morning. Um that's we have researched that issue before and that is not allowed um for the school board. >> Okay. Thank you. Um and then I'm curious about my colleagueu's position
on um the minimum requirement hold on for so uh minimum qualifications. The third bullet point experience with education andor school law. um in the vein of trying to
widen the pool of people, we're looking at uh replacing that with, you know, government and policy. Um you know, I I understand the the importance of having education and school law experience. Um I also
understand that uh a lot of what our general counsel currently advises us on includes more of like a government and policy um role. So, I'd be curious to know where my colleagues are on that. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Dr. Zean. >> Um could I defer to um maybe attorneys that serve on school board about that last comment from Miss Leonardi? Would it be worth having a conversation about that specific or do you want to just go around the table?
>> Um we can do it any way you'd like. Miss Batista, do you have any insight into what to kick us off on a debate? >> Well, that's an interesting question. Um,
I mean, needless to say, you know, the more uh the attorney is prepared with knowledge relevant to K through 12 and education law. um the
better they're going to be able to, you know, they're more nimble they're going to be about responding to questions and um responding to whatever changes in the law and other things that may be happening in education, which they do constantly.
Um, you know, is it impossible to just have like a um, you know, basically be a good lawyer that can think on their feet and um, can reason through a problem and then learn the law related to school
law. Of course, you know, you that can happen. Okay. Anybody on the point Miss Mrs. Leonardi brought up Mi Mrs. Bowman? So um thanks chair Miss Batista. Can you um
explain the difference between education law and school law for everybody? So there's >> sure >> there is a distinction between those. >> So school law would be K through 12 strictly you know some information or
experience related to K through 12. Education law um talks about all the different areas that encompass what education law is, which is very broad just like any large corporation. We do
construction law. We do education. Um labor and employment. We do um uh first amendment. I mean which is you know something unique. But we do in addition to that which will be more of the K
through 12 u arena is the ESC concept of you know special education. And that's some that's experience that you would only have if you have done K through 12 uh practice, you know, in a legal practice in K through 12.
Does that answer your question? >> Yes. >> It's a broader scope when you're saying um >> yes, education law versus school law. That's a you can come with a >> right. It encompasses procurement, construction,
>> employment, everything. do um do we have people and I appreciate that you guys put this together um in the that are currently employed that have um I mean just based on the report
that you gave we have people that have uh pretty extensive experience with ESC and specific um school law already employed in the legal
department. >> They are currently employed in the legal department. Um, Miss Hoffsteader has substantial experience in that arena. Um, she is um relocating at the end of this year and
so we have um Geli Lame who um just started with us. She has approximately three months experience but she's picking up quickly and uh it's you know she's doing really well. So that would be the person that would be um doing
that work. >> So we have so we have some in-house knowledge of >> yes >> that specific topic. Um is that just to M Leonard's point? That's the question. >> Yes, we're just talking about Mrs.
Leonard's point of um well two parts I guess one about the um having Florida Oh no that's right we couldn't change that. Yes. So it's about whether
>> um we want to keep in there about the um >> education or school law. Mrs. Alhad. So, I like how in the backup material, how Chicago did it, they wrote a minimum of seven years of progressively responsible managerial experience in law
firms, corporate law offices, educational institutions, government or public agencies, nonprofit organizations or related organizations. I think that really opens up the pool and obviously if they have educational experience in
law then it's going to give them an edge in within the process but I like to broaden the scope. I think it will bring us have more options for us, you know, and it could be a goal of them to in
their time here possibly go for the educational law certification through the the state as a goal. >> Did you want to make a motion? >> I think we're still in discussion.
>> Want to wait. Oh, Mrs. Bowman. >> Yeah, I have that highlighted, too. So, I think I think I like the Fairfax. Um I first of all, I appreciate that you guys added these because that was very helpful to have a broad scope and to go outside the state as well. So, thank
you. Um I think a recurring theme through all the uh descriptions is a knowledge of litigation which I think is really important um both for managerial and just to understand how the process works when
you're looking to if you have litigation experience then you can kind of go backwards. If you are do not have litigation experience, it's going to be more difficult to understand what's happening and to manage that kind of a process. I mean basically
impossible and we don't need anyone learning on the job for that. So I think um in addition to the scope of work that our candidate should definitely have litigation experience
as Miss Batista does. >> I'll make a motion. Okay, Mrs. Alhaza. >> So, I move to add to the minimum qualifications minimum of seven years of progressively responsible managerial experience in law
firms, corporate law offices, educational institutions, government or public agencies, nonprofit organizations, or related organizations. >> Second, >> would you want to strike the other one or >> do you want to
>> would you Yep. to replace >> the other. bullet with 10 years. >> Well, there's two. >> And did you want to move that one to preferred or just strike it all together? >> The experience with education and our school law. Are you do you do you want
to get rid of that al together or move it down to preferred? >> I'm open to what my colleagues would like to do. Okay. So, let's finish with the first motion and then we'll make a second one. >> Can I just get clarification on the motion? Is it a replication of the Chicago? Yes.
>> Word for word. >> Yes. >> Okay. And and it would and and your you your motion was silent so far and we might take that up on a subsequent motion about doing something with the others. >> Do it separate. >> Great. Thank you. I like this a lot. >> Okay. Yeah. Mrs. Leon alreadyard
seconded the motion. >> So we're discussing it. Um Dr. Holless. >> Are we on the education and school law or we on the seven years managerial? >> We're on the motion that Mrs. Um, Alad. >> So, that's a seven-year managerial. Okay. I'm waiting for the school law. So, I don't have any comments.
>> Okay. Um, I Let's see here. Anybody else on the motion? >> I just want to be clear though, what we're voting on is the Chicago language, but seven years of practice, not 15. >> That's the only difference. >> I'm sorry.
It's the exact same language in the Chicago uh one. The last bullet or the last sentence. >> Well, the last sentence, not the first one. >> Okay. Then I have a comment. I thought we were doing above there where it says 15.
Um and one or more of the following large law firm, government, agency, private school, school district, university, nonprofit, litigation, admin, law, contracts, negotiation, real estate, you know, that whole list. When you said earlier that you like what it says in Chicago, I thought that that the
the the the clause before that was the one that you were talking about. The one at the bottom, I'm sorry. Would that and and that would replace the minimum of 10 years of progressive bullet. >> Correct. >> Terrific. Thank you.
>> Okay. I I have a comment. So, in the the one that the bullet that we're looking at, it's really just talking about the the progressive responsibility of work. It isn't directly related to being
licensed. So, that's what we're focusing on right now. Is that correct? Okay. >> So, okay, everybody clear on that? So it's the last bullet in the Chicago or the last sentence in Chicago and it's to
replace only about progressively more responsible work in related ours says in related fields of the title position. This spells it out more >> basically. Okay. All those in favor of
the motion say I. I. Any oppose say no. >> That motion carries. Okay. Mrs. Bullman. >> So to poach and we're very happy to have the um work done by the other count the other counties or other school
districts. Um I also uh like the language in the Fairfax which provides for a 10 year for 10 years of experience in public or private practice with litigation expertise in one or more of the following areas.
Constitution, Student Rights, Education, Employment, Civil Right, um, student rights, civil rights, real estate, local government procurement, contractor, tour law. >> So, would you like to make a motion? >> I'd like I'd like to make a motion to add that as well. So, I don't I mean, I think
>> do you want to replace something with that? >> Yeah, I think that maybe we would like replace experience with education andor school law and put Do we want to have you want to have the 10 years in that sentence? >> Yeah, I think I think we should have 10
years of practice experience offer friendly amendment. Do you want to add school to education in that Fairfax description? They don't have school law. They just have education law. >> Um, >> yeah, if we want. I mean, I don't think there's >> your motion. I you know
>> we're replacing uh school or education in the third bullet >> I think. See the thing is is if we're saying in one of in one or more of the following areas I don't think just school law is going to get the job done for us for like the broad scope of the
candidate like what they need to understand it would um that might be easier to >> and to my knowledge school Miss Batista is a subset of education law. >> Yes. >> Terrific. Thank you. I I love the motion. >> Okay. Second motion.
Dr. Holes. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. So, um, if we're going to adopt the Fairfax language, um, I'd like to get Miss Batista's input because it says in one or more of the
following areas. So, we could hire someone in one area and has no experience in the others. Um, I just want to make sure that we're actually um wording everything the right way so we
can get the most competent person uh at the same time broadening the pool of applicants. So, if Miss Batista could weigh in um based on the language that says in one or more of the following. So if we get a candidate in one of the
following um is there any parts of this that is relevant as a minimum qualification uh that is you would say would be mandatory to have or essential to have >> this Batista >> essential to have um
Well, student rights and education, you know, student rights. Um, it's I would say student rights, uh, FURPA, ESC, and, uh, contract review are the areas that
we have the most volume in in our office. So, um, of course, you know, if you're going to be looking at the current needs of the district, um, which, by the way, they have fluctuated throughout the, you
know, three decades that I've been here. Um, right now is more of a redefining and, um, construction uh, related real estate type of law. So,
um I would, you know, if you could say instead of saying in one or more of the following areas, if you wanted to have the if the person should have, you know, some experience in two or more of the areas. Um
>> Okay. So, um, so Miss Batista, I, um, I hear you, >> but I also heard you say that in based on the volume of work that you've done in Broad County, it would be um, areas
such as ESC, contract review, furpa, those are areas that are essential, right? That those are not in here. So I'm trying to >> well I think under maybe under student rights or you know education that would definitely capture that.
>> Okay. So then it we could end up hiring someone in two of the following areas that exclude student rights and education. So I I'm I'm trying to ascertain what exactly is absolutely needed that
we know for sure we're including that in the job description based upon your experience and your suggestion. So the more would be a very general term that could basically include any two of the following without necessarily including the two that you
consider essential. So, do you consider student rights and education essential? And would would would those cover your prior comment about ESC and FURPA contract review? I do. Um, however, if your what your aim
is to open up the pool, if you're going to then mandate that they have student rights and education experience, then kind of you're going back to narrowing the pool. >> Okay. So, here's my my subsequent question. If these are essential, >> could we include in the minimum
requirement that that these are um if they don't have these that there's a timeline to which they acquire that knowledge through some kind of um um I don't know um um course or whatever is
required in that area or at least some basic knowledge of it, right? because if they come in without that knowledge at all um and they don't have any real incentive to go get that knowledge because we didn't state it
here then that could impact the level to which they're able to do this job. Well, if you hire someone that doesn't have a particular area of expertise and has no intention or desire to make, you know, do the training and and make
themselves knowledgeable in that area, then I would say you I hired the wrong person. >> Right. Right. But but instead of waiting for them to elect that option, >> could we make sure they do it? >> We added to their contract. >> Added to their contract. So
>> okay. All right. Um my last question I I I just think it's essential that we we don't rely on a person to say we're going to do this that in some form or way we make sure they do it. Um and the other question I have, Miss Batista, is is there anything in the any added
information that you think is relevant either in the preferred qualification or the minimum qualification that we somehow did not include? Miss Batista. >> Um, thank you, Madam Chair. No, I think that it contains all the u necessary
areas. >> Okay. So, I I'll have um um I think I would want more comments on adding those essential requirements uh to the contract, how that works and so on. >> Mr. See,
>> thank you, Chair. and and obviously I have a quite a few comments on this, but I want to focus on on the motion that's pending before uh before us right now. Um first and foremost, I I understand this this language here about the 10 years experience and and I understand kind of
its intent. Um however, I I I think the real world application could have some problems and here's why. This basically says you have to have 10 years experience in one or more. And then it lists a laundry list of items that I think are important and that any general counsel representing a school board
should have. However, the way that this is written as is again one or more. So presumably if someone comes in like myself, right, obviously I wouldn't run, but I'm just giving my uh giving it a real world example, who has
more than 10 years experience in real estate law, both transactional real estate and um litigation in real estate. I would check that box. I don't think that I'm qualified to be the general counsel of the Broward County School Board despite the fact that I've checked
this box. You also have here uh contract or tort law. There's a very very very very large contingent of members of the Florida Bar who can say that they have 10 years experience in contract law and the same thing with tort law and that
doesn't mean that you know I want John Morgan to be the general counsel of the Broward County School Board despite his years and years of experience in tort law. Right? So, I understand the point of of of this uh of this category here, but I think when you're limiting it to
one or more to to to check a box to see if somebody's qualified, I I I think it has to be a little tighter. I think it has to be inclusive of some of these areas that to me are a must, right? Local government experience, education
law. I I mean I I don't realistically see how we bring anybody into this post who doesn't have substantial experience in education law. Period. Full stop. You can't do it. And uh you know, same thing to go same thing with with um the civil
rights stuff and the constitutional stuff. Um having a firm grasp on I don't know, let's say like the first amendment, I think, is extremely important for a general counsel's position. And if you don't have that experience, I don't think um I I don't think you should be uh considered. So I
I I I would I want to obviously give my my colleagues the opportunity to continue with this conversation, which I think is an important one on this area, but certainly having the language as is from from Virginia that just says one or more. I I don't think that's enough because one could be, hey, I'm a I'm a
10-year practitioner in real estate law. I check that box. I'm qualified according to this minimum qualification that's on this application. Right. It's it's it's not enough. Um chair, may I ask a question for Miss Patisa? >> Um is there a mechanism in place in
which an interim in-house general counsel would be appointed in the event that we have not selected our full the full-time position on the last day of of Miss Batista's uh employment with the district? We're actually going to discuss that in
in later on in this discussion. >> Okay. And the reason I asked that is is an important one. Um I was not part of this board when the last decision was made on who the general counsel was going to be. Um in talking to some people, it's my understanding that uh we
had um some difficulty with getting people to um fill the the minimum qualifications, which I get. Um, however, and I'm not suggesting by any stretch of the imagination that we didn't make the right decision by hiring Miss Batista. I think I think it was a
good one for the district. Um, but my concern is I don't want this attitude of we've got to have these really loose qualifications to attract this giant applicant pool because we know when Miss Batista is leaving and we have to have this position filled. I don't want that
pressure on us. This needs to be narrowly tailored. We are the sixth largest school district in the entire country. Unless something has changed recently, I don't think it has. I want the best. I want the brightest. And I want the people I want a a person who's going to come in and is going to serve
this this district well. And if that happen if if that search takes a little while, I'm okay with that as long as obviously we're, you know, we're properly protected. And and I think knowing that we've got um someone within house right now that can step up into an
interim role just like when a you know when a coach leaves right you have the interim head coach which the Dolphins are definitely in need of an interim head coach right now. We need an interim head coach right to come in and um step in. So if this process takes 2, three,
four, six months, I want to make sure we are getting the best person for this job and we are not feeling rushed because oh my god, Miss Batista is leaving on on on such and such day. We have got to make this decision. We have to have these loosey goosey standards to let everybody in and we'll have an a pool applicant of 75 people uh you know once a week
coming. I I don't want that. I want excellence. I want perfection. I want the best and the brightest. and I don't want to feel rushed into making a decision because there isn't a mechanism for having someone come in and step up in her absence which is why I asked the question. >> Thank you, Mrs. Alhida. You're good. Dr.
Seaman >> chair, are we discussing this motion in particular the general topic? >> We're still on the motion. >> Yeah, I I'm starting to recognize kind of the interplay between the qualifications and other parts of the job description and the process that we
go through to get uh somebody. And I know the process is going to come up um subsequent to this, but I'd like to have as broad of a minimum uh standard as we can. I think the people who don't have any experience in student or education
law would be ill advised to apply. Uh but they could and it could be that there's a rock-solid person that has been doing litigation because you make a lot of money doing that forever and they want to uh have a second job uh at a school district and they're such an incredibly great lawyer uh that they
become a candidate. Um so I like this motion. I think it makes sense. Um uh and I think that uh while it does allow more people to apply um the salary in this position uh doesn't really encourage people to leave private
practice to come back and do this. Um and and um I think we're going to be okay and I look forward to talking more about you know once we've settled on the job description um you know how we're going to do the process and chair when we're done with this item that I do have a change to the job description and
recommend uh when there's time. >> Okay. Um, Mrs. Bulman, >> thank you. Um, so, uh, just based on what Dr. Holes is questioning, I don't have a problem with adding two or more of the division. I mean, I think, and to
speak to Mr. Server, I everybody wants the best attorney here, but I think that John Morgan's not leaving his law firm to come apply for this job. I I'm pretty confident of that. So, I mean, when you're looking at who's actually going to apply, I the purpose of this is that
we do have maybe people that we wouldn't be capturing because it's so narrowly tail tailored. And then when we get the applications, we'll decide whether or not they have any business being here because managerially we might really
benefit from somebody that has a different background. um because we do have a team that's already in house as well that has a knowledge of the various areas that we have. I to the point that um Miss Batista made earlier though too like
what we're focusing right now based on redefining and things that are happening. I do think we should add construction law to that laundry list of potential of um areas of expertise because we're going to be dealing with construction and then
obviously we have a lot of real estate issues as well. So um I I would amend and I and Miss Batisa is tort law really a an issue like is that something that we
that you deal with? right that currently the tort law area is is mostly handled by outside council through risk management and not through my office.
>> Okay. So we might not need to law. >> Well I mean I don't know if you don't need it. I think you need some knowledge of it. You know, I mean, usually when the district is sued and in handling litigation on behalf of the district for
20 years, I know that they plaintiffs tend to put in, you know, maybe like a federal cause of action and then some state causes of action based on on tort infliction of emotional distress, you
know, whatever. >> Okay. So you do you do need some some tort law of knowledge but I wouldn't say that that's the >> the primary >> the primary at all. Yeah. >> Okay.
Um so I guess for to my colleagues do we want to narrow it to at least two of those areas or do you want to keep it at one? And I'd like to I would just like to add construction to there. I think that that
would be another area that we would benefit from. And then what? So I I I'm just amending my motion to add construction >> and to change one to two. >> No, I don't think everyone kind of shook their head on that one. >> Okay.
>> Like two. >> I think most of us are two. Okay. Then we'll add two. So, two or more and then um contract tort or construction >> and this will allow us to get more
applications and then we can you know if 90% of them don't qualify and we don't think they're going to do a good job and they don't have any business being there we won't >> okay >> move forward. >> Mrs. Lee already are do you second the changes in the >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, we're still on the motion.
It's just amended tweaked a little. Mrs. Leonardi, >> thank you. And I I agree. I support the motion. I agree with Miss Bulman. I think everyone up here wants to hire the best candidate. None of us are here, I think, to say we want to hire a mediocre general counsel. Um, we want I think we
all want what's best for this district and for this board. And part of that is hiring an excellent general counsel. Um, I think it's important maybe for those of us who were not here the last time we did the general counsel search to go
back and review the documents and the meetings from when we did do uh a general counsel search back in the summer of 2021. Um, we really limited ourselves in the candidates that we had um options with because of a very narrow
job description. the job description has changed a little bit, but um having been through that process before, uh I think it's really important that we give us give ourselves a a broad pool of candidates. I think we are all
intelligent enough and we all have the values to say uh we, you know, this person certainly qualifies, but maybe isn't best for this district. That's how this process works. Um so I I support the motion. I really come from the having done this before um and having
been really limited with I think we got to the point where we only had two options and one person walked away from us because of a a contract issue. Um I I think being able to look at everyone who qualifies um who might bring something
unique uh to the position is really really important. Um so that's where I'm operating from. And then are we are we discussing the job description or are we discussing like the timeline right now? Um >> just on the job description. >> Okay. Thank you. >> We're going to do this in pieces.
>> Got it. Thank you. >> And this is this is minimum qualifications. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> So I will hold um I I like the motion and I'll reread it again um just to make
sure we're all on the same line, but I to Mr. Severa's point and to Miss Leonard's point, we do want to cast a wider um net of people, but so I when we get there, I would rather move where it says experience with education in our
school law, not get rid of it completely, but move it down to preferred qualifications. So, I'll make that motion. I don't mind broadening the minimum qualifications, but I think in preferred, to Mr. Sea's point, you'd want to say our preference is that you
have this education andor school law, but for minimum qualifications to broaden the the net, I I don't mind adding all of those other pieces to it. So, just before I move on, so Miss Rupert has what we're saying and out
loud to everyone, the motion is um to add to minimum qualifications and experience 10 years of experience in public or private practice with litigation expertise in two or more of the following areas. the Constitution,
student rights, education, employment, civil rights, real estate, local government, procurement, contract, tort or construction? >> Construction law. >> Construction law. Sorry. So that is the amended motion.
>> And chair, just to be clear, is it to replace the 10 years or um to replace >> experience >> at least for now, experience with education or school law? >> Correct. >> Okay. So the whole motion is that to replace the third bullet under minimum cost. >> Yes.
>> Thank you, ma'am. >> Okay. Um, >> yes. >> Well, I am separate. >> I am. >> We're still on miss. >> Can we just keep it there and add this and then make your motion on that?
>> No, we can't, I don't think, because it's really defining the experience in a different way. Well, I mean, I think Miss Well, we could amend the motion one more time and just add to the motion to move what's there to experience to make this easier. Maybe
I think Mrs. Aludf's concern is if we remove it, then it the motion wouldn't be to move it because we just removed it. That's the point she's trying to make. So, if we added to the motion >> that we're going to we're going to put
your motion there and move experience to preferred, I think that would solve that would do it all in one. >> Okay. Can I talk? >> Go ahead. >> Um, I don't agree with that. I I think that the experience with education or school law, we're saying experience.
We're not saying to be certified in educational law. that is paramount to be in this job description as a minimum minimum qualifications. I'm yeah it needs to stay there in minimum qualifications. We're not saying to be
certified in educational law which we've had in the past which when then restricted us because there's only 65 people in the state or whatever that is actually certified in educational law. We're not saying that we're just saying experience. >> Okay. We'll leave it where it is. Um, go
ahead, Mrs. Coleman. >> Okay. So, it said in in this it says education. So, that's education law. So, what are we? I'm a little confused because education
law is in there. I mean, I guess we could add school law into this. >> We already talked about that. >> Or no, >> you had that discussion. You decided you didn't that school law was incorporated into educ. I'm just confused about what what what we're doing.
>> Mrs. Bowman's motion is to replace the experience with education andor school law with the sentence that I just read. Yeah, that's her motion. >> And if you don't want to do that, you can vote against the motion. >> Correct. Okay. Miss Dr. Holmes has civil
rights and all. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. So, um I I think that I guess where my thought is is it's important that we don't water this down. I know that
I think there's a fine balance in getting a floodgate of candidates and a limited number of candidates. And I'm not sure what which one we're achieving here today. Um, so I know that uh board member sea
mentioned um uh in interim and and so um Miss Batista, do we have anyone in house capable of serving as an interim? Should we not be able to >> We're going to talk about this in a later spot. So I don't think it's
appropriate to have that discussion right now because it has nothing to do with the job description whether someone can serve as an intram or not. Well, the reason I'm asking, Madame Chair, is because my vote on this um is also contingent on that because I
don't want us to water this down where we have a floodgate of candidates that don't meet the qualification when we could when we could also entertain the idea if we if I know we have someone qualified as an interim and we I can make a better decision as to what I
include in the job in the job description um as opposed to getting a floodgate of candidates. states that don't qualify. Um, so that's the reason for my question. So my question is is contingent on how I'll vote. >> I I I understand that sort of, but we're
going to have a discussion about intram and whether we're going to go out for an intram or look in house. So I think it's in a I don't know if >> right I'm not asking if we're going to go out or not. I'm just simply asking >> I know but that it clouds the second discussion about what we do for an interim.
>> Okay. So, Madam Chair, it's okay, but by you objecting me having an answer to that question, I will not be able to make an informed decision on what we're talking about. >> I just don't I personally >> I get it. But I'm saying that information is relevant to my decision making
>> because um I don't want to I don't want to have a floodgate of candidates come in um as opposed to a limited number of candidates. If I know that we don't have anyone in house who could possibly take the role, then then I let Dr. Lozano answer your
question instead of Miss Batista. >> My staff has done some research and it looked like we do have an internal um candidate that's willing to step into the interim role at this time if needed. >> That is my question, Madam Chair. Thank you,
>> Mrs. Bowman. So I think you know on this language again we it does cover I I think the concern is covered in this once we look at this is a this is a job description. So it has it I think it
ticks all checks all the boxes that we need and then we will review the re the resumeumés and then we'll decide whether or not somebody qualifies or they have the experience that we want. I mean, I think so we're kind of getting a little
too detailed, I think, at this point. And in terms of a floodgate of applicants, I mean, sure, we might be getting that, but again, and I think, you know, I I don't see a lot of people leaving a lucrative private practice to
come take this job. um necessarily unless unless they're in a certain place in their career or they have, you know, so I I don't think there's going to be like 5 million applicants for this. I think it's I think we're, you know, I think that this
is going to be a limited and then we're going to have a limited number of people that we actually want to talk to because any, you know, someone with construction law might apply that that really doesn't have any knowledge of the rest of this is not really going to to be um someone
that we're going to want to even necessarily interview. So, that's going to be up to us. We just have to have a broad enough job description so that we can capture anyone that might be in those categories. And you know with you the concern about the education and the
school law, we've got constitution, student rights, civil rights, education. I think that captures the different areas that would apply to school and educate. I mean, education law is in there specifically and then the school
law applies to a lot of those other things. So, Mrs. Alhida, do we have to put school law in there to add that to the list? >> Miss Batista said it was incorporated in education. >> Talked about that.
>> Okay. And then just being picky, do we have to write the word law after all of those constitution laws, students rights law, educational law? No. Miss Batisa. Um it seems that the intent
was that by having the word law at the at the end of the last um designation that that would apply to each and everyone. It would be constitution law, student rights law, education law, but just putting it at the very end after well in this case it says tort law. You
could say tort law and or you know construction law that would apply the law would apply to all the other ones. >> Great. >> But would it make it stronger putting the word law? >> I mean I I'm pretty sure they understand
that this is about the law. >> Okay. >> We can put law at the end of >> Okay. Of which one? >> For construction law. Right. That's what we have. >> It's a lawyer that we're looking for. Yep. Okay. So, just to be clear because for
the minutes that we're doing, it would say 10 years of experience in public or private practice with litigation expertise in two or more of the following areas. The Constitution, student rights, education, employment, civil rights, real estate, local government, procurement, contract, tort,
or construction law. >> Okay. All those in favor of the motion. >> Chair, I I apologize. I I just caught this and I and I just want to make sure we're crossing all our tees and and dotting all our eyes. Um, Miss Batista, if if I'm if I'm
remembering this correctly, you can only identify yourself as an expert or claim you have expertise in something if you're board certified. Isn't that how that works? >> Yeah. So, we're saying litigation expertise. Is that implicit that the
candidate would have to be board certified in one of those 10 or so areas that we're listing off? >> I or excuse me, two or more should be all 10, but I'll I'll settle for two for purpose of this conversation. Um I don't
want to exclude anybody who's reading too deeply into that when it says because remember this is coming from Virginia. Um so I don't I don't know what their laws are. So well, first of all, I want clarification. Is is am I remembering that correctly? You cannot say you have expertise in something
unless you're board certified. Is that still the the way it works with the bar? >> Yes. Okay. In Florida, you have to to say that you have uh a specialty or that you're um an you have expertise um would be that you have a
certification, you're board certified in that area. So perhaps the better way to describe it there would be litigation experience. >> Yeah, I I think that's how it has to be. Okay, >> Miss Bowman, do you want to amends your >> Yeah, good catch, Mr. Sero. So,
litigation experience. >> I really do. I try hard. >> I mean, and I appreciate that. >> Um, so how would you like that to What did What did you guys just say? Sorry. >> I think I think the council's recommendation was experience. I don't want to speak for Miss Batista. litigation experience instead of expertise
>> demonstrated or should we have it be a little stronger the not I don't know not demonstrated but >> I think you can judge that on the rest >> okay experience that's fine I I think that sounds great thank you >> Miss Leonardi you okay with the amendment >> is there any objection to that
>> Mrs. I think so >> Mrs. We have to ask you um I wanted to make sure that we're still including the third bullet for experience with education and school law. >> Um we'll get to that. >> She's just adding this as a minimum
qualification. We haven't gotten to the third bullet. >> Third bullet yet. Okay. >> Yes. >> Seems like it would. >> So experience because you had asked not to move it. So >> we just take the word expert. >> I mean as f as I mean I'm okay with it
as far as if it's in this motion if this incumbent the experience in education or school law is in this motion. Yes Batista. >> Yes. Okay then we can remove it. Okay. >> And we're just crossing out.
>> Right. They're asking about two different things. So Miss um Miss Rupert was bringing back up the third bullet. She wants to make sure experience with education in or school law is not removed. And it's it you're just expanding that third bullet to include
all of the other things. So it's not being removed. It's being expanded. >> It's incorporated. >> It's incorporated in the motion that she's making. >> Got it. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Can you repeat the motion, Madam Chair? >> Yes. One more time. So the motion is to
expand the third bullet. Instead of it just saying experience with education or school law and or school law, it would say 10 years of experience in public or private practice with litigation experience in two or more of the following areas. The Constitution,
student rights, education, employment, civil rights, real estate, local government, procurement, contract, tort or construction law. >> Okay. >> All right. Chair. Now it's now it's um I think we've created a little bit of a
problem. Um you don't necessarily have to have 10 years of litigation experience. You need to have experience period, legal experience. Sometimes that ends up in litigation. Sometimes that's just reviewing a contract. Sometimes it's understanding the first amendment and
explaining it to schoolboard members. Why are we starting with litigation experience in any two of these fields? Not. It just says with litigation experience. >> Nope. >> I I I I just heard what the chair read and it said litigation >> of experience in public or private
practice with litigation experience. It doesn't say you have to have 10 years of litigation experience. It just says within those 10 years of experience, you should have some litigation experience. >> Okay. Well, I passed my AP English test in high school and I think that's a
dangling metaphor. If you if you what you say is 10 years of experience in public private press with litigation experience in one or in two or more of these areas, it it could be read that you have litigation experience in two of those areas. And so we just have to be
really clear with hard grammar so that people exactly understand what we're looking for. >> Litigation experience in those areas, >> right? But are we really counting 10 years of litigation in these fields of law? >> That's not what it says. It just says Let me read it again. 10 years of
experience in public or private practice with litigation experience in two or more of the following areas. >> Yeah. >> Doesn't ask of it. It just says within your 10 years of experience in public or private practice, you have to have some litigation. So if you want to put some
with some litigation to be clear, we could add the word some. >> But the I'm not reading it the way you No, I don't. >> It's okay. >> Um Okay, >> it's okay.
>> I I dropped my gramarian hat. >> Mr. Lozano, do you have any insight? Do Do you think it needs to be wordsmith? >> So, I I see it the way um General Counsel Batista sees it. That is within.
So, I think we're okay with that language. >> You think we're okay, Miss Batista? >> Rip it. There we go. >> Thank you. Okay, we good, Miss um M Mrs. Rupert, >> I have something. >> Okay, I I just want to really make sure
here that we're we're deciding if uh there's two years experience in education law. That's it because it's not just a bullet. It can be an either or
where it used to be a bullet. It used to be number three. Uh which is how I really like it. But when he and I understand that it's in this uh list of two or more successful blah blah blas
and it's in there. Um but I think it explain to me Does one have to be education law? It doesn't look like that. >> Right. The point was to make a bigger net, but I'm going to make a motion
later to add it to preferred >> that it's experience. I mean, education I personally >> Okay. So, you can vote no on the motion. >> Yeah, I'll plan on that. >> I'd like to call a question. All those
in favor of calling the question say I. I. Any oppose say no. >> No. >> Motion carries. I think there was only two nos. Two nos. >> Okay. All those >> were Dr. Zean and just so for the minutes. >> Mrs. Leonardi.
>> Thank you. >> All those in favor of the motion say I. >> I. All those opposed say no. >> No. >> Want to do a roll call. >> Roll call. School board members. Ahadv, >> yes. >> Bowman, >> yes.
>> Sea, >> yes. >> Hixon, >> yes. >> Honest, >> no. >> Leonardi, >> yes. >> Rupert, >> Thompson, >> yes. >> Zean, >> yes. >> 72 passes. >> Okay. All righty. So, we're done with
that motion. I had Dr. Zean. >> Thanks so much, Chair. Um, there's a point in our job description, fifth bullet, where we talk about the general counsel serving as our parliamentarian. I was on the board when we added this. I was on the board when we asked Miss
Batista as our general counsel to go through some uh training. Miss Batista, did you actually get certified as a parliamentarian or did you just do a a minimum amount of training to be fully qualified to do that job? >> I am a member uh parliamentarian. So I'm
not a registered par parliamentarian yet. >> Terrific. But you completed a I I think just to remember remind new people and others, we asked you to take a certain amount of parliamentarian training so that you could help us on on those issues. >> Correct. And I took a test and
>> congratulations. I'm sure you did very well. >> Yes. >> As always. >> 97. >> Do you want to share your results? You obviously do. Wow. Thank you for for uh educating the public on your uh your your outstanding
test results. Um I'd like chair to find out though about uh in the research that our staff did on on this job description. Did we find other school districts in this research that were done that asks our general counsel to both be making very subtle judgments
about arcane pieces of law and uh advising the school board and the superintendent on u on parliamentary procedure? Did any other district have this in there? >> Dr. Heer, >> Dr. Lozona, >> we would have to do a followup on that information.
>> Yeah, I I I'll just tell you I I find it a challenge. Um I think that this board has gotten a lot better at parliamentarian, but it's very difficult to be both of those things to a board. Um and the parliamentarian generally doesn't carry the same level of
authority as your general counsel does. the general counsel is going to tell you how to stay out of jail, how to not get sued, you know, pretty weighty issues. U making motions and substitute motions and amendments and uh things like that while incredibly, you know, good for
boards to pay attention to, my preference would be to drop that. If we choose not to drop it, chair, then I would add something in the minimum qualifications or I' I'd ask our staff if this makes sense. We asked our general counsel to be the parliamentarian in the past and said you
had to be a member of the parliamentarian the society loosely described Miss Batista but it seems like we should either have that in preferred qualifications and then when we hire somebody if they don't have it we can ask them to get it in a year or so um
and then uh and leave it in or my preference would be to take out the fifth bullet and allocate that responsibility to somebody else uh rather than to our general counsel. Mrs. Rupert >> uh Miami day does >> does
>> for the parliamentary procedures it's knowledge of parliamentary procedures certification preferred you asked if somebody had >> brilliant thank you so much and uh so they double hat their general counsel is the parliamentarian as well so let me just start with that then if you don't
mind uh Miss Rupert can you my motion is to read what Miami Dade says if you could read that to us. Sure. >> Knowledge of parliamentary procedures parenthesis certification preferred >> and that is under minimum or or uh requ
minimum or preferred in Miami day. >> Well, it says certification preferred. So um >> I'm sorry I think that the indication is the knowledge of parliamentary procedures is part of minimum and then certified in it is preferred.
>> Yeah, this isn't it's not split up as nicely as you would like it. They They're not following the standard. I would like to make that motion though that on the minimum that we say that they have is is the I'm sorry I don't have this Miami date one up. I can find it and that'll save us some time.
>> Um yeah, second from the last one. >> Thank you so much. So I would re I'd make a motion that we add knowledge oops knowledge of parliamentary procedures under minimum and um certification
as Miss Batisa is as a parliamentarian. >> Yes. >> Thank you. And then under preferred uh certification as parliamentarian. >> Second. That's uh that's the motion to add two bullets. >> Second. >> Thanks.
>> Okay. Any discussion? Any public comment on the motion >> or discussion? Mrs. Leonardi? >> Yeah, I mean I think that uh again this is not the direction that I think we should go in in terms of narrowing these
things. I think um how Miss Batista did it kind of learning on the job going through the process uh was fine. I think it is important that it is a part of the essential
performance responsibilities but I don't agree with um adding this to uh the qualifications. Thank you. >> Okay. Um I also agree we're trying to whittle it down. I believe that we put
the the requirement in Miss Batista's evaluation that was part of the objectives to participate in the parliamentary part of it. So um although it's part of what we would accept expect for their
performance, I don't want to put it in the minimum. I don't mind putting it in preferred but I wouldn't want to put it in minimum. Mrs. Alhad. >> So I would just um when I'm just thinking the added part to this is when
someone becomes chair maybe that we require them to do some type of training whether it's you know with Robert's rules of order or parliamentarian training because it's it's I think there's two parts of this and even the vice chair too. So this way they're also
learning. So, I know that's not part of this today, but I think that should be brought up later with the chairs and the vice chair's responsibility and then the training that they get. And I think because that it's not just all on general counsel, it's the chair and the vice chair too.
>> Anybody else? Dr. Holless. >> Uh Dr. Zean, I would be supportive of the motion if it is placed under preferred. Um I am concerned about that particular aspect under minimum. Um, so if you want to modify, then I'll be
supportive. If not, then I I I think we're going to narrow too much. >> Mrs. Batista, >> um, I'm not going to opine whether it should be in which section or what, but I just wanted to um add that because we
are considered the the board is considered a small uh group or a small body um such as a committee and whatnot. uh Robert's rule says that Robert that the parliamentary procedures are generally applied more loosely than in
large assemblies. So I just wanted to you know that's one of the reasons that I believe that it wasn't as part part of the job description in the beginning is because they had you know the general counsel always had some knowledge of parliamentary procedure uh but you know
it wasn't as um I'm going to say regimented as the board has um desired that the application of those rules be made um as of late. >> Terrific. So, Madam Chair, um I think my my understanding of the motion is is
that the person has um some knowledge or experience, but not necessarily in terms of the applicability of Robert's rules uh um you know, rigidly to the board. Um so, if the maker of the motion want to clarify what his intent is,
>> Dr. Zean. >> Yeah. If there's no objection, I' I'd just want to do the experience uh part as uh a preferred not minimum. So that the the motion amended if there's no objection would be uh that in the preferred
knowledge of parliamentary procedures. And let me just explain why I think well I'll stop there and then I'd like to talk about it if there's no objection. >> Um who I think Mrs. Rupert seconded the motion. >> I'm fine with it. >> Okay, >> great. Um we do do parliamentary procedure loosely here. I guess general
counsel. Um, my point in doing this is that there are lawyers who spend their life in their office and they're brilliant lawyers and they read contracts and they settle issues and they write brilliant opinions about First Amendment and tors and things like
that. Um, and they never have left their office to actually work in a committee setting. They're not, you know, familiar with it. And I think that it would make sense if we're going to make it a job condition that we at least have it in the preferred list. Uh that you have some experience with that. There are
still to Mr. Sever's point, there's still plenty of room for people to apply that haven't done that, but it would be a flag and we'd probably have to do something as part of the hiring process to make sure that they uh were deepening. And I love Miss Aladd's point about chairs and vice chairs. They they have more to do with the conduct of this
meeting than the lawyer does. And so, uh, I know we'll have our meeting next month and maybe we can remind each other to talk about that and see if that's the will of the board. Thank you very much, chair. So, that's the amended motion. >> Okay. All those in favor of the motion say I. I. Any opposed say no.
>> Motion carries unanimously. Okay. Next up is Dr. Hol. Oh, were you done? Dr. Zean, what's up? >> I am. Yes. Thank you, >> Dr. Holes. >> Okay. So, Madame Chair, um, based upon what we currently have in the job description, I just want to make sure I
understand it clearly and maybe Miss Batista can help. Um, is it possible we could have based upon what we've we've uh agreed upon so far, hire a candidate who could
possibly not have ESC, Furpa, or contract review experience? Miss Batista, >> based on the motions we we passed in this session, including the motion by board member
Bulman with more one or I mean two or more of the following. Is is there a possibility that we could hire someone without ESSE furer or contract review experience that would fit in the guideline requirements we have so far?
And there's a reason I'm asking this question. >> Madam Chair, >> Miss Batista, >> thank you. >> So I'm going to answer it this way. Um, I think there is a a strong possibility
that a candidate will qualify for the position without that type of experience. However, whether you hire somebody without that experience is up to you. >> Got it. So, so based upon what we have so far, someone could qualify without this type of experience. All right. So,
that is concerning to me. Uh, B County schools, we have uh 50. Well, Dr. Heepern in B County schools. How many ESC students do we have? >> Dr. Hepper. >> Go ahead, Dr. Fton. I don't want to misquote. Don't
>> about 40,000. >> 40,000. Yeah. >> So, we have about 40,000 ESC students and and and I've been actually visiting ESE schools recently. So I would like that in in the preferred part of the the
job description that this is included as priority as part of the preferred experience. Now it will not change the pool of applicants uh because it's in it's in preferred as a board. We'll decide uh if if um we have a candidate
with these preferred experience if that would be relevant to hiring such an individual. So, I'd like to make a motion just to ensure that we have someone that we would rather have ESC experience, contract review, and FURPA
um being be preferred or in the preferred section. I'd like to make a motion that we include ESC, FURPA, and contract review as a preferred requirement. >> There a second. >> Second for discussion. Okay. Any public
comment on the motion? Board member discussion on the motion. Mrs. Leonardi, >> do we have um staff that specifically work on those issues in our legal department? >> Miss Batista. >> Yes, we currently have three attorneys
that um do contract review. one attorney that um specializes in ESC and uh and FURPA issues. >> Okay. Um I I think that if we go down this road, we could add like a million
preferred things. Um and I again I don't know that that's a wise exercise. Thank you. Anybody else? All right. All those in favor of the motion say I. >> I. >> Any oppose say no. No motion fails. Any
other board? I I have one thing. So I would also like to make a motion. So I move that we add experience with education andor school law in the preferred qualifications and experience. >> Second. >> Okay. Any public comment on the motion?
Board discussion. Dr. Zean, >> just curious um how this is going to read to an applicant. Um because in the minimum we say that as well. We say you have to have experience in education law. >> It doesn't it it could be one of the
two. >> It doesn't have to be. >> Yeah. I Let me just say it another way. I think it's implicit in the job. >> Yeah. >> Like if you're going to apply to be a general counsel of a school board, especially one a large urban one like ours, um it's it's just implicit in the title. And I um I think we're very clear
that we would like a broad net to capture lots of candidates and I think we will with the experience that we've listed in the minimum. Um so I just don't think that this is necessary. That's all. >> Okay. Well, thank you. Uh Mrs. Leonardi, >> I'm curious to hear from our uh HR staff
what the role or impact of the preferred qualifications has in sorting through the applicants um and ranking them. Dr. Lozano >> the preferred requirements when we're
doing a screening process kind of gives people additional points in that area. So you have your minimum clause you go through responsibilities and the preferred if those people had that that would give them additional scoring points opportunities to score higher than others. >> Okay. Ultimately though it's up to the
board to it doesn't it doesn't weed people out. Correct. >> Correct. it would not um disqualify somebody from the position. >> Okay? So, if someone in theory didn't meet any of the preferred qualifications, we could still theoretically
select them as our general counsel. >> That is correct. As long as they met the minimum qualifications, then that person could be considered. >> Okay. How does it how does it impact how the candidates are presented to the board? So, are you going to I mean I I know we're not talking about process um
but I'm just wondering how that how these candidates then will be presented to the board, >> right? We're going to discuss that when we talk about the role of the legal services committee and that'll I'm assuming will be part of their role. >> Okay, >> Mrs. Ala,
>> thank you. So I think why we're all sensitive to this because in the past in the past it was uh we were actually asking them to be certified educational law certified and so we've come down
from that. Um so I still think I like it adding as an additional bullet point even though it's in minimum I think it just adds that extra oomph. I understand that it's obvious, but words matter and
this was really important to us in the past to be certified and we would love for someone to come in to be educational certified. So, I like it here in the bullet points. >> Doc, uh, Mr. See, >> thank you, Chair. Um, I I just want some
some clarification from uh Dr. on his team on the on the minimum versus preferred. If if in fact this experience with education and school law is removed from the minimum qualifications category and put into the preferred
qualifications category and um actually strike that if it's if it's left that is now and a an applicant applies and they don't have experience in education or school law and if it's in the minimum qualifications is that within your internal procedures is that
automatically disqualified meaning that you don't even we won't even see it. That is correct. >> Okay. So, um if it's removed and put into the preferred qualifications, presumably it will if someone doesn't have it, it's a it's a it's an extra
check if they do, but it's not it won't it won't be uh it won't disqualify. Correct. >> That is correct. >> Okay. So, um here's my problem with not having the education and and and school law in the minimum qualifications >> before you go. We actually took it out
already. That was the motion that passed. It's incorporated in the motion that um Mrs. B Mrs. Bowman made. So, it's not spelled out any longer as experience with education andor school law. It is the um 10 years experience
with in public or private practice blah blah blah. So, that's why I'm asking to move it to preferred so that we keep it somewhere in the job descript. So, I just want you to know it's not there now. And >> my my apologies. I must have I must have misunderstood the uh the motion before to that full extent. So as as we sit
right now we have uh removed education and school off from the minimum qualifications meaning if we get an applicant who does not have um that qualification they'll still go through the vetting process and the scoring process and we'll still see the application >> as long as they have two or more
>> within the category of Miss Bowman's >> correct >> prior motion. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Thank you, Mrs. Bulman. Um, I just I wanted to clarify against you because I in the interest of not being redundant. So, it's in it's in the minimum
qualifications and Miss Batista, sorry guys, but can you explain again what education law is because it's an it's a it encompasses a lot of different areas. So, when we're saying education law to add it again
when we have it up here, I Yeah, education is like real estate. There's a >> right um education law would encompass all the different areas of law that are part of practicing within the education >> run in running the school district. So
it's a variety. So there's the education is a catch-all broad field that incorporates a lot of different areas of law which we already have on here, >> right? broader than school law, right? Okay. >> Okay. Okay. All those in favor of the
motion say I. I. Those opposed say no. >> No. >> No. >> Um roll call. >> Madam chair, can you repeat the motion, please? >> The motion was to add experience with education andor school law into
preferred qualifications and experience. >> Yes. In the previous motion, are any of those categories not encompassing educational law like constitution,
real estate? Because if someone comes in with two uh comes in with two of those areas of experience, then my question is then it wouldn't necessarily be educational law. So that's why it's important for it to be
in preferred. But is it any of those two categories not educational law? >> Miss Batista. >> Yes. I'm not sure that I understand the question exactly, but I think what
you're asking is is it possible for a candidate to qualify and not have >> I guess education, some education or school law experience. >> Correct. >> Right. Um and I think that would be possible. um right because you could
have done procurement and contract law for a private entity and never have done it uh related to an educational entity. >> Right? So that's why it's this is a good motion because you add it to preferred and then at least it would be there and
you're not limiting your scope of candidates. Okay, we'll try that again. Roll call. Roll call on the motion. School board members Bowman. >> No. >> Sea. >> Hixon. >> Yes. >> Hoes.
>> Yes. >> Leonardi. >> No. >> Rupert. >> Thompson. >> Yes. >> Zean, >> no. >> Alhidev. >> Yes. >> It passes. Uh 63.
>> Thank you. Anybody else have anything? Okay. Mrs. Bowman, >> just for clarification. So, Miss Aladep's um motion originally that we passed um what did that replace in minimum qualification because there seems nothing >> the second it it replaced the second
bullet where it said a minimum of 10 years of progressively more. >> It probably should also >> No, because there were two different things. One is about managerial experience and the other one is about what your >> Well, no, no, no. I'm not talking about
my the that pass motion. Um, bullet number two. Bullet number four seemed to address. I don't know if that's if that would if her motion would replace both of those or just one
because it's it's a minimum of progressively responsible managerial experience in law firms, corporate offices. This is experience supervising a team of attorneys. So that's the same. >> Do you have a motion? Well, because you're managing
>> to make a motion if you want. I If not, we're gonna we're going to vote on the job descriptions. >> Um, well, I I think that it's a little redundant if we have the if we have if we keep both of them in there. Um, I I
guess I would move to to that Miss Aladev's motion, the language that she put in there would replace um the second and the fourth bullet in minimum qualifications. And just what to clarify here, min it says a minimum
of seven years of progressively responsible managerial experience in law firms. So that's just responsible >> managerial, >> right? Managerial. The second one, the the fourth bullet says supervising a team of attorneys addressing legal issues across multiple subject areas.
>> That's different than >> well managerial I would say is the same. I mean you're >> right but one is about across multiple subject areas. One's just that you're a manager >> and it was enough. I mean they were two separate bullets originally
because all Mrs. Alhidev's motion did was ex reduce the number of years of the managerial part. >> Well, this not this isn't managerial. Number two says that you have more responsible work experience that you're
not managing anything in that one. >> That's true. >> So the managerial is number four. Supervising managerial. I mean I think we could clean that up a little bit. Um >> so do you have a motion? I would keep
I would keep number two the way it is and put Miss Alad's um >> we are >> our motion was to change number two to what Mrs. Alad did. So number two doesn't exist anymore. >> Okay. Well then
>> just so you know. So, your motion can be to delete or strike number four if you want, but you can't address. >> I can't add the language back in. I mean, I guess you could. I would I would
I would move to strike number four because I think that's what Miss Aladv's motion is doing. And then to add number two because that addresses the 10 years. you have to have 10 years of experience. We
already agreed with that or we don't, you know, >> but the motion that you just made said you had to have 10 years of experience. So your motion actually took care of that as well. >> Okay. Well, then I we have that
stricken. I think that number four is redundant. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> I would strike it. >> Madam Chair, can I clarify the motion? I just want to understand if the motion is to is to um >> strike bullet number four
>> and bring back bullet number two. >> Just strike >> just strike bullet number four. >> Don't bring back number two. We're not reviving it. >> Okay. Um second and >> Oh, so number four says experience supervising a team of attorneys addressing legal issues across multiple
subject areas. Any public comment? Board member comment Mrs. Alhadef. So I would um not be for that motion because it's two different things. We need to keep the the that experience
supervising a team because the supervising is the dayto-day oversight and operations of the legal department whereas the managing is more on strategic planning and coordination.
Thank you. Any other board member comment? All those in favor of the motion say I. All those in motion in favor of the motion say I. Did you change your mind? You made the motion. >> I
>> I >> All those opposed say no. >> Madam chair I'm >> Okay. So the motion fails two to seven. >> It needs to be written better. I just I can't >> tell me about it.
>> It's not. >> All right. Any other >> any other discussion on job description or can we vote on the amended job description >> since we're an hour and a half in people were afraid three hours was too long. >> We were hoping it was three too long.
>> All those in favor of um item number one, the job description for general counsel as amended say I. I. Any opposed say no. Motion carries unanimously. So, the next thing that we're going to talk about is whether we're going to do an
external or internal search. So, uh um Dr. Heepern, you want to turn it back over? >> You can proceed. Dr. Lozano. >> Thank you. >> All right. Our next item is to determine whether or not you want to go with an
outside external recruiting firm, Head Hunter, or do we want to use our internal um departments here. And my um research, we've called a couple of um head hunters recruiting firms um about eight to 10 of them, and we had a couple
questions last time about coming to you with a contingenc see which firms would be interested in contingency plan versus their cost and such. So I can review that research with you if you would prefer, Madam Chair. >> Yeah, if you could just briefly I know you sent us a document with it on it. So
maybe just refer to where it is in the document. >> I can. So you have three different timelines in your packet there. You have one titled on the left hand side. You'll see internal timeline, an external timeline, and then the interim.
Under the external timeline, you will see about what the industry standard is and the cost run from about 20% to 35% of a firstear salary. If we go with an external firm that does offer a um does a percentage, we may
have to go through the procurement process because at this time we don't know what the salary will be. So, it's difficult to for me to guarantee that we'll be coming in under 50,000. So we could go into an agreement with a recruitment firm that would be based their costing structure on a percentage.
We did find one two companies that will do a flat rate under 50,000. So I feel our excuse me I feel our external um search firms are very limited on what will give us choices in order to meet a
timeline of trying to replace somebody by the time Miss Batista leaves. um especially if we've got to go out through the recruit procurement process. So that is our external um kind of my thoughts on your external and then the internal. Do you want me to
pause? >> No, go ahead. >> Okay. And then with the eternal, if we lost our in-house talent management, talent acquisition departments, our only cost there would be if we wanted to cast the net um and do some paid marketing um advertising, that would be our cost
associated with that, which would run us approximately five to maybe $8,000. Um however, we have already started to reach out um to um candidates. It's a very specialized pool. Um whereas typically when you use a recruiting or a
head hunter, you do definitely use one of those for a specialized or an executive type position. However, with this being so contained within you have to have the Florida bar with it being an education. We do have a networking out there of candidates that we can already
reach out to to kind of help build our pool. So, I do feel if we did the internal search with the timeline you see outlined here, we would be able to get somebody in place um depending on your availability of course with um additional meetings in place um before
the winter or right before the end of December, first week in December before Miss Batista's departure. >> Thank you, Dr. Zean. >> Thanks so much, Chair. I'm just dying to know. I appreciate that a lot of work went into helping us understand options
that we have on the on the process. We happen to have somebody that's been a general counsel in a large urban district though and I'd be curious, chair, if you're aware of Miss Batista's uh general guidance to us about um the value of internal versus external and
kind of what we should know based on her 32 years of experience doing education law about finding another one. Um, there are some preconceived notions that all of us probably brought to this meeting, but there's one person here that's actually lived in this field. Um, and I'd be curious, chair, if she could
educate us a little bit on on how she feels the process is going to unfold here in the next few months. >> Miss Fatista. Well, what I would expect is that um HR has already done an excellent job of putting together a timeline and a
process that um they they feel confident will yield um applicants, qualified applicants um to, you know, to be able to have, you know, the ad out and reach out through HR to these particular
candidates that they have already located in the area of um education law. Um I don't know if if you know what what other I mean we had a conversation last week so we had some ideas that we already talked I already spoke about to
um HR uh about potential um places they could look um not just you know in within necessarily the normal places which would be school districts right um
and u so the process would be you know to to have release an ad for I would say 3 weeks or somewhere around that that time frame and um you know look at the pool of applicants and go through that
process of qualifying the applicants um you know looking to see if they're qualified uh and then interviewing. >> Terrific. And would you feel and again this is asking someone who's lived in this field for decades. Would you feel
like um there is there's a trade-off here between speed and using an external process? It seems like according to our team and I know how much you hate to give us your opinion about things but in this case you are the subject matter expert
in the room. Um, >> do you how do you get a sense of that trade-off of speed versus cost versus external in terms of um are we going to get a lot of juice for the squeeze on hiring somebody or putting out an incentive contract for lots of people to
work on to try and find your relief? I mean so if you really want the personal experience um I have been approached by recruiting firms in the past right to to apply to other districts and you know
and you always feel special when someone approaches you specifically right and I think that can be done through the internal HR department they can reach out just as well and make that phone call to you know specific candidates
candidates um that they feel are uniquely qualified. Um if they are, you know, they're able to do that, then I don't see that there will be much of a difference between an outside firm and the HR department actually conducting it. >> Terrific. And to the general counsel
again, is there a meeting coming up in the next month of the of Florida Association of Attorneys? And will you be attending that meeting? >> Yes. and and during that meeting, will you actively approach anybody that you think um is qualified and then make them aware of the opportunity that they have
in prior? >> Of course. >> And have you been able to talk to people on your staff here to encourage them to look at this and consider it as well? >> Yes. >> Terrific. >> Absolutely. >> I don't know who's chair anymore, but whoever's chair, thank you very much. I'm done. >> Thank you, Mrs. Leonardi.
The chair is the chair. Miss, >> it's a title, not a person. in reaching out to search firms, can you tell me about like the profile of the firms that that we reached out to? Like are they are they solely legal
recruiting firms or do they do um recruiting across the board with a legal like specialty um department? Dr. Hepper >> about Loza. >> Hi Miss Lonori. Yes, they were a variety
of different firms that do specialize in legal. They specialize in education. They specialize in government resources. Some private firms we talked to. So, we had a variety of them that specialize in different certainly do hone in on legal, but we also expanded our reach to talk
to um others as well. >> Okay. And did we like did we contact these these firms directly like did we speak to human beings or did we um like reach out through an online query? We called them individually and we had a
series of questions that we asked them. >> Okay. Um Okay. I in conversations that I've had um just with people in the community, it's my understanding that this is a two to
fourmonth process um whether we do internal or external. Um, so I don't know if we're ready to have the conversation if if we're simply talking right now or do we want to do internal versus external? Is
that the conversation we're having? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, I am open right now to starting off with an internal search. I've got to say though, I'm not super
enthusiastic about doing like paid online advertisements. I I think I said this in the last meeting. Um I think like word of mouth and people reaching out to people, speaking directly to them
is much more powerful than someone seeing an ad on anything. Um, so I I have some concerns about about doing this internally. I have concerns about doing it externally because I think those of us who were around when we hired external firms um in the
superintendent searches, we we weren't thrilled with how that went. Uh so I you know I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of my colleagues but I I do think you know last meeting I was much
more concerned about getting this done in a quick manner. Um I'm less concerned about that. I think we need to make a plan today for uh like a two to more two to four month timeline. And I think we need to make a plan to have an interim.
Um I I agree with the idea that we need to do this right, not necessarily fast. Okay. Um I'm going to just make a motion and then I'll go to you. So I would like
to make a motion that we start with an internal search and have a report back by November 12th meeting to see how many applicants there are. And then that time if we're not satisfied then we can go out for an external search. >> Second.
>> Any public comment on the motion? Board member comment on the motion. Mrs. Alida, thank you. I support the motion. I think we need to try to a save money and and b use our resources. Uh, one of the things
I would ask is there is 47 people with that have the educational law certified lawyers. I can send you the link. They give their name, they give their address, they give their office cell phone number and their personal cell phone number. I think we should be very
strategic on reaching out to all 46 people because Miss Batista is on that list. change your mind >> to give them that that personalization and ask and and walk them through it,
but be very uh specific about it. I would like to see the the list that specifically who you reached out to, how many times, and and keep reaching out to those people, not just oh, one and I got an answer machine and I don't call them back again.
>> Thank you, Mrs. Leonardi. Yeah, I I agree with that. Um I again I don't want us to limit ourselves just to those individuals and I think you know the general counsel of a very small um
district in the state may not they may be a good fit they may not be. So, I I really hope that we don't just stick to those individuals, but that we're reaching out to other government, you know, agents, attorneys at other government agencies that, you know, obviously fill the job description. Um,
because I could see a scenario in which the general counsel of a a large urban city in Florida uh would be able to do this job well. Um, and they may not be. I think, you know, I just really don't want us to limit ourselves and I
really can't emphasize enough Miss Alhadev's point that uh we are reaching out with a phone call uh speaking to people in real life. Thank you, >> Mrs. Bulman. >> I agree with the personal touch. Um, so
I, you know, I think we we don't want to limit and so I appreciate the fact that there's x number of people that are um board certified in education law. There are
I'm sure a vast additional number of people that would qualify for this in another capacity. So, and I and I think that something that we really have to take into consideration, too, is when you're I actually was talking to some people about this, but you know, like the affordability
um issue of living in Broward, are you really getting someone from a much more affordable part of the state to come down here to leave their position? I mean, there's a lot of considerations that and we have a very, you know, specific kind of um situation in
Broward. So that I mean obviously reaching out to the people that are board certified that's the lowhanging fruit. That's obvious. That doesn't really take a rocket science to get to that point. But um I think that if we're going to do an internal search, which I don't disagree
with, uh to start that we need to be looking at a broader candidate pool. Um, the most obvious to me would be other government attorneys that have the ability, you know, are familiar with with working within a government setting
and having, you know, having a board that they're um accountable to and kind of working in this kind of area. So, I would hope that I think I don't know if we need to add that or I don't know, but I
just >> Well, we're going to talk about the application process next, >> but that but I think if we're going to do internal, then we still need to be working to get as broad a pool as we can, which would include that. I mean that's government but also private
because there's people that may want to you know they might be at the end of their career they've done litigation they've done billable hours they have had leadership positions and they want to come and they would want to try something like this so I don't know how you're going to identify those people
but they may be there >> Dr. Lisano can can you give a what would an internal search look like? So, I'm very confident in my team that they could do a thorough internal search and bring you some candidates you'll be happy with. Um, as we're going broader,
I do feel that's where that $5,000 to $8,000 request to market and assist my team. um we can easily do the personalized calls with the list, but if we're going to broaden the scope, that $5,000 to $8,000 request will greatly
assist my team and getting more applicants in a broader pool. >> So, I have a question. Does my motion need to include how much money then? >> No, >> Miss Batista, >> because that was part of the
presentation for internal included that. So, if we vote for internal, does that include >> Yes. Okay. Just want to make sure. >> I'm confused um about that, general counsel. We we just went through a whole bunch of FSBA training that told us to say to the staff what to do and not how
to do it. And if the superintendent and Dr. Lozano think they need to go spend some money to get the word out because they're not getting enough applicants. I don't think the board should be in that business. We should say go find us great candidates. If if you and the superintendent within your budget need to go spend some of budgeted money to to
do this, you have a recruiting budget. I don't want to get into the micromanagement of saying whether they do or don't do it. >> That's what Miss Batista just said that I didn't need. >> She did. >> Yes. >> That was brilliant. >> Yes. Maybe louder next time. >> Mrs. Pullman.
>> Um this is a very important job. I mean, one of the top. So I, you know, I think we have to do what we have to do to get the right candidates too, either internal or external. So I mean, you know, it's like if you save money
with the search and we end up either wasting a lot of time without a good candidate or we get a subpar candidate and we end up wasting money on that end. I I think like let's put our resources into finding the best candidate and not
limit them. Anybody else? All those in favor of the motion and the motion was to um go with an internal search with a report back on November 12th as to how many applicants there are so we can determine whether we want to change that
motion or not. >> I Oh, sorry. I had some another question. To what extent does the legal services committee play a role in that or >> next? >> Okay. Okay. Okay. All those in favor of the motion say I. I. Any oppose say no.
>> Motion carries unanimously. Okay. So the next part of the discussion is the application process. Um so does staff want to talk about that. So the next step in the process would be to determine the application process.
So, we wanted to hear your feedback on what you would like that to look like as well as the role of the legal services committee. So, we have our general application that we do, but oftentimes we can include some specific questions
and you can also even decide if you would like to well more so for the legal services committee since they'll be the first ones to see them. Would you like to see responses written? Would you like us to get virtual responses? So, I wanted to get some feedback from you on what you kind of are envisioning that process to look like and if there would
be some specific questions that you wanted us to obtain some answers on so as you're reviewing and screening the candidates, you have a better idea of what the person looks like and can bring to the table for you. I I have a question. Do we have an
application from the Do you have an application already that like a template that you're using? Because I think we kind of would need to see what that looks like to be able to give comments. >> We have our standard application that anybody who applies to a position with
the school district completes, but we can add questions to enhance that application for specific information regarding that position. So, >> so what does that standard application include? G generally >> generally um name, address, where you
went to school, uh your your perform your jobs that you've held, how long have you held them, a brief statement about your responsibilities in those positions. Um then there's some HR things, some disclosure questions that we ask along those lines. Help me out, Miss Titer, if I'm missing other things.
Um, but it's usually a um an application to gather an I an overview of the person and then depending on the positions that we're advertising for, we will ask some specific questions to that position and ask them to for um answers to those questions. Um other times we've asked
people to provide a video um in answering those questions. Um we've included um that a presentation on something um would be required as part of the application process. So it's more job dependent on what we want to seek and to help guide you during that
screening process um where you can narrow it down to some finalists that you really want to bring forward. >> Okay. Thank you uh Dr. Holes. >> Thank you Madam Chair. So, as far as the internal process, week three and week four, in terms of the application um
process, um I would like talent acquisition to to play a sort of a greater role in the candidates that would end up going to legal services uh council. um in terms of not just the
filtering the minimum qualification but also taking a look at the preferred qualification providing some sort of a scoring or ranking system uh to those who meet um more of the preferred qualifications and then that is then
presented to legal services council for um further review and then taken to the board. I guess the way I understand it here and maybe I'm wrong is that talent acquisition will verify the minimum qualifications and then all of those who meet the minimum qualification will then
go to legal services council. I would prefer that talent acquisition not only verify the minimum qualification but provide some sort of a ranking or scoring on those who meet the preferred qualification before it goes to legal services council and then legal services
council take that those candidates and and filter that out to determine who comes to the board. >> Dr. Lozano. So we we definitely through the um review of the application process look at both the minimum and preferred and we
could provide a rubric for the committee or the entire board of um which minimum and which preferred um qualifications each candidate meets. And we can also do a pre-scoring as well and provide it to
the legal services committee scored by the talent acquisition team. >> Got it. So I madam chair I would prefer because of their it's within their line of work that talent acquisition um basically does the scoring or or the
ranking based upon what you feel how you feel those candidates meet the minimum qualification before it goes to legal services council. I don't want that role to be the the role played by legal services council when um Dr. Dr. Lzana, you your department has the experience
to be able to look at those applications and provide a scoring and then subsequently that would go to legal services council to take it from there as opposed to legal services council taking all of the minimum qualifications and determine a scoring. I I would rather see it done prior before it goes
to legal services council. >> Anybody have any objection to what Dr. Holless is asking? Mrs. Bowman. All right. And I apologize if this was already spoken said. So if are you this is before we actually interview
somebody, >> correct? >> Okay. So you're >> So what we would do and I think the legal services committee would appreciate if HR provides them all the um qualified candidates and the
screening um complete to what Dr. Hoes is recommending. Um, we'll also, you know, give the entire list so the committee can see all of the resumeumés, but it will, I think, greatly assist
them in time management if we provide them a completed um packet with a screening rubric already completed. >> Yeah, I think that sounds good. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, Madam Chair, um, in terms of that process, is it just
a suggestion that we make or is it a motion or what what what are we doing? >> Um, Miss Batista, >> you can make a motion. >> Okay. So, I'd like to make a motion that um talent acquisition uh not only screen for minimum
qualifications, but also for preferred qualifications and provide legal services counsel uh with a and Dr. Dr. Lzana, you can you can correct me on the term Dr. Lozana. Um, and uh, talent acquisition provide legal services
council with a ranking or correct and then what the legal services committee would do is look at those rankings and say based on this there's a clear line of delineation. We want to recommend to the
entire board for finalists, right? everybody who scored 100 and above um let's bring five, let's bring three based on the total number of qualified candidates. So, >> right. So, Madam Chair, it's not taking
it's not taking any any sort of uh um it's still giving the legal services committee latitude to decide who they want. It's just um taking a lot of the work off of them and the expertise of doing so, leaving that up to talent acquisition. So, so the motion then is
is for um talent acquisition to screen the applicants for minimum qualifications as well as preferred and provide a ranking um uh for those to legal services uh committee to be able to make the final decisions as to which candidates come to the board. >> Second the motion. Any public comment on
the motion? Board member discussion. >> Sure. Oh, >> um just wanted to clarify that there is, you know, a set of bylaws for the legal services committee and there are five members to the legal services committee uh that include the superintendent and
myself in addition to the three board members. So, um I think to just say the legal services committee is kind of a misnomer. Um so if you can just make sure that there is at least discussion so that everybody understands that the only people that would be involved would
be the three board members that serve in the legal services committee. >> Okay. So, Madam Chair, >> just >> right. My motion is still going to be in place uh for a uh shortly voting on, but I would also like to talk about the composition of the legal services committee based on Miss Batista's
comment uh before we actually vote on my motion because I think she's saying that it's important that we determine that um before we continue. >> I don't think we're determining anything. We we talked about that last week. Okay. So Miss Batista and the superintendent wouldn't be part of the
decision making. So I think what Miss Batista is saying is in your motion maybe it should say the board members who serve on the legal service. >> So Madam Chair, I'd like to clarify that as well because I know that was a suggestion but I don't recall it was a motion to exclude um uh the
superintendent, Miss Batista. So I'd like to I don't think we had a motion that we suggested that but it was not in a motion. So, I'd like to question whether or not I I'd like to find out why. Uh, and I understand the rational uh, but what would be the problem if the
superintendent and Miss Batista is on the legal services committee? >> Uh, Miss Batista, I don't remember the thought we settled on that. Dr. Heepern, do you have any thoughts or Dr. Lozan?
>> Go ahead, Dr. Lozano. So, I think it's cleaner if it's just the three board members who serve on the legal services committee to ask the sitting general counsel to participate. Could or could not, but I don't think that's going to
um bring you any different information than the three um serving board members and the superintendent as well. Um the general counsel position works directly for the board. So the board handling the hiring of the general counsel position
makes the most sense. >> Okay. So I I was wondering if what would be the problem with the superintendent? Is there a conflict? I'm trying I'm I'm not understanding why the exclusion of the superintendent. I can somewhat understand not including legal counsel
since we're trying to determine a legal uh council candidate and there could be potential conflict. But what would be the conflict having the superintendent continue on the legal service committee? >> I'm just not understanding. >> So I'll weigh in on that on that Dr. Hoess. Um Dr. Lozano kind of hit on a
nod is that this position reports directly to the board as do I. So I'm one of the three direct reports to the board. Um my um typically when we hire um anybody, it's the hiring manager that's doing the hiring and part of the
the interview process. Um, and so I I just see a conflict that I'm a direct report to the board as is the general counsel's office and also the chief auditor's office um for me to be in that committee at that time to to give any um input and insight um just to make the
process cleaner u without in any influence for my part versus what the board may be directly looking for in the next general counsel. >> Understand? Thank you for that clarification Dr. Eron. So my motion is with the understanding that the legal service committee is consist of the
three board members. >> Okay. Still second the motion. Any discussion? Mrs. Alhida. So Dr. Hebrurn just to look at it a different way. I I see you know you and your staff you work directly every day
in all day long with the general counsel. So we do value your opinion and so maybe not in this uh process that you weigh in but I think it is your
opinion does matter within this process and maybe that is having individual conversations with board members but we do want your opinion for sure. >> Thank you. Mrs. Rupert did you want to speak on the motion?
Just just uh clarification. Um would the legal services committee be able to look at all the resumes and not just the ranked ones? >> Yes. I think the idea was they would bring them all of them just ranked. >> Right. >> Okay. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> Right. But I Let me clarify. If they
didn't meet the qualifications, they wouldn't go to the committee. Is that correct? you would only be sending the minimum qualifi minimally qualified. >> That would be our plan. But if you want to see the ones that we determine to be
not qualified, we could do that, too. That's the will of the board. >> Okay. Mrs. Alhida, >> I was just going to say, you know, within this process, if the board wants to have two more people from the board just to be in this process, not specifically on the legal service
committee. This way you have five board member representatives. You know someone later can make a motion to add two more people to this just to this process. >> Madame chair. >> Hold on one second. Dr. Seaman.
>> All right. Um my understanding is that this board composed of whomever we designate are simply drawing a a line across a chart of ranked people and say we're going to interview three, five or seven. They're gonna they're going to keep going down the rank and they're going to draw the
cut score is what we often call it, right? And say above this goes forward. Below this we hold for right now. Is that correct, Chair? >> It could be. I mean, I think we're still trying to determine that. I think the idea was that they would give recommendations to the board, but as a
board, if we wanted to look at all of them, we still were a board of nine. So, we would still be able to vote on who should be interviewed. If I'm not mistaken, when we looked for um I think it was the
superintendent, my brain is muffled with a lot of things, but there were recommendations that came forward, but the board actually pulled another person and interviewed them as well. So, it's a recommendation to us, but as since we
would all be getting the information to um go through, you could still if there was someone not recommended, someone from the board could still bring that forward. >> Terrific. So, I I I I'm glad that we understand that. I I think that three members of the board is enough because
the other six of us are going to be able to see the other candidates and if we see somebody jumping off our uh uh based on their complete package that we think ought to be moved forward, we can do that before before, right? It's a body of nine. So these three have no
statutory authority to make any decisions on behalf of the board. That will have to come to the board. So, if what this committee is doing is helping in the process to screen to a lower number and report that out, uh I I think three is going to be enough because the
rest of us will still be able to review all the applications and if there's someone below whatever that set of people recommended to go forward is, we can pull some. Conversely, if there's someone on that list and we just think, look at what they've done or you know, here's something that we view as not making them fully eligible, we can take
somebody off that list. So that is our authority as a board. Um I hope we take this very seriously. I would value the superintendent's input as Miss Aladev said, but I also respect his position which is pretty clear that he doesn't
want to judge uh candidates because uh they are an equal report to the school board uh over time. So I think the three is going to be plenty. I think that they're fully qualified to, you know, in essence look over the shoulder of our talent acquisition team and go, great,
you know, let's do this. I hope that it's a minimum uh um imposition on your team. The three uh it's the schoolboard chair and Miss Bulman, no, Miss Bulman, Mr. Cera, and and Miss Leonardo. Okay.
So, yeah, I I I think we can make this easy. Let the three pick them. We'll all review it when it comes to the board and move on. >> Dr. Holmes. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. So, um I can go either way. I can understand having five as well because I know that talent acquisition is going to uh submit all of
the minimum qualification candidates with a ranking system. The legal services committee is going to narrow that down and they'll have the autonomy to do it however they want. Um so I I know at some point they're going to probably need to reach consensus at times and I think reaching consensus is
better with five than with three. So, um I I would be more in line of five um because what's going to come to the board is the is the narrowing down of candidates from whatever number they receive uh to whatever they submit to
us. So, they could receive 30 and we get four uh based upon their decision. I just think it would be easier with more than three for them to be able to come to a consensus if there's any sort of uh debate on whether or not to include or not to include a candidate that would
come before us. So, I would be supportive of five. I don't know if we need a vote on that or >> can well let's vote on your original motion and then we'll come back to to that. >> Um anybody else on the mo and can you just repeat your motion one more time
>> if I can remember? Okay. Um the motion is for talent acquisition to um uh recruit candidates uh who meet the minimum qualifications as well as the preferred uh qualifications and um provide a
ranking system to the legal service committee who will then use um autonomy in determining which candidates come forward to the board. >> All those in favor of the motion say I. I I. >> Any oppose say no.
>> Motion passes unanimously. Okay. Does somebody want to make an additional motion? >> Board member Aladv, do you want to make the motion? >> I move to add Dr. Zean and Dr. Hoiss to this process.
doctors >> to add to the just this process with the additional members from the legal service committee. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Any public comment on the motion? Board member discussion on the motion.
>> All those in favor of the motion say I. >> I. >> All those opposed say no. >> No. >> You want to do a roll call? >> Roll call on the motion. Board members Sea. Hixon, >> no.
>> Coldness, >> yes. >> Leonardi, >> no. >> Rupert, >> no. >> Thompson, >> yes. >> Zean, >> yes. >> Al Hidev, >> yes. >> And Bolman. >> Oh, man.
>> No. >> Thank you. >> Motion fails 54. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, I'd also like to make a motion. So, I would like to move that along with the application that's there that we ask candidates to provide
a writ um a a virtual or a video that explains why they're applying, what relevant experience they have applicable to Florida education law, and their experience supervising a team.
>> Is there a second? Oh, second. Okay. Um, public comment on the motion. Board member discussion on the motion. Dr. Zean, >> chair, I'm just curious where in the process um, are you suggesting doing this just for them to apply or once
they're selected to move forward with the next stage of the recruiting process, >> part of the application process to attach a video. I think that's kind of standard in today's world. Um, but so that It gives the committee and us a a
way to capture some of those specific things that we want to know so that we'd know if we wanted them to move on in the process. >> Um, let me just I'd be curious if our staff views that as a standard practice at this point or is it a standard
practice once they're selected for kind of a next round of of the interview process? >> Dr. Lozano, >> it it would be the will of the board. However, we have used that um in teacher recruiting. We have um a series of questions we ask teachers um and they
turn them in in a video format for us to review and screen them. Um sometimes it even includes a demonstration lesson. So, we have done that in the past. Um so, it is just I believe it's going to be up to the legal services committee, the board, what you want as your legal
services committee. what are you going to want to help you narrow down your choices to bring forward to the board? So, I would want you to have as much information as possible so that you can bring forward the candidates um at that time if you wanted the legal services
committee to do if they're doing that in their screening. >> I just have two concerns and and I don't know how to um what my thought are on the motion. One is I don't think anybody's physical appearance has anything to do with their capabilities to be the general counsel
or any other job. >> Agreed. >> Anywhere for any organization at any time. >> Number one. And when you record somebody, you're gathering a lot of information that um can sway people's opinions that are not about the qualifications for the job. So that's
number one. Number two, you're asking people now to do a whole bunch more work to apply for the job. We may want to do that. I mean, we want might not want somebody that just takes their resume, attaches it, turns in the basic application, and becomes a a direct report to the school board. Um, but we
are raising the stakes or raising the price basically of people applying. But a lot of the motions we've made today were to expand the pool of people to apply. So I think on balance largely for the first point which I don't want any applicant for any school job or any organization anywhere to ever feel like
what they look like has anything to do with their abilities to do a job or to get a job. And so I I just in general would prefer to use that when we have a small set at the end and we're think okay we pick seven but we only want to have three come in. Let's have those
seven, if they choose, uh record an interview or do an audio recording or present their work uh in any manner that they see fit. Um because I don't want uh this board to be swayed uh by any physical appearances uh or any of the other information that you would get uh
through that method. So I I've talked myself out of supporting this, but I would would prefer to do this when we get to a a smaller group of people, but I think when we get to a smaller group, we're going to invite them here anyway. Isn't that part of the plan? Correct. >> Yeah. Thank you very much. Thanks, J.
>> And I would be open to it being written, not v video. I I just want the answers to those questions. Not I don't had nothing to do with what they look like. Mrs. Al. >> So, in regards to the video, I I am a
bit concerned because we are trying to get more people to apply and and also when they do the video, the video doesn't just go to us. It's it's publicly out there. And I know that this is a very public position. So, you have
to have thick skin, broad shoulders to to be the general counsel of Broward County Public Schools. However, I think there could be a better cadence and I don't want to prevent someone from applying because of the video.
>> Would you want to make a friendly amendment to I don't mind it being written. Like I said, I just thought the video would be easier, but I don't mind that. Um, okay. Miss Thompson, >> add the question. I actually think the video component is incredibly important because a lot of what our general
counsel does is communicate verbally with us on the deis. So giving a presentation allows us to understand how they verbally communicate ideas and thoughts. It's also I don't think that difficult to create a video um for 90%
of the population but I do think it's an imperative part of making sure that they can communicate with us. So, I would not be in favor of getting rid of it, >> Miss Mrs. Bowman. >> Okay. So, if you could bring me up, this is with the initial application that
they're going to have a video >> that the motion questions. The main point was to get that information. So, why are they with specific questions? Why are they applying? What is their relevant experience applicable to Florida education law? and what is their
relevant relevant experience supervising a team. >> So when someone applies for a job, generally they would have a cover letter, right, that would probably answer those questions if they were smart that that would be included in there.
>> Um that >> we can direct them to include that. >> Yeah, I mean I think we would like a I mean maybe a cover letter. I you know I was going to say so to Miss Thompson's point about the video um we're diametrically opposed on this. I would never want to do that in a first round
that would make me say, "Nope, I'm not applying for this." Um, so I there's obviously um certain people that are much more comfortable doing it. She does an excellent job of making videos. I
would rather die than do it. So, um I So, I I I just think that we might be like maybe for a second round once we've chosen our once we've chosen the people that we want to talk to if they if we want to add a component like that. But to take people out um in the first
round, I don't like that. And I think they they should as a practitioner be writing a cover letter explaining why they want the job and what their relevant experience is. like if you can't figure that out then I don't think that they're a good fit.
>> Okay, Mrs. Leonardi, >> thank you. Yeah, I was actually I had cover letter in my notes. Um and and the reason I I support the idea of a cover letter is like I think those are very good questions, but I wouldn't I'm also interested in other questions. So I I
would like again to continue with this philosophy of like as broad of a pool as possible. um like I would be interested to know their experience working with boards um and you know reporting to nine
people you know like I think there's other questions that I I would like to know that perhaps a cover letter could address and I think there's also something to glean from what someone includes in a cover letter and what they don't include. Um, so if they're not
talking about those things that are very relevant to the position, we know that perhaps they're not uh they don't have a full understanding of what the what the position demands. Um, to the communicating verbally piece, would we be conducting uh interviews in which
they would communicate verbally with us? >> You would let us know and we would follow your lead. So this board would decide if we're going to bring them here, interview in the public. So you will determine um how we move through each stage of
this process and the will of the board will determine what that looks like for each candidate. >> Right. And I think that's a much better assessment of someone's communication skills than recording a video. Um being able to answer qu I mean I I think in the last superintendent search it was it
was really interesting for me on paper what I saw. Um, and then in the one-on-one interviews that I had with the different candidates, my thoughts and feelings changed about the different candidates. Um, so I think assessing their verbal communication abilities is much more relevant in an interview
setting. Um, so I support the the concept of a cover letter. I I'd actually like to make a substitute motion um that the candidates would include a cover letter along with their application. >> Second.
>> Okay. All any public comment on the substitute motion, Dr. Lozano? >> And in the covered letter, we're going to ask them to respond to those three questions. >> No, that's not part of my motion. >> Okay. All those in any public any board discussion? All those in favor of the
substitute motion say I. >> I. I. >> All those opposed say no. No. Motion passes. Okay. So, there'll be a cover letter um with no direction. Okay. So the next thing I I think we covered a lot of this but the role of the legal
services committee. So I guess we just want to be clear here's what I have down here. So they will screen candidates right they will interview top candidate well we have to talk about this. So everybody is okay with the idea that the
legal s the three board members from the legal services committee will be screening candidates based on um rankings that are given by HR. Okay. The next question is um will the the board
members from the legal services committee interview top candidates identified from the screening or is that something that we want to happen with the whole board? board. >> Okay. So, not just the legal, they're just going to bring us and we'll decide
as the board who we want to interview. Okay. In >> including chair uh and we talked about this earlier, some that they might have taken off the list and some that they might have put on. We have to still vote on the actual list that we want to move forward of candidates. >> Mrs. Bowman. Well, just to play double
zap because I I mean the board needs to um interview the candidates, but do we in the interest of time, do we want to whittle it down and have an initial interview round for the committee or do you want to >> because we're going to we're going to whittle it down based on what the
written response is. Does is >> So I I just give some input. some of the concerns I've been through five searches >> actually six because of the general counsel um and the concerns that board
all different variations of the board um have had is that they didn't like not being part of the bigger picture. >> Okay. So that >> so I think that's you know the idea is you'll you'll bring recommendations we'll go off of that but if there's
someone from the pool that we think needs to be included it'll be part of that public discussion and from there we'll decide if we're interviewing three or two or >> what that looks >> okay so then we're going to whittle it down anyway kind of publicly through our
discussion so that's not okay that's >> yes madam chair I just want to remind the board that the three board members from the legal services committee that those meetings will also be public meetings. >> Yes, that was my other because that was my question yesterday about sunshine. So
they will be noticed meetings and they will be public. >> If legal service committee wants to meet together then um yes those would have to be public meetings. Correct Miss Batista? But if they screen individually >> correct >> then they could do that individually
without a public meeting. So that's where we need some direction on legal services committee's role as far as after your screening or during your screening. Do you want to meet to discuss that or do you want to individually screen and rank them and then perhaps maybe you want to interview
the top candidates you screen or you may want to bring those to the board to do interviews with all the top people you recommend. And then you wouldn't need a meeting a public meeting with legal services committee if you each rank them individually. And then we brought forward to you the top candidates from
each of the three pe three board members or however you want to um recommend it come forward. >> Mrs. Alhida, no I think that the legal services committee should meet, discuss, talk, evaluate
>> and then make the recommendations to the board where then we interview. >> Okay. >> Correct. >> Do you want to make a motion? So, I move that the legal services committee made up of the three board
members meet to evaluate potential candidates for general counsel. >> Second. >> Second. >> Any public comment on the motion? >> Board member discussion. Okay. All those in favor of the motion say I. >> I. Any oppose say no.
>> Motion passes. Okay. So, Oops. All right. Um, we did that. Inram general counsel. Um, yes. >> Oh, >> no. We're That was just a motion.
>> We're not done. When we finish all this, then we'll vote on the whole item. We're We have three more bullet points. >> I I had some questions about So, what's happening at the November 12th meeting? >> Dr. Lozano, do you want to um what for
based on the motion that was passed, what will happen November 12th? >> Go ahead. >> So, at the November 12th meeting, we could give you an update on how many candidates that we've received that are applying according to the timeline. If we did, the original timeline was that
we would have the ad would have been posted for about a two weeks at that point, a week and a half, and we can give you an update on the number of candidates. And then legal services committee, as we get the candidates, we can certainly forward you the resumes as we get them or if you want them in one
packet. So, I don't know if you want them as we go or wait till the very end. And then the 12th, we could do a update. And then if you wanted to meet and discuss your screenings, you could certainly schedule time after the 12th
or whatever your schedule would allow. >> Okay. So re really on the 12th, it's just an update. Are we getting names or is it just an update on how many people have applied? >> We can provide whatever your the board's direction is. >> Can can you make that as a board item? >> I could. And then with the names because
I think the point was on the 12th was to see >> internally are we getting a big enough pool and if not we could have a discussion did we want to move to external that was that was the motion that I made. >> Okay. So what is the vote going to be on
if it's an item? >> Well we don't vote on all items. I mean it was ju just to include on well I mean but we wouldn't we vote to accept things. We don't necessarily vote to they would just be giving us a list of all of the people who have applied at
that time. >> 12. >> Okay. >> So, we would get it. >> Yes. Okay. I suppose um Yeah. I then I wonder like what role the legal services committee has because I
think like that will really open us I can envision us then having as a board a discussion about all like all the candidates. I can see that happening. So >> the point was to determine whether we had enough candidates to move forward or
if we wanted to then go to an external search >> which is what the item might be. >> Okay. That's that's what I was trying to get at. Yeah. So that that would be the way maybe to to make the action of the item. >> Madam sure, Miss Batista. Um, as far as the item uh that will be presented to
the board on the 12, um, I I believe that there is a shilling effect if you're going to actually provide names. Absolutely. >> Um, and I think maybe HR >> just the number, >> right? The number and the number of
qualified, you know, according to HR. Um, but if you provide the name, sometimes people that otherwise would have applied, they may not feel com even if they're not going to make the finalists, you know, they they may not want to be out there. >> Yeah. Just on a different note though, isn't when they apply, isn't that public?
>> Um, true. But normally, I think the press is it takes, you know, doesn't matter questions at that time. >> Either way, so that's fine. So, do we all agree just that it doesn't matter the names? I only said that because it was asked. >> The only question chair about that would be qualified. We won't be done with the
application window on the 12th of November. It sounds like >> based on the timeline, how long when does the window of application close? >> So we had tenatively had and again with the timeline that you would like, but we
would post it definitely by the end of the week. It would run for the remainder of this week. Next week would be the um through the 31st and then it could run through the 7th. Then it's up to we could close out the time frame then and
then give our legal services committee again. I need clarity to see if you want to start looking at screening the resumes and such because then you will have an idea by the 12th of your candidate pool. >> Be way cool if it closes on the 7th. The
staff can meet and rank them as they're going along. >> Yes. Correct. have PSC, the three members of the PSC meet before the 12th and then we bring that. That's sounds very feasible on a timeline. It would push the staff a little bit and I'd be pushing some colleagues or I'd be suggesting that the three members of
that committee meet uh in a publicly noticed meeting to do that, but it'd be pretty cool on the 12th if there was a chance we had, you know, the opportunity. If it doesn't work, if there's one applicant and they're barely qualified, we might want to hire a recruiter or go do some other things. But it sounds to me like on this timeline we could actually uh be at the
point where we're considering great let's agree that this is the number of candidates PSC recommended or otherwise and let's here's the next two or three weeks to do the the next rounds of interviews. That would be awesome. >> Right. So we would need a meeting for the legal services committee to sometime
then the week of the 3. Um maybe that Wednesday, Thursday or Friday. >> I'm sorry. I thought you said the application closed on November 7th. >> Correct. So, wouldn't they have to meet apologize between the 7th and 12th? >> You'd have to meet on the 10th >> 11th.
>> Tuesday is a holiday. >> I don't know what holidays are anymore, but yeah, that's great. Um, uh, >> it's Veterans Day. >> I'm not asking you to be meet on any day. I'm just The pertinent question is, can those three members meet between the
7th and the 12th to still give the staff enough time to do what they have to do to feed the PSSE system? So, it sounds like that's the 10th, the Friday. >> No, it's a Monday. >> It's a It's Monday. We're screening as we go. >> I'm sorry. Is Monday the 10th the holiday or is that not a holiday? >> No, Tuesday is the holiday.
>> So, I think we need to ask the three members if they're available on the 10th. Otherwise, we can't do it on the 12th, right? >> Correct. >> I have a question also on that. So based on that discussion, the item coming to us on the 12th would be to select people
to interview because that will change the cadence of the time frame of the meeting. So that's I just want us to be clear what we're looking at on the 12th because originally I just wanted to know how many people so that we knew whether we were continuing on the internal or if
we needed to pivot and move to external. That was the point of the motion. So what would happen on the 12th if all of those things we just talked about happen? >> If legal services committee is able to meet prior to the 12th then on the 12th
we could make a decision of which finalists then they would want to bring forward to the board to be interviewed by the board. If legal service committee is not able to meet by the 12th, then we would definitely still in both situations give an update to the board on the number of candidates and then
make a determination if based on the pool we want to continue with the internal process or are we going to need to expand this the process and go out to an external firm or keep reaching out to other candidates. So, I think we would be able to let you know the number of
qualified candidates by the 12th, the what the pool looks like. I would not want to put that time restraint on the legal services committee to have that short period to have to come back to that meeting with names of who's moving
forward. I don't think that's enough time for them to be able to do that. That's just my opinion. >> Yes, I tend to agree. I wasn't trying to rush that. I just wanted I wanted enough time that if we're not getting a huge
pool based on our own efforts, then we would need as a board to have the opportunity to pivot and say no, we want to go >> externally. That was the whole point of of that. So, um but those of you that are on the legal committee, what are
your thoughts? to do interviews in this week. >> I could go either way. I mean, I I I'm happy to meet on the 10th. I'm looking at my calendar, >> so don't worry. >> And January, >> we have something at Casey, right? On the 10th, do we not? So, I mean, I don't
I don't see why we can't just uh let me see what's the time parameters here. >> 10 to 12. >> We have to be at Casey, right? >> Yes. It's the delegation, >> the joint delegation conference. So, um I mean we'll we'll be here anyway, right? So, I mean I I I I can go either.
I can make myself available if if if my colleagues are uh are willing as well. >> This is Leonardi. >> I'm available. >> I too can make myself available. Thank you guys. >> Okay,
>> Madam Chair. >> Yes, Dr. Holes. >> Okay. So I'm just wondering the relevance of the legal service committee meeting before the 12th because on the 12th talent acquisition can give us the answer that we're looking for and they
can I mean I don't want to rush them and then because we're on the 12th what we're looking for is do we have adequate or enough qualified candidates to which talent acquisition can determine we don't need legal services committee to determine that they're going to take those qualified applicants and determine
which ones come to the board. >> Well, I would say we could compromise. So, if legal the legal council committee, the three board members could meet and look at the qualified candidates and determine are they really
qualified and just come back with that piece. I don't I think the 12th is too early to say, okay, we want to interview that. I I think it's too much to add on on that particular board meeting, but they could come back with what they you
know, how many they think are good, solid candidates. They don't have to necessarily on the 12th bring us back who we would want to interview, which would require you to have more than one meeting. I you know, I hope that's okay. >> Right. But Madam Chair, I thought talent acquisition is making that determination
through their ranking system. and then >> they are, but just because they're qualified doesn't mean that >> they're someone we think would be qualified for the job we're looking for. So the committee could meet and have that discussion and bring us their
thoughts on that. not necessarily recommendations but just yes we have enough internally to finish the process this way or no we really think we should because the whole point of the 12th is do we stay with internal or are we moving to an external process. >> Okay. So they're they're going to come
back to us the the legal service committee not with recommendations as far as who we should interview but whether or not to answer the question whether or not we have enough qualified candidates because I want to make sure that they don't come and we have a whole long discussion. >> Correct. I'm trying to make sure of the
same thing. Right. >> So, yes, Dr. Zean. >> Um, I'm just going to tell you my opinion about the search. I'm not going to have my time be the limiting factor in doing the speed of this search. So, if we have to stay three hours later on the 12th
and go through actual applications, let me just finish, please. There is a chance that we have lots of applicants for this job and the legal services council meets and has a clear clear break and comes back with x excuse me n number of people they want to interview after meeting on the 10th and on the
12th we decide to move forward with that list but I don't I don't want our time to be the limiting factor in in getting to this and that means if we have to have a 12-hour schoolboard meeting on the 12th I for one am I'm I don't want to be responsible for us not getting the best general counsel in time before Miss
Petisa um goes away. And so um I just I don't know that that'll happen, but if it does happen, I personally am willing to spend the time to do whatever we need to do to get this process uh moved all the way through to completion. >> Mrs. Alhida,
>> well, and also to that point, I think we also have to keep in mind if someone's applying for this, they're not going to be available forever. So we can't be dragging our feet. you know, you're going to be going into Thanksgiving, the holidays. So, I
think if we have strong candidates that we should expedite our process. So, I'm for whatever we need to do at the regular school board meeting on the 12th. >> Madam Chair, >> just one last. >> Okay. So, I'm just trying to gain
understanding as to what we're doing because my understanding based upon what's presented here is that we're answering a simple question. Do we have enough candidates or do we continue screening? Now, if we're changing that goal on the 12 to also interview
candidates as a board, then that's a whole different that's a whole different ball game. We can be here 14 hours. But if we're simply answering, do we have enough candidates? Cuz that's what we're trying to do. And then if we do, then legal services committee is going to meet again and determine which ones they bring to us for interview. But if we're
doing all of that on the 12th, then I think we all need to understand that because I'm, you know, I don't want to blur everything. >> Yes. It seems like we're we're sort of split on what happens there. So, we probably need to to
make a motion and take a vote. So, I'll make a motion. I move that the item that comes forward to us on the 12th is to determine whether we continue with the internal search or we move to an external search not about interviews. >> Second. >> Second.
>> Any public comment on the motion? Board comment on the motion. Dr. Hman. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. So just to understand your motion, Madam Chair, um if this motion passed, then on the 12th we're simply meeting to determine if we continue recruiting, if we go to an
external source, correct >> and if we have adequate whether or not we have adequate candidates, >> there would be a second meeting. >> Correct. And and subsequently the legal services committee should we have sufficient candidate will then meet subsequent to that meeting to determine
which one which ones come to us for a vote. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. And and part of the reason for that is that if they meet on the 10th, I don't think there's enough time for us as board members to go through all of the paperwork that would come to us by
the 11th, which is a holiday, even though we'll all work on it. It is a holiday. Our staff isn't working. Um to be ready to vote on the 12th. I I understand the need and we could have a special schoolboard meeting if necessary to do that, but I just don't want to
rush everything because I don't think that we're in a place that it has to be so rushed. I I don't mind if it's the next week or whatever. We're here for the next week for our organizational meeting and that's only in the morning. So, we could do a special schoolboard meeting in the
afternoon, which would then give us time to read everything and to really have a good discussion. I just um it's it's important to me that we're not rushing it and trying to squeeze it in somewhere that we don't have the time that we need. So, that was why I made the
motion. So, it's been moved and seconded. Any other comment? Dr. Zean. >> Thanks so much, Chair. I wonder um as a friendly issue amendment, if you would take out the last sentence. I don't think we want to say what we're not going to do. I think we can say what that you want an item brought to do what
you described. I don't think it's appropriate or fair to say that we're not going to do something. Uh members of this board can make motions at any meeting for virtually anything. Um and so if if if there's divine intervention in the meeting on the 10th and the
meeting on the 12th, there's three clear candidates. we've all read the material and we want to move forward in the step. Again, that's a long shot, but if that happens, I'd like the authority to be able to do that. And so, if you would agree to amend your motion to say we will bring an item to make a determin
about hiring external resources, you know, as you said, I just I don't want the second half of that uh motion because that really ties the hands of of your colleagues. So, I don't mind doing that as long as it's clear that the expectation is not for the committee to bring us recommendations. That's not
what my motion is to keep recommendations from coming to us on the 12th. >> I don't think you can do that. I literally don't think a member of this board can say something will not happen. I don't think that that's legal, >> Miss Batista.
I think it's up to the board to figure out what it is that you know how how you want the process to proceed. Um if you know if you feel that I mean you you are tying
the hands of the board members at that point by saying that you know you don't want a certain item to come forward even if it were if it happened to be ready to come forward at the time >> but you >> but it's up to the board whether they
want to approve that. >> I mean that's the question is it legal? Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, Miss Thompson, >> I'm fine with your motion as it currently is. >> Dr. Holmes, >> Madam Chair, I I support your motion.
Um, because if we do anything otherwise, then week five through seven or eight, might as well we forget it because we're saying get rid of all of that process. I don't want to rush anything because we are we are now if we do anything otherwise we are now removing what we
felt to be the role of the legal services uh committee to have time to look at all of these things bring us recommendation and for us to have time to go through it. So, I think your motion is very wise and I think it's it would be um best as a board that we support your motion and continue with
the recommendations and discuss these recommendations presented by uh talent acquisition. >> Any other comment on the motion? >> Just repeat your motion >> if I can remember it. Uh the motion was to um for the meeting on the November
12th for the >> committee to bring back to us. >> Trying to think of what my motion was >> whether or not we have sufficient >> right to for the item that comes back on the 12th of November is for us to determine whether we're going to
continue with the internal search based on the number of qualified and ex acceptable is not the right the number of qualified candidates or would we be moving to an external search? We are not looking for recommendations from the
committee to come to us on the 12th. We could do a special school board meeting and do that the following week. >> Mrs. Alhad, >> I just think um that it would behoove us to have the legal service committee meet
on the 10th and share the recommendations with the board on the 12th and then on the 18th the board to have a special school board meeting to do the interviews. I I think it's too quick of a time
period to determine whether we're flipping to an external firm. Let the process happen. I mean, unless the legal services committee comes back and says we don't have anybody. >> Well, that's the point of the 12th. Right. >> Right. But I don't think to Miss
Batista's point like you don't uh prevent them from giving us their recommendations of the qualified candidates. Let's just keep the process moving. doesn't hurt us to keep to give us the information. Let us know who the
qualified candidates with the all of the backup information >> that was >> right on the 12th. But when we made that suggestion, everybody said it was a bad idea to put the list of people's name
like we're we're we're going in a circle here. We we had that discussion and we said no, we didn't want people to have their their name on their So, Miss Bowman, well, just just to
clarify that. So, what are our I mean, at some point we're going to have to know the name. So, do we have to make that public and put every single one of those on an agenda item or is this something that we could have internally >> on a once they apply? It's public
information. Okay. But do we want to put are we putting it on an agenda item when we're or are we I mean what does the process look like moving forward? So we if we identify we got six qualified candidates on you know we meet on the
10th we like report out it gets put on the B item for the 12th. Miss Fatista was it? So I think there is a difference uh between releasing the entire list of every single applicant versus releasing
a list of who are the finalists or the you know the qualified applicants that are I mean those people I think have to make a decision and figure out whether they do want their name out there. Uh but once you become a finalist I think everyone expects that you will be your
name will be released. >> Correct. So that should definitely be included in the information for the >> but the legal council isn't deciding the finalists. The whole board is they're just bringing to us recommendations of
who we should interview which would then require us to spend a lot of time looking through it. Which is why I made the motion not to push it to the 12th because they're meeting on the 10th. There's no one working on the 11th and the meeting is on the 12th. There's just
not enough time for them to be able to give that information and then staff to turn around and put an item together that gives us all that information and for us to really read it and make a good decision in
Monday morning. I mean, that was the point of the motion is it makes sense to do it on the 18th, which bumps it to a special meeting on the next week where we can then do that. It's just on the 12th we made a motion to ask them to report back to us what does that pool
look just terms of numbers how many qualified people so we could have an idea are we doing well getting candidates as internal or should we have a discussion on maybe we need to add an external company to this so that we can
expand our pool that that was the point of all of this Mrs. Leonardi. >> Okay. I'm trying going to try to bring this up. So, I think we have to decide and I think we decide by voting on this motion like what direction what what
what is the goal of the November 12th meeting? So is the November 12th meeting is the goal of that to decide if this internal process is working or if we need to move to an external process or is the goal of the 12th to exped
expedite our process and move keep things moving. Um, if we decide that the goal for the 12th is to make a decision whether or not we think the process is the internal process is working and whether or not we want to go external. I
don't really see the point of the legal services committee meeting on Monday. Like I'm happy to do it, but I just don't know. I think it creates a weird dynamic too where like the committee has like more information than the rest of the board. Um,
so I think we have to decide. I'm I heir on the side of like let's make a decision whether or not we're staying internal or external on the 12th. Um like I said earlier, you know, last week I was very much operating with the desire to move things very quickly. Um
now I I feel that we need to do things carefully and strategically and move move um with with a lot of care. So that's where I am on this. >> Thank you, Mrs. Rupert. >> Um, thank you, Madam Chair. Um,
why couldn't we actually call them candidate number one, two, three, four? >> You know, you're still uh identifying people that you want. Uh, if it gets out, it gets out. I I don't want it to be a u something that keeps somebody
from uh working for us or would be a really good fit because they don't want their name going out. My other thoughts on what Miss Leonard has said, um I believe that the November 12th meeting, um the committee meets after that meeting.
Um and then we do a special meeting for the 18th. I think that would give us plenty of time. Uh it's an extra week. it's holidays and um you know I I don't want to be rushed through this process and I I think that we do need to keep
moving through the process and at times be savvy enough to know when we need to pull back a little bit on the horse instead of an airplane. So okay, anybody else? All those in favor of the motion say I. I.
>> All those opposed say no. Now >> h I think two descending votes, right? Okay. >> So motion passes. Okay. The next item that we need to talk So are you good on on all of that part? So now we're to the
general intram general counsel bullet. >> Right. Just to verify. So on the 12th we're giving an update on the number of candidates um that have qualified for the position. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Is legal services committee still meeting on the 10th? >> I I mean it's up to the legal service
>> or do you want to meet on the 12th? I heard that thrown out there. >> 12th is an RPM. >> Mrs. Al, if the legal service committee is going to meet on the 10th and they're going to be talking about the candidates
and all of their documents and all the names and everything like that, it's kind of defeating what you just voted on. So they should not be meeting if that's the case. >> Not necessarily on 12th. We have a regular school board meeting. They would be meeting at 8:00 at night. But it's up
to you. Whenever you want to meet, but sometime before um the end of the week, I would think because we would want enough time for us to be able to read before the 18th. >> Right. >> Correct. I would suggest you decide when the board would like to interview the finalist and then you can kind of work
backwards when the legal services committee would need to con um furer with their the candidates. Okay, let's see. >> And you >> so on the time on on your timeline, what do you have as interviewing candidates?
>> I have you could be use if you want. I was trying to be cognizant of your all's time when you're already meeting. On the 18th, you have the organizational meeting if you wanted to extend that. Otherwise, you've got um December 2nd, the 9th. I mean, you've got three weeks in December. And I'm not sure we have a
is the board meeting solidified on the 16th of December. >> I know when is Oh, you got to wait till November's meeting. And then I also believe a lot of them are in FSBA uh that weekend in Tampa. >> That's what I was >> which weekend. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. So then I that would give you then either um legal services committee could we meet after the regular schoolboard meeting the 13th or 14th. We need time to schedule interviews with candidates. So keep that in mind when legal services committee gives their list. You can come
back anytime. You've got the week of your 17th, the week of the 1st, or the week of the eth. >> So I but I thought we were the discussion was on the 18th, which is our organizational meeting. We would have a special schoolboard meeting to discuss what the legal committee had brought
forward to us. So they're going to have to meet >> before so either the 13th or the 14th. So what we could do is have each of the legal services committee do their rankings of their recommendations.
We can collect that from them individually, tabulate it all together and bring that to the 18th to share their results. So >> they wanted to we made a motion for them to bring one to talk >> or individually that's the choice of the
board. I think I'm pretty sure we made a motion in this item that they would meet together and bring us a recommendation. Not >> to do that. So they they're going to have to meet >> either the 13th or the 14th. >> Correct.
>> You all have >> and could they do that virtually? Do they have to be >> It's a miss I believe it has to be in person because and it's open to the public as well. >> Just ask virtual. And then also, uh, chair, can you, uh, help, uh, staff
clarify? Will Miss, um, Leonardi serve as the point person for that committee as it relates to the board? >> Say that again. >> I think uh, someone will need to facilitate that that meeting. And if it's a board member, we're going to need
to know as staff who to run the items by. Unless I'm mistaken, Miss >> Batista. So, someone would probably need to serve as as the chair of the group or the point person of the group if that's necessary or I I don't know what um HR,
you know, has in mind. They could there's only three board members, so they could provide all the information to all three of them. I don't know that you'd necessarily need um you know, a share per se. >> Could HR facilitate the meeting? >> If that's still the board, we can
facilitate the meeting, >> right? And then you'd have the information to write the item up to bring to us >> and and also HR would have to you know take the minutes because there are minutes that will be required because it's a >> Mrs. Alhida
>> it's never been done that way. The board member is the chair. So if Miss Leonardi wants to be the chair or we want to vote on who's going to be the chair, I I think Miss Leonardi should be the chair for that. >> Madam Chair, >> Dr. wholeness. >> I move that board member Leonardi is the
chair of the legal services. >> Any public comment? Board member comment. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Motion carries unanimously. >> Delicious. >> All right. >> Okay. Quickest vote ever. Um Okay. So, are you good on that?
>> Are you going to decide on a date for them to meet? >> Oh, yes. Did you the 13th or the 14th? Uh, chair, we can go through the committee chair uh and make sure we get uh quorum from the rest and we'll publicly notice and schedule. I don't think you have to determine that right
now. >> Perfect. >> Okay. Um, so >> I'm I'm I'm sorry. >> Go ahead. >> I disagree because I don't want my schedule to fill up between now and then. What are what are what are the dates that are being proposed? >> 13th and 14th. >> November 13th through the 14th. >> Okay. I cannot do the 13th.
>> Okay. >> So, >> that's the only day I can do. Only three of you. >> Madam chair, we didn't vote on a motion, I don't think. Did we? >> We voted. >> Yes. It passed unanimously. Come in on it. >> So, can we do the 14th? Do we need a vote to do it on the 14th?
>> I don't think it's up to us to vote. It's up to you. >> Okay. Can we do it on the 14th? Yes. Thank you. Okay. >> Perfect. >> Okay. With eight minutes left before the workshop starts. Um, we have to finish up with the inim the discussion about an
inim general counsel. So there's a couple of questions. Um is the so intram has happened a couple of different ways. One way is that we went out just like we would for the actual position and looked
for an intram. Um another way is we just task assign someone. So I think um first if if staff will you you made mention of this already. So have you is there someone it was a question Dr. Holmes had earlier. Is there someone internally
that could be task assigned to the intram uh general counsel? >> Yes, there is. >> Okay, perfect. So, there is that possibility. The other possibility is again the same thing internally. Do we want HR to look for an intram general
counsel or do we want to go for an outside firm? So those are the um kind of and we need to have a intram or task assigned by the time Miss Batista leaves which is January 9th. Right Miss Thompson
>> my preference would be it was a task assigned person. >> Okay. Um doc Miss Salad and Dr. H. Um I think we we can do try to do task assign but I think we need to allow
whoever to who wants to possibly do it to come forward that it's a you know equal opportunity to then have the board decide who would be task assigned >> if there's more than one person that would like to do it.
>> Okay. So would we want an application process for >> I'm going to say >> for task or for inim. >> So again if we continue with the internal process you're looking at probably 3 to six weeks someone serving
as an interim right if we need an interim after January 9th right so you're not looking for an extended period of time if on the 12th we decide to go external then you're extending the time we need an interrum. So this
conversation may be better served to have on the 12th once we make that decision to stay internal or external because that may determine if you want to advertise for an interim or or not depending on the the amount of time we
may anticipate needing an interim general counsel. >> Okay, Dr. Holmes. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Madam Chair, I don't see why we can't do it simultaneously. where we gather interest in interimm just in case we have to go that route and I would also prefer that
um HR as well as u Miss Batista um provide recommendation for interim uh for those who may qualify for interim >> okay do you want to make a motion any >> I'd like to make a motion that um one we
simultaneously uh seek interest for the interim position if we have to uh use an interim and that Miss Batista and HR uh provide recommendations at at the appropriate time for interims. >> Is there a second?
>> Okay. Um and I'll just say I I don't want to be premature in looking for an interrum and then not need them because you're kind of giving false hope. I don't know if hope's the right word, but you know,
giving someone the idea that there would be a position for them and you're not even really sure if you're going to need that or not. So, I I think it's important to know where we want to go with it, but I don't know if we want to start looking right now for an interim
um general counsel because we don't we don't need one right now. We don't know if we're going to need one at all. So, um, anybody any other thoughts, board members, any motions you want to make? Mrs. Leonardi?
Um, this is going to be controversial, but uh, given our our history, I'm wondering if um, if anyone wants to entertain, and I don't even know where I am on this, um, the idea of
requiring that the interim does not apply for the position. I only bring that up because it's been, you know, an issue here in the past. Uh, and I again I don't have I don't know where I am on that. I'm just wondering if any anyone
wants to entertain that. >> So, u being a person who's been here for a couple of times and got slammed on um changing our minds on that. I wouldn't want to make that a requirement because you we found a superintendent that we
liked as an inrum and decided to make them the permanent one. So, I wouldn't want to tie our hands that way. First of all, it it it eroded the public trust because we said one thing and we did something else. And I I don't know that the pool is going to be that large that
we want to to make it even that much smaller. So I personally wouldn't be in favor of doing that. >> And then I had another comment. Um so I I very much support the idea of doing a task assignment. Um, I think right now
if we're doing an internal search process for the the general counsel position, I don't want any kind of distraction from that search. Um, so I would support a task assignment and I agree. I don't I don't Do we need
to do a motion on that right now? Do you need direction on that or should we come cross that bridge when we >> Yeah, we don't need to make that decision today. We can talk about that as we move forward in the process.
>> Okay. On the 12th when we get a better idea of what the timeline might look like, we can revisit that topic. >> Okay. I think we have checked off all my little boxes here. Um so all those in mot all those in favor of item number
two with amendments say I. I. >> I. Any opposed say no. Motion carries unanimously at 11:58. Thank you. Perfect. Okay, so we're gonna um So, oh, I g have to read. >> Okay, hold on. The scheduled meeting
order of business for this special schoolboard meeting of the school board of Broward County, Florida has been completed. Seeing no obligation, I now adjourn this special school board meeting. We are going to take a recess to get prepared for the workshop. Heat. Heat. D.
Hey. Hey. Yeah. Heat. Hey, do you Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey. Please stand for the pledge. Let's get Heat. Heat.
Welcome to today's schoolboard workshop. We are happy to have you join us and we are thankful for your time and dedication to our district. This workshop of the school board of Brower County, Florida is now called to order. Our primary focus is to create a safe and productive environment for all participants. Please be reminded of the
exit doors that are clearly marked for emergency exiting. While in the boardroom, refrain from obstructing the exit doors. All attendees must occupy a seat with the exception of media. Once the boardroom has reached its seating capacity, attendees will be directed to a designated overflow area.
Upon activation of the fire alarm system, please exit from the room in an orderly fashion and continue to exit the building and remain outside until the authority that has jurisdiction has deemed the building safe to return. Thank you for your cooperation. Board member Rupert will now introduce her
school to lead us in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. Mrs. Rupert, thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. It is my absolute pleasure to introduce Pompa Beach Elementary School for the Pledge of Allegiance. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance.
>> I pledge aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> You may now be seated.
>> Thank you so much. Thank you. As we prepare to begin this schoolboard workshop, we are reminded that our vision is 100% proficiency for all our students. As an A-rated school district, we begin the vital task of sustaining this achievement. We will continue educating all students to reach
their highest potential. Our theme this year is believe, empower, achieve one Broward. Today's workshop will work in accordance with schoolboard policy 1020 and the board will review the items as advertised and presented by the superintendent. Our first item for discussion is facility conditions
assessment. I now turn it over to staff for a presentation. >> Good afternoon, Madame Chair, board members, and the public. As you will see in today's presentation, this facility condition assessment or FCA represents a critical component of our redefining schools. The FCA provides a
comprehensive datadriven view of the physical conditions of our schools, allowing us to prioritize repairs, guide capital investments, and ensure our facilities align with our instructional and operational needs. This assessment is a living document, and as each school's evaluation is completed, we
update both the list and the public website to reflect most the most current data. We plan to bring quarterly updates to the board so that you can continue to monitor the progress and see how the information evolves as projects are completed. Our long range master planner will use this data to assist the board
in evaluating the best long-term options for our facilities, whether that means reinvestments, consolidation, or modernization to support our continued redefining schools efforts and ensure fiscal and operational sustainability. At this time, I'll turn it over to Miss Paul to walk us through the details of
our assessment and the next steps. Good afternoon. Thank you, Superintendent, Board Chair, Miss Hixon, board members. Um, it it's a amazing opportunity we have here uh to
look at this condition assessment and actually see across the district uh where we stand. Uh as you know the process has been going ongoing since the beginning of 2025 and we we are scheduled to complete uh the final
reports by the end of 2025 uh fourth quarter. Uh we have here our amazing team uh that have worked so diligently to make sure that we provide you a quality product. We have Miss Sonia Kohley. She's our task assigned
executive director of capital programs. Mr. Bill Champion uh from Bureau Veritoss. I've been calling it Veritas and all other kind of names, but it's Veraritoss. Uh Ahmed Aasi, Bureau Veritoss, and Ashley Carpenter from uh
Atkins and Rialis. Uh I will hand it over to Miss Kohley uh to get the presentation started. >> Thank you, Mrs. Paul. We need to get the presentation started. >> Okay. Thank you. >> There we are.
>> Okay. Okay. This presentation aims to update the board on the facility condition assessment FCA and facility condition index FCI for schools involved in the redefining initiative.
The intent is to share the rationale for the FCA to support future planning and decision- making. Okay, sorry. Number three, go to the agenda, please. Next slide. Thank you. Through this agenda, we will
re we will review what is a facility condition assessment, what an FCA can do for a district, how is an FCA completed, projected project cost, facility condition index, the FCA redefining,
next steps, and conclusion. With that, I will now hand the presentation over to Mr. Champion to continue. Good afternoon. >> A facility condition assessment is a datadriven evaluation of the buildings
uh building and infrastructure. It's a systematic inspection and analyses based on the systems, the components, their age configuration, their exposure, their usage and their performance. Um with the
goal of providing a full accounting of uh the current conditions, um the needs and their corrective actions. Um this is conducted not just for the current conditions and the deferred maintenance but also looking ahead to future conditions and long-term projections of
needs for those buildings and systems. Um in general uh an FCA uh is provided by an independent third-party uh uh company uh organization uh because it
provides uh objectivity. Um, it it provides an industry standard structured approach to coming up with a a structured long-term list of needs. All right. So, essentially the benefits of the
facility condition assessment is that it provides uh an understanding of the building's needs, current and changing. Um it it advises it builds it creates an asset registry uh asset inventory for
full asset management. Um and that can be carried tracked and managed not only today but again throughout u long-term usage of the facilities. There is a the aspect of safety that's a part of every uh facility condition
assessment and this is uh not just fire life safety uh safety of the hazards uh that may be present at the locations but also safety of the assets um and safety of uh you know the the usage of the
building as codes change uh conditions change standards change throughout time. So that increased asset management uh lends itself to structured uh views and u management of all the building systems
and components throughout the lifetime of the building not only their uh maintenance but also their replacement. Looking out a bit further, uh the potential outcomes for the facility condition assessment are are uh many
fold. They're they've got a a lot of uses uh and beyond just the uh individual on-site usage. It's basically a long-term strategic planning tool. It's a decision-making tool that has outcomes of prioritized list of repairs
and replacements for all the schools, but it arms the district with a a list of projects um current and future that need to be uh taken on to to manage all the buildings and the critical mission
of the schools. Um the objective datadriven analysis allows uh you know this to be a a tool for justification of long-term capital plans, budgeting, bond issuance, uh levies. So this is uh
basically the the place where you would get the support uh and the analytical uh defense for uh the asset management and needs and uh compliance going forward. All right. In uh talking about uh how
it's completed, uh the facility condition assessment is a comprehensive examination of all building systems, schools, structures. So, it begins with uh some preassessment work, some pre-ervey work where we mine work
orders, gather data, look at what's been done before. Um, we hit the field. We uh I don't know if she was showing an iPad here, but we've got a a systematic inspection of all the building systems
and components. Our team of engineers and architects um armed with a structured approach that is captured in our data collection tool walk each building um and they're assessing the building systems and components. Uh they assess the foundation
um the substructure uh the things below the building the actual frame this the superructure of the building uh the skin of the building the doors the windows um the the facades uh and the roof. We then
move into an analysis of the interiors u the finishes um walls ceilings uh any interior construction and then the uh the team looks at the services of the building um and they are um HVAC um
heating cooling in the building there is a ventilation we're looking at conveyances we're addressing the electrical um you know the the 208 277 um or 120. Uh so we're looking
at all the low voltage, high voltage systems. Um and we are uh assessing special construction kitchen equipment and then finally we're getting to uh the site. Uh we're looking at the flat scapes, the hardcapes, the play fields,
uh the athletic structures on site. We're uh taking that uh data and we're providing uh conditions for each of them. excellent, good, fair, poor, and failed. We are uh assigning a cost of repair or replacement. We're defining
what that corrective action is. And uh we're doing that for each asset uh in the building. Right now, we're at uh more than 120,000 um assets and line items, each having 10 or so attributes describing their current condition and their future
recommended replacement. Um and uh as we get to the uh cost estimation, we uh for each of the corrective actions, we have a basic cost, a construction cost for each of those items and then uh corrective actions. But uh please allow me to hand it over to Mrs. Carpenter for
a projected uh project cost. >> Thanks, Bill. Uh the cost that you will see on the school cluster slides in the column marked projected project cost is not the sum of the costs that Bureau
Veraritoss has estimated for each individual deficiency. Um however their costs are the starting point for that projected project cost. Their individual deficiency amounts represent what it would cost if PO were to send someone out to fix the
deficiency. In a lot of cases, the Office of Capital Programs would need to scope a project for design by an architect and construction by a general contractor. And really, lessons learned from the SMART program have shown that there is necessary ancillary scope in
order to meet code and receive a project permit. that increases the construction costs as well as the soft costs that are shown here. Let me give you an example. So BVTA has indicated that a particular air handling unit or AC unit needs to be
replaced in 5 years. They've included the cost of replacement as well as an escalation factor from now until 5 years from now. If the district decides to do a renovation project at this school, including a whole list of HVAC needs, then there are additional
considerations. The architect will include a replacement of 20 20 lineal feet of duct work per unit, which is in line with the district's design criteria. The unit might need to be larger, and there could be space constraints, and that adds to the
overall costs. temporary air might be needed when multiple units are being replaced. And in Atkins projected project cost, all of this ancillary scope has been added. We've also added the design and management fees, the contractor's markups for general
requirements and general conditions. Um general requirements is typically their staffing and general conditions is typically um include such items like temporary site facilities or safety considerations, compliance allowances for the bonds, insurance, permitting and
the projected project costs might be three or four times the raw hard cost that BVTA has assigned. Uh the sum of the projected project costs for the 41 schools in the presentation is about $2
billion for the 10-year period. In fact, the preliminary report results are indicating that the 10-year projected project cost is likely for the district is likely to be over 10 billion. Bill will now continue the presentation
with the definition of the facility condition index. >> Great. Thank you, Ashley. Okay. Uh as a result of uh the FCI and the sorry the facility condition assessment and the uh FCA process uh one
of the key outcomes is a facility condition index uh which is an FCI. Um this FCI speaks to the overall health of each building uh based on its condition. It's an industry standard metric that uh
the FCA provides and you'll see it across um all assessments of of um any character. Um it is essentially a metric that uh gives you on a scale of one to 100%
the relative ranking or relative needs of the building. It's uh determined by taking the individual need or corrective actions summed in that building uh and dividing it by the uh cost of replacement for that building. Uh a
lower FCI uh represents uh a building that's in great condition. uh a brand new building would have a zero FCI and a building that's completely failed and at replacement cost to uh repair that
building would be at 100%. Right. So >> yeah, great. Um so here we've we've got our uh our basic uh calculation for FCI and it is the cost of deferred maintenance over uh the replacement
value and that's times of times 100 that'll give you the percentage uh here uh just spending a little time on this the general industry standard uh the the green yellow orange red the green would be a building that's in good condition
and it's new or wellmaintained. Uh and the the yellow of course is anywhere between five and 10% of that replacement cost and that is uh subject to wear uh but still functioning. Um as you start to get into the orange uh it's
subject to long-term uh wear and then the red of course it's reached the end of its useful life. So, uh, you know, just a a a quick example of that, um, at a school, uh, that you've got several buildings, but you've got one building
that is $25,000 square feet. Let's say the replacement cost of that building is $10 million. If you've got needs of $500,000, that that puts that building in the green category. Let's say uh everything is great in that building, but you only
need windows. that building is uh wellmaintained um and is in the the green range with just one basic need. Um as you start to add other things um uh HVAC is a large one. If you start to add
other items that are in need uh that quickly gets into the yellow orange range and uh those things will cause a building to require reconstruction. Now, because those needs, those numbers are large, you know, uh telling you that you
need, you know, uh 30% of uh 10 million, $3 million in the next year, um uh is usually not the way it's done. For that reason, we look at the 10-year window. Um so, you're you can plan for that uh upcoming uh need. Um the the combined
10-year FCI for the district is 21.4%. So that means on average all the buildings um in the district are in that subject to wear and tear and approaching
um the the end of its useful life. The schools and clusters provided in this presentation came from the list and the redefining presentation to the board on August 26, 2025. We will look at each cluster individually with the FCIS by school,
focusing on the FCI at the 10-year mark and the projected project cost to address the deficiencies in that period. It's not working. >> Can you go to the slide? >> Okay, there we go. We're having some technical difficulties with the slides.
Go ahead. >> This is a map showing the four clusters of elementary schools from the redefining presentation in August. and I will hand it back over to Bill to walk us through the FCI results. >> Okay. Okay. The first thing uh you'll
notice on this slide uh is the red numbering. Uh so you can see in the upper right hand corner the numbers have been revised. Uh and uh essentially when we first turned this in the the procedure is to get this over and then while it's in your hands we're still
working. So this is a great opportunity to highlight that this is a work uh in progress. The data is in our living database and these numbers are changing uh as time goes on. So um they're usually going higher but uh uh there are
um a couple of reasons that numbers will change. Uh in just the past month these numbers have changed and the the changes are really two main reasons. work is being done, projects are being completed, uh work is happening on a
daily basis, and we're updating uh the the cost of that work. The second is that we've got supplemental analyses happening uh in the background. We're getting updated data from uh Blueprint, the roofing company. We're getting updated data from uh structural analyses
that are happening at individual schools of of concern. So as that data comes in, we update our our report. The the best place uh and the the the way the assets are managed is in a living database. Um
if you get a report, it is a snapshot. It is what happened at that time. But the living database allows you to track and manage those assets through time. Uh so a quick refresh uh also on this slide of what those colors mean. Uh the green of course is new or
well-maintained and you can see uh in the current uh year. Four of the five schools in this clusters are uh new or well-maintained. They are not new. They are wellmaintained in this case. Um and you've got one uh North Fork Elementary
which is subject to some wear and tear today but uh still uh is in serviceable working condition. You can see as one year, 5 year, 10 years we move from left to right, buildings get worse, conditions get worse. Um buildings
rarely get better without um any capital and they they get worse over time as exposed to conditions and usage. So um you can see in the five-year period uh for Bennett uh that one is approaching uh the end of its useful life. uh and
that is uh in the five-year period. You can see as you move into the 10-year period, North Fork joins it in that condition rating. Uh and you've got some others that are are approaching the end of their useful life. You can see the projected project cost as uh Ashley
discussed. Um and you can see uh that in general um uh this overall cluster the weighted you uh average of this is 25.8 8. Um, and that's in the in the high orange category.
Right. This cluster is uh not as bad uh as the first. Uh the weighted average uh FCI for this cluster is 14.2. Um you can see the the range of FCIs are from 9% to 21%
and uh none of these are near their uh end of useful life. But again, as they move out year over year, uh they will get worse uh and uh they need uh capital applied um before they get to that red category. All right. Uh the combined FCI, the
weighted average FCI for this cluster is 15.4. Uh just a little um worse than the last. Uh and you can see that uh the near southwest cluster has FCIs ranging from 11 to 19%.
Uh again with um all of them in the 10-year period uh subject to long-term uh wear um and approaching uh the end of their useful lives. The average FCI for the Central South
Elementary Cluster is 20.9. Uh and you've got one that actually starts out in the subject to wear and tear uh category and that is Sunshine Elementary. Again, they uh all uh change uh conditions at some point in the
process. The FCI's uh in the 10-year category are ranging from 17 to 29%. Uh I will now hand it over to Miss Coley to introduce the uh middle school clusters. >> All right. Thank you, Bill. Next, we'll take a look at the middle school
clusters from Redefining. And this is the map showing the four clusters of middle schools from the redefining presentation in August. And back to you, Bill. So, you can walk us through the FCIS. Great. >> All right. Uh for the uh north me
northwest middle cluster the combined 10-year FCI is 19.5. Uh four of the five schools are wellmaintained and in a a good category below 5% but you've got one that is moving into these uh some wear and tear
but still uh serviceable uh in the one-year category. um in the 10-year category, they are all in the subject uh to long-term wear or tear and they are moving into uh the um
approaching end of useful life category. Uh and you can see for each one of these you've got the projected project costs, right? Uh for the west middle cluster the uh FCI is 24.7. Uh two of the three are are
wellmaintained. One has wear and tear but is serviceable. Uh the rest five and 10year are in the uh subject to long-term wear and tear and approaching uh the end of their useful lives. The southwest middle cluster has a
10-year FCI of 16.5. For the most part, they are all uh in uh currently in the well-maintained category. As they move to the right into the five-year, uh all but one moves out of that condition rating uh and out of that FCI range. And once they approach
the 10-year um category, they are all in the long-term wear and approaching the end of useful life FCI category. Next, we have the Southeast Middle Cluster. Um these currently are
wellmaintained. However, Addex Middle uh quickly moves into long-term wear and tear over the next five years and um actually into uh approaching the end and at the end of its useful life in the 10-year period. Um you can see the
projected project cost there. Um and that one uh all these schools you can see are changing their condition uh and FCI scores over the 10-year period. Miss Kohley. >> Thank you, Bill. Now, we will move into the high schools, followed by
non-traditional alternative high schools and behavior change schools along with the corresponding map showing the locations from the redefining presentation in August. All right. For the high schools, we've got uh three high schools in the uh
redefining schools. The uh 10-year FCI for the cluster is 27.3. Uh that is high and higher than the average of all schools in the district. Uh you can see that uh very quickly the schools uh get
into approaching the end of their useful lives in the 5-year period. However, two of the three schools are at uh and uh beyond their useful lives in the 10-year period. So, uh, these get, uh, uh, pretty, uh, bad or they're in a the bad
condition for FCIS. And you can see the high projected project cost for each of these schools. This is all right. Uh, the alternative high schools, uh, same here. Uh we've got schools that start out well-maintained
uh and that's this one year. Um but as we move into the five and 10 year, they are all approaching their useful lives. And uh you can see the project uh cross at the right uh for the behavioral change schools.
They are all wellmaintained currently. only one moves into the subject uh to wear and tear category with uh but still in its uh serviceable life and then they move into approaching the end of their useful lives.
Miss Wanda, thank you. >> So let's talk about next steps. So what you see here is kind of the the cadence of our next steps. uh supplemental analyses. Uh we're finalizing additional studies such as
roofing structural analysis to include uh that uh in this assessment and you know making sure that they're included but also that they're comprehensive. All individual school FCA reports will be completed and submitted by the end of the calendar year. These reports will
serve as the foundation for future capital uh planning and project prioritization that was spoken or uh spoken in the uh presentation. Cost estimation in the first quarter of 2026. We will conduct a detailed cost estimation
tailored for BCPS. This will ensure the financial projections accurately reflect the district specific requirements and market conditions. So uh again this is lessons learned from the previous uh bond program migrate to integrated
assets. So we plan to migrate the facility data to Maximo in the second quarter of 2026. Uh this is in conjunction with the Maximo uh uh reboot. This integration will assist in streamlining asset management,
maintenance, tracking and project implementation across the district. Maintaining up-to-date data is an ongoing priority. Uh as you have seen throughout the presentation with the changes shown in red, as projects are completed and conditions evolve, the
database will be updated to reflect these changes. And by the third quarter of 2026, we will work closely with the master planner to develop actionable projects. This collaborative approach will help maximize efficiency and align
capital improvements with strategic goals. Uh and that would be uh in alignment with redefining in that process. In conclusion, the individual facility uh final reports will be submitted by the end of the calendar
year. Quarterly updates will be provided to the board uh so that you can see where we are. Um, so this is a living document and I think it's very important that we stay out front and in front of this and provide the board with uh
information. You may use the link on this slide to access the FCI data for the schools in this presentation. The link contains 500 and or contains uh FCI scores by building uh which is more detailed than the presentation data. So
what we try to do here is just roll up the data for you. But we have uh how many data points you said? >> 120,000. >> 120,000 uh different elements that go into this. Um and then we can click Can you click
the link so we can show you what the website looks like. Uh it will be updated uh continuously and all data is final uh will be finalized at the end of this year. So if you can click click that and scroll down.
Oh, congratulations. Okay. And scroll down and so you can see addicts middle school and so forth. So uh this is a work in progress. Uh it's a lot of information we'll put up here, but these are the uh
redefining schools that we wanted you to have access to. Uh and each school is like a book in terms of all of the different data we collected. Uh we will do an executive summary uh document uh to kind of codify
um the facility condition assessment and uh that will be inclusive of all all schools. So at this time I welcome your questions. >> Thank you. We have one public comment
and that is Miss Felicia Schuman. >> Good afternoon, Madame Chair, Dr. Hburn, and esteemed board leaders. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I rise today not in opposition but in partnership with a clear call for
clarity, accountability, and equity in how we interpret and act on the facility condition assessment presented today. On page 10, the facility condition index FCI defines
defines any score above 30% as requiring reconstruction. Yet across pages 13 to 29, we see schools with FCIs well above 20%, some nearing 30% that are not flagged for urgent action. That's a red
flag. We need a transparent matrix that links FCI scores to specific interventions so our communities know what to expect and why. On page 13, Walker Elementary has a 10-year FCI of
17.8%. While on page 16, Sunshine Elementary has a significantly high FCI of 28.8%. Yet Walker is projected to receive nearly 10 million more in funding.
That's a discrepancy that demands ex explanation. Pages 12, 18, and 24 presents capacity usage maps that are visual, dense, and lack context. There's no clarity on how enrollments, trends,
special programs, or community needs factors into these numbers. Without that, we risk making decisions that look efficient on paper but feel in edequable on the ground. On pages 26 through 28,
non-traditional schools serving some of our most vulnerable students are grouped together without acknowledging their distant distinct facility needs. That's not just a data issue, that's a dignity issue. Pages 31 references link to site
that doesn't exist. and pages 29 and 30 outline a timeline with a gap between final reporting and implementation. What happens between quarter 1 and quarter 3 of 2026, who's accountable.
Finally, page 32 lists board members but doesn't clarify who is overseeing FCA decisions. We need clarity, not confusion in this critical window. I urge the board to correct these inconsistencies before any decisions are
made. Our family deserves transparency. Our students deserve equity. And our schools deserve a plan rooted in truth, not just tables. Thank you. Have a great day. >> Thank you, Mrs. Alhade. >> Okay. So my first question is regard and
I know the smart bond projects are not in here but I just want clarification that the completion is when January 2026 completion just to clarify completion of the smart bond program.
>> Yeah. >> So the board declared it complete at the end of October. it will roll over into our capital program and that information is included uh in the FCA. >> Okay. So, but I know the board had a
resolution to say it was complete, but in reality though, there is a certain amount of projects that are still outstanding. Could we get a list of those projects that are going to be rolled over and how much money are we talking about? >> Absolutely.
>> Okay, great. And so Dr. Heepron talked about the long range master plan. How is that different from the FCA and when will that be coming forward? How much does it cost? Where are we in the
process with that? >> So we're in the process of uh developing a RF uh Q for that master planner. It's our intent to hire a master planner. uh we uh have planned to to
put it out for solicitation in November. Uh so we're trying to stick very diligently to that schedule. Uh so this is the data. What the master planner will do is uh uh help us coordinate with the long range uh steering committee uh
that the superintendent will appoint. Uh and part of that coordination is doing outreach into the communities with the cities and so forth uh to uh educate them on uh the FCA and then at some
point uh based on the will of the board and the community um to prepare for a bond. >> Okay. Can you just get into a little bit further explanation on the master planner?
What exactly are they like? So are they looking at each school and I I see that there's projected costs. Are they now getting into the details of what exactly would happen at that school? >> So no I think what the master let's look
at the master planner as a coordinator and coordinating you know the district staff will be part of the long range steering committee. Uh the superintendent will appoint members to that committee. the master plan and steering committee as well as staff will
work in concert to provide uh prioritization of projects and so forth. But it's in concert, you know, we're going to have more projects than we have money. And so the reality is that we're uh based on the board's uh uh preference
and the community's uh will uh try to put together uh a go forward plan for a bond. Uh we're not going to have resources to close that gap of 10 billion dollars. And as I've said, I
think as part of my first uh presentation I made uh made to the board, we have already missed a a bond cycle in in terms of the length of this uh of the smart bond. So we have to be very intentional in terms of how do we
close the the gap on the $10 billion. Part of this also is working in concert with redefining. redefining is kind of the umbrella uh of uh and and this is the FCA as an input into that umbrella
in terms of what our footprint looks like over the over the next 10 years. So this document gives us the ability to look at schools holistically across the district and make those uh and the board and superintendent make those decisions
on in terms of how the district will look over the next 10 and 20 years. >> Okay. How is the facilities condition assessment different from the needs assessment that was done in 2014? This is an amazing document and the
reason it's an amazing document is because we have collected uh so much information that we can trust. Uh and this is
a actual look across the the vastness of Broward County schools. And so the inputs that we're putting in here are the structural assessment that the board voted to have and the roofing assessment that the board voted to have. And it's
uh uh a tool that kind of puts everything in one place. And that's something that we did not have. We had separate places. I think I wasn't here in 2014 obviously, but data was Excel spreadsheets and all this other kind of
stuff. This is real data that uh works collaboratively uh together to give us a real realistic picture as ugly as it is of our district. And so when we talk about 10 billion dollars uh in needs, it's a it's
a real number uh and it's a very objective approach. So it's not based on um uh personalization or what I feel is based on data. Okay, thank you. I mean, it's a really important question because we've been
dinged uh on this and obviously I don't want to repeat past mistakes and and make sure that we are pulling back the different layers of the roof to to make sure we're really getting a full
understanding of what the roof assessment looks like. And so it it sounds like this assessment, this FCA is different, is more cumbersome and is looking more specifically at the details
at each of the schools. Um, I'm it's challenging with the 10 billion dollars in needs, um, and how we're going to have that conversation moving forward with the community and and how exactly it's going to look like
as far as, you know, what school uh, is going to get millions of dollars to rebuild that school and where and and how that all is going to work out. And so that's looking forward to understanding that a lot better.
And and so the long range master planner. So I I'm just sorry. I'm just really I know we're in workshop. I'm really just trying to understand this. Is that a person? >> Is that a company? >> It's it's a person and probably there a
company attached to it. Uh and so the the I've seen various um uh examples of this. Um but primarily the the the cool part about having a master planner is
number one they're objective. Number two they work collaboratively. You know they they are employed by the district. Let's be clear, but they work collaborative collaboratively uh with staff and uh the long range
planning committee. And so it's a it's a team effort and the community outreach uh is extremely important. Uh and it talks to, you know, kind of what
it it's similar uh to redefining in terms of the outreach and community and and just looking at possibilities and we you know when we get close bond. But what we can do with this long range thinking over a 20-year period of time
is say let's let's put it in chunks. Let's do uh I'm not going to say the number. I don't want to scare anybody, but let's do like a a $1.8 billion bond. Let you know this five years, the next six years, let's do a $2 billion bond and just kind of start uh reducing that
gap. Uh and part of that too is as I said before the redefining effort and the reality that we have to shrink our our footprint you know and so with that uh the number may not be 10 billion may
be slightly less so all of these um factors uh play into how the district will look you know in the next 20 years hopefully I'm retired by then but uh in in the next 20 years and so it is It's a
very um uh measured approach uh to uh giving the board and the superintendent the ability to make those hard hard decisions that we're going to have to make going or you you will have to make going forward >> and who makes up the long range planning
committee and how often do they meet? >> So, great question. Um, we're actually going to send out letters this week um for people that we're recruiting some um on currently on uh the FTF uh committee um some city managers we're targeting um to be on that. It was about timing for
us just to make sure Bureau of Veritas um got into a good rhythm with their FCA so we actually have data um that they can review versus doing this you know early summer and then just sitting around twittering their thumb. So, we've had some discussion with some folks that are interested that we feel are um going
to be a great asset and provide good input um for the board to consider um once the U master planner comes on board too. And as uh Miss um Paul said, working in concert just to make sure we utilize the data to help um make some recommendations for the board to consider that's going to be best uh fit
for our district and also uh the community at large too. >> So, the long range planning committee does not already exist. You're in the process of creating it. And how many people will be on this committee? >> Uh we're talking target talking target talking target talking target talking target talking target talking target talking target talking target talking target talking targeting about 10 to 12 people.
>> Okay. And it will I'm assuming have people from all over the district be on it. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you Mrs. Rupert. >> You um and thank you Miss Alhadaf. I had questions on page five which is uh
creating a long-term vision for in our infrastructure. Um how does the facilities long range planning committee that we have in existence now fit into this equation? >> Currently there is no long-range planning committee. We sunseted that I
want to say um early summer um to build a new one. Um, but how they how the new one would fit into this is working in concert with the master planner uh staff and also community to utilize that data to come up with some best recommendations for the board to
consider as we move forward. Um, as Miss Paul said, there's going to be a lot of tough decisions when you got $10 billion in deferred maintenance. um lot of tough decisions to figure out how we're going to look not just in five years again in 20 years to really set the the district
up uh to be a s sustainable and also to have maximum impact for the students here in Broward County Public Schools. But they will be infused in that process um as as a a core part of that process for people that we can trust, people who are familiar with our district, people who are from right here in the in the
communities at large. >> Great. Um and will the facil facility task force um be looped into this as well? >> We so they will they will get updates but we are actually um targeting a couple of people from facilities task
force to be a part of the um long range planning. >> Okay, great. As long as they're they're part of the process. Thank you. um that I had on on page 19. Um appreciate that this is real time
numbers. Um and can happily say that uh Margate Middle went from a 5.7 to a 5.6. So that was I know not normal, but we're we'll take it. Um and the same thing 15.7 to a 15.3. Um I appreciate that. um
cuz it's it's it's a great little gem. Um let me see. 28. Here we go. Actually, go back. 26. Okay. Sorry, mixed up here.
Okay. Um we're going to talk a bit about um the non-traditional schools and um the behaviorals behavioral uh change schools as well as the alternative high schools. So looking at those um those
figures here, they're relatively good in the first year mark. um five year, it's still okay. And then you get uh you know, pretty much toward the end of life. Um but still some good years left,
especially um in areas that would be um underserved if we actually had closed one of these schools. Um or it would be difficult to actually do that. And I look forward to the conversation for um updating them
down the years as we go. And um same thing about Cypress Run Education Center. Um they are in the yellow and then uh they get an 18.5 for 10-year run. So that that's a relatively
um interesting interesting building there. But I got to say uh Dave Thomas that's a beautiful campus. Really a beautiful campus. It's a beautiful school. Um, I would say that I was a little surprised that the facility numbers were were like that. Um, anybody
care to comment why? Dr. Heburn, >> I'm going to turn it over to Miss Paul, but before I do, I I do want to encourage the board to take a look at the link um the link for the website because it'll give you detail per building and sometimes a building or two
may be super high versus other buildings that may have been renovated recently. uh when I say recently probably in the past 1015 years that sometimes will uh will give you the number um that you don't expect because I've been to Dave Thomas and it is a a beautiful building but I I haven't been past a lot of the
that the front two buildings to see the other so turn. So, and I would say um in my experience um that's a that's a function of you know the high cost items failing HVAC um infrastructure type items but also uh
what the superintendent alluded to that we need to be mindful when we do additions on a campus and where we put those additions on the campus because you have a new addition and then you have a older building that ages over 5
10 years and so the older building the you know the original building may need to come down but we have to make contingencies because we put a brand new building there and so those are always tough decisions and that you know obviously will impact the FCI
>> thank thank you for that um and I look forward to having these conversations with my um with my colleagues as well as the community at large so thank you so much >> thank you Dr. Holmes. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. So, as I look at
the data um and and I guess this is not only for me but also for public understanding, I don't see an evident uh proportionality in terms of increase in FCI percentage between years 1 and 10 among the schools. Um so I just want to
better understand um the factors that would for example cause a school um say on page 28 Dave Thomas to go from 04 to 28% and then you have seagull goes from 4 to
17% and I see that variation throughout for example went on page 22 from 2% in the first year and in 10 years it's 32% as opposed to say um Olson that went from 7 to 17%. So there there's not an
evident pattern as to what caused that significant decline in say adults versus alen. Uh is it the age of the building over time? Is it the pattern of building maintenance? And is any of this in our control? I know we're looking forward to possibility