  • To conduct the investigation, the KISD board ordered financial reports, including the RSM Report and possibly an earlier assignment to Moak Casey. RSM was the admin audit, Moak Casey was the district audit. 
  • Randklev stated that their legal counsel assisted in ordering these reports due to the potential litigation risks that could arise. Makes sense, third party audits are standard.
  • Randklev emphasized that if the board had been able to present their findings on their own timeline, they would have been better prepared to discuss the issue, provide more context, and answer public concerns. 100%, Joni and Chelsea prevented that
  • A leak forced them to address the situation earlier than intended. 100%
  • Some trustees, including those opposed to the split, expressed that they had to be very careful about what they said publicly due to legal constraints regarding executive session discussions. That should have been the case.
  • There were concerns that even discussing the matter publicly, regardless of intent, could violate the law. I don’t think this is true.  It definitely violated privilege.  I don’t know about the law though
  • Randklev explained another reason why they outsourced the financial reports:
    • Rather than having KISD staff investigate potential misuse of funds, they commissioned reputable third-party firms to ensure the findings would be seen as unbiased and trustworthy. true
    • Since the suspected malfeasance involved individuals within KISD, they felt it was necessary to seek external analysis. true
    • Some aspects of the investigation may have required questioning current employees, and public disclosure could have undermined the investigation. true
  • While the board can discuss items in executive session, any issue they plan to vote on must be placed on the agenda and voted on in a public meeting. true
  • This did not happen for the January 16 meeting, making a vote impossible under Texas Open Meetings Act regulations. true
  • Trustee Micah Young confirmed that the Moak Casey split analysis report was ordered around Thanksgiving, though he was unsure of the exact date. I’m not sure either.
  • Some trustees, including those opposed to the split, expressed that they had to be cautious about what they said publicly because of legal constraints surrounding executive session discussions. I was definitely this way 
  • Near the conclusion of our meeting, I showed Randklev a copy of his January 9 Facebook post and asked him directly what he meant by the statement: “At the conclusion of that meeting [on Jan 16] should the Board of Trustees believe this path is in the best interest of our students then the board will act accordingly.”
    • His initial reaction suggested he did not immediately recall the post’s wording and he provided a noncommittal response.
  • Later, after gathering additional information from multiple sources, I followed up with Randklev again on March 6 to clarify the discrepancies between his statements and what I had learned elsewhere.
    • My takeaway from that conversation was that his intentions regarding a vote on January 16 changed between January 9 and January 13, when the agenda was finalized. I don't believe this to be true.  I was in those meetings and I did not expect to vote on Jan 16th.  I even made that clear to both Joni and Chelsea.  They clearly decided to ignore me.
    • Regardless of personal interpretations, the fact remains that a vote on the issue could not have occurred at the January 16 meeting because it was never formally placed on the agenda. true


These are the facts.